nytimes
NYT NEWS ALERT: North Korea Says It Will Sever All Ties With South as Tensions Mount
15 minutes ago

jerseyhoya wrote:

nytimes
NYT NEWS ALERT: North Korea Says It Will Sever All Ties With South as Tensions Mount
15 minutes ago

Uh oh.

jerseyhoya wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php_pub_id=11820

Regardless, it's a pretty simple fact that if you favor things like Arizona's law, stricter enforcement, fences, penalties on businesses that might hire illegal workers, and so forth, you favor BIG GOVERNMENT.

Now, I'm not surprised about this--almost all the people who say they're in favor of limited government are full of $#@!. But the immigration debate exposes their hypocrisy.

I'd be in favor of increasing legal immigration, increasing free trade, deescalating the drug war and scaling back the welfare state. Arizona's ability to enact most of those things is pretty damn limited though. Their "fix" isn't helping, but they can't really do anything helpful, so they're doing something unhelpful because the federal government is doing $#@! all to fix the problems.

Except in rare, hilarious examples (the Mark Souder situation is a good one), the charge of hypocrisy in politics with regard to people supporting policies that they apparently are supposed to disagree is so lame. Everyone is a hypocrite outside of people on the loony fringes who subscribe to rigid ideologies. If you aren't willing to adapt your beliefs to real life situations, you find yourself mumbling on cable news shows about how the Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional. I don't see why enforcing immigration law is inconsistent with favoring small government. Small government isn't anarchy.

Hypocrisy was the wrong word. Disingenuous probably would be better. Or perhaps those who say they favor limited government are delusional. Or they mean something different from what I and say people like many of those at Cato mean by limited government.

We agree, I think, on the idiocy of following some abstraction like libertarianism or socialism or any other grand theory. That is, we agree I think on the necessity of government, that the appropriate scope of government is determined by particular circumstances, and that whether or not we advocate a particular policy we must always be vigilant against unintended consequences.

But when it comes to immigration, it seems to me that what is happening here is that there's an abandonment of one abstract principle--getting government off our backs--in favor of another, even stupider abstract principle--ethnic chauvinism. I think the evidence is pretty clear on this--the target is almost exclusively people from Latin America--you don't find the same kinds of attitudes regarding illegals from China or Eastern/Central Europe.

Bush's attempt to implement some pragmatic reforms however was met with an insanely destructive response. The bloviators on the right have made it politically impossible for anyone to deal with this issue as you and I would like to deal with it--in sensible terms that don't overly burden small businesss, that greatly increase the number of H-1B visas, and that eliminate much of the violence and exploitation that is a direct consequence of increased enforcement efforts.

The silly "well we're talking about illegal immigration" is every bit as disingenuous as the small government rhetoric. Because we could eliminate illegal immigration right now by opening our borders. The anti-immigrant crowd aren't about reducing illegal immigration, they're about keeping people out. People that by the way this country needs.

I was in a local pharmacy the other day and I over heard a rancher talkig about how she couldn't run her ranch without immigrants. Whether or not they're illegal, they're paying taxes.

kopphanatic wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

nytimes
NYT NEWS ALERT: North Korea Says It Will Sever All Ties With South as Tensions Mount
15 minutes ago

Uh oh.

Thank God Jack stock the cork back in.

jeff2sf wrote:

allentown wrote:Locking an ongoing thread because it is long and starting a new one causes dropped conversations.

So you're saying the moronic way you guys handle everything over at pp.com - with knuckle draggers like kalasfan, Readingphan, and eastfallowfield leading the way - is a better model? Really? Really?

I didn't intend to continue an inter-forum feud. I simply made, what I think is a truthful statement that locking a thread causes dropped conversations and then picked up on the one that was interrupted. Also, not my intent to defend pp.com or suggest that it is better rather than different. The goal there is that anyone can express their opinion, if they do so without profanity and in a way that avoids outright attacks on other posters. There is not philosophical litmus test, so whether or not you consider someone to be a 'knuckle-dragger' is irrelevant, however you have a strange grouping of knuckledraggers, since there are huge differences, spanning pretty far right to pretty far left, among these three. I've probably already said more than I should, so I'll just leave it at that

allentown wrote:

jeff2sf wrote:

allentown wrote:Locking an ongoing thread because it is long and starting a new one causes dropped conversations.

So you're saying the moronic way you guys handle everything over at pp.com - with knuckle draggers like kalasfan, Readingphan, and eastfallowfield leading the way - is a better model? Really? Really?

I didn't intend to continue an inter-forum feud. I simply made, what I think is a truthful statement that locking a thread causes dropped conversations and then picked up on the one that was interrupted. Also, not my intent to defend pp.com or suggest that it is better rather than different. The goal there is that anyone can express their opinion, if they do so without profanity and in a way that avoids outright attacks on other posters. There is not philosophical litmus test, so whether or not you consider someone to be a 'knuckle-dragger' is irrelevant, however you have a strange grouping of knuckledraggers, since there are huge differences, spanning pretty far right to pretty far left, among these three. I've probably already said more than I should, so I'll just leave it at that

Allentown, you're aware that when threads run 50+ pages it makes the board software act all wonky, taxes resources etc.? It's not just a cosmetic/arbitrary decision to lock threads when they hit 50 pages.

yeah, sit on it

allentown wrote:

jeff2sf wrote:

allentown wrote:Locking an ongoing thread because it is long and starting a new one causes dropped conversations.

So you're saying the moronic way you guys handle everything over at pp.com - with knuckle draggers like kalasfan, Readingphan, and eastfallowfield leading the way - is a better model? Really? Really?

I didn't intend to continue an inter-forum feud. I simply made, what I think is a truthful statement that locking a thread causes dropped conversations and then picked up on the one that was interrupted. Also, not my intent to defend pp.com or suggest that it is better rather than different. The goal there is that anyone can express their opinion, if they do so without profanity and in a way that avoids outright attacks on other posters. There is not philosophical litmus test, so whether or not you consider someone to be a 'knuckle-dragger' is irrelevant, however you have a strange grouping of knuckledraggers, since there are huge differences, spanning pretty far right to pretty far left, among these three. I've probably already said more than I should, so I'll just leave it at that

Nonono, you don't get to just stop there. The reason those three people were selected was BECAUSE they're on different parts of the ideological spectrum. The point is, THEY ARE ALL IDIOTS. And yet you continue to moderate that atrocity of a board where there hasn't been any new insight since the board split. You chose "civility" (of which, let's face it, there's different rules for different posters - the chosen ones as it were) over interesting, enlightening discussion here (game threads excepted). And you're going to tell US how to do it?

speaking of the title of the thread, the writer of the Arizona immigration bill wants to pass another one invalidating the citizenship of those born to undocumented parents:

Pearce said he intends to push for an “anchor baby” bill that would essentially overturn the 14th amendment by no longer granting citizenship to the children of undocumented immigrants born on U.S. soil.

One of the e-mails written by someone else but forwarded by Pearce reads: “If we are going to have an effect on the anchor baby racket, we need to target the mother. Call it sexist, but that’s the way nature made it. Men don’t drop anchor babies, illegal alien mothers do.” [...]

Pearce said his new idea is not only legal but constitutional. “It’s common sense,” Pearce said. “Again – you can’t break into someone’s country and then expect to be rewarded for that. You can’t do it.”

When Pearce was shown the e-mail referring to “anchor babies” that he forwarded, he said he didn’t find anything wrong with the language. “It’s somebody’s opinion…What they’re trying to say is it’s wrong. And I agree with them. It’s wrong,” said Pearce.

so, do we deport those who've already done that? legal US citizens get their citizenship stripped for nothing they've done? And are we changing the US Constitution? This won't be legal and won't happen...this guy is a gift. He has really highlighted some pretty obvious ridiculousness out there.

The irony of the immigration issue is that, as this thread demonstrates, there's near unanimity across partisan lines about what should be done among people who can discuss the issue with a non-elevated heart rate. jh and TV could solve this in ten minutes, were they to have authority to do so. But the mix of real emotion and cynical political calculation on both sides makes that sort of negotiation impossible.

So I guess the short term answer is to take any steps that might lower the temperature. Which maybe does suggest deploying the Guard, while committing to a fixed duration process that almost certainly ends with the same consensus policy we can articulate now.

Also, jeff, stop causing trouble.

jerseyhoya wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php_pub_id=11820

Regardless, it's a pretty simple fact that if you favor things like Arizona's law, stricter enforcement, fences, penalties on businesses that might hire illegal workers, and so forth, you favor BIG GOVERNMENT.

Now, I'm not surprised about this--almost all the people who say they're in favor of limited government are full of $#@!. But the immigration debate exposes their hypocrisy.

I'd be in favor of increasing legal immigration, increasing free trade, deescalating the drug war and scaling back the welfare state. Arizona's ability to enact most of those things is pretty damn limited though. Their "fix" isn't helping, but they can't really do anything helpful, so they're doing something unhelpful because the federal government is doing $#@! all to fix the problems.

Except in rare, hilarious examples (the Mark Souder situation is a good one), the charge of hypocrisy in politics with regard to people supporting policies that they are supposed to disagree with is so lame. Everyone is a hypocrite outside of people on the loony fringes who subscribe to rigid ideologies. If you aren't willing to adapt your beliefs to real life situations, you find yourself mumbling on cable news shows about how the Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional. I don't see why enforcing immigration law is inconsistent with favoring small government. Small government isn't anarchy.

I don't think the problem with welfare programs is they are too big, but that we've made the Medicaid program so damned complicated that it becomes more and more costly. hopefully the legislation, which affects MA in 2014, will hopefully strip away some of the layers of junk and allow more adults who are working but simply can't afford insurance to have access...and thus make them lead better lives. In the end, it's about helping people lead better lives, and we should always think about that, above political concerns or above budget concerns, etc.

I do think having the states share so much of the burden has caused incredible voter frustration and has busted many states budgets. The feds need to fund their programs.

swishnicholson wrote:Lethal (and I hope that's not the name on your license), if you live in a state that requires applicants to prove citizenship before they receive a license, then a license is sufficient. Otherwise, you're are the mercy of the particular officers suspicions and mood for the day. I doubt NY has this requirement-I do see though you can get an Enhanced license with proof of citizenship.

What's wrong with the name Tha L. Le?

So while we arrange deck chairs on the Titanic, it looks like WWIII could be starting soon over on the 38th parallel.

If our forces weren't stretched so thin in Afghanistan and Iraq, I would think that we could take out North Korea relatively quickly in the event of war(god forbid). They have a lot of people in their army but I kind of doubt that they would have the technology to last long in a war with the US and/or UN forces.

But then there's the issue with nukes. If Lil Kim is going down, he's taking other people with him. Seoul is so close to the DMZ so you have to figure that it would get pounded. And I wouldn't be surprised if Kim ended up launching something at Japan.

letter in today's Reading Eagle

Cap and trade is the latest boondoggle supported by President Barack Obama to make redistribution of wealth a reality ("Global warming bill unveiled," Reading Eagle, May 13).

Although Sen. Joe Lieberman's reason for participation in this bill is a bit cloudy, Sen. John Kerry's history of falsifying his Vietnam War record and his record of testifying before Congress about atrocities American troops never committed along with his support of Jane Fonda's movement are more than enough reason to make this legislation suspect of being anti-American.

Cap and trade has nothing to do with climate. It is just another step in the president's march toward socialism.

Cap and trade, according to the president, will make electric rates skyrocket. This latest bit of questionable legislation will pour tax dollars into the Obama-founded Chicago Carbon Exchange, major investors in which are Al Gore and Maurice Strong, architects of the failed Kyoto Protocol.

Holt Confer
Spring Township

I don't know why they always print comments from this guy and others, and yet have NEVER ONCE printed any letter I've ever sent. Ones with, you know, actual facts to rebut some of this idiocy. It's just amazing and nothing gets my blood boiling like reading the letters section of the Reading Eagle (maybe hte comments under the news articles...because that's a great idea)

lethal wrote:I mean, I don't know what would stop the police in Arizona from detaining me. Its not like I carry my passport around on a regular basis when I'm traveling within the US. I can't exactly prove I became a naturalized citizen when my parents naturalized in like 1984. I keep that paperwork in a safe deposit box. What am I supposed to do if I'm detained at a sobriety checkpoint or routine traffic stop or a stop and frisk (which is police policy here in NYC, but I've never been stopped and frisked)? That's a serious question, how do I prove that I'm a US citizen if I'm not carrying around a passport?

From text of Arizona Senate Bill 1070:

For any lawful stop, detention or arrest made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person. The person’s immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to United States Code Section 1373(c). A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution. A person is presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States if the person provides to the law enforcement officer or agency any of the following:
1. A valid Arizona driver license.
2. A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license.
3. A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.
4. If the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance, any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification.

My major objection to this law is how "reasonable suspicion" is not defined.

Arkansas law says it requires some proof of legal status before it issues a drivers license, but in practice, it would be pretty easy it seems to get one without any of that stuff. When I went to get my Arkansas drivers license, all I had to do was show them a NJ drivers' license. (And promise that when making left turns to sit in the middle of the road and prevent anyone else from going around me.) Also, thanks to motor voter, I registered to vote at the same time.

These procedures may have tightened up since 9-11. But when renewing, I've never been asked to produce any other documentation.

This works sometimes.

http://www.americaspeakingout.com/

pacino wrote:letter in today's Reading Eagle

Cap and trade is the latest boondoggle supported by President Barack Obama to make redistribution of wealth a reality ("Global warming bill unveiled," Reading Eagle, May 13).

Although Sen. Joe Lieberman's reason for participation in this bill is a bit cloudy, Sen. John Kerry's history of falsifying his Vietnam War record and his record of testifying before Congress about atrocities American troops never committed along with his support of Jane Fonda's movement are more than enough reason to make this legislation suspect of being anti-American.

Cap and trade has nothing to do with climate. It is just another step in the president's march toward socialism.

Cap and trade, according to the president, will make electric rates skyrocket. This latest bit of questionable legislation will pour tax dollars into the Obama-founded Chicago Carbon Exchange, major investors in which are Al Gore and Maurice Strong, architects of the failed Kyoto Protocol.

Holt Confer
Spring Township

I don't know why they always print comments from this guy and others, and yet have NEVER ONCE printed any letter I've ever sent. Ones with, you know, actual facts to rebut some of this idiocy. It's just amazing and nothing gets my blood boiling like reading the letters section of the Reading Eagle (maybe hte comments under the news articles...because that's a great idea)

When I visit my parents I am always amazed at how much more of a rag the Eagle has become. It was bad before, but in the last 10 - 15 years it has become a total joke. This is a paper that edits stories to fit into the print space by simply ending them, sometimes in mid-sentence.

I tend to ignore the commentary because of fools like Senor Holt Confer, because he simply spews stuff he thinks, not much to do with fact. That the letter was printed with the anti-American/Jane Fonda crap just invalidates this mans opinion in total.

I do ask, however, if you agree that cap and trade will make energy more expensive in general which could be so expensive to use something like coal that it makes technologies like wind seem appealing, even though this technology is not effectively being harnessed. Also, does C&T create a barrier to competition where the established, well funded companies can afford to continue to pollute through financial muscle where as smaller and start up companies will not be able to competitively enter the market?

Understand that the US needs a smarter energy policy and needs to drive innovation to get our over consumption to a manageable place, as well as our critical need to pull back from endangering our environment. Cap and Trade can accomplish this, but I am not sure that it is the most effective means to the necessary end.