[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6qEQ-KnitQ&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

I baha'd

Blumenthal says I'm sorry in an email to the Hartford Courant, which called for him to do so yesterday in an editorial. Why the heck he didn't apologize when this all started, I'll never know.

Locking an ongoing thread because it is long and starting a new one causes dropped conversations. I'm going to go back to the Specter discussion. Someone asked why would Obama support Arlen? Because of the Republican strategy to filibuster everything of significance and hold all their votes in line, Obama needed the vote of every Dem, including Specter to pass anything. Don't support Specter and nothing passes. Don't give crazy sweetheart deals to Nelson, nothing passes. You can stay pure and do nothing or try to do something. There's an awful economy on top of the normal trend of the party in power losing seats in the first mid-term. It's not like Obama had the choice of waiting these guys out and getting reinforcements this November.
There has been a lot of commentator talk about Specter's defeat in the primary being a repudiation of Obama. Not from the Dems that I've spoken with. Although there is some dissatisfaction with Obama, the vote against Arlen was a vote against Arlen. I had voted for him several times while he was a Republican, but voted against him this time, for a number of reasons. First, I just knew he would move to the right of center after he won the nomination, in the hopes of grabbing back some of the Republicans who had supported him in the past. That is Arlen's way. It wouldn't have worked. I can't count the number of Republicans who told me they wished that they could be a Dem for a day to vote against that traitor Specter. They knew he wouldn't make it to November and didn't just want him to lose, they wanted the personal chance to vote against him.
I also voted for Sestak because I liked him better and thought he would be a stronger opponent for Toomey, who was my Congressman, and whom I really dislike. I also think Specter is too old to run. At 86 he is very unlikely to still be alive and if he is alive may well be our own Jim Bunning. We will have a Republican Governor and if Specter had to leave office, we would have a Republican replacement.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-IwcTjAI4w[/youtube]

American Needle v. NFL was reversed today

Link

There was an interview on the local NBC 4 - DC news last night where the commentator from Politico just lit up Rand Paul. I assume this was a little choreographed after Paul canceled on NBC's Meet The Press, which is film in Ch. 4's studios, but the commentator just took him to task. Of course it was completely invited after his nonsense about the administration being anti-business and un-American for 'putting a boot heel on the throat of BP' over the spill (can it even be called a spill anymore?). The commentator, who looked to be about 25, said that it is the type of thing you can say if you are not looking for votes anywhere near the Gulf Coast. He also called Paul's current campaign strategy to curl up like a roly poly and yell Taa Party. I wish I could find a YouTube video, because it was both raw and funny.

allentown wrote:Locking an ongoing thread because it is long and starting a new one causes dropped conversations. I'm going to go back to the Specter discussion. Someone asked why would Obama support Arlen? Because of the Republican strategy to filibuster everything of significance and hold all their votes in line, Obama needed the vote of every Dem, including Specter to pass anything. Don't support Specter and nothing passes. Don't give crazy sweetheart deals to Nelson, nothing passes. You can stay pure and do nothing or try to do something. There's an awful economy on top of the normal trend of the party in power losing seats in the first mid-term. It's not like Obama had the choice of waiting these guys out and getting reinforcements this November.
There has been a lot of commentator talk about Specter's defeat in the primary being a repudiation of Obama. Not from the Dems that I've spoken with. Although there is some dissatisfaction with Obama, the vote against Arlen was a vote against Arlen. I had voted for him several times while he was a Republican, but voted against him this time, for a number of reasons. First, I just knew he would move to the right of center after he won the nomination, in the hopes of grabbing back some of the Republicans who had supported him in the past. That is Arlen's way. It wouldn't have worked. I can't count the number of Republicans who told me they wished that they could be a Dem for a day to vote against that traitor Specter. They knew he wouldn't make it to November and didn't just want him to lose, they wanted the personal chance to vote against him.
I also voted for Sestak because I liked him better and thought he would be a stronger opponent for Toomey, who was my Congressman, and whom I really dislike. I also think Specter is too old to run. At 86 he is very unlikely to still be alive and if he is alive may well be our own Jim Bunning. We will have a Republican Governor and if Specter had to leave office, we would have a Republican replacement.

thats why its good for democrats. toomey would have beat specter like a drum.....there are many disapointed Republicans who wont get the chance to vote against Specter. There is no doubt Sestak is the stronger opponent. That said, Toomey is probably a very slight favorite this far out. Toomey would have slaughtered Specter, especially in 2010.

jerseyhoya wrote:[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6qEQ-KnitQ&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

I baha'd

I had a long post before and then deleted it because I've told myself many times to quit posting in the politics thread because i see something that stirs my blood or interests me and post something, then I won't even look at to the thread for three weeks, so I really feel I'm just screwing with the discussion.

But I don't get this "argument". I have read the law and it opens itself for every type of misbehavior, imposition, unfairness and waste of resources that it's critics have alleged.It's seemingly a little better after the language was cleaned up, but supporters have stated the language really made no difference, that it's exactly what the law "meant" before, so that bit of reassurance is lost.

I can see how someone reading the law would come to conclusion that a significant amount more people without the proper credentials to be in the country will have their immigration status discovered. There's also no way to read the law without concluding that an even larger number of innocent people will be questioned, detained and held by police. Obviously a lot of people in or out of Arizona are fine with this tradeoff. A lot of people in or out of Arizona are not. That's a good discussion to have, similar to that on a lot of issues-consistent enforcement of the law vs. protecting the innocent, security vs. personal freedom, the state's interest vs. a right to privacy, etc.

But being on the other side of this issue doesn't mean you support the right of anyone to remain in the country illegally. And I myself like the provisions against employers, although the punishments pale in comparison to affected individuals. The provisions against hiring from vehicles are pure spite converted into law, but one can accept the bill as speaking to motivations other than racism. It just makes me squeamish when police are given carte blanche (and the reasonable suspicion terms and elaborate indemnification of officers virtually grant this) to expand any lawful contact into an interrogation and detention beyond the scope of the purposes of the contact without something far more solid to indicate participation in illegal activities. As long as Arizona doesn't start to suffer from a glut of Scotch-Irish crossing its borders I probably have impunity from harassment, but the injustices that are sure to result still turn my stomach, as i think they would anyone who squirms at the security for freedom trade, particularly when the security benefit is nebulous at best.

I should have stuck with my original point: the bill extremely clearly states that it will do exactly what those pro and con say it will. if you read it, that becomes even more clear. This "have you read the bill" meme just seems odd to me-I can see how it would delay discussion for 10 minutes, but no one's going to come down on the other side after having read the bill.

I was more laughing at the usage of fake Kermit the Frog in a campaign ad.

I don't really like the bill myself either, and have said as much, although I think a lot of the reaction has been over the top. We're still free to disagree about that until Jan Brewer signs SB XXXX (number redacted for national security reasons).

Oh. Never mind.

I liked the ad too. And giving fake Kermit Rowlf's voice should sneakily avoid any copyright claims.

I will say though a big part of why I think the reaction is an overreaction is I expect the officers enforcing the law will have been told to take a great deal of care to avoid detaining any legal Mexican immigrants or Mexican American citizens to avoid negative press surrounding the law and not give opponents ammunition for court battles. There's a lot at stake here for Arizona to show they can do this "the right way." So I guess my theory is the overreaction is a self fulfilling prophesy, because if no one was watching, then there would be a higher chance for abuse. Maybe that makes it not an overreaction.

I do wish the local and national opposition to the bill took a more practical approach to fighting the law, pointing out how inefficient it will be compared to tons of other measures that could address illegal immigration. The problem is a lot of the interest groups involved in leading the fight against SB 1070 aren't opposed to illegal immigration in principle or practice, so the cry everyone could agree on was racism, not inefficiency.

So I won't feel bad possibly being over the top myself in saying they're overreacting to the law because they're being jackasses hurling around charges of racism and the coming of the Fourth Reich and all of that. Even if their reaction does improve the enforcement in this situation, it's extremely counterproductive for the chances of this country passing coherent federal immigration reform.

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?

jerseyhoya wrote:I will say though a big part of why I think the reaction is an overreaction is I expect the officers enforcing the law will have been told to take a great deal of care to avoid detaining any legal Mexican immigrants or Mexican American citizens to avoid negative press surrounding the law and not give opponents ammunition for court battles. There's a lot at stake here for Arizona to show they can do this "the right way." So I guess my theory is the overreaction is a self fulfilling prophesy, because if no one was watching, then there would be a higher chance for abuse. Maybe that makes it not an overreaction.

I do wish the local and national opposition to the bill took a more practical approach to fighting the law, pointing out how inefficient it will be compared to tons of other measures that could address illegal immigration. The problem is a lot of the interest groups involved in leading the fight against SB 1070 aren't opposed to illegal immigration in principle or practice, so the cry everyone could agree on was racism, not inefficiency.

So I won't feel bad possibly being over the top myself in saying they're overreacting to the law because they're being jackasses hurling around charges of racism and the coming of the Fourth Reich and all of that. Even if their reaction does improve the enforcement in this situation, it's extremely counterproductive for the chances of this country passing coherent federal immigration reform.

I would definitely agree a lot of the opposition has been shrill and misplaced, which is too bad since there's plenty of meat right there in the bill to be opposed to, including some things you alluded to. Although I often feel resigned to the fact this is how things get done, or undone.

I'm not quite as reassured by the weight of public opinion-or at least critical public opinion-helping to moderate things. The bill is just chock full of requirements that PUBLIC SERVANTS DO THEIR PUBLIC DUTY, along with provisions for citizens to sue if they find that the measures in the law are not being carried out. It seems these provisions in law will carry as much weight and probably more than any hue and cry raised by outside agitators.

It's just one of those things that make me sigh, since the bill was obviously conceived in emotion, with the intent being less to curb illegal immigration than to soothe indignation after isolated cases where aliens committed crimes and then were released back into society despite the fact that they were eligible to be deported. it's an understandable reaction, but doesn't make for good law and, as you say, has often generated just as an emotional response not really based on real world consequences.

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.

lethal wrote: That's a serious question, how do I prove that I'm a US citizen if I'm not carrying around a passport?

In the good ol' days, you could have proved it by answering this kind of question:

"Who played 2nd base for the 2008 Philadelphia Phillies?"

(Actually, in the old WWII movie whose title I've forgotten, the question had to do with the 2nd baseman(?) for the 1938(?) Chicago Cubs(?), asked by GIs of two kraut would-be infiltrators. Naturally the would-be infiltrators did not know the answer (Billy Herman, in my semi-remembered quote), & deservedly got theirs.

I've merely given the inquiry a local flavor for our tribe.

And no, of course knowing the answer to the question doesn't actually prove you're a citizen. But you get the idea.)

One of the things I like about the Arizona bill is that it exposes the utter and total BS behind the smaller government cries. Regardless of merits, anti-immigrant folks are favoring a substantial expansion of government.

Where are the libertarians on this? Libertarians have historically supported more or less open immigration. Increasing immigration will help resolve issues of social security and medicare.

Why should the government tell people who can and cannot come into this country, assuming those people are coming in to work and and start businesses and do other good things?

If you feel your own economic well-being is threatened by mostly unskilled labor, then get off your fat stupid ass and get some skills.

According to this PDF, 46 of the 50 states require you to be lawfully in the country to receive a driver's license either through the law explicitly or the documents required to receive a legal drivers license.

TenuredVulture wrote:One of the things I like about the Arizona bill is that it exposes the utter and total BS behind the smaller government cries. Regardless of merits, anti-immigrant folks are favoring a substantial expansion of government.

Where are the libertarians on this? Libertarians have historically supported more or less open immigration. Increasing immigration will help resolve issues of social security and medicare.

Why should the government tell people who can and cannot come into this country, assuming those people are coming in to work and and start businesses and do other good things?

If you feel your own economic well-being is threatened by mostly unskilled labor, then get off your fat stupid ass and get some skills.

Libertarians favor open immigration within the context of their Utopian ideas, but with the existence of a robust welfare state, where the children of illegal immigrants are guaranteed a public education, emergency medical care and other nice things, some oppose it in practice today. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

The problem with assuming that people are coming in to work and start businesses and do other good things is many illegal immigrants aren't. Unless drug running is starting a business, in which case the entrepreneurial spirit should not be questioned.

And the problem with saying immigration helps SS and medicare is only legal immigration or illegal immigrants who pay federal taxes help with that situation. So to the extent the Arizona law encourages a federal solution to the immigration mess, the law is helpful. The amount of polarization the law causes, hurting chances of a federal solution, takes away from it being of aid.

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 shit. But the immigration debate exposes their hypocrisy.

jerseyhoya wrote:The problem with assuming that people are coming in to work and start businesses and do other good things is many illegal immigrants aren't.

right, if by "many" you mean "far less than the majority, in fact not a particularly large minority".

And the problem with saying immigration helps SS and medicare is only legal immigration or illegal immigrants who pay federal taxes help with that situation.

which if memory serves the evidence says covers most immigrants.

So to the extent the Arizona law encourages a federal solution to the immigration mess, the law is helpful. The amount of polarization the law causes, hurting chances of a federal solution, takes away from it being of aid.

The problem with your problems is that even our straitened version of a democracy is not well suited to deal principally with bad intentions & bad actors. Democracy (even our republic version) is for the well-intentioned, with the specific exception of those who would wield governmental power, in which specific case it is prone to vigilance. Democracy, happily, is a wimpy tool for meting out discipline, institutionalizing suspicion (save for power-mongers), delivering punishment.

Trying to bend it to assume the worst of people (with the exception of those who would wield governmental power) will basically produce disappointment.

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?

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 fuck 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.