With strong moral leadership like this, we can be assured Virginia has a bright future.



Seriously, I'm so happy I left the GOP

Several changes have been proposed to the AZ law. I've read very few articles, and heard from very few people who understand (or even want to understand?) what the law actually says. No Barry, you can't get hauled off from the ice cream shop. It is only 16 pages - not one of those 2,400 page abominations. Proposed changes linked below:



I also have a PDF of the original law if anyone wants a copy.

I have my problems with this so-called solution. It's misguided to the core. A law that doesn't distinguish between the good people who contribute to our country and the violent criminals who cause various problems is just not going to work. The former group will not help us get rid of the latter group, and realistically the former group isn't going anywhere.

I sympathize with Arizona in that due to Federal negligence over the course of time they have been unfairly put in a position that leads to this kind of desperate action. Breaking their response down into base accusations of racism and bigotry shows incredibly cynical, lazy thinking. They have real problems that have to be resolved. The opposite (roughly, don't get too literal on me on that) position, a sanctuary city policy, is something a lot of people look at and question. I would argue that position also fails to make the distinction between workers and criminals.

I'll give you one fairly well known example of how a sanctuary city policy ends up working for a city's citizens. In San Francisco, when an MS-13 member who had previously committed violent crimes as a teenager goes on to gun down a father and two children (look up Edwin Ramos) I think the policy fails. To be fair, Gavin Newsom later amended the policy, but the policy was short sighted to begin with. Remember, the people we want to bring into the fold can (and probably have) been mistaken for rival gang members as well.

Did anyone bother to boycott San Francisco?

I hate to put it this way, but US citizens should not be considered collateral damage by the government. I also don't think it's fair to the illegals, most of whom are here to escape shitty situations elsewhere, or to just provide for their families, to be considered collateral damage by the Arizona government. It is in everyone's interest for government to take a stand that distinguishes between the good and the bad, and punishes the bad. I have zero problem with an Edwin Ramos begin deported. He may get life in jail - but was justice served? Should we be pleased? No, I don't think so.

It is long past time for the Feds to start taking this thing seriously. We have to have control of our border and it is within our rights to control who is coming in. As far as I'm concerned the good folks who want to contribute to our economy should not have to live in fear of being arrested or deported. As I said before, they are not going anywhere. Arguments about mass deportation are null and void. Control the border, control immigration, separate the good from the criminals, and work like hell to get the criminals ejected.

I would offer the non-criminals two options. All of them would have to pay some kind of token fine. All of them would have to learn English. Some people just come here to work and then bring their dollars over the border to support their families. I would get them documented (thoroughly) and allow them to do so. People who want to become US citizens can do so as well, but they would have to get back in the queue, however long that takes, and perform some kind of national service. It doesn't have to be the army or anything. We can be imaginative. I'd like it to be something positive that contributes to local communities and will erase any doubt in anyone's mind about the God's honest truth, which is that they want to live and work among us. I am going to forgive their illegal entry, and if that makes me a flaming lib then so be it.

What's really sad is that it didn't have to come to this - I think George W. Bush put forward a measure in good faith. I think this is one area where his religion guiding his decision making was a good thing. Whether it was perfect or not is debatable I suppose, but he got creamed from both sides for what he did. We have to start somewhere reasonable. There are a bunch of other tangential discussions, unionization and so forth, that can be discussed later.

It is time to stop with the hyperbole, to start breaking bread again and not worry about who gets credit. I don't care how someone who earns citizenship votes. Every human being, healthy, lame, white, black, rich, poor, young, old has an inherent degree of human dignity that can never be erased from our core values as Americans. Every human being has value. We can stay who we are and control our borders at the same time. We have to.

Let's suppose that the watermelons get their way and they get put in charge of telling all of us what to eat (bird seed), what to drive (nothing), where to live (stacked on top of each other), how often we can shower, how many children we may have, et cetera. I don't really believe it is politically feasible to force Americans to give up freedom based upon the whims of the watermelons, but we'll entertain this hypothetical anyway.

We would be doing all of this to allegedly save the world? There is a part of me that says, I'll be dead anyway, and I don't give a damn regardless of what alleged naughty thing humans do, or alleged calamity may befall us. There is another part of me, the same part of me that makes me afraid of God and Jesus, that wants to hedge my bets and say, you know, we should live like serfs for the benefit of our children. Even those of us who have no kids and no vested interest in anything that happens after we die.

Then there is yet another part of me that thinks a world where people are controlled like this isn't worth living in, and isn't worth saving. It's funny how human solutions so often involve one person having control over another person, often at the barrel of a gun. It's easier to do that than to suggest constructive alternatives. Usually makes you richer as well.

I actually read a NYT article yesterday attempting to defend the hypocrisy of people like Bloomberg, and the Goracle, saying we shouldn't pass judgment until we are in a position to afford to ride a Gulfstream. I've said it before somewhere, but if you believe in your heart the world is going to end, you would just as soon put a gun in your mouth than get on that Gulfstream, or get into that Limo, or buy that mansion. At least if you believed in what you were saying. It doesn't flatter the elites of the world in Copenhagen blowing off all this carbon. As I always say...."You first."

Since I guess I'm back on a political kick for a few days....I want to ask you if you've heard this argument before:

"Homosexuals have the same rights as Heterosexuals when it comes to marriage. They can marry anyone of the opposite sex just like we can. They're asking for SPECIAL rights."

This "logic" makes me very angry. Whenever you hear this argument, this is how you reply:

"Sure, and blacks had the right to marry someone of their own race, just like whites, until Loving v. Virginia"

In another episode of "Taxing the Fat", we endeavor to explore the psyche of people who promote regressive taxation to achieve policy goals.

Melissa Healy, blogger for the LA Times, who likely doesn't understand why the poor and minorities in LA don't eat organic greens, bathes fat people in the warmth of her glowing sentiment in the blog linked below:



Comments?

Yaaaaay!!!!!!! I love how our political parties behave.

What an uncomfortable question to ponder, given the logical hoops people jump through vis a vis the GWOT. I think a hardened pro-abort person would be severely pissed off if I cheekily asked them this question.

Let me be perfectly clear about one thing - even though I detest late term abortion, and think of the late Dr. Tiller's former profession as being less honorable than jizz mopper, nobody had a right to take his life away from him. A snuffed out life is a snuffed out life.

Here's a thought that makes some Christian Conservatives seethe: What if the guy was honestly in church to repent and try to make things right with God? Nobody is beyond redemption.

If you were to ask me, I would say that policy is not, in and of itself, responsible for some nutter, or group of nutters, committing evil acts. To me that is a simplistic answer that ignores human nature. We are corrupt, capitalizing on any opportunity to do our fellow man wrong. I would love for the historical evidence to paint a different picture.

It is a really fucked up thing to think about, though - what if abortion were illegal? Would Dr. Tiller would be alive today? I say yes. But what does that say about the policy? Is the policy responsible? I don't think so. Complex questions don't deserve simple, talking-points-memo-esque answers.

So - he's going from one party that demands ideological orthodoxy to another party that demands ideological orthodoxy. The Right Wingers were going to try to whack him in the next primary. Will the Libs do the same thing, a la Lieberman? I wouldn't bet against it. They want true believers as well.

I know (e:James) is going to be pretty interested in talking about it, and he know much more than I about her, so he can give us the scoop on her if he wishes. I just wanted to say I'm pretty surprised. To me this reflects favorably on Paterson, but not enough to offset the regressive tax situation he's trying to perpetrate.

I am really excited today. I mean REALLY excited, enough that I keep pacing around my office. I did not vote for Barack Obama, but to my relief he doesn't seem to be ideology driven these days. He *does* want to be everyone's President. For a moderate, to be wanted is something new. The conservative wing of the Republican Party doesn't want to transform itself, and certainly made it clear to me they don't care about my opinion, so I'm happy and proud to say Barack Obama is my President too.

We have a long year ahead, so I think it's only appropriate we have one day and night to celebrate our traditions and our hopes for the future before getting down to business.