Q&A Friday #37: Dissent Is Patriotic? What Piffle!
Question: "How do you deal with liberals who trot out the old "dissent is patriotic" line when conservatives challenge their anti-war views? There seems a fine line between dissent for a good cause, like the kind that sparked the American Revolution, and dissent for its own sake. On top of that, the slogan is used to shut down criticism of their own views, as in they're automatically in the right merely by opposing Bush and that disagreeing with them makes one unpatriotic. What say you?" -- impaler30
The whole, "Dissent is patriotic," in and of itself idea that some lefties seem to love so much is just silly. There's nothing inherently "patriotic" or "unpatriotic" about simply dissenting.
So, if someone says to you, "dissent is patriotic," treat the concept with the contempt it deserves. Say something like:
"Oh? Well, if a person says that he loves his country and someone dissents from that, which of them is more patriotic?"
If their heads don't explode like those people in Scanners, maybe a light bulb will go off for them.
PS: Also, may I add the following...
Unconfirmed and Incorrectly Attributed Quotes
There are a number of quotes that we do not find in Thomas Jefferson's correspondence or other writings; in such cases, Jefferson should not be cited as the source. Among the most common of these spurious Jefferson quotes are:
Question: What would you do about Iran if you were the POTUS?" -- Nostradamus6006
"Which do you think would be more viable, taking on the Iranian military in an invasion, or taking on their new radar avoiding missiles in an air strike? Obviously, an air strike will be cheaper and have less casualties, but which do you think would have better long-term gains?" -- JMHoffer
Answer: First off, I have almost no hope of a diplomatic solution working. The Europeans have been negotiating with them for years and they've achieved absolutely nothing. Moreover, since the country helping them build nukes, Russia, sits on the UN Security Council, we can't realistically expect that the UN will be any help (Of course, how often are they ever anything other than a big impediment to getting things done anyway?)
Next, the "X factor" with Iran is how long do we have and there's never going to be any easy answer to that. Our intelligence agencies and those of other nations, like the Israelis, are really just going to be making educated guesses. The one thing to keep in mind is: hitting way, way, way too early is better than hitting one second too late, after they've got nukes.
So, how will we, or possibly the Israelis hit them? Not with an invasion, but with bombing runs, missile strikes, and maybe, in some limited cases, special forces on the ground.
As for their new, "super weapons," I mean come on; since when has any nation in the Middle-East, other than Israel, been smart enough to come up with any breakthrough weapons technology? Being in a country run by Islamo-Fascists helps stifle innovation. So, the best stuff the Iranians have will be whatever they can buy from China and Russia.
Then, we have to consider the timetable and retaliation from Iran.
The easiest way for Iran to retaliate without inviting further attacks would be by using intelligence agents and militias to cause problems in Iraq. That's why it'll be important to get the Iraqis as far along as possible before we hit the Iranians. Ideally, if we have the time, we'd probably want to wait until mid-2007 or so to hit them because the Iraqis should be just about ready to handle all their own frontline policing by then.
Iran could also attack Israel, but that would invite Israeli strikes on Iran. The Iranians could aim terrorists strikes at US assets around the world or in the States, but that risks more American retaliation, or, if they do something really big, it could even inspire a US invasion. The Iranians could also retaliate against the world in general by withholding oil sales, but that probably wouldn't be very productive and they desperately need that revenue. There has also been some talk of their cutting off the Strait of Hormuz, but all that would probably accomplish in the end, if they kept it up, would be to get their navy destroyed and their coastline bombed while the rest of the world chided them.
The basic problem the Iranians have, as far as retaliation goes, is that state sponsored terrorism is only useful in that regard as long as no one traces it back to you. The moment a terrorist act can be pinned on you, it becomes a huge liability, especially when the country you've attacked is capable of destroying any high value target in your nation that they so choose. Iran isn't Afghanistan or even Iraq. They have a lot of very nice things they'd prefer not seeing on the business end of a missile or a bomb. This limits their options.
Bottom Line: Bombing Iran is messy, dirty, and dangerous business, but it looks extremely likely that it's going to have to be done. Cross your fingers and hope they see the light before it's too late, but personally, I'm not hopeful.
It's been a little dry here, so I go outside to water my plants. I head into the backyard, where a faucet, a hose, and this new-to-me, but cheap and 2nd hand hose wheel. The hose wheel has been a little tough to operate, it seems to tangle the hose a lot, but that's Ok -- or so I thought.
So, I turn on the water, and start to pull it out. It goes about 10 ft. and gets stuck. So, I pull and it comes free. Then, I go another 5 ft. and the hose gets stuck again. So I pull and....Oh. My. Gawd.
Apparently, the wheel got completely locked up and I must not know my own strength, because I pulled the hose so hard that the faucet SNAPPED OFF which caused water to START SHOOTING OUT OF IT.
That was a bad thing.
So, I go over to it and the pipe is sheared off in two places and the main water vein into my place is pumping out water.
Then I go to cut the water off and then I walk into the house and no water, but I go outside and it's still going. I couldn't figure out what was happening.
The problem? I turned it THE WRONG WAY, but because the main line was busted, no water was coming in. Doh!
After the water was turned off, I call a plumber, had one here in 5 minutes (is that luck or what?) and now he's working on the pipe. I suspect I won't feel so lucky when he hands me the bill.
Sigh.
*** Update #1 ***: Because of where the break was, the plumber had a really easy time getting to it, so he's already done. Total bill? $80. Cheaper than I expected.
Q&A Friday #37: The Impact Of Illegals On Poverty And Business
Question: If our economy can absorb 11 million illegals with low paying field, yard, manual labor, maid, cooks, etc.. jobs that no Legal American Citizen is willing to take, then how many more illegals can we take in before things start falling apart? And at what point do those jobs run out before you start undercutting the pay of those jobs for the new illegals that need a job and then what do you do with the illegals that can't find a replacement job? I forgot....what about all those family members of the illegals?
(As a side note...I have traveled over many parts of Central America and found the people to be kind, hard working, and moral/religious. But we can create a large poor segment that is often poorly educate and become disenfranchised. This is a breading ground for all kinds of crimes and social problems.) -- RedFish
"I understand that illegals are breaking our laws and driving wages down and that there are good, hard working legal immigrants who wait their time and follow the structure we have. Wouldn't, however, cutting out the millions of immigrants in our economic infrastructure handicap our economy? It seems like a sweeping reform that kicked illegals out would also kick out millions of lower paying jobs that could potentially have an effect on many small businesses and other area's. Not losing the job itself, but the personnel to do the job." -- rossmune
Answer: Let's apply economics to the illegal alien question.
When illegal aliens flood into a country, they tend to take bottom-of-the-rung jobs that involve manual labor. Because they increase the supply of people willing to fill jobs of that sort, they drive down wages for people in those industries. Eventually, if they drive the wages down enough, Americans may no longer want to do those jobs. There's no such thing as a job Americans won't do, but there is such a thing as jobs Americans won't do at a certain price. Illegals will generally still work at those prices because they can still make considerably more money here, working at what we think of as a very low wage, than they could possibly make in their home countries.
As more illegals come here, the wages paid in industries they become involved in will drop even lower and more industries will look for ways to use them. For example, it was quite interesting, back in February of this year, to hear that coal mining, a job that pays $18 an hour with good benefits, is now supposed to be a job, "Americans won't do." Translation: The people running the coal mines want to pay a lot less for their workers and slash benefits.
So, what this all adds up to is that illegal aliens increase poverty in the United States. They're poor themselves because they work at low paying jobs and often send a lot of money home. They also make the Americans who are already poor even poorer, because they're competing with them for the same jobs and driving down salaries. I also believe that if we have a guest worker program, we'll start to see illegals competing with the guest workers who'll have to pay taxes and will be much more likely to have benefits than illegals. It's not a pretty picture, unless you're a crooked businessman who regularly, knowingly, hires on illegals.
But, what happens if we get rid of illegal aliens? The market will adjust like it always does. A small percentage of businesses may go out of business or move their operations overseas. Wages in industries that are currently full of illegals will go up. Some companies will buy more advanced technology to replace their illegal workers and make the legal workers they have more productive. Will this cause a major upheaval for the vast majority of businesses or will American consumers take a hit in the pocket book? No, not at all. (See 9 & 10 here for more details)
Consumers will likely not even be able to notice the difference and the businesses most affected will be -- justly, if you ask me -- the ones that have been benefitting the most from hiring illegals in the past. Currently, businesses hiring illegal immigrants are getting an illegitimate leg up over their competitors by breaking the law. Sans illegal aliens, all the businesses in fields full of illegals will finally be on a more equal footing.
That's why we should go after these businesses that are hiring illegals and after they're forced to finally obey the law, we'll see most illegals self-deport, and this country will be better off.
*** Update #1 ***:
Hawkins: Consumers will likely not even be able to notice the difference and the businesses most affected will be, justly, if you ask me, the ones that have been benefitting the most from hiring illegals in the past.
"You had me nodding along and agreeing until you said this John. There will be a difference in costs of many things once labor costs spike. One of the sectors very likely to be affected will be our agriculture for example. Cheap illegal immigrant labor has kept those prices up and when they are no longer available these producers will be forced to raise prices to deal with that loss until they can either modernize or move this production offshore.." -- AlexinCT
A lot of people believe this, but I'm not one of them. Let me point to a couple of facts from a recent Rich Lowry column that will help explain why that's the case.
#1) People tend to WILDLY OVERESTIMATE how many illegals are working in some of these industries. They think that everyone picking fruit, laying bricks, all the maids, are illegals. That's not the case. From Lowry's column:
"According to a new survey by the Pew Hispanic Center, illegals make up 24 percent of workers in agriculture, 17 percent in cleaning, 14 percent in construction, and 12 percent in food production. So 86 percent of construction workers, for instance, are either legal immigrants or Americans, despite the fact that this is one of the alleged categories of untouchable jobs."
As you can see, if all the illegals left, it's not as if these industries would be starting from scratch.
#2) People also tend WILDLY OVERESTIMATE the percentage of costs that salaries paid to workers represents in a lot of these fields that heavily depend on manual labor. Here's more from Lowry's column:
"The average "consumer unit" in the U.S. spends $7 a week on fresh fruit and vegetables, less than is spent on alcohol, according to Martin. On a $1 head of lettuce, the farm worker gets about 6 or 7 cents, roughly 1/15th of the retail price. Even a big run-up in the cost of labor can't hit the consumer very hard.
Martin recalls that the end of the bracero guest-worker program in the mid-1960s caused a one-year 40 percent wage increase for the United Farm Workers Union. A similar wage increase for legal farm workers today would work out to about a 10-dollar-a-year increase in the average family's bill for fruit and vegetables. Another thing happened with the end of the bracero program: The processed-tomato industry, which was heavily dependent on guest workers and was supposed to be devastated by their absence, learned how to mechanize and became more productive."
Even if you had a significant increase in labor costs for a lot of these industries, it will still only make-up a small increase in what consumers have to pay. In other words, lettuce could go from $1.30 a head to a buck $1.35, but it wouldn't go from $1.30 to $3.00 or some other ridiculously high number.
That increase would also, theoretically, be balanced out somewhat by having less illegals committing crimes and going to prison, using health care without payment, sending their kids to school here for free, getting social services in some form or fashion, etc.
That's why the vast majority of consumers wouldn't take a hit in the pocketbook if every illegal left.
*** Update #2 ***:
"A dumb question from a sympathetic Canadian:
So illegal immigrants from Mexico are taking all these low wage jobs that American citizens literally can't afford to take -- the pay is just so low.
I realize the money is better than it is in Mexico, but the illegals don't live in Mexico anymore. They live in the US, where (I assume) things like rent and food _cost_ more too. So...
How do Mexicans "afford" all those low paying jobs? Are they getting welfare, food stamps, etc??
PS: I would LOVE to get a Green Card and move to the States tomorrow. I feel much more Canadian than American most days. But that will never happen. Too many restrictions. But I promise never to parade down a California street waving a Canadian flag :-) (That part of you illegal alian demostrations was bizarre to you, but we see it all the time in Canada, where many people's first loyalties is to their original country -- at least during soccer season, the Olympics, etc)." -- Relapsed Catholic
If you think about, poor Americans working in the same industries as "undocumented workers" are "affording" it, so why couldn't illegals? Plus, illegals aren't paying for health care. They're not paying for auto insurance. Some pay income taxes and others don't, depending on the situation. Moreover, as those of us who've lived in cheap apartment complexes can tell you, it's not unusual to see 7-8 people who can hardly speak English all crammed into a $300 apartment. Are some of them getting government benefits, too? If they have a kid who's born here, then yes, they can qualify for benefits, with little chance of being deported, even though they're not Americans.
Add it all up and you may have illegal aliens with more disposable income than Americans making a few bucks more per hour in salary. Also, when you consider that they might be making a dollar a day total, maybe less, back home -- before expenses -- the money is better for them here.
PS: I'm glad you want to come here. I'd trade all 11 million illegals for you in a hearbeat =D
Q&A Friday #37: Would You Trade A Democratic Iraq For Secure Borders And Ports In America?
Question: "My question for John:
Would you trade a democratic Iraq for secure borders and ports in America? Assume for the sake of this question that you couldn't have both." -- President_Friedman
Answer: A democratic Iraq would be more important to our security.
Let me tell you why.
The United States is a vast, open country with an almost unlimited number of high value targets to terrorists that have minimal security. Even with borders and ports as secure as humankind can make them, terrorists, in numbers, can still get into the US and a relatively small number of them can do enormous harm to this country. A hundred well-trained terrorists in the United States, broken down into four man groups determined to cause as much mayhem as possible, could easily kill tens of thousands of Americans and cause trillions (and yes, I meant to say trillions) of dollars worth of damage.
What it all comes down to is that defense alone will NEVER work. If you don't believe that, look at Israel where they take precautions and security measures far beyond anything in the US and are still hit with terrorist attacks.
That's why the best defense is a good offense. In order to succeed we've got to go after the terrorists where THEY LIVE and infiltrate, imprison, and most importantly, kill them, before they ever get to our shores.
So, teaming up with the Iraqis to fight and kill terrorists in Iraq is infinitely better than turtling up here and trying to stop them from getting into the soft underbelly of this country. Iraq has proven to be flypaper for terrorists, an irresistible target that has drawn them into a place where they will have been killed by Coalition and Iraqi soldiers. That will likely continue even after Americans are no longer on the street policing the country. A Democratic Iraq will continue to be an enemy of terrorism, if only because they're interested in self-preservation, lest they be viewed as having been defeated. It's a battle the terrorists won't be able to win.
Furthermore, Iraq's democracy will serve as a model for the rest of the Middle-East and, as time passes, democratic reforms will help leech the anger and extremism out of the region. It won't happen overnight, but it will happen and it will work to our advantage.
PS: We are going to win in Iraq and at this point, we are progressing much faster than most people realize. There's no way to predict exactly what will happen, but in 12-15 months, I wouldn't be surprised if 75% of our troops have come back home as a result of the Iraqis becoming capable enough to handle their jobs.
Question: "I have been wondering something for some time now. I see Sean Hannity mentioned from time to time and of course Rush is a constant fixture as well as a few others. Now I have never, and granted I can't always get to this site because of deployments and whatnot, heard Bill O'Reilly mentioned. Ordinarily I wouldn't even have noticed, after all there are plenty of guys that don't get mentioned but once a while back when I mentioned him I was told that he is not a conservative. Did I miss something? Bill is all about personal responsibility which, unless I am way off here, is one of the cornerstones of Conservatism." -- Wiederkb
Answer: O'Reilly's views seem to be a uniquely weird mixture of social conservatism and populism. I say "weird" because I don't know of anyone else who seems to match up extremely well ideologically with O'Reilly.
Just to give you an example of what I mean, here are some of his views as listed by Wikipedia (which is, be forewarned, not always reliable):
Among other things, O'Reilly supports a windfall profits tax, a higher gas tax on some vehicles, he opposes capital punishment, he opposes spanking, he favors the decriminalization of marijuana, thinks humans are causing global warming.
O’Reilly says he’s pro gun control, against the death penalty, and supports civil unions, not just for homosexuals, but "for everybody."
He says he's for gay adoptions as a last resort: "I'd rather have nice, responsible gay home than the system for kids. What else?"
And about the environment? "Government’s gotta be proactive on environment," says O'Reilly. "Global warming is here. All these idiots that run around and say it isn't here. That's ridiculous."
I'm not trying to say he's a liberal or anything, he's just doesn't have mainstream conservative views on a lot of issues, even if his show mainly appeals to conservatives.
"Democrats and Republicans blamed each other Friday for problems stalling the progress of an immigration bill that would let millions of illegal immigrants remain in the U.S.
Votes were scheduled to break the logjam, but both supporters and opponents of the bill said that's not likely to occur until Congress returns from a two-week spring recess, if then.
"It's not gone forward because there's a political advantage for Democrats not to have an immigration bill," said Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa.
He said Democrats perceive a benefit in having only a GOP-written House bill that criminalizes being an illegal immigrant. That bill has prompted massive protests across the country, including a march by 500,000 people in Los Angeles last month.
Democrats blamed Republicans for insisting on amendments that would weaken a compromise that Senate leaders in both parties had celebrated Thursday.
"This opportunity is slipping through our hands like grains of sand," said assistant Senate Democratic leader Dick Durbin of Illinois."
Know what I think happened? They probably had just enough Republican votes for the compromise to go through yesterday. However, the response to that news from the blogosphere, talk radio, and even some House Republicans yesterday was so acidic and brutal that a few Republicans got cold feet and decided to go the other way. Once the bill couldn't pass, all the Republicans then decided to vote in a block against it.
Is that what really happened? It's impossible to say at this point. But, after these legislators go home and get an earful from their constituents and they have another couple of big rallies featuring illegal aliens in the streets waving Mexican flags and telling Americans what to do in Spanish, it'll be even tougher to push an amnesty bill through the Senate.
Cross your fingers, folks, because the GOP in the Senate may have just stepped back from the brink of electoral suicide in November.
*** Update #1 ***:
Senate leaders on Thursday announced a bipartisan compromise on an overhaul of U.S. immigration laws, giving some illegal immigrants a path to citizenship and creating a temporary worker program.
"I think we're looking like we may be able to dance this afternoon," Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada told reporters.
The Senate sidetracked sweeping immigration legislation Friday, leaving in doubt prospects for passing a bill offering the hope of citizenship to millions of men, women and children living in the United States illegally.
A carefully crafted compromise that supporters had claimed could win an overwhelming majority received only 38 of the 60 votes necessary to protect it from weakening amendments by opponents.
Republicans were united in the 38-60 parliamentary vote but Democrats, who have insisted on no amendments, lost six votes from their members."
It's not good news that the Senators have not done their duty and gotten our borders secured, but the fact that the amnesty bill went down in flames is good news for America.
Q&A Friday #37: Pick Your Man Of The Twentieth Century: Churchill Or Reagan
Question: "John: Who would you have picked as your "Man of the Twentieth Century," Ronald Reagan or Winston Churchill?" -- lumberjack7393
Answer: I think Reagan was the greatest American President of the 20th Century, but I'd have to give the nod to Churchill over Reagan if the whole world was included.
Not only did he have the foresight to warn the world about Hitler years before others were willing to acknowledge the danger -- but when all hope could have been lost in Britain, when they were for all intents and purposes standing alone against the Axis Powers, with the fate of all Europe on their shoulders, he pulled them through the fire and kept them in the game.
Consider the Battle of Britain. It was 1940 and Germans hadn't foolishly attacked the Soviets yet. Day after day after day, the Germans sent waves of planes at the Brits. The Brits were outnumbered, their cities were bombed, and a Nazi victory over the British Air Force would have meant an invasion that the Brits wouldn't have been able to stop.
It's very easy to look back and say, "Oh, of course the Brits won!" It could have very easily gone the other way and the Germans could have conquered Britain. Had that happened, it's entirely possible that the Germans would have been successful during their invasion of Russia and the US may have never gone to Europe at all.
Imagine a Europe ruled from stem to stern by the Nazis after the end of World War 2. It came closer to happening than most people realize and although a lot of people took a hand in stopping it, when the good guys were "this close" to losing and Hitler almost had victory in his grasp, it was Churchill and the Brits who stood in the gap.
"What General Weygand called the Battle of France is over. I expect that the Battle of Britain is about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilization. Upon it depends our own British life, and the long continuity of our institutions and our Empire. The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us. Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this Island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that, if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, "This was their finest hour."
It was their finest hour and his actions then, along with his performance throughout the rest of the war, is why Churchill deserves to be considered the "man of the century."
So, if there's a subject you've been wanting me to tackle or an issue you want to hear my opinion on, just ask your question in the comments section. Your question can be about politics, ideology, history, blogging, RWN, from a liberal, conservative, or libertarian perspective; heck, it can even be about movies, music, literature, or TV. Then, I'll select some of the more interesting questions and answer them.
My husband, Sgt. Paul Fisher, died in November 2003 when his Chinook helicopter was shot down by a missile over Fallujah, Iraq. His life was the military and he believed in it 100%. Read more about Paul's story here.
Paul believed in his mission of fighting the war in Iraq. He also believed that they were making progress in Iraq. I know my husband loved the military, I know he wanted to be there, and I know he was proud to be there. My husband told me this all the time
The military is not for everyone, but for those who wish to be a part of it, we need to give them 100% of our support. The best way to do this is to get the good word out about the progress in Iraq through as many media outlets as possible. I have joined Families United, an organization who has pledged to make this their mission. Learn more here.
So I'm asking you to help me complete this mission by sending a message to the media.
Excerpt Of The Day: Why Isn't The Media Reporting This?
"81, 76, 50, 49, 43, 25
What are these numbers? This week’s Powerball winners? A safe deposit combo? New numbers to torment those poor b*stards stranded on the island in Lost?
No, they’re the number of troops that have died in hostile actions in Iraq for each of the past six months. That last number represents the lowest level of troop deaths in a year, and second-lowest in two years.
But it must be that the insurgency is turning their assault on Iraqi military and police, who are increasingly taking up the slack, right?
215, 176, 193, 189, 158, 193 (and the three months before that were 304, 282, 233)
Okay, okay, so insurgents aren’t engaging us; they’re turning increasingly to car bombs then, right?
70, 70, 70, 68, 30, 30
Civilians then. They’re just garroting poor civilians.
527, 826, 532, 732, 950, 446 (upper bound, two months before that were 2489 and 1129).
My point here is not that everything is peachy in Iraq. It isn’t. My point isn’t that the insurgency is in its last throes. It isn’t. My point here isn’t even to argue that we’re winning. I’m at best cautiously-pessimistic-to-neutral about how things are going there. (Hawkins Note: I'm still extremely optimistic though)
My only point is that, at the very least, people who complain that good news coming out of Iraq gets shuttered by the press aren’t crazy." -- My Election Analysis
"(The Senate Illegal Immigration Compromise) is amnesty wrapped in bureaucracy surrounded by fraud." -- Congressman J.D. Hayworth
"The apparent principle underlying these proposals are that the longer and more comprehensively you have broken the law, the better deal you will get from the federal government. But everyone illegal has won and all shall have prizes.
I can see why the Democrats favor such a bill. It is a giant Democratic voter registration scheme paid for by the federal government. Maybe this one action will save them electorally from all their other follies. But the Republicans are voting for their own marginalization--in the long term because they are importing low paid workers likely to vote Democrat; in the short term by ensuring that the continuing battles over this legislation (with noises off coming from illegal immigrant demos sheltering under the Mexican flag) will drive their base ever more nuts as the election approaches." -- John O'Sullivan
America, get ready to be sold down the river, because it sounds like the Senate GOP is about to vote for an amnesty bill:
"Senate Republicans and Democrats closed in on a last-minute compromise Thursday on legislation opening the way to legal status and eventual citizenship for many of the 11 million immigrants living in the United States illegally.
President Bush praised the lawmakers' efforts, noting the details were unfinished, and encouraged them "to work hard and get the bill done." Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said he had been assured the president supports the emerging measure.
As outlined, it would provide for enhanced border security, regulate the future flow of immigrants into the United States and offer legalized status to the millions of men, women and children in the country unlawfully.
"We've had a huge breakthrough" overnight, said Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn.
Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, agreed, but cautioned that the agreement had not yet been sealed.
Even so, the presence of both leaders at a celebratory news conference underlined the expectation that the Senate could pass the most sweeping immigration bill in two decades, and act before leaving on a long vacation at the end of the week.
The developments marked a turnaround from Wednesday, when it appeared negotiations had faltered. The key sticking point involved the 11 million illegal immigrants in the country, and the struggle to provide them an opportunity to gain legal status without exposing lawmakers to the political charge that they were advocating amnesty for lawbreakers.
While final details were not available, in general, the compromise would require illegal immigrants who have been in the United States between two years and five years to return to their home country briefly, then re-enter as temporary workers. They could then begin a process of seeking citizenship.
Illegal immigrants here longer than five years would not be required to return home; those in the country less than two years would be required to leave without assurances of returning, and take their place in line with others seeking entry papers."
Unfortunately, it looks like there may be nothing conservatives can do to stop these blockheaded, arrogant, elitist, out-of-touch Republicans in the Senate from favoring illegal aliens and the crooked businessmen who knowingly hire them over the rest of their constituents, but in November of this year, there's going to be a day of reckoning at the polls. When that day comes, these Senators will find out that their illegal immigration deal cost the GOP seats. It could even cost them the whole Senate -- and you know what? I don't believe in protest votes and don't want the GOP to lose control of the Senate, but they richly deserve to lose.
Tom Vilsack wants to know which ten words best describe the Democrat Party. His project, called the Our Ten Words Project, is based on the faulty premise that Democrats can't win elections because they can't dumb down their sophisticated message into ten words the simple voters can understand.
Ten words? That's too limiting. How about 10 words or phrases? I'll get things started...
1) Cut and run!
2) Bleeding heart liberals!
3) Amnesty!
4) Race baiting poverty pimps!
5) Natting Nabobs of Negativism!
6) I didn't inhale!
7) Flip-flop!
8) I hate Bush!
9) Blame America first!
10) Yeaaaargh!
Harry Reid's Phony Illegal Immigration Conversion Story
As most of you have heard, Harry Reid was breathing fire on illegal immigration back in 1993:
"Our borders have overflowed with illegal immigrants placing tremendous burdens on our criminal justice system, schools and social programs. The Immigration and Naturalization Service needs the ability to step up enforcement. Our federal wallet is stretched to the limit by illegal aliens getting welfare, food stamps, medical care and other benefits often without paying any taxes. Safeguards like welfare and free medical care are in place to boost Americans in need of short-term assistance. These programs were not meant to entice freeloaders and scam artists from around the world. "Even worse, Americans have seen heinous crimes committed by individuals who are here illegally."
Of course today, Harry Reid has done a 180 degree turn. Back then, he was worried about illegal aliens, now he can't bring enough of them into the United States. Then, he was worried about, "heinous crimes," committed by illegals, but today he's fighting to keep illegal kidnappers and burglars in the US.
So, what changed?
According to Harry Reid, he had a heart wrenching conversation with his immigrant wife, who helped him to see the light. According to the Washington Times, here's what Harry Reid had to say about that bill on the Senate floor yesterday:
Mr. Reid yesterday disavowed that bill and his statements in support of it. And in an unusual, rambling confession on the floor of the Senate yesterday, he said it was the "low point" of his career.
A few days after introducing the bill in August 1993, Mr. Reid said in a near whisper as many senators looked on in amazement, his wife -- the daughter of immigrants -- confronted him after a meeting in Las Vegas and scolded him about his anti-immigrant views. She and other associates of his "pointed out the errors of my way" and ever since, Mr. Reid said, he's favored a more inclusive approach to immigration reform.
His errant ways, he said, "for which I'm so apologetic to my family, mostly lasted about a week or two."
Very touching story, isn't it? Here we had Harry Reid being mean to illegals, being tough on these people breaking our laws, acting as badly as -- dare I say it, Republicans should be acting today on illegal immigration. But, his wife set him straight and suddenly Harry had a new attitude about illegals from that time forward!
One problem: Reid's story doesn't look to be true.
But seven months later, Mr. Reid introduced his bill again, according to Senate records. That bill was referred to the Judiciary Committee in March 1994.
Later that summer, he testified before the Judiciary Committee and advocated cutting legal immigration from 1 million people annually to 325,000.
"A gluttonous admission of new people every year will have a pernicious effect on our infrastructure and our environment," Mr. Reid said, according to Associated Press reports at the time.
"We cannot continue to feed, clothe, house, educate and employ unlimited new populations," States News Service quoted him saying.
Mr. Reid's office said last night that his conversion occurred after the second time he introduced his bill but couldn't give an exact time line.
What a crapweasel!
Let me just say that I agree with the pre-flip-flop Harry Reid. "(I)llegal immigrants (are) placing tremendous burdens on our criminal justice system, schools and social programs." Some of them are committing "heinous crimes." It isn't our job to bring poor people into the US from around the world and "feed, clothe, house, educate and employ" them.
The duty of the American government is to look out for American citizens, not for illegal aliens. They're not Americans, they weren't invited here, their presence is causing difficulties for people who are here legitimately, and it's time for all of them to go back home.
America may be a land of opportunity for ordinary people, but for criminals, the land of opportunity is Britain, where their rights are guarded with the sort of zealotry that would make teachers' unions in the US jealous:
Burglars will be allowed to escape without punishment under new instructions sent to all police forces. Police have been told they can let them off the threat of a court appearance and instead allow them to go with a caution.
The same leniency will be shown to criminals responsible for more than 60 other different offences, ranging from arson through vandalism to sex with underage girls.
New rules sent to police chiefs by the Home Office set out how seriously various crimes should be regarded, and when offenders who admit to them should be sent home with a caution.
A caution counts as a criminal record but means the offender does not face a court appearance which would be likely to end in a fine, a community punishment or jail.
Some serious offences - including burglary of a shop or office, threatening to kill, actual bodily harm, and possession of Class A drugs such as heroin or cocaine - may now be dealt with by caution if police decide that would be the best approach.
And a string of crimes including common assault, threatening behaviour, sex with an underage girl or boy, and taking a car without its owner's consent, should normally be dealt with by a caution, the circular said.
The Home Office instruction applies to offenders who have admitted their guilt but who have no criminal record.
They are also likely to be able to show mitigating factors to lessen the seriousness of their crime.
The instruction to abandon court prosecutions in more cases - even for people who admit to having carried out serious crimes - comes in the wake of repeated attempts by ministers and senior judges to persuade the courts to send fewer criminals to jail.
The crisis of overcrowding in UK prisons has also prompted moves to let many more convicts out earlier.
It emerged last month that some violent or sex offenders, given mandatory life sentences under a "two-strike" rule, have been freed after as little as 15 months."
Maybe it's just me, but if you're letting arsonists and car thieves go with a warning because you don't have room for them in prison, maybe it's time to build more prisons.
Imagine being someone who has been beaten, had a 30 year old sleep with your 14 year old daughter, or had someone burglarize your business and being told by the police, "Oh, we caught the guy who did this, but we let him go with a caution."
You know, the mystery here, at least to me, isn't how it got this bad -- because let's face it, if you let the liberals in this country run things long enough, with the attitude they have towards criminals, you'd eventually see libs who wanted to do the same thing. The real mystery is why the British people put up with this sort of insanity.
A Teleconference On Illegal Immigration With Border Sheriffs
Yesterday, I got in on a teleconference with Deborah Pryce, Jack Kingston, and Michael McCaul. Also participating were Sheriff Arvin West of Hudspeth Co, Sheriff Rick Flores of Webb Co, Sheriff Tom Hererra Maverick Co, Rick Glancey of the Texas Border Sheriff's Coalition, Sheriff Sigi Gonzalez of Zapata Co and Sheriff Oscar Carrillo of Culberson Co.
The sheriffs were there because they work on the border and they wanted to talk about the problems associated with it.
They noted that drug dealers and smugglers are much more violent, well funded, and sophisticated than they have been in the past. They also confirmed that securing the borders isn't just about illegal immigration, it's about stopping drug smuggling and terrorism.
Furthermore, it's also about costs paid by taxpayers. For example, one of the sheriffs talked about a case that happened not too long ago. 20 illegals crossed the border and one of them was found dead in a river. Well, that meant it wasn't just an ICE problem, it was problem for the sheriff. He had to show up, determine if the illegal died of natural causes, and then try track down those illegals so they be questioned. The Feds don't pay for that, the taxpayers in that county do.
When you consider the incredible manpower shortage they have in some of these areas, this is much bigger deal than you would think. The sheriffs said that in some areas, you've got 4-12 deputies covering an area the SIZE OF RHODE ISLAND! Apparently this has worked for them in the past, but as crime gets imported over the border and they have that to deal with on top of their normal jobs, they quickly get stretched way too thin.
I asked the Sheriffs if building a real wall would make their jobs easier. They said, and I found this interesting, that a real wall would be best in highly populated areas. But, in other areas that are essentially no man's land, a virtual wall could be just effective. Also, they noted that in some areas, building a wall could be problematic because of water rights (You don't want the wall cutting farmers off from they need for their crops). So again, in those areas, a virtual wall would be much more practical than a real wall.
All in all, it was a good session and it's great to hear what people who are actually out there on the borders, risking life and limb, had to say about the whole issue.
Harvey from Bad Example sent me an email that said the following:
"First, please forgive the unsolicited e-mail, but I'm doing some research for a post on blogging, and I'm hoping you can help me.
Someone recently remarked to me that bloggers with high-traffic sites don't read e-mails from - or link to - anyone except other high traffic bloggers. I don't think that's true. I think it's more a matter of having a tactful approach, and I wrote a post saying as much:
Now, I'm sure you have other subjects to write about, and if you have no interest in this topic, I understand completely, so there's no need to act on this e-mail at all if you don't want to.
However, it occurs to me that you probably get dozens of annoying "please link this" e-mails every day. Discussing my post would give you a perfect excuse to school your readers on the art of sending you short, on-topic, useful e-mails instead of rambling junk - a topic that would normally be off-theme for your blog."
Three things:
#1) Like most human beings, bloggers are susceptible to flattery. So, if you frequently link RWN or say nice things about me, am I more likely to link your blog than I would otherwise? Yes, it does help, but only so much. At the end of the day, you've still got to be able to deliver the goods. If you're not churning out great work, you can call your blog the "John Hawkins' Fan Club," and you're still not going to get linked from RWN very often.
#2) As far as the emails go, I have only one message: if you're a blogger sending out a promotional email, don't do it too often, and make sure the material you're pushing is something exceptional.
Just to give you an example of what I mean, the last thing I sent out a promo for was a 3500 word, well researched, 13 question FAQ on illegal immigration that probably took 8 hours to put together.
Things like that, interviews, original reporting, great research pieces, unique items -- those are the sort of things you send promos out on.
You don't send promos out for 300-500 word posts on the topic du jour that you pumped out in 30 minutes.
More importantly, you don't send promos out for 300-500 word posts on the topic du jour that you pumped out in 30 minutes, multiple times per week, or -- and this is crucial -- EVERYONE WILL STOP READING YOUR EMAILS.
#3) Here's the most crucial factor to keep in mind and it's something that will either hearten or depress smaller bloggers out there, depending on their mentality. You ready? Here we go:
Getting links isn't about a "Good Old Boy's Club," it's about the numbers game.
Even if you do the best post ever and send out a promo, most of the time you're not going to get a lot of traction on it. That 3500 word FAQ I mentioned earlier? It was good enough to get mentioned on the Rush Limbaugh Show, but out of the 200+ bloggers that I emailed it to, big and small, about 10% initially linked it -- and that's not unusual.
What that means is that you've got to be consistently good, over a long period of time, even though you sometimes get minimal linkage and there is no guarantee of success, if you want to build an audience. Put another way, the secret is that there is no secret, except being good, working hard, and being persistent.
That doesn't mean there's no such thing as overnight success stories in the blogosphere, but it does mean you probably won't be that overnight success story, so you should plan on working hard, day in and day out, for a long time, if you want to build an audience.
I got an email today from someone saying Rush mentioned RWN again today. I only caught part of the show today, so can anyone confirm or deny that RWN was mentioned and give details?
*** Update #1 ***: I spoke with my step-brother, who heard the show today, and he did confirm that Rush mentioned RWN again (How cool is that? To have family listening in when Rush mentioned the show?)
That's three consecutive shows where Rush has mentioned RWN. It makes me feel like a little kid who got to have three Christmas days in a row instead of one. Although again, I doubt if Rush will see this, thanks again for the mention. It has really been appreciated.
Consider the case of two men, “Oswaldo,” and “Vikas.”
Vikas is a highly educated, experienced computer software engineer from India. He obtained a good job with a US company that was looking for certain specific high-tech skills. In order to obtain a “H1-B” visa to the US, Vikas went through an arduous process, which included waiting in line from dawn to dusk at the US embassy, and dealing with a quota system that limits H1-Bs to 65,000 visas/year. The quota is usually filled on the very first day every year; so you have to file a year in advance. The processing fees run to thousands of dollars, and extensive documentation must be provided.
Vikas’s H1-B visa was valid for three years, and could have been renewed for three more. After that, Vikas would have had to leave the country.
As an H1-B visa holder, Vikas paid income, Social Security and Medicare taxes. But he is not eligible for any of the Social Security or Medicare benefits.
Vikas could not change employers unless he could find another employer able and willing to sponsor his visa out of the quota of 65,000, and go through the extensive paperwork. Vikas was not eligible for unemployment benefits. In fact, if he lost his job he would have to immediately leave the US.
Vikas was laid off. He had to decide between staying here illegally, inor leaving the country. Vikas did the right thing, and went back to India, where the per-capita income is about $3,000/year. His children will be raised in a third-world country, and have only third-world opportunities when they grow up.
Vikas really exists. He is a friend of mine. I’ve changed his name to protect the innocent (no pun intended.)
Oswaldo is a high-school drop-out from Mexico. Oswaldo paid a “coyote” $2,000 to smuggle him over the US border. Along the way, Oswaldo’s group trashed an Arizona ranch and accidentally started a forest fire where they camped. Oswaldo made his way to North Carolina, where he paid a forger $100 for a fake Green Card and a fake Social Security card. Using these forged documents, Oswaldo found work at a construction site. Oswaldo has now been violating US laws for seven years.
Oswaldo had his family smuggled in from Mexico. His wife now also works illegally with forged documents. Their children get free education at an American public school, and will be eligible for in-state tuition at the University of North Carolina when they grow up. Oswaldo and his wife just had another son, who is a US citizen by virtue of birth.
In order to be eligible for the McCain-Kennedy amnesty, Oswaldo will have to prove that he has been violating US laws for seven years. He can then pay a $2,000 fine, pay back-taxes, and be eligible for a real “Green Card” in six years. Once he obtains the “Green Card,” Oswaldo will be eligible to live in the US permanently. He can apply for US citizenship in five years.
Under current laws, America provides temporary three-year visas to only 65,000 skilled experts like Vikas every year. There is no clear “path to citizenship” for them; when their visas expire, or they get laid off, they’re supposed to immediately leave the country. Getting a “Green Card” on the basis of your skills, education, and intelligence, is a difficult, almost-impossible process.
Under the McCain-Kennedy plan, America would provide an automatic path to citizenship to an additional 400,000 low-skilled, poorly-educated workers like Oswaldo every year. McCain-Kennedy claim this is a “guest” worker program.
Under the McCain-Kennedy plan, America will also provide citizenship to 12 million lawbreakers like Oswaldo, who are already in the US. They claim this is not an “amnesty.”
"Senate Democrats refused to allow consideration of an amendment yesterday that would bar illegal aliens convicted of felonies from obtaining U.S. citizenship.
Democrats said the amendment would "gut" the immigration bill under consideration in the Senate and refused to allow a vote on it.
"It hurts the bill," said Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. "It hurts the very foundation and what I believe is the spirit" of the legislation."
Granted, this would not apply to rapists or murderers. But here are some of the crimes that Democrats believe people should be able to commit without disqualifying themselves from being considered for American citizenship:
"(B)urglary, assault and battery, possession of an unregistered, sawed-off shotgun, kidnapping and alien smuggling."
Quote Of The Day: Trent Lott Comes Out In Favor Of Pork
"I'll just say this about the so-called porkbusters. I'm getting damn tired of hearing from them. They have been nothing but trouble ever since Katrina." -- Trent Lott
I keep hearing rumors that Trent Lott wants to be Senate Majority Leader again once Bill Frist leaves at the end of 2006. That would really send a great message to the voters, wouldn't it?
RWN Vs. The Democratic Party On Illegal Immigration: Part 2
In the last post, I pointed out that RWN had been mentioned on the Democratic Party's weblog. Well, I took a look through the comments section over there and it just reinforced something that people who have been paying attention to the illegal immigration debate already knew: a lot of libs are not drinking the Kool-Aid on this issue and they're being very vocal about it -- which is fascinating, because it so seldom happens when the Dems are taking what is considered to be a left-of-center line.
Here's one post that really caught my eye. Even though I don't agree with some of the things the guy says, he does make some good points about illegal immigration. That's why, despite the fact that this is a long comment, I thought it deserved to be posted in it's entirety:
"I am appalled and amazed at how it seems the Black community is simply pushed aside in so many areas of decisions being made in the U.S. today. I am particulary amazed at how the party that is supposed to be for us is doing little to absolutely nothing to address the needs of African Americans and blue collar whites. But in this case I am speaking more specifically for African Americans. It seems that you are all dancing around not the May, but the "Political Poll." It is almost like you are blind to what is actually going on around you and what the true feelings are about illegal immigration. Where all of these conflicting polls are coming from, I can't even imagine. Do you really think you are expressing the true feelings of born in the USA; here through generations; LEGAL; tax paying (when not even getting a fare shake educationally, economically or socially) African Americans. Or is it just that you are pushing us to the side and think that you already have our vote in a nutshell.
It is constantly stated that the illegal (undocumented is double speak) immigrants are only taking jobs that Americans do not want. How crazy! You mean to tell me that suddenly all of the Blacks working in parking lots, doing construction, working as waiters, bus boys and short order cooks, landscapers, cement layers suddenly looked up one day and said oh the illegals are here we don't need these jobs any more, we'd rather be unemployed and homeless or on the edge of it. We are not ignorant. We are aware that they are taking jobs at a lower rate of pay, and therefore bringing down (or at least stifiling)the rates of pay for others. But, there was just a report out on the conditions of Black men in America. Their rates of unemployment run into the 50 percents and then some. How is this okay? And housing. Yes, we are aware (because they came into our neighborhoods first) that they can live together in large groups and pool their money to pay rents. It would have been impossible for African Americans to do that. In a private home yes, but in apartments, no. You had a lease, when the lease expired you renewed your lease or you moved. There were stringent rules on how many people could abode in a resident. There are so many rules that have been put aside for them that it is both ridiculous and insulting.
All Blacks get after years of Slavery, Jim Crowe, last hired-first fired, redlining, bad press, unjust prison sentences, bad schools and overpriced bad housing is ignored, undermined, and practically told to be patient, yet again. It is insulting considering all of the above(and then some)for you to turn a blind eye and ear and assume that it is no problem to watch our tax dollars go to house; feed; hospitalize; give special programs to people who are here illegally. We see that they take summer jobs and after school jobs from our children; take lower paying jobs (from people who usually worked two or more of those jobs to support their families [yet suddenly "hard working" seems to only be used in print lately to describe the illegal immigrants]). Add to that the fact that a lot of these same people are predjudiced and arrogant toward Blacks.
Come on we are not even quite 40 years into voter rights for African Americans and yet, you expect us to be pleased and accept with open arems a new people who are getting away with all sort of crime (false papers; false and fraudulent identification; fradulent use of social security numbers, be they made up or stolen) and violence; who evade rules right and left (putting up food stands where they well feel like it. Food licenses anyone?); evade taxes; and ARE HERE ILLEGALLY.
Does the Democratic party even pay attention or ever listen to African American radio or read African American newspapers or look at their opinion polls. You will find that, no, overall we are certainly not please with the route politicians seem to be taking to give amnesty to the illegal immigrants that are already here and to have a guest worker program. We are not pleased with the affirmative action that we fought and marched for with our blood, sweat and tears, be given on a silver platter to aliens, yet our civil rights have been constantly being stepped on and down played. We are treated wosre than step children, yet this country was built on our backs.
It is shameful. My sign is name is such because, my, my, my how soon you all seem to forget. But we (except for maybe Clarence Thomas types out there) remember.
You Democrats need to get up with the pulse of the African American community. I have always voted Democrat, but my mind is changing very fast. I never thought I would consider voting Republican, but I am seeing a dull dividing line between the parties. This is either because the Democrats have become a really chicken party or their ideals have just changed. Some of the very Republican politicians you call to the carpet for their opinions against okaying illegal immigration are beginning to look worth studying. Maybe a candidate from a third party would be an even better consideration. (Can't seem to be able to do much worse.
I am only expressing here the feelings on immigration, but there are many, many other scathingly oppressive events that have occured toward African Americans that are not being addressed. Dr. King and other civil right leaders that have passed must be turning flips in their graves.
RWN Vs. The Democratic Party On Illegal Immigration: Part 1
Yesterday, not only did I make Rush's blog, a quote from an old Tom Tancredo interview that I did actually made it onto the blog of The Democratic Party.
Here's the quote:
Contrast that with Tom Tancredo, one of the Republican Party's foremost voices on the issue of immigration.
We will never be able to win in the clash of civilizations, if we don't know who we are. If Western civilization succumbs to the siren song of multiculturalism, I believe we're finished.
A portrait of intolerance.
They consider THAT to be intolerant? Opposition to a philosophy that says to people -- don't come to America and assimilate? Keep your own culture, keep your own language, because they're just as good, if not better than what America has to offer?
Isn't multiculturalism a big part of the reason why we've had illegal aliens in the streets, yelling out slogans in Spanish, waving the Mexican flag, and claiming that the Southwestern United States belongs to Mexico?
Isn't multiculturalism a big part of the reason why we have millions of people living and working in this country long-term who can barely speak English and whose first loyalty is to nations other than our own?
What's wrong with wanting to have immigrants coming into this country who think this is a land of opportunity and want to assimilate? What's wrong with having people come into this country who want to be AMERICANS instead of having people here who think of themselves as Mexicans living in America or Venezuelans living in America or Canadians living in America?
This is the greatest nation in the world and a country a man is lucky to be born in. But, if you're an immigrant who's allowed to become a citizen, you've really hit the jackpot. That's because, yesterday, you were a stranger in a strange land, but the moment you become a citizen, it ceases to matter whether you just got here yesterday or whether your ancestors arrived 200 years ago. An American is an American is an American. But, illegal aliens? They're uninvited foreigners who have entered our country without permission and we owe them nothing.
So today, I'm headed over to pick up my taxes -- and yes, I got absolutely soaked because of the self-employment tax. But, on the way over, again, I hear Rush Limbaugh mention RWN and part of the Answering 13 Frequently Asked Questions About Illegal Immigration article that I put out. Apparently, the comments from Mark Krikorian, which originally came from an interview I did with him, really struck a cord with Rush.
So much so apparently, that not only did Rush link RWN again, this time a direct link to the article made it to the front of his website:
Again, I am really thrilled and appreciative that RWN has been mentioned on Rush's show again. If -- and I doubt this -- you're out there reading, much thanks, Rush!
Can All You Peons Shut-Up And Just Accept Oliver Stone's Wisdom?
Uh-oh, Oliver Stone is angry at all of us peons out here who have the audacity to criticize their betters in Hollywood:
"Movie-maker OLIVER STONE has blasted media groups who "slander" celebrities for their political comments - because intelligent stars have every right to question their leaders....The NATURAL BORN KILLERS director says, "We're Hollywood wackos and all that stuff, left-wing... (It's) an easy and facile dismissal. "I'm still a citizen, I've served my country as a veteran, I've had many jobs before the film business. I know something of life, having lived to this age. "We have a right to speak and every time we speak: 'You're an actor, a showbusiness director,' we're making it up! "This is not a way of dealing with people. This is slander."
Of course, Oliver Stone has the right to speak his mind. Just as the rest of us have the right to point out that he's an ultra-left-wing moonbat who makes conspiracy movies and who has this to say about Fidel Castro of all people:
"We should look to [Castro] as one of the earth's wisest people, one of the people we should consult."
The real problem that Oliver Stone and other people in Hollywood have is that they've been catered to and lionized for so long that they actually believe that they're smarter, better, and more enlightened than the rest of America -- and they are -- when it comes to things like knowing where to place stage lighting or how to look super sad because the script says that their puppy just died.
However, when it comes to the political arena, their celebrity status doesn't make them any more credible on political issues than Joe the plumber, Mike the mechanic, or Tina the secretary and that's what really just kills them.
Worse yet, they hate the idea that they might pay a price for their political views, again, just like ordinary people do. Imagine this scenario: Oliver Stone hires an electrician and as the guy works on Stone's mansion, he spends the whole time talking about how much he loves Rush Limbaugh and Bush, hates Commies, and hopes the Republicans beat those lousy Democrats in December. You think Stone would hire that guy again? Probably not and incidentally, back in the real world, a lot of people keep their mouths shut about politics while they're at work for exactly that reason; they're worried their politics may hurt them professionally.
But, those are rules for the "little people." In Hollywood, they act as if their constitutional rights are being threatened if someone says they're not going to rent Alexander because they don't like Stone, when actually they should skip the film because it's just awful -- oh, and Alexander kisses his mother on the mouth. Blech!
So, Oliver, you and your Hollywood buddies? Enjoy your right to free speech and the rest of us will enjoy ours! That's how it's supposed to be.
"VIRGINIA BEACH — The city has reached a settlement with the U.S. Justice Department to resolve allegations that it discriminated against black and Hispanic police recruits.
Under a consent decree filed Monday in federal court in Norfolk, the city will change the way it scores the police entrance exam.
The Justice Department had complained that the math portion of the exam had an adverse effect on minority applicants and unfairly excluded them from being hired.
The Justice Department claimed that the test’s pass-fail system had a disproportionate effect on minorities because the passing rates for blacks and Hispanics were less than 80 percent of the passing rate for whites.
From 2002 to mid-2005, about 85 percent of white applicants passed the math exam, compared with 59 percent of blacks and 66 percent of Hispanics."
Ehr...so are they saying questions like 12+48=x somehow favor white people over minorities? How can that possibly be?
There's a problem here, but it's not racism. It's the quota system that the Justice Department is obviously applying here. Instead of just insisting on equal treatment, what they're doing is saying that if each race doesn't do as well as the other, then somehow, someway, it must be racist. That's wrong.
The government should simply try to make sure that everyone gets equal treatment under the law, instead of getting into the business of trying to insure that there are equal results.
Given the ethics cloud DeLay's under in the Abramhoff case, the fact that his seat would have been in jeopardy, and that it can't be that much fun just to be another face in the crowd after being Majority Leader, I think DeLay did the right thing by resigning.
It's good for the Party and, assuming that he doesn't have any Abramhoff related problems (The Ronnie Earle charges are a joke), hopefully DeLay will enjoy his time away from the Hill and find it very profitable as well.
So, thanks to DeLay for his service to the GOP and the nation, and let's hope he enjoys his retirement.
2) If any of the rest of us assaulted a cop, it's a given that we'd have to go to court over it. Stop trying to pretend that you shouldn't have to face the music just because you're in Congress. You're not above the law.
3) Apologize to the officer you attacked. It's offensive that he has been smeared as a racist for just doing his job.
The last time "Basic Instinct" man-eater Catherine Tramell prowled the big screen, the studio erotic thriller was hitting box office heights. The first "Instinct" took the top spot when it debuted in 1992, with an opening weekend of $15.1 million, the equivalent of $20.45 million in today's dollars.
By comparison, "Basic Instinct 2" limped into 10th place upon its arrival this weekend, grossing just $3.2 million.
In the years between the two films, a string of high-profile flops, including MGM's "Body of Evidence," United Artists' "Showgirls" and Paramount Pictures' "Jade," have all contributed to the cooling off of the erotic thriller, a genre that had once sizzled at the box office.
Paul Verhoeven, director of the first "Basic Instinct" (which scored $353 million worldwide) as well as the widely ridiculed "Showgirls" (now regarded as something of a camp classic), attributes the genre's demise to the current American political climate.
"Anything that is erotic has been banned in the United States," said the Dutch native. "Look at the people at the top (of the government). We are living under a government that is constantly hammering out Christian values. And Christianity and sex have never been good friends."
Scribe Nicholas Meyer, who was an uncredited writer on 1987's seminal sex-fueled cautionary tale "Fatal Attraction," agrees, noting that the genre's downfall coincides with the ascent of the conservative political movement.
"We're in a big puritanical mode," he said. "Now, it's like the McCarthy era, except it's not 'Are you a communist?' but 'Have you ever put sex in a movie?'"
Oh, the excuses these guys are coming up with. It's Christianity! It's conservatism! It's the new McCarthyism! Actually, it probably has a lot more to do with the rise of internet porn. If people want to get titillated, they don't have to go watch "Basic Instinct" any more so they can wait to get flashed by Sharon Stone. Instead, for good or for ill, they can hit the net and watch any and every perversion known to man without having to leave the comfort of their own home or pay an exorbitant ticket fee. In a sense, that makes films like "Showgirls" and "Jade" as outdated as silent movies.
However, these comments are telling in a different way. Here we have America rejecting a particular type of movie and not only do you have people in Hollywood blaming the movie-going public for their tastes, they're continuing to make movies that keep failing at the box office over and over. Here's a crazy idea: why not try to cater to the public and make movies they want to see?
So, what movies do they want to see? If you take a look at the films from the last 10 years that make a list of the top 100 grossing films of all-time, adjusted for inflation, you'll note a trend.
19. Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)
34. Independence Day (1996)
48. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)
50. Spider-Man 2 (2004)
54. The Passion of the Christ (2004)
55. Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)
57. The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)
58. The Sixth Sense (1999)
62. Finding Nemo (2003)
64. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001)
72. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
73. Twister (1996)
74. Men in Black (1997)
81. Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)
86. Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003)
89. The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997)
90. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989)
93. Dr. Seuss' How the Grinch Stole Christmas (2000)
94. Toy Story 2 (1999)
96. Shrek (2001)
97. The Matrix Reloaded (2003)
100. Saving Private Ryan (1998)
As you've no doubt noticed, the vast majority of these incredibly successful movies are PG-13 and they're the sort of films, for the most part, that parents would feel comfortable taking their kids to see.
So, what's more likely to make a mint -- a script based on a family friendly comic book/hot sci-fi novel or another slut-murder thriller that no one wants to watch? There does seem to be a right answer to that question, although a lot of people in Hollywood don't seem to want to accept it.
Excerpt Of The Day: How Mexico Treats Illegal Immigrants
...(A)ccording to an official translation published by the Organization of American States, the Mexican constitution includes the following restrictions:
* Pursuant to Article 33, "Foreigners may not in any way participate in the political affairs of the country." This ban applies, among other things, to participation in demonstrations and the expression of opinions in public about domestic politics like those much in evidence in Los Angeles, New York and elsewhere in recent days.
* Equal employment rights are denied to immigrants, even legal ones. Article 32: "Mexicans shall have priority over foreigners under equality of circumstances for all classes of concessions and for all employment, positions, or commissions of the Government in which the status of citizenship is not indispensable."
* Jobs for which Mexican citizenship is considered "indispensable" include, pursuant to Article 32, bans on foreigners, immigrants, and even naturalized citizens of Mexico serving as military officers, Mexican-flagged ship and airline crew, and chiefs of seaports and airports.
* Article 55 denies immigrants the right to become federal lawmakers. A Mexican congressman or senator must be "a Mexican citizen by birth." Article 91 further stipulates that immigrants may never aspire to become cabinet officers as they are required to be Mexican by birth. Article 95 says the same about Supreme Court justices.
In accordance with Article 130, immigrants - even legal ones - may not become members of the clergy, either.
* Foreigners, to say nothing of illegal immigrants, are denied fundamental property rights. For example, Article 27 states, "Only Mexicans by birth or naturalization and Mexican companies have the right to acquire ownership of lands, waters, and their appurtenances, or to obtain concessions for the exploitation of mines or of waters."
* Article 11 guarantees federal protection against "undesirable aliens resident in the country." What is more, private individuals are authorized to make citizen's arrests. Article 16 states, "In cases of flagrante delicto, any person may arrest the offender and his accomplices, turning them over without delay to the nearest authorities." In other words, Mexico grants its citizens the right to arrest illegal aliens and hand them over to police for prosecution. Imagine the Minutemen exercising such a right!
* The Mexican constitution states that foreigners - not just illegal immigrants - may be expelled for any reason and without due process. According to Article 33, "the Federal Executive shall have the exclusive power to compel any foreigner whose remaining he may deem inexpedient to abandon the national territory immediately and without the necessity of previous legal action." -- The Center For Security Policy
