"Divided Democrats"

So the Washington Post takes this Immigration bill which passed the Judiciary Committee with all Democrats voting AYE, and puts this picture up:


NICE! HUH?
So I click through the caption and this is what I find.

Of all the Democrats that are supposedly divided on this issue. You know, cuz every time I turn on the radio they keep saying it is the Republicans that are divided. You know cuz the bill passed the Judiciary committe with a split vote among Republicans (all Democrats voted AYE) - Whoops I said that already didn't I.

I dug deep, I read the whole thing, I even tried to say Heh! Indeed! But I couldn't.

The entire piece, highlights all the Democrats that are divided. It does an excellent job of demonstrating how the entire swath of our Representative Minority in Washington is divided on immigration reform. It does so, elloquently, in one simple paragraph:

But the work of Borjas and other economists is becoming a wedge in the Democratic Party. Citing Borjas's work, Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.) denounced the Senate immigration bill yesterday, saying: "This is clearly a corporate strategy to keep wages low. It clearly will replace the jobs of American workers."

Absolutely, it is a wedge in the Democratic party. Because you know the entire Democratic party is boiled down to Sen. Byron L. Dorgan. He IS the Party! He is single handedly the MAN.

Ahem, Washington Post and Jonathan Weissman, it is the Republican party that is split on this issue. So how about writting about that.

Cuz there is actual imperical evidence that Republicans are split to that effect.

Where is your race card now?

A while back Sen. Orin Hatch (R-UT) was quick to pull the race card on Democrats threatening to vote against Sam Alito:

[They] think they own the Italian-American vote all up and down the East Coast. They don’t, but they think they do. If they become offensive against somebody with the qualifications of Sam Alito, Judge Alito, then I think it’s going to be held against them. They’re going to have to be very careful how they handle this, and frankly what bothers me if 22 — in other words, half of the Democrats in the Senate — could vote against John Roberts, can you imagine what this nomination is going to be like? There’s no reason they should have voted against Roberts. And I think Alito’s going to be just fine but we’re all going to have to work really hard to make sure that’s so.

Now we find out that Sen. Orin Hatch did in fact vote against the Immigration reform bill that just passed the Judiciary Committee that he sits on. This bill basically does the opposite of the Tancredo House bill, it lets people stay in this country rather than make them folons.

I wonder who will remind Sen. Orin Hatch that he and his Republican friends like Tom Tancredo think they own the Latin-American vote all up and down Red State America. They don’t, but they think they do. If they become offensive against a bill with the qualifications of McCain-Kennedy then I think it’s going to be held against them. They’re going to have to be very careful how they handle this, and frankly what bothers me if 6 — in other words, more than half of the Republicans in the Senate Judiciary Committee— could vote against McCain-Kennedy, can you imagine what this bill is going to be like? There’s no reason they should have voted against McCain-Kennedy. And I think McCain-Kennedy's going to be just fine but the Democrats are all going to have to work really hard to make sure that’s so.

"Let's try enforcing the law"

So saideth Tom Tancredo on This Week. Go watch the video.

Yes! Indeed Tom Tancredo! Ye are the keeper of the Rule of Law! Here is exactly what he said:

We don't need another law on the books, no law is necessary if we actually enforce the ones we have on the books today.
...
It is Amnesty... You can't do that without our permission. When you reward one person ... for doing it illegaly, then it is a slap in the face for every person who has done it the right way, it is bad policy, and it is especially for the Republican Party, bad policy

FINALLY! Someone in the Republican party who realizes that making something that is illegal, legal, is wrong, and that it is bad policy.

Regretably, the topic of discussion was illegal immigration and not ilegal wiretapping of innocent until proven guilty Americans. I wonder if Tom Tancredo's viewpoint on illegal immigration also applies to the Illegal NSA wiretapping?

I guess the only way is to, you know, ask him.

Cartoons!

In lieu of Democrats recent wave of going back to their tried and true ways of loosing the base by running from Russ Feingold's Censure, and netroots candidates, etc. etc. We now know that Democrats need no help from Republicans or their media operatives to paint them as loosers or (insert congruent adjectives here). I think Ward Sutton puts it nicely in this cartoon:

Write Bill Keller a Letter

Click here to do it. Why?
This just landed in my inbox:

For two years, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof has courageously traveled where few other reporters have gone to describe the brutal genocide in Darfur.

Through Kristof's reporting - and that of others at the Times - we have read of the tremendous suffering that has befallen the innocent people of Darfur - at the hands of their very own government.

Yet last Sunday, the New York Times accepted nearly one million dollars from the Sudanese government to run a special eight-page advertising section! The insert, placed in New York-area papers, consisted of pretty words about Sudan's "peaceful, prosperous and democratic future." This propaganda was written on behalf of a government the Times reports has sponsored a mass effort to kill, rape, and force people from their homes.

The New York Times needs to hear from you telling them it was wrong to accept this ad!

Click here now to write a letter to the editor of the New York Times. Demand the Times contribute the ad proceeds to humanitarian relief efforts in Darfur.

(Please note that the Save Darfur Coalition is not involved in humanitarian relief efforts, and we are not in any way asking for financial support from the Times.)

We encourage free speech and hope the Times continues to report on all perspectives, including those of Sudan's rulers. Since the genocide in Darfur began, the New York Times has spent more time and money reporting the story than any other American news organization.



In fact, on the day the Times ran the Sudanese advertisement, the paper also ran an editorial condemning Sudanese-government-sponsored militias responsible for murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent people and displacing millions more.

It is unconscionable that the Times' sales department accepted nearly one million dollars from the murderous Sudanese government to run an advertisement filled with rosy images of an investment haven.

The New York Times is free to choose its business partners and this was a paid advertisement the Times could have chosen to reject! The New York Times should not profit with blood-stained money that would be better spent on health clinics than on advertising. Neither should they turn a profit on the propaganda of those they themselves believe guilty of mass murder.

Click here now to write a letter to the editor of the New York Times and demand they donate the tainted proceeds of the ad to relief work in Darfur!

Thank you,

David Rubenstein
Save Darfur Coalition

SO:
Click here now to write a letter to the editor of the New York Times and demand they donate the tainted proceeds of the ad to relief work in Darfur!

400,000 people have died in Darfur, silence.
Yet we bitch and moan about Iraq where perhaps only 1/4 have died.

A death is a death is a death. Darfur is the latest genocide to happen without foreign interference of almost any kind. Just like Bosnia, Rwanda, and Somalia. It is time for something to happen.

Get informed, take action!

Shorter National Association of Realtors

Global Warming is Good for us!

Find the Constuctionist

ZAAAAAAAAAAAP!!! The blog is now back to life.
Sorry for the absence, but get used to it. The more I read other blogs hitting national issues, the less I feel like writing on those issues myself. Mainly because everytime I get an idea, someone else gets the same idea and posts it before I do. Anyway, enough chatter, check out this NYTimes article about the latest opinion from the SCOTUS. You know how all those folks were all about getting "strict constructionists who would not legislate from the bench" onto the court right? I mean if you are still reading this sorry excuse for a blog you know this talking point by heart. Or at least you probably heard it at some point.

So since then we supposedly had Justice John Roberts (presumeably a constructionist) and Sam Alito (also presumeably a constructionist). Alito didn't write or vote on this case about Police searching for evidence if one of the house's parties disagreed to the search. Now a strict constructionist would argue that every case should be decided on its own, with obvious precedents taken into account. However, where would a strict constructionist want his opinion to you know, not be solely based on the case at hand?

I dunno but does this sound like a constructionist to you?

"The fact is that a wide variety of differing social situations can readily be imagined, giving rise to quite different social expectations," Chief Justice Roberts said. For example, he continued, "a guest who came to celebrate an occupant's birthday, or one who had traveled some distance for a particular reason, might not readily turn away simply because of a roommate's objection."

Noting that "the possible scenarios are limitless," he said, "Such shifting expectations are not a promising foundation on which to ground a constitutional rule, particularly because the majority has no support for its basic assumption — that an invited guest encountering two disagreeing co-occupants would flee — beyond a hunch about how people would typically act in an atypical situation."

I don't think so.

Then Justice Souter and Breyer strike back with this:

Justice Souter said the law was clear on the right of the police, despite any objection, to enter a home to protect a crime victim. But that issue "has nothing to do with the question in this case," he said.

The discussion by Chief Justice Roberts of the implications for domestic violence cases might have been an effort to win, or a failed effort to hold, the vote of Justice Breyer.

...

In his concurring opinion on Wednesday, Justice Breyer noted that in this case, the police were searching "solely for evidence," and domestic abuse was not at issue. While he pronounced himself satisfied by "the case-specific nature of the court's holding," he said the outcome might well be different in the context of domestic abuse, in which police entry even over one spouse's objection could be reasonable.

So if the definition of a Constructionist is someone who for example, states in their Confirmation Hearing that they will "judge each case on its own merits", you just have to wonder what the hell the Chief was going for here?

Roman A' Clef

Once in a while, we get a great example of just how stupid the right is and how misguided their tirades are against us on the left. Exhibit 1,863Charles Krauthammer's "Oscars for Osama." Krauthammer decides that once again by choosing to honor such violent terrorist boosting films as Paradise Now, Munich, and Syriana, Hollywood and the liberalism it represents is hurting America by emboldening the enemy.

His rationale is the typical old "if we show the terrorists conspiracy theories that are roman a' clef, we embolden them and give them more reasons to want to blow us up."

How many times has this come out of the right? And how many times do we on the left need to turn around and educate the infantic cotton brains that despite what they say, a movie, an article, and yes even a cartoon, do not create the level of hatred towards the west that we see in the Muslim world today. It is the actual actions of what we do that cause the hatred that led to the destruction we saw on 9/11. This concept is not difficult to understand. We as a country didn't necessarily hate Muslims until a few of their brethren blew our twin towers and Pentagon up right? We as a country didn't really give a rat's ass about Arabs so long as they gave us oil and didn't blow up any of our boats right?

What would make you hate someone else more? A movie about someone killing your mother? Or an actual somone killing your mom, daughter, and entire family as in Iraq? What would make you hate a person/ country that person represents more? A picture of someone torturing someone you know? Or if someone actually came and kidnapped your loved one and sent them off to a place where they are tortured daily, for no reason and without any recourse?

All these things are not difficult to understand. Using the actions of a few (supposed) representatives of a faction or political spectrum as justification for ensuing violent actions is reckless. Charles Krauthammer, your argument would bare much more fruit if say Liberals had been in charge when 9/11 occured, or if Liberals had been in charge when we decided Iraq was more important than Osama Bin Laden, or even if Liberals had made the decision to imprison, torture, and render muslims. Yet, they were not. It was people who share your ideology that made these decisions and perhaps have been more successfulat fomenting anti-American sentiment in the middle east and throughout the world.

Moreover, your siliencing techniques are just as un-American as the ideals you claim to have excercised by supporting unilateral use of our freedom loving nation's military force in a country that did not attack us.

You know, sharing the nomination for best film with the "anti-American" Syriana is a film that portrays another time in American history when tactics such as these were a popular means of demonizing fellow Americans.

That film Mr. Krauthammer is entitled "Good Night, and Good Luck." Perhaps you should go see it.

Rule of Law

OK, so despite their most valiant efforts, Republican Senators can't seem to find a way to make the illegal wiretaps, legal.

I don't understand. When did this country start legalizing things in a retroactive manner? When did things illegal become legal simply because it came to light that someone like the President was breaking the law? What happened to Rule of Law?

You legislate things that perhaps we need to address because there is a useful reason in doing so. However, this is not the case. If the rational for legislating more tools for the President to use to combat terrorism, then presumeably we would think that was already addressed in the unPATRIOTic act. Republicans and the President say that they have kept us safe from terrorists with the tools already available to them since 9/11. So, why the need for wiretapping?

If the tool was inadequate, and illegal or in need of becomming legal, then why use it? If you use it and are saying that it requires legislating to become legal than the logical conclusion is that the use of the tool was illegal to begin with. Despite its inadequacy, at its most basic level, the use of the wiretap was and is illegal.

Legislating illegalities is I guess one way of fixing these sorts of things. However, I thought the typical "American" course of action was to simply prosecute the person breaking the law.

When Politics Defeats Science

heh Indeed.

Read the whole thing and make sure you read the italicized part about who the author is or rather was.

I work for a Pharmaceutical company and it baffles the crapskies out of me why they would risk their integrity of being the bastion of science/reality based decisions in our regulatory system. This cowtowing about Plan B is really political pandering to the religious right and allowing them to take this issue and the FDA by the nutsack is simply bullshit.

Plan B does not cause abortions it prevents them. It is that simple and if we can't depend on the FDA to make that distinction for the stupid people who don't know how long it takes for egg and sperm to meet then we have come to a place where science is truly loosing the war of ideas.

America's future is bleaker so long as the FDA halts or holds up approval for something so simple as this.