Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

8 comments

  1. Boonton says:

    Betcha he didn’t “read the bill” either. Such a dreary 10 pages.

    So like it should be really easy then to quote exactly where the bill says he is wrong. did you read the bill or just the talking points issued from the mother ship?

  2. Mark says:

    Boonton,
    Given that quite a number of Democrats in high WH positions have been caught criticizing the bill yet didn’t read it (by their own admission) … I figured that practice was likely not limited to professionals.

    And no I didn’t read the bill either … but then again I haven’t defended or criticized it.

  3. 1. The left likes to point out lingering effects of the cold war on attitudes on the right. A point returned.

    Bullshit! PolitiFact, that Pulitzer-winning non-partisan fact-checking organization, gave Lord Monckton “a special ruling — Britches on Fire!” for exactly the claims that your link depends on.

    Even so, we find Monckton’s claims to not only be unsupported but preposterous. First, it’s impossible to know what agreement will come out of Copenhagen, and when. Second, the U.S. procedure for ratifying treaties requires consent by a supermajority of the Senate — a steep hurdle. Third, it’s hard to envision anything coming out of Copenhagen that would change the United States’ bedrock principles of freedom and democracy. And fourth, contrary to what Monckton says, the United States can leave an international agreement. So while it pays to be vigilant about threats to U.S. sovereignty, this one is not the threat that Monckton’s rhetoric suggests. So Lord Monckton earns a special ruling — Britches on Fire!

    Why do you link to arguments based entirely on the “analysis” of known liars and charlatans? It seems to be a pattern.

  4. Boonton says:

    The left likes to point out lingering effects of the cold war on attitudes on the right. A point returned.

    Too much out of too little and hardly unique to the left. When Reagan broke the law by providing funds to the contra many on the right cheered breaking a law they felt was ‘stupid’ and ‘in their way’. I do give points, though, to linking intellectually an off hand comment from Woody Allen (yes Woody Allen!), Thomas Friedman and the Coppenhagen Climate Treaty.

    Stay tuned tomorrow to learn how spicy mustard, the sequal to Dirty Dancing and New Coke all are tied to Obama’s secret plans to implement socialism by not looking like he’s implementing socialism!

  5. Boonton says:

    And no I didn’t read the bill either … but then again I haven’t defended or criticized it.

    This is only a valid criticism if failure to read the law results in a person saying something untrue about it.

    As for your statement above, I’m unclear how it relates to the blogger you’re criticizing? The blogger you cite is asserting that the law will result in increased crime by consuming police resources and creating distrust between immigrant communities and police. Was a sociology thesis hidden in the ten pages of the law? How is reading the bill supposed to demonstrate those criticisms are unfounded

  6. Boonton says:

    Let’s put the ‘read it’ meme to rest. Mark is an extensive student of philosophy and theology. Yet I’m sure most of his knowledge comes from ‘not reading’ the sources. For every core work he has read I’m sure he’s read multiple works that summarize and discuss the core works. For example, I’m sure he’s read more *about* Kant or Rawls or post-modernism or deconstructionism than he has read the core works themselves.

    This is normal. In some cases core works may simply be unavailable but in many cases we learn about the core works through our reading about them. There is nothing wrong with this. It is understood that a person who has read the core works has some knowledge that a person who hasn’t lacks (maybe, I think in some cases if the core work is very complicated or specialized leaping right into it may in fact be less revealing which is why I was unimpressed by some bloggers who claimed to make marathon readings of the health reform bill proposals. More often than not they ended up posting misinformation that wasted time leading in circles or goind down dead ends). Anyway, I think the ‘read the bill’ people more often than not are using this as a talking point to shut down debate. If the bill is only ten pages and if it refutes what the person who didn’t read it is saying then simply show how the person is wrong. If instead you’re posting a five minute Youtube video of a puppet saying ‘read the bill’ I think it’s fair to conclude you haven’t demonstrated anything.

  7. I have, actually, read the bill, though like Boonton I’m not entirely sure when “secondary source” became a dirty word.

  8. Boonton says:

    The two criticisms made of the bill are:

    1. It will divert police from fighting crime to handling immigration.

    2. It poisons relations between immigrants and the police thereby encouraging crime.

    I don’t see what ‘reading the bill’ has to do with #1. Unless the bill says the police aren’t going to go into illegal immigration and both sides have been the victim of a massive mistake. Otherwise it’s a prediction. Supporters might assert that removing illegals will decrease law breaking. Or they might assert the increased time needed by police is marginal so no real diversion will be made. But whatever these arguments are I don’t think you can learn much about them by reading the bill.

    #2 is based on what the bill says. Police are to act when they have contact with a person they suspect is illegal. The bill doesn’t limit this to when they are investigating a crime and the person is a suspect. Contact is just that. It could be questioning a suspect but it could also be questioning a witness or it could even be a victim who walks into a police station to report a crime against them. Unless those ten pages lay out exemptions for non-suspects, it seems like a pretty reasonable criticism to me that this will encourage people not to cooporate, not to report crimes, to try to handle such things “in the community” rather than involving the police, which to me seems like it has pretty clear potential for increased crime.

    Now maybe #2 won’t apply but the reason it won’t apply is because police will simply break the law. They’ll won’t inquire about immigration unless they are dealing with someone they think is a trouble maker. They will let it be known informally that they will ‘look the other way’ when dealing with victim reports or witnesses and so on. I can understand why supporters though don’t want to be up front about that possibility. Havings laws nullified by the police is troubling from a democratic perspective and it reveals the law to be more about feel good pandering to the right wing mindset than actual good policy.