Friday Highlights

Good morning.

  1. Girls and fins.
  2. A missing point … that it is dangerous to be an illegal resident anywhere. This is not an argument for legalising aliens it is an argument not to be an illegal.
  3. Why ideological blinders matter. Everyone abuses history.
  4. North Korea and China.
  5. One report on the handling of the Gulf cleanup/reponse.
  6. The administration pulls a queue from two-bit dictatorships.
  7. Will the AZ outrage over immigration now move to MA? Or not so much cause it’s a Democratic stronghold?
  8. Heh heh.
  9. On anger.
  10. Obama’s version of “Its my responsibilty” … fire and forget. Just like his pleas of bipartisanship in the wake and during his own particular partisan attacks the buck stops here comes in in the wake of and during his own assignment of blame. His supporters somehow remain blind to this.
  11. A musical tribute to the Doctor.

7 Responses to Friday Highlights

  1. A missing point … that it is dangerous to be an illegal resident anywhere. This is not an argument for legalising aliens it is an argument not to be an illegal.

    Textbook case for why the Arizona law will increase crime. Notice is now served, if you’re papers are not in order its best to take the law into your own hands if you’re the victim of a crime.

  2. Boonton,
    It’s unclear how the AZ law impacts the above case at all. But hey, you’ve got your orders to push your talking points. I’ll acknowledge that you are dutifully following your instructions if asked.

  3. Obama’s version of “Its my responsibilty” …

    I don’t really get where the right is going with this. Before attacking for the sake of attacking they really should ask themselves what viable ground is there to stand on? Attacking Obama for the oil spill is only viable from the left. To assert that Obama should have been less cozy with oil, more skeptical of drilling, less inclined to believe it was safe. This leads straight to yet more Republican incoherence. Case in point is Sarah Palin.

    About a month or so ago she was bashing Obama. Asserting that his expansion of offshore drilling was really fake because it took some known reserves off the table while only opening up exploration in areas of unknown reserves.

    Now she’s trying to tell the world that because Obama got $20.50 in campaign donations from BP he went easy on them and we shouldn’t trust ‘foreign’ oil companies.

    From the right I’ve only heard two viable anti-Obama lines of attack:

    1. Asserting that if there was more drilling in Alaska which comes down the pipeline we could have avoided offshore drilling.

    2. Rush’s theory that the thing was staged to discredit drilling.

    The first might get a bit of traction even though its doesn’t make much economic sense. Alaskan oil would have to drop the world price below the cost of running offshore drills in order to shut them down.

    The second, of course, only puts the GOP in the kook niche. It also doesn’t really address the problem, if its so easy to ‘stage’ a massive oil spill how safe is the drilling really?

    LO Gov’t Bobby J. seems to have quite a bit of bad karma going down in terms of pro-Obama natural diasters. It was only last year that he based the stimulus package for having ‘volcano monitoring’ and what happens, Europe’s shut down for a month due to an eruption. Perhaps God should be charged with making illegal campaign donations to Obama’s re-election campaign!

    It’s unclear how the AZ law impacts the above case at all. But hey, you’ve got your orders to push your talking points. I’ll acknowledge that you are dutifully following your instructions if asked.

    Notice yet again the issue is ignored. Aside from defending the AZ law no matter what, does the right have anything useful to say about illegal immigration or not?

  4. Boonton,
    I have no idea where “the right” is going with this. I’m pretty sure the right isn’t of one mind, so categorically such statements are perverse.

    However, where I was going with it is to point out Mr Obama’s hypocrisy in taking responsibility while assigning blame elsewhere. Either you are responsible and you shoulder the blame or you’re not.

    And on AZ, which you still haven’t demonstrated has any connection at all to the case linked, but hey keep pushing more Democratic talking points. If I’m asked by the Democratic watchdogs for your background check, I’ll be sure to point out your persistence in pushing their line. Now the “no useful things to say.” That’s an Obama line used in healthcare. It was a lie then too. Bi-partisan? Well, no. But who’s watching?

  5. What exactly is so hard to understand about the problem with the AZ law?

  6. Boonton,
    Uhm, that the problem isn’t with the AZ law but with Federal immigration statutes.

  7. Actually it is a problem with the AZ law because Federal law allows localities to create ‘safe harbors’ where an illegal who is victimized by a crime, a witness or whatnot can speak with local law enforcement without concern about their immigration status (as well as other services of local gov’t such as emergancy 911, schools etc.).

    By outlawing this, AZ has set up a situation where it is better for an illegal immigrant to not corporate with local law enforcement, to take the law into their own hands. This is trashing a useful aspect of the seperation of powers. Because the Federal gov’t doesn’t normally enforce local laws and the local gov’t doesn’t enforce Federal ones it is possible for those in trouble with one (but not necessarily the other) to be helpful.

Leave a Reply

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

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>