Politics: A new beginning

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I'm with you on this one whole heartedly, and I would insist that any Democratic nominee express views that he (or she) would head in a similar direction.

So let's put it to the R's:

So, R's, what do you think of shrubbery's immigration proposals?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
So let's put it to the R's:

So, R's, what do you think of shrubbery's immigration proposals?

Haven't read them carefully yet, but from what I do know I'm vehemently opposed, at least with respect to the amnesty portion, which is certainly an election year ploy (which occurs every 4 years no matter which party is in office) and is unfair to those that have waited in the immigration lines.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Haven't read them carefully yet, but from what I do know I'm vehemently opposed, at least with respect to the amnesty portion, which is certainly an election year ploy (which occurs every 4 years no matter which party is in office) and is unfair to those that have waited in the immigration lines.

Some people have pointed out that it wouldn't exactly create nirvana on Earth for the immigrants, but rather a form of indentured servitude, since they would be permitted to stay only as long as they have a job, and employers would be required to establish that no U.S. citizens would take the job.

It does indeed sound like an election-year ploy -- a version of Dick Morris's triangulation.

Not having quoted Josh Marshall in a while, and knowing that this makes bilmore and Slave sad, I'll also note that his blog has a lengthy transcript of a background briefing about this proposal by "senior administration officials." I couldn't stay awake through the whole thing, but Marshall's only comment (at the very bottom) echoes what sgtclub says: "Here's a question: how many people actually think the president expects to or even wants this 'policy' to pass?"

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Huh? What is wrong with setting up issue specific funds? Isn't that the essence of the first amendment?

I'm not arguing that what he's doing is illegal. I'm just saying that it's seems somewhat hypocritical when he criticized davis for his pay-to-play fundraising practices. I see no qualitative difference between the prison guard unions giving davis huge contributions as he was protecting their appropriation levels in his budgets and the business interests who are now giving AS >$21k donations as he drafts his worker's comp ballot measure.

On top of this I think a large part of California's problem is that too much governing is done by ballot initiatives, including the after-school spending mandated by AS's own prop 49 from 2002. I'm not thrilled that instead of working with the legislature to (for example) craft a solution to the worker's comp question AS is building a slush fund to push a take-it-or-leave-it referendum in November.

I also think AS is being remarkably disingenuous with his advocacy for the $15b ballot measure in March, but I'm not in the mood to type another six paragraphs that no one will read, so instead I'll just sit here and draw devil horns and stink lines on
the picture of AS from today's paper. Take THAT, Quaid.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
I also think AS is being remarkably disingenuous with his advocacy for the $15b ballot measure in March....

Rep. Mark Leno (D. - San Francisco) was quoted in this morning's Chronicle as saying something similar about Arnold's blaming the budget crisis on his predecessors, etc., since (per Leno) half of it is attributable to his cancellation of the vehicle fee (or car tax, or whatever).

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Rep. Mark Leno (D. - San Francisco) was quoted in this morning's Chronicle as saying something similar about Arnold's blaming the budget crisis on his predecessors, etc., since (per Leno) half of it is attributable to his cancellation of the vehicle fee (or car tax, or whatever).

Mark Leno has been riding my coattails for years.

But if I were Rep. Leno I would also have said that AS's assertion that it's the bond issue or bankruptcy for California is fairly inaccurate. AS may have promised no new taxes while he was on the campaign trail, but I didn't hear the part where he said "and I'm willing to take us into bankruptcy to fulfill that promise if the voters are not willing to put the deficit on the backs of future taxpayers." I think that might have cut into his support.

Damn. I said I wasn't in the mood for this.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
Mark Leno has been riding my coattails for years.

An observation that might have a whole different meaning on the FB.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by bilmore
"Congressman Kucinich is holding up a pie chart, which is not truly effective on radio," Conan told his listeners.

Between this and hearing that Darryl Worley crap song on "Fresh Air" yesterday, I'm starting to wonder whether NPR has suddenly become a tool of the corporate oligopoly. I'd really hate to see all that money I give to A.N.S.W.E.R. get spent picketing WHYY. The irony would be too much to bear.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
No, dumbass, I said that changing the map may "more accurately represent" party affiliation but less accurately represent other important things. Cattle ranchers may want to be represented by a cattle rancher, and not by a Dallas banker, and so on. I've said this twice, and you are just not bothering to read my posts. You may not be reading this one, either.

Maybe I'm missing something, but you are either speaking of the shapes of the districts, taking no regard for the political gerrymandering aspects of all of this, or you are saying that, somehow, letting people's wishes to be represented by similar genotypes is more important than adhering to a system that counts the rancher's one vote as equally, but no more, important than the one vote of the pregnant Peruvian car saleswoman. The first is nonresponsive to the argument, the second is . . . just . . . weird.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I'd really hate to see all that money I give to A.N.S.W.E.R. get spent picketing WHYY. The irony would be too much to bear.

you just have to be careful how and with what you donate. Me? I generally dress up like an Aztec and volunteer as a dancer at the rallies!

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
So let's put it to the R's:

So, R's, what do you think of shrubbery's immigration proposals?

I've stated my beliefs on this before, so it should be no surprise that I agree that its the right direction, though not perfect. Amnesty? No. Establish no Americans would take the job? No.

But get people into the system, paying taxes, registered, and all without any benefits except the protections afforded to legal residents. Yes. I'd also make it part of the system for obtaining citizenship. Specifically, I would say that you either get registered within 6 months (or 1 year) of the law/policy being enacted, or you get deported immediately.

Registering people would be good for national security. Taxing them would be good for the economy. Recognizing that they are here (duh, they are!) is good for everyone. But I would take any of the "extra" benefits afforded by government out of their reach, except emergency medical care. Schools for their kids? Yes. Welfare of any sort? No.

More than anything, I'd like an immigration policy that does not appear to discriminate against particular groups unless its done on national security grounds (fingerprinting many visitors etc).

For example, spending 100 million to prevent 1 million of 3 million mexican border-crossers from reaching the promised land was never enough in the face of spending just as much to keep 50K haitians from reaching florida (while allowing all 50K Cubans to land). It always smacked of arbitrary bullshit. Either keep everyone out (and raise the taxes to pay for what that would cost, or start getting the rest into the system without giving them all the rights of citizens.

Hello

[bilmore]

Truly excellent essay (but long - oh, so long) by Crichton on the cheapening of science and its role in the global warming myth.

http://www.sepp.org/NewSEPP/GW-Aliens-Crichton.html

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Maybe I'm missing something, but you are either speaking of the shapes of the districts, taking no regard for the political gerrymandering aspects of all of this, or you are saying that, somehow, letting people's wishes to be represented by similar genotypes is more important than adhering to a system that counts the rancher's one vote as equally, but no more, important than the one vote of the pregnant Peruvian car saleswoman. The first is nonresponsive to the argument, the second is . . . just . . . weird.

It seems to me that the shorter the boundaries are, the more you will put neighbors in the same districts. This seems to me a good thing. It also should ensure that ranchers are in district with other ranchers, also a good thing. Is there some part of this that you don't agree with. I don't like gerrymandering, and would like to find a way to avoid it, as Iowa apparently has done. I don't think any of this is controversial -- I assume that most people who are not themselves politicians would agree in principle, but that it's tricky to figure out how to translate these sentiments into concrete steps.

I truly don't understand the second thing you think I might be saying.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
Truly excellent essay (but long - oh, so long) by Crichton on the cheapening of science and its role in the global warming myth.

http://www.sepp.org/NewSEPP/GW-Aliens-Crichton.html

So . . do you really think that the present and potential future "global warming" is a myth, or merely that the extent and effects may be overblown? I've heard from relatively few relevant scientists (i.e climatologists, etc.) not in the employ of the energy industry who believe the former.

(I've also spoken with a friend who is an energy economist and computer modeler formerly employed by the American Petroleum Institute, who described the enormous pressure his shop was under a few years back to convincingly explain away "global warming" as by caused by sunspots. )

In any event, there are an awful lot of scientists with no apparent axe to grind spending lots of time at international conferences and working on aspects of the issue.
See this article, for example:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Jan7.html

"Warming may theaten 37% of species by 2050."
Of course, that's the high end -- the low end estimate is reported as 15% of all species.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Haven't read them carefully yet, but from what I do know I'm vehemently opposed, at least with respect to the amnesty portion, which is certainly an election year ploy (which occurs every 4 years no matter which party is in office) and is unfair to those that have waited in the immigration lines.

Sure, but you'll vote for him anyway, won't you? What choice do you see?

You fiscal conservatives are to the R's as the African-Americans were to the D's for years.

However, now that the R's are working to purge their racists and to cut back or mask the policies that visibly oppress the poor and working classes ("compassionate conservatism") , the Ds are starting to lose that monopoly on the minority voters.

S_A_M