Politics: A new beginning

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Dude, think for a minute. The Senate votes 33-0. What's the most plausible explanation? That AS promised them something better on the issue, or that they all experienced a universal change of heart on the matter? You couldn't get 33 state senators to agree that shit stinks. You definitely can't get 33 state senators to eat crow.

Even the sponsor of the original bill said he supported repeal because he "puts his trust" in AS and takes him at his word that something better will be proposed. There was a back room deal here. NTTAWWT.

Meanwhile, all the same undocumented immigrants are driving around in the exact same cars as before. And none of them can get insurance. Let me put in into language you're likely to sympathize with: Their employers are still letting them drive, but will be stuck with an uninsured claim if they hit someone, and a punitive damages case for negligent entrustment. You tell me if standing on principle ("but driving is a privilege they haven't earned!") is better than pragmatism on this issue.

So are you admitting that from time to time the LA Times gets the story wrong?

[sgtclub]

Has anyone been following the flap over the latest GOP ad? The DEMS are saying that it should be pulled because it questions their patriotism. I've seen the ad, and maybe I've got partisan blinders on, but I just don't see a basis for the objection. Can anyone explain?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Their employers are still letting them drive, but will be stuck with an uninsured claim if they hit someone, and a punitive damages case for negligent entrustment.

Almost forgot this one:

Good. The employers are supposed to be complying with federal immigration laws to begin with, and are a major part of the problem in enforcing our current system. If they are hiring people who are here illegally (and, really, why would they be doing that except to avoid having to pay a market wage)(yes, I know there are exceptions), then they should bear the cosequent risks.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Has anyone been following the flap over the latest GOP ad? The DEMS are saying that it should be pulled because it questions their patriotism. I've seen the ad, and maybe I've got partisan blinders on, but I just don't see a basis for the objection. Can anyone explain?

It's ok to call Bush a moron, Cheney a thief, Rumsfeld Satan, Rice a whore, and Powell a UT, but it's beyond the pale to claim that someone else might be soft on world terrorism. Just takes discourse right out of the "polite" realm, you know.

[Atticus Grinch]

Hey, PC police? Can you tell me what the purpose of this* is? This, of course, being HR 3077, which creates an advisory board that has the final word on curricula taught at Title VI institutions, course materials assigned in class, and even the faculty who are hired in institutions that accept Title VI funding?

"The board will evaluate whether supporters of American foreign policy are adequately represented in university programs." "Two members of the board would represent national security agencies, while others would be appointed by Congress and the administration." WTF is the government doing getting involved in determining the "proper" focus of area studies programs at universities? And what the hell is the government doing mandating that universities train a certain number of students for national security purposes?

*Salon; access through free day pass.

[sgtclub]

to 8.2%. I know, I know. It is still a jobless recovery.

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news...d=aXuXEm5y10Uo

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by bilmore
It's ok to call Bush a moron, Cheney a thief, Rumsfeld Satan, Rice a whore, and Powell a UT, but it's beyond the pale to claim that someone else might be soft on world terrorism. Just takes discourse right out of the "polite" realm, you know.

Please point me to the ads paid for by the Democratic Party in which those claims are made.

We marginalize our divisive extremists. We don't elect them.

Besides, to my knowledge, Condi Rice is not a whore. You'll have to ask Slave for a more comprehensive view.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Hey, PC police? Can you tell me what the purpose of this* is

A. Classic over-reaction.

B. The funding that comes from the gov to the schools was attached to a bill some time ago that mandates the expansion of ME studies expressly because we were so woefully lacking in people trained in and conversant with that area in our governmental agencies, like CIA, Defense, etc. (Picture James Bond looking befuddled and saying "Afghani-where?") The money was handed out to guarantee that schools that took it should put out some grads well-aimed for that vacancy. Hence, we get the requirement that government service in that area be a mandated priority. This was, actually, one of the better-thought-out government initiatives - we need more knowledge in that area, so let's get some training going.

C. Due to the influence of some big-name ME experts in existing departments with severe agendas (see Said, et al.), there became rampant the perception (at least) that these departments had turned quite anti-american in their philosophies. Salon likes to say "they weren't patriotic enough", but that's really spun - they were rabidly anti-western in tone and content, leading a number of students to complain that the expression of any deviant thought led to outtright failure. Further, though the money had specifically been handed out to finance the education of people looking to serve in government and apply that knowledge on its behalf, that wasn't happening at all, and in fact the departments were openly hostile to the idea.

So, pretty basic fight, but one that should have been avoided because it is so easy to spin this one as crass right-wing idealogues trying to run education, which it really ain't. It stems from an intelligent design that went awry. Salon makes it sound as if one side was limiting thought, but I think they have misidentified the side.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Please point me to the ads paid for by the Democratic Party in which those claims are made.

I don't think that we can get into the "hey, he's not my spokesman" thing. Our new version of campaign financing (keeping it in the hands of the little people like Soros) has rendered illusory any such distinction.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by bilmore
I don't think that we can get into the "hey, he's not my spokesman" thing. Our new version of campaign financing (keeping it in the hands of the little people like Soros) has rendered illusory any such distinction.

Is Soros already paying for ads like that? Or did you just want to get in a jab on him?

If those ads are being aired I'd love to track one down. I'm kind of curious to see what this guy's money is going to buy.

FWIW, I don't have much of a problem with the RNC ad. I think it's misleading, but to me it certainly pales in comparison with Saxby Chambliss's ads regarding Max Cleland's love of the terrorists.

[edited to fix my atrocious grammar]

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
What they wanted to do with tax cuts and entitlement cuts, he accomplished through the cutting of stuff we needed.

So far, your indictment of the Clinton military is that we had to call up reserves to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Which is, um, what the reserves are there for.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
So far, your indictment of the Clinton military is that we had to call up reserves to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Which is, um, what the reserves are there for.

Clever bastard.

In a world of easily baited Repubs, someone might be tricked into saying the reserves are only for real wars against our real enemies who present a real threat. But not here.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by bilmore
B. The funding that comes from the gov to the schools was attached to a bill some time ago that mandates the expansion of ME studies expressly because we were so woefully lacking in people trained in and conversant with that area in our governmental agencies, like CIA, Defense, etc. (Picture James Bond looking befuddled and saying "Afghani-where?") The money was handed out to guarantee that schools that took it should put out some grads well-aimed for that vacancy. Hence, we get the requirement that government service in that area be a mandated priority. This was, actually, one of the better-thought-out government initiatives - we need more knowledge in that area, so let's get some training going.

Even Kramer admits that Title VI was "administered as a no-strings-attached benefit" from its inception in 1958 through today. The idea was that Americans learning about the ME in a free academic setting was good for discussion of American policy, not that we needed people who could speak Arabic in order to enact a policy that was found on some Rosetta Stone somewhere. Kramer wants to attach strings for the first time to this 45-year-old program because he mistakes the purpose of the education: to decide what the ME policy should be. He thinks the purpose of university education is to produce people willing to enact and defend whatever policy the administration articulates.

What is a "pro-American academic"? Our ME policy today is quite unlike what it was in 2001. What if Bush loses in 2004; will area studies departments have to hire and fire to match a changing administration policy, or should they do it based on whether Colin Powell is allowed to address the UN in any given week? Sorry, B, making a university department match administration philosophy is just a horrible, horrible idea.

Salon makes it sound as if one side was limiting thought, but I think they have misidentified the side.

Of course you think that. Because academic departments are one form of the free market that requires governmental re-balancing. I hesitate to thrust myself upon the bayonet of Godwin's Law here, but every single democracy that has tried to use the academy to justify a pre-existing administration policy has ceased to be a democracy rather quickly. Plan your laws for when your party is not in power, too.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
There are too many logs in others' eyes. Right now, the Mexican consulates are already issuing consular IDs without a central database to ensure that applicants aren't getting more than one ID apiece. That's happening in New York and elsewhere.

There was a thing on Consular IDs on NPR this morning. One of the benefits is that there's increased security in the places where they are accepted so bank accounts can be opened and immigrants don't have to carry around large amounts of cash. None of them have been used by Mexican immigrant in any terrorism threats in the US.

http://www.npr.org/rundowns/rundown....v-2003&prgId=3 (scroll down and you'll find the article)

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Hey, PC police? Can you tell me what the purpose of this* is? This, of course, being HR 3077, which creates an advisory board that has the final word on curricula taught at Title VI institutions, course materials assigned in class, and even the faculty who are hired in institutions that accept Title VI funding?

is salon like the onion?

On Oct. 21, the House of Representatives unanimously passed a bill

the house ain't passing anything unanimously