Quite a few people are in high dudgeon over California Democratic congressional candidate Francine Busby and her apparent solicitation of votes from illegal aliens, including my own colleague Kim Priestap. As a hard-nose on the illegal alien issue, the thought of this happening infuriated me, so I started looking into it myself. And my conclusion? As Dorothy Parker said, “there’s no ‘there’ there.”
From the full context of the discussion, it’s clear to me that Ms. Busby was asked if one needed to prove one was a legal voter in order to “help” her campaign — with the clear implication of volunteering to work for her,not simply vote. She replied that they do not check IDs for volunteers, and anyone was welcome to assist. And under current law, they I do not believe they are required to verify the immigration status of an unpaid volunteer.
Whether or not that should be the case, that’s the way it is under current law. And whether or not Busby should be held to a higher standard than the legal minimum is another question.
Yes, it is possible to interpret the discussion as a solicitation for voter fraud. But it’s a hell of a stretch.
I’m not a lawyer, but if I were defending Ms. Busby, it’d be a slam-dunk. “No, your honor, my client was not soliciting voter fraud. She took the question to mean ‘can I volunteer for your campaign without proving my immigration status, as I do not have the papers on me at this moment?’, and replied that her campaign, in compliance with the law, does not require such proof from unpaid volunteers. The issue of voting was never in question; the discussion was entirely about campaign volunteer work.” It might not be true, but it’s enough to generate reasonable doubt.
At the very most, we have a Democratic candidate who is accepting the support of a potential illegal alien. This is absolutely nothing new, and not against any laws.
I hope she is defeated in Congress, as it is attitudes like hers that have put us in such a bind regarding illegal aliens. But I’m afraid this is hardly a smoking gun.
Well then all you’d be left with is Democrats and leftwing faggots ( sorry for repeating myself)
Posted by: gmax
I saw that post too. But I was afraid to reply since the left clearly decided to invade this thread with their big guns with that post.
Hmmmm.
Heck I live in New Jersey. At last count the leadership of approximately 36 townships are under federal investigation or indictment. In the last 10 years we’ve had about 12 county DA’s indicted, including one fellow who absconded with millions in forfeiture money and was found dead of suicide in Las Vegas.
Around here having a felon as a mayor is pretty much normal.
Care to share with us the Party registration of the 12 county DAs? I am sure I know but since this is news to me here in Texas, go ahead and tell us.
Gmax–
A lot of people on this comment thread seem to think only Democrats commit voter fraud.
Just so I can make sure you’re aware of & opposed to Republican voter fraud as well, you guys all condemn the actions taken in New Hampshire in 2002 by James Tobin and two other Republicans to jam the phones? (Should be easy for you to do so; they all were convicted; two served time in prison & Tobin’s on his way there now.)
Also, re 2000: There’s a book by Greg Palast called “The Best Democracy Money Can Buy.” You might want to check out Chapter 1. It’s a bit of an eye-opener. Palast got ahold of a list of felons prevented from voting. At least 300 people were clearly innocent.) The *dates* listed that these 300 people commited crimes…2007. Do you agree these people should have been allowed to vote? And do you agree that there’s something just a *little* suspicious about the fact that the CEO of the company in charge of the Florida voters list was a major Bush donor? (If you’re having trouble, just reverse the parties in your mind.)
Thanks,
Jackson
Exactly. How can someone? Unfortunately, the law you cited doesn’t address that specific situation, and as any lawyer will tell you, under American jurisprudence, laws are meant to be as narrowly interpreted as possible.
Well, I’m not a lawyer and I never played one on TV, but my layman’s interpretation is that just standing there in place for the illegal is a federal crime.
So if that person was passing out campaign material they are still committing a federal crime because they are still standing where they shouldn’t. It’s just they are working on behalf of a candidate while simultaneously committing the crime with the blessing of the person wanting to be a lawmaker.
But then to be a lawmaker it’s always a good idea to start off obeying the laws to give yourself credibility, especially if your platform is “ethics reform”.
Republicans are always so entertaining. They attack, then when you challenge their assumptions or try to determine the root of their logic they resort to attacking you or your beliefs. Here is what I hear from most Republicans; “Well, my party might have failed to solve all of the problems, and I cannot list anything they have done to benefit me but we have not been attacked (tell that to the men and women in Iraq) and the Democrats are evil, they want to raise taxes (yeah, and invest in our communities or maintain our public facilities, what a crazy idea) and they hate God, and they are racists, and they just want to win and blah blah…
What do Republicans stand for anymore?
Defense–foolish excursions, nation building, and preemptive war
Small Government–the DHS is ENORMOUS, the NSA is spying on you, you apparently want national ID cards for voting, spending is going through the roof, pork barrel spending is at an all time high, the new Medicare bill is a boondoggle and gives your tax dollars to the needy insurance and drug industries.
Republican governance is failed. Our best hope, as always, is two parties that have to battle it out and find a workable center. I mean, what is Busby gonna do in the house? She is gonna restrain Bush and the Republicans from making bad decisions to appease the 30-40% who support him. If she tries to do anything to REWARD illegal aliens, she is gonna be stopped immediately. No elected official can take a position opposed by 60,70,80% of their constituents. They lose then. The idea that she is some stealth communist liberal who cannot wait to open the gates up and let the Chavez socialist party invade California is patently absurd.
The answer to your question, Jumpinjoe, is that your congress and President has sat on its ASS for the last 5, 10, 15 years because illegal immigrants are GOOD FOR BUSINESS and business buys votes. And you know what you do when your elected leaders dont do shit about a problem you care about? You elect someone else! Its simple!
Unlike gays, guns, god and the others, you can work with Democrats to find a solution. You can find out why President Bush cut 10,000 border patrol agents from his budget only to send the National Guard later.
If the Democratic Party took a shit on all the things I cared about, or started to pander to the far far left (and I mean like maximum wage, everyone gets a job, eliminate the defense budget, taxes at 60% to pay for free lobsters for all poor people, whatever crazy left shit you can think of)
I would vote for another party. Seriously. I would not march our country off the deep end to make the rabid right wingers happy or the rabid left wingers. And you can do it. You can say, I want a Republican president, but I am OK with a Democrat in the house to keep an eye on him.
If you have no party to belong to, find one, start one, or change the one you belong to.
“how can someone committing a federal crime work for a political campaign even if it is volunteer work.”
Oh, come on. You can do better than this unimaginative tripe. But I’ll indulge you.
I strongly doubt that volunteers are required to show id when they work for a campaign. Well, maybe a Republican campaign. But rather than id they seem to want loyalty pledges. Creepy.
So, unless you expect folks to ask everyone around them whether or not they are legally in this country, I think the the answer you seek is quite obvious. Though I have a funny feeling that you aren’t very interested in answers.
Jackson,
Anyone can cast a vote in an election whether they are on the voter roles or not. It’s called a provisional ballot. Once the error is found, the vote counts. Yes, jamming phone lines is wrong.
Now, care to explain the last gubernatorial election in the state of Washington. Gee, 500 ballots are “found” weeks after the election ends. Oh wow, let’s just put them in with the rest of the ballots right away! And golly gee whiz! The Democrat wins on the third recount!!!
I look forward to reading your thoughts…
I am damn sick and tired of idiot leftists hiding behind what is legal. Lying in a campaign is legal. Would you vote for an admitted habitual liar? It is legal after all…
An adult male asked if he could help the campaign even though he has no papers. This would make him an illegal resident. Instead of telling him thanks, but no thanks, she tells him he doesn’t need here legally to help with the campaign.
I, and a whole lot of other people, have a problem with illegals helping candidates get into office in any way, shape, manner or form.
What part of this is so hard to understand?
Kimyl, you know as well as I do Democrats see a pool of loyal party voters in the long term with illegal immigrants.
And the only big business employing illegals is places like Tyson chicken farms and I’m pretty sure they will be supporting the home girl Hillary even if she did carpet bag to New York.
I strongly doubt that volunteers are required to show id when they work for a campaign. Well, maybe a Republican campaign. But rather than id they seem to want loyalty pledges.
Posted by: db
Gee whiz, I missed that story where Republicans were asking illegals to help with their campaigns. Maybe you could provide a link so we could all expand our horizons.
But then I am on a thread on a blog where a Democrat knowingly told an illegal it was OK to work for her campaign.
mmmmm-Kay
So get crack’in. And not the pipe variety, but with the link to the story about the Republican soliciting illegal campaign help.
Great thread. Let me add my 2 cents worth.
I am a “Zell Miller” Democrat, born and raised in Chicago before living in GA for 15 years. Spent time working in Chicago politics. 100s of great stories to tell, but this is neither the time nor place for storytelling.
Bottom Line: The Democratic Party is the party of voter fraud; always has been, always will be.
I found the irony of a Republican winning the presidency due to “voter fraud” deliciously ironic. If anyone wants to know why BDS is so prevelant, now you know. A Republican stealing democratic tactics to win an election just ain’t right!!
Busby was just doing what Democrats have always done, get the most votes anyway you can. To think that she “misspoke” is to not recognize the obvious: The Democratic Party is the party of voter fraud. Always has been, always will be.
Hmmm.
I believe they were all Democrats. Generally Republicans have a slim chance at state-wide races but lose heavily in county and local races. And even then really only in certain pro-Republican areas and if the Democrats have been a little excessive.
Hmmmmm.
If the best you’ve got is unfounded innuendo compared to actual convictions then I’m neither surprised nor impressed.
And if the matter of phone tampering is that important then I’m sure you’ll be as angry as I am that John Kerry’s brother-in-law was apprehended monekying around with Kerry’s political opponent in his first House race in Lowell, Massachusetts.
So yes, the parties are rather reversed aren’t they.
Hmmmm.
Interestingly enough there actually does seem to be a law on the books that can cause a prosecution of an employer that uses illegal aliens for volunteer work. But not if that employer is a church or religious organization.
Evidently an exception was passed by Congress a few years back because some churches were concerned that they could be held criminally liable if they were found to be using illegal aliens as volunteers. Since then there have been allegations that churches, and mosques, have been using this shield law far beyond the expectations to do everything from shielding illegal aliens from INS to railroading illegal aliens all over America at will.
Senator Tom Tancredo is looking to revoke or reform this shield law.
So yes there actually might be a criminal statute on the books that would cause Busby to be indicted if she employed unpaid illegal alien volunteers.
Hmmm.
I should really re-start my own blog rather than clogging up WizBang.
Sorry about that guys.
The Dems are the party of voter fraud? Are you out of your fucking mind? When Bill Frist essentially apologized to black Americans for attempting to prevent them from voting through the dissemination of misinformation (etc.), Rush Limbaugh said that the GOP might as well “put its head between its legs and kiss its own ass goodbye” or something to that effect. I’m adlibbing here, and probably not doing that gifted orator of the Glorious Conservative Revolution (R.I.P.) credit with my paraphrasing. (I can’t watch Daryn Kagan ever again, not that I had much reason to do so in the first place.)
Diebold execs donated to the GOP, on an almost, if not entirely, exclusive basis. Those machines are designed to be tampered with. So why don’t you shut the fuck up with your “Dems are the party of fraud!” nonsense, because I think I know more Republicans that identify with Richard Nixon and Lee Atwater than I do Dems with Mayor Daly and his thugs.
It hurts my fucking eyeballs to read this idiocy. Yes, some people might not like her allowing illegal immigrants to work for her campaign, and no, it’s not illegal. Vote for her opponent, or run for the legislature yourself. (Even better, go help smear some FreedomButter over a hot slice of Iraq.)
Hmmm.
Google:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=tancredo+church+%22illegal+alien%22+volunteers&btnG=Google+Search
Ahhhh. Here we go:
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), of 1996
There we go. Sooooo. Since the liberals here are arguing that Busby was only looking to volunteer illegal aliens, can we arrest her now?
Hmmmm.
You Democrats really are amusing you know that?
When Republicans complained about Al Gore and Bill Clinton getting hundreds of thousands of dollars from a “retired” Chinese intelligence officer laundered through a California Buddhist monastery you Democrats couldn’t be dismissive enough. “Legal donations” was the cry. “Nothing illegal here” was the shout.
And now some Diebold execs make legal donations to the GOP and it’s supposed to be a scandal?
Don’t make me laugh. Diebold sold their machines to a lot of other states that aren’t at all controlled by Republicans. And I’ll point out, yet again, that the precints where the most trouble is had in the polls is in areas where Democrats are in control.
Washington State.
St. Louis.
Michigan.
Minnesota.
Florida.
And the Democrats have never apologised for any of them.
And it hurts my eyeballs to see something so ignorant. Because yes, it is illegal. It’s a violation of federal law.
Hey Special Ed–
Why mention that you’re South Korean? Like that makes you an expert on the oughts and ought-nots of immigration reform? Should we leave the discussion of gay marriage only to gays, then?
When your boner deflates, why don’t you send an e-mail to Busby’s people and to the proper authorities and try to rat her out? (You are a rat, FYI.) Illegal aliens are, by definition, never NOT committing a crime. Americans know that. It’s a crime for them to breathe your air. Does that make it wrong? Hell no. With the stellar bench on the Supreme Court right now, presuming Scalia and Alito don’t lobotomize Kennedy, your laws might catch up to sound liberal principles of fair governance someday.
As an aside, in my insular world of political philosophy, my favourite professor once told a fellow student that the best academic ideas usually take over two hundred years to distill into the public consciousness. With Rawls et al having so thoroughly trounced Nozickian and Hayekian anarcho-conserva-libertarianism (can’t believe that wasn’t theoretically sound!), your country, by this (flawed, silly, hypothetical) reasoning, might be only two centuries away from being a progressive utopia. It might take a little longer to purge all of the Lockean retardation, though, as it seems to be pretty firmly entrenched in the psyches of GOPers. And they’re a solid 30-40% of the population.
Jackson:
I strongly suggest you search Wizbang for “Tobin.” I’m a lifelong New Hampshirite, and voted in that election. I’ve been reporting on that story for some time, and every single piece has been a vehement denouncement of it.
What else might you have wrong, hmm?
J.
Bemused:
I’m so glad we have an expert on everything to correct us. Especially ed, who has these horribly misguided impressions on what it’s like to become a naturalized American, as he only has his own experience of having done it, versus your extensive listening to lectures and reading books of theory.
ed: if you don’t want the hassle of starting up your own blog, feel free to sign up for the Bomb Squad. We’re always looking for good writers — of all persuasions. Hell if any of the moonbats above wanted to join, they’d be permitted.
J.
Now that Busby is polling even with her opponent, it seems that some Republicans on here are taking this as a victory. This district is a GOP stronghold–rich people who feel indignant about having to pay for stuff that other people use, etc. (Caricaturization is fun!)
And she’s now polling even.
And Republicans are cheering? Like this is a victory? I guess if everyday when you wake up, somebody stabs you in the eye with a fork, it’s automatically a good day when it doesn’t happen.
Dick Cheney lies like it’s his second favourite hobby (next to shooting old men in the face). Busby allows Mexicans to hand out flyers. Sadly, I’m not convinced that voters will punish the right party, but that’s not an indictment of the Democratic platform; it’s an indictment of Democratic pols and the gullible American public, and a demonstration of just how good that fat motherfucker Karl Rove is at his job. He might be the most powerful virgin in the world.
Lots of room up here in Canada, and the housing is affordable…
As an aside, in my insular world of political philosophy, my favourite professor once told a fellow student that the best academic ideas usually take over two hundred years to distill into the public consciousness
Posted by Dazed and Bemused
Gee, too bad you didn’t expand on what those academic ideas are that are going to lead us to the lefty social utopia.
What’s the matter, are you embarrassed they may sound like ideas that already crumbled along with the Berlin Wall.
Trust me moron, once you emerge from your dorm room that reeks of petulie oil and ass and quit living in a world of washed up theories from pinko lib professors, you just like most before you will abandon the theories for the realities of the real world.
Jay – I was away for the weekend or I would have said this much sooner – but you’re right (re Busby and the meaning behind the quote).
Thank you for standing up for what’s right, and for taking the punches that go along with taking a stand on an issue like this.
“Perhaps “you don’t need papers for voting” means “you don’t have to be registered to vote to work on my campaign.
Kth…….
Toward the end, a man in the audience asked in Spanish: “I want to help, but I don’t have papers.”
Translation: I am not registered to vote, can I still help with the campaign.
It was translated and Busby replied: “Everybody can help, yeah, absolutely, you can all help. You don’t need papers for voting, you don’t need to be a registered voter to help.”
Translation: You don’t need to be registered to vote to help with the campaign.
“I was clarifying the question that was being asked in Spanish and then stated that you do not have to be a registered voter to help the campaign because there were many people who appeared to be to be under 18 in the group who wanted to volunteer,” she said in a statement.
Translation: Seriously, what the $#@% is wrong with you racist morons? A guy asks if he can take part in the political process in spanish, and you asshats freak out about it. People speak spanish in America. We are a nations of immigrants, and all but three countries in this hemisphere speak spanish. And one of those speaks portugese. Don’t be such stupid, racist freaks for once. I’m serious, you’ll like it knowing the sky isn’t falling.
“I’m not surprised that the Republican Party is making this last-minute, desperate ploy and it is absolutely false.”
Translation: Asshats. Desperate asshats praying for any sign of corruption that will allow them to ignore the gross incompetence and corruption that has been the signature of their governance for the past half century. They lie. Shamelessly. As easily as breathing. Its time for them to go.
Gertrude Stein said “There is no there there.” She was talking about her home town of Oakland, Calif.
Mysticdog – all you did with your stupid post is to show us all what a major asshat you are.
Hey Matt, (and lib’s)
Funny how you liberals would rather throw personal stones (“that fat motherfucker”) than discuss logic and FACTS.
I guess when you have no leg to stand on, it makes you mad and strike out…it must be frustrating.
Phredd
Mr. ed, the talking ass
Your multiple posts above do go to show that there is such a critter as a talking ass. All your braying notwithstanding, any listen to the audio of Busby’s talk does not support any of your contentions, You are stubbornly recycling the rightie extremist chyme in regard to this matter.
But then, I should have realized; Busby’s opponent, Bil”bray,” made you think he’s a kissin’ cousin of yours.
All the libby trolls are freaking out with there moronic posts
because they all realize that whatever chance Busby had of winning this race went out the window with her revealing comment. She is toast…accept it.
Nr. ed, the talking ass
Forgot to mention; for a guy, you sure are giving a lot of hmmmmmm-ers tonite. Kinda makes a person wonder a little about the likes of you.
“Gee, too bad you didn’t expand on what those academic ideas are that are going to lead us to the lefty social utopia.
What’s the matter, are you embarrassed they may sound like ideas that already crumbled along with the Berlin Wall.”
What does liberalism have to do with Communism? Are you seriously that fucking stupid? Shit, I think you are. That fucking stupid, that is. Rawls’ theory of justice (explained in his Theory of Justice, which is about a thousand pages and maybe a little dense for people who subscribe to the Regnery Press e-mail newsletter) outlines several principles that ought to govern any and all political decisions. My favourite is the one which most likely leads to misinterpretations of liberalism on behalf of “ME! MINE! GET THE FUCK OFF MY LAWN!” conservatarians. This principle states that imbalances in well-being, defined however you may define it (utiles, dollars, some attempt at an objective measurement of contentment), are justified only insofar as they serve to benefit those in society who do poorly. So it is tolerable for a society to have an underclass only insofar as said underclass is a necessary condition for the flourishing of the vast majority.
That ain’t Communism, comrade. Academic liberals are so radically disparate from the patchouli-stinking idiots that you inaccurately lumped me in with, that we appear downright conservative to those halfwits. “Bush = Hitler!” is the sort of comment we ignore, because it’s stupid. You and yours use it as a paradigmatic case of left-wing sentiment across the entire spectrum of ideas that owes as much to Adam Smith as it does to Karl Marx. You can keep Marx’s critique of gluttony and alienation while ignoring the tiny part of his corpus that focuses on authoritarian policy. Liberalism is pluralistic, and can only consistently advocate an open, secular society. See also: Karl Popper’s “The Open Society and its Enemies”; John Dewey’s “Reconstruction in Philosophy”; and Richard Rorty’s “Philosophy and Social Hope”. All left-leaning intellectuals, and all anti-authoritarian.
So before you associate 90% of Americans with PhDs with the regime in East Germany, you could think a little bit harder about what it is you’re saying; if upon realizing that you have nothing to say, perhaps you should… I dunno… call somebody a moonbat and send Michelle Malkin some fan mail.
Hmmmm.
sigh. Here we go. Further proof that pregnant women shouldn’t use crack.
Yes, yes, yes. You are most definitely witty for being the very first person on planet Earth to think of that. I’m sure there are billions of souls in Heaven right now slapping their foreheads and wondering why they didn’t think of that when they had the chance.
It is a pity. Amusement rides can have signs that say “you must be this tall” but blogs can’t have a “you must be this intelligent” sign anywhere.
sigh.
If you read that comment you’d see exactly why I posted it, because I actually listed the reason in the comment. And, just for you, I’ll post the reason why yet again:
Because Democrats have been throwing around terms like “racist” and “anti-immigrant”. As a first generation immigrant and naturalized citizen, neither such terms can’t possibly apply.
Well nobody can say you’re original.
Well you actually wrote something that is true.
I am impressed. I didn’t think you were capable of that.
Yes I’m sure we’d all like to have the bursting economy of France or Germany, with a GDP growth of -1%, rather than the one we have now of +5.3%.
Just think of it. Right now people are worried that there will be far too many unfilled jobs if the illegals were deported en masse. In Europe you could deport all of the illegals, and quite a few citizens, and still not have enough jobs to go around.
That is quite an impressive example of liberal governance.
Ahhhh. You’re a college student/graduate? That explains everything.
Uneducated? check.
Unable to grasp basic concepts? check.
Only able to regurgitate liberal nonsense? check.
Generally uninformed? check.
College educated? check.
Yep, it’s a slam-dunk.
Soooo. Two hundred years eh? Like most claptrap coming from incompetent academics, it’s utter bunkum. And considering that this is about political science, a “science” that wasn’t even a separate discipline a hundred years ago, it’s even more nonsense.
And yes, I treasure my lack of a high-school diploma. My education came from reading several libraries rather than parroting some lame twit.
Oh my, what big words you have.
Your problem is that classical liberalism, as emplified by John Rawls is more properly the basis of modern conservatism, which is oriented around liberty, rather than modern liberals which is far more oriented around Marxism.
I.e. conservatism is oriented towards the individual while modern liberalism, which has nothing to do with classical liberalism, is oriented around the state.
But please, show off dem big ole words.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yada yada yada. Sis boom bah.
And I’ll point out that if it weren’t for the vast immigration of illegal aliens, most of whom come directly from excessively socialist cultures, the modern liberals would be dying out. It required the influx of millions of such illegals each year for the modern liberals to lose overall population.
Then there’s the example of modern liberals in Europe whose numbers would be cut by at least half by 2050.
Not prime examples of long-term success I’d say.
Hmmmm.
You certainly do tend to concentrate on homosexual issues.
Hmmmm.
I’ll definitely keep that in mind. I kinda abandoned keeping up my own blog because of time constraints.
Right now I’m appraising various implementations of AJAX (Asynchronous Javascript And XML) and AJAJ (Asynchronous Javascript And JSON) technologies and putting some time in to learn Ruby on Rails. Frankly the next generation of blogging software is going to be AJAX or AJAJ based UIs.
This is because it can dramatically cut down on bandwidth costs by intelligently storing retrieved data in an in-memory cache, asynchronously retrieving new posts & comments, providing flexible customizable UIs for readers and a bunch of other stuff.
*shrug* I need a summer hobby.
Hmmm.
Here’s an example of a AJAX/DHTML UI done with a Java based server code.
http://www.nextapp.com/platform/echo2/echo/demo/
Very interesting stuff. This example seems a bit server heavy but it has some interesting special effects.
Hmmmm.
Yep. You’re a modern liberal.
Only a modern liberal would actually believe that it benefits society to have failures.
My favourite is the one which most likely leads to misinterpretations of liberalism on behalf of “ME! MINE! GET THE FUCK OFF MY LAWN!” conservatarians. This principle states that imbalances in well-being, defined however you may define it (utiles, dollars, some attempt at an objective measurement of contentment), are justified only insofar as they serve to benefit those in society who do poorly. So it is tolerable for a society to have an underclass only insofar as said underclass is a necessary condition for the flourishing of the vast majority.
Posted by: Bemused
Wow, they sure are putting pretty wrapping paper on the Karl Marx collection and selling it as new and improved. And as an extra bonus you get a condescending pat on the head and are reinsured how enlightened you are compared to us poor hicks in fly over country.
The reality is you could have easily condensed your rant. Here, I’ll give you a hand:
From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.
You are a gullible lefty sheep.
Ed, they attack you personally because they can’t touch your ideals…
Keep it up!
We’ve gone quite tangential. Back to the original story.
Words mean things. Papers!! Papers!! You don’t need no stinking papers!!
The real lesson to be learned is that “business as usual” is over. No longer can any politician or public figure throw red meat to a particular audience and not have their words publicized to the four corners of the earth within 24 hours.
Words mean things. Papers!! Papers!! You don’t need no stinking papers!!
In Chicago, we used a different phrase: Vote early and vote often.
ed: “Your problem is that classical liberalism, as emplified by John Rawls is more properly the basis of modern conservatism, which is oriented around liberty, rather than modern liberals which is far more oriented around Marxism.
I.e. conservatism is oriented towards the individual while modern liberalism, which has nothing to do with classical liberalism, is oriented around the state.”
Rawls’ liberalism is motivated primarily (but not exclusively) by the Kantian deontic imperative, not Locke’s individualism. “Act such that you will your maxim to be universal law.” Dude couldn’t write (and the funny thing is, it’s supposedly worse in the original German. German philosophers learn English to read Kant. The more you know!). Rather than rehash Kantian moral metaphysics, you can just take some dude named Jesus’ version of it: “Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you.” (As far as I’m concerned, it’s one of maybe five worthwhile passages in the whole Bible.) Locke and Kant are not, as some might argue, diametrically opposed, but they do come at the same issue from different places. (Locke: what’s good for me? Kant: what is the right thing to do?) I will of course concede that modern conservatives want to live in a country that would fit most of Rawls’ criteria, as would modern liberals. Rawls would be disgusted, though, by the narrow-minded populism that drives so much (but not all! No strawpersons here!) of the anti-immigrant rhetoric. Populism is never, ever, under any circumstances, a justification for anything.
ed: “Uneducated? check.
Unable to grasp basic concepts? check.
Only able to regurgitate liberal nonsense? check.
Generally uninformed? check.
College educated? check.”
The first thing there is an attempt to ridicule me for being uneducated. I have an MA, and work as a policy analyst for a healthcare company. The last thing is an apparent acknowledgement of what I said, and a contradiction of item 1 in your checklist. (I know you know that A = A, 1 + 1 = 2; it’s just that since I’m such a bleeding heart, I care deeply about your ability to consistently articulate yourself, and I’m selflessly correcting you.) Also, as far as being uninformed, I subscribe to Harper’s and read tons of lefty blogs, but I also read righty blogs, NRO and the Weekly Standard online; so it’s not like I’ve never thought about what you’re “arguing” for. In fact, I have to consider it all of the time in order to properly do my job; usually the only way forward is a synthesis of your convictions, and of mine. Quelle surprise!!!
As for what I said earlier:
“So it is tolerable for a society to have an underclass only insofar as said underclass is a necessary condition for the flourishing of the vast majority.”
That said, I was then accused of repackaging Lenin’s mantra by Jumpinjoe, who is really awesome because he fell out of an airplane 4,000 times and didn’t even die once. Here ya go, Joe: any functioning capitalist society, which we all want to live in (whether or not you are willing to acknowledge it), requires a mobile pool of labour. Some people will be unemployed, and many will be under-employed (janitors, dude at 7-11, poor bastards at KFC). Even Henry Ford, a neo-fascist asshole if ever there was one, recognized this, and paid his workers handsomely to earn their loyalty and an acceptable level of performance. Unemployment rates increase with rates of taxation, as capital is more mobile than labour. Liberals know this. Liberals aren’t people who failed out of Conservative school. Where we disagree with you, is where to say “Not worth it.” No clear demarcation point there, hence, politics in all its murky glory.
The US economy has outgrown the Canadian economy since Clinton righted your ship. Disposable incomes are much higher in your country. Unemployment is lower. I know all of that, and yet I prefer living in a country that treats its worst off not as failures, but as by-products of the quality of life we enjoy. This is most obviously reflected in our socialized healthcare system, which is something that stagnates our growth relative to yours, and yet most of us would never part with it. (Those that would probably don’t have cancer treatments to pay for.) We also take a more compassionate approach to criminal law, which you’ll undoubtedly ridicule; but we take it as fact that our homicide rates, indexed to the number of guns we own (more than ya’ll, per capita) make your cities look like Fallujah. Harsher enforcement of draconian legislation exacerbates the problem, or so it seems from this vantage point. Also, on social issues, we’re all libertarian, so we get that stuff right. Once the Conservatives lose their minority gov’t, the Liberals will decriminalize pot, tax the shit out of it, and could potentially guarantee public healthcare for the next few generations of happily gay married hosers. The Conservatives might win again, though, but in order to do so they’re going to have to win in urban areas, which means running dead-center. (I.e., not reducing per-capita funds in the public health system for those who choose to use it.) I apologize for the crappy lesson in boring Canadian politics, but it’s a comparative point that is hard to make in one sentence. I’ll let you do that for me. (Howzabout “Commie Eskimos!!”? You can use that. It’s a knock-down argument.)
Karl Marx would have liked some of what we do up here, but it doesn’t make us Marxists. Adam Smith believed that every person has the inalienable right to appear in society as a dignified individual, and that if one was unable to secure the means of dignity for oneself (regardless of relevant causal factors, i.e. a gambling/drinking problem), the obligation must thereby fall upon others. He spoke of duties of charity, but that’s a contradiction, so he committed himself to some minimal version of a welfare state. Marx shared Smith’s affinity of the market, albeit with a bit of consternation which was perfectly understandable when one surveyed the state of things in 19th century early-industrial England/Germany. (The check on the unfair consolidation of wealth, for Marx, was always class revolution and transferring production to the workers and STARTING OVER, not remaining in oligarchical stasis; we’re okay with rules of fair play, as revolution is hard work and could potentially interrupt our brewing capacity. What’s a revolution with beer shortages?) I think the two of them would probably both hate Larry Kudlow. And Joseph Stalin.
The left-wing caricature of conservatives as that guy from the Monopoly box is a lot more fair than the right-wing caricature of people like me as poncho-wearing, koombaya-singing no-nothings. Some Deaniacs might occasionally “bark”, and some people are 9/11 sceptics, but the radical knee-jerk leftism on campuses just isn’t prominent anymore. It’s there, and you can find it, but I taught tutorials for years, and it seemed that kids were mostly apolitical, with about an equal number of moonbats and wingnuts. Pretty well all of them smart people too. Most people at universities are. And the word “moonbat” is quite possibly the least offensive thing I’ve ever been called, ya feckin’ wingnuts. =)
Shitsakes, I’ve regurgitated the last argument I had with my father in its entirety. Sorry Jay Tea. I will also get my own blog. Thanks for the fair coverage of this non-issue.
Bemused,
I guess we’ll find out on Tuesday whether this is a non-issue or is in fact an issue…
The voters determine these things, not you or I.
A shortage of left wing anti-American lunatics on college campuses though?!?
You must not be listening, or, you simply agree with what you hear…
So lemme get this straight,
A Democratic candidate is BADBADBAD for welcoming illegals to volunteer for her campaign, BUT
Republican-owned and -controlled corporations that employ that same illegal to pick lettuce for 7 cents an hour are successfully employing the model of capatalism.
Hey mom! I understand that Republican Logic thing now!
IN other words if you are an immigrant then you MUST know English in order to pass the naturalization process.
Strawman: legal immigrants are not necessarily on the road to naturalization. (JumpinJoe seems to suffer the same misconception.) While many legal immigrants gain permanent residence, and after a period of earned residence file tne N-400 for naturalization, many do not. They are not allowed to vote. They are still allowed to work on campaigns. After all, their congresscritter represents them as well. None of this is illegal.
I worked on a congressional campaign in 2004. I am a legal immigrant. I have the advantage of coming from an English-speaking nation. Christopher Hitchens has been writing on American politics for decades. He’s not a US citizen — the USCIS has lost his N-400. Twice. He has the advantage of coming from an English-speaking nation.
She specifically stated that you did not need papers to vote. This is utterly false.
Bzzt. She said that you didn’t need to be registered in order to help. While I might make allowances for you, ed )if English isn’t your first language) the audio is clear enough. Have you listened to it? I provided a link.
Had she said ‘you don’t need papers to vote’, I’d concede the point to you. Instead, she said ‘papers for voting’ as a subsidiary clause of a sentence saying you don’t have to be registered to help.
I find it hilarious that so many here who probably support English as the official language of the US seem to throw away their understanding of grammar for cheap partisan points.
Richard:
First, preliminarily, saying “I hate this government and its foreign/domestic policies” is not anti-American. Some anti-Americans spit on troops or criticize their Purple Hearts as unearned. (Ever see the pic of that disgustingly fat woman at the GOPC in NYC with the Purple Heart bandage on one of her chins? She’s a good example of an anti-American.) More importantly, though, anti-Americans dislike the Constitution, and leftists across the spectrum agree, along with many libertarians and conservatives, that this administration is very un-American in its disregard for that quasi-sacred document.
Anyway, I see you listen to what your fellow conservatives tell you about college campuses. Most people who are/were conservative in college probably see the modern academy as a breeding ground for Bolsheviks because most profs do not subject students to the same bullshit that passes for debate in the so-called liberal media. The way to argue in a classroom debate is “Why? Following from what principles? Defend these principles deductively or empirically.” You learn that “Because 51% of Americans think so!” commits the logical fallacy of appealing to the majority, or, in Latin, ad populum. If you watch ten minutes of cable TV, you can tell that the average American (lib or con) isn’t subjected to much of this in their daily lives, and thinks that a debate consists in “What does Side A think? What does Side B think? Well go on and yell at each other! Yeah, that’s the stuff! Well, we’ll know who was right after the election. Up next, Larry King’s body interviews a gorilla that knows sign language!”
I do not doubt that you’ve seen lots (dozens? a dozen? four?) examples of some loon cheering for “a thousand more Mogadishus” or some such garbage, but in reality these people are detested by most of their colleagues who are usually moderate liberals that enjoy their relatively affluent and comfortable lifestyles. They will defend any asshat’s right to say whatever s/he wants, but that’s separate from what they themselves teach. Most of my former professors and fellow grad students hold a very Whitman-esque conception of the United States, in that it embodies both the greatest promise and some of the greatest challenges for all people that wish to live freely. Boundless vistas of possibility! Tolerance for all of those who will tolerate in turn! It’s like a warmer version of Nietzsche!
But then we watched your country’s worst administrator since Hoover squander an unimaginable amount of post-9/11 international goodwill when Chimpy McFlightsuit (I can’t not use ad hominems to refer to that imbecile, and I know you secretly hate him too so it’s okay) decided to let the PNAC play Calvinball with international law and invade Iraq. You can criticize left-wing professors for saying some stupid shit, but we get to criticize right-wing intellectuals like Perle and Wolfowitz and Ledeen and Victor Davis Hanson for actually DOING rather than just SAYING something immensely stupid. Guys like them teach at universities, but liberal academics don’t perceive them as an indictment of conservativism. We just read the better ones: the Friedmans, and the WFB’s, the Hayeks.
That the second invasion of Iraq was a terrible idea is in fact a majority opinion in your country now; it was a majority opinion in Canada, like pretty well everywhere else (a few trivial counter-examples notwithstanding), in 2003. People of this opinion in the US were ridiculed in the media as being soft, and for not supporting the troops; our media did its job and so did our government, and not one Canadian soldier has died trying to get Shi’ite and Sunni Muslims to like each other. We supported our troops by advocating against their involvement in a misguided invasion. Our government listened, and agreed with very little hue and cry from the Tories. I never thought that the universities I studied and worked at were much more liberal than the daily newspapers. You should attend a colloquium at a college sometime to get a sense of the actual diversity on campuses, Richrad, rather than listening to what that bitter fool David Horowitz has to say about them.
can you imagine if this had been a republican candidate who had done this, man the press and mdedia would have had it plastered all over and the outrage among the democrats, I hate to think of the outrage, but since it was a democrat who did this, just like the article said here, much to do about nothing, sure……….. please give me a break, you liberals know it is bad, she should have never said such a thing, talk about corruption, even before she even gets in office, and they call us corrupt, they just hide it better!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Preach on Sandra!!! You nailed it!
Phredd
Jay: Sound reasoning all around, with one minor quibble: It was Gertrude Stein, not Dot Parker, who contributed “there is no there there” to our lexicon. Miss Stein was referring to Oakland, Ca, when she gave that bon-mot. Quite the dis, since Miss Stein was from Pittsburgh.
Hmmmm.
Except that your strawman is utterly ridiculous since you don’t address the single specific point that she stated explicitly that people didn’t need papers to VOTE.
Which frankly throws your entire line of reasoning right into the garbage can.
Hmmm.
Well you certainly do know how to diverge from the current topic that’s for certain.
Frankly I’m rather uninterested in this. I’m sure it’s interesting to you, but it really bores the hell out of me.
My experience with many college educated programmers has been that they need about 3 years to forget the nonsense that they were taught in school and learn how things really work. In my experience that is the victory of reality over the artificial construct that is the basis of most college oriented academics.
As for you, I was ridiculing you for the pretentiousness that riddles your particular writing style and your singular inability to actually stay on topic.
That doesn’t make them an “underclass”. The very term “underclass” has conceptual meanings that are quite frankly insulting. And why is that? Because my family is a member of that “underclass”. My uncles were roofers. My mother worked for decades in a clothing and shoe factory. My father worked for our town’s water department. My grandmother delivered mail on an extremely rural route for decades. My aunt worked as a cook at a middle school until she retired.
So I take exception to your concept of an “underclass”. Not everyone reaches a level of success that you perhaps deem a requirement for escaping the “underclass”. But many people lead happy loving lives, reaching what success they can, and they do not deserve that absurd term.
Frankly the term “underclass” is yet another example of the liberal’s disdain and barely concealed contempt for the average American.
And yet you show your ignorance. Clinton didn’t do a damn thing, it was the Republican House that forced that upon Clinton. If you knew what you were talking about you’d know that Clinton’s sole idea for economic growth was taxation, taxation and more taxation.
Tax cuts, welfare reform and pretty much everything of value came from the Republicans.