With this MSNBC story, we see why illegal immigration is such a divisive issue. This potential cauldron of conflict is being repeated all over America now, not just in border towns or sanctuary cities, and one day, if left unchecked, it really will boil over in a bad way. Unfortunately, because of the political correctness and race-based politics of today combined with a growing Hispanic population of mostly illegal immigrants (and two illegals hatching a baby on U.S. soil does not make a U.S. citizen, I don't care what the Supreme Court says), illegal immigration is fast becoming a fourth rail of politics, with no one daring to touch it, except in the dark of night or in the interest of giving America away to the invading hordes.
The federal government doesn't want to do its job of enforcing the laws for fear of being called racists, but when cities and states try to do it, the latest alphabet soup open borders group runs to court to find a sympathetic judge of its choosing to get the efforts shut down as stepping on the toes of the federal government...and they usually win. I'm with the secure the borders folks on this one until further notice. Build the damn fence, deport the illegals here en masse as they are beginning to do in Europe, close off the border, find out who is here already and whether they should be...then, and ONLY then, will most Americans even THINK about guest worker programs or mass grants of citizenship. Becoming an American is a privilege, not a right, and anyone with no interest in becoming an American citizen, learning English, and playing by the rules has no place here, not now, not ever, period, end of discussion.
"In our first Gut Check America vote, thousands of readers around the country rated illegal immigration as the issue of most concern for them. Among them was Gary Rutledge, a Tulsa, Okla., college professor who wrote about being involved in a traffic accident with an apparent illegal immigrant. Here is our report on what we found when we traveled to Tulsa to follow up on his story:
TULSA, Okla. - “Our sovereignty is under direct attack,” warns a commanding voice emanating from a pool of light in the corner of an otherwise dark airplane hangar. Dan Howard, an airplane salesman by day, is in the middle of his weekly two-hour radio show titled Outraged Patriots, a nighttime broadcast devoted entirely to the topic of illegal immigration.
Howard, who charges that the U.S. government is failing in its duty to protect the country from a “silent invasion” by illegal immigrants, taps into a deep vein of anger and unease in this conservative south central city, where many longtime residents feel besieged by a recent wave of mostly Hispanic newcomers.
That rising tide of resentment is palpable in the city’s Latino community.
At Plaza Santa Cecilia, a mall filled with Latino shops in East Tulsa, business is down as much as 40 percent, vendors say.
“It’s very quiet,” said Edith, a 17-year-old shopkeeper who didn’t want to give her last name. “Everyone is staying home because of this immigration stuff.”
The tensions of Tulsa mirror those in many other U.S. cities that have experienced sharp increases in Hispanic immigration in recent years. But other factors are at work here as well.
City on the leading edge
Tulsa is on the leading edge of local and state efforts to crack down on illegal immigration following passage by the Oklahoma Legislature of what is arguably the toughest anti-illegal immigration measure in the nation. The Tulsa City Council also embraced the get-tough approach by adopting a resolution calling on police officers to check the immigration status of “all suspected illegal aliens.”
Those actions have sparked a fierce political battle, spread fear among Hispanics — both legal residents and those in the country illegally — and triggered an angry public face-off between demonstrators on either side of the great divide.
Among the longtime residents shaken by the changes engulfing his city is Gary Rutledge, an MSNBC.com reader who said the demographic shift took his family and friends by surprise.
“It’s happened so quickly and our neighborhoods have changed so rapidly,” said Rutledge, a political science professor at nearby Rogers State University.
In East Tulsa, just across the main thoroughfare from his comfortable brick home, the broad avenues are now peppered with signs in Spanish and malls catering to Latino shoppers — offering everything from soccer wear and piñatas to check cashing services and Latin pop music.
“That whole part of the city has become a miniature Juarez or Tijuana or whatever you want to call it,” said Rutledge.
Like many longtime residents, Rutledge is quick to say that he is not opposed to immigration by legal means. But he says he objects to being unwillingly taken over by another culture as the result of unchecked illegal immigration.
“I’m very concerned that this last wave (of immigrants) has no interest in becoming Americanized,” he said.
Fallout from federal inaction
It was Rutledge’s story of a car crash involving an apparent illegal immigrant that led MSNBC.com to Tulsa. But when we arrived we encountered a bigger pileup: the chaotic fallout of a federal framework that neither prevents illegal immigrants from entering the U.S. to work nor provides a way for them to gain legal status.
That Catch -22 has forced local jurisdictions like Tulsa to seek their own solutions to the explosive and complex issue.
“Increasingly, because there’s no consistent federal law, states and cities are cobbling together immigration laws on their own,” says Sheryl Lovelady, assistant to Tulsa Mayor Kathy Taylor. In Tulsa, Lovelady said, such laws “have caused a lot of confusion, inconsistency and fear, mainly in the Hispanic community.”
Tulsa, a city built on oil some 500 miles from the Mexican border, has a population of just over 380,000, including about 40,000 Latino or Hispanic residents, according to 2005 Census estimates. The pace of Hispanic immigration has been quickening, and local newspapers and politicians believe the number is now closer to 50,000.
For Rutledge, a car accident personalized the issue. He and his wife were waiting in their pickup at a traffic light one evening when they were hit from behind by a vehicle traveling about 30 miles an hour. They were not badly hurt, only stunned.
More shocking, though, was what they heard from the police officer who responded to the accident: The other driver, a young Hispanic man, did not speak English, did not have a driver’s license or insurance. The officer suspected the man was an illegal immigrant, Rutledge said, but he did not check his immigration status because such inquiries weren’t allowed in misdemeanor cases.
Before taking the other driver to jail, Rutledge said, the officer told him he should just go home and forget about it.
‘There's not much to be done’
“He said, ‘We do a lot of this kind of thing and we can tell you that there's not much to be done about it,’” Rutledge recalled.
It’s not clear what happened to the suspect after that. Tulsa police were not able to locate an accident report on the incident.
But officers said that the maximum penalty the man could have faced for driving without a license, a misdemeanor, would be 30 days in jail. Driving without insurance is only a ticketable offense.
Rutledge said he was floored by the experience. Not only would his own insurance company have to absorb the cost for repairing his truck, but the other driver was soon going to be back on the streets.
“It was … a feeling of helplessness,” he said. “There's no recourse, there's nothing to do.”
Rutledge began comparing notes with friends and family and found that many had a similar story with a similar outcome. That got him thinking about the bigger picture.
“I think that when someone comes in this country illegally, it starts a tradition or culture,” he said. “You come in illegally; everything you do from that point on is illegal. And so it's almost impossible to get a driver’s license or insurance so you just start breaking one law after another. I think it’s seductive. I think after a while ... you don't pay too much attention to rule of law that this country was established on.”
Making way for newcomers
While Rutledge’s eye-opening experience occurred behind the wheel, the immigration surge has had an even more striking impact on the Tulsa school system. With many of the immigrant workers in their child-bearing years, the population of Hispanic kids in the school is growing 3 percent a year and will constitute 25 percent of the student body by 2020, the district projects.
The city started its first programs to teach non-English speakers just five years ago, and now has 6,000 students in remedial English language classes, said Nilda Reyes, director of equity and diversity for Tulsa schools.
The sole mission of Newcomer International School, which opened in 2004, is to help its students — about 250 at any given time — become proficient in English so they can make a transition to mainstream classes. The school district also is making plans to expand remedial English teaching in higher grades, and is offering Spanish courses to teachers and looking to hire additional bilingual staff.
As in other communities, Tulsa’s medical system has taken a hit, too. Hospitals have scrambled to find enough interpreters to handle the crush of non-English speakers descending on emergency rooms, bringing in children and housekeepers in some cases, said Tulsa World immigration reporter Leigh Bell.
One program run by Saint Francis Health System offers prenatal care to women without medical insurance or access to Medicaid — about 500 at any given time — the vast majority of them illegal immigrants from Mexico. Catholic Charities provides interpreters for the program. The early care helps avert later medical problems that put even more pressure on emergency rooms and other medical facilities.
While these pressures are not unique to Tulsa, the response to them is.
Tough new rules target illegals
Local and state governments here have crafted rules to curb illegal immigration that are arguably the toughest in the nation.
In May, Oklahoma Gov. Brad Henry signed into law HB 1804, also known as the Oklahoma Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act of 2007. The law, which is scheduled to take effect on Nov. 1, makes it a felony to “knowingly transport, move … conceal, shelter or harbor” an illegal immigrant.
The law, which proclaims that “the State of Oklahoma finds that illegal immigration is causing economic hardship and lawlessness in this state,” requires companies that do contract work for the state to conduct stringent background checks to avoid hiring illegal immigrants. Other companies would open themselves to discrimination suits if they hired illegal workers over legal residents.
It also includes tough language requiring government agencies to ensure they are not providing services such as food stamps to those illegally in the country, though those services are already theoretically denied under federal law.
It is unclear how 1804 will be enforced — whether, for instance, nonprofit groups or individuals assisting illegal aliens could be sanctioned for “sheltering or harboring” them.
In the end, the bill might not pack much punch, according to David Blatt, policy director for Tulsa's Community Action Project, who said many of the provisions restate existing federal statutes or may be pre-empted by federal law.
"I liken it to a fiercely growling dog — one that is sending out a purposeful message that illegal immigrants are not welcome in Oklahoma," said Blatt. "... I think the bill will have minimal bite, but that is not to minimize the impact loud growling has on people."
Meantime, activists in the Hispanic community say they plan to mount a legal challenge to 1804 and the American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma also is studying the bill to see if it passes constitutional muster.
Whose job is it?
In Tulsa, the battle has focused on the degree to which local law enforcement should be involved in checking immigration status, normally the province of federal immigration agents.
With the strong backing of conservative U.S. Rep. John Sullivan, a Republican who represents the congressional district that includes Tulsa, the Sheriff’s Department in surrounding Tulsa County is seeking training that would essentially deputize its officers to enforce immigration law. Under section 287 (g) of federal immigration law, the Department of Homeland Security can enter into compacts with state and local law enforcement agencies to create a “force multiplier” for the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) service, especially where federal resources are thin in the interior of the country.
Sullivan, among the Republicans strongly opposed to President Bush’s immigration reform bill as too lenient, also was behind the city’s move to crack down on illegal immigrants.
At his urging, Tulsa’s City Council passed a resolution in May that requires police officers to determine immigration status of “all suspected illegal aliens'' encountered in the course of their regular duties — a significant hardening of the current policy under which only those arrested on felony charges are checked.
The police chief is opposed to the measure, as is Tulsa’s Democratic Mayor Kathy Taylor, who is engaged in a bitter political battle with Sullivan.
Sullivan charges that Tulsa has become a “sanctuary city” for illegal immigrants under Taylor’s watch because they are usually not reported to the federal immigration officials when they commit minor crimes.
He also argues that by getting police involved in reporting immigration violations, the city will be able to demonstrate the need for an ICE office in Tulsa.
Bill's aim: Create fear in criminals, not roofers
“I want to create fear in rapists, drunk drivers, drug dealers and people who conceal weapons,” Sullivan told MSNBC.com. “It doesn’t mean getting the framer down from a roof where he’s working and arresting him."
Taylor argues that the congressman’s approach will cause panic among Hispanics and open the door for racial profiling. She also maintains that public safety will suffer if the people in the community don’t report crimes because they are fearful of immigration consequences.
Among those who share her concern is Mark Wollmershauser, a Tulsa police officer who has been on the beat for 30 years.
He said he could easily envision a scenario in which the teen daughter of an illegal immigrant is raped, but the family is afraid to report it, leaving the perpetrator on the street.
“They will not call us,” said Wollmershauser. “It will drive a stake through the community in terms of crime prevention.”
Taylor has refused to sign the council’s resolution and instead issued a “policy clarification” stating that police need only ask about immigration status for felony cases or misdemeanors that result in a trip to jail.
Emergency mode
Though it remains to be seen how these laws will be enforced if they survive expected court challenges, they already have stirred visible anxiety in Tulsa’s Hispanic community.
If the laws are enforced, “It will take us back to front-counterism, vigilantism and just overloading our (legal) system,” predicted Sebastian Lantos, a legal immigrant from Argentina who is spokesman for the Coalition of Hispanic Organizations.
Marcela Frescott, program coordinator of Hispanic services at Catholic Charities in Tulsa, said families with both legal and illegal immigrants are worried about getting split up, referring to parents who are in the U.S. illegally but have children who were born here and therefore are legal citizens.
“We had one person who … has four children born here in the U.S., and now they’re afraid to register the kids in school come August because they’re afraid that at that time they might (be) arrested” and deported, she said.
Howard, the radio show host who also founded an anti-illegal immigration group called Outraged Patriots, is not swayed by such pleas.
“These parents… have ultimate responsibility for their kids,” he said. “I have empathy for them, but I cannot give a waiver on the U.S. Constitution to make way for people who cause their own problem by coming illegally."
He advocates an immediate moratorium on immigration, a clamp down on the border and tough rules that hold employers responsible for checking immigration status.
And he wants Washington to send a message to others contemplating sneaking across the border: “I want to see the administration send … a huge corps to deport tens if not hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens.”
If something is not done, he said darkly, “A lot of people believe there is civil war on the horizon.”
For the moment, Howard is celebrating the defeat of the federal immigration reform bill, which he opposed for offering a legal path to millions of people who entered the U.S. illegally. But he views its defeat in the Senate as merely a temporary success.
“You have got to stay vocal,” Howard told his listeners on a recent Monday night broadcast before going to a commercial break. “This issue is not over.”
Damage control
Hispanic leaders in Tulsa agree. They called an emergency meeting in June to work on ways of countering what they see as rising anti-immigrant sentiment and measures that they see as institutionalizing racism.
Among them is an information campaign to inform Hispanics of their rights if they are pulled over. Through a more ambitious effort called “Alto 1804” (“Stop 1804”), they are pooling legal and political capital to challenge the state law.
With emotions running so high, some residents and officials agree with Howard that violence is a real possibility.
Already, when some 1,500 mostly Hispanic demonstrators marched in East Tulsa on May 5 to protest HB 1804, they encountered an unexpected counterdemonstration, including members of Outraged Patriots and the Tulsa Minuteman Project, one of four organizations in Oklahoma listed by the Southern Poverty Law Center as “nativist extremist" organizations that target immigrants with their anger, not just immigration policy.
Police were watching the march and counterdemonstration and managed to keep the two sides apart. Only epithets and few eggs were hurled.
“We were able to get it worked out,” said Tulsa Police Capt. Steve Odom, who witnessed the confrontation. “But I do worry about the rhetoric because there’s a lot of information on both sides that’s misunderstood.”
Rutledge, the college professor, is among those who fear that the situation will get worse if nothing is done.
“It’s very serious,” he said. “I don’t know if we’re going to have a revolution. I don’t think America’s going to pick up guns and start marching, but it could be something similar to the breakdown of law and order we had during desegregation and back in MLK era.”
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Mox Argon's Step-by-Step Communist Hypocrite Smackdown
I really like this one. The alien geniuses over at MoxArgon get some hate mail from a Kool-Aid drinking member of the Gorebot's Chucrh of Glowball Warming. Said piece of hate mail demonstrates perfectly the complete lack of foundation, evidence, realism, or much of anything else inherent in just about everything a communist/hypocrite (excuse the redundancy please) has to say in a feeble attempt to shut down any semblance of real debate. Ad hominem attacks, straw men, outright insults, and even a personal vested financial interest on the writer's part in keeping the global warming Kool-Aid river flowing. The MoxArgon folks' unmitigated destruction and refutation of this frothing moonbat's idiocy is a joy to behold and not to be missed.
I recently came across a little melodrama going on in the ongoing battle over Global Warming (ht-Small Dead Animals). First a fellow named Marlo Lewis (a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute) wrote this article about economics and Global Warming hysteria. The piece isn't particularly vitriolic and makes a lot of salient and reasoned points about economic growth, warming hysteria, and social development.
However, not everyone decided to simply agree or disagree with the article or its premises. One person, Michael T. Eckhart, the President of the American Council On Renewable Energy (ACORE) decided that the article required some sort of Ivy League style vendetta.
Take a look at this e-mail sent by Eckhart to Lewis:
Marlo –
You are so full of crap.
You have been proven wrong. The entire world has proven you wrong. You are the last guy on Earth to get it. Take this warning from me, Marlo. It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar. If you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity. I will call you a liar and charlatan to the Harvard community of which you and I are members. I will call you out as a man who has been bought by Corporate America. Go ahead, guy. Take me on.
Mike
Michael T. Eckhart
President
American Council On Renewable Energy (ACORE)
Thank you Michael T. Eckhart, you have convinced me that the Church of Global Warming is a complete and total scam.
But that's not what this little post is about. This is about the Leftist Mind and Comrade Eckhart is the perfect example of it.
First he traditionally opens the message with an insult.
You are so full of crap.
Note, he does not present any evidence of the particular kind of crap that Marlo Lewis is full of, because the beauty of name calling is that you don't have to justify it.
Then he makes a broad declaration about Lewis and his work.
You have been proven wrong. The entire world has proven you wrong. You are the last guy on Earth to get it.
Please note that he declares Lewis as wrong, but presents no evidence of how Lewis is wrong. Because the Leftist Mind knows that presenting evidence is an invitation to debate. Debate is the last thing the Leftist wants, because it causes people to ask questions, and questions inevitably lead to the Leftist being proven wrong.
The Leftist will believe anything declared by their leaders as long as it fits their prejudice (otherwise known as the meta-narrative) of Judeo-Christian capitalist democratic culture (AKA The Western Way) being the font of all evil in the world, from terrorism to crappy weather.
Debate leads to people discovering that the Western Way is not a force for evil, but an often fumbling, but usually positive force in the world.
Debate must be crushed.
To crush debate you must use threats.
Take this warning from me, Marlo. It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar.
Gee, whatever happened to agreeing to disagree on an issue. A reasonable person would present facts and evidence to prove their point, but the Leftist isn't reasonable.
They believe that anyone who does not blindly obey their leaders is more than just wrong, they are evil. Now their belief in evil doesn't extend to the sort of people who set off car bombs in crowded markets or blow up schools, they are just misunderstood products of Judeo-Christians.
To the Leftist the only evil that really exists is anyone who doesn't blindly accept the edicts and declarations of the high priests of Leftism and that evil must be destroyed.
And they make threats like this...
If you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity. I will call you a liar and charlatan to the Harvard community of which you and I are members.
Loosely translated, practice your right to free speech and the Leftists will socially ostracize and destroy you for your crime of disobedience.
And folks wonder why a lot of academics are scared to criticize the Leftists. While the Right is a pretty diverse group with many facets and internal disagreements, the Left has morphed into a monolithic slab of ideology that threatens to crush anyone who asks it a question.
And then they bring out the Left's favourite bogeyman...
I will call you out as a man who has been bought by Corporate America.
Oooh! Corporate America! The Left's all-purpose villain!
The question I would like to ask the Leftists is why is "Corporate America" considered so evil while most Leftist organizations are funded by a small clique of rich hedge fund billionaires who profit, not by producing and marketing goods or services, but by creating and exploiting economic and social chaos from Eastern Europe, to South America, and even the Bank of England.
Do they honestly think that these people have the best interests of the common man at heart?
They have to because these billionaires, like Al Qaida terrorists, tell them that their prejudices are right. And being told that you are right, is more important than actually being right.
Then the Leftist usually wraps up with yet another declaration, usually something along the lines of "Mine's bigger than yours."
Go ahead, guy. Take me on.
You see Eckhart really doesn't want anyone to take him on. He's hoping that his combination of insults, broad declarations, and threats will cow the insolent rebel, namely Marlo Lewis, into quiet submission.
How does one defeat the Leftist?
You will never convince a Leftist that they are wrong. Their prejudices are essential to their existence, and if they have to give them up, they have to develop an identity as an individual, and that's too much work.
The best bet of reasonable people is to educate the people in what Vox Poplar calls the "militant middle" about the importance of debate and discussion, and the ultimately positive influence of the Western Way.
I wonder how many long rambling combinations of insults, threats, and broad, often prejudiced, declarations will clog my pleas box.
That's all for now, keep watching the skies, because we're watching you.
____________________________
UPDATE: Thanks to our lovely and fragrant commenters, namely Commander0 and B.C. I've learned that not only is Michael T. Eckhart a poor excuse for an enviro-bully, he also is reported as having considerable financial interests in maintaining the level of hysteria over global warming. And he accuses Marlo Lewis of being a slave to Corporate America. Hello Kettle, I got Pot on the phone, he wants to call you something.
I recently came across a little melodrama going on in the ongoing battle over Global Warming (ht-Small Dead Animals). First a fellow named Marlo Lewis (a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute) wrote this article about economics and Global Warming hysteria. The piece isn't particularly vitriolic and makes a lot of salient and reasoned points about economic growth, warming hysteria, and social development.
However, not everyone decided to simply agree or disagree with the article or its premises. One person, Michael T. Eckhart, the President of the American Council On Renewable Energy (ACORE) decided that the article required some sort of Ivy League style vendetta.
Take a look at this e-mail sent by Eckhart to Lewis:
Marlo –
You are so full of crap.
You have been proven wrong. The entire world has proven you wrong. You are the last guy on Earth to get it. Take this warning from me, Marlo. It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar. If you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity. I will call you a liar and charlatan to the Harvard community of which you and I are members. I will call you out as a man who has been bought by Corporate America. Go ahead, guy. Take me on.
Mike
Michael T. Eckhart
President
American Council On Renewable Energy (ACORE)
Thank you Michael T. Eckhart, you have convinced me that the Church of Global Warming is a complete and total scam.
But that's not what this little post is about. This is about the Leftist Mind and Comrade Eckhart is the perfect example of it.
First he traditionally opens the message with an insult.
You are so full of crap.
Note, he does not present any evidence of the particular kind of crap that Marlo Lewis is full of, because the beauty of name calling is that you don't have to justify it.
Then he makes a broad declaration about Lewis and his work.
You have been proven wrong. The entire world has proven you wrong. You are the last guy on Earth to get it.
Please note that he declares Lewis as wrong, but presents no evidence of how Lewis is wrong. Because the Leftist Mind knows that presenting evidence is an invitation to debate. Debate is the last thing the Leftist wants, because it causes people to ask questions, and questions inevitably lead to the Leftist being proven wrong.
The Leftist will believe anything declared by their leaders as long as it fits their prejudice (otherwise known as the meta-narrative) of Judeo-Christian capitalist democratic culture (AKA The Western Way) being the font of all evil in the world, from terrorism to crappy weather.
Debate leads to people discovering that the Western Way is not a force for evil, but an often fumbling, but usually positive force in the world.
Debate must be crushed.
To crush debate you must use threats.
Take this warning from me, Marlo. It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar.
Gee, whatever happened to agreeing to disagree on an issue. A reasonable person would present facts and evidence to prove their point, but the Leftist isn't reasonable.
They believe that anyone who does not blindly obey their leaders is more than just wrong, they are evil. Now their belief in evil doesn't extend to the sort of people who set off car bombs in crowded markets or blow up schools, they are just misunderstood products of Judeo-Christians.
To the Leftist the only evil that really exists is anyone who doesn't blindly accept the edicts and declarations of the high priests of Leftism and that evil must be destroyed.
And they make threats like this...
If you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity. I will call you a liar and charlatan to the Harvard community of which you and I are members.
Loosely translated, practice your right to free speech and the Leftists will socially ostracize and destroy you for your crime of disobedience.
And folks wonder why a lot of academics are scared to criticize the Leftists. While the Right is a pretty diverse group with many facets and internal disagreements, the Left has morphed into a monolithic slab of ideology that threatens to crush anyone who asks it a question.
And then they bring out the Left's favourite bogeyman...
I will call you out as a man who has been bought by Corporate America.
Oooh! Corporate America! The Left's all-purpose villain!
The question I would like to ask the Leftists is why is "Corporate America" considered so evil while most Leftist organizations are funded by a small clique of rich hedge fund billionaires who profit, not by producing and marketing goods or services, but by creating and exploiting economic and social chaos from Eastern Europe, to South America, and even the Bank of England.
Do they honestly think that these people have the best interests of the common man at heart?
They have to because these billionaires, like Al Qaida terrorists, tell them that their prejudices are right. And being told that you are right, is more important than actually being right.
Then the Leftist usually wraps up with yet another declaration, usually something along the lines of "Mine's bigger than yours."
Go ahead, guy. Take me on.
You see Eckhart really doesn't want anyone to take him on. He's hoping that his combination of insults, broad declarations, and threats will cow the insolent rebel, namely Marlo Lewis, into quiet submission.
How does one defeat the Leftist?
You will never convince a Leftist that they are wrong. Their prejudices are essential to their existence, and if they have to give them up, they have to develop an identity as an individual, and that's too much work.
The best bet of reasonable people is to educate the people in what Vox Poplar calls the "militant middle" about the importance of debate and discussion, and the ultimately positive influence of the Western Way.
I wonder how many long rambling combinations of insults, threats, and broad, often prejudiced, declarations will clog my pleas box.
That's all for now, keep watching the skies, because we're watching you.
____________________________
UPDATE: Thanks to our lovely and fragrant commenters, namely Commander0 and B.C. I've learned that not only is Michael T. Eckhart a poor excuse for an enviro-bully, he also is reported as having considerable financial interests in maintaining the level of hysteria over global warming. And he accuses Marlo Lewis of being a slave to Corporate America. Hello Kettle, I got Pot on the phone, he wants to call you something.
Monday, July 9, 2007
Bruce and Evan Almighty Movie Review
Last weekend, I saw the movie "Evan Almighty" in the theater. While the critics were harsh on it, I thought it was very good, containing some hard-hitting truths about life and the way God works.
In "Bruce Almighty", Jim Carrey is a reporter whose career isn't turning out the way he'd hoped. Steve Carrell ultimately lands the anchor role he thought was his, and he is fired for his reaction to this news. Despite the love of a good woman (Jennifer Aniston), he is furious with God. He mocks God mercilessly, blames him for his troubles, and says he could do the job much better than God. So, as God has been known to do, He (Morgan Freeman) takes Bruce at his word, goes on vacation, and turns the world over to him. Bruce learns that being God isn't nearly as easy as he thought, that just because someone prays for something doesn't mean it's the right thing for them to have, and that neither true romantic love nor respect and worship toward God can be forced, rushed, or faked. After nearly losing his lover and his life, Bruce finally figures it all out. Eventually, he learns the right lessons and his life, the very good life God always meant for him to have, the most fulfilling life, is given back to him by God. The big lessons here that I think God is trying to teach are: 1.) appreciation for the blessings we have; 2.) an instruction to take a look around to see what we can learn from where we are; 3.) that being God is not nearly as easy as we might sometimes imagine; and 4.) that living focused only on ourselves might be fun for a while, but it doesn't take us anywhere we want to be or where God wants us to be.
In "Evan Almighty", Steve Carrell parlays his anchor job into a seat in Congress. He moves his family to a huge new home, and he thinks he has really arrived. Evan's biggest problem until God shows up is a credibility problem. Between his journalism career and running for Congress, he's broken so many plans with his family that, while they still love him, they don't believe anything he says anymore. In the middle of all this, God shows up and tells him He has a mission for Evan, a crazy mission that no one would want, that no one in the world would believe if he told them about it, and one that would subject him to scorn and ridicule. Evan spends most of the movie trying to run from God's plan for him, but he ultimately goes along with it. Going along with God's plan nearly cost him his family, sent him into temporary financial ruin, made him a laughingstock of everyone who knew and supported him, BUT it ultimately saved his life, restored his family, and exposed massive corruption in Congress. I think my favorite line in the movie is when Evan is talking to God, and he says rather indignantly, "I had these plans!...", and God cuts him off in a fit of hysterical laughter, and says, "Plans?! That's a good one." A close second is when Evan is still trying to run from God, and God says to him, "Son, how long are you going to keep this up?".
I really feel that's how God sees us sometimes. He wants so badly to bless us beyond anything we can imagine...His word even says so. But here we are, trying our own schemes to get what we think we want, following our own plans to fill our needs, and God sits in heaven lovingly shaking His head, waiting for us to turn to Him, to come around, and to reap the joy of everything He wants to do for us. He never promises it will be easy. In fact, much as with Evan and Bruce, getting where God wants us to be will probably be harder than anything we've ever done. Worse still, in the short term, if most of us had any idea just how hard that road would be, we wouldn't begin to try to walk it, even if we could see the blessings God has for us waiting at the end. Some of the things I have experienced in my journey to God, I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy and sometimes wish I could blot them from my memory. That said, I wouldn't trade them for anything, because they're all part of the tapestry of my life that God and I are weaving together. I don't know exactly what the final picture will look like or what all the answers will be...I just know that the One I am following will look back on it at the end and pronounce my life good, and me his servant with whom He is well pleased.
I won't buy a movie unless I can watch it repeatedly and not get tired of it, and I'm buying both of these. Now, shoo, off with you, go see those movies...they're worth it.
In "Bruce Almighty", Jim Carrey is a reporter whose career isn't turning out the way he'd hoped. Steve Carrell ultimately lands the anchor role he thought was his, and he is fired for his reaction to this news. Despite the love of a good woman (Jennifer Aniston), he is furious with God. He mocks God mercilessly, blames him for his troubles, and says he could do the job much better than God. So, as God has been known to do, He (Morgan Freeman) takes Bruce at his word, goes on vacation, and turns the world over to him. Bruce learns that being God isn't nearly as easy as he thought, that just because someone prays for something doesn't mean it's the right thing for them to have, and that neither true romantic love nor respect and worship toward God can be forced, rushed, or faked. After nearly losing his lover and his life, Bruce finally figures it all out. Eventually, he learns the right lessons and his life, the very good life God always meant for him to have, the most fulfilling life, is given back to him by God. The big lessons here that I think God is trying to teach are: 1.) appreciation for the blessings we have; 2.) an instruction to take a look around to see what we can learn from where we are; 3.) that being God is not nearly as easy as we might sometimes imagine; and 4.) that living focused only on ourselves might be fun for a while, but it doesn't take us anywhere we want to be or where God wants us to be.
In "Evan Almighty", Steve Carrell parlays his anchor job into a seat in Congress. He moves his family to a huge new home, and he thinks he has really arrived. Evan's biggest problem until God shows up is a credibility problem. Between his journalism career and running for Congress, he's broken so many plans with his family that, while they still love him, they don't believe anything he says anymore. In the middle of all this, God shows up and tells him He has a mission for Evan, a crazy mission that no one would want, that no one in the world would believe if he told them about it, and one that would subject him to scorn and ridicule. Evan spends most of the movie trying to run from God's plan for him, but he ultimately goes along with it. Going along with God's plan nearly cost him his family, sent him into temporary financial ruin, made him a laughingstock of everyone who knew and supported him, BUT it ultimately saved his life, restored his family, and exposed massive corruption in Congress. I think my favorite line in the movie is when Evan is talking to God, and he says rather indignantly, "I had these plans!...", and God cuts him off in a fit of hysterical laughter, and says, "Plans?! That's a good one." A close second is when Evan is still trying to run from God, and God says to him, "Son, how long are you going to keep this up?".
I really feel that's how God sees us sometimes. He wants so badly to bless us beyond anything we can imagine...His word even says so. But here we are, trying our own schemes to get what we think we want, following our own plans to fill our needs, and God sits in heaven lovingly shaking His head, waiting for us to turn to Him, to come around, and to reap the joy of everything He wants to do for us. He never promises it will be easy. In fact, much as with Evan and Bruce, getting where God wants us to be will probably be harder than anything we've ever done. Worse still, in the short term, if most of us had any idea just how hard that road would be, we wouldn't begin to try to walk it, even if we could see the blessings God has for us waiting at the end. Some of the things I have experienced in my journey to God, I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy and sometimes wish I could blot them from my memory. That said, I wouldn't trade them for anything, because they're all part of the tapestry of my life that God and I are weaving together. I don't know exactly what the final picture will look like or what all the answers will be...I just know that the One I am following will look back on it at the end and pronounce my life good, and me his servant with whom He is well pleased.
I won't buy a movie unless I can watch it repeatedly and not get tired of it, and I'm buying both of these. Now, shoo, off with you, go see those movies...they're worth it.
Thursday, July 5, 2007
Henry Rollins Hates Dating
Henry Rollins has been many things over his career, musician, TV personality, writer, and now, stand up comedian.
My favorite line of this whole exchange goes like this:
Him: What are you reading?
Her: I'm not really much of a reader.
Him: *SCREEEECH!* I'm not much of a dinner buyer either, get the fu*k out of my car!!
I think that joke just speaks for itself...priceless. Watch the whole thing, it's a riot. I know where he's coming from though. Few things felt as much like Chinese water torture or really awful tooth pain than an excruciatingly long date (or relationship) with a stupid woman.
My favorite line of this whole exchange goes like this:
Him: What are you reading?
Her: I'm not really much of a reader.
Him: *SCREEEECH!* I'm not much of a dinner buyer either, get the fu*k out of my car!!
I think that joke just speaks for itself...priceless. Watch the whole thing, it's a riot. I know where he's coming from though. Few things felt as much like Chinese water torture or really awful tooth pain than an excruciatingly long date (or relationship) with a stupid woman.
Wednesday, July 4, 2007
Great Wisdom from Great Men on the 4th
First off, Happy Birthday to America and my utmost love, respect, and prayers to all the troops serving at home and abroad to keep us able to celebrate national holidays like this in the freedom we sometimes take for granted. For an appetizer, courtesy of Powerline, here are some sage words from President Abraham Lincoln, and more from Calvin Coolidge.
Calvin Coolidge
About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.
For the main course, I recommend this two part essay from the timeless Bill Whittle, called "Trinity" (links here and here). No matter how many times I read this, just like the parting of the T at a Tennessee Volunteer football game, it still gives me goose bumps, and it probably always will.
And as a tasty topping for this Fourth of July feast of wisdom, read this wonderful testimony from an adopted American, Kim DuToit, of how dearly he loves this country. This love is something native born American citizens take for granted, but we should not. The overuse of this phrase by politicians aside, on this Fourth of July and many others to come, may God Bless the United States of America.
Calvin Coolidge
About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.
For the main course, I recommend this two part essay from the timeless Bill Whittle, called "Trinity" (links here and here). No matter how many times I read this, just like the parting of the T at a Tennessee Volunteer football game, it still gives me goose bumps, and it probably always will.
And as a tasty topping for this Fourth of July feast of wisdom, read this wonderful testimony from an adopted American, Kim DuToit, of how dearly he loves this country. This love is something native born American citizens take for granted, but we should not. The overuse of this phrase by politicians aside, on this Fourth of July and many others to come, may God Bless the United States of America.
Friday, June 29, 2007
Ding-Dong, Shamnesty is Dead! 46-53! Eat That Presidente Jorge Bush!
George Borjas is one of my favorite authors, and I am happy to report he now has a blog. So let's leave it to him today to announce that the Jorge Bush/RINO/Kennedy/McCain Shamnesty went down to well-deserved defeat. I'm happy to say that both TN senators voted correctly on this piece of crap legislation. As George Borjas rightly points out, it's very rare when the political establishment wants something and doesn't get it. Maybe now George Bush can stop acting like he is the president of Mexico and quit tripping over his own feet long enough to slink quietly out of office next year. Perhaps there is hope for America after all...if enough people are interested enough in the right things at the right time, even the politicians will listen. :)
"...The President bet all his remaining political capital on a proposal he knew would tear his party apart. And the Senate came close to enacting very bad policy. It really makes me wonder: what the heck were they thinking?
There's something else worth pointing out. Here's a policy shift--amnesty and guest workers--that the entire political establishment as well as much of the mainstream media and academic elite wanted badly. It is seldom the case that something that the powers-that-be want so much fails to make it through. I am pretty sure there's a lesson in there somewhere. And the tactics used by the bill's opponents to fight the establishment's power and to weaken their control over key junctures in the information flow will provide lots of case studies that will be studied far into the future. No "Mission Accomplished" banners this time around.
Does this end the debate over immigration? No.
Why? Because our immigration system is truly broken.
Regardless of what happened at the Senate today, there are still 12 million illegal immigrants living in the country, and that number is increasing at the rate of about half-a-million a year. And there's no longer any need for the Bush administration to keep playing the charade of "more enforcement" that received wide media attention in the past few months. The economic and social dislocations caused by illegal immigration are not going to disappear simply because the issue is no longer in the political headlights.
Combine this with a legal immigration system that admits about 1 million immigrants a year--most of which tend to be low-skill workers. The economic pressures that both legal and illegal immigrants put on the low-skill labor market are severe, and have been ignored for years. I suspect that the immigration "problem" would have been long resolved had the labor markets for high-skill workers--say, for example, journalists and attorneys--faced the same pressures as those faced by low-educated workers.
Now that the debate is over, perhaps we can return some sanity and honesty into the intellectual discussion of what immigration does to the United States. A few simple rules to live by:
1. As Greg Mankiw nicely puts it in a post earlier this week regarding the economic effects of unions:
I have no doubt that making it easier for workers to form cartels would raise wages--at least for those workers in the cartels. But demand curves slope downward. When unions push wages above the equilibrium of supply and demand the side effects are not entirely benign.
Well, let's finally all join in and admit the obvious. There is no doubt that making it easier for more and more workers to enter the labor market will lower wages. "Demand curves slope downward" should be the new rallying cry. Perhaps now the economists at the CEA and elsewhere can recover from their amnesia regarding this fundamental law of economics.
(It is no coincidence that my 2003 paper that first reported the widely cited estimates of the labor market impact of immigration was entitled: "The Labor Demand Curve Is Downward Sloping").
2. There's also been a lot of fake fog thrown into the the question of whether immigrants pay their way in the welfare state. It's time for some sanity in this matter as well. The welfare state is specifically designed to transfer resources from higher-income to lower-income persons. Immigrants fall disproportionately into the bottom part of the income distribution. It is downright ridiculous to claim that low-skill immigrants somehow end up being net contributors into the public treasury.
3. And, finally, it's time to start worrying about the future. Even if immigration were to stop completely on its tracks right now, the consequences of what's happened in the past 30 years will continue for decades. What will happen to the children and grandchildren of today's immigrants? For instance, will the descendants of today's poor immigrant groups join the middle class or form a new underclass? How much ethnic inequality will there be 20 years from now, and how much social, cultural, and political conflict will arise as a result of this?
The debate is not yet settled. The Bush administration made a fundamental error of judgment by pushing this proposal so forcefully despite the fact that its detractors had valid doubts and were not bigots. For those of us who supported Bush in the past, such a misjudgment raises many doubts about the rest of the Bush legacy. Maybe those who faulted the Bush manner of governing--its arrogance, its lack of intellectual curiosity, and its obsession with having its way regardless of inconvenient facts--were right after all."
"...The President bet all his remaining political capital on a proposal he knew would tear his party apart. And the Senate came close to enacting very bad policy. It really makes me wonder: what the heck were they thinking?
There's something else worth pointing out. Here's a policy shift--amnesty and guest workers--that the entire political establishment as well as much of the mainstream media and academic elite wanted badly. It is seldom the case that something that the powers-that-be want so much fails to make it through. I am pretty sure there's a lesson in there somewhere. And the tactics used by the bill's opponents to fight the establishment's power and to weaken their control over key junctures in the information flow will provide lots of case studies that will be studied far into the future. No "Mission Accomplished" banners this time around.
Does this end the debate over immigration? No.
Why? Because our immigration system is truly broken.
Regardless of what happened at the Senate today, there are still 12 million illegal immigrants living in the country, and that number is increasing at the rate of about half-a-million a year. And there's no longer any need for the Bush administration to keep playing the charade of "more enforcement" that received wide media attention in the past few months. The economic and social dislocations caused by illegal immigration are not going to disappear simply because the issue is no longer in the political headlights.
Combine this with a legal immigration system that admits about 1 million immigrants a year--most of which tend to be low-skill workers. The economic pressures that both legal and illegal immigrants put on the low-skill labor market are severe, and have been ignored for years. I suspect that the immigration "problem" would have been long resolved had the labor markets for high-skill workers--say, for example, journalists and attorneys--faced the same pressures as those faced by low-educated workers.
Now that the debate is over, perhaps we can return some sanity and honesty into the intellectual discussion of what immigration does to the United States. A few simple rules to live by:
1. As Greg Mankiw nicely puts it in a post earlier this week regarding the economic effects of unions:
I have no doubt that making it easier for workers to form cartels would raise wages--at least for those workers in the cartels. But demand curves slope downward. When unions push wages above the equilibrium of supply and demand the side effects are not entirely benign.
Well, let's finally all join in and admit the obvious. There is no doubt that making it easier for more and more workers to enter the labor market will lower wages. "Demand curves slope downward" should be the new rallying cry. Perhaps now the economists at the CEA and elsewhere can recover from their amnesia regarding this fundamental law of economics.
(It is no coincidence that my 2003 paper that first reported the widely cited estimates of the labor market impact of immigration was entitled: "The Labor Demand Curve Is Downward Sloping").
2. There's also been a lot of fake fog thrown into the the question of whether immigrants pay their way in the welfare state. It's time for some sanity in this matter as well. The welfare state is specifically designed to transfer resources from higher-income to lower-income persons. Immigrants fall disproportionately into the bottom part of the income distribution. It is downright ridiculous to claim that low-skill immigrants somehow end up being net contributors into the public treasury.
3. And, finally, it's time to start worrying about the future. Even if immigration were to stop completely on its tracks right now, the consequences of what's happened in the past 30 years will continue for decades. What will happen to the children and grandchildren of today's immigrants? For instance, will the descendants of today's poor immigrant groups join the middle class or form a new underclass? How much ethnic inequality will there be 20 years from now, and how much social, cultural, and political conflict will arise as a result of this?
The debate is not yet settled. The Bush administration made a fundamental error of judgment by pushing this proposal so forcefully despite the fact that its detractors had valid doubts and were not bigots. For those of us who supported Bush in the past, such a misjudgment raises many doubts about the rest of the Bush legacy. Maybe those who faulted the Bush manner of governing--its arrogance, its lack of intellectual curiosity, and its obsession with having its way regardless of inconvenient facts--were right after all."
Thursday, June 28, 2007
So How Do I Become an Illegal Alien...?
My brother sent me the text of this fabulous letter an Iowa constituent sent to Senator Tom Harkin (DemCong-IA) asking how he could become an illegal immigrant. It illustrates perfectly many of the reasons that bill infuriated America citizens and does so in hilarious fashion...today's required reading, so check it out.
The Honorable Tom Harkin
731 Hart Senate Office Building
Phone (202) 224 3254
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Harkin,
As a native Iowan and excellent customer of the Internal Revenue Service, I am writing to ask for your assistance. I have contacted the Department of Homeland Security in an effort to determine the process for becoming an illegal alien and they referred me to you.
My primary reason for wishing to change my status from U.S. Citizen to illegal alien stems from the bill which was recently passed by the Senate and for which you voted. If my understanding of this bill's provisions is accurate, as an illegal alien who has been in the United States for five years, all I need to do to become a citizen is to pay a $2,000 fine and income taxes for three of the last five years. I know a good deal when I see one and I am anxious to get the process started before everyone figures it out.
Simply put, those of us who have been here legally have had to pay taxes every year so I'm excited about the prospect of avoiding two years of taxes in return for paying a $2,000 fine. Is there any way that I can apply to be illegal retroactively? This would yield an excellent result for me and my family because we paid heavy taxes in 2004 and 2005.
Additionally, as an illegal alien I could begin using the local emergency room as my primary health care provider. Once I have stopped paying premiums for medical insurance, my accountant figures I could save almost $10,000 a year.
Another benefit in gaining illegal status would be that my daughter would receive preferential treatment relative to her law school applications, as well as "in-state" tuition rates for many colleges throughout the United States for my son.
Lastly, I understand that illegal status would relieve me of the burden of renewing my driver's license and making those burdensome car insurance premiums. This is very important to me given that I still have college age children driving my car.
If you would provide me with an outline of the process to become illegal (retroactively if possible) and copies of the necessary forms, I would be most appreciative.
Thank you for your assistance.
Your Loyal Constituent,
Donald Ruppert
Burlington , IA
The Honorable Tom Harkin
731 Hart Senate Office Building
Phone (202) 224 3254
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Harkin,
As a native Iowan and excellent customer of the Internal Revenue Service, I am writing to ask for your assistance. I have contacted the Department of Homeland Security in an effort to determine the process for becoming an illegal alien and they referred me to you.
My primary reason for wishing to change my status from U.S. Citizen to illegal alien stems from the bill which was recently passed by the Senate and for which you voted. If my understanding of this bill's provisions is accurate, as an illegal alien who has been in the United States for five years, all I need to do to become a citizen is to pay a $2,000 fine and income taxes for three of the last five years. I know a good deal when I see one and I am anxious to get the process started before everyone figures it out.
Simply put, those of us who have been here legally have had to pay taxes every year so I'm excited about the prospect of avoiding two years of taxes in return for paying a $2,000 fine. Is there any way that I can apply to be illegal retroactively? This would yield an excellent result for me and my family because we paid heavy taxes in 2004 and 2005.
Additionally, as an illegal alien I could begin using the local emergency room as my primary health care provider. Once I have stopped paying premiums for medical insurance, my accountant figures I could save almost $10,000 a year.
Another benefit in gaining illegal status would be that my daughter would receive preferential treatment relative to her law school applications, as well as "in-state" tuition rates for many colleges throughout the United States for my son.
Lastly, I understand that illegal status would relieve me of the burden of renewing my driver's license and making those burdensome car insurance premiums. This is very important to me given that I still have college age children driving my car.
If you would provide me with an outline of the process to become illegal (retroactively if possible) and copies of the necessary forms, I would be most appreciative.
Thank you for your assistance.
Your Loyal Constituent,
Donald Ruppert
Burlington , IA
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)