-
Posts
10818 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by Pangloss
-
You're mistaken.
-
Yeah, I remember, it was very amusing -- thanks for the reminder. I've got it filed right where it belongs, alongside Objectivism, Liberalism, Christianity, and other ideological/faith-based humor.
-
Ok. But I guess the question then becomes, did they decide to release classified information to one reporter exclusively and without going through the normal declassification process? And just as a side note, can anyone think of any other time that a president has given currently-classified intelligence information directly to a specific reporter?
-
By the way, this pretty much tosses six feet of sand on top of the already-nailed-shut coffin of Judith Miller's career, doesn't it?
-
Too bad Moyers is a left-wing nut job rather than a serious, objective journalist. (Wow, this has become The Snippy Thread, hasn't it?) (grin) (All in good fun, of course!)
-
In pondering it some more.... I'm not sure I agree with your basic premise that (to put it another way, and if this is not what you meant please correct me) the phrase "the president authorized the leak" is a non-sequitur. If the president authorizes the release of classified information, then everyone understands that that information has been declassified. That's one thing. If the president left the information classified, and told it to a reporter, knowing that the document was still classified and was going to remain that way, then that would be a very different thing. I can understand the angst over phrases like that in the popular media (whom I'm often the first on the bandwagon to pick on), but I'm not convinced that angst is well-placed in this case.
-
I'm confused, isn't that the very issue? I'm afraid I'm not as well read-up on this story as I'd like to be, due to a heavy workload at the moment.
-
If you say so. But hey, at least it's more entertaining than your Little Red Book.
-
So you think that money is the root of all evil? Have you ever asked what is the root of money? - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
-
A lot of that's just because, as you say, the press likes the "scandal of the day". They feast on that sort of thing, and the president is at the top of the pack so he gets the biggest scrutiny. But yeah it's a little premature and obvious that Libby has an ulterior motive. I think we just have to wait and see what sort of incriminating evidence actually comes out of this, if any.
-
Fear is so much more motivating than logic, isn't it?
-
It's no prob. I can think of a couple other places it might be a better fit, but in pondering it further I don't really see a problem with just leaving it where it is.
-
This doesn't sound like a political discussion to me.... I may move it.
-
Just for the sake of clarity, I know some folks here have called for amnesty, but the Senate plan does not grant amnesty. It requires illegals to have been in the country for a minimum of five years, pay a $2000 fine, learn to speak English and a few other things. The details are, I believe, still being debated, but given that there are many, many crimes that carry less-harsh sentences, that's not exactly "amnesty". Still valid would be the question of whether it encourages more immigration, because the individuals in question may still find that to be an easier path to citizenship than the current "legal" methods.
-
Ditto what I said above, it's a valid point and I don't have a response to it. The Senator gave a factual example of exactly that. It's also been my personal experience and my wife has similar stories. They eschew jobs like house cleaning and landscaping and similar, even though they pay more. More on that in a sec. Ok, I'm gonna address this obliquely in a moment.... I should have been more clear, but when I use this term I'm referring to a very specific political grouping, and it's not a perjorative. You can read more about them here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-conservative Ok, getting back to the subject I keep passing on, I called a friend of mine tonight who's fairly conservative and often sides with that grouping, especially on this issue. He pointed out a couple of things that I missed, and pretty much shares your view on it. One of the points he raised was that if that employer (the one I mentioned) not getting any legal applicants at $9-14/hr, then he ought to pay more for the job. He also expressed concerns about whether the playing field would be level even after these immigrants were given what he prefers to call "amnesty". I questioned his use of that term because there's still a $2k fine and 5-year requirement, etc, but he pointed out that a lot of people have to wait a lot longer than 5 years and pay a lot more than that to come to this country, so we're still rewarding these people. His main concern, however, was that the border is just not going to be secured by this bill, which means that this new policy will effectively encourage more people to illegally immigrate to this country. These are good points, and more or less in line with what you're saying, but I think it's also valid to point out that our kids are trundling off to work at McDs and ignoring higher paying jobs. And we have a situation which pretty much calls out for adjustment for the reasons we've discussed above, and there are benefits to both Americans and illegal aliens if this plan goes forward. It's not a perfect solution, I admit. There's no rose garden on any horizon here, not anywhere. Ignoring the problem and just securing the border won't make this thing go away either -- like Bascule says, nobody has a plan to find these 11 million people and/or ship 'em home. So I'm acknowledging your points here, and in my view the Senate compromise is still the best plan. But I'll hats-off your argument -- between you and my friend you did cause me to pause and re-think, and I'm not at all convinced we have any kind of real solution in play here.
-
Well, seeing as you can't rip money out of an empty pocket, if tax revenue is your goal, wouldn't it make more sense to legitimize these workers so we can collect tax revenue from their efforts? If amnesty is your beef, don't these people already dwell under a defacto amnesty? I don't see anybody proposing a way to track them down and send them home.
-
Actual "hate" makes about as much sense with Hillary Clinton as it does with George Bush or Bill Clinton or any other national politician. Which is to say, not very much sense at all.
-
Once again, try these links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_%28United_States%29
-
Let me just touch on a few points as I run out the door, and I promise to drop by again later this afternoon/evening. I think you make some good points there, and I might agree with the idea of having no more Mexicans than any other specific country. (You understand that won't change your kids' need to learn Spanish, right? Would you be surprised if I said that I rarely see Mexicans here in South Florida, and there are maybe two or three places in the whole metroplex where I can get a good texmex taco?) I'm not sure I see the problem here. I don't mean any disrespect, but for the sake of brevity, so what?
-
The US Senate this week is debating an immigration reform bill. There's some background in this article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/03/AR2006040301554.html One of the interesting things about the bill is that it enjoys bipartisan support. There are a number of senators who are opposed, but they come from both sides of the isle. Some of them are due to constituency opposition (an interesting confluence of the black leadership and the "bubba" vote), and some are opposed due to pressure from special interest groups (such as organized labor). This is, I believe, the first time that Freshman Senators Barrack Obama and Mel Martinez, for example, have stumped for the same bill in the media. Fascinating. Regarding the issue itself, and the recent demonstrations, I've got a few comments as well. I've met a lot of immigrants, legal and otherwise, down here in South Florida, and most of them seem to be hard-working people, and they all seem to want to become "Americans". Sure they introduce or participate in their own cultural norms here, but that's an American thing to do as well -- we've always been a melting pot. Florida Senator Mel Martinez, a Republican and a Cuban immigrant himself, made a stirring speach the other day in which he said "People don't come to America to change America. They come to America to be changed by America." I thought that was a very powerful point, especially in light of some of the right-wing reaction to the demonstrations. He went on to tell a story about a Florida employer who, just the other day, had told him about how he had tried to fill 250 vacancies in his company, for which he received 800 applications. He could not hire a single one of those applicants, because not one of them had legal documents. And this was no minimum-wage job, either -- it paid $9-14/hr! I can't tell you how many times I've been to a McDonalds or Burger King down here and been served by people making minimum wage, and they have to be legal because there's no way a McD's or BK franchisee could get away with hiring illegals. Getting back to that right-wing reaction, I've seen some conservative web sites and blogs expressing concern about the flag-wavers. I've seen this on TV and I can understand the concern. But what people need to notice is that they're not all waving the same flag. They're not trying to change the US into Mexico, or Guatamala, or Honduras, or Costa Rica. What they're saying by waving that flag is "This is where I'm from, and I'm proud of that." That's really all it is. Where's the harm in that? If they really wanted to turn us into their country, wouldn't they be bashing each OTHER's heads in and stomping each other's flags first? The Senate plan to secure the border and provide a plan to legalization (through penalties/fines, learning to speak English, and so forth), has a lot of merit, and it enjoys bipartisan support. I think it should go forward. What do you all think?
-
It's not you -- that sort of thing is always a tough google, especially in this case because of the commonality of the search terms. Fortunately in this case I remembered that it was on Meet the Press back in January, and I found this MSNBC story on it: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10520713/ A couple of relevent quotes: So this would seem to support my point that he made a mistake in supporting the move to insert the federal government into the picture. Yes, that's basically it. Apologies for not realizing that that was what you were saying earlier. Absolutely reasonable minds can differ on the issues surrounding this case. From the above article, Frist himself makes this good point: Fair enough. But I suspect there will be long-term effect from the intercession of the federal government on this issue.
-
But those factors had long been in existence, he knew about them, and the stoppage added nothing new to the picture. It was only about stoppage. It's not disagreement I have a problem with. It's disagreement ad infinitum on specific actions/activities, after a decision has been made. If people want to be partisan about something, more power to 'em. But once a decision is made on a specific case, we have to move forward, even if we disagree. Otherwise we don't have rule of law, we have rule of the more powerful ideology. I disagree with the death penalty, for example, but if I were a judge I wouldn't approve a stay of execution just because I'm ideologically opposed to the DP. You'd have to show me something tangible and relevent to that specific case. Something that might have been overlooked or missed. In this case Frist claimed that he saw something in the video which suggested to him that she was responsive. I believe that claim was false, and I believe that sufficient evidence exists, including his specific apology, to support that belief. I'm accusing him of being dishonest not because he believes that Schiavo shouldn't have been allowed to die, but because he mislead people. Even worse, the actions of Republican senators have opened the door to federal review of any loss of life scenario at the state and local level. This will have ongoing consequences, and none of us are going to like all of those consequences. Such sweeping change should only take place after thorough debate and understanding of the issues, not as an emotional, unfounded, ill-conceived plea to a partisan political base. Anyway, that's how I see it. Your mileage may vary.
-
I agree that it's unfair to accuse Frist of offering a medical opinion in the Schiavo case. My take on that is that he was railroaded by the mainstream media. But -- and this is a big but -- he still screwed up. Two wrongs don't make a right. Here's a prime example of how Frist typically gets railroaded by the MSM: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48119-2005Mar18.html The implication of the above paragraph is that Frist is wrong. But in fact that CDC quote says nothing of the kind. Frist's statement is absolutely consistent with the CDC's statement, in every medical or scientific sense. Therefore it is absolutely false and misleading for the Washington Post to report the story in this manner. Even worse, Frist can't even respond to something like that without blowing it all out of proportion. It's a perfect, typical, absolutely daunting example of how biased the MSM is against conservative politicians. We don't even get to see what these politicians actually think about issues, because our only option is to view them through one ideological filter or another. It's ludicrous! But as I say, two wrongs don't make a right. If he screwed up, then he screwed up, and it doesn't have anything to do with the actions of the mainstream media, the reactions of the public, or the price of tea in China.
-
I don't think you have done that, what I think is that you're bending over backwards to give Frist the benefit of the doubt on a specific issue where sufficient evidence already exists (including his apology) to make a determination of the rightness or wrongness of his actions on that one issue. I'm a skeptic myself, but I think there's a difference between being skeptical about "the conventional wisdom of the press" and immediately assuming that they're probably wrong and actively stretching things in a dim hope that they might be wrong if you look at things through a certain, specific filter. Put another way, there's a difference between skepticism and cynicism.