Great explanation of Arizona’s need & a delineation of the true issues

(edited 5/2/2010) In the midst of the hue and cry over the Arizona immigration enforcement law (and it is simply about enforcement of existing laws), there is much hysterical rhetoric without an appreciation of the legal structure of the law and, I suspect, in many cases without even reading it. I did an analysis of the pertinent portions and below is a snippet from an excellent article giving the factual background (thanks Don Comedy for digging up that piece).

Continue reading “Great explanation of Arizona’s need & a delineation of the true issues”

Analysis: the Arizona immigration law

(edit: related discussion here).  Here’s the text.  And here are snippets with comments.

A.  No official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may limit or restrict the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.

Merely an anti-sanctuary city provision. Let’s all enforce existing federal immigration laws.

B.  For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official

For starters, there has to be a “lawful contact” before ID is sought. Every lawful contact by law enforcement already results in ID’ing the person contacted whether it’s a traffic stop or upon exiting a 7-11 in a ski mask carrying a handgun!

where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien

The phrase “reasonable suspicion” is a term of art in criminal law. There are existing situations where an officer must have an “articulable reasonable suspicion” in order to, for example, detain an individual. Google the phrase and you’ll see a lot about it. What that means is that the officer has to be able to testify not simply “I had a reasonable suspicion” that party ‘A’ was doing ‘X’ in violation of the law; but rather must be able to articulate what that reasonable suspicion was based upon.

Applying that existing and well-litigated principle sets a clear legal standard for when and whether a person can be approached for proof of citizenship. Continue reading “Analysis: the Arizona immigration law”

Puerto Rico — the 51st state — stealth statehood in progress

In Congress, HR2499 is set for a vote on April 29, 2010 which many believe will inevitably lead to Puerto Rico becoming the 51st state.  Whether this is a good or bad thing is beside the point. The point is, you have probably heard absolutely nothing about this. Who wants this? Pundits variously accuse both Democrats and Republicans as chasing the goal of creating additional voters loyal to their party.  One of them is wrong.  Read on to see how this is about to occur.  Here is the official summary of the bill:

10/8/2009–Reported to House amended. Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2009 – Authorizes the government of Puerto Rico:
(1) to conduct a plebiscite giving voters the option to vote to continue Puerto Rico’s present political status or to have a different political status;
(2) if a majority of ballots favor continuing the present status, to conduct additional such plebiscites every eight years; and
(3) if a majority of ballots favor having a different status, to conduct a plebiscite on the options of becoming fully independent from the United States, forming with the United States a political association between sovereign nations that will not be subject to the Territorial Clause of the Constitution, or being admitted as a state of the Union. Prescribes the eligibility requirements for voting in the plebiscite.

Continue reading “Puerto Rico — the 51st state — stealth statehood in progress”

Study: Drinking, R-rated films linked in middle-schoolers – USATODAY.com

This is big. One more example of where parenting really does make a difference.

Middle-schoolers who are forbidden to watch R-rated movies are less likely to start drinking than peers whose parents are more lenient about such films, new research on 2,406 children shows.

via Study: Drinking, R-rated films linked in middle-schoolers – USATODAY.com.

And, interestingly, that factor stands alone.

The outcome isn’t based on other parenting decisions, such as keeping greater tabs on children’s media use, says pediatrician James Sargent, co-author of the study and a professor at the school in Hanover, N.H.

What that means is that no matter how good the parenting is in other areas, neglecting to supervise the R-rated film viewing still has a devastating effect.  The article makes an additional important point that many PG-13 films really should be R rated … so you still have to be proactive and not simply rely on ratings.

Things to wonder about

Did you ever notice that when you blow in a dog’s face, he gets mad at you, but when you take him for a car ride, he sticks his head out the window?

Can you cry under water?

How important does a person have to be before they are considered assassinated instead of just murdered?

Why do you have to “put your two cents in”.. but it’s only a “penny for your thoughts”? Where’s that extra penny going to?

Once you’re in heaven, do you get stuck wearing the clothes you were buried in for eternity?

Why does a round pizza come in a square box?

What disease did cured ham actually have?

How is it that we put man on the moon before we figured out it would be a good idea to put wheels on luggage?

Why is it that people say they “slept like a baby” when babies wake up like every two hours?

If a deaf person has to go to court, is it still called a hearing?

Why are you IN a movie, but you’re ON TV?

Why do people pay to go up tall buildings and then put money in binoculars to look at things on the ground?

Why do doctors leave the room while you change? They’re going to see you naked anyway.

Why is “bra” singular and “panties” plural?

Why do toasters always have a setting that burns the toast to a horrible crisp, which no decent human being would eat?

If Jimmy cracks corn and no one cares, why is there a stupid song about him?

Can a hearse carrying a corpse drive in the carpool lane?

If the professor on Gilligan’s Island can make a radio out of a coconut, why can’t he fix a hole in a boat?

Why does Goofy stand erect while Pluto remains on all fours? They’re both dogs!

If corn oil is made from corn, and vegetable oil is made from vegetables, what is baby oil made from?

If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?

Do the Alphabet song and Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star have the same tune?

Why did you just try singing the two songs above?

Why do they call it an asteroid when it’s outside the hemisphere, but call it a hemorrhoid when it’s in your butt?

San Francisco video … 1906

Courtesy of my friend Don Bynum, here is a great YouTube clip from a San Francisco cable car, in 1906. Here is Don’s explanation … or at least what he forwarded about it. The comments on YouTube are quite interesting as well.

This film was “lost” for many years.  It was the first 35mm film ever.  It was taken by camera mounted on the front of a cable car

The amount of automobiles is staggering for 1906. Absolutely amazing! The clock tower at the end of Market Street at the Embarcadero wharf is still there. (I’m also wondering … how many “street cleaning” people were employed to pick up after the horses? Talk about going green!)

Great historical film worth watching.

This film, originally thought to be from 1905 until David Kiehn with the Niles Essanay Silent Film Museum figured out exactly when it was shot. From New York trade papers announcing the film showing to the wet streets from recent heavy rainfall & shadows indicating time of year & actual weather and conditions on historical record, even when the cars were registered (he even knows who owned them and when the plates were issued!).. It was filmed only four days before the quake and shipped by train to NY for processing. Amazing but true!

Seek the truth and the truth … will scare you!

Here you have it. Additional taxes on everyone are coming in a form by which to provide plausible deniability in the face of the inevitable charge that income taxes were not to be raised except on the wealthy.

“Volcker, answering a question from the audience at a New York Historical Society event, said the value-added tax ‘was not as toxic an idea’ as it has been in the past and also said a carbon or other energy-related tax may become necessary,” Reuters reported.

If at the end of the day we need to raise taxes, we should raise taxes,” Volcker added that day. In Europe, VAT taxes range from about 16 percent to 25 percent with an average of roughly 20 percent, according to Olivier Garret of Casey Research. Garrett, who grew up in France, called the VAT “a license to steal without people knowing it.”

via Networks Fail to Report on VAT Tax Since Volcker Call for Tax Increases.

Volcker is only the former Fed chairman and current White House economic advisor.  Wonder why he did not mention cutting spending?

Ouch! Why can’t more people see and understand this arrogance?

Found the following clip about a president who is presumptuous and more.  Snubbing allies (like the president of the former Russian state of Georgia) and even now snubbing his adoring media; juxtaposed with ever-more stories such as a woman who walked into the hospital for an operation only to be told that her insurance did not cover something to which she replied “oh, that’s ok, the health bill passed yesterday.”  This then becomes the question: do the “takers” just take, gladly, and don’t care about the actions of the President otherwise, or are they ignorant in their handout bliss?

The following piece from neo-neocon paints a disturbing, and apparently accurate picture.  And with considerable irony regarding the “main stream” media.

But “presumptuous,” although correct, doesn’t begin to cover it as a descriptor for Obama. Arrogant and condescending, yes. But this is a man who no longer tries to hide it any more. This is the power trip of an egomaniac who knows the press has rendered itself toothless and impotent in his wake, and who assumes that its members will never strike back no matter how he treats them—or, if one or two do, he intends to hit them back twice as hard.

Lots of presidents haven’t liked the press. But usually that’s been because the press has been hostile to them. Obama reverses this—he’s hostile because the press has been so obsequious to him, and because he’s secretive, and because he has contempt for them and thinks he can quite literally get away with anything. That’s what happens when the press abdicates its responsibility to tell the truth in as objective a manner as possible. A power-mad thug gets elected, and if he acts thuggish to them, they can hardly complain.

via neo-neocon » Blog Archive » Oh, and about Obama’s nuclear summit….