I've read the SB1070 twice. Neither time I saw anything resembling of that "the police is allowed to stop anyone who looks Hispanic and demand proof of citizenship"

Propaganda is bad - outright lies are insulting and stupid.

Enough said.

I understand that Reich's statement is not in SB1070 verbatim, and certainly I'm no expert on all things legal, but the following part of the bill pretty much covers what Reich says:

B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON.

This part of the bill is stated in a very general way as it should be, however, considering the circumstances, there is no question what ethnic group the bill is primarily targeting. The way I'm reading this is:

1. Law enforcement officials are the police in this case.

2. "WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES" - It does not specify an ethnic group, which is as it should be, but the problem they're having is from south of our border, so there shouldn't be any doubt who this bill is targeting.

3. "A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON" - This is the stopping.

In fact the bill sounds like it is saying that the police are allowed to stop ANYONE and demand proof of citizenship. Obviously, in and of itself, there is nothing really wrong with that. The problem is the "reasonable suspicion" part. Some people are afraid, for good reason, that there isn't a really good way to determine "reasonable suspicion" other than ethnic background in this case. This of course could lead to racial profiling and discrimination against many innocent people.

Sorry, I don't see the problem with her comment. As far as I'm concerned she's free to be curious about that. (cough in hand and mutter palinfox)
What I do see is that the response to her comment is, like the building itself, being used as an excuse by some to rant and create a divisive atmosphere.
Her statement isn't actually the point of that stupid video, it'sjust the pretext to allow the hateful thing to be made.

Josef: why was that shitty law passed?

Because this is an emergency? Because those damn Mexicans are ruining everything? Because 9/11?

Answer: because people are scared and want to lash out, and asswipe politicians are capitalizing on that.

Why is it a "shitty law" Nick? Oh yhea, that's right...because you employ illegal aliens...

IMHO everyday folks are hurting economically in ways they’ve never experienced before. With this loss comes an overwhelming insecurity and emotional angst looking to the crumbling, less-fruitful future reality.

Where are the holes? Plug them now to save the dam!

Illegals are vilified as they’re consuming jobs and services needed by legal citizens and residents.
Muslims' Sharia law is diametrically opposed to the inalienable rights embraced in the US.
Etc....

Can't we take a look at our country's past successes and sins to mold viable solutions for tomorrow, rather than just reacting? Personally I've been pondering quite a bit about Lincoln's leadership during the Civil War.

Right now there seems to be very little civility...... and it feels like an all-out cultural war.

beautifully exemplified by the stupid google ad at the bottom of this page asking who is right, az or Obama...

how about a war on everyone that isn't you? (as long as there's money in it)
how about a war against the planet for money?
how about a war on ethics for money?

civilization is an oxymoron.

Exactly (last two posts).

Meanwhile, this is the beginning of Paul Krugman's blog today, and it's a perfect example of why I find Knife's and to a lesser extent Josef's posts so frustratingly ridiculous:


August 23, 2010, 10:42 AM
Making It Up
According to Bloomberg, Raghuram Rajan is now getting specific: he wants Bernanke to raise the Fed funds rate by 200 basis points in the face of 9.5 percent unemployment and inflation under 1 percent.

Let me try to explain what bothers me about this sort of thing, aside from the fact that it would be an utter disaster for the economy: it’s the way Rajan — and many other economists — seem to be making up new doctrines on the fly to justify their policy prejudices.

I’m all in favor of innovative thinking. But my view is that what you say about policy at any given time should be based on some kind of model — and furthermore, you should be willing to apply the same model to other situations, not make it a one-off used to justify what you happen to favor right now.


My writing on policy in this crisis has been based on the same model of macroeconomic policy I use in normal times; it’s just that the situation is different. The quick-and-dirty version looks like this:

(mildly wonkish stuff follows)

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/23/making-it-up/#more-12027

And here is why Krugman is so laughably ridiculous:



followed by:



What a fvcking moron.

Hey Paul? What is "consistent" about you changing the rules - only for yourself - when YOU say the "situation is different"?

So, you can admit that YOU "make it up," to get you YOUR desired result, but everyone else is held to some other standard?

Hypocrite imbecile.

How about this? Rajan's innovative thinking is for YOUR "different situation."

"a lot of the people who want monetary tightening start from a prejudice and then look for some arguments to back up that prejudice. And that’s no way to do economics."

...unless they are doing that in order to back into an argument that I happen to like..."


Several of the comments to his blog already pointed out this overt, blatant hypocritical slide.

You've got to be pretty short on your own ability to think critically if you can keep reading tripe like that - and not ask yourself: "Hmmmm.... Is Mr. Krugman REALLY being consistent here? Should I think about this a bit more?"

Just swallow it all, like it's some type of Gospel, and not the agenda-driven propaganda piece it is (and he's actually labeled it).


Whatever...

You are the biggest jackass on the entire internet, Knife.

Why don't you try to understand what he's saying instead of just farting? His views are based on reality. And the reason he rails against stuff like Rajan's demagoguery is that it's dangerous and too many stupid people like you take it to heart.