Clearing it Up

29 Apr

When health care reform is enacted to help insure almost all Americans, and initiate dramatically needed consumer protection into the health insurance industry, there was an outcry against it from the right, blathering about unconstitutionality.

When GM and Chrysler got massive loans from the government collateralized by stock, the right whinged about socialism, as if that somehow represented workers’ control of production.

When the banks got too clever for their own good and found themselves almost insolvent, when the entire economy collapsed and was on the brink of a once-in-a-century downward spiral, the right bitched and moaned that bailouts – many of which have since been repaid, with interest – were the worst thing since Hitler murdered 6,000,000 innocents and Stalin collectivized farms.

When Arizona passes a law that has the effect of requiring natural born United States citizens of Latino origin to carry citizenship papers with them at all times for wholly domestic travel, the right shrugs and tells the brown people, tough shit.

Just wanted to clear up what they do and don’t consider an unconstitutional outrage.  Social programs = bad, unconstitutional police-state-junior = dandy.

Maybe we need to institute the same policy in Florida and direct it at illegal Cuban immigrants. Let’s see how that goes over.  How about it, Mr. Rubio?

24 Responses to “Clearing it Up”

  1. James April 29, 2010 at 8:56 am #

    For the record: I personally think the bank and auto bailouts are the greatest mistake of of my lifetime, but I also hope history will prove me wrong. Government healthcare is probably the wrong direction and will only do more to slow down the eventual evolution of medical science to a consumer empowered field (think about doing your own wikisurgery via computer controlled microbacterial nanobots) and the racist anti-immigration protectionist mentality that many conservative Americans fearfully cling to is utter bullshit.

  2. Jon Splett April 29, 2010 at 9:12 am #

    To be fair, the outrage over the bank and auto bailouts was justified even if they were too stupid to understand it wasn’t socialism.

  3. STEEL April 29, 2010 at 10:13 am #

    There is no surprise that the right embraces totalitarian policy. They practically wet their pants over the prospect of permanent one party rule during the first Bush term, They were beside themselves with joy as the Bush regime made up phony reasons to invade another sovereign country. They defended the president’s unlimited war time rights including the right to call anyone an enemy combatant and hold them without legal recourse indefinitely. And then let’s not for get that the right embraced (and still does) without embarrassment the use of the most time honored tool of dictators – torture.

    • Jon Splett April 29, 2010 at 11:24 am #

      And the Obama administration has kept us in that illegal war and reauthorized the Patriot Act…

      I hated the Bush administration as much as anyone but if the Democrats in office aren’t going to undo the evil he did, they’re just as much a part of the right wing problem albeit a bit more to the center-right than the lunatics in Arizona.

      Hold everyone accountable for this bullshit. Not just the other team.

      • STEEL April 29, 2010 at 11:38 am #

        Yea because it would have been such a great idea to just evacuate all at once as soon as Obama got into office. Have you noticed that the troop levels in Iraq are drastically reduced these days. This odd concept that Obama could just step into office and undo the 8 year Bush disaster after a few weeks in office is nuts

      • Brian Castner April 29, 2010 at 11:54 am #

        @ STEEL: It hasn’t been a couple weeks. Its been 16 months. The current troop levels in Iraq (still 100,000) are the left over of Bush’s plan, not any Obama initiative. And how long does it take to close GITMO anyway? Splett’s right – even if I disagree with many of the policies, Obama should put up or shut up. And BTW, I find it hilarious that you fault Republicans for wanting to stay in power during the Bush years. I have detected a bit of premature ejac from you too about the Dem grip on Congress/WH. Or are you now looking forward to R’s retaking the House in Nov, in the name of bipartisanship and shared governance?

      • Jon Splett April 29, 2010 at 11:58 am #

        He’s been in office a whole lot longer than a few weeks and I highly doubt we’ll be anywhere close to out by the time he said we would. You really think we’ll end combat by the end of this summer? I’m not holding my breath.

        Oh and if you want to ask candidate Obama, the guy you voted for, he promised we’d be out this month…

        And again, why did he renew the Patriot Act?

      • STEEL April 29, 2010 at 12:19 pm #

        Give it up, the right was having a hissy fit about Obama as soon as he was elected. They have blamed him for every piece of crap Bush laid on his doorstep when he left the white house. How incredibly naive to think that Obama can just instantly end an 8 year war after the US thoroughly messed the place up. “Oh sorry we crapped up your country but, oh well, we are tired of being here so you are now free to fix it yourselves. The fact is that WE created a mess in Iraq – WE have to fix it! Not one right wing ideologue ever asked Bush why we were still in Iraq after 16 mo or 32 mo or 64 mo or even when he left office. As soon as Obama took his hand off the Bible the ditto heads were complaining about his Iraq policy.

        Remember how the right wingers complained when Clinton’s people stole the keyboard keys? If only that was the biggest problem Obama was left with – give me a break!

        And no I am not thrilled about one party being perpetually in power and I would not celebrate that possibility as the right was doing during Bush. The fact is the right does not really believe in democracy.

      • Brian Castner April 29, 2010 at 12:47 pm #

        Who cares what the right wing said when! (Though the Weekly Standard ran an article very other week about why we should still be in Iraq, and Bill Kristol asked Bush countless times). I’m talking about Obama said he was going to do, and what has actually happened. How can you live with the cognative dissonance in your head!? Let me wind back history to ancient times – i.e. 2.5 years ago. Clinton was the nuanced “Iraq was a mistake but we need to leave responsibly” candidate. Obama was the “We should never have gone and I’m going to end it right away” candidate. Soooo, end it already! I’m only asking Obama to do what he said he would. How long can Obama (and his ditto heads like you) keep asking for more time or blaming Bush? We’ll be in Iraq in Nov 2012 – what then?

      • STEEL April 29, 2010 at 1:57 pm #

        Bush will always be to blame because he created the quagmire. Blaming an intractable problem on Obama because he can’t keep an idealized campaign promise is stupid tea bag talk. (in the face of constant Republican obstructionism I might add) This whole idea that Bush is ancient history is another stupid right wing talking point. We are in Iraq because of Bush! let me say it again – We are in Iraq becasue of Bush – And I could add we are still in Afghanistan because of of Bush’s wasted efforts and in Iraq and his poor planning in general.

      • Brian Castner April 29, 2010 at 2:05 pm #

        STEEL – I’m a lot of things, but a stupid tea bagger is not one of them. Or perhaps you were talking about Splett? To describe everyone that disagrees with you as such just makes you a ditto head hack. I hold Obama to no higher standard than he holds himself – namely, what he said he was going to do. That he has failed to do you acknowledge. Is he a liar, or just incompetent, then, in your opinion? I don’t blame Obama for Iraq, I blame him for not pulling us out in his timeline. And you can’t blame obstructionist Republicans for Iraq and Afghanistan – R’s have been monetarily supportive of Obama’s policies, and he is the CINC, after all. Read Ethan’s post for the rest of my point.

      • STEEL April 29, 2010 at 3:40 pm #

        I don’t think he is neither incompetent nor a liar. Why do you pose those as the only two choices?

        Average past current and projected troop levels in Iraq
        2008 – 158,000
        2009 – 136,000
        2010 – 83,000
        2011 – 43,000
        2012 – 4,000

        Reports show the troop levels in February at 98,000 lowst since 2003
        Troop levels were increasing prior to 2008. SO sure he was not able to keep a campaign promise but he is winding down Iraq. To argue that he is not keeping a promise is disingenuous and sure, you may not be a Tea Bag idiot but you are using the same phony argument to blame Obama for a mess caused by Bush. This debate started in this thread because I pointed out many of the totalitarian practices and beliefs of Bush and the right wing – you and others jump in and say dopey things like “oh yea but Obama is sending troops to Iraq so he is just as bad as Bush” That is a nonsense argument BECAUSE THE WAR WAS HANDED TO HIM! do you really think he has some secret plan to keep us in Iraq? Come on – This is squarely on Bush and to blame the problem on Obama is the result of tea-baggery of extreme left wing naivete.

    • Ethan April 29, 2010 at 1:17 pm #

      The fact is that WE created a mess in Iraq – WE have to fix it!

      That’s a) not objectively true, it’s your opinion and b) it’s patronizing, from an Iraqi point of view, which reminds me that it is also c) not what the average Iraqi thinks or wants– and who do you suppose has more right to tell us what to do in Iraq?

      Why is it so hard for you to be critical of Obama?  He’s torturing & wiretapping & assassinating, just like Bush did.  That’s objectively true.  So either hold him to the same standards or STFU.

  4. Brian Castner April 29, 2010 at 12:02 pm #

    @ Alan – The melodrama of this Arizona-as-Warsaw-Pact is so overblown. Let’s ignore for a second that the act specifically prohibits racial profiling. Cops ask citizens of all origens for ID all the time. How many Latino citizens (naturalized or born here – can you tell the difference from looking) don’t already carry a driver’s liscence? Cops ask people for ID all the time. Shouldn’t cops be allowed to investigate crime (coming to this country illegally). I find it astounding that the Left argues we should fix an immigration policy they don’t like by simply choosing not to enforce current law. Of course, that’s the marijuana policy from Holder as well. It absolves the current government of doing the hard work of GOVERNING – i.e. fixing immigration and legalizing pot.

    • Eric Saldanha April 29, 2010 at 12:42 pm #

      Brian – because this new law makes “Walking While Brown” a crime and if the local Minutemen/White Citizen’s Council folks feel that their local police aren’t harassing enough Hispanics, they can sue the county for cause and make the county pay their legal costs.

      BTW, cops need a reason to ask someone for their ID – it’s called probable cause. And looking like an illegal alien to a beat cop in Arizona ain’t it.

      • Brian Castner April 29, 2010 at 12:54 pm #

        Its the “Walking While Brown” schtick that’s over the top. When I was a teenager, I was asked for my ID all the time. The probably cause was that I was a teenager and out with my friends after dark. That did not mean the Gestapo was coming. And there are plenty of unenforced immigration laws already on the books – the Minutemen don’t need another. Really, I just find all the eastern bloc allusions hilarious after all the hulabaloo about declaring Obama a communist or Nazi. Seriously, is there so little self awareness that the pot can’t see the kettle? Its a dumb law, but the world isn’t ending. And it forced Obama to put immigration back at the top of the legislative agenda, so its true intended effect is working already.

      • Alan Bedenko April 29, 2010 at 1:16 pm #

        I’m not talking about producing a driver’s license to a cop for ID purposes.

        I’m talking about natural born Latino citizens being forced to carry PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP for domestic travel.

        When whitey has to carry a passport to go to the corner store, get back to me about how this isn’t blatantly racial and also patently unconstitutional under Amendments 4 and 14. I’m talking Con Law 101 unconstitutional.

      • STEEL April 29, 2010 at 3:44 pm #

        Except in that case there was no question that you were a teenager. In this case being brown skinned does not make you an illegal. I think this only a fair law if everyone is asked for their citizenship papers. See what happens if you haul a few white seniors into the police station and lock-em-up while they send someone for their passport. This law would not last a week under those rules.

  5. JudahMaccabbee April 29, 2010 at 12:50 pm #

    Maybe we need to institute the same policy in Florida and direct it at illegal Cuban immigrants. Let’s see how that goes over. How about it, Mr. Rubio?

    I agree Alan, we should. Of course once a Cuban reaches the sand he/she is granted asylum should they apply.

    I would be interested in hearing a solution to this problem which does not insult the millions of legal immigrants who followed the rules. And a LARGE number of those folks are Brown. If Congress changes the definition of what an illegal immigrant is, then we’ll have a different discussion. But as of now, illegal immigrants are just that, illegal. To just say that the Arizona law is “anti-immigrant” is just plain incorrect.

    Brian’s point is right on. I love the argument that “Well, legalizing drugs would decrease the crime rate. Of course it would! Legalizing murder would do the same.”

    The Arizona thing is not a right/left issue. Not everything is. One thing that jumps up in my mind is the South Park/Comedy Central/voluntary censorship thing. Civil libertarians exist in all varieties.

  6. Buffalo Girl April 29, 2010 at 2:22 pm #

    Okay, I’m just going to say it, the cat picture made me LOL!!

  7. Eric Saldanha April 29, 2010 at 5:17 pm #

    Seriously….for this ridiculous law to evade the “racial profiling” test, white people would also have to be stopped, harassed and detained for not having proof of citizenship. After all, we need to address the scourge of thousands of illegals from Canada and Europe, taking jobs away from decent Americans harvesting our syrup and prepping beignets. Bet that’ll happen?

  8. Amadeo May 11, 2010 at 2:12 am #

    “Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d) of this section.” (United States Code: Title 8, Chapter 12, Sub Chapter II, Part VII, SS 1304).” Interesting how you are chastising AZ for upholding the law of the land, while the Fed. govt. is too worried about pandering to a potential voter base to do so itself. ANY illegal, white, black, brown, purple, polka dot, that is allowed to remain here because, “it’s just so unfair or racist” to ask them to uphold the law, is a slap in the face to all immigrants who came to this country through the proper channels in order to make a better life for themselves. This constant “Peter cried Racist” routine over every damn thing you don’t like is nauseating at best, and pathetically puerile at worst. Time to grow up and understand the law of the land is just that. Illegals who don’t like it? Tough shit, the border is just as easy to get back across…

    • Alan Bedenko May 11, 2010 at 5:56 am #

      Every alien. Not every citizen. God forbid an American citizen from Puerto Rico visits Arizona and all he’s got is a driver’s license – which isn’t proof of citizenship or documentation. I love how all of you guys completely ignore the point.

      • Amadeo May 12, 2010 at 4:01 pm #

        Yeah Alan, but the language of the AZ law states, “For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency…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…” We’re not talking about randomly stopping people on the way to the corner store. I mean, sure it’s convenient to you and other liberals to use such melodramatic hyperbole that harkens back 1940s cinema, but in the real world, lawful contact doesn’t mean ID checks at random. It might, however, mean the officer is already engaged in some detention of an individual because he’s violated some other law. But, hey, that’s just the codified definition of lawful contact, and doesn’t really help to stoke the liberal “racism” fires now does it? In fact Arizona’s new law specifically says race and ethnicity cannot be the sole factors in determining a reasonable suspicion. So instead of your tired example of the poor Puerto Rican getting stopped on his way to the cornerstore, let’s use a more apropos one shall we? Arizona already has a state law on human smuggling. An officer stops a group of people in a car that is speeding. The car is overloaded. Nobody had identification. The driver acts evasively. They are on a known smuggling corridor. That is a not uncommon occurrence in Arizona, and any officer would reasonably suspect that the people in the car were illegal. Under the new law, the officer would get in touch with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to check on their status. Now to your driver’s license not being proof of citizenship confusion…The law clearly says that if someone produces a valid Arizona driver’s license, or other state-issued identification, they are presumed to be here legally. There’s no reasonable suspicion. Hope this clears things up for you.

Contribute To The Conversation

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: