Watch Cheney and Co. Respond to the Ghailani Sentence

In recent months we heard a lot of pundits wax hysterical about the chaos and mayhem the federal court trial of a former Guantanamo detainee would bring to New York.

The folks at Keep America Safe – Liz Cheney, Bill Kristol, and Debra Burlingame – called the trial “dangerous,” “ reckless,” and “embarrassing”. 

But in New York the trial proceeded with no disruptions. No street closures. No increased police presence. And, this week, a federal judge sentenced Ahmed Ghailani to life in jail with no chance of parole.

There's more...

Immigration Nation and Racial Profiling is Pulling in the Station

Arguably Foreign Looking Individual: Walking nonchalantly down a street in Phoenix

Arizona Officer of the Law:  Approaches Arguably Foreign Looking Individual "Excuse me sir, can I see some proof that you are a United States citizen?"

Arguably Foreign Looking Individual: "What? Why?"

Arizona Officer of the Law: "Because I have reasonable suspicion that you are not a legal citizen."

Arguably Foreign Looking Individual: "Reasonable suspicion? That is horseradish! Explain yourself."

Arizona Officer of the Law:  "You look suspiciously latino to me, and according to the new law recently signed by Gov. Jan Brewer, you are required to show proof of your citizenship."

Arguably Foreign Looking Individual: "I carry no such thing."

Arizona Officer of the Law:  "Well then, I will now handcuff and escort you to the county jail."

(note:  I have nothing against Arizona police-officers or Arizona as a state, this is a satirically hypothetical take on the new immigration law passed)

Ahhh yes, Arizona.  Land of pungent and vibrantly green flora, cascading aquatic oases, and vibrant game that would make any modest hunter giggle with glee.  Err... wait, maybe thats one of the other states that allows concealed carry without a permit.

Annyyywayyy....

 

I realize by now that the Arizona Immigration Law recently passed has probably been beaten into your heads more than teetotalism is at BYU, but I think it needs a bit more attention.

I find it very sad that this new immigration law exists.  It hurts the civil rights of many individuals that will no doubt be profiled based on their appearance.  I challenge Jan Brewer and the other stunning prodigies who crafted this law to define what "reasonable suspicion" really is.

 

 On Fox News Sunday, Bill Kristol (self-proclaimed liberal on immigration issues..what?) claims that the newest addition to Arizona's repertoire of anti-immigration decrees doesn't violate civil rights

Source:  ThinkProgress.org

Now I don't typically make an attempt to pillage through the proverbially mine-field that is Bill Kristol's brain, but I shall attempt to deconstruct his claims and try to make sense of them

KRISTOL: I doubt that it violates the Constitution, if it does, it’s a matter of federal preemption against state law. I don’t think it violates anyone’s civil rights. … I have actually read this bill it is not draconian. It is not going to lead to major civil rights violations. Will a few people get stopped perhaps because some policeman has reasonable suspicion that a person is illegal? Will he be stopped perhaps on the street and asked to provide his driver’s license? Yes. That is the huge horrible civil rights violation that’s going to occur 5 times or 8 times or 13 times in Arizona.

I fail to see how basing reasonable suspicion solely on looks and a good hunch constitutes good legislation, but hey far be it from me to question the state government of Arizona.  Even Mike "the body (of Christ)" Huckabee denounced this bill, saying there's no such thing as "american-looking."  Pro-life Libertarian Judge Andrew Napolitano even threw his hat into the ring.

Napolitano also said the law is “so unconstitutional that I predict a federal judge will prevent Arizona from enforcing it.”

Of course not all notable conservatives share the views of Huckabee and Napolitano.  Sarah Palin added her opinion to the matter, because nobody knows what they would do without it.  With millions of adoring fans and Palin-junkies tuning their Palin radar to here the verdict that they will no doubt blindly support, Palin didn't quite give an official answer or endorsement but instead offered this insightful and astute remark:

So more power to Jan Brewer for deciding that she was taking on an issue

So Palin is essentially praising Brewer's ability to sign her name on a paper.  Palin groupies will have to continue waiting in hopes of a verdict.

I'm no Constitutional lawyer, so I cannot definitively condemn this as Un-Constitutional.  However, the arguments against the laws constitutionality keep piling up.  No doubt this has more chance of getting repealed due to violation of the supreme law of the land than the Healthcare law does. 

But Bill Kristol isn't the most reputable person to be commenting on profiling-sensitive issues.  Let me jog everyone's memory a bit.  Heading back down memory lane take exit 34 to Fox News Sunday circa Feb. 3rd 2008.

BILL KRISTOL: Look the only people for Hillary Clinton are the Democratic establishment and white women... it would be crazy for the Democratic party to follow the establishment that's led them to defeat year after year... White Women are a problem - but, you know... we all live with that...

Source:  Media Matters

Kristol, you are indeed a piece of work....

 

... and an idiot.

CNN: Bring Back Crossfire!

 

Mainstream news channel ratings come out, and normally there isn't a distressing situation afterwards.  This time, however, CNN faces a 40 percent drop in viewership since 2009.  Pretty large huh?  Say what you want about mainstream media news outlets, this isn't what this diary is about.

CNN has been in the bottom of the big 3 for awhile now.  Fox News Channel has been the leader for quite some time, and we are constantly reminded of this by Mr. Bill O'Reilly and other prominent noise-makers on that network.  MSNBC normally takes the second highest spot on the podium, however the difference in viewership between number 1 and number 2 is quite significant.  And then there is CNN.  Since the departure of Lou Dobbs, CNN has lacked any significant program along the lines of advocacy journalism

The lack of non-objectivity seems to be hurting CNN significantly.  Politico has noticed this (and this is where I pulled the stats for this btw) and has outlined a few tactics for Ted Turner's cable news creation to increase viewship.  One of these that I took notice to was advising CNN to bring back crossfire.

James Carville, Geraldine Ferraro, Pat Buchanan, and of course Tucker Carlson and his ridiculous bow ties. If anyone remembers Crossfire, chances are it's because of a Mr. John Stewart.  The youtube sensation of John Stewart ripping apart Tucker Carlson on air marked seemingly the end of Crossfire

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE

Stewart had a point.  His claim of partisan-hackery was certainly an issue, but I personally found Crossfire to be entertaining nonetheless.  I think its important to have open debates live on air between pundits, but talking points consuming the show over real issues unfortunately plagued the show in its past.

In my opinion, there is no show (with the exception of Meet the Press and other sunday news shows) that really allows for open debate with a slew of different individuals on both sides of the political spectrum, at least in the 3 big mainstream outlets.  Keith Olbermann seems to never bring anyone on his show for a serious and intellectual debate, Rachel Maddow does but not very often.  Chris Matthews and Harball normally has a decent track record of open debate, but still lacks a lot of consistency in my opinion and viewership from more right-wing sources are less likely to watch MSNBC... because its MSNBC.

Fox, on the other hand, as well all know is obviously truly fair and balanced.  Its hard to properly emphasize sarcasm via typed words so bear with me.

Glenn Beck's biggest stride in bringing on bi-partisan debate was having the esteemed guest Eric Massa on to talk about snorkeling and fondling men.  Of course, this actually was a big stride for Beck.. sadly enough.  Bill O'Reilly can sometimes have a decent guest in which to "debate" but that normally involves O'Reilly yelling louder to prove a point, to the degree of nearly soiling himself.  And of course, there is Sean Hannity and his "Great American Panel."  You can guess who is on this "Great American Panel."  Normally the token Reagan worshipers to the equivalence of Liz Cheney's and Bill Kristol's. 

I love watching open and fair debate.  Not constructed partisan ploys done by the other "debate" shows.

If CNN could craft Crossfire to actually contain a Fair and Balanced debate show, yes thats making a mockery of fox news, then they could potentially increase viewership significantly.

At least, I know I would be watching it nightly. 

Oops. Kristol Admits Govt Provides Best Healthcare

I had been meaning to post this yesterday, but it's still relevant today. A couple of nights ago on The Daily Show, Bill Kristol admitted that the government can provide the highest level of healthcare coverage in the country.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Bill Kristol Extended Interview
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political HumorJoke of the Day

There's more...

1994 Redux!

Oh noes! Is 2010 shaping up to be another 1994? So suggests Bill Kristol. Proof that the rightwing is truly beyond parody, in a post titled "Good News For Republicans!", Kristol framed Arlen Specter's defection yesterday as a real problem for President Obama and Democrats looking ahead to 2010.

Similarly and contrarianly, I wonder if today's Arlen Specter party switch, this time to the president's party, won't end up being bad for President Obama and the Democrats. With the likely seating of Al Franken from Minnesota, Democrats will have 60 seats in the Senate, giving Obama unambiguous governing majorities in both bodies. He'll be responsible for everything. GOP obstructionism will go away as an issue, and Democratic defections will become the constant worry and story line. This will make it easier for GOP candidates in 2010 to ask to be elected to help restore some checks and balance in Washington -- and, meanwhile, Specter's party change won't likely have made much difference in getting key legislation passed or not. So, losing Specter may help produce greater GOP gains in November 2010, and a brighter Republican future.

What Kristol ignores is the reality that there are plenty of checks and balances within the Democratic Senate caucus itself, ensuring that 60 sitting Senators does not 60 votes make. Not to mention the truly horrendous map the Republicans have on the Senate front next year including retirements in at least three states that went for Obama.

But a little thing like reality won't get in the way of the latest GOP talking point. Republicans in 2010 FTW!

Here's reality-challenged James Inhofe today arguing that Arlen Specter's defection proves the Republican Party is newly ascendant.

This is the first visible evidence that what happened in 1993 is happening now...Now we have Obama doing the same thing that Clinton did in 1993, in fact it's worse...people are already starting to rebel against this...And that is all of a sudden, we find out that Arlen Specter is down in the Republican Party, down in terms of his popularity. The guy that ran against him and was defeated by Arlen Specter in, six years ago, now is so far ahead of him that Arlen Specter's own advisers said there's no way that you can win this thing unless you change to the Democratic Party. Now to me, that's the evidence it's coming.

Seeing is believing:

There's more...

Diaries

Advertise Blogads