For Whom The Political Bell Tolls On AZ SB 1070

Via DougJ, from Republican and former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson:

[I]t would be absurd to deny that the Republican ideological coalition includes elements that are anti-immigrant -- those who believe that Hispanics, particularly Mexicans, are a threat to American culture and identity. When Arizona Republican Senate candidate J.D. Hayworth calls for a moratorium on legal immigration from Mexico, when then-Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) refers to Miami as a "Third World country," when state Rep. Russell Pearce (R), one of the authors of the Arizona immigration law, says Mexicans' and Central Americans' "way of doing business" is different, Latinos can reasonably assume that they are unwelcome in certain Republican circles.

[. . .] Republicans have now sent three clear signals to Hispanic voters: [1] California's Proposition 187, [. . . 2] the immigration debate of 2006, dominated by strident Republican opponents of reform; and now [3] the Arizona immigration law. [. . .] In a matter of months, Hispanic voters in Arizona have gone from being among the most pro-GOP in the nation to being among the most hostile.

[. . .] Whatever temporary gains Republicans might make feeding resentment of this demographic shift, the party identified with that resentment will eventually be voted into singularity. In a matter of decades, the Republican Party could cease to be a national party.


< When Dems Believed In The Kagan Standard | The Beltway "Political Pros" Can't Read Polls >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Arizona (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 14, 2010 at 09:48:46 AM EST
    Ick, the comments (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by MKS on Fri May 14, 2010 at 12:32:42 PM EST
    to the video you cite to, are revolting....All these conservatives crowing about winning in November, etc.....

    They have no ieda how bigotted they sound....Charge on, happy warriors....


    as opposed to how the men (4.00 / 3) (#48)
    by cawaltz on Fri May 14, 2010 at 12:45:12 PM EST
    of the Democratic Party sounded telling women they should concede their reproductive rights in concession to the Catholic Bishops and the Stupak block?

    Frankly BOTH parties ought to be ashamed of themselves.


    or course (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 14, 2010 at 12:58:39 PM EST
    the two parties are entirely equal on that and many other points.



    Miami (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by roger on Fri May 14, 2010 at 09:54:51 AM EST
    Miami is not a third world country, it is an international playground unlike anything else in America. Those of us anglos lucky enough to have lived there love the place! If you dont like Miami, then don't go there, the locals will not miss you one bit!

    As for the repubs, dissing the spanish population is political suicide! Go ahead, show your racist tendencies, your biggest supporters will get a chance to see your true beliefs!

    I second that... (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by kdog on Fri May 14, 2010 at 11:20:40 AM EST
    thoroughly enjoyed my time livin' in South FLA...and the latin influence was a major reason why.

    Good to hear from ya Roger...old school TL!


    what ARE the facts? (5.00 / 0) (#4)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 14, 2010 at 10:03:19 AM EST
    9 on Your Side took a closer look.  One of the textbooks that TUSD uses in its ethnic studies program is Chicano!, by F. Arturo Rosales.  The book teaches the history of racism and oppression in the United States directed against the Mexican, Mexican-American, and Hispanic populations.  As the name implies, a large portion of the textbook is devoted to the Chicano movement that sprang up to fight social injustice and to push for civil rights.  There are some similarities between the Chicano movement tactics that the book documents and the tactics some TUSD students have practicing recently.

    big surprise there ay?

    The cover of the book features graphic art of protesters with their fists in the air.  Pages 248, 249 and 253 feature photographs of Chicano movement members with raised fists.  The photograph on page 253 shows a student with a raised fist sitting in a classroom with other students; the text on that page makes the point that Chicano studies programs in the Southwest are "the most visible vestige" of the Chicano movement.   A review of KGUN9 News footage over the past week shows many TUSD students raising their fists in the same fashion as those shown in the textbook.

    imagine THAT.  why on earth would the do that?

    Page 185 shows a picture of students walking out of school as part of a protest.   Such student walkouts have been a major component of recent protests in Tucson against the ethnic studies restrictions and against Arizona's controversial immigration crackdown.

    And then there is the brown beret issue.  Pages 193 and 199 of the textbook show pictures of demonstrators wearing brown berets.  

    it goes on but I think you get the idea

    or maybe (none / 0) (#85)
    by Jen M on Fri May 14, 2010 at 06:13:27 PM EST
    they get HBO and watched that movie about the walkout.

    If I had a nickel (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by cawaltz on Fri May 14, 2010 at 12:41:47 PM EST
    for everytime someone has declared the Republican party's demise, I'd be rich at this point.

    Is this a Mark Twain quote? (none / 0) (#60)
    by oculus on Fri May 14, 2010 at 01:37:51 PM EST

    Yet (none / 0) (#3)
    by jbindc on Fri May 14, 2010 at 10:00:44 AM EST
    There mixed polling out there.

    In general, the trend is still going for Republicans, at least according to the latest WSJ/MSNBC poll:


    Republicans have solidified support among voters who had drifted from the party in recent elections, putting the GOP in position for a strong comeback in November's mid-term campaign, according to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll.

    The findings suggest that public opinion has hardened in advance of the 2010 elections, making it tougher for Democrats to translate their legislative successes, or a tentatively improving U.S. economy, into gains among voters.

    Republicans have reassembled their coalition by reconnecting with independents, seniors, blue-collar voters, suburban women and small town and rural voters--all of whom had moved away from the party in the 2006 elections, in which Republicans lost control of the House. Those voter groups now favor GOP control of Congress.

    They also use the "64% support the Arizona law / 70%if Hispanics oppose it" but they also had this interesting tidbit:

    Some 64% said they strongly or somewhat supported the law, compared with 34% who strongly or somewhat opposed it.

    Divisions were even sharper between whites and Hispanics. Among Hispanic respondents, 70% opposed the law, while 69% of whites in the survey supported it.

    The survey oversampled Hispanics to increase accuracy.

    Hispanics also held a different view of immigration generally than did white respondents.

    In the survey, 58% of Hispanics said that immigration helped the U.S. more than it hurt, while 56% of white respondents said that immigration hurt more than it helped.

    The survey found that, at the moment, Hispanics greatly favored Democrats over Republicans, particularly among Hispanics under age 40.

    That stands as a danger sign for the GOP given the rapid growth of that voter bloc.

    But Hispanics were far less interested in this year's elections than key Republican-leaning groups, meaning that the benefits of this trend might not accrue to the Democrats until at least the 2012 elections.


    mixed polling (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 14, 2010 at 10:09:42 AM EST
    While Baylor is a fine university (none / 0) (#6)
    by jbindc on Fri May 14, 2010 at 10:16:16 AM EST
    I think the WSJ/MSNBC poll is in the mainstream of political polling - at least as valid as the poll you cited yesterday about Harry Reid leading in his re-election bid.

    And for the record, I believe in guardian angels and that we are not the only life forms on the whole universe.  So what's your point?


    um (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 14, 2010 at 10:19:13 AM EST
    I think you made it!

    Hmmmm (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by jbindc on Fri May 14, 2010 at 10:23:44 AM EST
    So believing in guardian angels is weird but doing thingsike needing to get chemically enhanced to live life (as many here advocate) is "normal"?  Um...okay.

    My point is thst you quoted polls yesterday that showed Reid leading - I guess those are legit, but polls showing things thst you may not like or agree with are suspect.

    Got it.


    Don't confuse me with many... (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by kdog on Fri May 14, 2010 at 10:35:01 AM EST
    pal..I know I comment too much, but I'm sure the rest of the crew wants little to do with the brush that painted my odd arse:)

    If There Ever Was A Candidate For Getting Stoned (none / 0) (#22)
    by squeaky on Fri May 14, 2010 at 10:51:12 AM EST
    it is jbindc.... lol

    Except s/he would probably call 911 and have herself/himself arrested... oh well.


    do you enjoy (none / 0) (#12)
    by CST on Fri May 14, 2010 at 10:25:01 AM EST
    wine or beer ever?

    A few beers a year (none / 0) (#21)
    by jbindc on Fri May 14, 2010 at 10:49:28 AM EST
    If I happen to be at a bar, which is rare.  Don't like wine or liquor.  Don't drink coffee, and caffeine never did anything for me anyways.

    Everybody gets high somehow... (none / 0) (#24)
    by kdog on Fri May 14, 2010 at 10:55:01 AM EST
    if the belief in angels and a jones for politics is all the buzz you need, more power to ya...just don't knock those of us who need stronger stuff:)

    Just saw a headline about electronic (none / 0) (#29)
    by oculus on Fri May 14, 2010 at 11:16:38 AM EST
    cigarettes.  Did not "click."

    I like my e-cigs (none / 0) (#39)
    by Cream City on Fri May 14, 2010 at 12:09:11 PM EST
    and look forward to continuing improvements -- if the Puritan campaign against these, too, does not win.  I fear it will.  So much for the claim that the concern is against secondhand smoke.

    well I would just say (none / 0) (#27)
    by CST on Fri May 14, 2010 at 10:58:33 AM EST
    I think that is a pretty rare response.  And it is fairly "normal" to occasionally engage in chemical enhancement.  Especially of the coffee, beer, or wine variety.  I would say it's probably more "normal" than believing in guardian angels.  Not that there's anything wrong with that.

    The point (none / 0) (#31)
    by jbindc on Fri May 14, 2010 at 11:40:03 AM EST
    Which we seem to have gotten away from, was that there are mixed polls out there showing how strong or weak Republicans may be come November, especially based on the AZ law.  The chemical enhancement part was to point out to Capt that his poll was comparing apples to oranges.  I don't care if someone wants to get drunk or whatever, as long as you aren't putting innocent people in danger.  I personally don't like the out of control feeling that comes from being drunk, and I've never felt the desire to get high.  I'm a nerd - sue me.

    dont be so defensive (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 14, 2010 at 11:46:17 AM EST
    its friday.  anyway I know a lot of stoner nerds.

    yea (none / 0) (#52)
    by CST on Fri May 14, 2010 at 01:04:07 PM EST
    actually I think in a lot of cases it is almost a self-medication for those who can't relate to the average human being.  For some people who are really really smart, like genious level, it dumbs them down a bit so they can relate to other people better.  I've actually seen this a lot.  Some of the smartest people I know who are normally very socially awkward use it as a way to relax in social situations.

    early in my life (none / 0) (#53)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 14, 2010 at 01:06:32 PM EST
    before we had acronym illnesses I learned that pot slowed me down to the speed of others.

    but with me its not the genius thing but ADHD


    that's another one (none / 0) (#54)
    by CST on Fri May 14, 2010 at 01:20:59 PM EST
    Sometimes it's hard to reach "normal".  And a lot of people will do different things to get there.   Whether it's through pot or coffee, or shoot if you are on wall street - coke, we have certain societal expectations of behavior that differ based on your circle.  And if you don't naturally fit into the mold, many people will do whatever it takes to take the edge off.

    Interesting idea. "Medical" mj. (none / 0) (#56)
    by oculus on Fri May 14, 2010 at 01:31:51 PM EST
    I've said it before... (none / 0) (#80)
    by kdog on Fri May 14, 2010 at 05:34:22 PM EST
    it's kept me outta the looney bin so far...and like Lennon said "Whatever gets ya through the night..."

    Or as Mawg wrote... (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri May 14, 2010 at 06:13:19 PM EST
    Hard work good and hard work fine--but first take care of head.

    The Toyes

    Optional reading.


    I got ya... (none / 0) (#32)
    by kdog on Fri May 14, 2010 at 11:44:49 AM EST
    I guess we shall see how popular kicking the dog is...I don't put much stock in polls myself, but this country is so lost imo it wouldn't surprise me that the majority digs kicking the dog.

    Bedwetting is a Drug, IMO (none / 0) (#35)
    by squeaky on Fri May 14, 2010 at 11:57:12 AM EST
    The self inflicted fear, that you often voice here, about all the bad people out to get you and others, is a high. Also your solution of lock em up, and skip the due process if possible, does harm innocent people.

    Getting stoned does no harm to others and may sooth your paranoia about violent people looking to do you harm.


    Ridculous. And yes, I know you weren't (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by oculus on Fri May 14, 2010 at 11:59:39 AM EST
    talking to me.

    Ridiculous? (none / 0) (#40)
    by squeaky on Fri May 14, 2010 at 12:09:48 PM EST
    Hardly. Why do you think that people love amusement parks, roller coasters, and scaaaary movies, extreme sports?

    Because they all provide an adrenalin rush. That is self medicating with internal chemicals. Self induced fear is the essence of bedwetting, imo.


    Per LAT article, teens who spent lots (none / 0) (#44)
    by oculus on Fri May 14, 2010 at 12:27:08 PM EST
    of time in daycare are slightly more prone to risk-taking than those who didn't.  link

    I guess it never occurs to you (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by Anne on Fri May 14, 2010 at 12:29:19 PM EST
    that others may come by their opinions and feelings from life experience, does it?  That something that happened to them, or to someone they love, may be the reason they feel a particular way.

    I'll give you two examples.

    I have a friend here at work who was rear-ended about three weeks ago - other driver not paying attention, heavy traffic on the highway that came to a stop, and he hit her at about 40 mph - hard enough to wedge his much smaller car under her Toyota Highlander.  Fortunately, no life-threatening injuries.

    The driver who hit my friend's car had no insurance and a long, long list of traffic and other offenses.  Whatever failures there are in the whole syatem means that because he chose to drive even though he shouldn't have (but, how would he get to work if he didn't drive?), my friend suffered the consequences.  And we have no doubt he'll be back driving again, in complete disregard for the law.

    Other driving-related example:

    My brother's best friend, the friend's wife and two of their three children were killed in an accident caused by a young woman driving at speeds estimated at 95 mph, who was weaving in and out of traffic on the highway, misjudged the distance, and clipped the right rear bumper of my brother's friend's car hard enough to cause it to roll over.

    Again - another example of someone who willfully  disregarded the law, except that her disregard killed 4 members of a family and left a 7-year old girl severely injured.

    Were either of these people stoned?  No, they weren't, but there is no f'ing way you can make the blanket statement that getting stoned does no harm to others - not when stoned people do what drunk people do: get in their cars and drive because they think they're "fine."  And they've done it a million times before and never had a problem.

    Sure, we can all say that there will never be a time when we live in a world where bad things don't happen, but that doesn't mean that, as a woman, I don't look carefully before exiting the garage elevator or getting into my car when leaving work - especially at night.  It doesn't mean that I might not get on an elevator if the only other person in it gives me the creeps.

    Does that make me a bedwetter, too?  Or just smart not to assume that nothing bad will ever happen to me?  Especially since I have been mugged.

    I do not advocate locking people up without the due process to which they are entitled; I do think we need to do a better job of enforcing the laws we have instead of making more and more new ones.

    I don't always agree with jb, but I understand that she may have her reasons for feeling the way she does; for you to reduce it to "bedwetting" is just an obnoxious and condescending insult that serves no legitimate or constructive purpose.


    Anne (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by jbindc on Fri May 14, 2010 at 01:29:57 PM EST
    According to the laws of squeaky, if you have an opinion or view of the world other than the way she views it, she must resort to name calling.  She clearly, is all - knowing and is correct in her view, so the rest of us are just inferior, cultists, bedwetters (her new favorite term), or Republicans.  Whatever.  I find people who need to resort to thst sort of stuff don' t really feel good about themselves, so that's why they act that way.

    Fire away.


    you (none / 0) (#61)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 14, 2010 at 01:40:36 PM EST
    READ that?

    Life Experience (1.50 / 2) (#65)
    by squeaky on Fri May 14, 2010 at 02:44:42 PM EST
    Yeah, I have my life experiences too. My advice to people who can not seem to get over trauma: get over it, life is too short, seek professional help if you cannot manage to cope on your own.

    ... but there is no f'ing way you can make the blanket statement that getting stoned does no harm to others -

    Yes I can.  MJ, if anything MJ calms those who may have violent urges. Your thinking appears to be abstract, mine based on experience.

    but that doesn't mean that, as a woman, I don't look carefully before exiting the garage elevator or getting into my car when leaving work - especially at night.  It doesn't mean that I might not get on an elevator if the only other person in it gives me the creeps.

    Hard to tell if you are a bedwetter, sounds like you try to be aware of your environment, like most people do.

    I don't always agree with jb, but I understand that she may have her reasons for feeling the way she does; for you to reduce it to "bedwetting" is just an obnoxious and condescending insult that serves no legitimate or constructive purpose

    You can have your opinion and I can have mine. This has been a legal defense, left of center political site for a long time. Anyone that wants to spout pro law and order, victim rights propaganda here should be prepared to either be banned or take criticism for their views.

    And I do not care what horrible life experiences have led jbindc to become a bedwetter, but I certainly always take on the content of his or her comments and then, if apt conclude that he or she is a bedwetter.

    No more reductionist than to have determined that you have a soft spot for Hillary, to put it mildly, based on your lovefest comments over the last two years.


    You need to stop the name-calling. (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Anne on Fri May 14, 2010 at 03:17:56 PM EST
    There are other ways to get your point across that don't involve outright name-calling, and you know that.

    As for the rest of your response?

    1.  Unless you are growing your own, or know with certainty that the pot you are smoking is pure, there is no way to know what it is treated with and how that will affect you; I know several people who have, indeed, experienced feelings of paranoia when smoking.

    2.  Pot may make you mellow, but it doesn't improve your coordination or ability to think and react quickly, which is why those high on pot are just as dangerous behind the wheel as those high on Jack Daniels.

    3.  I notice you avoided altogther the examples I cited where failure to observe the law resulted in consequences to people I actually know - or, in the case of the dead family - knew.  These kinds of things happen all the time because of the prevailing attitude that people should not be restricted by such things that interferwe with their "freedom."

    4.  My point about being careful was in response to your original expression of disdain for those who are "paranoid" about something bad happening to them; it is entirely appropriate for people to exercise common-sense care in an effort not to have something bad happen to them, so you need to better define what is "bad" and what is more than "being careful."

    5.  I think we are all aware what the focus of this site is, but that still does not give you license to name-call.

    6.  It is quite apparent that your ability to care is somewhat - maybe more than somewhat - limited; that tends to negatively inform your comments, in case you care about that.  

    7.  You can reach any conclusion you want about people, but this site has specific rules about name-calling, which you are violating.

    8.  And finally, speaking of medication, have you still not sought help for your Hillary obsession?

    "stop the name calling" (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 14, 2010 at 03:40:16 PM EST
    we could just leave that to you

    Mirror? (none / 0) (#70)
    by squeaky on Fri May 14, 2010 at 03:31:06 PM EST
    But thanks for the manners lesson, teach. Unlike many of your fans, the example you set, not to mention the high handed hypocrisy, is not for me.

    Actually (none / 0) (#71)
    by otherlisa on Fri May 14, 2010 at 03:34:32 PM EST
    There is evidence that marijuana does not negatively impact driving performance. It may even enhance it.

    I for one would rather walk as much as I can and drive as seldom as possible.


    Makes Sense (none / 0) (#73)
    by squeaky on Fri May 14, 2010 at 03:38:19 PM EST
    MJ, as with other drugs, affects people differently. For me, particularly on long trips, MJ enhances my driving. I take less risks, do not get bored, and stay focused for hours on end, no speeding, stay in lane, and not in any rush to get there.

    As far as coordination, many athletes toke up before games, performance, for focus and calming. It does not affect reaction time, or coordination for me in the least.


    So, you must be the guy who's (none / 0) (#77)
    by Anne on Fri May 14, 2010 at 04:01:04 PM EST
    driving 40 in a 65 mph zone...

    I'm sure it enhances the experience for you, but those sharing the road with you may not agree.

    And I'm assuming you've had your reaction time and coordination tested by experts, right?


    You sound just like the people who swear that the three glasses of wine they drank before hitting the road don't affect them at all...they're always fine...


    No (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by squeaky on Fri May 14, 2010 at 04:04:13 PM EST
    I go at the speed limit, maybe 5 miles above, and am super aware of all the cars around me. If someone wants to pass, I yield. No ego just pleasure of driving.

    Sorry your stereotype is not working here. Abstract knowledge, is often a problem when it becomes the basis for opinion.


    Oh And As For Tests By Experts (none / 0) (#81)
    by squeaky on Fri May 14, 2010 at 05:55:43 PM EST
    I can smoke some weed and play chopin etudes c# minor, for example, up to tempo and just as accurately as without herbal enhancement. The metronome is my expert, and I certainly can tell when I miss notes, stoned or straight.

    Usually with the weed I have more intense focus.

    Alcohol on the other hand slows down my coordination, speed and reflexes, although as far as piano playing goes, a little bit helps inhibition of playing for other people.


    Weed sure does (none / 0) (#79)
    by ZtoA on Fri May 14, 2010 at 05:21:24 PM EST
    affect people differently! And then there are the different gardens. Its not a standardized product. I know some kids who smoked a passed joint at a concert which was laced with something and several got really sick. Yup, listen to mom - never drink from anyone else's cup or smoke what they pass you.

    Since this is an immigration thread, is pot the real problem in AZ?

    And driving under the influence is probably not a great idea. I used to take lots of oxycodone for pain and never got high from it (you don't if it is killing pain), and it made me much more functional. But driving was not a good idea.

    This thread is making me want a cigarette and a scotch! Oh, well. I have my memories.


    One man's meat is another (none / 0) (#76)
    by jondee on Fri May 14, 2010 at 03:44:49 PM EST
    man's poison..

    Or, as Blake said, one law for the ox and lion is tyranny.


    Those d@mn victims! (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by jbindc on Fri May 14, 2010 at 03:19:57 PM EST
    How dare they be victims of people being a$$hole criminals and expect rights!

    I haven't suffered a great tragedy, but I appreciate your heartfelt concern.  However, without rules and such, society doesn't function, and if you choose not to follow them, then you should be prepared to face the consequences.  And I say that as someone who had someone very close to me do some jail time, so whatever you think you know about me, keep your opinions to yourself.


    Sorry Wrong Blog (none / 0) (#72)
    by squeaky on Fri May 14, 2010 at 03:34:35 PM EST
    so whatever you think you know about me, keep your opinions to yourself.

    If you want people, like me, to keep their opinions to themselves, better not to make comments on a blog. Try email, you have a better chance of controlling the opinions others may have about you, that way.


    Why am I not surprised (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 14, 2010 at 05:56:31 PM EST
    that Squeaky brings up bed wetting?

    This must be about the 10,000th time... With me it is because I find radical Muslims offensive..

    It is, of course, her bed rock defensive measure. Challenge her world and she will name you a bed wetter and then smear you.


    Bedwetting.... (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by ZtoA on Fri May 14, 2010 at 06:06:06 PM EST
    jb I think you have just been called a "big baby"!! Oh, that takes me back....sigh (I'm gazing fondly into the past).... to a time when I was always surrounded by little children. There are several appropriate responses for you here - you could call Squeaky a bigger baby (which you would have to seal by saying "one two three no changes"), or if you know any bad words you could use them, like poo-poo. Just a thought.

    No (none / 0) (#86)
    by squeaky on Fri May 14, 2010 at 07:56:51 PM EST
    You need a lefty blog catch up lesson. Bedwetting was coined by dkos. It is an adult affliction developed by many Americans during the BushCo fearmongering years. Think adults that have to wear Depends®.

    OK thanks for the education (none / 0) (#88)
    by ZtoA on Fri May 14, 2010 at 08:38:43 PM EST
    Not a Big Baby, but a Big Old Person (Who Does not Like Bush). Hey, I don't mind your Ann Coulter name calling moments - anyone who brags about being able to play Chopin stoned is OK in my book!

    Alcoholism and addiction afflict a lot of (none / 0) (#38)
    by MKS on Fri May 14, 2010 at 12:03:55 PM EST
    people....And the rates of recovery from such is not all that good......

    I make no apologies (none / 0) (#23)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 14, 2010 at 10:52:03 AM EST
    for my chemical enhancement

    Maybe you should, (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Anne on Fri May 14, 2010 at 02:26:04 PM EST
    because whatever you're on doesn't seem to be working.

    Or there are some side effects people should know about.


    and maybe (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 14, 2010 at 02:56:14 PM EST
    you should try it.

    LSD (none / 0) (#69)
    by jondee on Fri May 14, 2010 at 03:24:16 PM EST
    was introduced by those Red, White and Blue defenders of ours, the CIA (of course, since it was the Cold War that excuses everything, always)

    Or, you could ask Syd Barret and Peter Green if sensitive, creative minds, who could benefit us all -- though maybe not the CIA -- would do quite well without it..

    As Dylan said, the only people who REALLY needed it, were the people who would never take it..Nixon, Richard Helms, William Buckley..

    Though, anyone who thinks that putting people temporarily in a place where they have to worry about having their face ripped open with a razor blade while being treated like something subhuman by apes in uniforms is somehow going to contribute to "solving the drug problem", is possibly in need of a little acid therapy themselves..


    No the CIA did not (none / 0) (#87)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 14, 2010 at 08:33:21 PM EST
    "introduce" LSD.



    Hoffman discovered.. (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by jondee on Fri May 14, 2010 at 08:43:52 PM EST
    and CIA scum dosed unsuspecting people in this country with it.

    All in the name of fighting totalitarian govts that abuse their own people..

    Of course, without all that acid we probably wouldnt have gotten yuppies and all those fundamentalist nutjobs twenty years later..So it was all for the good of the country.


    Btw I thought you didnt (none / 0) (#90)
    by jondee on Fri May 14, 2010 at 08:47:54 PM EST
    give credence to wikipedia..

    Did you read the section on the MK-ULTRA program near the bottom of the page?


    Whatever the CIA did (none / 0) (#92)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 15, 2010 at 07:42:46 AM EST
    according to Wiki they didn't "introduce" LSD.

    Well wiki (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by jondee on Sat May 15, 2010 at 02:00:49 PM EST
    is unreliable, as you always say when the info dosnt jibe with your world view..

    In the late forties and early fifties, who had more power and influence: and handful of renegade shrinks, or a powerful arm of the U.S govt with a removed-from-any-scrutiny "black" budget and a predilection for Manchurian Candidate experimentation?


    PPJ Protector of Everything CIA (none / 0) (#94)
    by squeaky on Sat May 15, 2010 at 02:12:18 PM EST
    Except when it comes to outing one of their own...

    Oh, right, she wasn't one of their own, she was just a secretary or something like that.


    Also not a protector (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by jondee on Sat May 15, 2010 at 02:34:49 PM EST
    when it's a matter of who was responsible for promulgating bad wmd intelligence..

    The legacy of Shrub, Miss Piggy, Wolfie and co must be protected at all costs..


    Oh Boy! Semantics! (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sat May 15, 2010 at 02:23:18 PM EST
    Introduce:  to bring (a person) to first knowledge or experience of something: to introduce someone to skiing.

    From Wiki:

    The Deputy Director of the CIA revealed that over thirty universities and institutions were involved in an "extensive testing and experimentation" program which included covert drug tests on unwitting citizens "at all social levels, high and low, native Americans and foreign." Several of these tests involved the administration of LSD to "unwitting subjects in social situations." At least one death, that of Dr. Olson, resulted from these activities. The Agency itself acknowledged that these tests made little scientific sense. The agents doing the monitoring were not qualified scientific observers

    Introduced.  By the CIA.  Per Wiki.


    Gotta love people (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by jondee on Sat May 15, 2010 at 02:37:44 PM EST
    who selectively read their own sources.

    Like the way Cheney and Rumsfeld decided what was going on in Iraq before the invasion.


    Semantics? (none / 0) (#96)
    by squeaky on Sat May 15, 2010 at 02:31:27 PM EST
    You are kind.

    Well... (none / 0) (#99)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sat May 15, 2010 at 02:45:58 PM EST
    ...the delusion and wilful ignorance are a given in this case.  

    "How I learned to stop worrying (none / 0) (#100)
    by jondee on Sat May 15, 2010 at 02:58:24 PM EST
    and love a right wing police state"

    Order a copy today and he'll throw in an Ollie North nite lite..


    ROTFLOL (none / 0) (#101)
    by squeaky on Sat May 15, 2010 at 03:06:50 PM EST
    Unless the chains are out... (none / 0) (#26)
    by kdog on Fri May 14, 2010 at 10:56:59 AM EST
    then I'll apologize up and down and swear before the creator that I'll never do it again...with my fingers crossed of course.

    Honesty is not a trait that gets you far in this society...sneakin', schemin', and bullsh*ttin' is what we value.


    Chemical enhancement (none / 0) (#37)
    by MKS on Fri May 14, 2010 at 12:01:29 PM EST
    I think the argument is not that drugs are good for you, but rather you shouldn't be put into jail for using them.

    What I do find infuriating is those who advocate tough drug laws are often big alcohol drinkers.....or users of prescription drugs.....The hypocrisy is everywhere.

    To advocate for decriminlaization is not to advocate for drug use....I think most who want to decriminalize drugs also want a lot of the money spent on education and treatment instead....


    Too true (none / 0) (#41)
    by Cream City on Fri May 14, 2010 at 12:12:34 PM EST
    as I see here in the state that has some of the highest taxes on tobacco and has draconian laws on smoking -- even outdoors and even in private places, if the Puritans get their way.

    Yet this also is that state with the lowest taxes on beer, the state that boasts of driving drunk more than any state, the state with among the highest health care costs in part owing to rampant alcoholism, encouraged from an early age.

    If my state taxed hypocrisy, I wouldn't be enduring another year of pay cuts.  We'd be rolling in dough.


    Did you hear the NPR piece yesterday (none / 0) (#49)
    by oculus on Fri May 14, 2010 at 12:52:34 PM EST
    on smoking in Indonesia?  Hasn't signed on to bans, warnings, not advertising to kids.  3% of kids 5-9 years old smoke.  As opposed to eating, in most cases.

    I definitely have guardian angels (none / 0) (#43)
    by Cream City on Fri May 14, 2010 at 12:19:51 PM EST
    but it's just that mine are not supernatural nor do they have fluffy white feathery wings and such.

    Mine were put upon this earth in human form, thank heavens.  Without them, where would I be?  And my children?  They still would be on welfare lunches.

    So as ever, perhaps the poll did not ask the necessary next question:  How do you define a guardian angel?


    jb, I think this poll is valid (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by MKS on Fri May 14, 2010 at 11:51:27 AM EST
    But reading it closely, and with other data, is the key.

    A poll yesterday showed that the most important issue for most people is the growing oil slick.  Immigration is well down the list at about 19% iirc.

    It is about voter intensity.  Latinos will care and for a very, very long time.  Many Anglos will say sure close the border, has to be done, in some kind of vague assent.  But most of them don't live and breathe this issue as Latinos do.

    Prop 187 in California is such a good example.  It passed by some 20 odd points.  And that initiative was less onerous than what Arizona is currently doing.  Prop 187 denied public benefits to those here illegally.  No deportation.  No jail.  But it was seen as Latino bashing....Republicans won big that election and patted themselves on the back.   But the next election and the one after that proved something else entirely.  The Latinos stayed in the Democratic column permanently in large numbers.  Those who did not vote before started to vote....and the large majority in favor of sensible immigration reform, which is how prop 187 was portrayed?  They went back to their original voting patterns....

    The stuff coming out of Arizona is not only hateful and hurtful, it is also truly bizarre.  The newest law bans Latino and Hispanic studies classes.  They just do not like Latinos very much.  What great public need required the banning of those classes?  With the papers-please statute, they at least could pretend to be addressing a crime and border issue.  The banning of Latinos studies classes is pure unadulterated hostility.....Too many brown people....Dislike of both the culture and the people.


    Of course (none / 0) (#59)
    by jbindc on Fri May 14, 2010 at 01:37:18 PM EST
    I think any poll at this juncture is not worth
    much now - so much can happen between now and election day.  Will the intensity and furor over the AZ law die down?  Will people lose interest in the oil spill story?  (Does anybody hear much about Haiti anymore?).

    Also, as people become more educated to a subject, the polls change.  And goodness knows what other events will pop up this summer that will demand or divert our attention.

    I just thought it was something people might be interested in seeing, since lately, the meme around here has been "the Republicsns are on the ropes!"


    Not in 2010 (none / 0) (#62)
    by MKS on Fri May 14, 2010 at 01:41:35 PM EST
    But in 2012, and by 2016 demographics will be close to finishing off the GOP outside of the South.

    The name may change (none / 0) (#63)
    by jbindc on Fri May 14, 2010 at 01:57:56 PM EST
    But we will never be left with just one party

    Singularity? (none / 0) (#7)
    by Doc Rock on Fri May 14, 2010 at 10:18:17 AM EST
    Would that it were so, but even if it were, so what? We see the Dems moving farther and farther right under Obama and the growing tide of money's influence on politicos. Where to go? Where to go?

    isn't Holder profiling Arizonans? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 14, 2010 at 10:18:28 AM EST
    Let's see. Reaching conclusions based on a "glance"? Check. Relying on hearsay and rumor about a people instead of using independent thought? Check. Putting law-enforcement resources into attacking something based solely on appearances? Check. By golly, I think Andy McCarthy may be on to something here:

    lemme see what would the profile be?  fat, old, upper middle class, stupid and white?

    honestly (none / 0) (#11)
    by CST on Fri May 14, 2010 at 10:24:16 AM EST
    I'm almost looking forward to the day that white people are a minority in this country.  At least we'll win more elections...

    I always related... (none / 0) (#15)
    by kdog on Fri May 14, 2010 at 10:37:10 AM EST
    more with minorities anyway...I'm kinda looking forward to it too!

    Come to S. CA. (none / 0) (#17)
    by oculus on Fri May 14, 2010 at 10:42:04 AM EST
    No need... (none / 0) (#18)
    by kdog on Fri May 14, 2010 at 10:43:13 AM EST
    my house is the only one on my block with any crackers in it.

    yea (none / 0) (#25)
    by CST on Fri May 14, 2010 at 10:55:30 AM EST
    I have to say, I'm not concerned, I've been in that spot more than a few times and was just fine.

    Amongst my college friends I was the "token American".  And in middle school I was one of two white kids in my class.  I actually kind of miss it.  Looking forward to getting out of Boston.  This city is waaay too white.  At least the professional class.


    always identified (none / 0) (#28)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 14, 2010 at 11:01:03 AM EST
    more with oppressed minorities being one myself

    Not old (none / 0) (#75)
    by jbindc on Fri May 14, 2010 at 03:41:46 PM EST
    Population of AZ residents over 65:  13.3%
    General US population:  12.8%

    Population under 18 (AZ): 26.3%
    General US population: 24.3%

    [US Census - 2008]

    Arizona is 27th in obesity and obesity is much more prevalent among Hispanics.

    But your point is taken.


    Who wants cheap maids, grass cutters etc. (none / 0) (#14)
    by Yes2Truth on Fri May 14, 2010 at 10:36:25 AM EST

    Excess population means soon you don't have to be
    rich to afford regular car detailings, someone
    to paint your house, walk your dog and kids.

    Ms. Governor:  Tear down that fence!                                  

    Pearce has a point... (none / 0) (#16)
    by kdog on Fri May 14, 2010 at 10:40:48 AM EST
    I did notice a different "way of doing business" when I was down Mexico way...a decent hotel can be had without a credit card, no prescription necessary to buy drugs...in these respects at least, their way is better...maybe we could learn something from each other if the demonization ever takes a coffee break.

    Yep. And re public relief programs (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Cream City on Fri May 14, 2010 at 12:17:09 PM EST
    the spouse was just opining on a difference we saw.  Here, we are in orange-cone season, the annual onslaught of need to repair roads full of potholes, plus we are dealing with lots of closed roads for bridge repairs (the price now of long-deferred maintenance under a long GOP governorship).  Spouse noticed much massive equipment but relatively few workers needed to run it.

    In Mexico, we saw much less equipment, much lower levels of technology.  We saw lots of pothole repair and such done with shovels -- and lots of workers, so that lots more families had food on the table and roofs over their heads.


    Did your spouse report on road repair (none / 0) (#50)
    by oculus on Fri May 14, 2010 at 12:55:02 PM EST
    in India.  Women in colorful saris and sandals carry large metal containers on their heads.  The containers hold broken-up material for filling potholes, which is donw with a shovel.  The men supervise.

    I will have to ask him -- his blog (none / 0) (#57)
    by Cream City on Fri May 14, 2010 at 01:32:31 PM EST
    from India certainly reported on the roads there, but mainly about how to survive crossing them without getting run over without lanes for drivers -- and without getting trampled by camels or much-bejeweled elephants!  The photos on his blog of the traffic there were absolutely entrancing.

    Btw, it may sound weird that I followed the spouse's trip via blog.  I found it weird at first!  But it actually worked out fine, as he saved his time for phone calls and emails for more personal stuff.

    So on the upcoming trip, when he blogs again for his students and colleagues, I am going to be a contributor.  I told him that in the fine tradition of academe, I plan to refute everything he writes. :-)


    Fun. A good friend, with whom I used to (none / 0) (#58)
    by oculus on Fri May 14, 2010 at 01:36:59 PM EST
    travel a lot, now has a long-standing boyfriend who also loves to travel.  He does a daily blog while they are on the road.  Maybe up to five photos a day and a paragraph or so about each.  I always read.  They went to Vietnam and Cambodia about a month before we did.  And to Japan a couple of months after I got back.

    Not fond of this title. (none / 0) (#19)
    by oculus on Fri May 14, 2010 at 10:45:07 AM EST

    How about: Ask Not for Whom the (none / 0) (#20)
    by oculus on Fri May 14, 2010 at 10:46:42 AM EST
    Bell Tolls.  It Tolls for the GOP.

    Rerun of 1970's (none / 0) (#91)
    by diogenes on Fri May 14, 2010 at 09:51:48 PM EST
    You might have said the same thing of the GOP opposing affirmative action in the seventies and catering to the white backlash.  The party was "dead"...until 1980.
    Hispanics aren't monolithic anyway; Cubans are Republican, after all.  And only 58% of Hispanics say that immigration is good for the country--hardly an overwhelming majority.