Memorial Day
-
“Happy Memorial Day “ seems to be all you hear in the week prior to
Memorial Day. When the very definition of memorial is to remember, it seems
odd to say ...
9 years ago
- L S. "Spencer" Olsen
- I don't really care if you agree or not. Just saying what I think.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
My conversation on Fark today with an opponent of AZ Immigration law.
Me:
I have questions...
Who is it that actually enforcing federal law? Since when did we have a Federal Police force? Isn't it the local law enforcement that enforces federal law? Shouldn't the local law enforcement agencies be empowered to enforce federal laws if no federal police force exists?
Him:
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
Often times the local/state police will be brought in to assist these agents, but the operations are initiated at the federal level, as far as I'm aware.
Me:
ICE is on the streets enforcing immigration? I didn't think ICE directly enforced federal immigration law with a presence, but rather partnered with local law enforcement. In fact, the Immigration and Nationality Act, specifically section 287(g) is designed to increase cooperation with state and local agencies.
How does ICE know what operations are able to be initiated if they are not on the ground, directly enforcing immigration status? Wouldn't it be the role and responsibilities of the local enforcement agencies to inform ICE of irregularities so that ICE can initiation operations where appropriate?
Him:
Are they randomly patrolling streets, do you mean? I would say no, but they are certainly "on the streets" when they're acting on information.
As part of the Dept. of homeland Security, I would imagine their information comes from a number of different sources, including local and state police forces and Border Patrol.
Me:
So why should a local agency be disallowed from checking immigration status when say, someone is pulled over for speeding, arrested for a domestic crime, etc? Isn't this where ICE gets a good share its information?
...and the conversation has gone silent. I guess I made too much sense.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Monday, July 12, 2010
Found an interesting article today from www.speaker.gov (Nancy Pelosi's Website). Obviously enraged by the Republican attempt to stop the latest unemployment benefit, Pelosi and her band of merry "economists" let the public know that those unemployment dollars filter back through the economy. No comment from ultra-scientific publications "Duh! Weekly" and "No Crap Magazine." Of course money that is given to people filters back into the economy! Bush recognized that fact which is why he created his tax cuts and did his best to keep them going. But I digress.
Let's get a few things straight...
Money in the hands of the people will always stimulate an economy because people spend money. Whether it's groceries, rent, insurance payments, televisions, etc. Anytime people have to pay for things, the economy is stimulated because when the consumer buys, the producer benefits.
Republicans did not try to block the bill because they hate unemployed people. According to Senators Tom Coburn, Jim Bunning, and Lamar Alexander the block came after negotiations with democrats failed. What negotiations you ask? The negotiations where Republicans said things like: "How are we paying for this?" and "We need to allocate this money before we spend it because we are FREAKING BROKE!!!." And the democrats said "Screw you, why do you hate unemployed people."
What I find funniest...
First of all the Unemployment Extension bill is referred to as "job creation legislation." Classic.
Second, Nancy Pelosi admits that putting money in the hands of people will stimulate the economy. So why let the Bush tax cuts expire? Isn't that "money in the hands of the people?" And before you answer "Well those tax cuts go to rich people" just keep in mind 2 absolute facts.
1. Rich people probably employ you. Taking their money away makes them less likely to be able to employ you.
2. Rich people spend money, too. Money that stimulates the economy. In fact, what distinguishes rich spending from poor, unemployed spending is that rich people usually spend more.
So shut up, Nancy... you are trying to politicize unemployment for your own doomed gain. Plus, you're an idiot. Go get some more botox and leave the decisions to the grown-ups, mmmmkay?
Now for rambling in-coherencies...
I was watching C-Span a few weeks back and I noticed something. They were in the House Financial Services Committee, talking about some fiscal bills that they were going to need to have passed. All of the Republicans at the table were wearing neatly pressed suits, had their hair combed and sat upright. The Dems, on the other hand, looked like a bunch of slobs. They had disheveled hair, wrinkled clothing, askew ties (when they were worn); almost like they weren't taking things seriously. Plus, whenever the Republicans brought out an argument, it was full of references, fact, charts, and citations to which Barney and his pals always responded with statements akin to "I know you are, but what am I" and "well you did it first!" and the ever classic "Nuh-uhh!" The poor GOP representatives spent a lot of time just shaking their heads. It actually would have been pretty comical to watch if it hadn't been so sad.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Friday, July 2, 2010
Rest in peace, Robert Byrd. Your work in Civil Rights will not be forgotten.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
