Roiling On

And on it goes, rolling, rolling, rolling to borrow from the Rawhide theme song of years gone by. What is it ? For our purposes, it is the continuing controversy or fight or debate ( although there seems to be precious little  in the way of real debate)  or any such word of your choosing about immigration of the illegal variety and the state of Arizona.

There have been untold thousands of words written and opinions expressed. There have been boycotts , threatened boycotts, angry demonstrations, considerable name calling and now federal intervention in the form of  a lawsuit filed by the Justice Department. And now we have a ruling by federal judge  Susan Bolton halting the implementation of significant parts of the law. A big deal, yep! A  comment by Yale immigration law  professor Peter Schuck  to the  New York Times  called her decision  a ” rush to judgment. ” Wonder why? Without knowing  any better I would have guessed that perhaps there was some pressure exerted from somewhere to get  a quick stay from what was perceived as  a favorable source. But I doubt I would have thought that was  the case since federal judges should be somewhat immune to such pressures, right?  Judge Bolton, nominated by Bill Clinton, but recommended by Senator Jon Kyl. has served on the  U S District Court for the District of Arizona since 2000. Bet she never expected to be smack dab in the middle of such controversy. Sorry for the digression. One more statement from Professor Shuck. His opinion is that her quick decision reflects  pressure from the feds ( Justice Department or higher?)  to get this done quickly.

So, where do we stand now and what happens next? Governor Brewer is condidering an appeal and pondering some revisions to the law. Whether the boycotts continue or not or how successful they have been I don’t know. I don’t have the answer to this but I wonder if an individual state has been boycotted before? Thankfully, Commissioner Bud Selig  has had the good sense not to move the 2011 All-Star game.

But  my real question is what are people protesting against or boycotting? Do they know or have many/most just been  agitated or encouraged to yell and scream angry things in front of cameras and photographers without a clear of understanding of what or why? And not for one minute do I buy the opinion that Arizona’s actions go against the truths expressed so eloquently  on the Statue Of  Liberty or violate the great American tradition of immigration.

I have two acquaintances, one whose father immigrated from Italy, legally, making him 1st generation American and another who immigrated from Mexico legally and  earned citizenship. I applaud them and many like them. Those who are illegally and remain here illegally, with no thought towards becoming citizens are not  the historical norm of immigration.

One closing thought which may be a repeat from another post. Find out how the country of Mexico deals with illegal immigrants. ( This is not an issue that will go away nor is it one easily solved. I fervently hope that ther can be a solution, not only for Arizona but for the country as well.)

Another Installment of……..

………. only in America.( Thank you Jay and the Americans for the song.) The quadrennial event known as the World Cup is ongoing in South Africa. As of this writing, the American team has just been eliminated  by Ghana for the second  consecutive time. Still advancing out of group play was an accomplishment for  a team ranked about 15th in the world.

I’m no soccer expert and not much of  a fan except when the Lady Tar Heels play. But I will admit to hoping the American team does well. That thought doesn’t  hold true with some prominent American sportswriters, namely William Rhoden of the New York Times and Dave Zirin, sports editor of The Nation. Bet that’s a real shock about  Mr Zirin. In a book I read recently about Calvin Coolidge, his magazine was  even then gleefully bashing conservatives . But back to the soccer.

First  Mr Rhoden who proudly admits to rooting for Ghana, the last African entry. He thinks that their success could be  along-term psychological boost as well as ” continuing the push to keep this important giant( Africa) on track.” Perhaps he should tell the South Koreans, their next opponent.

Now Mr Zirin is a  different story. He seems inclined to do a little America bashing as well as attacking Glenn Beck, etc. for using sports as  an avatar for  ” racism and imperial arrogance.”  Translation, if we do not excel at  a sport, it must be useless.

Lastly there is sportswriter and social commentator Bethlehem Shoals who sees American interest in soccer as  a refuge for the shameful actions of our government, translation, the evil Bush and his cronies.

What a shame to miss the pure enjoyment of goalllllllllllllllllll. Bet all  the Brazilian media types are  rooting for their team.

More Than We Expected?

The President has announced his nominee for the Supreme Court seat of the retiring John Paul Stevens. What a shock, he has picked another woman and thus according to him this will  make the court look more like the  country than ever before. But would Solictor General Elena Kagan actually do that? Perhaps we should take a closer look.

Now, upfront we should note that these descriptions are not meant as criticisms of the nominee, but as observations in light of what the President said. Ms Kagan is Jewish which will mean  the Court would have 6 Catholics and 3 Jews. She is single and in fact has never been married. Unlike Justice Sotomayor whose humble upbringing was repaetedly stressed, Ms Kagan  is the polar opposite. She is, as the New York Times puts it, “a creature of Manhattan’s liberal, intellectual Upper West Side; hardly a typical upbringing. She served on the faculty of the Chicago University Law School with guess who? Yep, Barack H Obama.  How about that for irony or wonder if this is fulflling  a long range goal since Kagan was on the nominee short list last time around.

So, maybe the Court will not really look more like America but just seem to . What is interesting is somethinmg that Rush brings up. Not sure if I agree wholeheatedly but it sounds very plausible. He maintains that Obama is in fact nominating himself. It has been noted that they  served on the law school faculty together and it seems that her record or lack of same mirrors that of the President before he was elected. She has as her judicial hero  the late Thurgood Marshall and adheres very strongly to his  philosophy that the Court should exist almost solely for the benefit of  the “despised and disadvantaged,” whomever the Court perceives those to be. She is reputed to be post partisan, a consensus builder, as was the president. Perhaps more telling is how she views the Constitution. And how is that? Kinda hard to say, given the paucity of the written record. But, hazarding a guess, I would use the words  living and changing in there somewhere along with oh, maybe the framers didn’t really do all that great a job but we have surely improved it.

But, in all lilklihood, she will be confirmed even if all Republicans  vote no, which they will not. But what will be interesting is if the topic of same-sex marriage comes up. Ms Kagan is actually on the record here. And her view is not that of the typical liberal. That just might liven up the proceedings a bit.

Back to the Gulf

The Gulf  Coast is being inundated once again, but unlike Katrina from 2005, the culprit is oil and copious amounts of the stuff. The cleanup or more accurately, stopping the bleeding, is not going all that well. The party at fault, BP, maybe? They actually were the lessee of the oil rig that blew up, killing some 11  workers. At this stage, they are not actually admitting blame as the cause of the explosion is as yet undetermined. But, they have agreed  to pay damages, but as to whom and how much, who can actually say.

I must confess that I have thought about this disaster and the federal response as compared to that which occurred when Katrina wreaked havoc. Wait, just a minute, EPA head Lisa Jackson is not calling it a disaster or rather  a catastrophe but rather a “huge environmental challenge.” Glad we got that clarified.

So, what else is going on with the feds? Obama arrived on Sunday, some 11 days after the explosion and after Robert Gibbs said on Friday he would not be going this weekend. Hmmm!!  More Gibbspeak, this courtesy of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar. We are going to keep the “boot on their throat,” in reference to the pressure on BP. Think for  a moment of what imagery that phrase brings to mind? Not a  very good one , I presume. Oh, the operative talking point coming from virtually every one from the federal government, including the President is day one. We have been on this from day one, in action from day one, mobilizing from day one, etc.

Don’t know about that. If it is the case, why have  staunch Obama allies including the New York Times, the Sierra Club and Bill Maher had such unflattering things to say? Maybe  they forgot  they weren’t criticizing Bush. Who knows?

There is  a line from the theme song to the television series, Monk, that says, ” hey, who’s in charge here? ” Sure hope someone is and Godspeed to their efforts.

PS: Hope you don’t own any stock in BP!

The Paul Bunyan Of Czars

When I was somewhat younger, ok, a lot younger; I really enjoyed reading stories  about Paul Bunyan and his faithful blue ox, Babe. Ole Paul was the ultimate man of the forest. Along with Babe and his mighty ax, he was  a logger par excellence and there was virtually no obstacle he could not  overcome.

Paul came along in the early 20th century and now, about  a century later , we may have his 21st century counterpart. That individual would be the President’ s pay czar, Ken Feinberg. What has  an apparently mild mannered man such as Mr Weinberg accomplished? Why, he is beginning a process of cutting the pay of overpaid, greedy financial executives.

The process as I understand is beginning with top executives for those financial institutions that received government bail out money, some of whom did not even want it to begin with. Reportedly, pay of some  execs will be cut as much as 90%. Surveys have indicated  a somewhat substantial populist sentiment for such action. Nail the greedy profiteers etc.

But, listen to some comments the President made after referring to Feinberg’s  initial eforts….”But more work needs to be done, which is  why I urge the Senate to pass legislation that will give company shareholders a voice on the pay packages awarded to their executives.”

Now, Rush’s take on this is that the government is just beginning its effort to control pay levels. He is of the opinion that other companies will also come under the government’s purview. Backing this up is  a story in the New  York Times that Fed Chairman Bernanke and friends will review the compensation at all banks, whether or not they received bailout funds. Of course, the Times likes this. Methinks they should not cheer too much, too soon.

Obviously there are people and companies and industries that all of us think make too much money. for openers, my list would include David Letterman and Keith Olbermann and probably a lot of athletes and actors and actresses. Do I want the government to control what they make? Shucks, no!!

Follow along with me a bit and see if I am just being paranoid. Ok, the feds are dealing with financial institutions now and are attempting to broaden that reach. Wonder what kind of detail is in the bill? What execs are covered, how much influence do stockholders get, etc. Now, try this thought . it is not a very large step to instituting pay controls  of some sort specifically on firms that get government contracts or receive federal monies. That could cover an extraordinarily large group there and could easily be justified in a populist sense. Why, we are just being good stewards of the taxpyer’s money.

Funny thought. The administration wants to increase taxes on the higher wage earners. Better be careful cutting their pay, may backfire  there.

Is all this the beginning of wage controls. but im a different guise?

Is There A Correct Way to Criticize?

So, now that Rush has been dropped from the potential  ownership group maybe attempting to buy the St Louis Rams, one of only how many members we don’t know, since only he and Dave Checketts names were released. Doubtless there is joy in liberal land this night. As an aside, rock singer Fergie is joining the Dolphins as a partial owner. Pretty soon, the Dolphins will be able to put on some rollicking concerts, using only their ownership. You might want to check out some  of  her song lyrics and remember NFL Commish Roger Goddell saying that we don’t need divisive comments  and we here are all held to a higher standard. Contrary to Mr  Sharpton’s comments, it is not a moral victory for all Americans.

Anyway, score one for the libs. And today we have this. Award winning journalist, Seymour Hersh spoke at Duke (guess I can use that word in my blog) University last night with an interesting theme. He says that the U  S military is at war- with President Obama. Yep, that’s what he said. Gotta be true, he said . There is racism in the Pentagon and we all know it, as he was quoted in the Durham Herald-Sun.

Mr Hersh was critical of the president, particularly on Afghanistan. He said that the President must  stand up to the military. He must run the Pentagon or the Pentagon will run him. Other statements say that the military think he  is weak and the wrong color. He criticized Gen McChrystal for publicly requesting 40,000 additional troops, adding that it puts Obama in a no-win position. Give him the troops and lose politically or not provide the  troops and  lose- politically. That is somewhat telling to me. Not sending the requested troops is  a    loss  politically, not militarily. Hmm.

Mr Hersh has suggestions. Negotiate with the Taliban, it is  the only way. Continue the  process with Iran, which Bush of course mucked up. And, realize that we have a lot in common with Russia.

I close with this thought. What is the acceptable way in which one  disagrees with  the President? Can it be done without being racist? Hint only if you are a liberal, since a liberal cannot be racist, right?

Martin Luther and Alan Grayson

Martin Luther in 1533 by Lucas Cranach ( and current political example)

I cannot believe  I just wrote that title. It is in fact one of the more unlikely pairings that I could imagine. And until just recently, totally unimaginable. For the comparison, i must thank MSNBC’S Chris Matthews. So, how are these two individuals to be compared. Rep. Grayson, D, Fl has just recently made a speech in which he said the Republican health care plan was for people to die or else get sick and die quickly. Predictably, Republicans complained, Speaker Pelosi said it was no worse than Republicans had said, etc.

 

There have been calls for Mr Grayson to apologize or disavow , which he has steadfastly refused to do. Heady stuff for a first termer who barely squeaked into office. He has the limelight so why not run with it. Understandable since among other things it sure improves one’s name recognition. Shucks it may even help his fundraising. This aside that is really not connected to my title, but was so interesting I couldn’t resist a mention. Commenting on the media furor about Grayson’s  comments, New York Times  writer David Brooks said it was all a “media circus”. What he said next was just  was so funny to me, although he surely did not mean it to be. Remember the circus phrase. He said that the Republicans have guys that ” I consider loons and harmful for America-Glenn Beck,Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin-all those guys…” He should know there are no loons in a circus. I  would mention that his degree is from the university of Chicago but that would be a total diversion.

Ok, on to our comparison. Matthew had Grayson on his show on Friday and started off by mentioning his being in Berlin in 1989 when the wall fell and asking his colleague, John McLaughlin how Martin Luther was able to stand against  the church, presumably referring to his nailing of the 95 theses to the church door at Wittenberg on Halloween, 1517. Matthews asked how Grayson, like Luther against the church, knew he could stand against”clowns” like Limbaugh and the Republicans. Strange on multiple levels. How Limbaugh fit  into Grayson’s  health care comments and please tell me  how did Luther make the conversation?

And Matthews  (aka Mr Tingles) calls others clowns. By the way, Rep. Grayson professes not to care if his comments cost him re-election. He jus wants to save lives. Yet another example of a sacrificing Democrat.