« Adding to the mix again. | Main | I don't know why this struck me... »

March 29, 2004

Comments

Yeah, weird. I mean, there's a lot of things to have issues with Rove about, but I haven't had any indication that he's been sitting around trying to kill DREAM. Only dreams. ;-)

"Only dreams."

OK, I admit it, that got a laugh out of me. :)

Leaving aside the personal property issue...

Don't you think it's a little bit naive to say that Karl Rove isn't a reasonable target for those protesting actions taken by the Republican party these days? Just because his power isn't officially recognized doesn't mean he's a non-entity.

"Don't you think it's a little bit naive to say that Karl Rove isn't a reasonable target for those protesting actions taken by the Republican party these days?"

Even putting aside the personal property issue (which I do reluctantly), not really. The kind of personalized attention here way overestimates his direct power...

"Just because his power isn't officially recognized doesn't mean he's a non-entity."

... and was entirely inappropriate for swaying his indirect power. It was obvious from the article that the protestors never even contemplated the notion that simply sending the two most influential and/or well-known members of their organization up to Rove's front door, ringing the doorbell and calmly talking to the man might have accomplished the mission. All Rove can ever do is advise the President; in this type of situation, Bush can't do much more than advise Congress. Petitioners to either should keep that in mind.

IOW, sometimes the fact that things are done in whispers doesn't mean that shouting is the way to go. :)

I read that article in the paper and was quietly fuming. Trespassing on the man's property, violating his right to privacy and scaring two small children just because you don't want illegal immigrants paying high tuition rates goes beyond the pale.

Shame that Mr. Rove didn't have a shotgun on his property so he could have done a bit of Darwinizing on his front lawn.

Moe Lane wrote:

It's not so much the violation of private property that bothers me, or the fact that they were actually pounding on the man's windows.

This sort of tactic does reinforce what I have long said – protesters are almost invariably stupid people (particularly those who are self-proclaimed “community activists”) who are in it more for making themselves feel good then they are about advancing their cause in a constructive manner.

Going onto someone’s private property without permission (aside from walking on the sidewalk to knock politely on the front door like a civilized person) is out of bounds, period. It doesn’t matter whether this person is an advisor to the President, a member of the Senate judiciary committee, or whatever.

The only bright side though is that since it was a patently stupid idea to provide taxpayer subsidies to encourage illegal immigration as the idiotarian protesters wanted, hopefully their thuggish behavior on a private citizen’s property will result in a backlash from the sensible majority who recognizes that you do not reward illegal immigration with taxpayer subsidies (or amnesty) while trying to control State and local budgets and protect homeland security.

Shame that Mr. Rove didn't have a shotgun on his property so he could have done a bit of Darwinizing on his front lawn.

....from one end of the spectrum to the other....

patently stupid idea to provide taxpayer subsidies to encourage illegal immigration

These comments make their writers come off little better than the protesters, I'm afraid.

Rove's home is off limits. His privacy and family are definitely off limits. He can choose to ignore any issue he wants to without having to fear it will appear on his lawn.

It often happens that people confuse the validity of a protest with the validity of the issue at hand. Not liking the people who feel strongly about an issue may be human nature but asserting their support weakens the logic behind a proposal is, what's the word(/)?, "idiotarian."

Any reasonable person can hardly say that it is right to reward illegal immigrants with tax-payer dollars. If you want increased legal immigration (which I am ambivalent to), then advocate that. We should not be rewarding people for breaking the law. This is something that any law-abiding citizen should agree with.

You need to separate the parents from their children Nathan.

Nathan wrote:

Any reasonable person can hardly say that it is right to reward illegal immigrants with tax-payer dollars. If you want increased legal immigration (which I am ambivalent to), then advocate that. We should not be rewarding people for breaking the law. This is something that any law-abiding citizen should agree with.

You are assuming though that the other side on this issue is acting in a rational manner when we already know that it is instead being driven by emotional twaddle such as:

You need to separate the parents from their children Nathan.

Actually I’d prefer to keep the families together but in the country where their parents have legal citizenship. If the children turn out to be “native citizens” as opposed to “undocumented immigrants” like their parents, they can try to return when they are adults. Otherwise it is as Nathan said, providing a reward for illegal immigrants with taxpayer dollars.

These comments make their writers come off little better than the protesters, I'm afraid.

How do you mean? The protestors had no right to trespass on his property nor did they have the right to pound on his windows. I see no problem in dealing with that problem in a very harsh manner.

And encouraging illegal immigration to this country was the absolute wrong approach for Bush to take. It's a spit in the face of the people who actually made an effort to immigrate legally.

I see no problem in dealing with that problem in a very harsh manner.

You have no problem with shooting children?

Cameron wrote:

How do you mean? The protestors had no right to trespass on his property nor did they have the right to pound on his windows. I see no problem in dealing with that problem in a very harsh manner.

Probably because there are laws governing when it is and is not permissible to use deadly force. I doubt that pounding on a window would qualify. Oh and calling for "Darwinizing" really is not helpful to the debate.

And encouraging illegal immigration to this country was the absolute wrong approach for Bush to take. It's a spit in the face of the people who actually made an effort to immigrate legally.

Here we do agree although there are other reasons such concerns about trying to protect homeland security without border control, the economic drain of illegal aliens on localy funded public services, other issues of crime arising from illegal immigration, and public health concerns that I find more compelling.

Probably because there are laws governing when it is and is not permissible to use deadly force. I doubt that pounding on a window would qualify. Oh and calling for "Darwinizing" really is not helpful to the debate.

Who ARE you? And what have you done with Thorley?

You have no problem with shooting children?

I have no problem in shooting at a large group of people who are trespassing on my property and scaring children inside.

Probably because there are laws governing when it is and is not permissible to use deadly force.

Given that the man had an unruly mob outside his house, the authorities didn't respond quickly and he had two terrified children inside, deadly force would have been justified.

Oh and calling for "Darwinizing" really is not helpful to the debate.

I figured it sounded better than "Shoot the pinheads."

As for illegal immigrant's use of resources, I have a bigger problem with that than I do the issues of security. I know people that worked with the system and became legal immigrants. Heck, there are a couple of people in my Platoon that are not US Citizens. So I cannot say that I have any sympathy for the protestors

Edward,

The rule of law is paramount. A government should not identify something as illegal, and then pass laws to encourage that same act. Appeals to emotion only betray one's lack of rational arguments.

It is quite clear, to any reasonable person, that laws should be enforced. If you want more legal immigration, then work to get it. Do not advocate, or tacitly approve, of breaking the law because you do not agree with it.

Cameron wrote:

I have no problem in shooting at a large group of people who are trespassing on my property and scaring children inside.

The law might look at things differently if it were found that you shot someone who was not posing a direct and immediate threat to you and your family’s safety.
Given that the man had an unruly mob outside his house, the authorities didn't respond quickly and he had two terrified children inside, deadly force would have been justified.

I am not sure that that is the case, legally speaking. I think that you need more than “terrified children” to show that they were in danger. IIRC my own State’s laws are that they have to be inside your house in which case it would be tough to claim that so long as they were outside and Rove and his family were inside that they were in immediate danger. FTR though I think that those laws ought to be changed and homeowners should be given wider latitude in the use of deadly force (but not so wide as Cameron seems to prefer).
I figured it sounded better than "Shoot the pinheads."

It does not really and such comments only serve to undermine the larger argument by giving our opponents a strawman argument.
As for illegal immigrant's use of resources, I have a bigger problem with that than I do the issues of security. I know people that worked with the system and became legal immigrants. Heck, there are a couple of people in my Platoon that are not US Citizens. So I cannot say that I have any sympathy for the protestors

Nor do I, this is simply another group that wants an unearned, unpaid for subsidy from the taxpayer and in this case as a reward for a destructive form of illegal activity. Not surprising that they would also engage in thuggish behavior to reward other illegal activity.

Thanks for your service BTW.

I know next to nothing about DREAM but if their intent was to gain publicity for their cause (they may be in the "any publicity is good publicity" camp) then protesting at the door of the campaign and public relations strategist for the president during an election year seems guaranteed to accomplish their goal.

Actually Hughes may be the PR strategist. I get confused defining whose roll is whose in that duo.

Nathan:

It is quite clear, to any reasonable person, that laws should be enforced. If you want more legal immigration, then work to get it. Do not advocate, or tacitly approve, of breaking the law because you do not agree with it.

This is a nice clean argument that I might agree with in some fantasyland, but I live in NYC, where thousands upon thousands of illegal immigrants live, work, and pray they'll someday get their papers. Your standing on prinicple denies their reality.

And before you tout the paramountness of law too loudly, keep in mind that most of those illegal immigrants are employeed, illegally, by very rich people who don't want to pay the taxes or benefit costs they would need to on legal workers. Go after them with the same principles and rigidness and perhaps I'd consider your point less hollow.

And Cameron...
Though you say:
I have no problem in shooting at a large group of people who are trespassing on my property and scaring children inside.

Realize that just as those protesters are subject to the laws concerning trespass the the law will "have no problem" addressing your actions either.

I'm not aware of the legislative changes that allow each of us to define what actions we can take when we're pissed off. Is there something I've missed?

I am not sure that that is the case, legally speaking. I think that you need more than “terrified children” to show that they were in danger.

According to the article, he stepped outside and demanded that they leave his property.

The protestors ignored that, went around the accessible areas of his house, and pounded on the glass.

So the way I see it is this: You are in your house, there is a mob outside demanding that you come out. They are harrassing you, trespassing on your property and banging on the windows. You have two children in the house with you. I figure as long as you tell the cop who arrives that you were afraid for your lives and the lives of the children, you are legally in the clear. Add that to the fact that the woman who organized the protest made it clear that she will come back if he doesn't give in.

Not surprising that they would also engage in thuggish behavior to reward other illegal activity.

As Moe said, if they had knocked on his door politely I would not have had such a problem with this.

Thanks for your service BTW.

Why thank you! Six years went by a lot more quickly than I thought it would.

Go after them with the same principles and rigidness and perhaps I'd consider your point less hollow.

Hear! Hear! Enforce the laws we have on the books against hiring illegal immigrants and making it applicable to all sides would be a pleasant change.

Edward,

Your lack of rational argumentation continues. You have no record of me commenting on people using immigrant labour, but you contend that I am not sufficiently opposed to it anyway.

My standing on principle denies the masses of illegal immigrants their reality of what? The ability to break the laws of your country and get away with it? No, be rewarded for it? What of the masses of people attempting to legally enter your country. What of them?

For the record, I am wholeheartedly opposed to people employing illegal immigrants for cheap labour. In fact, one of the arguments against high levels of immigration is that it allows employers to go after cheaper immigrant labour. This is even more evident with illegals.

Edward,

Perhaps, the 'lack of rational argumentation' remark was too much. But, you were not addressing what I said, only what you could ascribe to me, based on my positions.

Oh for God's sake.

The immigration laws are intentionally loose people. Think about it. Just look to Bush's latest proposal on it for proof.

It's how the system works. We need cheap labor, they need work. The reality is we make it easy for them to come and work here. Then, some of us, get all hot and bothered that they might think the American Dream has room for them too.

It's an annoying double standard.

Nathan wrote:

Perhaps, the 'lack of rational argumentation' remark was too much. But, you were not addressing what I said, only what you could ascribe to me, based on my positions.

Actually Nathan, your prior remark was dead-on.

Thorley,

I would rather be too polite than not polite enough. Even with Edward. :)

Nathan,

Point taken but your prior remarks were still dead-on. :)

When you two take a break from your mutual appreciation fest, please note that Nathan's argument that

The rule of law is paramount. A government should not identify something as illegal, and then pass laws to encourage that same act.
does indeed beg the question of whether the law is set in reality or not. Why else would the law be looking for solutions that appear contradictory? Insisting that the law should not seek to betray itself, when clearly the culture is already betraying the law, is to set up a double standard.

I clarified why the law is not set in reality, and then challenged Nathan's choice in siding on the double standard (which he insists he didn't reveal, but that's contradicted by his statement that he's "ambivalent" to increased legal immigration...that ambivalence must either ignore the plight expressed in the protest or argue against increased legal immigration, assuming Nathan's not heartless, that leaves the second option).

Oh, almost forgot

: )

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad