« Good Move | Main | The GOP's Parade Of Horribles »

June 05, 2006

Comments

Scary s**t, these vigilante ukases. It's basically the same process described in "Reading Lolita in Tehran" when the intelligentsia suddenly realized that they were NOT in control here.

But I wonder -- it sounds like in this case, the vigilantes are a minority, not especially loved by most of the local residents. I can understand being scared to stand up to it, but I would suggest two tactics that the U.S. could use:

1) Schedule be-ins or protest marches. Put a huge armed presence in place and invite everyone who doesn't want this version of sharia law to come and demonstrate their freedom. It's a lot easier and safer to defy death threats in a big crowd. Even after the fact, if the whole neighborhood turns up, the vigilantes can't take effective revenge.

2) Have we set up anonymous tip lines? Sure, any call might be a trap. But if the local police are in fact starting to stand up, maybe they can help sort out the wheat from the sarin.

Before Brad DeLong will induct you in the Hermeneutic Order of the Shrill, you need to fix your schadenfreude link.

"Has anyone pledged to spend a dime on enforcing the laws we have? No, they want brand new laws not to enforce. And so it goes."

A-fricking-men. I have firsthand knowledge of how true this is.

Only, it's not that they won't be enforced at all. If the House bill were to pass, those laws would be enforced against the unlucky--will break up unlucky families, send unlucky people back to get killed in their countries, send "home" unlucky fifty year olds who came here as six week olds, the whole bit. It won't make enforcement any more effective, just more arbitrary and meaner.

Well, fortunately, the House bill won't pass, it seems--I still think the most likely outcome is that nothing passes because the House and Senate have irreconcilable differences. And maybe that's best; even the Senate bill has some really awful provisions, and the next Congress is likely to be no worse and maybe quite a bit better on this issue.

Baghdadis are reporting that radical Islamists have taken control over the Dora, Amiriya and Ghazaliya districts of Baghdad, where they operate in broad daylight.

This is a great opportunity. We can bomb entire districts from 50,000 feet and count each death as an insurgent kill. Then we'd be "winning" by a much larger margin. In fact our lead would be insurmountable and we can pull out the troops, still be winners, and go around with our foam fingers and ticker-tape parades declaring that "we're number 1!!!" and reminisce about the good old days, "Remember Iraq in '06? God damn we killed us some Hajis back then. The current campaign in Indonesia has nothin' on us. Yeah, we lost NYC for 10,000 years, but it was worth it."

Well, at least we both despise Patrick Swayze!

I do want someone to explain to me why I should care about whether folks in certain sections of Baghdad are not permitted to wear hair gel. Care: as in contribute blood and treasure.

As this point, I like Saddam better than Swayze because the former at least permitted hair gel. But no, everyone wanted hair gel, and democracy at gun point. Turns out Saddam was a pragmatist. Thanks.

I am deathly afraid of guys with fly-away gel-less hair blowing up my country. Time to get pissed at Mexican day laborers

I would love to see all Baghdadis hit the streets and ignore these thugs and shave their pubic hair on the Baghdad public access channel. Doesn't seem they really want that look though, because they are not willing to die for it.

Apparently though, American guys and gals walk into military recruiting centers stateside, and say "What's this I hear about hair gel prohibitions in Baghdad suburbs? Sign me up!

However, this may be a time when the religious thugs in Colorado Springs and Texas can make common cause with the religious thugs in Baghdad. Maybe Bush will mention it in a speech soon and throw in the words "constitutional amendment".

Even Clarence Thomas may look askance. And Iran's big man will send a telegram congratulating George and offer to give up all notions of nuclear anything.

I happen to know (it will get out soon) that hair gel may be effective in preventing pregnancy as a morning-after salve. Teenagers are planning hair gel orgies once the FDA approves the treatment, don't you know.

I'm willing to expend blood and treasure to defend myself against the thugs in Colorado Springs, because it is cheaper (less travel) but it turns out my government is run by them.

See, we agree on just about everything.

But, hey, at least you had your taxes lowered, because it is obvious that a 39.6% top marginal tax rate was the highway to a Communist takeover of the United States.

Why, if Gore had been elected. the Red States would look like the Ukraine when Stalin got done.

Man, that was close.

Welcome back, Von. Stay. ;)

P.S. Trying reading Lolita out loud at a church youth meeting in Waco, Texas. Especially that scene early on with Humbert Humbert on the couch with sweety Lolita. Texans will drop their barbecue bib and head straight for the airport to hijack most of United's fleet.

Whatever John Thullen said. All of it. And there is no weather-joy in Dallas for four months. Dangerous out there. Dogs are gonna get mean. I'm gonna get mean. No more Mr Nice Guy.

Socialist! So there, frightening little Republicans. Hope that didn't violate posting rules.

But go Mavericks!

Signed:Texas thug, non-religious variety.

Didn't Bush lose LaShawn Barber a while back, with the immigration issue? She was drawing up articles of impeachment, as I recall.

Speaking of the "War on Terror: Dave Meyer at The Washington Note has a few choice snippets from the blogosphere on the subject. Short version: new catchphrase needed.

Riverbend with a new Message From Hell

I was goin to post this two down, but I'll put it here. Cheap thrills.

lj: Try this one.

God, don't remind me about Dallas weather...

von,

I am having a lot of trouble putting your comments on the state of the war now with yours from 6 or so months ago, such as this.

Can you explain your journey from saying we cannot afford to lose in Iraq (and regularly criticizing the Democrats for not having a pln to do so) to saying "More troops, more money, fight to win? Let's just find a nice reason to withdraw."?

Can you explain your journey from saying we cannot afford to lose in Iraq (and regularly criticizing the Democrats for not having a pln to do so) to saying "More troops, more money, fight to win? Let's just find a nice reason to withdraw."?

Yes, I can explain it: There was no journey. "More troops, more money, fight to win?" That's me. I still believe it. "Let's just find a nice reason to withdraw." That's what the Bush administration has become.

"fight to win" ??

O.K. Let me avert my eyes while the tactical nukes are employed and 100,000 ticked off Iraqi civilians are butchered.

I wish the Soviets had won in Afghanistan, too. Would have saved us 9/11. But they didn't. They laid waste, butchered the population and one guy drinking tea and eating camel jerky in a cave kicked their butts.

They should have nuked.

Do it. Then we can all talk about something else. I don't care anymore.

Welcome back Von. I like your consideration of Gay Marriage and the likely effect of trying to bring it to a head now.

As The Sully says, when you lose LaShawn Barber, the gig is up.

Well. I guess you really can't fool all of the people all of the time.

Say it with me: Wolverines!

Love that movie. I watched it not long ago. It's a little spooky when you begin to suspect that you might not be on the side of the Angry Young Men, after all.

Jeez, von, you're all over the place!

First, I agree that the Constitutional amendment ploy was monumentally stupid. If Rove concocted this, then it's just another reason why the Evil Mastermind should no longer have a job in the Bush White House. Add Rumsfeld to the list of the Over-Employed. He should have lost his job right after Bush was reelected, so we also agree on that, too, I think.

However, I disagree with you on immigration in the '80's. Enforcement of illegals dropped precipitously starting in '92, roughly at the time a certain Democratic president was elected, and it has stayed that way through today. I saw some stats on it but I can't find them at the moment (dang!), but enforcement dropped substantially starting in the early 1990s and there hasn't been much movement since.

Charles

However, I disagree with you [Von] on immigration in the '80's. Enforcement of illegals dropped precipitously starting in '92, roughly at the time a certain Democratic president was elected, and it has stayed that way through today. I saw some stats on it but I can't find them at the moment (dang!)...

Some help from http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/yearbook/2004/Table35.xls>Deportable aliens located: fiscal years 1925-2004 found at DHS's Yearbook of Immigration Statistics: http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/yearbook/YrBk04En.htm>2004:

1977 - 1,042,215
1978 - 1,057,977
1979 - 1,076,418
1980 - 910,361
1981 - 975,780
1982 - 970,246
1983 - 1,251,357
1984 - 1,246,981
1985 - 1,348,749
1986 - 1,767,400
1987 - 1,190,488
1988 - 1,008,145
1989 - 954,243
1990 - 1,169,939
1991 - 1,197,875
1992 - 1,258,481
1993 - 1,327,261
1994 - 1,094,719
1995 - 1,394,554
1996 - 1,649,986
1997 - 1,536,520
1998 - 1,679,439
1999 - 1,714,035
2000 - 1,814,729
2001 - 1,387,486
2002 - 1,062,279
2003 - 1,046,422
2004 - 1,241,089

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad