Rudy Giuliani says he would allow a significant portion of the nation's
illegal immigrant population to stay in the country as long as they
paid a fine, paid taxes and got in the back of the line in applying for
The Enemy wonders how Giuliani's plan, laid out on Fox News Sunday morning, is any different than the one proposed by Bush and scuttled by congress last year. How will a GOP nativist (and lets call a spade a spade) interpret Miss Julie's proposal as anything but the old scheme in fresh —— albeit unconvincing —— drag?
A report was just released by the conservative foundation 'Americas Majority' examining the impact of immigration, both legal and otherwise, on the nation. The author and the foundation found their own findings "startling!"
"Immigration and the Wealth of States," author Richard Nadler contrasts
the 19 jurisdictions that contain 84% of the America's immigrant
population with the 32 states in which the remaining 16% reside.
'Does immigration actually
cause the ills attributed to it?' The answer, it turns out, is NO!"...go figure
The Enemy has remained impervious to the charms of this beige devil for a number of reasons. Partly it's the suspicion that the Democrats are pulling another bait n'switch ala Howard Dean. Fool me once, shame on — shame on you, fool me — you can't get fooled again.
The Enemy has been distracted lately with real life, but he's back now and rearing to bloviate.
Actually, not so much. A lot has happened in the month since his last post and The Enemy doesn't quite know where to start, so he won't.
He will, however, say this, while there is obviously no love lost betwixt himself and the Mitt, The Enemy is flabbergasted that the media, and even the Mitt himself, is pandering so blatantly to what amounts to nothing more than the naked religious bigotry of the evangelical right. When will someone, preferably the Mitt, stand up and call it for what it is — bullshit!! rather than engaging it as if it were part of acceptable political discourse.
It turns out that Larry Craig has built quite a reputation for himself over the last three years as a friend to the migrant farm worker, who knew?
...and apparently in Idaho, arguing against forcing welfare recipients to work
the fields to replace all the migrant pickers swept up in ICE raids
makes you a leftist nut-job.
Toiling away with a coalition of both migrant groups and growers, Craig has taken a progressively open and wide stance *ahem*on immigration and has been instrumental in designing a Guest Worker Program that both sides could live with. AgJobs was one component of the larger Senate immigration package that was derailed earlier this year. Farm, labor and immigrant groups are all pushing to have the AgJobs bill introduced on its own merits this year. California Sen. Diane Feinstein is a co-sponsor of the bill, but Craig was a strong conservative advocate for the bill and his loss is a challenge for supporters.
Needless to say many conservatives in Idaho are happy to see the back of him *ahem*.
The Enemy has a confession to make. Sometime ago, after one of the many conservative-caught-with-pants-down playing 'cum-guzzle-chuga-lugz' incidents, The Enemypointed to an article by David Frum on Haggard as irrefutable evidence of the kind of lunacy afflicting certain fundamentalist "thinkers" on the topic of morality. Frum's argument was that, despite all the gleeful braying from the left, in no way could Ted Haggard be considered a hypocrite. In fact, none of the closeted and/or addicted bastions of conservative virtue who've been recently exposed are necessarily hypocrites, including the most recent darling of the mens room stalls Larry "Lorraine" Frank.
The Enemy's confession is that while he loudly dismissed Frum's logic as a form of cognitive dissonance, he actually understood the point being made — didn't agree with it — but understood it.
It goes something like this... suppose I'm a recovering opium addict, I travel the length and breadth of this Great Nation warning the youthz about the pernicious evils of opium.
Now, let's suppose for a moment that, for a host of reasons, not the least of which is a fathomless sense of shame, I have neglected to mention to anyone, not even my husband, that all the selfless passions of my crusade spring entirely from personal experience.
What good would it serve, I rationalize, it's ancient history. It would only subject my family to the same humiliations I struggle with everyday, and my council on the subject of addiction could be — would be — dismissed by friend and foe alike as nothing more than the ramblings of an addled Opium eater. No, my community would be better served if I kept my pain private, between me and god, while I did my penance and made amends by fighting the good fight.
Now suppose one lonely night (for reasons I cannot imagine) I fall off the opium wagon, and from then I continue to relapse with alarming frequency. Do I now publicly step forward as an addict? Absolutely not, the circumstances may have changed but the rational remain the same, what possible good could come from the revelation? It would serve no constructive purpose and only provide a cache of ammunition to the "legalize everything" crowd, further endangering the impressionable young souls that I have sworn to protect.
The best I could hope for would be to (privately) acknowledge my mistake and learn from the relapse. Self flagellate to my hearts content behind closed doors, but publicly I re-double my efforts to keep others from making my mistakes. Steeled, I push my crusade forward with even greater conviction.
Is this Hypocrisy? not really. Does it make a weird kind of sense? maybe, but only as far as the behavior in question is understood to be inherently wicked or dangerous. Which homosexuality is not.
This from a study published in 1970 called Tearoom Trade: Impersonal Sex in Public Places
Men he had observed having anonymous sex in a public place often turned
out to be ardent champions of law and order. Unable to control
themselves in that part of their lives, they put on the defensive
“breastplate,” redoubling their efforts elsewhere: “Motivated largely
by his own awareness of the discreditable nature of his secret
behavior,” wrote Humphreys in his dissertation, “the covert deviant
develops a presentation of self that is respectable to a fault. His
whole lifestyle becomes an incarnation of what is proper and orthodox.”
Much more on the hypocrisy question here and here.
Don't you get the feeling he'd be a "in for a penny, in for a 'pound" sort'a crazed dirty monkey? The kind who'd figure, since he's going to hell anyway, he'd best make it worth his while...just asking.
Many of you know already that, while The Enemy took to the streets to protest the invasion of Iraq, The Enemy has been less than enthusiastic about a withdrawal.
Call him old fashioned, but when it comes to military intervention The Enemy is a strong believer in the Pottery Barn principle —— you broke it, you bought it. (note: Iraq has much nicer rugs than Pottery Barn)
It was this principle that fueled much (not all) of The Enemy's initial opposition to the war. The price of the particular item in question (Iraq) might very well put the U.S in the poor house, unless of course the U.S. did a runner, which is what so many early war supporters were suddenly advocating, once the quag hit the mire.
That the same "muscular" voices that had called for the invasion of Iraq were now protesting "No Fair" and insisting on a do over the The Enemy found appalling.
The Enemies position on a draw-down has put him at odds with many friends and loved ones, who remain perplexed that he could so violently oppose the invasion, but not the occupation. It has also put him in the peculiar position of advocating hawk like positions against war supporters who suddenly want out.
The nation is morally compelled to do everything —— everything —— it can to stabilize the situation —— spend every penny, subsume every priority and divert every national resource toward saving Iraq. You put your hand to the plough,you finish the row!.
If it means bringing back the draft, then so be it. We are ALL responsible for this fiasco including we who opposed the war —— we were lazy, timid, complacent and cowardly in our efforts to stop the invasion. That we weren't prepared to militate against the illegal invasion of Iraq means we failed in our responsibilities as citizens (those of us that are actually citizens,*ahem*), and should be held equally responsible. Perhaps a draft is exactly what's needed to confront the Faux-Hawks with the very real consequences of their know-nothing posturing, and maybe a draft would finally ignite the anti-war lite (now with 50% less conviction than the old anti-war brand!.)
However, having soap-boxed all this, The Enemy is having a change of heart on the matter of withdrawal.It was this simple point, made by hilzoy recently, that 'caused The Enemy to shift positions.
"Adm. Michael Mullen, the incoming chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified at his confirmation hearings last month that the "surge" in Iraq could not be sustained at present levels past April 2008.
There are a few ways to remedy this shortfall, all of them impractical or infeasible. First, soldiers' tours of duty in Iraq, which were recently extended from 12 months to 15 months, could be stretched further to 18 months. However, Gen. Richard Cody, the Army's vice chief of staff, told me, during a recent interview for a separate story, that this idea is "off the table." As it should be: The relentless rotation cycles have already compelled many soldiers and junior officers to quit the Army; pushing duty and tolerance much further might not just exhaust the troops beyond limits but spark an exodus from the armed forces."
This means that the surge will end next April. When we ask ourselves whether or not to maintain it until then, we should recognize that the only question worth asking is: will keeping the extra troops there until April improve matters? Asking whether it would improve matters to keep them there in perpetuity, or "until we get the job done", is beside the point: we can't.
The Enemy is finally emerging from his post Immigration Bill depression and, after surveying the political landscape through the fish-eyed lens of tear stained eyes, he calls SNAFU!.
Where to start? It seems pointless to comment on the Larry Craig flurry. The Republican closet is beginning to look more like a clown car every day, and as with any clown car, The Enemy can do little more than smile wanly and look away, it would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.
And speaking of Republican closets', The Glenn Greenwald continues to explore the fascinating subject of right-wing masculinity myths. Specifically how, in recent years, the right has been casting gender and sex aspersions into the political arena. The sex and gender trick has proved infinitely useful to Republicans and conservatives alike because even as it's used to (un)subtly blanket liberals and Democrats, it provides a faaaabulous cover for themselves. The Enemy has peaked behind this phenomena in the past, but Greenwald has effectively snatched the khaki colored curtain away to reveal what lies sniveling beneath.
As I have argued several times before, the intense exploitation by the right-wing and the Republican Party of these cultural and gender-based themes (dutifully followed by our establishment media pundits) has played far more significant of a role in influencing both the outcome of elections and the perception of "conservatives" and "liberals" than any substantive policy disputes. The depiction of liberal and Democratic males as girly, elitist freaks (and the converse depiction of liberal women as emasculating he-men), contrasted with the iconic Republican Male Leader who is a courageous, wholesome, salt-of-the-earth warrior and tough guy pervades our entire political culture.
It would be bad enough if these cultural themes were actually true.The argument would still be compelling that such themes are petty and manipulative and engender a corrupted and shallow political process.But the reality is actually far worse than that, because this mythology of the Strong Male Right-wing Leader is based in rank fiction.
Virtually the entire top layer of Republican leaders, both political and media figures, are the very opposite of the virtues this movement claims to embody. From Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and the rest of the right-wing noise machine, along with our brave neoconservative warmongers -- to say nothing of the likes of George Bush and Dick Cheney -- it is virtually impossible to locate genuine acts of strength, bravery, regular-guy wholesomeness, or any of the warrior attributes and virtues of traditional masculinity they claim to exude.
The Enemy looks forward to Glenn's forthcoming book on the subject (due out in March), which has yet to be titled, The Enemy suggested "Myth Thing" or "FauxHawk"...get it? Faux-Hawk. Anyway, go read this piece by him on the subject.