On the 100th anniversary of the
The Spectacle Blog
On the 100th anniversary of the
Georgia acted on immigration today. From the broad outlines of the Reuters article, this bill accomplishes at least two things: 1- Highlights the inability of the federal government to act on what is essentially a federal issue, 2- Advances the discussion in a constructive manner. Possibly a third: limits the extent to which illegals receive a free-ride from our social welfare state. Remember -- they're not just here to do jobs for which there is a demand (in the overall labor market... Americans will do them, but probably not at those wages), they're here for the services they don't get at home. Until they're documented and working within the law, they're not paying taxes. And that situation taxes the rest of us.
Please remember the UN as you recover from the ordeal of tax day. We send the UN billions every year in dues and "voluntary" contributions to its many organizations.
By the way one very high-profile organization, the UN Disarmament Commission, has three new vice charimen: Uruguay, Chile and -- wait for it -- Iran.
USA Today looks at what abortion policy would look like if it were returned to the states. It's an interesting picture, but the authors are a little too attached to a Deeply Divided Nation storyline:
The result, according to this analysis, would be less a patchwork of laws than broad regional divisions that generally reinforce the nation's political split. All but three of the states likely to significantly restrict abortions voted for President Bush in 2004. All but four of the states likely to maintain access to abortion voted for Democrat John Kerry.How would those regional divisions "reinforce the nation's political split?" Wouldn't returning abortion to the states actually undermine red-blue polarization by removing a divisive social issue from national politics?
File this under the If You Care category: the Pulitzer folks have awarded the journalists who most undermined national security of the last year: James Risen and Eric Lichtblau of the New York Times for the terrorist surveillance story, and Dana Priest of the Washington Post for the secret prisons story.
Well deserved: public service awards to the New Orleans Times-Picayune and Gulfport Sun Herald for their Hurricane Katrina coverage. Heck, the Times-Picayune staff evacuated its offices for weeks and still put out an impressive web product.
Just as I wail and gnash my teeth (see posts below) about the lack of a responsible Left, Michael Ledeen at NRO notes this new, encouraging development. Clearly, I don't agree with the overall worldview of the signers of this manifesto. But these sound like people with whom we can debate rationally, and with whom we can find common cause on some basic, underlying principles and on our love of these United States. May their rationality and civility find a way to crowd out the crassness and nutso anger of the Howard Dean Left.
Countervailing the barbaric yawps of the blogosphere's sinister side are the remarkable Good Friday meditations composed by Archbishop Angelo Comastri, which are worth reading in full. Occasionally the Archbishop succeeds in identifying exactly the worst of postmodernity's worst ills. This timely precision is a victory for any religion. It is particularly so for Catholicism today.
But the rest of us win as well simply by hearing that such as this is, and can be, still publicly spoken: "our affluence is making us less human, our entertainment has become a drug, a source of alienation, and our society's incessant, tedious message is an invitation to die of selfishness ... Today we seem to be witnessing a kind of anti-Genesis, a counter-plan, a diabolical pride aimed at eliminating the family. There is a move to reinvent mankind, to modify the very grammar of life as planned and willed by God. ... Today bodies are constantly bought and sold on the streets of our cities, on the streets of our televisions, in homes that have become like streets."
As a post-script to a parenthetical comment in the blog post immediately below, it really is amazing that the Left so often resorts, in print (or cyberprint), to vulgarities and profanities to make their points. My LEft Wing blogger Maryscott O'Connor seems only too typical: The attitude seems to be, "who needs to bother with reason, with persuasion and with respectful dialogue when it's so much easier to spew F-words?" The number of words that had to be replaced in the Post story by the designation of "[expletive]" is truly astonishing. Somebody needs to tell these Lefties that crassness isn't an argument and it's not a political position, it's just a character defect.
Wlady, I was struck by the same paragraph you were struck by in the David Finkel front page WashPost article about the liberal blogger filled with rage (and with a seriously juvenile vocabulary, juveniles being the only ones unable to express themselves without resorting to vulgarities in every sentence), the paragraph in which FInkel pronounces it "notable" that the "direction" from which the "level of anger" is coming is the Left, which supposedly had previously been "polite" while the "inflammatory rhetoric" came supposedly from the right. Give me a break! This paragraph from Finkel is almost as bad as the story about a decade ago that pronounced the religious right (quoting from memory, so a word or two may be slightly off) "poor, uneducated, and easily led." For any self-respecting mainstream editor -- this is, after all, the front page of the Post, not a Style section piece where opinions sometimes can legitimately sneak into featur-ish stories) -- such paragraphs should sound huge warning bells.