I thought I pointed out that the racist origins of our current immigration laws don't necessarily bear on current debates. I'd like to thank Rob for pointing out that legally speaking, being undocumented isn't much of a crime. Are you a 'criminal' if you have ever in your life exceeded the speed limit? At core my own feelings are driven by two beliefs that are a bit in conflict: 1) I love immigration. I like the diversity of cities with people (and language, and food, and music, and art) from many different places. Without immigrants, cities would be largely deserted, dull places. Immigrants are a constant flow of new ideas, new cultures, new skills, that have always been the heart of the idea of America. (remember the statue of liberty?) 2) Labor is now in a losing battle with capital. Constant deflationary pressure on wages is a bad thing. The problem, though, is not the cheap laborers, it is the cheap bastards who pay them. Saying that, I know that rectifying labor laws (living wages, etc.) will lead to fewer open jobs for immigrants, and less immigration. But it's still the right thing to do.

I agree with you that the debate should be just about immigration, because I think that would be clearer and more honest. I think most of those who want to crack down on 'illegal immigration' are generally opposed to immigration (not just the illegal kind), while those who oppose such a crack down are generally in favor of immigration, illegal or not. It's not like if all immigration were made legal, those opposed to illegal immigration would roll over and say OK, then we have no problem. I think the 'illegal' part is a distraction. We should be debating how to construct a just immigration policy, tied to trade and labor policy, that discourages the chasing of capital by labor by internationalizing labor laws (you can't have globalized capital without globalized labor and environmental policies), and that doesn't punish the victims of global corporatism (migrant laborers of any country chasing diminishing wages). If this is about population control, let's talk about family planning. If this is about cultural disintegration, let's talk about the value (or danger) of a diverse society.

"More of the same" really is a different strategy from "the same," isn't it? I mean, we're not calling it 'the same strategy,' are we? No, they're doing *more* of what they'd been doing, which is completely different.

When the commander-in-chief is an idiot boy king, and the Secretary of Defense balks at carrying out his insane whims, you need a war czar.

I'm so glad we've narrowed down the choices. Even Bushies are starting to feel the need to pick one.

"Could it be that GOP officials are FINALLY getting wise to the fact that Rove is an anvil around the party's neck going into 2008, and sees the email scandal as a way to get rid of him?"

I see this more like a drunk giving his keys to a friend at a bar. "Please RNC make it impossible for me to break the law before I get caught doing it!! I can't help myself!"

Is this the venue in which he repeated his call for a 'culture of life' in this country?

1/2 million dead in Iraq...

Torture...

Prosecutors fired for not agressively using the death penalty...

No health care...

Walter Reed...

Gut pollution controls...

Gut endangered species act...

If own phrase summed up this presidency, it would be 'culture of death.'

"I mean, it's frustrating when something like that's happened. And we all get frustrated." Yeeees. We ALL get upset when our parliament gets bombed. It's frustrating at first, but we ALL eventaully grow up and get used to it. They shouldn't be such babies about it.

I keep hearing that because of Amendment 2, we can't do anything about guns. Arguments have already been put forward here about the ambiguity of that amendment, to which I would add that today's weapons could not be imagined by the musket-toting framers. But compare 'gun rights' to how we treat free-speech. Though it is a constitutionally guaranteed right, we have volumes of law regulating speech, from the classic "Fire!" in a theater to mail fraud, product labeling rules, copyright law, libel, slander, FCC censorship, hate speech, etc. As a society, why are we more willing to regulate speech than guns?

I can only say I wish that all my bosses were like Bush. As long as I remained the good and honorable person that I am (really!), and didn't commit a felony, I could keep my job! I'm tired of actually having to 'work' and have that 'work' judged for 'competence.' Isn't it good enough that I'm a nice person?

My own manly experience is that most men see most women around them at some point as potential sexual objects (would do her, her, her, not her, her...). Gay men do the same thing with men. At least in the modern west, it's part of male sexuality. We are unable to conceive of how absolutely terrifying this might be to women, because we like to think we would not be terrified if the situation were reversed (most women seeing most men as sexually desirable objects). Men like to think they would love to have women see them as sexual objects, so they (we) don't understand why it freaks women out so much. It would take a lot to get most men to see how unpleasant and ultimately frightening it would be to constantly feel under the lecherous gaze of others to whom you aren't remotely attracted to. It's very difficult for men to understand the daily fear of unwanted sexual overtures (at best), and rape (at worst).