Re: Caterpillars are the most loquacious of all the creatures.

1

Spinach is the most kleenex of the vegetables, or so I've heard.


Posted by: Eggplant | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 1:51 PM
horizontal rule
2

Weasels are the most weasely of the animals. Perhaps that could have gone without saying.


Posted by: beamish | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 1:53 PM
horizontal rule
3

Oddly, though, squirrels are not the squirreliest of all the creatures.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 1:54 PM
horizontal rule
4

Caterpillars are the most loquacious glueable of all the creatures.

(RTFA!)


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 1:57 PM
horizontal rule
5

Also, it was E. O. Wilson, wasn't it? I seem to remember he's just come out with a novel.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 1:58 PM
horizontal rule
6

4: That's just the thing. Once they've been glued once, they just prattle on and on about it. So annoying!


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 1:59 PM
horizontal rule
7

5: I did supply a link, Mutch, but yes.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 1:59 PM
horizontal rule
8

M/tch is the most unobservant of all the creatures.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 2:03 PM
horizontal rule
9

Bees are the most industrious of all the creatures.


Posted by: Virgil | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 2:04 PM
horizontal rule
10

It seems to be a favorite tagline of his, found it in two other interviews about the book.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 2:13 PM
horizontal rule
11

What JP said. I've tried to avoid any of the book's notices but keep coming across Wilson nattering on about the warlike nature of ants. Wilson, it seems to me, has become incredibly tendentious in his semi-dotage. Anyway, are there examples of scientists who have penned worthwhile novels? Or is that a threadjack? Aris are the threadjackingest of all god's creatures.


Posted by: ari | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 2:17 PM
horizontal rule
12

Is it really tendentious to say that ants like them some war?


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 2:20 PM
horizontal rule
13

11: C.P. Snow?


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 2:24 PM
horizontal rule
14

Rudy Rucker?


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 2:26 PM
horizontal rule
15

Isaac Asimov, Primo Levi?


Posted by: jms | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 2:27 PM
horizontal rule
16

Re creatures: I was fishing in Shenadoah Nat'l Park last Sunday and, hiking out from the stream, saw a black bear and a cub about 50 feet off the trail. Just like on the Nature Channel, the mama bear (sexism?) growled and moved between me and the cub. Having neglected to pack a firearm into that national park, I stood still and spent about 20 seconds yelling "Hey Bear" and waving my arms. The bear looked at me, probably thinking (anthropomorphism alert) "What a loser." S/he and the cub stood still for a while and ambled off into the underbrush. I made it back to the car in record time. Added bonus: admission to the park was free because of National Parks Week.


Posted by: bill | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 2:27 PM
horizontal rule
17

Nabokov, obvs. More the other way around though.


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 2:28 PM
horizontal rule
18

C.P. Snow?

Snow, P, snow!


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 2:28 PM
horizontal rule
19

16: Isn't there some general rule like, yell at black bears and make a lot of noise but if it's brown bears, stay completely motionless and silent? I bet I'm gonna get something like this wrong one day and get eaten by a bear.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 2:30 PM
horizontal rule
20

Goethe? I suspect great writers who also did science will almost all be of the observational/classificatory kind of science, not the rigorous experimenting or theorizing kind.


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 2:30 PM
horizontal rule
21

19: I don't see bear color.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 2:30 PM
horizontal rule
22

Michael Crichton.

I ban myself in perpetuity.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 2:32 PM
horizontal rule
23

are there examples of scientists who have penned worthwhile novels?

Francis Bacon; Fred Hoyle; Carl Sagan.


Posted by: Gareth Rees | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 2:32 PM
horizontal rule
24

19: I think with grizzlies the goal is to look as harmless and unthreatening as possible, because intimidating them is hopeless. Little bears can be scared away.


Posted by: | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 2:32 PM
horizontal rule
25

Isaac Asimov?


Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 2:33 PM
horizontal rule
26

Solzhenitsyn, Chekhov if you count 19th century doctors. Lewis Carroll.


Posted by: lw | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 2:33 PM
horizontal rule
27

Oliver Sacks?


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 2:33 PM
horizontal rule
28

A mathematician, really?


Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 2:34 PM
horizontal rule
29

CĂ©line.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 2:35 PM
horizontal rule
30

Arthur Conan Doyle and Anton Chekhov, if you count doctors as scientists.


Posted by: Natilo Paennim | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 2:35 PM
horizontal rule
31

Dammit.


Posted by: Natilo Paennim | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 2:35 PM
horizontal rule
32

Francis Bacon wrote a novel?


Posted by: lw | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 2:36 PM
horizontal rule
33

Fred Hoyle is such a weird figure in the history of physics. His deduction of the existence of a particular nuclear resonance in carbon on the basis of it being the only conceivable way stars could have produced the stuff we're made of is legendary. But he really clung to disproven ideas far too long.


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 2:37 PM
horizontal rule
34

32: he was also a prolific painter.


Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 2:38 PM
horizontal rule
35

Louisa Atkinson


Posted by: jms | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 2:39 PM
horizontal rule
36

34: The most ant-like of all the prolific painters.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 2:39 PM
horizontal rule
37

11: Wilson, it seems to me, has become incredibly tendentious in his semi-dotage.

He was pretty inconsistent from the get go; I always thought the overall judgment he exhibited on exactly that kind of thing was shaky. I have a love/hate relationship with his ideas--did see him give one of the most engaging lectures I ever attended about 25 years ago.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 2:42 PM
horizontal rule
38

Thomas Kinkade is my idea of a pro-lific painter.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 2:44 PM
horizontal rule
39

12: Yes.


Posted by: ari | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 2:44 PM
horizontal rule
40

Francis Bacon wrote a novel?

New Atlantis


Posted by: Gareth Rees | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 2:45 PM
horizontal rule
41

37: Yeah, I saw him talk about twenty years ago -- I'm getting quite old, it seems -- and he was great: vibrant, erudite but extremely clear, delighted with his own witty and apt metaphors. But then I saw him again about five years ago, and he was pure crap. I think this whole comment is probably an argument for ice floeing the elderly.


Posted by: ari | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 2:47 PM
horizontal rule
42

39: It's certainly a convenient shorthand for some aspects of ant-ic behavior, but the anthropomorphic analogy ban is rigidly enforced for good reason (also see recent squirrel video).


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 2:50 PM
horizontal rule
43

41: So you wouldn't donate a kidney to him?


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 2:51 PM
horizontal rule
44

19 -- You don't have to submit to a cinnamon black.


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 2:56 PM
horizontal rule
45

19: Whatever you do, don't compliment a white bear. They become very uncomfortable.


Posted by: peep | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 2:58 PM
horizontal rule
46

BOW BEFORE ME


Posted by: OPINIONATED White Bear | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 2:59 PM
horizontal rule
47

BUT DON'T TELL ME I HAVE NICE TITS. WE ALL KNOW THEY'RE AVERAGE.


Posted by: OPINIONATED White Bear | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 3:00 PM
horizontal rule
48

Tits are sort of the inverse case of American beer.


Posted by: Not Prince Hamlet | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 3:01 PM
horizontal rule
49

48: Budweiser's are epic.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 3:02 PM
horizontal rule
50

Where is the Daniel Davies screed against anti-big jugs snobbery?


Posted by: Cryptic need | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 3:03 PM
horizontal rule
51

50: Your needs are so inscrutable.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 3:05 PM
horizontal rule
52

Start this at 5:50.


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 3:28 PM
horizontal rule
53

Humans are the most sociobiologist of all the animals.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 3:47 PM
horizontal rule
54

My high school biology teacher told us to not just be quiet, but to play dead if confronted by a grizzly. But to yell/scream/bop on the nose any black bears we met.

He also said playing dead probably wouldn't help because the grizzly would probably kill you anyway, but playing dead was your only (if slim) hope: the grizzly might get bored and leave if it thought it had already won the fight.

Stay away from grizzly bears, was the main point.


Posted by: E. Messily | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 4:04 PM
horizontal rule
55

I used to run across black bears regularly while mountain biking in British Columbia. They always seemed bored or startled, but never aggressive. I've only seen a grizzly once: while hiking in Alberta. I've never been more scared. But the bear just looked at me for a moment and then moseyed on its way.

Upon reflection, it hurts me that Emerson isn't hear for this. Canada+bears+me=excellent ridicule. Sigh.


Posted by: ari | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 4:10 PM
horizontal rule
56

Not to mention spelling errors. Fun times.


Posted by: ari | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 4:11 PM
horizontal rule
57

I've seen quite a few grizzlies in Montana, but always from a safely large distance. Even then, it was a little disconcerting ("look at that grizzly and her cubs on that hillside! wait, isn't that where we'll be in an hour?").


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 4:14 PM
horizontal rule
58

I recall an acquaintance's anecdote of black bear hunting and using his hunting dog to "tree" a bear, that is to chase the bear loudly such that said bear would seek refuge in a tree. Then you the hunter gets there, he shoots the bear. The practice seemed most unsportsmanlike.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 4:15 PM
horizontal rule
59

58: Why do you hate America?


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 4:16 PM
horizontal rule
60

59: I just fucking love bears, okay?


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 4:19 PM
horizontal rule
61

America: the right to bear arms; the right to harm bears.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 4:23 PM
horizontal rule
62

When I was a kid, it was always hard to convince out-of-town visitors that bear bells were a good idea. They said "well, if the bears are scared of a little BELL, they can't be that much of a threat" and "nature has majestic silence which I do not want to disturb". Also at least some of them were very annoyingly superior about how they Knew Things because they were from Cities on the East Coast.

Grizzly Man made the bear bell thing a much easier concept to get across.


Posted by: E. Messily | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 4:33 PM
horizontal rule
63

The wife got lost last night biking in the Rattlesnake. Didn't meet any griz, but thought quite a lot about it. I don't think she'll be going riding alone at dusk for a while.

(My son and I were at a counter-terrorism lecture, learning about the IDF protocol for targeted assassination.)


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 5:03 PM
horizontal rule
64

63.2: Kind of overdoing for a simple bear, doncha think?


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 5:06 PM
horizontal rule
65

^ it


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 5:06 PM
horizontal rule
66

If you have reliable intelligence that the bear is going to do something, you have to take him out. Engage him, is the word they use.


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 5:07 PM
horizontal rule
67

If you have reliable intelligence that the bear is going to do something, you have to take him out.

I remember many years ago, a lonely bull moose wandered into Iowa in a seriously misguided attempt to get laid. Somebody shot it, probably because how many chances to shoot a moose will he get? When threatened with arrest, he claimed self-defense against a charging moose. The defense didn't work because the moose was shot in the side from a distance of several hundred yards.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 5:20 PM
horizontal rule
68

67: He should have pointed out the two blurry pixels that might have been an RPG.


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 5:33 PM
horizontal rule
69

Can't be too careful about Mooslim terrists.


Posted by: Not Prince Hamlet | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 5:36 PM
horizontal rule
70

It was 20 years ago and still you get this article as the first hit when you google: Moose Iowa shoot. Apparently, read elsewhere (or invented) the distance of the shoot, but otherwise, that's not bad for twenty years.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 5:40 PM
horizontal rule
71

S/b "Apparently I read elsewhere"


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 5:40 PM
horizontal rule
72

So here's a question, denizens of the West: in a bit more than a month, the family and I will begin our annual cross-country drive. The itinerary this year included the North Rim of the Grand Canyon. But, the new immigration laws there, I don't think vacationing in Arizona is going to be okay (Virginia too -- sorry, Stanley). That said, the Canyon itself is either part of tribal or federal land. So that's okay, right? But I think the on-site concessions, including places to sleep, are private and local. Hmm. Thoughts?


Posted by: ari | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 5:42 PM
horizontal rule
73

72: There is, or was as I haven't been there since before the great Iowa Moose Hunt, a very expensive, government-owed hotel right there on the rim.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 5:44 PM
horizontal rule
74

Please add a "given" between "but" and "the". I hope they don't have literacy tests anywhere we're going.


Posted by: ari | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 5:44 PM
horizontal rule
75

71: ari, do you have brownish people in your family, or are you thinking that economic sanctions against Arizona are in order?

If the latter, and if other people are of a like mind, it would be interesting to see a public announcement to that effect. I wonder if it would have any impact.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 5:48 PM
horizontal rule
76

Both, parsimon.


Posted by: ari | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 5:51 PM
horizontal rule
77

Then you the hunter gets there, he shoots the bear.

That bear was coming right at him, Stan.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 5:52 PM
horizontal rule
78

Looks like you're out of luck, ari.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 5:52 PM
horizontal rule
79

75: Ari is Mexican, parsi. Duh.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 5:53 PM
horizontal rule
80

78: Still federally owned.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 5:54 PM
horizontal rule
81

State law won't apply on the federal or tribal lands, and I think most of the concession money goes to out-of-state companies that run the concessions, so unless you're opposed to paying people who might pay people who live in Arizona, I'd say you're OK.

On the other hand, it might be clearer messaging for a boycott to just stay out of the state altogether.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 5:55 PM
horizontal rule
82

80: Yes, but operated by an Arizona-based company.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 5:56 PM
horizontal rule
83

it would be interesting to see a public announcement to that effect

Viz.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 5:57 PM
horizontal rule
84

Got it. I think the economic sanctions angle is sort of interesting. Obviously the state should repeal the law -- the Gov. signed it into law, what, today, right? -- on grounds other than economic ones, but it may be that not much else will get through to them. Or at least that such a move will add to their discomfort.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 5:58 PM
horizontal rule
85

Also, the story is more complicated than one typically hears, but my understanding is that national reaction (including the NFL's Super Bowl threats) to Arizona's decision not to honor the King holiday was somewhat effective. At least it was effective in bolstering local grassroots efforts to change the decision.


Posted by: ari | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 5:58 PM
horizontal rule
86

75:Sanctions, embargo, interdiction, warning shots and boarding of trucks that try to cross the line, and sink them if necessary. Air flights to identify targets followed by a massive bombing campaign and invasion.

I re-watched 13 Days Thursday night. Curtis LeMay would know how to deal with Arizona.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 5:58 PM
horizontal rule
87

81: Except that you really should see the Grand Canyon if you are near it and have not seen it before or with those who have not seen it. It isn't like "Denny's Grand Slam." It got its "grand" the hard way.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 5:59 PM
horizontal rule
88

Or, you know, look at Teo's link. You're screwed Ari!

The bill's not law yet, though. But if it becomes law I think a total boycott is appropriate.

Or you could blast "By the Time I Get to Arizona" at top volume and fuck shit up. That would be OK, and maybe more fun for the kids.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 5:59 PM
horizontal rule
89

84 crossed with 83. Thanks -- I hadn't known about that.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 6:00 PM
horizontal rule
90

Add Arizona to the list of topics not to discuss with my dad while he's in town. I just barely avoided blowing up at him this morning.


Posted by: Not Prince Hamlet | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 6:04 PM
horizontal rule
91

I don't think there's any way you can both boycott Arizona and visit the Grand Canyon. You need to choose one or the other.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 6:05 PM
horizontal rule
92

You could boycott Nevada on the grounds that it's in pretty much the same area, but much tackier.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 6:05 PM
horizontal rule
93

If you really have to avoid AZ, at least there's Zion's, Bryce, etc . just to the north.


Posted by: gswift | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 6:07 PM
horizontal rule
94

I'm not sure I would agree that Nevada is much tackier than Arizona.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 6:08 PM
horizontal rule
95

94: Then I defer to your judgment. I haven't been there in a while.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 6:09 PM
horizontal rule
96

Well, this is very embarrassing. I completely thought the Grand Canyon was in Colorado (obviously, I've never been) right up until this conversation. I should probably stop making fun of people who think Montana is a city in Canada.

Meanwhile, I like Arizona's representative, there. That's gutsy and right.


Posted by: E. Messily | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 6:09 PM
horizontal rule
97

Right, Southern Utah is even prettier (IMO) and the Mormons are very decent on immigration issues.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 6:10 PM
horizontal rule
98

95 is limited to the topic at hand. FYI.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 6:11 PM
horizontal rule
99

Here I've been boycotting Arizona my whole life without even trying and when I get to the point of actually thinking of going there, I have to boycott it. Oh well. Maybe I'll just fly over it and contribute a bit more carbon dioxide toward the particularly nasty bits uninhabitable.


Posted by: Not Prince Hamlet | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 6:12 PM
horizontal rule
100

making


Posted by: Not Prince Hamlet | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 6:13 PM
horizontal rule
101

OK, come on. Arizona is racist-ier, but Nevada is tackier. Is this even a possible debate?


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 6:13 PM
horizontal rule
102

96: Maybe the confusion stems from the Colorado River running through the canyon?


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 6:13 PM
horizontal rule
103

Obviously tackiness is in the eye of the beholder, so I'm not going to get into a big argument over it.

State-level politics in Arizona is dominated by insane right-wing ideologues to an unusual degree even by Western standards, and has been for a long time. This law is particularly egregious, but it's not really surprising.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 6:15 PM
horizontal rule
104

Q: Why does Snoop Dogg wear bear bells?
A: Fo' grizzle!


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 6:17 PM
horizontal rule
105

I don't think there's any way you can both boycott Arizona and visit the Grand Canyon.

If ari really loved his children, he'd rent a dirigible and fly slowly over the canyon never touching down in the state.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 6:18 PM
horizontal rule
106

By the way, Brewer did sign the bill into law.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 6:19 PM
horizontal rule
107

102: I actually think it stems from the movie "Cannibal: the musical". Remember how they are going from Provo to Breckenridge, and there's a throwaway visual joke where they're suddently on the edge of a giant canyon? I'm pretty sure my entire thought process, such as it was, was based on this moment.


Posted by: E. Messily | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 6:20 PM
horizontal rule
108

Speaking of insane conservative politics, I'm glad to see someone like Ambinder saying something like this.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 6:21 PM
horizontal rule
109

106: "Toughest Immigration Law" - I'm disappointed in you, unidentified headline writer.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 6:22 PM
horizontal rule
110

Anyway, I think ari and family should patronize local Arizona businesses across the state and demand to see the documents of everyone they encounter.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 6:25 PM
horizontal rule
111

So would it be a misdemeanor not to carry your passport?


Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 6:29 PM
horizontal rule
112

Grijalva closes office because of death threats. Stay classy, racist Arizonans.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 6:36 PM
horizontal rule
113

107: Well there is a pretty decent-sized canyon in Colorado. (Black Canyon of the Gunnison.)


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 6:37 PM
horizontal rule
114

It appears that it is legal to not carry your US passport if you have a US passport, but that you might need the US passport to prove that you have a US passport if you are accused - in a reasonable manner, of course - of not having a US passport. I wonder how many Arizonans who are US citizens have US passports and how many would (theoretically) need to carry birth certificates. Or, you know, certificates of live birth, or whatever they call them in that state.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 6:42 PM
horizontal rule
115

This is pretty much open race war. My guess is that Congress and/or the Courts recognize that, and put a halt to the more extreme parts of the bill. If not, well, there will be an entire generation of Latinos alienated by the police and living as second class citizens.

Optimistically, this means that no Republican will ever again win statewide in Arizona after 2025 or so. But that might be too optimistic.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 6:42 PM
horizontal rule
116

Everyone should visit Arizona! Do a King of Denmark thing, and study the profiling in order to confuse, confound, and overload. No ID's, bluejeans and t-shirts, hair dyed black, handlebar moustaches especially on ladies, sombreros, paper bags. When asked, say your name is "Pancho Villa" or Jennifer Lopez" or "Speedy Gonzalez"

Hah! Let's see them deal with 5 million suspected aliens.

Then unleash zombie LeMay.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 6:43 PM
horizontal rule
117

handlebar moustaches especially on ladies

I'm going to generously assume that this is bob's plea for a healthy does of genderfucking mixed in with the ethnic confusion.


Posted by: k-sky | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 6:46 PM
horizontal rule
118

115:This is pretty much open race war.

OMG, OMG, ZOMG!

Did Halford just declare an open race war?

Finally, finally, the apocalypse. I'm ready.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 6:47 PM
horizontal rule
119

dose


Posted by: k-sky | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 6:48 PM
horizontal rule
120

117:It must be street theatre as well as protest and the absurd and ridiculous must be part of the direct action.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 6:50 PM
horizontal rule
121

Gotcha. At the planning meeting, set up that part first.


Posted by: k-sky | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 6:52 PM
horizontal rule
122

I sure hope I'm not declaring a race war. I'm pretty sure I'd be one of the first to be slaughtered on team whitey.

But it's hard think of more openly racist state action in the US (with real consequences, not just Confederate-flag symbolism) in the past 30 years. Nothing's coming to mind.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 6:52 PM
horizontal rule
123

I had actually been considering taking the family to see the Grand Canyon this summer, but now that I think about it, fuck that. Maybe instead we'll go to Glacier National Park, while its still there.


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 6:58 PM
horizontal rule
124

So, um, I just want to make sure I understand bob's plan:

Step 1: everybody go to Arizona and act the part of a ridiculous, offensive hispanic stereotype.

Step 2: ???

Step 3: saturation bombing of the entire state of Arizona.

Just checking.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 7:08 PM
horizontal rule
125

Step 2: ???

Presumably some sort of action by the Arizona cops, although it's hard to see what.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 7:10 PM
horizontal rule
126

I was just reminded that Governor Brewer wasn't even elected governor, but succeeded Janet Napolitano after the latter's Cabinet appointment. Extra shitty!


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 7:14 PM
horizontal rule
127

Why does there have to b a step 2?


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 7:15 PM
horizontal rule
128

124:And it was tweety who asked why others take me seriously?

tweety probably doesn't understand the King of Denmark reference or remember Freedom Summer.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 7:15 PM
horizontal rule
129

And it was tweety who asked why others take me seriously?

That was me, actually.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 7:16 PM
horizontal rule
130

Maybe instead we'll go to Glacier National Park, while its still there.

Yeah, I guess this is what we'll do too. But holy hell, that's way out of our way. And we did the northern tier last summer. Upside of sticking with the original plan: I can finally buy a chest clock.


Posted by: ari | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 7:19 PM
horizontal rule
131

There are in fact states between Arizona and Montana, you know.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 7:21 PM
horizontal rule
132

There should be a weblog somewhere providing space for sad comments like: I had actually been considering taking the family to see the Grand Canyon this summer, but now that I think about it, fuck that.

This way Arizona governing bodies can see the damage.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 7:23 PM
horizontal rule
133

Hey, there was a typo in the OP this entire time? You people are becoming real softies.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 7:28 PM
horizontal rule
134

There's plenty of space for comments right here!


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 7:28 PM
horizontal rule
135

tweety probably doesn't understand the King of Denmark reference or remember Freedom Summer.

I do get the reference! Although of course, it is mythical. You are however very canny to intuit that I don't have much memory of an event that took place years before I was born, but I'm sure I could ask my dad what his experience was like!


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 7:28 PM
horizontal rule
136

Maybe instead we'll go to Glacier National Park, while its still there.

Just beware of the grizzlies.


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 7:29 PM
horizontal rule
137

125:More seriously, of course the goal is to induce an overreaction and counterreaction. This is not a mere fight for symbolism, like the MLK day issue. People will suffer.

We must make the Arizona right froth at the mouth on camera. And we must point out that they are Republicans.

The ethnic stereotype would be designed to make the country laugh at Arizone, and Arizone, being a object of ridicule, would become violent. And of course, not merely Arizona, but the Republican nativists across the nation would likely join Arizona, at least if the comment threads I have read show that it will be inevitable.

Fuck the banks, this is the greatest opportunity for Democrats in forty years. This can be the Freedom Summer that will be followed by a landslide and permanent re-alignment.

But it must be pushed to violence, made the only story on TV talk for the entire summer.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 7:32 PM
horizontal rule
138

135:You can ask me, I watched it on TV.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 7:33 PM
horizontal rule
139

The secondary goal would be to force Obama to send the National Guard and/or Federal Marshalls into Arizona to protect the rights and safety of citizens. Figure June-July.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 7:35 PM
horizontal rule
140

Noted!


Posted by: OPINIONATED WHITE HOUSE SCHEDULING SECRETARY | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 7:36 PM
horizontal rule
141

127: South Park reference.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 7:37 PM
horizontal rule
142

But it must be pushed to violence

Would you cut that shit out, bob? Seriously.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 7:38 PM
horizontal rule
143

142:Sorry parsi.

See, I do remember Freedom Summer.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 7:39 PM
horizontal rule
144

No kidney transplants for aging alcoholic white Republican Arizonans! Condemn them to lingering death!


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 7:41 PM
horizontal rule
145

143.last: He was the best 3rd baseman in AA ball.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 7:42 PM
horizontal rule
146

We must make the Arizona right froth at the mouth on camera.

You're several years late on that one.

Also, violence is generally a bad thing.


Posted by: Not Prince Hamlet | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 7:42 PM
horizontal rule
147

Freedom Summer

Many of Mississippi's white residents deeply resented the outsiders and any attempt to change their society. Locals routinely harassed volunteers. Newspapers called them "unshaven and unwashed trash." Their presence in local black communities sparked drive by shootings, Molotov cocktails, and constant harassment. State and local governments, police, the White Citizens' Council and the Ku Klux Klan used murder, arrests, beatings, arson, spying, firing, evictions, and other forms of intimidation and harassment to oppose the project and prevent blacks from registering to vote or achieving social equality.[5]

Over the course of the ten-week project:

* four civil rights workers were killed (one in a head-on collision)
* four people were critically wounded
* eighty Freedom Summer workers were beaten
* one-thousand people were arrested (volunteers and locals)
* thirty seven churches were bombed or burned
* thirty Black homes or businesses were bombed or burned[6]

I honestly believe today's so-called liberals would have told the SCLC:"Oh, noes, somebody might get hurt."


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 7:52 PM
horizontal rule
148

I can ask my dad if he wore blackface when he was there, Bob.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 7:53 PM
horizontal rule
149

Oh, that Freedom Summer. The confusion was all mine.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 7:53 PM
horizontal rule
150

As did most of the so-called liberals at the time. "We're sitting this one out," NAACP chief Roy Wilkins tells the press.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 7:55 PM
horizontal rule
151

Yeah, you know my Mom was also a Freedom Summer volunteer, and I'm pretty sure that carpet bombing and blood in the streets wasn't part of the plan.

It's fun to let Bob do his thing -- I kind of secretly love it -- but it's also lame that a really, seriously bad thing going on in AZ turns into a discussion of how crazy Bob is. Maybe I'm being overly sensitive.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 7:56 PM
horizontal rule
152

151.2: the secret message of every injustice in the world is "LOOK AT MEEEE I'M BOB MCMANUS I LIVE IN TEXAS AND I'M TERRRIBLY LOOOOOOOONELY", man. Peek behind the curtain!


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 7:59 PM
horizontal rule
153

No, I don't think you're being too sensitive, Robert. Or if you are, I share your hypersensitivity. And also your sense that this law represents something truly despicable. I'm pretty shaken up, to be honest. I mean, I really wanted to take the kids to the Grand Canyon.


Posted by: ari | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 8:04 PM
horizontal rule
154

152: True, though I guess one could probably say that "LOOK AT MEEEE I'M [] I LIVE IN [] AND I'M TERRRIBLY LOOOOOOOONELY" is kind of the subtext for every comment here.

Not to be too gloomy about it.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 8:06 PM
horizontal rule
155

Look, bob is severely wrong on this, and let's just leave it at that.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 8:06 PM
horizontal rule
156

151:What is exactly so crazy about using Arizona to put the essential racist heart of Republicanism on National TV for an entire summer? You think Obama-haye has convinced Ohioans yet.

Health Care hasn't worked. Bank Reform is also a failure for Democrats.

This is the way to grab the media away from he said-she said, or at least put the Republicans on talk shows into a true death-spiral.

Buckley was still able to argue for states-rights in the early 60s. The discourse wasn't so different back then. He had to shut up after 1964.

And then the secondary benefits of shaming conservatism in that decade...

Arizona is a godsend.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 8:08 PM
horizontal rule
157

Yes, I sentence the subthread to lingering death.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 8:08 PM
horizontal rule
158

158: So we should go opine about British real estate law?


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 8:11 PM
horizontal rule
159

Or keep drinking and confusing numbers.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 8:11 PM
horizontal rule
160

We could go back to talking about peer review.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 8:12 PM
horizontal rule
161

Here's what's poisonous about mcmanus's "contributions": I would love to discuss the possibility that this law might help the democrats do real immigration reform. I would love to know if there's a possibility that this will get struck down in court. I'd like to be optimistic that this cannot hold. But of course, ol' idiotic, unserious maximalist bob has weighed in, and now any comments will be met with withering incoherence and juvenile ranting about blood in the streets. Great! That's helpful. I'd be convinced bob was actually a wingnut doing mildly deep cover to keep people here confused and ineffective, but I don't think any of us needs help to be confused and ineffective.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 8:12 PM
horizontal rule
162

something truly despicable. I'm pretty shaken up, to be honest. I mean, I really wanted to take the kids to the Grand Canyon.

Way to confront and counter evil, ari.

Take the kids to Yosemite. That'll show 'em.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 8:13 PM
horizontal rule
163

157: ...from kidney failure.


Posted by: Not Prince Hamlet | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 8:13 PM
horizontal rule
164

You know what else is terrible? Airplane food! And you can't even get it anymore! How sad is that? It's like pining over a dead uncle that abused you.

Whoah. That got heavier than I meant it to.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 8:14 PM
horizontal rule
165

160: I missed that one, which is just as well. I have more trouble in discussions about topics where I actually know something.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 8:15 PM
horizontal rule
166

We could go back to talking about peer review.

Or ascribing human characteristics to non-humans. That was this thread's intended purpose, and I'm seriously disappointed so far. Okay, mildly disappointed.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 8:16 PM
horizontal rule
167

I would love to discuss the possibility that this law might help the democrats do real immigration reform. I would love to know if there's a possibility that this will get struck down in court.

Get your head out of your boss's ass, tweety.

Republicans understand that's politics for losers.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 8:16 PM
horizontal rule
168

Well that sure proves me wrong. Seriously bob are you this fucking useless in real life? It's a wonder your dogs don't eat you.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 8:17 PM
horizontal rule
169

Or ascribing human characteristics to non-humans.

Didn't we already have the peer review thread?


Posted by: Not Prince Hamlet | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 8:19 PM
horizontal rule
170

168:You are begging the Senate and the Roberts Court to fix this for you, with no thought of external pressure? Is this the wisdom of experience talking?

Emerson was being excessively kind when he called this blog smug.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 8:21 PM
horizontal rule
171

166: Ants are warlike, and they keep trying to get into Arizona?


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 8:22 PM
horizontal rule
172

171: ¡Ay! ¡Hormigas!


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 8:25 PM
horizontal rule
173

with no thought of external pressure?

External pressure in the form of economic sanctions at the moment, but not in the form of encouraging Obama to call in the National Guard, as you mentioned in 139. It's not nearly to that point, and I don't think it's a pussy move to think that there are other steps to take before we'd even remotely get to that point.

Please, bob, we're not necessarily enemies here. Slow down.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 8:26 PM
horizontal rule
174

I stand by my previously expressed view that Bob would make an excellent replacement for Robert Osborne as the host on Turner Classc Movies. Now with bonus Leninism!

I don't really have much of an idea what the federal law legal arguments against the AZ statute would be, though I'm still reasonably conifdent that the federal courts will strike at least part of the scheme down. I'd think federal preemption would be a pretty useful theory. Equal protection is the obvious argument, but I can't think of how to make it work. Wasn't Katherine a real life immigration lawyer?


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 8:26 PM
horizontal rule
175

Speaking of bad things, this is a horrible tragedy for the family. But, I would have liked to have been at the meeting while they were trying to figure out how to word the last sentence of the second to the last paragraph.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 8:27 PM
horizontal rule
176

For the record, Bob, I was kidding about being shaken up because I can't take the kids to the Grand Canyon this summer. Because, really, we'll go another time; it only gets grander with each passing year. That said, I still agree with Robert about how horrifying this law is. And I also agree with Tweety that it's regrettable that we can't have a serious conversation about what it means and how to respond. Which is to say, your trolling has derailed what might have been an interesting and useful discussion. Well played.


Posted by: ari | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 8:27 PM
horizontal rule
177

Please, bob, we're not necessarily enemies here. Slow down.

Yeah, bob, don't say the crazy fucking unsupportable mean-spirited contradictory asshole trollish stuff you say in every comment on every thread. Why not try a different approach this time! Do it for parsimon.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 8:29 PM
horizontal rule
178

Because, really, we'll go another time; it only gets grander with each passing year.

The very essence of procedural liberalism.


Posted by: ari | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 8:29 PM
horizontal rule
179

177: You're not helping. But fine, I took my best shot at it.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 8:33 PM
horizontal rule
180

175: More fatal Pittsburgh wackiness, Investigators in South Fayette said a man attacked and killed his wife because she was mad he stayed up late to watch the Penguins game... Investigators said after Abrams stabbed his wife, he set the Locust Lane house on fire and tried to cover it up.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 8:37 PM
horizontal rule
181

One of the amazing things about the AZ law is that (from what I've read) it allows private parties to sue to force local police to go after illegal immigrants more aggressively. So, say you're the police chief in a mostly Hispanic city, like South Tuscon, and you don't want to aggressively check the immigration status of every brown-skinned person you talk to, so that you can, you know, do police work. Some racist yahoo can take your police department to court to force you to search the papers of everyone brown-skinned person your officers meet.

As far as I know, this is unique -- there is no precedent for allowing private citizens to sue to force cops to perform maximal enforcement of a particular law.

Of course, the scheme is really, really bad for law enforcement. A likely result is that Mexican neighborhoods will be even more gang-controlled than they are now (because people will be afraid to speak out) and the cops will be even more alienated from, and therefore less capable of protecting, the communities they serve.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 8:38 PM
horizontal rule
182

he set the Locust Lane house on fire and tried to cover it up.

With like a tarp? Not easy with a house that's on fire.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 8:38 PM
horizontal rule
183

Gila monsters are the most ideally located of all the creatures,


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 8:38 PM
horizontal rule
184

180: I know. That's why I hardly ever leave the East End.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 8:38 PM
horizontal rule
185

Of course, at least for me, this is not only about getting this particular Arizona statute overturned or ameliorated. I am aware of how Latinos lost in the health care debate, for instance.

As I have been saying, it is about using this situation as a strategic opportunity. Democrats and liberals could use this to do a lot more than solidify the Latino vote, at least temporarily gain a lot of voters who don't want to be associated with prejudice.

But that requires forcing the uninvolved to make a choice, to take a side, if only from the safety of their living-rooms chairs. And as long as the narrative is "The system can and will manage this justly if we just give it time" they can turn back to American Idol with a clear conscience.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 8:40 PM
horizontal rule
186

181: which is certain to be endlessly helpful to Mexican gangs who want to pursue their (US-bound) drug wars north of the border.

I'd call it the law of unintended consequences but it's very difficult for me to understand how the people who passed this law could not intend them.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 8:41 PM
horizontal rule
187

People understood for 75 years that not allowing blacks to register was against Federal Law.

The vast majority didn't care until Freedom Summer.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 8:43 PM
horizontal rule
188

181: Listening to Governor Brewer's remarks at the signing ceremony -- "We didn't want to do this, but the federal government made us." -- it became clear that this really is just a case of racist Republicans acting out. There's been no thought whatsoever to the long-term consequences of the law; it's just a matter of sticking a finger in the federal government's eye and making it easier to reintroduce a slightly updated version of sundown towns. It's fucking disgusting.


Posted by: ari | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 8:44 PM
horizontal rule
189

Do Bob and Shearer ever light into each other? Why not?


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 8:47 PM
horizontal rule
190

189: trolls don't bait other trolls. Professional respect.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 8:48 PM
horizontal rule
191

189 -- Game recognize game.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 8:50 PM
horizontal rule
192

188: Yes. See also the Presidential Birth Certificate bill.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 8:55 PM
horizontal rule
193

See also the Presidential Birth Certificate bill.

I agree that the psychological impulse is similar, but the eye-poking in this case is going to have some very, very nasty consequences that go beyond stupid symbolism.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 9:02 PM
horizontal rule
194

I guess we don't have any Arizonans here to explain matters. 'cause I don't know what's wrong with that state. They're out-weirding almost every other state at this point. I'm not naming names.

Though it did occur to me that if we're going to start boycotting states, maybe we should take note of states that have signed into law various anti-gay and anti-abortion laws.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 9:04 PM
horizontal rule
195

188:Remember, Arizona killed SCHIP earlier, I think this year. Umm, with very little protest or consequence from the serious, sane people.

Of course they think they can get away with this. And if the Court comes down on them, they may say "Come and enforce it."


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 9:04 PM
horizontal rule
196

Fuck Arizona forever.


Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 9:05 PM
horizontal rule
197

I guess we don't have any Arizonans here to explain matters. 'cause I don't know what's wrong with that state. They're out-weirding almost every other state at this point. I'm not naming names.

(I guess I'm Arizonan enough for this purpose.) Like I said upthread, Arizona Republicans have been crazy forever, and they've also been running the state for a long time. They're always pulling stupid stunts like this, although this is the worst example so far. In a lot of ways, the past couple of years has mostly been a matter of the national GOP becoming more like the Arizona GOP.

To the extent that things have changed lately in Arizona and made the crazy Republicans even crazier, it's probably largely due to the economic collapse, which hit Arizona really hard because so much of the state's economy was dependent on the housing boom. Now that its long period of growth and prosperity is over, maybe forever, it's suddenly become apparent that extreme right-wing ideology is not enough to successfully run a state. The ongoing budget crisis has been one of the worst in the country, and to the extent that it's being dealt with at all it's through absurdly draconian cuts to basically all state services.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 9:14 PM
horizontal rule
198

The comment linked in 196 is a pretty accurate description of Arizona Republicans.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 9:15 PM
horizontal rule
199

I feel strongly that someone should use the phrase "but it's a dry heat," at some point in any conversation about Arizona.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 9:21 PM
horizontal rule
200

State-level politics in Arizona is dominated by insane right-wing ideologues to an unusual degree even by Western standards, and has been for a long time. This law is particularly egregious, but it's not really surprising.

Not since Obama replaced their Democratic governor with a Republican governor, anyway.


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 9:23 PM
horizontal rule
201

197: Thanks, teo, that helps.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 9:24 PM
horizontal rule
202

Not since Obama replaced their Democratic governor with a Republican governor, anyway.

True enough, and Napolitano vetoed several insane immigration laws while she was in office, but the legislature's been in Republican hands for a long time.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 9:31 PM
horizontal rule
203

You guys. Have you seen this video? What is HAPPENING in it?

(if you wanted to talk about something else, I mean)


Posted by: E. Messily | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 9:40 PM
horizontal rule
204

Looks as if a scantily-clad babe with a fantastic rack iswrithing and lip-synching to a remix of "Somebody to Love", and there are also baby parachuters.


Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 9:45 PM
horizontal rule
205

....................And I just got to the part where the apparently miniature babies land on her body.


Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 9:45 PM
horizontal rule
206

at the end, there's a giant bottle, too. I feel bewildered but highly entertained by the whole thing. I particularly like the "map" she's lying on. But am perplexed by the babies. And the message, assuming there is one, evades me.


Posted by: E. Messily | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 9:48 PM
horizontal rule
207

200. I always got the impression that governor Brewer was among the more moderate Republicans in the state (compared to say Arpaio or the Maricopa county attorney, forgot his name).


Posted by: BA | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 9:52 PM
horizontal rule
208

or, I guess I didn't really mean "map", I meant "landscape" or something. Anyway I like it.


Posted by: E. Messily | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 9:52 PM
horizontal rule
209

207: Yeah, I don't have detailed knowledge of the current political landscape, but I get the impression that she's pretty moderate compared to some other prominent Republicans.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 9:58 PM
horizontal rule
210

197: Oh yeah, wasn't it Arizona that was thinking of selling and renting back its statehouse for some quick cash?

Reading the bill, wow: A person may bring an action in Superior Court to challenge any official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state that adopts or implements a policy that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 9:59 PM
horizontal rule
211

206: I found the message very simple and remarkablely persuasive.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 9:59 PM
horizontal rule
212

I feel bewildered but highly entertained by the whole thing. I particularly like the "map" she's lying on. But am perplexed by the babies. And the message, assuming there is one, evades me.

I think you might be overthinking it.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 9:59 PM
horizontal rule
213

i guess there might be some sort of positive association thing between sexy women and babies. i actually have a few theories about how they are related.


Posted by: yoyo | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 10:00 PM
horizontal rule
214

Oh yeah, wasn't it Arizona that was thinking of selling and renting back its statehouse for some quick cash?

Probably. They were also talking about selling some of their highways to become private toll roads.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 10:01 PM
horizontal rule
215

E messily are you in (or formerly in) possession of some quality bud?


Posted by: yoyo | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 10:01 PM
horizontal rule
216

215: Don't answer him, E. Mess! He's trying to deport you!


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 10:02 PM
horizontal rule
217

One thing they did actually do was close some of their state parks.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 10:03 PM
horizontal rule
218

Everyone says THEIR republicans are just oh so crazy, the rest of the you just don't understand.


Posted by: yoyo | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 10:03 PM
horizontal rule
219

218: Maybe, but in Arizona it's true. In, say, New Jersey, not so much.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 10:03 PM
horizontal rule
220

209. Didn't mean to be critical --- I'm not in touch with AZ politics much anymore.

210. Buy-back of statehouse
--- that actually went through beginning of January if I recall.


Posted by: | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 10:06 PM
horizontal rule
221

I'm in favor of forcing maximal use of every law. having lots of laws on the books that you just wink nudge ignore just means they don't bother anyone who is powerful enough to get rid of them, but get applied to anyone who you can kick around.


Posted by: yoyo | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 10:07 PM
horizontal rule
222

215, 216: I have a passport. No one can prove anything.

I get the association of babies and ladies. Parachuting miniature babies, less so. Doesn't the presence of the tiny babies ruin the sexiness of the gigantic lady? Aren't all men terrified of giant women, and also of babies which represent commitment? Good thing I'm not in advertising.


Posted by: E. Messily | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 10:08 PM
horizontal rule
223

Amen to every single word of 188.

I would love to discuss the possibility that this law might help the democrats do real immigration reform.

I'm not sure I see the connection. For that to be true, it would need to trigger both national outrage (already happening in some circles) and a cold-blooded political analysis by federal legislators that they can't afford not to act. It's not clear to me why or when Congress might start to see the potential benefits of immigration reform as outweighing the political costs.

What fake accent pointed out above is true: This law is not about immigration. It's about race, and power. It's about being able to prove at any moment that if you look like a usual suspect, well, you have the right to be present.

Even if we had perfect utopian comprehensive immigration reform legislation passed tomorrow, there would still be millions of people in this country who cannot, either temporarily or semi-permanently, easily prove their immigration status or citizenship.

(E.g., it currently takes 3-12 months to replace your certificate of naturalization if it is stolen or lost, and that is assuming that you became a citizen recently enough that our government can find your records.)

I would love to know if there's a possibility that this will get struck down in court.

IANAL, but I think the odds are very good. A number of groups have seen this coming and have been preparing legal challenges, and to my non-lawyer eyes they have strong grounds to argue against it.

What is much more disturbing is the number of people who will take it upon themselves to start enforcing and keep on enforcing the law regardless of whether it is declared unconstitutional, and the number of other states that may attempt to pass similar laws.


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 10:08 PM
horizontal rule
224

Didn't they also close all of their highway rest stops?


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 10:09 PM
horizontal rule
225

Brewer, for example, is apparently in favor of dealing with the budget crisis in part by raising the sales tax rate. This is not a popular idea among many other Republicans.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 10:10 PM
horizontal rule
226

It's not clear to me why or when Congress might start to see the potential benefits of immigration reform as outweighing the political costs.

The NYT article seems to imply that Senate Democrats are beginning to see it this way. I have no idea if that's true.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 10:13 PM
horizontal rule
227

I'm not sure I see the connection. For that to be true, it would need to trigger both national outrage (already happening in some circles) and a cold-blooded political analysis by federal legislators that they can't afford not to act. It's not clear to me why or when Congress might start to see the potential benefits of immigration reform as outweighing the political costs.

Well, since the Arizona law is predicated on maximalist enforcement of federal law, a case can be made that -- short of parachuting in activists in luchador masks and then carpet bombing the place, obviously -- the most effective way to mitigate the bad effects (barring a successful legal challenge) would be to change federal law.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 10:23 PM
horizontal rule
228

You know, I've created a new thread (with a song, no less!) for this conversation, so that the ant experts can talk amongst themselves in peace.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 10:27 PM
horizontal rule
229

I get the impression that she's pretty moderate compared to some other prominent Republicans

Okay, here's what's been frosting my balls for a while. These Republicans with reputations for being moderate who yet remain Republican? Fuck a bunch of that. When did Snowe and Collins take a principled stand against the Bush administration? They vote with their party. I don't give a shit what Brewer said, she signed the fucking bill. Any Republican who wants to bank on their moderate reputation can prove it by opposing the party in some significant way (and what teo mentions in 225 doesn't count unless she actually sacrifices to make it happen) and suffering the consequences. There are no moderate Republicans.


Posted by: Jesus McQueen | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 10:31 PM
horizontal rule
230

the most effective way to mitigate the bad effects (barring a successful legal challenge) would be to change federal law.

Okay, now I see where you were coming from. As I understand it, however, it would be entirely possible to address that by making a change in one relatively narrow aspect of federal immigration law,* without having to embark on any revision of the immigration process.

*Which, to be clear, concerns legal immigrants' (and naturalized citizens' ?) responsibility to carry identifying documents with them at all times.

The ACLU of Arizona has a rather nice summary of the law's lowlights.


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 10:39 PM
horizontal rule
231

Sorry, Stanley.

I don't have any bug contributions, but I did catch a live mouse yesterday. It took me a while to figure out what to do with it, as there was no green space around and the idea of putting it in the trash can or killing it was unappealing on a number of levels. Eventually I took it out to a dumpster, where I startled several maintenance personnel.


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 10:42 PM
horizontal rule
232

230: I'm talking more from a political standpoint than a technical one; it would help make the sale.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 10:44 PM
horizontal rule
233

I expect this current group of progressives will protect minority rights in conservative areas about as well as the last group of progressives did after around 1900. Over at the CT thread I and a couple others tried to point out that the eugenics fad among Progressives Mark I wasn't only about residual racism but also had causes intrinsic to the Progressive self-conception. But we were a small minority. I would have gone on to discuss why I think the acceptance of Jim Crow and the passivity before the SCOTUS horrors, social and economic, were also intrinsic to progressivism, but I lost interest.

But I expect at best for the current PTB to again leave the South & West in peace to do as it will for a couple generations. Obama & Rahm call themselves progressive as a signal.

Currently reading Robin Archer, and getting a strong dislike for Samuel Gompers.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 10:59 PM
horizontal rule
234

short of parachuting in activists in luchador masks and then carpet bombing the place, obviously

Well, that almost never works, speaking from a practical perspective. I mean, yes, you can make a jaunty entrance that way, but then, what if your parachute fails?

Wait, am I going to have to carry papers or something if I go to Arizona? What a bunch of paranoid proto-fascist bedwetting cry-babies.


Posted by: Mary Catherine | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 11:02 PM
horizontal rule
235

Oh. Arizona thinks it understands the signal of Neo-Progressivism. Testing the waters now, to see if it is safe for the rest of Red America to follow suit.

The Neo-Confederates know their history.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 11:05 PM
horizontal rule
236

They don't really know their history. They just happen to be on the side that traditionally wins because it's more cruel and ruthless, and it's winning again.


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 11:08 PM
horizontal rule
237

229: Regardless of whether there are any moderate Republicans (and I'm inclined to agree that there aren't), Brewer is absolutely not one of them. She's way, way, way to the right of, say, Collins or Snow, or, for that matter, Chris Christie (who is not a moderate Republican by any means). She does, however, appear to be somewhat more moderate than many other Arizona Republicans.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 11:12 PM
horizontal rule
238

In the first wave, as Progressives made their move to co-opt and dis-empower the dangerous parts of the labor movement in order to protect capital accumulation, the South (and West) made note of Its "special" circumstances and its need to create a radical "Other" in order to defuse its natural trends toward populism. Workers needed to be divided because the rebellious South and cowboy West would not accept the myth of incremental progress and might get all political.
Couldn't have that, although it did pop up occasionally(Sinclair, Long).

The new crowd has learned from history, and are making a lot of the progressive moves preemptively, before the Depression hits.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 11:21 PM
horizontal rule
239

Cognitive dissonance - today a high school acquaintance joined both the "Please kill off Obama, God" group AND "1 Million Strong Against the Arizona Immigration law" group on Facebook. Head explodes.


Posted by: Parenthetical | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 11:24 PM
horizontal rule
240

proto-fascist

I think they left proto behind around the time they decided it was cool to stop people who don't look like Fife Symington and demand to see their papers. As someone once said of one of Arnold Schwarzenegger's campaign speeches: the law reads better if you read it in the original German.


Posted by: ari | Link to this comment | 04-23-10 11:41 PM
horizontal rule
241

Hey, there was a typo in the OP this entire time? You people are becoming real softies.

There were two, Stanley. One of them remains.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 1:02 AM
horizontal rule
242

240:After reading Roger Griffin, I no longer throw "fascism" around so easily, and accept the importance of the "palingenetic ultranationalism" Wikipedia, having just rechecked it, is not so great on this, because the "palingenetic" part is not reactionary or nostalgic, not in any way a return to the past (according to Griffin and I accept his argument) but a re-imagining of the past in order to create a radically new society. Utopia more than Arcadia.

In other words, fascism is a modernism and a progressivism.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 1:14 AM
horizontal rule
243

I guess more on point, fascism is not necessarily connected to racism or anti-semitism, although these can arise as second order effects of the ulltra-nationalism. As an ideology that seeks to create a new socirty with new kinds of people, fascism is more directly connected to totalitarianism.

Of course fascism is mot a liberalism, but neither is it a conservatism.

OTOH, progressivism, as defined by for instance Halpin at CAP and perhaps Dewey, who I need to study, is explicitly non-ideological and is vehement about not being liberalism. Like modernism, it claims to be a problem solving method, tolerant and available to many ethos and ideologies.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 1:39 AM
horizontal rule
244

I recall an acquaintance's anecdote of black bear hunting and using his hunting dog to "tree" a bear, that is to chase the bear loudly such that said bear would seek refuge in a tree. Then you the hunter gets there, he shoots the bear. The practice seemed most unsportsmanlike.

When I started reading this sentence, I assumed that a dog "treeing" a bear meant pissing on it's legs. Seemed like needless provocation to me.


Posted by: | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 5:35 AM
horizontal rule
245

Gah. Missing name and a punctuation error. That'll teach me to post with a hangover.


Posted by: Ginger Yellow | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 5:37 AM
horizontal rule
246

To get back on topic, ants are the most avuncular of all of the creatures.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 7:30 AM
horizontal rule
247

There were two, Stanley. One of them remains.

Okay, I give up. What's numero dos?


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 7:57 AM
horizontal rule
248

You can home in on it if you aim to.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 8:01 AM
horizontal rule
249

I assumed that a dog "treeing" a bear meant pissing on it's legs

That's really funny. Do people say that, um, wherever you are? Because they should.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 8:02 AM
horizontal rule
250

248: Good to see you've come around on hone/home.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 8:02 AM
horizontal rule
251

248: I really don't see it. It's probably one of those words that's in my permanent correct-spelling blindspot (cf. occasion, caribbean, and embarrass, for other examples).


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 8:05 AM
horizontal rule
252

250: perhaps there is some subtle secret meaning to my use of the non-standard "home" variant!

249: a dog treeing a hydrant is far less or far, far more impressive, depending on what definition you use.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 8:05 AM
horizontal rule
253

252.1: La, la, la, can't hear you, la, la, la.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 8:06 AM
horizontal rule
254

251: oh, you'll be cruising along through the post one of these times and you'll lock on to it and then you'll just go ballistic, I can (mutually) assure you.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 8:07 AM
horizontal rule
255

254: Aha! See? Always with the double-letter words.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 8:08 AM
horizontal rule
256

Now this thread keeps me humming "At The Zoo" by Simon and Garfunkel.

Zebras are reactionary
Antellopes are missionary
Pigeons plot in secrecy,
and hamsters turn on frequently AT THE ZOO!


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 8:16 AM
horizontal rule
257

249: a dog treeing a hydrant is far less or far, far more impressive, depending on what definition you use.

I'd be impressed if some enterprising canine managed to do both.

"Is that a hydrant up there?"

"Yeah, but you probably want to avoid it. Damn thing's covered in dog piss."


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 8:16 AM
horizontal rule
258

Passenger pigeons are the most retiring of creatures.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 8:36 AM
horizontal rule
259

Massive Civil Disobedience is Morally Necessary to Overthrow Arizonas Racist Law

...Paul Rosenberg at Open Left

(I grew up n a Sundown town. I understand people like tweety who try to "maintain order", "minimize disruptions" and take care of "outside agitators")


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 8:57 AM
horizontal rule
260

Meanwhile, imagine if the Tea Party was black.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 9:04 AM
horizontal rule
261

And I am sure everyone here understands that the substance of my comments has nothing to do with tweety's (and others) objections to my presence.

I will not be intimidated by drunken bullies


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 9:07 AM
horizontal rule
262

You're a hero, bob. And I'm drunk!


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 9:10 AM
horizontal rule
263

From Rosenberg, linked at 259

"I think we need a massive wave of civil disobedience to overwhelm the Arizona criminal justice system"

"Waiting on the government and politicians to do the right thing is not sufficient, not when liberty, justice and equality are so viciously attacked."

"This is pure prejudice enshrined in law. It is racism run amuck. And it must be stopped by the same means that slavery was stopped, that Jim Crow was stopped: by a rising up of people of conscience, by those oppressed and those who stand with them, because they can do no other. "

I guess there is at least one other "psycho" who would make tweety "go ballistic"

One is more than enough for me

"It seems the folks were up in arms a man now had to die
For believin' things that didn't fit the laws they'd set aside
The man's name was I'm a freak the best that I could see"

It Don't Bother Me At all


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 9:17 AM
horizontal rule
264

Here's a link to the Mason Proffiit song that kinda feels like my mother's milk or favorite blanket.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 9:23 AM
horizontal rule
265

Actually you're better than a hero, bob. You're a martyr. You're like Jesus. And honestly, I should have realized that your idiotic, weirdly racist plan to stop the racists was in every way the moral equivalent of black civil disobedience in the 60s. Now I feel terrible. You're like Gandhi with a machine gun, you national treasure of sheer activist rightness, you.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 9:26 AM
horizontal rule
266

It's ok, tweety. It's ok to be scared and enbarrassed and insecure.

I was a bully when I was a little kid. I understand.

I forgive you.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 9:31 AM
horizontal rule
267

...like Gandhi with a machine gun

Coming in 2012, from Michael Bay.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 9:46 AM
horizontal rule
268

189

Do Bob and Shearer ever light into each other? Why not?

I don't engage Bob much because he comes across to me as crazy and I try to avoid arguing with crazy people.

A common Bob tactic seems to be taking routine liberal posturing and hyperventilating (as with Arizona) to absurd lengths. Which of course doesn't work too well against me.


Posted by: James B. Shearer | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 9:59 AM
horizontal rule
269

And everybody here knows I feel about Republicans the way Robespierre felt about Louis or Lenin felt about Nicholas. Danton and Kerensky were problems, Louis and the nobility, or Nicholas and the Whites were distractions, annoyances. Pretty much irrelevancies.

The discussion is not for God's sake about the merits or justness of racism and police state tactics in Arizona but internally among the just about the proper action to take to eliminate it.

After 150 or 300 years of repetitive atrocity and ineffectual countermeasures we should know what works and what doesn't. That new laws will this time control what is by their own principles and rhetoric an essentially lawless minority is not, to me, a problem with the right but a mistake of the left.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 10:26 AM
horizontal rule
270

There was a throwaway line on Colbert that affected me rather and I think deserves wider circulation: "Juan Crow."


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 10:34 AM
horizontal rule
271

And everybody here knows I feel about Republicans the way Robespierre felt about Louis or Lenin felt about Nicholas. Danton and Kerensky were problems, Louis and the nobility, or Nicholas and the Whites were distractions, annoyances. Pretty much irrelevancies.

This is in point of fact completely wrong. Lenin regarded the Whites as the most immediate threat to the revolution during 1917, and Bolshevik soldiers and militias defended the Provisional Government against Kornilov. Lenin: "When two men are trying to kill you, but one is using a revolver while the other is using small doses of arsenic, you must deal first with the assassin with the revolver."


Posted by: OFE | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 10:40 AM
horizontal rule
272

The problem with Jim Crow was not that South enacted such laws (customs and practices?)...fucking duh...but that the North tolerated and accepted them...for 90 fucking years.

As I said above, I think there is something internal to the 1st wave of Progressives, not only racism, that enabled the passivity.

I also cannot accept as mere coincidence that the trogs are getting frisky at the same time the left-center returns to corporatism and principle-free process governance.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 10:51 AM
horizontal rule
273

271:Whatever the threats, Lenin and Robespierre first needed a unified army to fight with. Those forces that impeded such unity and organization were the immediate problem. and day-to-day, that was the work that was done.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 10:55 AM
horizontal rule
274

Danton is my favorite French Revolutionary.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 10:59 AM
horizontal rule
275

Robespierre was a nutless man who killed people to over-compensate for having no idea of how to enjoy anything.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 11:02 AM
horizontal rule
276

"Juan Crow"

Surely, that should be "Diego Crow" or maybe "Jaime Crow".


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 11:02 AM
horizontal rule
277

"Go, Diego, Crow. Al rescante amigo."


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 11:12 AM
horizontal rule
278

Or maybe "Diego Cuervo" but then everyone's gonna be all like, "Is that José's brother?" which is confusing.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 11:19 AM
horizontal rule
279

Also, José Cuervo. Old Crow. Crows are the drunkest of all the creatures?


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 11:21 AM
horizontal rule
280

I love etymology too, Stanley, but I try to avoid opening my kimono and rubbing that love into my political slogans.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 11:23 AM
horizontal rule
281

Crows are the drunkest of all the creatures?

Just ask Tony Millionaire.


Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 11:24 AM
horizontal rule
282

There was a throwaway line on Colbert that affected me rather and I think deserves wider circulation: "Juan Crow."

Colbert clip.


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 11:32 AM
horizontal rule
283

I liked "A very dry Detroit," myself.


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 11:36 AM
horizontal rule
284

280 is very vivid.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 11:37 AM
horizontal rule
285

Remember when (Bob was going on about how attacks on child rape in the Church was a totalitarian exercise of liberal hegemony) we talked about religious sanctuary, and the Church's ability and responsibility to oppose secular law?

It looks like the AZ statute will put that to the test. The law makes it a crime to "The law makes it illegal to "transport .. . conceal, harbor or shield an alien from detection in any place in this state, including any building or any means of transportation, if the person knows or recklessly disregards the fact that the alien has come to, has entered or remains in the United States in violation of law." And also to "encourage or induce" people to come to Arizona illegally.

Basically, any parish that wants to use itself as a sanctuary site for illegal aliens is now in violation of state law. I hope that the churches will resist.

Thinking about it, I know the Episcopal Bishop of Arizona fairly well -- I wonder if he will use some of our parishes as sanctuary sites. Maybe I'll ask him. This could be a wonderful opportunity for civil disobedience.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 2:00 PM
horizontal rule
286

Well, that was pretty illiterate. But I do hope that the churches start heavy-duty resistence of this law. That's the place to start.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 2:04 PM
horizontal rule
287

Cardinal Mahony of LA had already gotten things started with an attack on the bill posted at his blog:

The Arizona legislature just passed the country's most retrogressive, mean-spirited, and useless anti-immigrant law [SB 1070, awaiting the expected signature of Gov. Jan Brewer]. The tragedy of the law is its totally flawed reasoning: that immigrants come to our country to rob, plunder, and consume public resources. That is not only false, the premise is nonsense.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 2:19 PM
horizontal rule
288

Now there's an ad I'd like to see. "Even the Catholics say this goes too far."


Posted by: gswift | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 2:34 PM
horizontal rule
289

Bob was going on about how attacks on child rape in the Church was a totalitarian exercise of liberal hegemony

But if you'll check, I didn't say this was a bad thing. More like that a Universal Church completely integrated and subservient to local secular authority would lose most of its justification. I was of course not defending the Church as much as attacking a liberalism that cannot allow and space outside itself.

And of course, no liberal can deny that there is anything the majority, or supermajorities, can in principle deny its control over, or the control of a future supermajority. Totalitarianism is the foundational core of liberalism.

A constitutional monarchy could, OTOH, grant the monarch an absolute veto beyond the reach of a majority. Note that the President has no such veto, e.g. over Constitutional Amendments. Absolute rule by representatives is the only rule.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 2:35 PM
horizontal rule
290

I say we make Bob lifelong, unimpeachable constitutional monarch! Who's with me?


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 2:40 PM
horizontal rule
291

(Damn. Read something last week about an Arizonan Concentration Detention Camp run by a Sheriff. Can't find it.)


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 2:42 PM
horizontal rule
292

Civil disobedience.


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 2:53 PM
horizontal rule
293

290: ME!!!


Posted by: OPINIONATED ALEXANDER HAMILTON | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 3:15 PM
horizontal rule
294

288: It's shifting these days, but illegal immigrants tend toward Catholicism.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 3:18 PM
horizontal rule
295

291 is surely Joe Arpaio.


Posted by: k-sky | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 5:01 PM
horizontal rule
296

295: Don't call the sheriff Shirley. He'll make you wear pink underwear.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 5:18 PM
horizontal rule
297

Wait, am I going to have to carry papers or something if I go to Arizonacontinental Europe? What a bunch of paranoid proto-fascist bedwetting cry-babies.

Do not travel to Europe if this bothers you. In Germany you even have to register with the police wherever you stay, though if you're in a hotel they'll take care of that for you automatically.

A question on the enforcement of enforcement - could Latino citizens sue to get the authorities to harass whites too?


Posted by: teraz kurwa my | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 5:27 PM
horizontal rule
298

could Latino citizens sue to get the authorities to harass whites too?

"We've had a lot of trouble with snowbirds 'round these parts, and you know how sneaky those Canadians can be."


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 5:32 PM
horizontal rule
299

could Latino citizens sue to get the authorities to harass whites too?

Presumably. There would just need to be some basis on which to claim that the authorities hadn't exercised due diligence in checking the papers of or otherwise investigating the white person who is for whatever reason suspicious.

I'm imagining citizens of whatever ethnicity suing the authorities for failing to investigate church members for suspected provision of safe harbor to illegal immigrants. I don't see how this absurd law can stand for very long; which is not say that I dismiss it.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 5:38 PM
horizontal rule
300

The comment thread in the link in 292 is interesting; the terms of discussion are ... different.

Also, do you know how much I like semi-colons?


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 5:43 PM
horizontal rule
301

297: Riding on a train from Denmark into Germany, the police pulled an African man out of the car for having bad papers or being black or something. The police were probably right about the bad papers because he refused to give his signature when they asked him to. He pretended not to understand their request, but we had been having a somewhat halting conversation in Spanish and English and he understood either of them well enough. I assumed he would not sign because his actual signature wouldn't match the one on his papers. He never came back. They only looked at the cover of my passport.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 6:02 PM
horizontal rule
302

And then I found five DM.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 6:10 PM
horizontal rule
303

Spiders are the clumpiest of the creatures.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 6:15 PM
horizontal rule
304

303: And filmed in Arizona.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 6:17 PM
horizontal rule
305

Groundhogs are the schlumpiest of the creatures.

Raptors are the most arrogant of the creatures.

No, raptors are the proudest of the creatures.

No, the most elegant.

Dammit.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 6:19 PM
horizontal rule
306

Raptors are the most velocitous of the creatures.


Posted by: Natilo Paennim | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 6:22 PM
horizontal rule
307

297: Wait, is this some new thing? I traveled all over Germany in the mid-90s and the only place I ever registered was the city I lived and worked in. Was I a scofflaw?


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 6:37 PM
horizontal rule
308

306: Is that true?? I admire them, in any case.

Disclosure: one of my housemate's tasks at our local CSA -- this is part of our "work share" in exchange for which we pay no actual dollars in order to maintain our share -- is basically blowing up groundhogs. That is, dropping mini-bombs of some sort into their burrows, which, er, kills them.

I don't know the details; I believe this is done as humanely as possible. The goal is eradication in the general environs, though.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 6:41 PM
horizontal rule
309

308: If they dropped the 'humanely' part, they could get people to pay to do it.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 6:43 PM
horizontal rule
310

309: And videotape it. Thanks Supremes!


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 6:46 PM
horizontal rule
311

310: Diana Ross hated groundhogs.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 6:47 PM
horizontal rule
312

309: I don't think you get to see the parts flying obscenely into the air or anything. It's done in the very early morning, before they wake up, preferably in the spring, and you don't stick around to see any results. It kind of sucks, but if you don't do it, at least at our CSA, you're not going to have any crops. It may be some kind of smoke bomb, actually.

It's unfortunate, as I say, because groundhogs are as noble a creature, and as deserving of life, as any other. I feel badly!


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 6:55 PM
horizontal rule
313

The ol' Reverse Gere.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 6:58 PM
horizontal rule
314

312: I was watching a documentary about a golf course groundskeeper who was removing a golfer. It seemed more involved than smoke bombs.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 6:58 PM
horizontal rule
315

314: I hadn't realized the groundskeepers were responsible for removing problem golfers.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 6:59 PM
horizontal rule
316

315: I'm not the first to make that mistake.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 7:04 PM
horizontal rule
317

315-6: They're supportive, yo.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 7:05 PM
horizontal rule
318

Oh man. I'm in Standpipe's purgatory.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 7:09 PM
horizontal rule
319

Gah. Lindsay Graham pulls out of negotiatians on energy bill, claiming he is mad that Democrats may address immigration first.

Pretty weak tea, considering that "Democrats may address immigration" consisted of Pelosi saying the Senate would consider any bill that the House sent to it.


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 7:19 PM
horizontal rule
320

Valdo is ze inscrutablest of all ze creatures.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 7:23 PM
horizontal rule
321

||

Simon Johnson ..with a fairly complicated and subtle post today

The finance ministers and central bank governors of the world are in Washington this weekend for the spring meetings of the International Monetary Fund. As is usual, the world's megabanks are also in town in force, organizing big meetings and small dinners...

They are telling people that, based on their inside knowledge, Greece and potentially other eurozone countries will default on their debt. Perhaps they are telling the truth and perhaps they are lying. Most likely they are - as always - talking their book.

..end SJ

Nick Rowe Canadian Economist

"I'm scared again. I haven't felt this scared for over a year." ...NR

And Naked Capitalism is thinking about 1931 and Creditanstalt

Of course, well probably, Simon Johnson's outrage is about the Mega-banks helping int'l politicians make personal money from the coming crash. Short the world, dudes!

Cheers

|>


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 7:40 PM
horizontal rule
322

Short the world, dudes!

If I ever decide to try to convert brokers to Christianity, I'm going to steal that phrase.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 7:46 PM
horizontal rule
323

322: Sounds like it would work best for the Church of Bros.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 7:54 PM
horizontal rule
324

323: I was referring to the "Short the world" part.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 7:56 PM
horizontal rule
325

I got that, yes.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 8:03 PM
horizontal rule
326

I also didn't like the comic as much as I like XKCD.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 8:07 PM
horizontal rule
327

307 Nope, it's been around for ever, I think it's actually been loosened in recent years. IIRC one night didn't require an Anmeldung, I don't know what the maximum number of nights without one was. I got hassled for a six week stay ohne by the border police at Frankfurt Airport back in the early part of the decade. They decided to let it go a half hour into the discussion when they found out that my mom was born in the UK and thus I was an EU citizen. I suspect being white didn't hurt either.


Posted by: teraz kurwa my | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 8:10 PM
horizontal rule
328

When I got to Chile, my visa wasn't official until I sat down, in country, with an immigration official of some sort. The whole thing felt really Kafkaesque, because it was day two in the country, and I had to travel to some random office in downtown Santiago, which I had to find. But the interview itself was totally pro forma.

"Ah, taking classes at La Católica? Yes. The new campus is very nice. Enjoy your time in Chile. And try to get to San Pedro de Atacama. It's a real treasure."

No idea why it wasn't done right then and there as I arrived, and I've always assumed it was some weird hold-over policy from the Pinochet years.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 04-24-10 8:19 PM
horizontal rule
329

Do Germans have to register in their own country?


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 04-25-10 5:45 PM
horizontal rule
330

I don't remember doing any of this registration business when I was in Germany for a month. Just regular customs forms.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 04-25-10 5:47 PM
horizontal rule
331

I remember giving passport info at hostels, but that was true in pretty much any country.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 04-25-10 5:53 PM
horizontal rule
332

I remember watching The Jackal and being shocked that the French hotels were sending the police a list of their guests. And that French detectives look like Stephen Jay Gould.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 04-25-10 5:55 PM
horizontal rule
333

47, 48 -- It's a dead thread, but I just wanted to say that just as any particular participant in the American media can be average and completely suck, so too can tits be average and magnificent.


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 04-25-10 10:19 PM
horizontal rule
334

20: I believe Kepler wrote science fiction.


Posted by: David | Link to this comment | 04-26-10 2:35 PM
horizontal rule
335

Alex told me some anecdote about the registration business. I think only Germany and probably Austria does it. Strange countries.


Posted by: David | Link to this comment | 04-26-10 2:37 PM
horizontal rule