Archive for June 7th, 2007
Senator Specter strikes again, but a commenter strikes a nerve.
June 7th, 2007
This post at Macsmind got me thinking tonight. Surprisingly, it was not about the substance of the issue (as no one will ever convince me a foreign terrorist should be granted the same rights we are guaranteed as citizens), but more as I read the comments I realized how we are becoming a union of generalizations.
Senator Specter has never been a favorite of mine or those in my family and the alternative of sending another Democrat to Washington to represent the state is not something which sends us into orbit. However, to paint the citizens of this state as ones who would welcome terrorists into our prisons and courts due to a vote the Senator cast says volumes about how absurd the thinking of some has become.
What I am leading to here is why I am so happy to be writing on occasion for J. There is such diversity here, not only in opinion but in interests, and we all attempt to allow the other the absolute right to their thoughts (we may at times get a bit testy, but hey, who doesn’t). We all try to answer comments with respect and perhaps a question or two to clarify an issue, but there is never anything directed in a derrogatory manner at an individual or group. Most times if something is controversial, it is a direct quote by whomever is being cited in an article or post, not directed at someone offering an opinion.
Make no mistake, I never object to good debate. This country has been built on differences and discussions but all too often, especially in blog form, we see those who take exception and paint entire segments of the population with a broad brush and I find that offensive.
Following the thinking of the commenter at Mac’s I say only this. If this person believes that Pennsylvanian’s would want terrorists in their midst then I suppose we must say the same for each state which has a Democratic Senator on the Judiciary Committee who voted for this legislation..well maybe someone else would say that but it certainly will not be me!
Posted in 
Immigration Bill Status in Senate
June 7th, 2007
The immigration bill that is now before the Senate is being tweaked a bit.
I’m going to quote from an AP story that is on Fox News.com.
A proposed immigration overhaul narrowly survived several strong Senate challenges Wednesday, but it suffered a potentially deal-breaking setback early Thursday.
Shortly after midnight, the Senate voted 49-48 to end a new temporary worker program after five years. The vote reversed the one-vote outcome on the same amendment — offered both times by Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D. — two weeks ago. Six senators switched their votes, reflecting the issue’s political volatility.
The temporary worker program is crucial to many business groups, and the bill’s backers vowed to try on Thursday to undo the damage. Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said he or his allies would slightly reword Dorgan’s amendment and hope for a change of heart by one or more senators who “don’t want to kill the bill.”
Dorgan, who contends that immigrants take many jobs Americans could fill, said no one in the debate “is talking about the impact on American workers.”
“There are a lot of people here who want jobs and can’t find jobs, and find downward pressure on their incomes,” Dorgan said.
That sounds reasonable to me and I fail to see how protecting jobs for Americans can be a deal breaker unless there really are jobs Americans won’t take.
If given a choice I wouldn’t bend over in a hot field all day picking produce or stay in the sun reaching up to pick fruits. I have, however, seen lots of what appear to be immigrants, whether legal or not, working on good-paying construction jobs.
They do a lot of brickwork, which is a good paying job, but backbreaking work also, they frame houses and that’s not easy work in the heat, they do landscaping and I know Americans will do that because my landscaper has three crews and all are Americans.
Cooking at restaurants and doing maid work in hotels is probably not the preference of most Americans, but if someone needs a job it seems he or she doesn’t have the luxury of choosing what comes along and expecting to be the CEO of the company on the first day.
A lot of well-off Americans use illegals to be the care givers for their children.
This all begins to sound like slavery to me. They are good enough to watch our children, cook for us, clean for us, cut our lawns and plant flowers, but they’re not good enough to become legalized citizens. Read the rest of this entry »
Huckabee Responds to Evolution Question
June 7th, 2007
I Have a Story That Matches This One In Silliness
June 7th, 2007
A New Hampshire woman was in Vermont, was drunk and approached a Vermont State Police officer who was busy with three other officers investigating a fight.
She approached the officer to tell him she had been beaten up the night before by one of the men involved in the fight.
How we get from point A above to point B isn’t told, but somehow the drunk woman was observed by the State Police officer “staring” at his police dog. He arrested her and charged her with animal cruelty.
A Vermont State Police sergeant said Hutchinson was intoxicated and stared at his police dog in a “taunting/harassing manner” last July while officers were in the process of investigating a reported melee outside a West Fairlee establishment.
The case was dropped.
That’s ridiculous, but then I have a prejudice against the people in Vermont except for Karen, who sometimes visits us, because I think they are just weirdos.
I can match this story from personal experience. In my working life I was an officer of a local union.
One day one of my stewards, who was the receptionist and sat at the main entrance of our office, called me and told me she wanted to file a grievance against a second-level manager. Second-level is one step up from entry level management, but he is over first-level management and this guy thought he was the king.
Figuring he had done something really bad because that was the kind of guy he was, I asked her what happened to make her want to file a grievance against him.
Are you ready for this? She wanted to file a grievance against him because he was walking on the hall across from her (two halls separated by the elevator lobby, but visible to each other) and he looked at her funny!
Since she has a quick temper, it was all I could do to calm her down and explain why this was foolish without bursting out laughing at the absurdity of it all.
She’s still a good friend of mine and we laugh about it all the time, but it’s just as foolish as arresting someone for staring at a dog.
Ex-Marine Loses Appeal for New Hearing
June 7th, 2007
In an update to Guss’ story yesterday of the former Marine being given a general discharge after getting an honorable discharge because he participated in an anti-war rally while wearing his uniform without name or military insignia on it, the AP is reporting former Marine Cpl. Adam Kokesh has lost his appeal for a new hearing.
It seems he did his protesting in March, which certainly would have still been in the timeframe of him being in the Marines, even discarding the information he is in the Reserves for the remainder of his eight year contract commitment.
Not only did he protest while still a Marine, he sent an email to high-ranking Marines using profanity.
An Iraq war veteran who was recommended for a general discharge because he wore his uniform to a protest lost his appeal Wednesday for a new hearing.
An attorney for Cpl. Adam Kokesh appealed after a military panel Monday recommended kicking him out of the Marines for the uniform infraction and using an obscenity in an e-mail to superior officers.
Kokesh, a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War, was pictured in uniform attending the March protest in a photograph that ran in The Washington Post. He said he removed his name tag and military emblems, making it clear he was not representing the military.
Brig. Gen. Darrell L. Moore, one of the two officers who got the e-mail that included the obscenity, dismissed the appeal, said Gunnery Sgt. Chad Homan. He is expected to complete his legal review of the board’s proceedings and recommendation within the next week.
“He has taken the appeal to be unfounded, and it is his determination to make,” Homan said.
Someone should have told the Corporal you don’t tug on Superman’s cape. You just don’t send emails to generals and if you do you don’t use obscenities. It gets you nowhere.
Hagel to Have Primary Competition
June 7th, 2007
Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel has always been considered to be a liberal Republican, who has even discussed impeachment of President Bush.
I could never understand how a liberal Republican would win a Senate seat when he’s from a very conservative state.
There are even rumors he might join Mayor Michael Bloomburg of NYC in a third party presidential run, although it’s all rumor about either of them as far as I can see.
Now comes word in a New York Sun editorial that the state attorney general of Nebraska, Jon Bruning, has stated that today he will announce his candidacy to challenge Hagel for the 2008 primary.
A poll conducted for Mr. Bruning shows him leading Mr. Hagel among likely Republican primary voters by 9 percentage points. Mr. Bruning assails Mr, Hagel for being, “The Republican that talks like a Democrat,” pointing to Mr. Hagel’s support for a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq, as well as his discussion of impeaching President Bush. “He’s become arrogant and out of touch,” Mr. Bruning said. “His constituent services are very poor.”
Mr. Bruning also mentioned New York Sun editorials documenting the weakness of Mr. Hagel’s record on Israel, including a recent speech by Mr. Hagel before an Arab American group in which Mr. Hagel said that support for Israel shouldn’t be automatic.
In my mind support for Israel is a very important issue and I would not support a candidate who does not support Israel, even if he were conservative on everything else. Read the rest of this entry »
