Does your quota of virgins get docked for having the coup de grace performed by your brother with a Buick?

Or for being a boxer-wannabe tool on the prowl for tail?

These are deep philosophical questions just begging for an

Open Thread.

Posted by: Open Blogger at 08:52 AM | Comments (206)
Post contains 111 words, total size 1 kb.

This was choreographed from the start. Plenty of squishes wanted to be seen as voting for tougher border security so Harry Reid let them bring up amendments like Chuck Grassley's John Thune's and Rand Paul's (all of which Marco "I LOVE Border Security" Rubio voted against). Reid killed them all and now he's giving them the Chuck Shumer approved cover amendment that will mean nothing.

Here's the outline of the supposed deal.

The agreement includes a "surge" in the number of border patrol agents, doubling the current presence from 20,000 to 40,000, as well as construction of 700 miles of new border fencing, NBC News reported.

The legislation would also include funding for other border security technologies, including infrared sensors, drones, and other high-tech devices, according to the Washington Examiner.

The plan does not include the biometric entry-exit system at border crossings and airports that Republicans had hoped for, and responsibility for designing a border security plan remains with the Department of Homeland Security, not Congress — although the department will be required to submit their finalized plan for approval.

Mark Kirk, who unlike Rubio, has been voting for tougher security measures, says if this passes, he's a yes.

So, no entry/exit system (which has been mandated since 1996 and the 9/11 Commission said we needed) and it'll be up to Obama's DHS to say everything is good to go. We'l I'm sure they'll be honest about that. And given that 40% of illegal aliens come here legally but overstay their visas, I'm sure we're not setting up Amnesty III in 20 or so years.

Watch for the talk about "triggers" because language is important. If they say no "pathway to citizenship unless the triggers are met", that means that legalization still will happen first and that means amnesty before security.

Update: Via @allahpundit, total capitulation.

But — and this is big – the provision sought by conservatives such as John Cornyn, that 90 percent apprehension be achieved as a “hard trigger,” is no longer in the deal as a precondition for citizenship. As the Times puts it: “Republicans agreed to make the 90 percent figure a goal rather than a requirement.” The key is that additional Republicans beyond the gang of eight — such as Bob Corker and John Hoeven — appear prepared to accept this.

Of course, we all know that's the been the deal all along. more...

Posted by: DrewM at 06:15 AM | Comments (240)
Post contains 478 words, total size 4 kb.

• Syria And Egypt Can't Be Fixed
  
• Mike Bloomberg Group Eulogized Tamerlan Tsarnaev As A Victim Of Gun Violence
  
• Gang Of 8 Supposedly Reaches Some Agreement To Bolster Border Security
  
• Taking Obamacare Of Business
  
• Hilarious Dimwit Chuck Hagel Asks Indian Professor If He's A Member Of The Taliban
  
• Lies Subvert Democracy
  
• Keep An Eye On This, It Will Start A War In The Near Future
  
• 70% Of Americans Are On Prescription Drugs
  
• Meager Meals Misrepresent Food Stamp Program Says WaPo Fact Checker
  
• USS Enterprise Heads Out On Final Voyage
  
• Obamacare Behind Schedule As October 1st Rollout Nears
  
• Does China Have Too Much Influence Over Western Academe?
  
• Paranoia Strikes Deep: The Press And Rand Paul
  
• Celebrity Douchebags Release an 'I Am Bradley Manning Video'
  
• Did The Enterprise Just Fly Past The Moon
  
• Do Unpaid Internships Lead To Jobs? Not For College Students
  
• Chicago Teachers Union Chief Faults Rich White People For Cities School Problems
  
• Mr.President, What About Your Gaffes?
  
• You're Not Going To Like Unemployment, I Guarantee It
  
• Zimmerman Jury Selection: Day 8
  

Ya know, if you're not busy or anything you can follow me on twitter. If it's not too much trouble or anything.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 04:51 AM | Comments (293)
Post contains 201 words, total size 3 kb.

Ugh. Second verse, same as the first.

I will be up and back in time for the Supreme Court to issue decisions at 10AM. There are 14 decisions left in the term. Possible topics today include affirmative action in colleges, section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, DOMA, and Prop 8.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 02:38 AM | Comments (330)
Post contains 59 words, total size 1 kb.

The Secret DUI Factor

That no one wants to talk about.

From Mickey Kaus:

I'm told, by a reliable and well-placed source, that a good deal of the Democratic opposition to John Cornyn's proposed amendment to the Gang of 8 bill has nothing to do with border security. It has to do with DUIs. Specifically, Cornyn's amendment would bar illegal immigrants with misdemeanor DUI convictions from "probationary" legal status, which is the immediate legalization offered by Marco Rubio, et al, to most of the 11 million undocumented immigrants now living in the U.S. For the pro-amnesty side, the exclusion of DUI offenders is apparently a deal-killer. There must be a lot of them!

Pro-Gang Democrats (and Republicans) understandably don't want to publicize their DUI defense. DUI offenders are not an inherently popular group, and accidents in which undocumented immigrant drivers kill innocent civilians tend to be well publicized. It's not a coincidence that Obama's executive mini-amnesty of so-called "Dreamers"-issued before the 2012 election-claimed to exclude DUI offenders. But the broader Gang of 8 legislation, written after the election, allows two free misdemeanors-apparently including DUIs-before an illegal immigrant is disqualified.

So why would they add this exception? Well to put it bluntly illegal aliens have a giant drinking and driving problem. And by illegal aliens I mean young Mexican males.

Even bien pensant NPR reveals their racist face by acknowledging this uncomfortable fact:

Nationwide, Latinos rank second only to Native Americans and their alcohol death rate on the highway. The extent of the problem varies from state to state, but community leaders say it seems worse in places where Latinos have newly immigrated. At Al Pueblo, a Hispanic advocacy group in North Carolina, safety director Tony Ascion(ph) says Latino drunk drivers tend to be young men in the U.S. without their families, people who have a lot of free time and a lot of what Ascion calls, machismo.

While NPR tries to portray the DUI problem as purely situational, the real issue is that in rural Mexican culture drinking-and-driving doesn't have the same stigma it does here and in fact it's considered part of machismo to always be able to handle your drink. Which means never admitting you're too drunk to jump in your truck and drive home.

The end result is that illegal aliens are responsible for a wildly disproportional number of DUI arrests as well DUI-related crashes, hit-and-runs and fatalities. So much so that a special exception has been added to an already generous amnesty bill to keep widespread DUI arrests from gumming up the illegals' legalization process.

Now given all this you might think that MADD would be protesting the bill's DUI exception since they're supposed to be against drunk drivers. But of course not. Which tells you what kind of organization they've morphed into over the years and where their real priorities lie.

Posted by: Maetenloch at 05:59 PM | Comments (855)
Post contains 1337 words, total size 15 kb.

At Instapundit.

I was wondering why the media freaked out so hard over the Tea Party in 2010. This is my guess (and honestly, this is a half-hour theory so if I'm wrong let me know):

Apart from the obvious (they want Obama to succeed and were determined to play Let's Get on the Bandwagon social coordinator for them), the media justifies its bias by telling itself that it's on the Side of the People. See, they're not just picking sides in a political battles; they're on the Side of the People, the great mass of people, so that makes their bias more "objective." Because, you know, if The People want something, who could stand against them?

When the Tea Party burst out on the scene in 2010, the co-opted techniques used by the left to show that they were The People. Popular revolt, demonstrations, rallies, all of it-- all of it from the left's playbook.

This wouldn't do for the media for many reasons. They immediately attempted to claim the Tea Party was astroturf, artificial. Of course it must be! After all, the media is on The Side of the People, and if we have 30,000 people demonstrating here against the media's agenda, why, that would mean the media is not on the Side of the People, and that can't be! So this must be a corporate astroturf campaign paid for by the Koch brothers.

The media continues to despise the Tea Party for putting a lie to the media's claim that they're Just on the Side of the People. And they doubly hate the Tea Party because the media are among the people to whom that lie has been exposed. They hate that the Tea Party stole some of their Heroism and Self-Worth away from them.

And... Open Thread.

Posted by: Ace at 04:36 PM | Comments (223)
Post contains 315 words, total size 2 kb.

Eh. Mildly amusing.

But you can't go home again. I'm sure it will be not-so-good.

Comedy sequels are the reverse of history: First as farce, then as tragedy. more...

Posted by: Ace at 03:01 PM | Comments (435)
Post contains 48 words, total size 1 kb.

I haven't been following the insider-deal politics of this but I gleaned from AllahPundit that Cruz had been taking a low profile on the issue, mostly.

Not anymore, it seems.

All out.

"This gang of 8 bill is a disaster", Cruz began. "We're hearing the exact same empty promises as 1986. It grants legalization now, and promises that sometime in the future, trust us *wink wink* we'll secure the border. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame in me."

Asked about the motivations of Democrats and Republicans for pushing amnesty, Cruz said, "Democrats want it for pure politics. No citizenship, no bill. They want more Democrat voters, or have it voted down and use it as a political issue in 2014/2016."

On the Republican side, he said, a lot of the support is unfortunately political, as well. "After 2012, all the Washington political consultants and MSM came to Republicans said you've got to do better with Hispanics, and the way to do better with Hispanics is amnesty, and Republicans are scared." Cruz said that argument is nonsense, but there are a lot of Republicans who are scared and listening to the consultants.

On that last point: When people are scared and confused, and dumb, they'll listen to anyone who tells them something with Confidence and Spreadsheets. That's how I wound up thinking, "Man, this blogging thing is going to be the Wave of the Future."

I don't think we should overlook the fact that consultants all tend to be from the same social class and will tend to have (as all social classes do) a degree of groupthink.

Posted by: Ace at 02:34 PM | Comments (205)
Post contains 291 words, total size 2 kb.

Fortunately for them, the media never asks Democrats wedge-issue, Hardest-Case, Sharpest-Edge questions.

Unless it's to ask them how they feel Republicans are extreme on the wedge-issue, Hardest-Case, Sharpest-Edge parts of their agenda.

Incidentally, I saw it claimed on Twitter that Andrea Mitchell had something like, "Trent Franks offered one of those patented rape answers."

You'll see no such snark about Democratic abortion-warriors stumbling over syntax and logic to explain why Feminism requires the right to abort a child up to the moment of childbirth, and maybe a few minutes later, too, so long as no one's looking and no one asks too many questions.

Posted by: Ace at 12:54 PM | Comments (455)
Post contains 150 words, total size 1 kb.

Important vote. It had been thought his libertarian agenda would push him towards supporting the bill.

SARA EISEN: As this debate heats up among your colleagues on the floor of the Senate, what has been the reception to some of your proposed amendments?

SEN. RAND PAUL: Well, you know, we haven't had a full airing or discussion yet, but I'm one of the Republicans who favors immigration reform, but I think that any legalization of those who are here illegally should be dependent upon border security, and unfortunately we're hearing from the Gang of Eight they want the opposite. They want legalization not dependent on border security, but I think most conservatives in the country want to see the border secured, and then they're willing to go ahead and give documentation to workers that are here illegally. But we can't do it if we're not going to secure the border first.

EISEN: So if you do not get that dependent, that factor, that amnesty is tied to border security, will you then not vote for the bill?

PAUL: Really, I think it's a fatal flaw of the bill. If the bill does not allow for Congress to vote on whether or not the border's secure, and if the documentation process is not dependent on the borders being secure, I think the whole concept is fatally flawed.

But he's not necessarily against some kind of amnesty. He proposes a form of incrementalism, which he calls Trust But Verify, which would require Congress to vote each year to confirm that the required securitization metrics are being reached.

Honestly I expect something like this to be the final deal. Something like a limited amnesty for, say, those 18 and and younger after Year 1, but only after Year 1 targets are met, then for those 18-25 after Year 2, but only after Year 2 targets are met, and so forth, up to, say, a Year 5, which would be general amnesty but only after the Year 5 metrics (as Paul Ryan calls them) are satisfied.

Video at the link. Via @allahpundit

Posted by: Ace at 12:12 PM | Comments (227)
Post contains 384 words, total size 2 kb.