The Count: 50-45... in favor of the nays. The ayes didn't even get a majority.

Recriminations! Reid's now throwing around accusations of bad faith. This does not indicate to me that he has any hopes of passing the bill; he's accepted it's failed. Now he just wants to beat up on the Republicans to court the illegal voters.

Thanks to Alice for the picture.

...

Who Cried? Harry Reid spoke of a colleague calling him on the phone to cry about the outcome.

Who was crying?

Michelle Malkin thinks it might be Lindsey "Tell the Bigots To Shut Up" Graham.

...

Reid speaking now. May be announcing withdrawal of bill.

Blaming Republicans for objecting to his managing of amendments. Seems like he's giving up on the comity needed to pass this, instead laying blame for defeat.

Still wants to pass it over "next several weeks."

Claims there's "a lot" of support for the bill outside the Senate.

Acknowledges his first reaction was to be "upset."

That makes this a good day.

...

In the meanwhile, here's steve_in_hb's commentary on the Senate's proceedings:

Looks like a room full of assholes milling around trying to sell insurance to each other.

Hmmm... Seems like they're still counting. They may be up to 47 48 Ayes.

49 now.

Posted by: Ace at 04:33 PM | Comments (155)
Post contains 256 words, total size 2 kb.

No cloture vote yet.

Right now Byron Dorgan is speaking. And, um, making far more sense than any damn Republican except for Jeff Sessions.

He wants to know why it is that we need a guest worker provision in order to stop illegal immigration if this "grand compromise" supposedly enforces the border and stops illegal immigration. "Maybe someone's misrepresenting this bill," he says.

Interesting... Pins lack of vigorous wage growth on illegal immigration's downward pressures on wages.

And gee, I thought it was due to Bush's Hooverville economy.

Although, I guess, it is partly due to Bush's non-border-enforcement policy.

Michelle Malkin... has been following this all day. Amazing stuff.

Sen. Daniel Akaka is railing against the Real ID act (um, how are we supposed to verify people's legal status without some sort of hard-to-forge ID?).

The Senate actually voted against the Coburn Amendment. Let's see what horrible things that contained, eh?

EXISTING LAW.--The following provisions of existing law shall be fully implemented, as previously directed by the Congress, prior to the certification set forth in paragraph (1):

(A) The Department has achieved and maintained operational control over the entire international land and maritime borders of the United States as required under the Secure Fence Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-367)

(B) The total miles of fence required under such Act have been constructed.

(C) All databases maintained by the Department which contain information on aliens shall be fully integrated as required by section 202 of the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 (8 U.S.C. 1722).

(D) The Department shall have implemented a system to record the departure of every alien departing the United States and of matching records of departure with the records of arrivals in the United States through the US-VISIT program as required by section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1221 note).

(E) The provision of law that prevents States and localities from adopting ``sanctuary'' policies or that prevents State and local employees from communicating with the Department are fully enforced as required by section 642 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1373).

(F) The Department employs fully operational equipment at each port of entry and uses such equipment in a manner that allows unique biometric identifiers to be compared and visas, travel documents, passports, and other documents authenticated in accordance with section 303 of the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 (8 U.S.C. 1732).

(G) An alien with a border crossing card is prevented from entering the United States until the biometric identifier on the border crossing card is matched against the alien as required by section 101(a)(6) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(6)).

(H) Any alien who is likely to become a public charge is denied entry into the United States pursuant to section 212(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)).

Yeah, they're serious about enforcing immigration laws, except for the part about "enforcing," and the part about "immigrations," and that minor bit about "laws."

Ted Kennedy earlier said this bill was about, um, "the rule of law."

Chris Dodd claimed Congress has no right to make rules concerning "family reunificiation," i.e., chain migration bringing in other family members as new legal immigrants. Congress has no right to pass laws about this? Really?

Byron Dorgan, believe it or not, posted a piece in NRO today. Yes, that NRO.

Now, IÂ’m sensitive to the fact that some immigrants who have come here illegally have worked hard for decades and even raised their families here. We need to take that into account as we try to resolve their status.

But I donÂ’t think we should decide that anybody who showed up here illegally as of last December 31 should be given a green light to stay here and work here permanently.

Our laws need to be enforced — both at the border and at the workplace. Just as someone sneaking across the border illegally should be punished, so too should employers who break the law and hire illegal immigrants for low wages.

Once weÂ’ve secured the border, and taken away the market for illegal labor, then will be the time to consider the best way to address the status of illegal immigrants in our country.

Boy howdee. Who knew I'd be getting a chubby for Byron F'n' Dorgan today?

Thanks to Larwyn for the MM tip.

Posted by: Ace at 02:51 PM | Comments (204)
Post contains 786 words, total size 5 kb.

You'll never guess why.

Despite his serious qualifications, not only was he not even granted an interview, but Miami (Ohio) selected four less-qualified applicants, all of whom declined the gig.

And then they decided to not hire anyone at all.

The left is no longer permitted to use the term "McCarthyism" unless it's used in the positive manner in which they obviously mean it, e.g., "that's some fabulous McCarthyism you've got goin' on there" or "this McCarthyism is so friggin' tasty-sweet I want to dip my balls in it."

Thanks to dri.

Posted by: Ace at 02:40 PM | Comments (24)
Post contains 128 words, total size 1 kb.

I say "mercenary" because this guy is a private civilian contractor hired to drive trucks in Iraq, and of course we know from the left that makes him a "mercenary."

This comes from steve_in_hb's dad. I trust the provenance of it myself. (Plus, there are photos.) But, this being a friend-knows-a-guy-who-knows-a-guy deal, it's not exactly nailed down with MSM-level rigor.

Some personal information redacted.

My barber knows a truck driver named Fred who signed up to drive trucks in Iraq. He considered the 12-month contract which pays $125,000 (triple his anuual income here), but opted for 18 months at $250,000. He's 48 and married with two grown children.

He was in Iraq for only five months before he was sent back home following an incident. He and another civilian were driving a truckload of medical supplies to an Iraqi hospital. The truck was armored, they both wore body armor and helmets, carried automatic rifles and had ammo belts hanging from their shoulders. The other guy was driving.

The armored truck, looking a bit Road Warrior-ish

They were going down a road in the countryside when they saw a checkpoint coming up manned by guys wearinf Iraqi police uniforms. They agreed that the checkpoint looked phoney and drove through without stopping. Whereupon a couple dozen insurgents popped up from nowhere and began shooting at them. At one point there was an insurgent on the hood of the truck trying to shoot them through the windshield which fortunately was bullet proof.

Fred opened the passenger side door, leaned out and shot the guy off the hood. The driver must have been flooring it because the truck fell over on its side, Michael went flying out the door and landed in a sewage ditch next to the road. He later said he was covered in shit and piss and fighting for his life.

Now Fred was never in the military and had never fired a gun in his life until he received training in Iraq. He suddenly became Rambo and killed nine insurgents before help arrived. He was so charged up with adrenalin that he went to the last two guys he killed and stood over them riddling their bodies with bullets.

He and the driver had separated during the action. When they found each other later, they both said the same thing: "I thought you were dead."

The next day the base commander told Fred he was a marked man. The insurgents saw what he had done to the bodies of their two friends and vowed to kill him. The commander was worried that the insurgents would overrun the base. It's in the middle of nowhere and protected by only a barbed wire fence. Michael was moved out of the civilian quarters and into an out of the way shack in case the rebels came looking for him.

He wasn't given any more driving assignments and sat around for three weeks doing nothing except collecting his salary. Finally, word came down the chain of command that he had to return to the States.

Hanging out in one of Saddam's palaces

It's not Michael Yon, but I thought it was worth sharing.

Andrew Sullivan just emailed me to say this guy shoud be tried as a war criminal for shooting up already-dead terrorists.

Posted by: Ace at 02:06 PM | Comments (36)
Post contains 552 words, total size 4 kb.

I say "mercenary" because this guy is a private civilian contractor hired to drive trucks in Iraq, and of course we know from the left that makes him a "mercenary."

This comes from steve_in_hb's dad. I trust the provenance of it myself. (Plus, there are photos.) But, this being a friend-knows-a-guy-who-knows-a-guy deal, it's not exactly nailed down with MSM-level rigor.

Some personal information redacted.

My barber knows a truck driver named Fred who signed up to drive trucks in Iraq. He considered the 12-month contract which pays $125,000 (triple his anuual income here), but opted for 18 months at $250,000. He's 48 and married with two grown children.

He was in Iraq for only five months before he was sent back home following an incident. He and another civilian were driving a truckload of medical supplies to an Iraqi hospital. The truck was armored, they both wore body armor and helmets, carried automatic rifles and had ammo belts hanging from their shoulders. The other guy was driving.

The armored truck, looking a bit Road Warrior-ish

They were going down a road in the countryside when they saw a checkpoint coming up manned by guys wearinf Iraqi police uniforms. They agreed that the checkpoint looked phoney and drove through without stopping. Whereupon a couple dozen insurgents popped up from nowhere and began shooting at them. At one point there was an insurgent on the hood of the truck trying to shoot them through the windshield which fortunately was bullet proof.

Fred opened the passenger side door, leaned out and shot the guy off the hood. The driver must have been flooring it because the truck fell over on its side, Michael went flying out the door and landed in a sewage ditch next to the road. He later said he was covered in shit and piss and fighting for his life.

Now Fred was never in the military and had never fired a gun in his life until he received training in Iraq. He suddenly became Rambo and killed nine insurgents before help arrived. He was so charged up with adrenalin that he went to the last two guys he killed and stood over them riddling their bodies with bullets.

He and the driver had separated during the action. When they found each other later, they both said the same thing: "I thought you were dead."

The next day the base commander told Fred he was a marked man. The insurgents saw what he had done to the bodies of their two friends and vowed to kill him. The commander was worried that the insurgents would overrun the base. It's in the middle of nowhere and protected by only a barbed wire fence. Michael was moved out of the civilian quarters and into an out of the way shack in case the rebels came looking for him.

He wasn't given any more driving assignments and sat around for three weeks doing nothing except collecting his salary. Finally, word came down the chain of command that he had to return to the States.

Hanging out in one of Saddam's palaces

It's not Michael Yon, but I thought it was worth sharing.

Andrew Sullivan just emailed me to say this guy shoud be tried as a war criminal for shooting up already-dead terrorists.

Posted by: Ace at 02:06 PM | Comments (38)
Post contains 554 words, total size 4 kb.

Heh.

Is our Hillary! learning?

The bar exam is tough, to be sure. It's like having to take an exam on eight of your toughest college courses -- the 400 level stuff, with no blow-offs -- and needing to post 80+ scores on each of them, all at the same time. It's that "all at the same time" part that's the killer. If you could take the bar one course-area at a time over a couple of months, it would be a hell of lot easier.

Plus you're responsible for a lot of stuff you never even studied at all. Like partnership tax law. What the hell is that? I don't know, but I was given an essay on it. I think I wrote mainly about how good it is to have partners, and how partners should look out for each other in various ways, such as paying taxes for each other, and maybe even depreciating stuff together purchased as part of the partnership, such as a cool partnership desk.

My answer was not, what's the word, even close.

But... I'm sorry, anyone who lays claim to the Smartest ____ in ______ doesn't fail it.

Look, I passed. Without a BarBri course or anything. First try. If I remember right I scored middle-to-high (I think they tell the percentage scored in NY).

Was it tough? Yes. Did I have to study? Yes, a fair amount.

Was I really in danger of failing it, having done a fair amount of study and refreshing on my own for just four weeks or so? Apparently not. I was afraid I failed it, to be honest, but when the score came back, it turned out I had a good amount of room to get more stuff wrong. (And I punted -- gave up on, didn't even bother with -- almost the entirety of the NY State law section, figuring I'd just blow that off and hope to score well enough on the general portion to make up for it.)

I'm just saying -- apparently I, MoronBlogger, am smarter than the Smartest Woman in America.

Which, to be honest, I already kinda knew.

Thanks to dri.

Not Hillary's Fault She Was Absent The Day They Taught Law At Law School? The American Thinker notes that Yale Law is more interested in teaching "social justice" rather than, you know, actual law.

Thanks to larwyn.

dri and larwyn in the same post... it's like Churchill meeting FDR.

What Else Is Hillary! Hiding? The IBD article notes she hasn't released her college and law school transcripts -- something just about every presidential candidate has done before.

Previously I'd've figured it was simply because her entire liberal education was not so much liberal as leftist, filled with courses like A Feminist Marxist Transgendered Critique of Some Lint I Found In My Belly-Button and Sexual Empowerment 201: They're Not Cankles, They're Love-Struts!

But this revelation suggests something even more delicious -- she's hiding her transcripts because The Smartest Woman In America is ashamed of her mediocre grades.

Sympathy For The Devil: A commenter at Patterico, who sounds like she knows what she's talking about (damnit), says the DC Bar was one of the tougher bar exams back when Hil would have taken it. It's easier now, but was tougher then.

This adds some nuance to the story, but still: Hard or easy, the smartest woman in America tanked the bar exam.

I have conceded: It is a hard test. You don't need to be a dummy to flunk it.

But... this is the Smartest Woman In America we're talking about, you know.

And you know-- she grew up wealthy. So she could have, and probably did, take one of those DC Bar prep courses mentioned in the comments.

Lot of lawyers weighing in on this at Patterico's. Worth a trip, if you care about this sort of thing.

Posted by: Ace at 01:31 PM | Comments (75)
Post contains 676 words, total size 4 kb.

So stupid it made my teeth bleed.

The essay needn't be read -- it merely says "Submit, and you will be protected by your new Islamic overlords." The comments are more interesting.

Wow -- have the Brits gone inSANE??? I live in New York City and have been waiting for the other terrorist shoe to drop ever since 9/11 but, in some ways, this sure & steady accommodation of a backwards & barbaric ideology is even worse. Like putting a frog in a pot of cold water and slowly turning up the heat. He'll be parboiled before he figures it's time to jump out!

...

If Time Out had the courage of it's convictions it should embrace the Shar'ia law it so admires and do the following...
Refuse all adverts from Bars, Pubs, Clubs and Restaurants that serve alcohol .
Refuse all adverts from Gay & Lesbian organistaions.
Refuse all adverts from sports organisations that allow improperly dressed women to participate.
Refuse all adverts from cinemas that show "unislamic" movies.
HYPOCRITES !!!!

...

"a hysterical, right-wing nightmare of a future Muslim London: where an cruel alien creed is forced on a liberal city"
What a stunningly surreal and revealing statement. It used to be that *liberals* were concerned about theocrats imposing the death penalty on a liberal society. Now that's somehow become a *right wing* fantasy? This is multiculturalism at wit's end, where liberals are willing to abandon their most precious stated values in the face of Islamists who makes America's religious right seem moderate. What motivates this cowardly retreat? Moral incoherence? Fear of being called a racist? Or just pure animal fear?
I read something like this and I cannot *believe* this was the nation of Churchill.

...

It seems curious that the author of this article, in presenting this more optimistic view of an Islamic London, did not return to the subject of the disposition of same-sex relationships under Islam that he mentioned at the beginning ("same sex relationships a crime"). I wonder why?

...

It occurs to me that the authors might simply be following the aphorism, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." The authors seem to be fantasizing about an Islam, but I think they're really dreaming about a thoroughly de-Christianized West. If Islam weren't in the picture, they would have been rhapsodizing over the utopic vision of a Happy Voodoo World, or about the charming bloodsports in ancient Mayan civilizations, or... well, just about anything but what they grew up with. Islam is just the most convenient proxy by which they can wage culture war against Western Civilization, such as it is.

Etc. One Muslim fan of the piece doesn't answer whether or not gays will be jailed or put to death under this coming rapturous Islamic rule, but does defend Islam's edict against homosexuality, noting that Islam doesn't make one unfree simply because it also forbids having sex with a dog.

When Rick Santorum said something vaguely along those lines, the left went nutters.

But we have to be more understanding when it comes to Islam.

Posted by: Ace at 01:20 PM | Comments (27)
Post contains 540 words, total size 3 kb.

The Democrats cry for GOP help:

[The amnesty bill] won a brief reprieve when Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he would give it more time before yanking the bill and moving on to other matters.

His decision set the stage for yet another procedural vote later Thursday that will measure lawmakers' appetite for a so-called "grand bargain" between liberals and conservatives on immigration.

If that fails, Reid threatened, "The bill's over with."

In the meantime, though, Reid said the president must lean on Republicans to back a deal that Bush spearheaded and most Democrats are eager to support.

"We are trying to get the bill passed. All we ask is that the White House weigh in and try to get some Republicans to vote with us," Reid said.

...

Republicans were seeking assurances they would get chances to add several conservative-backed changes that would toughen the measure.

Democrats are "simply not going to get anywhere trying to stuff the minority," said Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the GOP leader.

Republicans who cut the immigration deal and are working to fight off challenges to it from within their own ranks, nonetheless voted in solidarity with the rest of their party.

"Clearly, we need more time," said Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., a framer of the agreement.

But even some Republicans said they were getting impatient with members of their own party who were balking at finishing the bill.

"I'm telling them, too, I've about had it. Enough is enough here now. We're going to get some more amendments," said Sen. Trent Lott, R- Miss. "We're going to do this damn thing."

Heh. Trent Lott. I find it somewhat comforting that this useless waste of space is on the other side. He also had this to say:

Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-Miss.) said he has told the most virulent Republican opponents that he will not tolerate a raft of amendment votes designed simply to filibuster the measure, and he castigated his own party's senators for their vote switches.

"We're going to do this damned thing, and if we don't, I think we should dissolve the Congress and just go home," Lott fumed.

I hope he didn't mess up his pretty hairdome.

The Blame Game starts -- hopeful sign?

Reid appealed to Bush to twist the arms of 47 Republicans who voted against limiting debate, saying the legislation's demise would produce headlines that ``the president fails again.''

``It's his bill, it's not our bill,'' Reid told reporters after the vote in Washington. ``It can't pass unless we get significant Republican support.''

...

Illinois Senator Dick Durbin, the Senate's No. 2 Democrat, accused Republican opponents of offering amendments simply ``to embarrass those who support'' the legislation.

``If Senator McConnell wants to pass President Bush's immigration bill -- crafted by his Cabinet officers'' then the Republican leader ``needs to help us,'' Durbin said.

...

Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, said Obama's amendment [to go back to a family reunification system permitting "chain migrations" not based on ecominic needs of American employers] would split the delicate bipartisan alliance that supports the immigration measure.

``So when you're out on the campaign trail, my friend, tell them about why can't we come together. This is why,'' Graham said.

McConnell's spokesman, Don Stewart, said Republicans weren't to blame. ``Democratic presidential candidates offered poison pills and voted for poison pills,'' Stewart said, referring to proposals by Obama and New York Senator Hillary Clinton that failed to be adopted.

More at Hot Air, including a very public resignation by a McCain party chairman, citing McCain's inability to "read the pulse of the American public."

Posted by: Ace at 12:46 PM | Comments (34)
Post contains 640 words, total size 5 kb.

Wow! A lightbulb can be lighted by electricity without wires from seven feet away!

In the Globe tomorrow: Harvard scientists successfully invent "that bzzz thing" that shoots electricity.

Thanks to OCD.

I'm sure that there's something to the MIT discovery that's new -- but the dopey Boston Globe reporter apparently doesn't understand what that might be, As Dave from Garfield-Ridge would say of the "discovery" as described: It's old.

Posted by: Ace at 12:27 PM | Comments (20)
Post contains 89 words, total size 1 kb.

Deviating from the Bill/Hillary! model they favor.

Dr. Helen wants to know:

When I look at my husband with affection, am I leering?

I guess not since I'm a woman and can do no wrong except for being a right-leaning libertarian. However, if you're a man, particularly a Republican man, who looks at his wife with affection, you are now accused of "leering"--especially if you are Fred Thompson.

...

This is yet another example of a woman who deep down believes that men have no right to leer at women, lest it be considered a sex offense. And she is not alone, there are many other women who feel that unless one is Bill Clinton or the object of their own lecherous desires (of course, for these women, their own desire is called empowerment--not lechery!), a regular joe has no right to look at a woman--not even in pictures--with desire in his heart. In their eagar quest to control men's sexual rights, some "feminist" women (and other prudish ones too!) go to extremes to shame, expose or intimidate men who let their lust for women dare come to the surface.

Weird. Feminists continue insisting that it's empowering to fuck everything that moves, except your actual husband, who must be sexually punished as a state-sanctioned enforcer of The Oppressive Patriarchy.

By the way-- this isn't leering.

It's just looking at your friggin' wife as you share a joke.

Old, Hateful, Barbaric Rule: Women must keep their eyes averted when speaking to their superiors, men

New, Empowering, Enlightened Rule: Men must keep their eyes averted when speaking to their superiors, women

There's such a fine line between stupid and clever.

Honestly, The Feminists Who Put Out (TM) are really ruining their "pro-sex street cred" by constantly nattering on about everyone's base sexual impulses.

Why don't you all just chill out, pop open a bottle of wine, and dig on the cool grooves of kd lang and leave the rest of us alone?

You've Got To Be Kidding Me Update: Johnny Mac would have an aneurysm if the Sexual Umpires treated him with this sort of make-it-up-as-you-go hypocrisy.

Am I to understand it's wrong for Fred Thompson to leer at his wife, and yet the lefty feminists have no problem with Bill Clinton leering at 22-year-old Monica Lewinksy's thong, nor turning her into a Human Humidor?

Really?

I guess Fred Thompson had better start diddling an intern, quick. It's the only way to insulate himself from charges of lechery.

More Dr. Helen: On "The Porn Detective:"

In an extreme example, one of my commenters (thanks!) linked to this website called Porn Detective whose mission is to catch men reading porn and reprimand them. If this site is real, isn't this intimidation and stalking to take pictures of men going into porn stores and posting them on the internet? How would women feel if a site called Abortion Detectives elected to take pictures of women going into abortion clinics and post them on a website? I bet the site would be shut down pretty fast.

Go to Dr. Helen for the link.

In case there's any doubt about which Sexual Victorians are behind this, the first link on the left sidebar for "Categories" is "Misogynists."

I'm really starting to doubt this whole "we're in favor of sex!" pose by The Feminists Who Put Out (TM).

More... From the Porn Detective site:

Here's how Porn Detective describes her myssion:

Welcome to the site of The Porn Detective.

Porn DetectiveÂ’s Missions:

target and shame the Misogynists

target hotspots of misogyny to get them shut down

locate pornography in retail and public spaces and take action

Porn Detective is working on behalf of the feminist community to rid our streets and shops of porn and reprimand men who buy porn.

Porn Detective is not a nice Detective- she will do actions that people may find objectionable.

Kensington replies, "From my cold, dead hands, ladies..."

Posted by: Ace at 11:56 AM | Comments (88)
Post contains 679 words, total size 4 kb.