The folks at the La Raza meeting ate it up but I'm wondering if a lot of bitter and clingy types would agree.

When communities are terrorized by ICE immigration raids, when nursing mothers are torn from their babies, when children come home from school to find their parents missing, when people are detained without access to legal counsel, when all that is happening, the system just isnÂ’t working, and we need to change it.

As Ed at Hot Air points out, if you don't know the difference between enforcing the law and terrorizing people, you probably aren't fit to be a Senator let alone President.

I'd like to ask Sen. Obama if there isn't a human cost to enforcing all laws? Lots of people who are arrested have families and their are dislocations caused by just about every arrest. Why exactly is it so important to consider the impact of enforcement of immigration laws on families when it's not a consideration in other cases?

But I'm sure McCain will set the record straight about the nobility and importance of enforcing the laws of the land, I mean it's right there in the job description and everything.

Or, maybe not.

I know many of you are Democrats, and many of you would usually vote for the presidential candidate of that party. I know I must work hard to win your votes, but you have always given me a respectful hearing, and I appreciate it. I know many of you were disappointed and hurt by those who used the debate on immigration last year, not to respectfully debate the issue, as most did, but to denigrate the contributions of Hispanics to our great country. I denounced those insults then, and I denounce them today.

Would it be too much for McCain to trot out some of his vaunted 'straight talk' and explain to the La Raza faithful that being pro-enforcement and anti-amnesty isn't automatically anti-Hispanic?

We'll see. McCain addresses the group at 3:45 EDT.

Posted by: DrewM at 09:03 AM | Comments (40)
Post contains 345 words, total size 2 kb.

The New Yorker has a big article on Obama. I haven't read it all yet but there are some interesting excerpts out there already.

Here's Obama from a 9/19/01 speech.

We must also engage, however, in the more difficult task of understanding the sources of such madness. The essence of this tragedy, it seems to me, derives from a fundamental absence of empathy on the part of the attackers: an inability to imagine, or connect with, the humanity and suffering of others. Such a failure of empathy, such numbness to the pain of a child or the desperation of a parent, is not innate; nor, history tells us, is it unique to a particular culture, religion, or ethnicity. It may find expression in a particular brand of violence, and may be channeled by particular demagogues or fanatics. Most often, though, it grows out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair.

We will have to make sure, despite our rage, that any U.S. military action takes into account the lives of innocent civilians abroad. We will have to be unwavering in opposing bigotry or discrimination directed against neighbors and friends of Middle Eastern descent. Finally, we will have to devote far more attention to the monumental task of raising the hopes and prospects of embittered children across the globe—children not just in the Middle East, but also in Africa, Asia, Latin America, Eastern Europe and within our own shores.

I guess my thought that the attacks were carried by evil thugs in furtherance of a murderous ideology would be viewed as insufficiently nuanced by Obama.

It seems, at least from this excerpt, that from the start Obama viewed 9/11 as a call to engage in global social work. I have to admit, 8 days after September 11th those weren't exactly my concerns and not really the priorities I'd want in any President faced with that situation.

Also from this article...As a state Senator, Obama threatened to kick the ass of a fellow Senator.

If the media is starting to get curious about the pre-2004 Obama, this could get very interesting.

There's no truth to the rumor Hillary was heard to shout "I told you!" when she saw the story.

Posted by: DrewM at 01:45 PM | Comments (131)
Post contains 393 words, total size 3 kb.

From the hard left Guardian:

...Biofuels have forced global food prices up by 75% - far more than previously estimated - according to a confidential World Bank report obtained by the Guardian.

The damning unpublished assessment is based on the most detailed analysis of the crisis so far, carried out by an internationally-respected economist at global financial body.

The figure emphatically contradicts the US government's claims that plant-derived fuels contribute less than 3% to food-price rises. It will add to pressure on governments in Washington and across Europe, which have turned to plant-derived fuels to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and reduce their dependence on imported oil...

Posted by: Purple Avenger at 12:12 PM | Comments (71)
Post contains 151 words, total size 1 kb.

Yup.

Remember those superstitious, irrational, anti-scientific yahoos during the Middle Ages who blamed every phenomenon on the Devil?

Posted by: Ace at 12:00 PM | Comments (37)
Post contains 50 words, total size 1 kb.

Bad policy. Abysmal politics.

Good piece by Jack Kelly. Read the whole thing.

Much of the dissatisfaction with Congress is due to its unwillingness to do anything about the soaring price of gasoline. "Right now, our strategy on gas prices is 'Drive small cars and wait for the wind,'•" a Democratic congressional aide told The Hill newspaper.

"So why are the Republicans running scared, and why aren't they going after the 'new Democratic Congress' hammer and tongs?" wondered Web logger Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit. "Beats me. Because they're idiots, I guess."

I disagree. Some Republicans in Congress are crooks, and many are cowards. But few are idiots. For idiocy, you have to look to the campaign of Sen. John McCain.

...

The winning theme is obvious... But Mr. McCain has been Hamlet when he needs to be Henry V. He is discarding a strong hand through mixed messages and equivocation. He supports drilling on the outer continental shelf, but opposes it in ANWR. He backs a "cap and trade" program to reduce carbon dioxide emissions that would devastate our economy. Nuance is important in policy-making, but can be disastrous in political campaigning. If the trumpet be uncertain Â…

Mr. McCain needs to decide, pronto, which is more important to him: Winning the election or receiving an occasional kind word from liberal pundits who will vote against him.

If he wants to win, Mr. McCain needs to demonstrate in a dramatic way he'll take every reasonable step to increase energy supplies - including drilling in ANWR.

Since I quoted so much I will not quote the end of the article, which describes a nightmare scenario I've been worrying about myself: What if the candidate of Hope and Change Flip and Flop decides tomorrow to win the election going away and simply announces his support for drilling in ANWR?

It's almost inconceivable. Almost. And yet it could happen -- Obama, and perhaps even the Democrats, could, possibly, outflank McCain to his right on the issue most animating the public at the moment.

And then what? Will McCain flip too, or decide instead that the public will vote against its own interests and preferences and vote instead for McCain on the basis of his integrity and principle?

Question: There's an expression I keep trying to think of. I believe it's French. The idea is "It's not merely wrong, it's a mistake," which is probably not really it. But the idea the expression serves to, um, express is that some things are merely conventionally wrong (like telling the public you will spend a fortune on middle-class entitlements and welfare but will not increase middle class taxes) whereas other things are in the category of a mistake, both obviously wrong and not even wrong in a helpful way (as most of Captain Bullshit's bullshit is usefully wrong).

Anyone know what I'm talking about?

Posted by: Ace at 11:18 AM | Comments (36)
Post contains 488 words, total size 3 kb.

Not many details yet.

NATO's International Security Assistance Force says militants fired machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades and mortars from homes and a mosque in the village of Wanat in Kunar province, a mountainous region that borders Pakistan.

This is one of the worst attacks on the US forces in years there.

Best wishes and prayers for the killed, wounded and their families.

Posted by: DrewM at 10:37 AM | Comments (25)
Post contains 76 words, total size 1 kb.

By depicting a fundamentalist Christian decapitating a moderate Muslim.

The BBC of course says it's filled with "regret that some viewers felt the beheading scene was inappropriate."

This storyline looked at religious fundamentalism within a fictional Christian group, and one character in particular who took his beliefs to an extreme. His ignorance and misguided behaviour lead to the beheading of a peaceful Asian Muslim character in the drama. His actions are clearly condemned by leading Muslim and Christian clerics. The drama also has the balance of a Christian character that has a deep faith which she uses humbly and only for good.

The killing and the method used reflected the flawed beliefs that the character had. It does not attempt to condone or glamorise such a violent act in any way. The drama seeks to highlight the consequences of a misguided fundamentalist taking his beliefs to violent extremes.

Well, the show is fiction. I mean, can anyone think of a real world situation where religious adherents are beheading people of different faiths?

Posted by: DrewM at 10:24 AM | Comments (43)
Post contains 184 words, total size 1 kb.

In a back-and-forth discussion with writer Marc Cooper. Oddly, both men agree the Times is a bad paper and dying; they just disagree about the cause of death.

The Times should get a certain amount of credit for running their bete noir in their very paper. But Patterico should get a lot of credit too. A lot of times when people get this kind of opportunity to serve in a respectable liberal outlet, they suddenly become defenders of it. (Witness David Brooks, who seems to now think the NYT is an objective newspaper.) Or become a bit over-polite.

Not Patterico. He really lights them up.

Patterico teases the exchange with some choice quotes on his blog, too, in case you just want the highlights.

Patterico fails to present one of my favorite arguments, though. The MSM is always willing to consider the possibility they're politically biased against key members of the Democratic coalition -- they take charges they're "biased" or at least too negative as regards blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, gays, women, etc. If a prominent member of one of these groups makes a charge of bias, the MSM always follows quickly with an essay or a Ted Koppel panel show seriously questioning their own lack of sufficient sensitivity, and almost always confessing some degree of guilt, and always vowing to take steps to "do better" as regards such groups.

When it comes to allegations of bias against conservatives, however, the charges are rejected dismissively without so much as a paragraph of genuine reflection.

I think that proves bias right there, myself. It surely cannot be that the MSM is prone to write in a biased fashion against every group except Republicans; that anti-conservative bias is the one and only bias they could not possibly be guilty of. And yet that is what they always insist.

I would suggest that this is an example of the common phenomenon of being quite willing to admit one's venial sins, or even non-sins, while stubbornly and even ludicrously maintaining one's perfect innocence as regards one's mortal sins.

Posted by: Ace at 01:37 PM | Comments (33)
Post contains 361 words, total size 2 kb.

Stay classy, AP. Stay classy.

The AP, of course, is always in command of the facts.

That's a Newsbusters link, by the way, and not a direct link to the AP.

Thanks to CJ.

Posted by: Ace at 01:11 PM | Comments (49)
Post contains 54 words, total size 1 kb.

Not quite sure what this is all about but it seems oddly appropriate on a hot Saturday in July.

GORBACHOV: THE MUSIC VIDEO - BIGGER AND RUSSIANER from Tom Stern on Vimeo.

Posted by: Open Blog at 11:50 AM | Comments (33)
Post contains 42 words, total size 1 kb.