**--Do not rely on kausfiles for financial advice. Exhibit A. ... 4:08 P.M.
Friday, Ap ril 13, 2007
Howie Carr condemned Imus? If memory serves, Howie Carr's radio show was the most offensive radio program I'd ever heard when I listened to it during the 2000 New Hampshire primary--more offensive, in terms of ethnic insensitivity and general sneering inhumanity than anything I've seen attributed to Imus's broadcast.
**--In 2004, I appear to have blogged that when I tuned in again that year, "Carr's show wasn't vile anymore." I defer to my 2004 self on that issue. Still. ...
Update--Sullivan Unhinging Watch: I thought the above post was pretty clear about Carr's show: Vile in 2000! Not vile in 2004. Andrew Sullivan seems to believe this is a contradiction, and proceeds to condescendingly defend me while soliciting similar forgiveness because he's a "human being" and "blogging in real time" and therefore guilty of some "minor inconsistencies." (Like 'Yes, war!' and 'Sorry, mistake!') No thanks. ... P.S.: Sullivan declares the asterisked graf above was "subsequently added." I forget, but think the whole thing was posted at the same time. ... P.P.S.: What happened to "Faggot-Guy"? I thought I was Faggot-Guy. You just can't rely on some people. ... 1:33 A.M.
Thursday, Ap ril 12, 2007
That's the best she can do? The "shock and awe" approach--in which the enemy gets intimidated by an initial offensive flurry--will probably work as well for the alleged D.C. madam as it did in Iraq. ... Or maybe the theory has once again simply been misapplied, with the choice of an insufficiently shock-inspiring target. ... 9:54 P.M.
Hugh Hewitt's after-action report on our recent radio debate tends to confirm my suspicions about him. He seems to think the "prospects of an amnesty light bill" are so strong opponents need to settle for some minimum demands. Here are his:
I would think a bill that mandated rapid construction of the 700 miles of double-fencing, significantly hiked fines on employers paying illegals who could not mount an affirmative defense based upon a tamper-proof ID, and the stipulation that citizenship could never be available to anyone who had entered the country illegally and who had either not returned to their country of origin for a legal entry that was separated by a period of at least some months from their exit or had served in the military. I think it might also be possible to insist on a constitutional amendment being sent to the states on the subject of birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens. [E.A.]
This isn't a serious list. It would allow immediate legalization of all current illegal immigrants, as long as it stopped short of full "citizenship." Meanwhile we wouldn't find out if Hugh's "tamper-proof ID" and double-fence and increased fines actually worked until the next wave of illegals--smart enough to realize that those in the previous wave had just been amply rewarded-- tested them. ...
P.S.: I suspect Hewitt's spooked** about the inevitablity of an "amnesty light" bill passing. See Kate O'Beirne for the contrasting assessment. (She stresses that "border security — not amnesty — was popular on the campaign trail last year.") It's entirely possible a bill will fail because it's opposed from both sides--by anti-amnesty conservatives and pro-amnesty pols who think it doesn't go far enough. Happens all the time. (It happened to Nixon's equally misguided guaranteed-income plan, for example.) Just because 60 Senators favor some sort of amnesty doesn't mean 60 Senators will vote for the same bill, especially if they decide a stalemate that they can rail against is in their interest. It doesn't mean they won't. But Hewitt's analysis is too crude. ...