Detroit's cheap dates

A mostly political Weblog.
Sept. 2 2007 5:27 AM

Detroit's Cheap Dates

Plus--O'Reilly was right about Bourne.

(Continued from Page 13)

Q. I wanted to touch just briefly on your own situation and legal controversies.

A. You're not going to touch it at all or I'm going to leave. We had the understanding it was not going to come up.

Q. I understood the investigation wouldn't come up.

A. It's not going to come up at all.

Q. OK. What about your ability to be effective in Congress?

A. What about it? You're destroying it. ...

There's more. ("They taunt me  ...") .... 2:04 A.M.

___________________________

Tuesday, August 14, 2007

I've instinctively disdained The Week, maybe because of its ugly covers, or the Maxim connection, or what I took to be a reflexive anti-Bush attitude. Last week, while throwing a bunch of issues out, I started reading them, and noticed that they are really good at doing what they are trying to do, namely tell you 90% what you need to know about what's going on in culture and politics (and 110% of what you need to know to fake it). It's dense--lots of little summaries-- but not boring. Maybe Time-- circ down 17%-- should have pursued this model instead of, you know, printing columnists' names in 248 point type. There are still people who don't follow the news--paging M.D.s!--and could use a print Cliff's Notes, something the main newsweeklies aren't anymore. Even plugged-in Web players might find it a useful waterfront-covering corrective for the fragmented vision that seems to accompany, say, obsessive blogging.... [via Drudge] 3:02 P.M. link

Advertisement

___________________________

Pat at Stubborn Facts thinks that in a "new twist" I want to "suddenly ... modify" my argument by "shifiting" to suggest that employer enforcement be focused on new hires, rather than on rousting existing illegals from their jobs. Whether or not it's persuasive argument, it's not a new one on my part. See, e.g., here and here. ... P.S.: Yes, focusing on new hires might have the effect of "locking in" illegals to their current employers, since if they quit they would (if everything works) be unable to get a new job. They'd presumably either go into the underground work force or go home. But locking people in to their jobs is still less disruptive than kicking them out of their jobs, no? The point is to remove the "jobs" magnet for new immigrants without being unnecessarily nasty to millions of existing immigrants in a way that destroys the political support for workplace enforcement. "Lock in" isn't a good compromise, but I can't think of a better one. ... P.P.S.: Maybe Polipundit is correct  and support for anti-illegal measures has 

grown strong enough and vocal enough that Congress will not want to touch a radioactive comprehensive amnesty bill for several years

even if TV screens are filled with Joad-like streams of weeping, formerly hard-working self-deportees. Certainly the Bush administrations crackdown on even existing illegal workers seems popular now-- Rasmussen sees 79% support. But I worry that the blustery Polipundit is suffering from the political equivalent of serotonin poisoning.  "[S]upporters of America's borders" have indeed "grown stronger, with NumbersUSA exploding to over a half million activists and an e-mail list of 1.5 million." But 1.5 million is still only 1.5 million, in a nation of 300 million people who do not like to think they are being mean. ... 1:37 P.M. link

___________________________

I figured I was just making a fanciful analogy when I compared  DHS secretary Chertoff to Lenin. Then I saw this. ... Ever seen them in the same room? I didn't think so. ... [Thanks to reader R.E.] 11:28 A.M.