Major U.S. news weekly that tends to support illegal immigration and comprehensive immigration reform. There have been a few minor exceptions and a major exception was their 2004 cover story "Illegal Aliens: Who Left the Door Open?" But, that's about it and the last was almost a decade ago.
If you're a follower of Jim Wallis of Sojourners, I have some bad news: he has a very low opinion of you. In a post at Time Magazine , he writes false and misleading statements that would make a used car salesman blush. And, apparently he thinks his supporters aren't going to pick up on how he's misleading them.
One of the major downsides of skilled immigration to the U.S. is that it also represents skilled emigration from other countries, many of which are struggling Third World countries that need all the smart people they can keep.
GOP consultant Mike Murphy offers "The Ice Age Cometh" (link), which highlights the demographic problems the GOP has and offers his incredibly bad solutions. The fact that his solutions are incredibly bad shouldn't be a surprise, since people like him were the ones who got the GOP into its current precarious state.
Howard Chua Eoan is the news director of Time Magazine, so one might expect him not to fall for a hoax months after it's been revealed to be a hoax. Yet, the article "Tweets From a Washington Dinner (a.k.a. #nerdprom)" (link, via this) by him ("hchuaeoan") and an unknown person using "ssss1222" contains the following "tweet":
Marty Eisenstadt, former McCain Adviser. (4 pm.)
Ran into Val Kilmer, still on couch at Haddad's house. We're splitting cab to #nerdprom when he stands up. Could be a while.
In fact, "Eisenstadt" (real name: Eitan Gorlin) is behind the "Harding Institute for Freedom and Democracy", a fake think tank at hardinginstitute.org. Others fell for the hoax too, but that was months ago. ("Haddad" apparently refers to Tammy Haddad, former executive producer of the Chris Matthews show on MSNBC; she hosted a party before the "prom".)
Time Magazine's "The 2009 TIME 100" features a blurb from New York Times publisher Pinch Sulzberger about Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim (link). The latter recently saved the NYT from bankruptcy by loaning them $250 million:
I recently had the great pleasure of meeting Carlos Slim. He had decided to invest in the New York Times Co. and thought it would be a good idea to get to know me and my senior colleagues. It was obvious from the moment we met that he was a true Times loyalist... ...for Carlos, insight and understanding are catalysts for action and accomplishment. This speaks to why Carlos has funded extensive public-health education programs and why he's helped thousands of students throughout Latin America get their own laptops and learn more about digital technology... ...As he spoke at our meeting, he conveyed the quiet but fierce confidence that has enabled him to have a profound and lasting effect on millions of individuals in Mexico and neighboring countries. Carlos knows very well how much one person with courage, determination and vision can achieve. And I am delighted that he brings those attributes to the New York Times Co., to Mexico and to the world.
Unfortunately, Time's editors decided to remove this part:
And I, for one, welcome our new Mexican overlords. I’d like to remind them that as a trusted newspaper publisher, I can be helpful in rounding up others to... toil in their newsrooms.
Earlier today, Barack Obama conducted an online townhall meeting in which part of the time was spend answering questions that had been submitted to and voted up at whitehouse.gov/openforquestions. Sheryl Gay Stolberg of the New York Times has a run-down here. The problems with the system he used are covered in the popular voting systems summary, including a brief description of a better way to do things.
As predicted, the questions were weak. However, on the plus side the mainstream media or at least the online version of same appears to be catching on to the flaws in the voting system that was used, with John Ward Anderson of The Politico offering "Pot-related questions deluge W.H." (politico.com/news/stories/0309/20526.html). Likewise, Michael Scherer from Time Magazine offers this very good round-up of the "top" questions.
The wastoids from NORML can't figure out how to ask one good question and concentrate on pushing that to the top, but by making obvious to anyone how such systems can be abused they might lead us to using better voting systems for future efforts. (And, their incessant bombarding of such efforts and comments on MSM articles is sure to backfire.)
And, the uber-hack Ben Smith offers "Ensuring a friendly audience for online town hall" (politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0309/Ensuring_a_friendly_audience_for_online_town_hall.html):
...The event should not be mistaken, however, for a perfect reflection of the concerns of the American people, or even of American Internet users, for two reasons... One is perhaps unavoidable, and perfectly fair: Well organized groups, like advocates for the decriminalization of marijuana, can push their desired questions to the top. (Is the most important budget question really, "With over 1 out of 30 Americans controlled by the penal system, why not legalize, control, and tax marijuana to change the failed war on drugs into a money making, money saving boost to the economy? Do we really need that many victimless criminals?")... The second is deliberate: The Democratic National Committee blasted out the link to the Open for Questions website yesterday afternoon to Organizing for America's list, reportedly to include about 14 million people. It's reasonable to assume that those Obama supporters make up a high percentage of the participants.
Well, duh. See the link to the better way to do things above.
UPDATE: In retrospect, sending an email to NORML letting them know I discussed them was a bad idea. Apparently another symptom is tone-deafness. Also, there's a full transcript of the event here.
Betsy Rubiner of Time Magazine offers "Iowa: What Happens When a Town Implodes" (link) about the aftermath of the Postville immigration raid; see the last link first if you aren't familiar with that issue. The article attempts to emotionalize the issue and encourage support for illegal immigration; consider how it ends:
Many townspeople hope a responsible buyer will revive the plant. "We'd like to see somebody who buys it and makes it an honest business," says [Darcy Radloff, the city clerk].
However, everything before that point supported it being run as a dishonest business. Postville was a town built on and profiting from illegal activity and the Agriprocessors plant was allegedly involved in thousands of cases of various types of abuse. For instance, the company was charged with over 9000 child labor law violations. Rather than fighting against such massive corruption and discouraging abuse by discouraging illegal activity, articles like the one by Rubiner seek to paper it over with pleas to emotion. One wonders what other forms of illegal activity Rubiner would seek to paper over, and one wonders how dumb Time thinks their readers are that they can't search on the internet to find all the things Rubiner didn't tell them. Note that this is a second go-round for her; she wrote a similar article in May 2008.
On a sidenote, the copy is peppered with highly off-topic, Iowa-related links right in the copy, such as "See pictures of an Iowa steak fry" and "See pictures of Hillary Clinton campaigning in Iowa with Bill Clinton". Hopefully that will disturb the show Rubiner is putting on for enough people that they'll do a search for the truth.
Steve Schmidt should find a new line of work (immigration and the failed John McCain campaign) - 11/10/08
Steve Schmidt - former chief strategist of the John McCain campaign - was interviewed by Ana Marie Cox about the various failures he was involved in and presumably he tries to defend himself against charges that he's completely incompetent; I didn't bother reading the whole thing (link) since this bit is all we need:
If you look at the returns from the southwestern and mountain west states, with rising Latino
It's always the stupid ones that give the game away, and two of the stupidest are at Time Magazine's Swampland. A few days ago, Ana Marie Cox lied about (and later corrected) something someone said at a McCain rally.
Today, repeat liar and explicit illegal immigration supporter Joe Klein is being extremely misleading about Barack Obama's relationship with Bill Ayers.
If John McCain is as serious as he says about running a "respectful" campaign against an opponent he considers "a decent person," word hasn't yet trickled down to his newly opened storefront field office in Gainesville, Virginia.
Then, she shows her lack of respect for anything approaching real reporting:
With so much at stake, and time running short, [Jeffrey Frederick, Chairman of the Virginia Republican Party] did not feel he had the luxury of subtlety. He climbed atop a folding chair to give 30 campaign volunteers who were about to go canvassing door to door their talking points — for instance, the connection between Barack Obama and Osama bin Laden: "Both have friends that bombed the Pentagon," he said. "That is scary." It is also not exactly true — though that distorted reference to Obama's controversial association with William Ayers, a former 60s radical, was enough to get the volunteers stoked. "And he won't salute the flag," one woman added, repeating another myth about Obama. She was quickly topped by a man who called out, "We don't even know where Senator Obama was really born." Actually, we do; it's Hawaii.
1. The Weathermen did indeed bomb the Pentagon. The only thing Tumulty can hang her hat on is whether Ayers himself was directly involved; as he was a Weathermen leader, that's a very fine point.
2. We can probably assume that OBL was behind the plane crashing into the Pentagon.
3. Therefore, the only thing "not exactly true" about that Frederick contention is a) the extent to which Ayers was personally involved in the Pentagon bombing, and b) the extent to which flying a jet into a building qualifies as a "bombing".
4. Tumulty then makes a magical leap, referring to "another myth" as if what she'd just discussed was a myth.
5. Frederick was not the person who said the bit about the flag, nor was he the person who said the bit about where BHO was born. Tumulty doesn't tell us whether Frederick heard what they said and what he said in response.
6. Where exactly BHO was born - and whether he's even a U.S. citizen - is still an open question. Unless Tumulty has definitive proof, she's just misleading Time's millions of readers in order to support Barack Obama.
UPDATE: Here's a more in-depth discussion about where Barack Obama was born.
UPDATE 2: See this summary page for the truth about what we know and what we don't know about where Obama was born.
Wonkette, aka Ana Marie Cox of Time Magazine's Swampland offers "McCain Denounces Pitchfork-Wavers", yet another example of how McCain capitulating to the Democrats is a very bad idea (time-blog.com/swampland/2008/10/mccain_denounces_pitchforkwave.html). The update to that post says:
Indeed, [John McCain] just snatched the microphone out the hands of a woman who began her question with, "I'm scared of Barack Obama...
Scott Shane of the New York Times offers "Obama and '60s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths" (originally titled "Obama Had Met Ayers, but the Two Are Not Close"). If you believe the NYT, then everything's fine and dandy, and Barack Obama and 60s radical Bill Ayers are not close. The fact that they aren't close and never were close and nothing funny went on and there's nothing to see here is especially important because Ayers is a former and allegedly unrepentant terrorist who's since been, in Shane's words, "rehabilitated".
On the other hand, if you actually want the truth, compare the second paragraph on page 2 ("In fact, according to several people involved...") to the email here. Why, it's almost like Shane is reading from a script provided by Ken Rolling, the former executive director of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.
See also this from Steve Diamond:
an exchange of letters in late 1994, copies of which I obtained from Brown University, between Vartan Gregorian, then President of Brown and the individual responsible for assessing applications for grants from the national Annenberg Challenge, and Bill Ayers, the founder of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, demonstrates that Ayers played a direct role in "composing" the Challenge's board of directors... I was interviewed at length by the New York Times for today’s story. In fact, this was the third Times reporter to interview me about the Ayers/Obama relationship - and I provided the Times with the letters I discuss here. They are not mentioned in the story at all.
See also "Ayers Was on Woods Fund Board with Obama When He Stepped on Flag" (LGF, peekURL.com/zab252h). That links to this August 2001 Chicago Magazine article entitled "No Regrets"; it includes a picture of Bill Ayers stepping on a U.S. flag. It also links to 'Obama served on a board with former Weather Underground member William Ayers and "that relationship with Mr. Ayers on this board continued after 9/11"', a fact check of a Hillary Clinton statement about Obama's association with Ayers (link). They agree that her statement was truthful.
And, see this:
It turns out as these ten key points confirm what I have argued all along - that Bill Ayers was responsible for the elevation of Obama to the Chicago Annenberg Challenge board and the New York Times reporting on this story actually supports my conclusion, though inadvertently.
10/9/08: Obama lies again, with this being the latest explanation for his actions: "The gentleman in question, Bill Ayers, is a college professor, teaches education at the University of Illinois... That's how i met him -- working on a school reform project that was funded by an ambassador and very close friend of Ronald Reagan's" along with "a bunch of conservative businessmen and civic leaders... Ultimately, I ended up learning about the fact that he had engaged in this reprehensible act 40 years ago, but I was eight years old at the time and I assumed that he had been rehabilitated." (link) As indicated above, Obama continued working with him after 9/11/01, when even the most willingly blind person could see what Ayers was all about.
~ Who's helping the NYT spread their spin? ~
The people listed below all share one thing in common: they pretend that that NYT was actually trying to write an investigative report rather than a cover-up, and they all come to the conclusion that there's nothing there because the NYT says there's nothing there. Whether they actually believe that or whether they're just trying to sell the NYT's lies isn't clear.
* Steve Benen of Washington Monthly says the NYT "couldn't find any dirt", trying to make his readers think the NYT was looking for dirt rather than covering for BHO (washingtonmonthly. com/archives/individual/2008_10/015024.php). A comment I left was later deleted.
* Ben Smith from The Politico tries a similar technique: "though the Times has pinned down a couple of new details on the relationship, there's no real news, and the main new detail is exculpatory: A different Chicago figure picked Obama to chair an education fund. The conservative blog reaction to the story is outrage, as it has failed to turn up the secret Rosetta Stone that many seem to believe will reveal some deeper truth about Obama's politics." (politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/Republicans_again_reading_the_Times.html?showall)
* Juliet Eilperin of the Washington Post (voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/10/04/palin_turns_to_nyt_citing_arti.html). She starts out with snark and a lie: "It turns out GOP vice presidential nominee does like the mainstream media after all -- at least, when it's publishing unflattering stories about Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama." The NYT article isn't "unflattering", it's an attempt at a cover-up.
She then spins the story the same way the BHO campaign does: "In fact, both a Washington Post article in April and today's New York Times piece revealed Obama and Ayers to have had only a casual association: the former radical hosted a coffee for Obama's first bid for state Senate, they served together on an educational charity board and both live in Chicago's Hyde Park."
The WaPo article she mentions is "Former '60s Radical Is Now Considered Mainstream in Chicago" by Peter Slevin (link). That WaPo article is even more of a cover-up than the one from the NYT; in fact, almost everything in there tries to portray Ayers as an upstanding member of his community, and the only link to Obama is this cozy scene: The two men served for three years on the board of the Woods Fund, an anti-poverty group. The board, which Obama has since left, was small and collegial, said chair Laura Washington, who served with them. It met four times a year for a half-day, mostly to approve grants, she said. The atmosphere was "friendly but businesslike." Needless to say, a real reporter would try to determine what Washington isn't saying, but that leaves Peter Slevin out.
* Michael Shaw of the Huffington Post - who concentrates on a lightweight interpretation of images - basically reads from the card he's been handed: "all kinds of long hashed-over and discredited innuendos... resuscitating feeble allegations -- all then discounted..." (huffingtonpost.com/michael-shaw/reading-the-pictures-emny_b_131855.html)
* Martina Stewart of CNN references the NYT article and then says: "Several other publications, including the Washington Post, Time magazine, the Chicago Sun-Times, The New Yorker and The New Republic, have debunked the idea that Obama and Ayers had a close relationship." (says) However, an earlier version of the article - the change not noted - had "The National Review" in place of "The New Republic". (link) Presumably that was just a mistake and not (like their other coverage) an attempt to deceive.
* Sockpuppets, various. BHO supporters are clogging up MSM comments boards with Winner-style attacks. See, for instance, the 04:15 PM comment from "John" and the 04:26 PM comment from "Larry" at latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/10/sarah-palinbill.html and the 8:06 PM comment from Luke2 and the 7:34 PM comment from seemstome at voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/10/04/palin_turns_to_nyt_citing_arti.html. If I didn't think they were just citizens voicing their opinions I'd think they were actually paid workers for the Obama campaign.
* Izvestia, aka CNN, offers a "Fact Check" that discusses Sarah Palin's comment that BHO is "palling around with terrorists" (link). Obviously, Palin should have put it in the correct legalistic format: "in the recent past, Barack Obama has worked with and associated with known and unrepentant terrorists". If she had, CNN wouldn't have been able to pretend that her non-legalistic formation was binding: 'Verdict: False. There is no indication that Ayers and Obama are now "palling around," or that they have had an ongoing relationship in the past three years. Also, there is nothing to suggest that Ayers is now involved in terrorist activity or that other Obama associates are.' No really: they actually try to pretend that her imprecise wording is more important than BHO's past collaboration with and association with a terrorist.
* Todd Beeton links to both CNN and the NYT and continues the trends discussed above: mydd.com/story/2008/10/5/164214/299
* Obsequious toady, repeat liar, and supporter of illegal activity Joe Klein offers "Embarracuda", an obvious attempt to deceive (time-blog.com/swampland/2008/10/embarracuda.html). Needless to say, he downplays the Obama-Ayers connection and even works in a BHO talking point about how BHO was just a child when the Weather Underground were terrorizing the U.S.: Over the weekend, [Sarah Palin] picked up on an article in The New York Times, which essentially says that Barack Obama and the former terrorist Bill Ayers have crossed paths in Chicago, served on a couple of charitable boards together, but aren't particularly close. To Palin--or her scriptwriters--this means that Obama has been "palling around" with terrorists. Now, I wish Ayers had done some serious jail time; he certainly needed to pay some penance for his youthful criminality--even if most people in Chicago, including the mayor, have decided that he has something of value to say about education. But I can also understand how Obama, who was a child when Ayers was cutting his idiot swath, would not quite understand the enormity of the professor's background...
* Scott Conroy of CBS News offers "Lagging In The Polls, Palin Shifts To Fear Tactics" (cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/10/06/politics/fromtheroad/entry4503812.shtml), which follows 10/4's equally biased "Palin Says She Wants To Talk About Issues, Adds That Obama Pals With A Terrorist" (cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/10/06/politics/fromtheroad/entry4503812.shtml). In the first article he says: '[Palin] said [Obama and Ayers] had a relationship akin to being "pals," even though the Associated Press and many other news outlets have concluded that Obama and Ayers' relationship added up to far less than a close friendship.' Needless to say, that's extremely disingenuous.
10/6/08 UPDATE: The latest lie from the BHO campaign is that BHO had little knowledge of the radical past of Ayers and the Weatherman group. This was presented by David Axelrod and Robert Gibbs (thepage.time.com/mccain-campaign-release-on-obama-and-ayers); see Joe Klein retailing their lie above.
John McCain ad was right and Barack Obama, MSM misled about BHO's kindergartener sex education bill - 09/16/08
"Obama's one accomplishment?This has led to a wide variety of BHO supporters - specifically those in the MSM - calling McCain a liar. To a certain extent, they have somewhat of a point: the bill might not be an "accomplishment" for BHO since he was just a supporter and not a co-sponsor and since it never passed. And, the McCain campaign might not have correctly contextualized some of the other quotes they provide in the ad relating to BHO's educational plans.
Legislation to teach "comprehensive sex education" to kindergartners.
Learning about sex before learning to read?
However, their complaints don't usually involve those points but instead revolve around the middle sentences quoted above; they try to pretend that kindergarteners were just covered by the bill in order to prevent abuse when in fact the bill was much more far-reaching than BHO and his helpers would have you believe. For an example of what Obama would have you believe, see this or this quote from campaign spokeswoman Jen Psaki (link):
"Barack Obama supports sensible, community-driven education for children because, among other things, he believes it could help protect them from pedophiles. A child's knowledge of the difference between appropriate and inappropriate touching is crucial to keeping them safe from predators."Now, for the truth about the bill, read this:
Within moments of the ad's appearance, the Obama campaign called it "shameful and downright perverse." The legislation in question, a bill [Senate Bill 99] in the Illinois State Senate that was supported but not sponsored by Obama, was, according to Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton, "written to protect young children from sexual predators" and had nothing to do with comprehensive sex education for kindergartners...Read the rest, which includes a discussion of how what was originally meant for those in the sixth grade and up was changed to everyone in K-12 because urban areas might require different topics to be covered than more rural areas. The article also includes Byron York trying to get in touch with three of the four original sponsors and for some unknown reason or other not getting his calls returned. Only one of the four spoke with him about the bill:
Newspaper, magazine, and television commentators quickly piled on. "The kindergarten ad flat-out lies," wrote the New York Times, arguing that "at most, kindergarteners were to be taught the dangers of sexual predators." The Washington Post wrote that "McCain's 'Education' Spot is Dishonest, Deceptive." And in a column in The Hill, the influential blogger Josh Marshall called the sex-education spot "a rancid, race-baiting ad based on [a] lie. Willie Horton looks mild by comparison."
After we discussed other aspects of the bill, I told [original co-sponsor state senator Iris Martinez] that reading the bill, I just didn't see it as being exclusively, or even mostly, about inappropriate touching. "I didn't see it that way, either," Martinez said. "It's just more information about a whole variety of things that have to go into a sex education class, the things that are outdated that you want to amend with things that are much more current."That doesn't mean that the parts involving kindergarteners wouldn't be restricted to just inappropriate touching. However, the age range was lowered specifically to allow different school districts to offer teaching appropriate to their areas, and thus those in lower grades could be taught much more than BHO is letting on. For a discussion of that, see this or this.
So, I asked, you didn't see it specifically as being about inappropriate touching?
A list of just some of those who've helped Barack Obama hide the truth about the bill is in the extended entry:
* Adam Nagourney and Jeff Zeleny of the New York Times say the ad "misleadingly accused Obama of endorsing sex education for kindergarten students" (link)
* A New York Times editorial falsely states "At most, kindergarteners were to be taught the dangers of sexual predators." (link) What they could have been taught was left up to the localities.
* Following the party line boilerplate, Paul Krugman says 'In reality, he supported legislation calling for "age and developmentally appropriate education"; in the case of young children, that would have meant guidance to help them avoid sexual predators.'
* Larry Rohter of the New York Times pretends the ad was implying that "comprehensive" meant that kindergarteners would receive the information as high school students; he's probably the only person coming to that conclusion. He also takes Obama's word for his understanding of the bill rather than discussing what the bill actually says and what others intended by it (link).
* Emi Kolawole of FactCheck correctly points out some of the minor errors in the ad, but says 'It's true that the phrase "comprehensive sex education" appeared in the bill, but little else in McCain's claim is accurate.' (link)
* Michael Scherer of Time says "[t]he sex-education bill in question had called only for age-appropriate instruction..."
* Brave New Films promotes a Planned Parenthood ad (alternet.org/blogs/video/98697/ planned_parenthood_rips_into_mccain_for_sex-ed_smear_campaign): 'In an ad, they say that Obama was helping children protect themselves from sex offenders, while McCain seemingly doesn't care.'
* Nedra Pickler and Charles Babbington of the Associated Press claim that the ad "misrepresent[ed] [BHO's] position on sex education for kindergartners." (link). That's not completely inaccurate, but it fails to note that BHO either hasn't read, hasn't understood, or is misrepresenting the bill.
* Joe Garofali of the San Francisco Chronicle falsely states 'Obama doesn't support explicit sex education for kindergarteners. The bill -- which never was passed out of the Illinois legislature --included teaching "age-appropriate sex education" -- you know, what is inappropriate touching, that sort of stuff'. (link)
* Richard Cohen offered "The Ugly New McCain" (link) and called the ad a "lie". That referenced a McCain appearance on The View (!) where Joy Behar called it a lie as well.
* "Hilzoy" of the Washington Monthly pretends it was just about inappropriate touching (link).
* Joe Sudbay tries to pretend it was just about preventing abuse (americablog.com/2008/09/mccain-got-nasty-defending-his-negative.html)
* Democratic consultant Mark Mellman says "There is not an iota of reality in McCain's attack on Obama's supporting comprehensive sex education for kindergartners. As we all know, he voted to help children avoid sexual predators."
* A Tampa Bay Tribune editorial says 'The facts: Obama, while a state lawmaker in Illinois, supported a measure to provide older students with age and developmentally appropriate sex education. Younger children, such as those kindergarten-age, would be taught "age-appropriate" things such as how to protect themselves from sexual predators.'
* A Minneapolis Star-Tribune editorial says "There is no evidence that Obama supported explicit sex education in kindergarten, as a McCain ad implied."
* Not even understanding BHO talking points, Cox Newspapers columnist Tom Teepen says 'No, as an Illinois state legislator Obama did not push for "comprehensive sex education" for kindergarteners. He supported a proposal for age appropriate sex education -- which, for kindergarteners, would have meant only making them aware of the possibility of sex abuse and teaching them means to counter it.'
* Darrell West from the Brookings Institution falsely states "The McCain campaign ran another spot erroneously claiming Obama favored comprehensive sex education for kindergarteners." (link)
* It's an Anderson Cooper from CNN and "FactCheck" two-fer. CNN aired a "Fact Checking" episode that hewed to the party line (link):
[RANDI KAYE, CNN CORRESPONDENT]: Did Obama want to teach sex education to kindergartners? Not really. The programming question was intended to teach kids how to avoid sexual predators, says the nonpartisan group FactCheck.org.What BHO says he wants and what was in the bill he voted for are, of course, two entirely different things.
VIVECA NOVAK, FACTCHECK.ORG: What he wanted to do was increase the range of some -- some sort of sex education, K-12. But the kind of thing he was interested in having kids at a young age learn about was inappropriate sexual advances that might be made against them.
Betsy Rubiner of Time Magazine  offers a slab of pro-illegal immigration propaganda called "After Immigrant Raid, Iowans Ask Why" (link). The raid in question occured at the Agriprocessors plant in Postville earlier this month, and her article could have been written by that company or anyone else who supports profiting from illegal immigration. The only mention of those who support our laws is in a highly negative light. The reader who thinks she's in any way a credible source of information should research the raid using the last link, then compare it to her article.
It starts with this:
In this small northeastern Iowan town surrounded by newly planted cornfields, a middle-aged white woman walks into the local Guatemalan restaurant with her arm around a Hispanic child who is sobbing because she can't find her mother. After conferring with a restaurant worker, the woman takes the child nearby to St. Bridget's, a small 1970's-era brick Catholic church on a quiet tree-lined street that has become command central for what people in this community of 2,273 describe as a "disaster relief response."
Then, it continues on like that, continuing to try to pull the readers' heartstrings in order to convince them to support illegal activity. Those who support our laws are smeared:
Anti-immigrant sentiment and ethnic tensions are not unknown in this unusually diverse Iowa small town, whose residents include descendants of German and Norwegian Lutherans and Irish Catholics as well as more recent arrivals — Latin Americans, Ukrainians and Hasidic Jews drawn here by the plant. A few angry people have called the church, complaining about its care of "criminals." But volunteers like Ardie Kuhse, 60, shrug this off. "Yes, they were illegal. But they were working. Is that a crime? They're a part of our community," says Kuhse, near tears as she recalls trying to calm children after the raid.
Obviously, it is a crime, but don't expect a hack like Rubiner to point that out to her. The last paragraph gives us their demands:
Braced for months of waiting and uncertainty, many Postville residents are certain about one thing: "We have to have comprehensive immigration reform so these people who desire to work can. We have to have a way to welcome them," says Sister McCauley. "When people are so hurt, we have to take a look at the law."
"Reform" is, of course, a code phrase for amnesty.
 From a bio for her book "Fun with the Family in Iowa: Hundreds of Ideas for Day Trips with the Kids":
Betsy Rubiner has written for "Parenting, The New York Times, The Boston Globe, Better Homes & Gardens," "Time," and other publications. As a newspaper reporter, she launched children's beats, most recently in the" Des Moines Register. "She is a mother of two and has lived in Des Moines since 1990.
...Immigration cranks like Lou Dobbs, but also the immigration advocates he lambastes, would do well to stop the cable cacophony for a couple hours and see this movie when it hits U.S. screens.
Michael Kinsley offers "Kidding Ourselves About Immigration" in which he tries to present an argument for conflating all types of immigration together. You can click his name at the article to let him know what you think. The bottom line is that he's a sheltered Beltway insider who isn't familiar with this issue:
Saying that you oppose illegal immigration is like saying you oppose illegal drug use or illegal speeding. Of course you do, or should.
How to fight MediaMatters, far-left smears (Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Michael Savage) - 10/02/07
The far-left is on the warpath, with General Wesley Clark calling for Rush Limbaugh to be removed from Armed Forces Radio as part of a followup to a MediaMatters-originated smear.
In the past, this site has been sharply critical - to say the least! - of the mainstream media ("MSM"), pointing out that they consistently fail to ask politicians tough questions that would reveal the glaring holes in those politicians' policies.
Now, I have to retract that, based on this video featuring Dan Balz (Washington Post, "WaPo") and Mark Halperin (Time Magazine) relentlessly interrogating Rudy Giuliani. They even did it in the aisles of the WalMart in Boone, Iowa... as Rudy was buying granola bars!
These two lions of the MSM relentlessly quizzed him in a "take no prisoners" approach that amateur journalists cannot hope to match.
First, they asked if there should be CostCo's and WalMarts in Manhattan. Rudy answers yes, because he thinks they lower prices. Now, at this point in time you might wonder why they didn't have a follow-up, such as inquiring about traffic and related issues, or disincentivizing walking vs. driving to WalMart, and such like that. But, don't worry: they were thinking of those follow-ups, and that question was just what's refered to in the newsrooms as a "set up". While it can take a full semester to explain that technique, in brief they were lulling him into complacency, ready to spring - like a bear trap - the real question these reporters wanted to ask:
"Is Alez Rodriguez the youngest player to ever hit 500 home runs?"
Ladies and gentlemen, that is how it's done. I shall be writing to the Columbia Journalism Review forthwith, urging that they include this tape in all courses for young journalists.
Note to "citizen journalists": you cannot compete with the MSM, so don't bother trying.
SPECIAL NON-MOCKING, BEHIND-THE-BLOGGING UPDATE: When I first started watching the video, all I knew was the title ("Rudy Giuliani at Boone, IA Walmart"). I originally thought it was going to feature a GHWB-vs-the-price-scanner type of incident. Then, when someone asked about WalMart, I started a bit of a celebration, as I thought that a random citizen - or at least someone from SprawlBusters - was trying to ask Rudy a tough question. I became more than a bit perturbed as there was no follow-up and as the "questioning" became more conversational in tone. Only then did I read the description of the video and realize why that was: the questioners were two MSM hacks.
I'm (thankfully) not familiar with NYC, but if someone proposed planting a WalMart at LaBrea and Wilshire I could outline the various ways that would be a bad idea and how things like traffic tie-ups or the need for road projects might result in costing more than it would save. I'd take that as an opportunity to show that Rudy either isn't able to think things through, or is able to think them through but doesn't care about the negative consequences (for some strange reason or other).
Obviously, that level of dialogue is foreign to Balz and Halperin: their goal is to get a few quotes and maybe ask about a scandal or similar. They are little more than stenographers to the stars (of politics).
I note also that the video is from someone named "mevanh" who signed up to YT just recently, who only has one other video (of Michelle Obama), and who deleted a comment I left on the video similar to the post along with another negative comment. Must be a Rudy fan.
The DREAM Act is an explicitly anti-American bill that would allow illegal aliens to take discounted college educations from U.S. citizens. Corrupt newspapers and "reporters" have offered a long line of propaganda pieces - called around here PIIPP - in support of the legislation. That propaganda is invariably strongly biased towards the Act and rarely if ever mentions its downsides.
When teenage brothers Juan and Alex Gomez were awakened at dawn on July 25 and arrested by U.S. immigration officials, they simply became two more among the thousands of kids who get snared in deportation dragnets along with their parents. But this week Juan's Internet-savvy high school friends in Miami have turned his case into a cause celebre in Washington - and even if the brothers eventually do get deported, the publicity they've garnered may well boost the passage of a federal immigration bill that would keep other young people like them from suffering the same fate in the future.
Their parents brought them here as toddlers on a tourist visa, which they overstayed. One would imagine that if there were any mitigating circumstances - such as the parents applying for asylum or similar - they would have been mentioned. Since they aren't, perhaps Padgett could have asked their parents what they were thinking. Oops: that's not part of the PIIPP playbook. I've yet to see a PIIPP where a "reporter" asks the parents whether they feel they have any sort of responsibility.
The rest of the article follows the playbook, using euphemisms like "undocumented" and false statements like "the current anti-immigration mood on Capitol Hill". See PIIPP for several past examples highly similar to this one.
But, give Padgett some credit. He manages to offer one (yes, just one) sentence alluding to the possibility that some might have some objections to that which "reporter" Padgett clearly supports:
Critics call the DREAM Act - which was part of President Bush's failed immigration reform package and is now a stand-alone bill - just another amnesty reward for lawbreaking.
Even that contains a half-truth: what failed was legislation written with the input of several others, not just Bush. Surely, a real reporter would have offered more than one sentence with the downsides, right?
Since they don't seem to have a reader's rep, please write letters *at* time.com with your thoughts.
In his latest column, Joe Klein of Time Magazine discusses Mitt Romney, and says:
[Romney] has flipped on immigration, to better suit the Mexican-fearing tendencies of a segment of the Republican base.
That's a sleazy statement which tries to give the impression that opposition to massive illegal activity and massive public and private corruption is due to xenophobia and racism.
Now for an example of Joe Klien lying.
I continue to be amazed that Time Magazine has stooped to the National Inquirer level of employing Ana Marie Cox - formerly with Wonkette - as their Washington Editor and a contributor to their blog Swampland.
Now, there's something you can do about it!
Simply use Firefox with the Greasemonkey extension, together with this handy-dandy script that will remove all posts by Wonkette from Swampland. This is unsupported and barely tested, but it seems to work. Simply copy it into a file named something like 'wonkette.user.js', and drag that file into a Firefox window and choose to install it.
"What a nut," Bush told reporters [Wednesday]. "I'm just disappointed. He's from my own my party. He's a Republican.
James Poniewozik is Time's TV critic, and he offers a ludicrous slab of pro-illegal immigration propaganda in "Ugly, the American". It's about the 'Ugly Betty' TV show:
...Smart and sweet-hearted, she embodies the Puritan-Shaker-Quaker principle of valuing inner good over outer appearance. She's as Norman Rockwell as a chestnut-stuffed turkey. The actress who plays her is even named America Ferrera.
A new web-only video ad from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) tries to "Impugn[ the] GOP Claim That We're Safer".
It includes a shot of an illegal alien climbing over a wall with the caption "millions more illegal immigrants".
While it's certainly good to see the Democrats slightly waking up to the fact that there are indeed untold millions of foreign citizens in this country, somehow I think their opposition to illegal immigration is a bit half-hearted.
...Liberals like me have ignored the way the steady trickle of new Americans has become a massive repopulation program, primarily from Mexico. During the 1970s, 120,000 Mexicans came to the U.S. every year. During the 1980s, it was about 200,000 a year. During the 1990s, it was 350,000 a year. Today, it's estimated at 485,000—every year. One out of every eight Mexican-born adults is now living in the U.S.
As Rep. Tom Tancredo says:
Pence's plan would require illegal aliens to return to their home countries to apply for a new 'W' worker visa.
The AP breathlessly announces the results of their latest poll: "Poll: Most Open to Letting Immigrants Stay":
Overall, 56 percent of Americans favor offering illegal immigrants a shot at some kind of legal status; roughly two-thirds of those ages 18-34 like the idea and an equal share of those with a college education agree, the AP-Ipsos survey found.
The results are available here.
If a new Time Magazine poll is to believed, around 72 percent of Americans favor a "guest" worker scheme of some kind.
Of course, the "is to believed" part is our taking-off-point to mention that the poll question only gave two choices:
1. Allow Illegal Immigrants To Get Temporary Work Visas
The new intelligence law, courtesy of 9/11, is mystifying because it does not face directly what is the most prominent threat to homeland security. It is: inimical action by non-Americans. All the people who participated in 9/11 were foreigners, here under various auspices.
From a Palm Beach Post editorial:
Social Security used to be considered the untouchable "third rail" of American politics, but immigration soon may replace it.
Both candidates bobbed and weaved around the subject during the presidential campaign, and neither party has offered credible ideas for reform, fearing the political implications of being the first to propose unpopular solutions to long-ignored problems.