Politics Suspends Critical Thinking At The Times

The Times editors bleat about free speech cases soon to come to the Supreme Court; as usual, they start with their politically correct result and reason backward:

The court has two more important free speech cases coming up. One raises the question of whether people have a right to keep their identities secret if they signed a petition to put a referendum against same-sex marriage on the ballot. Putting an initiative on the ballot is an important governmental act, and we hope the court does not decide that there is a right to do so anonymously.

Of course not, because it is about gay rights!  (Not to mention the right to boycott and harass bigoted homophobes.)  While legal minds ponder this analysis, I will vex the Times editors with some alternatives:

(a) A town, or county is plagued by drug-related violence seemingly abetted by the local mayor and sheriff.  Concerned citizens want to submit a petition to the governor requesting a recall election, but fear retribution.  Can their petition be submitted anonymously, or are recall elections "an important governmental act"?

(b)  Since this might be a week where the Times is backing drug liberalization, let's try a variation - concerned citizens want to petition for recall because the mayor and police chief are racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, homophobic, and incredibly vindictive.  Can they petition anonymously now?  (How about if the mayor is also anti-Obama?)  

(c)  The local mill (a big employer) is spewing noxious fumes into the air; concerned citizens are lobbying for state action.  The CEO of the firm has a petition drawn up explaining that there is no pollution problem and proposing a ballot initiative exempting the industry from some relevant state requirement.  The CEO also makes it clear that he wants to see employees and suppliers of his company sign the petition.

Can people refuse to sign the petition and avoid retribution?  Only if the petition is kept anonymous.  But would that be allowed, or is this ballot initiative "an important governmental act"?

For heaven's sake - if it asking too much of Times editors to reflect for two seconds before they reflexively blurt out their current PC response?  OK, we all understand that when the next case comes the Times will insist that it is completely different and that the living, breathing Constitution can solve the next problem on the exhale. 

But for the rest of us, a little consistency and commonsense in the law would be welcome.

Comments

[Charlie (Colorado)]

For heaven's sake - if it asking too much of Times editors to reflect for two seconds before they reflexively blurt out their current PC response?

That was another one of those rhetorical questions, right?

[Clarice]

In the back of my mind I recall that Socialists need not list their contributors because the SCOTUS once held that to do so would subject them to harassment.

[Clarice]

Brown v. Socialist Workers', 459 U.S. 87 (1982) — Minor party which has historically been harassed is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

I can't remember where I put my keys but I remember this.

[Clarice]

BTW--Here's Obama on video claiming he never discussed the Senate seat replacement with Blago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IttlgVdQZE0&feature=related

[Clarice]

Here's the Marshall opinion in the Brown case.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=459&invol=87

[Clarice]

Now, if someone has lexus and can see what the NYT said about that opinion, TM's poke at the paper will be completed.

[Ignatz]

--Putting an initiative on the ballot is an important governmental act, and we hope the court does not decide that there is a right to do so anonymously.--

What next, we have to afix our name, address and phone number to the tops of our ballots too?

[matt]

There is a restaurant owner in Los Angeles; one of the better Mexican places, who is Mormon. She was a supporter of Prop 8 (against gay marriage). The gays and their allies found out and organized a boycott that cost her thousands of dollars in lost business.

Now the teabaggers want to do the same thing on a much wider scale. Mau Mau'ing the flak catchers......

[anduril]

Rather than driving down to the NYT in your Lexus, why not subscribe to Lexis? :-)

[Clarice]

Good point, Ignatz..Only if you vote Republican.See the fine print in Marshall's opinion.(IIRC Stevens is the only member of the panel in that case still sitting and he dissented from the majority opinion.)

[jimmyk]

Suppose it were a pro-gay rights referendum and petition signers wanted anonymity for fear of being outed. What would the Times's view of that be?

[Neo]

This is the same problem with making political donations .. they come after you .. one way or the other, either for more or to stop you.

I once gave money to a state political party; it took 10 years to get them to stop asking for more. Now I don't give.

[JM Hanes]

matt:

"Now the teabaggers want to do the same thing on a much wider scale."

I don't get the reference here.

[Clarice]

I believe he's referring to the original meaning of teabaggers and suggesting gays want the names to increase the pressure on more political opponents.

[lianing]

Tornadoes for hurricanes or oil?

[centralcal]

...a little consistency and commonsense in the law...

The law - heh! Well, it is certainly missing from the NY Times.

[JM Hanes]

Here's my nomination for the two second prize:

Voting folks into office is an important governmental act.
"We hope the court does not decide that there is a right to do so anonymously"

It would be worth an honorable mention to ask what's wrong with this picture too:

Unfettering political speech is reckless, but
"The animal-cruelty ruling takes a strong and welcome stand"

We hope the Supremes opine that the management of state ballot measures is none of their business. Thank goodness Doe v. Reed didn't ride in on the Commerce Clause.

[Tom Maguire]

This link should lead to a 1982 story by Linda Greenhouse of the Times on Brown v. Socialist Workers", but right now the Times archive is burying it.

JUSTICES BACK MINOR POLITICAL PARTIES ON DISCLOSURE

By LINDA GREENHOUSE, SPECIAL TO THE NEW YORK TIMES (The New York Times); National Desk

December 9, 1982, Thursday

The Supreme Court ruled today that a minor political party that faces a ''reasonable probability'' of harassment cannot be forced to disclose the identity of either its campaign contributors or the recipients of its campaign funds. Affirming a decision by a special three-judge Federal District Court, the Supreme Court ...

Galling.

[Tom Maguire]

Voting folks into office is an important governmental act. "We hope the court does not decide that there is a right to do so anonymously"

Just to resume grinding another axe: running for and accepting the office of US President is a very public act; we hope the Times does not think a candidate can maintain total privacy rights to his vital birth records.

Oh, what am I saying? Of course he can!

[Clarice]

Well, we'll all be happy to learn the wSJ is sharply discounting its ads for its NYC edition. If that doesn't drive the paper into the toilet, nothing will.

[Jane says obamasucks]

The Supreme Court ruled today that a minor political party that faces a ''reasonable probability'' of harassment cannot be forced to disclose the identity of either its campaign contributors or the recipients of its campaign funds. Affirming a decision by a special three-judge Federal District Court, the Supreme Court ...

Gee, that could apply to the tea party.

[Clarice]

Yes, it could, Jane. Let's start collecting funds from around the world.

I have a dormant SCAM Ltd. account in Dubai.

[anduril]

Really, how low can you go? How Goldman Sachs Screwed Ghana

[Ignatz]

That GS/Ghana story seems more like a non story.
Gold prices were falling and GS was selling gold and advised Ghana gold co to hedge for lower gold prices.
Central banks anounced later they were stopping gold sales and gold went up, bankrupting Ghana gold co.
Unless there is a memo to GS from the 15 Central Banks secretly telling GS their decision where is the story?

[anduril]

Right. And what reason would there be for GS to advise the Ghanaians to get advice from someone who wasn't active in the gold market on their own behalf? After all, the decision by GS and the European banks was an utterly random, non-predictable event no doubt arrived at by flipping a coin. The Ghanaians should stop whining and be thankful GS is gracious enough to allow them to be a client.

[anduril]

BTW, Ignatz, sophisticated readers would note that where you say "Central banks" and "15 Central Banks" the actual article says "15 European Banks with whom Goldman had professional relationships." There's a difference there, I think. Maybe no smoking gun, so, again, the Ghanaians are just cry babies.

[anduril]

And I shouldn't have said "the decision by GS and the European banks." Should've been: "the decision by the 15 European Banks with whom Goldman had professional relationships." But, if there was no memo from "the 15 European Banks with whom Goldman had professional relationships..."

[Pops]

Just how is Goldman Sachs any worse then Obama forcing me take out a loan from China to buy Chrysler?

Or forcing my children and grandchildren to borrow money so he can build turtle tunnels in Florida.

[Pops]

Except for the fact that any deal with Goldman is totally volunbtary and Obamas cash grab is by force and threat of jail.

[Jane says obamasucks]

Just how is Goldman Sachs any worse then Obama forcing me take out a loan from China to buy Chrysler?

It's not worse - in any way.

[Pops]

And why aren't any of the SEC porn surfers either going to jail or having their back wages seized?

Why have these public servants names not been released?

Its gotten so ridiculous that one town in North Carolina is using stimulus funds to hire an administrator whose job will be to procure more stimulus funds.

[Pops]

On eanother note, some Republican should submit an immigration enforcewment bill in Congress that completely duplicatesd Mexicos immigration law.

Will we be told that copy Mexicos own immigration laws is racist?
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=14632
Quote:
Mexico, which annually deports more illegal aliens than the United States

Mexico has a single, streamlined law that ensures that foreign visitors and immigrants are:

in the country legally;
have the means to sustain themselves economically;
not destined to be burdens on society;
of economic and social benefit to society;
of good character and have no criminal records; and
contributors to the general well-being of the nation.
The law also ensures that:

immigration authorities have a record of each foreign visitor;
foreign visitors do not violate their visa status;
foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country’s internal politics;
foreign visitors who enter under false pretenses are imprisoned or deported;
foreign visitors violating the terms of their entry are imprisoned or deported;
those who aid in illegal immigration will be sent to prison.
Who could disagree with such a law? It makes perfect sense. The Mexican constitution strictly defines the rights of citizens -- and the denial of many fundamental rights to non-citizens, illegal and illegal. Under the constitution, the Ley General de Población, or
General Law on Population, spells out specifically the country's immigration policy.

It is an interesting law -- and one that should cause us all to ask, Why is our great southern neighbor pushing us to water down our own immigration laws and policies, when its own immigration restrictions are the toughest on the continent? If a felony is a
crime punishable by more than one year in prison, then Mexican law makes it a felony to be an illegal alien in Mexico.

If the United States adopted such statutes, Mexico no doubt would denounce it as a manifestation of American racism and bigotry.

We looked at the immigration provisions of the Mexican constitution. [1] Now let's look at Mexico's main immigration law.

Mexico welcomes only foreigners who will be useful to Mexican society:

Foreigners are admitted into Mexico "according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress." (Article 32)
Immigration officials must "ensure" that "immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance" and for their dependents. (Article 34)
Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets "the equilibrium of the national demographics," when foreigners are deemed detrimental to "economic or national interests," when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws, and when "they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy." (Article 37)
The Secretary of Governance may "suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest." (Article 38)
Mexican authorities must keep track of every single person in the country:

Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request, i.e., to assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants. (Article 73)
A National Population Registry keeps track of "every single individual who comprises the population of the country," and verifies each individual's identity. (Articles 85 and 86)

A national Catalog of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants (Article 87), and assigns each individual with a unique tracking number (Article 91).

Foreigners with fake papers, or who enter the country under false pretenses, may be imprisoned:

Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned. (Article 116)
Foreigners who sign government documents "with a signature that is false or different from that which he normally uses" are subject to fine and imprisonment. (Article 116)
Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or imprisoned as felons:

Foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be punished. (Article 117)
Foreigners who are deported from Mexico and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. (Article 118)
Foreigners who violate the terms of their visa may be sentenced to up to six years in prison (Articles 119, 120 and 121). Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa while in Mexico -- such as working with out a permit -- can also be imprisoned.

Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony. The General Law on Population says,

"A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of three hundred to five thousand pesos will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally." (Article 123)
Foreigners with legal immigration problems may be deported from Mexico instead of being imprisoned. (Article 125)
Foreigners who "attempt against national sovereignty or security" will be deported. (Article 126)
Mexicans who help illegal aliens enter the country are themselves considered criminals under the law:

A Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison. (Article 127)
Shipping and airline companies that bring undocumented foreigners into Mexico will be fined. (Article 132)
All of the above runs contrary to what Mexican leaders are demanding of the United States.

[Ignatz]

--BTW, Ignatz, sophisticated readers would note that where you say "Central banks" and "15 Central Banks" the actual article says "15 European Banks with whom Goldman had professional relationships." There's a difference there, I think.--

Since the September 1999 gold deal was called "The Central Bank Gold Agreement" I'd say it's a pretty safe bet for the sophisitcated readers that they were central banks.

[Ignatz]

I looked it up for you. Here's the list:
Oesterreichische Nationalbank
Banca d'Italia
Banque de France
Banco do Portugal
Schweizerische Nationalbank
Banque Nationale de Belgique
Banque Centrale du Luxembourg
Deutsche Bundesbank
Banco de España
Bank of England
Suomen Pankki
De Nederlandsche Bank
Central Bank of Ireland
Sveriges Riksbank
European Central Bank

[anduril]

As Holmes said to Watson: A distinct touch! :-)

[Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet]

Pops:

Perhaps some of the stimulus money went to the SEC to fund more stimulation among some of its high ranking officials.

Clarice:

Do you know if there is California law analogous to the Ohio law requiring disclosure found unconstitutional as applied to the Socialist Party?

If not, where is the California state action in the Prop 8 case?

[Clarice]

This appears to be it, Jim, though I expect the briefs in the case will provide us with more info about the state law:

"he Political Reform Act was adopted as a statewide initiative (Proposition 9) by an overwhelming vote of the electorate in 1974. The law requires detailed disclosure of the role of money in California politics. This includes the disclosure of contributions and expenditures in connection with campaigns supporting or opposing state and local candidates and ballot measures as well as the disclosure of expenditures made in connection with lobbying the State Legislature and attempting to influence administrative decisions of state government."

[crackyyop]

Okay, it's innovation and IMF and England just like O's global tax law and England's.

[Melinda Romanoff]

clarice-

that's all very nice for California, but it doesn't hold that bright candle of clarity to someplace like Illinois.

[Melinda Romanoff]

Oh, and Illinois is on the right, in the mirror.

[Jim Miller]

"For heaven's sake - if it asking too much of Times editors to reflect for two seconds before they reflexively blurt out their current PC response?"

I am afraid even to ask that question rhetorically is to let hope triumph over experience.

In turn, let me pose this non-rhetorical question: Can any of you recall a New York Times editorial in the last ten years that made a politically incorrect argument? (I can't but I will confess that I gave up reading their editorials regularly some time ago.)

[PaulV]

LUN Atlantic article says IKB was sophesticated high yield chaser trying to buy high yield junk. Business plan modeled on Krugman's firm ENRON

[Danube of Thought]

Putting an initiative on the ballot is an important governmental act

So is electing our public officials. Surely it wouldn't be asking too much for voters to show a photo ID before casting their ballot, would it? (Bonus question: guess what position the Times would take on this one.)

One of my all-time favorites was a side-by-side comparison (I think Tom Maguire produced it) of the Times's editorial on how refreshing it was to seen an inexperienced woman (Geraldine Ferraro) nominated as VP, where she could be expected to "grow" in office, along with their more recent piece about you-know-who.

[Rick Ballard]

SEC IG to Probe Goldman Lynching

The piece is very interesting - it covers the orchestration of the suit with Levin's inquisition next week and mentions the Galleon insider trader matter as well as the attempted? subornation of S&P and Moodys. Only the Greece Connection is left unmentioned.

I sure hope GS got the full retail markup for the miles of rope they sold.

[Coomanche Voter]

Consistency and common sense. When, if ever, did we get such from the New York Times?

[PaulV]

Rich
How much of the bad paper came from Fannie and Freddie. Was the problem just bad paper or was it more change in market conditions?

[PaulV]

I meant Rick

[JM Hanes]

Jim Miller:

"Can any of you recall a New York Times editorial in the last ten years that made a politically incorrect argument?"

I'd have thought that endorsing an Iraqi genocide in the name of retreat would have made the cut, but apparently there's no bottom to how low the NYTimes' bar can be set.

[PaulV]

Cut rate ad on General Betrayus was close second

[Melinda Romanoff]

PaulV-

Fannie and Freddie took the best stuff, and left the follow on securitization to all the garbage.

And Rich, but especially Rick, would have the links to the data.

I don't follow that data like they do.

[PaulV]

Thanks, but SEC will never go after the real crooks

[Rick Ballard]

"Was the problem just bad paper or was it more change in market conditions?"

As Mel noted, the GSEs took the "cream of the crap", roughly 18% of the subprime mortgages were in GSE portfolios when the balloon went up. If you're looking for "cause", then first consideration (IMO) should be given to extraordinarily high, fee driven demand for mortgages to be "packaged" into MBS. The initial specifications for the MBS allowed for "X% defects" but the level of demand pushed mortgage underwriting standards down to 4X% defects. The deterioration in mortgage underwriting standards happened over a relatively brief period (two years +-) and the GSEs standards deteriorated much more slowly than did the standards adopted by the fee driven behemoths such as Lehman.

The GSEs played a significant part in the fiasco by skimming the cream but I have reservations about that being "planned". The more reasonable explanation is that bureaucratic lethargy prevented them from dropping standards quickly in the race to the bottom.

All the information necessary to identify the course of the catastrophe is in the hands of the New York Fed. They haven't made and probably won't make the data available but they have it in their greasy palms.

[sbw]

Just clicked onto Jack Cashill talking about his book "Popes and Bankers." He did an excellent job parsing the last 100 years of money/government shenanigans.

Think it was Book TV on CSPAN2.

Sharp and articulate.

[crackeconomics]

hands in the catastrophe.

Miss and Lou.

[Clarice]

Two bits of good news: From the Jerusalem Post:
Speaking at a cultural event in Ramat Gan on Saturday, Deputy Negev and Galilee Development Minister Ayoub Kara (Likud) said that an Iranian nuclear scientist had broken ranks with the Islamic regime and requested political asylum in Israel. While Kara refused to reveal the identity of the scientist, he did say that the Iranian national was currently awaiting a decision on the matter in a “friendly country.”

**********************

Lindsey Graham has withdrawn his support for cap and trade because the Dems are pushing immigration reform. Kerry and Lieberman cancelled their presser and it's now up in the air.

Now--thei immigration reform thing MUST be defeated..No more Stupak sambas.

[Jane says obamasucks]

WOW that is good news Clarice. I wonder what happened with Graham.

And what country is "friendly"

[nathan hale]

It maybe that just as the fanaticism of the Nazis, forced out the best minds on the subject, a novel by the Mexican writer Jorge
Volpi, In Search of Klingsor, the same may be happening with Iran, as the previous example
of Dr. Amiri seems to show

[PaulV]

Nathan Hale,
Either that or undue fear of breasts and earth quakes.

[Clarice]

Don't you think it interesting that the Iranian nuclear scientist seeks assylum in Israel, not the US of Obambi?

[Clarice]

**asylum***

[Ann says Obama Sucks!]

Great news, Clarice.

Hey, maybe that friendly country is Iraq! Ha!

[Melinda Romanoff]

clarice-

I wish them well.

You do know they are not the first to leave.

But the first to be acknowledged to leave during this administration so quickly.

Interesting, that data point.

G'night all.

[JM Hanes]

TM:

"Oh, what am I saying? Of course he can!"

HotAir linked to this video from the Republican Gov's Association which puts a whole new spin on Yes, we can.

[anduril]

Obviously if he requested asylum in Israel that means he thinks he'll be safe there. IOW, he knows that Iran doesn't have and won't have nuclear weapons to launch against Israel. Right? :-)

[nathan hale]

It turns out he's a Druze, who was rightly opposed to the 'redeployments' from the WB

[bgates]

Lindsey Graham has withdrawn his support for cap and trade because the Dems are pushing immigration reform.

I couldn't be more surprised if that sentence read, "Michelle Obama has given up her daily box of donuts to protest Krispy Kreme's decision to stop serving white people". Who forgoes something they love in order to stop something else they'd also love?

[nathan hale]

baby steps, bgates, Lindsay just unwhelms almost on a continuous basis, which does bring the question, can he just whelm for a while

[Clarice]

The Dems are saying Graham pulled out of the deal to save McCain's rear end.

From the Jerusalem Post article--Kara, the Druse Israeli pol made the announcement and noted:
" Kara added that the scientist had passed his message to Israeli sources through a Jewish woman of Iranian descent, and that he would do all he could to advance the request.

“I will support any source with the goal of removing the strategic and nuclear threat posed to Israel and posed to the enlightened, democratic world [by Iran],” Kara said during Saturday’s event."

[matt]

got back from a local meet n greet with Chuck DeVore. He is down by 10 against Campbell and slightly ahead of Fiorina in the CA Senate race.

Tell you what, He is one of the smartest, most articulate, and most principled men I have met. Excellent on his feet thinker and committed to the best of American principles.

I know Campbell as well. He is a nice RINO kind of guy when we need the caliber of some of the great leaders to pull this mess out.

[anduril]

narciso, the correct spelling is Lindsey. If it were spelled Lindsay that would mean he's gay.

[nathan hale]

Campbell has that pro SAlafi side that really doesn't reassure, As for Fiorina, my experience with HP should prove the point. So they seem to be settling for Goodwin Knight
or Christopher rather than a real conservative
but the season is still young.

[nathan hale]

Our 'old friend' Anne Applebaum, never fails to dissapoint, in the LUN

[nathan hale]

And finally stupidity is catchy, at Henry Luce's old rag, in the LUN

[bgates]

The Dems are saying Graham pulled out of the deal to save McCain's rear end.

Who else missed the words "the deal to save" the first time through that sentence?

No?

Just me?

(Note: I could not care less if Graham is gay, or McCain for that matter. They can open their own personal borders and sequester their own personal carbon emissions as they see fit.)

[AL]

Recessions hit the economy like on schedule, every 5-7 years. Some are shallow, some deep.

What kind of morons buys MBS (which are long-term securities, like 20-25 years) without asking what will happen with MBS in a recession? And what kind of morons could hope to insure the risk of 10 trillion market downturn?

Probably the same kind of morons why buys CDS on US T-bills default from AIG.

[Extraneus]

Seems like the stars are lining up for JD Hayworth.

Obama Administration Considering Range of Options Regarding Arizona Immigration Law -- Including Suing to Block It

[bunkerbuster]

``a) A town, or county is plagued by drug-related violence seemingly abetted by the local mayor and sheriff. ... Can their petition be submitted anonymously?

In America, everyone has the right to confront their accuser. Anonymous petitions for recall are a nightmare of endless innuendo and political chicanery. Does anyone doubt but that if someone could anonymously attempt to recall elected officials that it would happen virtually everywhere where officers were hotly contested...
Transparency is essential to good government -- far more essential than protection from harrasment.
It's telling that some people are fine with the idea of anonymously targeting a readily identifiable demographic group (gays) for the curtailment of a freedom (marriage), and to do it anonymously, but somehow find outrage when the people who have targetted gays themselves become "targets" by people who would rather not spend their money on bigots and want everyone else who might share their opinion to know about it, i.e. maximal transparency....

[Jane says obamasucks]

Doesn't the AZ law nearly perfectly mimic the Fed law Obama is not enforcing?

So I can see it now: We sue AZ for doing what we are supposed to do, but won't.

[Jane says obamasucks]

Where do you live that they target gays bunker?

[Extraneus]

Wouldn't that be great, though, Jane? I haven't seen a nation-wide poll, but 70% of Arizonans favor the law, so it must be pretty high across the country. If they sue AZ, it would piss off so many people it's hard to believe they'd even really consider it at this point.

At the pet store yesterday, I saw an SUV with a bumper sticker that read "Go Lemmings go!"

[Rick Ballard]

Measuring the Intellectual, Ethical and Moral Depth of a Goldman VP

Don't forget your micrometer.

[JM Hanes]

bunkerbuster:

"In America, everyone has the right to confront their accuser."

When they are defendants in court. Ditto for the presumption of innocence, which is a judicial requirement, not a universal obligation. It's amazing how many people are confused on this point.

I note that you, yourself, choose not to use your own name here.

[JM Hanes]

Extraneus:

"I haven't seen a nation-wide poll, but 70% of Arizonans favor the law, so it must be pretty high across the country."

It suited the Democrats to claim that xenophobic, yada, yada Republicans shot down comprehensive immigration reform. Then, as is their wont, they fell for their own propaganda.

[JM Hanes]

bgates: "Just me? Pretty much, I suspect.

[Bill in AZ]

Here is some discussion of AZ SB1070.

The original blog post is about a flyer my son and I found on our vehicle after the tea party. We read it and decided it smelled like manure, and then this post was up the next day at SonoranAlliance.

The blog post speculates about the flyer incorrectly, and was quickly addressed in the comments section (2nd comment) by Russell Pierce, the AZ Senate author of the bill. His discussion and attached legal opinions are worth a read to get past the BS the media is trying to spread about AZ SB1070.

[Ignatz]

--So I can see it now: We sue AZ for doing what we are supposed to do, but won't.--

Not unexpected from the bunch that sues Goldman Sachs under existing fraud statutes for what is already illegal but uses the exercise to tell us we need to give the executive sweeping new powers because of what GS allegedly did.

[nathan hale]

So, Fab is the high flying Tiger of the corporate set, do they even have to put on a case after that email, it's rare when some one designs his own noose, so elegantly

Has Goldman, provided any valuable service in the last 10 years, I'm beginning to wonder

[Ignatz]

--It's telling that some people are fine with the idea of anonymously targeting a readily identifiable demographic group (gays) for the curtailment of a freedom (marriage), and to do it anonymously, but somehow find outrage when the people who have targetted gays themselves become "targets" by people who would rather not spend their money on bigots and want everyone else who might share their opinion to know about it, i.e. maximal transparency....--

Well, who is "targeting" gays more, the people who signed the petition or the people who actually voted for it on election day?
The logical conclusion is the left IS for ending the secret ballot not only in union elections but even in political ones.

Hardly surprising from someone that equates exercising our God given right to redress grievances to the government via electoral petitions with gay rights activists using the signatures on said petition to illegally harrass and threaten people who were legally and peacefully exercising their political rights.

[nathan hale]

And keeping with the theme, Friedman's at it again, in the LUN

[Jane says obamasucks]

Has Goldman, provided any valuable service in the last 10 years, I'm beginning to wonder

Since they helped get Obama elected, I'm sure he thinks so.

[Larry Sheldon]

What is this "critical thinking at the Times" of which you speak?

I don't recall anything at the Times that might be identified as "thinking" even of the "in error" variety.

[Greg Ransom]

Order via principles vs leftist expediency -- Friedrich Hayek expains it all for you:

http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=301&chapter=37421&layout=html&Itemid=27

[Hatless Hessian]

It's naive to pretend that progressives actually BELIEVE their agenda. It's just marketing employed to attain power, and once attained, the ends are actualized. Just ask Stalin, Mao, Castro or any other successful progressive.

The Times is rightfully defending the true intentions of Marxism's derivatives: effect control through power. Progressives correctly interpret the post-modern Marx through biopolitical conventions, hence the rise of the Obama surveillance state. Transparency to the state of petitioning individuals is necessary not to provide a mechanism for retribution, but rather to instigate the coercive fear that prevents the success of petitioning events themselves.

[Fen]

It's naive to pretend that progressives actually BELIEVE their agenda

Fen's Law: The Left doesn't really believe in the things they lecture us about.

[glasater]

Interesting read from WA state:

At 10 a.m. Wednesday, Washington state Attorney General Rob McKenna will stand before the nine justices of the United States Supreme Court and launch a spirited defense of this state's Public Records Act

[Clarice]

In the Washington State case, can you tell me what evidence there is of harassment or intimidation of the signers should their identities be released?

[Tom Maguire]

Can any of you recall a New York Times editorial in the last ten years that made a politically incorrect argument?

I don't want to look it up and risk spoiling the memory, but way back when their was talk of putting a homeless shelter up on 77th and Lex, in the heart of the tony Upper East Side.

The PC position obviously favored this. So the Times explained that fears that an influx of homeless could change the character of the neighborhood were utterly without foundation - a similar shelter had been put up around the corner from the Port Authority / Times Square without affecting that neighborhood at all.

Even Times readers balked at that one; eventually, someone explained (correctly or otherwise) that none of the Times editors actually live in New York.

[Clarice]

HEH!!!

[glasater]

I'm on Sec of State Sam Reed's email list which did not link this Olympian article but I tracked it down to post the comment such as it is.

The article doesn't cite any reference to the question you ask and your thoughts reflected mine to Ignatz's earlier link of what had taken place in CA in a similar matter.

I'm in the process of tracking that link down and emailing it to Sam Reed.
I've found he does read his email messages and responds.

[caro]

Sometimes I sign a petition to put something on the ballot that I haven't researched or made a decision about. I default to-- let the voters decide.