Brewer’s response to the federal lawsuit

The New Neo Posted on by

I like the cut of Governor Brewer’s jib:

Today I was notified that the federal government has filed a lawsuit against the State of Arizona. It is wrong that our own federal government is suing the people of Arizona for helping to enforce federal immigration law. As a direct result of failed and inconsistent federal enforcement, Arizona is under attack from violent Mexican drug and immigrant smuggling cartels. Now, Arizona is under attack in federal court from President Obama and his Department of Justice. Today’s filing is nothing more than a massive waste of taxpayer funds. These funds could be better used against the violent Mexican cartels than the people of Arizona.

Since the feds have the deep pockets, not the state of Arizona, Brewer goes on to say that she has set up a way for people to contribute to Arizona’s legal defense at the website “keepazsafe.com.”

You can find an excellent discussion the “merits” of the federal government’s suit against Arizona here. Pay particular attention to the comments section; there are an unusual number of very fine ones, such as this summary of the government’s argument (by commenter “Brad DePalma”):

This appears to be Justice’s argument:

1) Congress enacted a series of immigration laws which prohibit foreign citizens from entering the United States except under certain conditions.

2) Arizona enacted a law which expressly enforces federal immigration law.

3) Justice claims that the state law which expressly enforces federal immigration law violates the Supremacy Clause because it is contrary to the Obama Administration’s policy of not enforcing the federal immigration law and :::gasp::: might create work for the border patrol deporting illegal aliens.

Amazing reasoning there guys.

So why is Obama pushing this? One reason seems to be to appeal to (and ultimately swell the ranks of) Hispanic voters, whom he is courting and whom the Democratic Party desperately needs, since much of its traditional support has eroded. Another is that this administration is throwing down the gauntlet to states in general and in favor of more and control by the federal government vis a vis states.

Their goal is power, power, power, and then more power—to do exactly what they want, including not enforcing laws they find inconvenient until they can figure out a way to pass more convenient ones or do things by executive fiat. This is the direction in which tyranny always tends to go, and it is a very consistent move for Obama and his administration.

Nearly every single thing he has done so far has been in the direction of increasing chaos and going against the will of the people, as well as growing the power of the federal executive branch. This is hardly an accident.

[NOTE: Ace has a good discussion of the same subject, and a nice summary of the question any lucid, thinking person should be asking the feds and the courts:

Arizona’s law is the same as the feds’. The big difference is not in the law, but in the policy: the feds have a policy of non- or minimal enforcement; they are angry at Arizona not because Arizona has passed fresh law but because Arizona intends a different policy — a policy of actual enforcement.

So yes, federal law trumps state law, but does mere federal policy trump state policy, especially when federal policy is in fact at odds with its own stated law?

Can the feds basically argue that it’s their policy to ignore the law and then demand that Arizona be instructed by the Supreme Court to follow them in their policy of ignoring the law?

We are in Orwell territory here, folks.]

Death knell for the PT Cruiser

The New Neo Posted on by

Just a couple of days ago I wrote a post defending the looks of the PT Cruiser against those who dare call it ugly.

And now I read that Chrysler is ending production of the cute little guy, once so popular there were waiting lists to buy one. But after this Friday no more will be manufactured, and the PT will go down the road so many cars have traveled before it to oblivion.

Hey, Chrysler, did it have something to do with my post?

Obama administration will sue Arizona over immigration policy

The New Neo Posted on by

The Obama administration has decided to go forward with the threatened lawsuit against Arizona’s immigration law, and the approach will be that the state has pre-empted the federal government’s over-arching right to regulate immigration.

Never mind that the feds have been completely derelict in their duty to do so. Never mind that the people of Arizona are in danger because of the feds’ failure to protect. Unsurprisingly, the Obama administration has decided to make a federal case out of this and to challenge the rights of states to defend themselves when the federal government will not.

And Obama may win, if legal scholar Kevin R. Johnson’s reasoning is correct:

It is not an appropriate legal response to say, as some Arizona legislators and supporters have, that Senate Bill 1070 simply enforces federal law. It is for the federal government to decide how, when and why to enforce federal immigration law ”“ law over which it has the exclusive authority.

The Supreme Court a few years ago rejected a remarkably similar argument in striking down a California law that sought to recover monies from insurance companies for victims of the Holocaust in more aggressive a fashion than the U.S. government; in so doing, the court acknowledged “he basic fact is that California seeks to use an iron fist where the President has consistently chosen kid gloves.” Here, it is Arizona that seeks to act with an “iron fist” toward immigrants, while, in the eyes of many of the law’s proponents, the president has used “kid gloves.”

So if Johnson turns out to be correct, when the US has a federal administration in power for which encouragement of illegal immigration (and even, eventually, amnesty for illegals) happens to offer the political advantage of their acquiring more voters, and those in charge are determined to fail to do the will of the people and enforce our immigration laws, there’s nothing the individual states and their people can legally do to stop them.

[NOTE: It occurs to me that the Holocaust survivor payments case that Johnson cites as precedent involves a discretionary matter rather than one of states’ citizens safety and self-preservation. This might end up making a difference in the present court challenge, although I’m not sure in whose favor it would go.]

Maybe Obama isn’t womanly enough

The New Neo Posted on by

I’ve already written about Kathleen Parker’s odd notion that Obama is the first woman president, . But today, when I came across the following quote from Britain’s first female prime minister Margaret Thatcher, it occurred to me that perhaps Obama isn’t womanish enough:

In politics, If you want anything said, ask a man. If you want anything done, ask a woman.

Then again, considering what it is that I believe Obama actually wants done, best he remain a sayer and not a doer.

Obamacare and running out of other people’s money

The New Neo Posted on by

Ah, those evil health insurance companies, refusing to enroll sick people in their individual programs (although they were covered in large group insurance), and forcing them into high risk pools. Greedy nasty capitalists, sucking our blood like the vampires they are!

Well, now we hear that the the high risk pools under Obamacare, the ones that start filling in from this Thursday until 2014 when the main feature kicks in, may have to turn people away, because the program will run out of money before 2014 otherwise:

Healthcare experts of all stripes warned during the healthcare debate that $5 billion would likely not last until 2014. Millions of Americans cannot find affordable healthcare because of their pre-existing conditions, and that amount would only cover a couple hundred thousand people, according to a recent study by the chief Medicare actuary.

Plus, many enrollees will have to pay fairly hefty premiums from the start, the exact amount depending on location and state.

Then in 2014, when the main part of Obamacare begins, and no one with a pre-existing condition can be banned, I’m sure everything will be peachy keen and hunky-dory and raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens, fiscally speaking.

If you detect a note of sarcasm, you would be correct. Could it be—could it possibly be—that insurance companies, their CEOs and their actuaries and all their other employees, are no better or worse, no more cruel and rapacious, than the general run of the human race, and that their policies are dictated by market realities? And that, although those realities operate somewhat differently for the federal government (no absolute need to make a profit or even operate in the black), they still operate in their own way, and that enormous deficits and borrowing from countries such as China cannot go on indefinitely? That the piper still must be paid, even by government, and that if we ask for a comprehensive social welfare state we eventually not only run out of “other people’s money,” but our own?

[NOTE: For the historically inclined, here’s the original Margaret Thatcher quote in context:

…Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people’s money. It’s quite a characteristic of them. They then start to nationalise everything, and people just do not like more and more nationalisation, and they’re now trying to control everything by other means. They’re progressively reducing the choice available to ordinary people.

Hey—maybe that’s why they call themselves “progressives!”]

Spambot of the day

The New Neo Posted on by

Inarticulate but well-meaning spambot:

You may well have not intended to accomplish so, but I feel you have managed to express the state of mind that a ton of people are in. The sense of wanting to aid, but not knowing how or exactly where, is some thing a lot of us are proceeding via.

Jeepers, creepers, where’d you get those peepers?

The New Neo Posted on by

Where?

From an online site that sells circle contact lenses, that’s where.

Apparently, normal-sized irises are no longer big enough. Colored contacts that cover not only only the iris itself, but part of the white of the eye, are becoming tres popular for achieving that doe-eyed look characteristic of Japanese anime heroines. The contacts are most popular with Asian women, as you can see if you ask Google for images of “circle contact lenses.” But the fad has been catching on with young women of diverse ethnicities in this country:

Now that circle lenses have gone mainstream in Japan, Singapore and South Korea, they are turning up in American high schools and on college campuses. “In the past year, there’s been a sharp increase in interest here in the U.S.,” said Joyce Kim, a founder of Soompi.com, an Asian pop fan site with a forum devoted to circle lenses. “Once early adopters have adequately posted about it, discussed it and reviewed them, it’s now available to everyone.”

Ms. Kim, who lives in San Francisco and is 31, said that some friends her age wear circle lenses almost every day. “It’s like wearing mascara or eyeliner,” she said.

Well, not quite. But the desire to “improve” the human body marches on.

Predicting the economy

The New Neo Posted on by

This book sounds interesting:

Like a pair of financial sleuths, Ms. Reinhart and her collaborator from Harvard, Kenneth S. Rogoff, have spent years investigating wreckage scattered across documents from nearly a millennium of economic crises and collapses. They have wandered the basements of rare-book libraries, riffled through monks’ yellowed journals and begged central banks worldwide for centuries-old debt records. And they have manually entered their findings, digit by digit, into one of the biggest spreadsheets you’ve ever seen.

Their handiwork is contained in their recent best seller, “This Time Is Different,” a quantitative reconstruction of hundreds of historical episodes in which perfectly smart people made perfectly disastrous decisions. It is a panoramic opus, both geographically and temporally, covering crises from 66 countries over the last 800 years.

I wish them well. But we can’t seem to learn from history, except (perhaps, every now and then, a little bit) for the history we ourselves experience personally. For example, many people such as my mother who went through the Great Depression pooh-poohed all the boom times that followed and refused to speculate even a little bit. It can be a double-edged sword for such individuals, though. For someone like my mother, it meant that they did not ride the wave and make much money during the go-go years, but it also meant they didn’t lose much when the downturn came.

For society as a whole, it’s perilous to not learn and understand economic history, but it seems to be our fate, no matter how many books are written and how many theories abound. Because who can tell which ones are correct? People would usually rather be seduced by the idea of the quick profit; they think that they will be able ride the wave and jump off at just the right time before the inevitable wipeout. The motivation for short time gain is huge, and hubris is rarely in short supply.

Which reminds me:

With the stock market lurching again, plenty of investors are nervous, and some are downright bearish. Then there’s Robert Prechter, the market forecaster and social theorist, who is in another league entirely.

Mr. Prechter is convinced that we have entered a market decline of staggering proportions ”” perhaps the biggest of the last 300 years.

In a series of phone conversations and e-mail exchanges last week, he said that no other forecaster was likely to accept his reasoning, which is based on his version of the Elliott Wave theory ”” a technical approach to market analysis that he embraces with evangelical fervor.

Right? Wrong? Who knows? He advises to get out of the market entirely and stay in cash. But for most people who got into the market at what turns out to have been the wrong times (and there turns out to have been a lot of those times), that would mean incurring a huge loss right now.

As for me, I get fatalistic about it and don’t do anything too rash either way. If the economy becomes that bad, I figure the vast majority of us will be in deep doo-doo and it doesn’t much matter what I’ve done to prepare, unless I’ve learned to become a survivalist and frontierswoman, and it’s a little late for that.

A thought for the Fourth

The New Neo Posted on by

Happy Fourth of July! I’m going to have dinner at the home of some friends, and then watch fireworks at the park tonight. How’s that for tradition?

And speaking of traditions—it occurs to me that that are two kinds of people in the world, those who value liberty very highly and those who don’t. America was founded by the first kind; I hope they still vastly outnumber the second.

Happy Fourth of July—to liberty!

The New Neo Posted on by

[NOTE: This is a repeat of a previous post. It was written in the springtime a few years ago, on a visit to New York. I thought it especially relevant today, though, because I see our liberties as increasingly at risk.]

I’ve been visiting New York City, the place where I grew up. I decide to take a walk to the Promenade in Brooklyn Heights, never having been there before.

When you approach the Promenade you can’t really see what’s in store. You walk down a normal-looking street, spot a bit of blue at the end of the block, make a right turn–and, then, suddenly, there is New York:

brookheights2.jpg

And so it is for me. I take a turn, and catch my breath: downtown Manhattan rises to my left, seemingly close enough to touch, across the narrow East River. I see skyscrapers, piers, the orange-gold Staten Island ferry. In front of me, there are the graceful gothic arches of the Brooklyn Bridge. To my right, the back of some brownstones, and a well-tended and charming garden that goes on for a third of a mile.

I walk down the promenade looking first left and then right, not knowing which vista I prefer, but liking them both, especially in combination, because they complement each other so well.

All around me are people, relaxing. Lovers walking hand in hand, mothers pushing babies in strollers, fathers pushing babies in strollers, nannies pushing babies in strollers. People walking their dogs (a preponderance of pugs, for some reason), pigeons strutting and courting, tourists taking photos of themselves with the skyline as background, every other person speaking a foreign language.

The garden is more advanced from what it must be at my house, reminding me that New York is really a southern city compared to New England. Daffodils, the startling blue of grape hyacinths, tulips in a rainbow of soft colors, those light-purple azaleas that are always the first of their kind, flowering pink magnolia and airy white dogwood and other blooming trees I don’t know the names of.

In the view to my left, of course, there’s something missing. Something very large. Two things, actually: the World Trade Center towers. Just the day before, we had driven past that sprawling wound, with its mostly-unfilled acreage where the WTC had once stood, now surrounded by fencing. Driving by it is like passing a war memorial and graveyard combined; the urge is to bow one’s head.

As I look at the skyline from the Promenade, I know that those towers are missing, but I don’t really register the loss visually. I left New York in 1965, never to live there again, returning thereafter only as occasional visitor. The World Trade Center was built in the early seventies, so I never managed to incorporate it into that personal New York skyline of memory that I hold in my mind’s eye, even though I saw the towers on every visit. So, what I now see resembles nothing more than the skyline of my youth, restored, a fact which seems paradoxical to me. But I feel the loss, even though I don’t see it. Viewing the skyline always has a tinge of sadness now, which it never had before 9/11.

I come to the end of the walkway and turn myself around to set off on the return trip. And, suddenly, the view changes. Now, of course, the garden is to my left and the city to my right; and the Brooklyn Bridge, which was ahead of me, is now behind me and out of sight. But now I can see for the first time, ahead of me and to the right, something that was behind me before. In the middle of the harbor, the pale-green Statue of Liberty stands firmly on its concrete foundation, arm raised high, torch in hand.

The sight is intensely familiar to me—I used to see it almost every day when I was growing up. But I’ve never seen it from this angle before. She seems both small and gigantic at the same time: dwarfed by the skyscrapers near me that threaten to overwhelm her, but towering over the water that surrounds her on all sides. The eye is drawn to her distant, heroic figure. She’s been holding that torch up for so long, she must be tired. But still she stands, resolute, her arm extended.