Go Back   Bloggingheads Community > Diavlog comments
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Notices

Diavlog comments Post comments about particular diavlogs here.
(Users cannot create new threads.)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-12-2008, 11:53 AM
Bloggingheads Bloggingheads is offline
BhTV staff
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,936
Default Scarlett Johansson Edition

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-12-2008, 12:10 PM
claymisher claymisher is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newbridge, NJ
Posts: 2,673
Default Re: Scarlett Johansson Edition

Just looking at the topics this seems to be another hour of Mickey carping and caviling. I don't have the heart to actually listen to it.

Maybe someone can post dingalinks to the good parts.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-12-2008, 12:42 PM
houston_wood houston_wood is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 7
Default Re: Scarlett Johansson Edition

No. If you cannot appreciate the awesomeness of Mickey and Bob together every week like some millennial odd-couple then you should not take the time to post. The first four minutes are pure gold. Unscripted gold!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-12-2008, 12:17 PM
Joel_Cairo Joel_Cairo is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cambridge MA
Posts: 198
Default Re: Scarlett Johansson Edition

BhTV is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful website I've ever known in my life.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-12-2008, 02:30 PM
ohcomeon ohcomeon is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 279
Default Re: Scarlett Johansson Edition

Congratulations, Joel! Do you get stock options?
__________________
OhComeOnHussein
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-12-2008, 03:46 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa®ah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Scarlett Johansson Edition

Joel:

Before anything else, let me add my congratulations to ohc's.

Let me say up front that I, personally, do not think there is a conflict of interest with you simultaneously working for BH.tv and continuing to post comments in the forums. Given the confidence in their own opinions that nearly all commenters display here, particularly regarding criticizing Bob, Mickey, or the site in general, I hardly think even a concerted campaign of pro-BH.tv sockpuppetry could be made to have any effect.

That said, it's arguable that there is at least a theoretical issue here. To that end, I have a suggestion: Use the signature field in your profile to include some sort of disclaimer. If you can't make it succinct enough, post a statement of full disclosure elsewhere, say, in the General Comments forum, and make your sig a link to this statement.

As I say, I think this is really a non-issue, so my suggestion should be thought of as about the same as dotting an I. But given that it's so easy to do, why not do it?
__________________
Brendan

Last edited by bjkeefe; 06-12-2008 at 04:11 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-12-2008, 04:20 PM
Joel_Cairo Joel_Cairo is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cambridge MA
Posts: 198
Default Re: Scarlett Johansson Edition

Thanks Oh & Brendan.

I actually don't get any stock options, just the responsibility of coordinating the two heads to find a good time and sharing in the panic when something falls through at the last minute. I can tell you, though, that it was a mighty surreal moment when I answered a phonecall and the voice of Bob Wright was on the other end telling me I'd been hired. He even began with "Hi Mickey." It felt like the Twilight Zone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
To that end, I have a suggestion: Use the signature field in your profile to include some sort of disclaimer. If you can't make it succinct enough, post a statement of full disclosure elsewhere, say, in the General Comments forum, and make your sig a link to this statement.
Yeah I like this idea Brendan. What I've got now is, well, pretty succinct & to the point. Perhaps too much so. I'm not sure what else to include. Once it's disclosed it's disclosed, I guess, and other people reading my comments can give that fact whatever weight they deem relevant.
__________________
Full Disclosure: I work for BhTV.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-12-2008, 04:49 PM
handle handle is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,986
Default Re: Scarlett Johansson Edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joel_Cairo View Post
Thanks Oh & Brendan.

I actually don't get any stock options, just the responsibility of coordinating the two heads to find a good time and sharing in the panic when something falls through at the last minute. I can tell you, though, that it was a mighty surreal moment when I answered a phonecall and the voice of Bob Wright was on the other end telling me I'd been hired. He even began with "Hi Mickey." It felt like the Twilight Zone.
That is sooo cool! I too add congrats and this pearl:
Like any of us are going to have a problem with this powerful addition to our arsenal, the ability to completely dismiss the validity of a comment by merely pointing out the fact that the commenter is employed by the site!
Not that I personally would actively engage...
I just want to add if I'm ever in the same position, please don't out me as I would no doubt be pummeled for dodgy and irreverent posting practices. Wait, that just means nothing would change.... strike that...
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-12-2008, 05:00 PM
Wonderment Wonderment is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,694
Default Re: Scarlett Johansson Edition

Awesome gig, Joel.

You deserve it just for being the champion of all working ding-a-links stiffs.

You've been my idol since the Jonah Goldberg commpasionate conservative mosquito swat, which was not just one of the greatest moments of BHTV but of all TV ever.


DISCLAIMER

I always kiss up to staff with access to deletion buttons.
__________________
Seek Peace and Pursue it
בקש שלום ורדפהו
Busca la paz y síguela
--Psalm 34:15
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-12-2008, 10:47 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Scarlett Johansson Edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonderment View Post
DISCLAIMER
I always kiss up to staff with access to deletion buttons.
<laughing>
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 06-13-2008, 12:22 AM
Tim_G Tim_G is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Tokyo
Posts: 44
Default Obama’s brilliant suck-up to AIPAC

Bob, Bob, Bob. You got Obama's pander to AIPAC all wrong. This preempts a potential nasty October surprise in which Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and Al-Qaeda formally endorse Barack Obama for president.

If he gave the speech you would have had him give, that would remain a possibility.

Remember how some dude from Hamas endorsed Obama, and McCain used this as a talking point, saying "I will be Hamas's worst nightmare"? Just image the political problem Obama would have if any one or more of Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and Al-Qaeda were to endorse him. This reduces that possibility to about zero. It's insurance against an October surprise.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 06-12-2008, 10:19 PM
Glaurunge Glaurunge is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 35
Default Re: Scarlett Johansson Edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joel_Cairo View Post
BhTV is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful website I've ever known in my life.
So Joel Cairo not only has a conflict of interest, but evidently is also a sleeper agent planted by the Chinese to take out Bob Wright in order that Mickey can ascend to the top of the Bloggingheads media empire.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 06-12-2008, 12:59 PM
Rich Rich is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 28
Default Re: Scarlett Johansson Edition

Interesting that Bob seems fine with a candidate that "just doesn't know that much about foreign policy." Isn't that the essence of his case that Bush is a world-threatening force? He abuses Mickey, yet again [yawn], for being insufficiently boosterish of Obama, and then he annihilates Barack's one piece of supposeldy credible experience: a foreign-policy position that was more sophisticated than Bush's as elucidated in a speech made in 2002. It's more ad fodder for the McCain campaign!
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 06-12-2008, 01:05 PM
Rich Rich is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 28
Default Re: Scarlett Johansson Edition

Let's get to the summary of Bob's analysis of the Obama campaign:
1) He doesn't know that much, or even think that much about foreign policy;
2) His associations - both short and long term - tend to be poorly chosen, but thought-out well in advance;
and
3) His speaking errors - made to either get him out of trouble, or that have the effect of binding America to commitments in the world that are untenable - are equally well-thought-out but also terrible.

Other than that, he's great!
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 06-12-2008, 01:28 PM
r108dos r108dos is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 34
Default Re: Scarlett Johansson Edition

Mickey and Bob are my favorites. It is hard to articulate why. They ramble around and argue but thankfully the hard ideological edge isn't there. Some BHtv episodes, lets say Conn and Bill, can be a little grim (like trench warfare, maybe). Of course nothing beats UN Plaza for educational value.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 06-12-2008, 02:06 PM
graz graz is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,162
Default Re: Scarlett Johansson Edition

Scandal subject for Mickey's blog:
Sexism or Pathetic (Men)opausal longing?http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/118...&out=:00:22:12
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 06-12-2008, 03:07 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa®ah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Scarlett Johansson Edition

Talk about your role reversals -- a long stretch of Bob bashing Obama with Mickey defending him!

Well, maybe not so much of a role reversal on Bob's part. It's been a while since I've heard anything but criticism of Obama from Bob. Which is fine if that's what he genuinely has on his mind, but it's starting to sound MSMish -- an overreaction to worry about being criticized for being in the tank for Obama or for being part of the liberal media in general.

I won't go into a long diatribe about McCain's dubious staff choices or his blunders when making statements about foreign policy. I'll just say, for now, that both of these strike me as more extensive than Obama's. What I want to focus on for the moment is my wonder if Bob is going to spend the entire election season going on at length about complaints he has with Obama, to the exclusion of ever discussing problems he might (and should) have with McCain. This seems, again, uncomfortably similar to the behavior of the MSM. It reminds me of how the 2000 election was covered by the so-called liberal media -- people falling all over themselves to scrutinize and quibble with every atom of Al Gore while giving a pass to pretty much every questionable aspect of George Bush. It's as though there exists a state of mind that says, "Well, we don't need to bring up McCain's shortcomings -- everyone already knows about them." Which is exactly the way the MSM dealt with Bush, to disastrous consequences.

I'm not saying that Obama needs to be puffed here, nor that criticisms of him shouldn't be aired. I can even grant Bob's justification as he expressed it in this diavlog, that he holds Obama to a higher standard. I do, too.

I do think, however, that there needs to be some consideration of balance, and quite apart from the political sense. I'm also talking about intellectual honesty and an awareness that for all the self-deprecating remarks, the impression given by these diavlogs matters. If Bob and Mickey are going to talk horse race every diavlog from now until November, I really hope they keep this in mind.
__________________
Brendan

Last edited by bjkeefe; 06-12-2008 at 03:09 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 06-12-2008, 03:59 PM
piscivorous piscivorous is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,593
Default Re: Scarlett Johansson Edition

If Senator Obama is meeting your and Mr. Wrights standards those standards can't be very high.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 06-12-2008, 04:13 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa®ah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Scarlett Johansson Edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by piscivorous View Post
If Senator Obama is meeting your and Mr. Wrights standards those standards can't be very high.
However low they might be, they are still way above the standards I have for John McCain.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 06-12-2008, 04:00 PM
ohcomeon ohcomeon is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 279
Default Re: Scarlett Johansson Edition

Agreed. I am sure Bob is disappointed that Obama is not the hoped for all knowing wise man we liberals have been seeking. I spent most of the divalog thinking about the different standards the world seems to have set up for Obama and McCain. I think it is possible Bob has been following Obama's statments and has not heard much of what McCain has been saying lately. Or maybe he thinks the chance that McCain will become President is so small there is no point in listening to him.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-t..._to_presu.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...n_N.htm?csp=34
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-t...gi_bill_i.html
http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/..._sunni_sh.html
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archi...20/787720.aspx
http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/the...nnection_1.php
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/campa...the_stump.html
__________________
OhComeOnHussein
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 06-13-2008, 12:49 AM
Tim_G Tim_G is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Tokyo
Posts: 44
Default Re: Scarlett Johansson Edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
Talk about your role reversals -- a long stretch of Bob bashing Obama with Mickey defending him!

Well, maybe not so much of a role reversal on Bob's part. It's been a while since I've heard anything but criticism of Obama from Bob. Which is fine if that's what he genuinely has on his mind, but it's starting to sound MSMish -- an overreaction to worry about being criticized for being in the tank for Obama or for being part of the liberal media in general.

I won't go into a long diatribe about McCain's dubious staff choices or his blunders when making statements about foreign policy. I'll just say, for now, that both of these strike me as more extensive than Obama's. What I want to focus on for the moment is my wonder if Bob is going to spend the entire election season going on at length about complaints he has with Obama, to the exclusion of ever discussing problems he might (and should) have with McCain. This seems, again, uncomfortably similar to the behavior of the MSM. It reminds me of how the 2000 election was covered by the so-called liberal media -- people falling all over themselves to scrutinize and quibble with every atom of Al Gore while giving a pass to pretty much every questionable aspect of George Bush. It's as though there exists a state of mind that says, "Well, we don't need to bring up McCain's shortcomings -- everyone already knows about them." Which is exactly the way the MSM dealt with Bush, to disastrous consequences.

I'm not saying that Obama needs to be puffed here, nor that criticisms of him shouldn't be aired. I can even grant Bob's justification as he expressed it in this diavlog, that he holds Obama to a higher standard. I do, too.

I do think, however, that there needs to be some consideration of balance, and quite apart from the political sense. I'm also talking about intellectual honesty and an awareness that for all the self-deprecating remarks, the impression given by these diavlogs matters. If Bob and Mickey are going to talk horse race every diavlog from now until November, I really hope they keep this in mind.
I agree. Pandering to AIPAC is a political necessity. He's running for president of the US, not France. Kerry said something equally obsequious to AIPAC when he ran (don't recall the exact words, but I remember the gist). This upset me at the time because I was in a very isolationist mood due to the Iraq war. I'm mostly over that now and have made peace with the fact that AIPAC has a de-facto veto power over candidates for president.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 06-13-2008, 05:08 PM
Bobby G Bobby G is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 728
Default Re: Scarlett Johansson Edition

How much veto power do they have? Even if every candidate has to kow-tow to them while running, it doesn't follow that they will kow-tow at all while in office (and do incumbent presidents need the AIPAC endorsement? Will a sitting president almost certainly lose if his actions anger AIPAC? If so, are there other organizations that have similar power--teacher's unions, oil companies, trial lawyers, AARP?)
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 06-16-2008, 04:22 AM
Tim_G Tim_G is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Tokyo
Posts: 44
Default Re: Scarlett Johansson Edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby G View Post
How much veto power do they have? Even if every candidate has to kow-tow to them while running, it doesn't follow that they will kow-tow at all while in office (and do incumbent presidents need the AIPAC endorsement? Will a sitting president almost certainly lose if his actions anger AIPAC? If so, are there other organizations that have similar power--teacher's unions, oil companies, trial lawyers, AARP?)
Sure there are limits to their power. And there are other constituencies that none dare offend. We may not know the answer for sure unless a serious candidate for president actually doesn't genuflect to AIPAC. Since I cannot think of any recent examples of this, it seems to be the conventional wisdom that this is politically necessary. Both parties do it as a matter of course.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 06-16-2008, 06:04 AM
Wonderment Wonderment is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,694
Default Re: Scarlett Johansson Edition

Quote:
Sure there are limits to their power. And there are other constituencies that none dare offend. We may not know the answer for sure unless a serious candidate for president actually doesn't genuflect to AIPAC.
Uri Avnery, a Jewish Israeli journalist and former Knesset member, has an interesting take on AIPAC and Obama here:

Excerpt:

Quote:
AFTER MONTHS of a tough and bitter race, a merciless struggle, Barack Obama has defeated his formidable opponent, Hillary Clinton. He has wrought a miracle: for the first time in history a black person has become a credible candidate for the presidency of the most powerful country in the world.

And what was the first thing he did after his astounding victory? He ran to the conference of the Israel lobby, AIPAC, and made a speech that broke all records for obsequiousness and fawning.....

NO PALESTINIAN, no Arab, no Muslim will make peace with Israel if the Haram-al-Sharif compound (also called the Temple Mount), one of the three holiest places of Islam and the most outstanding symbol of Palestinian nationalism, is not transferred to Palestinian sovereignty. That is one of the core issues of the conflict.

On that very issue, the Camp David conference of 2000 broke up, even though the then Prime Minister, Ehud Barak, was willing to divide Jerusalem in some manner.

Along comes Obama and retrieves from the junkyard the outworn slogan "Undivided Jerusalem, the Capital of Israel for all Eternity". Since Camp David, all Israeli governments have understood that this mantra constitutes an insurmountable obstacle to any peace process. It has disappeared - quietly, almost secretly - from the arsenal of official slogans. Only the Israeli (and American-Jewish) Right sticks to it, and for the same reason: to smother at birth any chance for a peace that would necessitate the dismantling of the settlements.

In prior US presidential races, the pandering candidates thought that it was enough to promise that the US embassy would be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. After being elected, not one of the candidates ever did anything about this promise. All were persuaded by the State Department that it would harm basic American interests.

Obama went much further. ... the fear of AIPAC is so terrible, that even this candidate, who promises change in all matters, does not dare. In this matter he accepts the worst old-style Washington routine. He is prepared to sacrifice the most basic American interests. After all, the US has a vital interest in achieving an Israeli-Palestinian peace that will allow it to find ways to the hearts of the Arab masses from Iraq to Morocco. Obama has harmed his image in the Muslim world and mortgaged his future - if and when he is elected president.

.... Obama's declarations at the AIPAC conference are very, very bad for peace. And what is bad for peace is bad for Israel, bad for the world and bad for the Palestinian people.

If he sticks to them, once elected, he will be obliged to say, as far as peace between the two peoples of this country is concerned: "No, I can't!"
__________________
Seek Peace and Pursue it
בקש שלום ורדפהו
Busca la paz y síguela
--Psalm 34:15
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 06-16-2008, 10:37 PM
Tim_G Tim_G is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Tokyo
Posts: 44
Default Re: Scarlett Johansson Edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonderment View Post
Uri Avnery, a Jewish Israeli journalist and former Knesset member, has an interesting take on AIPAC and Obama here:

Excerpt:
If the Israelis want peace they should make it happen on their own initiative. They shouldn't wait for an American president to do it for them.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 06-12-2008, 03:08 PM
travis68 travis68 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 44
Default Re: Scarlett Johansson Edition

Great diavlog. r108dos is right that it's nice there isn't a hard ideological edge and two people are open to changing their minds.

Kudos to Mickey for not ripping Bob over Bob's over-the-top moralistic diatribe on immigration last week. It turns out that Mickey wants something even *gentler* than the quoted immigration lawyer wants (and stated so in the diavlog last week). Hmmmm...maybe Mickey isn't a monster after all. Fathom that.

Anyway, Bob's diatribe was out of character for him and his insight to nonsense ratio is much higher than average, so I'll forgive him too
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 06-12-2008, 04:24 PM
Michael Renhard Michael Renhard is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Jackson Mississippi
Posts: 6
Default Re: Scarlett Johansson Edition

I do not agree with Robin Wright's argument that it is unfair that illegal aliens being deported for “ignoring deportation orders that they have not even been informed of,” a situation which comes about because many or even most of the trials take place in absentia with the defendant learning of neither the trial itself or the result.

But surely the reason they are tried in absentia is that they are not where they have told immigration they are going to be? Moreover, are not the ‘trials’ simply administrative exercises to certify that the person in question has overstayed his visa?

If you come into a country on the basis of a promise that you are leaving after 6 months and seven months comes around you know you broken the rule and your word. Saying that they should not be held liable or blameworthy for ignoring an order ignores the fact that they were tried in absentia precisely because they were not where they said they would be. They surely know they have broken the law. That is why they are tried in absentia. They are have ignored the summons or made it otherwise impossible for the summons to reach them. Given that, the person complaining about being expelled for violating an order for a trial they didn’t get to attend and whose verdict they were not informed of is in the position of a person skipping out on child support payments complaining that they don’t get a Christmas card.

By the way, I fully agree with your (Robin’s) analogy between US employers creating the demand for illegal aliens and johns who create the demand for prostitutes. I think that prosecuting the party that creates the demand for the illegal activity is by far a more efficient way to end an undesirable pattern of activity. More efficient and more politically costly. That is why we so seldom do it. Could a compromise on the immigration issue between liberals and conservatives be built around the liberals agreeing to any measures however draconian if we make sure that those sanctions fall on employers and other US citizens rather than the foreigners.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 06-12-2008, 05:34 PM
Wonderment Wonderment is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,694
Default Re: Scarlett Johansson Edition

Quote:
Could a compromise on the immigration issue between liberals and conservatives be built around the liberals agreeing to any measures however draconian if we make sure that those sanctions fall on employers and other US citizens rather than the foreigners?
A better way is to set a goal of open borders (a la European Union) between Mexico and the US by the year 2025. A "change candidate" could lead this effort. Eventually, we would have a system that allowed for Mexican working families to travel freely, work here (especially at jobs more highly-educated Americans tend to reject like agriculture), and NO ONE would be punished, draconianaly or otherwise. Sí, se puede. Yes, we can.

Mickey likes to use the word "amnesty" as an obscenity, but legalization of working families and a path to citizenship or permanent residence would benefit both the US and Mexico, provided it's carried out in the context of an overall plan of cooperation between Mex and the US (call it the North American Free People Agreement, NAFPA).
__________________
Seek Peace and Pursue it
בקש שלום ורדפהו
Busca la paz y síguela
--Psalm 34:15
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 06-12-2008, 05:39 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa®ah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Scarlett Johansson Edition

Wonderment:

Quote:
A better way is to set a goal of open borders ...
Instinctively, this appeals to me, too. But what about the other direction? Should, for example, Mexican factories be required to share the same environmental and labor practice standards? It is my impression that the EU has a lot to say about uniform requirements for member countries, in addition to easing restrictions on cross-border travel.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 06-12-2008, 05:45 PM
Wonderment Wonderment is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,694
Default Re: Scarlett Johansson Edition

Quote:
Instinctively, this appeals to me, too. But what about the other direction? Should, for example, Mexican factories be required to share the same environmental and labor practice standards? It is my impression that the EU has a lot to say about uniform requirements for member countries, in addition to easing restrictions on cross-border travel.
Yes, this is a big project on a lot of fronts that will take a couple of decades at least. Look how long it took post-war Europe.
__________________
Seek Peace and Pursue it
בקש שלום ורדפהו
Busca la paz y síguela
--Psalm 34:15
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 06-12-2008, 05:47 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa®ah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Scarlett Johansson Edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonderment View Post
Yes, this is a big project on a lot of fronts that will take a couple of decades at least. Look how long it took post-war Europe.
Agreed. Just checking.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 06-12-2008, 08:43 PM
Bobby G Bobby G is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 728
Default Re: Scarlett Johansson Edition

Just out of curiosity, why open borders just with Mexico? Is it the physical and/or cultural propinquity? If not just with Mexico, then with who? Every country? Some but not all?
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 06-12-2008, 09:43 PM
Wonderment Wonderment is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,694
Default Re: Scarlett Johansson Edition

Please see my reply to the same question asked by Travis68 below.
__________________
Seek Peace and Pursue it
בקש שלום ורדפהו
Busca la paz y síguela
--Psalm 34:15
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 06-12-2008, 08:51 PM
Rich Rich is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 28
Default Re: Scarlett Johansson Edition

We could accomplish this much faster by simply annexing Mexico as the 51st state. After all, if we've got no borders and anyone can go in or out of the country as they pleased, how would that be different from Mexican statehood? There'd be no messy sorting out of what laws apply where - they'd be subject to the same federal laws all other states would, and they could have the nominal freedoms reserved for the states. Just change the highway signs to English and away we go! We could finish the job tomorrw. Plus, the new southern border would be sooo much easier to fence off. [It can't be racist to close that border: the Mexicans do it. Si, they puede.]
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 06-13-2008, 12:34 PM
Michael Renhard Michael Renhard is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Jackson Mississippi
Posts: 6
Default Re: Scarlett Johansson Edition

And if these people are living and working here, don't they also get to vote here?
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 06-13-2008, 04:14 PM
Wonderment Wonderment is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,694
Default Re: Scarlett Johansson Edition

Quote:
If these people are living and working here, don't they also get to vote here?
Well, that's not how the EU model has evolved so far. The French still vote in France, and the Greeks still vote in Greece.
__________________
Seek Peace and Pursue it
בקש שלום ורדפהו
Busca la paz y síguela
--Psalm 34:15
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 06-13-2008, 11:04 PM
Fitzmas Elf Fitzmas Elf is offline
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: New York City
Posts: 3
Default Orders telling noncitizens to leave the US

As with so many off-handed comments re immigration, the issue re in absentia orders is no so straightforward (as one commenter blithely implies - saying that everyone with an in absentia order most having know there was a deportation going on and just chose not to show).

Here's a quick course on immigration bureaucracy generally and immigration orders, in particular - in absentia and otherwise.

1. Orders asking noncitizens to leave the US come in three flavors - exclusion, deportation and removal. Older orders (in cases started pre-April 1, 1997) are called exclusion and deportation and newer ones (post-April 1, 1997) are all called removal.

2. Back in the day (certainly in the early to mid 1990s and even into this century - more on that below), federal immigration authorities were so disorganized that they routinely forgot to tell noncitizens about their hearings - sending no notices at all, sending them to addresses that had been changed several years earlier, (ignoring updates dutifully submitted by immigrants to immigration authorities). No one at immigration seemed able to keep track of anyone or anything. Immigration officials seemed to lose every piece of paper they touched.

3. Don't believe that federal immigration authorities were disorganized? In a move that surprised no practicing immigration lawyer, as reported on CNN (and everywhere else): "Six months to the day after Mohamed Atta and Marwan Al-Shehhi flew planes into the World Trade Center, the Immigration and Naturalization Service notified a Venice, Florida, flight school that the two men had been approved for student visas." (See http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/03/1....school.visas/) Why was that not so surprising? Well, back in the 1990s, files were routinely lost, misplaced, misdirected, sitting in asbestos filled rooms somewhere for years on end where no one feared to tread (not making that one up), shredding boxes in the mailroom when there was too much mail to handle (not making that one up either - a couple of California INS employees were eventually indicted), etc. By the turn of the century, things were getting a lot better, but obviously not that much better as evidenced by visas for dead terrorists who had murdered 3,000 people. Thus, when noncitizens say they really didn't know about old exclusion and deportation cases, or the resulting orders, they are more likely than not to be telling the truth if their case is old. The problem had lessened by the time the removal cases of the late 1990s came around but we still see people who had no idea of the pending immigration cases.

4. While I disagree with the policies behind the heightened enforcement and a number of the immigration statutory changes of the last 10-15 years, it is worth giving credit where credit is due. Federal immigration authorities lose a lot less paper than they used to. Whereas I used to have dozens and dozens of clients whose files federal immigration authorities seemed to have misplaced, forgotten about or destroyed ever year, I am now seeing an amazing improvement in efficiency and ability to keep track of paper (yes, still paper and not electronic files) as it moves around the country en route to application processing (and, it would seem, through job creation projects in several congressional districts). For example, when I first got into this business, my clients tended to wait about 10-18 months for a receipt that their green card applications had been filed and another few years for a decision. I am now beyond delighted to report that from filing to decision we are often down to about six months.

5. Point 4 brings me back to my critique on the commenter who reflexively assumes that all those with in absentia orders knew that deportation (or exclusion or removal) proceedings were going on but just didn't show. My guess is that many if not most of those against whom deportation cases were initiated in the early to mid 1990s had no idea whereas today, many, perhaps most, of those who receive in absentia orders these days may well know that there are hearings being held and chose not to show up.

And while I am addressing the immigration thing, let me make a more general, plea, request, etc. I LOVE Bloggingheads. I even bought a Bloggingheads coffee mug from which to drink coffee on weekend mornings and enjoy catching up on the most interesting Bloggingheads of the week. But instead of Mickey just throwing in non sequitur rants against immigration, couldn't you just invite some people on your blog to have a serious conversation about the topic? Maybe Mickey could talk with pro-immigrant folks like Tamar Jacoby of the Manhattan Institute or Jason Riley from the Wall Street Journal (from the more conservative end of the political spectrum) or Eliseo Medina, Service Employees International Union (allowing Mickey to have simultaneous conversations about how much he hates immigration and unions) or Frank Sherry formerly of the National Immigration Forum. Or maybe someone on the more academic side of things from the Migration Policy Institute? If Mickey doesn't feel like being the standard bearer for the anti-immigrant cause, and Lou Dobbs isn't available, there would seem to be a world of talking heads out there to represent the Mickey's-view-of-immigration-and-its-discontents side of things, no?
__________________
Democracy does not come neatly wrapped up in ribbons. You have to fight for it, every single day.

Bojana Lekic
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 06-12-2008, 04:52 PM
Tao Jones Tao Jones is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 25
Default Re: Scarlett Johansson Edition

I think Frasier is a schnoodle, (1/2 schnauzer 1/2 poodle). My ex has a dog that looks just like him.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 06-12-2008, 05:16 PM
Wonderment Wonderment is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,694
Default Why does Mickey hate that Wonder Person?

¿Por qué me odias, Mickey? Qué te he hecho yo a ti? Nada. Nunca.

Yo tengo todos mis documentos en orden. Por favor, no mandes la migra a mi casa para sacarme de mi camita a las cuatro de la mañana, subirme a un camión gris con los vidrios tintados, separarme de mi familia y llevarme a Tijuana. Prometo ya nunca volver a criticarte, con tal de que no seas rata y no me denuncies a los agentes de ICE. Mil gracias por adelantado, "That Wonder Person"
__________________
Seek Peace and Pursue it
בקש שלום ורדפהו
Busca la paz y síguela
--Psalm 34:15
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 06-12-2008, 06:12 PM
Wonderment Wonderment is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,694
Default Bob, We love Frazier...

But are you sure all her (his?) papers are in order?

With Mickey's discriminatory language seeping into your discourse

I'm worried that Frasier may have illegally entered the country, unbeknownest to the MinuteKlan patrolling our northern borders. S(he) does look a little French, mon frere.
__________________
Seek Peace and Pursue it
בקש שלום ורדפהו
Busca la paz y síguela
--Psalm 34:15
Reply With Quote
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.