She doesn't talk about China much, but the impact on Taiwan of taking her win-win strategy would be overwhelmingly positive.
That being said, I don't have much hope that this will happen. Yes, what little hope I do have is pinned on my unlikely theory that Trump is trying to bring the EU/UK fully online to have a united front, Witkoff's bumblings notwithstanding.
How would that embolden Putin? My assumption would be the opposite.
Sorry, that was not clear. I meant if the US stepped back and Europe and UK stepped up, it would nonetheless embolden him. I suppose if PURL were still on the table, it would work for a while, especially if the US continued to supply intelligence. But Putin knows Europe and the UK cannot sustain the delivery of materials by themselves, at least not at this point. IMO, a US pull back in any form will embolden Putin, regardless of how the EU/UK respond.
I'm troubled by the purported peace proposal (I also note that since I started to write this, Trump is backing away from it). I want to see Ukraine free and prosperous and as intact as possible with a security guarantee (as the last one didn't work). This war is terrible and needs to end. And it needs to end in such a way as it doesn't happen again down the road as happened after Crimea. In a perfect world, Russia would be out of Ukraine. It's not a perfect world.
I can't tell whether or not Ukraine is on the brink. Certainly there is a conscription problem. If US support were to end, and the Europeans not step up, it would be a disaster. Even if the EU and UK did step up, it would be hard and embolden Putin and drag this debacle out even longer.
My take on Trump is to try to see the play and not focus on the particulars. One possibility: Trump is trying to get the Europeans to truly step up. Trump successfully got member nations to pay their fair share to NATO (well, collectively at least). The pause in US support brought Europe in even more. But despite the implementation by NATO of PURL (launched by Gen. Rutte and Trump) to fund the acquisition of ready to use weapons in US stockpiles for Ukraine, total military aid from Europe declined 43 percent in July and August of this year (humanitarian and financial support remained steady). I think that is the latest data. With the plan, the EU and the UK raced to take part in high-level talks and are voicing ever stronger support for Ukraine. I wonder if this really has nothing to do with appeasing Putin but lighting a fire under the Europeans (yet again)? It is their backyard, after all. And while they have stepped up, it doesn't make up for decades of underfunding the military and building a (mostly former) dependence on Russian gas. Europe isn't in a great position to take up the slack. And it should be.
Another reasonable take here: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/the-expert-conversation-separating-signal-from-noise-in-trumps-ukraine-peace-plan/
Hoping the Europeans really step in and Trump drops the hammer (e.g. Tomahawks). But I have my doubts on both.
The waiting in line people are those waiting for consular processing (for a green card) and the quotas that apply. These are people outside the US. If you count the family preferences and business categories, I think it is around 5M. The wait times are published in the Visa Bulletin. It has gotten a lot longer lately. Some categories, especially applied to Mexico, have incredibly long wait times. Decades I think for some.
I would find something along the lines of what you suggest (5 years, no criminal record) acceptable for a starting point of discussion. I have reservations, though. Reagan's amnesty was supposed to be coupled with a secure border so as to not provide an incentive to come illegally. That didn't happen and here we are. And those coming in legally typically need an affidavit of support to prevent them from becoming public charges. How would that be accomplished here? And how to make it fair to those waiting in line? Any path to permanent residency and citizenship should be slower than the legal path and have some sort of cost to it.
Regarding ICE, I too have my concerns based on what I've seen. But the media is fanning the flames here too, methinks. The reporter arrested while "going to the bus stop" allegedly threw an unknown liquid on the officers. I watched an MSNBC compilation of uncooperative detainees and wondered whether the person being arrested had more than just a fear of being deported (as in a criminal record). Verified info would be helpful. The AP announced a Marine dad was arrested and deported while visiting Camp Pendleton. The son says no criminal record. DHS says he was ordered removed in 2005 and has a 2020 conviction for DV and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.
DHS responded to the protests outside the Illinois facility with posts showing some of those arrested and countering what it says are Pritzker's "lies." Could our intrepid AP chase this down?
And regarding the Burlington facility, 20% having a criminal record is pretty high IMO. The question I have is whether the remaining 80% have 1) an order of removal; 2) have been charged with a crime or 3) have any gang affiliation. Information on that would be nice. If the majority are law-abiding, hard working people not dodging an order of removal, I'd have concerns. If they are Abrego Garcia, not so much.
Note that you can actually look up the Antifa group doing this on the web and see the actual posters they were distributing. I'm not going to link to that, for obvious reasons. But I take that as verification of what Noem is saying.
Arrest of a Santa Monica man for doxxing an ICE attorney:
I appreciate the numbers view, and I agree that our country can accept a significant number of (legal) immigrants. How many is a policy decision and best made by Congress rather than having that decision made de facto by illegal immigrants.
To be clear, I am in favor of immigration and I am sympathetic to anyone trying to improve their life. I worked professionally in the immigration area years ago (pre-ICE). I too see the very real fear that is out there now. I saw that fear in downtown LA during the Reagan years around the time of amnesty and see it again today amongst the immigrant population when I visit the Pasadena area for work.
As for how this is being handled now, I agree with you to a significant degree. Depending on who you listen to, it either is or is not focusing on those we would all agree should be deported (criminal record, pending criminal charges, gang members, etc.). DHS says 70%. Other reports are much, much less. I'm strongly in favor of deporting anyone who entered without inspection with a conviction or criminal charges pending or gang association. I also think the resistance isn't helping calm things down and that to me is by design. Doxing produced masks, which engender fear and are then criticized as fascist. And on it goes.
As for the rest of those here without papers, how do you prefer those to the 5 million or so waiting in line? There are IMO far more who entered illegally already in the country. I think the numbers are underrepresented. See this MIT-Yale study before the Biden border surge estimating 22M in the country illegally (or more):
While that study is contested by the usual think tanks (such as Pew), it seems to open up the possibility that there are a lot more than commonly believed.
Being in the United States without some kind of legal status is a civil, not a criminal, violation.
Your statement doesn't distinguish between visa overstays and entry into the US without inspection. Unless something has recently changed, my understanding is:
If you sneak across the border without inspection, you are a criminal (misdemeanor).
If you overstay your student or tourist visa, you are typically not (civil).
But if you are deported after an overstay and enter again without approval, felony. Same for those denied entry and try to enter again.
Whether or not you or I like the law, that is what I believe it is. The vast majority of the debate centers on those trying to enter without inspection, not the overstays. It also includes those here under Biden's much-expanded rules for asylum and parole, seen as illegitimate by many. Either way, we are not talking about a speeding ticket.
When is it appropriate for a nation to borrow? What is accomplished with the money that is borrowed?
Totally valid questions. I was simply focusing on "indifference to deficits." And I think Biden was a mixed bag. I don't cast much if any blame on the COVID spending bills themselves, whether by Biden or Trump. But BBB was such a grab bag. I didn't mind the pure infrastructure components. The resulting IRA was anything but its name. That was simply too much given the huge amount of spending on COVID, IMHO. And that's even before one considers the green pork.
As to the effects of Biden’s “open border policy” on illegal immigration: there were none, because there was no such policy.
This statement just beggars belief. Biden invited the border rush during his campaign. He ended the Remain in Mexico program on day one. He refused to finish construction of the wall. He ordered no deportations in the first 100 days. His administration (Mayorkas) stated that the unlawful presence was not by itself a basis for an enforcement action. Forget the law. Mayorkas expanded parole unlawfully, extending it well beyond the statutory framework. CBP Mobile One anyone? Asylum lost its meaning. We all saw it. This was the top issue for a lot of voters.
I don't understand why you are playing cute with this one, Pro Bono. You acknowledge legal immigration was larger under Trump. Great. The issue is not legal immigration, which most Americans find unobjectionable and welcome.
As for Afghanistan, it was the execution of the withdrawal, as you likely know. There was a way to do it safely. Biden had a date in mind and stuck with it. He owns it.
I don't think your comments are as much wrong as ignoring the full picture.
1) Immigration. Immigration was higher in Trump’s first term than in Bidens. Ackman is wrong.
Immigration was higher? By what metric? Legal or illegal? I think naturalizations were higher under Trump in his first term, but illegal border crossings in the south were way up under Biden as soon has he changed remain in Mexico. He hid some of those by granting parole where it had not been granted before. And Biden changed course right before the election. See more here:
2) Trump in his first term showed himself to be indifferent to the national debt. Ackman is wrong.
I guess it depends on who you read. I do think there is some truth here (Trump being somewhat indifferent in the first term), but I think Biden was far worse than Trump. Frex:
Ok, I forgot that the comments now read in an opposite direction, so a lot has been posted since I started writing this (in spurts, given my crazy schedule). That link by GftNC was particularly interesting, especially the description of how limited the ideologues really are on either side. So the following didn't take all of that into account.
"I think it’s worth exploring how to communicate with MAGAs because, even when King Pussygrabber strokes out on the toilet at three in the morning, we won’t be over the madness. We will still have the MAGA voters, the Republican party’s commitment to the election tactics of Othering and engineered polarization, and the extensive well-funded Republican hate/fear propaganda bubble (Faux, etc) which, for many people, substitutes for news and shapes their voting behavior."
Well, with respect, I probably wouldn’t start like this. Criticizing a side for “othering” by what seems to be to be “othering” of another sort isn’t a winning proposition. And dialing up the rhetoric to 11 isn’t likely to do any good either. And claiming the other side “lies” when the issues are often nuanced only makes each side more entrenched. You could substitute in MSNBC for Faux, Democrat for Republican, woke Democrats for MAGA, and post this on a right-wing site and it would fit right in. And that, IMHO, is the problem.
I’d say the first thing to do is to try to understand the other side. And not the talking heads on TV, but real people of good faith. Why did so many vote for Trump? What policies were behind that decision? Or what was it about Biden/Harris that voters didn’t find attractive? You can argue that the election was lost by not being loud enough, or confrontational enough, or tough enough, but I think that misses the mark.
IMHO, a lot of people that voted for Trump/Vance were not anywhere close to the cartoonish MAGA voter you describe. There were so many reasons to vote for or not vote for Trump, just as there were so many reasons to vote for or not vote for Harris. And many of those reasons deserve respect. To claim otherwise is to have blinders on. You can hate a position, but hating the person holding that position is an entirely different matter.
Take just one former Democrat, Bill Ackman, and his voiced reasons for voting for Trump over Harris.
I chose him simply because he has a list handy that I read some time ago. I may not agree with all of his reasons (and you won’t either) but I think his reasons deserve respect on the whole. And this is his list. I think there are several more that could be added, but IMO, numbers 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 22, 24 , 28, 31, 33 were quite resonant with those that voted for Trump (not necessarily in that order). Ackman was not “born” or “made” in the sense you describe.
I am deliberately not responding to the specific examples in your post, Wonkie (i.e. Calloway, Walz, healthcare truth, Portland). I just didn’t want you to think those arguments were lost on me. I can acknowledge some validity in what you say. I just didn’t want any differences I have to detract from the tenor of my response.
Love the Saint-Saëns piece. Always nice to hear the horn played well. I played his Cavatine in music school. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kKUuFECQ48
And I had a chance to hear some of his choral works sung in the place where they were intended to be sung last year when my son's college choir toured France and sang in La Madeleine (where Saint-Saëns was the organist).
Regarding autism, I dealt with a neurologist professionally as an expert for TBI in accident cases. He had an interesting take on autism diagnosis. He was bothered because autism and ADHD and other mental and behavioral disorders are primarily diagnosed based solely on symptoms rather than focusing first on potential physical or neurological causes. 20/20 had an episode and showed one child diagnosed for years with severe autism. He rocked back and forth much of the time ignoring the outside world. An MRI was normal, but the specialized EEG this doctor had developed showed brain seizures. Anti-seizure meds had the kid going from something like a 30-word vocabulary to 200 in a month, and up to speed in fairly short order. It always has me wondering when I meet a kid on the spectrum at the severe end of the scale what an MRI, this specialized EEG and neuropsych eval might reveal.
TP: Most of it has to do with race. Frex: 1) I get his point about the DEI/merit debate. He went too far IMHO naming specific people (Michelle Obama et al) and essentially calling them not so bright. They apparently all admitted that affirmative action helped them in one way or another. But he was unkind and it detracts from his argument. 2) I think it is wrong to throw out MLK's impact due to his personal character issues, as bad as those have been alleged to have been. 3) I understand his argument with respect to the Civil Rights Act, and agree to a point (that it has led to unconstitutional DEI programs and, as some say, has become a "second constitution" unto itself). However, its initial impact was so very good and important and I didn't see him acknowledging that. In short, while he reached out to, encouraged and mentored many young black conservatives, these comments were, at best, tone deaf.
I also diverge to a point on immigration. I think his position is rational (enforce the law) and I largely agree with that. I would personally soften the edges somewhat of what can lawfully be done under the conditions we face now due to Biden's open border policy.
I would have more exceptions for abortion.
There are other issues, and I think Charlie had other rough edges, but it seemed to me that he was a work in progress. He was still quite young. I think marriage and kids was good for him. And now we won't see what he might have become.
lj: The Horst Wessel comparison came first. And the FB poster's joke was more an illustration of how I wouldn't rely on him for information about Kirk than on the extremely bad taste of the joke itself. He seems to think Kirk and the CEO deserved it.
nous, I agree with your assessment of the proclamations and your use of "nettlesome." Still, AOC's response seems to show that it is more what was not in the proclamation (and the same case could have been made for Hortman). But your point is well-taken.
GftNC, AOC's response starts out strong but then devolves and illustrates two things: 1) My point above, that it wasn't really what was in the proclamation but what wasn't; and 2) her penchant for taking things out of context. I do see her point, but similar things could have been said about Hortman's legislative agenda.
HSH: I have a problem with jumping right to Hitler as a primary means of criticism, especially after an actual assassination. It is a form of "he deserved it."
The guy you link to celebrates the murder of Brian Thompson and notes he (the FB poster) "felon love" with Luigi Mangione. He thinks Charlie Kirk's LIFE was a tragedy, not his death. All based on ideas. His comments about Kirk's debate style are simply not representative of what I have seen. I saw some Charlie Kirk stuff from time-to-time before his assassination. There was a lot I didn't agree with, and some of his interactions somewhat resemble what was described. I like long-form debate mostly, like the Monk Debates. Watch Kirk's debates at the Oxford Union and Cambridge, or his conversation with Bill Maher. He isn't riding herd on some poor college student there. He is exchanging ideas. I note that the Cambridge students he debated with mourned his death and admired his commitment to the exchange of ideas. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9wdp2ypq5vo
I disagree with many ideas on the left, and despise some. That doesn't keep me from condemning, say, the murder of Melissa Hortman and her husband. FULL STOP. The senate resolution honored her life and passed unanimously. The resolution honoring the life of Charlie Kirk, however, was opposed by 58 Democrats and 60 more either voted present or did not vote. Most said due to his ideas. Melissa Hortman had ideas too, ones that many on the right disagreed with or found repugnant, but the Republicans chose to honor her life and not temper their desire to send a unified message condemning her murder. I wish the Democrats would have done the same for Kirk.
Kirk's death feels significant. I think that is in large part to the left's (painting broadly here) reaction.
Seems to me that it is preferable to have some framework rather than none, even if inconsistently applied (at least you have something to measure against and criticize). Otherwise, you are just making things up. And by a small group of people no less. Claiming the Constitution is "living" runs a great risk of just making things up and thwarting the amendment process.
That's what happened with Roe. Although the article mentions this, it seems to ignore that the modern resurgence of originalism was a direct response to the "penumbra" of Roe. Well, that and the protests that broke out on the Supreme Court's steps hoping to influence what the vote couldn't bring.
GftNC, if originalism is "insane," what do you suggest?
Btw, I think of Scalia more of a textualist first and foremost. I lean textualist as far as that can get you, originalist after that.
Lj: "an amendment specifically about environmental protection, possibly couched in terms of the rights of future generations."
Interesting thought, especially in light of Dobbs. Trying to bring back discussion of the rights of the unborn at the federal level are we?
TP: Thanks, and back at you.
russell: a day or two late and therefore considerably out of the pocket so to speak, but I’ve appreciated your insights into Ringo (there was a past conversation I recall). I was just teaching my son who just discovered music about playing on top of the beat vs. behind, etc. He listened because it was on one of “his” songs and he really liked the song and didn’t know why that particular part had such good energy.
I’m listening to “Love” for the first time (came with a bunch of CD’s from an estate sale) on my “new” high-end vintage CD player on a good system. I know it’s probably sacrilegious but I rather like the mix.
Just my two bits on the ObWi diversity question:
The recognition of how one-sided it has become is refreshing. The introspection even more.
For myself, there is are a few barriers to entry on commenting if you are a conservative. You know you your comments will often draw "hostile fire" rather than curiosity. And you are surrounded. It's not just from one direction. Expect to carry a heavy load if you are going to have a complete conversation because you are responding to many people when the opposite is not true. I have a full-time job, I'm married and a kid still at home. And I'm in my late 50's (as CharlesWT likely knows). As much as I (usually) like the conversation, I don't always have the time to read AND comment.
It became all the harder to comment when there were several comments aimed at me that I wasn't completely responding to some of the counterpoint. That was in fact true, due to time. Recently, frex, Donald responded to me with some really good points, noting that my comment appeared to only blame Hamas and not Israel. His comments merited a response. If I only had the time. (Sorry, Donald). And I had a lot to say about the transgender issue and found myself very aligned with GftNC's point of view and would have wanted to wade in, but by the time I could particiapte the conversation had moved on. In the past, some have assumed I had nothing to say and said as much when that simply wasn't true.
So I just read and pop up from time-to-time.
It was easier under the Hilzoy era when I first was drawn here. Hilzoy had a way of interacting that I consider model. She was curious, respectful, and stepped in and politely (and sometimes firmly) called commenters out on both sides. Russell is a lot like Hilzoy; others too. Many not. And that era had several conservatives of many different stripes. While we were in the minority, it was a strong minority.
Lastly, in order to attract conservatives, IMHO, you have to at least want to hear another point of view. That's why I am here. That's why I turn on Urban View and Progressive Talk Radio from time-to-time when I'm on long drives. A recent opinion was voiced that conservatives left ObWi because they couldn't justify their positions and noted that the group here is smart, well-informed and articulate, implying that the conservatives were not. That doesn't help. However, I agree with the assessment of the characteristics of my left-leaning, liberal friends here on Obwi. You are a smart, well-informed and articulate bunch. Overall, I very much enjoy our discussions and hearing your points of view.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “An openish thread featuring the comedy stylings of Steve Witkoff”
Harding's response to Question 6 is, IMO, spot on in terms of why we are where we are and how to make this a win-win.
https://www.csis.org/analysis/what-strategy-ukraine-russia-peace-negotiations
She doesn't talk about China much, but the impact on Taiwan of taking her win-win strategy would be overwhelmingly positive.
That being said, I don't have much hope that this will happen. Yes, what little hope I do have is pinned on my unlikely theory that Trump is trying to bring the EU/UK fully online to have a united front, Witkoff's bumblings notwithstanding.
"
russell:
How would that embolden Putin? My assumption would be the opposite.
Sorry, that was not clear. I meant if the US stepped back and Europe and UK stepped up, it would nonetheless embolden him. I suppose if PURL were still on the table, it would work for a while, especially if the US continued to supply intelligence. But Putin knows Europe and the UK cannot sustain the delivery of materials by themselves, at least not at this point. IMO, a US pull back in any form will embolden Putin, regardless of how the EU/UK respond.
"
I'm troubled by the purported peace proposal (I also note that since I started to write this, Trump is backing away from it). I want to see Ukraine free and prosperous and as intact as possible with a security guarantee (as the last one didn't work). This war is terrible and needs to end. And it needs to end in such a way as it doesn't happen again down the road as happened after Crimea. In a perfect world, Russia would be out of Ukraine. It's not a perfect world.
I can't tell whether or not Ukraine is on the brink. Certainly there is a conscription problem. If US support were to end, and the Europeans not step up, it would be a disaster. Even if the EU and UK did step up, it would be hard and embolden Putin and drag this debacle out even longer.
My take on Trump is to try to see the play and not focus on the particulars. One possibility: Trump is trying to get the Europeans to truly step up. Trump successfully got member nations to pay their fair share to NATO (well, collectively at least). The pause in US support brought Europe in even more. But despite the implementation by NATO of PURL (launched by Gen. Rutte and Trump) to fund the acquisition of ready to use weapons in US stockpiles for Ukraine, total military aid from Europe declined 43 percent in July and August of this year (humanitarian and financial support remained steady). I think that is the latest data. With the plan, the EU and the UK raced to take part in high-level talks and are voicing ever stronger support for Ukraine. I wonder if this really has nothing to do with appeasing Putin but lighting a fire under the Europeans (yet again)? It is their backyard, after all. And while they have stepped up, it doesn't make up for decades of underfunding the military and building a (mostly former) dependence on Russian gas. Europe isn't in a great position to take up the slack. And it should be.
Another reasonable take here: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/the-expert-conversation-separating-signal-from-noise-in-trumps-ukraine-peace-plan/
Hoping the Europeans really step in and Trump drops the hammer (e.g. Tomahawks). But I have my doubts on both.
On “Weekend music thread #03 Rhumba and the clave”
Russell: Loved this. And so fun "meeting" you in your element. Music really is the universal language.
But now I'm seeing your hands every time I read one of your comments, lol.
On “Let’s start calling a thug a thug”
Russell:
The waiting in line people are those waiting for consular processing (for a green card) and the quotas that apply. These are people outside the US. If you count the family preferences and business categories, I think it is around 5M. The wait times are published in the Visa Bulletin. It has gotten a lot longer lately. Some categories, especially applied to Mexico, have incredibly long wait times. Decades I think for some.
I would find something along the lines of what you suggest (5 years, no criminal record) acceptable for a starting point of discussion. I have reservations, though. Reagan's amnesty was supposed to be coupled with a secure border so as to not provide an incentive to come illegally. That didn't happen and here we are. And those coming in legally typically need an affidavit of support to prevent them from becoming public charges. How would that be accomplished here? And how to make it fair to those waiting in line? Any path to permanent residency and citizenship should be slower than the legal path and have some sort of cost to it.
Regarding ICE, I too have my concerns based on what I've seen. But the media is fanning the flames here too, methinks. The reporter arrested while "going to the bus stop" allegedly threw an unknown liquid on the officers. I watched an MSNBC compilation of uncooperative detainees and wondered whether the person being arrested had more than just a fear of being deported (as in a criminal record). Verified info would be helpful. The AP announced a Marine dad was arrested and deported while visiting Camp Pendleton. The son says no criminal record. DHS says he was ordered removed in 2005 and has a 2020 conviction for DV and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.
DHS responded to the protests outside the Illinois facility with posts showing some of those arrested and countering what it says are Pritzker's "lies." Could our intrepid AP chase this down?
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/10/15/meet-some-worst-worst-broadview-ice-facility-illinois
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/10/06/dhs-debunks-governor-pritzkers-harmful-lies-about-operation-midway-blitz-chicago
And regarding the Burlington facility, 20% having a criminal record is pretty high IMO. The question I have is whether the remaining 80% have 1) an order of removal; 2) have been charged with a crime or 3) have any gang affiliation. Information on that would be nice. If the majority are law-abiding, hard working people not dodging an order of removal, I'd have concerns. If they are Abrego Garcia, not so much.
"
TP:
Indictment for three women following an ICE agent home and livestreaming it:
https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/federal-grand-jury-charges-three-women-following-ice-agent-home-work-and-livestreaming
DHS' announcement re Portland doxxing here:
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/07/11/anarchists-and-rioters-portland-illegally-dox-ice-officers-and-federal-law
Note that you can actually look up the Antifa group doing this on the web and see the actual posters they were distributing. I'm not going to link to that, for obvious reasons. But I take that as verification of what Noem is saying.
Arrest of a Santa Monica man for doxxing an ICE attorney:
https://smdp.com/news/crime/santa-monica-man-arrested-for-allegedly-doxxing-ice-attorney/
"
Russell:
I appreciate the numbers view, and I agree that our country can accept a significant number of (legal) immigrants. How many is a policy decision and best made by Congress rather than having that decision made de facto by illegal immigrants.
To be clear, I am in favor of immigration and I am sympathetic to anyone trying to improve their life. I worked professionally in the immigration area years ago (pre-ICE). I too see the very real fear that is out there now. I saw that fear in downtown LA during the Reagan years around the time of amnesty and see it again today amongst the immigrant population when I visit the Pasadena area for work.
As for how this is being handled now, I agree with you to a significant degree. Depending on who you listen to, it either is or is not focusing on those we would all agree should be deported (criminal record, pending criminal charges, gang members, etc.). DHS says 70%. Other reports are much, much less. I'm strongly in favor of deporting anyone who entered without inspection with a conviction or criminal charges pending or gang association. I also think the resistance isn't helping calm things down and that to me is by design. Doxing produced masks, which engender fear and are then criticized as fascist. And on it goes.
As for the rest of those here without papers, how do you prefer those to the 5 million or so waiting in line? There are IMO far more who entered illegally already in the country. I think the numbers are underrepresented. See this MIT-Yale study before the Biden border surge estimating 22M in the country illegally (or more):
https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/yale-study-finds-twice-as-many-undocumented-immigrants-as-previous-estimates
While that study is contested by the usual think tanks (such as Pew), it seems to open up the possibility that there are a lot more than commonly believed.
Being in the United States without some kind of legal status is a civil, not a criminal, violation.
Your statement doesn't distinguish between visa overstays and entry into the US without inspection. Unless something has recently changed, my understanding is:
If you sneak across the border without inspection, you are a criminal (misdemeanor).
If you overstay your student or tourist visa, you are typically not (civil).
But if you are deported after an overstay and enter again without approval, felony. Same for those denied entry and try to enter again.
Whether or not you or I like the law, that is what I believe it is. The vast majority of the debate centers on those trying to enter without inspection, not the overstays. It also includes those here under Biden's much-expanded rules for asylum and parole, seen as illegitimate by many. Either way, we are not talking about a speeding ticket.
"
Russell:
When is it appropriate for a nation to borrow? What is accomplished with the money that is borrowed?
Totally valid questions. I was simply focusing on "indifference to deficits." And I think Biden was a mixed bag. I don't cast much if any blame on the COVID spending bills themselves, whether by Biden or Trump. But BBB was such a grab bag. I didn't mind the pure infrastructure components. The resulting IRA was anything but its name. That was simply too much given the huge amount of spending on COVID, IMHO. And that's even before one considers the green pork.
"
As to the effects of Biden’s “open border policy” on illegal immigration: there were none, because there was no such policy.
This statement just beggars belief. Biden invited the border rush during his campaign. He ended the Remain in Mexico program on day one. He refused to finish construction of the wall. He ordered no deportations in the first 100 days. His administration (Mayorkas) stated that the unlawful presence was not by itself a basis for an enforcement action. Forget the law. Mayorkas expanded parole unlawfully, extending it well beyond the statutory framework. CBP Mobile One anyone? Asylum lost its meaning. We all saw it. This was the top issue for a lot of voters.
I don't understand why you are playing cute with this one, Pro Bono. You acknowledge legal immigration was larger under Trump. Great. The issue is not legal immigration, which most Americans find unobjectionable and welcome.
As for Afghanistan, it was the execution of the withdrawal, as you likely know. There was a way to do it safely. Biden had a date in mind and stuck with it. He owns it.
"
Pro Bono:
I don't think your comments are as much wrong as ignoring the full picture.
1) Immigration. Immigration was higher in Trump’s first term than in Bidens. Ackman is wrong.
Immigration was higher? By what metric? Legal or illegal? I think naturalizations were higher under Trump in his first term, but illegal border crossings in the south were way up under Biden as soon has he changed remain in Mexico. He hid some of those by granting parole where it had not been granted before. And Biden changed course right before the election. See more here:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2024/02/11/trump-biden-immigration-border-compared/
2) Trump in his first term showed himself to be indifferent to the national debt. Ackman is wrong.
I guess it depends on who you read. I do think there is some truth here (Trump being somewhat indifferent in the first term), but I think Biden was far worse than Trump. Frex:
https://www.heritage.org/debt/commentary/the-lefts-7-trillion-lie-biden-far-outpaces-trump-racking-the-national-debt
7) The USA has been a net fossil fuel exporter since 2019. Ackman is wrong.
Well, there is a difference between coal, LNG and crude oil, right? The US is still a net crude oil importer. It was headed down until 2020.
"
Ok, I forgot that the comments now read in an opposite direction, so a lot has been posted since I started writing this (in spurts, given my crazy schedule). That link by GftNC was particularly interesting, especially the description of how limited the ideologues really are on either side. So the following didn't take all of that into account.
"I think it’s worth exploring how to communicate with MAGAs because, even when King Pussygrabber strokes out on the toilet at three in the morning, we won’t be over the madness. We will still have the MAGA voters, the Republican party’s commitment to the election tactics of Othering and engineered polarization, and the extensive well-funded Republican hate/fear propaganda bubble (Faux, etc) which, for many people, substitutes for news and shapes their voting behavior."
Well, with respect, I probably wouldn’t start like this. Criticizing a side for “othering” by what seems to be to be “othering” of another sort isn’t a winning proposition. And dialing up the rhetoric to 11 isn’t likely to do any good either. And claiming the other side “lies” when the issues are often nuanced only makes each side more entrenched. You could substitute in MSNBC for Faux, Democrat for Republican, woke Democrats for MAGA, and post this on a right-wing site and it would fit right in. And that, IMHO, is the problem.
I’d say the first thing to do is to try to understand the other side. And not the talking heads on TV, but real people of good faith. Why did so many vote for Trump? What policies were behind that decision? Or what was it about Biden/Harris that voters didn’t find attractive? You can argue that the election was lost by not being loud enough, or confrontational enough, or tough enough, but I think that misses the mark.
IMHO, a lot of people that voted for Trump/Vance were not anywhere close to the cartoonish MAGA voter you describe. There were so many reasons to vote for or not vote for Trump, just as there were so many reasons to vote for or not vote for Harris. And many of those reasons deserve respect. To claim otherwise is to have blinders on. You can hate a position, but hating the person holding that position is an entirely different matter.
Take just one former Democrat, Bill Ackman, and his voiced reasons for voting for Trump over Harris.
https://x.com/BillAckman/status/1844802469680873747
I chose him simply because he has a list handy that I read some time ago. I may not agree with all of his reasons (and you won’t either) but I think his reasons deserve respect on the whole. And this is his list. I think there are several more that could be added, but IMO, numbers 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 22, 24 , 28, 31, 33 were quite resonant with those that voted for Trump (not necessarily in that order). Ackman was not “born” or “made” in the sense you describe.
I am deliberately not responding to the specific examples in your post, Wonkie (i.e. Calloway, Walz, healthcare truth, Portland). I just didn’t want you to think those arguments were lost on me. I can acknowledge some validity in what you say. I just didn’t want any differences I have to detract from the tenor of my response.
On “Un morceau de blog”
Love the Saint-Saëns piece. Always nice to hear the horn played well. I played his Cavatine in music school. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kKUuFECQ48
And I had a chance to hear some of his choral works sung in the place where they were intended to be sung last year when my son's college choir toured France and sang in La Madeleine (where Saint-Saëns was the organist).
Regarding autism, I dealt with a neurologist professionally as an expert for TBI in accident cases. He had an interesting take on autism diagnosis. He was bothered because autism and ADHD and other mental and behavioral disorders are primarily diagnosed based solely on symptoms rather than focusing first on potential physical or neurological causes. 20/20 had an episode and showed one child diagnosed for years with severe autism. He rocked back and forth much of the time ignoring the outside world. An MRI was normal, but the specialized EEG this doctor had developed showed brain seizures. Anti-seizure meds had the kid going from something like a 30-word vocabulary to 200 in a month, and up to speed in fairly short order. It always has me wondering when I meet a kid on the spectrum at the severe end of the scale what an MRI, this specialized EEG and neuropsych eval might reveal.
On “Precursors”
TP: Most of it has to do with race. Frex: 1) I get his point about the DEI/merit debate. He went too far IMHO naming specific people (Michelle Obama et al) and essentially calling them not so bright. They apparently all admitted that affirmative action helped them in one way or another. But he was unkind and it detracts from his argument. 2) I think it is wrong to throw out MLK's impact due to his personal character issues, as bad as those have been alleged to have been. 3) I understand his argument with respect to the Civil Rights Act, and agree to a point (that it has led to unconstitutional DEI programs and, as some say, has become a "second constitution" unto itself). However, its initial impact was so very good and important and I didn't see him acknowledging that. In short, while he reached out to, encouraged and mentored many young black conservatives, these comments were, at best, tone deaf.
I also diverge to a point on immigration. I think his position is rational (enforce the law) and I largely agree with that. I would personally soften the edges somewhat of what can lawfully be done under the conditions we face now due to Biden's open border policy.
I would have more exceptions for abortion.
There are other issues, and I think Charlie had other rough edges, but it seemed to me that he was a work in progress. He was still quite young. I think marriage and kids was good for him. And now we won't see what he might have become.
"
GtfNC/Wonkie: I remember that too, and Wonkie's comment in particular about a campaign against her sister's church. I would be interested in that too.
"
lj: The Horst Wessel comparison came first. And the FB poster's joke was more an illustration of how I wouldn't rely on him for information about Kirk than on the extremely bad taste of the joke itself. He seems to think Kirk and the CEO deserved it.
nous, I agree with your assessment of the proclamations and your use of "nettlesome." Still, AOC's response seems to show that it is more what was not in the proclamation (and the same case could have been made for Hortman). But your point is well-taken.
GftNC, AOC's response starts out strong but then devolves and illustrates two things: 1) My point above, that it wasn't really what was in the proclamation but what wasn't; and 2) her penchant for taking things out of context. I do see her point, but similar things could have been said about Hortman's legislative agenda.
"
HSH: I have a problem with jumping right to Hitler as a primary means of criticism, especially after an actual assassination. It is a form of "he deserved it."
The guy you link to celebrates the murder of Brian Thompson and notes he (the FB poster) "felon love" with Luigi Mangione. He thinks Charlie Kirk's LIFE was a tragedy, not his death. All based on ideas. His comments about Kirk's debate style are simply not representative of what I have seen. I saw some Charlie Kirk stuff from time-to-time before his assassination. There was a lot I didn't agree with, and some of his interactions somewhat resemble what was described. I like long-form debate mostly, like the Monk Debates. Watch Kirk's debates at the Oxford Union and Cambridge, or his conversation with Bill Maher. He isn't riding herd on some poor college student there. He is exchanging ideas. I note that the Cambridge students he debated with mourned his death and admired his commitment to the exchange of ideas. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9wdp2ypq5vo
I disagree with many ideas on the left, and despise some. That doesn't keep me from condemning, say, the murder of Melissa Hortman and her husband. FULL STOP. The senate resolution honored her life and passed unanimously. The resolution honoring the life of Charlie Kirk, however, was opposed by 58 Democrats and 60 more either voted present or did not vote. Most said due to his ideas. Melissa Hortman had ideas too, ones that many on the right disagreed with or found repugnant, but the Republicans chose to honor her life and not temper their desire to send a unified message condemning her murder. I wish the Democrats would have done the same for Kirk.
Kirk's death feels significant. I think that is in large part to the left's (painting broadly here) reaction.
"
We don't even need Godwin's law anymore. The probability is 1 from the get-go now.
On “An experimental first post”
Seems to me that it is preferable to have some framework rather than none, even if inconsistently applied (at least you have something to measure against and criticize). Otherwise, you are just making things up. And by a small group of people no less. Claiming the Constitution is "living" runs a great risk of just making things up and thwarting the amendment process.
That's what happened with Roe. Although the article mentions this, it seems to ignore that the modern resurgence of originalism was a direct response to the "penumbra" of Roe. Well, that and the protests that broke out on the Supreme Court's steps hoping to influence what the vote couldn't bring.
GftNC, if originalism is "insane," what do you suggest?
Btw, I think of Scalia more of a textualist first and foremost. I lean textualist as far as that can get you, originalist after that.
Lj: "an amendment specifically about environmental protection, possibly couched in terms of the rights of future generations."
Interesting thought, especially in light of Dobbs. Trying to bring back discussion of the rights of the unborn at the federal level are we?
On “Excelsior!”
Thanks for the email, lj, and for all who made the transition and archiving possible! Nice to see everyone.
On “An open thread on July 4th”
TP: Thanks, and back at you.
russell: a day or two late and therefore considerably out of the pocket so to speak, but I’ve appreciated your insights into Ringo (there was a past conversation I recall). I was just teaching my son who just discovered music about playing on top of the beat vs. behind, etc. He listened because it was on one of “his” songs and he really liked the song and didn’t know why that particular part had such good energy.
I’m listening to “Love” for the first time (came with a bunch of CD’s from an estate sale) on my “new” high-end vintage CD player on a good system. I know it’s probably sacrilegious but I rather like the mix.
"
Just my two bits on the ObWi diversity question:
The recognition of how one-sided it has become is refreshing. The introspection even more.
For myself, there is are a few barriers to entry on commenting if you are a conservative. You know you your comments will often draw "hostile fire" rather than curiosity. And you are surrounded. It's not just from one direction. Expect to carry a heavy load if you are going to have a complete conversation because you are responding to many people when the opposite is not true. I have a full-time job, I'm married and a kid still at home. And I'm in my late 50's (as CharlesWT likely knows). As much as I (usually) like the conversation, I don't always have the time to read AND comment.
It became all the harder to comment when there were several comments aimed at me that I wasn't completely responding to some of the counterpoint. That was in fact true, due to time. Recently, frex, Donald responded to me with some really good points, noting that my comment appeared to only blame Hamas and not Israel. His comments merited a response. If I only had the time. (Sorry, Donald). And I had a lot to say about the transgender issue and found myself very aligned with GftNC's point of view and would have wanted to wade in, but by the time I could particiapte the conversation had moved on. In the past, some have assumed I had nothing to say and said as much when that simply wasn't true.
So I just read and pop up from time-to-time.
It was easier under the Hilzoy era when I first was drawn here. Hilzoy had a way of interacting that I consider model. She was curious, respectful, and stepped in and politely (and sometimes firmly) called commenters out on both sides. Russell is a lot like Hilzoy; others too. Many not. And that era had several conservatives of many different stripes. While we were in the minority, it was a strong minority.
Lastly, in order to attract conservatives, IMHO, you have to at least want to hear another point of view. That's why I am here. That's why I turn on Urban View and Progressive Talk Radio from time-to-time when I'm on long drives. A recent opinion was voiced that conservatives left ObWi because they couldn't justify their positions and noted that the group here is smart, well-informed and articulate, implying that the conservatives were not. That doesn't help. However, I agree with the assessment of the characteristics of my left-leaning, liberal friends here on Obwi. You are a smart, well-informed and articulate bunch. Overall, I very much enjoy our discussions and hearing your points of view.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.