Patterico's Pontifications


Larry McMurtry Reviews Clinton’s Book

Filed under: Miscellaneous — Patterico @ 7:14 pm

I don’t like Bill Clinton, but I do like Larry McMurtry. He’s probably a leftist, as most artists seem to be, but I enjoy his writing style. He gives a Jeff Jarvis.)

Who’s Getting Fooled by the Los Angeles Dog Trainer?

Filed under: Dog Trainer — Patterico @ 5:38 pm

Recently I have been discussing how the Los Angeles Dog Trainer has provably distorted both the findings of the 9/11 interim staff report, and the statements of the 9/11 commissioners regarding that report. Is anyone still fooled by this faulty reporting?

Well, check out today’s letters, in particular the last one:

It now seems that we have two truths as a result of the 9/11 commission findings. The first is the one the administration would have you believe based on its word, and the second is the result of the evidence the bipartisan 9/11 commission has uncovered. Take your choice.

Bernard Rapkin

Los Angeles

It now seems that we have two versions of whether the 9/11 commission has contradicted statements from the Bush Administration. The first is the one the media would have you believe based on its word, and the second consists of the statements from the bipartisan 9/11 commissioners themselves. The two versions are completely different. It appears Bernard Rapkin of Los Angeles has made his choice.

Dog Trainer: Why We Should Not Enforce the Law

Filed under: Immigration — Patterico @ 7:03 am

Unsurprisingly, the local Dog Trainer today editorializes against the “new policy of seemingly random arrests of illegal immigrants by the Border Patrol.” As the paper has reported recently:

For years, Border Patrol agents concentrated on the border and highway checkpoints. But that changed last year. Now a dozen agents rove far from the border, confronting individuals as they step off buses, troll for work or go to Mexican markets. News of arrests in Corona, Ontario and Escondido has fueled rumors of similar patrols as far afield as Pasadena and the San Fernando Valley.

I’ll pause while you emit a low, impressed whistle at the thought of a dozen agents on the loose!

The thrust of the editorial is an attack on what most people would consider a pretty basic concept: arresting lawbreakers. Why is this somehow wrong? Here’s the “logic”:

These patrols might be defensible if they were part of a comprehensive immigration policy that reflected some degree of statewide and national consensus. But there is no such policy and no such consensus.

This is sophistry. The existence of the relevant immigration laws is all the “consensus” we need to enforce those laws. But the editorialist wants authorities to take no action unless everyone in the country agrees with those laws. If we applied the same standard to other laws, many laws would be unenforceable. Many people disagree with the drug laws; that doesn’t make it unfair to make drug arrests. If you disagree with the law, get your own consensus and change it. Until then, it gets enforced as written. That’s how we do things in this country.

Ironically, the lack of “consensus” on this issue is demonstrated mainly by a lack of enforcement of the law — which somehow becomes a reason not to enforce the law. Can you say “circular”?

Also, the alleged unfairness of enforcing the law doesn’t seem to trouble the editorialist when it comes to arresting employers. All of a sudden, it doesn’t matter whether there is a “consensus” to enforce the law.

The editorial also complains about racial profiling. Why aren’t we sending random patrols to deport Swedes, the piece asks? I have no idea what the answer to that question could be. Sure, Sweden is not on our border, so we have almost zero illegal immigration from Sweden — but the answer can’t be that simple. Gotta be racism.

If this were a policy argument about whether to change the law, it would be more complicated. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: I empathize with illegals who came here to better their lives. But they also impose a huge burden on our resources. That’s a thorny debate.

But enforcing the law as written? Sorry, that’s a no-brainer. The editorial is an unconvincing effort to make a simple concept (arresting lawbreakers) sound complicated.

Patterico Cited by Danish Blog

Filed under: Blogging Matters — Patterico @ 12:47 am

How cool is this? A post I wrote at “Oh, That Liberal Media” was cited (favorably — I think) by this Danish blog.

“Hvor dumme er læserne af Politiken?” I couldn’t have put it better myself. Really.

Justice William W. Bedsworth Answers Howard Bashman’s “20 Questions for the Appellate Judge”

Filed under: Judiciary — Patterico @ 12:29 am

You can read it here. It’s one of the best installments yet.

And make sure to read Justice Bedsworth’s blog at this link.

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1967 secs.