Patterico's Pontifications

1/9/2005

Another Reason to Cheer for the Democrats Against Gonzales

Filed under: Immigration — AMac @ 6:35 pm

Res Ipsa Loquitur has this “wonderful” quote from Alberto Gonzales, Bush’s nominee for Attorney General:

There is no requirement, of course, upon state and locals to enforce federal immigration laws. It is purely voluntary. In fact, of course, some states have prohibitions. They couldn’t, even if they wanted to. In some cases, the department, as I understand it, has entered into with state and local departments in terms of memorandums of understandings in order to enforce this. I certainly am sensitive to the notion that some local law enforcement people don’t want to exercise this authority. Well, we’re not saying that they have to. If they want to they can assist in fighting the war on terror, that’s what this opinion allows us to do. Personally I would worry about a policy that permits someone, a local law enforcement official, to use this authority somehow as a club to harass uhh they might be unlawful aliens but otherwise lawful citizens. That would be troubling. That would be troubling to the President.

HELLO?!? NO THEY ARE NOT CITIZENS, LAWFUL OR OTHERWISE! Just remember, kiddos, this is the person that Bush etc. want to let be the top law enforcement officer in the country, stating right here his desire to avoid enforcing, and to stop other authorities from enforcing, our nation’s immigration laws.

Card Tricks

Filed under: Real Life — Patterico @ 1:42 pm

I am terrible at performing card tricks. But when I do them for my 4-year old daughter, I am a genius. My skills are astounding. She truly thinks it’s magic.

I understand that there is no real challenge there. I don’t care. The look of amazement on her face makes up for it.

If you have a 4-year old child, go show that child some card tricks. You’ll be glad you did.

How Prominent Should a Correction Be When It Destroys the Premise of the Original Article?

Filed under: Media Bias — Patterico @ 1:35 pm

When a paper runs an entire article premised on a factual assertion, and that assertion turns out to be wrong, it is sufficient to correct it in a small box on the Corrections page?

I say it’s not. A new article should be written, and given the same prominence as the original article, explaining that the fundamental factual basis of the earlier article was wrong.

Isn’t this obvious?

Power Line gives a recent example from the New York Times. And I’ll remind you of an older example from the Los Angeles Times.

Michael Savage: Still a Moron

Filed under: Morons — Patterico @ 3:01 am

Didn’t I say that Michael Savage is a moron? Yes, I did.

(Also a knucklehead.)

I was right.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2130 secs.