We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Friedman mirrors Woody Allen, who recently expressed the desire that ?bama become dictator, if only for a short while. The authoritarian strain in liberalism- we know what is best for you- cannot remain hidden indefinitely. What makes this more scary is that thus far ?bama has shown himself more often than not to be a mendacious fool. Did you read that bill that Arizona passed, Mr. President, before you commented on it? Many of your top people have admitted that they haven't read it. But why should we be surprised? If our leaders don't bother with reading two thousand (HCR) or eight hundred (Stimulus) page bills, why should they be bothered with reading a mere 10 or 12 pages?
Reading is for peasants or for cave-dwelling ignorant conservative bigots. It is beneath the benighted Democrats, who already know everything without having to bother to read about it. Superiority oozes from their pores, and knowledge oozes into their pores, via osmosis.
I hate to admit it but there was a time when I thought Friedman a legitimate thinker. I have a copy of his book Longitudes and Attitudes on my shelf. Although he has saturated Keynesian thinking throughout he used to be able to be slightly objective. Maybe it was camouflage.
Gringo ... Someone [please forgive me that I can't remember who] pointed out today on the 'Net that this strange impulse toward universal memory lapses among the nomenklatura of the Democratic party is deliberate on their part. If they claim they haven't read it, then they don't have to discuss it, and when one of the few honest "journalists" left asks if they have read the 1953 Federal law on illegal immigration, they can claim not to have read that either, and thus don't have to discuss in any detail the amazing similarities between the two laws, the more tightly written of which is the Arizona law. They'd rather not "go gentle into the night," but rather "rage rage against the dying of the [liberal] light."
Marianne, my point is that their not having read something has not prevented them from stating their opinion on it. Far from it. They don't need to read it, because they JUST KNOW. Repeating the liberal narrative on the subject is what suffices. It is not necessary to know what has actually been written.
It's not a memory lapse- deliberate or not- it's ignorance. At least they are often honest enough to admit ignorance- our POTUS excepted-perhaps because they realize that a few questions would quickly expose their ignorance. They don't feel all that ashamed about being ignorant, as long as they are following the liberal/progressive narrative, like all good people do. I would prefer that they actually knew Federal immigration law, for example, and were feigning ignorance on the supposition that they needn't explain themselves to the great unwashed, but I have seen too many examples in the last year where our government muckety-mucks don't know what they are talking about, when they claim they do.
These clowns have no idea about what Federal law on immigration law is, just as they have no idea what is in Arizona law, just as they had no idea what was in the Health Care Deformed Bill they voted for. In their not so humble opinion, as one of the good guys they don't need to know the details. Someone further up the food chain is taking care of that. Or so they believe.
Friedman mentions "gerrymandering" and it makes me wonder how this country might have turned out of we just imposed a "checkerboard" template on each state and elected representatives based upon such a system. Just look at PA-12 and tell me the country isn't totally dicked up. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pa12_109.gif)
Thanks, Gringo. for your thoughtful answer to my comment. You are undoubtedly right that it's ignorance on the liberals' part. But it does seem to be a deliberate avoidance of admitting that there is already a Federal law, passed in 1953, which the Arizona law largely duplicates, except that Arizona's law expressly forbids racial profiling. The Federal law does not, since this silly example of political correctness didn't exist at that point.
Marianne, agreed with you that at this point in time, there appears to be deliberate avoidance of what Federal law says. Anyone who has kept up with the news about the Arizona law was aware within a short time of passing that it mirrored Federal law, and at least one article I read linked to the specific Federal Code. Perhaps the libs don't bother to read such informed news sources.
Moreover, they keep repeating the canard that the Arizona law profiles, when it has been pointed out time and again that the law states that an immigration question is to come up only when the police officer has otherwise detained someone for questioning.
They haven't changed their narrative even when it has been repeatedly pointed out that their narrative is an inaccurate representation of the law.
As has been said in another context, ignorance of the law is no excuse.
In closing, I find it absurd that Mexico protests against this law, given how Mexico responds to illegal aliens. I have been on Mexican buses within 50 miles of the Guatemalan border where Mexican police take off the buses anyone without appropriate documents. Or better said I find it absurd that the libs ignore such inconsistencies in the "immigration" narrative.
Why has no one personally called out ?bama's misrepresentations of the Arizona law? We need that South Carolina congressman to once again say "You lie."