House of Eratosthenes

I’ve been as consistent in my support of Fred Thompson as the Ron Paul bloggers have been in their support of “Congressman No.” If you couldn’t vote unless you had a blog, it seems to me the race would boil down to some kind of Thompson/Paul match-up…with Thompson eventually coming in second, possibly a distant second. And it further seems to me, that if you’re undecided or if you’re pushing someone besides Thompson and Paul, it would be an interesting exercise to scour the Thompson blogs and the Paul blogs and take note not so much how many bloggers are going with each candidate, but how they go about arguing their points.

Simply put, the average Paul blogger, much noise as he may make about the Constitution, barely knows what it is. And he certainly hasn’t read it.

The Thompson blogger, on the other hand, ends up supporting the Constitution in a kind of round-about curve-ball way, using a longer arc that demands not only knowledge about the Constitution and original intent, but a somewhat cynical, albeit cheerful, bullshit-detector. And right now, we’re pretty pleased because the Republican party is going through a badly needed shake-up. Right now the front-runners are Giuliani and Huckabee. Two weeks ago it was Giuliani and Romney. Fred’s holding at about third or fourth, maybe even fifth, but a lot can happen.

Except for Paul actually getting the nomination. Those other candidates are like ping pong balls in one of those lottery machines, and Congressman Paul is sort of like a lead weight tossed in there. Well, good. Congressman Paul is a just-plain-bad candidate. He’s a twenty-first century Jimmy Carter. With spam.

I’m hoping for slow-and-steady. I gather the impression Giuliani fans are a little tired of Giuliani and Huckabee fans are tired of Huckabee. Fred-fatigue is something that, if it exists at all, works pretty slow. He’s a charming guy. He’s the last guest you’d kick out of your house as the party winds down to a close, and he’s highly unlikely to be hanging around that long.

I think this works well with the Average American Voter, and his armpit-high fatigue factor with everyday politics bullshit, particularly with the immigration flap. We have, among Malkin’s linkage, a story in American Spectator about an Average American Presidential Candidate and his — unfortunately — extremely average nonsensical ravings about immigration policies, which I feel reflect poorly on most of the other people running, from both parties.

On immigration, [Mitt] Romney was utterly Clintonian. He said that when in November 2005 he described the Bush/McCain approach to immigration as “reasonable” and “quite different” from amnesty, he wasn’t endorsing the proposal, but just describing it. He hadn’t formulated his own position on immigration at the time. That’s right up there with Hillary Clinton saying in the debate that she didn’t say she supported driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants, but she just said that a proposal to do so “makes sense.” Even if we were to get into the Christmas spirit and be extraordinarily generous by granting Romney that an elected official saying pending legislation is “reasonable” doesn’t constitute support for the legislation, it still doesn’t get him off the hook. His description of the proposal was that it was “quite different” from amnesty, and yet during this year he has ceaselessly leveled attacks on McCain by accusing him of supporting “amnesty.” So even being generous to Romney, this constitutes a major change in position, not just from some long ago Senate race in 1994, but from late 2005.

I’m not with the majority much. But I think I’m with the majority when I express my disdain for complicated answers to things that are, in fact, actually simple.

Tragically, we’re having a debate in this country about whether illegal immigration even is simple. This is like a poison in America, and it contaminates many more things than just illegal immigration. We have certain rules — some of which I admit are unprincipled and silly, and uphold no high ideals until it is time to practice equal enforcement. And then when it is time to practice equal enforcement, then even the unprincipled and silly rules become sacred.

A lot of times, we find out if & when the rules are equally-enforced against certain classes of people, it causes pain.

And then we’ve developed this unfortunate mode of thinking in which we say the issue is “complicated” when it isn’t. And we know the issue isn’t complicated at all. We just use the c-word to try to shake things up a little, to produce a different outcome for selected individuals and groups of people. Almost always, to help those individuals and groups of people.

But America doesn’t pass out licenses to break the law. We like to run around saying things like “nation of laws, not of men” and “no man is above the law.” If the illegal immigration issue is indeed “complicated,” it is only complicated to the extent that it involves genuine compassion for some people who really do need it; that, and a whole crap load of money flowing to unethical businesses that exploit cheap, illegal labor.

But I’m like Al Pacino with that c-word. Don’t tell me it’s “complicated,” because that insults my intelligence.

I think this will work out well for Fred. I get e-mails all the time, in the comments section here as well as off-line, from some people I consider very dear friends who want me to give Giuliani a third, fourth, fifth look. Or…Romney or Huckabee. That triumvirate of inconsistent, waffling Republican candidates have all been embarrassingly inconsistent on this issue, which in my eyes (and nobody’s been able to make a rational, well-thought-out, left-brain argument to the contrary) is as simple as anything else is. They’ve all equivocated. They’ve all talked out of both sides of their mouths.

But not Fred. And you know what’s really cool about Fred? As he went about enforcing this law, he’d do it somewhat compassionately. Not ass-hole-ish-ly. Not in a way that would involve tar & feathers & catapults and television cameras. At least, he’d be a lot less likely to do something like that, than…maybe, a President Freeberg.

Because I’ll be honest here. I see stuff like the clip you see below, and I kinda go a little nuts. Reasons why, we’ll leave undiscussed here. But people like me, we have stories to tell too, and we have reasons to take this very seriously.

You can’t extend compassion to the innocent and the guilty, both. You must choose.

48,000!?! Holy crap. Yes, let’s give them licenses.
- tim | 12/19/2007 @ 09:54
Ok, that video got pulled. I shoulda watched it when I had the chance. But your little summary, I guess, gets me the gist of it. JUst wish I could see it. Oh well.

President Freeberg.

President Morgan K Freeberg.

It does have something of a ring to it, doesn’t it? 😉
- philmon | 12/19/2007 @ 13:45
Oh, the horror, the horror…FDS would make Bush Derangement Syndrome a dusty, unknown memory.

Video is showing through just fine here, Phil.
- mkfreeberg | 12/19/2007 @ 14:42
And then we’ve developed this unfortunate mode of thinking in which we say the issue is “complicated” when it isn’t. And we know the issue isn’t complicated at all. We just use the c-word to try to shake things up a little, to produce a different outcome for selected individuals and groups of people. Almost always, to help those individuals and groups of people.

Ooooh…push my buttons, Morgan. Go ahead. I’m not insulting your intelligence when I say “it’s complicated,” because it IS. Sure, you could say “No, it ISN’T. Just round ’em up and deport ’em.” And you’d be correct, on the surface. Simple problem, simpler solution.

Except for that ol’ Law of Unintended Consequences. And a LOT of what-ifs. What if a small percentage of the 12 million illegals…say one percent, decided to RESIST? Would you be prepared to watch the barrio in LA being assaulted with Strykers? Would YOU sign up to help? Would the rest of the world understand live video footage of troops firing into a mob, including women and children? And what about the troops themselves? What if, once again, a TINY minority of regular Army or more likely, National Guard, troops said “No. No, I won’t fire on these people.”? What then? I dunno about you, but I’m just not ready for Civil War, Part Deux.

And what if all 12 million decided not to resist? Could we, as a society, stand the spectacle of mass-deportations? The publicity? The images? The Dachau boxcar comparisons? The “human interest” stories so beloved by our media? The Left carps about our standing in the world community and all that hoo-ha. Our “standing” would REALLY take an unsurvivable hit if we did as you suggest…or what I perceive to be your suggestion. Correct me if I’m wrong.

I don’t think you’ve really thought this through, Morgan, and that surprises me, as it flies in the face of your philosophy… i.e., logic over emotion. The whole immigration issue is so fraught with emotion…on both sides…as to be nearly irreconcilable. But I’d be interested in hearing your deportation plan, if there is one.
- Buck | 12/19/2007 @ 16:10
Well, it’s out of the question to just let ’em on in, Buck, even if we’re “grandfathering” them in. To declare one hundred percent compliance an impossible goal and strive for something more manageable — very reasonable. Doable. Chock full of precedent. To declare a certain infraction to be “not really illegal even though we all ‘know’ it is” — patently un-American. To do so when the lives of innocents are in jeopardy, and we darn well know it — that’s just putting demographically interested poiltics above the safety of the innocent.

Like I said before, I’m full of respect for your judgment of character and if you’ve known some folks and declare them good, I’m sure they are. But that is THEM. We can’t generalize what the rest of the 12 mil are doing here. We don’t even know for sure they’re all who they’re supposed to be.

Plan? Just “hit” things. Unannounced. Hit a factory. Hit a town. But that’s phase 2…and I understand it would have a lot of drawbacks. Phase 1 is far smipler. Just stay away from amnesty, or anything like it. Or, to be even more modest still, call our politicians on the carpet and make them tell us what they’re going to do — NO doubletalk. The safety of our men, women and children depend on it.
- mkfreeberg | 12/19/2007 @ 16:20
Plan? Just “hit” things. Unannounced. Hit a factory. Hit a town. But that’s phase 2…

So…no mass deportations, I take it? That’s good. As far as “Phase Two” goes, isn’t that what’s happening, as we speak? It appears to be working, as well, despite the (isolated) howls of indignation we’re seeing. I think we’re in agreement here: i.e., …

1. Lock down the borders. REALLY lock ’em down…build the fence, patrol, apprehend, deport…summarily, no hearings involved, no exceptions.

2. Clamp down on the employers of illegals. See “Arizona” (op. cit. in another comment.), but more importantly… enforce existing federal law(s).

3. Re-write the immigration rules/policies/procedures to (a) make ’em workable and (b) (more importantly) enforceable.

Did I leave anything out?
- Buck | 12/19/2007 @ 18:58
Ah, cool. Yesterday afternoon it was telling me that the video was no longer available.

Yeah, I’m with Morgan on the amnesty thing. It really isn’t complicated. Saying “no amnesty” doesn’t mean we have to go round up 12 million people and deport them. Saying “no amnesty” is saying “yeah, it’s still against the law, and we can bust your a** for it at any time if we find you.”

Then there’s actually enforcing the law, and no, it’s not a matter of sending out the National Guard to hunt down every last one of the 12 million.

I say

1) It’s still against the law for you to come here without going through proper channels
2) It’s going to remain against the law for you to come here without going through proper channels
3) If we find you here and you haven’t gone through proper channels, we’ll deport you
4) If you are in the business of hiring folks that you know are, or don’t care if they are or not, here legally, we’ll fine your a** and throw you in jail

And then we can address any problems with the proper channels. Because addressing that part of the issue without making it clear that you have to use proper channels if you wish to be here and work is meaningless if we’ve made it amply clear that we’re not going to do anything about it one way or another anyway. So why bother?

We did this once before. We said “hey, all ye all ye outs in free! But from now on…..” once before. If we do it again this time, who will take it seriously?

“Well don’t worry about that law, my son. In 10 or 12 years they’ll give you blanket amnesty like they did your uncle Pepe last year, and your great-uncle Paulo back in the ’80’s.”
- philmon | 12/20/2007 @ 17:45
or don’t care if they are or not, here legally

That should probably read

or don’t care if they are or not, here illegally
- philmon | 12/20/2007 @ 17:54
[…] One of our very best blogger friends objected, predictably, when I said… And then we’ve developed this unfortunate mode of thinking in which we say the issue is “complicated” when it isn’t. And we know the issue isn’t complicated at all. We just use the c-word to try to shake things up a little, to produce a different outcome for selected individuals and groups of people. Almost always, to help those individuals and groups of people. […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 12/20/2007 @ 22:25
[…] Here’s another interesting post I read today by House of Eratosthenes […]
- Exercise Balls » King Endorses Thompson | 12/20/2007 @ 23:00

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

King Endorses ThompsonWednesday, December 19th, 2007

King Endorses Thompson
Wednesday, December 19th, 2007