It's purely a federal law enforcement issue, right? Therefore it's at the president's discretion?
Deportation is always discretionary.
Without legislation, though, a succeeding President would be free to resume deporting these people, even those whom Obama has exempted from deportation.
It could be overriden by Congress if they liked, and may be.
It's purely a federal law enforcement issue, right?
It's also issuing work permits to those who are eligible.
3: seems unlikely, as Obama could veto. Also there's not enough votes in the senate is there?
What is conventional wisdom on what a president may order? (Cue take-out jokes)
What is conventional wisdom on what a president may order?
Pretty much anything that can be carried out exclusively through discretionary action by executive branch agencies and doesn't violate a specific law passed by Congress.
And that doesn't violate the constitutional separation of powers, of course. So he can't, say, levy a new tax by executive order, because only Congress can make new taxes.
In light of today's DC Circuit ruling on American citizens tortured by our military, pretty much anything he wants.
Seriously, the only constraints are Congress and the courts, and where Congress or the courts won't act, there are no constraints.
Pretty much anything that can be carried out exclusively through discretionary action by executive branch agencies and doesn't violate a specific law passed by Congress.... And that doesn't violate the constitutional separation of powers, of course. So he can't, say, levy a new tax by executive order, because only Congress can make new taxes.
The other constraint on executive branch action, at least in theory, is that it can't violate any enumerated Constitutional rights. But, as CCarp reminds us, that constraint is pretty weak as long as the courts will not act to enforce it.
The department of homeland security said that those who demonstrate that they meet the criteria will be eligible to be taken off the deportation list for a period of two years, subject to renewal....The new deal will be open to anyone who:
• came to the US before the age of 16 and is under 30 years old
• have continuously resided in the United States for a least five years preceding the date of this memorandum and are present in the United States at the moment; ...
How exactly do you "demonstrate" these things to satisfction of the department of homeland security, if you're undocumented?
School attendance, presumably.
School attendance, work attendance, bills in your name...
Demonstrating that you're present in the US at the moment doesn't sound too difficult. The others might be trickier.
I wonder how attractive this will be to a (justifiably) paranoid immigrant. In order to qualify, you have to affirmatively present your information to UCIS (at least, not with ICE) and are then granted a temporary, discretionary immunity from prosecution for removal. But if Congress acts to block the move or if President Romney enters office, all of a sudden DHS knows exactly where you live and has a file of people to immediately remove as part of a get tough immigration crackdown; you might move to first on the list to go. But the immigration good guys I know on Facebook seem super excited about this, so maybe I'm missing something.
Does it seem really screwy to anyone else that you can join the Army as an undocumented immigrant? Nothing weird about being in the military as a non-citizen, but it seems very strange that you could get a job working for the federal government without being in some legal immigration status. (I could see automatically regularizing anyone who joined up, but that doesn't happen.)
If you don't affirmatively present yourself, you could do so if you got picked up for deportation, no? It really needs to be something you don't have to proactively register for.
12: that would work for some, but all?
Also, I don't quite get the purpose of limiting it to persons who are currently under 30 years old. I assume for some reason that's supposed to be more politically palatable (since that seems to be the purpose of the other restrictions, and also it's obviously bad policy, so presumably it was done as a political compromise), but I don't understand why that would be. (I understand "first came before the age of 16", but not why only those now under 30 should count.)
Also it would be very Logan's Run-esque to register, and then eventually turn 30.
Right. Does that age limit guaranteed to creep up over time, or is everyone who registers now automatically ineligible for further exemptions from deportation once they hit 30?
18.last: Who wants them in the country after they've lost the dewy freshness of youth?
21 -- hmm, legalizing lithe young immigrants only. Was this sponsored by American Apparel?
Does it seem really screwy to anyone else that you can join the Army as an undocumented immigrant?
I don't know much about this, really, but I'm under the impression that a lot of "undocumented" immigrants have fake paperwork they use for identification. If you'd asked my how an undocumented immigrant could serve in the armed forces, I would have assumed it was by presenting false identification of some kind. But, thinking about it, that's got to be a felony, technically. So I guess they're hanging their hats on the "never been convicted of..." qualification?
23: Possibly I'm living in a fantasy world, but shouldn't the military be able to check people's documentation a little more reliably than that? I was assuming that there was a policy of allowing people to enlist even if undocumented.
But googling suggests that I'm wrong -- that anyone who qualifies as a veteran must have done it with phony documents. Or, maybe that's meant to cover someone who enlisted at a time in their life when they were documented, but whatever visa status they had later expired.
21, 22: Same rules as when we played "Fuck or Eat?" with the Neandertals.
Well, this thing called "Immigrants in the Military" says that "being a U.S. citizen or legal immigrant of the United States is ... one of the basic requirements to join the U.S. military."
Same rules as when we played "Fuck or Eat?" with the Neandertals.
Yeah, and look how well that turned out for them.
That is apparently one theory being bandied about, although I had not heard of it until it was mentioned in the other thread today.
31 - This paleo diet trend has gotten out of hand.
This is the comment that mentioned it, for those who haven't waded through the whole thread yet. It's an interesting idea, but I would need to see a whole lot of evidence to buy it.
Did we really eat the Neanderthals?
There's no evidence either way. There's some evidence that they ate each other in some circumstances and there's evidence that we ate each other in some circumstances. So it's a reasonable fictional device which passes the smoke test if you want it.
Ex recto, I would guess military enlistment is "don't ask, don't tell" with respect to citizenship. Maybe you have to tick a box, but you don't have to produce a birth certificate. Similar to enrolling in college -- did anyone have to produce a birth certificate?
Anyway, if that theory is true, I think the only plausible conclusion is that we ultimately decided the Neanderthals tasted better than they fucked. Which is a really weird thing to think about.
38. Who knows how well they fucked. But Hollywood certainly wouldn't have regarded them at hott, male or female. They would have had their own specialist category on porn sites.
39: Sure, but it's still a remarkable leap from that to "let's eat them instead."
There's a recent A Softer World that's actually quite relevant to this issue, but I'm not going to link it from work.
"Don't fuck what you eat" seems to be a reasonably deeply ingrained human taboo, up there with incest. BUT MAYBE THAT IS BECAUSE WE REMEMBER THE ORIGINAL NEANDERTHAL HOLOCAUST.
Anyhow, my paleolithic Europe novel would have huge Mary Sue problems. Wait, what thread is this?
Wait, what thread is this?
We seem to have collectively crossed the threads at some point there.
Anyhow, my paleolithic Europe novel would have huge Mary Sue problems.
Not necessarily a problem commercially, if Clan of the Cave Bear is any indication.
Well from the limited evidence there's no reason to suppose that intraspecific cannibalism was all that usual in either type, so where it occurred it was presumably motivated by some weird local cultural hang up. I wouldn't buy Sapiens picnicking Neannderthals to extinction for a second - it would be obvious from the archaeology; I might buy either type deciding they had some communal investment in occasionally eating one of the other lot to ward off evil spirits or something.
48: Oh, sure, I'll buy all of that. The specific theory oudemia mentioned strikes me as exceptionally implausible, although I'd be willing to give it some credence if it's backed up by some solid archaeological evidence. It's interesting to think about in the abstract, though.
So many questions could be answered once we clone them.
I'm terrified by the turn in this thread.
Personally I find cannibalism a much more pleasant topic of conversation than immigration policy.
51: Is there something about your ancestry you'd like to confess?
42: "Don't fuck what you eat" seems to be a reasonably deeply ingrained human taboo, up there with incest.
That's what I'm complaining about.
Not that deeply ingrained, if you believe what Kinsey says about rural boys. (Or what Ogged says about Korean girls.)
51: I'm reassured that cannibalism comes up even when I'm not the one to bring it up.
I actually wouldn't have thought of "Don't fuck what you eat" as a specific taboo at all. "Don't fuck anything but people" and "Don't eat people" separately, sure, but not with the middle term taken out like that. Like, Americans don't feel differently about bestiality depending on whether or not it's a food animal, right?
Americans don't feel differently about bestiality depending on whether or not it's a food animal, right?
Sure they do. They also feel differently about cannibalism involving lovers vs. strangers.
Portnoy aside, I wouldn't say there's any particular taboo on using food for masturbatory purposes either.
Portnoy aside, I wouldn't say there's any particular taboo on using food for masturbatory purposes either.
I'd say if it's food you're going to eat, that's pretty taboo.
Especially if you plan to serve the food to anyone else.
I dunno; carrot-in-the-vagina and so forth seems like a pretty widespread and not particularly shocking concept.
I'll admit that I don't have a clear sense of how taboo it is to eat the carrot afterward.
If it's a meat dish, two taboos counteract each other, making it okay.
It's an interesting juxtaposition/commentary that this conversation is taking place in a thread titled, "partial dream act."
The policy ... tracks closely to a proposal being drafted by Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, a potential vice presidential running mate for Romney, as an alternative to the DREAM Act.
Rubio did not criticize the administration's initiative Friday but said it would make it harder to achieve a permanent solution. "Today's announcement will be welcome news for many of these kids desperate for an answer, but it is a short-term answer to a long-term problem," Rubio said in a statement. "And by once again ignoring the Constitution and going around Congress, this short-term policy will make it harder to find a balanced and responsible long-term one."
Oh, good, so this is just like healthcare: our Democratic president is enacting Republican policies for them. And in both cases, these are policies that might be incremental steps in the right direction, but are still hugely suboptimal (in this case: tight eligibility restrictions, only temporary relief, no path to citizenship). And now the Republicans can start rabidly criticizing their own policy ("a short-term answer to a long-term problem"!). And this will also now be defined as radical, left wing of the debate. Exciting news.
70 gets it almost exactly right, except that I doubt Rubio's plan was ever going to get the approval of his own party. But the notion that this will now be seen as the radical edge solely because Barack X proposed it is depressingly correct.
Ha! I was about to say 51 -> 70/71
How do you feel about bestiality?
74: Can you be more specific? Or, wait, that was to teo wasn't it?
How do you feel about bestiality?
It ranks between cannibalism and immigration on this scale.
I don't make any strong distinction between edible and inedible animals in the context of bestiality, however.
71.last: Well it's understandable after all the havoc that closet socialist Bill Clinton wreaked on America.
60: I actually wouldn't have thought of "Don't fuck what you eat" as a specific taboo at all.
But somehow I think we can get there logically from "Never fuck anything smaller than your head." Which is a rule. Or should be anyway.
Eric Cantor: more edible than fuckable.
John Boehner: more fuckable than edible.
Mitch McConnell: neither fuckable nor edible.
79 makes no sense. A cow is bigger than my head and I would eat it. But I still wouldn't recommend fucking it.
77: In the context of bestiality the farm boy will be king.
A tentative typology of animals in the context of bestiality:
Food animals: taboo
Pets: only if they're larger than your head
Large carnivores: only if you're a super badass like George Washington
80: I'd rather fuck Cantor than eat him. He looks made from little else but bone, gristle, sulfur, and donkey mange.
Dolphins: the decision is not yours to make
81: A cow like that you don't eat all at once.
83. Which rather pointedly leaves horses. I know an anecdote about Friedrich Wilhelm I of Prussia presiding over a court martial of one of his cavalry officers which implies that this is not unknown, but presents practical difficulties.
Where horses fall in the typology is I think largely a matter of specific cultural practices and attitudes.
82: Where is Moby? (check the barn)
Pets: only if they're larger than your head
And not even then for pet Portuguese man o' wars. But wait, they're actually colonies, so no problem. Carry on, teo.
The original Dream Act failed because #1 it took seats at college away from citizens and gave them to non-citizens (while making the citizens subsidize the cost) and #2 contained a back door to full amnesty.
This version will likely work because the Republican Party is internally divided on the issue. As long as the plan doesn't cost money or take a limited resource away the Republicans will support it.
Military service has always been a short cut to citizenship.
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/theorderlyroom/a/citizenship.htm
I'm trying to think of additional categories, but pretty much all of the animals I can think of can be fit into one of the existing ones.
Aside from those that are excluded for straightforward physical reasons.
92: Those that belong to the Emperor?
Washington granted amnesty for children but not the British children.
Why can't we fuck what we eat? This is completely new to me. Sheep are a mainstay of bestiality and we eat them. I think Teo is secretly anti-mutton.
94: He can do whatever he wants with them.
96: I'm not necessarily endorsing the proposition, just trying to tease out its implications.
Anyway, this is all useful preparation for my date tonight.
Anyway, this is all useful preparation for my date tonight.
You're going out with an emu?
Teo means the dried, sugary fruit, tonight.
99: I was going to comment on the fact that you had apparently overcome Alaska's notoriously skewed gender ratio. But I had not appreciated how creatively you might have done so.
Why can't we fuck what we eat?
Because it's mushy.
I suppose we could have oral with it.
You're going out with an emu?
With my bird phobia? No way. Also, I think they technically count as edible.
I was going to comment on the fact that you had apparently overcome Alaska's notoriously skewed gender ratio.
It's not so bad in Anchorage, which may even have a ratio slightly skewed in the other direction.
You know what I say? Fuck the guy that inadvertently started this subthread.
Teo means the dried, sugary fruit, tonight.
The nice thing about this kind is that if things go well they're nicely seasoned when you eat them afterwards.
109: Are you saying he's a beast?
It looks like 107.last is not quite true, but the ratio is closer to par than for the state as a whole.
Argh, it's annoying seeing Facebook friends (from high school, but who I have fond memories of) posting crap about how Obama thinks he's a king and shit, what with the deciding not to enforce laws and such - because yes, enforcing the law to deport young illegal immigrants (who likely had no choice in the matter) is such a good thing to do. (I'm posting this here instead of getting in an argument when I'm tipsy following the England victory over Sweden.)
Argh, it's annoying seeing Facebook friends (from high school, but who I have fond memories of) posting crap about how Obama thinks he's a king and shit, what with the deciding not to enforce laws and such - because yes, enforcing the law to deport young illegal immigrants (who likely had no choice in the matter) is such a good thing to do. (I'm posting this here instead of getting in an argument when I'm tipsy following the England victory over Sweden.)
89: I'm in Nebraska, but not near a farm.
The president has the power to do it because all he's technically doing is granting "deferred action" in 2-year increments. It has to be implemented on a case-by-case basis. Congress is the only actor that can grant permanent status categorically (i.e., to a whole bunch of people).
This policy does nothing to allow anyone to qualify for permanent status (aka "green card") nor apply for US citizenship.
That said, it is an ENORMOUSLY important development.
Also, of course, the White House is making a very big deal of this being Secretary Napolitano's decision. Not that anyone is focused on that what with Obama making a live statement.
70, 71: We'll see Romney mostly avoid the issue going for dodges like it's supposed illegality, while the usual gang savages the policy. The media will, of course, consider it impolite to challenge Romney on this.
I haven't read this thread yet but I've been called to it. Prepare yourself for a forthcoming comment from me.
Catching up on the thread....
The new deal will be open to anyone who:
• came to the US before the age of 16 and is under 30 years old
• have continuously resided in the United States for a least five years preceding the date of this memorandum and are present in the United States at the moment; ...
How exactly do you "demonstrate" these things to satisfction of the department of homeland security, if you're undocumented?
I wasn't around for the '86 amnesty, but people who were say that it's done through things like school attendance records, apartment leases, utility bills, etc.
For several years now, some nonprofits have been urging their clients to save every scrap of paper relating to their lives in the US, for exactly this reason. Some agencies have even scanned and kept all of the papers for their clients.
I wonder how attractive this will be to a (justifiably) paranoid immigrant. In order to qualify, you have to affirmatively present your information to UCIS (at least, not with ICE) and are then granted a temporary, discretionary immunity from prosecution for removal. But if Congress acts to block the move or if President Romney enters office, all of a sudden DHS knows exactly where you live and has a file of people to immediately remove as part of a get tough immigration crackdown; you might move to first on the list to go. But the immigration good guys I know on Facebook seem super excited about this, so maybe I'm missing something.
Well, it's a calculated risk. Obama is deporting 400,000 people a year right now. Many undocumented immigrants are fearful at all times. Putting your name on a list that MIGHT get you deported at some indeterminate future time is not necessarily that scary, in comparison. The payoff is that it gets you a legal work permit, which dramatically improves the jobs open to you, your earning power, and your ability to participate fully in American life.
(Not to mention, undocumented people come from a wide range of classes, backgrounds, etc. It's not like when the government makes a special rule for one disaster-stricken country and then people who had traumatizing experiences with law enforcement in that country have to get brave enough to apply. )
If you don't affirmatively present yourself, you could do so if you got picked up for deportation, no? It really needs to be something you don't have to proactively register for.
People who are in removal proceedings (i.e. immigration court getting ready to be deported) are eligible to apply, in some cases. Don't know how long the window will be open.
Also, I don't quite get the purpose of limiting it to persons who are currently under 30 years old. I assume for some reason that's supposed to be more politically palatable
Because to the average member of the public who doesn't know anything about immigration law, people over 30 are adults who are criminals who were knowingly breaking the law and should have voluntarily moved back to their "home" country. Early versions of the Dream Act went up to age 35 but that got a lot of enraged pushback.
Right. Does that age limit guaranteed to creep up over time, or is everyone who registers now automatically ineligible for further exemptions from deportation once they hit 30?
I haven't seen written documentation yet, but the federal briefing today said anyone who was at least 15 and no more than 30 as of today, June 15, 2012. That means high-profile people like Jose Antonio Vargas, the NY Magazine author of "My Life as an Undocumented Immigrant" are ineligible (he's 31).
But googling suggests that I'm wrong -- that anyone who qualifies as a veteran must have done it with phony documents. Or, maybe that's meant to cover someone who enlisted at a time in their life when they were documented, but whatever visa status they had later expired.
Best estimates are that 40% of the 12 million undocumented people in this country originally *had* legally authorized status, but later lost it. I would imagine that many qualifying military service people would fall into this category.
Recently, I happened across a ``dating'' ``profile'' on the popular internet dating profile clearinghouse, "ok, cupid!". It closed with the following incredibly annoying, and fairly transparent in intent, statement:
I like people who are happy to examine their beliefs to see if they're justified. So here's a question for you: By your standards, is it morally wrong for people to have sex with animals, and why? And if your answer is yes, I have another question for you: do you eat meat?
Gosh, whatever could she be getting at by that, I wondered! You, too, doubtless wonder, because it sure as fuck isn't completely obvious that she's thinking about this matter in a fairly rigid fashion. Well, I being a lover of wisdom and of women in equal measure, I put on my most seductive prose style and wrote to her thus (laydeez, you may want to sit down before you read this—I won't be held responsible for injuries brought on by weak knees):
A question for a question: why is your followup to the proposed question prefaced by "if your answer is yes"? Nothing about a "no" answer to the question "is it morally wrong for people to have sex with animals?" indicates that either a "yes" or "no" answer to the question "do you eat meat?" would be forthcoming. (Anyway, the question should be "is it morally ok for people to eat meat?".) We can produce a witness for the no/no combination in Peter Singer, who doesn't think it's always morally wrong to get familiar with an ape but doesn't eat meat (note, however, that technically Singer doesn't think it's morally wrong to eat meat---he's in print copping to this---though lots of people, of course, think he does). I can't cite anyone who'd go no/yes on that pair, but it seems even more likely than someone who'd go no/no.
Anyway, you can build up to a justification for a yes/yes answer by considering instead these questions: is it morally wrong for people to have sex with people? ... to eat people? I'd be inclined to answer "no" to the first question about people, and "yes" to the second (we can remove or mitigate complicating factors of consent by presuming that we come across a fresh instance of person-roadkill, so someone already dead, and that no one will ever find out about the end this person has come to or our deed in any way: I say, still wrong!). Why? Well, people are futuenda, but they aren't edenda: entities to be copulated with, but not entities to be eaten. That's just what the concept "person" *is*; if you think that not people, but some other creatures, are proper objects of lust, then you and I just aren't talking about the same thing. Non-human animals, by contrast (someone who endorsed this line of thought might go on to say), are exactly the opposite: edenda (some of them, anyway: not pets), but not futuenda. The concept is moralized in itself---and moralized in just this fashion.
Here is what our friend had to say to this:
The question is designed to test for inconsistencies in one's beliefs. Only a yes/no pair counts.
That's assuming normal types of "eating meat" -- sure the roadkill scenario allows you to avoid a contradiction with the principle "it"s wrong to harm animals if they cant consent", but unless someone is deliberately missing the point i think it's clear i meant the standard cases of eating meat.
I could tell I was on the verge of making her mine, so I wrote back in turn:
But this involves several unjustified presuppositions. It presupposes that one *wouldn't* be being inconsistent in offering any other set of answers (though one can easily imagine inconsistent justifications for other sets), and, as your comment about consent indicates, it presumes that only *certain* kinds of things could justify either eating meat or not sexing animals up---again, without argument, and in the face of a counterexample, one which you seem to have swept by, somewhat (note that I invoked roadkill not in the context of eating non-human animals, but in the context of eating *people*).
Here's an inconsistent justification for saying "yes" to bestiality and "no" to eating meat: animals are here for our use, our pleasure; they're *for us*. If swiving them gives us pleasure, then there can be no objection to swiving them. They have no interests. But it's wrong to kill them; one can't just take the life of another---therefore one can't eat them, either, since you can't very well eat a living cow (or eat a cow without killing it). Inconsistency!
At the same time, there *isn't* anything inconsistent about saying that animals just *are not* things it is *proper* to copulate with, but *are* things it's proper to eat. *Not* because of some further fact about "consent" or their interests or whatever; that's just what they are. (*That* is the purpose of invoking *human* roadkill: that we just don't think of people as things it is ok to eat, even if we aren't sinning against any *interests* in doing so.)
Or, you could say something like this; it's cruel to have sex with animals, it goes against nature---namely, human nature. We shouldn't have sex with them because it's bad *for us*. (Similarly, such a person might say, it's bad for us to treat them harshly in raising them for slaughter---we shouldn't force-feed geese or clip the beaks of chickens, again not because of consent but because it accustoms us to bad habits in dealing with other humans.) But it doesn't debase our nature to eat animals we have killed with the appropriate degree of solemnity and care.
Consent is a red herring anyway. There is literally nothing to which a speechless animal can consent. You could just as well ask this pair of questions: "Do you believe it's morally wrong for humans to have sex with animals? If you answered 'yes', would you take your cat to the vet for surgery if it had stones?".
If you were really interested in testing for inconsistencies, you should demand answers to both questions regardless of the answer to the first, because you *could* reveal an inconsistency in *any* pair of answers---inconsistency is revealed by the *justifications* you give, not just by the yes or no themselves. There are, after all, many kinds of justifications for any of the answers to the questions you pose. The one you acknowledge in your reply is just one, and, for that matter, possibly the least interesting.
After all that—can you believe I'm still single?
The media will, of course, consider it impolite to challenge Romney on this.
By contrast, a reporter from the Daily Caller disrupted Obama's announcement today, shouting out despite being told the president was not taking questions.
I'm trying to remember whether anyone did anything similar to W.
Witt! Thank you very much for the info-dump.
The offhanded use of 'swiving' is a particularly smooth touch.
I would fuck you, Nosflow. Then we could grab a steak.
If only you had thought to bring Neanderthals into the conversation, surely all would have culminated in passionate bliss.
I told you to prepare yourself, Moby.
I only had seven minutes to prepare and I had to read 121.
Is James at 91 the usual James? (Content would be consistent with that, but e-mail address would seem to indicate not.) Or someone who has been around here with any frequency (or at all)? If not, I suspect he will be bemused by the neighborhood in which his comment landed (especially if he only read the front page post).
Sorry to dump everything at once like that. I've been a little busy today and hadn't seen the thread until just now.
91 is wrong in all of its factual particulars. There are intelligent arguments to make against the DREAM Act; they are not captured in that comment.
The patience required to answer "The question is designed to test for inconsistencies in one's beliefs. Only a yes/no pair counts." is so angelic and otherworldly that one can easily imagine its possessor to be altogether above the need to mate with humans.
Does angel-human sex count as bestiality?
Are they the fat little baby angels or the powerful warrior angels or the beautiful maidenesque angels?
||
Bave and I are on a train. There are bros. They are drinking. One of them just said "what is your opinion on 'Call Me Maybe'?"
|>
That's fantastic, Nosflow. Merging threads once more, someone should write a roman à clef about Nosflow's love life.
139: Or victoria's secret angels? Or just rich investors? Or tropical cichlids? 'Cause the last is definitely bestiality, smaller than your head, and edible.
"The question is designed to test for inconsistencies in one's beliefs."
Jesus, noflow, this indicates she was clearly fishing for a lipgoram in 'a' as a reply. You fucked up!
135: 91 is wrong in all of its factual particulars
The first claim in particular (taking college seats away from citizens) made me glad that it ended up in a sea of stupid bestiality in-jokes.
How many angels can fit on the head of a penis?
fishing for a lipgoram
A lipgoram? Sounds like a kiss gone wrong.
How many angels can fit on the head of a penis?
Is it hand-stretched?
I read 120 as a prelude to the chicken and crab pictures coming out again.
133
Is James at 91 the usual James? ...
Not me.
After all that--can you believe I'm still single?
I want to say "No."
122: After all that--can you believe I'm still single?
No. 122 is perfectly fine. If I were in the market for a lad matching your basic specs, I'd probably check first whether you're able to lay off it from time to time, but assuming you provided an answer in the affirmative, I'd ask you out. I don't know whether that's because I rather like Cora Diamond.
I'm trying to remember whether anyone did anything similar to W.
There was that Iraqi reporter with the shoe, but that should probably be considered a special case.
There was that guy who shouted stated forcefully to VP Cheney "Fuck you, Mr. Vice President" -- something like that -- but he wasn't a reporter.
Off to my date! I'll be sure to work in references to cannibalism and bestiality whenever possible.
Knock her socks off! Ladies love that.
Then put them on your ears and start shouting "I CAN'T HEAR YOU."
Also cut up her meat into bite size pieces for her. Take her plate from her when it arrives and then return it when everything is safe.
Text Nosflow if she gives you a decision tree about being a bestial vegetarian.
If there's a candle, show her how you can pass your finger through the flame so that she'll know you're brave.
When recieving oral sex, reach down and pinch her cheek and say "'Oo aw just so cute!"
Count how many rolls are in the dinner basket when it arrives and hold her accountable for eating her share. Penalties for going under match those for going over; this isn't The Price Is Right.
Push her chair in for her and see how far in you can scoot her before she speaks up.
Go to the bathroom and re-enter through the front entrance, with your collar askew and puffing slightly.
Use your asparagus as (ineffective) chopsticks.
Heebie, I really hope you never try to gaslight me. You'd be entirely too effective.
Remember, we got Flip and Lunchy happily paired. We can make magic happen for you, too.
Witt, if you ever need advice, I'm here for you.
Teo, don't forget to hold her thumbs in the parking lot.
Sneeze into your sleeve and then show it to her.
Holy crap, heebie must really have been a trial on the dating scene.
176: Sure, but it's all worth it when you get to reach down and pinch her cheeks.
I'm glad you save it for here, Heebie, but if you had a bad dating advice twitter feed I would totally subscribe. And actually check twitter.
The date went well. There was kissing.
Of course, I didn't see any of heebie's advice until I got back, so I was unable to follow it. Next time.
123
I'm trying to remember whether anyone did anything similar to W.
I don't know about W but it (reporters asking questions after being told no questions) happened all the time with Reagan.
91 is wrong in all of its factual particulars. There are intelligent arguments to make against the DREAM Act; they are not captured in that comment.
Problem 1 of the dream act: takes college seats away from citizens:
A. There are a limited number of college admissions spots available in any given year
B. There have consistently been more applicants than there are spots available.
Therefor if admission at a college is granted to an illegal alien that spot is no longer available for anyone else (EG a citizen).
Several of the initials versions of the Dream Act allowed access to instate tuition prices and federal financial aid for college (EG tax funded subsidies).
Problem 2 of the Dream Act: It grants backdoor amnesty.
Original versions of the Dream Act do not deal with "chain migration". This means that any family member could receive sponsorship by the recipient of the Dream Act.
Since Federal funding, instate tuition, and the possibility of chain migration are being removed from the new versions of the Dream Act legislation, it is pretty clear that others have seen this as real concerns with original versions of the Dream Act.
(EG a citizen).
Yes, especially since there are none of them furrin' students around at colleges anymore since the Teach Them Kids Good Act banned them from US colleges.
[Note: 185 does not imply that the author believes that to be the only flaw in the Problem 1 argument.]
179, 180: Is she smaller than your head?
There are a limited number of college admissions spots available in any given year
It's like you don't even see community colleges.
More seriously: I'm not sure which DREAM Act you're talking about. To the best of my knowledge, the federal government cannot grant in-state tuition to undocumented students.
However, there are many state-level laws (and proposed laws) dealing with this issue. Some are, confusingly, nicknamed "Dream Acts." In the past 10 years, some states have widened the scope of which state residents are eligible for in-state tuition, while others have narrowed it. The National Conference of State Legislatures has a pretty good list of which states are doing what.
The DREAM Act was going to repeal the federal ban, and leave the instate tuition issue to the states.
Original versions of the Dream Act do not deal with "chain migration". This means that any family member could receive sponsorship by the recipient of the Dream Act.
Again, I don't know what you're talking about. There is no immigration law or proposal that allows "any family member" to be sponsored.
All of the legislative versions of the Dream Act I've seen go like this:
1. Meet eligibility criteria
2. Apply for conditional permanent residency
3. Wait 3-6 years, then meet additional eligibility criteria
4. Apply for lawful permanent resident ("green card") status
5. Wait 5 years, then meet additional eligibility criteria
6. Apply for US citizenship
Under our current system, which prioritizes family reunification, any LPR or USC has the right to file for certain *immediate* family members. For green card holders, that means spouse or child. For US Citizens, that includes parent, spouse, sibling, or child.
Congress has not set any criteria saying that certain green card holders or US citizens are not eligible to file for relatives, and it's not clear to me that (in the case of citizens) such a restriction would even be legal.
However, you cannot apply for people who have already violated US immigration law. Or rather, you can *apply,* but it generally won't be granted -- there is typically a 10-year or lifetime bar on that person ever being granted any kind of a visa (visitor, permanent resident, etc.).
In other words, if a Dream Act eligible youth wanted to file for a parent who had crossed the border illegally, the youth would have to:
a) be over 21
b) have met all of the above criteria
c) be prepared for their family member to have to wait 10 years outside the US to be allowed back in*
The administrative action that Obama took yesterday isn't the Dream Act. It doesn't do a thing to move anyone toward permanent residence. Only Congress can pass immigration legislation that would do that.
And if Congress wanted to give the Dream Act kids permanent status, but NOT allow them to file for anyone else under any circumstances, they'd have to radically change immigration law as we know it. Certainly possible, but likely to set off an enormous controversy.
*There is a proposal to allow for a waiver, which would let people wait for 10 years inside the US, but it hasn't been enacted.
70 gets it almost exactly right, except that I doubt Rubio's plan was ever going to get the approval of his own party.
To be fair, it's far from obvious that the Heritage Foundation's healthcare reform plan was ever going to get the approval of the Republican party, either, when push came to shove.
190: There are sometimes hardship waivers granted (and they've streamlined the process at Ciudad Juarez), but otherwise, you're right. A non-citizen who came here as a child who meets the eligibility criteria has ~12 years before they will be able to petition in people who very likely may be permanently barred from adjusting.
People research disgust as a moral emotion (including Haidt) frequently use fucking something and then eating it as a prompt to elicit disgust. In one version of the prompt, a man is described as having sex with a frozen chicken, then cooking and eating it. In another version, he is only described as "masturbating with" the frozen chicken, perhaps because people felt there was something phallocentric about describing sticking your dick in an inanimate object as sex. Still the version where a man is described as having sex with a frozen chicken is much more disgusting, precisely because you immediately imagine him sticking his dick in it.
I normally register as fairly insensitive on tests that measure moral disgust, but this one really sqwicked me out.
Still the version where a man is described as having sex with a frozen chicken is much more disgusting, precisely because you immediately imagine him sticking his dick in it...
... and saying "Oo aw just so cute!"
I would think thawing your chicken before sex would be a good choice.
Remember, we got Flip and Lunchy happily paired.
Sure, and look how that has worked out. Do you know how many brunches I've eaten lately? How many different kinds of conditioner presently occupy my bathroom? Why I suddenly own a box of kale chips? Neither do I! Does that sound like happiness?
Do you know how many brunches I've eaten lately? How many different kinds of conditioner presently occupy my bathroom? Why I suddenly own a box of kale chips? Neither do I! Does that sound like happiness?
Pretty much, yeah. Congrats.
Are you sure that's not seaweed?
I do love brunch. I can't remember the last time I went out for brunch. Sigh.
I mean, I go out for lunch periodically. I'm not exactly deprived.
I am deprived of really fantastic bagels. That's what I would order at brunch. A bagels and lox plate.
I didn't know kale chips came in boxes.
She probably baked him some kale chips and gave them to him in a box. Sigh.
God, she's probably really thoughtful.
We go out for brunch a lot, because it has turned out to be a good setting for training Jane to eat at a restaurant like a civilized human.
Also because we like brunch.
She is very thoughtful. It is both pleasant and unsettlingly different from one's past experience.
210: Are you making any progress with that? Have any tips to share?
188: I'm not sure which DREAM Act you're talking about. To the best of my knowledge, the federal government cannot grant in-state tuition to undocumented students.
I'm glad this came up: a friend last night was likewise insisting that this mini-DREAM maneuver meant in-state tuition, and I couldn't manage to shake him of that belief. I suspect it's a wide-spread misapprehension.
210: Are you making any progress with that? Have any tips to share?
(a) Ahem. Well, let us just say that the resemblance to a civilized human is sometimes highly approximate. Shaking pepper on the table is totally civilized, right?
(b) Outdoor seating, casualness commensurate with table-peppering, and a willingness to issue/follow through on ultimatums of the form If You Do That Again, We're Leaving Immediately. But we really need to up that last one if we ever want to get beyond the table pepper stage. And let us not speak of our far greater laxness at afternoon coffee outings, where just today we (among other things) let Jane lie tranquilly in the middle of the floor while people stepped over her on the way to the counter.
[Dozens of members of the Unfogged commentariat: Wow, you suck.]
Table-peppering sounds okay. It's beketchupping that's controversial. (Does 'beketchupping' have one 'p' or two?)
216: Geez, redfox, I would never step on Jane in the coffee shop, but I realize I can't speak for anyone else.
218: Yes, I would try not to step on or trip over her too. But I'm old, not as coordinated as I used to be, and have some high-powered trial lawyers in the immediate family.
I would squish that baby's head like a ripe tomato.
Then again, I've just drunk close to a full bottle of wine. Forgive me.
If You Do That Again, We're Leaving Immediately.
We found that, at Jane's age, that threat doesn't do much good, unless being at brunch is perceived as a treat.
As the kids have gotten older girlchild has definitely come to perceive brunch as a treat, and is now a little princess at tea time. Boychild sees no reason to sit still after he has eaten his chocolate chip pancake.
Eat out with the kids definitely gets easier, but it is easy to forget that, as you get acclimated quickly to new levels of good behavior.
When Caroline was Jane's age eating out met one adult taking a turn eating while the other one took her outside to freak the fuck out. Then the other adult got to eat while the first managed the child.
It's almost like eating out with heebie.
We found that, at Jane's age, that threat doesn't do much good, unless being at brunch is perceived as a treat.
Conveniently, she does, and as a result is generally down with the proceedings. Do I regret describing her cafe behavior here? MAYBE.
220.1 is uncomfortably mental-image-inducing and generally unpleasant.
We've had great success taking the kids out for breakfast tacos regularly. It's a sit-down restaurant that's generally pretty empty at 7:30 am, Friday mornings. The servers know us. The kids get excited about it. The food comes quickly-ish. They like the food and can handle themselves around it. The table isn't too crowded with things they're not allowed to touch.
215:Don't you realize that children Jane's age are HARVESTING pepper and she's wasting it as you enjoy your coffee?
No, seriously, good for you. Brunch is just brunch, not the friggin' opera and kids learn to behave by getting chances to behave.
How many different kinds of conditioner presently occupy my bathroom?
I'm curious. How many?
It's all I can do not to try to answer this question on Lunchy's behalf.
And let us not speak of our far greater laxness at afternoon coffee outings, where just today we (among other things) let Jane lie tranquilly in the middle of the floor while people stepped over her on the way to the counter.
But it was super cute!
214: Your friend is likely thinking of the Maryland state-level Dream Act. It was signed by the governor last month but due to a court challenge will be voted on by the public in a November referendum.
Capsule summary of arguments pro/con:
Pro: As Maryland residents, these young people and their families pay property taxes, sales taxes, income taxes and other use and occupancy taxes. They should not be penalized compared to other Maryland residents who contribute similarly. (Absent the state Dream Act, they have to pay international-student rates for tuition, which are typically much higher.)
Con: Why allow young people to take up spaces in state colleges that could be filled by other students?
Pro: The legislation specifically requires students to do their first two years at community college, where space needs are less of a consideration.
Con: What's the point in allowing further education for people who aren't legally allowed to work?
Pro: Investing in human capital is never a waste, and in this case is also the morally right thing to do.
Con: Permitting people who committed a civil violation (i.e. broke immigration law) to attend college sends a bad message and endorses lawbreaking.
Basically it was as if she had suddenly been deprived of her axis mundi.
230: Your friend is likely thinking of the Maryland state-level Dream Act.
Yes.
Further to 230 and 232: It's an interesting argument. I (and my friend who's confused about the Obama mini-DREAM act, but is a schoolteacher) are totes in favor, but there are indeed arguments to be rebutted ... which nuance won't make its way into the public's consciousness for the referendum ballot question.
Maryland's referendum questions will be interesting in November: we'll likely be voting on whether or not to uphold the same-sex marriage act as well.
Some of this is shaded, or flavored, by the fact that our Governor Martin O'Malley is a possible 2016 Democratic presidential candidate.
Does that sound like happiness?
Yes.
I look forward to President Romney picking and choosing the laws to enforce. This is going to work out well. I can feel it. And "but Bush!" is a compelling argument too.
230
... Investing in human capital is never a waste ...
This is of course nonsense and leads to people incurring crushing nondischargable student loan debt to pay for worthless "investments" in themselves.
I look forward to President Romney picking and choosing the laws to enforce.
It is interesting to me that most of the people I know who are enraged about the prosecutorial discretion decision on on immigration are not enraged by the president declaring he has the right to assassinate American citizens without charges or trial.
I personally find the latter to be horrifically stunning. Time to make another donation to the Center for Constitutional Rights.
239
It is interesting to me that most of the people I know who are enraged about the prosecutorial discretion decision on on immigration are not enraged by the president declaring he has the right to assassinate American citizens without charges or trial.
Assassinating foreigners is ok?
It's not just selectively enforcing laws or executing US citizens, it's also appointing the head of the CFPB during a non-recess and not carrying out the terms of NCLB. This is like cyber warfare it's not clear where it's headed or if it's really a fight you want to start.
240: Nope, my read of the peace testimony is that killing human beings is not the way to go.
241: I'm starting work in a few minutes so I won't be able to stick around to argue this, but I'm honestly puzzled. Your comment seems to imply that a) assassinating people is a power grab on par with making a federal agency appointment, and b) Obama is somehow acting outside the norm for presidents in his exercise of executive power over appointments, law enforcement, regulatory action, etc. Neither of those contentions seems remotely plausible to me.
242
Nope, my read of the peace testimony is that killing human beings is not the way to go.
Not really a tenable position for the commander in chief of the US military.
All we are saying is give remotely-controlled killing machines a chance.
I look forward to President Romney picking and choosing the laws to enforce. This is going to work out well. I can feel it. And "but Bush!" is a compelling argument too.
All sarcasm aside, as a conservative, you should look forward to it. The exercise of discretion with respect to law enforcement priorities is a prerogative of the executive, and one of the major reasons that electing a President matters. The G.W. Bush administration chose to devote law enforcement resources to (for instance) combating obscenity, voter fraud, and racial discrimination against white people. Antitrust violations and securities fraud, not so much. Obama has a different set of priorities. And there's nothing wrong with that. I fully expect that a the President Romney's Attorney General will put a low priority on enforcing, say, the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. That's one of the many reasons to vote against him.
The Obama administration is also not particularly interested in securities fraud, antitrust, or financial fraud generally, so there's that.
I agree that prosecutorial (and police) discretion to selectively refrain from enforcing laws is a bulwark of both liberty and good governance. "Selectively enforcing laws" is what law enforcement agencies do.
246
... Antitrust violations and securities fraud, not so much. ...
When Enron and Worldcom collapsed amid bad accounting the Bush adminstration prosecuted and convicted the top executives responsible. When Lehman Brothers collapsed amid bad accounting the Obama adminstration did nothing.
Obama has a different set of priorities ...
So it appears.
And a lower priority is not the same thing as a policy decision dictated from the top not to enforce certain laws at all.
247
The Obama administration is also not particularly interested in securities fraud, antitrust, or financial fraud generally, so there's that.
On the other hand, now that the Republican primaries are over, Romney appears to have lost interest in enforcing our immigration laws.
James and Robert got there first, but I'll add that under Reagan, many S&L criminals got busted.
Of course, the modern Republican view on this is that Obama has been too tough on the money people.
Handing out a million work permits is not selective enforcement.
248.last: "zero priority" isn't a priority?
When Enron and Worldcom collapsed amid bad accounting the Bush adminstration prosecuted and convicted the top executives responsible. When Lehman Brothers collapsed amid bad accounting the Obama adminstration did nothing.
Conservatives are not good at history. It's a common belief among conservatives that both the 9/11 attacks and the collapse of Lehman Brothers happened under Democratic presidents. Shearer, think back: when Lehman Brothers collapsed amid bad accounting, there was no such thing as the Obama administration.
Conservatives also tend to mislead by omission. There is a real and important difference between Enron and Lehman: Enron was clearly a case of massive fraud (by a close friend and regular guest of one George W Bush). Lehman was primarily a case of massive incompetence. By omitting to mention this, the hope is that you'll assume the two cases were the same.
Conservatives also lie. There was fraud involved, although it wasn't the main cause, in the collapse of Lehmans - the Repo 105 transactions - and this fraud has, in fact, been investigated and prosecuted. Auditor Ernst & Young, which approved the transactions, is facing fraud charges in New York.
Wrong about history, wrong about the facts of the case, wrong about the response to the case.
I dunno, on this one Shearer is more right than not. It's 100% true that Reagan's DOJ and SEC were much more aggressive on securities and financial fraud than Obama's. The SEC has been particularly weak. For antitrust, the Republican administrations gutted enforcement, but the Obama DOJ is much less aggressive than Clinton's was.
He's 100% right that Obama hasn't been nearly aggressive enough on financial crimes, but the Lehman/Enron comparison is ludicrous and wrong in every important respect.
Also, the SEC is an independent agency and only 2 of the 5 current commissioners are Obama appointees.
If they brought charges against Lehman management, wouldn't they have to call Geithner et al. to testify? And isn't that why they didn't prosecute?
257 is true, but both the Chairman (who Obama appointed personally) and the head of enforcement (who the chairman appointed, with consultation from the white house) have been IMO super weak patsies. And the FBI and DOJ have put incredibly little effort into going after the big guys.
I agree that prosecutorial (and police) discretion to selectively refrain from enforcing laws is a bulwark of both liberty and good governance. "Selectively enforcing laws" is what law enforcement agencies do.
I think this is a bit glib. There's a difference between case-by-case prosecutorial discretion, and the decision to just not enforce large parts of the law. (Also a difference between immigration law and more obviously criminal law.)
While clearly in America that is how the game is played and there is nothing wrong with that, I would think it better to set it up so that that didn't happen.
I have a conspiracy theory about all of this. Many sensible people expected Obama to pursue prosecutions on any number of matters (war crimes, predatory lending, massive financial fraud etc.) Many sensible people also expected Obama to be impeached, or at least investigated microscopically.
It seems likely to me that there's a tacit understanding that as soon as the Republicans start formally pursuing Obama's imaginary crimes, then Obama starts pursuing the very real Republican crimes.
My guess along those lines has always been that the Obama administration has a (not exactly self-serving, but financial-industry-serving) belief that prosecutions would destabilize a fragile banking sector that can't take it right now (with 'right now' excused by the 2008 crisis, but to be extended indefinitely). This seems like bullshit to me, but like the sort of semi-plausible bullshit that makes an adequate excuse for not getting things done.
I don't think one need look to deeply for explanations beyond Democratic timidity for a lack of prosecutions (they've long favored one-sided depoliticization), but the lack of Republican investigations is mysterious. Maybe they think they were hurt by Whitewater and believe they will win anyway?
250.2: Of course, the modern Republican view on this is that Obama has been too tough on the money people.
And the current view of the money people as well. Which is simultaneously astonishing and predictable. Apparently eating shit is insufficient without proclamations of its transcendental yumminess.
Conservative-cautious rather than conservative-rightwing elements in the Republican party who think that officially endorsed investigations of Obama will expose a level of racism among the elements of the party engaged in the investigation that would disgust the voters?
If you think of the level of crazy that got associated with the Clinton investigations, and you know how much racism there is among people unhappy with a black president, it's not too hard to surmise that investigations into Obama would get very repellent, very quickly. I'd bet Republican party leadership doesn't want to open that can of worms.
Facts unearthed in investigations can't possibly be as good as the lurid allegations going around. Count this as a lesson learned from the Clinton travel office scandal, etc.
A formal investigation into Obama doesn't pull the racists out of the woodwork; it provides cover for the ones who are already out, and puts some nominally adult supervision in place. "We don't hate Obama because he's black, we hate him because he participated in a failed land deal, or he's a crooked Chicago ward-heeler or something."
Really, if you want to cover for racists, you need to get them talking about, say, how Obama is plotting to steal elections rather than how Obama is a Kenyan-born Muslim.
Also: The idea that the investigations of Clinton failed in their political objectives is, at best, debatable.
253
Conservatives are not good at history. It's a common belief among conservatives that both the 9/11 attacks and the collapse of Lehman Brothers happened under Democratic presidents. Shearer, think back: when Lehman Brothers collapsed amid bad accounting, there was no such thing as the Obama administration.
You are really grasping at straws here. Investigating and prosecuting this sort of thing takes years. Enron collapsed in 2001 declaring bankruptcy on 12/2. But Skilling and Lay didn't go on trial until January 2006 more than 4 years later. Lehman Brothers went bankrupt on 9/15/2008. It is obvious that it was up to the incoming Obama administration to handle the bulk of the investigation and any resulting prosecutions. But they weren't interested.
Conservatives also tend to mislead by omission. There is a real and important difference between Enron and Lehman: Enron was clearly a case of massive fraud (by a close friend and regular guest of one George W Bush). Lehman was primarily a case of massive incompetence. By omitting to mention this, the hope is that you'll assume the two cases were the same.
The cases were similar in that top management used deceptive but arguably legal accounting methods to hide how badly the business was doing. In the Enron case Fastow (and his associates) also used various forms of self-dealing to steal from the company. But if IIRC Skilling and Lay apparently were not aware of this and it didn't figure in their convictions. I am unaware of any clear line separating what Lay and Skilling knew and did from what Fuld knew and did.
Conservatives also lie. There was fraud involved, although it wasn't the main cause, in the collapse of Lehmans - the Repo 105 transactions - and this fraud has, in fact, been investigated and prosecuted. Auditor Ernst & Young, which approved the transactions, is facing fraud charges in New York.
This prosecution is a civil case brought by the state of New York. It is strange to bring it up in defense of Obama.
As I understand it after Lehman Brothers went bankrupt there proved to be a major gap between the value of Lehman's assets as listed on their books and what their assets were actually worth. Which sounds at least arguably fraudulent. And it is further my understanding that this gap contributed to Lehman's collapse because it made it difficult for the government to arrange a sale or merger of Lehman without providing a substantial infusion of cash to cover the gap.