Cheap shots, 2/1/2013

PresObama said a decade of war is ending War on Terror is 25yrs old It will continue PresKennedy said"it will be a long twilight struggle"
— ChuckGrassley (@ChuckGrassley) January 27, 2013

OK, Senator, I get that the War on Terror really started in 1988 when Al Qa'eda was founded, but you'll have to admit we didn't commit that many troops right away, or even, in fact, know about it, and then what did happen 10 years ago wasn't the War on Terror either but the War on George Bush's Inferiority Complex in Iraq, although a kind of Qa'eda ultimately showed up once the room had been cleared for them. But I'm virtually certain President Kennedy wasn't talking about Osama in 1961. Or even Khrushchëv.

Now the trumpet summons us again—not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need; not as a call to battle, though embattled we are—but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle, year in and year out, "rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation"—a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself.

What did you do in the struggle against war today, Chuck? What did you do today about poverty and disease, Senator? What did you do exactly to earn the right to throw Kennedy quotes in people's faces?

Chuck thought the long twilight struggle was the Romney campaign. August 2011, from the Washington Post.

You might be a conservative if...

The following is a Heritage statement on immigration, in its entirety. Read it carefully; there will be a test:

America’s heritage of immigration has fueled our nation’s strength and diversity, yet our immigration system has become so politicized and dysfunctional that it causes untold personal tragedies, strains the fiscal capacity of public services in many states, and prevents many from pursuing the American Dream. Complex, comprehensive legislation based on back-room deals never works, and the Senate immigration proposal announced this week and echoed yesterday by President Obama—to the extent that it repeats the mistakes of the past—will further polarize Americans, fail to solve the real policy problems, and make matters worse.

Immigrants come to our country for freedom and economic opportunity. We are concerned that many aspects of the framework for comprehensive reform will undermine the very foundations that make for America’s exceptional success. Policymakers should refrain from committing to such broad statements before the actual legislative language is available for public review. A proposal that would grant individuals who are in this country illegally a pathway to citizenship violates the rule of law and is unfair to those who have obeyed our immigration laws.

The Heritage Foundation believes that America’s immigration system must be reformed through an open and public step-by-step, problem-solving approach that unites Americans and creates a system that welcomes immigrants, protects our sovereignty, encourages assimilation, and expands opportunities for everyone. Once such common-sense reforms are in place and working, lawmakers can determine how to respond in a fair, compassionate, and constitutional way to those who have come to our country illegally.

Questions:

1. What were the mistakes of the past? Does the Senate proposal repeat them? If so, what untold tragedies will they cause, which states will they strain the fiscal capacities of the public services of, and how will they prevent many from pursuing the American Dream? Be specific.

2. To what extent does the Senate proposal repeat the mistakes of the past? Is it enough to polarize Americans, fail to solve problems, and make matters worse? How many problems and how much worse? State your evidence.

3. Which aspects of the framework for reform will undermine the very foundations that make for America's success? Which foundations in particular?

4. What broad statements have which policymakers publicly committed to?

5. Why is it OK for the Heritage Foundation to make broad statements before the actual legislative language is available for review?

6. How does a law establishing a way for undocumented immigrants to be in compliance with the law violate the rule of law?

7. How is a law establishing the path to citizenship unfair to those who have obeyed immigration laws? Is it more fun to be illegal, or what?

8. Does the Heritage Foundation have an alternative plan? Describe in detail how it avoids untold tragedies, straining the fiscal capacities of the public services of many states, and preventing many from pursuing the American dream?

9. What exactly would be the harm in being fair, compassionate, and constitutional right now?

If you can answer 5 to 7 of these questions based on the given information, you might be a conservative. I whipped off my metaphorical cap and cried, "This thing is totally semantically empty!"

Cattle Car, via Rocketboom.

First they came for the collateralized debt obligations, and I said nothing...

Idaho state senator Sheryl Nuxall, via ThinkProgress, explaining why she compared insurance companies under Obamacare to Jews under the Third Reich:

“I felt badly for the Jews — it wasn’t just Jews, but Jews, and Christians, and Catholics, and priests. My thing was they didn’t know what was going on. The insurance companies are not realizing what’s going to end up in their demise.”

It was an unbearably poignant sight as they shoved the corporations into the cattle cars—manufacturers separated from their finance arms, banks from their brokerages. I saw a mother company pushing her little subsidiary away: "It's too late for me... run, darling, run... for the Caymans!"