Well, it’s been a great Christmas vacation, but now it’s time to get back to the grind. So, off we go, heading toward the new year…!
In an attempt to spark debate, the Dallas Morning News has named a generic “Illegal Immigrant” the 2007 Texan of the Year. Michelle Malkin has some great thoughts on this:
I respect the Dallas Morning News editorial board’s desire to foster debate and break new ground. But it always amuses me when newspaper editors think they’re doing something fresh and new in putting a “human face” to illegal immigration. Most immigration news coverage amounts to little else besides peddling illegal immigrant sob stories and whitewashing the negative consequences of open-borders chaos on the law-abiding population. This is the rule, not the exception.
Question: Why is it that the human face they want us to see belongs only to the law-breaker…and not the human face of those who have to enforce the law or bear the costs of lax enforcement?
Question: Why is the “illegal immigrant” the “Texan of the Year”–and not, say, the “Border Patrol agent?”
Question: Why is the “illegal immigrant” the “Texan of the Year”–and not, say, the victims of catch-and-release and failed deportation policies…like 15-year-old Dani Countryman of Kaufman, Texas–who was murdered in August by two illegal aliens with prior records who had entered the U.S. from Mexico illegally.
We’re also always lectured by many newsroom types about the “complexity” of the issue. But who’s guilty of oversimplification here?
There are non-violent, hard-working illegal aliens. There are violent, dangerous illegal aliens. There are moochers. There are militants. There are border-crossers. There are visa overstayers. There are earnest dishwashers. There are drug smugglers. There are jihadists. There are gangbangers. There are con artists. There are legitimate victims of bureaucratic screw-ups. To lump them all together under the “hard-working illegal immigrant” archetype and award them a “Texan of the Year” award strikes me as an unhelpfully reductionist and hackneyed approach.
This is obviously a hot-button political issue, but it’s something that needs to be addressed. Hopefully, voters will address it at the polls next year by putting into office people who will actually fight against illegal immigration.
McCain’s double speak
John McCain has made a bold statement that could require a very Clintonesque spin: “The fact is that I’ve never supported amnesty.” Oh really? What about these previous statements:
Sen. McCain, 2003: “Amnesty Has To Be An Important Part.” ” ‘Amnesty has to be an important part because there are people who have lived in this country for 20, 30 or 40 years, who have raised children here and pay taxes here and are not citizens. That has to be a component of it,’ he said. ‘How can we have a temporary worker program if we’re not allowing people who have been here for 30 years to hold jobs here?'” (C. T. Revere, “McCain Pushes Amnesty, Guest-Worker Program,” Tucson Citizen, 5/29/03)
In 2003, Sen. McCain Also Said, “I Think We Can Set Up A Program Where Amnesty Is Extended To A Certain Number Of People Who Are Eligible…” “‘I believe we can pursue the security programs and at the same time set up a system where people can come here and work on a temporary basis. I think we can set up a program where amnesty is extended to a certain number of people who are eligible and at the same time make sure that we have some control over people who come in and out of this country,’ he said.” (C. T. Revere, “McCain Pushes Amnesty, Guest-Worker Program,” Tucson Citizen, 5/29/03)
McCain seems to be making something of a comeback in the polls, and definitely has some good points – national security and foreign affairs experience. But, no one believes he would be strong on illegal immigration, and the fact that he is outright lying about his previous positions is perhaps a sign of a lot less integrity than we should have in a President. I’m liking McCain a whole lot less now.
More hate crimes you haven’t heard about
An investigation in Los Angeles has revealed that at least one Latino gang has conducted hate crimes ( i.e. murder based purely on the victim’s race). Why aren’t the Racial Reverends Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton all over this one? Is it only a crime when a white does it? According to their actions, yes.
Hillary’s new tactic
Apparently, Hillary Clinton got enough heat for planting questions in several debates earlier in the year that she’s decided to take a different tactic: no questions at all. If a tree falls in the forest and there’s no one around to hear it, does it make any noise? If Clinton doesn’t make any statements, can she claim she hasn’t made any false statements?
The Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) at George Mason University has conducted a study of media treatment of the presidential candidates over the past few months. The results:
Fox News Channel’s coverage was more balanced toward both parties than the broadcast networks were. On FOX, evaluations of all Democratic candidates combined were split almost evenly – 51% positive vs. 49% negative, as were all evaluations of GOP candidates – 49% positive vs. 51% negative, producing a perfectly balanced 50-50 split for all candidates of both parties.
On the three broadcast networks, opinion on Democratic candidates split 47% positive vs. 53% negative, while evaluations of Republicans were more negative – 40% positive vs. 60% negative. For both parties combined, network evaluations were almost 3 to 2 negative in tone, i.e. 41% positive vs. 59% negative.
I’m not one bit surprised by the figures on Fox, but I am actually very surprised that they found the MSM was only slanted 41% to 59% against Republicans. A silver lining, I guess.
There’s my two cents.