ETA: As I wrote this, there was talk of some executive order (though we were assured this couldn't be done and no policy change was in place anyway -- who are we at war with again, Winston?) in the works or something. One was released that seems to have some effects though how much is unclear. One problem would be its intent to change rules that only allow short term detention of children. And, what about the over 2,300 (2300!) children already separated? People have cited loopholes in the text. Again, fine print and good faith of the parties.
The latest Trump cruelty, involving children as young as babies (Rachel Maddow broke down reporting them being in "tender age" detention centers), involves separating children from undocumented immigrants.
As Chris Hayes, who also took this very personally with a new child and all (and because he has human empathy), tweeted, it is a form of ransom. Pass my preferred immigration policy or else. This is an optional but possible approach given long term policy, which doesn't justify the usual Trump "it's the Democrats fault" b.s. It does show the problem with such policies and institutions writ large; there is always a chance at some point a bad actor will arise or a tragedy and so forth. It's a loaded gun in the dresser drawer.
Every Democrat in the Senate signed on to a bill to specifically deal with this tactic, but thus far, concerned blather aside, no Republican co-sponsors are on board. Darn thing even respects local discretion over child care policy, so federalism types should be happy (I know, I know). There is talk that there is pressure in the Administration -- given the blowback on this matter has been huge though unfortunately recent poll numbers suggest not enough -- of changing the "zero tolerance" approach. I would suggest looking at the fine print and remembering this was a self-inflicted wound.
And, the loaded gun is still there. It is fine to think long term though with this asshole and his enablers in power, I question what sort of legislative solution is possible. The issue is bigger than this one matter and we can go the "Obama was bad" route some (ignoring the DACA and Dreamers stuff etc., expecting him to do more, as will occur when the sane regain power). But, like with torture and waterboarding in particular, lines should be drawn regardless. This thing is just too big. There will always be a lot of executive discretion. But, certain lines should be there.
Plus, can we cut the bullshit about how "the left" or something are exaggerating? At some point, the level of the problem needs to be recognized and the realization "both sides" aren't the problem on a basic level. We had this with a previous statement involving "animals" that people assured us only covered MS-13 gang members. Now, in gambling in Casablanca level news, we have this:
[Some reference of international law also arose in the context of the first matter, including treaties we didn't join and have.]
On a completely different front, I am seriously impressed by this effort spent to review Cinderella's Hot Night. I prefer some of the Adam & Eve efforts airing late night these days (including use of natural noise during sex scenes) but that film does have a sense a fun to it. And, yes, it is a sort of Hallmark Channel movie mixed with soft porn. Saw two reviews reference that.
The latest Trump cruelty, involving children as young as babies (Rachel Maddow broke down reporting them being in "tender age" detention centers), involves separating children from undocumented immigrants.
As Chris Hayes, who also took this very personally with a new child and all (and because he has human empathy), tweeted, it is a form of ransom. Pass my preferred immigration policy or else. This is an optional but possible approach given long term policy, which doesn't justify the usual Trump "it's the Democrats fault" b.s. It does show the problem with such policies and institutions writ large; there is always a chance at some point a bad actor will arise or a tragedy and so forth. It's a loaded gun in the dresser drawer.
Every Democrat in the Senate signed on to a bill to specifically deal with this tactic, but thus far, concerned blather aside, no Republican co-sponsors are on board. Darn thing even respects local discretion over child care policy, so federalism types should be happy (I know, I know). There is talk that there is pressure in the Administration -- given the blowback on this matter has been huge though unfortunately recent poll numbers suggest not enough -- of changing the "zero tolerance" approach. I would suggest looking at the fine print and remembering this was a self-inflicted wound.
And, the loaded gun is still there. It is fine to think long term though with this asshole and his enablers in power, I question what sort of legislative solution is possible. The issue is bigger than this one matter and we can go the "Obama was bad" route some (ignoring the DACA and Dreamers stuff etc., expecting him to do more, as will occur when the sane regain power). But, like with torture and waterboarding in particular, lines should be drawn regardless. This thing is just too big. There will always be a lot of executive discretion. But, certain lines should be there.
Plus, can we cut the bullshit about how "the left" or something are exaggerating? At some point, the level of the problem needs to be recognized and the realization "both sides" aren't the problem on a basic level. We had this with a previous statement involving "animals" that people assured us only covered MS-13 gang members. Now, in gambling in Casablanca level news, we have this:
People at the time put Trump's "animals" comment in a wider context, even just going by the immediate context of the remark. But, you even had people like Kevin Drum of Mother Jones (who back in the Bush Era, the things I recall, at one point noted he wasn't too worried ... the Democrats would get back in power, and things would go back to normal) saying we shouldn't die on that hill. Dog whistles this blatant are easy to catch."Democrats are the problem," he wrote. "They don't care about crime and want illegal immigrants, no matter how bad they may be, to pour into and infest our Country, like MS-13. They can't win on their terrible policies, so they view them as potential voters!" he wrote.
Meanwhile, at Administration decided to withdraw from the UN Human Rights Council. One thing that stands out to me in that article is how much emphasis is put on Israel (this isn't just on the US side, mind you). It is not a great idea that an institution that represents the world (around two hundred countries) to put so much emphasis on one of them. Anyway, I'm with the previous Administration on this issue. Plus, the good faith of this bunch is lacking. Withdrawal does have a certain truth in advertising.But in 2009, President Barack Obama decided to rejoin the international body, out of a desire to reform it. “With others, we will engage in the work of improving the U.N. human rights system,” then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in a statement. “We believe every nation must live by and help shape global rules that ensure people enjoy the right to live freely and participate fully in their societies.”
[Some reference of international law also arose in the context of the first matter, including treaties we didn't join and have.]
On a completely different front, I am seriously impressed by this effort spent to review Cinderella's Hot Night. I prefer some of the Adam & Eve efforts airing late night these days (including use of natural noise during sex scenes) but that film does have a sense a fun to it. And, yes, it is a sort of Hallmark Channel movie mixed with soft porn. Saw two reviews reference that.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!