I agree there is not way to gatekeep birthright citizenship that doesn't end badly, or at least far worse than issues that come from birthright citizenship. I believe that is why you have to have a sane and viable citizenship path for immigrants, to keep a fresh stream coming into the country of folks passionate about being an American.
In the abstract I hear you but I doubt there is a practical way to do it any other way. What it does do for me, at least, is it really shapes how I view other issues. Such as immigration specifically, where among the other messes of that issue we cannot even get a good handle and reform on making citizens and what that means which should be central to a sane immigration policy and reform.
I would agree with Saul with a distinction with Maddow, who I don't watch regularly or particularly agree with much FWIW, she has also become one of the best presidential debate moderators, showing her abilities beyond just a show format and the good sense of when to dial it down and do the journalism side of the job.
Fair enough but I don't think that is some that's going to be removable by rules, it's more function of human nature which, as we know, get's screwy when you try to legislate it
A small church in my home town recently (Jan) had an outbreak of over a dozen cases including relatives of mine because they made an idiot decision, dropped their standards for one - just one- service, and escewed precautions they had otherwise been following for months. Luckily nobody died and everyone recovered but that's all it takes: one moment after a year of doing differently.
Fair enough, and I'm using what you wrote to jump to the broader point not that you are advocating it yourself. As Jay mentions elsewhere here there is a constant drumbeat to get rid of all anonymity, and it is inevitable someone with enough stroke to get it as a bill in congress is going to try it. The push against anonymity will always be a hammer-nail dynamic cause the folks that need it most will never be in a position to preserve it themselves from folks who find it an annoyance at best and a threat at worst.
Patrick lays out a lot of divergent threads well here for a short piece, but I'll pick out the anonymity piece which I disagree with. I don't doubt that not only do a lot of folks want that but I suspect it is coming where anonymity will be stamped out on the internet. But I'm against it vehemently. All the issues with bots, and troll farms, and whatnot can be dealt with without doing that. I write/tweet under my own name, but I am very aware how many folks - including many right here at Ordinary Times, need such protections to freely express their opinions. I will never be for eliminating anonymity since like most half-baked regulatory fixes it will damage and punish the most vulnerable voices while empowering the folks that didn't need it in the first place.
On “OT Contributor Network: Polite Company Podcast”
Anyone of our contributors that has a media thing they want to promote we are happy to try had highlight it for them
On “Citizenship at Leisure In The Ball Pit Republic”
I agree there is not way to gatekeep birthright citizenship that doesn't end badly, or at least far worse than issues that come from birthright citizenship. I believe that is why you have to have a sane and viable citizenship path for immigrants, to keep a fresh stream coming into the country of folks passionate about being an American.
"
In the abstract I hear you but I doubt there is a practical way to do it any other way. What it does do for me, at least, is it really shapes how I view other issues. Such as immigration specifically, where among the other messes of that issue we cannot even get a good handle and reform on making citizens and what that means which should be central to a sane immigration policy and reform.
"
Standing invitation my friend, on that or any other topic you wish
"
Thank you
"
big stick was sitting right there waiting on you, Mike
"
That deserves it's own write up someday. Feel free to take it if you wish
On “Rush Limbaugh Dead at 70”
I would agree with Saul with a distinction with Maddow, who I don't watch regularly or particularly agree with much FWIW, she has also become one of the best presidential debate moderators, showing her abilities beyond just a show format and the good sense of when to dial it down and do the journalism side of the job.
"
I think I'll have more words on this later, but for this post keeping it more "this happened" and let the discussion take its course.
On “Impeachment Trial Day 5: And Then Things Got Interesting, Live Stream, Open Thread”
To be fair to your point enforcement for lying to congress is not an evenly applied thing historically, so enforcement it is certainly an issue.
"
That is untrue, it's still in federal code that you cannot willfully lie to the government, and the senate certainly qualifies.
On “Mitt Romney Doesn’t Give a Trump”
fixed
"
Things that are different are not the same
On “Wednesday Writs: South Bay United Pentecostal Church v Gavin Newsom”
Not True, Betty White had a recurring role as one/office administrator
"
One of my all time favorite shows
On “Social Media Platforms: Competitions, Compromises, and Potential Solutions.”
Fair enough but I don't think that is some that's going to be removable by rules, it's more function of human nature which, as we know, get's screwy when you try to legislate it
"
Correct
On “Wednesday Writs: South Bay United Pentecostal Church v Gavin Newsom”
A small church in my home town recently (Jan) had an outbreak of over a dozen cases including relatives of mine because they made an idiot decision, dropped their standards for one - just one- service, and escewed precautions they had otherwise been following for months. Luckily nobody died and everyone recovered but that's all it takes: one moment after a year of doing differently.
On “Social Media Platforms: Competitions, Compromises, and Potential Solutions.”
Fair enough, and I'm using what you wrote to jump to the broader point not that you are advocating it yourself. As Jay mentions elsewhere here there is a constant drumbeat to get rid of all anonymity, and it is inevitable someone with enough stroke to get it as a bill in congress is going to try it. The push against anonymity will always be a hammer-nail dynamic cause the folks that need it most will never be in a position to preserve it themselves from folks who find it an annoyance at best and a threat at worst.
"
I do get around on the Twitters
"
Patrick lays out a lot of divergent threads well here for a short piece, but I'll pick out the anonymity piece which I disagree with. I don't doubt that not only do a lot of folks want that but I suspect it is coming where anonymity will be stamped out on the internet. But I'm against it vehemently. All the issues with bots, and troll farms, and whatnot can be dealt with without doing that. I write/tweet under my own name, but I am very aware how many folks - including many right here at Ordinary Times, need such protections to freely express their opinions. I will never be for eliminating anonymity since like most half-baked regulatory fixes it will damage and punish the most vulnerable voices while empowering the folks that didn't need it in the first place.
On “Trump Impeachment Trial: Live Steam, Open Thread, Running Commentary”
Yes they do
On “From the Jerusalem Post: US Senate approves amendment to keep embassy in Jerusalem”
worked
On “One Step Backwards, Two Steps Forward”
Cannot thank you enough for all the hard work you do.
On “Linky Friday: Money For Nothing, and Your Clicks For Free”
Sorry about that. In my defense I lived in Vegas while Oscar was mayor.