Lew wrote: "You cannot give Clinton or Democrats a pass, no more than I can Republicans, who blocked efforts at utilizing our own resources for so long."

That's actually what I was hoping you would say. Seriously. In order to get anything done in the next 4 (to 8) years, both sides have to take responsibility and hold themselves accountable for the gigantic mess we're in.

And this is precisely why I think Hilary Clinton would have been a terrible choice for the Democrats - she's such a lightning rod simply because of her last name that I can't imagine anyone from the right trying to find common ground with her on important issues.

Conversely, I think there's enough resentment left in her from her last experience in the White House that I don't know if she could move past it in trying to deal with Republicans, either.

When you mention more politicians trying to achieve "party power" than working for the good of America, believe it or not, I'm right there with you. I absolutely agree. There are horrendous examples of this from both sides.

I read the Bush speech, and given what we now know about how Enron was responsible for the blackouts, could only roll my eyes when I got to the part about California and its energy issues. (Please note, this "eye roll" is not a knock on Bush, just on the sad state of affairs such as it is. I'm just saying.)

As far as the "rapid regression" in the last 18 months, the roots go much deeper into this administration than just the last year and a half.

Banks failing, for instance, are a result of loans given to high-risk homebuyers, which didn't start once the Democrats took office. The "housing boom" that George Bush was so proud of was clearly misread by many, and it pre-dates Democratic control of the Congress.

And obviously, the cost of the Iraq war looms large. It's costing BILLIONS of dollars every month, and as I understand it (I'm no expert, so please correct me if I'm wrong), most of the funding comes from emergency spending bills. It's not built into the budget. So the government (which you have to admit has actually *grown* under George Bush, the exact reverse of what most Republicans believe should happen) spends tons and tons of money anyway, getting more out of control, before Iraq has even been accounted for.

That started LONG before the Democrats took office. And yes, I realize you'll counter-argue that the Democrats supported the war resolution and all the rest, but the point is that George Bush and his administration have bungled so many aspects of the war, undoubtedly resulting in many, many billions of dollars of wasted taxpayer money.

The debt goes up, China's economy grows, national landmarks are purchased by foreign interests, banks are closing, people are losing their homes, New Orleans STILL isn't rebuilt ...

You can't pin all of that on 18 months worth of Democratic control of the Congress. Can you?

In case they're deleted again:

TNR, so - I want to get this straight - Bill Clinton messed up (in your opinion), but when given the chance to change direction and history, Bush and his rubber-stamp Republicans of the early part of this decade did nothing.

And though the Republican controlled everything did nothing FOR YEARS, it's still Clinton's fault?

*********

Victoria and Lew - I'm not sure what you're arguing with me here. I only said (or was trying to say, at least) that the "economic terrorism", or whatever we want to call it, isn't "fearmongering" in as much as it's *actually happening*.

As I said above, I heard many post-9/11 reports and analysis that indicated that Bin Laden's goal wasn't to take down the towers so much as that it was to create financial havoc as a result. The towers were the means to an end, not the ultimate goal.

As I said, this isn't "fearmongering" - it actually happened.

"Fearmongering" is, to me, changing Homeland Security's color-coded threat levels (remember that?) close to election time (like in 2004). It's getting Fox News to pump up stories about dirty bombs. It's saying that electing Democrats will directly result more terrorism. Stuff like that.

***********
Three other quick thoughts:

1. The stimulus checks sure worked like a charm for the economy, didn't they?

2. We should all let out a gigantic sigh of relief that our congress was not duped into supporting President Bush's idea to privatize Social Security. Given the way the stock market has tumbled in recent days and weeks, can you imagine if our grandparents found their Social Security savings pounded into oblivion at the time they need that money most?

3. In another thread, someone posed a question about whether or not Barack Obama will be blamed for a recession once Bush is out of office, the way Bush was blamed for the economic turmoils he experienced when Bill Clinton left office.

This assumes that Obama will be elected President (which I believe will happen, but that's neither here nor there in terms of this argument).

Say McCain wins, and the recession continues. Do you blame McCain, or do you blame Bush? Because you can't blame Clinton again, not this time.

(Though I know the answer - you'll blame the Democrats anyway.)

p.i.A.k.o. #2

Thanks, Keith. Other people can conduct themselves or express themselves in any way they see fit personally, but I tend to write from the heart and use phrases like "I think ..." or "I believe ..." Maybe it's fruitless because I'm too altruistic sometimes, but it's how I've always been. It also helps me to avoid many arguments regarding semantics, nuances of laws, and minutia of which I'm not an expert. In other words, it keeps me from talking out of my butt - something I see a LOT of people doing around here far too often.

You (or Lew, or Victoria, or anyone) can disagree with my viewpoint, and that's fine. What I take offense to is a lot of the unwarranted name calling that results from the disagreements. Last time I checked, I was a registered Independent, not a Communist or Socialist. Imagine that. But the names sure do fly around, don't they?

Anyway, believe me, I absolutely understand the argument about "illegals" becoming, for lack of a better term, "legals". I also understand that law is law, and no citizen or elected officials is above it (cough, cough, Messrs. Cheney and Bush).

I also fully understand that many illegals are probably scared to start the legalization process, because they don't know how to do it, because they're not sure they're "smart" enough (to learn English, to take the naturalization exam, to figure out taxes, or to even fill out an application correctly, etc.), or because admitting they're here "illegally" prior to beginning the process could get them thrown in jail or deported.

Now, if ICE or any other group can prove that the center is illegal, yes - it's a major problem that will have to be dealt with. For reasons such as this very one (legality vs. humanitarian issues), I'm glad I'm not a politician myself.

But until this becomes a proven fact - any my opinion on the whole thing could very well change if we find that out, and to what extent - it's supposition, and I don't think it's fair to make assumptions about the center, the intent of the city to run it, or the people who utilize it.

The way I see it, for now at least, is that the city is trying to help the people who live here. It's trying to help real, live human beings who may need assistance.

I'm not a religious guy myself, but I do remember hearing a little something about "love thy neighbor." Seems to me, this is one way of doing just that.

One other quick point. You wrote, "... they can stand wherever the heck they want to get a penny-per-day job ...". I realize that you are using a generalization to make a point, and that's fair enough, but I think a center such as this one does, in fact, achieve a humanitarian goal, at least in theory: it prevents abuse of day labor by employers, as there is at least some degree of governmental oversight.

I think that a city-run program prevents day-labor employers from quasi-slavery or extortion. Who is to say that a guy who picks up a day laborer on the street corner won't stiff him on pay for work done, or that the employer won't say "we're not paying you for your work, but you're going to keep working for us anyway because if you complain, we'll report you."

Never having been a day laborer, I don't know if stuff like that actually happens. But conceivably it could, right? Having an organized central "brain" can eliminate (or at least minimize) the possibility of something like that happening. At least, I hope it would.

Is it a perfect system? No, absolutely not. Given the circumstances, though, I honestly think it does more good than harm. I really do.

And people can disagree with me and my opinions, and that's fine, but if we can't help (not give handouts to, but HELP) those among us who need the help most ... man, I just don't want to be a part of that kind of world. That's not the kind of place this country ought to be.

acronyms

Think A For Truth - that one fits, I think.

Truth Aand Fact, Theoretically - I like that one, too.

Talk About Failed Topics.

Fun, fun, fun!

re: p.i.A.k.o. Detention Center ...

I saw the acronym thing on day one, but it seemed too obvious to point out, so I didn't ... and it kept going, and going, and nobody mentioned it. It was the elephant in the room. It had to be someone, right?

As far as the rest about a "lack of definitive proof", this is one of the major issues I have with the direction this country has headed in in recent years. Not just during the Bush administration, mind you, but overall as a snowballing type effect: nobody's innocent until proven guilty anymore. It's the opposite.

I should have put this in my first post, but didn't: I find it somewhat ironic that Victoria makes all of these claims (8 uses of "illegal", one use of "lawbreaker"), yet the title of her next post was "jumping to conclusions".

I think it's a shame that we're all so cynical that nobody trusts anybody regarding anything anymore.

Are some illegal? Likely. Are they *all*? Who knows.

Because of what I'm going to write, I will be labeled by some as a communist, a socialist, or a "blame USA first" proponent (at this point, the insults reek of desperation).

Here's why I have no problem with the center existing:

There are jobs. Some employer has tasks for which they need employees. There is nothing stopping whites, Asians, Eskimos, albinos, the transgendered, or Victoria herself from going to this center to get one for a day.

(In fact, maybe this would be an interesting experiment - Victoria, how about taking a day off from the radio gig and waiting at the employment center yourself to see what goes on there? Maybe you'll find something out that will change my mind on this issue.)

Perhaps the money the employees make will be spent locally, helping the economy. Perhaps some of it will be sent to the families of the employees in another town, another state, or another country.

Whatever the amount of money this is can't compare, I would assume, to the money being spent by American companies outsourcing call centers to India, building factories in Mexico, or making textiles and clothing in Asia.

I think we're being penny wise and pound foolish in a lot of ways.

Since I expect my post to be deleted, here's what I wrote (so I can copy/paste it back onto her blog as often as necessary). There is NO foul language included, Vickie!

I also think that we're (and I speak of us directly, including Klatu/Jack) very lucky to be in the positions we find ourselves. We have safe places to live, we have computers, and we can afford internet service. These are luxuries to many, many people.

If a day center is going to pay someone - illegal or not - to help pay for basic needs, then as a HUMAN BEING who cares for other human beings, I say so be it. To some, this makes me un-American, because it doesn't "put America first". Whatever. White America can go wait in line and grab those jobs, then, and keep the "illegals" from getting them.

If not, there are jobs and people willing to do them. Good for those people for trying to better their own lives and become productive members of society.