Tuesday, May 4, 2010

I Love This Man

The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
The Word - No Problemo
http://www.colbertnation.com/
Colbert Report Full EpisodesPolitical HumorFox News

19 comments:

Curt said...

Colbert is absolutely hilarious! I love the line about "lining the border with our crappiest states.." LOL

Christina said...

That was my favorite as well!

Lula O said...

He is awesome isn't he...I've been itching to sound off about this new law. Can't we all just get along people? We destroy the farmers in Mexico with our subsidies here on corn, wheat and soybeans, putting millions of laborers out of work - so where do they come??? Here so they won't starve. So in the words of Utopia - we first make thieves then punish them.
Like I keep reading over and over, by 2050 the latino population will be the majority of this country. The Indians were here first, yet somehow now they are the immigrants. I'm so sick of hearing english only in our schools, etc. Yeah, let's make life as difficult as possible for them. Why should we want them to be successful? They are the future of our country you yahoos!

Curt said...

I agree with you on most of the immigration stuff. I don't know much about farm subsidies...but I think we do that because without it our ag businesses could not compete globally, and we end up moving our ag businesses overseas. So in my opinion, it's better to subsidize our own farmers rather than the Mexican ag business. The govt. had to start subsidizing corn when the genius "alternative fuel" movement came up with the brilliant idea to use it as fuel, which drove up the cost of corn as a food...which in turn reduced demand, hurting the farmers who grow it, so we subsidize them.

On the other hand...they're here because they do jobs at wages Americans are not willing to work for. If we just deported all of them, we'd start to see all sorts of labor unions cropping up (pun intended) in the ag business driving up the cost of food across the board! There is a very legitimate place in America for immigrant labor. But they need to use the process and work visas to come here legally so that they pay taxes and get access to the govt. programs LEGALLY that they need.

Also people misunderstand what AZ did. AZ wanted to be able to enforce immigration laws already on the books federally since they weren't getting assistance in deporting illegals who commit crime. Since they can't enforce federal law....they had to pass a state law that mirrored the federal law. Now they've even added the language that puts the racial profiling issue to bed...cops can only question immigration status of suspected criminals detained in the act of another crime...like speeding, public intoxication, kidnapping, murder, rape, etc. AZ is not racist for wanting to deport illegal aliens who commit crime!

Lula O said...

I didn't realize you were a suspected criminal if you're pulled over for speeding or not completely stopping at a stop sign. Things ordinary citizens do every day. So say some Spanish American gets pulled over, and they don't have their papers, they get charged and then still have to pay a fine, court costs, whatever? Doesn't seem quite fair, since the only reason they were arrested and detained was because of their skin color and their slight accent. Seems a bit harsh for just not stopping at a stop sign. Wouldn't that piss you off just a little? If that happened to you?

curtis.noble said...

well yeah I understand your point, although I disagree a bit. When I say "criminal activity" I'm talking about "breaking the law." Yes, TONS (including myself) speed and run stop signs, I've been caught, and cited before...and that is "criminal activity". I know cops in AZ that don't even have the time to enforce these acts because of the more serious stuff going on. By the way, what do you think happens to you if you get pulled over and are not able to ID yourself? 42 states require all citizens to carry ID. Also...wouldn't it piss you off if an illegal alien stole your car, ran a red light, got pulled over, couldn't ID themselves, yet the police let them go with a ticket? This similar situation has happened to people I know in AZ.

But here's the BIGGER issue...Phoenix is a hotbed for kidnappings. I've heard they have the most per-capita there, but that may just be a talking point, I haven't verified it. I know there are a lot though. The big issue is that when sheriff deputies detain a person suspected of assault or kidnapping who is a confirmed illegal they used to turn them over to I.N.S...(the feds). That was the law. I.N.S. RARELY deported them and released them back on the streets. They were caught again, again, and again...the same people, and AZ couldn't deport them, only the feds could. That's the reason for the law. I know it's really humane and feely goody to say they shouldn't be deported because life is so horrible there and they can't make any money and we offer them a better life up here...but at the end of the day if they can't obey our laws, they go back. It's cheaper than holing them up in our prisons. CA has a prison budget crisis because they aren't deporting the illegals in prison. A SWAT officer I know in West Mesa says that the majority of the crime they detain illegals for is Identity Theft and Auto Theft. He's been on the police and swat force for over 5 years and has NEVER made a "routine" traffic stop. I've driven in Mesa at 95mph on the freeway (going w/ the speed of traffic) and even when there are police cars out, they aren't pulling people over for speeding.

However, I completely understand your position and it is 100% legitimate. Lots of officers are fired in AZ for racial profiling...it's NOT tolerated there...trust me. Heck the sheriff has some latino in him...almost half the police force (more than half in some smaller cities) are latino. The only thing this law is going to do is deport the illegals who are caught committing crime.

Christina said...

The biggest issue I have with the law is that citizens can now sue the police officers for not doing what they think is enough. The problem with this is that it will bring out the extremist nut jobs who think police should be stopping every dark skinned person on the street, in Starbucks, at the library, etc. and if they don't, they will sue that cop who stopped to get a coffee on his break but didn't harass the Mexican looking high school student studying for a test at the coffee shop. That is going to cost police departments millions fighting off these ludicrous lawsuits, wasting already dwindled time and resources, and like I said- bring out the nutjobs who insist police must racially profile.

I am not sure if they have done anything yet to address that issue. Anybody know????

curtis.noble said...

Yeah I can understand how some would be concerned about that since we're in such a litigious society. But the fact is, it's not even an issue, nor was it ever. This issue stems from complete misinformation being spread from the White House and the media about the law in AZ. The law does not, and never did allow a police officer to approach someone and request ID if they weren't doing or suspected of doing anything wrong. So your student in the coffee shop...not an issue. In fact, HE/SHE can (and should) sue the police dept. if they are asked to ID themselves when doing nothing wrong.

There is a huge misconception in what the AZ law really does because the media has jumped on it along with the White House...it's great political leverage to get Latinos out to vote. AZ has done a very poor job in PR regarding this law. They have communicated it poorly. It is NO TOUGHER than the federal laws. It only gives the State authority to deport illegal immigrants when they're caught committing crime. The NY Times reported on this:

"The changes include one strengthening restrictions against using race or ethnicity as the basis for questioning by the police and inserting those same restrictions in other parts of the law. Another change states that questions of immigration status would follow a law enforcement officer’s stopping, detaining or arresting a person while enforcing another law. The earlier law had referred to a “contact” with police."

They can only question suspected illegals while in the process of enforcing another law...such as theft, for example. Eating donuts and studying is not in violation of "another law."

But again...I understand the concerns you bring up. I believe it's the fault of AZ for there being so much misinformation. They have been unclear on their intentions from the start.

Carlos said...

"The law does not, and never did allow a police officer to approach someone and request ID if they weren't doing or suspected of doing anything wrong. So your student in the coffee shop...not an issue. In fact, HE/SHE can (and should) sue the police dept. if they are asked to ID themselves when doing nothing wrong."

Excuse me? Why do you think they went back to the legislature so quickly to revise this despicable, racist law? I'll tell you why: A Phoenix police officer sued the state asking to be exempted from enforcing the law precisely BECAUSE of those lawsuits.(I'll take your cop and raise mine.)

Curtis, what you say about the AZ law is so offensive that I'll just say this:

- If there's so many officers fired in Az for racial profiling ("trust me"- yeah, right); just ask the groups in Maricopa County that filed suit against Joe Arpaio, and the Feds investigating him. And, if so many officers are indeed fired. it begs the question: Isn't it clear that racial profiling is a HUGE problem in AZ?

- It's obvious you're no lawyer or legal expert, and it shows. This law is so pregnant with SERIOUS constitutional issues, from racial profiling which is illegal to violating the 14th Amendment against illegal searches and seizures that the parties, VERY PROMINENT groups are lining up to challenge it, and the Justice Dept. is taking a close look. This "reasonable suspicion" standard is so broad that no amount of executive orders and quickie amendments will fix the fundamental uncosntitutionality of the law. I'll be surprised if this law (effective 90 days from signing) sees the light of day, before a judge puts a stay on it, or they gather enough signatures to make it a ballot initiative in 2012, which would halt it till then.

You TOTALLY miss the point: It's not only about ILLEGALS being harassed by the police state, but CITIZENS who may have a different look and complexion than Gov. Brewer. I guess your condescending (a laugh, considering the source) people who "don't understand" the law means Hispanics who don't watch Fox?

- Why are you so phobic about labor unions? What is a reasonable wage for tolerance of exploiting cheap labor in exchange for cheap produce: $2-$4 an hour? Is child labor OK? How about slavery? Do you know that the minimum wage in AZ is $7.25? Can you spare a few extra cents for your produce? Could you live with the United Farm Workers protecting these people's rights? What's rich about these anti-union rants is tha (read your history) and discover that labor unions built our middle class. It was globalization, deregulation, rampant market speculation of the type seen in the 30s, that led to the destruction of the middle class in this country and the destruction of the environment seen in the Gulf today.

Congrats to you and your party!

- This notion that the "law is all about" non-enforcement of the federal statute is absurd, a red herring. So therefore a racist, unconstitutional law is the answer? FYI, there is no unanimity among cops in AZ regarding this law. A number of police chiefs came out against it. Why? Because they say they're already overburdened with fighting serious crime to become immigration agents on top of it. Should the feds enforce the law and commit the necessary resources? YES. Should there be comprehensive immigration reform? YES. Is this hateful law any kind of an answer to our immigration problems? DEFINITELY NOT.

- And another thing, I wouldn't take your word about what goes on in AZ as far as I could throw you across the Rio Grande. What I hear is that racial profiling is rampant in that state, and there is litigation to prove it. Illinois has a larger Hispanic population than AZ and we don't have racial profiling cases around here. But then again, we're a blue state, which by definition, is more civilized.

Curt said...

you raise some good points. Although the "reasonable suspicion" clause is what they made revisions to, so that doesn't create any violations to the 14th amendment or racial profiling. They set the standard for situations where officers could ask for proof of citizenship, such as during the course of enforcing another law.

Carlos, I believe I'm being respectful on here, so I'm very sorry if I've offended you.

I'm not going to argue your points, because they're, for the most part, valid points to make. I just feel that if you'd read the law (sorry if I'm incorrectly assuming that you haven't, but if you're still concerned about "reasonable suspicion" it indicates you haven't read it) you'd realize it's not as big of a deal as people are making it out to be.

There is a real concern about the constitutionality of the law on the grounds that states don't have the authority to enforce immigration law. The constitution assigns this role to the federal government. So it could realistically be shot down by the feds on those grounds. At that point, it could be added to a ballot and I promise will pass in AZ with overwhelming support. 2/3 already support it.

Now that the revisions have been made, all of these officers' lawsuits will be thrown out. They're suing because they think they're required to check immigration status of mexicans who "could" be illegal even when they're not suspected of doing anything wrong. And that isn't even an issue. The law never required them to do that. The media made that part up. And my source isn't Fox News. It's the NY Times and the actual bill itself. The NY Times brought up the issue of state vs. federal authority granted by the constitution.

Also I don't recall claiming to be a legal expert, so your attack of my legal knowledge is meaningless. And I don't think I said racial profiling is NOT a problem in AZ. I believe that I clearly indicated it is a big problem and that's why people are fired over it! I know there is litigation that backs this up. I wasn't saying it was a non issue, I was saying it isn't tolerated.

At any rate...back to the issue...Colbert is HILARIOUS and extremely talented. He's brilliant, in my opinion! Sometimes I wish more people on the right weren't so serious and tightly wound all the time....if they were, maybe we'd have a brilliant comedian on our side too! The problem is there is no market for it, right!

Carlos said...

I did read the law. More importantly, so did a lot of constitutional experts who maintain it's unconstitutional.

Funny you should claim not to be a legal expert while breezily predicting "Now that the revisions have been made, all of these officers' lawsuits will be thrown out." Oh really? They haven't even been litigated.

Typical. You make your arguments by reading Fox, which is complete propaganda. I'm being RESPECTFUL here too, Curt: GET YOUR EFFING NOSE OUT OF FOX NEWS PROPAGANDA! IT TURNS YOUR BRAIN TO MUSH!!

Read Politifact.com and get the OTHER SIDE from a NONPARTISAN FACT-CHECK WEBSITE of the Fox CRAP you've been reading:

"By replacing the broader phrase "lawful contact" with "lawful stop, detention or arrest," the new version may have eased one worry expressed by critics of the bill -- that police could use such inoccuous pretexts as someone asking an officer for directions or being a victim or a witness of a crime to trigger an immigration status check.

But some say that a different addition to the law may actually expand the grounds for questioning someone about their immigration status. The new version added the phrase "in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town in this state." Before this change was made, the law did not specify that police could use the enforcement of county, city or town laws or ordinances as the trigger for asking immigration-status questions."

"Under the Arizona immigration law, police are required to check immigration status if someone's "lawn is overgrown" or if a dog is "barking too loudly."

How's that for a kicker, Curt? Your precious Fox News crapaganda talking points "revisions" could make the bill worse! (I say could, only b/c I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but I trust PolitiFact a hell of a lot more than Fox.)

Here's a link, in case you're redirected to Glenn Beck:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/may/04/kyrsten-sinema/under-arizona-immigration-law-overgrown-lawns-bark/

Please, do me a favor: DO NOT QUOTE THAT FOX "NEWS" GARBAGE. Thank you.

Carlos said...

Why don't the right have their Colbert? Don't you get it, Curt? Wingnuts are FASCISTS. Fascists don't have a sense of humor. They're bigots, racists, xenophobes, and any fellow travelers consorting with them will spend quite a bit of time doing penance in Purgatory, if you believe in such things.

Read the authoritaran personality, and how right wingers are particularly prone to it. Basically, they're humorless, sexist bastards. And killers, too. A lot of them. Just as politicians share personality traits with serial killers (I would only add, REPUBLICAN politicians and Teabaggers):

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/06/politicians-and-serial-killers.html

curtis.noble said...

whoa Carlos....are you seriously saying that "Conservatives" are going to "hell?" You really think I'm one of the "bigots, racists, xenophobes?!" And then you say you're being respectful?

I'm not even going to argue or debate you now other than saying you are 100% wrong. Your news sources are NOT, as you say, impartial or unbiased! Besides that....TONS of news sources have everything wrong on this AZ law. I had to send an email to correct our local NBC affiliate who flat out LIED about the immigration law. They emailed me a formal apology, issued a retraction and corrected the story on the next newscast at 10PM. That's the problem with "news."

Also, your opinion is contrary to a STUNNING majority in the U.S.

I know I've said this before, but I am done reading or commenting on this blog. It USED to be a source of opinion that I enjoyed reading from the left. It has made me think more critically and objectively. But I will NOT participate in this kind of hateful rhetoric. Christina at one point you emailed me and said you had quit posting because of the hate spewed here by Carlos and others. While it doesn't really matter to me, I am wondering if you too are going to get off this blog.

I apologized for offending, and have not made any personal attacks. So....adios....all.

Carlos said...

51% is hardly a "stunning" majority; you're confusing the AZ numbers (questionable) with the national poll of one over 50%, the majority of whom I can guarantee haven't read the law; neither, I suspect have those Arizonans.

Hahaha, I take it you don't warm to my kind of political satire. I said "wingnuts", not you Curtis, and I said "Purgatory" not Hell. Just so we're straight with our terms. :D

But, yes, those who consort with this crowd of extremists, the Teabagger hypocrites and ANYONE who voted for GWB share a HUGE responsibility for our financial collapse and the catastrophe in the Gulf. To echo what they say of the law, ignorance of the FACTS is NO excuse.

As I watch our environment being destroyed as a result of sheer unanashed GREED from a gangster corporatist regime, the deregulation of the financial system, with the repeal of Glass-Steagall, that made the middle class prosper for 50 years, the neglect of mine safety, and oil rig safety, by REPUBLICANS, I'm in no Cumbaya mood.

And finally, if Republicans think they will gain by turning undocumented workers into whipping scapegoats, it's going to backfire BIG TIME.

Congrats on correcting NBC. It's all corporate media, except Fox is by far the biggest miscreant; they're corrected nightly, and they never retract anything. They're proud of how nimble and agile they are at not making their daily LIES stick, except for those of us who take the time to actually read the facts on sites such as Media Matters and PolitiFact, where everything is documented.

Lula O said...

First things first. AZ clearly legislated out of anger. They have almost half a mil illegal immigrants, that's more than the population of my county, and they obviously feel that they get no help from the feds, BUT that's no excuse! They deserve every bit of scorn they are getting! This law makes criminal suspects out of an entire ethnic class. Plain and simple.

My friend's father lives in AZ, he's South American but has lived here for decades. He has an accent. Now he has to carry his papers with him whereever he goes. So no Curt, ID does not equal papers. Can you imagine what a major pain in the behind that is??? Can you imagine if you had to carry a big ass envelope with you whenever you left the house just because of your skin color, dark hair, and the way you talk?

Is this America for crying out loud?

And one more quick thing - I hate the term "illegals" It's like "blacks" or "spics" or "Japs" let's just call them what they are - illegal immigrants, or just plain immigrants. And to reapeat what's been said, very few of these people are criminals, most works hard for their money and do this country a great service.

Next -
Curt, real smooth of you to bring Christina into your brew-ha-ha. Sure she appreciates it immensely. Real big of ya. I don't know what you're talking about. It sounds like Carlos challenges you, and you don't like that. He expects you to back up every single thing you say, and you do with him as well. He's super liberal. You're super conservative. What's the problem?

Carlos- you're always welcome here!!

curtis.noble said...

yes Carlos, I'm talking about a STUNNING majority in AZ. And Lula, you're wrong...Have you ever seen an immigrant's "papers?" The term papers is misleading. The state law doesn't require them to carry their documentation...that's the FEDERAL law that requires it. And documentation is something as small as a "green card" or "work visa." Besides, the law states in plain English that the officer is supposed to verify with the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, not with the immigrant themselves. Because of this, a photo id w/ name is enough for the officer. If the officer can id the person by name and photo, they can then contact from their patrol car the appropriate federal agency to verify status. Here is the my source: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

The lines I'm referring to says :

"THE
25 PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c)."

The law also indicates (although not clearly) that possession of a US Driver's License or state issued I.D. does not constitute a "reasonable suspicion" of them being here illegally.

Here's another pretty objective opinion of the law:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Byron-York/A-carefully-crafted-immigration-law-in-Arizona-92136104.html

I know I know...that's probably a conservative biased article...but at this point, there is no unbiased examination of the law. Politifact isn't an unbiased source. www.factcheck.org hasn't examined it yet either.

Right now all there is is opinion. But people need to realize, the AZ legislation ONLY gives the state the authority to enforce the federal immigration law. It's not a NEW immigration law. So the worry some have about "now immigrants have to carry all their papers everywhere they go!" That isn't changed...it's always been that way on a federal level.

Lula O said...

Thought you were gone Curt. You've inspired me to write a new post. tomorrow.

Carlos said...

Curt, my guess is it's not so stunning anymore. And by the way, the main reason I take you on is b/c you're always polluting the comments with Fox "News" crapaganda and lies. Some of this stuff is so dishonest it makes my blood boil.

This is what you said:

"Also, your opinion is contrary to a STUNNING majority in the U.S."

When did AZ public opinion become U.S. public opinion, hmm? Here's a suggestion, Curt. If you're so interested in learning the truth, why don't you send those "correction" emails to Fox "News"? It would be a daily thing and you wouldn't have time for anything else. But at least you'll have Media Matters to give you where Fox lied and then the facts. Then you can crosscheck with Politifact. You say "Politifact isn't an unbiased source"?

In your Fox "News" dreams, Curtis. Politifact is a 2009 winner of the Pulitzer, the most prestigious award in journalism. This is what they do:

"PolitiFact is a project of the St. Petersburg Times to help you find the truth in politics.

Every day, reporters and researchers from the Times examine statements by members of Congress, the president, cabinet secretaries, lobbyists, people who testify before Congress and anyone else who speaks up in Washington. We research their statements and then rate the accuracy on our Truth-O-Meter – True, Mostly True, Half True, Barely True and False. The most ridiculous falsehoods get our lowest rating, Pants on Fire.

We also rate the consistency of public officials on our Flip-O-Meter using three ratings: No Flip, Half Flip and Full Flop."

The good people of AZ are about to be hoisted on their own petard. It's already started: AZ has lost $6-10 million in convention business already, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. 20 conventions lost and counting. That moron of a governor WITCH has no idea of the negative economic impact she's unleashed on her state. When AZ didn't pass the MLK Holiday they were boycotted until they backed down.

BTW, Curtis, did you know that the people pushing the law are white supremacist racists of the most vile variety? If we use Sister Sarah's "palling around" standard, what does that make anyone supporting the law?

Curt said: "And Lula, you're wrong...Have you ever seen an immigrant's "papers?"

Now that's interesting. Care to explain how come you've "seen" an immigrant's papers, Curt? Are you stopping them and making citizen arrests?

And it's not about the federal statute. It's about compelling people to prove they're citizens or are here legally based on standards so broad they are patently unconstitutional and lead to racial profiling. That's the opinion of LEGAL experts, Curtis. A citizen that "looks" Latino could be making a late-night milk run and be stopped for jaywalking. Most counties have similar ordinances in the books. If he doesn't produce documents he could be detained, arrested, and jailed. To quote Politifact:

"Before this change was made, the law did not specify that police could use the enforcement of county, city or town laws or ordinances as the trigger for asking immigration-status questions."

Lula, thanks. I don 't like the term illegal either. Most Latinos say "undocumented worker" because of all the economic activity they generate in the communities in which they work. They're hard, honest workers.

No, this IS NOT America. I stand with the good Cardinal Archbishop of LA, Roger Mahony, who called it a "hideous" Nazi law. The Catholic Church has many sins, but when it comes to protecting the least powerful and most humble among us, they're totally awesome.

Christina said...

WOAH! All of a sudden this arguement got rather ugly, and I will apologize for that since I posted the initial post.

I believe Curt has truly tried to be respectful, even if I do disagree with this bill on so many levels, and I appreciate that.

However, it is quite apparent this is a very emotional issue, fueled by deep and honest anger, which is only intensified as the debate continues. I understand that- what we see here is simply a smaller version of what we are seeing on the news every day. I do not believe anybody is going to change anybody's mind- as is the case with most debates, the more sides argue, the more sides become deeper entrenched in their own views while disregarding the other's viewpoints.

I do enjoy good discussion where various facts and viewpoints are brought up, but get frustrated when debates turn into name calling and a screaming match. I do understand where the screaming is coming from- this is a bitter, ugly battle on the national level as well as personal levels. I am just saying debating on that level is impossible and frustrating, and not something that I enjoy.

So, I apologize that it turned so ugly. Hopefully the next post will be more light-hearted and not cause so much frustration all the way around!