Tuesday, May 02, 2006
A brief note on the selection of photographs and the writing of captions at The New York Times
Regular readers know that I am "soft" on the illegal immigration question, or at least think that most of the arguments made by both sides are, to say the least, weak and inconsistent. However, regular readers also know that I am hard on The New York Times, so it is easy for me to complain about the picture and caption below, which appear on the front page of today's dead tree Late Edition:
A "show of support for immigration rights"?!? If the front page editor wasn't chuckling when he wrote that one, he needs to get a sense of humor. Even if you think, as I do, that many of the complaints about illegal immigration are hogwash (or at least apply as well to most legal immigrants), it is a huge stretch -- almost a lie -- to characterize the current political debate as involving immigrant "rights." This is a fradulent attempt to equate the argument about control over our borders and the enforcement of our laws with various of our domestic civil rights movements, including those in support of blacks, women, and gays and lesbians. Social liberals who force this equation in the United States, which goes through periodic phases of obsession with the impact of immigrants on our politics, economy and society, run a serious risk of cheapening those other, much more legitimate struggles.
And never mind that those business were in no way, shape or form closed in a "show of support." They were closed because the immigrant advocacy and leftist groups that organized the rallies achieved their objective. They proved that the immigrant employees and customers of certain businesses, such as retail shops in downtown Los Angeles, have at least enough clout to shut them down. For a day.
14 Comments:
By 
Gordon Smith, at
Tue May 02, 08:36:00 AM:
It baffles me that you can ignore the Bush administration's multiple crimes, missteps, and lies while expending so much venom on a newspaper.
Here's the latest, penultimate example
By 
, at
Tue May 02, 10:22:00 AM:
Where were these shops. They do not look like mainstream shops.
By , at
Tue May 02, 10:25:00 AM:
What all the MSM members have ignored is the substantial socialist slant to the proceedings yesterday. I watched a live feed from the Chicago event and was amazed at the harping on "worker solidarity" and the like (making organiizers' claims that picking May Day was a "coincidence" absolutely ridiculous). Of course, the MSM realize this socialist bent (when combined with political trends in Central and South America) might not go down well with Mr. and Mrs. Middle America who they want to roll over and accept a blanket amnesty, so you'll see no mention of it.
By skipsailing, at
Tue May 02, 02:44:00 PM:
Yeah, Screwy, I saw this BS yesterday when yet another nitwit leftie insisted that Bush's actions meant the end of days.
Pullleaze, when will you guys run out of righteous indignation? How do you even walk with your undies in such a bunch?
By Catchy Pseudonym, at
Tue May 02, 04:36:00 PM:
Actually I don't wear underwear, so that helps a lot when I run out of righteous indignation and I'm forced to walk.
By Gordon Smith, at
Tue May 02, 07:18:00 PM:
...and this is from the side of the political spectrum that was gung ho to impeach Clinton over lying about a blowjob. Righteous indeed.
When the President is breaking the law, the President is breaking the law. This seems simple to understand, but some would rather defend to the death their right to be horribly wrong.
Get American.
By Final Historian, at
Tue May 02, 09:06:00 PM:
Actually, based on what I read, which was only the first 2 pages (I refused to give the Globe any info other than my ip), it appears that Screwy has a point.
I wonder why more Democrats haven't made a big point about this?
By , at
Tue May 02, 10:12:00 PM:
Screwy, so Congress has just sat back and let President Bush run amuck over the Constitution. Puh-leaze. There's always wrangling back and forth between the Executive and Legislative during a time of war, and more often than not the Supreme Court has ruled in the Executives favor. That's why with most of this article there's no there there. If there were, we'd heard a lot more about it already. It's an interesting subject amongst "legal scholars", but doesn't hold much water in the real court of law.
By Assistant Village Idiot, at
Tue May 02, 10:46:00 PM:
I'm with davod. This looks like a converted warehouse district. Is "downtown" a different concept in SoCal?
By Enlighten-NewJersey, at
Wed May 03, 12:47:00 AM:
A ‘signing statement” is a method of preserving the prerogatives of the executive, not only for the president producing the signing statement, but for all future presidents.
The practice of using signing statements began with President Monroe - President Clinton issued 105. Since 1986, the presidential signing statement has become part of the “Legislative History” section of the United States Congressional Code and Administrative News (USCCAN). So it’s hardly a Bush invention.
Our friends on the left may enjoy how President Carter employed a signing statement. Congress passed an amendment to a bill - “Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce, the Judiciary, and related agencies for fiscal year1978” - that prohibited “the use of funds under this Act to carry out [President Carter’s] amnesty program [for the Vietnam War draft resisters]”
When President Carter signed the law, he noted his objection to the amendment because it interfered with his pardon power, was an unconstitutional bill of attainder, and denied due process of the law.
Even though the Justice Department announced that the law prevented the re-entry of many of the draft resisters, the Carter administration ignored the law and processed all of the pardon applications.
Some may find this paper of interest. - A Comparative Look at the Constitutional Signing Statement - http://mpsa.indiana.edu/conf2003papers/1031858822.pdf)
By , at
Wed May 03, 01:41:00 AM:
Tigerhawk - if you are soft on illegal immigration it is only because you are not living here on the front lines in Southern California!
Consider: California taxpayers pay $10 Billion a year to cover the costs of illegal immigration - education, healthcare ( AKA - emergency rooms), and social programs.
Illegals take jobs away from Americans because employers can get away with paying crap wages - 20 years ago such semi-skilled labor as construction, painters, carpet-layers, etc, could earn a decent living - now they are undercut by illegals and driveen out of the market.
Many of California's hospitals have closed - those that are left are severely impacted by illegals who use the emergency room for primary health care ( try going to the emergency room - it takes FOREVER ).
Our elementary and high schools are in decline because we have to teach in two languages - inevitably slowing down many children.
Employers who hire illegals and pay them under the table don't pay social security taxes, state disability taxes, etc., etc. etc. - instead all of those costs are left to the taxpayer.
Illegal immigration is also a major security issue in the post 9-11 world. Considering that 2.3 million foreigners overstay their visas each year (remember the 9-11 Hijackers?), what makes anyone think that a guest worker program will be workable? We can't even enforce or existing laws!!!
If you lived in the midst of this you would not be "soft" on immigration.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for the immigration rallies - well , most of the LEGAL citizens in the state went to work as usual on Monday, and it was great. Traffic flowed smoothly - what is normally a 1 hour and 15 minute commute was cut down to 30 minutes. Businesses were closed in the Latino neighborhoods, but not anywhere else. If this is what life without Illegal Immigrants is like - sign me up! Of course you would never know this from watching the liberal mainstream media - they are too busy wringing their hands over " Immigrants" -- when the real issue is ILLEGAL immigration. Disguised amnesty programs ala George Bush will only encourage more immigration -- the solution is simple and obvious: tougher border control, employer enforcement to dry up the job market for illegals here in the US, and substantial investment in Mexico to create jobs IN MEXICO!!!!
By Gordon Smith, at
Wed May 03, 08:56:00 AM:
Good Lord. There's still someone who thinks "the media" is liberal.
By , at
Wed May 03, 10:57:00 AM:
Screwy, would you have the same righteous indignation during the New Deal era when your patron saint, FDR, was trampling the Constitution? Last I recall, President Bush hasn't submitted a court-packing scheme to Congress.
It's a time of war. The Republicans during FDR's time had the decency to back the country's leadership during wartime. Geez.
By Dawnfire82, at
Wed May 03, 08:10:00 PM:
I spoke with a saleswoman named Julia here in CA last week who immigrated from Ireland in 1964 had nothing but venom for the marchers. She gave her brief story about moving to New York, getting a job within 48 hours of arriving, and building an entirely new life away from the IRA and British retaliations here in the US. She naturalized and became a good citizen.
That illegal immigrants somehow feel that they have a *right* to come over here whenever they want, use our social safety nets and services without contributing in return, and then get pissed off when we consider doing something about it just infuriated her.
Paraphrase: 'If the mass Irish, Czech, Italian, Polish, Hungarian, German, et cetera immigrants of the early 20th and late 19th centuries could naturalize, obey the laws, and adapt to American society, why can't they? The American National Anthem in Spanish? That's ridiculous. They're not special. They're not fleeing a homeland devastated by world wars, famines, police state oppression, terrorism, and civil war. Rather than developing their own countries, they're coming to an already-developed country to feed off it.'
So no one just lump together all immigrants in this situation.
