The Frankish Reich

So ... why did you folks come back? You had your little club. You didn't invite in dissenting voices. You didn't have to use the "ignore" function because it was an ideal echo chamber. So ... why?

RIP guitarist Mick Ralphs. His lost (stolen) six-string razor inspired this classic. (He went on to make worse but more lucrative music in Bad Co.)

As far as actual policy goes, look at the farmworkers. An immigration attorney I knew who was active at the time of Reagan's "amnesty" bill used to joke that the way to eliminate a farmworker was to give him legal status. The Reagan "Special Agricultural Worker" path to legal residence applied to those who could show they were working in the fields; as soon as they got legal status, off to the cities they went for better paying/less back-breaking work. So how do we pick the crops without illegal aliens? Is there some kind of temporary visa that would work? Legalization doesn't. Keeping them illegal just allows them to be abused by their employers. Some say the old "bracero" program, where Mexicans worked seasonally and had money deposited into a Mexican account (to be withdrawn only when they returned) was better, but that program was fraught with abuses too. All I can say is that the current debate/positions is not productive. It ignores reality. It will never result in good policy, whether it is Biden's "let 'em in/let 'em stay" or Trump's "mass deportations." Congress: do your job. Listen to people who know the field. At least try to fashion sensible policy.

That graph above is from Krugman's blog. I've been involved off and on with immigration enforcement and policy ever since I got sworn in as a lawyer. I'm a realist. Neither political side has embraced realism for more than a few moments. Democrats typically think that because most immigrants, legal or illegal, are hardworking and generally law-abiding (save for that illegal entry), it follow that enforcement of immigration laws is bad. Republicans typically think that illegal entry is an offense to the very concept of a law-abiding nation, and that strenuous enforcement will right that wrong with little or no cost to Americans. In fact, they think it may be a net benefit. The reality is ... the reality. We have an illegal immigration system in America, and the American economy has come to rely on it. Both Republicans and Democrats need a dose of reality here.

Very well said. The constant thing gnawing at me: in order to get to this point, the US and even Israel have gone all in on the Saudis as the lesser of two evils. (In reality, it appears the Trump believes there is nothing evil at all about them.) Evil or not, have we overestimated the stability of that regime? Has anyone taken a close look at the ridiculous projects they've been funding while the oil money continues to shower down on them? Granted, the Saudi feudal rulers may well continue in place for long while - maybe even a generation or even two - but when it all ends it won't end pretty.

Damn fools be damned! For the record, I have never reported anyone at TBD to the mods for any reason. Ever. The simple solution would be to ignore a poster you find obnoxious. But perhaps first look up the meaning of "ignore."

https://www.startribune.com/a-devout-christian-with-failed-ambitions-and-an-arsenal-of-firearms-chooses-war/601375444 As usual, the mainstream media has done a far better job than the crackpot right (or left) at explaining the unexplainable. (Paywalled, but you all know how to removepaywall…) Kind of a lifelong loser, moving between bouts of religious fervor and cockamamie grandiose plans vs. nice guy introversion. I’m no psychiatrist but “bipolar” springs to mind. Not as sexy as a USAID modern MK-Ultra Manchurian Walzer, but a lot simpler and more credible.

DR got DR banned. Simple as that.

I am actually an iceberg fan. I never understood the foodie hate for it. Sometimes a cold/crisp/taste-free vehicle for for dressing and various accoutrements is perfect. Don't hate on iceberg. Hate on curly frisee.

I've asked myself that question many times. It just got to be a really popular "lifestyle" destination in the 2010s. Lots of newcomers (I've been about 25 years) with the pace increasing straight up thru COVID. Along with the influx of young/educated people came businesses relocating here. The same phenomenon as Austin, and now SLC. It is somewhat self-correcting though. Denver clearly now has a rep as a high cost of living location and we're seeing net out-migration. Watch out Orlando, it's coming for you! If you're a homeowner and don't need to move, you'll be cashing in someday ...

So embarrassed. Spell check, you let me down! Your gonna have to stop up you're monitoring.

Hunter Nation? Whatever. Just pull it.

Opportunity for me to be elitist foodie who criticizes iceberg lettuce eaters: you want ranch with that?

Yes, and the Senate Majority is absolutely free to override her by eliminating the filibuster rule. Which they don't want to do for obvious reasons. This was totally predictable when the Rs tried to jam all sorts of tangential things into a budget resolution act. Big. Bloated. Ugly.

Yep. Overheard in Whole Foods in my neighborhood just now: Q. "Whare are the heads of lettuce?" A. "We are out of iceberg lettuce right now."

Not on point, but ... Actually, your real estate is pretty reasonable in comparison to most other Sunbelt cities. The median price of an existing home in Denver is almost $200K higher than in Orlando.

So let me play devil's advocate here for a moment. (I'll note that I don't disagree with seizing the moment to take out Iran's nuclear program, as long as the Admin officials who were sent out to say "this is not about regime change" are right.) What does "energy independence" or "energy dominance" (in Trump's usage) get us? If it isn't about getting involved in the Middle East or choosing sides in the Iran-Saudi proxy war, what is it about? Why is it an important goal if we are still - for whatever reason - going to pay undue attention on a region that is otherwise pretty marginal to the world (and specifically US) economy?

Edgy is back in style. Some say it never went out. For those who don't get it, thank God (the evangelical Christian one) that we have the Babylon Bee.

While we live under the constant threat that Tulsi's and Kristi's Fox News Cougar makeovers may eventually cause them to merge into one person, for now they remain (somewhat) separate. Keep Elon out of this. Glenn has issues. I am offering help.

A big step back. 1970s. The common wisdom: the geographic coincidence that most of the world's usable oil is located under unstable monarchies in the Middle East forces the US to be involved in all kinds of otherwise local disputes that we'd rather not be part of. The dream: U.S. Energy Independence. That will free us from having to be involved in a region of ancient hatreds and poor governance. 2010s: the shale oil boom that had been anticipated since the 1970s finally becomes reality as fracking technology takes off. We are genuinely energy (at least oil/gas) independent! I guess we can disengage from these ancient disputes, right? That seems to be a big motivator for Trump voters, right? No. I guess not.

I suspect you're right. And I really hope you're right.

How this works on a very local level: We had a local golf course in Denver on kind of marginal land adjacent to I-70. The area started to gentrify. The people of Denver didn't want a big residential/commercial development there, so the City purchased a "perpetual conservation easement" from the owners for $2 million. The easement restricted the land to use as a public recreational amenity; basically, only a golf course fit the bill. The owners then said it wasn't viable as a golf course. They shut it down and let it become an eyesore. Developers lobbied ($$$) the City Council for a ballot proposition to eliminate the "conservation easement" so the land could be developed. Voters shot it down. By now it was pretty clear that the people simply didn't want more development there. The developers didn't give up. A developer bought the golf course (still subject to the conservation easement) for a bargain basement price of $24 million. If the easement was removed, it's easily worth 20 or more times that. And guess what? Another ballot proposition. This time they "greenwashed" it, claiming that an infill project would be good for the climate and for poorer Denverites who need more housing. The City Council ($$$) agreed. Get that zoning/easement changed and the developer has just made maybe $100 million through lobbying/rent-seeking behavior. It lost again. Finally the city gave up. You apparently can't bs your voters 3X. It'll now be some kind of public park. That's how the developers work. We need to sell marginal BLM/USFS land to ease the housing crunch. But that land can't be used for housing because it's too far away from population centers and/or has no water rights. Never mind. We'll fix that later through more lobbying ($$$), then we'll make real money.

Still can't unsee the mental image that conjured. BTW, his son is a DL recruit at WV. Keep your pants on, kid.

Yes. Because you are either incredibly naive or self-hating if you openly support a party pledged to undo recognition of your family as legitimate. So go ahead, plead with the OP to change the title of this thread to "Naive gay man proves naivete yet again."