I'm not going to bite ...

That's twice now, in the last week, that Titus has invoked the name "New Deal" in a seemingly nonchalant fashion ... and what's worse, refused to associate the word "failure" with it. This is when I typically go berserk because for the life of me I can't figure why someone whom continually demonstrates his recently arrived at (last couple years at least) conservative bonifides, and whom hammers the central planning and big government of the current administration, can still look on those years fondly (at any level) when to ANY conservative, of any stripe, there should be no bigger offender to his or her small government sensibilities than the court packing, constitution shredding, save WWII he'd rank next to Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. And I'm not sure why "its what the people wanted" continually creeps into the discussion. It smells suspiciously like some sort of default defense as to FDR's actions. Certainly 50 years from now any historian (or blogger-historian) could argue that Obama was simply "doing what the people wanted" given the people gave he and his Party control of both Houses of congress and the executive branch. Now look, I haven't the time nor inclination to get into this (not right now anyway, hehe). I have simply accepted as reality that the only way someone as full of common sense conservatism such as you, Titus, can "believe" New Deal's GIANT (not simply big) government agenda was the cause of any fundamental improvements found from 31'-41', is because you make that allowance outside the scope of objective analysis, read: emotional. Now I don't know if its from a youthful indoctrination at school or at home; or nostalgia; or its simply too much to accept that a man you championed all your life was in such immense error, but I do know that it makes ZERO sense for you, a conservative in every sense of the word circa 2010, would hold that in this ONE instance in history, this one sliver of time, that big government-central planning-alphabet soup programming WORKED.

Whether it be New Deal or the Bush/Obama bailouts the problem is (my opinion) that when government interjects on those unprecedented levels we get 5 to 10 years of "bad", instead of 1-2 years of "horrible", because no politician wants "horrible" to be in his 1-2 years, or be seen as not actively doing "something." Tougher to get reelected. Economic downturns, recessions, and depressions (I think it would be arrogant to believe we'll never see one again, & while we're at it, it's foul play to state as fact that "something" in New Deal is why we haven't had another, yet be wholly unable to identify that "something" ... but I digress), they are all going to occur no matter how much control we turn over to government, no matter how much the people clamor for its' involvement, so I would advocate not turning over bits and pieces of my freedom for what is by definition (when government intercedes) temporary, artificial relief. Because the only thing not temporary is government's retainment of the power (directly or abstractly via precedent) inherent in their intercession.

But what am I saying? You're a conservative, fiscally and socially. You know all this. You agree with that premise ... except from the magical years of 1931-1941, when inexplicably the opposite of what you espouse worked.

****

That "day" at work - HILARIOUS. I startled the kids when I laughed at that napkin/tie bit. Hehehehe.

****
Titus - you wrote a post entitled, "On Jambo's post", and started it by quoting the "75%" bit of the feds operating outside the scope of their powers. Not to quivel, but that was my post, the 75% assertions, etc. That was just a bit confusing is all. Not the post itself, but whom you were addressing.

****
Yes Jambo, you did make the point that Israel is freed from US concerns or wants given Obama's hostility has given them nothing to "lose" (in terms of friendships) were they to "disobey" DC. I was simply following up on that sentiment, not pretending to recently have discovered it.

****
On the fed vs state issue, allow a follow up to your recent Jambo -

"And Arizona, or Texas, or any of the border states, taking the lead in border security is another thing fundamentally NOT FAIR. It is a matter of national security, and thus under the umbrella of the Federal Government ..."

Now I know you went on to say that if the feds will not address the issue (& they're not), that it is within the state's purview to tackle it, as a matter of survival if nothing else. I want to note though - while "interstate" matters are within federal scope, "intrastate" matters are exclusively the domain of respective state governors. Even were the federal government cracking down like a North Korean border guard on amphetamines, the state would still retain the right to pass crime bills into law and police criminal activity within the state. To investigate legal status, arrest "coyote" smugglers, foreign national drug traffickers, etc, and turn them over to INS - as long as the state is not doing the deporting or making special arrangements with the Mexican government - then the governor is well within his rights (or in AZ's case, her rights). The AZ state police aren't amassing on the border, seeking individual state immigration laws, nor doing any deporting. They are simply policing crime intrastate. Obama could make Pat Buchanan "border czar" with a limitless budget, and AZ would still be well within their rights.

****

On the 14th Amendment. Titus is right in its' intention to counter Dredd Scott, and ensure all slaves born in the US had a right to citizenship.

It's Lindsey Graham (R) North Carolina (I think that's where he's from) that is pushing this. And I am in complete opposition. First off, the senators nickname among conservatives is "Lindsey Graham-nesty", for his support over the McCain/Bush immigration reform law. He is NOT a tight border advocate, not in the least sense. This is a shill, and a bad one. If the GOP retakes the senate he wants to maintain a position of leadership, and he thinks this makes him look "tough." It's a farce. Let me get this straight - a pregnant woman sneaks across the border and has her baby, OR a woman sneaks across the border, gets pregnant, and has her baby - and the problem in that scenario to Graham is the baby? How about the SNEAKING ACROSS THE FRIGGIN BORDER part??? This is the quintessential addressing symptoms and not the disease (not that people are a disease, you know what I mean). This doesn't secure the border! Tell me how not being able to have an anchor baby stops Hezbollah from crossing? Huh? There is a growing "OTM" epidemic. Google those 3 letters with "border" and see what pops up. It stands for Other Than Mexicans, and records of Arabic incursion is growing. Is our 14th Amendment being abused via these anchor babies? Undoubtedly. But to attempt to address border security in this way is asinine, in the extreme. Graham KNOWS he'll never get an Amendment passed so it's a way to look tough without the possibility of ever having to actually cast a vote on it.

And while we're at it there's one other reason I oppose this. I have a knee-jerk distrust of government, and this government in particular. Do conservatives not see how much power they are handing over if they allow any administration or congress (let alone this one) to DEFINE CITIZENSHIP? Really? Does anyone really want to hand that authority over to a modern day congress, with all the lobbying pressure groups, with all the left wing factions having influence within the Democrat Party leadership, with the proven audacity of this group to pass law not favored by a majority of the American public? Is ANYONE comfortable with this government getting to redefine citizenship in any fashion they choose? Not I.

Nice try Lindsey Graham, but I work in a casino, I know a shill when I see one.