My arch enemy friend Chris asked a reasonable question in comments on my Bryon York post. To Wit:

Pete, what circumstances would give an officer reasonable suspicion that a person was not a legal resident?

It’s the type of question that the media is all over today, it deserves an answer so here it comes.

You are asking the wrong person, let me explain why:

One of the things you learn in a job is how to recognize signs, for example, when debuging a system certain performance signs or browser actions will indicate a spyware issue. Others will indicate that temp files haven’t been cleaned out since sometime the Red Sox won the Series. I’ve found after a decade of doing this that I can watch a system for several minutes and have a pretty good idea what is going wrong.

This is true in any good profession or hobby. Mike the butcher can recognize the differences between different grades of meat in the shop. Bob the hardware guy knows a good door from a cheap one. Marge at ZuZu’s Petals knows a good flower from a bad one. Bill at the Border Grille & Bar knows the difference between a tomato that can be used in a salad, a sandwich or a salsa and one that is only usable during a bad performance onstage.

Likewise a police officer who has been trained in law enforcement and spending years or decades in an area where they’ve had to deal with illegal immigration on a daily basis would recognize things that you or I, not having having had said experience would not even think of looking for.

But Pete you say, we can’t trust the police to enforce the laws fairly. We can’t? Look at the record. Do you feel intimidated by the police in town? Do you feel scared or worried. They have all kinds of legal authority over you yet you don’t quake in fear? Why are you so ready to trust your local police but are unwilling to allow people from Arizona that same courtesy? Because they are different from you? Because they are republicans and/or conservatives? Because they are as Larry Baer called the tea party people “Stupid White People”? Talk about profiling!

Lets look at the record in one high visibility area. The police forces in the United States in cooperation with Federal and Homeland security have managed to successfully defend this nation from terrorist threats without the curtailing of individual rights particularly of American Muslims.

Can the American Muslim community honestly say their ability to work, or worship or live have been curtailed over the years? I think not. Can anyone rightly say that their ability to protest the war and call out President Bush was unreasonably restricted? It is to laugh.

I also think it is facetious to think that with national attention upon them said police are going to act capriciously when their jobs and futures are at stake, particularly in this economy. The ACLU, La Raza, Al Sharpton, The Free Muma, ANSWER, ACORN et/al and other who make their living ambulance chasing are drooling at the chance to catch them overstepping their authority. These cops know the score if you don’t realize that the you have not paid attention to our litigious society nor to the politics of the left.

So no I don’t know what would constitute a reasonable suspicion but the officers enforcing the law will, and if anyone is victimized by an officer going overboard there will be a plethora of lawyers and media to go after them that Ken Gladney never has and never will see after being beaten on film.

That’s why I and others don’t take people who are willing to call Arizona a police state seriously. They wouldn’t know a police state if it hit them upside the head and are only interested in feeling better about their self righteousness. Perhaps they should take a closer look at what is happening just across the border these days.

Claire McCaskill is about to go on, I’ll live blog it and see how much they feed her Arizona.

As you know I’m not a drinker but I’ll break out the 21 year old scotch and take a shot every time they mention Ken Gladney or the violence by opponents of the anti-immigration law.

I will likely be cold sober…

Update: The quote the Washington Post poll on the Bank bill, no word on the Arizona polls yet, still sober.

7:46 a.m. All pro Obama Bank bill all the time so far…

7:47 a.m. Will anyone ask her if the bill has been read by anyone?

…create a permanent minority for the republicans.

Lets go to the polls:

Seventy-seven percent (77%) of Republicans support the law along with 62% of voters not affiliated with either major party. Democratic voters are evenly divided on the measure.

Now I don’t claim to be more than a fat man in a Fedora who isn’t working but I do know a little math. If 50% of DEMOCRATS support this law then the problem politically isn’t Republicans.

Will they mention the Rasmussen reports poll? That would be journalism.

Joe Scarborough to Al Sharpton as he is leaving this Morning:

We are agreeing too much these days.

Joe I like you and I like Mika and I like Willie but if that statement doesn’t give you a clue that there is a problem then nothing will.

Will the talk about the vandalism by opponents of this bill with the same strength that the tea parties got hit for things that didn’t happen? I don’t know but it’s amazing that all I’m hearing is worries about what might potentially happen because of a law, vs what opponents of that law have ACTUALLY done.

C’mon Guys! Be reporters REPORT!

…when I hit him on the PorkBusters stuff. Then I went to Memeorandum and read his link concerning South Park and learned that islamic threats of violence were analogous to not rebroadcasting Sinead O’Connor dissing the Pope et/al.

They are analogous in the same way that California Bank and Trust closing a branch in California is to closing their WTC 1 branch in Sept of 2001.

Let’s me explain for those who might be regular Balloon Juice readers something called business.

If you have a business selling non unique goods and services to a customer base that is shared by your competitors , rule one is to avoid upsetting said customer base so they don’t choose to go to your competitors.

Or put simply: Piss off your customers and they will go elsewhere if they can.

Television runs on ads. The companies that run ads do so because they want to associate their ads to said show, celebratory etc… If that association costs them customers rather than helping them retain them (read GEICO voice over) then it doesn’t serve their purpose.

Thus a Bill Maher fails on ABC where his opinions and wit might hurt the bottom line but makes it on HBO where the customer base is different. That’s how the free market works…

…on the other hand we have. “Take off this show or I cut your throat.”

If you can’t tell the difference there isn’t a lot of hope for you.

Update: More economics from Doctor Zero via Robert Stacy.

I predict that this story via Glenn at Yid with Lid will not get airtime tomorrow morning on Morning Joe

Was the Joke Anti-Semitic? Well, the White House must have thought so. The White House transcript sent to reporters after the event conveniently began a couple of minutes into the speech. The video of the event posted on the Washington Institute Web site started right after the Joke, you can even hear the end of the laughter.

Its interesting that the same President that see racism in the legitimate actions of the Cambridge Police and the State of Arizona, hides the anti-Semitic prose of its National Security Adviser.

Now you would think that the national security adviser making a racially charged joke might draw some attention, but apparently this took place on Friday and nothing has happened. Will the show pick it up?

Exit question, what will happen first? This story being reported or a guest remarking on the lack of racial sensitivity among tea party attendees? Anyone want to make the odds?

A tweet today pointed me to the Dan Riehl, Ross Douthat, Mark Levin et/al stuff. So lets talk about thinkers who are or are not entertainers.

Douthat dismisses Levin as an entertainer saying that it is the only way to define Levin’s book and defend it.

There’s nothing wrong with appreciating these entertainers, admiring their success, and enjoying the way they skewer people and causes you dislike. But to insist that they’re also worth taking seriously as political and intellectual actors in their own right, worthy of keynote speeches at CPAC and admiring reviews in highbrow journals, is to make a category error that does no favors to the larger causes that you and they support.

Dan (the blogger least like what people expected at CPAC) Riehl hits Douthat as an entertainer as well:

The sum total of Douthat’s accomplishment comes from writing two books. That’s it. One can say anything one wants about them – but in point of fact, they are little more than entertainment for a mostly eggheaded bunch that enjoys talking about the nuance around and within politics without ever actually having accomplished much of anything.

Both Douthat and Riehl are right but I think both are missing the point here, so lets take this backwards:

When Dan blogs I presume he writes not only to express himself but in the hope that others might find his writing and ideas interesting enough to come back to read (If I’m wrong please correct me). He writes with the hope that it may be entertaining enough on either an intellectual or gut level to get that tweet from Sissy Willis or a blog post by someone else to get his thoughts and ideas out there. In other words he wants someone to entertain his ideas.

The relevancy of that thought and it’s worth in terms of expression come both from the meat of what he is saying and the response it generates, thus the entertainment value of said thoughts are part of the discussion of it is worthy emulating or advancing his positions.

Now I’ve met Dan once in passing at CPAC but I don’t know Dan or how he makes his living but he is not to my knowledge dependent on his writing for support so if he fails to cause people to entertain his thoughts it’s no skin off his back.

As far as Ross I’ve never met him at all, I’ve not read his books, and only occasionally read his columns which frankly leave me cold. But he’s writing for the NYT. He is paid to cover a niche, a conservative writer in a liberal paper. Just enough of a conservative to be called one but not enough of one to actually risk challenging the readers who are looking for affirmation over information.

Conservatives and conservative thinkers are not his audience. The times knows that he is not going to draw them and that’s not what he is paid for. His audience is the current times readership and it’s current publishing team. If he fails to generate the proper buzz, the right reaction, to entertain he will be replaced.

I don’t know if he cares if his ideas are advanced. I don’t know what ideas he wants to advance or any. I don’t know if he needs this job to make a living, but he is where he is as long as he serves the purpose in question and not a moment longer. If he fails to sustain that purpose, he’s out.

Now onto Mark Levin. I haven’t read his book, I don’t listen to his radio show, he’s louder than I like but when I’ve heard him he’s tended to talk sense. His arguments are strong enough that Millions of copies of his book have been purchased and read and his ideas advanced. His presentation is strong enough that thousands of people listen to him on the radio. The fact that they might also be entertained has no relevance on if his thoughts should be rejected, however if he fails to get those listeners his show will be off the air. This is a basic fact.

But Levin’s goal is two fold. He wants to make a living and he wants to advance a series of ideas. The combination of said ideas and an entertaining presentation has allowed him to do this.

The entertainer argument is most commonalty used against Rush Limbaugh. His job is to host a radio show and draw the greatest number of listeners possible to maximize the profit he can make selling ads. He has done this better than anyone else. No serious person denies this.

Rush also has a series of beliefs and ideas that he wants to advance. He has been very successful in this endeavor. No serious person can claim he has not been.

Rush’s ideas are also serious ideas offering solutions for actual problems. This is where certain serious people don’t DARE agree, not because it is not true, but because to acknowledge it imperils their own agendas.

Entertainer is not a bad word, to pretend it is rejects stump speakers who have made their case for hundreds of years and denies history. The rejection of that aspect of intellectual persuasion is in my opinion simply an aspect of pride and bigotry or simply sour grapes.

For related stuff check out this post at SISU

This is what tells me that the climate change scandal means something.

There was never a time when Lomborg would be considered a proper guest. He was considered an apostate.

Now they gave him only 3 sentences and he barely managed that the subsidies where just tax give aways. Never managed to mention his big argument that in terms of human issues, “global warming” is minor and we are fools to spend money on it while say Africa needs fresh water.

That this is on TV speaks volumes on where the scam has gone.

Not one question on the e-mail stuff. But for MSNBC it’s huge.

When you look at the South Park situation, the reaction of comedy central and the sudden concern at offending religion that seems to pop up as long as that religion isn’t Christianity in general or Catholicism in particular, it tends to make the average Christian sick.

You have seen the Lord berated, your forms of worship mocked. You find yourself called every name in the book in movies and film, you endure the wrath of the mainstream media for your willingness to stand against sin and when like all men, you succumb to sin of any sort they pounce with glee.

For Catholics in particular, the religion that brought you hospitals, education of the non-noble classes, the preservation of some of the greatest knowledge of antiquity, t religion that feeds, clothes, and shelters more people worldwide than any other and has done so for centuries. The religion whose dedication to educating the poor is so great that even atheists donate to our schools. To see comedy central happily insult Christ and the Pope while bleeping out even the name of Islam’s prophet, its gotta be another twist of the knife.

But worse than that, it is a temptation. It comes from jealousy. It is a little voice that is saying: “Hey you know that Christ is worth defending, you see how the media and almost everyone in Hollywood cringe and bow all it takes is an ambiguous phase.” Just one little suggestion, you don’t even have to do anything, that sort of a “me too” thing, than maybe just maybe they will decide to leave you alone too. It’s not so bad, after all it will keep them from violating the second commandment, it will keep kids from getting the idea they can make fun of the Lord. Maybe even save a soul or two.”

It’s the same kind of voice that the kid who works at the local grocery store for minimum wage hears when he sees a neighbor who is dealing with a $500 iPhone. It’s the voice the girl working two jobs to pay student loan hears when she sees another working three days at the strip club or maybe turning a trick, with money in the bank.

But most important of all it’s the same kind of voice that whispered to Scott Roeder, telling him it was alright to murder.

That voice should not be unfamiliar to us. it whispered to Herod to remove the children who might be a threat to their rule, it told Peter that it was ok to deny Jesus to save his skin, that told Pilate that it was better to kill an innocent man than to risk rebellion and told Judas that he was doing the right thing to deliver Jesus to the High Priest.

For a Christian that is the real significance of the South Park incident. Not what has actually been done, Christ and the Church has been the subject of ridicule as long as there have been Christians, it is the attempt to tempt away from our church, our faith and our very identity.

What should our response be? Prayer for Parker and Stone, Prayer for the Islamic barbarians who want to kill them, and prayer for that same media that scorns us.

It is through that prayer that we will not only save ourselves and others because in the end that is the bottom line. It’s what’s at stake, if we look at it otherwise, then we commit the sin of pride. There is a reason why it leads the list of deadly sins. As Christ said:

“If the world hates you, realize that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, the world would love its own; but because you do not belong to the world, and I have chosen you out of the world, the world hates you. Remember the word I spoke to you, ‘No slave is greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours. And they will do all these things to you on account of my name, because they do not know the one who sent me. If I had not come and spoken to them, they would have no sin; but as it is they have no excuse for their sin. Whoever hates me also hates my Father. John 15:18-23

This is the way things are, and we’d best act like it.

Morning Joe gets full marks for reporting on the South Park business, pointing out the threats, the difference between the way Mohammad was treated vs Christ, the foolishness of pretending that what was said wasn’t a threat, and the extra censorship on the rebroadcast. All very important, glad to see it happen.

However it was put under Wille Geist’s “News you Can’t use” section.

News you can’t use? Let me get this straight, Bill Clinton tries to link the Tea Parties to Tim McVeigh, that is fine. Radical Islam who you might have heard has a bit of history, “warning” south park is News you can’t use?

I suppose I should take what I can get from MSNBC, ya gotta walk before you run.

Update: Glenn has the line of the week: “Those who have no backbone will do the bidding of those who do.”