sarge87

Arizona residents and businesses are fighting back. This is the "Dumbest Person in the World" quote of the day by the local San Diego politician who voted to censure Arizona...

Doesn't matter if it's preempted by federal law. Really??? Then I guess you've never heard of 287(g). Besides, AZ Senate Bill 1070 does not preempt anything. It only requires the state to enforce federal law which is perfectly legal. If that weren't the case, then the States couldn't prosecute capital crimes like bank robbery, kidnapping, and murder, because there are federal laws in place prohibiting those heinous acts. You can't strike down a law as unconstitutional on "what ifs." So sorry, you are dead wrong here and I have constitutional scholars to back me up on this one.

There's a whole generation of Nebraskan's who don't identify with the OU rivalry because it hasn't been that yearly red circle game. They identify with CU and recently Mizzou as the big game of the season.

I found myself yelling at the TV reliving that debacle. God I HATE Texas.

Link Instead of answers to the reporter's questions, someone should have substituted ***crickets chirping*** for Beebe's answers. That idiot has no clue.

That is the common misconception that is being spread around. The cops can't pull you over for looking Hispanic, that would be profiling, which has been, and still is illegal. This law pertains to people rightfully pulled over or stopped by police. Those people have to simply show proper ID or documentation. It would be a shame if this law is found to be unconstitutional. You are correct. All the opponents of this law can only lie and distort what it actually details. And the law won't be declared unconstitutional. Why you ask? Arizona has a history of writing sound laws that withstand legal challenges. The ACLU and MALDEF had so far failed to overturn two prior Arizona laws, one requiring proof of citizenship for voting and the other dissolving any business that knowingly hires illegal immigrants more than once. The latter case is before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Here's the deal. Arizona's immigration law mirrors the federal statute to a T. When they crafted this law, they made sure they crossed all the T's and dotted the I's. The Justice Dept. would have already had a hold put on the law with one of the the federal courts already if they had standing, but up until now they haven't found a way to challenge it. If LA wants a pi$$ing match over this law then Arizona should cut the power and water off to LA. I wonder who would flinch in that game of chicken?

Actually holvy if you are "caught" without documentation in good ole Mexico you can be imprisoned in a cockroach infested hole for 2-10 years. That's of course after the Federales' rob you of any cash or valuables you have on your person. And if you think you're going to get help by the US State Dept. Think again. Because if you aren't connected politically in the States, you will rot in jail. My neighbor's, who live next door are from Guatemala. He says Mexico's southern border is militarized to the teeth and if they catch anyone crossing usually results in someone getting shot. However, the women are spared this. They are usually raped repeatedly -- then shot.

Someone sent me an order to paint BRI's new parking spot. Just wondering where I should put down the stencil?

That's a great question! I love Anthony Bourdain. He kicks the butt of anything on Food Network. Zimmer is OK, Man vs. Food is OK. I agree, Bourdain kicks @ss. Have you ever watched Dinner Impossible with Chef Robert Irvine on the Food Network? Bits and pieces. It doesn't grab my attention like Bourdain. The only things I watch on FN are Tyler's Ultimate (religiously) and Giada's shows, if they're on when I'm cooking and nothing else is on. I'm a huge Tyler Florence disciple. I have all of his recipes downloaded and I make at least one for dinner every week. I've tracked down recipes from some of the No Reservations shows, too. So far my favorite is Feijoada, which is the traditional dish of Sao Paulo, Brazil. I had a Paulista I met on an MMORPG verify that it was traditional. Not bad, but not something I'd eat every week. Or every month. I have all of Tyler Florence's and Bobby Flay's cookbooks. Feijoada takes forever to cook but it is quite tasty. Hell, anything with pork for that matter is quite tasty. If you're into South American/Mexican cuisine, I would recommend any videos and cookbooks by Chef Rick Bayless. I like watching Dinner Impossible because I used to work in the catering business. I can empathize with the Chefs when the client throws them a last minute curveball sometimes changing their whole menu. I don't know how many times I had a client entirely change the menu a few days before an event. Talk about pressure, but what do you do? If you want the business, you roll with it.

The whole thing is carefully worded. There's no denial in there. The obligatory non-denial denial.

The poor schmucks over at the ISU board look like this. If NU and Mizzou do jump ship to the Big whatever, I want to have a front row seat to the pitchfork and torch party the rest of the Big (12 - 2) gives Dan Beebe.

That's a great question! I love Anthony Bourdain. He kicks the butt of anything on Food Network. Zimmer is OK, Man vs. Food is OK. I agree, Bourdain kicks @ss. Have you ever watched Dinner Impossible with Chef Robert Irvine on the Food Network?

My invitation must have gotten lost in the mail It's open....buy a plane ticket, swim to the boat You jerk! You know I can't swim!! Dem bones don't float?

a couple things to consider, this appears to be a situation where the principal has too many issues before him and is liable to make a bad decision because of stress, rather than the beginning of a stalinist/statist government. not that this justifies the principal, but he probably thought that the students were being wise and there was the potential for a problem. he obviously overreacted. also, a student's rights do end at the schoolhouse door, which does not mean they should be prohibited from wearing patriotic clothing, but public schools do have dress codes and you can't say anything you want. there are many examples of how a student doesn't have the full rights they would outside of school. The above bolded was the author of the articles opinion -- not the Principal's. Nobody is disputing the fact that students' rights are somewhat limited in the school setting. I've been a member of our local school board on and off the last 15 years, and I know enough to know this particular Principal ignored his chain of command and made a decision that could ultimately cost the district millions of dollars if the aggrieved parents decide to litigate. All the Principle had to do was contact the school district's lawyer (every district has one) for advice on the matter and he would have been told he couldn't do what he did and saved himself a huge headache. This case has been the litmus test for free speech in public schools for over 50 years.... Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) In December 1965, Des Moines, Iowa residents John F. Tinker (15 years old), John's younger sister Mary Beth Tinker, (13 years old) and their friend Christopher Eckhardt (16 years old) decided to wear black armbands showing peace symbols on them to their schools (high school for John and Christopher, junior high for Mary Beth) in protest of the Vietnam War and supporting the Christmas Truce called for by Senator Robert F. Kennedy. The school board apparently heard rumor of this and chose to pass a policy banning the wearing of armbands to school. Violating students would be suspended and allowed to return to school after agreeing to comply with the policy. Mary Beth Tinker and Christopher Eckhardt chose to violate this policy, and the next day John Tinker also did so. All were suspended from school until after January 1, 1966, when their protest had been scheduled to end. The court's 7 to 2 decision held that the First Amendment applied to public schools, and that administrators would have to demonstrate constitutionally valid reasons for any specific regulation of speech in the classroom. Justice Abe Fortas wrote the majority opinion, holding that the speech regulation at issue in Tinker was "based upon an urgent wish to avoid the controversy which might result from the expression, even by the silent symbol of armbands, of opposition to this Nation's part in the conflagration in Vietnam." The Court held that in order for school officials to justify censoring speech, they "must be able to show that [their] action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint," allowing schools to forbid conduct that would "materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school." The Court found that the actions of the Tinkers in wearing armbands did not cause disruption and held that their activity represented constitutionally protected symbolic speech. As for your mention of dress codes...Yes they are legal because the dress code encompasses all the student body which falls under the equal protection status. As long as the student handbook designates what is proper and improper attire within reason.

I don't watch a whole lot of television but I try to catch these when I do. Chuck Burn Notice NCIS White Collar

That is actually a very good point. Never thought of it like that. It is just really hard for me to believe that anyone actually looks at this situation like that, from either side of the debate. I feel like most people resort to making every situation a racially hostile stand off instead of actually taking a more sensible approach. Manhattan it's all about how political correctness is dividing this country. The entire pretense of Political Correctness is a veiled attempt at curving free speech and for all tense and purposes a sham. I see political correctness to be about enforced conformity in behavior not conformity in values. It's about changing the words people use, not about changing the ideas and prejudices that underlie those words. We're so damned worried about offending this or that group to the point we can't even communicate with each other anymore. Personally, I would rather people be honest with the words they use than create an impression of being tolerant or inclusive that hides the very ugly reality of their beliefs and intentions. In my opinion, the loudest voices of tolerance are usually the most intolerant.

First of all, neo-progressive conformist is just longhand for "group think." And you have made yourself quite clear on many occasions in respect to the role of government and individual citizens rights. If it benefits the general welfare of an aggrieved group through the transfer of wealth, properties, and labor then the individual be damned. This shows how really out of touch with the laws you are in regards to your rights. Those students who wore the American flags on their shirts do not shed their First Amendment rights at the schoolhouse gates. Administrators cannot ask students to relinquish their freedom of speech and expression due to the fear that something might happen. When a person's right to freedom of speech or expression is restricted to prevent another party from reacting, it's known as the heckler's veto. This is a perfect example of how heckler's veto was used to displace the students' freedom of speech. Every viewpoint has a particular averse viewpoint. That's why the First Amendment is there - to support unpopular expression. Now, I will tell you why the shirts cannot be deemed offensive by the school. On any other day those shirts are perfectly acceptable to wear. If the school had a written policy that all students cannot wear nationalistic wardrobe at any time because it is disruptive. Then that would be a valid rule because it is applied equally across the board. However, there is no such policy. If you allow one group to wear the Mexican flag then you have to let the group who wears the American flag the same privileges. Equal protection means exactly that. Wow, out of all that you somehow come to the conclusion I was questioning your patriotism or is it you really had nothing else to bolster an extremely weak argument. I mean really, you've already played the religion, race, and xenophobe cards. It would be logical to play the "are you questioning my patriotism" defense card to somehow put me on the defensive. However, I just don't play that way. Now you did use the quote below, did you not? I was just replying in the same context as you used when referring to your flag and you went and got all indignant on me about questioning your patriotism when I didn't. However, I am satisfied it had the desired effect so you can see what it is like when you're on the receiving end.

Things I have gleaned from the replies to the OP..... Pretty freakin' ridiculous isn't it? I often wonder what America would be like if it's citizens acted with the same kind of compassion and tolerance that their country and faiths so fervently claim to stand for. Yes...We know...You are so far more superior than those rubes who believe in the boogity boogity. Buy another CD -- this tune is getting tired and worn out. Swastikas....really? Yeah, these kids look like your average run-of-the-mill skin head white supremacists. Invoking Godwin's Law already... You keep your hammer and sickle. It doesn't represent the America I know, where all speech is protected -- not just some cynical, neo-progressive, conformist view. I'm confused. Aren't all the students Americans? Who is being disrespected by the display of our shared national flag? The five students didn't tell anyone else not to wear the colors of the Mexican flag; why should Hispanic students demand that their classmates not wear the colors of the American flag — which is, of course, also the flag of the Hispanic students? With all the "identity politics" inundating students on a daily basis under the guise of instilling pride and self-esteem they have been convinced that they are somehow distinct from and separate from the other American students. The symbol of the American flag is now insulting, offensive, and disrespectful. A perfect example of cultural xenophobia exhibited by the Mexican-American students. This is for the math challenged who think 5 people....let's count again for all the slow people....5 people....who can make 200+ people feel so uncomfortable they couldn't shove a greased BB up their collective asses. Either the 200+ can't fathom ignoring a small non-vocal minority, or is it their fragile little psyches can't accept someone who has an opinion that differs from theirs. Wait a minute....(5 < 200+)....who's actually the minority here? And...who are actually the racists and here? The 5 students who exercised their 1st Amendment rights or a school administration who assumed the Hispanic students would respond with violence, in their words; "the patriotic shirts could trigger fights." The insinuation that the Hispanic students would erupt in violence at the sight of an American flag, and the only preventative measure is to cower at the presumptive violence and to preemptively cave in to the mob's demands in banning the flag from campus. Whites must tolerate contrary speech — but not Hispanics, because they can't handle it. What a vile, oppressive, and lying meme to inject into the brain of an adolescent. Others have charged this is somehow a form of "disrespect." Are Hispanics too emotionally fragile to understand that ethnicity is not the same as nationality, and neither is equivalent to identity? This my friend is the soft bigotry of low expectations. In what could have been a real teaching moment, the school's administration could have explained the celebration of Cinco de Mayo was a celebration of one victory by Mexico over the French -- the very war in which the US was allied with Mexico. Had it not been for American involvement in the French-Mexican War, Mexico would have been the property of France. The school missed a golden opportunity to have an open dialog, instead as it is the usual case, the spectre of political correctness further opens the chasm of divisiveness. Actually not an isolated incident sd sker.....Here's the proper example of what should have happened. It's so very simple. If you let everyone know they will be treated by the same standards....no trouble. What a concept! This precedent of letting groups of people think they have no right to be offended is dangerous and stupid.

Genachoski is misleading the public. The Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit did not "strip" the FCC of any authority; it confirmed that the FCC did not have that authority in the first place and was exceeding the authority granted to it by Congress. This decision did not, as Julius Genachowski is quoted as saying above, create a problem. It actually alleviated one: a violation of the rule of law.

+1 Not to mention outrageously cheap. I bought a 5"x5" bin of jalapenos - probably around 20 or so - for $2 at the Omaha farmer's market. Same thing goes for tomatoes, onions, and peppers too. Never been to the Lincoln one, but can only assume similar prices and quality. Speaking of quality, there definitely is taste difference between farmer's market produce and store-bought. Try making a salsa with a store bought tomato, then with a farmer's market tomato. No comparison. The reason store bought tomatoes suck is because they are picked green off the vine and shipped to a warehouse which pumps 3% Oxygen and 97% Ethylene gas into a ripening closet to mature the fruit. The result is something that looks ripe on the outside but is very tasteless and tough on the inside. Home grown tomatoes are the best hands down.

So true.... Corn based ethanol is another, but don't say that too loud in mixed company either.

That's a curious response. Racism is racism, no matter who the racist or who the victim. i just want to point out that just admitting there are racial inequalities or differences of races or so forth does not mean a person is a racists. i think it is hard to speak honestly about race without being pegged a racist. disclaimer: this is just an observation, not an attack or defense of chambers or any other poster. Good points... But using that perception as an extortion device or as a PC hammer to bludgeon genuine intellectual disagreement over policy as a means to censorship should not be tolerated. Too often it is excused as it's just (insert name here.)

I liked this KSU video better just from a comedy standpoint.