Machete

Ok, not quite sure how to proceed with this one. There's going to be a lot of talk about it, so no point in my going over the story line.
First off, it's a spoof. Everything is caricatured and exaggerated so far beyond reality, playing upon every stereotype, there is something in here to give pause to just about everyone.
I'll just warn you: if you see yourself here,regardless of what side you may be on, you may want to tone your shit down a little.
Gratuitous violence. Gratuitous nudity. Wild-eyed Rednecks. Mexicans on cultural steroids. Does it sound fun so far? It is. I haven't laughed this hard in a movie since I don't know when.

Pleasant surprise: Robert Deniro in a role I've never seen him in before: as a race-baiting Texas senator who's made the immigration issue his career's focus. He pulls it off so well that I didn't recognize him at first.

The bad: Steven Seagal, who plays a Mexican drug lord so poorly he can't even keep the accent up. He deserves to never work again.

The message, as I see it, is how both sides of the border issue are being manipulated by the powerful people on both sides of the border for their own gain. There's probably more truth here than people realize if they bother to see it.

It's a must movie. I think you'll love it.

Self-Godwining

From wiki:

Godwin's law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's law of Nazi Analogies) is a humorous observation made by Mike Godwin in 1989 which has become an Internet adage. It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches." In other words, Godwin put forth the sarcastic observation that, given enough time, all discussions—regardless of topic or scope—inevitably wind up being about Hitler and the Nazis.

Godwin's law is often cited in online discussions as a deterrent against the use of arguments in the widespread reductio ad Hitlerum form. The rule does not make any statement about whether any particular reference or comparison to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that the likelihood of such a reference or comparison arising increases as the discussion progresses. It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued[4] that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.

And this:

There are many corollaries to Godwin's law, some considered more canonical (by being adopted by Godwin himself) than others. For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress. This principle itself is frequently referred to as Godwin's law.

Emphasis mine.

In my last discussion, I intentionally self-Godwined.
Trying to compare an illegal alien dishwasher to a convicted murderer, and then using this comparison to justifying taking from his innocent children the only grace the roulette wheel of life may ever offer them, was just more than this two-fingered typist (and mediocre intellect) serving as your host was able to deal with while keeping his honor intact.
Rather than continue, I turned the knife and thrust backward.
You win.

It was harakiri, not name calling.
I was not, and am not, calling anybody here a Nazi.

Correction

I (Tully) am a firm believer in the principle that, with great editorial license comes great editorial responsibility. In an earlier post on hot sauces, I claimed that Tomazula was my favorite hot sauce. Those, my dear readers, were the claims of a deranged mind. I confused Tomazula with Picamas, which is my actual favorite. Rich, flavorful ripe chili peppers go into this sauce to give it a thick, ketchup-like consistency without the use of Guar Gum or any such nonsense. Yes, the thickness comes from adding flour. The result is that the vinegar is delightfully understated. Yes the label features a less than dynamic characterization of the people to whom it is marketed. But it is indeed a Mexican's hot sauce. It has not so much a bite as a slow, sumptuous chew. Biting-heat is a taste of Tex-Mex origin...as I understand it the premium among actual Mexicans is placed upon richness. That's a generalization, but I think it's as true as this sauce is enjoyable.

Birthright Citizenship III

OK, here I am picking up where I left off at what seems like too long ago, now:
Birthright Citizenship, and it's 'problems', as they are seen as problems by others.

The element of the issue I want to discuss this time is the Mexican side: Mojados, and the babies that anchor them. (Maybe we can call them mojaditos?)

I'm already on record with opposing the status quo that allows mass mojadoism, and those who cater to them. But I'm not really talking about them.
Nope. I'm not. The issue is Birthright Citizenship, and the citizenship status bestowed upon their offspring who are born here.

I've heard some compelling arguments in favor of the idea that the Supreme Court can rule against citizenship status for mojaditos, all based upon the law and other considerations. I'm seeing that they may have a valid point, even from my limited conservative view of what the constitution means. That aside, I also believe that the words of the constitution mean what the common 'man on the street' would understand them to mean in the context in which they were adopted. So, I can see this going both ways, and both ways being accurate from a legal perspective (a perspective that I, admittedly, am not schooled in, so take that for what it's worth.)

(Despite these arguments, I still favor the simple language interpretation that currently rules the day. To me, this interpretation is the most legit because it passes the 'man on the street' test. Once again, for what it's worth.)

Now, on the subject of mojaditos, and a Supreme Court challenge: do we really want to go there?

Anybody who tells me they want to deny status to these children must first explain how the hell they can take a kid who spends his whole life living in Los Angeles, Dallas, Chicago or Topeka ... and then say he is not a part of our national community?
And if he's discovered by I.C.E., what are they gonna do with him? Deport him to a country that he's never been in, or a part of?

This is America. We don't penalize kids for the misdeeds of their parents, and the 14th Amendment not only did some justice for Blacks, it also says, if indirectly, that one's social caste is not fixed at birth.

These are American kids, who grow up to become American adults. And if you do not believe this, believe it anyway. Believe it because I said so.
I've spent my entire life (from age three) surrounded and immersed in the people and culture of first generation Mexicans.
Sure, many of them may possess peculiar interests in the absurd distractions of mariachi, FIFA, and classically mutilated Chevys in colors God never intended.
Truth be told...
And I'll say it...
In large numbers they absolutely do provide annoyances of epic proportions. Well, so did (and still do) the Irish, and everybody seems to think them damned Irish are pretty cool, now.

But they also host Super Bowl parties, join Little League, barbecue on July 4th and enlist, and die, in the United States Armed Forces at levels far and above their representation in the population.
(Among the fallen: the Mexico-born cousin of a coworker who was brought to this country as a baby, and amnestied according to the 1986 law)
They mow their own lawns, wash their own cars, and their kids aren't afraid to break a sweat for a few bucks.
Hey guys, Social Security is going broke. Americans won't breed at replacement levels, and white boys think they're entitled. Who's taxes are gonna pay for all that shit you promised for yourself later in life?

You don't have to like the mojaditos, but don't blame them. Blame the The Power that wants the status quo to continue. Any attempt to deny them status is mean spirited, ignorant and unjust.
It's not only wrong for America, it's also not what America is about.
It's just wrong, period.

Nothing quite like using your First Amendment rights to justify curtailing somebody else's First Amendment rights.
But it's the patriotic songs, (you know, the ones that glorify freedom and liberty?) that are the nicest touch.

Democracy: Tastes like Chicken

by Tully

I should note that, as Antony Bourdain wrote: Chicken is for people who don't know what they want.

The worst form of government? The best? What do these mean? Does anyone honestly think, upon a moment's reflection, that this question can be decided without reference to the cultural and religious context of a given people's history? It's a belabored point...tainted irreparably with banal relativism. I would like to give it new luster, if it is in my power.

I guess I'll have to say it: a people must acquire a taste for democracy, for republics, for monarchy and for any form of government. Our food, our air, our music, our art...everything, in short, in our everyday lives, which is discursive without being politically or formally discursive, goes into our developing these tastes. Wagner and vegetarianism (of which Wagner was a zealous proponent) led to fascism in Germany, but one does not acquire a taste for Wagner out of the blue. Just try listening to The Ring Cycle today and this becomes obvious: one needs to listen to a series of Wagner's less Wagnerian influences. One needs to have available good potatoes and dumplings to become a vegetarian. One needs to breath the cool, loveless air of the North not to be appalled by Das Reingold.

But do we insist that, in spite of historical influences, there is a right and wrong form of government?

A government of, for, and by the people? Yes, any good government must be of, for, and by the people. But such is monarchy. Such is dictatorship. Such is every form of government that is sustainable. What is in question is merely a matter of succession. What "the people" want, invariably, is as little doubt as possible over the succession of their leaders. Democracy is one way to minimize this doubt. A preferred method in a world in which blood has lost its worth. But blood has not lost its worth, has not become a thing of deception, through a rational observation of the occasional madness of kings. Medical knowledge, the myth that individuality is thicker than blood, the American gastronomic obsession with meat, the marital myth of alliance, and later that of love...countless factors, in short, of all facets of our lives, have fed, in reciprocal motion, the taste for democracy. Thus did it become fitting and good to adopt a republic for our form of government. As our diets, our everyday relationships, our language and our climate (unless if that's a ploy to get Al Gore rich) change more and more, so must our understanding of what a tasteful democracy may be.

I speak no relativism. Relativism would say that our principles are right because we chose them to begin with. Legalism, absolutism, fundamentalism are relativist, because the choice remains unbound, floating upon the anachronism of a lost language into lost millenia. I speak of a moral fervor for history: This is how we have come to be as we are; our tastes being acquired, we commit ourselves to new and greater tastes. We challenge ourselves by improving our air, improving our diets, improving our music and our friendships. We destroy what we were, and in trying to destroy, with discipline as only honest toil can instill and with lightness of heart. There is nothing more moral than to challenge--through continual destruction and renewal--my own morality...my own aesthetic...my own world. Finally it is God who needs reworking. God was once a destroyer. A creator by destruction, ex nihilo. If God is love, then God, like love, must destroy, as must we, made in her image. God is not a democrat. At least, not a life-long democrat.

If we don't build the mosque, won't the jihadists be mad at us?