I've been a Medhead for years. His has been the only talk show I've gone out of my way to listen to.
Lately, Medved has lost his mind over the immigration issue, solidly supporting the President's, and, per force, McCain's amnesty plan. Medved becomes personally offended each and every time a caller uses the phrase "amnesty" regarding, well, McCain's support of the President's Amnesty program.
Well, Michael, it IS amnesty. You talk about a fine of a couple of thousand dollars as if their winning the lottery on this program somehow equates to "punishment," or something. It doesn't. In fact, the legality of such a plan is questionable at best, even if Congress passes it.... because of the Equal Protection clause: if you're going to provide illegal aliens with amnesty, you might have to provide EVERYONE AROUND THE WORLD WITH THE SAME CONDITIONS TO IMMIGRATE.
Try looking the American people in the eye and saying: "We're going to put a system in place that will give Mexicans or Canadians here illegally a free pass, but those of you, say, living in Tailand, Bolivia, Kenya or France who actually are obeying our laws by standing in the 20 year long line.... you're screwed."
Fat chance.
But McCain supports this utter nonsense. Medved is so completely wrong on this issue, but his support completely dovetails with McCain's. And the end result is that Medved has endorsed McCain... and his support of Amnesty is THE number one reason.
That, of course, is his privilege; no matter how misplaced and questionable it may be. But since he's admitted what we, his listeners, have known for months, his show has become a McCain "black hole," sucking all the oxygen out of every other issue of importance confronting us today.
We now have the economic stimulus package under consideration. I'm given to understand that illegal aliens will be getting rebates under the House plan stupidly supported by Republican House members, who must not have known this section was a part of the bill.
If McCain supports this legislation with such a component, he will be over. He wants to "reach out" to conservatives? Well, he needs to start HERE.
So, Mr. Medved, this message is for you: You can continue to utilize your program as a 3 hour radio infomercial for McCain if you like, but don't expect me to sit through it. Your efforts to spin and excuse McCain's political conduct will not be made successful using the Goebbelian approach of telling a lie long enough, loud enough and often enough to get us to believe it.
What you chose to broadcast is, essentially, up to you.
What I chose to listen to is entirely up to me.
Thanks.
Hinton
Regardless of whether the "amnesty" plan is good or bad, the fact is that "amnesty" has traditionally, and originally, meant a complete and total forgetting of an offense. The root word is "amnestia", the same Greek root that gives us "amnesia." So any fine, punishment, or legal record of any kind means that it is, under this definition, not amnesty. It is literally, to the law, as though it never happened.
(This is why Carter refused to grant actual amnesty, and called it a pardon instead. He wanted to remove the possibility of prosecutions, without sending the message that what they did was legally right.)
So by the original and -- until recently -- most common definition of the word, the plan IS NOT amnesty.
Granted, definitions change. Feel free to call it amnesty, but don't complain if someone disagrees with your definition, especially since their definition was probably here first. :-)
Using the word at all is poor strategy, because of the differing definitions. IMO what you would do better saying is "whatever you want to call it, it's a bad idea because ... ." And you basically did give your reasons, which is fine, but some people say "I am against it because it is amnesty" which is silly, because to many people, using the long-established definition of the word, it ISN'T amnesty.
So I am not complaining about what you said at all, except that one minor point. Feel free to ignore me. :-)
Posted by: pudge on January 30, 2008 01:59 PMFor a Republican, this convention is a no-brainer, but for McCain it will be like a Republican going into a union meeting for an endorsement.
This convention will be a tell-all for McCain v. the conservatives.
Hinton, contrary to reports in the comment section above, it was an amnesty plan.
Posted by: swatter on January 30, 2008 02:04 PMNow, to the meat.
The issue isn't semantics. Across this country, governments at every level have engaged in amnesties of various types for various reasons.
Fines, child support, back taxes, failure to pay code fees... even library fine amnesties. A quick google search, for example, using the search string " amnesty, fine -immigration " comes back with, in my case, 423,000 hits.
What they all seem to have in common is this: everyone involved has to pay something along the lines of a fine or fee. And each and every example is called an "Amnesty."
Medved and McCain and even Mr. Bush may feel free to call it anything they like. But at the end of the day, we have millions of people in this country here illegally. And what Medved/McCain et al advocate is a plan which causes them to pay cab fare, while simultaneously putting them ahead of every other person on the planet who is actually OBEYING our laws by working the system we have in place.
Would either of these two look into a camera and say to the rest of the world, "You, too, can come into this country, along with your entire family, just by having ONE of your family pay $2000! For that price, you get free welfare, food stamps, Medicare, Medicade and social security benefits for everyone you bring in! No waiting!"
Of course not. They're only saying it to those BREAKING OUR LAWS IN THIS COUNTRY.
I defer to the Duck Observation: If it walks, talks, looks, smells, sounds and acts like a duck.... why, then, it's a duck. And I really don't care what else they call it.
I am not pissed about this because of the label. I'm pissed about it because it is fundamentally unfair. It is unfair to the tax payers who will, again, wind up bearing the majority of this burden; it is unfair to the hundreds of thousands of people around the world trying to come here legally and who patiently wait their turn, frequently having to pay far more than the amount proposed for those breaking our laws, and it's unfair to the concept of rewarding those who violate our laws.
And by every definition I've just looked at... it's amnesty.
Posted by: Hinton on January 30, 2008 02:37 PMSomehow, I doubt it. Activists and Democrats will agitate for the fines to be forgiven and we will be right back where we started.
The path to full citizenship for illegals should at least be indexed to the average length of time (plus an additional waiting time) legal immigrants have to wait.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on January 30, 2008 03:39 PMAnd, he takes heated calls regarding McCain. To him, it is simple. The safety of the country is #1 to him and he believes McCain is the best for that.
Listening to him is a lot gentler than listening to Medved.
However, even G.Gordon calls it amnesty and doesn't agree with the McCainiacs.
Posted by: swatter on January 30, 2008 03:41 PMOf course. Nevertheless, semantics are a part of any communication.
I defer to the Duck Observation: If it walks, talks, looks, smells, sounds and acts like a duck.... why, then, it's a duck.
Sure. And because I am most familiar with the more well-established, original, definition of the word, it most certainly does not walk, talk, look, smell, sound, or act like a duck to me. Well, OK, maybe it smells like one.
If it appeared as amnesty to me, that would mean that it was effectively forgotten; since it is not, then it does not appear as amnesty to me.
And I really don't care what else they call it.
Yes, the point is not what it is called. But what it is called affects how it is discussed.
And by every definition I've just looked at... it's amnesty.
You haven't looked at enough definitions. :-) In the edition of Black's Law Dictionary I have here, amnesty is a "sovereign act of pardon and oblivion for past acts ... ." "Oblivion" means what it says: the past act no longer exists. It continues:
"Amnesty" and "pardon" are very different. The former is an act of the sovereign power, the object of which is to efface and to cause to be forgotten a crime or misdemeanor; the latter is an act of the same authority, which exempts this individual on whom it is bestowed from the punishment the law inflicts for the crime he has committed.
Granted, this definition is from 1910. But that doesn't diminish my point. I personally don't care what it is called, as I long as I understand what you mean. But many people on both sides argue over the word as though the definition IS the point, and this happens all the time. And as the point of using a word to describe an idea is so that you can clearly express the idea using that word, it is generally counterproductive for communication purposes to use a word that will be misconstrued or misunderstood by a significant number of people.
The EFFECT of paying these few dollars is, essentially, the PURCHASE of an amnesty; that is, you pay a few bucks, and all is forgiven.
I don't believe that even the definition you provided, Pudge, precludes the concept of payment in return for the cause to be "forgotten a crime or misdemeanor;" the term "amnesty" as I use it is shorthand for an unacceptable and unconscionable act on the part of my government which will accomplish absolutely nothing to reduce or eliminate the issue in question, an unacceptable and unconscionable act on the part of those proposing such an action, and on the part of those supporting it.
As I pointed out, governments in this country routinely grant amnesty in return for money. There is far more in common here with that practice, labeled "amnesty," than there is the idea that paying a small amount of money (And, of course, we can't forget the "financial aid" for those poor, unfortunate illegals that can't AFFORD the money....) to have all forgiven and be granted total access to this country and it's bounty, not only for yourself, but for your entire family being described by some other, less relevant term.
Illegal aliens paying a few dollars, particularly given what they will receive in return, doesn't make the word "amnesty" irrelevant to this discussion; nor is it IMO misapplied when the charge is directed at McCain.
As I also pointed out, Medved should feel free to use whatever terminology flips his switch, since it's his show.
But I also pointed out that saying it over and over and over again will avail them nothing, and that Mr. Medved will be doing it without me.
Posted by: Hinton on January 30, 2008 04:18 PMI also know the word amnesty wasn't used in the bill, nor was it intended as amnesty. It was just the color cards, in essence, gave the illegals amnesty.
Posted by: swatter on January 30, 2008 04:23 PMHinton, that doesn't work, because that fine still stays on your record, and your status is still "remembered," legally. Under a true amnesty, in the traditional definition, it would not be.
Hinton, you are arguing with the new Webster Dictionary man. You can't satisfy him.
Translation: "Waaaaaaah."
I understand what you are saying
As do I.
Posted by: pudge on January 30, 2008 05:50 PMMy point is simply that your view of the definition of the word DOES NOT MATTER. Neither does mine, of course. All that matters is the issue. And whether you think your definition is correct, or whether you think mine fits ... it doesn't matter. All that matters is whether we agree on the facts, and what our opinion about those facts is.
And obviously, this word often gets in the way of the discussion about the facts and opinions about those facts. That means, most likely, if you use it, you are not going to be communicating effectively.
I'll put it another way: this post of yours likely would get more people to agree with it if you left out discussion of the word "amnesty." And that's what you want, isn't it? Agreement on the issue, rather than the word choice?
I am not trying to beat you over the head with it, just adding my two cents. OK, four cents. I've said all I have to say on it ... and more. :-)
Posted by: pudge on January 30, 2008 05:59 PMI usually listen to the last hour of Medved. Recently, I too have grown weary of the non-stop McCain commercial. So my dial has moved to KOL and Dennis Miller, who is usually very entertaining.
I am still waiting for ANYBODY in the Seattle media or blogosphere to challenge McCain on his hatred of Boeing. People in the NW, especially Boeing workers, should be very afraid of McCain.
Posted by: Seabecker on January 30, 2008 08:33 PMI don't use the word debated above for precisely that reason.
My points, agreed with above, are that we have to get people to pay the big dollars that we all pay in taxes to prop up everything dreamed up by the Democrats in Olympia and DC.
That means we have to both fine the hell out of illegal immigrants, and then if they pay the fine, get them on the same tax rolls we are all on. If they are good with that, then OK, they can keep their jobs and stay.
And that's essentially what happens to those who come here and immigrate legally through the process because they pay taxs, fees, legal fees, etc. the whole way through. We should pick a nice big number that reflects roughly the price in taxes that the average border immigrant would have paid based on their time in country, and then stick it to them. If they can't or don't want to pay it, then send them home. I'm all for immigration to this country, and I'm even fine with Cubans who make it alive to our shores. Bring 'em on in, we love immigrants. But if you want to play and stay, you gotta pay. Large fines, taxes, etc. are the automatic relief valve that will properly regulate the influx. If the price is high, the demand will be low.
And if that allows some richer people to buy their way in to the US, boo hoo, it happens all the time with dignitaries and stars. OJ bought off a double homicide. Life is not fair, but we've got an expensive country to run, and so we gotta charge the big entry fee.
As for Medved, yeah, he's gotten so riled up with Immigration, that he's really not much fun to listen to. I see him mostly as the zig for McCain to contrast the zag for Romney from the other talk show hosts. Whatever, what matters are the ideas. McCain's ideas are not all that conservative. He is a domestic economic policy disaster, and a eco-nut that has bought the Global Warming rhetoric, without considering the science or the economic impact.
Posted by: Jeff B. on January 30, 2008 10:24 PMNow, when anti-McCain supporters called in he treated them poorly, IMO. And then on reflection, that was the reason I didn't like his show generally when he hammered his callers.
Posted by: swatter on January 31, 2008 08:03 AMThe first warning for us was his constant support of the de-facto anmesty bill.
Another warning was that the guy hates Halloween and eats tofurky at Thanksgiving. I don't trust anyone who eats tofurky. Ok I'm kidding, but only sort of.
Medved, who once was a far leftist, has not recovered entirely in my opinion. I think being a liberal for many years can leave one with a terrible liberal hangover.
Then he spent months pumping for Mike Huckabee day after day. Suddenly he came out for McCain and when he couldn't seem to talk about much else other than what a jerk he thinks Romney is, we switched over to Hannity.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 31, 2008 03:19 PMI bounce between Dennis Miller and Dori Monson now during the 12-3p slot.
Boze had Medved on his show briefly yesterday and both of them were tag-teaming the pro-McCain message. If Boze keeps this up, I'm going to dump him too. I wish he'd just stick to local politics. There's plenty of nonsense going on in Olympia to fill his show.
Posted by: Smoley on February 1, 2008 12:19 PMWhy are we making a new law about what we do with people who are in this country illegally? If the government choose not to enforce the existing law, why do we think they will enforce the new law? Anything less than complete enforcement of CURRENT immigration law is unacceptable to me. I don't care if you call it "amnesty" or McCain-Kennedy, or anything else!
Posted by: David on February 1, 2008 05:20 PM