Contingency is the great trickster of history. Let's assume that wealthy Republican John Sidney McCain III had picked a serious running mate (say, Florida's popular Gov. Charlie Crist or even Mitt Romney), turned on the fighter-jock charm and not panicked during the financial panic. And won a close 2008 election. What would have happened?
The EPA would have seen its regulatory depredations reined in, especially new rules for greenhouse gases. Indeed, nothing would have been done to address climate change. Science would have been marginalized in policy in favor of the fossil fuels barons and plutocracy. Drill, baby, drill would have gone on in spite of the catastrophic BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. American troops would have been added to Afghanistan and that war expanded, while President George W. Bush's timetable to exit Iraq would have been observed. American quiet wars would have been extended, say, into Yemen, elsewhere in Africa and South America. New military muscle would have been projected against China, say basing Marines in Australia. No effort would have been made to cut military spending that is larger than all other nations combined.
The GOP being the party of the wealthy, the Bush tax cuts would have been extended. And, naturally, Wall Street would have been bailed out of its swindles and made whole on the taxpayers' dime, then sent back to resume its sociopathic behavior. He would have picked a Treasury Secretary and top financial advisers determined to sustain the status quo. McCain's Attorney General would have been a corporate lawyer who would not prosecute a single major bankster, much less the war criminals of the previous administration. At the pleadings of Republican, as well as Democratic, governors, a McCain administration would have spent billions filling the holes in state budgets. Otherwise, his answer to the huge demand hole of the Great Recession would have been more tax cuts and spending largely on highway projects. Corporate profits would reach records, but middle-class Americans would see their prospects further dim.
Oh, wait. All that has happened anyway under the presidency of Barack Obama.
The hysteria over "the other" never would have emerged, with Mr. Obama quietly slinking off to the Senate to be bored. President McCain might even have done an immigration deal with the Democratic Congress, a matter that economic collapse has made less pressing anyway.
Janet Napolitano would have remained governor of Arizona, serving out her term and keeping together her "sensible center." Without the drivers of extremism, Russell Pearce might never even have gotten SB 1070 passed, much less past the governor's desk. Without that flashpoint, Terry Goddard would have handily won and become the state's next governor. Without the Obama-fanned hatred, Gabby Giffords might not have been targeted for assassination. The Western White House would have added to the Verde Valley economy.
McCain being McCain, even a counterfactual can't avoid how his tortured soul might have acted given the power. We might be in a new war with Iran and North Korea, the latter bringing China in. And Osama bin Laden would still be alive. Whoopie!
By now, McCain, even at his best, would be wearing thin. He could no longer blame the economy on the Bush administration. Lacking the marginal help the Obama administration offered to the jobless, the unemployment crisis would be even greater. A genuine progressive movement with an adult strategy to gain political power might be emerging. Who knows? The Democratic Party might have even found some strength and backbone to sabotage McCain in the way the Republicans have done now (and the Democratic Congress did to Herbert Hoover in the runup to 1932). In which case, Mr. McCain would be a one-term president and maybe America might have a chance.
Timing is everything.
Cuts like a knife.
Posted by: Petro | November 17, 2011 at 03:29 PM
Utterly Fantastic, Jon.
Posted by: cal lash | November 17, 2011 at 03:32 PM
Some elections are worth losing. 1976 was one. 2008 the other.
Posted by: soleri | November 17, 2011 at 03:32 PM
This was great.
If McCain had won, unemployment would be much greater.
If McCain had won, he would have pushed for amnesty for illegals, which, if enacted, would raise the unemployment rate by another 5%, PLUS given us even greater numbers of illegal immigrants. American nurses would be fired by the tens of thousands, and replaced by immigrants.
McCain would have cut taxes and borrowed more money, which would have caused even more debt problems. What would the Tea Party say then?
McCain would have promoted outsourcing as a cure for unemployment, which would have made unemployment worse.
If McCain had won, American workers would be EVEN WORSE OFF than they are now.
If McCain had won, the Occupy Wall Street crowd would probably have been shot down by the National Guard.
If McCain had won, people who are on Food Stamps would have to worry about being shot down by the National Guard. Shame on them for not starting a wildly successful business!!!
Posted by: Mick | November 17, 2011 at 05:25 PM
If McCain had won, unemployed people might have been shot/forced into concentration camps/forced into slave labor. Shame on them for not starting wildly successful businesses.
Posted by: Mick | November 17, 2011 at 05:27 PM
If McCain had won, the United State probably would have suffered more terrorist attacks. McCain is a globalist who wants open borders. McCain would allow any number of Islamic terrorists into the United States, as long as they would work for low wages. It wouldn't matter if they were carrying plutonium, as long as they would displace an American from a job. There is nothing McCain hates more than a working-class American with a decent job.
Posted by: Mick | November 17, 2011 at 05:31 PM
All I want for Christmas is a revolution. And 20 million decent jobs for Americans.
Posted by: Mick | November 17, 2011 at 06:53 PM
Mick, as a miltant agnostic I am considering a move to Norway. Want me to see if I can get U a job?
Posted by: cal lash | November 17, 2011 at 07:51 PM
Thinking forward, wonder how Jon and this group would feel about a Romney ticket with a sane VP on the bill. With the extremists now occupying the mainstream, I can't muster much enthusiasm.
Posted by: morecleanair | November 17, 2011 at 10:15 PM
I was waiting for the "oh, wait" to pop up sooner or later amongst the what-if scenarios under a McCain administration. There is still plenty of time for change and progressive agendas to come back with a vengeance. The bits of good news that continue to flow out from Arizona may be quite powerful when all said and done. The Arizona Supreme Court ordered the reinstatement of the Chairwoman of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/azelections/articles/2011/11/17/20111117arizona-court-hears-challenge-redistricting-ouster.html#ixzz1e2Xu9YNH
As for Governor Brewer, she is only now a nostril above the waterline. The weight of the Governorship is making the trending all the more miserable. Her boss, for all intents and purposes, Pearce is gone and the Supreme Court just reversed one of her worst and illegal power-grabs since she took office. If the redistricting panel continues with their good work and AZOpenGov, a true grassroots initiative (like that which removed Pearce), succeeds they together will make our state much more competitive for every election.
Posted by: phxSUNSfan | November 18, 2011 at 12:42 AM
Cal, I'll take that job in Norway. My bags are packed.
Posted by: jmav | November 18, 2011 at 03:04 AM
Obama has provided tremendous cover for the status quo. His Hope and Change message resulted in business as usual. At the same time, he energized the white, right and the reactive Tea Party Movement. Rather than push back against the 2010 election results, Obama capitulated to Wall Street and the far right. In short, there was a rumor of liberalism as the long term right trend continued and gained momemntum.
Although defintely not a leftist or even a liberal lion, liberalism will be further discredited by Obama's timid leadership. From a Republican viewpoint, it has been a blessing to tag Democratics with the economic woes brought on by eight years of Bush policies.
A McCain presidency would have resulted in massive infrastructure spending without serious congressional opposition. But becuase the white right went ballistic over a black president with knowledge of the world, the country has suffered four years of economic woes.
Regardless of which party takes the presidency in 2012, the damage will take years to repair. The Age of Austerity welcomed by both parties, will result in years of tepid economic growth or worse. Environmental, social and technological progress will be put on hold.
Posted by: jmav | November 18, 2011 at 03:30 AM
The health care industry is the primary beneficiary of Obama's health care legislation. The few benefits given to individuals, such as no denial of insurance coverage for preexisting conditions, will be slowly but surely eroded by corporate lobbyists and political payments. The rightist US Supreme Court will likely uphold the mandate because the legislation primarily benefits big business at the expense of the middle class.
Posted by: jmav | November 18, 2011 at 03:43 AM
Obama is given too much credit for his inability to galvanize a movement early in his presidency. Sure, he had and still has the bully-pulpit but people are less persuaded by great rhetoric/orators than in the past (yes our technology might have something to do with that) but that might not a total loss. Many people were persuaded to do the most heinous things, or nothing at all, throughout history. The Tea-Party is currently a heinous thing, but it is small, getting smaller and soon enough will cease to exist. Back to Obama, he may have had the numbers on paper to pass progressive legislation before 2010, but that discredits the individual, who although had a "D" next to their name, may not have been entirely convinced that towing the party-line was in the nation's best interest.
Of course, many of you intelligent people were able to deduce what was going to happen; but many of us do not have that ability...or we see the road ahead more complicated. This is not a new characteristic of the human race. We each act in our own, best self-interest and many of those whom did not help Obama with the progressive agenda may very well be regretting their decision. But you know what they say about hindsight. Unless of course you are Jon T.: if we could just get everyone to read him we'd have an easier go at it. And no I am not being facetious, except for the living in Seattle year round; trade me August, Jon?
However, I still see the evolution of a progressive America. Europe, especially Norway, did not come to be in its current state, politically, culturally, nor economically in 200 years. Especially not with the hindrances of race, sheer size of population, and geographical complexity that defines each American a little bit different to make a big mess. Don't give up, that is un-American and not exceptional! Norway? Ugh, you slackers!
Posted by: phxSUNSfan | November 18, 2011 at 05:13 AM
Sorry for the horrible grammatical errors, for any typos, and for the rushed nature of my post. I have an early flight to catch but couldn't resist posting. Especially to jmav...
America still has some pains to go through before our collectivism (dirty word to Tea Partyers), and "the Common Good" and "promot[ing]of the General Welfare" is as progressive and compassionate as of the nations you admire in Europe.
Posted by: phxSUNSfan | November 18, 2011 at 05:21 AM
President McCain. Vice President Palin. McCain wears beyond "thin". President Palin.
Posted by: Sarah (with an 'h'!) P. | November 18, 2011 at 07:44 AM
Small but important detour here: the requirement for electronic medical records (EMR) is buried and under-appreciated in the discussion of Obamacare. When more fully implemented, there will be a much greater probability of our docs knowing what the other is doing.
Presently, too many practices are still mired in fat files, faxes and phone calls. Result: our care tends to be anything but integrated or coordinated . . and the systemic/human costs of this are huge . . and largely unrecognized. If EMR had worked for her 5 years ago, my late wife would likely still be with us. So when O-care gets beat up, I think of the unreformed and often horribly inefficient practice of medicine today.
If you see multiple specialists who are not networked, they're playing roulette with your well-being.
Posted by: morecleanair | November 18, 2011 at 08:27 AM
Hey really good posts by JMAV and PHXSUNFAN.
Jon, Romney is probably the most liberal Republican candidate but it doesn’t matter who the elephants in the room, put up! The Obama/Clinton ticket plus the campaign dough they have will be UN beatable.
Look for Hillary as the Democrat presidential candidate in 2016. (Even if she really is a moderate Republican).
Hope I made your day PHXSUNFAN WITH THE ABOVE SUPER SUNDAY OPTIMISM
Was your flight out to Norway?
Posted by: cal Lash | November 18, 2011 at 09:00 AM
Romney may look sane, but his heart his pure vulture capitalist and he has the blood on his beak to prove it. If the US was 100% Morman it would be healthcare and safety nets for everyone! Since its not, God must met out his punishment to the heathens (via social Darwinism).
Posted by: eclecticdog | November 18, 2011 at 09:38 AM
Romney's promise to completely defund Amtrak tells me everything I need to know. He's a nihilist out to destroy the commons and any quality future we might have.
That doesn't mean I will necessarily vote for Obama.
Posted by: Rogue Columnist | November 18, 2011 at 11:13 AM
I would vote for Loren Michaels with John Stewart for v.p.They are the only ones with enough genius to communicate the problems facing our dumbed down populace.Of course ,if Congress isn't ashamed of their pathetic behavior by now,it may be too late.
Posted by: mike doughty | November 18, 2011 at 02:08 PM
I would like to apologize to all of you in advance for this post.
After three years of disability, I have re-entered the work force.
What this means is:
1. Our household is now again in the top 3% of Arizona incomes.
2. Therefore, I no longer care about poor people and their problems.
3. I am now a right leaning Independent.
4. I am now attracted to how handsome Romney is.
5. I now commute from Mesa to the Scottsdale Airpark. I can get there faster on the sidestreets instead of using the 101 Freeway. Freeway??????
6. I'm trying to stay away from getting hooked on coffee again, however, the cup today was mighty fine.
7. Did I mention poor people ruin my day??
8. My carbon footprint just went from a baby foot to BigFoot.
9. I'm thinking of getting a tatoo of Jan Brewer on my, RIGHT butt cheek.
That will be all for now.
Posted by: azrebel | November 18, 2011 at 05:23 PM
"Mick" wrote: "If McCain had won, he would have pushed for amnesty for illegals, which, if enacted, would raise the unemployment rate by another 5%..."
No. Neither the payroll survey used to estimate jobs numbers, nor the household survey used to estimate total employment and the unemployment rate and the size of the civilian labor force, ask about legal status. See the second question and answer of this FAQ:
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.faq.htm
Mick: "...PLUS given us even greater numbers of illegal immigrants..."
No. Obviously an "amnesty" would decrease the number of illegal immigrants in the country at the time it was extended, since it would reclassify illegals as legals. If you mean that an amnesty would attract larger numbers of illegal immigrants in the hope of being amnestied another 25 years down the road (the last amnesty was given during the Reagan era) I doubt it. If you mean that those receiving amnesty would be able to sponsor additional legal immigrants I don't believe an amnesty would be structured that way: and even if it were, there is a worldwide limit of 226,000 family sponsored immigrants per year and a 7 percent per country cap, which means Mexico is limited to 15,820 such sponsorships per year; a limit which was long ago reached, which is why the wait for legal immigration is now 16 or 17 years for most family sponsorships by Mexican immigrants (the exception is spouses and minor children which have a wait of 6 years) -- so adding more would simply add to the end of the wait list.
Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | November 18, 2011 at 05:40 PM
I disagree with this Jon:
"The hysteria over "the other" never would have emerged, with Mr. Obama quietly slinking off to the Senate to be bored."
Mr. Obama would probably have cut the Senate loose by now and gone to work as the "friendly face" of some enormous private equity firm.
Posted by: koreyel | November 19, 2011 at 08:29 AM
At my new place of employment there is one democrat out of about 60 people. She gets treated like a leper. Very funny. Of course being a democrat is now recognized as a mental illness and you don't want to catch it.
In short order three people started sending me right wing propaganda so I walked over to their desks and asked to see their voter registration cards showing me that they were registered Independents. All three are republicans. I advised them if the e-mails continue, it would get ugly for them. The e-mails have stopped. Being a republican is recognized as being criminally insane and you don't want to catch that. All in all, it should be a great place to work.
Posted by: azrebel | November 19, 2011 at 11:12 AM
AZREBEL, going back to work? You should feel really guilty at your advanced state of disintegration and particularly after you got yours twice already. I mean how many vacation homes do you need?
You should take your wealth and buy a tent and travel around the country to 99 percenters protests and go to jail so when you die penniless you will at least be a martyr.
Just think you have just screwed some young person with a college degree in protest organization out of a job. I don’t know how you can handle the guilt trip you have to be on.
Maybe you should move to Denmark with me so we will not have to go to Hell.
Posted by: cal Lash | November 19, 2011 at 11:49 AM
President Gas
Posted by: Drill Baby Drill | November 19, 2011 at 12:01 PM
azrebel said, "At my new place of employment there is one democrat out of about 60 people. She gets treated like a leper."
Good for her! . . . she's being treated just as one would hope to be at a leper colony.
Posted by: Typhoid Sarah | November 19, 2011 at 12:06 PM
A few emendations (with documentation) to my previous comment re immigration limits.
First, according to the most up-to-date information I can get from the U.S. State Department (Visa Bulletin, December 2011), the waiting periods for family sponsored immigration visas for Mexican immigrants are not exactly as I gave them, in most cases being longer but in one case considerably shorter. The date given is the cut-off date showing the most recent applications that are being considered. Note that immigration delays may ensue for additional months or years after applications begin to be considered:
(F1) Unmarried Sons and Daughters of U.S. Citizens: April 8, 1993 (18 year wait)
(F2A) Spouses and Children of Permanent Residents: February 8, 2009 (almost 3 year wait)
(F2B) Unmarried Sons and Daughters (21 years of age or older) of Permanent Residents: Nov. 22, 1992 (19 year wait)
(F3) Married Sons and Daughters of U.S. Citizens: Dec. 15, 1992 (19 year wait)
(F4) Brothers and Sisters of Adult U.S. Citizens: May 1, 1996 (15 year wait)
http://travel.state.gov/visa/bulletin/bulletin_5603.html
Second, applications in the F2A category from Mexico are not subject to the per country limit of 7 percent of the worldwide quota of 226,000. (They are, however, subject to the limitations of the quota itself, meaning that they are not unlimited.) Since you might want to know how many immigration visas were issued under this unlimited category for Mexican applicants, I checked the State Department's 2010 Annual Report on Immigration: the number was 18,329 last year. Since total family-sponsored visas issued totalled 22,005, non-F2A visas in this category totalled just 3,776. (Note that this includes "adjustments of status" as well as new visas issued.)
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY10AnnualReport-TableVI.pdf
If that isn't confusing enough, there are also what are termed "Immediate Relative Visas" which are "based on a close family relationship with a United States (U.S.) citizen described as an Immediate Relative (IR). The number of immigrants in these categories is not limited each fiscal year. Immediate relative visa types include" spouses, unmarried children under 21, orphans adopted abroad, orphans to be adopted, and parents of children 21 and older -- all involving U.S. citizens (as opposed to mere permanent residents) as the sponsors.
Since these are unlimited, I checked the State Department (same report) and found the total number of visas of this type issued to Mexican applicants in 2010: 43,340.
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY10AnnualReport-TableXII.pdf
Total immigration visas issued to Mexican applicants in 2010: 65,621. If we subtract the F2A visas for spouses and children of permanent residents (18,329) and the IR visas for immediate relatives of U.S. citizens (43,340) you get just 3,952 "other" immigration visas issued to Mexican applicants in 2010: of this a shockingly low 276 are employer sponsored visas.
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY10AnnualReport-TableIII.pdf
Now, those of you who have made it this far (or have just skipped to the end) should take a moment to digest the implications: nearly all immigration visas issued in 2010 to Mexican applicants were issued to relatives of individuals already resident in the U.S. (either permanent residents or U.S. citizens).
Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | November 19, 2011 at 04:30 PM
So when the smoke and bafflegab clears a bit, does it likely come down to a "lesser of 2 evils" choice between Romney and an unnamed adult vs. President O and Hillary?
Wish the R's would draft someone like Mitch Daniels as VP candidate; the debates would at least be easier to stomach and may even deal with the most salient issues of our times.
Too many folks still think Citizens United is a soccer team!
Posted by: morecleanair | November 19, 2011 at 05:36 PM
The kind of mail I get:
TO:
Marxist Nigger Obama’s Ass Sniffing Slut
JON TALTON
WERE YOU TO EXTRACT YOUR HEAD FROM THE
TREASONOUS MARXIST NIGGER HUSSEIN OBAMA’s RECTUM,
YOUR BRAIN WOULD STILL FUNCTION AT
ITS PRESENT MUCH DIMINISHED LEVEL BUT AT LEAST THE NIGGER SHIT SMELL WOULD EVENTUALLY DISSIPATE.
Without exceptions,
Marxists are enemies of the United States Constitution!
Death to all Marxists!
Foreign and Domestic!
Posted by: Rogue Columnist | November 19, 2011 at 05:54 PM
The person, persons with that kind of racist rage can't be cured. They will take it to their grave. I see it all the time, spoken by 50 to 75 year old males and females primarily from the midwest. (Including in-laws who otherwise look very innocent.)
You may not like me picking on one area of the country but it is what it is.
Posted by: azrebel | November 19, 2011 at 07:50 PM
The four M conspiracy!
Morecleanair, Not to worry the Methodists, the Muslims and the Mexicans will not let the Mormon Romney come to power.
Looks more and more like Ron Paul may pull an upset.
Doesn’t matter how many Mormon.org commercials hit the airways, the “Christian” boys are not going to support a cult they have put down twice in the past.
The Muslims know that the biggest challenge to their Theocracy is the Mormon Theocracy. And Obama will sew up the Hispanic vote.
Emil thanks for that documentation. It’s great info but not anything that is not already known by folks who think rationally and do their home work. The problem with the facts you have posted is that those sub humans that send Talton and others e-mails as is posted here is that such information inflames them to buy more Glocks.
Posted by: cal Lash | November 19, 2011 at 08:27 PM
Azrebel, in your rating of racism by region, how would you compare the south to the midwest?
Posted by: jmav | November 20, 2011 at 01:46 AM
Rogue, it would be interesting to get a psychologist to profile the author of that racist rant.
Posted by: jmav | November 20, 2011 at 02:01 AM
Mr. Talton: wouldn't it be fun if your letter-ranter could be forced to define Marxist? No particular place has the market for hate cornered. The scariest, craziest white supremacists I ever saw were existing in squalid little encampments in the most dismal rain forest/clear-cut wreckage out on the west coast of the Olympic Peninsula.
Posted by: pbm | November 20, 2011 at 06:48 AM
jmav, we have discussed this on this blog before. Here is a recap of my observations from traveling the country over the past 30 years.
The Northeast racism is dependent on money, how much you have and how old it is. White old money at the top of the heap. Minority, no money at the bottom of the heap.
The South racism I find most refreshing because it is out in the open for eveyone to see and you deal with it as you choose. White top of heap. Black bottom of heap. They still aren't sure what to do about the new wave of Hispanics because they really like all the work they do and the Hispanics haven't reached the point of wanting anything in return other than a paycheck.
The Midwest strain of racism is steeped in the ignorant, uneducated centuries of white supremecy looking down on the sub-humans of deepest darkest Africa. I get e-mails from the midwest that make Jon's sample look like a Hallmark greeting card. And the sender may be an 80 year old great grandmother from Des Moines, IA who spends her days knitting and making quilts. Go figure. She's just repeating what she heard her whole life. The KKK was not based in Omaha, NE by chance.
The Northwest racism is really just overt curiosity. You would not believe the number of people in the Northwest (excluding the coast) who have never seen a minority in their lives. When they do encounter them, they are just curious.
West coast, too many damn minorities to keep track of. Everyone lives in tribal villages. Some get along, some don't.
Southwest, insidious type of racism. In daylight, "I'm not racist". At night, "Hello, police, it's dark and there is a black man in my neighborhood, get over here right now". (same call for brown people too). As the midwest racists flooded the state, the racism became even more mean spirited.
Anyway, there is your racism primer. For full disclosure, in case you didn't already know, I am Hispanic, however, my height, coloring and speech passes me for white. Therefore, I get to hear things I would not normally hear if I was short and brown, like most of my relations.
I hope you enjoyed this unusual tour of our country.
Posted by: azrebel | November 20, 2011 at 11:18 AM
cal,
My mistake was that I had the phone on speaker, when they made me an offer my wife couldn't refuse. That's why I'm back in the rat race.
I'm not eliminating a position meant for a college kid. The kids coming out of college can't read, write or work. AND they have no desire to learn the trade, they just want to be paid for showing up.
Give me a high school grad with great work ethic everytime. They do exist here and there.
Posted by: azrebel | November 20, 2011 at 12:05 PM
Very perceptive points about racism, Azreb. Let me add a few other shades of gray.
The South has the stain of Jim Crow and lynchings of blacks, which was unique to the region and lives on under the surface. For example, there was a notorious lynching in San Jose, but it was of white men. Now Southern racism is institutionalized in white-apartheid. Thus, Birmingham is now majority black. The affluent whites live in a sprawl adjacent county.
As for the Midwest, it depends on which Midwest we mean (Great Plains, Upper, Great Lakes), and which Midwesterners. No question the Midwest that lectured the South in the 1960s held its own prejudice. And history: Indiana, for example, was a Klan hub at one time. Dayton was one of America's most segregated cities when I lived there. Places such as Cincinnati labor under a huge black underclass, with no jobs or educational opportunity. And there's plenty of racism in these metros, epitomized by white flight and poorly funded inner-city schools. Detroit, of course, is the poster child.
Phoenix received the self-selecting "conservative" Midwesterners who fit right in with the growing reaction there. In many parts of the Midwest, the ideal of civic stewardship remains, such as in Minneapolis. But those people didn't leave.
Old Phoenix was cultural Southern, so the bias against both African-Americans, Indians and Mexican-Americans was out in the open. But the ethnic groups got along as long as everyone "stayed in his place." (And drive your Minnesota-tag car to the parking lot of, say, Susie's Mexican Food on 16th Street after dark and see what kind of reception you get from the homies). The Chinese prospered and assimilated into the Anglo world pretty early; one reason a Phoenix Chinatown doesn't survive.
This was swept away by both the massive Midwestern influx and the destabilizing wave of Hispanics from the 1980s on. Now it and the suburban Midwest are fertile ground for racist policies and political code words.
Phoenix never had a lynching that I know of. It did have a terrible riot during WWII, with a body count of blacks that is still open to debate. And many Japanese were interned during the war, their land taken (something I get into in my novel "South Phoenix Rules."
Posted by: Rogue Columnist | November 20, 2011 at 02:48 PM
Mr. Talton,
Did you receive that email as feedback from Rogue or from your economics column in the Seattle Times?
Did you check the IP address to determine if it was sent locally (if in response to the Seattle column) or from out of state?
It looks like a template into which your name has been plugged.
Likely, this is something sent by a member of a White supremacist or neo-Nazi organization, but not targeting you specifically: rather, anything that shows up on the Internet which demonstrates a liberal attitude and is sufficiently high profile.
It appears that the individual in question didn't even bother to read your column and has no awareness of your criticisms of President Obama; it was simply a reflexive response to certain words or phrases in which you appeared to defend stimulus spending and criticized conservative Republicans.
I wouldn't spend two minutes worried about this sort of email. Every columnist of any consequence or exposure has received such feedback. Welcome to the big leagues.
Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | November 20, 2011 at 03:08 PM
This came to me at my Seattle Times email.
Posted by: Rogue Columnist | November 20, 2011 at 03:10 PM
I presume you saved the email. Click on "full headers". (I'm not sure in gmail but in Yahoo Email this can be found under the "other email actions" submenu.)
You can find all kinds of goodies here. You might look for something like "X-Originating-IP" with a series of digits separated by periods.
Anyway, go to:
http://centralops.net
You can plug the IP address into the Domain Dossier and other tools and get information about the emailer's server and its location.
Always a good idea to keep a copy of any email that might herald more threatening communications later, though in this case I would say that the chance of that is slim to none.
Incidentally, did anyone see the Wall Street Journal article yesterday on spyware? "Document Trove Exposes Surveillance Methods" describes documents obtained from sources at surveillance trade shows. Excerpts:
"Companies making and selling this gear say it is intended to catch criminals and is available only to governments and law enforcement.
"Among the most controversial technologies on display at the conference were essentially computer-hacking tools to enable government agents to break into people's computers and cellphones, log their keystrokes and access their data.
"The goal is to overcome the fact that most surveillance techniques are "useless against encryption and can't reach information that never leaves the device," Marco Valleri, offensive-security manager at HackingTeam, said in an interview. "We can defeat that."
"The documents for FinFisher, a Gamma product, say it works by "sending fake software updates for popular software." In one example, FinFisher says intelligence agents deployed its products "within the main Internet service provider of their country" and infected people's computers by "covertly injecting" FinFisher code on websites that people then visited.
"The company also claims to have allowed an intelligence agency to trick users into downloading its software onto BlackBerry mobile phones "to monitor all communications, including [texts], email and BlackBerry Messenger." Its marketing documents say its programs enable spying using devices and software from Apple, Microsoft, and Google Inc., among others. FinFisher documents at the conference were offered in English, Arabic and other languages."
More:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203611404577044192607407780.html
Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | November 20, 2011 at 03:43 PM
One more excerpt:
"Many technologies at the Washington-area show related to "massive intercept" monitoring, which can capture vast amounts of data. Telesoft Technologies Ltd. of the U.K. touted its device in its documents as offering "targeted or mass capture of 10s of thousands of simultaneous conversations from fixed or cellular networks." Telesoft declined to comment.
"California-based Net Optics Inc., whose tools make monitoring gear more efficient, presented at the show and offers a case study on its website that describes helping a "major mobile operator in China" conduct "real-time monitoring" of cellphone Internet content. The goal was to help "analyze criminal activity" as well as "detect and filter undesirable content," the case study says."
Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | November 20, 2011 at 03:46 PM
"cal Lash" wrote:
"Emil thanks for that documentation. It’s great info but not anything that is not already known by folks who think rationally and do their home work."
I try to be rational and I've been interested in the immigration subject for some time now, but my understanding is always improving, and somehow I never got around to finding this information until recently.
The point I was trying to make, in a nutshell, is that everyone is always saying "they should come here legally": but it looks to me as though the only immigration visas available to Mexicans are to those who already have relatives here as permanent residents or as U.S. citizens; and in many of those cases waits can be close to 20 years.
Someone who is an adult with no criminal record, able bodied and willing to learn English, assimilate, wave a little plastic flag on the 4th of July, etc., who wants to support himself through work but has no exceptional skills, simply can't get an immigration visa. Period. Someone has to sponsor him. Employer sponsorships, as I showed, are nearly nonexistent for Mexicans.
I'm now looking into other types of visas (non-immigration) to see exactly what happens if someone wants to come to the U.S. from Mexico legally and work for a temporary period (say, six months or a year).
There is also something called "adjustment of status" which appears to be a way (perhaps) of changing from one type of visa to another. There were about 11,000 immigration visas that came about from this mechanism for Mexicans in 2010, from what I saw.
Anyway, it's a complicated subject but all one can do is look into things as time and inclination permits and, with a little luck, find something and share it. Hopefully this results in useful feedback that makes it easier to get the Big Picture.
Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | November 20, 2011 at 04:01 PM
OK! Here's the thread back to "President McCain" from whence all this discussion emanated:
McCain may have really put on a push for comprehensive immigration reform because (deep down) he believes that it is the best path. Apart from that step forward, Johnny Mac is basically just a warrior (war-monger) who is in the pocket of the Big Dogs. Having followed him since he carpet-bagged to AZ, there's not a lot of depth there.
Postscript: just attended an interdenominational Thanksgiving service promoted by the local Methodists. Opinion: we may overestimate the pushback on the Mormons by some of the mainline churches. My ancestors were a mix of Utah area Mormons and Midwest pool sharks. The former were fine people . . . notwithstanding their multiple wives!
Posted by: morecleanair | November 20, 2011 at 06:06 PM
More later but for now i would prefer a unmarried, childless, agnostic person for Prez.
And oh yow legal weed.
Did u say Jerry Brown for Prez?
From my cell phone near St. David
Posted by: cal lash | November 20, 2011 at 09:56 PM
Considering the violence towards the Occupy movements on UC campuses and in Oakland, I don't think Jerry Brown is one the people's side anymore.
Posted by: eclecticdog | November 21, 2011 at 11:30 AM
Electricdog, maybe he is still stoned?
Emil said,The point I was trying to make, in a nutshell, is that everyone is always saying "they should come here legally": but it looks to me as though the only immigration visas available to Mexicans are to those who already have relatives here as permanent residents or as U.S. citizens; and in many of those cases waits can be close to 20 years.
That was my point Emil, They come illegally as it is the only way to get here. I would come one way or another too if I were in their sandals.
Emil, I note you say U R new to the subject. Try this
Jeffrey Kaye's book, Moving Millions: How Coyote Capitalism Fuels Global Immigration
PBS News Hour correspondent Jeffrey Kaye discusses the role that global capitalism plays in international migrations. He also talks about illegal immigration to the U.S., the response by the Obama administration (which deported over 385,000 people in 2009), and the recent passage of Arizona's immigration law. Mr. Kaye spoke at Changing Hands Bookstore in Tempe, Arizona.
About the Author:
Jeffrey Kaye, a contributor to the NewsHour since 1984, is also a contributor to World Report on HDNet. He immigrated to the U.S. from England in 1963.
Posted by: cal Lash | November 21, 2011 at 02:23 PM
morecleanair. I just spent the last two days (Near Benson, AZ) with one of my LDS siblings, and a "really nice person." That said in my 70 plus years I have known a lot of LDS folks, good and bad. Over coffee I'd be happy to share a 9 year olds experience with a 18 year old female LDS relative.
And tonite at 7 PM if you are interested I am going to Changing Hands to listen to Sam Barlow, a really nice Utah LDS PI discuss his book Prophet's Prey. My problem is not with the folks but the organized criminal activity participated in the name of Organized Religion. All of them. Keep in mind I took a load of stuff from people close to me for being Bishop O"Briens PI when he killed Indian Jim.
Yours truly, cal and his dog Spot, a couple of biting, Militant Agnostics.
Posted by: cal Lash | November 21, 2011 at 02:38 PM
cal, Jerry Brown hasn't been the same since Linda Ronstadt!
Posted by: eclecticdog | November 21, 2011 at 02:40 PM
"cal Lash" wrote:
"Emil, I note you say U R new to the subject."
No. I said I've been interested in the subject for some time now.
Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | November 21, 2011 at 02:57 PM
electricdog, Yesterday at the Singing Wind Ranch, near Benson I listened to music by two of the current Ronstadt's. Heard from 8 authors and Gabriel Giffords mom and got two signed copies of Gabriel's and Mark Kelly's new book. Mom gave a little talk on the new book.
Good time was had by all.
Posted by: cal Lash | November 21, 2011 at 02:58 PM
Looks like these are the only significant option for non-immigrant visas issued to Mexicans that allow them to work in the United States, in the general instance (no special status or exceptional skills). Numbers indicate total visas in each category issued in 2010 to Mexican applicants:
H2A: 52,317 Temporary agricultural worker; up to one year; renewable 1 year increments up to 3 years total
H2B: 33,375 Temporary non-agricultural worker: renewable 1 year increments up to 3 years total
These numbers do not include spouses and children of such workers (H4) but only 2,124 such visas for visiting worker spouses/children were issued in 2010.
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY10NIVDetailTable.pdf
Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | November 21, 2011 at 03:52 PM
P.S. Previous comments for immigrant visas appear to hold:
"In general, to be eligible to apply for an immigrant visa, a foreign citizen must be sponsored by a U.S. citizen relative(s), U.S. lawful permanent resident, or by a prospective employer, and be the beneficiary of an approved petition filed with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)."
http://travel.state.gov/visa/immigrants/types/types_1326.html
In other words, there is currently no way for Mexicans who simply wish to apply for U.S. citizenship, live and work here, to do so, without being sponsored by family members already here. It isn't like the old days when industrious individuals or families wanting to "breath free" could simply apply for admission without sponsorship.
Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | November 21, 2011 at 03:57 PM
...or "breathe" free either.
Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | November 21, 2011 at 04:00 PM