May 4, 2010

A new Bloggingheads — called "Dangerous Minds" — with me and Jim Pinkerton.

This was recorded just a few hours a go. They got it up quick, so it must be good:



Here's a list of the highlighted topics:
The Times Square bomber, immigration, and assimilation
Does fighting terrorism require policing minds?
Jim defends Arizona’s new immigration law
Has Obama bungled the gulf oil spill? On purpose?
Ann reveals her devious Supreme Court plot
Intellectual diversity and a Harvard student’s controversial email
Note that they've got me on the left side of the split screen for this one. With good reason!

21 comments:

EDH said...

One difference between citizens is that naturalized citizens must take an oath.

I understand Althouse's point about uniform free speech for all citizens, but if a newly sworn citizen engages in seditious speech, isn't that pretty strong evidence he or she lied in making the oath?

The United States Oath of Allegiance (officially referred to as the "Oath of Allegiance," 8 C.F.R. Part 337 (2008)) is an oath that must be taken by all immigrants who wish to become United States citizens.

The current oath is as follows:

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.

Luke Lea said...

I know you, Ann. You just want to be provocative. But that's ok, I'll watch anyway.

AJ Lynch said...

Pinkerton is very good natured. He chuckled more often on this one tape more than all your other Blogginheads opponents combined.

And Althouse did not have to do even one slight but noticeable eye-roll though she does it often vs. her typical Blogginheads liberal doofus.

LonewackoDotCom said...

I already posted a link to my Twitter feed which describes what can happen in this case; check it out.

Regarding the episode, I left the following comment:

Pinkerton says that the feds will get serious when we get a consensus, which he thinks we're moving towards. Not gonna happen.

Most Americans want something to be done about illegal immigration. But, the entire establishment is on the other side: they want the power that mass immigration brings them, together with the money. Plus, it dilutes the power of mainstream America. They aren't going to change their minds. They might change their tactics, but they're still going to keep pushing what they've been pushing.

The way to strike back is for mainstream America to discredit those visible elites who promote mass immigration, such as bloggingheads' own Shikha Dalmia or those who've lied about the Arizona law (a partial list at the link). I don't mean that in the convivial bloggingheads way: I mean that in the "make unemployable" way. The problem is finding anyone else willing to help.

LonewackoDotCom said...

I already posted a link to my Twitter feed which describes what can happen in this case; check it out.

Regarding the episode, I left the following comment:

Pinkerton says that the feds will get serious when we get a consensus, which he thinks we're moving towards. Not gonna happen.

Most Americans want something to be done about illegal immigration. But, the entire establishment is on the other side: they want the power that mass immigration brings them, together with the money. Plus, it dilutes the power of mainstream America. They aren't going to change their minds. They might change their tactics, but they're still going to keep pushing what they've been pushing.

The way to strike back is for mainstream America to discredit those visible elites who promote mass immigration, such as bloggingheads' own Shikha Dalmia or those who've lied about the Arizona law (a partial list at the link). I don't mean that in the convivial bloggingheads way: I mean that in the "make unemployable" way. The problem is finding anyone else willing to help.

danielle said...

the videos with you with a liberal -- but not ones that you run over -- are way more interesting....

... well, unless of course they put you with John McWhorter. that would be funny.

you seemed to be apologizing for you slightly left leaning positions. booh ! It must be that conservative lettuce that Meade is feeding you.

Lem said...

Does this mean we are at war with Islamists again?

I mean that's how Holder sounded to me.. full Bush mode.

I'm confused.. why is Obama retreating from his campaign promises?

Escort81 said...

As a practical matter, how would law enforcement officials avoid a "fruit of the poisonous tree" problem if intelligence information gathered from a suspect during pre-Miranda questioning then logically leads to information which would be helpful in covicting the suspect, but is gathered during his post-Miranda questioning? Isn't Miranda pretty binary that way -- you either read a suspect his rights upon arrest (and maybe he keeps talking anyway), or you run the risk that anything you find out can be kicked?

cokaygne said...

A right wing conspiracy theorist could fantasize that this whole affair was put up to divert attention from: (1) the massive fouling of the Gulf by BP while DHS was sleeping; (2) campaign finance needs making the Dems pull their punches in 'reforming' Wall Street; and (3) the potential for illegal immigration to turn out nativist voters for the GOP. As ide benefit is that it allows Holder to play the tough cop and hide his leftist instincts. Anyway, if the Dems lose big this November look for Napolitano to be the first cabinet member to resign in order to spend more time with her family. All the hot-button issues are on her watch.

The Drill SGT said...

Well, that was fun :)

The normal mode is for Althouse (Obama voter) to be the representative of the right.

It was interesting to have you on with somebody to your right.

I note that you get a better grade on summarizing the Hahvad case than Dean Minow.

Lem said...

I'm raking my brain here trying to think why Obama is backtracking and retreating on the promises he made and I cant come up with anything.

Whats changed?

This citizen didn't get his Miranda, Gitmo still open, we are fighting two wars, cell phones surveillance..

We need an Obama is weird tag ;)

knox said...

WTF? They questioned him before Mirandizing him??

At this point, I wish they'd just make up their minds.

knox said...

The photos changed! Much better. And by "better" I mean "goofier." Love it!

Lem said...

He's cooperating, he's cooperating, he's cooperating, he's cooperating, he's cooperating,

(thank God we don't have to waterboard, thank God we don't have to waterboard, thank God we don't have to waterboard, thank God we don't have to waterboard, thank God almighty we don't have to waterboard)

MadisonMan said...

Why hasn't the SC nominee been named? What's taking so long?

weffiewonj said...

What is Pinkerton talking about? Shahzad took the oath cited by EDH, maybe with his fingers behind his back. So what could have been done to preclude Shahzad's naturalization, absent (possibly) stronger work by the CIA in Pakistan?
When asked if he was a terrorist, it's really unlikely he answered, no, but I'd like to be.

garage mahal said...

Has Obama bungled the gulf oil spill? On purpose?

When you just add a question mark at the end, you can imply anything! You're just asking!

SMGalbraith said...

Isn't Miranda pretty binary that way -- you either read a suspect his rights upon arrest (and maybe he keeps talking anyway), or you run the risk that anything you find out can be kicked?

The Court has carved out a "public safety exception" (NY vs. Quarles, 1984) to Miranda that permits the police to gather evidence/ask questions that can be used in court even though Miranda rights were not read.

IOW, there's a middle ground between the two examples you cited.

GMay said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
GMay said...

"WTF? They questioned him before Mirandizing him??

Hey, at least they're not telling you what the verdict and punishment will be ahead of time anymore.

Trooper York said...

This past Sunday night I caught one of my favorite old time shows "Divinci's Inquest" which is an old series from Canada.

The episode was about a child molester who took a ladder and climbed in a window and kidnapper a four year old kid and took it out and raped and murdered her. Sort of like that case in California.

They couldn't use any evidence that they had because of some bull shit technicality even though it was certain that he did it and the smug and obnoxious lawyer demanded that they release him immediately. They also couldn't use his prior record as a juvie because it was sealed. So they had to let him go even though he definitely did it.

As they left from the back door of the police station, the grieving father shot him in the head. He only made one mistake.

He didn't shoot the lawyer too.