Empire

Isn't this special.

Australian immigrant Rupert Murdoch owns Times of London, the British publication that first published about Obama's 'Auntie Zeituni'.

Rupert Murdoch owns Fox News, that "fair and balanced as long as it's talking about extreme right-wing politics" network.

Originally Posted on Citizen Orange

I was excited to find out over the weekend that David Neiwart, through his own blog and a cross-post on Firedoglake linked to me and others in the pro-migrant blogosphere in the last post of his three-part series on immigration:

The blogosphere can have a role in this change as well. There is a wealth of blogs out there dealing with immigration and Latino issues on a regular basis, and many of them feature not just important perspectives that need to be part of the conversation, but compelling and powerful writing as well.

A sampling: Migra Matters, Latina Lista, Matt Ortega,Immigration Prof Blog, The Silence of our Friends, Citizen Orange, The Unapologetic Mexican ... well, the list is long, and this one is certainly incomplete. But you get the idea. [ Source :David Neiwart]

I encourage you to use my blogroll on the right to complete that list, but now that he's finished his series I thought I'd use it as an opportunity to insert my own commentary, and hopefully build or hone on what was a massive and ambitious undertaking for Neiwart. Neiwart wrote three posts. One introducing his series, a second debunking a lot of the anti-migrant myths that exist, and a third with proposals about how to move forward.

While the first two posts were informative, I'm going to spend my time on Dave's third post, "Immigration: Looking Forward". This post is the second major migrant manifesto to emerge out of the blogosphere, coming after Duke's post that garnered a front-page spot on Daily Kos. In his post, Neiwart outlines what a "liberal program for comprehensive immigration reform" would contain:

Quiero decirte que mi respaldo no ha sido el producto de la espontáneidad, ni del ciego optimismo.

Primero, me ha alarmado la falta de entusiasmo y apoyo que has demostrado por activistas en la red que no han sido en alguna forma aprovados por tu equipo. Aunque hablas de un movimiento, en la red veo que ese movimiento tiene que venir de tu espacio, de que tiene que darse dentro de los parámetros controlados por tu campaña.

Si los instrumentos de la red resultan en la subversión de jerarquías; haz demostrado como con el caso de John Anthony o con el repudio de la acti-red que tus esferas de influencia son inclaudicables. Que hay jerarquías pre-establecidas a tu alrededor que si se alteran, son recibidas tanto con el activo repudio de tus subalternos como con el desdén de tu silencio.

¿Cómo ha de ser éste un movimiento democrático si quieres controlar como el pueblo no dicta ni decide?

¿Cómo ha de ser transformativo, si uno no controla, desecha o reinventa tu campaña política?

¿Cómo hemos de saber que nuestras palabras valen si no haz de escuchar nuestra voz?

Sin embargo, éstas son dudas quedan rebasadas por la serie de epifanías que tu campaña me han revelado.

De cómo el miedo me llevaba a negar tu candidatura en un intento falaz de protegerte.

De cómo los grilletes del prejuicio me immobilizaban ante la mar de clases sociales, de lenguajes, de creencias y de edades que te cercan por donde pasas.

De cómo la inspiración de tus palabras alimentaba el cinismo que ha subrayado mi activismo político.

No espero que tu optimismo te convierta en un mesías.

No espero que tu mulataje borre el racismo.

No espero que tu deseo de una democracia transformativa contrareste la corrupción.

No espero que tu procedencia como hijo de un immigrante le abra las puertas a los millones que sufren los efectos del nativismo eurocentrista que infectan esta nación.

No espero que este país ni el mundo entero cambien el día que te confirmen frente a la Casa Blanca.

No.

Sin embargo ...

Michael Barone has an interesting theory about the Iowa results over at The Wall Stree Journal.

I so do not agree. What we have here is an electorate disgusted, at least in Iowa, with dynasties :

Ronald Wilson Reagan 1981–89
(George H. W. Bush)

George Herbert Walker Bush 1989–93
(J. Danforth Quayle)

Bill Clinton 1993–2001
(Albert Gore, Jr.)

George Walker Bush 2001–2008
(Dick Cheney)

That's in a nutshell Hillary Clinton's problem.

Have you seen the Tom Tancredo ad about how Central American gangs are taking over the United States and he's the only one brave enough to stop them?

Here's the jewel in the son-of-Italian immigrants anti-immigrant crown :

The word "immigration" may have an official definition in dictionaries, yet as a meme it continues to be written and expanded to proportions that are truly mythical.

Tell me if the rabble of Tancredo's rouse is not reminiscent of JR Tolkien's army of Orcs?

Come to think of it, I can understand why the Elvish-looking Tancredo is worried.

Yet, let's look at this closely shall we. As a building block in the narrative of the "immigration" meme, what Tancredo and his team have concocted in that ad is rather impressive.

I got this video clip via Andrew Sullivan via Memeorandum. Two things immediately jump out of this video.

1. What the Southern Avenger says here is in line with what a lot of liberals and progressives have been saying for the last eight years : That people like George W. Bush, Karl Rove, Sean Hannity and Michelle Malkin are extremists and not conservatives at all.

2. Exactly because the argument of this video is that true conservatives are against the war, I find interesting that Andrew Sullivan doesn't waste time to call out the author a paleo-conservative. And yet, if you go to the guys' website ... paleoconservative is the last word to come to my mind.

What do you think?