† What Al Gore Hath Wrought (second item): Contemplating the never-ending MN Senate election, The New York Times’ Matt Bai observes that while “[r]ecounts and postelection wrangling are nothing new in America” and “some elections are always going to end in what is essentially a tie,” “[w]hat's new are the lengths to which losing candidates will now routinely go - and the money the parties will spend - to avoid their certain fates”: 

It used to be that when a candidate lost by a few suspect votes, the first question that arose was whether he would seek a rematch. Richard Nixon, who felt certain he’d been mugged in several states in 1960, exited quickly to begin plotting his return to office. Now, it seems, the first question anyone asks - at least since the 2000 presidential quagmire - is for how long you intend to fight the results in court. The governor’s race in Washington State in 2004 was disputed for eight months. More recently, the recount in a special election for Congress in New York dragged on for more than three weeks amid legal arguments over what did and did not constitute a valid ballot.

What happens in politics, however, can almost never be extricated from the culture at large, and the lost art of losing nobly is by no means an exclusively political phenomenon. At the upper reaches of society, we litigate ever more readily and accept misfortune with ever less stoicism. Being fired from a job becomes the beginning of a negotiation, while a routine school suspension instantly goes to appeal. In part, this is probably the inevitable reckoning for a culture that gives trophies to every Little Leaguer because, as the saying goes, we’re all winners. Shouldering defeat is, after all, a skill that has to be learned early, like speaking Mandarin or sleeping through the night.

In other words, thanks to the misguided liberal notion that self-esteem trumps self-sacrifice, far too many people are unable to suck it up and, um, move on.

† A To Z Approach On Illegal Immigration In AZ: The AZ state Senate passed a bill sponsored by Sen. Russell Pearce (R-Mesa) that requires police to make an effort to ascertain immigration status when there is probable cause to believe someone is not in the U.S. legally, reports The Associated Press:

[I]f approved, Arizona would become the only state to criminalize the presence of illegal immigrants through an expansion of its trespassing law.

While the practical effect of such a law is yet unclear, immigrant rights advocates predict it would lead to racial profiling that would target thousands of Latinos who are U.S. citizens.

And the proposal's constitutionality is also a source of contention.

A few years ago, police chiefs in two communities in New Hampshire charged illegal immigrants with trespassing for being in the state. A local judge in 2005 dismissed the charges as an unconstitutional attempt to apply state laws to a federal issue. …

Under this year's proposed trespassing provision, a first offense would be a top-tier misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail.

Subsequent violations would be a felony that could carry a penalty of up to 2 1/2 years in prison.

Agencies arresting first-time offenders would have the option of prosecuting them or turning them over to federal authorities. …

Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas, whose office helped draft the bill, said even though the federal government has authority to regulate immigration, states have broad police powers that allow them to contribute to the fight against illegal immigration.

† The Revolution Will Be Tweeted: Noting that Twitter “has been identified with two mass protests in a matter of months - in Moldova in April and in Iran last week” The New York Times’ Noam Cohen wonders whether applying the term label “Twitter Revolution” to such uprisings “oversell[s] the technology” and cites six lessons “about the strengths and weaknesses of a technology that is less than three years old and is experiencing explosive growth”:

1. Twitter Is a Tool and Thus Difficult to Censor (“Twitter dreams of being a tool that people can use to communicate with each other from a multitude of locations, like e-mail.”)

2. Tweets Are Generally Banal, but Watch Out (“[T]weets by their nature seem trivial, with little that is original or menacing. … Collectively, however, the tweets can create a personality or environment that reflects the emotions of the moment and helps drive opinion.”)

3. Buyer Beware (“Nothing on Twitter has been verified. … [J]ust as Twitter has helped get out first-hand reports from Tehran, it has also spread inaccurate information, perhaps even disinformation.”)

4. Watch Your Back (“Not only is it hard to be sure that what appears on Twitter is accurate, but … Twitter is thick with discussion of who is really an informant or agent provocateur.”)

5. Twitter Is Self-Correcting but a Misleading Gauge (“A popular, trusted user matters more … [but] Twitter is a certain kind of community — technology-loving, generally affluent and Western-tilting.”)

6. Twitter Can Be a Potent Tool for Media Criticism (“Just as Twitter can rally protesters against governments, its broadcast ability can rally them quickly and efficiently against news outlets.”)

† Updates To Previous Posts (The Right To Bear Arms Belongs To Us All: Part II): In an en banc decision, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court struck down two Philadelphia gun control ordinances - an assault weapons ban and a purchase limit of one handgun per 30 days, reports The Legal Intelligencer:

In the same opinion, however, the court also upheld three other city ordinances dealing with seizure of firearms from persons who pose a risk of imminent harm to themselves or others, prohibiting the acquisition and possession of firearms by persons subject to a protection from abuse order and requiring that gun owners report lost or stolen firearms to law enforcement within 24 hours of realizing they're missing.

A seven-judge en banc panel voted unanimously to allow those three ordinances to stand but was split 6-1 in its decision to enjoin the city from enforcing the two others. …

Attorneys on opposing sides of the case seemed to have very different views about what the Commonwealth Court's ruling here means for them.

The NRA's attorney, Carter Scott Shields of Shields & Hoppe in Media, Pa., said he considered the decision a "win" because even though the Commonwealth Court here ruled that the group of organizations, retailers and individuals lacked standing to challenge three of the ordinances, the court had already ruled in the second Clarke v. House of Representatives case that all five ordinances at issue here were pre-empted [contextual link added by The Stiletto].

Nevertheless, he did say the NRA would appeal the standing issue.

The city's attorney, Richard G. Feder of the Philadelphia Law Department, said that because the city was not a party in Clarke II, it is not bound by the decision in that case.

† Updates To Previous Posts (third item, Why We Need Gitmo): In a New York Times op-ed Stuart Beck, Palau’s permanent representative to the United Nations, takes on what he calls the “myth” that his tiny nation received a $200 million bribe from the U.S. to accept Uighurs released from detention at Gitmo:

In breaking the story that Palau was amenable to President Obama’s request, the Associated Press reported that two anonymous State Department officials had linked Palau’s acceptance of the Uighurs to a $200 million payoff.

Almost immediately, much of the news media took the bait, did the math and asserted that Palau was getting nearly $12 million dollars per Uighur. Within a day or two, The Wall Street Journal was pontificating against a shakedown. …

Palau is a small and peaceful community. Its constitution bans weapons of all kinds. Capital crimes are virtually unknown. Social life revolves around the family. Children wander from house to house. Could anyone believe that the leaders of Palau would risk the safety and serenity of their modern Eden in exchange for money? Is it plausible that these close-knit people would countenance the presence of terrorists in their midst? I can assure you the answer is no.