The argument between Abstinance Only sex education and passing out condoms to scool kids has long been raging between the ACLU and more conservative organizations. It seems the very same argument has been going on in Mexico, but relating to illegal immigration.

I guess it is better to help an illegal immigrant to cross the boarder safely than to stop them from crossing in the first place. The logic is identical and it works no better in this case.

From The Telegraph:

Illegal immigrants planning to cross the desert and enter the US on foot are to be given hand-held satellite devices by the Mexican authorities to ensure they arrive safely.

The satellite tracking service will require would-be illegals to register their intentions before setting off — a paradoxical move, given that secrecy is necessary for success — but Mexican authorities are predicting that about 200,000 devices will be handed out when the project is launched formally in the coming year.

“Our intention is to save lives,” said Jaime Obregon, the co-ordinator for the state commission for migrants in Puebla, the Mexican state which is behind the project. “There are lots of people looking to cross and we are working with the US authorities to make sure they do not die on the way.”

[…]

A spokesman for US Customs and Border Protection said: “We do not have any information about the Mexican government providing satellite trackers to people, but we strongly discourage encouragement to people who are attempting to cross illegally into the US.”

The money Mexico is squandering making it easier for people to get into the US would be better used to improve conditions in Mexico so people don’t want to leave so badly.

Also Reporting:
Hot Air

More than 170,000 of the commonwealth’s citizens had signed petitions in favor of such an amendment appearing on the November 2008 ballot.

On December 13, ADF attorneys filed a federal lawsuit asserting that members of the Massachusetts Legislature had acted illegally by ignoring their constitutional duty to vote on the proposed amendment which defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman.

Last week, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed that failing to vote violated the Legislature’s sworn duty to uphold the Constitution. ADF’s lawsuit filed on behalf of VoteOnMarriage.org asserted a federal due process claim against the Legislature’s refusal to vote on the amendment.

“Because the Legislature has voted, there is now no further need for the federal lawsuit,” said Lavy.

John Conyers, probably one of the 2 or 3 most liberal members of congress, is probably best known for his appearance in Moor’s Fahrenheit 9/11 where he stated that congressmen don’t read most of the bills they sign.

Conyers is also known for his proposed (and hopefully dead) HR 288 which would grant special protection of Islam from public criticism.

More recently Conyers has been under investigation by the House Ethics Committee who released a report on Conyers on the Friday before new years.

All of this is of current interest as Conyers is currently appointed by Pelosi to be the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and the third scandal clad nominee by Pelosi. Pelosi lost her bid to put John Murtha on as House Majority Leader and backed down on her bit to put Alcee Hastings as chairman of the Intelligence Committee.

The Examiner has a very good articel on Conyers:

Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., is scheduled to become chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, but only because he agreed when Pelosi previously made clear that she intended him not to waste time on impeachment proceedings against President Bush. But now we learn that Conyers has his own problems with obeying the law.

There is so much wrong with the Conyers situation that Pelosi shouldn’t have to think twice about nixing Conyers’ chairmanship.

[…]

Pelosi should withdraw Conyers’ appointment as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee because he is unfit for the position and because the ethics mess simply cannot be cleaned up with such an individual leading the House committee most directly concerned with upholding the majesty of the law.

Strong words. Thankfully the Examiner goes on to list some specifics:

First, releasing its report late on Friday before the New Year’s holiday weekend made it clear that the House “Ethics” Committee intended to minimize public understanding of the Conyers scandal. This is classic Washington Establishment manipulation of the news cycle to insulate itself against public accountability.

Second, Conyers responded to the “Ethics” committee by “accepting responsibility” for a “lack of clarity” in asking aides to work on his re-election campaign while on the official payroll instead of going on a campaign staff, as the law requires, and to do personal chores for him. The allegations came from senior staff members, including a former chief of staff, not interns or other short-term aides who might have questionable motives.

Third, the “Ethics” committee report also concerned a second investigation of Conyers from 2003 on allegations that his aides also worked on the Carol Mosely-Braun presidential campaign and JoAnn Watson’s Detroit City Council race. Would Conyers have applied the same slipshod legal standards to his Bush impeachment effort?

Fourth, the Conyers scandal shows it’s still business as usual for the “Ethics” committee. Pelosi should demand that Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., and Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif., the committee leaders who signed off on the Conyers report, be removed permanently from the panel and barred from leadership of other House panels.

Finally, Pelosi should heed former White House chief of staff and ex-congressman Leon Panetta, who said “you can attack one party for having a lack of ethics, but if any of your own members have problems, it dulls the message with the American people, they begin to put everybody in the same box.” In other words, whenever one member of the House has an ethics problem, it damages the credibility of all members of the House, including most especially its most visible leader, the speaker.

Now Pelosi has an interesting decision to make with Conyers - dose she stick to her pledge to clean up congress and pull his Chairmanship, or does she plow ahead and show that to her, ethics and corruption are just tools to be used in a very partisan battle.

Finally, it is important to note that this is not just a Democrat issue. The misdirected report was signed off by the current Republican leadership of the Ethics committee. The buck, as the say goes, stops with Pelosi. I hope she makes the correct decision.

Also reporting:
Captains Quarters
Wake Up America
Discerning Texan

Freudian Slip?

Too funny. Thanks CNN.

UPDATED: CNN has made a statement which was, ironically, picked up by the competition:

CNN apologized Tuesday for mistakenly promoting a story on the search for Osama bin Laden with the headline “Where’s Obama?”

A spokesman for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama said the apology was accepted.

The blunder came Monday evening on Wolf Blitzer’s news show “The Situation Room.” Both Soledad O’Brien and Blitzer offered separate apologies during CNN’s morning show Tuesday.

CNN called it a “bad typographical error” by its graphics department.

“We want to apologize for that bad typo,” Blitzer said. “We also want to apologize personally to Sen. Barack Obama. I’m going to be making a call to him later this morning to offer my personal apology.”

Tommy Vieto, Obama’s press secretary, said he appreciated the bloggers and activists who brought the error to light so quickly and helped make sure it was corrected.

“Though I’d note that the `s’ and `b’ keys aren’t all that close to each other, I assume it was just an unfortunate mistake, and don’t think there was any truly malicious intent,” Vieto said.

Also Reproting:
Hot Air
Crooks and Liars