In which a group of graying eternal amateurs discuss their passions, interests and obsessions, among them: movies, art, politics, evolutionary biology, taxes, writing, computers, these kids these days, and lousy educations.

E-Mail Donald
Demographer, recovering sociologist, and arts buff

E-Mail Fenster
College administrator and arts buff

E-Mail Francis
Architectural historian and arts buff

E-Mail Friedrich
Entrepreneur and arts buff
E-Mail Michael
Media flunky and arts buff

We assume it's OK to quote emailers by name.

Try Advanced Search

  1. Seattle Squeeze: New Urban Living
  2. Checking In
  3. Ben Aronson's Representational Abstractions
  4. Rock is ... Forever?
  5. We Need the Arts: A Sob Story
  6. Form Following (Commercial) Function
  7. Two Humorous Items from the Financial Crisis
  8. Ken Auster of the Kute Kaptions
  9. What Might Representational Painters Paint?
  10. In The Times ...

Sasha Castel
AC Douglas
Out of Lascaux
The Ambler
Modern Art Notes
Cranky Professor
Mike Snider on Poetry
Silliman on Poetry
Felix Salmon
Polly Frost
Polly and Ray's Forum
Stumbling Tongue
Brian's Culture Blog
Banana Oil
Scourge of Modernism
Visible Darkness
Thomas Hobbs
Blog Lodge
Leibman Theory
Goliard Dream
Third Level Digression
Here Inside
My Stupid Dog
W.J. Duquette

Politics, Education, and Economics Blogs
Andrew Sullivan
The Corner at National Review
Steve Sailer
Joanne Jacobs
Natalie Solent
A Libertarian Parent in the Countryside
Rational Parenting
Colby Cosh
View from the Right
Pejman Pundit
God of the Machine
One Good Turn
Liberty Log
Daily Pundit
Catallaxy Files
Greatest Jeneration
Glenn Frazier
Jane Galt
Jim Miller
Limbic Nutrition
Innocents Abroad
Chicago Boyz
James Lileks
Cybrarian at Large
Hello Bloggy!
Setting the World to Rights
Travelling Shoes

Redwood Dragon
The Invisible Hand
Daze Reader
Lynn Sislo
The Fat Guy
Jon Walz


Our Last 50 Referrers

« School Board Platform | Main | Moviegoing: "American Gangster" »

November 16, 2007

Spitzer Listens

Michael Blowhard writes:

Dear Blowhards --

The system works.

Of course, why the system keeps generating so many politicians determined not just to defy the preferences of the general population but to smear us for holding the opinions we do is a bit of a mystery.



posted by Michael at November 16, 2007


I don't think the smearing part is that much of a mystery.

Screaming "racist, sexist and homophobic" at people is a potent weapon. It shuts people up (or it is intended to shut them up). For instance, look at Phil Jackson's very tame joke about Brokeback Mountain.

I am just about uninterested in politics, don't care who's president and have no allegiance to any party.

The Democratic Party is now built entirely on racial and sexual quotas. This is the patronage system of the Democratic Party. People defend patronage systems with a bloody vengeance. I witnessed this first hand when I played at Democratic and Republican fund raising picnics in Jersey over the summer. On the local level, the parties are virtually indistinguishable. Clean streets, instantaneous police response, first-rate schools and lavish senior programs... these are the issues both parties are concerned with and there is no difference in outlook on funding and priorities.

The fight between the parties on the local level is entirely about patronage jobs, and a bloody fight it is. The Democrats want to institute their sex and race quota agenda on the local level. The Republicans want to continue a the legacy of family and church connections.

This is the only real fight, and it may translate into the fight on the larger scale. Perhaps this is why the hatred is so intense.

The sex and race quota agenda is an assault on the old system of family and church connections and loyalty, and so is loathed by the Republican wing. The family and church connections and loyalty system strikes Democrats as "racist, sexist and homophobic," and, I guess, depending on your viewpoint, it is.

Racist translated means: "I want to live in a safe neighborhood, and I want my kid going to neighborhood schools." Sexist translated means: "I want to preserve the religious and ethnic traditions of my family." Homophobic translated means: "I want grandchildren because they are my stake in the future (and because I just love babies)."

Depends on whose ox is being gored.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on November 16, 2007 10:07 AM

Sometimes (maybe much of the time) Democrat and occasional Republican politicians consider their prime constituency to be The New York Times.

Posted by: Donald Pittenger on November 16, 2007 10:30 AM

He listens, but to whom? Now he's devised another plan to piss off New Yorkers.

Posted by: Tatyana on November 16, 2007 12:11 PM

ST - You're awfully even handed on the issue of the patronage war between Dems and Pubbies. Even on the local level, if the Dems succeed in shutting out white males from executive government positions, they will have succeeded in shutting out the segment of the population which constitutes far and away the richest pool of competence and experience to handle those positions. I put this in the future tense. But it is already well under way as is the inevitable decrease in competence and increase in corruption in local government.
Accepting your statement that Republicans draw from families and church goers to fill local positions, at the very least that does not exclude white males. And you and I know that Republicans go almost as far as Dems to find and place that elusive perfect-for-every-position-black-female-disabled-lesbian.

Posted by: ricpic on November 16, 2007 3:22 PM


While I share much of the concern expressed here and elsewhere about illegal hispanic immigrants - let's be honest, that's the group people are really talking about when they say "illegal alien" - I think the objection to giving them driver's licenses is a sign of the reflexive near-hatred of these immigrants ceated by the demagoguery of blowhard opportunists like Lou Dobbs.

Immigrants come here for economic opportunities that are unavailable in their native country, not because they may one day get a driver's license. In order to obtain a license, one must have insurance (at least in California) and demonstrate some driving competency. In addition, it allows accident victims the ability to seek compensation from the other party or their insurer and allows law enforcement officers to locate putative lawbreakers.

Refusing illegal aliens licenses will not deter them from coming here or staying.

Posted by: Peter L. Winkler on November 16, 2007 5:30 PM

About two years ago this blog didn't have nearly as many commenters with a fiery hatred of the Democratic party based entirely on resentment of the Democratic party's nonexistent hatred of white people.

On the issue addressed in the post, I would be in favor of people whose jobs force them to drive being legally permitted to drive. The legality of their immigration status is an unrelated issue.

Posted by: Cryptic Ned on November 16, 2007 6:37 PM

spitzer may possibly be the most smug, out of touch, arrogant asshole in the country. perfect for new york.

jes sayin'.

Posted by: roissy on November 16, 2007 6:42 PM

Yeah, the outrage has nothing to do with giving criminals priveledges granted by the state. Its all racism. That's why we deny blacks, hispanics, asians, etc. who are citizens driver's licenses too.

Illegal immigrants come here illegally not just for jobs but also for welfare. Get real. We have little sympathy for crooks, even if they are ambitious. You and the rest of the commissariat are really pretty transparent in your desires to ruin the country through racial friction. People are catching on now. You need some new dogs and ponies for the show.

Posted by: BIOH on November 17, 2007 1:20 AM

Michael --

Spitzer didn't say 70% of the public (those who disagree with the proposed license policy) were racists.

He simply spoke of "the sort of racist venom that has underlined much of the criticism...(of the plan)."

Racist venom has underlined much of the criticism of Al Sharpton, too. I think he's no-good bozo and I'm not a racist. Nor are the majority of his critics. Still, that leaves a considerable chunk of them who are racists.

When you wrote "smear us...", I thought you were being satirical until I clicked through and realized you were in earnest.

This is Victim Mentality.

Posted by: Fred Wickham on November 17, 2007 2:32 AM

Why do many critics seem to have to tar Lou Dobbs as some sort of unpure opportunist? I hear this constantly. Had Dobbs been against illegal immigration and international corporations (emphasis on the international) in 1975, the critics would be OK with him? I'm quite sure they'd hate him just the same, so why the critique?

As for Spitzer, the Left knows to keep fighting. Sure, they have lost this battle, but as long as they can keep their shoe on the neck of open dialogue painting opponents as racist, they keep an advantage for future attempts at destroying America.

As for the Democrats not hating white people, well with friends like that... So they just take a minority and give him preference over me if we both apply for the fire department because...? Try this crossword puzzle, 9 letters, hating white men nobly: D I V E R S I T Y.

As for immigrants coming here to work. I know many do. But did you read the story by the subsitute teacher at Los Angeles Unified School District on Drudge on Friday? "Nightmare" doesn't seem to cover the conditions in that district. It sounds completely like prep school for prison. So, could we say illegals just come to destroy the school system? Or, hey they just come to destroy California's hospital system. Let's just have full disclosure. Yeah, my buddy's condo complex has a super cheap and efficient gardener, but...

Posted by: sN on November 17, 2007 3:57 AM

illegal hispanic immigrants - let's be honest, that's the group people are really talking about when they say "illegal alien"

No, I'd have to say you're the only one here who thinks that. I don't have any problem with any race who wants to come here and do so legally. You keep your own racist declinations to yourself and stop projecting it onto the rest of us.

I don't know what the ideal, ultimate solution to the illegal immigration issue is, but I certainly do know that calling everyone a racist who wants it "fixed" is not the answer. Giving out welfare and reserved-for-citizens-rights ain't it either. I know it's a completely radical thought, but I'm thinking it might just be somewhere in between. But, that does cover a large amount of ground and the average American just doesn't have enough brain juice to contemplate that big.

Posted by: Upstate Guy on November 17, 2007 11:10 AM

Yes, BIOH, the illegal immigrants are all coming here for welfare at the very same time that "they're taking away jobs from Americans," one of the standard lines employed by Dobbs and others.

And, yes, the antipathy toward illegals is in no small part directed at hispanics and other non-whites, because, last time I checked, hordes of Northern Europeans weren't storming our borders.

Posted by: Peter L. Winkler on November 17, 2007 1:12 PM

Family reunification, both legal and illegal, means that many unemployable immigrants follow on their pioneering employable first wave relatives. Thus, immigrants, both legal and illegal, can indeed 'take jobs away from Americans', and go on welfare. Intentionally, too!

Posted by: PatrickH on November 17, 2007 3:33 PM

Hey Winkler, I know this may come as a shock to your extremely limited purview, but the illegals do both--undercut native labor AND file for welfare benefits, just like they go to emergency rooms and don't pay for their health care and don't pay taxes, yet send their kids to public schools!

Are you stupid or do you just not read the paper?

And the anti-american left's sympathy toward illegal crooks and disdain for Americans, especially white ones, is disgusting and racist. If you want to see a disgusting, uncaring racist behind every tree, go look in the mirror. You are an anti-black, anti-white, and anti-american racist.

Now you get to sit in the hot seat, RACIST! Pipe down and let us do what we want.

Posted by: BIOH on November 17, 2007 11:06 PM

This BIOH guy is terrifying. I'm sure he wouldn't care if he saw me die.

Posted by: Cryptic Ned on November 18, 2007 1:06 AM

"This BIOH guy is terrifying. I'm sure he wouldn't care if he saw me die."-cryptic ned

Ned, sir, are you going to sit on your sword to make this bizarre debating point, such as it is?

Posted by: sN on November 18, 2007 3:03 AM

I'm going to have to side with those who've noticed a great uptick in unhappy and uncouth anti-illegal-immigration enthusiasts over the past few years at the 2Blowhards website. Good for traffic, I suppose.

As I understand it, illegal immigration peaked in 2004, but interest in it grows ever higher, leading me to suspect that television "news" like the sort Lou Dobbs peddles in inflates and exaggerates the issue. Then again, if you only watched CNN and Fox News, you'd think the kidnapping rates of attractive young Caucasian women from upscale neighborhoods and Caribbean resorts were one of the great issues of our time. It is my sad duty to report that the television media can in fact and exaggerate and distort a problem.

Rather, if history is any judge, the current crop of malcontents gibbering on about Hispanic welfare queens and IQ scores will themselves peak and wither, just as they have before. I don't find them "terrifying," just sadly pathetic in their self-serving fantasies about masses of brown people stunting the growth of their Manifest Destiny.


Posted by: The Mechanical Eye on November 18, 2007 5:35 PM

...he says, sitting comfortably in his all-white neighborhood.

Hopefully we will peak and wither like Mexico, that ridiculous cesspool of poverty and corruption. What a great future we will have!

Posted by: BIOH on November 18, 2007 7:05 PM

Is there somewhere I can buy a dog to sniff out arguments so we could find one in the ANTI anti illegal immigrants folks. Perhap, we will have to wait for advances in nano-technology to help find those arguments.

Mechanical Eye part one: Immigrant complaints are good for site traffic. Gee, maybe because citizens have just had it with the invasion. Next, we are uncouth or unhappy. I imgine groups of uncouth and unhappy are on all sides of all issues. I know they are on both sides of this immigration debate, so do we take a census and the group with the least amount wins the argument?

As Mechanical Eye understands it illegal immigration peaked in 2004. First, if this is true, so what? And please define peak -- what was the number at the peak and what is it now? Second, since estimates range from 12 million to 30 million illegals what Mechanical understands of the problem seems a bit humorous. The pro illegal side itself says we don't know who or where these people are, except they're in the shadows.
The number is huge by all accounts. Or is it not? Come out and say somethng, Mechanical. Don't try and hook us up to Fox news/ nancy grace dead coed wagon, because that wagon is much better suited for hauling your racism arguments. And if you're going to say Lou Dobbs is inflating the problem well tell us how, or tell us how small the problem actually is. Make a point, change our minds.

So you find us pathetic, Mechanical. Will you send your child to LA Unified School District? Will you move into the neighbrhoods in my area that used to be pleasant places and are now just gang infested sores? Is the adding of a second language just my imagination? As for welfare stories, when welfare reform was being done there was an attempt to eliminate some aid to immigrants, opponents said this would lead to starvation. Are you saying immigrnats are above taking aid. Tell us what commonly held proposition in these commmunites is against taking govt. handouts? And are the Calif. state statistcs on the academic performance of these kids wrong? If they are correct, does that mean anything to the future?

You've been sitting in the wrong position too long, Mechanical. Your brain has fallen asleep. Get up; shake it off. Make a substantive argument, or even just take your own statements to the next level. Even getting to the first rung of the ladder would, at least, get you off the floor.

Posted by: sN on November 18, 2007 8:43 PM

Okay, despite knowing better, I'll bite.
I agree that something must be done about rampant illegal immigration.

I also agree that the tenor of the debate here on the subject is about as odious, unproductive and offensive (to tasteful and tactful readers) as it could possibly be, complete with a host of posters that use it as a bully pulpit.

If we were to juxtapose the discussions on aesthetics here to the ones on immigration, a clear pattern emerges.

We can do better than this, people.

Posted by: Spike Gomes on November 18, 2007 11:53 PM

Hey, If you can't call people racist, tell them that they are crude and unfeeling.

What about what we the citizens want?

In the space of about 2-3 years, this issue has gone from debateable and off the front burner to front and center and debate over.

We want to end illegal invasion and deport--that's what the overwhelming majority want. And the conviction only increases with time.

Posted by: BIOH on November 19, 2007 10:54 AM

Does the truth have to be nice?

Mr. Gomes wants us to be nice. I think he'd prefer that we were Boy Scouts. Oh, wait, the left is busy trying to destroy that organization.

The problem is we know your definition of nice is just having us put on the blindfolds and smile until the firing sqaud gets here. Hey, it is a fight for culture; we don't want to be nice. We know the rules are always put on us but never on the other side. Never on the other side. Please, tell me the rules that the other side is going to play by. Here would be a nice start: rule one, the laws of the United States.

Posted by: sN on November 19, 2007 1:23 PM

It's good to know I can always count on BIOH and sN to be personally insulting and/or miss my point entirely.

Well, when it comes to the immigration debates, I'm outta here. Brings something to mind about pigs, mud and wrestling. Tis a pity really, as the regulars here have good stuff to contribute on it.

Posted by: Spike Gomes on November 19, 2007 2:21 PM

Bravo, Spike, take a victory lap on your white horse, but make sure mommy has a tight grip on the reins, in case the ride gets rough.

If you are going to read me out of polite company then do me a favor and give me 3 or 4 things that I said that should not be allowed. Have that decency. Tell me what I said that should not be allowed? You're the decent guy, right? You can extend me that decency -- before you banish me? Put something behind your pronouncements. But that would require you to say something and if you actually say something it can be debated.

And by the way, the Blowhard commenters are good except for sN and BIOH is more fit for a junior high. But, I enjoy a good insult, just make sure there is some meat on that bone when you stick it in my eye.
Also could you tell me is it not allowed in your world to say that Mexcians may have, just maybe have something to do with the way things are in Mexico? And therefore, if they want to come here illegally in the millions and bring their culture, it could have a bad effect.

How do I go against my opponents and their: institutional racism, covert racism, under representation, white privilege, over represented, structured racism, noose on a Halloween display racism ... and the list goes on. You're telling me to oppose this stuff without offending anyone. Can that be done effectively?
My country is on the line. Im not discussing architecture here. So understand my vigorous defense.

Posted by: sN on November 19, 2007 7:08 PM

Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember your info?