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

« Seeing Yellowstone Park ... Before it Explodes | Main | DVD Journal: "Youth Without Youth" »

August 24, 2008


Michael Blowhard writes:

Dear Blowhards --

* Did you know that the Census Bureau has revised its estimate of how many Hispanics will be living in the U.S. in 2050 twice in the last decade? Upwards in both cases, as if you didn't know. Current best guess: In 2050, the U.S. will be home to 133 million Hispanics. That's an increase of 100 million in just 50 years. Steve Sailer asks a wonderfully blunt, Steve-esque set of questions:

Is adding 100 million Latinos to the U.S. population a good idea? Will it "form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity"?

(That’s the first sentence of something called the "U.S. Constitution"—a once-celebrated document put together way back when by a bunch of long-dead white guys, some of whom were slave-owners.)

We the people are supposed to have a say in such things. But how can we have a say when we're not supposed to talk about it?

* Mexico is opening a full-scale consulate in Anchorage, Alaska.

* The Irish Independant's Kevin Myers continues pointing out uncomfortable facts. For example: "Contrary to almost all predictions about the impact of immigrants upon an economy, a majority of Nigerians [in Ireland] are not economically active at all." He also continues asking hard questions:

Why are so many people, from a country to which we have no moral or legal or historical obligations, living off this state? Why are they being allowed through immigration, if they have no jobs to go to? Why are they choosing to come to Ireland, when 20 countries or more lie between their homeland and ourselves? And finally, and perhaps most important of all, why is no one else asking why?

* A round of applause, please, for Hibernia Girl, who's retiring from the blogosphere to return to school. Immigration restrictionists and skeptics are usually portrayed by the establishment as knuckle-draggers, haters, and (inevitably) racists. Ever cheerful, generous, and clear-eyed, Hibernia Girl didn't just supply regular shots of information and common sense, she showed that resistance to the establishment's immigration plans can be a humane and sophisticated stance. A fun fact that she passed along recently: 59% of Irish voters want "much stricter limits" on immigration to Ireland.



posted by Michael at August 24, 2008


Sigh... Yet another one of these.

Congrats on Hibernia Girl going back to school. I enjoyed her blog, though I never agreed why she seemingly held the position that racial origin is orthogonal to willingness to culturally assimilate. If anything, a secularized post-communist Latvian is probably farther from ye auld church and green than a devout Nigerian Catholic would be culturally speaking, race realist reasons about IQ and social disruption aside (ironic though, that race realism was wielded against tide of immigrants from the Emerald Isle not so long ago, historically speaking, but we all know so much better now). Other than France, Ireland is probably the only other European nation I would gladly assimilate to without any hesitation given the opportunity; I theorize something in the water makes for great poetry.

We shall see, given time. I have a feeling that national identity shall not be broken, that people will continue to hold on the bright things of the past, so long as we keep memories alive and true, not as nostalgia for a golden ideal that never was, but for the living benefit of those in the present. Things change, that much is inevitable. It is not in rage and irritation that the torch is passed, but in wisdom and equanimity.

I do think that the pendulum is slowly turning, though the results probably won't satisfy the loudest on both ends of the equation, and there's no loading up the wayback machine to pre-1966 or heralding a beige utopia of shiny happy people holding hands. (I do wish there was a way. I'd like to pick up some suits from the Summer 1966 line of suits).

Still, I know the dangers. After all, I come from a state in the Union with a former royal palace across the street from the U.S. Post Office. A marker perhaps of what happens when a lax immigration policy is followed to its most logical extreme end. If that's the case however, then what one should worry about is not so much the hordes on the bottom, but the folks at the top. If the shit hits the fan, it won't be flying out of the barrio.

Posted by: Spike Gomes on August 24, 2008 4:46 AM

Mr Myers is being disingenuous when he writes "..only 38pc over the age of 15 were at work". I suspect that the figures use "at work" to mean 'at the sort of work that leads to taxes being paid'.

Posted by: dearieme on August 24, 2008 6:58 AM


Are you up early or did you set this up last night? Even on Sunday, I'm up by 6:30!

Good post. I'm a Sailer fan, too.

One of Sailer's favorite theories is that people from lower IQ cultures (races?) need structure, traditional morality and middle class values more than people from high IQ cultures.

Don't you think that this has something to do with your advocacy of "... contrasts, dissonances, multiple levels, ironies, paradoxes, provocations, and flirtations... ?" You come from one of those high IQ cultures that can afford to question middle class moral values.

Sailer points out repeatedly just how damaging questioning traditional moral values has been for blacks. This questioning in the high IQ white communities has not led to the same degree of destructive consequences among whites. Hipsterism, single motherhood, drug use, lax sexual morals... these things produce one result in high IQ white communities, but completely different results in low IQ black and hispanic communities.

Sailer is, of course, frequently, accused of racism. I don't see it. I tend to agree that a more structured, religious, traditional life works best for people of average and low IQ. They need rules to follow or they fail. Have you considered that your philosophy of life, your moral values and your outlook on work are all possible because you were born into the high IQ world of educated, disciplined white society?

Here's another thing to consider. That behavior of that high IQ white society becomes the ideal, as a result advertising and media, for those lower IQ societies. This causes those lower IQ societies to aspire to a way of life (questioning values, traditions, etc.) that may be very damaging for them. So, the example that that high IQ white society sets is very important for that lower IQ society. As I said, I think that a society can support only so many hipsters, nihilists and wiseacres before things start going to hell.

In other words, don't educated, high IQ whites have a responsibility to consider how their individualistic, hip views affect that world of people with lesser abilities and IQ? That easy going attitude you convey would be a disaster, I guarantee, for a black kid growing up in a lousy neighborhood in Newark. He desperately needs church, structured family, responsible fathering, and strongly stated moral rules. The media message that that hip world of Manhattan transmits is a horrifying disaster if played out in Newark.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on August 24, 2008 8:12 AM

Spike -- I liked Hibernia Girl's merry yet firm tone too, as well as the fact that she comes to the topic from anything but an Idaho-militia p-o-v. Did you notice that she has a cultural-anthropology background? What's fun and unususal -- though it seems to me very sensible -- is that cultural anthropology led her to view not just distant tribes but her own people as being cool and worthy of respect. That's one way that cultural anthropology hit me too, though I was never anything but an amateur and a fan.

Dearieme -- Funny point. And I think you're right about that!

ST -- Nice rant. I agree completely, though I'd de-emphasize IQ only because I don't know enough about it and think the argument holds up fine without it. I grew up anything but snazzy and upper-middle-class myself -- smalltown, middle and working class, midwestern-ish ... And the impact of the '60s "liberation" thing wasn't always happy there either. For a fair number of people it meant the fun of pot, rock and roll, and slightly more adventurous sex. For others, though, it meant unnecessarily broken families, drug problems, lives that never got started, and some suicides.

Even at the time, and even as a kid, I looked at what was being advocated by the hippie/ media/academic class and thought, "Well, that's all nice and fine if you have a lot of resources behind you. But what if you don't have a trust fund? Or connections? Or an endlessly-indulgent family?"

All that said -- and your determination to enjoy an op-ed style early-morning shootout appreciated -- I can't figure out why you think *I* advocate a liberation program. When I do (rarely) touch on politics, I favor skepticism, modesty, respect for traditions, and small scale. I link to Sailer, Reed, Jim Kalb and others because I think they're great, but also because I think that doing so leads to a richer and more open political conversation.

So where do you find me advocating a liberation line? Is it the sex, art, and food stuff? To me all that comes under the label of "enjoying life, culture, and leisure," a separate part of the magazine from political news and editorials.

Even so far as discussing enjoyment, leisure, and culture goes, I offer an alternative to the usual media-world p-o-v. (After all, if I were just peddling the usual I'd be getting myself paid to do so by some mainstream publication, not writing under a pseudonym on a blog ... ) Some of the themes of my blogging: The arts life generally sucks; people in it are often crazy and destructive even when very talented; talent and intelligence are often completely different things; enjoying what artists make is one thing and taking what they say seriously as life-advice is another; the usual art-history (and music-history, and lit-history, etc) story may not be a total crock but does huge disservices to both reality and our potential enjoyment of it; culture especially in the U.S. includes lots more than what the usual gatekeepers recognize ... I push these kinds of points so hard and regularly that I fear I become boring about them.

As for pausing to eat well, or to take note of your environment, or to learn a bit about the culture of sex and flirtation, or to taste-test the pornification of culture ... I'm not urging people to do all this, I'm just pointing out that it's available if they care to go there. It's true that I'm assuming that visitors to 2Blowhars are already literate and culture-aware. But is that an unfair assumption? I don't imagine that there are too many bewildered and clueless ghetto-dwellers among our visitors.

I recall you writing about how much more you enjoy music in small-club settings than in big venues. When you write something like that are you urging people to visit small clubs? (And if so, good for you.) Or are you just talking about personal taste and experience? Even if we take it as advocacy, which you may not intend, it seems to me like a service that you're doing for people. It also seems in no way a threat to western civ. Quite le contraire, in fact -- you're helping people appreciate what we're lucky enough to have. A few people might read you and say to themselves, "Hey, maybe I could skip that stupid arena-rock blowout and drop by a local club instead. I lose track of that possibility too often. And it might even be fun!" That's nice. You aren't giving anything the finger, you're saying "let's take note of, enjoy, and say 'Thank you' for what we have."

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on August 24, 2008 11:00 AM

A barbaric yawp sounded its Shouting Thomas across the cosmos: and made sense!

Colour me gobsmacked.

Tangentially, questions like drug legalization, legalization of prostitution, gun control and so on, are argued about without taking IQ and ethnicity into account. White mainstream culture has developed ways of (for example) limiting the damage done by cocaine. White culture could legalize coke use and IMO it would make no difference. But look at what coke (crack) is doing to the ghetto. Legalize it, and all bets are off. Without the rigorous enforcement of traditional morality (much more rigorous than is currently done) the urban necroses will die utterly in a kind of auto-holocaust, low IQ brains Darwin Awarding themselves out of existence. [EVIL ON] Hmmmm...maybe there's a silver lining to that cloud. I'll have to think about this one. [EVIL OFF]

[RACISM ON] And I hope and believe most fervently that the worm has finally turned on the migrant issue. 100 million more Hispanics? I feel sick. I pray that America stops that influx before it's too late. [RACISM OFF]

Enjoy your Sunday. Lordy, I said something nice about ST! I need some coke, dammit! Get me some goddamn coke! Now!

God be with y'all now, you hear? (snort),

Posted by: PatrickH on August 24, 2008 11:04 AM

Each time one of these immigration threads starts I sigh and wonder if it will, as it generally does, turn into another round of predictable dichotomous nonsense. After a few comments go back and forth a line gets drawn in the sand. You can stand here with the Bell Curve believing, traditionalist, white, English speaking, exceptionalist American patriots to defend our borders from attack or join the mindless multi-culty, PC, hippie, lefty, commie, self-hating open border traitors. For all the lip service given to how "we the citizens need to discuss this as a society" any who do not wholeheartedly agree with the position that immigration is a major, perhaps existential, problem that needs to be halted using any and all means necessary get rhetorically bludgeoned and sent to such enlightened sites as V-DARE for a dose of re-education.

Are we in a global/individualist or a regional/nationalist age? Is one of these poles more desirable or scientifically superior than the other and if so, why? Are indigenous North America populations, descendants of immigrants from Spain and the native population here long before the colonial era, moving across a border that has been relatively porous for its entire existence to live in a nation populated by immigrants from all over the world, (if with an emphasis on those from Western Europe, especially the earliest arrivals from Britain and France) the social/moral/political/demographic equivalent of Africans, Arabs and Eastern Europeans moving to the tiny island nation of Ireland? Does the U.S., a nation founded on a philosophy and populated by wave after wave of immigration, have some unique ethnic/racial/tribal character that must be defended? Or is it, as it has always been, a mixture of many different peoples contributing to the whole? If one answers that the U.S. has always been a white Christian Anglo-European nation what do we make of the implications brought about by the forced importation of Africans as slaves, or the Chinese who came to build the railroads, the Jews from all over Europe who came seeking a place where they would not be subjected to persecution and pogroms or, for that matter, the flood of Irish immigrants during the Potato Famine years? And what do we owe morally and ethically, if anything, to individuals from different regions of the world affected by wars and famines, some of which are the result of our financial and political elites projecting power around the globe to further the global economy in ways that benefit "our' American interests?

As always in these threads, I doubt I will see many honest attempts to answer any of these questions. Rather they will get interpreted as revealing my hopelessly PC, hippie, lefty, commie, self-hating open border traitorous views. Any attempt on my part to say that I agree we need a better approach and tighter control will likely be dismissed because I don't think we should close the borders and expel all undocumented immigrants, revoke the citizenship of "anchor babies" (even if they are now voting age "babies") and return America to some mythic white Christian purity.

Posted by: Chris White on August 24, 2008 11:42 AM


No clever comments from me. I just want to say how much I admire you for continually pointing out the insanity of our immigration policy, with you living in immigration-worshiping New York! I'm pretty sure some of your friends and acquaintances aren't pleased, so I understand the moral courage it takes in going against the Liberal Establishment.

Posted by: Rick Darby on August 24, 2008 11:52 AM


I thought that that was one of the least rant-y bits I've written in some time.

You are extremely articulate, and you write well. That places you in the upper limits of IQ, and it means that you can "afford" an entirely different way of looking at the world than those who cannot. I don't see this as a criticism of you, although you seem to have received it in this fashion.

I also belong to that group that can "afford" to flout convention and tradition without noticeable consequences. You really don't need a trust fund. No matter where I land, no matter what crazy things I do, I can walk into an employment agency, pass a test in C# and be back to work the next day, no questions asked. Even if I've gone on a drunken, drug addled binge, I can clean myself up and fix the wreckage.

Thoughout my life, I've taken advantage of these things. I'm not living the life of a saint. I certainly look at aesthetics in a different way than my family back home does.

I think that I just wanted to hear you say it. Traditional morality, religious indoctrination, traditional family structure, obedience to political authority... these are very different issues for the IQ impaired. Those people flourish best in a world of inflexible, detailed rules, conventions, customs and uniforms. Without those things, they most often fail.

And, while I certainly think that people would serve themselves better by listening to music in the traditional, small venues, I understand quite well why they don't. The mass audience is interested solely in music as nostalgia, so if they are going to go hear music they will go out once a year, spend 100 bucks and listen to Springsteen. They don't have any interest in grubby dives, and I can't blame them. Very few people are "vanguard" listeners... that is, people who are actually interested in music for the sake of creativity and meaning.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on August 24, 2008 12:12 PM

Chris, you are the one turning this conversation into a cartoon.

VDARE has trouble surviving. It doesn't have any substantial political influence. How in the world would it re-educate anybody? What are you doing pretending that Steve Sailer and VDARE wield political clout? That is just a lie.

I haven't noticed anybody on this board opposing legal immigration. You, on the other hand, seem to equate any opposition to illegal immigration as the same as nativism.

I don't think that IQ or race ought to be the criteria for decisions about legal immigration. I do, however, think that something needs to be done to forestall unrestricted illegal immigration.

So, why don't you quit the cartoon posturing? You are the one doing it. You always restate these arguments into the most crazy liberal vs conservative dichotomy possible. You are the one doing what you are accusing others of doing. Please cease and actually discuss the issue of illegal versus legal immigration, which I think is what is actually being discussed here.

Or, to employ your cartoon tactics, do you think we should just do away with our national borders and let in anybody who can walk across?

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on August 24, 2008 12:42 PM

Western Civilization's three great evils of the 20th century:

National Socialism (1934 to 1945)
Communism (1917 to 1991)
Population Replacement (early 1950s to ?)

Posted by: PA on August 24, 2008 1:03 PM

Chris -- Our authorities are forcing policies on us that many find unpalatable -- and you're getting in a tizzy about the people who find them unpalatable, rather than the authorities who are doing the forcing? That seems beyond-weird to me. Here's a comparison: An authority figure (a teacher, say) forces his ten charges to eat something exotic. Eight out of his students barf. Your response: Shudder at the ugliness of the barfing --- my golly but that's impolite behavior -- and then blame the students for being close-minded. My response: What on earth is the teacher doing? And why isn't he being chastised, if not fired?

Rick -- Thanks, but you're doing a great job yourself, and doing it under your own name. Me, I move in such metro-urban-true-believin' circles I don't even let them know what I'm up to. Je suis un wuss, no question about it. Anyway: it's a nice change that at least a few voices are out there these days, isn't it?

ST -- I'd be all for lowering legal immigration levels, too, as well as re-adjusting the criteria for it.

PA -- Nicely put, tks. It certainly sums a lot up in a very short space.

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on August 24, 2008 1:11 PM

"White culture could legalize coke use and IMO it would make no difference. "

PatrickH, look at what meth has done to poor, white communities in every area of the US. Race has nothing to do with it. Socio-economic class has everything to do with it

Posted by: JV on August 24, 2008 1:39 PM

The dominant dichotomy I see being expressed here is one that equates "elite" primarily with the governmental, academic, liberal wing of the "elite" and contrasting it with the anti-PC voice of the people. The "elite" of the "free" market system, the global capital "elite", seems ignored. I argue it is the global capital elite that is both the real source of the problem and best means we the "market forces" have of solving the problem.

Many of those who have been beneficiaries of the global market place (including most who comment here) both want to retain their own relatively "elite" status and not be reminded that their good fortune rests in part on a system that distributes the positive and negative consequences very disproportionately.

If everyone who blogs about tightening immigration became a localvore and only went to carefully vetted restaurants, no fast food franchises, it would do more to change the economics that lead to immigration than endlessly whining about the evil elite.

We have allowed ourselves to become consumers rather than citizens. As consumers we have benefited from the porous border, as citizens – on either side of the border – we've suffered. So, my problem with most of what I read here is that it sounds like many here want it both ways. Keep the system and its benefits, but refuse to accept any of the negative consequences.

Posted by: Chris White on August 24, 2008 3:55 PM

BULLETIN: Some scientists believe that the universe will end in a state of maximum entropy, with noise completely overwhelming signal. This information-free end-state is known by cosmologists as “Chris White”.

Items (sigh):

“Rhetorically bludgeoned”. Sorry! “Sent [to] V-DARE for a dose of re-education.” It’s all right, Chris. You don’t have to go! It’s just a suggestion!

Are we in a global/individualist or a regional/nationalist age? Is one of these poles more desirable or scientifically superior than the other and if so, why?

I have absolutely NO IDEA what you mean by “scientifically superior”. I have no idea what you mean by that question period. We’re talking immigration policy. Lordy!

Are Hispanics moving into America the social/moral/blah/blah equivalent of Africans [etc.] moving into Ireland?

Chris, these are great big gaseous questions, at least the way you’ve windbaggeried them out. You whine that your questions aren’t being answered here. That is an outright lie. But even it were not, your gas-bursts this time around are impossible to answer—just more of your noise-to-signal ratio-pumping. The questions that really aren’t being answered are the ones you’re ignoring and have ignored in the whole time I’ve had to micro-read through your flatlined EEG readouts, oops “comments”: what is desirable about immigrants who will have great difficulty assimilating, and especially, finding work that will allow them not to become long-term wards of a welfare state never designed to be an in-migrant support program?

Does the U.S., a nation founded on a philosophy and populated by wave after wave of immigration, have some unique ethnic/racial/tribal character that must be defended?

Insofar as that ethnic/racial/tribal character has created a nation that third world migrants want to enter while having nothing to offer that nation, well…YES. How can you say that this question hasn’t been answered? It has been answered overtly many a time, and in ways different than mine. But it has been answered. You can’t just fart out the same old toot-toot-tooties without people eventually wising up to cause of the stink, covering their noses and leaving the room. If you want answers, could you at least try asking some new questions? And make them less gassy? Pleeeeeze?

? And what do we owe morally and ethically, if anything, to individuals from different regions of the world affected by wars and famines, some of which are the result of our financial and political elites projecting power around the globe to further the global economy in ways that benefit "our' American interests?

You have asked this question before. The answer: NOTHING. As for the consequences of American power producing the migrant influx, really? Mexican mass in-migration is the result of some American policies? What, Dole pineapple? IT&T? Well, it is really. Changes in immigration policy since 1965 and 1986, and the refusal to enforce existing laws. So in that sense, yes, American policy has contributed to the influx of undesirable immigrants. I suggest that what we OWE is a) a change of policies; and b) enforcement of existing laws.

As always in these threads, I doubt I will see many honest attempts to answer any of these questions. Rather they will get interpreted as revealing my hopelessly PC, hippie, lefty, commie, self-hating open border traitorous views.

No, Chris. They reveal your inability to learn from experience.

Return America to some mythic white Christian purity.

No, Chris. We want to prevent the population of Hispanics in America from growing by one hundred million in the next few decades. The concern is about the future, Chris. Not the past. Your moans and stomach burbles and nose-blowing—I’m sorry, your “questions”—all of which gas on and on and on about the past and which are built on these bizarre rickety Rube Goldberg hypothetical this-that-and-the-other moralizing dichotomies, serve only to distract from focus on the hard realities that face America today. Here’s the kind of question that should be asked, Chris, even by you:

What kind of future do Americans want to leave for their children? Their grandchildren?

Still gassy, isn’t it? But at least it’s pointed in the RIGHT TEMPORAL DIRECTION. And in the end, that’s where we’re all headed anyway, aren’t we?

Yours negentropically,

Posted by: PatrickH on August 24, 2008 4:11 PM

Did you see the story on the Chicago hospital which spent a quarter of a million to save the life of a Mexican citizen? Now, the Mexican Consul has hired a lawyer to force the hospital to provide the guy long-term care for the rest of his life. The Mexican govt. forcing us to care for one of its citizens. The Mexican (americun) lobbying groups are screaming racism. To hell with all of them.

Here is a question for Chris White if these invaders are turning my part of the country into shit, why should I give a damn about any other question? Most of their kids do horribly in school. They've turned neighborhoods that once were fine into their shitty little barrio battlegrounds. Now, let's see -- African slaves and Chinese railroad builders -- let me think...

True, all these arguments have been heard before, but I don't think that invalidates them in any way -- if it does explain how. The Mexican invasion is illegal and destructive and is pushing us to a 450 million population and you expect us to talk about goddamn chinese railraod workers.

Here's an answer: We don't owe Mexico or Mexicans anything. Now, let's start sending them home. And as a nice symbolic gesture, let us tear down the Mexican Consulates and use the material for a border fence. And let us empty the pockets and wallets of their Consul workers to pay for the damages. Sound harsh? Well, if you think about it --- it is exactly what they are doing to me.

Posted by: sN on August 24, 2008 5:00 PM

Speaking of the dark underbelly of the hippy dream I can recommend extracts from the memoir of a former hippy and actor called Peter Coyote.

He seems to have been a moving spirit around a number of California communes in the late sixties. His fond recollections invariably centre around drug overdoses, suicides, jail terms.
Needless to say, all these people came from middle class backgrounds. Not that it did some of the them much good.
One such was Carla who joins him and his "old lady" in a commune, becomes a drug addict and ends up turning tricks out of a broken down car in Haight Ashbury.
This is from
"...She continued turning tricks, using and selling drugs and augmenting her supply of street-dope with the government's very own methadone which she received at a de-tox clinic daily.

She met and moved in with Clint, a muscular six- foot-six, two-hundred-thirty-pounder who handled Kelly's drug deliveries. The next two years became a blur of moves between every low-rent hotel, motel, and rooming house in Marin, until their personal dust settled in a fairly new condo development called Harbor Point. It was here that Carla picked up the San Francisco Examiner on November 11,1975 and saw the front page photo of a large, algae-covered 50 gallon drum, dripping wet and wrapped with chains, which had just been dredged up from beneath the Richmond Bridge. The photo's caption identified it as her husband's coffin. The police had caught Boneyard on that bridge with a car trunk full of cocaine. In searching around for something to deal for his freedom, Boneyard turned over his friends and Jeff's final resting place. Jeff had died before he was 23.

The next night one of Carla's customers told her that the (Hell's) Angels were looking for her. So were the police. Carla figured that if her customers knew the Angels wanted her, it would not be long before she crossed paths with the boys themselves. So, for the next month, she and Clint slept in a different place every night. It was nerve-wracking trying to service customers and never knowing each time she made and appointment, whether or not she might find an Angel awaiting her at the rendezvous. Clint and Carla drifted that way for months, skimming the nether-world of Marin like fallen leaves before the wind.

(her kids) Malachi and Willow, were by this time ensconced in a lovely foster home in San Anselmo. They were thriving with a wholesome, nurturing couple who had a yard, rabbits, swings and all the ingredients necessary to raise healthy children. Carla's visits to them were becoming more and more traumatic. On her final visit, Malachi had clung to her leg screaming and begging "take me with you, take me with you Mommy." Not even heroin can dampen that kind of pain. Carla recognized that her life was a shambles, and believed, with good reason, that she could quite possibly be dead very soon. Reluctantly, she signed the adoption papers delivering her children to these good people. "I cried for five straight days," she remembers. Clint and Kelly held her, rocked her, fed her, kept her stoned and never left her alone for five minutes. She was gone!"

You get the just. The endless rounds of squats, panhandling, drugs, sex and violence continues with predictable results.
The interesting thing is the lack of self-awareness Coyote brings to his memoir. It is all seen through rose-tinted glow for him. Doubltless as a commune "alpha" male, it had its compensations.
(apologies for the paragraph formatting on this)

Posted by: Barry Wood on August 24, 2008 5:02 PM

JV, you're right of course. But I mentioned white mainstream culture in the previous sentence, and it was that culture I was referring to. "Mainstream" in this sense meant middle class and up, so I agree with your point about class being key. IQ however is not separate from socioeconomic class, JV, nor is "ethnicity".

Posted by: PatrickH on August 24, 2008 5:36 PM

their good fortune rests in part on a system that distributes the positive and negative consequences very disproportionately

Now our good fortune is built on the backs of the populations that make up third world migration into the US? Mexicans? Chris? Man, slightly cheaper veggies, cheaper (and shoddier) housing, and some really really good chile rellenos, and we need 100 million more?

Numbers please! Prove these fantastic assertions. White working and middle class good fortune is "preserved" at the expense of migrants? Or of their home countries? Jeezus, where do you get this view of the world?

And how about really trying to answer sN's point: What do we owe Mexico? NOTHING. And that includes immigration slots. America owes Mexico not one visa, not one green card, not one place in the immigration queue. America owes NO ONE a single visa of any kind, let alone Mexico.

Where or where did lefties like Chris W get the idea that America owes its land, space, money, jobs, visas to the world? How the 'fuh did that idea get so firmly lodged in the collective amygdala of leftie America?

Well, Chris? Want to try answering that question?

Posted by: PatrickH on August 24, 2008 5:50 PM

Chris White has a perpetual guilt complex about blacks and their fate in the US. So of course, every single thing that can be done to throw money and opportunities at any non-white person is justified, even if it is illegal.

What the hippie Chris White fails to understand is that pre-Civil War, most white people were brought to the US in chains too. White slavery is the taboo subject in American history (we all know why). Yet, he can't wrap his head around the idea that white people have suffered hugely also, which would negate his hate whitey/colored love guilt complex.

So for the hipppie Chris White, please read "White Cargo", or do some kind of research on how piss poor regular whites were treated both here and in Europe (slaves for a couple of thousand years). Get over your guilt complex before you ruin us all.

Posted by: BIOH on August 24, 2008 5:51 PM

If Hibernia Girl is offered as a link because of her insights on immigration it seems reasonable to ask how the Mexico to U.S. migration is similar to or different from the African/Eastern European to Ireland migrations she is primarily addressing. I don't think a tiny island nation with native population whose ancestors have been there for a few thousand years resulting in a distinctive ethnic and cultural character facing immigrants from extremely different cultures is equivalent to the situation between the U.S. and Mexico. Therefore, I can appreciate Hibernia Girl's views and still not see them as being applicable to our own situation.

My comments are intended to convey the idea that the problem isn't simply too many brown Spanish speakers with their debased thug culture moving into the neighborhood. The problem is that big agribusiness wants its labor costs as close to zero as possible and a global reach for its markets. The problem is contractors want to avoid unions and keep labor costs down by hiring day laborers rather than keeping employees on the books. And the problem is too many DINKs who don't ask questions about the gardener or house cleaner because, hey, they do great work, cost less, and aren't as likely to quit than the townies.

Absent pandemics, biological warfare, conventional warfare on a massive scale, widespread famine, the negative effects of climate change, or some similar act of God/Nature human population will grow until it overshoots sustainability and collapses due to a pandemic, etc., etc., to a sustainable point from which to begin the climb again ... or until the collapse ends in extinction. Either there will be more humans or not. As populations grow or decline, and as economic or environmental changes occur, people will move around, ignoring political boundaries or redrawing them. If white high IQ all Americans are not reproducing and low IQ brown people are gaining in population is this a problem that can be solved by and for the benefit of smart white people? Is immigration reform going to solve it?

Again, in short, I think the real problems, for which massive immigration is a symptom, are inherent in the economics of global capitalism and the solutions lie in rethinking how we either perpetuate or try to change that system; as consumers and as citizens.

Posted by: Chris White on August 24, 2008 6:52 PM

God Almighty, Chris, you are a root causer! Big thinker! We can't just fix the symptoms... we've got to reconstruct the entire world to your ideals. Do you have any idea how silly this is? I think you've been smoking way too much weed.

No, the problems in immigration in the U.S./Mexico flap are much simpler. We don't enforce our borders. With the proper political will, we could enforce our borders and the illegal immigration would stop. Really. It's that simple. We don't need to deal with your famous root causes.

The root cause madness that you espouse almost led to the demise of New York City. For decades, liberals claimed that getting to the root causes of poverty and racism was the answer to crime. The more liberals tried to fix the root causes, with welfare and lax law enforcement, the worse the crime became, until NYC became a completely lawless jungle. Mayor Guiliani defied the root causers when he was elected and set about arresting people by the thousands and sending them to prison for the slightest offense. This cured the problem and made NYC the very liveable city that it is today.

Your root causer ideas are bunk. That approach has been tried and failed. You just haven't noticed that failure. We don't need to wait for the millenium when perfect justice has been achieved to enforce the law at our borders. This ideal of perfect justice entrances you. I can see that. That's just a refusal to learn on your part. You are so busy constructing huge ideal systems in the sky that you are perfectly helpless on this earth.

No, you are completely insanely wrong. We don't need to fix the global capitalist system, provide perfect justice to the workers of the world and create sustainable agriculture. We need to enforce the law at our borders by arresting every Mexican who tries to cross illegally and by deporting those who are already here illegally. That's the solution. And, yes, it can be done.

Chris, do you have any interest in any practical solutions to anything or are you only willing to wait for the coming of the great awakening of the workers of the world? You are so silly. How in the world do you survive and make a living with that attitude? In fact, how have you avoided being eaten by wild alligators? Your attitude is preposterously childish.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on August 24, 2008 7:57 PM

Chris, I admire your valiant and futile efforts to change hearts and minds here. You may as well be urging Lou Dobbs to blame America's problems on something other than immigration.

In advance to ST and with all due respect: Oh, shut up you self-righteous windbag.

Posted by: Sister Wolf on August 24, 2008 8:57 PM

Chris, much much better. Some toothy salty goodness in there. Including your identification of globalizing business as a major cause of the immigration mess (more major than hippies, for sure). hundred million Hispanics? Nooooo! Mendozaaaaa!!!

Posted by: PatrickH on August 24, 2008 10:25 PM

Patrick H –If you believe that the U.S. has not benefited disproportionately from global capitalism, and that the negative effects have not fallen disproportionately on people in under developed countries, those with either desirable raw materials or cheap labor, than nothing I say is likely to change your view. While I could spend hours on the Internet compiling various statistics I won't bother. Here's a tidbit from the very first Google query link I followed, " Though accounting for only 5 percent of the world's population, Americans consume 26 percent of the world's energy. (American Almanac)"

And I never said we "owe" Mexico or Mexicans anything. I did attempt to point out that people have been moving around the planet, regardless of political borders, based on shifting population densities and many other diverse factors for millennia and that new legislation or building a barrier are unlikely to have much of an effect on the process.

BIOH - I feel no guilt complex. My ancestors are from the peasant/shop girl/clerk not the landowner/factory owner/patrician side of things. In short, yeah, I know white people can be exploited, too. It is rather that I feel more solidarity with blacks whose ancestors were slaves or Hispanics whose ancestors have been migrant farm workers for generations than I do with the global capital elite, even if our country of origin, race and ancestry are more similar on the surface.

Posted by: Chris White on August 24, 2008 11:21 PM

Chris White,

Most people, whether liberal or conservative, recognize that market economics is a powerful force. Yet politics exists to deal with markets and regulate externatlities.

So of course corporations want slave labor; our job as citizens is to prevent them from getting it, and presently the greatest enabler of worker exploitation is illegal immigration. The "guest worker" proposals championed by both divisions of the Republicrat party in last year's "immigration reform" bill would have also established a class of quasi-slaves.

If you want to globally impose an alternative (Marxist?) economic system, please do so directly, not by asking nonsensical questions about immigration.

But, in general, a society with a "social safety net," strong protections for workers, and generous minimum wage can exist in the long term only with strong border enforcement. A porous border is the chief enemy of your liberal utopia, as Cesar Chavez himself testified before Congress circa 1981. When laws are not enforced, then society tends toward anarchy in which the mega-corporations consolidate their power.

Unless, of course, your version of utopia is the overthrow of Western Civilization, in which your plan is working!

(Interestingly, John Derbyshire argues convincingly that a Libertarian society can also only flourish with strong borders.)

Posted by: K on August 25, 2008 12:03 AM

Sister Wolf, do you watch "Lou Dobbs"? He does much more than just immigration stories. The quality of his broadcast is excellent. He always has an open chair for his opponents. He digs up a diverse and interesting mix of folks to participate on his show. And he doesn't deliver one sentence cheap shots like you just did. He provides substance with his attacks. By the way, the changes that all sides admit are resulting from immigration would easily be worth 5 hours of examiination a week.


Posted by: sN on August 25, 2008 3:28 AM

Oh my god, sN, Lou Dobbs is off his rocker with immigration and everybody knows it. People watch him as they would a spectacle, to laugh at his increasing paranoic obsession with 'llegal aliens.' I'm aware of his pretense of populism and speaking for the 'middle class' (whatever that is anymore.) I cannot watch him without laughing.

Posted by: Sister Wolf on August 25, 2008 4:22 AM

My views on immigration would probably be seen as a little lax by other conservatives. Growing populations and racial mixing just don't bother me. Yeah, I'm a known cornucopian and Julian Simon fan, but really, it's temperamental. I like a lot of people around, and a lot of funny-sounding people. Also, living near a small rural community where inbreeding is unspoken but evident, I'm a little wary of "stable" societies, and not just for the literal inbreeding.


The other day a Cyriot mate asked me for an extra big bit of bamboo so he can hoist an Aussie flag on top with a Greek flag underneath. (Can't get enough of that cornball patriotism.) What bothers me is the conscious dabbling by governments in "cultural diversity". If I choose to celebrate Greek Easter with my Cypriot mate, it's between him and me. To date, in Australia, we have a dominant culture born (albeit by messy Caesarean) of the European Enlightenment. Our political foundations were laid a century before we were born, in England's Glorious Revolution. The pretense that we do not need this dominant culture and these rugged old foundations are doing real damage to that mix-and-grow Australia I prefer. Furthermore, borders matter: the nation-state may be a second-rate institution, but alternatives have proven to be third-rate. Sovereignty is a fine Chaucerian lump of a word: use it often.

Where the US is concerned, it is inevitable that a majority of migrants will take lower-paid jobs. In fact, nothing else would make sense. Having done many low-paid jobs in my life - think I still do! - I can't see why that's a problem in any case. However, ignoring national borders to generate ultra-low-paid jobs is, among other things, a stealthy but massive addition to America's true national shame: its agricultural subsidies.

What a dirty thing has been born of this grotesque coupling of Protectionism and Multiculturalism.

Posted by: Robert Townshend on August 25, 2008 4:56 AM

Here's a tidbit from the very first Google query link I followed, " Though accounting for only 5 percent of the world's population, Americans consume 26 percent of the world's energy."

You know, producing 25% percent of the world's stuff could account for that, Chris.

Posted by: David Fleck on August 25, 2008 9:07 AM

ST – Anyone who does not and cannot see how things are interconnected and get the big picture is doomed to filling in a hole with dirt dug nearby which will create another hole that needs filling from dirt nearby which will ... Hmmm ... we just keep moving the hole don't we?

K – I don't want to impose an alternative (Marxist?) economic system. I do want people to recognize that their choices as consumers influence their political choices. The ideal I attempt to see realized by making choices as a consumer (and voter) is for sustainable, local, small business capitalism. To tightly seal the border without addressing the conditions that lead to massive numbers of Mexicans wanting to move here is, I believe, doomed to fail. Unless we want to address those conditions by adopting draconian 'show us your papers' sweeps all across the nation, eliminating the safety net, etc. ... in short, by making ourselves more like Mexico ... we have to come up with a more cost effective way than massive amounts spent building, maintaining and policing a huge wall across our southern border.

RT - Those agricultural subsidies and the way the bulk of them go to big agribusiness are indeed problematic. But I'm not sure an Australian - island bound nation that it is – can add much to the debate about illegal Mexican immigration across a long border.

Posted by: Chris White on August 25, 2008 9:24 AM

Good old Chris. Always a fount of weltanschauung-shattering new information. Thoughtless greed-bags who want cheap labor have something to do with the illegal immigration problem? Who knew?

It is rather that I feel more solidarity with blacks whose ancestors were slaves or Hispanics whose ancestors have been migrant farm workers for generations than I do with the global capital elite, even if our country of origin, race and ancestry are more similar on the surface.

Chris, I know this might be hard to absorb for someone as stricken with DLBP Syndrome* as you, but white working and middle class Americans are not, as a matter of fact, members of the global capital elite. In fact, Oh White Man's Burden, many wealthy, powerful people, both of the "actually did something to acquire their wealth" class, and the globo-cratic parasite class, are - you may want to sit down for this - not white people. C'mon, Chris, try to be a little less racist, a little more inclusive, and recognize that there're all kinds of non-whites out there who are more than qualified to patronize the hell out of you, and many pathetic white people who could be providing you with hours of patronizing pleasure.

But for not feeling any affinity for the "global capital elite", you sure are an enthusiastic supporter of all their preferred policies. Oh, oh, we of course understand that you deeply disapprove of them at the ultimate level of causation, but you're just compelled as a decent, solidarnosc sort of guy to support all the proximate manifestations of their schemes. Think globally, bend over locally.

And I never said we "owe" Mexico or Mexicans anything.

Of course you did, Chris. Not only do you give other people fits in their bootless efforts to winkle out some semblance of coherence from your opinion-farrago, but you yourself don't seem to grasp the bald implications of your own statements.

,,,new legislation or building a barrier are unlikely to have much of an effect on the process.

That is correct. Installing traffic lights won't end red-light-running if there're no cops around to enforce consequences. Building prisons won't protect society from predators if the people in power refuse to arrest and incarcerate predators. And once again, you're attributing your side's arguments to the people who disagree with you. It's the open borders crowd that is pretending that "new legislation" is going to fix anything; it's the restrictionists who've been calling bullshit on this.

*Dear Little Brown People Syndrome. A deficiency found in certain earnest white liberals who lack the capacity to approach members of other races at a normal, human, face-to-face, eye-to-eye, judge-and-be-judged level, rather than as ideological objects.

Posted by: Moira Breen on August 25, 2008 11:08 AM

Chris White,

You may feel that you have more in common with mestizos and blacks than you do with other common whites (I noticed you avoided that, and dropped in the favorite marxist baloney of "upper class"), but they sure don't feel any solidarity with you! Regular black and mestizo proles hate whites, and affirmative action is simply racism codified into law. The non-whites love it! Never once has there been any popular movement among colored folks to ensure your civil rights. Any white person who won't stand up for the civil rights of other whites is a moral coward.

It's pretty clear that the affrimative action/welfare state/open door immigration agenda was coordinated, as they started at the same time. Same with the feminist agenda. Divide the whites along lines of sex, and give the women preferences. Give the colored people preferences over white men. Open the borders and entice the colored people here with AA and welfare. Fill the country up with colored people. When the whites are no longer in the majority, then turn on the white women too, and take away their preferences. Keep the whites down as second class citizens, and make sure they never revolt, as they are the only group that has ever really won any freedoms. Then the "global village" totalitarian wage slave state starts in earnest. BTW, this is going on in Europe too. Any wonder why tons of illegal immigration isn't happening in China or India? I'm sure there's some excuse, but what I outlined above is basically what is happening.

As far as Lou Dobbs being mainstream, he's not really mainstream--he's too nice to really represent the anger that most white and black americans feel about open borders. The fact that liberal idiots think he's extreme just goes to show how out of touch they really are with any sort of reality. They must not talk to the average citizen at all.

"Oh, they're just like us! Stop being worried or paranoid!" I just love comments like this. It shows how amazingly ignorant liberals really are. Any visit to a large ethnic ghetto in any large city in the US will show you that they really aren't like us. But the liberals love to stay in their all white or majority white neigborhoods and say this. There's lots of cheap real estate in those "ethnic" neighborhoods. Go live out your morally superior dream with all of those people who are "just like us"--what are you waiting for?

Note to the stupid: people are tribal. They always were, are, and will be. The puppet masters of the US and Europe are setting the stage for race conflicts and riots here and there. Divide and conquer--how dumb can people get?

Posted by: BIOH on August 25, 2008 11:20 AM

"ST – Anyone who does not and cannot see how things are interconnected and get the big picture is doomed to filling in a hole with dirt dug nearby which will create another hole that needs filling from dirt nearby which will ... Hmmm ... we just keep moving the hole don't we?"

No, you are absolutely wrong, Chris. Arresting and imprisoning all those criminal in NYC really did end the crime wave. Liberals told us for decades that it would not, that it wouldn't change until we fixed the "root causes," and they were wrong.

Deporting illegals and patrolling the border will stop illegal immigration. It's just a matter of finding the political will and commiting the resources. Other countries do this successfully. We can do it, too.

Your prescriptions are arguments for doing nothing, i.e., continuing massive illegal immigration. It looks to me like that's what you prefer. Or, you are totally incapable of learning from experience. Or else, as is so often true of weepy liberals, you just enjoy feeling pious and sanctimonious.

Your form of BS is great when you are passing around the bong. It's of no use otherwise.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on August 25, 2008 12:42 PM

Congratulations, Sister Wolf, that dull clang coming from your argument has earned you a place in the anti-Lou-Dobbs drum circle.

I do see your point. Just because Mexico is tranfering its poor to the U.S. it is hardly worth gettting worked up over. So, at what point would it be worth getting worked up over? At what point does Lou Dobbs become justified, apparently the 15 to 30 million point is not it?

As for any need for low skilled workers the latest statistics from my state's schools show that we have a huge crop to pick from for years to come.

Oh and by the way, Lou Dobbs has already won. This invasion is against the law. Oh, but, a nation of laws is just such a quaint, out-dated notion. Only some old gasbag like Dobbs would worry about changing this from a nation of laws to a......?


Posted by: sN on August 25, 2008 1:13 PM

As to the "enforcement will never work as long as we live in a capitalist society," we have RECENT ACTUAL EXPERIENCE showing otherwise.

The state of Oklahoma, for instance, started some common-sense measures like putting an ICE office near the jail and deporting people who were arrested. (If I were arrested while traveling, I'd consider being sent home to be extremely civilized and would be **very pleased!**) And a lot of the illegals either left for other states, or self-deported back home.

So if, instead of coddling illegals with AFDC, food stamps, free education (**EXPENSIVE** bilingual and special education, no less), in-state tuition, AFDC, and food stamps, and even mortgages*, we actually did some enforcement, then a significant portion would decide to return to their beloved homelands, just like they found the means and decided to come here in the first place.

*I think I first found due to their writing about illegal aliens being given mortgages, back in 2003-2005. That shocked me, as if I ever have to emigrate, I'll expect to keep a low profile. And you can see how, as always, the Corporate Elite got something, the illegals got something, and Joe Taxpayer is getting stuck with the bill.

Posted by: K on August 25, 2008 8:34 PM

Moira: Not only do you give other people fits in their bootless efforts to winkle out some semblance of coherence from your opinion-farrago...

You know if you keep writing like that, Moira, my crush on you is just going to get worse. I work really hard to produce effects like that, and I can't help thinking that you lightly toss them with a flick of the wrist and a toss of your curls.

Sigh. Why are all the good ones attached?

And Chris baby, my sweet, my angel, you have brought up yet again the useless stat that with only 6% of the world's population, the US consumes blahblahblah....

David Fleck took care of that. If you have your way, the US will have a lot more than 6% of the world's population in 50 years, and it won't be consuming anything like x% of its energy. It'll be Zimbabweing along at those nice Earth-honouring third world levels you want to inflict on your countrymen. I hope and believe that the US will massively increase its consumption of energy in the future. Energy consumption makes civilization possible. I'm for it!

I'm mentioning it because you've blatted that nonsense out before, and you have been called on it. David had to do it again tonight. Someone else will have to do it some future night. You continue to ignore repeated clear responses to your points because you insist on painting yourself as a martyr to people who won't answer your devastating questions. Lies. Chris, you have got to work harder to be a better person. You just plain lack intellectual integrity. That is a very harsh thing to say about somebody, but Chris it's true.

You lack intellectual integrity.

What a terrible thing to say about someone. It's more terrible that it's true.

Posted by: PatrickH on August 25, 2008 11:31 PM

Patrick - We have a thread about immigration that begins with MB offering links to Hibernia Girl and the immigration situation in Ireland ... as if it is equivalent to the U.S./Mexico immigration situation. Does that lack intellectual integrity? How about a non sequitur about Peter Coyote used as an attack on the dark underbelly of hippies? How about the hidden history of white slavery angle? But then all those are offered by folks whose opinion about immigration is anti-PC ... making them totally Politically Correct in the context of 2BH ... so I suspect you don't want to point out any lack of intellectual integrity being employed by others making the case against immigration.

And I'm really put in my place by a link to Wiki's entry on World GDP with its figures supplied by the IMF, WTO and CIA. Golly, it really entirely negates my suggestion that the U.S. has benefited disproportionately under global corporate capitalism. Wait a second, doesn't it prove my point?

I find it curious that a group in general so eager to moan about the Nanny State and prone to calling for reduced government spending wherever possible is so eager to see more government spending on expanded government policing to "solve" the problem of illegal immigration rather than exploring the way market forces and global corporate interests have both created and must be used to solve the problem. Is it that government actions that redistribute wealth from the top down are a bad thing, while government used to protect the big corporations and keep wealth accumulating at top is a good thing?

Despite repeatedly agreeing that we should tighten the borders, despite seeing a great difference between guest worker programs &/or legal immigration and illegal immigration, because I don't simply accept the Lou Dobbs line without question and because I resist demonizing the immigrants themselves I am slammed as bong addicted numbskull stricken with DLBP Syndrome. For all the 2BH rhetoric about real people openly discussing issues it is mighty damn difficult to do so when so many posting here insist on making personal attacks whenever a counterargument or alternative view to the one dominant here is offered.

Posted by: Chris White on August 26, 2008 10:58 AM

No, Chris, policing is not part of the Nanny state. Securing the borders is one of the core jobs of a government, like national defense.

And, it's cheap. You treat the symptoms. It would be great to treat the broad social problems... but how the hell do you do that? Do you really think that a great awakening of consciousness is about to envelope the workers?

We know how to police and we know it works.

Obama says he's going to punish U.S. corporations who outsource jobs. Please tell me how in the hell he's actually going to do this. Those rich corporate tax lawyers are damned smart. I used to work for them.

People who have capital are going to put it where they get the greatest return. Tell me, Chris, how you are going to prevent this?

It seems to me that you keep saying we can't do anything unless we achieve total social transformation. Yes, we can do something. We can police our borders. That's something we can do. I'm all for the great social transformation that fixes all the root causes, but I can't for my life figure out how that might be done. Nor, I daresay, can you.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on August 26, 2008 12:14 PM

Chris White,

How about looking on your fellow citizens as human beings and seeing things from their point of view?

There are legitimate functions of government, including securing the borders. The cost to do this is a tiny fraction of the money wasted on the welfare state (aka paying people to sit on their ass and screw up life for themselves and everybody else).

If you were really savvy, you'd see that there aren't any government plans to redistribute money from the top down. The redistribution comes from the middle class to the upper and lower classes. The rich at the top simply get richer. Socialism is a scheme to destroy the middle class--haven't you noticed that yet? Once the middle class is gone, its just the very rich and the peasantry. Socialsism is just feudalism under another name.

BTW, you're no stranger to the personal attack. However, you're really good at hurling the attack at others and feigning victimhood when it comes back your way. Victimhood seems to be a very important theme in your overall philosophy. Interesting. I'll pity you if you like. Feel better?

Posted by: BIOH on August 26, 2008 12:34 PM

Here is a link to Kevin Myers' column which works:


Posted by: Vicuna on August 26, 2008 9:55 PM

Tks. Link now fixed in the body of the posting.

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on August 26, 2008 11:06 PM

And I'm really put in my place by a link to Wiki's entry on World GDP... Golly, it really entirely negates my suggestion... Wait a second, doesn't it prove my point?

No, it doesn't. Are you seriously suggesting otherwise?

Posted by: David Fleck on August 27, 2008 9:47 AM

David Fleck – We seem to be posting past each other don't we? Are you seriously suggesting that the U.S. has not benefited disproportionately from global corporate capitalism? If so, is that because the percentage of the U.S. GDP relative to world GDP is roughly the same as its percentage use of the planet's energy resources which supposedly negates the idea of disproportionate advantage? If so, would it be logical to say that if we secured say 80 % of the planet's energy resources enabling us to have a GDP four times greater than the entire rest of the planet THAT would be no different and would not be considered a disproportionate advantage?

Sorry, the logic fails. And forgive me if a Wiki entry using data supplied by the WTO, IMF and CIA strike me as less than compelling sources if you're trying to argue against the idea that global capitalism is skewed in favor of the U.S. These are, after all, the two major international organizations of global capitalism, organizations in which the U.S. is considered the dominant member state. And isn't it part of the mission of the C.I.A. to find or create disproportionate advantages for the U.S.?

Before retiring until the next bout let me recap how I see this debate.

On the one side we have the "seal our borders, then round 'em all up and deport 'em" crowd. The way to do this is apparently by electing Lou Dobbs to be President or voting Dobbs supported candidates to the House & Senate where they will pass legislation that will funnel our tax dollars into building a barrier all along the Mexican border, beefing up the border patrol, and paying for the deportation of undocumented individuals found in sweeps of Latino neighborhoods all over the country. We need to do this because brown skinned Spanish speakers cannot/should not become productive U.S. citizens because they have a thug culture.

Color me skeptical. I don't particularly see Mexicans or for that matter Sudanese or Iraqi immigrants as any more or less desirable, any more or less able to assimilate, than I do Italian or Icelandic or German immigrants. Some may be more able to adapt and learn the language, others will be less successful, although their children may well adapt quickly. Within three generations the only notable differences among them may be skin tone and their idea of "comfort food" being something other than meatloaf, mashed potatoes and peas.

And color me skeptical again because the last thirty years of evidence suggests this isn't going to get solved by Presidential decree or a floor vote in Congress.

I do agree that we need to have better border control. I do agree that we need to have and enforce limits on the total number of immigrants we attempt to absorb each year.

Where I move in a very different direction it seems is in suggesting that we have a greater opportunity to stem the tide of humanity coming across our southern border if we (a) use our clout as consumers and (b) make the CEOs and HR teams of companies that knowingly benefit by using undocumented labor do long jail terms, not just pay wrist slap fines.

When I buy lettuce from Richard at the Farmer's Market I know where it was grown and could even find out the names of everyone on the picking crew. When I buy lettuce at the supermarket I assume that somewhere between planting and my shopping bag it was handled by an undocumented worker. I make the same presumption about any meal in a fast food restaurant. Therefore, I argue that anyone who blogs about how fed up they are with the immigration situation who isn't boycotting McDonalds, Walmart, et al and who isn't buying local produce from farms they can check isn't serious about the issue.

Posted by: Chris White on August 27, 2008 2:32 PM

Chris White: "Within three generations the only notable differences among them may be skin tone and their idea of "comfort food" being something other than meatloaf, mashed potatoes and peas."

Chris, there is no need for you or me to state our heartfelt convictions on how immigrant groups will do after 3 generations in the country, at least with regards to Mexicans, the most important (because of size) immigrant group of all. That is because we have already had far more than 3 generations of Mexicans in the US. The results are already in. Please read about this recent study by two UCLA sociologists of hispanic heritage that contradicts you:

"Mexican American integration slow, education stalled, study finds"


excerpt: "Such are the findings from the most comprehensive sociological report ever produced on the integration of Mexican Americans. The UCLA study, released today in a Russell Sage Foundation book titled "Generations of Exclusion: Mexican Americans, Assimilation, and Race," concludes that, unlike the descendants of European immigrants to the United States, Mexican Americans have not fully integrated by the third and fourth generation. The research spans a period of nearly 40 years."

excerpt: "The educational levels of second-generation Mexican Americans improved dramatically. But the third and fourth generations failed to surpass, and to some extent fell behind, the educational level of the second generation. Moreover, the educational levels of all Mexican Americans still lag behind the national average."

excerpt: "Economic status improved from the first to second generation but stalled in the third and fourth generation. Earnings, occupational status and homeownership were still alarmingly low for later generations. Low levels of schooling among Mexican Americans were the main reason for lower income, occupational status and other indicators of socioeconomic status."

Also, read Steve Sailer's take here (he actually read the "Generations of Exclusion" book about the study, so this is well worth reading):

Posted by: scottynx on August 27, 2008 8:06 PM

...because the percentage of the U.S. GDP relative to world GDP is roughly the same as its percentage use of the planet's energy resources ... supposedly negates the idea of disproportionate advantage?

You're the one who dragged energy usage into this, as an example of the U.S.'s "disproportionate benefit". I was merely suggesting that the 26% figure was actually pretty much proportional, given the U.S.'s economic activity.

Are you saying that just world, everybody would benefit "proportionately", and we would use exactly 5% of the energy, and have 5% of the world's GDP?

Posted by: David Fleck on August 27, 2008 8:56 PM

DF - Although this is tangential to the whole demographics/immigration topic, I noted energy consumption as one sign of the U.S. position at the top of the world's economic food chain. Even though my own position relative to others in the U.S. may be on the low end of things, I'm always very aware that I am well ahead of most of the other humans on the planet and so consider myself lucky. In short, it is far better to be working class in the U.S. than middle class in Tibet or Belize or Haiti or Mexico or ... It is a stroke of exceedingly good fortune to be born a Boomer in the U.S. at the peak (perhaps) of its power and economic clout.

Maybe in a "just world" everything, good and bad, would be proportionate and evenly distributed. And in a world where gravity was a personal optional we could all levitate at will. Each proposition, a "just world" and "gravity optional" world, is equally likely. If I had to place bets I'd say we could make gravity optional happen sooner, but I'm not expending too much thought or effort on seeing it happen in my lifetime. I'm not spending much effort seeking to make the world totally just either, merely recognizing the dynamics created by the unjust reality.

My point is that to pretend that somehow only our innate intelligence, hard work and productivity account for us being at the top of the heap is nonsense. We're the beneficiaries of good fortune and good timing. To think that this is a permanent state is folly. To think it doesn't drive many of those who are on the outside looking in to either want to topple us or join us is also folly. And I suspect the more we repress and refuse those who want to join us, the more we'll create those who want to topple us.

Posted by: Chris White on August 28, 2008 8:35 AM

Regular black and mestizo proles hate whites

speak for yourself

Posted by: CN on August 28, 2008 9:51 PM

Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember your info?