The Reality-Based Community

Pray tell, Mr. Kleiman, what is it that you find so offensive about teachers'unions? The reason they continue to exist is because there are administrators and school boards which are abusive, full of petty tyrants, and absent teachers' unions many teachers would have no due process protections at all.

Full disclosure - as my "name" makes clear I am a teacher. I have served as a building rep for a very large school. I have presented at a state-wide teachers' union conference.

I do not agree with all that some whose real career is their union activism and not their teaching advocate.

That said, I continue to belong to and be active in the union because absent the protections of unions many good teachers would be unable to function effectively with their students. As a very much outside the lines teacher I sympathize. And I really don't like the hostility towards teachers' unions I see displayed by many who do not know the reality of our public schools, which so easily serve as everyone's favorite whipping boys.

I knew Kaus back when he was hired as a speechwriter for the Holling for President effort in 1983. I wasn't impressed with him then, and have not been since. I think Mickey Kaus is full of Mickey Kaus.

I am a bit disappointed in you - I have not really seen Democrats "kowtowing" (now there's a racist remark for you) to teachers'unions for quite some time - far too much of the approach has been that of the DLC which has, quite frankly, been hostile to unions of all kinds, especially those of public employees at any level.

have nice evening.

My impression of Kaus is that he has a colossal ego, and deeply resents that he isn't much, much more famous and well-known. He is destructive to Democratic causes these days, making him a phony in my book.

I'm disappointed you're being so kind to him, Mark..on the other hand maybe it was a big step for you to go this far. If so, thank you and congratulations.

I, a standard issue democrat, just gave up reading Kaus a while back because he was constantly whining about the mote in the Democrat's eye while ignoring the wreckage the Republicans were creating. I recall searching for "Bush" on one of his blog pages in the past few years and coming up with a couple of relatively neutral mentions, while he was passive-aggressively slamming Democrat after Democrat for meaningless issues.

There's a word for that kind of blogging: Republican hack.

Practically all the other Dem blogs I read take swipes at Dems occasionally. Kaus does it constantly, and very little at Republicans.

If I, as a standard issue Democrat, can't read Kaus, his policy recommendations (which, Josh pegged in that video as politically idiotic) will have zero effect on me as a Democratic voter. From the polically clueless jibberish he was pontificating about with Josh, I'm glad for that at least.

I'm not sure who does read Kaus other than people who hate Democrats as much as Kaus does.

I ignore Kaus.
The long campaign against teachers' unions - which began in the 60's around the same time as the long campaign against Social Security - leaves me unmoved. I went to school in 7 different school systems and know teachers in public schools. I am horrified by the petty tyrants who "administer" our school systems.

The manta of "local control" and how it improves quality is never applied to automobile manufacturing, movies, defense, or anything else that the nation values. The idea that you can split a vital industry into 26,000 fiefdoms and then get quality is ludicrous. Look at our election boards and the vote fraud issue.

This has nothing to do with unions and everything to do with making work for small town Republicans. Just like the banking system.

Kaus?
Who is this Kaus of which you speak?

Donald _Kaul_, now there's a commentator.
Or was, for forty years.

Kaus, you say? Never heard of him.

In re: Kaus -- who? Ignore it, and it'll go away.

In re: teacher's unions, get back to me when your ire is spread in a dollar-weighted amount on all overcompensated professionals. That is to say, when you write 250 editorials decrying CEO pay for every one whinging about public-sector unions.

The data don't lie. Your mouthing the GOP line here doesn't change it. That you yourself have tenure and suck at the public teat just makes my reading experience *extra* special.

Save some students, kill a teacher.

Our school district had such a horrible teacher, she was turned in by other teachers after the board ignored parent and student complaints. It took 2 years of paying her for 9 months of not-working, continued summers off, two weeks at Christmas, a fall break, a spring break, 10 "personal days" and only paying $2 per month for the best benefits package on earth. She was abusive to students, had her students scores drop 20 points on standardized tests. The Board spent $40,000 in legal fees. For someone who should have been fired on the spot for gross negligence, instead the taxpayer spent over $250,000 because a union is so corrupt. I will always vote for the candidate endorsed by the teachers union, and I know hundreds of other parents who feel the same.

COrrection. I will always vote AGAINST the candidate endorsed by the teachers union.

Gee, I wonder why democrats keep losing elections they could/should win? One frickin dem decides to point out shortcomings on the left rather than play cheerleader, and you're ready to lynch him. Ask yourself if a dem other than Kerry could have won in 2004, then go back and read his anti-Kerry columns during the primary. Better yet, don't and keep doing what you're doing. Go Ned, go!

Ken:

My problem with teachers' unions isn't that they ask for more money. I'd like to see excellent teachers making six-figure salaries, and have said so before. And I don't deny that schools, like other workplaces, need protections for workers against petty tyranny.

My objection to teachers' unions is that they make it harder to get rid of teachers who aren't excellent, block most efforts to pay for performance rather than for seniority and taking courses, and (most of all) support school board candidates committed to preventing the reforms our public schools desperately need.

(As to "kowtow" as a racist remark, what the hell is that about? But if it bothers you, you can substitute "prostrate themselves" without loss of meaning. The fact remains.)

Kaus seems a bit the old school libertarian leaning democrat, rather than the leftist type that has taken over. He probably is upset/bitter at the old school being pushed out and the new school coming in and trashing the place.

It might be called the democratic party, but it is not the same party of even 25 years ago. Kaus and others who stay in the party to try and change it back to the JFK ideals they can support have an impossible task. On the other hand, they have no where else to go.

I don't think Kaus is about party politics. He is about ideas; specifically the idea of equality. The issues he cares about (education, welfare, immigration) go directly to this point.

The lack of a decent public education system hurts those at the bottom. He believes that vested interests are a block to progress in this area.

On welfare, he believed that reform would raise people out of a culture of dependency. He was proved right.

On immigration, he believes that waves and waves of illegal immigrants lower wages for ordinary Americans. It's hard to disagree with him.

(This, by the way, is a perfect example of his lack of partisanship. He attacks both Democrats and Republicans who don't agree with him mercilessly.)

Throughout all these issues is a commitment to an ideal of trying to make the US a more equal society through pragmatism. To those who label him a Republican, ask yourselves if this is an ideal shared by the GOP?

"The lack of a decent public education system hurts those at the bottom. He believes that vested interests are a block to progress in this area."

No, it's the inconsistent levels of quality of public education from state to state. I went to public school in Florida, Alabama and graduated from a US DOD high school in Germany. In Florida in the 1960's we had textbooks from the 1940's. In Alabama in the 1970's I didn't have to worry about that because for many of my classes I had to buy the textbooks (the head of the local school board was the sole textbook dealer in town).

The best education I had was at the DOD school. It was well-funded and the teachers were well motivated.

I understand your argument that the Democratic Party's support of the teachers unions may lead to some bad public policy, but how does "kowtowing to them cost us votes?" Is there some anti-teacher voting bloc out there that I'm not aware of?

Well, why couldn't one argue that just as the Left's (yes, painting with broad brush strokes) criticism of America emanates from their love of their country and their desire to make it better, Kaus's critiques of the Democratic Party is similarly motivated?

Then there's the question of whether the criticism is warranted and has substance. As the saying goes, before questioning a person's motives - even if the motives are illegitimate - first answer his argument.

SMG

Mark: The reason those protections exist for teachers (which, btw, rarely make it as difficult to fire a teacher as detractors claim -- teachers can be 'fired' by refusing to renew their contract) is because of school boards.

Have you ever seen what sort of power-mad and flaming morons run for, and sadly win, elections to local school boards? And the idiots they often appoint to oversee school systems?

I'd happily (and every teacher I know would agree) trade teacher job-protections for the requirement that all school-board members be required to be retired teachers with 20+ years of experience in public schools.

The school boards and superindendents can do far more damage, which is why teachers formed unions to protect themselves.

My mother spent her last year in the school district she'd worked for for fifteen years documenting her actions and objections because the superindendent had hired administrators so unqualified that they were breaking state and federal law daily. She was quite worried about her legal liability, despite the fact that she objected every step of the way.

The superindendent, ironically enough, was fired in mid-March of that school year after the parents had collected some 15,000 signatures in an effort to force the school-board to deal with her. What ultimately got her fired wasn't her incomptence, the cronies she hired, the total lack of teaching or administrative experience -- but the fact that she misused district funds to take a vacation.

School boards have a lot of power and VERY little oversight. Most people don't care until they do something REALLY stupid (like the Kansas state school board). It's even harder to screw up that visibly on the local school board.

My wife got threatened -- three times over the course of a year -- with being "fired" because she dared to write up some school board member's brat for skipping classes. I can promise that without those union-gained protections, she'd have lost her job for doing her job.

Mark

due process always makes things more difficult. In criminal cases we have to prove the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That's the nature of due process.

I do NOT believe in differential pay as do you, because no teacher works in isolation. Oh, and btw, by the standards most use for differential pay I would be far better compensated than I am now, because my kids tend to do quite well on standardized and external tests, and I don't need much help managing my classroom.

There are many reasons it can be difficult to et rid of a bad teacher. Quite often it is because the administration does not do ITS job of documenting, counseling, etc -- they just want to move summarily. And if able to do it in the most egregious situations, some administrators would use that power to go after teachers who oppose what they want to do, even if what they want to do violates contractual agreements, is unfair, is not even beneficial to the students.

I HAVE served as a building rep, the first in my building in 10 years. The previous principal, who in many ways was terrific, was so hostile to the union (going after reps) that no one wanted to take on the aggravation. The then new (and still rpesent) principal wanted a union rep because the needs of our teaches were different than those of many in other buildings. he asked the department chairs who would make a good rep, and they all put my name up, and so I got it.

In that position I made sure the letter of the law was followed, and as a result was able to get out of the building two teachers who did NOT belong, and also refused to take on the case of another teacher whose problem was not covered by the contract (she had mental problems, and it took several years to get her out, and I helped document the problem even after I was no longer building rep).

As to Karen, who will never vote for anyone endorsed by a teachers' union, I feel sorry for you -- you have allowed yourself to be defined by others. That's kind of sad.

As to the former student who wants to kill all the teachers, well that's another problem. There are good teachers and not so good teachers. Many teachers could be much better were they given support, mentoring, and had time to breath. let them observe other teachers and have other teachers observe them to help them, not just be observed by administrators who have official supervisory authority.

We lose as many teachers to issues of control as we do to issues of salary. We also do not give most teachers sufficient time to reflect about what they are doing - if you teach 150 adolescents (and I have had over 180 a time) there is insufficient time to do all one should were one to be the best teacher one can be.

I start with the following attitude -- when you make universal statements -- about teachers' unions, evangelical churches, Democratic politicians, military personnel, police, etc -- you are engaging in ad hominems and I do not accept ad hominem descriptions.

Finally, Mark, as to"kow tow" -- it is as offensive to many of Chinese background as would be to "jew down" in negotiations would be to you or me, or the term "gyp" is to one of Romani background. I think it especially incumbent upon those of us of backgrounds that have been subject to that kind of either deliberate insult (not applicable in your use of the term, I know) or insensitivity to recognize when a term we use might be offensive to someone else. That is why I called it to your attention.

I always assumed that Mickey was writing for Democrats, not for Republicans. Why attack Republicans if you're not writing for them? For the sport of it? To demonstrate your partisan bona fides for those who care more about team loyalty than ideas? Kaus's big idea is equality, and some of his foundational assumptions (the need for federally run health system, for example) aren't Republican at all.

When you see what you believe is the nation's only way to implement your political goals going off the track, a gentle nudge might seem appropriate. I only wish that Kaus thought highly enough about Republicans to be critical of them.

Kaus' claim in the blogginghead's debate with Marshall that the top third of social security recipients have income from assets equal to or more than $50,000 per year is absurd. I did some searches and found nothing in reality that comes even close to that. Perhaps for the top third of recipients, social security earnings (which average around $10,000 per year) comprise less than half of their income.

I don't see how Kaus can possibly claim to be a policy "expert" when he is so far off on something as basic as social security.

Do we really need another echo-chamber? Kaus fills an obvious void in party criticism. We all know where to go to find the standard and fully justified attack on the Republican party. To demand a few snarky, anti-Republican remarks from Kaus is just silly. His comments on Kerry during the 2004 elections were spot on. Admit it, there was only one reason (corrupt election stealing aside!) that the Democratic party lost in 2004: the candidate.

Kaus's repeating of Republican talking poinys hardly ammounts to constructive criticism.
And he is more often than not just plain wrong. He's whole welfare critcism has been proven false and hasn't moved on from the battle thats been over for more than a decade. He's a small man still trying to remove himself from the father whose wealth he lives off of.

I don't know about anywhere else but in Massachusetts, where I am a public school teacher, your contract has to be renewed every year once you've been at a school for 3 years. The only two exceptions are a "reduction in force" in the entire system, where those with lowest seniority, not least effectiveness, have to go first--and very severe problems, which have to be exhaustively documented.

Steve Smith asks, "Is there some anti-teacher voting bloc out there that I'm not aware of?" No, but there are a significant number of people who think teacher's unions are more concerned with the private interests of teachers and less interested in the public interest of education. A lot of them think that when the unions say, "Jump," Democrats say, "How high?" Getting them to feel different would help Democrats win.

Did you ever notice that the right wing has a much healthier attitude to self-criticism? From neutering Trent Lott to highlighting pork like the Alaska bridge to nowhere to Abramoff exposed by The Weekly Standard, they are willing to clean house, at least a lot more than Dems are willing to do. Mickey wants to be a Democrat, why can't we listen to what he has to say rather than attacking the messinger all the time?

Nobody attacked Ruth Messinger more than Kaus.

"From neutering Trent Lott to highlighting pork like the Alaska bridge to nowhere to Abramoff exposed by The Weekly Standard, they are willing to clean house, at least a lot more than Dems are willing to do."

LOL. Yes Tom Delay went gently into that good night, Bob Ney dropped his reelection bid immediately and Randy "Duke" Cunningham stepped down the minute he came under investigation.

Keep dreaming.

Ah, it's that Democratic big tent welcoming different perspectives in a spirit of graciousness and welcome again, I see.

Teacherken incriminates himself, over and over again.

He says that we need Teachers' Unions to protect teachers from the caprices of the petty tyrants and idiots in the school boards.

Yet the teachers' Unions do not seem to be on the vanguard of reforming any aspect of the public education apparatus, in spite of all the cronys, functionaries, slobs, and cretins it invariably positions at the helm. Kaus' larger point is that the Unions block all attempts at education reform; therefore, by defending the Union, Ken endorses the very school system he condemns.

There are other ways through which Ken betrays himself. His bizarre allusion that the phrase "Kowtowing" is racist, and his insipid comment that someone who votes against the Teachers' Union line is "allowing himself to be defined by others"(?) suggests that his is one of those rare minds that is foggy enough to actually take seriously the nonsensical codswallop they serve up in our nation's teachers colleges. (And if he isn't, and does in fact agree that it's gibberish I guess it further contributes to his support of change ressistant obstructionist tearchers unions.)
I see too many teachers get caught up in this romantic vision of themselves in which Teacherken seems to indulge, which presents a teacher as a perpetually beleaguered and underappreciated local superhero and friend of the public, rather than what they are: civil servants who deliver one vital public service amongst myriad others.

...there are a significant number of people who think teacher's unions are more concerned with the private interests of teachers and less interested in the public interest of education. A lot of them think that when the unions say, "Jump," Democrats say, "How high?" Getting them to feel different would help Democrats win.

I'm sure that there are people who believe that. My question is whether the people who feel that way, but would otherwise be inclined to vote Democratic on other issues, outnumber those who believe that teachers should be paid well and generally support unions, collective bargaining, etc. I suppose the analogous group on the Republican side is the NRA.

Sorry about that. The first paragraph above is a quote from an earlier post, which I unsuccessfully tried to italicize.

"I don't think Kaus is about party politics. He is about ideas...Throughout all these issues is a commitment to an ideal of trying to make the US a more equal society"
Kind of explains why there are so many of us who used to vote Dem who now pull the Repub lever.
I used to live in Detroit. Dems have been in charge there forever. Not a pretty picture. But the Dem rhetoric _sounds_ good :)

Are policemen paid differently based on the change in the crime rate in the areas they patrol? If not, then why should teachers be regarded any differently (i.e., any statistic will reflect the socio-economic conditions of the environment as much as the teacher's "performance)?

The teacher's unions and their opposition to school vouchers will be what breaks the DNC hold on the african american vote.

Suburban white liberals need to send their kids to the average urban school (not some "charter school" set up in a rich suburb) so see why we want vouchers so much. The children only get one chance to get educated.

"Are policemen paid differently based on the change in the crime rate in the areas they patrol? If not, then why should teachers be regarded any differently (i.e., any statistic will reflect the socio-economic conditions of the environment as much as the teacher's "performance)?"

Which is not the same as saying that student performance is completely divorced from teacher performance. Teachers' unions would become a lot more persuasive to me if they abandoned their efforts to protect their members from accountability for sloth and incompetence, and began working cooperatively with other stakeholders to devise metrics which fairly evaluated educators' performance in the context of all other factors (e.g. student IQ, parental involvement, prior years' teachers' failure to teach) which impact upon student performance. Students, parents, teachers and administrators all need to beheld strictly accountable. Just because fair measurement is difficult doesn't make less indispensable.

So long as the teachers unions' and students' interests are diametrically opposed, my sympathy will remain with the students.

Remember the chattering about 'What's The Matter With Kansas' and how the GOP spins it so blue collar types vote against their own economic interest? Converesely, I wonder why African-Americans are so beholden to the party of the teachers unions. Unions which have so hamstrung reform in inner city education that it virtually guarantees that young African-Americans will never get far in the new economy.

It's a disgrace that it's so difficult to fire teachers who can't teach kids to read or even in those rare-but-seemingly-frequent-due-to-publicity ones who molest kids.

The kind of reforms of teachers-union rules required to make a lot of voters happy aren't that major. They wouldn't even have to be pay-related. Just make it easier to fire the bottom 5% of teachers in the country and you've got a political winner. Can't some Democrat running for national office suggest this? It's not like everyone in America didn't go to school and recognizes that there are way more dopey teachers than say the bottom 5%.

Democratic leaders criticize NCLB all the time, but do they really imagine that in inner-cities where the schools are awful the idea of allowing kids to attend better schools is unpopular? The Democrats could lock up the black vote for another generation by supporting change. Arguing over whether that money should be allowed to pay for religious-affiliated schools is a privilege of the blogging community who overwhelmingly went to good schools. It's a good argument to have, but in the meantime there's a lot of parents who just want their kids going to better schools and it's virtually impossible to do anything about it, and they vote.

Regardless of whether NCLB is good or bad for America, at least it's an attempt to do something about what everyone acknowledges is a big problem. The easy campaign checks from the teachers unions shouldn't prevent every Democrat from proposing some change. Someone could even get that "maverick" label that McCain enjoys.

One frickin dem decides to point out shortcomings on the left rather than play cheerleader, and you're ready to lynch him.

Let me explain something to those incapable of reading. Kaus does hardly anything BUT attack the left or some other target. In 2004, he spent all his time attacking Kerry. He went on attacks on such obscure matters as where Kerry slept on the Capitol after an anti-war demonstration in the 1970s. No substantative discussions, no discussion of policy differences, just this crap.

When it comes to welfare reform or education, I would probably agree with Kaus. But the fact is that the Republican party has been in power and has taken some major steps such as IRaq that have had very nmajor impacts on the US and the world. Kaus, of course, can hardly be bothered to comment on that.

His comments on Kerry during the 2004 elections were spot on. Admit it, there was only one reason (corrupt election stealing aside!) that the Democratic party lost in 2004: the candidate.

No, Kaus confined himself to attacking Kerry personally, saying he hated him, he even dislikes his daughters and such nonsense. He repeated SWT lies. Maybe he wouldn't have disliked any other Dem nominee that much, but basically there is no indication he wouldhave tretaed any other Dem differently.

Kaus seems a bit the old school libertarian leaning democrat, rather than the leftist type that has taken over.

Nonsense. He opposes immigration and has hardly ever commented on Iraq. Most libertarians would support the former and oppose the latter.

"He is about ideas; specifically the idea of equality. The issues he cares about (education, welfare, immigration) go directly to this point.
The lack of a decent public education system hurts those at the bottom. He believes that vested interests are a block to progress in this area.
On welfare, he believed that reform would raise people out of a culture of dependency. He was proved right"

On welfare and education I would probably be in the same camp as Kaus. But a lot of those issues are yesterdays issues. There are extremely important agendas being pushed by Rethugs. Why no Kaus comment on that ? ANd for someone "committed to equality", he spends almost no time on more funding for schools etc.

"On immigration, he believes that waves and waves of illegal immigrants lower wages for ordinary Americans. It's hard to disagree with him."

1) There is plenty of evidence from econ studies that any such impact is relatively minor.
2)Kaus hardly ever comments on the minimum wage, and hardly ever on other matters that could impact wages for ordinary Americans -- free trade etc.
3) Kaus never really shows much enthusaism for aything else that has increased such as income inequality. He favors lower taxes for the wealthy.

During the recent immigrants strike in LA, he wrote a column saying it was delightful to be able to drive in LA without immigrant traffic. THAT is his prime problem -- he's a small hateful man who hates immigrants. Perfectly in line with Michelle Malkin

"(This, by the way, is a perfect example of his lack of partisanship. He attacks both Democrats and Republicans who don't agree with him mercilessly.) "

No, he attacks Dems mercilessly. Repubs, he tut-tuts over at most.

During the recent immigrants strike in LA, he wrote a column saying it was delightful to be able to drive in LA without immigrant traffic. THAT is his prime problem -- he's a small hateful man who hates immigrants. Perfectly in line with Michelle Malkin

I wish it were more difficult to get left wing partisains to make fools of themselves. The slightest provocation seems enough to drive them into hilarious yet depressing snits.

Michelle Malkin is an immigrant; so are Peter Brimelow and a host of other immigration restrictionists/reformers.

To be an immigrant who favors low immigration is about as contradictory as to be alive and pro-choice at the same time.

Michelle Malkin rarely talks about legal immigration; she nearly exclusively takes the law-enforcement angle, although she has on occassion expressed that she feels overall immigration (particularly from poorer populations without any cultural emphasis on education and social advancement). (Note that I consider Malkin a professional hack who is negotiable on principles. She deviates from the Republican establishment on immigration, but tows the line on Iraq, which has not won me over as a fan to say the least, though even having some principles puts her light years ahead of the GOP establishment.)

Even erg finds himself admitting that current levels of immigration adversely affect the poor. He just chooses to minimize the magnitude of the harm by citing the lowest-end figures he can find and ignoring the hidden burdens of health, crowding, and education (ironically enough!) and having to perform civil functions in umpteen languages and countless other drags. Irregardless, he seems to feel that indulging his diversity fetish (it seems to bother erg that Mr. Kaus bears no such fetish, which is now apparently a strict requirement for Liberal recognition) outweighs the harm to the American working class, of which even he admits, though he understates it. And of course, these very same poor people whom err and company care so much about, are up in arms about current immigration levels and hate illegal immigration. (Under the sway of an insidious right-wing propaganda machine, right err? Way to save your working class heroes from themselves!)

Kaus describes himself as a neo-centerist, so it makes about as much sense for err to demand fealty from him as it does to demand it from Malkin. Kaus is sympathetic to your boys erg (Lord knows why) but you're right; he's not one of you. I can assure you that I speak on behalf of the overwhelming majority on the right when I say that he's not one of us either. I dissagree with Mick on many things, but he can engage the right as well as the left in dialogue, which is needed in our navel-gazing political culture. You, erg, might want to try something on that order before you call people who dissagree with you "small hatefull people". You'll embarass yourself a lot less.

Kaus? Still bored.

Kleiman's argument on teacher's unions: misspecified. Capitalism bases not on duty, but on greed. A union that turns jobs into sinecures is a good union for its membership.

The teachers union makes a tempting target, but even if you could break it tomorrow, the very real problem you have identified would remain unsolved. Your quarrel not with them. It is either with the structure of our democracy and economy itself (which I doubt), or it is with those responsible for making policy work.

As a policy wonk, you should know better.

"I wish it were more difficult to get left wing partisains to make fools of themselves. The slightest provocation seems enough to drive them into hilarious yet depressing snits."

I wish wingnuts possessed more brains. If they did, they would avoid making the sort of brainless statements seen here from BC.

"Michelle Malkin is an immigrant; so are Peter Brimelow and a host of other immigration restrictionists/reformers."

Totally irrelevant. In fact, a tendency to want to pull up the ladder after crossing over is veru normal, as yourself seem to admit. A total non-sequitir.

"Even erg finds himself admitting that current levels of immigration adversely affect the poor. He just chooses to minimize the magnitude of the harm by citing the lowest-end figures he can find and ignoring the hidden burdens of health, crowding, and education (ironically enough!) and having to perform civil functions in umpteen languages and countless other drags. Irregardless, he seems to feel that indulging his diversity fetish (it seems to bother erg that Mr. Kaus bears no such fetish, which is now apparently a strict requirement for Liberal recognition) outweighs the harm to the American working class, of which even he admits, though he understates it. And of course, these very same poor people whom err and company care so much about, are up in arms about current immigration levels and hate illegal immigration."

Clearly you're much smarter than a lot of economists who've studied this issue. So smart that it amazes me your brain hasn't exploded yet from the vaccum within. Any sensible person (a category about as far removed from you as Pluto) realizes there are both costs and benefits to immigration. People like you, Kaus and Malkin focus only on the costs, ignoring any benefits (and there are economic and other benefits).

Brimelow (and the National Review) is essentially anti-all immigration (except the occsional Elian Gonzalez), and Malkin isn't far removed from that. Malkin was frothing at the mouth for all illegals to be deported from LA. Clearly anyone who's not a BC (Brainless Cretin) knows that that is impossible. Kaus does not advocate something so draconian, but he is anti-immigration, including most legal immigration.

And like I said, you're making a total fool of yourself -- which is not surprising since it seems to be a congenital condition. And for what its worth, I support free trade, I generally support immigration (albeit not illegal immigration). Only an Brainless Cretin would shed crocodile tears over the poor, but not focus on or suggest anything else, including say minimum wage increases etc. to make the life of the poor better. One is then entitled to conclude that the problem these people have is with immigration, not with any attendant inequality.

"Kaus describes himself as a neo-centerist, so it makes about as much sense for err to demand fealty from him as it does to demand it from Malkin. Kaus is sympathetic to your boys erg (Lord knows why) but you're right; he's not one of you. I can assure you that I speak on behalf of the overwhelming majority on the right when I say that he's not one of us either. I dissagree with Mick on many things, but he can engage the right as well as the left in dialogue, which is needed in our navel-gazing political culture. You, erg, might want to try something on that order before you call people who dissagree with you "small hatefull people". You'll embarass yourself a lot less."

And you Brainless Cretin, might want to take your head out of your own hindquarters, where it seems to be firmly lodged. You might even learn some logic and reason. I don't demand fealty from him, at all. I simply see him as someone much more in sync with the wingnuts than with anyone else, and as such, he deserves to be treated as such. I could care less whether he calls himself a liberal, a democrat, a communist, or a minuteman.

erg,

Brimelow (and the National Review) is essentially anti-all immigration (except the occsional Elian Gonzalez), and Malkin isn't far removed from that. Malkin was frothing at the mouth for all illegals to be deported from LA.

Wanting to enforce immigration laws "isn't far removed from" being "anti-all immigration?"

Wanting to enforce immigration laws "isn't far removed from" being "anti-all immigration?"

Well, the NR is definitely anti all immigration. I trust you will concede that. Malkin is pretty much anti all immigration as well. Her website includes lots of anti-immigration and anti-immigrant rants. Malkin makes no real distinction either, ranting abotu Aztlan and the like and ranting against all Hispanic immigrants, not just illegals.

Finally, any sane person, even one who wants to stop illegal immigration, realizes the patent impossibility of deporting 13 million illegals. No sane person would suggest that.

Erg thinks that he is posing a nuanced argument about the costs and benefits of illegal immigration, by calling me a brainless cretin who insists concentrating only on the costs, presumably out of pure bigotry, although ugh has enough sense of self-parody to avoid explicit mention of the term, though not enough sense to avoid performative contradictions in virtually all of his sentences.

Even on his own terms Erg does not make sense. Granting that immigration poses costs and benefits implies as much room for Mr. X to say "the costs outweigh the benefits" without being branded as a wingnut, as it does for Mr. Y to state the opposite. Eugh is free to dissagree with myself or Mr. Kaus on this without making an ass out of himself. Erg's assininity lies in his inability to withstand a hint of demurall from his orthodoxy without succumbing to the vapors and shakes. Astutely, reasonably, and intelligently, Erg attributes to me views on the minimum wage which I never professed and indeed do not harbor. I like relatively high minimum wages. (However, I perferctly understand, having benefited from erg's immense sophistication, that there are costs and benefits to the minimum wage; I simply feel that on this issue, the benefits outweigh the costs, and thus, anybody who dissagrees with me is obviously a dingbat.)

Malkin and Brimelow focus their anti mass unchecked immigration arguments very differently, as even the slightest familiarity with either of their works makes obvious, (and again, I don't much like Malkin, so I am indeed only slightly familiar with her work). Michelle Malkin is about law-and-order, security risks, and Gov. integrity. Brimelow is much more about cultural cohesion and sovereignty. National Review, far from being indistinguishible from Brimelow, fired him on account of his excessive zeal on the immigration issue, and has proceeded to be ambivalent and tentative about their stance on the borders. (Just to emphasize this point, let us compare reality with erg's claims):

Erg claims:Brimelow (and the National Review) is essentially anti-all immigration (except the occsional Elian Gonzalez), and Malkin isn't far removed from that.

Reality: National Review fired Brimelow for being too strident on immigration.

What an ass! And of course, NR, Malkin, and Brimelow all espouse the same views on the minimum wage.

By the way, there are several ways to very effectively and painlessly deport 30 (not 13) million illegal aliens. 1st, we deport them at a high rate even now, but our efforts are overwhelmed by the massive influx. If we took care of the influx, even doing nothing that we don't already do, we will have deported 15 million aliens in a decade. If you make it next to impossible for them to get employed or use any government service (barring emergency medical care) many more will leave voluntarily.

One wonders as to how erg concluded that it would be hard or inhumane to deport 13 million aliens. Maby he is so rational, and holds his head proudly so far above and beyond his ass, that 13 billion struck him as a *really* big number. Hey erg! I've got a bridge in Brooklyn and 13 billion square feet of River for you. Hurry up; it's going cheap!

Correction: 13 million is the big number, 13 million *cubic* feet of river.

"Erg thinks that he is posing a nuanced argument about the costs and benefits of illegal immigration, by calling me a brainless cretin who insists concentrating only on the costs, presumably out of pure bigotry, although ugh has enough sense of self-parody to avoid explicit mention of the term, though not enough sense to avoid performative contradictions in virtually all of his sentences."

No, I called you a brainless cretin because you are one. I do not call you a bigot, becuase you have not demonstrated yourself to be one, and I am fair minded enough to realize that one can be a BC without being a Bigoted Cretin too.

"Astutely, reasonably, and intelligently, Erg attributes to me views on the minimum wage which I never professed and indeed do not harbor"

Well, Brainless Cretin, maybe its payback for imputing views on diversity to be which I do not share.

"Malkin and Brimelow focus their anti mass unchecked immigration arguments very differently, as even the slightest familiarity with either of their works makes obvious, (and again, I don't much like Malkin, so I am indeed only slightly familiar with her work). "

And with reality too, no doubt.

"Michelle Malkin is about law-and-order, security risks, and Gov. integrity"

She hosts a blog on her web site that goes on and on about all other sorts of issues as well. I would suggest getting that read to you.

"National Review, far from being indistinguishible from Brimelow, fired him on account of his excessive zeal on the immigration issue, and has proceeded to be ambivalent and tentative about their stance on the borders"

False. Occasional NR writers differ over immigration, but the editors have been extremely anti-immigration over the years, as have most of the major magazine articles. They have had ocasional feuds with the equally conservative WSJ Editorial page over immigration (the WSJ is open borders).

"Erg claims:Brimelow (and the National Review) is essentially anti-all immigration (except the occsional Elian Gonzalez), and Malkin isn't far removed from that.Reality: National Review fired Brimelow for being too strident on immigration."

I trust you can provide a reference for the last claim about Brimelow being fired for immigration views ? In any case, there is nothing contradictory between those 2 points as well. I never said the positions of the NR and Brimelow were indistinguishable, although Malkin now publishes a lot of Brimelow's journal articles.

"By the way, there are several ways to very effectively and painlessly deport 30 (not 13) million illegal aliens."

Where did the 30 number come from, BC ? Did you pull it out of your rear end, the way you pull out most of your arguments ?

"If we took care of the influx, even doing nothing that we don't already do, we will have deported 15 million aliens in a decade."

Hmm. Perhaps, I should look up the definition of deport. Aha here it is

Deport -- to expel from a country.

What part of that do you not understand ? If we prevent addition to the number here, that is not deportation to anyone who understands logic or reasoning and is not a BC.

"One wonders as to how erg concluded that it would be hard or inhumane to deport 13 million aliens."

Because unlike Brainless Cretins, I know the meaning of the word deport, and I don't spend my spare time sniffing Kaus's hindquarters ?

What I have not learned from my latest exchange with the erg.

It is unclear why I am a brainless cretin in the first place. As far as I can tell, the only substantive objection he presented to my initial entry is that one's personal immigration status is irrelevant to one's views of or disposition towards immigration. He calls me nasty names over missing this point, yet in the next breath credits me with observing it.

I mentioned Malkin's immigration status, as well as Brimelow's, because the invective erg hurled at all who dissagree with him on this point, labeling them as "frothing at the mouth" or "small and hateful" strongly suggests that he considers them (or at least wishes to portray them as) bigots. If this is not his intention, all well and good; but the burden of proof is on erg; given his rancor, my inference was nearly inescapable.

Now, immigration status may hav little to do with your views on immigration, but it is most certainly relevent to the issue of whether or not you hate immigrants per se, as erg (Excrement Relatively Great-he seems to like acronyms) constantly insinuates.

As he has not yet indicated why firm opposition toward mass immigration is cretinous or nutty, has not argued my point that it would be in fact relatively cheap easy and painless to expedite the removal and return of 25 million illegal aliens, has not set clear what he considers respectable boundaries of the immigration debate, proceeds to call folks who dissagree with him, even on minor points "wingnuts", (Kaus is constantly lobbying for increases in the EITC, out of hardness and cruelty, no doubt, and refuses to indicate why he likes immigration so much, in spite of the fact that the poor folks for whom he pretends to advocate it are virtually all dead against it, I'll proclaim victory on all counts mentioned heretofore.

Egregiously Ridiculous Gibberish

Employ Rolaids Generously

Erstwhile Rectum Gazer

goodbye

http://www.vdare.com/pb/050423_speech.htm

Michelle Malkin is not an immigrant - she was born in this country. In fact Ms. Malkin maybe an anchor baby as her father was here on a temporary work visa. I know it is hard for some people to grasp that not all brown people, even Mexicans, are immigrants but if you are going to use Ms. Malkin as an example you should probably get your facts in order.

I had thought I heard Mrs. Malkin refer to herself as an immigrant, but I recall now she was speaking of her father. My mistake.

Her ancestry is pure Philppines; Mexico had nothing to do with it. I would chide you for this humorous error, except that I don't think you intended to convey that Malkin was Mexican, but rather were moved by a mysterious impulse to accuse me of hating Mexicans, regardless of how irrelevant such a consideration may be, although both are funny coming from Mr. Facts R. Friends himself.

I have disclosed many times even in this thread that I am not a fan of Malkin's by any stretch of the imagination. That Malkin is 1st generation does not really affect the argument substantially. You simply move from accusing her of hating immigrants like herself to hating immigrants like her parents. Substitute Jorge Borgas for Malkin, however, if you want the real immigrant as immigration skeptic deal, or John Derbyshire, or Claes Ryn, or countless others.

"It is unclear why I am a brainless cretin in the first place."

I do now know. Maybe you can ask your parents ? But courage, self realization is the first step towards recovery.

"I mentioned Malkin's immigration status, as well as Brimelow's, because the invective erg hurled at all who dissagree with him on this point, labeling them as "frothing at the mouth" or "small and hateful" strongly suggests that he considers them (or at least wishes to portray them as) bigots."

I have no hesitation characterizing Malkin (who after all suggested that the internment of Japanese Americans in WWII was justified) or Brimelow (who seems to be awfully fearful of the prospect of an America where white Americans are not the majority) as bigots. I do not characterize Kaus as such, but I do characterize his opposition to immigration as not being based on high minded concern about poor workers. My comment on him as being small and hateful moreover was based not just on his immigration views, but on his venom directed at Kerry. Unlike John O'Neill, he seemed to have little substantive basis for his hate, but just seemed to dislike him intensely for obscure reasons.

" has not argued my point that it would be in fact relatively cheap easy and painless to expedite the removal and return of 25 million illegal aliens,"

As usual Beneath Contempt pulls a 25 million illegal alien number somewhere out of his nether regions, since its far higher than other estimates. Of course Brainless Cretin, being funtionally innumerate, can not even maintain his own bogus numbers. Yesterday his numbers were 30 million illegal, today its 25 million. One must commend the INS for being singularly busy overnight and deporting 5 million people !!

The Census bureau's latest numbers indicate 35.7 million immigrants in the country. That would indicate that the number of 25 million is a huge overstatement since most other statistics show a number between 11 and 13 million. Perhaps Brainless Cretin cannot distinguish betwen illegal and legal, a trait that he shares with his idol Brimelow.

The point I was making was that anyone calling for deportation (which as one must point out to BC, is not the same as letting the population fall by attrition) of 13 million illegals (let alone BC's imaginary 25-30 million) is a frothing lunatic. If BC wishes to defend such an action, he should proudly nail his undergarments to the mast alongside Ms. Malkins and Mr Brimelow, instead of torturing the use of the word "deport". Brimelow certainly does not hide his inclination to do mass deportations.

"Kaus is constantly lobbying for increases in the EITC, out of hardness and cruelty, no doubt, and refuses to indicate why he likes immigration so much, in spite of the fact that the poor folks for whom he pretends to advocate it are virtually all dead against it"

Kaus mentions the EITC once in a blue moon, and mentions immigration all the time, working himself into a tizzy over it. People who claim to be so concerned about the plight of the poor, and then spend all their time focused on immigration, while never spending much time on other matters that impact the poor far more, and in some other instances display active hostility towards helping the poor are not acting out of concern for the poor -- they are acting out of an animus towards immigration. To be fair to Kaus, he does not fall into that category since he does occasionally support other anti-poverty programs, but thats not what he spends most of his time on ...

BC, like all swine, produces some pearls of illogic

"Now, immigration status may hav little to do with your views on immigration, but it is most certainly relevent to the issue of whether or not you hate immigrants per se,"

and

"That Malkin is 1st generation does not really affect the argument substantially. You simply move from accusing her of hating immigrants like herself to hating immigrants like her parents"

Immigration status has relatively little to do with whether one hates immigrants or not. Firstly, one is well aware of self hating members of their group, such as Jews who collaborated with Nazis, or gay bashers who are themselves closeted. I do not pretend this is the explanation for the likes of Herr Brimelow though (although he has excellent reasons to hate himself).
Secondly, humans (using the term rather broadly in the case of Ms. Malkin) have a remarkable tendency to be hypocritical. Thus we have Jefferson talking in high minded ways of the rights of man on one hand, and keeping slaves (and humping Sally) on the other.
Thirdly, saying one hates immigrants does not mean that one hates all immigrants or even most individual immigrants. It just means a general hatred towards immigrants. Difficult as it is to imagine, Ms. Malkin may not actually hate her immigrant parents.

The basic point is that the Brimelows of the world have an aversion towards immigrants who are not like them (i.e. not white and English).

2005 was a very special year for immigration. It was the first year that official illegal immigration estimates exceeded legal immigration numbers. This is why 30 million illegals, while admittedly over the top, is probably little farther off the mark than the "official" numbers, particularly when unofficial, yet reputable academic sources put the number closer to twenty million. However, I apologize for the hyperbole, and will content myself hereonin with making understatements such as refering to Erg as "Earth's Regrettable Gaffe".

My correspondent did not grasp the nuances of my argument, probably because of his amply demonstrated tendency to break out into a psychotic convulsion at the mention of a point of view he disfavors. Here is what I said:

"We deport [illegals] at a high rate even now, but our efforts are overwhelmed by the massive influx.If we took care of the influx, even doing nothing that we don't already do, we will have deported 15 million aliens in a decade.

Here is what my (painfully and obviously) humble correspondent writes in reply:

Hmm. Perhaps, I should look up the definition of deport. Aha here it is
Deport -- to expel from a country.
What part of that do you not understand ? If we prevent addition to the number here, that is not deportation to anyone who understands logic or reasoning and is not a BC.

We will take this one step at a time.

Notice the premise of my argument: we are deporting them at a high rate even now. This means that I made fully explicit that we are currently expelling illegal aliens from this country without their consent, which, as Excretes Red Gall generously reminds us, is deportation.

The problem is that a much higher influx overwhelms the modestly high deportation rates, so that the number of illegals keeps increasing.

Thus, "even by doing nothing we already do" (cross-reference, erg), meaning without escalation of expulsion rates, simply stopping the influx by itsel would result in an estimated 15 million (give or take erg) deportations in 10 years or so. (Again, this is probably an invalid extrapolation, since high entrance rates make for easy and cut-and-dry cases for expulsion, without which the obvious candidates would quickly run out, leaving INS agents do deal with those who are better established or just better hidden.) Nonetheless, the logic still holds, even if the figures themselves are not quite exact.

Why did I pull 25 million out of my ass? Well, I was trying to be congenial, and show that I don't really insist that *all* illegal aliens get deported. (Even mass deportations can be done humanely. "Senor, yes, the jig is up. Please get on the Bus and we shall leave you unharmed in Guadelahara in no time. We've brought food and other accomodations. Of course, if you resist, as in any other law-enforcement situation, you'll be chased down and forcefully subdued.)

Thus, "mass deportations" are really just law enforcement measures, no more or less brutal than any other. If erg accepts the premise that illegal immigration is indeed a crime, (he says he does) there can be no objection to the use of crime-fighting measures to counter it.

I don't know how many times I have to tell you that I don't like Michelle Malkin, and feel her defense of Japanese internment camps daffy.

So then what motivates Kaus' anti-Immigration animus if you admit it isn't bigotry and don't think it to be concern for the poor? You seem to have a tough evidentiary requirement for people to prove that their immigration restrictionism does not derive from bigotry. You also seem to equate Brimelow's concern for national cohesion/sovereinty/identity as tantamount to fascism/racism/nativism/etc. This is a good sign, since the narrower the left draws the lines of reasonable debate, the less arguments they evince they can answer. The lines have already collapsed to the point where more and more people don't take them seriously anymore.

Furthermore, why shoudld Kaus harp about the EITC constantly (and I *like* the EITC btw) when the issues of the day are War and immigration? Kaus has never dwelt on Foreign Policy, so that leaves immigration; and he, in my opinion, brings it up frequently (he isn't obsessive about it) because he is perplexed as to the hysteria it generates on the left, of which ERG's sentiments are paradigmatic.

Now, why is it that in spite of the horrendously inept and malicious Republican regime, the Democrats still have such difficulty getting a foothold on power? Is it the fault of Mickey's harsh words? Or is it a malignancy of the party which Mickey attacks in an effort to restore it to where it can be reasonably functional and useful?

Of course, that was BC by the way.

Teacherken wrote:

Pray tell, Mr. Kleiman, what is it that you find so offensive about teachers'unions? The reason they continue to exist is because there are administrators and school boards which are abusive, full of petty tyrants, and absent teachers' unions many teachers would have no due process protections at all."

Teacherken, just about everybody else IN TE ENTIRE WORLD works under a system where boses do unfair things to them. Companies in the real world are FULL OF "petty tyrants" and abusers.

Why should teachers alone get this magical protection from bosses?

That's what we find offensive about teacher's unions. That, and the sanctimonious lies that all they do are for "the children," when it's obvious who they are really working for.

I can answer that question, easy. Mickey hits your side of the aisle more frequently because he is trying to reform his own party and ideological tendency, not us Republicans. Remember, he saw the effects of living inside the information bubble when ... he ... clerked ... for ... Rose ... Byrd in the heyday of California's Judge driven flight from reality. "That had to hurt". More importantly, that sort of thing leaves scars. Socrates didn't criticise the Persians and Spartans all that much either, though he hardly rooted for them. He was trying to reform Athens, after all.

If he didn't repeat the smarter GOP criticisms, most of you folks would never, ever hear them. Just like we don't hear much of your stuff once we leave college and grad school unless we watch news other than Fox.

"If he didn't repeat the smarter GOP criticisms, most of you folks would never, ever hear them."

They don't *need* to hear them! They have the right positions, they just need to take off the gloves! No more Mr. Nice Guy! Yeearrgghh!

In fairness to Ken, Education administration is a purely political enterprise, so much so that if administrators were left to their own devices, all contracts would be renewed or dismissed on a pure party-patronage basis. Teacherken's error lies in his conclusion that the malignant Union systim, in light of this, is necessary and proper after all. All that is really needed is the extention and application of civil service reform measures to education, in the short term, and the gradual withdrawl of public administration from (not subsidization of) education altogether. (This might be what the Education Establishment fears worst: that radical decentralization will result in their losing the capacity to prostelatize the whole of America's youth from education central.) The unions can truly take a powder once that's in place.

"This is why 30 million illegals, while admittedly over the top, is probably little farther off the mark than the "official" numbers, particularly when unofficial, yet reputable academic sources put the number closer to twenty millions"

So, BC for the first time since he was whelped, admits a truth -- his 30 million number was fabricated out of whole cloth. In 2 days, he claims (via mysterious unofficial numbers) that the number is now 20 million. As I posited before, Brainless Cretin apparently thinks that the INS deports 5 million people a night. In which case, we should wait a few more days, and the problem will be solved.

"Why did I pull 25 million out of my ass? Well, I was trying to be congenial, and show that I don't really insist that *all* illegal aliens get deported."

Translation -- Beneath Contempt pulled it out of his ass, or arse, if you prefer.

"Thus, "mass deportations" are really just law enforcement measures, no more or less brutal than any other. If erg accepts the premise that illegal immigration is indeed a crime, (he says he does) there can be no objection to the use of crime-fighting measures to counter it"

Not all crimes are equivalent in their impact, and not all law enforcement measures involve equal measures of violence. This is plainly obvious to anyone who is not a Brainless Cretin, after all -- we don't drag out and promptly baton someone who exceeds the speed limit (except in LA), nor do we promptly warm up the electrical chair for tax frauds or embezzlers.

But BC seems to have finally admitted that his wet dream is to forcibly deport 13 million (or his mythical 30 million) people, ignoring any logistical, humanitarian and economic issues involved. I did not misjudge him, and none of my insults are misdirected, since anyone who holds such a position deserves nothing but contempt and opprobium.

"So then what motivates Kaus' anti-Immigration animus if you admit it isn't bigotry and don't think it to be concern for the poor?"

I'm not an expert on abnormal psychology, so I don't claim to know or care. I don't know the source of his odd hatred for Kerry either. If I had to guess, I would say his column experiencing delight at lowered traffic in LA on the day of the immigrant strike gets to the main reason.

" You seem to have a tough evidentiary requirement for people to prove that their immigration restrictionism does not derive from bigotry."

You're almost correct there, without the not. I have a tough evidentiary requirement for people to prove that their immigration restrictionism does derive from bigotry. In the case of Malkin her comments about internment of Japanese Americans do the trick.

"You also seem to equate Brimelow's concern for national cohesion/sovereinty/identity as tantamount to fascism/racism/nativism/etc."

No, its Brimelow's horrified concern about whites being a minority in the US and his son having to grow up in such a country (along with some more of his ravings) that is racist and nativist.

"This is a good sign, since the narrower the left draws the lines of reasonable debate, the less arguments they evince they can answer. "

The fact that brainless credit seems to be willing to defend some of Brimelow's clearly racist sentiments is a good sign of what wingnuts think is reasonable.

"Furthermore, why shoudld Kaus harp about the EITC constantly (and I *like* the EITC btw) when the issues of the day are War and immigration? Kaus has never dwelt on Foreign Policy,"

The main issue of the day is the Iraq war. Kaus rarely comments on it, but he does seem to spend an awful lot of time trying to defend the Liebermans and attacking those who disagree with the war. And despite your own obsessions, other issues, including terrorism, the economy, health care etc. come much higher up in polls than immigration as the main issues in consideration by Americans.

Besides, no one who spends several columns commenting on where kerry spent the night after a protest march 30 yuears back has any right to claim that he focuses on important public policy issues.

"I can answer that question, easy. Mickey hits your side of the aisle more frequently because he is trying to reform his own party and ideological tendency, not us Republicans. Remember, he saw the effects of living inside the information bubble when ... he ... clerked ... for ... Rose ... Byrd in the heyday of California's Judge driven flight from reality. "That had to hurt". More importantly, that sort of thing leaves scars. Socrates didn't criticise the Persians and Spartans all that much either, though he hardly rooted for them. He was trying to reform Athens, after all."

And we all know what the Athenians did to Socrates, right ?

More to the point, Socrates didn't spend his time (and yes, I know the time periods don't match, I'm just using an illustration) kissing the ass of the Spartans or brown nosing the Great King.

ERG harps on my exaggerated numbers, pays no attention to my argument, which remains valid with the corrected numbers. Apparently, it is a great sin, when you are mouthing off in a comments section and in a hurry, to use a number that is off the mark, so much so that even if you correct it, you are still discredited.

Of course, this is similar to his crying racist tactic: it is a pitiful last resort one must turn to when out of answers. (Next, he'll point out my spelling errors.)

And all this after I was kind enough to reiterate, in nice a nice, simple, step-by-step process he could understand, why he was confused by my argument from entrance-exit disparity.

To Recap:

I wrote-
"We deport [illegals] at a high rate even now, but our efforts are overwhelmed by the massive influx.If we took care of the influx, even doing nothing that we don't already do, we will have deported 15 million aliens in a decade"

He replies:Hmm. Perhaps, I should look up the definition of deport. Aha here it is
Deport -- to expel from a country.
What part of that do you not understand ? If we prevent addition to the number here, that is not deportation to anyone who understands logic or reasoning and is not a BC.

Apparently this very simple quantitative concept eluded him entirely, going as far over his head as if I had mentioned Gaussian Field Statics.

But since I'm patient and generous by nature, and like Teacher Ken, never give up on a pupil, no matter how little potential he shows, or how thick he seems, I try my best to explain the concept in a way that is basic enough so that he can digest it.

"Notice the premise of my argument: we are deporting them at a high rate even now. This means that I made fully explicit that we are currently expelling illegal aliens from this country without their consent, which, as Excretes Red Gall generously reminds us, is deportation.

The problem is that a much higher influx overwhelms the modestly high deportation rates, so that the number of illegals keeps increasing.

Thus, "even by doing nothing we already do" (cross-reference, erg), meaning without escalation of expulsion rates, simply stopping the influx by itsel would result in an estimated 15 million (give or take erg) deportations in 10 years or so.

And he doesn't even have the decency to thank me for taking the extra time! Or he might still be hopelessly perplexed and embarrassed to admit it. It won't get any better, ERG, unless you confront the problem, and in your case, not even that might work.

But it's worth a try.

Note the disparity between how I depict the method I desire to deport aliens (as detailed and explicitly as I can, so that there may be no misunderstandings).

"Senor, yes, the jig is up. Please get on the Bus and we shall leave you unharmed in Guadelahara in no time. We've brought food and other accomodations. Of course, if you resist, as in any other law-enforcement situation, you'll be chased down and forcefully subdued.)

With his depiction:

"Thus, "mass deportations" are really just law enforcement measures, no more or less brutal than any other. If erg accepts the premise that illegal immigration is indeed a crime, (he says he does) there can be no objection to the use of crime-fighting measures to counter it"

Not all crimes are equivalent in their impact, and not all law enforcement measures involve equal measures of violence. This is plainly obvious to anyone who is not a Brainless Cretin, after all -- we don't drag out and promptly baton someone who exceeds the speed limit (except in LA), nor do we promptly warm up the electrical chair for tax frauds or embezzlers.

But BC seems to have finally admitted that his wet dream is to forcibly deport 13 million (or his mythical 30 million) people, ignoring any logistical, humanitarian and economic issues involved.

Note how he assiduously avoids mentioning the detailed outlines which I provided of the logistics involved in order to dishonestly (yes, ERG is a liar) claim that I "ignore" them.

Also note that the entire argument which confused ERG so badly is entirely an examination of logistics.

On a more comical note, take this statement from a man who professes to be appalled by the inhumane treatment immigrants would receive upon deportation, and who writes out of concern for their welfare:

Erg claims:Brimelow (and the National Review) is essentially anti-all immigration (except the occsional Elian Gonzalez)

For some reason, he cites with implicit approval the one case in history where an anti-immigrant task force raided an immigrant's quarters with heavy arms, siezed a legal refugee and deported him summarily. It seems that ERG was not far off in his estimation of the immense human capacity for hypocrisy.

Now, an illegal alien who is asked to leave the country, and afforded a humane means of doing so and refuses is disobeying a lawful order. It is obvious that what should be done to him is the same as what should be done to anyone else who disobeys a lawful order (i.e. he should be compelled to comply. If ERG considers this barbaric, I want to see him on the frontlines fighting the good fight against people who are confined for refusing to show officers their license and registration. If he thinks that illegal entry into the country is a less serious context than failing to make a left turn signal on a deserted street, so that such force is justified in the latter case but not the former, he is truly not serious about illegal immigration.

Brimelow believes that ethnic homogeneity is desireable and that our country would not remain in its present day form if its ethnic balance were to suddenly alter darasticly. It is on these grounds alone that ERG calls him a bigot. Note that he does not favor any sort of discriminatory laws, or harbor any ill will upon any ethnic group. (He might harbor certain general impressions about this or that group, some positive some negative, but never wants harm to come to anyone and always judges the individual on his own merits). If you think that this is sufficient to regard somebody a racist crackpot, you have the right. I don't think ERG is lying (although I don't think he is telling the truth either; I think his reactions stem from emotional-hormonal impulses which he has never seen fit to examine to see if they were rational or not). However, nobody except a small and dwindling vestige of left wing malcontents will take ERG seriously on this point. It is obvious to anyone who is not wound up with a vice grip on these matters that Brimelow is not a bigot as he may even see if he ever chooses to honestly evaluate the thinking of this gifted individual.

And Kaus is gifted as well, but people like ERG cannot tolerate gifted people because part of their gift entails the ability to question the sacred cows unto which people like ERG invest such fierce and fideistic allegience. ERG likes to act from blind rage and unquestioned assumptions and hidden grudges and loyalty to leader figures, even ones as laughably stupid as Kerry (or Bush if he were a Republican). Erg is, in short, part of the mob, the rabble, the vulgar and brutish masses, with just enough intelligence to aspire to being a mid-level comissar.

'ERG harps on my exaggerated numbers, pays no attention to my argument, which remains valid with the corrected numbers. Apparently, it is a great sin, when you are mouthing off in a comments section and in a hurry, to use a number that is off the mark, so much so that even if you correct it, you are still discredited."

Translation from Beneath Contempt --- Nothing I say can be trusted because after all I might have said it in a hurry. The fact that I found the time to post 2 copious messages in the nonce (which testifies to my absence of a life) and that I refer to mysterious unofficial sources when correcting is further evidence of my mendacity.

"Note how he assiduously avoids mentioning the detailed outlines which I provided of the logistics involved in order to dishonestly (yes, ERG is a liar) claim that I "ignore" them."

Undoubtedly, BC is of the opinion that 13 million illegals, some in heavily Hispanic cities like LOs Angeles and the like will just meekly submit to deportation. That is what I meant by logistics. I'm sure anyone possesing half a brain (which is half more than Brainless Commandant possesses) can come up with a similar scheme involving n buses and x hours, and then preen and claim to have devised a solution for the logistical issue.

"Erg claims:Brimelow (and the National Review) is essentially anti-all immigration (except the occsional Elian Gonzalez). For some reason, he cites with implicit approval the one case in history where an anti-immigrant task force raided an immigrant's quarters with heavy arms, siezed a legal refugee and deported him summarily. It seems that ERG was not far off in his estimation of the immense human capacity for hypocrisy."

The only reason that I mentioned Elian was as a bit of snark and in the hope that BC would take the bait (which he did after 3 posts and counterposts). I personally did not approve of the raid, I thought the legal process should have been allowed to go ahead. But let me dissect the lies, illogic and supreme hypocrisy that Beneath Cretinous has displayed here.
-- A minor matter, but Elian was not a legal refugee (even excluding his minor status)
-- BC is clearly uninformed, but raids and roundups of immigrants do happen with some regularity (a raid on a workplace a few days back, for instance), so this is not "the one case in history"
-- BC professes to be concerned over the deportation of one Elian, one minor. Yet he blithely advocates policies that would deport 13 million people, separate many, many families (legal children, illegal parents), and involve many, many armed raids on homes. Even in the capacious annals of hypocrisy, this must rank close to the stop.
-- Finally, the logistical genius of BC should realize if there will civil problems associated with the deportation of one Elian, what would be the problems if 13 million people were deported as he fantasizes ?

"t is obvious that what should be done to him is the same as what should be done to anyone else who disobeys a lawful order (i.e. he should be compelled to comply. If ERG considers this barbaric, I want to see him on the frontlines fighting the good fight against people who are confined for refusing to show officers their license and registration. If he thinks that illegal entry into the country is a less serious context than failing to make a left turn signal on a deserted street, so that such force is justified in the latter case but not the former, he is truly not serious about illegal immigration."

It is true I do not support BC's Final Solution for the immigration problem. And there most definitely can be traffic violations that threaten life and limb and hence are more dangerous than an illegal immigrant (unless one ignores the harm to BC's fragile psyche). In any case, if police officers started to beat or confiscate the cars of people who refused to show their license, I would most definitely protest, although given BC's slavish adherence to authority he would probably kiss their badges (or maybe a lower part of their anatomy).

"Brimelow believes that ethnic homogeneity is desireable and that our country would not remain in its present day form if its ethnic balance were to suddenly alter darasticly. It is on these grounds alone that ERG calls him a bigot"

Fortunately the etnric balance is not altering suddenly, but slowly over decades so BCs excuse is pathetically wrong.

No, I call him a bigot because of his horror of the prospect of his son growing up in an America where whites are not the majority. Note that tofee nosed Brits are not an indigenous American ehtnic life form for the most part, so any attempt to call Brimelow's concern ethnic in nature is a euphemism, Brimelow's concern is race based. His web site posts all sort of attempts at racial classification and the like, all hobbies of those great thinkers in the National Socialist Party. Brimelow ignores (non white) immigrant groups that have assimilated well and have higher socio-economic status than normal Americans (such as Indians).

"Brimelow is not a bigot as he may even see if he ever chooses to honestly evaluate the thinking of this gifted individual."

BC's veneration for Brimelow shows that BC's real problem is with immigration, not illegal immigration per se.

"And Kaus is gifted as well, but people like ERG cannot tolerate gifted people"

BC's desire to defend Kaus's honor is amusing, but then pathetic people like BC always need heroes and people to tell them what to think.

". ERG likes to act from blind rage and unquestioned assumptions and hidden grudges and loyalty to leader figures, even ones as laughably stupid as Kerry (or Bush if he were a Republican)."

As usual BC could not hit a toilet if he were living in it (as he is). I have no particular liking for Kerry, and I said before that I think O'Neill had good grounds for his dislike of Kerry. My objection to Kaus was his fixation on minor details about Kerry rather than on policy issues.

"Erg is, in short, part of the mob, the rabble, the vulgar and brutish masses, with just enough intelligence to aspire to being a mid-level comissar. "

BC is in short a pathetic hero worshipper who dreams of deporting 13 million people and who trembles in fear at the thought of an America where whites are not the majority. In another life, another time, BC would probably have been a minor bathroom attendant in rooms that looked like showers, but weren't.

1)

Kaus and Brimelow I acknowledge as gifted

translates to hero worshipping

2)

Use a bad stat (which I correct) in a hurry

translates into "none of my arguments are valid because of that stat" and, of course, the obligatory "no life"

3))

I said that similar deportations are underway as we speak without civil upheaval or violence, and that influx is the question

He does not respond.

4)

He writes:roundups of immigrants do happen with some regularity (a raid on a workplace a few days back, for instance), so this is not "the one case in history"

A unique case in history refers to a heavily armed squad coming in to a lightly armed or unarmed domestic residence to sieze a child not here illegaly. ERG is dishonest, so he wants you to think all deportation measures (a significant amount of which already exist...see 3)) amount to sticking machine guns in the faces of children. He also does not want you to remember that deportation is only a part of the restrictionist program and that all agree that w/o jobs and non-vital government services, attrition would do most of the work.

5)I write "It is obvious that what should be done to him is the same as what should be done to anyone else who disobeys a lawful order (i.e. he should be compelled to comply. If ERG considers this barbaric, I want to see him on the frontlines fighting the good fight against people who are confined FOR REFUSING TO SHOW THIER LICENSE AND REGISTRATION...FOR MAKING A LEFT TURN ON A DESERTED STREET. If he thinks that illegal entry into the country is a less serious [than this] he is truly not serious about illegal immigration.

He writes:

There most definitely can be TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS THAT THREATEN LIFE AND LIMB and hence are more dangerous than an illegal immigrant... In any case, if police officers STARTED TO BEAT AND CONFISCATE THE CARS OF people who refused to show their license, I would most definitely protest.

I ask him to please respond or refuse to respond to my arguments, but not to respond to stupid and inane nonsense that I don't say. The difference between my point and the point to which he responded is obvious and the tactic is transparently dishonest.

6) I need people to tell me what I think and heroes

I dissagree with Kaus and Brimelow on many things, yet I recognize their talent. It is ERG who must divide the world into heroes and villians (as is obvious)

7)He writes-"Fortunately the ethnic balance is not altering suddenly, but slowly over decades so BCs excuse is pathetically wrong".

If over 7 decades, enthic balances shift from 80% white 15% Black, 5% Latin American-Other, to 55% Latin American (particularly the immediate descendants of peasants of 3rd world countries) 40% White, that would be the most rapid peaceful ethnic transformation is the history of the planet. (And yes, in the US, white Euro-American is a relatively homogenous ethnicity, though with a lot of important sub-categories.)

(9) He writes that my "veneration" for Brimelow indicates a problem with immigration per se.

No MASS IMMIGRATION FROM 3rd WORLD countries is Brimelow's problem and mine. His position is that immigration policy should be geared to benefiting Americans, THEN to acts of charity for the 3rd world. I do not think he'd have a problem admitting a small amount of immigrants per year regardless of their race or status, provided they showed a capacity and willingness to assimilate into middle class life.

And YES, I agree with Brimelow that ethnicity in itself has a lot to do with the identity and character of the country, and that such an ethnic transformation would result in a change of character of this country which I do not wish to see. Any non-hysterical person can see the difference between this and hating Latins per se.

Brimelow posts one "Racial Realist": Steve Sailer, consistently, and one White Nationalist, Jared Taylor, occasionaly. That is it insofar as go his association with racial theorists. Race isn't his issue. Unlike ERG, he thinks that people with provocative views should have their say provided they make their case well and don't mean to hurt anyone. ERG thinks people with different views on race than he are Nazis and evil and whatever goes on inside his demented mental universe.

And note what he does not respond to, because he can't:

Note that he does not favor any sort of discriminatory laws, or harbor any ill will upon any ethnic group. (He might harbor certain general impressions about this or that group, some positive some negative, but never wants harm to come to anyone and always judges the individual on his own merits). If you think that this is sufficient to regard somebody a racist crackpot, you have the right. I don't think ERG is lying (although I don't think he is telling the truth either; I think his reactions stem from emotional-hormonal impulses which he has never seen fit to examine to see if they were rational or not). However, nobody except a small and dwindling vestige of left wing malcontents will take ERG seriously on this point.

Here is the crux of the matter. ERG thinks that the view on race and immigration of Left-Wing crackpots are normal and anyone who dissagrees with them are innately evil. I believe that the test is not what you believe to be the case in fact, but whether or not you harbor ill-will to people. No amount of argument will budge either of us on this, but if anyone is reading this thread, you can decide for yourself which is the more rational position.

BC again obviously

"translates into "none of my arguments are valid because of that stat" "

Actually, it just shows how sloppy you are. And you don't bother to correct it and toss around references to mysterious unofficial numbers, indicating dishonesty again.

"A unique case in history refers to a heavily armed squad coming in to a lightly armed or unarmed domestic residence to sieze a child not here illegaly. ERG is dishonest, so he wants you to think all deportation measures (a significant amount of which already exist...see 3)) amount to sticking machine guns in the faces of children."

BC is Beneath Contempt, so he lies in several respects. 1) Elian was here illegally. 2) Not all deportation measures involve violent expulsions, but certainly some do 3) If we sought to deport 13 million people involuntrarily, many would involve violent actions 4) In Elian's case, the violent actions (which I did think were unnecessary anyway) were because the house was surrounded by a huge group of people, including possibly armed people who were pledged to resist.

To the point of his Supreme Hypocrisy in being concerned about the fate of one Elian while willing to violently deport (in his flawed numbers) 30 million people, this Bastardly Coward has no answer.

"I ask him to please respond or refuse to respond to my arguments, but not to respond to stupid and inane nonsense that I don't say."

I don't. I respond to stupid and inane nonsense that you DO say. The basic point that not all law breaking involve commensurate sentences seems to have escaped his (for lack of a better term) brain.

"If over 7 decades, enthic balances shift from 80% white 15% Black, 5% Latin American-Other, to 55% Latin American (particularly the immediate descendants of peasants of 3rd world countries) 40% White, that would be the most rapid peaceful ethnic transformation is the history of the planet. (And yes, in the US, white Euro-American is a relatively homogenous ethnicity, though with a lot of important sub-categories.)"

There are so many lies and stupid statements in that one para. Lets start with the obvious

1) The final Ethnic balance you postulate, is of course, completely false if you're speaking of the US. Undoubtedly you view an ethnic balance that is not 100% white as being unacceptable, but that is your problem.
2) In any case your statement is wrong. I would suggest reading some history and seeing even larger ethnic shifts over 7 decades, even in North America.
3) The crux of what is wrong here is summed up by your use of term white Euro American as a "relatively homogeneous entity". The fact of the matter is that you go a few years back, you see plenty of rancor and hate directed against other "Euro Americans". Everyone (well, except Know Nothings like Bloody Cretin) knows the history of the Irish and the discrimination they faced from people who failed to recognize them as "Euro Americans". The same happened to Italians, East Europeans, East European Jews and so on. BC undoubtedly likes to think of the masterly Aryan race, but the fact is that we KNOW from past history that each generation of European, yes even the Germans faced their own problems and their own contemptuous BCers.

"No MASS IMMIGRATION FROM 3rd WORLD countries is Brimelow's problem and mine."

So the truth emerges from the ugly sewers of BC's mind. For all of BC's claim that he only wants laws to be followed, he is not happy with legal immigration or immigrants either if they do not happen be of the pure pristine Aryan race That doubtless explains his 30 million number earlier, since it about matches the total number of such immigrants in the US. BC harbors wet dreams of seeing all those nasty dusky people deported, regardless of legal status.

"ERG thinks people with different views on race than he are Nazis and evil"

No, I think people who talk blithely of violently deporting 30 million people are evil and are like Nazis.

"Note that he does not favor any sort of discriminatory laws, or harbor any ill will upon any ethnic group. (He might harbor certain general impressions about this or that group, some positive some negative, but never wants harm to come to anyone and always judges the individual on his own merits)."

Brimelow most definitely favors discriminatory immigration laws. And he most definitely harbors ill will towards other ethrnic groups and views individuals as mmembers of ethnic groups first.

"Here is the crux of the matter. ERG thinks that the view on race and immigration of Left-Wing crackpots are normal and anyone who dissagrees with them are innately evil. I believe that the test is not what you believe to be the case in fact, but whether or not you harbor ill-will to people"

Anyone who talks blithely of deporting 30 million people (which is his own bogus number) harbors ill will towards people. Any such person , who think that 1/10th of the population of the US can be violently expelled is not just clinically insane, but lacks any knowledge of economy, politics or human nature. And yes, such a person is evil, and a Nazi in fact, if not in name. An evil cowardly, blubbering fool looking for final solutions to the immigration problem.

As to whose viewpoint is more mainstream, I'm not aware of a single politician in Congress (or the President for that matter) who advocates mass deportation of 13 million (let alone 30 million). Even Tancredo, certainly the most anti-immigration member of Congress does not advocate any such lunacy. Undoubtedly they're all left wing crackpots, while Brimelow and his rent-boy BC, who fantasize of a white American future without any dusky types around represent the views of the solid mainstream.

ERG is tiresome,but there are some things I wish to clarify.

If a foreign national enters this country illegally, the natural course of action, should he be discovered, is to deport him. Without the acknowledgement that the government has a right to deport illegal aliens, a border policy has no meaning, since everybody who eluded any border authority, or who overstayed a visa, would receive an immediate de-facto amnesty, and a law, the violation of which is forgiven upon its very transgression, is not a law.

Preventative measures? Sure, but what is to stop a sentimentalist like erg from saying that just as it is allegedly brutal and cruel to deport aliens, since it would have to be done "forcibly" (the horror! almost as though our income taxes were taken forcibly), it is also "barbaric" to "forcibly" prevent people from entering your country illegally once they have committed to doing so. (After all, he's just coming in to the country to work hard! He's just exercising his natural right to freedom of motion and association!) Perhaps erg can see a reason why keeping people away from your country by force because they have no legal right to enter is extremely different from removing people in your country by force because they have no right to reside in it. One could just as easily point to nightmarish scenarios involving poor families just looking for a better life chased away by brutal machine guns just at heaven's gate. Like Elian! Only a racist, brainless, barbaric cretin would advocate such a thing!

The advantage of using ERG's argumentative techniques (red-herrings, straw-men, slander, mischaracterization, nightmare scenarios) is that it's easy; the disadvantage is that it's boring.

So, if one rejects as barbaric the contention that gov. has the rightful authority to expel illegal aliens, what one is really saying is that policing borders (i.e. impelling the free movement of families and individuals from "nation" to "nation") is not within the legitimate scope of government power. Borders are wrong.

Here, the majority of Americans are on my (and Brimelow's) camp. They believe that borders are legit and that illegal aliens can and often should be forcefully expelled.

ERG probably here sees the opportunity to confuse "forcefully" with "brutally", so allow me to clarify yet again, just to hopefully pre-empt ERG's mischaracterizations. Brutality is something that should never be accepted and should be guarded against. FORCE is something different altogether. Force is the very essence of government. Insofar as you have force, you have government, and insofar as you lack one, you lack the other. The difference between emphatically insisting that people pay their income tax and PASSING A LAW REQUIRING its payment is that upon passing a law, you are FORCING people to pay ON PAIN OF BEING SUMMARILY HAULED OFF TO PRIZON (and such proceedings are rarely "gentle and pleasant") by the government.

Thus if you are serious about a law, you are serious about enforcing it; and if you do not believe force is legitimate in a given context (such as border integrity) than you also do not believe it to be in the domain of law.

But ERG will say that I'm not talking about one abstract case, but 13-20 million (20 million is cited by among others Bear Stern's asset management, and Border Patrol Apprehension extrapolations (yes Virginia, they do apprehend at the border patrol, even now)), and surely 20 million illegal aliens cannot be sumarily deported without much inhumanity to man.

But ERG here knows that nobody wants to raid people's homes and round up 16 million (compromise figure) foreign nationals (ERG keeps calling them immigrants, but they are no more immigrants than tourists or students) in 3 months. The first steo is to plug the leak so that no more get in; the second step is to deny illegal entrants all social services except emergency health measures, and to enforce severely laws against hiring illegal wage-slaves. This could be combined by offering illegal residents a small reward for leaving of their own volition, and levying small but substantial fines if they are caught by the authorities. The third step would be an increased effort to (yes Virginia) seek out, apprehend and deport illegal aliens by waylaying (in the sense of sneaking up on, not raiding violently) work sites and asking for identification. Such tactics are not a primary strategy, but rather a means or securing credibility; they are a last resort measure, without which the real immediate channels break down. Kind of like the threat of jail is for tax-evaders. The real carrots and sticks lie in the various incentives and fines, but withour the threat of jail, they have no backbone.

Such a program could marginalize the illegal alien presence in the country in perhaps 3-4 years with very little violence. If ERG wishes to argue that this is not in fact the case, he should feel free to do so, just as long as he does not indulge his fantasy that such a program would be tantamount to a violent roundup.

There is much, much more blatant disingenuousness in ERG's latest response, from this:

"Brimelow most definitely favors discriminatory immigration laws. And he most definitely harbors ill will towards other ethrnic groups and views individuals as mmembers of ethnic groups first".

An utterly counterfactual assertion for which he offers no evidence, nor could he, since nothing Brimelow has ever written or said (when read in anything resembling its context) can be taken that way. His argument here is calling Brimelow a racist w/o backing it up.

to this- wherein I write:

"If over 7 decades, enthic balances shift from 80% white 15% Black, 5% Latin American-Other, to 55% Latin American (particularly the immediate descendants of peasants of 3rd world countries) 40% White, that would be the most rapid PEACEFUL ethnic transformation is the history of the planet. (And yes, in the US, white Euro-American is a relatively homogenous ethnicity, though with a lot of important sub-categories.)"

And he replies:

I would suggest reading some history and seeing even larger ethnic shifts over 7 decades, even in NORTH AMERICA

which was, of course:

a) a PEACEFUL transition

b) a fate which we would love to share with the indiginous Americans.

Good Grief erg. And even that isn't the end of it. So much dishonesty, so densely packed, a black hole for truth, a pulsar of buls**t.

"Here, the majority of Americans are on my (and Brimelow's) camp. They believe that borders are legit and that illegal aliens can and often should be forcefully expelled."

The majority of Americans most definitely do not favor deporting 13 million (or 30 million) people violently as you claim. You backtracked a little bit here like the slimy weasel you are, but you were essentially suggesting earlier the violent expulsion of 1/10th of the US.

"ERG probably here sees the opportunity to confuse "forcefully" with "brutally", so allow me to clarify yet again, just to hopefully pre-empt ERG's mischaracterizations. Brutality is something that should never be accepted and should be guarded against. FORCE is something different altogether."

Most of us do not harbor the delusion that 1/10th of the US can be deported without brutality. The Elian Gonzalez case itself should make that clear.

"An utterly counterfactual assertion for which he offers no evidence, nor could he, since nothing Brimelow has ever written or said (when read in anything resembling its context) can be taken that way. His argument here is calling Brimelow a racist w/o backing it up."

Well, one could look at his article claiming that it was rational to treat New York blacks you met as muggers. In this case Brimelow does not even have the fig leaf of claiming that he was speaking out against immigration, since the large majority of New York blacks (excluding a few West Indian and African immigrants) were in the US when Brimelow's dad was still being buggered by his classmates in school.

""If over 7 decades, enthic balances shift from 80% white 15% Black, 5% Latin American-Other, to 55% Latin American (particularly the immediate descendants of peasants of 3rd world countries) 40% White, that would be the most rapid PEACEFUL ethnic transformation is the history of the planet. (And yes, in the US, white Euro-American is a relatively homogenous ethnicity, though with a lot of important sub-categories.)"

And he replies:

I would suggest reading some history and seeing even larger ethnic shifts over 7 decades, even in NORTH AMERICA

which was, of course:

a) a PEACEFUL transition

Man, its not hard to get BC to snap and then reel him in. Did it other to you, Brainless Cretin that I said North America ? I was referring to Canada, where violence was much rarer (and was far more likely to be the result of proxy wars between French and English) and had very largely stopped by the late 18th century.

Even in the US, there are plenty of examples of largely peaceful shifts in areas. Boston shifted to an Irish majority in 2 decades. While BC fantasizes of some league of white people (dreams he doubtless shares with a few Grand Wizards), the fact is that the Irish were considered inferior and culture despoilers by the Know Nothings and other BC-like figures in the past.

And of course, Brainless Cretin fails to respond (because he can't) to the other points I made.

1) The last ethnic mixture you gave is completely false as applied to the US.
2) The notion of some sort of league of white people, as I pointed out before is Klan fantasy.

"b) a fate which we would love to share with the indiginous Americans."

Who's we Bastardly Coward ? For all you know, I'm one of those indiginous (sic) Americans, waiting to see Palefaces get their due. Or maybe, and more likely, I'm a second or even a first generation dusky immigrant -- you know exactly the sort of person that the BC's of this world would like to violently expel.

It need hardly be added that BC is unlikely to share the fate of the native American (although its easy to see him confined to a mental reservation). The main reason being that the ethnic transition is peaceful, although given that BC wants to violently expel (as he says) 30 million people, its a little hard to see how it would remain peaceful.

heck, just looking at NYC (whose last 2 mayors have been respectively a Jewish American and an Italian American) should make that clear.
it need hardly be added that there are several reasons (begining with the fact that the

Note more of ERG's tired rhetorical tactics:

I write:

"Here, the majority of Americans are on my (and Brimelow's) camp. They believe that borders are legit and that illegal aliens can and often should be forcefully expelled."

ERG replies:

"The majority of Americans most definitely do not favor deporting 13 million (or 30 million) people violently as you claim. You backtracked a little bit here like the slimy weasel you are, but you were essentially suggesting earlier the violent expulsion of 1/10th of the US. "

But I never wrote that the majority of Americans would support violently rounding up and deporting 16 million (compromise figure) people, and I never claimed that I would endorse such a measure. From the beginning, I have been arguing two seperate propositions:

A) that deportation of illegal aliens in the abstract is a legitimate government action.

B) That deportation (humanely administered) should be used as part of a more general program to shed the country's illegal alien population

I challenged ERG to contravert either of these two propositions, and all he does is keep putting up the same nightmare scenario/straw man of poor "immigrants" (again, they are not immigrants any more than are tourists and foreign students, but that's neither here nor there) being massacred and expelled in some sort of pogrom.

He evidently realizes that he is evading the point at hand when he claims that my proposition for the divesture of our illegal alien population is somehow a "backtrack" proposal, motivated I presume by ERG's polemical brilliance, and that what I had REALLY been pulling for all along was just the sort of brutal expulsion he keeps carping about. A casual examination of this correspondence should suffice to show that my position has been consistent throughout andthat I have never argued for that kind of thing.

Here again, I write:

"ERG probably here sees the opportunity to confuse "forcefully" with "brutally", so allow me to clarify yet again, just to hopefully pre-empt ERG's mischaracterizations. Brutality is something that should never be accepted and should be guarded against. FORCE is something different altogether."

And he replies:

"Most of us do not harbor the delusion that 1/10th of the US can be deported without brutality. The Elian Gonzalez case itself should make that clear".

Ah! So now that he has again ignored my real argument and substituted his straw man (NOBODY except ERG is talking about deporting 16 million people)which again he indicates to be "what I really want" (discovered through telesthesia) he proceeds to pound on that straw man. Recall what I actually wrote:

But ERG will say that I'm not talking about one abstract case, but 13-20 million...and surely 20 million illegal aliens cannot be sumarily deported without much inhumanity to man.

But ERG here knows that nobody wants to raid people's homes and round up 16 million (compromise figure) foreign nationals [But this does not stop him from dishonestly insisting, after I clarify the matter over and over again, that this is exactly what I want.--ed] The first step is to plug the leak so that no more get in; the second step is to deny illegal entrants all social services except emergency health measures, and to enforce severely laws against hiring illegal wage-slaves. The third step is drastically reduce the incentives to stay in comparison with the incentives to leave. This could be combined by offering illegal residents a small reward for leaving of their own volition, and levying small but substantial fines if they are caught by the authorities. The third step would be an increased effort to (yes Virginia) seek out, apprehend and deport illegal aliens by waylaying (in the sense of sneaking up on, not raiding violently) work sites and asking for identification. Such tactics are not a primary strategy, but rather a means or securing credibility; they are a last resort measure, without which the real immediate channels break down. Kind of like the threat of jail is for tax-evaders. The real carrots and sticks lie in the various incentives and fines, but withour the threat of jail, they have no backbone.

Such a program could marginalize the illegal alien presence in the country in perhaps 3-4 years with very little violence. If ERG wishes to argue that this is not in fact the case, [or that even if it were, it would nonetheless be unethical,e.d.]he should feel free to do so, just as long as he does not indulge his fantasy that such a program would be tantamount to a violent roundup."

Even after I took such great pains, ERG has no answer but to keep on talking about his fantasy roundup, which is to say he tacitly admits that this initiative would be a highly effective, efficient, civil, and peaceful means of darastically reducing the American illegal alien presence and the difficulties such a presence brings.

Briefly about Brimelow, I wrote that to call him a racist amounts to:

"An utterly counterfactual assertion for which he offers no evidence, nor could he, since nothing Brimelow has ever written or said (when read in anything resembling its context) can be taken that way. His argument here is calling Brimelow a racist w/o backing it up."

To which ERG replies:

Well, one could look at his article claiming that it was rational to treat New York blacks you met as muggers. In this case Brimelow does not even have the fig leaf of claiming that he was speaking out against immigration, since the large majority of New York blacks (excluding a few West Indian and African immigrants) were in the US when Brimelow's dad was still being buggered by his classmates in school.

A) Apparently ERG is such a violent anti-British bigot that he sees perfectly fit to slander all English as buggers and pederasts.

B)Any implication of bigotry coming from one of his articles can be refuted (I am certain) by even a casual inspection of content and context.

C) Brimelow was (is?) a financial writer for Forbes and has written (and continues to write) about a large array of topics.

I write:

""If over 7 decades, enthic balances shift from 80% white 15% Black, 5% Latin American-Other, to 55% Latin American (particularly the immediate descendants of peasants of 3rd world countries) 40% White, that would be the most rapid PEACEFUL ethnic transformation is the history of the planet. (And yes, in the US, white Euro-American is a relatively homogenous ethnicity, though with a lot of important sub-categories.)"

And he replies:

I would suggest reading some history and seeing even larger ethnic shifts over 7 decades, even in NORTH AMERICA

Man, its not hard to get BC to snap and then reel him in. Did it other to you, Brainless Cretin that I said North America ? I was referring to Canada, where violence was much rarer (and was far more likely to be the result of proxy wars between French and English) and had very largely stopped by the late 18th century.

Even in the US, there are plenty of examples of largely peaceful shifts in areas. Boston shifted to an Irish majority in 2 decades...The Irish were considered inferior and culture despoilers.

1) The last ethnic mixture you gave is completely false as applied to the US.
2) The notion of some sort of league of white people, as I pointed out before is Klan fantasy.

ERG continues to make my points for me.

1)All of the shifts in North America to which he refers were immensely consequential. Irish Boston of the Late 19th century bore little resemblance to Puritain Boston leading up to the Civil war, to say nothing about British Canada, which was somewhat different from the New World under its indigenous inhabitants.

2) If the best ERG can do to cite huge, fast, and peaceful ethnic transformations is point to the transformation from Indigenous Canada to British Canada, then he's in trouble. A large part of the reason why the Anglicization of Canada did not play out as it did in the US (i.e. as an intermitent yet steady genocide campaign)was that the Canadian land was long contested by the French, and each power built alliences with various native tribes. The English were lucky enough to cozy up with the Iroquoi, for example, so that colonial rivalries and tribal rivalries were settled alongside each other. The process, however one describes it, was not peaceful.

And of course there are small scale instances of ethnic groups shifting from one city to the next etc. etc. But in terms of national composition, it's not even an issue. Nations do not radically alter their ethnic identities without altering their character. Whereas "White American" IS a somewhat homogenous identity TODAY although I qualified that point strongly, it was not in the old days, and no, the USA did not emerge after the first great wave the same nation it was before. (It might have been better, or worse, depending on your POV, but its character had altered substantially).

ERG writes:

"Who's we Bastardly Coward ? For all you know, I'm one of those indiginous (sic) Americans, waiting to see Palefaces get their due"

I don't find that to be at all implausible.

"The ethnic transition is PEACEFUL"

I never said it wasn't; in fact, I said it WAS. The point however, is one of lasting effect. Peaceful or not, is it without consequence?

BC continues to lie profusely:

"He evidently realizes that he is evading the point at hand when he claims that my proposition for the divesture of our illegal alien population is somehow a "backtrack" proposal, motivated I presume by ERG's polemical brilliance, and that what I had REALLY been pulling for all along was just the sort of brutal expulsion he keeps carping about. A casual examination of this correspondence should suffice to show that my position has been consistent throughout andthat I have never argued for that kind of thing"

and

"Ah! So now that he has again ignored my real argument and substituted his straw man (NOBODY except ERG is talking about deporting 16 million people)"

Heres what you said, Bastardly Coward:

"Senor, yes, the jig is up. Please get on the Bus and we shall leave you unharmed in Guadelahara in no time. We've brought food and other accomodations. Of course, if you resist, as in any other law-enforcement situation, you'll be chased down and forcefully subdued.)"

I think that just about says it all. Of course, it is correct that the Bastardly Coward did not call for chasing down and forcefully subduing 16 million people, it was more like 30 million people.

There is no fantasy round up here. BC has admitted frankly what he wants to do in reality if he could ever move out of his mother's basement.

Bastardly Cretin has said numerous times that he wants

"Apparently ERG is such a violent anti-British bigot that he sees perfectly fit to slander all English as buggers and pederasts."

Bastardly Cretin has no problems calling for the violent expulsion of 1/10th of the US -- indeed he exults over the prospect of the US returning to the pristine Aryan state he thinks it used to be. But then he frets over white people not remaining the majority any more, and yet he seems genuinely disturbed by a little bit of snark aimed at a) Brimelow's ancestry b) certain proclivities of British Public schools, well documented earlier.

"Brimelow was (is?) a financial writer for Forbes and has written (and continues to write) about a large array of topics."

So what ? You probably regard him as the fount of all wisdom and the most gifted individual around after David Duke, but what ?

I dont believe Brimelow writes for Forbes any more -- at the least I do not recollect see any article by him in that magazine in recent years. Nor is the fact that he once wrote a somewhat entertaining book (which I actually have) on Wall Street investment letters excuplatory enough.

BC says:

"""If over 7 decades, enthic balances shift from 80% white 15% Black, 5% Latin American-Other, to 55% Latin American (particularly the immediate descendants of peasants of 3rd world countries) 40% White, that would be the most rapid PEACEFUL ethnic transformation is the history of the planet. (And yes, in the US, white Euro-American is a relatively homogenous ethnicity, though with a lot of important sub-categories.)""

and tries desparately to elucidate

"1)All of the shifts in North America to which he refers were immensely consequential. Irish Boston of the Late 19th century bore little resemblance to Puritain Boston leading up to the Civil war, to say nothing about British Canada, which was somewhat different from the New World under its indigenous inhabitants."

Irrelevant to your original comment. YOu said nothing of consequence (in more ways than one). You simply called it the most rapid peaceful ethnic transformation, demonstrating once again that you were clueless.

And BC, where does that final ethnic balance come from again ? Please admubrate.

As far as Canada goes, practically all the colonial wars (which were almost entirely proxy wars for the English and the French ) were mostly over by the late 18th century.

"Whereas "White American" IS a somewhat homogenous identity TODAY although I qualified that point strongly, it was not in the old days, and no, the USA did not emerge after the first great wave the same nation it was before. (It might have been better, or worse, depending on your POV, but its character had altered substantially)."

Except that it still emerged as a great nation, politically, economically and militarily (from past waves) and I contend that the national character had not changed much except that people were willing to view Irish (and others) more kindly.

THE FACT VALUE DISTINCTION

"Even mass deportations CAN [note the statement of fact] be done humanely. "Senor, yes, the jig is up. Please get on the Bus and we shall leave you unharmed in Guadelahara in no time. We've brought food and other accomodations. Of course, if you resist, as in any other law-enforcement situation, you'll be chased down and forcefully subdued.)"

This was an illustration as to how A SINGLE deportation would pan out.

It in no way implies that I would WANT [note the measure of value] this to be repeated 16 million times, and that no other, more benign/peaceful measures should be taken. I wrote that "mass deportations" (I intended the scare quotes in the original) CAN be done humanely, not that I WOULD PREFER to round people up.

The nice thing is that I don't have to waste so much time doing this any more, since all I have to do to respond to ERG now is repeat what I have already written, to illustrate how he insists on misrepresenting it. Redux:

"By the way, there are several ways to very effectively and painlessly deport 30 (not 13) million illegal aliens. We deport them at a high rate even now, but our efforts are overwhelmed by the massive influx. If we took care of the influx, even doing nothing that we don't already do, we will have deported 15 million aliens in a decade. If you make it next to impossible for them to get employed or use any government service (barring emergency medical care) many more will leave voluntarily."

I said this to point out that deportations are done all the time. Just over the last 6 years 6 million illegal entrants (one million per year) were apprehended and deported, and there was no massive bloodshed or civil unrest resulting from it. (Note also that even now, when the only issue is whether deportation CAN be done humanely, I am indicating that I WOULD PREFER that most of the work be done by other, non-deportation measures.)

This means that even if we do nothing but close the spigot and continue the measures we currently adopt against illegal immigration, the country's undocumented presence will dwindle into negligibility in 16 years. (Though I noted that the extrapoliation would not be exact). But of course I WOULD PREFER that there be a shift in the incentive structure which would impell more aliens to leave of their own volition and in less time.

Thus, if ERG wants to argue that such deportation measures are fascistic, he would have to lay the accusation against current U.S. immigration practices, which would most assuredly not square him to the center of U.S. public opinion.

You respond:

"We don't drag out and promptly baton someone who exceeds the speed limit (except in LA), nor do we promptly warm up the electrical chair for tax frauds or embezzlers.

But BC seems to have finally admitted that his WET DREAM [note the value statment] is to forcibly deport 13 million (or his mythical 30 million) people, ignoring any logistical, humanitarian and economic issues involved."

Again:

A) My Whole Point was to show how such deportations would not be intolerable from a logistical/humanitarian perspective. Essentially, I was at pains to show why we WOULDN'T need the BATON

B) What I wrote hereunto had nothing to do with what I WANT, but with what CAN be done. The point was to show how nightmare visions of roundups and pogroms were canards and scare-mongering tactics, and to show this by illustrating the relative weights of events, and that deportation, in actuality, is a pretty routine and benign police activity, just like the typical arrest of an embezzler or tax fraud, although, like arrests, deportations can (unfortunately but inevitably) get ugly.

As to what I WANT, I've laid it out clearly and will copy herein:

"The first step is to plug the leak so that no more get in; the second step is to deny illegal entrants all social services except emergency health measures, and to enforce severely laws against hiring illegal wage-slaves. The third step is drastically reduce the incentives to stay in comparison with the incentives to leave. This could be combined by offering illegal residents a small reward for leaving of their own volition, and levying small but substantial fines if they are caught by the authorities. The third step would be an increased effort to (yes Virginia) seek out, apprehend and deport illegal aliens by waylaying (in the sense of sneaking up on, not raiding violently) work sites and asking for identification. Such tactics are not a primary strategy, but rather a means or securing credibility; they are a last resort measure, without which the real immediate channels break down. Kind of like the threat of jail is for tax-evaders. The real carrots and sticks lie in the various incentives and fines, but without the threat of jail, they have no backbone."

Such a program could marginalize the illegal alien presence in the country in perhaps 3-4 years with very little violence. If ERG wishes to argue that this is not in fact the case, [or that even if it were, it would nonetheless be unethical,e.d.]he should feel free to do so, just as long as he does not indulge his fantasy that such a program would be tantamount to a violent roundup."

I will not here respond to any other point of contention because I want to get this straightened out first. Furthermore, I would prefer that ERG not respond to what he believes I think (he does specialize in parapsychology after all,) but to the argument I have posted. I don't care if ERG whom I have fortunately never met, and will hopefully never meet, thinks that I am in my heart of hearts a closet Nazi who lives in my mother's basement, and that my arguments are a smokescreen for sinister motives. To hell with my motives, what of my arguments? Eventually, he will hopefully understand that *some* people actually do write and speak for the purpose of conveying the truth as we see it, as opposed to writing to push one party/program or another.

So what of it erg?

Is it wrong to deport illegal aliens in principle?

Is the initiative outlined above to deplete the illegal presence in the country wrongheaded or monsterous?

Is your answer to either question in keeping with the American mainstream, as you keep insisting?

It looks like you really had a nice time. nokia6630

vuzpeab vtmjaaewts

vuzpeab vtmjaaewts

vuzpeab vtmjaaewts

vuzpeab vtmjaaewts

ltruqrjegye oiiui

ltruqrjegye oiiui

ltruqrjegye oiiui

The Rolling Stones cancel a gig in Hawaii and postpone other tour dates as Mick Jagger suffers throat troubles...

Social networking site MySpace is to block users from uploading copyrighted music to its pages...

Singer George Michael lends the piano on which John Lennon wrote Imagine to an anti-war exhibition...

Pioneering screenwriter Nigel Kneale, best known for the Quatermass TV serials and films, dies aged 84...

The Red Hot Chili Peppers are leading the way at this years MTV Europe music awards with four nominations...

Record company EMI sign a deal with the estate of crooner Dean Martin to use the singer's likeness...

Record company EMI sign a deal with the estate of crooner Dean Martin to use the singer's likeness...

A musical about the witches from The Wizard of Oz breaks West End box office records, its producers say...

A musical about the witches from The Wizard of Oz breaks West End box office records, its producers say...

The Red Hot Chili Peppers are leading the way at this years MTV Europe music awards with four nominations...

Veteran actor William Franklyn, known for voicing the 1960s Schweppes TV adverts, dies aged 81...

Pop trio Atomic Kitten will reform to play a concert in support of jailed Liverpool football fan Michael Shields...

Doctor Who takes three prizes at the National Television Awards in a repeat of its success last year...

Classical singer Russell Watson postpones his forthcoming UK tour after undergoing brain surgery...