Page 1 of 1 pages
Lou Dobbs and Bill O’Reilly.
That should cover all the bases. Everyone else can go home.
Posted by Jay Cline on Apr 4, 2006 at 9:06 AM
Lou Dobbs may have discovered a parade and jumped in front of it, I
Posted by whattheheck on Apr 4, 2006 at 1:26 PM
With all due respect, I disagree that Lou Dobbs is any friend of progressives. While conventional wisdom says ‘The enemy of my enemy is my friend,’ that is hardly ever the case. A ‘friendship’ based on mutual conflict against another almost always denigrates once the mutual ‘enemy’ is removed.
In this instance, Lou Dobbs holds Bushs feet to the fire on occasion. But Lou Dobbs also spends a great deal of time pushing an anti-immigrant message that comes from white supremacist and neo-nazi founded and funded organizations. Please refer to “Broken Record” at http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=589 for more on this issue.
So while I am more than happy to see Lou Dobbs is not quaffing kegs of Bush White House kool-aid, that hardly puts him “on my side” or makes him my ‘friend’. It’s more an instance that Lou Dobbs & I are walking down the same piece of road at the same time and in the same direction for a small bit of time with several miles of other issue seperating us. To pretend it is more is a large post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
Posted by november on Apr 5, 2006 at 7:14 AM
November says,
Posted by whattheheck on Apr 5, 2006 at 7:48 AM
I did not say subscribing to an anti-immigrant view meant one was a white supremacist or neo-nazi. I did say his message IS coming from white supremacist and neo-nazi organizations and supplied a link to back it up. Since you asked for evidence, I guess you are link impaired.
I’ll repeat it for you
Please refer to ‘Broken Record’ at http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=589 for more on this issue.
Can you spot it that time?
Also, immigrating to the USA has a fine of $50 and is a misdomenor. Littering on a highway has a larger fine. In many places so does jaywalking. When you are making as big a fuss about highway littering and jaywalking and other misdomenors then perhaps your credibility will be greater.
Posted by november on Apr 5, 2006 at 8:07 AM
Before Dobbs turned crusader, I found his commentary good. But as a crusader, I just never bought it. What brought about his conversion? Well, the conversion happened shortly after O’Reilly’s stock went through the ceiling. Dobbs has always been good at business news commentary. Could it be he has a little of that entrepreneurial spirit himself?
I have seen Dobbs argue his immigration points of view several times. The last one I saw, on C-Span, Dobbs may have certainly advocated anti ILLEGAL immigration. But he has never said we should make it legal. In fact, most of his arguments were slick commentary that was decidedly anti-immigration. He does heap faint praise on their work ethic and every time goes out of his way to let us know he, in fact, has worked with them side-by-side, shoulder-to-shoulder.
What Dobbs did do at that conference, was to constantly interrupt those who were pro-immigration advocates with high-class cheap shots. Listening to him, I felt as dirty as anyone who hates O’Reilly must feel when they listen to his trademark non-spin.
No, Dobbs is on something other than a righteousness kick. He’s watching his ratings as closely as O’Reilly.
Posted by Jay Cline on Apr 5, 2006 at 8:42 AM
Posted by Jay Cline on Apr 5, 2006 at 8:43 AM
Cool! Edit button!
Posted by Jay Cline on Apr 5, 2006 at 8:44 AM
I have posted my arguments at Nation.com in their immigration debate:
1) I can’t tell you how many times in the past week I have seen tirades against “illegals” framed in the context that being an “illegal” was as bad as arson or burglary or murder.
The Christian Science Monitor has an interesting article. Of all the issues in the Great Immigration Debate 2006, the one I find the most fascinating is the issue of “breaking the law”.
Note the very last bullet point in the article:
Illegal presence in the US is a civil, not a criminal, offense. If apprehended, undocumented immigrants can demand a hearing to appeal deportation.
Civil offense, dudes!
The point of legality in the whole debate ignores the fact that the only “crime” that most “illegals” have commited have been merely this. That is a function of the quota system, of public policy, nothing else.
And if there are 12 million “illegals”, maybe the true issue is the broken quota system.
Posted by JAY CLINE 04/04/2006 @ 5:08pm
2)Countries have a sovereign right to restrict immigration. Some do it to protect and preserve natural resources within their borders (the Watering Hole Theory). Others do it to maintain cultural homogeneity and integrity. Many use it to regulate the influx of immigrants to mitigate adverse economic effects from large migrations.
As a country built on immigration, the rationale for America’s immigrant quota system is really only based on the last one. 12 million immigrants, if allowed in, would be equivalent to 8-10% of the working population drastically affecting, if nothing else, the unemployment rate in America.
But.
They are already here, already working, and have been for some time.
The quota system is meaningless and we have already paid the Piper.
But from the Piper, we are getting pennies on the dollar. Their wages are kept artificially low, under threat of deportation (a threat quite effectively wielded by their employers), they are completely unable to contribute anything to our country, and what little wages they manage to save, they send back to their families, in Mexico, and they use services that we pay for.
America traditionally recoups its investments on immigrant capital by making them citizens, by allowing them to be full partners. Thomas Jefferson once said, in advocating free education for all, and not just the elites, that by virtue of our egalitarian system, we have a vast potential to tap that other countries ignore. The mind is indeed a terrible thing to waste.
Finally, there is the argument that the problem is with Mexico. Yes, but I hear little in the way of solutions. Make these 12 million immigrants full citizens, open the floodgates, so to speak, and Mexico just might be forced to actually deal with the problem, as their economy spirals down.
You really think that the Mexican economy could survive a mass exodus?
And with all those new citizens, maybe we could start attracting our lost manufacturing base back. After all, the only reason we lost the manufacturing base was overinflated wages. With a surplus population, I don’t see wages climbing back to the rarefied heights that the unions extorted.
Ramparts are expensive to maintain. And any economy is based on the size and quality of its labor.
Posted by JAY CLINE 04/05/2006 @ 09:56am
3) Fareed Zakaria of the Washington Post as an excellent column about the virtues of immigration.
here
Posted by JAY CLINE 04/05/2006 @ 10:40am
Posted by Jay Cline on Apr 5, 2006 at 8:45 AM
Posted by Jay Cline on Apr 5, 2006 at 8:46 AM
I also find people talking about ‘illegals’ to be troublesome. It’s just like any other epithet used to demean people. They as PEOPLE ARE NOT ILLEGAL. Their IMMIGRATION IS NOT LEGAL as a civil matter and there’s the rub.
If I can get people to look at illegal immigrants as illegal people, I’ve won the meme battle. All that is left is splitting up the spoils. It’s a very powerful trick. It’s racist too, since I hear illegal latino immigrants called illegal yet I’ve never heard an illegal irish immigrant called illegal.
And answer me this: since this is a misdomenor, wouldn’t calling a murder or rapist an ‘illegal’ be more accurate? should we start calling litterers and jaywalkers and those who have gotten traffic tickets ‘illegal’ too?
Posted by november on Apr 5, 2006 at 9:09 AM
November,
Whew, Touchy!
This what I got at the site…
———————
Posted by whattheheck on Apr 5, 2006 at 1:52 PM
The url for ‘Broken Record’ is <a>http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=589</a> I find it odd that it’s broken in the previous two posts.
Posted by november on Apr 5, 2006 at 4:16 PM
november,
The comments section here has a tendency of breaking url’s when they cross over lines. It helps to use tinyurl to shorten long url’s.
You can create links uising the < a href=“url”> LINK </a > mark-up. (without the space between the a’s and <>‘s)
Here is your Broken Record link.
If you get follow ups you can see the HTML in your e-mail. (At least this is true for Yahoo e-mail.)
Posted by luminous beauty on Apr 5, 2006 at 6:40 PM
Thanks luminous beauty. That was very informative. I was looking for a help link off the comments window but didn’t see one.
Posted by november on Apr 6, 2006 at 5:54 AM
wth,
LOL! I like your “employer” focused solution.
But the solutions for those who are here “illegally”, well, that is mostly already the law. And it isn’t much of a deterrent.
Posted by Jay Cline on Apr 6, 2006 at 6:53 AM
November,
Thanks for the updated URL
Posted by whattheheck on Apr 6, 2006 at 7:53 AM
I have never been in favor of legalizing bona fide crimes, but the only real crime being committed is what the employers do to the immigrants. The “criminal” nature of most immigrants is a consequence of a failed policy.
Unlike arguments that attempt to justify decriminalizing, say prostitution or gambling or drug trafficking, there is nothing immoral or illegal or plain wrong about bringig home the bacon.
Yes, there are more serious crimes, like “rape, murder, kidnapping, robbery, burglary, and intimidation by armed intruders.”. But c’mon! That is a facetious argument.
Show me any population of people numbering in the millions and I’ll show you those same crimes. If not, then we be in heaven, dude!
Or maybe we should just declare everyone in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, North and South Dakota as illegals.
Ever seen the crime statistics from those five states?
Posted by Jay Cline on Apr 6, 2006 at 11:58 AM
We have a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, multi-party family—included are some veterans of wars in Korea, Vietnam, Gulf One and now Gulf Two. Oh yes, we’re also spread across the landscape when it comes to religious [or not] affiliations…we’ve got Catholics, Unitarians, Mormons and Total Unbelievers in our tribe. I can truthfully report that Lou Dobbs is treated as the great guru of all our factions, faiths and affiliations. We gather around the tube on week-nights much as frontier families used to do around a campfire—watching for danger, listening for the crackling in the brush, and greeting the informative brave Dobbs like the roving path-finder he is. Any talking head who can speak truth to power and attract respect across our broad family spectrum is doing a great service to us all. Dobbs can identify the charlatans and the truth-avoiders with a deft hand & a beady eye. We all hope he’s watching his back these days…we need him to stay healthy, vocal, informed and informative and keep telling us what’s REALLY going on.
Posted by Populista on Apr 6, 2006 at 12:04 PM
Jay said,
Posted by whattheheck on Apr 6, 2006 at 1:56 PM
Illegal immigration is indeed a problem.
I think we can agree on that.
The difference appears where we have our focus.
Posted by Jay Cline on Apr 6, 2006 at 3:31 PM
.
Yesterday
Posted by brian28 on Apr 9, 2006 at 5:08 PM
Brian,
So, 700,000 have voted for impeachment of Bush
Posted by whattheheck on Apr 10, 2006 at 7:12 AM
To return to the thrust of the article:
I don’t think the author was necessarily advocating the views of Dobbs so much as she was looking to his style of rhetoric as an innovative method for conveying the news. As for Dobbs himself, I have never agreed with him, but I’ve respected him more than most talking heads for reasons similar to those listed above (having said that, I’ve heard he’s a real asshole).
Hopefully this conversation will bring the debate of New Journalism (dare I dream Gonzo Journalism?) back to TV Land. Poseurs like Tim Russert, who feign objectivity while pursuing a natural human bias, is disingenuous. A Dobbsian model may not be a bad one for progressives to look toward.
I can only assume that people reading these posts have located alternative ways to receive their news; sadly, television is still the major source for most Americans. I for one have no positive opinion on Katie “Navy Seals Rock” Couric as anchor, but I can only guess that the networks have given up on serious journalism in favor of clownishly made-up “perky” types to attract more advertising revenue. How about replacing the McLaughlin Group with the panel from the View?
Posted by rocco on Apr 10, 2006 at 9:49 PM
Yeah rocco,
Compared with the rest of the pack, Dobbs is almost Cronkite-like. I’d like to replace the McLaughlin Group with like, maybe, the tele-tubbies. Or just have the tele-tubbies surround Charles Krautheimer and just stand there until he starts screaming incoherently. I don’t think it would take long.
Posted by luminous beauty on Apr 10, 2006 at 10:42 PM
LB,
Funny thing… Yesterday
Posted by whattheheck on Apr 11, 2006 at 6:03 AM
Rocco,
Dobbs’ personality may be very unpleasant
Posted by whattheheck on Apr 11, 2006 at 6:29 AM
LB,
I went to your Tele-tubbies site. Yes, disturbing and funny, but like so many things can be used for good or evil.
A friend of mine was on what was called a Crash Boat in WW2. They waited in the English Channel to pick up downed fliers. One day a hospital ship was torpedoed and they fished a very young German out of the water. He turned out to be the pilot of the one man sub/torpedo which struck the ship.
As they hauled him up into their boat he pulled a dagger and tried to stab his rescuers. Their orders were to hold for interrogation, but it was all Russ could do to keep his crew from slitting his throat and throwing him to the fish. The Hitler Youth trained him thoroughly.
I talked with a young Marine a few weeks ago who had just come back from Afghanistan. He reported their unit had basically good relations with Iraqis in their area after getting to know each other. The saddest thing he had witnessed
Posted by whattheheck on Apr 11, 2006 at 12:15 PM
WTH,
How do you know those kids aren’t volunteers?
Posted by luminous beauty on Apr 11, 2006 at 1:00 PM
First time I ever saw the teletubbies, I was coming off 4 tabs of acid at 5 in the morning. True story. I defy anyone to beat that, even Krautheimer.
Ever seen those two Nazi teeny-boppers? Now that’s freaky.
Posted by rocco on Apr 11, 2006 at 6:01 PM
Bummer, dude.
Some perverted part of me wants one of those T-shirts.
Posted by luminous beauty on Apr 11, 2006 at 6:39 PM
Lou Dobbs is truly a “made in America” hero. His is the type of populist voice that is needed in the national debate. I would vote for Lou Dobbs in a heartbeat if he were to run for President.
Posted by Hattie Caraway on Apr 11, 2006 at 11:36 PM
“Hero” is cutting it a little close, don’t you think?
I hate to think that Lou Dobbs is the best we can do.
LB - I know. It would have been a great t-shirt in Venice Beach once upon a time. Damn neo-nazis.
Posted by rocco on Apr 12, 2006 at 3:18 AM
Last night I watched a bit of Lou Dobbs when he presented the latest presidential poll numbers
Posted by whattheheck on Apr 12, 2006 at 5:54 AM
WTH,
You’re making a lot of assumptions about that Iraqi kid. Islamic fundamentalism is a very recent phenomenon among Iraqi Sunnis, if it is really religious fundamentalism at all and not just a militant reaction to the US invasion. Until we started mucking with Iraq, it was the most secular state in the Arabic world. Don’t believe 90% of what you hear about Islamic fundamentalism. The Salafis, who mostly live in the Arabian Peninsula, are a small percentage of Wahabism, which is more traditionalist than fundamentalist. The Iranian Shia are a whole different story. The point is that Muslims, particularly in Iraq, are driven to militant religious behaviors as a reaction to the perception, not entirely unfounded, that they are under attack, not because they have some vision of world domination. That’s just propaganda that the Neo-Cons, who do have such a vision would want us to believe.
We’ve been over this before.
I was thinking more along the lines of the 12 year old Russian boy in Stalingrad who was hung by the Nazis than the Hitler youth or the US ‘volunteer’ army. (My roommate can’t find his copy of “Enemy at the Gates” or I’d have his name.) He wasn’t recruited by the Red Army, he acted on his own through his personal relationship with Russian snipers. What we’re facing in Iraq isn’t a top down organized and ideologically driven force so much as a bunch of loosely connected bands of irregulars motivated by plain old ordinary vengeance. Much more like the Resistance than the Nazis. We’re more like the Nazis, uncomfortable as that is to contemplate. We’re the invaders. We’re trying to impose an alien ideology on an unwilling populace. Those are the objective facts.
Posted by luminous beauty on Apr 12, 2006 at 7:02 AM
LB,
Sorry, I should have said 13 year-old Afghan. You may be right that he perceives our troops that way hard to say for sure. At any rate, there is little choice but to shoot when your own life is threatened even by someone so young.
—————————————-
I am reading a book, “Cobra 2” which has a lot of recently released info about the planning stages of the Iraq War. I am only about a quarter of the way through, but I am definitely getting the same sinking feeling I had about Vietnam. Political meddling can lose this war too and there is no doubt in my mind many of our casualties are because of it.
I have never subscribed to the
Posted by whattheheck on Apr 12, 2006 at 2:08 PM
No, I think “hero” fits. Lou Dobbs has the guts to put his views out there; he is one of the few voices on the political scene who publicly comments on the corrosive effect that big corporations have on America. He’s my guy in 2008!
Posted by Hattie Caraway on Apr 12, 2006 at 9:19 PM
Hattie,
While I like Dobbs keeping these issues alive, I voted for Perot for the same reason and got eight years of Clinton. It may once again be a matter of voting against the worst option we have.
Posted by whattheheck on Apr 13, 2006 at 6:24 AM
Whattheheck,
I think the thinking that we must “vote against the worst option” is what gets us in trouble. A great populist politician once said that the difference between the democrats and the republicans was that one “skinned you from the ear down, and the other got you from the ankle up.” If more of us had voted for Perot, the nation would be better off today, the fact that they did not is because both parties successfully sold the “don’t waste your vote” propaganda. I recall reading one exit poll that suggested that a plurality of voters who voted on election day 1992 actually preferred Perot, but voted for either Bush or Clinton because they didn’t want the other one to win. To me, Lou Dobbs gives voice to the populist feelings in the nation that are manifestly not represented by either political party.
Posted by Hattie Caraway on Apr 13, 2006 at 3:39 PM
Hattie,
while I applaud the strength of your conviction, I disagree with both your political sentiments and your definition of the word ‘hero.’ However I only have the brain power, or perhaps the will, to tackle the ‘hero’ part.
I use the term ‘hero’ sparingly, else the term is diluted. Not everyone who voices their opinion without thought of personal consequence is a bona fide hero (David Duke, Hitler, etc.). Not to put Dobbs in their company, but nevertheless…
A hero is one who struggles through the miasma, dies in a sense, and returns to the world reborn and with a message (doff of the cap to Joseph Campbell). I’m not sure that Dobbs qualifies, nor am I certain that he’s earned my vote through voiced indignance of current policy.
Respect can be given generously. Canonization should be reserved for the truly incredible.
Posted by rocco on Apr 13, 2006 at 11:33 PM
Hattie,
I understand what you are saying, but I voted for John B. Anderson in 1980 and as I said, Perot too.
If everyone cooperated and acted “responsibly” most of the world’s problems would disappear. Idealism wears a bit thin with age and reality takes over.
Our representatives are not paying attention to you, me or Dobbs. Both parties are overwhelmingly in control of the government “by the people.”
With incumbency and longevity comes power. They make the rules and they get the benefits. (P3) = pay, pensions, perks.
They will NOT send anyone back. Will NOT penalize employers. Will give amnesty a new name and suck up the Hispanic vote. Anyone who pushes for the rule of law will be branded a racist.
Even when enforcing the law they guard their real constituency
Posted by whattheheck on Apr 14, 2006 at 6:11 AM
Apologies for the lack of documentation on the allowed tags in our comment system and the breaking of long URLs. I’m working on incorporating documentation into this space. Currently, words over 80 characters are broken in two parts to avoid breaking the layout. I have an alternative fix coming soon though. Thanks for your patience everyone!
Posted by seamus on Apr 20, 2006 at 12:06 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
SAVE 53% OFFTHE NEWSSTAND PRICE!
Reader Comments
Lou Dobbs and Bill O’Reilly.
That should cover all the bases. Everyone else can go home.
Lou Dobbs may have discovered a parade and jumped in front of it, I
With all due respect, I disagree that Lou Dobbs is any friend of progressives. While conventional wisdom says ‘The enemy of my enemy is my friend,’ that is hardly ever the case. A ‘friendship’ based on mutual conflict against another almost always denigrates once the mutual ‘enemy’ is removed.
In this instance, Lou Dobbs holds Bushs feet to the fire on occasion. But Lou Dobbs also spends a great deal of time pushing an anti-immigrant message that comes from white supremacist and neo-nazi founded and funded organizations. Please refer to “Broken Record” at http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=589 for more on this issue.
So while I am more than happy to see Lou Dobbs is not quaffing kegs of Bush White House kool-aid, that hardly puts him “on my side” or makes him my ‘friend’. It’s more an instance that Lou Dobbs & I are walking down the same piece of road at the same time and in the same direction for a small bit of time with several miles of other issue seperating us. To pretend it is more is a large post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
November says,
I did not say subscribing to an anti-immigrant view meant one was a white supremacist or neo-nazi. I did say his message IS coming from white supremacist and neo-nazi organizations and supplied a link to back it up. Since you asked for evidence, I guess you are link impaired.
I’ll repeat it for you
Please refer to ‘Broken Record’ at http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=589 for more on this issue.
Can you spot it that time?
Also, immigrating to the USA has a fine of $50 and is a misdomenor. Littering on a highway has a larger fine. In many places so does jaywalking. When you are making as big a fuss about highway littering and jaywalking and other misdomenors then perhaps your credibility will be greater.
Before Dobbs turned crusader, I found his commentary good. But as a crusader, I just never bought it. What brought about his conversion? Well, the conversion happened shortly after O’Reilly’s stock went through the ceiling. Dobbs has always been good at business news commentary. Could it be he has a little of that entrepreneurial spirit himself?
I have seen Dobbs argue his immigration points of view several times. The last one I saw, on C-Span, Dobbs may have certainly advocated anti ILLEGAL immigration. But he has never said we should make it legal. In fact, most of his arguments were slick commentary that was decidedly anti-immigration. He does heap faint praise on their work ethic and every time goes out of his way to let us know he, in fact, has worked with them side-by-side, shoulder-to-shoulder.
What Dobbs did do at that conference, was to constantly interrupt those who were pro-immigration advocates with high-class cheap shots. Listening to him, I felt as dirty as anyone who hates O’Reilly must feel when they listen to his trademark non-spin.
No, Dobbs is on something other than a righteousness kick. He’s watching his ratings as closely as O’Reilly.
Cool! Edit button!
I have posted my arguments at Nation.com in their immigration debate:
1) I can’t tell you how many times in the past week I have seen tirades against “illegals” framed in the context that being an “illegal” was as bad as arson or burglary or murder.
The Christian Science Monitor has an interesting article. Of all the issues in the Great Immigration Debate 2006, the one I find the most fascinating is the issue of “breaking the law”.
Note the very last bullet point in the article:
Illegal presence in the US is a civil, not a criminal, offense. If apprehended, undocumented immigrants can demand a hearing to appeal deportation.
Civil offense, dudes!
The point of legality in the whole debate ignores the fact that the only “crime” that most “illegals” have commited have been merely this. That is a function of the quota system, of public policy, nothing else.
And if there are 12 million “illegals”, maybe the true issue is the broken quota system.
Posted by JAY CLINE 04/04/2006 @ 5:08pm
2)Countries have a sovereign right to restrict immigration. Some do it to protect and preserve natural resources within their borders (the Watering Hole Theory). Others do it to maintain cultural homogeneity and integrity. Many use it to regulate the influx of immigrants to mitigate adverse economic effects from large migrations.
As a country built on immigration, the rationale for America’s immigrant quota system is really only based on the last one. 12 million immigrants, if allowed in, would be equivalent to 8-10% of the working population drastically affecting, if nothing else, the unemployment rate in America.
But.
They are already here, already working, and have been for some time.
The quota system is meaningless and we have already paid the Piper.
But from the Piper, we are getting pennies on the dollar. Their wages are kept artificially low, under threat of deportation (a threat quite effectively wielded by their employers), they are completely unable to contribute anything to our country, and what little wages they manage to save, they send back to their families, in Mexico, and they use services that we pay for.
America traditionally recoups its investments on immigrant capital by making them citizens, by allowing them to be full partners. Thomas Jefferson once said, in advocating free education for all, and not just the elites, that by virtue of our egalitarian system, we have a vast potential to tap that other countries ignore. The mind is indeed a terrible thing to waste.
Finally, there is the argument that the problem is with Mexico. Yes, but I hear little in the way of solutions. Make these 12 million immigrants full citizens, open the floodgates, so to speak, and Mexico just might be forced to actually deal with the problem, as their economy spirals down.
You really think that the Mexican economy could survive a mass exodus?
And with all those new citizens, maybe we could start attracting our lost manufacturing base back. After all, the only reason we lost the manufacturing base was overinflated wages. With a surplus population, I don’t see wages climbing back to the rarefied heights that the unions extorted.
Ramparts are expensive to maintain. And any economy is based on the size and quality of its labor.
Posted by JAY CLINE 04/05/2006 @ 09:56am
3) Fareed Zakaria of the Washington Post as an excellent column about the virtues of immigration.
here
Posted by JAY CLINE 04/05/2006 @ 10:40am
I also find people talking about ‘illegals’ to be troublesome. It’s just like any other epithet used to demean people. They as PEOPLE ARE NOT ILLEGAL. Their IMMIGRATION IS NOT LEGAL as a civil matter and there’s the rub.
If I can get people to look at illegal immigrants as illegal people, I’ve won the meme battle. All that is left is splitting up the spoils. It’s a very powerful trick. It’s racist too, since I hear illegal latino immigrants called illegal yet I’ve never heard an illegal irish immigrant called illegal.
And answer me this: since this is a misdomenor, wouldn’t calling a murder or rapist an ‘illegal’ be more accurate? should we start calling litterers and jaywalkers and those who have gotten traffic tickets ‘illegal’ too?
November,
Whew, Touchy!
This what I got at the site…
———————
The url for ‘Broken Record’ is <a>http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=589</a> I find it odd that it’s broken in the previous two posts.
november,
The comments section here has a tendency of breaking url’s when they cross over lines. It helps to use tinyurl to shorten long url’s.
You can create links uising the < a href=“url”> LINK </a > mark-up. (without the space between the a’s and <>‘s)
Here is your Broken Record link.
If you get follow ups you can see the HTML in your e-mail. (At least this is true for Yahoo e-mail.)
Thanks luminous beauty. That was very informative. I was looking for a help link off the comments window but didn’t see one.
wth,
LOL! I like your “employer” focused solution.
But the solutions for those who are here “illegally”, well, that is mostly already the law. And it isn’t much of a deterrent.
November,
Thanks for the updated URL
I have never been in favor of legalizing bona fide crimes, but the only real crime being committed is what the employers do to the immigrants. The “criminal” nature of most immigrants is a consequence of a failed policy.
Unlike arguments that attempt to justify decriminalizing, say prostitution or gambling or drug trafficking, there is nothing immoral or illegal or plain wrong about bringig home the bacon.
Yes, there are more serious crimes, like “rape, murder, kidnapping, robbery, burglary, and intimidation by armed intruders.”. But c’mon! That is a facetious argument.
Show me any population of people numbering in the millions and I’ll show you those same crimes. If not, then we be in heaven, dude!
Or maybe we should just declare everyone in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, North and South Dakota as illegals.
Ever seen the crime statistics from those five states?
We have a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, multi-party family—included are some veterans of wars in Korea, Vietnam, Gulf One and now Gulf Two. Oh yes, we’re also spread across the landscape when it comes to religious [or not] affiliations…we’ve got Catholics, Unitarians, Mormons and Total Unbelievers in our tribe. I can truthfully report that Lou Dobbs is treated as the great guru of all our factions, faiths and affiliations. We gather around the tube on week-nights much as frontier families used to do around a campfire—watching for danger, listening for the crackling in the brush, and greeting the informative brave Dobbs like the roving path-finder he is. Any talking head who can speak truth to power and attract respect across our broad family spectrum is doing a great service to us all. Dobbs can identify the charlatans and the truth-avoiders with a deft hand & a beady eye. We all hope he’s watching his back these days…we need him to stay healthy, vocal, informed and informative and keep telling us what’s REALLY going on.
Jay said,
Illegal immigration is indeed a problem.
I think we can agree on that.
The difference appears where we have our focus.
.
Yesterday
Brian,
So, 700,000 have voted for impeachment of Bush
To return to the thrust of the article:
I don’t think the author was necessarily advocating the views of Dobbs so much as she was looking to his style of rhetoric as an innovative method for conveying the news. As for Dobbs himself, I have never agreed with him, but I’ve respected him more than most talking heads for reasons similar to those listed above (having said that, I’ve heard he’s a real asshole).
Hopefully this conversation will bring the debate of New Journalism (dare I dream Gonzo Journalism?) back to TV Land. Poseurs like Tim Russert, who feign objectivity while pursuing a natural human bias, is disingenuous. A Dobbsian model may not be a bad one for progressives to look toward.
I can only assume that people reading these posts have located alternative ways to receive their news; sadly, television is still the major source for most Americans. I for one have no positive opinion on Katie “Navy Seals Rock” Couric as anchor, but I can only guess that the networks have given up on serious journalism in favor of clownishly made-up “perky” types to attract more advertising revenue. How about replacing the McLaughlin Group with the panel from the View?
Yeah rocco,
Compared with the rest of the pack, Dobbs is almost Cronkite-like. I’d like to replace the McLaughlin Group with like, maybe, the tele-tubbies. Or just have the tele-tubbies surround Charles Krautheimer and just stand there until he starts screaming incoherently. I don’t think it would take long.
LB,
Funny thing… Yesterday
Rocco,
Dobbs’ personality may be very unpleasant
This is the image that got me thinking of Tele-tubbies and Krauthammer.
Disturbing, but funny.
LB,
I went to your Tele-tubbies site. Yes, disturbing and funny, but like so many things can be used for good or evil.
A friend of mine was on what was called a Crash Boat in WW2. They waited in the English Channel to pick up downed fliers. One day a hospital ship was torpedoed and they fished a very young German out of the water. He turned out to be the pilot of the one man sub/torpedo which struck the ship.
As they hauled him up into their boat he pulled a dagger and tried to stab his rescuers. Their orders were to hold for interrogation, but it was all Russ could do to keep his crew from slitting his throat and throwing him to the fish. The Hitler Youth trained him thoroughly.
I talked with a young Marine a few weeks ago who had just come back from Afghanistan. He reported their unit had basically good relations with Iraqis in their area after getting to know each other. The saddest thing he had witnessed
WTH,
How do you know those kids aren’t volunteers?
First time I ever saw the teletubbies, I was coming off 4 tabs of acid at 5 in the morning. True story. I defy anyone to beat that, even Krautheimer.
Ever seen those two Nazi teeny-boppers? Now that’s freaky.
Bummer, dude.
Some perverted part of me wants one of those T-shirts.
Lou Dobbs is truly a “made in America” hero. His is the type of populist voice that is needed in the national debate. I would vote for Lou Dobbs in a heartbeat if he were to run for President.
“Hero” is cutting it a little close, don’t you think?
I hate to think that Lou Dobbs is the best we can do.
LB - I know. It would have been a great t-shirt in Venice Beach once upon a time. Damn neo-nazis.
LB,
Last night I watched a bit of Lou Dobbs when he presented the latest presidential poll numbers
WTH,
You’re making a lot of assumptions about that Iraqi kid. Islamic fundamentalism is a very recent phenomenon among Iraqi Sunnis, if it is really religious fundamentalism at all and not just a militant reaction to the US invasion. Until we started mucking with Iraq, it was the most secular state in the Arabic world. Don’t believe 90% of what you hear about Islamic fundamentalism. The Salafis, who mostly live in the Arabian Peninsula, are a small percentage of Wahabism, which is more traditionalist than fundamentalist. The Iranian Shia are a whole different story. The point is that Muslims, particularly in Iraq, are driven to militant religious behaviors as a reaction to the perception, not entirely unfounded, that they are under attack, not because they have some vision of world domination. That’s just propaganda that the Neo-Cons, who do have such a vision would want us to believe.
We’ve been over this before.
I was thinking more along the lines of the 12 year old Russian boy in Stalingrad who was hung by the Nazis than the Hitler youth or the US ‘volunteer’ army. (My roommate can’t find his copy of “Enemy at the Gates” or I’d have his name.) He wasn’t recruited by the Red Army, he acted on his own through his personal relationship with Russian snipers. What we’re facing in Iraq isn’t a top down organized and ideologically driven force so much as a bunch of loosely connected bands of irregulars motivated by plain old ordinary vengeance. Much more like the Resistance than the Nazis. We’re more like the Nazis, uncomfortable as that is to contemplate. We’re the invaders. We’re trying to impose an alien ideology on an unwilling populace. Those are the objective facts.
LB,
Sorry, I should have said 13 year-old Afghan. You may be right that he perceives our troops that way hard to say for sure. At any rate, there is little choice but to shoot when your own life is threatened even by someone so young.
—————————————-
I am reading a book, “Cobra 2” which has a lot of recently released info about the planning stages of the Iraq War. I am only about a quarter of the way through, but I am definitely getting the same sinking feeling I had about Vietnam. Political meddling can lose this war too and there is no doubt in my mind many of our casualties are because of it.
I have never subscribed to the
No, I think “hero” fits. Lou Dobbs has the guts to put his views out there; he is one of the few voices on the political scene who publicly comments on the corrosive effect that big corporations have on America. He’s my guy in 2008!
Hattie,
While I like Dobbs keeping these issues alive, I voted for Perot for the same reason and got eight years of Clinton. It may once again be a matter of voting against the worst option we have.
Whattheheck,
I think the thinking that we must “vote against the worst option” is what gets us in trouble. A great populist politician once said that the difference between the democrats and the republicans was that one “skinned you from the ear down, and the other got you from the ankle up.” If more of us had voted for Perot, the nation would be better off today, the fact that they did not is because both parties successfully sold the “don’t waste your vote” propaganda. I recall reading one exit poll that suggested that a plurality of voters who voted on election day 1992 actually preferred Perot, but voted for either Bush or Clinton because they didn’t want the other one to win. To me, Lou Dobbs gives voice to the populist feelings in the nation that are manifestly not represented by either political party.
Hattie,
while I applaud the strength of your conviction, I disagree with both your political sentiments and your definition of the word ‘hero.’ However I only have the brain power, or perhaps the will, to tackle the ‘hero’ part.
I use the term ‘hero’ sparingly, else the term is diluted. Not everyone who voices their opinion without thought of personal consequence is a bona fide hero (David Duke, Hitler, etc.). Not to put Dobbs in their company, but nevertheless…
A hero is one who struggles through the miasma, dies in a sense, and returns to the world reborn and with a message (doff of the cap to Joseph Campbell). I’m not sure that Dobbs qualifies, nor am I certain that he’s earned my vote through voiced indignance of current policy.
Respect can be given generously. Canonization should be reserved for the truly incredible.
Hattie,
I understand what you are saying, but I voted for John B. Anderson in 1980 and as I said, Perot too.
If everyone cooperated and acted “responsibly” most of the world’s problems would disappear. Idealism wears a bit thin with age and reality takes over.
Our representatives are not paying attention to you, me or Dobbs. Both parties are overwhelmingly in control of the government “by the people.”
With incumbency and longevity comes power. They make the rules and they get the benefits. (P3) = pay, pensions, perks.
They will NOT send anyone back. Will NOT penalize employers. Will give amnesty a new name and suck up the Hispanic vote. Anyone who pushes for the rule of law will be branded a racist.
Even when enforcing the law they guard their real constituency
Apologies for the lack of documentation on the allowed tags in our comment system and the breaking of long URLs. I’m working on incorporating documentation into this space. Currently, words over 80 characters are broken in two parts to avoid breaking the layout. I have an alternative fix coming soon though. Thanks for your patience everyone!
register a new account »Posting Security