Cooper: Essay in The Atlantic
My long piece reviewing the current literature and debate about the border and immigration is just out in the May edition of The Atantic. This is a premium service so, for the moment, I can only offer you the tickler. The link above or the one at the bottom of this post will allow you to subscribe to the online edition of the mag and see the rest.
The Atlantic Monthly | May 2006
Exodus
The ominous push and pull of the U.S.–Mexico border
by Marc Cooper
.....
Down by the River: Drugs, Money, Murder, and Family
by Charles Bowden
Simon and Schuster
The Devil’s Highway: A True Story
by Luis Alberto Urrea
Little, Brown
By the Lake of Sleepping Children: The Secret Life of the Mexican Border
by Luis Alberto Urrea
Little, Brown
Illegals: The Imminent Threat Posed by Our Unsecured U.S.-Mexico Border
by Jon E. Dougherty
WND Books
Whatever It Takes: Illegal Immigration, Border Security, and the War on Terror
by Congressman J. D. Hayworth with Joseph J. Eule introduction by Sean Hannity
Regnery Publishing
On January 6, celebrated as Three Kings Day in Mexico, the flow of border crossers heading north restarts its annual cycle. So when I arrive on the following Wednesday in the dusty, gritty Sonoran Desert town of Altar, two hours south of the border via a liver-jostling dirt road, the local merchants couldn’t be more delighted. I have been to Altar before. And on this trip, I can readily agree with the local street entrepreneurs and hustlers that this year’s crossing season, barely in its third day, looks to be as bountiful and profitable as ever—in spite of an also cyclical uproar, north of the border, over illegal immigration. Once an anonymous bus stop on Mexico’s Route 2, Altar—a diesel-marinated ten-block grid of around 10,000 people—has become the primary staging area for Mexican migrants before they make their desperate bounce across the border. And the town’s entire commercial life rests on this singular enterprise.
All around the central plaza that skirts the butternut-colored colonial-era church, small groups—mostly men, mostly young, mostly dressed in dark clothing and running shoes, though there are also some women with babies in their arms—await contact with the coyote or pollero who has promised to push them through a treacherous but in many ways invisible membrane from which they will emerge, almost magically, on the other side as our carpenters, gardeners, waiters, pickers, pluckers, and nannies. The going rate, door-to-door, from the fields of Veracruz or Oaxaca to the orange orchards of Florida or to a Brentwood kitchen: about $1,500. No need, even, to pay it all in advance: installments, with interest, will be drawn from future income... [the other 5000 words]
April 6th, 2006 at 3:34 pm
[the next 5000 words]
Only if you’re a subscriber . . .
April 6th, 2006 at 9:29 pm
Marc – this looks like a great article and I’ll pick the Atlantic up off the newstand, like I always do, if I can’t link your article. Got home late and have to get up early so I’m not even going to try right now.
BUT – forgive me – here’s something OT that turned up on Kevin Drum that bothered the hell out of me. Maybe Tom Grey can explain it, since liberals are responsible for the continuing genocide in Darfur in his DizzyWorld.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N05335888.htm
April 6th, 2006 at 11:04 pm
Reg, I think we can all be forgiven for going off topic since Marc has neglected to get us all passwords to the Atlantic site–Marc, do you think we would actually PAY to read your stuff?
My OT is to say that the latest from the Libby case, if true, not only makes Bush and Cheney the leakers-in-chief but actually establishes a clear link between them and the Valerie Plame matter, because we know that Scooter Libby set up the meeting with Judith Miller to leak intelligence data and we know from her notes that Libby brought Plame up at that meeting. Unlike the Downing Street memo, which only impressed those who were already against the war, this latest twist could bring significant bipartisan bricks down on the heads of the Dynamic Duo.
April 6th, 2006 at 11:08 pm
Hmm, this site’s software turned my low-key, ironic smiley into an obnoxious, smart-alecky smiley.
April 7th, 2006 at 5:38 am
@ Michael Balter, uhhh, the President (of any party designation) has the authority to declassify any material as his/her wisdom/experience (stupidity/inexperience) should dictate.
The Plame NOC meme has been discredited (she wasn’t/hadn’t been “in the field” in over 5 years and did use her influence to get jo-jo boy a gig with the CIA and his NYT article is at odds with his verbal report when he returned) and those that still believe it are the anti-bushies. Not a problem, but let’s not get your panties in a twist about it thinking you have the goods on the Bushites.
April 7th, 2006 at 6:47 am
“the President (of any party designation) has the authority to declassify any material as his/her wisdom/experience (stupidity/inexperience) should dictate.”
Sorry A-Mouse, but declassifying material means making it publicly available, not leaking it to a reporter and no one else–that is not declassifying, that is leaking classified info to a reporter. But the real issue here is not legal but political, or am I just imagining all the political fallout going on as I type?
April 7th, 2006 at 6:54 am
Marc, your complete post is almost as long as a typical comment from Eleanore, but I’m about to do the same. Despite having read only the descriptive introduction, I’ve semi-kept up with related posts and comments, and I’ve heard enough. Rather than moderating my position on the illegal immigrants, I’m leaning toward hardening it.
Many people give “excellent” reasons for allowing these law breakers to go beyond thumbing their noses at our system. While some of the “excellent” reasons are offered out of compassion and some out of economics or some out of selfish concerns: the political reasons are really the controlling issues–and they stink.
The Democrats, as usual, find some faction that they will try to convert to loyal Democrats, just as they have with other factions–by promising them benefits that they haven’t earned with some one else’s money or special “rights” that they don’t deserve and are no where in our constitution. That’s what’s really behind this. People need to be honest. (Yeah…as if I expected a Democrat or liberal to be honest.)
Stories about how hard the illegal immigrants have it don’t affect me in the decision as to whether or not to allow them to stay. Stories about how they help us don’t change my mind about opposing citizenship. My mind is made up and formed by the laws carefully crafted and regulations developed by government agencies. No flood of outside law breakers have the right to ignore or change these laws by shear force of numbers–or, a better description, by mob rule.
The illegals (not undocumented) represent an army that needs to be opposed as any invaders. They are an army without guns but they are an army: slipped over one-by-one, getting organized, and armed, instead, with propaganda and an agenda to take and continue taking resources built by and paid for by legal residents.
We have had laws for years that other immigrants honored and followed, as should all. We have had immigration rules quotas set by us–not outsiders. There is no reason to subrogate our laws and authority to foreign mobs who were not elected and not invited. There is no reason to disband our border patrol or remove our controlled crossings because of abuses combined with political threats. We need to address this issue with existing laws and with right thinking.
The Democrats will pound away on amnesty and citizenship for illegals, for its own selfish gain, and the Democrats will use and depend on the “good citizens” (Hah!) of this country to support their “compassionate” attempts. Those who support amnesty and citizenship for this mob army represent the “useful fools” that the party of the left needs. Those who don’t support but fail to oppose the proposed changes aren’t fools: they are spineless politicians–mainly Republicans who don’t want to cede yet another faction to the party of the left.
I’ve had it with Democrats, with law breakers, with useful fools, and with spineless politicians. I’m for America and the legal citizens here. The illegal immigrants need to be sent back and kept out. We don’t need them. And, they don’t need us–they just want to use us. We’ll find a way to manage and adapt without them–and we’ll be a better country if we do. America is special and comes out on top when we are determined in challenges against us.
At this stage, given the selfish interests and weak wills of Congress, I support any filibuster against bills to protect and enhance the rights of illegal citizens. To the extent possible: round them up, send them home, keep them out, and make adjustments to our economy and workforce to make this a better place for our citizens–not those of the world. I’ve had it.
The above comments were made by the individual without listening to or knowing points by Rush Limbaugh and others. Conservatives can make decisions on their own rather than waiting to see what the “higher-ups” tell them to believe. If you haven’t paid to read Marc Cooper’s article, this comment could represent the same thoughts. You don’t know. Marc did not pay me to say this, despite his urges. Also, if someone is not an American citizen, your opinion on this means nothing. It’s our battle and decision–not yours, so keep quiet. Everyone, have a good day–unless you’re here illegally.
April 7th, 2006 at 7:08 am
CORRECTION: Nuts, I said above that I’m against protecting and enhancing “rights” of illegal “citizens.” First, illegal immigrants don’t have any rights except a safe passage back home or a secure jail cell. I should have said “make rights” that don’t exist currently. Second, they are not illegal “citizens”–they are illegal “immigrants.” See how much the word games of the left filter into society–even me. Consider this corrected.
April 7th, 2006 at 7:46 am
Sounds like a plan, Woody. Any estimates on how much it will cost to round up those 11 million illegals and send them back? And can we shoot the ones that resist? Just so we can get working on the legislation.
April 7th, 2006 at 8:16 am
Well since they’re an invading army so we can ship them anywhere under Woody’s World plan.
“Yeah…as if I expected a Democrat or liberal to be honest.)”
It’s always nice to see the same fallacious thinking en masse by these wingers on both ends of the spectrum. Does the name McCain ring any bells? Is he just trying to recruit new Democrats? Woody actually is a dumb as he sounds. Try his parroting of science sceptics peddling out and out lies if you think he has an original though in his head.
http://www.gmroper.com/archives/2006/03/global_warming_cause_and_effec_1.htm
April 7th, 2006 at 9:01 am
Right, good, they’re unlawful combatants–now we’re cooking. So we can put them in Guantanamo and throw away the key. Our slogan will be, 1,2,3 many Guantanamos!
April 7th, 2006 at 9:16 am
“People need to be honest. (Yeah…as if I expected a Democrat or liberal to be honest.)”
Are we using George W, as an example of honesty?
April 7th, 2006 at 11:07 am
Michael Balter, do you have any idea how much this nation spends each year in our justice system–from police to courts to prisons? Do you know how much we allocate to protecting our borders and Americans from foreign invasions? We spend what is necessary.
When laws are passed, they are passed with the expectations that they will be enforced and with the expectations that enforcement and prosecutions will come at a price–but, at a price that is justified. This is one that is justified…and, we can spend what is necessary.
What does it cost not to enforce our laws? That’s a better question.
We don’t have to “round them up.” We can make life here unappealing enough, like we thankfully did with you, that they will leave. Issue fines to employers of illegal aliens, and the employers will start recruiting legal and honest Americans, instead. Stop giving social services to illegals, except emergency medical care. With jobs and social services taken away from them here, Mexico will seem like paradise.
But, if we do the other and make life here “better” for them as others propose, the problem would get seriously worse.
After blocking jobs and social services, let them go home and put pressure on their own government to straighten out their system rather than using the U.S. as Mexico’s pressure release valve. President Fox needs to address his own country’s problems rather than sending his problems to us. (If he continues to send his people problems to us, then we could reciprocate by sending our nuclear waste to Mexico. Seems fair.)
Sometimes “stupid ideas” to you are really the right ideas. You just look at problems. I, at least, offer solutions.
Regarding shooting them…not necessary, but I did see a segment on television where they shot bears that invaded neighborhoods with tranquilizer dart guns and relocated them. I think this has potential. However, I draw the line before they are clubbed like baby seals. There is that humanitarian side to me. Would you club them or would you just want to take a club to American taxpayers?
So far, I think that I am on target in expressing the views of Marc as hidden in his “article for money.” He doesn’t advocate clubbing either.
April 7th, 2006 at 11:15 am
“If he continues to send his people problems to us, then we could reciprocate by sending our nuclear waste to Mexico. Seems fair”
I’m all for holding Fox’s feet to the fire, but this is beyond the pale. I’ve tranquilized problem bears and relocated them. It’s slow expensive and frankly frought with danger as two dead game wardens in Montana would tell you if they could. Once they get a taste of something they usually just come back.
April 7th, 2006 at 1:10 pm
MB: “or am I just imagining all the political fallout going on as I type?”
No, I suspect what political fallout there is, is probably real, the question is will it hold any water for any length of time. I suspect for you progressive types (maybe) and for the Democrats (for sure) it is called “Wishful Thinking.”
April 7th, 2006 at 1:15 pm
if nothing else, thank god the senate bill collapsed……
there still is hope. the fact that this senate mess looks and feels like the bills that came out in the 70’s, 1986 , senator reid’s textbook bill in 1993–showing how nothing ever gets done despite countless laws and assorted BS that they pass. read it at this link–very short.
http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2006/04/05/20060405_155358_flash1hr.htm
and finally the barbara jordan commission from 1990-1994 that all stressed a fence. as you know they jumped up and down but never put up the key proposal a FENCE. i have not given up hope that the House of Reps will put a fence even if they have to be shamed into it by public outrage. i truly believe if we can seal the border from san diego to brownsville we will be able to live with whatever madness gets passed on the home front. however, if as in the past, the border is only re-enforced (CODE FOR LEFT OPEN) i think we will have a slow civil breakdown. this link will be a slow natural outcome
.
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4786/105/1600/Aztlan.jpg
i sent my long fence rant–i won’t bore you with it again–to several columnists, senators etc. i will tell you, for the fence advocates, don’t give up hope yet. charles krauthammer and tom friedman seem on board. i think its in the air. hugh hewitt interviewed a ten year border patrolman and he said most definitely that only a fence across the entire border can and will do the job. illegal immigration will grind to a halt. here’s the audio link from hewitt’s blog. at least read the transcript.
Border Patrol Bill
http://www.radioblogger.com/#001520
this is the picture i have been sending with all my rants
http://www.weneedafence.com/images/Fence_Idea.jpg
it is getting talked about. the washington post, in a editorial mentioned it in passing putting its cost at two billion. that’s literally a drop in the bucket for what it produces. the fines they are talking about come to 10 billion or more.
it ain’t over yet………
and since we started this discussion back in the middle of march 30,000 more have strolled or otherwise crossed the border. is this a great country or what!
April 7th, 2006 at 1:19 pm
Marc…. Will get the Atlantic and take it with me skiing this weekend. (I’m having a liberal elitist ski/snowboarding weekend with my kid, and not at all sorry.)
April 7th, 2006 at 3:52 pm
Since we’re off topic a bit….reg re: your recent interest in Paine. I’m through the first couple of chapters of Jack Fruchtman’s book on Thomas Paine (finally climbed to the top of the stack of books next to my bed), and I think you might enjoy it.
April 7th, 2006 at 7:18 pm
and then there’s this to add to the Fence vs Law enforcement debate
http://www.examiner.com/Top_News-a70996~Mayor__City_would_ignore_legislation_if_it_were_to_pass.html
SAN FRANCISCO – Mayor Gavin Newsom said Thursday that The City will not comply with any federal legislation that criminalizes efforts to help illegal immigrants.
The mayor also denounced a bipartisan congressional proposal that would beef up border security and allow as many as 12 million illegal immigrants to gain legal status.
Newsom, who has not been afraid to wade into controversial national issues such as gay marriage, appeared with a group of elected officials on the steps of City Hall to support immigrants, “documented as well as undocumented.â€Newsom also signed a resolution sponsored by Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval, and passed unanimously by the Board of Supervisors, urging San Francisco law enforcement not to comply with criminal provisions of any new immigration bill.
“San Francisco stands foursquare in strong opposition to the rhetoric coming out of Washington, D.C.,†Newsom said. “If people think we were defiant on the gay marriage issue, they haven’t seen defiance.â€
It is not the first time San Francisco has weighed in on the immigration issue. In 1989, the Board of Supervisors made San Francisco a “City of Refuge.†The ordinance forbids city resources from being used to enforce federal immigration laws or to gather or disseminate information regarding the status of residents of The City. The Board of Supervisors passed a resolution reaffirming the ordinance in January….
well that settles that!
having lived in SF for almost 30 years i can tell you the bay area rolls out the red carpet. maybe a fence would cut down the amount of people who walk on it.
some facts:
The San Francisco Bay Area is one of the wealthiest regions in the United States. According to the United States Census Bureau, of the 280 defined metropolitan areas, the San Francisco Bay Area has the highest median household income in the nation with $62,024. Six of the top ten California places with the highest per capita income are in the San Francisco Bay Area (Belvedere, Atherton, Woodside, Portola Valley, Diablo). Of the 100 highest income counties by per capita income in the United States, six are in the San Francisco Bay Area (Marin, San Mateo, San Francisco, Santa Clara, Contra Costa, Alameda). According to Forbes Magazine, published in 2005, 12 of the top 50 most expensive Zip Codes are in the Bay Area (Atherton, Ross, Diablo, Tiburon, Los Altos, Nicasio, Portola Valley, Los Altos, Los Gatos, San Francisco).
The region is home to several universities and seminaries, most notably the University of California, Berkeley and Stanford University. Most studies rank the San Francisco Bay Area population at or near the top in the Nation for overall education level. (The other two candidates would be Greater Boston and Washington D.C.)
April 7th, 2006 at 7:49 pm
Dan – thanks. Glad somebody else has the bug. I’ve got Fruchtman and it’s the next Paine book I’ll read. I kind of went crazy and bought a half dozen books by/about Paine. Eric Foner’s “Thomas Paine and Revolutionary America” is very interesting not as a bio but a weaving together of the times and Paine’s role. A good companion to the straight biographies. Barnes & Noble has a nice inexpensive hardcover of Paine’s major work under their imprint.
April 7th, 2006 at 9:01 pm
Here’s another interesting fact about San Francisco: http://reuters.myway.com/article/20060407/2006-04-07T233012Z_01_N07310796_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-LIFE-SANFRANCISCO-DC.html
April 7th, 2006 at 9:44 pm
Gee Woody…who knew ????
April 8th, 2006 at 12:53 am
Just for the record, here is some information on what Bush et al actually declassified and what they didn’t for A-Mouse’s benefit. I suggest that people check their facts before automatically defending this administration, whether or not the fallout turns out to be wishful thinking–and I agree that it could.
National Security Archive Update, April 7, 2006
WHAT THE PRESIDENT LEAKED
Authorized Leak or Declassification?
The Documents Behind the Bush Administration’s Intelligence
Disclosure on Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction
For more information:
Thomas Blanton – 202/994-7000
http://www.nsarchive.org
Washington, D.C., 13 March 2006 – Only 14 of the full 93 pages of the National Intelligence Estimate that President Bush authorized Vice President Cheney’s chief of staff, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, to disclose to New York Times reporter Judith Miller has actually been officially declassified, according to a posting today on the Web site of the National Security Archive at George Washington University.
The estimate has apparently been released in four forms:
* one, a white paper that purportedly represented the substance of the estimate but actually left out most of the dissents and caveats;
* second, an abstract that Mr. Libby apparently used to brief New York Times reporter Judith Miller on July 8, 2003;
* third, the July 18, 2003, release by the White House of the “key judgments” section and parts of the dissents;
* and fourth, a Freedom of Information Act release to the National Security Archive on June 1, 2004, that included two additional pages but left the vast majority of the estimate whited out.
The July 18, 2003, “key judgments” document was declassified and released by the Bush administration just ten days after President Bush authorized Vice President Cheney’s chief of staff, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, to disclose similar information to Miller, according to Libby’s testimony before a grand jury.
“The ship of state is the only vessel that leaks from the top,” commented Thomas Blanton, executive director of the National Security Archive.
Also included in today’s posting is the October 2002 unclassified presentation on “Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs,” with the seal of the Director of Central Intelligence on the cover, and a version of the NIE released by the CIA on June 1, 2004, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request by the National Security Archive. The document was almost completely redacted by CIA censors. All of the text except for the two title pages and the two pages listing National Intelligence Council members had previously been disclosed in the July 2003 release.
http://www.nsarchive.org
________________________________________________________
THE NATIONAL SECURITY ARCHIVE is an independent non-governmental research institute and library located at The George Washington University in Washington, D.C. The Archive collects and publishes declassified documents acquired through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). A tax-exempt public charity, the Archive receives no U.S. government funding; its budget is supported by publication royalties and donations from foundations and individuals.
April 8th, 2006 at 4:04 am
MB thanks for the research, as always, you are meticulous in researching (I read The Goddess and the Bull – very good book by the way) however, to the average reader Something titled “National Security Archive” would seem to indicate that this is an official entity. It is NOT! It is an entity of the George Washington University, a decidedly left leaning school with a board of directors and advisory committee that cannot be described as anything but leftish… so, what they have to say has to be ipso facto taken with either a grain, or a 50 lb. bag of salt. And, of course, I thank you for putting that disclaimer at the bottom of your comment in your usual meticulous fashion. But I wonder how many folk would read the disclaimer as opposed to clicking the link and then moving on?
However, please be aware that my point is that the president, any president has the authority to declassify any information at any time and as soon as he/she (is there a HRC or CR in our future?) says it’s declassified or signs a declaration so saying it’s a done deal. All presidents have used this in the past when and as necessary from their point of view; sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly in my POV.
To date, the dimmocrats have not had any slime that tossed on Bush has stuck. Why don’t they start trying to help govern rather than just “get power” and don’t think I’m naïve enough to think republicrats are doing any better. They’re absolutely not.
Another point is that the dimmocrats are not the party of ideas, implimented or not and the last dimmocrat who was a real Democrat was a fellow by the name of Truman (and maybe JFK ran a close second). All they have come up with is “Stronger, Smarter” or “America can do better,” but they haven’t filled in any blanks. Kinda reminiscent of Kerry’s “I have a plan,” schitk isn’t it?
April 8th, 2006 at 8:04 am
reg, did you note in the article that 1 out of 4 gay men in S.F. was infected with the HIV virus? Did you know that? Oh, but that’s just an alternative lifestyle…isn’t it? Why should you care? So, what if they are dying and infecting others as long as they can do their thing. Maybe it’s the fault of conservatives for not giving away enough condoms. Better living from the left….
————-
Marc’s article hasn’t gone down in price yet. I’m waiting for it to go on clearance.
April 8th, 2006 at 8:13 am
Woody, did you note that the AIDS virus actually doesn’t assess its host’s lifestyle before it infects? In case that’s too complicated for you, allow me to put it simply: when a Christian heterosexual man infected with the AIDS virus has sex with a Christian heterosexual woman without a condom, he has an excellent chance of infecting her with the AIDS virus.
Ignorance is not bliss.
April 8th, 2006 at 8:20 am
Woody as one with a gay parent I resent your prejudiced speil. They live everywhere including your neighborhood, and always have. One out of four blew it by being promiscuous no doubt about it, but in Africa lack of condom use denied by dimwits like you and Bush is a direct cause of spreading of this virus, which is opportunistic and spread by heterosexual unprotected promiscuity. Or are the Africans just gay? Go screw your finger into a light socket and hit the switch.
April 8th, 2006 at 8:40 am
Fuck you Woody. You’re an ignorant piece of shit. Really disgraceful bigotry. I’ve had friends and family that died of AIDS so you can kiss my ass. Just shut your goddamned mouth for a change unless you’ve got something interesting or intelligent to say. You’re a fountain of cracker stupidity.
April 8th, 2006 at 2:33 pm
First, illegal immigrants don’t have any rights except a safe passage back home or a secure jail cell
You’re wrong on the facts, yet again, Woody.
In New York, the State Attorney General has successfully, under threat of prosecution, forced businesses including several major regional supermarket chains to pay back wages to immigrants who were pad less than minimum wage regardless of their immigration status.
Illegal immigrants have the same right to legal protections against assault, robbery, murder, debt penury and a panoply of laws that also protect US citizens.
They also have certain rights under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations to request contact with their embassy and/or consulate should they be arrested. Americans also have these rights in other countries that have ratified the Vienna Convention.
Facts remain troublesome things, Woody.
April 8th, 2006 at 5:30 pm
You guys are thin-skinned and unable to deal with the truth. I mentioned that homosexuals in S.F. have a high incidence of HIV infections and that is bad according to you. It was a fact, as Randy Paul can appreciate–a straightforward, documented fact. If you don’t like that fact, do something about it but don’t attack anyone who mentions it. In any event, I refuse to be intimidated by your attacks against me and cries of politically correct speech.
Randy, do you not think that I realize the additional information that you mention? Do you not know that your additional information is fairly useless and doesn’t address the discussion? I was highlighting a point with basic information, and you stretch essential human protections, civil actions, and international treaties into constitutional definitions. You’re such a nit-picker over matters that are not important to the debate. Can’t you do better? Oh yes, you left off that ilegal immigrants have the “right to emergency medical care compliments of our hospital owners and the taxpayers.
April 8th, 2006 at 5:39 pm
Fuck you, you unmitigated asshole.
You directed this piece of verbal crap at me, among other things
“Why should you care? So, what if they are dying and infecting others as long as they can do their thing.”
And you followed this bit of ad hominem with a dig at Mark Y. as a “faggot who doesn’t know which sex his mother is”. Your idea of humor is pretty damned pathetic. If you think you’re being “intimidated” when you call people “faggots”, you’re obviously still in search of something resembling a clue. You’re a tasteless prick and a moron.
April 8th, 2006 at 5:42 pm
Woody – you do a real service for readers of this blog. You’re a case study in just how empty, pathetically redundant, analytically incompetent and bigoted the right-wing echo chamber has become.
April 8th, 2006 at 5:43 pm
Woody,
You made the comment using an absolute term. Don’t blame me for your piss-poor rhetorical skills.
Facts are still troublesome things, Woody
April 8th, 2006 at 6:05 pm
Randy, did your “corrections” add to the discussion? No. U.S. “rights” or civil actions for illegal immigrants last only until we can toss them back across the border–which is our right and our obligation.
reg, you’re pathetic. Anyone who can’t discuss matters without foul, crude profanity is a loser. Your filthy language certainly does not “do a real service for the readers of this blog.” Calling me a “tasteless prick” might be a good indication of your culinary delights.
April 8th, 2006 at 8:14 pm
Randy, did your “corrections†add to the discussion?
It corrected your misinformation. Accordingly, it was relevant to the discussion.
You spew hate and use a broad brush. Don’t like my “nitpicking?” Stick to the facts. Is that so hard for you?
April 9th, 2006 at 12:27 am
A-Mouse, I have to leap over all the above invective to say first of all thanks for the kind words about my book, I am pleased that you took the time to read it.
On the issue of declassifying intelligence material, I would now refer you to Sunday’s stories in both the New York Times and the Washington Post reporting that the material which Libby selectively leaked to Bob Woodward, Judith Miller, and Matt Cooper seriously misrepresented the NIE from which it was drawn. So this could hardly be considered declassification in the public interest, and in fact as I said earlier it does not represent declassification in the normal, public spirited sense but was rather part of the Cheney-led campaign to get back at Joseph Wilson. That is why Judith Miller’s notes reflect that Libby told her about Valerie Plame during the same lunch.
I have been checking back here only for the purposes of closure in our conversation, but probably will not check back again, so perhaps we can continue this when the subject comes up again in one of Marc’s blogs.
April 9th, 2006 at 5:27 pm
Woody, you’re being dishonest again. Let me remind you what you said:
“1 out of 4 gay men in S.F. was infected with the HIV virus? Did you know that? Oh, but that’s just an alternative lifestyle…isn’t it?”
What, exactly, is an “alternative lifestyle”? You’re equating being gay with infecting others with HIV? That’s not a fact–that’s an offensive distortion of reality. The fact that my brother is gay and married to a man (the only man, incidentally, with whom he’s ever had sexual relations; how many heterosexual men can say that?), has absolutely NOTHING to do with the AIDS rate–certainly no more than the millions of heterosexual people in the world having unprotected sex and infecting others.
Oh, and as far as we “thin-skinned” folk taking “offense”, I’ll remind you of your penchant for invoking the “offense” cry when someone uses “piss” and “Christ” in the same sentence. I wish I could take you seriously, but when you contradict yourself like this I cannot.
So, Woody, I’m waiting for my apology.
April 9th, 2006 at 9:57 pm
Randy, you’re attack is so pathetic. I made numerous points in a lengthy post, and all you can do is try to focus on one footnoted sentence that is secondary to my argument. Is that the only thing that you can do?
Sorry, but the “facts” are that you’re retort is very weak and off the point. If you discredit an entire entry because a “fact” isn’t interpreted to your liking, then you better toss out the entire New York Times which is guilty daily of such “factual errors.
The “rights” that I enumerated are not even rights in the technical sense, if you have enough sense to read the intent carefully. Those are more like consequences of being in violation of our laws. The “rights” term is used in a somewhat sarcastic tone. But, liberals don’t have a sense of humor, so how would you know?
Get real.
—————
Rich, I don’t know what kind of apology you want, but the HIV virus is contracted and spread primarily by homosexuals and drug users. The fact that the homosexual community used a kid to raise AIDS awareness may have been good PR, but it doesn’t change statistics.
Also, I don’t put citing statistics in the same class as the crude visual attack of a repesentation of God. Statistics are helpful if used rather than ignored. The other serves no other purpose but to intentionally offend without cause. If you think they’re the same, then you need some soul searching.
April 10th, 2006 at 7:04 am
Woody,
The intellectual quality of your refutation rises to the level of “I know you are, but what am I.†I stoppd that around the fourth or fifth grade. More’s the pity that you haven’t.
You cite information from a newspaper (The Washington Times) owned by a convicted tax cheat and cult leader, the Reverend Sung Yung Moon, simply because it apes your views.
Bear that in mind the next time you chastise me for reading the New York Times.
April 10th, 2006 at 7:19 am
The rights that anyone from a foreign country has under the Vienna Convention are significant rights and hardly “weak.†In addition, the laws that protected immigrants from being paid subminimum wages – regardless of their status – speak directly to the issues regarding illegal immigration.
The larger issue I was raising however, was the risk of speaking in absolutes. It’s very easy to provide examples to refute your sweeping generalizations as I did. Again, don’t blame me for pointing out your sloppy rhetorical skills.
April 10th, 2006 at 7:47 am
“but the HIV virus is contracted and spread primarily by homosexuals and drug users”
Woody, that is absolutely false. I am mortified that you fail to understand this simple fact: AIDS is spread most commonly by unprotected sexual contact, irrespective of the sexual orientation of the participants. AIDS is most widespread in Africa, contracted almost exclusively via heterosexual contact between unprotected partners. You’re telling me that the majority of the millions of AIDS sufferers in Africa are gay and/or drug users? You know that’s a ridiculous statement. Come clean, Woody: be mature enough to admit you’re wrong.
Furthermore, you weren’t just “citing statistics”: you were using them to prove a point that was incorrect and offensive: claiming that sexual intercourse between two men is the primary (ultimate? your implication can be taken as such) cause of AIDS. It offends me, it offends homosexuals, and it offends anyone else who knows the truth. Responsbible sexual partners–heterosexual or homosexual–do NOT cause AIDS.
And no, you’re actually completely wrong on representations of others’ deities: some may be intended to offend, others to challenge, others to make a point about the vacuity of religion. You can take personal offense to this, but it would be misguided, since it’s a representation of a belief system–nothing inherent to the believer’s personhood. What you did in your comments, however, was blame a group of people for causing a disease simply through being who they are: homosexuals. That’s offensive. Think about it.
April 10th, 2006 at 1:49 pm
I see I’m being sensored. Perhaps if someone called Cooper fag and insulted his parents he’d think differently? Think about who gets to insult and who actually gets it.
July 26th, 2006 at 12:21 am
Geben mir bitte eine poker Brotchenmw
August 6th, 2006 at 5:03 am
atlanticcity atlanticcity
June 29th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
culinary school san francisco…
Hi. Thanks for the good read….
May 10th, 2008 at 6:40 am
d7d2bbba5bad…
d7d2bbba5bad70edefa9…