My Photo

« Speech Thread | Main | Regarding that speech ..... »

September 09, 2009

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515c2369e20120a5b58e28970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Speech:

Comments

Slartibartfast,

If you have research which says race is not the determining factor in the way most Christians view the role of the State, I would love to have it.

Sorry, given the topic I was not very precise. Without the specific backing of the SC there would be no voluntary prayer in schools etc.

This is nonsense. The truth, if not for the Supreme Court and Madalyn Murray O'Hair, hundreds of thousands of non-Christians, atheists, and Christians who take seriously Jesus's admonitions to pray in private would be forced to participate in explicitly Christian prayers every single day.

If you have research which says race is not the determining factor in the way most Christians view the role of the State, I would love to have it.

Yes. Just as soon as you prove to me that I'm not queen of the space unicorns.

I meant to write:

If you have research which says race is not the most influential factor in the way most Christians view the role of the State, I would love to have it.

(My editors would demand "more nuance"!)

Maybe I read that wrong, SOD, but it sounded as if you wanted me to prove a negative.

Marty: Without the specific backing of the SC there would be no voluntary prayer in schools etc.

You really think that no teacher and no student and no school employee would ever pray voluntarily? Well, if you think every single person ever inside in a school is an atheist / unbeliever who won't pray anyway, why are you so concerned about whether or not the Supreme Court would "let" them pray? If a person wants to pray, no temporal power can stop them doing so..

Space unicorns don't exist, but the views of Christians of color do.

I would say that race and how Christians see the role of the state (if there's even a POV that you could say "most Christians" would agree on) are almost completely unrelated.

Which is not to say anything at all about how "most Christians" (again: as if) or even a large-ish chunk of Christians see the role of the state may affect one racial group more than others.

It seems to me that your starting assumption is that white Christians are a uniformly racist lot, and therefore...something.

Which just about says that white Christians aren't Democrats, or some such.

This is just one of the many pitfalls of excessive generalization, much like the notion that white southern Republicans are all beer-guzzling NASCAR addicts who dropped out of high school after they impregnated their 16-year-old cousin, or whatever the silly caricature de jour is.

This is just one of the many pitfalls of excessive generalization, much like the notion that white southern Republicans are all beer-guzzling NASCAR addicts who dropped out of high school after they impregnated their 16-year-old cousin, or whatever the silly caricature de jour is.

If someone's got the number for that one, I'd love to see it!

But I think the numbers do show a correlation between Christians of specific racial/ethnic groups and their views concerning the role of the State and its relationship with citizens and non-citizens.

Slarti,

I think you and someotherdude are talking past each other. Most conservative Christian blacks are social democrats in politics. Very few conservative Christian whites are. That's all he's saying, and he's undoubtedly right.

Ok, now it appears that you're talking about race as a correlative factor, not as a result of prejudice. Assuming that to be the case, I'm not sure, but I'd expect income/poverty to correlate more strongly than race, and since race and income are correlated, it's possible that you can't tell cause from effect.

I could be wrong about any of this, up to and including interpretation of your question. Feel free to correct.

I think you and someotherdude are talking past each other.

Yeah, I figured that out several minutes ago.

If Republicans had offered a solution to the health care for illegal immigrants issue by presenting a solid plan for an enormous charity organisation to meet that need, I'd be more impressed. In reality, though, every objection to the Democrats' suggestions is couched in the most dog-eat-dog, money-hoarding terms.

More than any other issue, for the health care debate has proven once and for all that when the rubber hits the road, the vast majority of Republicans give clear precedence to their bogus understanding of Adam Smith at the expense of their bogus understanding of the Gospels.

I do think the obsession with who benefits from the State and who is punished by the State could certainly point to racist impulses... I don't have the numbers for the impulse, but the obsession can be proven.

I do think the obsession with who benefits from the State and who is punished by the State could certainly point to racist impulses... I don't have the numbers for the impulse, but the obsession can be proven.

Seems like I remember Bush being booed during a state of the union speech.

So do I, and I remember the faux-conniptions Republicans had about that. Of course I'm old, so I also remember Clinton being booed in his appearances in Congress.

But that's neither here nor there. Even under Westminster rules, where heckling and booing are common and accepted, MPs are not allowed to call other MPs liars.

did people like the speech?

well, they liked it well enough to give Obama a 14 point boost in the health care debate.

someone needs to tell me why this is good news for the GOP.

"did people like the speech?

well, they liked it well enough to give Obama a 14 point boost in the health care debate.

someone needs to tell me why this is good news for the GOP."

Well he only picked up 14 points in a poll that was 45% Dems, 37% independents and 18% Republicans. Good jump but not omigosh impressive numbers for a top tier bully pulpit speech.

Good jump but not omigosh impressive numbers for a top tier bully pulpit speech.

please cite the statistics on which you base this assessment.

Actually, it is a pretty impressive jump since Dems were already highly in favor and independents about 50/50. There wasn't as much room to gain.

And other polls show even bigger jumps. However, as a caveat, it is a little early to get a full picture of the impact.

"Good jump but not omigosh impressive numbers for a top tier bully pulpit speech."

I can only give you the example from the CNN article on the poll you are quoting:

"Those figures are almost identical to a poll conducted immediately after Bill Clinton's health care speech before Congress in September 1993."

Really, the way I view it is skeptical about instant polls in general as discussed here

I always feel like the media narrative actually determines the reality of these things. As far as I can tell, the general media narrative is that Obama made a good speech that boosted support for his reforms, so after a few days of reporting that, he actually will get a boost in the polls.

The secondary narrative that the Republicans were non-constructive jackasses during the speech only helps him more.

Jay Jerome,
Thank you for your clarification. You addressed the first part of your comment to john miller, so it seemed that you were speaking to him, and not john thullen in your last comment.

Also, given the discussion of Wilson's outburst, I was going to let this pass, but calling another commenter a liar, as you did with John miller at the beginning of your comment, without any support to the charge, is over the line, imho. The accusation has to be backed up.

Dear il-liberal japonius

As hilzoy pointed out, people tend to reveal their basic nature over time. I believe most of us passed the make fun of names stage in primary school, so you might want to try and develop a little more maturity.

Or at least learn to spell.

That's "il-liberal japonicus" to you, dude.

On the topic of charity etc., I often wish that Jesus would pop up now and then when his name is invoked, kind of like Marshal McLuhan in "Annie Hall", and set us all straight on what his actual intent was way back when he spoke on that mountain.

Wouldn't that be great? Although I still think we'd find a way to argue about it.

Short of that, I guess we'll have to settle for the somewhat less authoritative voice of our own conscience as we look our friends and neighbors in the eye and decide if we want to help them out, or not.

And I'm sure we all have the best of intentions, and will chip in whatever we spare, but 47 million people with no health insurance at all, plus additional millions going bankrupt, losing their homes, and dying for lack of readily available treatment is kind of a tall order.

Maybe if we all rise to Jesus' standard -- if your neighbor asks you for your coat, give him your damned coat and ask no questions -- maybe our good intentions will be enough to get it done.

If not, then maybe not.

Well, until Jesus decides to shed some light, I think it is important to at least admit that racial and ethnic commitments might have a more profound effect on determining the responsibility of the State, than say...a commitment to what the Messiah "meant".

Russell: I often wish that Jesus would pop up now and then when his name is invoked, kind of like Marshal McLuhan in "Annie Hall", and set us all straight on what his actual intent was way back when he spoke on that mountain.

Wouldn't that be great? Although I still think we'd find a way to argue about it.

God Angrily Clarifies:

Growing increasingly wrathful, God continued: "Can't you people see? What are you, morons? There are a ton of different religious traditions out there, and different cultures worship Me in different ways. But the basic message is always the same: Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Shintoism... every religious belief system under the sun, they all say you're supposed to love your neighbors, folks! It's not that hard a concept to grasp."

"Why would you think I'd want anything else? Humans don't need religion or God as an excuse to kill each other—you've been doing that without any help from Me since you were freaking apes!" God said. "The whole point of believing in God is to have a higher standard of behavior. How obvious can you get?"

"I'm talking to all of you, here!" continued God, His voice rising to a shout. "Do you hear Me? I don't want you to kill anybody. I'm against it, across the board. How many times do I have to say it? Don't kill each other anymore—ever! I'm fucking serious!"

Upon completing His outburst, God fell silent, standing quietly at the podium for several moments. Then, witnesses reported, God's shoulders began to shake, and He wept.

" So the concern is that the bill won't make something illegal which is already explicitly illegal?"

It's already explicitly illegal for illegal immigrants to come here, and stay here, but they do, by the hundreds of thousands, by the millions even. Because the government rather relentlessly will not enforce that law.

It's perfectly rational to look at this plan, note that it lacks any enforcement mechanism to prevent illegal aliens from getting subsidized health care, note that Democrats have rejected proposals to add such a mechanism, and conclude that, while the plan nominally prohibits such subsidy, the intent is that said prohibition will not be enforced.

I might even go so far as to say that asserting the plan won't cover illegal aliens is close enough to lying for government work.

Still, Wilson was guilty of a serious breach of decorum; You're not supposed to mention that the Emperor is naked in his presence.

Brett Bellmore:

You summed it up perfectly.

There are enforcement provisions in other parts of the bill.., but not in the illegal immigrants section.

And if it wasn't an intended omission, why not correct it now, and remove it as an impediment to consensus?.

"I'm talking to all of you, here!" continued God,

If God was God why would he/she/it have to talk? Wouldn't the All Powerful Omniscient simply transfer those words/ideas via thought directly in every human brain on the planet? You know, Godly WiFi.

It's already explicitly illegal for illegal immigrants to come here, and stay here, but they do, by the hundreds of thousands, by the millions even. Because the government rather relentlessly will not enforce that law.

Enforcing these laws -- especially as regards healthcare -- is prohibitively expensive, politically stupid, and immoral to boot. Far cheaper to let them buy healthcare than to deal with the emergency room bills and drug resistant pathogens that enforcement results in.

Brett,

How do we know that YOU ARE NOT AN ILLEGAL ALIEN? I'm serious. How do we know? What proof can you offer? A birth certificate?? Bwahahahaha.

You would not buy health insurance from a government agency, even if it was cheaper and better than any policy available from a private for-profit company. I get that. My opinion of how sane your choice would be doesn't matter, because it's YOUR choice.

But if you seriously want various rights and privileges to be reserved for legal residents, then of course you must favor enforcing those restrictions by legislation. Legislation that requires job seekers and insurance buyers to prove their legal status. By presenting documentation of some sort.

Note that "I am Brett Bellmore; look at my face; do I look like an illegal alien, you jack-booted thug?" does not count as "documentation". So how do you feel about a national ID card?

Show us your papers, Brett.

--TP

A.J. "Enforcing these laws -- especially as regards healthcare -- is prohibitively expensive, politically stupid, and immoral to boot. Far cheaper to let them buy healthcare than to deal with the emergency room bills and drug resistant pathogens that enforcement results in,"

You don't know what you're talking about. We already have an inexpensive enforcing mechanism available: it's called SAVE (Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements). It's mostly data entry, punch in names and dates from social security card or license, see if the person checks out.

Or we do nothing, no checks, no verification, and 6.6 million uninsured illegal immigrants sign up, and the rest of us end up subsidizing them to the cost of 20 or 30 billion dollars annually.

Or don't you understand how Hr3200 determines how much you pay? It's a sliding scale -- the less you have, the less you pay, and if you have no income, you don't pay anything. Guess where the majority of those millions of illegals fit in the scale.

While this is a lengthy thread, and my comment wouldn't add much, I'm still moved to ask Marty - what exactly is the best vehicle for Christian charity? The market?

I'm not laughing.

Finally, the White House got it:

"WASHINGTON – The White House strengthened its stand against health care coverage for illegal immigrants Friday, and a pivotal Senate committee looked ready to follow its lead."
(from Associated Press)

Good. Now O'Blah has inched one step closer to getting a meaningful health care bill passed...

Jay Jerome seems to carry the notion of the dirty, diseased illegals infecting our body politic. Given the kind of work illegal immigrants do, and the age ranges involved, it is quite probable that they are much healthier than the average, so concerns of illegal immigrants overwhelming the health system with calls for expensive procedures and drug regimes is more a product of irrational fear of the other.

BTW, the white house has already acknowledged the use of SAVE.

Furthermore, the care that illegal immigrants use, emergency care, is less than 3% of the total cost of health care. While uncompensated care is a big problem, one of the reasons health care is being tackled is because of the number of uninsured Americans. I can't find any stats that breakdown the costs between illegal immigrants and uncovered Americans, but as there are about 7 million uninsured Americans in California and the total number of illegal immigrants is estimated, nationwide, at 12 million, the concerns over the cost of illegal immigrants are not grounded in the current situation.

Additionally, given the problems with flu pandemics, trying to deny illegal immigrants emergency health care has the effect of cutting off our nose to spite our face.

"Enforcing these laws -- especially as regards healthcare -- is prohibitively expensive, politically stupid, and immoral to boot."

Congratulations, AJ, you've just proved my point, that the prohibition on illegal aliens getting subsidized medical care is, deliberately, about as likely to be enforced as the prohibition on their being here. LJ backs you up on that, too.

So, yeah, for all practical purposes, he was lying.

Sorry, Brett, you don't get to be part of the deliberative body that continues to hew to a double standard on the enforcement of promulgation and enforcement of immigration laws and then claim that one person is lying.

Frex, Wilson has only been a representative since 2001, but he voted for the the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003, which authorized reimbursements to hospitals who provide treatment for uninsured illegal immigrants.

Of course, I won't accuse you of lying when I'm not sure if you are actually aware of the current news, such as this and this, but it might help avoid other people unjustly accusing you of lying.

At any rate, I would again suggest that trying to deny health care to immigrants, given the current potentials of both bird and swine flu is pretty stupid. Unfortunately, I can only explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you, so if you don't see the problem of potential pandemics, I'll just have to leave it at that.

It's funny that someone who is so vehemently opposed to the very existence of the state and its exercises of power wants to wield them so strongly against one particular group of people. One might suppose that other motivations were involved.

"Sorry, Brett, you don't get to be part of the deliberative body that continues to hew to a double standard on the enforcement of promulgation and enforcement of immigration laws and then claim that one person is lying."

You damned well do if you weren't in the majority on that decision. Just because you're a member of a legislature doesn't make you guilty of things you voted against. Now, show that Wilson voted against enforcing immigration laws, and you've got a point.

"At any rate, I would again suggest that trying to deny health care to immigrants"

My wife is an immigrant; Perhaps you meant illegal immigrants?

I am well aware of the medical argument for treating everyone (For pandemic diseases...) without respect to the legality of their status here. It's perfectly possible to LIE about a pragmatically desirable policy, you know.

In any event, I'm sure you understand the response: That it wouldn't be an issue if the government weren't deliberately not enforcing our immigration laws in the first place. And the problem could equally be resolved by kicking them out of the country.

Sorry, I forgot you were going to wave your wife around to prove your non racist street cred.

Brett, you do realize the primary reason for large numbers of illegal immigrants in the US is because the "business community" likes to have a bunch of workers they can pay less than minimum wage, don't have to worry about reporting the employers for OSHA or other violations, and can basically use as indentured servants (at best) due to their "illegal" status, right? That same "business community" that the Republican party invariably favors when the rubber hits the road.

Yeah, I do realize that. I also realize that both parties are in on the scheme.

Wouldn't the All Powerful Omniscient simply transfer those words/ideas via thought directly in every human brain on the planet?

Maybe he/she/it is and we're just not listening.

LJ, that's a pretty strange attitude to take towards what might be regarded as "evidence".

In any event, did you really expect me to let slide the usual tactic of deliberately conflating legal and illegal immigrants?

I have to jump in here too...Brett, if you're looking to take to task any particular body for illegal immigration, cast the fickle finger of blame on the GOP for not collaring large employers for hiring them in the first place. As does not need to be reiterated here, but which I will anyway, the right loves illegal immigration for exactly the reasons Nate posted. Yet it's Obama that's getting hammered for a state of affairs he didn't create, and that, given Liberal Japonicus' legwork in his 09:36 post, is, if not incidental to the health care reforms, marginal at most.

So quit blaming this prez for this. The GOP had, in the not too-distance past, Congress and the White House, and did nothing about this because it was in their interest not to - in all fairness, aided and abetted by a supine Dem who was too afraid of its own shadow. But now some on the right want to feign outrage and build a despicable fence along the border to placate the know-nothings. Shame on them. The illegal immigrant-coverage meme is nothing more than another scare tactic now that the death-panels one is losing its 'street-cred.'

You know, my uncle on my father's side served in Korea and was wounded by shrapnel and awaiting evac. The medic said something to the effect of 'don't take the gook', to which my uncle let loose a stream of profanity. The medic said 'sorry, I thought you were one of the Koreans'

To spell that out for you, I'm sure you've considered the impact on emergency medicine that proving immigration status would bring. In fact, I'm sure that you've realized that your wife might be the recipient of increased scrutiny, perhaps after a car wreck or maybe something else sudden and you are comfortable exposing her to that risk. Unfortunately, I'm not sure if it is because you think that when they realize what her last name is, the emergency room staff would automatically know that she deserves the American course of treatment, or if you just think that this is just the price we all should pay for keeping illegals from benefiting from our tax dollars.

I'm well aware of Republican complicity in the flood of illegal immigrants, but I'm not going to pretend that the Democrats weren't in on it, too. With public opinion being so heavily and persistently on the side of stopping illegal immigration, it took both parties to keep the flood going. Both parties are guilty as hell on this subject.

Both parties are guilty as hell on this subject.

So a Republican representative therefore can claim that a Democratic president who has been in office for only 9 months is lying, but he isn't. A remarkable ethical system you have there, Brett.

Brett:

"I might even go so far as to say that asserting the plan won't cover illegal aliens is close enough to lying for government work."

Ah cripes, I know this is revealing of my character, but could you please have your surgery and recover completely with no side effects before I kick that comment's sorry butt?

Preview: In America, lying pays better in the private sector.

Or we do nothing, no checks, no verification, and 6.6 million uninsured illegal immigrants sign up, and the rest of us end up subsidizing them to the cost of 20 or 30 billion dollars annually.

Do you have any idea what a head of lettuce would cost if illegals weren't picking it? If we had to pay a living American wage for farm labor?

Or what it would cost to keep the nation's hotels, hospitals, and office complexes clean?

Some number of illegals will find a way to game the system and get subsidized health insurance.

Net/net, it'll be short money, a very small payment for all the cheap labor immigrants bring.

Not saying good, bad, or indifferent. Just saying there's two sides.

ill-thinking japonicus said: Jay Jerome seems to carry the notion of the dirty, diseased illegals infecting our body politic

This sounds like something a petulant ding-bat would say. But you're not, right?

Given the kind of work illegal immigrants do, and the age ranges involved, it is quite probable that they are much healthier than the average, so concerns of illegal immigrants overwhelming the health system with calls for expensive procedures and drug regimes is more a product of irrational fear of the other.

Un oh... I spoke too soon. You are a ding-bat, and a racial one to boot.

Right, illegals (mostly from rural and southern Mexico, where life expectancy is about ten years less then the average here, who grew up on nutritionally restricted diets, and have high incidences of whooping cough, tuberculosis, malaria, measles and even leprosy) are healthier then Americans from various ethnic and/or racial backgrounds, including Black Americans, Asian Americans, Armenian Americans -- all of whom, according to your analysis, are physically inferior.

And the emergency room care argument is a red herring. We're talking about EXTENDED health care, for as long as that person is illegally on the health care dole -- and not only that individual person, but all his or her relatives, and family. $30 or $40 billion a year, for decades. Not emergency services, but regular checkups, blood tests, chest x-rays, physical therapy for sprains and strains etc ad infinitum.

I think Mexicans are entitled to that kind of care -- in Mexico. Which has a universal national heath care plan for all eligible residents (but not Americanos, or any other non-citizen, there legally or not) and in some regions even covers dental and mental health care. Instead, they sponge off our system, taking away resources from Americans who need and deserve it.

Mexico Health Care In Mexico, Only For Mexicans!!
American Health Care in the USA, Only For Americans!!!

Well, how come Americans always feel they deserve an extra exclamation point!!!!?

russell: "Do you have any idea what a head of lettuce would cost if illegals weren't picking it? If we had to pay a living American wage for farm labor?"

You should put that argument where the sun don't shine.

We do have a guest worker program, in case you've forgotten. We can raise or lower those numbers, as necessary. And the price of a head of lettuce isn't going to change much because of it.

Same goes for hotel workers. The percent of illegals working in Las Vegas hotels, for example, is minimal. Plus you see large numbers of maids and hospitality and maintenance workers from Eastern Europe and Asia. Staunching the flow of illegals from Mexican and Latin America isn't going to effect room rates in Vegas, we can bring in more guest-workers from other nations, including Africa and Asia, to balance out the racial and ethnic and national mix of peoples we invite here, now way out of whack from the tsunami of Hispanics who have flooded the nation since the last one-time amnesty went in to effect that was supposed to control the problem.

And if we stop the illegal flow of immigrants into this country, and the cost of labor goes up in those industries where illegals tend to find work -- construction, landscaping, restaurants -- and Americans now out of work, and on welfare or other public assistance because of it, or barely scraping by because the influx of cheap illegal labor depressed their livelihood, go back to work at living wages, won't we be better off paying a little more at the front end, but benefiting greatly at the back end?

Or are you happy letting us turn into a half Hispanic nation, half 'other.'??

"Do you have any idea what a head of lettuce would cost if illegals weren't picking it? If we had to pay a living American wage for farm labor?"

Off hand, I'd guess that, in the short run, it would cost us about as much as we'd save on unemployment benefits for Americans.

Right, illegals (mostly from rural and southern Mexico, where life expectancy is about ten years less then the average here, who grew up on nutritionally restricted diets, and have high incidences of whooping cough, tuberculosis, malaria, measles and even leprosy) are healthier then Americans from various ethnic and/or racial backgrounds, including Black Americans, Asian Americans, Armenian Americans -- all of whom, according to your analysis, are physically inferior.

Some projection on aisle 5. Given that those rural Mexicans are taking up physical labor like harvesting crops and construction and such, chronic conditions might work against them pursuing that kind of work. Do try and keep up with the logic here.

And the emergency room care argument is a red herring. We're talking about EXTENDED health care, for as long as that person is illegally on the health care dole -- and not only that individual person, but all his or her relatives, and family. $30 or $40 billion a year, for decades. Not emergency services, but regular checkups, blood tests, chest x-rays, physical therapy for sprains and strains etc ad infinitum.

Because illegal immigrants are all about getting off work to have these kinds of extended tests done on them. Every hour they are in an hospital bed means more money that they get to send back home. Not to mention physical therapy, extended drug regimes and the delicious hospital food. I'm just surprised that the whole population of Mexico doesn't move north to take advantage of us.

I'm afraid that you seem to have some problems logically thinking thru some of these points as well as addressing the links and figures I gave that refute the notion that the main or even one of the main problems in increasing medical costs is dealing with illegal immigrants. That you would try to use illegal immigrants (note that you focus on Mexicans, which again suggests you have some issues in that regard) to try and argue against healthcare reform, when there are 47 million Americans currently without insurance, tells me that you are doing the concern troll thing again, but, like when you went off on breasts during your HillaryTroll08, you are losing sight of your main objective by advancing the Hispanic takeover by La Raza meme. (though watch out, the Bellmore household is half Hispanic).

But don't worry, keep trying, I'm sure you will eventually hit on some playground name to call me that will win you the debate. Cause it sure ain't going to be logical thinking that gets you there.

Okay, now Jay Jerome AND Brett Bellmore need to prove that THEY are not illegal aliens.

That's not an insult. I don't hold the animus for illegal aliens that JJ and BB do. I'm sure that JJ and BB don't even LOOK like illegal aliens.

But what about Sonya Sotomayor? If SS were applying for a job or for health insurance, do JJ and BB propose that citizens who look like SS must show us their papers, but JJ and BB ought not be required to show us theirs?

Or do JJ and BB propose a national ID card?

--TP

mostly from rural and southern Mexico, where life expectancy is about ten years less then the average here, who grew up on nutritionally restricted diets, and have high incidences of whooping cough, tuberculosis, malaria, measles and even leprosy

Forgot to note the Dobbs leprosy argument. That's a winner!

"..., when there are 47 million Americans people living in America currently without insurance, ..."

Fixed it for you.

Thanks for that correx. I assumed that the Census Bureau would be exclusive of illegal immigrants, but some googling says that non citizens are somehow included, though I'm not sure how, as it is a survey of about 100,000 households that gives them that number. Here is a discussion of how that figure may under or over count.

liberal confused-icus said: "Do try and keep up with the logic here."

I'd certainly like to, can you point to it?
And try to understand the flow in context..
.
The comment made was that Mexicans who do those jobs are healthier than Americans. It's a racist assumption made with no corroborating evidence, and on the face of it stupid and uninformed.

I pointed out that Mexicans from rural and southern regions of Mexico are likely to be less healthy. That doesn't mean, as you dumbly asserted, they still couldn't perform the jobs described --- only that the original assertion they were healthier than Americans to begin with was unfounded...

I think you're probably a well-meaning person, but you don't think clearly, you don't read clearly, and you constantly misrepresent and distort what people you don't agree with say.

For instance, you said I'm against 'healthcare reform' -- but I'm in favor of universal health care reform, and have said so numerous times in comments here.

But I have reservations about some of the suggested provisions. I want a plan that will cover the 47 million 'Americans' currently uncovered, a plan that will work, and not collapse like a house of cards because it's under-financed, or overextended. And no, I'm not in favor of covering an additional 6-million illegal residents in addition to the 47 million currently uncovered.

And what's your problem with Hillary's breasts? Do you have problems with breasts in general, or just Hillary's? Do they frighten you, intimidate you? Do you have bad dreams about them smothering you in your sleep? If and when we do get national health care coverage hopefully it'll include mental health sessions where you can get some therapy.

Meanwhile I suggest you avoid celebrations like the Macy's Day Thanksgiving Parade where huge breast-like balloons floating overhead may send you into conniptions of fear.

Tony P: "But what about Sonya Sotomayor? If SS were applying for a job or for health insurance, do JJ and BB propose that citizens who look like SS must show us their papers, but JJ and BB ought not be required to show us theirs?"

I don't know what BB thinks and won't speak for him.
Yeah, I think Sonya should show papers. And everyone else who signs up. Like you have to do when you apply for a US passport. Or the same level of identification you have to show when you apply for Social Security benefits.

Plus, there should be random checks, to make sure the documentations presented are authentic, not forgeries, or identification from someone else who died... In other words have mechanisms to check for frauds of various kinds. Same as we do for other entitlement programs now.

Charles WT wrote: "..., when there are 47 million Americans people living in America currently without insurance, ..."

You ommitted the last paragraph of the article, which restores the number to 47 million AMERICANS...

So Obama is sloppy by saying it is for "Americans" but not accounting for the noncitizens, which leaves him off by about 22 percent. Yet it's likely his error is counterbalanced to some extent by the large number of people who have lost insurance during the recession. So we rate his statement Mostly True.

"Or are you happy letting us turn into a half Hispanic nation, half 'other.'??"

This comment from Jay Jerome speaks for itself.

liberal confused-icus said

I guess you didn't understand that I was suggesting the name calling didn't work, not that you should keep doing it.

Let me try and explain this to you slowly. Since the population of those seeking work is not the entire population of rural Mexico, your point about them not being as healthy is not relevant. Of course, you may be thinking that because you believe that 3 generation families are sneaking across the border to enjoy what we have to offer here in the U S of A.

We're talking about EXTENDED health care, for as long as that person is illegally on the health care dole -- and not only that individual person, but all his or her relatives, and family.

Logically, it makes more sense to have one young adult come here to work and send the money back than it does to have abuela and abuelo and the rest of the clan come up here and live with the American cost of living. This is also why you don't see extended families wading across the Rio Grande.

You do see how this logically deflates your claim that it is extended families of illegal immigrants that are costing us?

I also would recommend that you go a little easy on the mental health accusations, that's considered to be bad form around here.

Last night[Sept 10th], President Obama stated: "We are the only democracy—the only advanced democracy on Earth—the only wealthy nation—that allows such hardship for millions of its people. There are now more than 30 million American citizens who cannot get coverage."
[...]
The Census report indicates that of the 46 million uninsured individuals, 34 million were native born and 2.8 million were naturalized citizens. The report thus shows that there were 36.8 million uninsured U.S. citizens (native born and naturalized) in 2008. An alternative calculation includes legal immigrants, which based on a figure from the Pew Hispanic Center would bring the total to something like 39 million.
[...]

Counting the Uninsured: 46 Million or “More than 30 Million”?

(though watch out, the Bellmore household is half Hispanic).

Filipino, IIRC. But still, yeah, it's not the magical talisman against racism he seems to think it is. At least JJ makes it quite clear: He does NOT like Latinos.

It's not about race at all, so far as I'm concerned: My preferred immigration policy would be to throw our borders open to anybody who met three simple criteria:

1. No criminal record. And anything that's not a crime here shouldn't count. We've got enough native born criminals, we don't need to import any.

2. English literate. If you've got two groups in a country who can't speak to each other, you've got two polities, not one. That's bad for domestic tranquility.

3. Either college educated, or has some comparable work skill. We can only admit a finite number of people, and we've got far more than that wanting to come: We can afford to be picky.

See? No mention of race at all.

My objection to letting illegal immigrants in, while barring most people who are willing to comply with our immigration laws, is that in effect we've set up a filter at our border that selects for people who have contempt for our laws. Not too smart, if you ask me.

My objection to letting illegal immigrants in, while barring most people who are willing to comply with our immigration laws, is that in effect we've set up a filter at our border that selects for people who have contempt for our laws. Not too smart, if you ask me.

So your "solution" is to ensure that there are even more illegal immigrants? Well, you are a Republican: the more illegal immigrants, the more cheap labor to be exploited. As you say, it's not smart, but it is profitable, and I guess that's why you want more people coming in illegally than legally.

Phil said:"He does NOT like Latinos."

Oh, really... how'd you come up with that asinine assumption?

Hispanics, as people, are like everyone else, some good, some not.

What I don't like is the uncontrolled, unending Hispanic mostly Mexican migration/incursion we've been experiencing over the past four decades.

No other industrial nation on this planet allows unregulated immigration. And if you think an open border policy is a good thing, you're retarded.

Jesurgislac said to Brett: "So your "solution" is to ensure that there are even more illegal immigrants? Well, you are a Republican"

How'd you come up with that convolution of logic?

And the 'you are Republican' comment -- very sophomoric. It's the equivalent drivel you hear on right wing blogs when they're blanket criticizing Democrats and Liberals...

My objection to letting illegal immigrants in, while barring most people who are willing to comply with our immigration laws, is that in effect we've set up a filter at our border that selects for people who have contempt for our laws.

You refer to our politicians as sociopaths, our government as the mafia, and barely accept the legitimacy of the existence of the state at all, and you worry about OTHER people having contempt for the law? Where are you from originally, Through the Looking-Glass?

[i]And the 'you are Republican' comment -- very sophomoric.

liberal confused-icus said

You should put that argument where the sun don't shine.

ill-thinking japonicus said[/i]

Also.

Grow up, kid, or go back to the playground.

"How'd you come up with that convolution of logic?"

It does sort of vaguely make sense, IF you are committed to pretending that enforcing immigration laws is categorically impossible. If you make that asinine assumption, then any condition at all on immigration amounts to a decision to have more illegal immigrants.

If you've got two groups in a country who can't speak to each other, you've got two polities, not one. That's bad for domestic tranquility.

since when has everybody in America spoken the same language ?

If you [assume enforcing immigration laws is impossible], then any condition at all on immigration amounts to a decision to have more illegal immigrants.

Erm, no. Not even close. Not even vaguely. That doesn't even begin to make sense.

Assuming an invariant flow of immigrants (which seems implicit in your asserted hypothetical assumption that enforcement is impossible), any tightening of the the conditions under which legal immigration could occur would be a decision to have more illegal immigrants, and any loosening of the conditions under which legal immigration could occur would be a decision to have less illegal immigrants, even if the loosening was less than removing all restrictions. Period, full stop. It ain't rocket science. Your proposal is a tightening of immigration conditions. Therefore, it calls for more illegal (and less legal) immigration.

Brett: IF you are committed to pretending that enforcing immigration laws is categorically impossible.

I'm going with the evidence, Brett. I live on an island - England/Scotland/Wales. You don't. And if the UK can't stop people from getting in illegally - and we can't - the US absolutely can't.

Where you have people who need to come and work in your country to earn a living because they cannot earn a living in their own - usually thanks to your own country's exploitative economic policies, and the UK is as guilty of this as the US - then either they can be let to come in legally, with the right to work and the right not to be exploited, or you can wave a hand and claim it's now illegal - so they come in anyway, at a much higher cost to human life, and work illegally, being exploited at low wage jobs in poor working conditions.

This happens in the UK, where we have a natural barrier all around the island. This happens in the US, where there's no natural barrier, just a line drawn on the ground. Trying to stop illegal immigration by denying legal immigration is like trying to stop illegal abortions by denying legal abortions - it's as futile, as cruel, and as costly in human lives.

"since when has everybody in America spoken the same language ?"

Since when has a sprained wrist been any justification for volunteering to have your leg broke?

You should put that argument where the sun don't shine.

Let me begin my reply by inviting you to kiss my sweet white behind.

Now that the niceties are out of the way:

First, I wasn't making an argument. It was just an observation. A lot of people come to the US illegally. They live here, work here, pay rent and taxes.

The crux of your argument seems to be that Obama's health insurance proposals are flawed because some of these illegal immigrants will find a way to fraudulently sign up for coverage.

I'm sure that's true. Some of them will.

Are we going to begin evaluating all of our public policies in terms of whether somebody, somewhere, is going to abuse them?

And WTF to Hillary's breasts have to do with anything? You're a strange cat, Jay.

And if we stop the illegal flow of immigrants into this country, and the cost of labor goes up in those industries where illegals tend to find work -- construction, landscaping, restaurants -- and Americans now out of work, and on welfare or other public assistance because of it, or barely scraping by because the influx of cheap illegal labor depressed their livelihood, go back to work at living wages, won't we be better off paying a little more at the front end, but benefiting greatly at the back end?

Yeah, I think we would. And illegal immigrant labor is just the tip of the iceberg.

Imagine if WalMart, for an example, charged 5% more for everything they sell, but sourced all of their products in the poor rural communities they claim to be serving so well? Or paid their people a decent living wage?

Wouldn't that be freaking great? Wouldn't everyone be better off?

And I'm only singling out WalMart rhetorically here, the same could apply to any of 100 other big-box outfits.

Sadly, the great minds of this nation don't appear to have any way of thinking about questions of value other than in terms of reducing cost.

I blame the investment capital mindset.

And for the record, my solution to the problem is to let anyone in who wants to come, work, and make a life. With a fast path to official status and, eventually, citizenship, so that the greedy mofos who currently exploit illegal labor won't be able to.

My father's people came here in the late 18th C. as indentured labor. That means for the first seven years they were here, somebody else virtually owned their sorry behinds, and no doubt worked them like mules.

My mother's grandparents came here in the nineteen-aughts from Italy. Neither of them ever became fluent in English. My great grandfather dug holes in the ground for a living.

It's the American way.

Go to NYC, ride the subway, and you're traveling through a tunnel that my great-grandfather dug. Next time you go there, say thanks that you didn't have to do it.

Or are you happy letting us turn into a half Hispanic nation, half 'other.'??

Who the hell cares?

"Hispanic" people, by which we mean Spanish-speaking people from a variety of ethnic extractions, have been living in large areas of what are now the US since at least 100 years before any permanent English-speaking settlement.

They were here first, dude.

I think JJ and Brett should be worried. A bunch of non-whites who do not share their worldview and their tribal commitments are flooding into the US. These new Americans (who see North and South America as One America) have no respect for the myths of the “individual” (at least in JJ’s and Brett’s understanding) and think market forces are about power relationships and NOT merit, are flooding into the United States. Even politically conservative folks of color are not slaves to that myth. Once white folks like JJ and Brett are revealed for the tribalists they are, and cannot hide behind “limited government” myth, these Brown and Yellow hordes are going to make the United States the rightful social democratic nation it is struggling to become…Canada and Sweden will melt with envy! No wait, Canada ain’t got nothing to worry about, cuz, their American brothers! (Remember those Brown folks consider the Far North “American” as well!)

Yeah, that's one take on it. Another is that the Democratic party has set out to implement Bertolt Brecht's "Solution". And while I don't think American culture is perfect, of all the countries you could set out to recreate here, why in God's name pick Mexico?

I suppose it makes sense, if you've got yourself lined up to be the PRI.

Another is that the Democratic party has set out to implement Bertolt Brecht's "Solution"

Who are the American Volk?

Public Radio International?

Public Radio International?

You've stumbled onto the great Democratic master plan, Slarti.

Enjoy Rush and Beck while you can, folks. Come the revolution, it's gonna be Tavis Smiley 24/7.

Brett,

The US is already acting like a third world nation, its final steps before the Latin Americanization process is finished, is about a generation or two away. Your kids will suck at the federal teet, much like you did, except they’ll be honest about it.

The US is already acting like a third world nation, its final steps before the Latin Americanization process is finished

The US may well be on its way to being a banana republic, but the number of people living here whose first language is Spanish has f*** all to do with it.

"teat"

There are some sociologists who agree with many US nativists, that the US will become a type of, or resemble a Latin American nation. Not in language, but in attitudes concerning racial and ethnic hierarchies and religious perspectives. Phenotype, class and “culture,” and not blood, become the dominant forms in which “othering” (or creating the other, I never know what terms are fashionable) is created. This will re-shape the old forms of Anglo-American understandings of “individualism” and capitalism, to resemble the formations developed in other Euro-Social Welfare States.

In this thinking, the right-winger’s fears are totally justified. They are the last gasp of an Olde America.

"teat"

The bountiful bosom that is the American federal government.

"The bountiful bosom that is the American federal government."

A vampire that has to suck blood to fill that bosom.

I thought SOD meant to say federal tweet, given that we will all have our brains wired to receive twitter feeds in the future.

There are some sociologists who agree with many US nativists, that the US will become a type of, or resemble a Latin American nation. Not in language, but in attitudes concerning racial and ethnic hierarchies and religious perspectives.

I may regret asking, but would you care to unpack this a bit?

What are "Latin American nations" like? Are we talking socialist workers' paradise, or reactionary military dictatorship? Or maybe something in between?

What "attitudes concerning racial and ethnic hierarchies and religious perspectives" are you talking about? Are European looking people going to lord it over their swarthier countrymen? I thought we'd been there and done that, or were still doing that. Are we all going to become Roman Catholic?

In short, what the hell are you on about?

"I thought SOD meant to say federal tweet, given that we will all have our brains wired to receive twitter feeds in the future."

"Winston turned a switch and the voice sank somewhat, though the words were still distinguishable. The instrument (the telescreen, it was called) could be dimmed, but there was no way of shutting it off completely."

I figured we had a pretty good bulwark against the pernicious aspects of Catholicism, so I was thinking good food, siestas and Mardi Gras was our destiny. Let the Carnival begin!

Spanish colonialism went from genocidal to “absorbing” indigenous cultures.
An example of this is the way the Cherokee Nation was treated by the growing US Empire. Although the Cherokee Nation had adopted most of Anglo-American culture (even having slaves!) they were still “cleared” for Anglo/White expansion. Even though many non-whites embraced the Imperial culture’s religions and philosophies, Anglo-American notions of race and ethnicity prevented non-whites to be, legally, full members. Yellow, Red, Brown, Black, could never be fully “right.” Within the Spanish colonies, the Cherokee nation would have been “absorbed,” since they embraced the culture, and its leaders would have become elites with the myriad Spanish Elites, Portugal in Brazil had similar experiences. It wasn’t ideal, but after a few hundred years of genocide, “absorption” was less deadly. As a result, the notion of mestiza nation (Mexico) and racial democracy (Brazil) became the rallying cry around which nation and ethnicity begin to become forged. Although the US began using the Melting Pot notion as a national narrative, the “one-drop” rule seemed to suggest that the “melting” would be among the European ethnicities, thus whiteness remaining pure/civilized.
The Latin American nations have kind of failed to recognize their own racism, because of the more “aggressive” racism in the US. Whether they are Communist Cuba or right-wing Chile, since the racism was Latin American (which now meant mistiza or democratically racial, Americans aren’t the only ones who practice exceptionalism) it was “better”. But since the Civil Rights, the US has slowly resembled many of the Latin American nations emphasis on “cultures of the poor” and phenotype as “othering” markers.

The Anglo-American myth of the State and the Individual will not hold with the influx of Asian and Latin American migrants and their children. Huntington was paranoid, but it don’t make him wrong!

I don’t fully buy the whole thing, but it’s the most interesting stuff I’ve heard. I think the sociologist who pushes this is, (?) DeSilva and Kaufmann.

sod,
I'm not familiar with the book you are talking about. so I might be misunderstanding the main thesis, but I think a book that gives an opposite perspective would be _How the Irish became White_ by Noel Ignatiev. Given that Irish were initially considered to be 'blacks' until they adopted the viewpoint of the dominant majority (Ignatiev notes that the Irish in Ireland were notable anti-slavery advocates, but that was jettisoned in the US) which seems to contradict your assertion.

Another interesting book that I have mentioned here before is _One Drop of Blood: The American Misadventure of Race_ by Scott Malcolmson. He identifies the racial problem in America as one more unique to the idea of historical forgetfulness rather than some sort of limits on assimilation, which I think also goes against the thesis you are presenting (though I am not really sure). I also remember that his section on the Cherokee was quite good if you are interested in that.

I guess the main problem I have with JJ's arguments is that they were more interesting in the original German.

Someone upthread noted that one of his comments spoke for itself. I don't think that's true, because people are still engaging him as if he had something interesting to say.

JJ is very concerned about Hispanic immigration to the United States. Near as I can tell, he thinks there is some arbitrary tipping point where the brownness level of the USA becomes such that it is no longer the same country. He asks if we're happy with the US turning into a "half-Hispanic" nation. I frankly can't make myself care what the gene pool in the country looks like, and I can think of factors I'd much rather control for than skin color or language.

Like, say, the propensity for being a racist tool.

SOD, if I understand correctly, you're saying that Latin American countries, unlike the US, have absorbed racial minorities into the mainstream instead of enslaving them, killing them off, or treating them as second class citizens.

I'm not sure that's historically accurate, but let's pretend it is. Why is that bad?

The Anglo-American myth of the State and the Individual will not hold with the influx of Asian and Latin American migrants and their children.

What "myth" is that?

And how is that myth going to be undermined by the immigration of Latin and Asian people?

What other "myth" are they bringing with them that is going to change the "Anglo" myth?

Again, can you explain what the heck you're talking about?

I know Kaufmann references Ignatiev’s research, so maybe I’m being unclear. Kaufmann agrees with Ignatiev (both are working within the “social construction of race” thesis, Omi & Winant), that the Irish and all other European migrants have to negotiate their position within the racial hierarchy of the US.

Northern Europeans (Norwegians, Dutch, Germans primarily Protestant but not exclusively, Scots and Scot-Irish) are absorbed under the Anglo-Conformity regime and this colors (pun intended) the way “white” is understood. So most of the non-Anglo Northern Europeans eventually begin to understand themselves as “Anglo.” Anglo-Conformity forces Southern and Eastern Europeans into becoming socially “othered” however, legally; there is still room within their notion of “White,” but still have to fight for them. Non-Europeans, are never granted full rights, and are never seen as “capable” of having them.

At the turn of the last century, the Melting Pot regime becomes fashionable among the liberal Anglo-Americans (which are primarily descendants of the British and Northern European stock) to develop a more pluralistic US, which includes the rest of the European immigrants. So, legally, constitutional rights are expanded to include them, but they are still socially “othered” in the US, except in urban areas.

The expansion of the definition of “white” means restrictions on non-whites. Unequal Freedom: How Race and Gender Shaped American Citizenship and Labor by Evelyn Nakano Glenn, and Fit to Be Citizens?: Public Health and Race in Los Angeles, 1879-1939 by Natalia Molina demonstrate how local laws have to figure out how to deal with yellow and brown races within the White/Black binary of US racial constructions. The “One-Drop Rule” and other legally binding laws are created to solidify whiteness.

The willingness of liberal Anglo-Americans (Jane Addams, John Dewey, etc.) to embrace pluralistic notions of nation also gives birth to the “stab-in-the-back” attitudes US nativists have for urban elites.

The Spanish Empire and the resulting Nations which eventually kick them out, operate under different slightly different racial logic. After hundreds of years of genocide, radical assimilation/absorption, meant rejection of indigenous culture, and you were expected to help “get rid” of tribes on the periphery of the empire, which refused absorption. So, we have newly converted Mestizos, assisting in the destruction of indigenous tribes. When Latin American nation-states begin to rebel against the Spanish Empire, the Empire would create alliances with the peripheral tribes, warning them that the new nation-states would treat them worse than the Imperial government. Although most of these new Spanish elites were “pure” Spanish, rebelling against ‘cousins,” most of the rising classes were mixed, and they were just as hostile to the “uncivilized” tribes as well as, the Imperial government. (As an aside, the Spanish of New Mexico never considered themselves part of the new Mexican nation-state, while California and Texas Mexicans had a stronger relationship with the Mexican state, this also informs racial attitudes after the Mexican-American War)

I am not suggesting that Spanish genocide was much more enlightened than American genocide, but it was different and that difference informs the way we understand racial hierarchies today.

On the subject of the “individual.” The myth is that we are all individuals plopped into existence without a social context. It is only the ability to rationally come to decisions recognizing universal truths which really matters, despite your social context. However, the more accurate truth within the Anglo-American tradition is that the “individual” is always assumed to be part of a group, and membership within that group would determine how The State would relate to you. The US government (and those who have powerful influence over it) would determine what kind of “individual” you were and treat you accordingly.

Today, as white liberals and leftists begin to align themselves, once again, with the periphery of US Empire and people of color, these relationships will threaten the generation forged on the last battle over who was white and non-white. Since, using “white” is no longer fashionable, “citizen” and “non-citizen,” I suspect, will be code to hide the last battle.

I think the case of Bhagat Singh Thind, who technically was “Aryan” but could not be “white” is an example of the relatively uncertain way race works and citizenship work. See:
White by Law: The Legal Construction of Race
In most of the ex-Spanish Empire, I suspect there would have been no problem for Singh, as long as he was not “purely” Black, from Africa and not “purely” Indian from the Americas. Some say, Latin America had the “one-drop” rule in reverse.
Jeez, sorry if it’s not clear, but I am working on race/ethnicity and religion, in Los Angeles now and I am behind.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Whatnot


  • visitors since 3/2/2004

November 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30            
Blog powered by Typepad

QuantCast