home

When Whites Tell Latinos What To Think

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 01:10:26 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

George Will:

Arizonans should not be judged disdainfully and from a distance by people whose closest contacts with Hispanics are with fine men and women who trim their lawns and put plates in front of them at restaurants, not with illegal immigrants passing through their back yards at 3 a.m.

(Emphasis supplied.) As most of you probably know, I am Latino. And so is Markos. So are the members of the editorial board of La Opinion. So is Marco Rubio. So is Cesar Conda. And Jeb Bush wakes up next to a Latina.

Will should not project his own limited life experience with Latinos on to other people. BTW, the conservative Arizona Republic newspaper said "[n]ot since the dismal days of our nationally infamous fight over a holiday to honor the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., has the profile of Arizona descended this low." And Arizona Republican Hispanics said "SB 1070 is a direct slap in the face to Hispanic Americans who have fought and died for several American wars."

I suppose the experience with Latinos is different at Beltway cocktail parties.

Speaking for me only

< Wednesday Open Thread | The GOP Soul Loathes Latinos >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    When Whites Tell Latinos What To Think | 136 comments (136 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    wow (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 01:15:49 PM EST
    that is just a remarkable quote.
    even for Will.

    What exactly do you object to? (none / 0) (#3)
    by DaveCal on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 01:38:48 PM EST
    And before you jump or dump all over me, I'm simply asking a question to try and understand your view.  I'm not trying to start an argument or piss people off.

    Parent
    I do not believe your disclaimer (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 01:43:00 PM EST


    Parent
    Sorry to hear that... (none / 0) (#6)
    by DaveCal on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 01:46:04 PM EST


    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#8)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 01:48:28 PM EST
    It could be deep denial...

    Parent
    holy moly (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 01:47:01 PM EST
    where to start

    Arizonans should not be judged disdainfully and from a distance by people whose closest contacts with Hispanics are with fine men and women who trim their lawns and put plates in front of them at restaurants

    first off, I think most americans have some contact with Hispanics beyond lawn work or busing tables.

    second, what is he saying exactly?  that when "normal" white people actually DO have contact with Hispanics they want them deported?  odd, I have found exactly the opposite to be true.  but I would not expect a doughy white waspy twit like Will to know that.  I have no doubt that his only contact with Hispanics IS cutting his grass or busing his table.

    shorter version:  it was a pathetically stupid racist thing to say.  not to mention totally uninformed.

    Parent

    well I'm not certain, since I didn't write it... (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by DaveCal on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 01:50:45 PM EST
    But I thought he was trying to say that maybe people from other states shouldn't jump all over Arizona and it's citizens until they've been in their shoes.  

    And for what it's worth, here's the entire paragraph, to maybe give a little more context:

    "Non-Hispanic Arizonans of all sorts live congenially with all sorts of persons of Hispanic descent. These include some whose ancestors got to Arizona before statehood -- some even before it was a territory. They were in America before most Americans' ancestors arrived. Arizonans should not be judged disdainfully and from a distance by people whose closest contacts with Hispanics are with fine men and women who trim their lawns and put plates in front of them at restaurants, not with illegal immigrants passing through their back yards at 3 a.m."

    Parent

    apparently (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 01:54:09 PM EST
    you are swayed by the preceding CYA sentence.
    I am not.


    Parent
    Dont judge Will (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 02:10:01 PM EST
    disdainfully for that period in his life when he wore out a dozen pair of kneepads during the Reagan administration, either. Also, dont judge all severely repressed, anal retentive, conservative writers with grossly overrated reputations from a distance and think they're all alike. At least, not until you've walked a mile in their shoes.

    And dont forget to tip the busboy.

     

    Parent

    Either way, I didn't read it as racist (none / 0) (#21)
    by DaveCal on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 02:04:34 PM EST
    Frankly, he seems to be chastising people who may be speaking out when they don't know what they're talking about.  

    If their myopic view of the issue is based on a stereotypical elite lifestyle where they only see hispanics in a sterotypical role of restaurant worker or landscaper, then they shouldn't be too quick to judge.

    Frankly, he seems to be saying their views are the biased, uninformed views.  

    Yet you think Will's comments are racist?    

    Parent

    The problem is (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 02:08:05 PM EST
    Will does not know what he is talking about or is acting the fool.

    Does he not know what the Arizona Hispanic  Republicans said? How about the Mayor of Phoeniz? The Arizona Republic? Marco Rubio? Jeb Bush?

    I'm leaving out Raul Grijalva and La Opinion from the equation for you because I figure you would not take a Democrat or Latino view outside of Arizona seriously.

    No doubt you feel that Will has a better understanding of Latinos than they do.

    Parent

    I don't think that at all... (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by DaveCal on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 02:19:29 PM EST
    "No doubt you feel that Will has a better understanding of Latinos than they do"

    I don't think that at all.  

    I think Will is probably in the same category as the people he's chastising. He probably has little or no personal interaction with Arizona or its citizens.  

    But I don't know much about him, his upbringing or his personal life. So maybe he does have more interaction than I imagined.  

    But, frankly, I think that's his point.  There are all kinds of people throwing barbs at Arizona and it citizens over this state law, at least some of whom have no idea about which they speak.  

    The quoted comment is directed to people whose only contact with Hispanics is that stereotypical crap, and what he's saying is, in essence, 'you shouldn't be so quick to judge Arizona and its citizens through your myopic lenses'.  

    I don't find that racist at all.  On the contrary.  

    Parent

    Who is he chastising? (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 02:21:45 PM EST
    People who condemn the law.

    People like the Arizona Hispanic Republicans. People like the Arizona Republic.
    People like Marco Rubio.
    People like Jeb Bush.

    Your comment makes no sense to me.

    Parent

    Just what he said... (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by DaveCal on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 02:28:35 PM EST
    When I read it, I thought he was chastising:

    "people whose closest contacts with Hispanics are with fine men and women who trim their lawns and put plates in front of them at restaurants"

    I have no idea if the people you listed are in that category or not.

    He's not chastising everyone who condemns the law.  At least he didn't say that in the article.  

     

    Parent

    Who the hell is that? (5.00 / 5) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 02:34:12 PM EST
    For gawdsakes, Nancy Pelosi (the one person he mentions while getting in the de rigeur San Francisco liberals line (BTW, lot of Latinos in San Francisco don't you know)  has a hell of a lot more contact with Latinos than Will will ever have in his life.

    I think you would be hard pressed to find someone LESS qualified to discuss the Latino experience than George Will.

    Your comments make less and less sense to me.

    Parent

    You want a name? (3.00 / 2) (#54)
    by DaveCal on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 02:59:13 PM EST
    Why are you trying to tie the statement to a person or group of identifiable people?  

    And I don't know why you try to tie this general statement in the last paragraph to Nancy Pelosi who is mentioned in the first paragraph, with 9 paragraphs in between.  I don't think that's a reasonable reading.  

    And I don't understand the juxtaposition with Will himself (i.e."[Nancy Pelosi] has a hell of a lot more contact with Latinos than Will will ever have in his life.").  That comes across as pretty judgmental, and I have no idea whether or not its true (and suspect you don't either, but I could be wrong).  

    Besides, how do you know he doesn't include himself in the group he's chastising?  Why can't the statement be introspective as well?  We could probably all use a little more introspection.  

    But like I said, I'm not looking for an argument, and I'm starting to feel as if some commenters are arguing (whether that's true or not, I don't know, since it is so hard to read tone correctly in blog comments).  

    I just don't think the comment was racist, not even close.  And I think we already have far too many calls of "racist" in our political discourse these days.  

    Have a nice day everybody.

    Parent

    So now your theoiry is (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 03:00:42 PM EST
    Will is chastising himself?

    Hello Fonzie. The shark is now behind you.

    Parent

    Sigh... (none / 0) (#62)
    by DaveCal on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 03:14:24 PM EST
    Sigh...

    Read it however you want.  Just please do us all a favor don't stoke the "racist" thing.  His comment was not racist.  

    Good night.  

    Parent

    I am positive (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 03:18:37 PM EST
    I called no one a racist in this post, though whether I think they are or not is a different matter.

    Parent
    A false claim of racism (1.00 / 2) (#73)
    by MyLeftMind on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 03:29:02 PM EST
    is a lame way to shut down valid discussion.

    It happens on left wing blogs all the time.
     

    Parent

    Hilarious (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 03:32:53 PM EST
    There was no charge of racism in this post.

    And let me tell you that saying "Latinos are more likely to commit crime" as you did is not going to endear you to me or make me rush to your defense.

    Parent

    And for those who claim crime (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 03:36:47 PM EST
    is the reason this law is needed:  violent crimes are down 23 percent in Arizona over the last decade, and property crimes down 28 percent.

    Easy enough to find at the FBI site.

    Parent

    Preemptive Measures, No Doubt (none / 0) (#78)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 03:42:17 PM EST
    Because "everyone knows" that just being brown skinned is a criminal attribute... lol

    Parent
    But strident news coverage is UP! (none / 0) (#127)
    by Jack E Lope on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 08:46:13 AM EST
    Who needs statistics when perception overrules all else?

    Parent
    Stop lying (none / 0) (#79)
    by MyLeftMind on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 03:42:22 PM EST
    I didn't say "Latinos are more likely to commit crime."

    Parent
    Adjust YOur Browser (none / 0) (#80)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 03:45:39 PM EST
    My comment was not in response to you,.... unless you have a guilty conscience...

    Parent
    Now I can't respond to another person's (none / 0) (#84)
    by MyLeftMind on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 03:53:17 PM EST
    comment? I guess that's the price you pay if you post unpopular opinions at TalkLeft. If you want immigration law enforced, you get called a bigot. People make stuff up and post comments saying you said things you didn't say. Wow, real open to different ideas, huh?

    PS, I don't have a guilty conscience, but perhaps you like to elaborate to clarify what you're accusing me of.

    Parent

    Huh? (none / 0) (#89)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 04:05:30 PM EST
    Now I can't respond to another person's comment?

    You are making up stuff....  playing victim?

    PS, I don't have a guilty conscience, but perhaps you like to elaborate to clarify what you're accusing me of.

    I was not commenting to you, or thinking of you, or even referring to you.. Must be disappointing not to be the center of attention. Based on this comment, it appears as if that is what you are going for here.


    Parent

    and hardly (none / 0) (#90)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 04:06:43 PM EST
    for the first time

    Parent
    The parent link on your comment (none / 0) (#94)
    by MyLeftMind on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 04:26:15 PM EST
    goes directly to my comment.

    I don't want you attention. I come here hoping for reasonable discourse.


    Parent

    Well Your Browser or Settings Are Malfunctioning (none / 0) (#97)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 04:28:48 PM EST
    And for those who claim crime (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 03:36:47 PM EST
    is the reason this law is needed:  violent crimes are down 23 percent in Arizona over the last decade, and property crimes down 28 percent.
    Easy enough to find at the FBI site.

    [ Parent | Reply to This |  1  2  3  4  5  ]

    Preemptive Measures, No Doubt (none / 0) (#78)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 03:42:17 PM EST
    Because "everyone knows" that just being brown skinned is a criminal attribute... lol

    [ Parent | Reply to This ]



    Parent
    What did you say then? (none / 0) (#86)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 03:56:32 PM EST


    Parent
    In various posts, I've said (none / 0) (#96)
    by MyLeftMind on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 04:28:12 PM EST
    1)    The federal government should enforce immigration law. Allowing millions of people to enter and stay in the country is bad for the economy, bad for the middle class, and bad for our progressive agenda.
    2)    The right wing does and will continue to use illegal immigration as a wedge issue, which helps them raise money and get elected.
    3)    One of the biggest problems with illegal immigration is the concept of birthright citizenship, based on the Fourteenth Amendment. Birthright citizenship creates an incentive to enter the country illegally, and allows those who have children here to jump ahead of others waiting to legally immigrate. In spite of the current focus on illegal immigrants from Mexico and the economic impact of poor Mexicans having babies in border states, the problem of "maternity tourism" is across all ethnicities, races and countries of origin. Asia has companies that help women come here while pregnant for the specific purpose of having a child on American soil.
    4)    Economic impacts on American taxpayers and health care payers for babies of poor, non-citizen parents can include Medicaid for the mother, birth expenses for the fetus/infant, and welfare, housing assistance, Medicaid through age 18, Social Security, and foster care costs for the baby/instant citizen.) In addition, each of those instant citizens can sponsor relatives who also are prioritized over other valid potential immigrants (aka "anchor babies"). All of the above helps the right wing stir up anger among their base.
    5)    This is NOT an issue of race or ethnicity, except to the extent that some want it to be framed in that context. The real issue is that a country like ours should be able to maintain sovereignty by excluding non-citizens. If we decide we don't want to do so, than let's stop wasting our time and money and just open up the borders. But the position we've gotten ourselves into now with immigration law that is not enforced is detrimental to our nation.
    6)    Other countries have decided that birthright citizenship is an outdated concept that is not functional in today's mobile, overpopulated global environment. The 14th Amendment should be challenged or changed to reflect (and create) a more sensible immigration policy.
    7)    There are legal issues concerning the validity of the 14th Amendment, as well as the federal law based on it. It's not a done deal.


    Parent
    I disagree with everything you write (none / 0) (#98)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 04:30:39 PM EST
    in that comment, but none of it is racist.

    But you commented on Latino propensity to criminality in the thread I saw. What did you mean by that?

    Charitably, I thought you were attributing that view to supporters of that legislation, which, to me, makes them racist.

    Please clarify.

    Parent

    Where? (none / 0) (#101)
    by MyLeftMind on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 04:42:38 PM EST
    I don't believe there is a Latino propensity to criminality, so I wouldn't have said it.

    In the above list, surely you at least agree that if American taxpayers are liable for the costs of raising a child born here even if the parents are not legal citizens, the right wing will benefit by exploiting voter anger over being taken advantage of, especially in times of scarcity and economic. And what about open borders? Should we stop limiting immigration, or do you prefer to have the law in place but not enforce it?

    Parent

    Your logic of caving to the right (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by MKS on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 05:56:57 PM EST
    wing on issues of "anchor babies" leaves me cold.

    The same could have been said of civil rights too....And in fact it was:  "Don't stir up trouble...."

    Crime is down.  Illegal immigration is down.  The statute is about scapegoating because of the recession....

    IMO, BTW is being very charitable towards you....  

    Parent

    "BTD" is being charitable (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by MKS on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 05:57:27 PM EST


    Parent
    Yes, MKS (none / 0) (#117)
    by ZtoA on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 07:12:30 PM EST
    I agree the real reason is scapegoating because of the recession. So to actually get at the causes of the tensions job creation should be a priority. Revised drug laws would help -legalize, regulate and tax. Taxing the wealthy to provide a broader base of services would help.

    Parent
    All true (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by MKS on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 07:21:06 PM EST
    But I don't like solving civil rights issues by buying them off: if the bigots just made more money, all would be well.

       

    Parent

    You have a good point (none / 0) (#123)
    by ZtoA on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 08:46:30 PM EST
    And I can't say honestly that I disagree. I just think there needs to be a multi-pronged approach. Its the economy stupid (not you as stupid) so, money always matters. Education does too, but that requires money. The US is an exciting 'melting pot' - yes it still is. And inclusion matters, whether it is minority races, ethnicities, gender, etc. Providing a financial base is not a bad thing - it is a start. The problem cannot be solved - or even effectively approached - by PCing people or a party to death.

    I also believe in strict regulation and that is mostly unpopular as it is not 'neighborly'. The less scarce the resources are for the middle class person the better everything will be. That is the real struggle - middle class vs. moneyed class - much more then middle class (=established middle class) vs. soon to be  established middle class (=immigrants). And the moneyed class always seems to be able to buy political power. It is always a tension - for all of history, and is, truly, post, pre, neo, and non -partisan.

    Parent

    Illegal immigration is down? (none / 0) (#132)
    by MyLeftMind on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 11:44:15 AM EST
    Wow, why didn't you say so! No more problems then! Sheesh.

    I don't cave to the right. I believe immigration policy that allows "anchor babies" to financially degrade social services, health services, education services, etc. is BAD POLICY. It is a loophole that allows people to jump ahead of others in the line, and subverts the concept of selecting immigrants based on their individual benefits to this country and to society.

    This is not an issue of civil rights, unless you think foreigners have a right to use this country's resources if they can just get here before giving birth. IMO, if the point is to help poor children of other countries, then we should do that separately from immigration loopholes that encourage them to enter illegally.

    BTD is being charitable? Yeah, gee, this blog is so great when everyone agrees and is afraid to appear Politically Incorrect. (Sher and others, quick, rate this comment down for not toeing the party line!)

    Calling people racist or bigots or wingers because they disagree with our immigration policies is a tool for stifling discussion and dissent. So keep up the name calling and drive off people who think differently than you. Pretending the right wing has no power worked well in the Massachusetts senate race this year, didn't it?


    Parent

    wow (none / 0) (#136)
    by CST on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 01:21:41 PM EST
    if you think the senate election in MA had anything to do with illegal immigration I really don't know what to tell you.

    It was about a lot of things.  But one thing I don't remember hearing about at ALL is immigration.  Healthcare?  check.  Jobs? check.  HEALTHCARE? check check.  Oh and the candidates themselves.  Now maybe someone said something once about immigration but it never made it through all the other noise.  And it certainly didn't determine the outcome one way or another.

    Parent

    I didn't say that. (none / 0) (#137)
    by MyLeftMind on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 01:51:48 PM EST
    Again, if TL posters weren't so hostile to people with different opinions, you would perhaps not jump on the bandwagon of knee jerk criticism.

    Read my sentence again:

    Pretending the right wing has no power worked well in the Massachusetts senate race this year, didn't it?
     

    My reference to the Repub win in Mass was to make the point that by telling posters you disagree with to shut up (saying "BTD is being charitable," calling me a bigot for my analysis of the 14th Amendment) while pretending that the AZ law doesn't appease and engage the conservative base is a sure fired loser in future elections. Lefties will be justifiably angry by this law in AZ, but too many Democrats are lazy and don't vote, while the right wing uses anger against the government and policy failures (immigration, faux health care reform, bankster bailouts) to engage their voters. That's what happened in Massachusetts, IMO.

    Our Party was blindsided in the Mass senate race. It'll happen again because lefties are too busy criticizing those among us who disagree with the party line to actually analyze and fix these policy problems. But keep insulting and driving away folks with different opinions. At least this blog will reflect a nice comfy level of agreement.

    Parent

    Why don't you do a legal analysis (none / 0) (#103)
    by MyLeftMind on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 04:50:31 PM EST
    of the Fourteenth Amendment. There are issues about its validity. Other countries have changed their birthright policies to reflect modern concerns. Ours has been challenged by H.R. 1868--the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009. Why don't you take a look at how attempts to modernize it could (or should) fail, with an argument that outlines why this method of obtaining citizenship is a good idea?

    Parent
    Issues about the "validity" (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by MKS on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 05:52:52 PM EST
    of the Fourteenth Amendment?  Oh my.

    I think is just fine the way it is.....There is no current legal dispute about anchor babies--they are citizens--according the Fourteenth Amendment and what the U.S. Supreme Court held over hundred years ago.  

    Parent

    Capt Howdy it was a racist comment (post #7) (none / 0) (#116)
    by DaveCal on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 06:37:15 PM EST
    That's what I was referring to.  

    I just don't think we should keep stoking it...

    Parent

    Well, the post you link to (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by MKS on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 05:48:41 PM EST
    is pretty tame....

    I think you really want it both ways:  all-in on the wingnut solution to immigration, yet not wanting their views to be attributed to you.....

    Parent

    The Bay Area has a lot of Latinos (none / 0) (#91)
    by MKS on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 04:07:09 PM EST
    from Central America...

    Parent
    I'm not even convinced Will's (5.00 / 0) (#56)
    by Kimberley on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 03:02:33 PM EST
    attempting to upbraid anybody in the country who does not view this law as a rational response to border permeability.

    I think he's just giving racists permission to continue being racists.

    One thing's for sure: He's not writing for Pelosi, or anybody else inside the beltway--all of whom must actively avoid myriad powerful Latinos if they want to have the experience of only being served by Hispanics in restaurants or telling them to trim hedges.

    Parent

    ding ding ding (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 03:05:02 PM EST
    he's just giving racists permission to continue being racists

    the primary job description of Will and his ilk these days.

    Parent

    do you think that Will (none / 0) (#133)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 12:17:21 PM EST
    should have to agree with Latino republicans just because he is a republican?  
    I agree that Will chastising people for elitism is ironic, but he is entitled to his own opinion separate from Hispanic republicans.

    Parent
    It is a false choice (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 02:43:22 PM EST

    The quoted comment is directed to people whose only contact with Hispanics is that stereotypical crap, and what he's saying is, in essence, 'you shouldn't be so quick to judge Arizona and its citizens through your myopic lenses'.  

    Will seems to think there are boatloads (excuse the expression) of people that fall into this category of only having stereotypical contact with Hispanics. there are not. He very well may be the only one.

    Parent

    he's not the ONLY one (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by CST on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 02:44:43 PM EST
    but somehow I doubt the group of people he is describing are the ones actually protesting this bill.

    Parent
    gawd... (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by DaveCal on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 03:20:54 PM EST
    A.  He didn't say that.
    B.  How do you know how many there are or aren't?
    C.  How do you know he is?
    D.  If he is, he's certainly not the only one.

    This whole thread has become exactly what i was afraid it would become... another excuse to claim racism and throw hate at all "those people" who each commenter happens to think falls into the racist category.  

    Will was certainly right about judging when we don't know what the hell we're talking about.

    Sounds like most people commenting today could use the introspection...  

    Parent

    Who exactly then (none / 0) (#77)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 03:41:02 PM EST
    are the non-Arizonans whose only close contact with Hispanics is yard workers and other manual labor?

    You're right, I have no idea of the number. Maybe Will is right and it is everyone except me.

    My point is that he acts as if most of the criticism of the bill is coming from that kind of person. He is not just saying to feel empathy with the guy with the illegals in his back yard before you criticize the bill.

    Parent

    DaveCal's argument (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by christinep on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 05:13:46 PM EST
    IF the point of DaveCal's argument is that we should tread lightly or not at all in criticizing/evaluating the actions of another state in which we do not live, I suggest that such an argument in this case is a dodge. It is a dodge because we are not talking about different manners of how we invite neighbors to lunch in differing regions or about differences in how we dress in the east or west or about cultural appetites of Georgia vs Minnesota, etc. We are talking about a STATE law that presumes to PREEMPT FEDERAL law & policy. Even if we would discount the immense civil rights significance of Arizona's ugly, brazen attempt--which cannot be ignored--we are faced with a state allegedly defying Federal immigration law by (at the very least) creating a new crime without the Constitutional authority to do do. That, my friend, makes it a matter of more than broad national gossip and tut-tutting; it makes it a significant national issue. George Will can, at times, be an engaging conservative curmudgeon (especially when charming us with baseball talk), but he has missed the broader legal issues--both the obvious civil rights effronts and the clash with Federal law. BTW, as one who has spent almost all of her adult life in the west, I do "understand" what is being said. We all know that out here. Tell me: How is this dodge any different than the South in the 1950s and 1960s telling the other states to butt out because we didn't "understand" the unique situation there???

    Parent
    Well your premise is incorrect... (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by DaveCal on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 06:20:00 PM EST
    My point was simply that George Will didn't say anything that was racist, and that throwing that claim around doesn't help the discussion.  

    Your take is interesting though.  I'm not sure why a State doesn't have the authority to enact such a law.  

    1. What part of it is preempting federal law?  

    My understanding is that it requires people to show evidence of their legal status IF they are otherwise involved in an encounter with the police AND the police have a reasonable suspicion that they may be in the country (and therefore the state) illegally.  Maybe it does something more than that, but I haven't seen it cited yet.  In fact, the "reasonable suspicion" cannot legally be based on race alone because the law expressly prohibits racial profiling.  

    I've heard plenty of people assume it'll lead to racial profiling and fears that police will stop people for no reason other than to ask for documents.  But if that happens, it would be contrary to the provisions of the law just enacted, as I understand them.  

    2. What part of the law creates a new crime?  And why would a state be prohibited from creating new crimes?    

    Obviously states create state criminal laws all the time.  Yes, sometimes those laws are overturned by the courts as contrary to the US Constitution.  And perhaps this law will be declared unconstitutional as well, I don't know.  But certainly states have the right to make criminal laws.

    3.  Please be careful with commnets like "I do 'understand' what is being said"...  

    I've heard things like that quite often recently (with respect to racism charges especially).  As I've similarly commented in other posts, it is really unfair.  We can't really have an honest discussion about a topic if people read into comments things that aren't said.  

    As was my original point, why don't we work with what's actually said, rather than what we BELIEVE someone meant.  

     

    Parent

    What is the "crime" (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by christinep on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 07:22:36 PM EST
    In addition to Squeaky's comments, DaveCal, the interesting preemption issue here is whether the federal government's structure that has been established and evolved over the years creates the preemption to which I referred. For example: To date, the general fact that one is residing in the US without proper entry documents may make one subject to deportation proceedings, but that fact alone does not amount to a crime. It is a civil violation. That is more than fine points/parsing/splitting hairs. If the federal government has spoken in matters of immigration in a way that contradicts state legislation, that raises the issue of preemption very directly. That is understood in immigration law. The issue becomes whether the federal government has effectively preempted, of course. Yet, it would take more than convolution to say that the federal governments regulatory schema wherein the approach is civil violation (and related actions)does not amount to preemption of a state redefining otherwise. Clearly, from a political standpoint, the situation may well nudge the US to deal with the program in toto with a comprehensive reform package. One other thing: I did not say "I understand" to indicate superior info or other shut-down-the-discussion maneuver. That statement is made only to underscore that the demographics and pressures in Arizona are not that unique. Take a look at population shifts in Colorado, Nevada, California, Texas for a quick check. I've lived in the West all these years, and lived those changes...that was my meaning.

    Parent
    So where's the pre-emption? (none / 0) (#135)
    by DaveCal on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 12:44:58 PM EST
    I don't see pre-emption here.  I don't see any contradiction with federal law. What do you see that I don't?  

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/29/opinion/29kobach.html

    Parent

    The Preemption (none / 0) (#138)
    by christinep on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 02:16:36 PM EST
    is the structure of Federal immigration law to date. The laws and regulations, for example, that were passed and promulgated throughout the 20th century constitute the federal action in the area. I'm guessing that respondents will argue that so-many-things-remain-unadressed-&-so-many-things-are-outdated-in-view-of-increasing-pressures-o n-states, etc. that there exist areas for state action. The problem that respondents face: Federal immigration law clearly classifies the status of "illegal immigrants" as civil violations. So...projecting a bit, it may all come down to whether any attempt to reclassify that status by a state or local entity has already been precluded. Projecting even more, respondents would argue something like changed circumstances over the years. But, thats a tough sell because of the settled matter that the sovereign country has the ultimate authority. Fascinating.

    Parent
    Federal Law (none / 0) (#114)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 06:26:13 PM EST
    Federal caselaw's pretty clear, you can't be penalized for failure to carry ID, except when driving, flying, or engaged in a few other specific licensed  activities. Hiibel v Nevada held that when stopped by police on reasonable suspicion (a terry Stop) you have to identify yourself, but the court stopped short of a requirement of paper ID.
    Hang on the sidewalk in one of Arizona's upscale shopping districts. Dress down, and subtly attract the attention of the local constabulary. When they demand your ID, refuse, with a slightly beligerant tone.  The idea's to get taken to jail without actually committing a crime. Bail out next day, and sue. Eventually settle for give or  $20,000, plus attorneys fees on the false arrest.
    Ben Masel

    Parent
    you know (none / 0) (#39)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 02:27:17 PM EST
    as usual, I saw Barry put the best spin on this yesterday.  paraphrase:

    what if you are a person of Hispanic heritage who may have been here for generations taking your child out for ice cream and you are stopped and hassled for your "papers" by the police.

    that pretty much says it all for me.  it is so obviously not what this country is supposed to be, and historical largely has been, for all of my life.  this is indefensible.  plain and simple.  unbelievable so.  its SO simply that any fair minded person gets it.

    or so I thought.


    Parent

    Barry? (none / 0) (#134)
    by prittfumes on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 12:27:52 PM EST
    I heard that too and if I'm not mistaken, the President of the United States was speaking.

    Is it possible you feel free to refer to him as "Barry" simply because he is black?

    Racism!! Pure and simple.

    Parent

    Will's basic argument here (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Spamlet on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 01:55:18 PM EST
    is that white liberals are elitists. You know, they go to restaurants and have people of other ethnicities trim their lawns for them.

    Everything else he says here flows from that well-worn Republican talking point. Not that this variation on that talking point isn't pernicious and stupid.

    Parent

    heh (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 01:58:07 PM EST
    being called an elitist by George Will is like being called hysterical by Orly Taitz.

    Parent
    Will is saying that those (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by MKS on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 01:58:35 PM EST
    non-Arizonans who oppose the bill only have contact with waiters, etc.

    Markos and BTD are not from Arizona.  They oppose the bill.  I think they have more contact with Latinos aside from waiters....

    I oppose the bill.  I am not from Arizona, although I have spent some time there.  I know a lot of Latinos who don't mow lawns or wait on tables....

    Will is an a*s.

    Parent

    Not to mention (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 02:04:20 PM EST
    the Arizona Republican Hispanics group. Or the Arizona Republic.

    Maybe people in the Beltway need to shut up about it.

    Parent

    He didn't say that.... (1.00 / 0) (#44)
    by DaveCal on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 02:34:51 PM EST
    "Will is saying that those non-Arizonans who oppose the bill only have contacts with waiters, etc."

    He didn't say that at all.    

    There are some big logic leaps happening on this topic.  

    Parent

    What did he say then? (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 02:36:30 PM EST
    Frankly, the lack of logic I am finding is mostly coming from you.

    To put it bluntly, you would be hard pressed to find a person less qualified to discuss the Latino experience in America generally and Arizona specifically than George Will.

    Parent

    That's unfair. (none / 0) (#60)
    by DaveCal on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 03:08:11 PM EST
    BTD, I've read enough of your comments on here to know that you can read very well.  The statement Will made did NOT say what you wrote.  

    You were reading something into it.  And it is a very volatile something that you were reading into it.  

    I suspect you wouldn't want someone doing that with things you write.  Especially if they are reading into it 'racism' or 'sexism' or some other very tarnishing label.  

    Parent

    More Like (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 03:17:20 PM EST
    You need to retune your ears for dog whistles.

    Parent
    clearly (none / 0) (#61)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 03:14:13 PM EST
    Will is good at his "job"

    Parent
    Right, he is not saying that (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 04:17:36 PM EST
    ALL "non-Arizonans who oppose the bill only have contacts with waiters, etc."

    But to even put it in his column he must think there are pretty significant numbers of such people, right? Or else why bother?

    I'm not calling him a racist. I just think he is making a point that applies to far fewer people than he thinks.

    Parent

    well (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 04:21:01 PM EST
    I honestly dont see how this statement

    Arizonans should not be judged disdainfully and from a distance by people whose closest contacts with Hispanics are with fine men and women who trim their lawns and put plates in front of them at restaurants,

    could be considered anything but racist.
    on its face.


    Parent

    Howe about people from Arizona? (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 02:03:03 PM EST
    How about Latinos?

    Or should only Will and Byron York  and Joe Arpaio be allowed to express opinions on the issue?

    Parent

    heh (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 02:09:57 PM EST
    they are only "part of the deal" here.  certainly they have nothing valuable to say about the deal itself.

    at least not to people like York and Will.


    Parent

    Precisely (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 02:12:12 PM EST
    Will decided that only Nancy Pelosi condemned the law.

    I have no idea how anyone could possibly defend his ridiculous column.

    Parent

    also (none / 0) (#14)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 01:55:49 PM EST
    Will has been doing this long enough to know that a statement like that is begging to be taken "out of context".

    which is IMO stupid because it can not be.


    Parent

    Whose Shoes? (none / 0) (#17)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 02:02:04 PM EST
    ....people from other states shouldn't jump all over Arizona and it's citizens until they've been in their shoes.  

    Um whose shoes are we talking about here, White Arizonians or the large portion of people in the State who are now a target of unconstitutional profiling by the police?

    And just because many in a given State are racist, does that mean that everyone, who happens to be in that given State is now a target of fascist policies?

    Are you claiming that Arizona should be a sovereign country?

    Parent

    Who do you thinik Will is describing? (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 02:02:05 PM EST
    I listed a lot of people who I think should disabuse anyone of the notion that Will's comments are reasonable.

    Will's motives I do not address, but they seem obvious to me.

    YMMV.

    Parent

    Racial Profiling Impossible (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 01:36:56 PM EST
    Yes it is more than likely true that whites will not be racially profiled by the Arizona law...  

    "Thankfully, Byron York, he hit the nail on the head," Palin told Sean Hannity of Fox News on Tuesday. "There is no ability or opportunity in there for the racial profiling. And shame on the lamestream media again for turning this into something that it is not."

    "Governor Jan Brewer did what she had to do as the CEO of that state to help protect the [white] citizens of her state," Palin continued. "I think it's shameful too that the Obama administration has allowed this to become more of a racial issue by perpetuating this myth that racial profiling is a part of this law."[editorial insertion mine]

    raw story

    Why put fake words in Palin's mouth? (none / 0) (#9)
    by MyLeftMind on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 01:49:45 PM EST
    Doesn't she say enough silly stuff all on her own? Maybe it's just easier to pretend the immigration issue is all about whites vs Hispanics. It's not. Immigration law and the issue of birthright citizenship have far reaching impacts for our country, and the reason illegal immigration from border countries is a problem is because it's so hard to monitor.

    Anyway, if a state enforces or aids in the enforcement of immigration law, that's good for all their citizens, regardless of their ethnicity or race. Not that this is a good law, and not that it won't result in profiling (BAD), but as long as the federal government flakes out on preventing illegal immigration, states will try to deal with the problems. And the right wing will use this as a wedge issue to enhance their power.

    <flame suit on>

    Parent

    True dat (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 02:09:13 PM EST
    Palin's words are disgusting on this issue.

    Though not surprising.

    Racist is just the beginning of what her words are.

    Parent

    What is ridiculous (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 02:09:53 PM EST
    is the idea that this is good for GOP political fortunes.

    You must be joking.

    Parent

    Someone said yesterday (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 02:13:10 PM EST
    that Texas Republicans were considering a similar measure. My political brain says to that: "make my day."

    Parent
    dont kid yourself (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 02:15:32 PM EST
    I have been posting that vid from the candidate for Gov of Alabama.  there is most definitely an audience for this stuff.  and we have been seeing most of them at "protests" for a while now.

    the question is if the downside will offset the upside.

    I say it will not.


    Parent

    short term? (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by CST on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 02:18:56 PM EST
    maybe.  Long term, definitely not.

    Ticking demographic time bomb.  And this is making a lot of noise.  People will not forget.

    Parent

    This is like Prop 187 (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 02:19:28 PM EST


    Parent
    Their problem is (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 02:20:20 PM EST
    that they can't win national election with just themselves anymore. At least, not Presidential elections.

    Karl Rove knows they can't do this and win. At least, not for long.

    Parent

    In Alabama there is (none / 0) (#115)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 06:29:58 PM EST
    But Texas could lead to big trouble?  Let us understand something, huge chunks of land were given to "Catholic" settlers from Mexico in Texas so long as they were Catholic.  Those people were not run off when Texas became a part of the United States.  There is a lot of wealthy Latino in Texas and Latino leaders in Texas, it isn't just some redneck white man state.

    Parent
    Maybe they're looking at (none / 0) (#126)
    by jbindc on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 08:38:14 AM EST
    The fact the Brewer is up 16 points in approval in the lady two weeks in the latest Ras poll and a majority of likely voters approve of the bill's passage?

    Not agreeing with them, of course, but do you think they're looking at that and thinking they have a good issue?

    Parent

    "latest" (none / 0) (#128)
    by jbindc on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 08:49:27 AM EST
    Not lady poll.

    Sheesh.

    Parent

    seriously (none / 0) (#31)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 02:13:47 PM EST
    when this news broke the other day I think I posted the first heads up here with the warning that this is exactly the kind of thing that was going to take all the tea party steam out of the republican sails going forward.

    do you think the push for the vote on Puerto Rican statehood is an attempt by dems to help give the story legs?


    Parent

    Not ridiculous at all (none / 0) (#70)
    by MyLeftMind on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 03:24:17 PM EST
    This law isn't helpful if it's abused by the cops. But the concept of forcing the federal government to deal with illegal immigration by having the state arrest illegal aliens will be immensely popular. CIS already said they can only deal with those they arrest as criminals for other crimes. Now they'll have to expand their operation to handle people who are arrested for being here illegally. When states arrest people and turn them over to the feds, this will be seen as making them act on the problem instead of sitting on their hands.

    Parent
    Nonsequitor (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 03:27:30 PM EST
    While I doubt I agree with much of your comment, it has nothing to do with mine, which stated that this bill is bad for GOP political fortunes.

    Parent
    Not a nonsequitor. (none / 0) (#76)
    by MyLeftMind on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 03:39:46 PM EST
    "And the right wing will use this as a wedge issue to enhance their power."
    "... this bill is bad for GOP political fortunes."

    The law will exacerbate the culture war, which plays well for Republicans. This will be played as struggling states forcing the federal government to finally do its job. Why should states even have to deal with these problems? Remember, when conservatives are mad, they vote. Not always so for our side.

    In the end, we'll fume over the abuses the law encouraged, and the right wing voters will feel a sense of justified indignation that carries them to the polls.

    Parent

    The culture war? (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 03:55:44 PM EST
    Are effing kidding me?

    What does "the culture war" have to do with civil rights?

    Sheesh.

    You are bizarre to me on this.

    Latinos. Voters. Were you around during the 2008 election?

    Parent

    Unfortunately, many on the right (none / 0) (#120)
    by MKS on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 07:23:00 PM EST
    view it as a culture war.  Not a practical problem of too many people coming here.  But loss of a certain culture.....a non-Latino culture....

    Parent
    Poor George, he doesn't know any better (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 01:41:29 PM EST
    It must be his culture. . .

    You said it! (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by lentinel on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 01:52:34 PM EST
    I suppose the experience with Latinos is different at Beltway cocktail parties.

    And how!

    Add to that the experience with Jewish people, Black people, musicians, artists, children, soldiers...

    But Will is a baseball fan... (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by bayville on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 02:23:25 PM EST
    ...And he once spoke to Roberto Clemente in passing.
    And he quoted Felipe Alou in one of his uninspiring, uninformative, terminally boring baseball books.
    Thusly, in his own mind, he has street cred when speaking about Hispanics.

    I dont think so (none / 0) (#42)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 02:30:14 PM EST
    I think Will sees those men no differently than a valuable race horse.

    Parent
    I am quite sure that the vast majority (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 02:37:55 PM EST
    of Arizonans also have not had illegal immigrants running through their yards at 3am. Will is the master of the false dichotomy.  Putting myself in the shoes of the vast majority of Arizonans is a lot like putting myself in my own shoes, except that I would be willing to bet that I have more day to day contact with immigrants - no idea of their status.

    For most people immigration has little practical effect. It only bothers you if you are of the mindset that you hate having immigrants of a certain type in your state. Racist, in other words.

    For those living right on the border that do have problems, yes, those need to be addressed in a very specific way, not with a law like this.

    Strangely enough (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 02:41:21 PM EST
    Supposing there are people running in your backyard at 3 am, how exactly does the "average Arizonan" know they are undocumented aliens?

    Parent
    Well, all cats are brown in the dark, and (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by observed on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 02:43:46 PM EST
    all brown cats are potential illegal immigrants.

    Parent
    BTD, Brian Bilbray has a wardrobe test (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 02:47:09 PM EST
    you apply! I know you have been busy, so here's the link.

    Check their shoes. It's easy. SNARK.

    Parent

    I think I see this stuff (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 02:46:43 PM EST
    rather more "close up and personal" than do many commenters here because of my large extended family.

    time are tough.  when time are tough a scapegoat is a very convenient thing to have.  much easier to talk about how your state is "cracking down" on "those people" than to talk about how it doenst have the money to fund education or much of anything else in the state.  oh, and there is an obvious connection between the two.

    the things I hear are completely irrational.  they have no more basis in fact than a Glen Beck broadcast.  and the haters can not be disabused of those irrational views because a.) they dont want to be and b.)the have people like Lou Dobbs and Glen Beck reinforcing them every day.

     

    Parent

    Hey Will... (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 02:46:11 PM EST
    this NY cracker smokes spliffs with undocumented latinos in my yard at 3am...my living room even.  Get a clue guy.

    In fact, from my view it is those outside AZ who support the law who are lacking in human contact with latinos.

    Will has always been (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 03:05:33 PM EST
    a neanderthal wrapped in a veneer of pseudo-intellectualism.

    My logic professor (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 03:07:38 PM EST
    taught a section on informal fallacies based in large part on George Will columns.

    Parent
    Perfect! (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 03:19:26 PM EST
    In my first undergraduate English course, I had to deconstruct the logical fallacies in one of his columns - it was a column about a gang-rape that occurred in a Boston bar. Will's argument essentially reduced to 'she deserved it, she walked into a bar of dangerous bikers wearing suggestive clothing' -- with lots of obfuscatory layers. I'll never forget it.

    Yup, racist and sexist, wrapped up with a bowtie.

    Parent

    Would your logic professor have pointed out (none / 0) (#129)
    by Jack E Lope on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 09:36:25 AM EST
    ...that Will appears to be disqualifying himself from commenting on this issue?

    It reminds me of R*sh L*mb**gh claiming that the big media were all ultra-Liberals...at a time when he was the biggest talking head in the USofA....

    Parent

    As I recall, Will's (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by brodie on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 03:51:48 PM EST
    intellectual mentor, Bill Buckley, also had a tendency to justify racially discriminatory state laws.  

    Looks like the student has learned well and is carrying on the fine conservative Republican tradition of trying to return this country to the 1950s.

    Parent

    wait (none / 0) (#88)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 04:05:23 PM EST
    Buckley keeps coming up.  Will may consider him his mentor but Will is not worth the sweat on Buckleys, um, brow.

    Parent
    They're roughly comparable (none / 0) (#95)
    by brodie on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 04:26:47 PM EST
    in certain ways but morally at least, in terms of their harmful proposed policies.  Buckley, who thought whites superior to blacks, wanted to continue Jim Crow in the 60s.  Will in this decade apparently has no major problem with a clearly racist anti-Latino law.

    I know I'm supposed to like Buckley more (can't remember who planted that idea in my head -- various people who said BB was much nicer in person), but I can't work up much enthusiasm for it.  

    Parent

    interesting (none / 0) (#99)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 04:36:24 PM EST
    you know what, I did not even know this.

    I stand corrected.  I just found this of a con website:

    Eventually, Buckley did - to his credit - acknowledge that he had been wrong and that federal intervention to protect black rights against state governments had been necessary; but by that time it was very difficult to reverse the harm caused by his earlier stance.

    it also says that was based on the idea of states rights which is a powerful conservative idea.  even now.

    the truth is I only knew him from the time I was old enough to see him on his tv show which was years after this.

    still.  I stand by the idea that todays "conservatives" are a pale racist shadow of him.


    Parent

    Well don't let the term (5.00 / 0) (#102)
    by brodie on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 04:47:41 PM EST
    "states' rights" fool you -- for decades it was used by the Repub Right as polite and politically effective code to mask their inner racist.

    Lee Atwater later admitted as much.

    I think Barry Goldwater probably had more than a little of the racism of his times and his upbringing when in 1964 he opposed the CR bill.  He too said it was about states rights (claiming that another Arizonan, one Bill Rehnquist, had privately convinced him on these and similar bogus grounds to oppose the bill).

    Finally on Buckley, dim memory says he once (ca 1980s) recommended that all AIDS victims be forced to wear a tattoo on their foreheads to clearly identify them to the public as people to avoid having intimate relations with.  My memory says he was serious, but hey, maybe I misread him ...

    Parent

    I am pretty sure (none / 0) (#105)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 05:02:30 PM EST
    he was not serious about the aids comment if he made it.  his humor was rather, um, inaccessible.
    which is one of the reasons I liked him.

    Parent
    Apparently he was more (5.00 / 0) (#106)
    by brodie on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 05:07:38 PM EST
    serious about the AIDS tattoo than you think (though I had the location on the body wrong):

    In a 1986 New York Times op-ed (3/18/86), Buckley urged that 'everyone detected with AIDS should be tattooed in the upper forearm, to protect common-needle users, and on the buttocks, to prevent the victimization of other homosexuals." In 2005 Buckley obliquely tried to rekindle interest in the policy in a column (National Review, 2/19/05):

    Someone, 20 years ago, suggested a discreet tattoo the site of which would alert the prospective partner to the danger of proceeding as had been planned. But the author of the idea was treated as though he had been schooled in Buchenwald, and the idea was not widely considered, but maybe it is up now for reconsideration.



    Parent
    ok, well fine (none / 0) (#108)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 05:20:26 PM EST
    thats how much I know about conservatives.

    f*ck him.

    I would say that at least a lot smarter in his racism but perhaps thats worse.  but still sometimes the stupid just burns so much I miss him.
    I cant remember the last time a conservative taught me a new word.  

    Parent

    also (none / 0) (#100)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 04:38:07 PM EST
    I admit that I was swayed by his support of things like gay rights later in his life.

    Parent
    Sometimes I think that George Will (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 03:27:49 PM EST
    is a person too, just like me only slower....and then Jesus Feck! I can't even wrap my mind around it.  It isn't even bizarre, it is reprehensible.  Who knew?  Bill Bennet and George Will....separated at birth.

    I thought the whole statement was awful (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Maryb2004 on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 07:54:37 PM EST
    I read it this morning and I've been trying to figure out why I think it is even worse than what you point out.    

    I think it is because because it contains not one but two gross generalizations.  

    The first is the one you bolded.  

    But the way that sentence is structured (as a comparison) means that he is also saying that the closest contact that Arizonans have with Latinos is with ...  illegal immigrants passing through their back yards at 3 a.m.  Despite his whole lead in about non-Hispanic Americans in Arizona living congenially with all sorts of persons of Hispanic descent, he thinks their CLOSEST contact is with shadowy people in their back yards.  Just absurd.

    But the absurdness of his first gross generalization hides the second generalization - which is equally absurd and equally racist. In fact I think he knows how far out he's gone with it because he tries hard to hide it - he writes his lead in statement about congenial living with a strong active voice that gets attention and then he uses a comma rather than using "rather than" in the last sentence.  But the whole sentence is set up as a comparison, so he must be saying that we disdainers have closest contact with Hispanics who are gardeners and wait staff whereas Arizonans have closest contact with Hispanics who are illegal immigrants sneaking around in their back yards despite the fact that the state is full of people of Hispanic descent who have lived in Arizona for generations.  

    Absurd.  
     

    Methinks you thinks too much... (none / 0) (#125)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 12:19:34 AM EST


    Parent
    I Bet Those (none / 0) (#27)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 02:10:12 PM EST
    "Arizona Republican Hispanics" are feeling a little sore in the neither regions this week.

    My wife is 1/4 Spaniard, you know beautiful dark eyes, beautiful dark hair, and beautiful olive skin.  I can promise you she nor I will be stepping foot in the state or purposely using anything produced in/by that state.

    And George Will is an f'en idiot, why the left insists on quoting him about anything is baffling.  That being said, I haven't read anything from Malkin, she's definitely someone who this law is focusing on, yet crickets.  Is she planning on proving her citizenship if she enters the state ?

    And last, but certainly not least, right now 30% of AZ is Hispanic, where is that number going to be after the Census is tabulated ?

    I quote him (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 02:11:08 PM EST
    not to show respect, but to expose.

    Parent
    I Know, I was Just Ranting (none / 0) (#104)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 04:53:51 PM EST
    I just get so tired of these lily white male clowns acting as if they know anything about anything beyond their lily white fiefdoms.

    I didn't mean any disrespect.

    What they don't seem to understand, it their blatant racism effects me, I am lily white myself, and a male, and I am so tired of being lumped in the same genetic cesspool these clowns crawl from.

    Here in Houston my odds of being targeted by the people they anger, just went up a notch and I don't blame hispanics for being mad, I just wish people would see each other for what they are, not for people of like skin tone say or do.

    Parent

    The hoods are coming off (none / 0) (#41)
    by Kimberley on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 02:29:13 PM EST
    My few sources of consolation are that these people have probably never really deceived Latinos into believing they had innocuous superiority complexes.

    And nothing has changed with me, I'm still the same person that grew up believing Dr. King's Dream was the heart and soul of this country's strength and potential. I'm still willing to risk everything to protect and serve that dream for us.

    I wish I could be like that Buddha that absorbs the suffering of people for them. I know these revelations are hurting and frightening tens of millions of people. That is the point, after all. But I'm not like that Buddha. I'm not even an exemplary human in so many ways.

    I can still do this though: I can keep holding the line where I stand. None of this is getting a pass from me--same as it ever was. And nobody will ever fight this alone around me--same as it ever was.

    I'm still sorry that this unmasking has to mightily offend people who deserve better, or cause them to doubt things that once felt secure. That's wrong.

    The state of Arizona has implemented (none / 0) (#81)
    by hairspray on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 03:46:25 PM EST
    public funding of campaigns and even elected Janet Napolitano as governor under that system.  I had read that as a consequence of public funding, more women and minorities were being elected to office than previously.  What is happening that the state seems to be more right wing than ever?

    Elections in Arizona (none / 0) (#82)
    by hairspray on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 03:49:53 PM EST
    I had read that Arizona went to public funding of campaigns about 8 years a go and as a consequence more minorities and women were being elected.  Even Janet Napolitano was elected under that system.  What is happening in that the state is becoming more right wing than ever!

    Demogr.aphics. (none / 0) (#124)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 09:32:47 PM EST
    who has migrated to Arizona? A lot of folks from California, a lot of folks from the plains states. When I lived in Mesa, there were more and more older folks who sold their farms or businesses and moved there.

    Also, look at religion. Mesa has the 2nd largest LDS population of any city in the world, if I'm not mistaken. I'm not saying LDS are anti-latino, but they are conservative, often very conservative, in voting patterns.

    So... a lot of recent migrants from lots of places. Conservative places. California is VERY conservative in many areas.

    Migration to the Phoenix-Mesa metro area had the highest rate in the country from 95- 2000, but I can't find tables for later. the

    Parent

    Interesting. I had thought (none / 0) (#140)
    by hairspray on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 12:04:32 AM EST
    the retirement migration had come industrial places like Detroit, Michigan and places in Ohio with lots of cold weather. Very disappointing to see opportunities for women and minorities fall away.

    Parent
    Go here to add your name to a (none / 0) (#87)
    by MyLeftMind on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 03:59:50 PM EST
    banner that will be carried in a march against racism next Saturday in Seattle.

    Stand Against Racism

    Exaggerated parody (none / 0) (#130)
    by Jack E Lope on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 09:45:38 AM EST
    Confederates should not be judged disdainfully and from a distance by people whose closest contacts with Negroes are with fine men and women who trim their lawns and put plates in front of them at restaurants, not with the Underground Railroad carrying escaping property through their back yards at 3 a.m.
    - William F. George, The Biloxi Post

    Brown is the new Black.

    I think I'll have no time to visit this forum until it cools down a bit, now.

    if you must (none / 0) (#131)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 11:04:50 AM EST
    understand, been there.

    but you input is needed.


    Parent

    Put the parody in context (none / 0) (#139)
    by Jack E Lope on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 09:05:48 PM EST
    ...with the whole quote:

    Confederates of all sorts live congenially with all sorts of persons of Negro descent. These include some whose ancestors got to America before the original Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union -- some even before it was fully colonized. They were in America before America was a nation.  Confederates should not be judged disdainfully and from a distance by people whose closest contacts with Negroes are with fine men and women who trim their lawns and put plates in front of them at restaurants, not with the Underground Railroad carrying escaping property through their back yards at 3 a.m.
    - William F. George, The Biloxi Post

    Parent

    When Whites Tell Latinos What To Think | 136 comments (136 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment