Did anyone just hear Lou Dobbs blaming the left wing for being

[go west young man]

in denial about Canada, Mexico, and U.S. leaders are up to? I'm not sure what the real subject was as I came in late but he referred to "the snarky left wing".

[Kerrytravelers]

1. I'll see him a "snarky left-wing" and up the ante with a "stupid right wing."

Which is more dangerous, snarky or stupid?

[GreenPartyVoter]

2. LOL

[Kerrytravelers]

4. I've learned to laugh because Lou Dobbs makes me want to jump off a cliff.

[Uncle Joe]

3. I believe Lou Dobbs is a Xenophobe

and the only people he's working for is the Republican Party.

[TahitiNut]

5. I wonder if his Mexican-American wife agrees.

:shrug:

[mrcheerful]

6. The biggest racists I ever seen were the ones who would carry a rebel flag on the weekends at the

local Klan gathering and spend the week picking up black street walkers. Often closet racists are like closet gays, pretend not to be what they are.

[TahitiNut]

9. So, Lou Dobbs is married to a Mexican-American streetwalker? Fascinating.

:eyes:

[martymar64]

29. She's his little token

Remember, Roy Cohn used to persecute gays, only to die of AIDS

[librechik]

7. xenophobe for profit

hands off his personal life!

he probably has a Guatemalan gardener, too...

[Uncle Joe]

10. I don't know what she believes, just my own opinion, however,

I don't believe him being married to her precludes him from using Xenophobia as a wedge issue to empower the Republican Party.

[Lars39]

11. I don't know how widespread this is,

but I have a hispanic relative who is *very* proud that her family is "pure", of Spanish descent, with none of her relatives being of the Indian tribes indigenous to Mexico. Tribes they were trying to convert to Southern Baptist. :puke:

[TahitiNut]

16. Heaven forbid! I thought Mexico was completely free of racism. That's an American thing.

:eyes: I guess we exported it under NAFTA.

[supernova]

18. This form of racism is huge in Latin America

When I taught a TOEFL course at a UNC campus, I had a guy from Argentina.

To say that he was SO PROUD to say that he was purely of Catalan heritage, no indigenous blood whatsoever, was an understatement. Good god, on the ego scale he could have been an Afrikaner. It really opened my eyes about the different forms of ethnicity and who looks down on whom in Latin America. Basically, if you are of Spanish heritage, you're at the top of the food chain in most of these countries. If you are indigenous, you are at the bottom.

And we sit and wonder why places like Chiapas are on fire. :eyes:

[Lars39]

20. I was hoping it wasn't a common thing.

You describe it to a T. :(

[EFerrari]

22. Yep.

:(

[supernova]

23. That student

I had. Lordy, I wanted to slap him! :spank:

Every single class (6 week summer school, so every day) he came in and made sure to tell me he was CATALAN!

Whoopdie shit, I'm English and Alsacian. And I decide whether you can come here to college or not! :evilgrin:

[EFerrari]

24. I saw this happening in my own family -- Mom's generation.

Light kids, favorites; dark kids, not so favorite. :wow:

[supernova]

25. Within the family?

Wow! :wow:

:hug: to you and yours Pat.

[EFerrari]

27. Oh, they all love each other to death but there's that lightness thing.

In El Salvador, they used to call the darkest child "el indito". :shrug:

[qdemn7]

30. Very common.....

Met some people from Spain. Light skinned. They said "People from Spain are Spanish. People from Mexico are Indians. Look at their faces."

Just proves prejudice is an endemic part of the human condition.

[Ganja Ninja]

33. I saw the same thing when I went to Spain back in the 70's.

And I see it here in Florida today. The Spanish look down on the Cubans and the Cubans look down on the Mexicans. It's human nature. People will always find a reason to elevate themselves in their own minds.

[entanglement]

42. In fact the elites of South America are white (10% or so) - those at the bottom

are invariably indigenous people.

[LeftishBrit]

12. Sometimes the most fervent anti-immigrant types...

are the spouses of immigrants, or 'some of their best friends are immigrants', or their parents were immigrants. Like our former Tory leader Michael Howard; he was the son of a refugee but it didn't stop him from using opposition to immigrants and asylum-seekers for political gain.

[TahitiNut]

15. Sometimes the most fervent pro-illegal-alien types...

... would own slaves if they could afford them.

[pampango]

31. Immigrants or slaves.

Illegal immigrants - come here voluntarily, often a some personal risk, in order to better their lives and the lives of their families.

Slaves - brought here forcibly against their will, in order to labor for the benefit of someone else and see their own families ripped apart.

Seems like a valid comparison. Support one, you got to support the other. By equally illogical extension would those who oppose illegal immigrant types also send all Blacks back to Africa, if they could afford it?

[Lasher]

32. Wow, what a leap!

So African-Americans whose ancestors were brought here 300 years ago are just like someone who illegally sneaked in last year? Do you know the difference between 'valid comparison' and 'intellectual dishonesty'?

[pampango]

34. Sorry, forgot the sarcasm tag.

I was commenting on the other post comparing being pro-illegal immigration to wanting to own slaves. Thought the sarcasm in my response was obvious. (Got to use that sarcasm tag when necessary.)

[Lasher]

35. Oops, please accept my humble apology.

How dense of me! :blush: Duh. :dunce:

[TahitiNut]

37. Here's a newsflash.

Slaves were MOSTLY born here! But don't let that get in the way of missing the point. :shrug:

[pampango]

38. I feel pretty stupid, because I still don't get it.

How does my being sympathetic to Kennedy's desire to legalize the illegal immigrants who are here, make me an erstwhile slave owner? (Can I at least be reassured that Ted will own slaves, too, in the next plantation over?)

[TahitiNut]

39. Well ...

... maybe when those who favor legal immigration and diversity but oppose the exploitation of illegal aliens and non-immigrants for cheap labor aren't smeared and demeaned as "anti-immigrant" by folks with no respect for principled positions that happen to disagree with theirs ... maybe then you'll get it??

Clue: Read the post to which I was replying.

[pampango]

40. Thank you for the clarification. Referring back to that post did help.

I agree that it is important for us to respect the principled positions of those with whom we disagree. Those who are pro-immigration but "oppose the exploitation of illegal aliens and non-immigrants for cheap labor" should respected and not confused with those who oppose immigration, in general, as a something that hurts American workers. Likewise, those who favor doing something to help the illegal immigrants who are here now should be respected and not confused with those who support criminals or don't care about American workers.

[TahitiNut]

41. Thanks ...

I've described my position on this issue in http://journals.democraticunderground.com/TahitiNut/388 and in subsequent posts in the relevant subthread.

In general, I'm steadfastly against a disenfranchised working class and trafficking in human labor. Therefore, I oppose "non-immigrant workers" and "undocumented workers" and the extremely biased enforcement (NON-enforcement) of our laws in a manner that makes our laws a fiction and our sovereignty ineffectual.

When the de facto law is almost completely incongruent with the de jure law, then our system of democatic self-governance is effectively destroyed. We CANNOT even remotely regard ourselves as a democracy if the laws are not upheld, whatever they may be, and we ensure those laws reflect the best interests (especially including ethical interests) of the people of this nation.

[LeftishBrit]

43. The problem is that there *are* many people who are simply anti-immigrant

At least in Britain and in Europe more generally. And the objections are far more to people bringing in an alien culture, demanding too much 'pampering' from the government, being potential criminals, etc. than 'cheap labour'.

I have sat opposite a woman (retired, a strong supporter of Thatcherism and restrictions on unions, and herself in a financial position not to need to worry about cheap labour) whose face twisted with hate as she exclaimed: "We don't need ANY more immigrants! I'm sick of it! I'm sick of it!"

Anti-immigrant sentiment is the main British form of racism (also true of France and other Europaean countries), and usually includes treating descendants of immigrants as 'immigrants' themselves, especially if they're not white.

Of course, no doubt there are plenty of people who do 'favor legal immigration and diversity but oppose the exploitation of illegal aliens and non-immigrants for cheap labor'. I do! (With regard to my own country, I would favour much easier legal immigration, especially for asylum-seekers, and more controls over illegal immigration). And I'm sure you do. But is this really the case with Lou Dobbs? Admittedly, I have only been exposed to a few of the things he's said, and these may be unrepresentative.

But the real point is: if someone is opposed to the exploitation of illegal aliens for cheap labour, then one would expect them to be concerned about illegal immigration AND also to be pro-union and opposed to excessive restrictions on union power; and also probably in favour or a welfare state, since as long as there are people, whether illegal immigrants or not, who have no option but to work for whatever wages are available or to starve, then cheap labour exploitation will continue. Has Dobbs ever spoken out in favour of unions and minimum wage and welfare benefits and against *all* policies that encourage cheap labour exploitation, as well as against illegal immigration? If so, great, and I apologize for my suspicions of him. If not, then he *is* laying himself open to the charge of being anti-immigrant.

[TahitiNut]

46. Lou Dobbs bashing is a 'sport' on DU ... a sport favored by those with short, selective memories.

Dobbs has often spoken out in support of organized labor. Dobbs has spoken out in favor of increases in the minimum wage. Dobbs has spoken out in opposition to off-shoring of industry and jobs. Dobbs was almost the ONLY voice in the M$M speaking out for the prosecution and punishment of Enron executives.

But it's NOT about Dobbs. Attacking Dobbs is a diversion ... a red herring.

It's easier to bash Dobbs than actually invest the effort in comprehending the systemic abuses of immigration policy and both the de facto and de jure trafficking in human labor. The SPLC fastidiously criticizes Dobbs for offering a forum for others who're deemed guilty of racism ... and thereby deem Dobbs a racist-by-association.

The FACT of the matter is that even a racist may come to a conclusion (via a corrupt route) that's valid when analyzed and argued from a non-racist perspective. The fallacy of smearing the messenger instead of arguing the message is invalid, whether the messenger is smeared because of race or because of (alleged) racism. NEITHER posture is valid and NEITHER posture advances understanding.

The positions regarding illegal aliens and undocumented workers taken by Dobbs and by Paul Krugman are very close ... and inconsistent with the "open borders"/amnesty advocates on DU. If people want to smear Dobbs' position then they should also smear Paul Krugman. But that wouldn't even pass the laugh test.

[LeftishBrit]

47. OK, remember here that I'm an ignorant foreigner!

I'm reasonably knowledgeable (I'd say) about American politicians, but much less so about media people, at least those who are not also featured in the British and easily-British-accessible media. I have just about heard of Paul Krugman, and am not sure what his exact positions are. I have come across some statements by Lou Dobbs, but have never watched him, don't know what he looks like, and have had little exposure to the majority of his views.

Also, our immigration situation is very different from yours. We *do* have illegal immigrants, and there *have* been exploitation scandals, but we don't have your huge open border, and most of our 'immigrants' and their descendents are Indian or Pakistani; Afro-Caribbean; together with some white immigrants: e.g. Irish, Jews, and more recently East Europaeans.

In the UK, there *is* a lot of demonization of immigrants as such, and politicians and, even more, tabloid journalists have a tendency to whip it up. It is closely linked to racial, and also religious, prejudice (many 'immigrants' and their descendants are Muslims).

I don't favour any encouragement of illegal immigration, but I also don't favour the use of immigrants as scapegoats. This is a problem in the UK, and may not be to the same extent in the USA - I gather that other forms of racism are more dominant there.

My original comment - on the fact that having friends relatives who are immigrants or belong to a particular ethnic group does not necessarily absolve one from the charge of prejudice - was really mainly based on our experience of Michael Howard, the former leader of the Tory party, and main rival to Tony Blair in the 2005 election in case you've ever wondered how the Poodle managed to win such a big majority. Despite being the son of immigrants, he used the anti-immigrant card - very unsuccessfully, I'm happy to say (there was evidence that it actually put voters off) - in the 2005 election. I probably dislike him all the more because his immigrant background is similar to my own - both of us are descended from East Europaean Jewish immigrants to Britain - so I felt to some degree personally betrayed!


ETA: I only partly agree with your statement:

'The fallacy of smearing the messenger instead of arguing the message is invalid, whether the messenger is smeared because of race or because of (alleged) racism.'

I would totally agree that the fact that someone is believed to be personally racist, or to have made racist statements in private should not interfere with the validity of their message (any more than e.g. their having a criminal conviction). However, if people are using a message, even one that's based on fact, to support a *publicly* racist campaign, then, while it doesn't change the facts, I think it does affect the validity of the message.

Again, I don't know whether Dobbs, any of his guests, Krugman, etc. are doing so; but it's something that can happen, and needs to be watched for. E.g. to give an example from my personal political situation in the UK: I am less pro-federal-Europe than many British liberals, and do consider that there is some validity in all the charges of excessive and damaging bureaucracy; but I find myself having to be careful to avoid getting in with groups who use this message to spread xenophobia and right-wing Toryism - of which there are plenty in the UK.

[High Plains]

45. Oh, Jesus Christ, what a load of crap!

[Truth2Tell]

44. Married to a Mexican-American, can't be a xenophobe.

got it.

[spanone]

8. What else??? Immigration...Dobbs, the one trick pony.

[go west young man]

13. So true about Dobbs with his immigration lead role.

I consider it that he was doing his Republican duty by switching the subject to the one issue Repugs could run on after the illegal/botched Iraq war for oil that he cheerled. For him immigration was his way of killing two birds with one stone. Saving his reputation and saving his party.

[Uncle Joe]

14. Yes, they can't run on the Iraq War, they can't run on the environment,

they can't run on the economy, the only thing they have left is that tired Modus Operandi of divide and conquer. It's always easier to blame outsiders when your own government is corrupt, incompetent or both. Despotic rulers and their propaganda mouth pieces have used this strategy successfully since the War over Rocks.

[Warren DeMontague]

17. What the hell is he talking about? The people most wedded to a steady flow of illegal immigrants

from Mexico are the big businesses addicted to the cheap labor.

[Zookeeper]

19. I didn't see it, but I would guess he was talking about....

the idea of a North American Union if he included Canada. :shrug:

[Spazito]

21. I don't think he was referring to immigration, it sounds like it

was regarding the meetings that have gone on and are on-going, one is upcoming in Quebec very soon. Some refer to it as "North American Union", here is some info:

Secret Banff Meeting of CEOs and the Defense Establishment : Militarization and the Deconstruction of North America

Cabinet ministers, top military brass together with North America's top corporate executives mingle in the plush surroundings of the Fairmont Banff Springs Hotel.

This secret venue on "Continental Prosperity in the New Security Environment" focused on "Deep Integration," which largely consists in flushing national sovereignty in favor of "Fortress North America".

According to the draft program (see below), Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld traveled to Banff, Alberta to deliver the keynote address on "military to military cooperation". Canada's Minister of Public Security Stockwell Day focused his address on issues of North American public security.

Top brass from the US and Canada were in attendance. Canada's Minister of Defense Gordon O'Connor was present together with Chief of Defense Staff, General Rick Hellier.

There was, however, no confirmation that Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper attended the meetings.

On the US side, several of Rumsfeld's top policy advisers were present alongside a handful of researchers and consultants.

The commander of US NorthCom Admiral Tim Keating was also in attendance with several of his senior staff members. Keating is also Commander of NORAD, which is slated to be merged with US NorthCom.

more

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHO20060919&articleId=3274

Top secret: Banff security meeting attracted U.S., Mexico officials

A North American security meeting was secretly held in Banff last week, attracting high-profile officials from the United States, Mexico and Canada.

The North American Forum was hosted with the help of the Canada West Foundation and the Canadian Council of Chief Executives.

Among the attendees at the Fairmont Banff Springs Hotel affair was Stockwell Day, Canada's minister of public safety.

snip

"Here they are talking in my backyard, no media to tell Canadians, Mexicans and Americans about what's going on. completely outraged," he said. "This is an assault on democracy."

more

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2006/09/21/secret-meeting.html

Top North American officials play down criticism that talks too secretive

OTTAWA (CP) - Top North American ministers deflected criticism that they had consulted only big business for their talks on trade and security rules, suggesting Friday there are "different venues" for public interest and labour groups to raise their concerns and suggestions.

The Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) is an ongoing dialogue between Canada, the United States and Mexico to find more common ground on issues ranging from border security to emergency preparedness. The group has an arm of business leaders that provides myriad recommendations, but has no formal mechanism for consulting the public at large.

The talks were a lead-up to a meeting of the countries' leaders this August in Canada.

The SPP was struck by the leaders of the three countries in 2005 to enhance the continent's competitiveness, but for at least the first year received little attention with their dry talk on regulations and cutting down on paperwork. Recently nationalist groups and politicians in Canada and the United States have raised alarm bells over the lack of formal consultation with either civil society or legislatures.

more

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=3a72e600-b154-4bfa-b9e3-d2f7a587f918&k=9984

Canadians are becoming very aware of this and the opposition to it is growing for a myriad of reasons. Lou Dobbs making it an issue, while I am glad he is, is, imo, a continuation of his anti-immigrant, isolationist perspective.

[RB TexLa]

26. So he's upset that the left isn't seeing as many black helicopters as nuts on the right that hate

international cooperation?

[Spazito]

28. Ahhh...no...he would blame the left for whatever he has a problem with

and it is not a question of "international cooperation", at least not by Canadian standards, it is a lowering of standards to the level of the US. Canadians aren't not too keen on that, I suspect you understand why.

I just love how questioning this equates to tinfoil, it's not like the US government past and present has done anything that might cause one to become skeptical of their motives, nah.

Why are some SO protective of this initiative that they work SO hard to try and discredit those who have concerns?

I can only assume you are also a cheerleader of NAFTA, right? If so, why, if not, why would you champion this initiative.

[go west young man]

36. Thanks for clarifying what Dobbs was talking about.