1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to secondary-content




Immigration and Political Grandstanding

By: Phil Tajitsu Nash, Oct 27, 2007
Tags: National, Washington Journal |

In what could be a preview of politics in the 2008 presidential campaign, voters in Virginia are being bombarded with negative advertising that includes anti-immigrant bashing in the run-up to the state’s November 6 elections. Based on the low national popularity ratings of the Bush administration and the historic defeat of Republican Sen. George Allen in his bid for re-election in 2006, the Democrats are poised to pick up seats in the state House of Delegates and possibly even take control of the state Senate for the first time since 1999.

Negative advertising is nothing new. It is a natural by-product of a corrupt two-party system where third parties are prevented from rising, so major party candidates win by tearing down their opponents.
Instant run-off voting, proportional representation and other innovative tools being used by most of the world’s other democracies, have been found to decrease negative campaigning. Shortening the campaign season, providing free access to the airwaves for candidates and providing public financing for bona fide campaigns, are other tools that deserve more support.

Unfortunately, the negative advertising here is at a level that even veteran politicians find remarkable. President Bush and the Republicans have drawn repeatedly on the tactics of fear and divisiveness in the last two national elections by stigmatizing gays and denouncing opponents with the “weak on terror” label.

The echo chamber of anger that is heard on talk radio has further fanned the flames, especially as the economy has softened and anti-war voices have become more prominent.

In July, the Board of Supervisors in Virginia’s Prince William County, just outside Washington, D.C., unanimously passed some of the harshest local legislation in the nation aimed at removing “illegal immigrants” from their county.

Supporters say that the board’s actions were a brave move and necessary to preserve the law and quality of life. Critics say that their actions were racist and a cynical case of self-serving political grandstanding.
Northern Virginia is, in many ways, a microcosm of the nation. Within living memory, farm lands gave way to suburban development, as the federal government expanded and a new middle class moved in.

Immigrants came too, from Latin America, Asia, Africa and Europe, partly to participate in the booming local construction market. Long-timers who remember the state before Loving v. Virginia allowed interracial marriages in 1967, now must deal with Korean-speaking services at their churches, Spanish-speaking day laborers lining up at the local 7-Eleven each morning, and signs in Chinese and Vietnamese.

Prince William County’s median family income is $71,000, but over four percent live below the poverty line. The percentage of whites has decreased steadily in recent years, with current totals at 54 percent white, 19 percent African American, 18 percent Latino, 7 percent Asian Pacific American, and 2 percent Native Americans and others.

Independent filmmaker Eric Byler, who lives in Prince William County, brought colleagues Annabel Park and Jeff Man there to work on a documentary about the politicization of the immigration issue.

Instead, given the hate speech, death threats, and intense villainization that they saw in their initial coverage of the community, they decided to create an “interactive documentary” that included interviews posted online and comments from the public.

They wanted to use their media skills to promote dialogue and civility around an issue that was causing both pro- and anti-immigrant forces to become ad hominem in their attacks.

With production support from Tomiko Anders, Tom Moore, Harry Yoon and Zhibo Lai, they have created an interactive Web portal.

“Our experiment in YouTube activism is working,” said Park. “We have been impressed by the levels of discourse on the Channel page of our Web site, and have been thanked for promoting civility by people on both sides of the issue.”

Religious leaders speak out for tolerance in some frames, while anti-immigrant voters denounce immigrants and speak wistfully about a time when white male privilege ruled supreme in others.

Throughout American history, politicians have used immigrant-bashing to counter their own political shortcomings. Thanks to a team of community-minded filmmakers, we can watch the campaign unfold, help to shape it for the better and preserve its lessons for future generations. Go to youtube.com/9500Liberty to see for yourself.

Comments

  1. Dear Phil:
    Bravo!
    And I hope the lynch mob tarring and feathering Emil with the “racist,” Rovian?, duncehead placard, all read this account of American politickings.
    Emil is a “columnist,” just as entitrled to HIS views and beliefs as are all those talking heads and radio jocks spewimg authentic racist rants.
    And I hope my little voice in support does NOT subject you to the er, ah “Right-wing conspiracy” the Clintons seem to have forgotten.
    Civility would be nice, but THEIR bullies started all this dreck, and, ultimately, facts will trump ideologies.
    Frank Eng

    –Frank Eng on Oct 27, 2007

  2. Mr. Nash: I’d ask you to document occasions where “President Bush and the Republicans…stigmatiz[ed] gays,” and, in fairness, to reference occasions where Democrats denounced homosexual behavior/activity…

    You demonstrate supreme ignorance by linking conservatism to the anti-gay disposition. Careless! (I don’t think it’s fair to say that one party is more tolerant or intolerant of minorities.)

    And, in any event, you’ve absolutely no idea the cost illegal immigration poses to Virginia’s economy. The fact of the matter is that aliens are working tax-free, under a government that is either afraid or completely incapable of documenting illegal immigrants.

    –NA on Oct 27, 2007

  3. Dear NA,

    Here are two examples:
    http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/11/29/gay_millionaires/index_np.html
    http://www.thenation.com/doc/20031020/ireland

    Google “Republican anti-gay agenda” and you will see many more. Please do not use the words “supreme ignorance” unless you yourself have done your homework.

    I agree that Clinton signed the “Right to Marriage” law in an act of political cowardice, and all of us are homophobic, racist, sexist, ageist, and every ism imaginable. We are all swimming in an ocean of isms that we have learned all our lives, and we must consciously work to undo that in order to build the type of tolerant society that can allow each of us to be all we can be.

    On the other issue you raise, I’m afraid that you are misinformed when it comes to the taxes paid by undocumented people. Most policy analysts agree that they pay far more into the system than they will ever take out. Sometimes it is unscrupulous emplyers who take out FICA and Social Security and never pay it to the feds. Sometimes it is simply the undocumented themselves who return to their countries of origin and never collect the benefits they have worked for.
    http://www.reason.org/commentaries/dalmia_20060501.shtml

    You are right that there is an underground economy where some people are working off the books, and that is a separate issue that must be addressed by stopping employers as well as employees who participate in this.

    Thank you for participating in this dialogue. I appreciate your taking the time to write.

    Best regards,

    Phil

    –Phil Nash on Oct 27, 2007

  4. 1. Mr. Nash, you’ve a problem:
    Both articles you posted don’t specify how either Rep. Sue Kelley or Bush, Cheney, and Republicans have “stigmatiz[ed] gays”. To ’stigmatize’ some one, mind you, is quite different than to ‘inconvenience’ him/her. (I.e., in these instances, to support the Federal Marriage Amendment may exacerbate sexual minorities, but it is not a denouncement of them or their lifestyle). If the extent of your argument is that Republicans besmirch gays and their way of life and that Democrats don’t or are indisposed to disgrace, you’re deluded. (FYI, I don’t think Cheney would ever characterize his daughter Mary as a disgrace now, do you?)

    2. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that undocumented workers are capable of tax evasion. Furthermore, you can’t claim to know the state of Virginia’s business and economy — you write from California.

    –NA on Oct 27, 2007

  5. Do your readers a favor next time and post something of substance.

    –NA on Oct 27, 2007

  6. Dear NA,

    Thanks for taking the time to engage in this dialogue.

    1. Thanks to Google, you can type in “republicans stigmatize gays” and find many articles to support my premise. The majority of political scientists would agree with me that the GOP recently has used “wedge issues” such as fear of gays and immigrants to rile up the public at election time, and then, after the election is won, not always follow up with any substantive legislation later. This has also been done by Democrats over the years, if you look back at the anti-Chinese bigots of the 19th century, for example. But the GOP has been far worse in recent times.

    See also Arthur Dong’s movie “Family Fundamentals” to see how GOP Rep. Bob Dornan dealt with a gay man who was in the closet while serving as his chief of staff for many years. http://www.deepfocusproductions.com/page_html/film_FF0.html

    2. Yes, everyone is capable of tax evasion, but please re-read what I wrote above. Most experts on this issue agree that undocumented immigrants, as a group, pay far more in contributions to FICA and Social Security than they ever will pay out. See, for example: http://www.urban.org/publications/900898.html

    Tax evasion is a small piece of a much bigger dilemma caused by:

    * Immigration policies that are not effectively enforced against either immigrants or employers.

    * A business community that is willing to turn the other way in order to exploit the cheap labor of immigrants but will not help to create order in a chaotic and incoherent system.

    * Pres. Bush’s pro-agribusiness immigration policies, which seek to create a class of temporary workers to help his big agribusiness buddies while creating a permanent underclass of people in legal twilight.

    I suggest that instead of getting mad at immigrants, who have very little political power, you focus on the politicians, who can do something to make the laws more coherent, and the law enforcement people, who can make sure that employers and employees are playing the game fairly.

    BTW, I do not write from California; I am the DC-area columnist for Asian Week. Plus, experts on a given state economy do not have to live there while writing about it.

    Finally, please do not make over-broad arguments or characterize me as “deluded,” as you are undermining the otherwise valid points you are making.

    Thanks again for your time.

    Best regards,

    Phil

    –Phil Nash on Oct 27, 2007

  7. PS - Could NA and other writers please have the courage to use their names when engaging in a dialogue? Thank you in advance.

    Phil

    –Phil Nash on Oct 27, 2007

  8. All you’ve written is hollow speculation…You’ve no significant information to support your assertions;

    “The majority of political scientists would agree with me that the GOP recently has used ‘wedge issues’ such as fear of gays and immigrants to rile up the public at election time, and then, after the election is won, not always follow up with any substantive legislation later.”

    Get over yourself. You’re not omniscient and you don’t speak on behalf of the rest of the world.

    –NA on Oct 28, 2007

  9. Neither are you an expert on the Commonwealth’s commercial affairs.

    –NA on Oct 28, 2007

  10. You’re not an expert on the Commonwealth’s commercial affairs; the majority of political scientists would not agree with your rationale; you’re not omniscient; and, why should I care what you think about my comments? (You’re fostering a disrespect of scholarship with your nonsense.)

    –NA on Oct 28, 2007

  11. LOL!!!!

    –NA ok on Oct 28, 2007

  12. Dear Phil,

    Commonwealth politicians are not using “immigrant-bashing to counter their own political shortcomings.” In PWC, Commonwealth politicians are listening to their constitutuents and addressing a very real problem in PWC. This is not about immigrants. It is about illegal aliens and how they are draining our county’s resources and negatively effecting our schools and our communities. I have the authority to speak as I was born and raised here. I have seen our communities, schools, hospitals, and quality of life deteriorate.

    The lesson for future generations is either (1) stay in your own country and fight to improve the quality of life, or (2) immigrate to the U.S. legally by applying for citizenship and waiting your turn.

    The USA is a sovereign nation and has the right to determine who enters here.

    –Allison Carman Kipp on Oct 28, 2007

  13. Dear NA,

    I initially was responding to you because I thought you wanted to engage in an honest dialogue. At this point, I am continuing to respond so that my readers can learn how to respond to people such as yourself.

    Therefore, here are some notes about this comment thread that I hope will be of use to my readers:

    1. Notice how when I respond in a respectful way, NA chooses to be dismissive. Notice that whenever someone such as NA uses words such as “ALL you have written is hollow speculation,” you should be looking carefully for someone making a generalization that deserves further scrutiny.

    2. Notice the bullying tone: “Get over yourself. You’re not omniscient and you don’t speak on behalf of the rest of the world.” Guess what? I have never and will never choose to do that. I am fairly careful in my statements. Notice also that when I chose to give links to material that I felt would support my points, NA chose to not engage with them.

    3. When I asked NA to use his or her name, so as not to be a sniper from behind a wall of privacy, she or he refused. When I asked respectfully that NA not characterize me but instead engage my ideas, she or he said “why should I care what you think about my comments? (You’re fostering a disrespect of scholarship with your nonsense.)” Again, remember, I was trying to give links to scholarly resources, such as a position paper on the use of government benefits by the respected Urban Institute, and NA was accusing me of fostering a disrespect for scholarship. Just because NA says it is disrespect for scholarship does not make it so.

    4. Notice also how NA tries to cut me down by attacking the messenger, such as challenging my credentials because I am not from the Commonwealth of Virginia. First of all, how does NA know this? Second, if this standard were used for every pundit on TV and in print, why does he allow commentators such as Rush Limbaugh to say things that he is not an expert on? Don’t get me wrong, NA and I and everyone else have the right to speak about issues we are not experts on, but must refer to other authorities who are experts when we do so.

    5. NA’s final “LOL” comment is an attempt to bully me with derision. Why should anyone “Laugh out loud” at the dialogue that has taken place here? I certainly am not laughing. I don’t think that anything I said deserves to be laughed at , and I certainly would not laugh if my points had been validated and NA’s shown to be wrong. No one should be publicly humiliated when they enter the world of public discourse. Each of us should enter in with the level of understanding that we have at that time, and listen respectfully to others. When we disagree, marshall our best arguments against each other. If we have to agree to disagree, so be it. In the end, we want to build a democracy where everyone’s voice can be heard.

    Thank you, NA, for engaging in this dialogue. I hope my readers have learned something.

    Phil

    –Phil Nash on Oct 28, 2007

  14. Dear Allison,

    Thanks for your note. I appreciate your taking the time to write.

    You are making some very important points, so let me address them individually:

    1. I hope you are right that today’s Commonwealth politicians are not bashing immigrants for political gains. However, my experience and what I have read about the history of Asian Americans and other immigrants to this country (including Irish, German, Hispanic, African, and other immigrants) proves that as each new wave comes in, they go through a process of being kept out and then, as the years go by, they gradually get assimilated. Each group’s process is different by location and time period, but you can read Bill Ong Hing, K. Scott Wong and other immigration historians for details.

    2. If you read about the history of race relations in the Commonwealth (you can google, for example “Loving versus Virginia” to read more), you will see why I and other people are worried that some politicians do not have motives that are altruistic. Let’s keep an eye on these politicians after they get into office to see whether they come up with constructive solutions for immigrant-related issues, or whether they just use them as a way to keep people divided and angry (and get themselves re-elected).

    3. If you don’t mind, I would prefer to use the less loaded term “undocumented immigrants,” because things can be illegal, but not people. Am I “illegal” when I drive over the speed limit? That being said, you are right that having a lot of new people in an indeterminate legal status creates a lot of problems for locals in Virginia and elsewhere. Immigration law is supposed to be federalized, meaning that we cannot have one set of laws for San Francisco and another for Newport News. But the federal government has broken down recently, and has not done its job with respect to either setting rules or enforcing them.

    4. I agree with you that no one should be able to jump the immigration line, get free services and make life worse for long-time residents. And I am sorry that you have seen the quality of life deteriorate in your hometown. However, I would suggest that there are issues at play that go beyond the immigrants who are moving in. One big issue is that major corporations are taking our jobs overseas because they can get cheaper labor there and not have to worry about labor laws and environmental quality laws. And some of them are taking advantage of a second-class labor force that will accept lower wages and not fight back if they are forced to work long hours in unsafe conditions. This, in turn, depresses wages for the rest of us and makes us all vulnerable to more exploitation.

    5. I would hope that part of your energy would be devoted to these global issues as well, because it does not seem fair to blame the victims of these global policies that are degrading the quality of life for many of us and not also blame the big players in this situation. For more on this, please be sure to read this short piece by former Secretary of Labor Ray Marshall, who has a holistic approach to addressing the immigration issue that I think deserves more attention: http://www.sharedprosperity.org/bp186.html

    6. Yes the U.S. is a sovereign country that can determine its own laws. But, increasingly, our country is being controlled by corporations (even American corporations) that have no allegiance to American or Americans. They took their garment factory jobs from Manhattan to North Carolina to Haiti and now to China in search of the cheapest labor.

    In sum, I agree that we need to control the borders and have a set of rules that everyone plays by, with penalties for bosses and employees if they cheat. Meanwhile, let’s make sure that politicians of all parties do not demonize immigrants or other powerless people in their quest for votes. And once they are in office, let’s press them to pass rules that are fair and that are enforced fairly.

    Thanks again for your time, Allison!

    Phil

    –Phil Nash on Oct 28, 2007

  15. What is coming is a nationwide backlash at the grassroots level in the USA, in many communities effected by undocumented migrants. The backlash is growing in strength and will be insurmountable my those who champion migrants rights. We can see this spreading in Virginia, North Carolina, George, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and other states.

    I think that the high amount of crime that has happened in these localities by guest workers, and gang members, including high DUI and domestic abuse rates, strained social services and budgets, etc, will radicalize many Americans who are normally agnostic or apolitical or centraist right straight onto The RightWing side of this issue. It seems to be only a matter of time and an inevitability.

    I think many moderate and even liberal Democrats will lose their seats over this in marginal districts, and undocumented will either head from such crackdown areas to sanctuary areas, if not repatriate altogether back to Latin America. At any rate, it does seem to be THE ISSUE in 2008 emerging, if people do not watch out. Republicans are going to gain a lot of traction on this in state and local races, and it could work it’s way right up to the Presidential campaign–it has all signs of doing so.

    –Roberto Figueroa-Lopez on Oct 28, 2007

  16. Mr. Nash-
    You need to be set straight on a couple of issues, here:
    1. Do NOT put words into my mouth, for I’ve afforded you the same courtesy. I.e. how do you know that I’m “mad at immigrants”?
    2. You say that I am “dismissive”. What do you call:
    “I’m afraid that you are misinformed when it comes to
    the taxes paid by undocumented people[,]” OR
    “…if my points had been validated and NA’s shown to
    be wrong[?]”
    3. “I have never and will never choose to do that” cf.
    my charge that you write as if you were
    omniscient.
    What’s this:
    “Most experts on this issue agree that undocumented
    immigrants, as a group, pay far more in contributions
    to FICA and Social Security than they ever will pay
    out[,]”
    OR
    “[E]xperts on a given state economy do not have to
    live there while writing about it[?]”
    4. You claim “[that] the GOP has been far worse in [terms of stigmatizing minorities than the Democrats].” (That’s not right at all.)

    –NA on Oct 28, 2007

  17. “honest dialogue”?

    Mr. Nash, you’ve made your position perfectly clear, but I’m not the kind of person who subscribes to rubbish.

    –NA on Oct 28, 2007

  18. Dear NA,

    I appreciate your coming back to make more comments. Here are my brief replies:

    1. I am not being “dismissive” if I counter your proposition with a comment AND a link to back it up. We are allowed to disagree,

    2. You are right: I was wrong to assume that you are “mad at immigrants.” My apologies.

    3. Calling my ideas and writing “rubbish” does not further dialogue. Do you notice my using name-calling anywhere on this thread? Honest dialogue means respect for others, even if we disagree.

    4. I made a claim about the GOP stigmatizing minorities and backed it up with links (both embedded here and referenced via a suggested Google search, which I tried out myself but did not copy in all links for the sake of brevity). Please feel free to reference links or suggested Google searches yourself. I am happy to take the time to learn more about your positions.

    Thanks again for participating in this dialogue, NA.

    Phil

    –Phil Nash on Oct 29, 2007

  19. Mr. Nash, this is what’s rubbish: directly linking conservatism to anything ‘anti-gay’…

    (You crossed the line.)

    –NA on Oct 29, 2007

  20. Dear NA,

    I don’t know what “you crossed the line” means, but I do know that by typing “conservative anti-gay” or “conservative homophobia” into Google, I see a lot of articles. Here is but one, which remarks on the dilemma of a GOP with so many gays and yet with a party agenda that explicitly condemns what they call the “gay lifestyle” (not accepting that maybe gay-ness could have a biological root):
    http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2007/08/31/gay_republicans/

    Here is another piece I found which references the anti-gay planks in the 2004 Republican Party Platform:
    http://www.stonewalldemocrats.org/2006/03/fact-sheet.php

    I have problems calling George Bush’s GOP conservative, because it has been profligate in the spending of our taxpayer dollars, and has created the largest build-up of the government sector in fifty years (with the creation of the Department of Homeland Security). If you read John Dean’s “Conservatives Without Conscience,” you will see that Dean says that Bush and his colleagues are not compassionate, not Republicans and not Christians, but simply “right wing authoritarians” who have used Christians, conservatives, and other people of good will to advance their own agenda. http://www.amazon.com/Conservatives-Without-Conscience-John-Dean/dp/0670037745

    Thanks again for writing, NA. I appreciate your continuing to dialogue with me on these important issues.

    Phil

    –Phil Nash on Oct 29, 2007

  21. “Thanks” for NOTHING…
    I’m not here to debate. Understand, however, that you’re very wrong to blame the GOP for a stance it hasn’t formally taken (i.e. stigmatizing gays). You assume that Republicans are the propagators of a policy they’d never publicly endorse — to denounce gays and/or their lifestyle — on a hunch you couldn’t prove, even with all the world’s “scholarly” articles, at your disposal.

    –NA on Oct 29, 2007

  22. Dear NA,

    I am sorry you are not here to debate, but I cannot leave my readers with the impression that the GOP has not taken formal positions stigmatizing gays. Here is but one article ( http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/01/gop.gays/index.html ) that describes the GOP 2004 platform, where they call for a constitutional amendment to ban marriage for same-sex couples, denounce civil unions, and ban openly gay Republicans from speaking at the convention. I agree that many Democrats are also not very good on gay rights issues, but the gay community is much more strongly Democratic than Republican, from what I can tell.

    Here is another website, where they analyze the parties on civil rights issues:
    http://www.ontheissues.org/Republican_Party.htm#Civil_Rights

    Excerpts pertaining to gay rights include:
    * Homosexuality is incompatible with military service. (Sep 2004)

    * States should not recognize gay marriage from other states. (Sep 2004)

    * Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)

    * Strong support for traditional definition of marriage. (Aug 2000)

    * Let Boy Scouts exercise free speech (ok to ban gays). (Aug 2000)

    * Women exempt from combat; “candid analysis” of military gays. (Aug 2000)

    No matter what the GOP “intent,” the net effect of their policies is to place gays in a second class status.

    I personally support both civil unions and marriage for same-sex couples. I believe that government has no right to introduce any one religion’s values about marriage into the secular process of handing out marriage licenses because this secular process grants citizens the right to collect pensions, visit a loved one in the hospital, and inherit after one partner dies. Each religion should have its own right to accept or not accept marriages of any kind (and many used to forbid cross-race marriages, by the way), but no religion has a right to tell our secular government what to do. In some states, up to 40% of couples use their city hall-based wedding certificate as proof of marriage, and do not even go to a church, temple or mosque for religious approval of their marriage. Why can’t we allow gays to have a city hall-based wedding certificate, too?

    Thanks again for writing, NA. I appreciate your taking the time.

    Phil

    –Phil Nash on Oct 30, 2007

  23. Funny how a guy whose ancestral country has among the most racist immigration policies in the world holds up other countries as examples of tolerance.
    Now to just get the US comparison to harsher Mexican policy through their thick heads.

    –Jim Erbes on Oct 30, 2007

  24. Dear Jim,

    Thanks for writing. However, to be honest, I have no idea what you are saying. Nevertheless, I assume you are trying to engage in an honest discussion, so let me respond as best I can:

    1. Who is the “guy whose ancestral country has among the most racist immigration policies in the world”? If it is me and my ancestral nation of Japan, why are you mentioning Japan at all? I am an American, born here, and have visited Japan a total of three weeks during my whole life. There is nothing “funny” about blaming a person for “ancestral country” policies over which I had no control and of which I know almost nothing. Please stay focused on the issues and do not discuss the messenger.

    2. You say that I “hold up other countries as examples of tolerance”? I just re-read this thread and I honestly cannot figure out what you are implying. Please re-state. Sorry for the inconvenience.

    3. You say “Now to just get the US comparison to harsher Mexican policy through their thick heads.” Is this an ironic statement? Whose heads are thick? Maybe it is me who is thick, because I honestly don’t know what you are saying. If you disagree with something I have said, please say it more clearly.

    Thanks, Jim, for taking the time to write. I am not being ironic here. I honestly would like to respond to you, but do not know how.

    Phil

    –Phil Nash on Oct 30, 2007

  25. Dear Phil,

    I just wanted to commend you for arguing your position in a respectful manner that engaged the issues directly and didn’t resort to ad hominem attacks. You provided an inspiring example by not getting angry or defensive, remaining rational and backing up all your points. I believe your readers did truly learn something and engaging in such a lengthy “debate” was in no way a waste of time. If all political discourse in this country could be like that, I believe we’d be in much better shape.

    Cheers!

    Ben

    PS: Oh, and Jim Erbes, what does anyone’s ancestral country have to do with anything?

    –B. Hamamoto on Oct 30, 2007

  26. Phil:
    At the risk of further adding to your burdens herein, may I herewith say that I stand in astonishment and awe at your patience, equal at least to that of Job?
    Furthermore, at the same risk, may I congratulate AsianWorld in publishing you as a correspondent.
    The publishers should be proud, as should ANY publication that had the guts OR smarts to do so.
    Hey!, it could even begin to restore some of the respect for the Fourth Estate in this country, a “media” that has, to me at least, proved more of a Fifth Column for this sadsack administration and its Constitution-busting and rogue-nation posturing sponsors.
    Do NOT attribute my beliefs to Phil, and, if Jim Erbes is laying “ancestral” onus just above, in the words of his colleagues AND compatriots, “Wow!”, or better yet, “Jeez!”
    Gimme a break?
    That too.
    What IS “American”?
    MRSA along with the most advanced technicals and the most dollar-oriented “health-care” system?
    Or the oversight of the likes of armed nukes overhead?
    I agree with Pogo: the enemy is within.
    And it ain’t poor little ol’ me.
    Frank Eng

    –Frank Eng on Oct 30, 2007

  27. Sorry.
    There goes the ball game.
    This IS a “game,” isn’t it?
    Well, what this serial emailer was trying to say is, what’s YOUR stake here, Art?
    Are you joining the theoneocon chorus in its misguided, well, to me at least, subscription to absolute global er, ah “hegemony”?
    Does your denunciation of ALL things “Chinese” include your own er, ah, and here I may be assuming or presuming, like you do about “hippies” and “climbing the ladder,” “ethnicity”?
    Okay, so I’m beginning to sound like Jim Erbes here.
    No, guys, I am NOT a hater, not of this country, and, especially not of men like George McGovern and/or Jimmy Carter.
    I don’t even hate you, although I must admit I rather despise your methods and rue your stance. Pity?
    Well, not quite. Like yours, my patience runs thin, and my “tolerance” draws the line at bullies.
    You aren’t? Well, neither am I, but I could swear I heard the sabres/sabers rattling in the Beltway. Crawford?
    And, yeah, I’m an admitted Cindy Sheehan fan.
    Frank Eng

    –Frank Eng on Oct 30, 2007

  28. Guys:
    Yeah, I know, too much is more than enough, but my two buts above somehow lost a “link” or connective as the case may be.
    Whatever, on the witness stand, I shall not take the Fifth, but insist that the Devil made me do it, to wit:
    I proposed a draft request to Santa at the North Pole, now claimed by both Russia and Canada, please, pretty please, wrist stiffening even as I type, unlike other parts of this aging bod, for a virtuous twin to the redoubtable Philip Tajitsu Nash to balance the “comment” equation on the West Coast.
    Someone policing the diatribes of “Christian” AND those of our embassy from Little Saigon.
    As someone who has always been more curious about motivations than the results of same, I can’t quite make out just what it is that “Christian” wants, other than Emil fired, and maybe AsianWeek (I misrecalled same as AsianWorld?) no longer published.
    But, why?
    The only scenarios I can concoct is that either “Christian” truly believes his own inbuilt contradictions of argumentation, or, simply pines for the old Bay Area ethnocultural hegemony of lily-white “society,” perhaps now infiltrated by “Asians”?
    As his colleages say, get over it, kiddo, demograpbics don’t lie. Or do they?
    For instance, what has a, likely Fukienese Triad Mafia got to do with a SanFran college branch in Chinatown?
    For another, why pillory only “Asian” “beauty” salons for possible, probable?, unsanitary practices?
    Anyhow, Santa, bring me a dream, a dream of a society at ease with itself, with ALL its parts, regardless of color, or creed, or professed convictions. But civilize the bombers and even the saber-rattlers.
    And a boo! to you too this All Hallow’s Eve.
    Besides, one elegant? packet of Ghirardelli’s bittersweet mints lasts me a month, at the very least.
    Frank Eng
    P.S.: Mr. Knight, I was never much of a dancer.

    But Arthur Hu would appear to be opening a totally different can of worms, one which he has, seemingly,

    –Frank Eng on Oct 31, 2007

  29. Mr. Nash-

    Therefore, because you are a professed expert on Virginia politics and because you are an authority on on the issue, I should take it as the truth that “…the gay community is much more strongly Democratic than Republican[?]”
    (Right)

    You continue to cast aspersions on the Republican Party in the absence of credible information. E.g. “No matter what the GOP ‘intent’, the net effect of their policies is to place gays in a second class status”…
    Yeah, I’ve got a problem with this statement…So, I say:
    You are now an expert statistician?
    (Right)

    –NA on Oct 31, 2007

  30. Dear commenters,

    Thanks for taking the time to write. I will have to write a group response today.

    BEN - Thanks for the comment. I am trying to model a responsive, respectful discussion here. I am glad you found the thread discussion informative.

    FRANK - Thanks for your comments, both today and on previous threads. Your insights are always interesting. I am trying to lower the temperature level here, however, so please try not to use words such as “diatribe” when referring to fellow writers on the thread.

    NA - I would never ask you to take anything I say as “the truth.” In fact, that is the opposite of my philosophy. I would prefer if you read my thoughts and the links I have posted, and come back to me with your ideas and your links. That’s how I have had a chance to evolve in my ideas, and that’s how I plan to keep evolving. On a related note, I do not believe in “casting aspersions” on any group or person, but say flat out what I think and give my facts to back it up. That being said, please check out this short article for a few of the reasons why the Republican Party is having problems these days: http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0112-36.htm . Many generations of my family have been Republican, especially when they were the anti-slavery party that stood for fiscal conservatism and social progressivism, but those who still are Republican have serious doubts about their party’s direction. I have differences with the Democratic Party as well, and am not afraid to say them here in my column.

    In sum, I want to thank everyone for writing, and remind you that there is no one “expert” on any issue. Let’s continue to bring our many perspectives to the important issues that face our nation, and come together to find solutions that can help each other and our communities to find peace, prosperity and happiness.

    Phil

    –Phil Nash on Oct 31, 2007

  31. Phil-
    If you truly mean to invite everyone to express his/her point of view in this slanted forum, my opinion is that you’re full of it.

    –NA on Nov 01, 2007

  32. Not only have you the gift of gab, but you grant that your commentary is your version of the truth, cf. “give my facts to back it up.”
    Keep in mind: fact is different than information

    –NA on Nov 01, 2007

  33. Dear NA,

    Thanks for continuing to come back. I truly appreciate it when others express their own points of view.

    I would prefer that we stop using the word “truth” in our conversation. Each person has a worldview that filters information in different ways.

    I’m sorry that you think I am “full of it” when I welcome you and others. Perhaps we all have been poisoned by a media environment where people are ridiculed and treated with humiliation for expressing themselves. You and I can model something different here if we work at it.

    We can discuss the difference between a fact and information, but I would rather hear the ways in which you substantively disagree with me so that we can find areas where we agree. I do not like to converse solely for the sake of conversing, however. I would rather hear from you, incorporate things I learn from you into my own worldview, and then act on that worldview to try to make the world a better place.

    Thanks again for writing, NA.

    Phil

    –Phil Nash on Nov 01, 2007

  34. Now you’re being condescending — facetious, if you will…

    Takes 2 to tango. Therefore, you are just as capable of ending use of the words “truth” or “fact” as am I.

    –NA on Nov 02, 2007

  35. Dear NA,

    Thanks for writing again. I’m sorry that you see my writing as facetious or condescending. Those are two things I try to never be in real life.

    I will do my best to not use the phrases “truth” or “fact” in my writing, and will continue trying to substantiate things when I write them.

    I hope you will continue to write about things you care about, and work to make the world a better place for all of our children.

    Thanks again for your feedback, NA.

    Phil

    –Phil Nash on Nov 02, 2007

  36. Phil-

    You’re welcome.

    –NA on Nov 02, 2007

Post your comments.

Comments using inappropriate language will not be posted. AsianWeek reserves the right to re-publish comments, into "Letters to the Editor," in which case, we reserve the right to edit comments for length and style. If you would like to write a letter to our editor, please email: asianweek@asianweek.com.


© 2005-2008 AsianWeek. The information you receive on-line from AsianWeek is protected by the copyright laws of the United States. The copyright laws prohibit any copying, redistributing, retransmitting, or repurposing of any copyright protected material. Privacy Policy

Close
E-mail It