Utah Can’t Afford Steven Sandstrom and Ex-Cop Carl Wimmer

On the same day that “Patrick Henry Caucus” founder Rep. Steven Sandstrom unveiled his anti-immigrant bill without a clue how to pay for it, Carl Wimmer announced that Utah must reject $150,000,000 federal dollars being offered to Utah schools.

Police would be fined for refusing to profile

Police would be fined for refusing to profile

I give Republican Representative Sandstrom credit for his bravery.  Today, amidst a mixed crowd of Anglo and Latino Americans who took time out of their day to do their civic duty to protest this big, expensive, government intrusion, unless they were lurking in the shadows, I saw not one supporter of his new proposed Arizona-lite law.

In response to repeated questions about the cost of trying and locking up people otherwise accused of jay-walking or rolling stops, Sandstrom finally said, “whatever the cost, it will be worth it.”

When asked how the law would deal with the many law enforcement professionals who will refuse to participate in racial profiling, Sandstrom got really animated and  announced they would be fined.  OK?  Get it?  This genius is going to fine local law enforcement for refusing to act outside their jurisdiction to conduct mass racial profiling of Utahns who have the misfortune of having light brown skin.

Ex-Cop Carl Wimmer make's Glenn Beck look sane

Ex-Cop Carl Wimmer make's Glenn Beck look sane

Independent estimates put the cost of such a law in the two to three hundred million dollars range per year not counting economic cost of the lost business from boycotts.

On the way home, I heard Carl Wimmer UT-R Herriman on KCPW.

Carl calmly explained that this gift to Utah schools was nothing more than a ploy to buy votes for Obama. Instantly, I considered the possibility that Obama might win Utah in 2012. Then, I woke up and reminded myself that Carl Wimmer is a Utah Republican whose constituents accept this logic as easily as they do the piss poor education their kids get in Herriman, Utah. But hey, if it was good enough for them, its good enough for their kids…I guess.

Someone please remind Carl Wimmer that Utahns pay federal taxes too.  Read more about Carl Wimmer here.

, , , , , ,

  1. #1 by brewski on August 13, 2010 - 7:15 pm

    amidst a mixed crowd of Anglo and Latino Americans

    How could you possibly know this? They could have been Swedish Americans for all you know with no English lineage at all. And if there were Latinos there, they might not have been Latino-Americans at all but just Latino-Latinos. So your presumptive comments about race and ethincity further reveal you deep imbedded racism and prejuduce. Cliff, you need serious counseling to get over your racism.

  2. #2 by Cliff on August 13, 2010 - 7:37 pm

    We are all racists Brewski. The question is how do you behave and what do you stand for?

  3. #3 by cav on August 13, 2010 - 9:13 pm

    I take back what I wrote about not bashing ‘lip catapillars’ (and those who trim them in the mirror).

    If it looks like a hitler, sounds like a hitler and smells like a hitler. well…

  4. #4 by Becky Stauffer on August 13, 2010 - 9:19 pm

    Here is the bill in its entirety, including “Monies appropriated in this bill: None.”

    Cliff, I read elsewhere that at the announcement today, a fair-skinned person asked Sandstrom if he would now need to always carry his driver’s license, and Sandstrom’s response was, “You?” I’ve been looking for video on this to verify. If this is true, it seems to suggest that white people need not fear being asked to prove citizenship.

    The more I read of this, the more horrifying it becomes. I fear the out-of-control zealots — like the one on another blog who said that before too many years there won’t be a white face among us.

  5. #5 by Mike Picardi on August 13, 2010 - 9:36 pm

    I was there and knew many of the Latino Americans personally. It’s this kind of statement based on no information that continues to cloud the issue.
    This is a Federal issue and our federally Elected officials, Hatch, Bennett, Matheson, Bishop and Chafettz have done NOTHING about since they have been in office,,in Hatch’s, Bennett’s and Matheson’s cases that has been YEARS.
    I have a question for those pushing this divisive bill: why now? Where have you all been since 1986 when Reagan YES, that Reagan, first dealt with this issue and granted amnesty to thousands?

  6. #6 by Mike Picardi on August 13, 2010 - 9:38 pm

    And @ Becky, that is true..BUT, as per Sandstrom, “this is not based on race”.

  7. #7 by Becky Stauffer on August 13, 2010 - 9:42 pm

    Sandstrom’s unguarded answer may have been more telling than his prepared text.

  8. #8 by Cliff Lyon on August 13, 2010 - 9:50 pm

    Its true. A white guy did ask that question. Sandbum reminded us all that in the absence of documentation, the subject can simply make the statement; “I am an American citizen” and the cop is obliged to accept that.

    Then he reminded us that if you lie about being an American citizen, “that’s a federal offense.”

    Which of course is federal jurisdiction. I wonder how that works.

    If the cop doesn’t believe them, can he arrest them? What court would have jurisdiction? If federal, wouldn’t the cop have to testify in federal court? Would the accused need to be held in custody pending a federal trial?

    What about the fact that only Americans are entitled to a public defender/free lawyer? How do you decide if that is the very issue at hand?

    I don’t have a copy of my birth certificate. Nor do I have a copy of my social security card. I.n beginning to wonder if I should get those things. And I think about what I would do with them. Would I carry them? I guess if I look Mexican I probably should, I mean given my demanding job and teenage kids, soccer, cheer leading, rt. al. , I can’t afford the time involved in getting hauled off to jail because some Carl Wimmer Cop decides he wants PROOF of citizenship.

    I guess I would carry my papers around.

  9. #9 by Peggy Wilson on August 13, 2010 - 9:53 pm

    “What papers will I need to carry?” was the reporter’s question.
    “You?!” Sandstrom responded incredulously.
    THAT was the exchange today. Sandstrom’s “macaca” moment.
    Long & short: It’s a federal issue.
    Immigrants drop roughly $7 billion dollars in unclaimed taxes every April 15. That’s why the SS Administration doesn’t investigate SS# fraud too closely.

  10. #10 by Peggy Wilson on August 13, 2010 - 10:00 pm

    BTW: Heard an interesting immigration solution at a fundraiser tonight:
    Organize so that thousands of undocumented workers show up at the police department & give themselves up. Police tied up for months processing them. Then, each pleads innocent. This ties up the courts for months… I think you get the drift. Multiply this across the country by millions & let the Sandstroms & Wimmers explain it to the huddled masses yearning to pay no taxes.

  11. #11 by Becky Stauffer on August 13, 2010 - 10:05 pm

    Peggy, thanks. It was your comment I saw elsewhere and didn’t remember exactly.

    I like the suggestion. It at least illustrates how crazy the idea is of deporting some 12 million people.

  12. #12 by Cliff Lyon on August 13, 2010 - 10:24 pm

    Peggy is right ““You?!” Sandstrom responded incredulously.”

    I also picked up on the moment. The guys was regular White. Sandstrom seemed totally caught of guard. I too notice moisture in his brow and pants.

    He was so overwhelmed with reality, I felt sorry for him. But only for a second.

    I can’t wait to see the footage. We’ll post it for sure.

    Sandstrom is just the next rookie in line. Initiation into the bully club. I gotta screenplay cooking. You can preview the treatment here.

  13. #13 by shane on August 14, 2010 - 12:17 am

    Sandbum reminded us all that in the absence of documentation, the subject can simply make the statement; “I am an American citizen” and the cop is obliged to accept that.

    So, just so we are clear….

    Cops will now have to ask if you are a legal citizen, and the various red tape around that will cost us hundreds of millions a year, but if i were here illegally, to get out of it i just have to say “i am an American citizen.”???

    The mind boggles….

  14. #14 by brewski on August 14, 2010 - 9:25 am

    Note to readers:
    1. Being American is not a race.
    2. Latino is not a race, it is an ethnicity. Ask the Census Bureau.
    Ergo, all this throwing around of the word “racism” is at best an inaccuracy.
    3. According to US Federal Law:

    TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER II > Part VII > § 1304 Section (e)
    (e) Personal possession of registration or receipt card; penalties
    Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d) of this section.

    So if you think that the proposed Utah law is racist, then you also must think the Federal law is racist.

  15. #15 by brewski on August 14, 2010 - 9:33 am

    We are all racists Brewski.

    1. Speak for yourself Cliff. “You” certainly are, not “we”.

    The question is how do you behave

    2. Yes. I don’t employ child slave laborers with no civil rights.

    and what do you stand for?

    Equal application of the law without regard to race, creed, etc.

  16. #16 by Becky Stauffer on August 14, 2010 - 10:29 am

    Brewski @14,

    Many brown-skinned Utahns who are American citizens will now feel compelled to carry proof of citizenship as well. People like my daughter-in-law will fear being challenged wrongly.

    Let me give you an example of how this works. One day there was a home-invasion robbery in a neighborhood where my daughter-in-law worked at the time. She was seen DRIVING in the neighborhood and as a result, my car which she was driving became a “car of interest” and she became a “person of interest” in the investigation. For no other reason than that she was driving in the neighborhood and the perpetrators were thought to be brown-skinned. It was terribly frightening and upsetting to her and all of us to be questioned regarding this crime. The fact is, Brewski, had the perpetrators been white-skinned and had you or I been driving in the neighborhood, no-one would have written down our license plate number just because we were innocently driving down the street. That’s the way it works.

    Maybe we could issue 6-pointed stars for all brown-skinned American citizens to wear.

  17. #17 by Richard Warnick on August 14, 2010 - 10:55 am

    We definitely need the video of the exchange with Sandstrom where he appeared to admit that white people won’t need proof of citizenship/residency if his bill passes.

    Note to right-wingers: if you have to spend a lot of time explaining why your proposals are not racist, then you are proposing racist stuff. This is dog-whistle politics, but not as clever as Sandstrom thinks.

  18. #18 by brewski on August 14, 2010 - 12:37 pm

    Becky,
    So let me get this straight, you think the Federal law is racist?

    and

    Your daughter-in-law is upset that she was questioned by police for them doing their job in following up on a home invasion and her civil rights were not violated in any way?

    Well, I am sorry your daughter-in-law feelings were hurt for not having her civil rights violated in any way, according to your description.

    For the record, I have been questioned by police including handcuffed and wrestled to the ground for no reason other than the fact that I fit the very general description of a graffitti artist [white male teenager]. So your presumption that police don’t question white people when they fit a general description of a person they are looking for is factually dead wrong.

    Your comparison to the Nazis, who targeted people because of their ethnicity while the Federal law you object do that makes no mention of race or ethincity whatsoever, is both factually invalid on its face and is offensive. BTW, the National Socialists were socialists, you know, your side.

  19. #19 by brewski on August 14, 2010 - 12:48 pm

    Can someone get my posts out of moderation?

  20. #20 by Becky Stauffer on August 14, 2010 - 1:09 pm

    Brewski,

    I said nothing about the Federal law being racist.

    And you are absolutely right, my daughter-in-law’s civil rights were not violated. And you may have had some similar experience. Your experience sounds particularly brutal. But it wasn’t just the color of your skin that got you into trouble, but that you “fit a general description”. In my daughter-in-law’s case, a witness saw hispanic men running away from the house. She didn’t fit that description.

    My (absurd) comment about stars was not about race nor ethnicity, but rather a way of easily identifying American citizens — you know just to make it easier on the police when trying to decide where to ask to see papers or not.

  21. #21 by brewski on August 14, 2010 - 1:23 pm

    So the Federal law which requires all aliens to carry their papers isn’t racist, but if Utah adopted a law which enforced Federal law, that would be racist? Please explain.

    I have no problem with a national ID card which could not be forged. One of the problems we have is the huge and easy black market in fake SS cards, birth cetrtificates, drivers licesnes, etc. It would simplify things a lot and avoid a lot of potential violation of everyone’s civil rights if the police could easily determine who is here illegally and who isn’t. It exists in some other countries without issue including Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, etc.

    Also, in virtually every country all aliens are required to carry their passport on their person at all times. Period. So, for Utah to have a law like this would not only mirror existing US Federal law, but it would be identical to virtually every country on the planet.

    Do you think the Dutch [land of legal pot and prostitution] are right wing nuts?

  22. #22 by Richard Warnick on August 14, 2010 - 2:36 pm

    brewski–

    Surely you know by now that these “papers please” laws do much more than require resident aliens to carry cards. If these laws had no practical effect, then there wouldn’t such an outcry against them.

  23. #23 by brewski on August 14, 2010 - 2:38 pm

    If these laws had no practical effect, then there wouldn’t such an outcry against them.

    Huh?
    You mean no one ever outcries for no reason? You mean all the Tea Partiers outcrying are all correct?

  24. #24 by Richard Warnick on August 14, 2010 - 9:16 pm

    I would never claim “no one ever outcries for no reason.” Tea Partyers are a perfect example of illogical outcries, as you say. I wonder why the right thinks it’s smart to legislate for no reason– if what they say about SB 1070 is true, it’s a law that would change nothing.

    Saw Fox 13 News tonight, and their camera caught Cliff reacting on the steps behind Rep. Sandstrom at yesterday’s press conference. Sandstrom is trying for a do-over next week, but he hasn’t said when or where.

  25. #25 by brewski on August 14, 2010 - 10:12 pm

    If these laws had no practical effect, then there wouldn’t such an outcry against them.

    Then what does this mean?

  26. #26 by Richard Warnick on August 15, 2010 - 12:56 am

    It means the anti-immigrant measures like Arizona’s SB 1070 and Rep. Sandstrom’s proposal for Utah will have practical effects if the courts ever allow them to be enforced. People know that, and they are protesting because America is not a “papers please” country.

    Question– Why are the Tea Party people in favor of these unconstitutional bills? Don’t they believe in liberty?

  27. #27 by Larry Bergan on August 15, 2010 - 5:08 am

    If anybody thinks this kind of a law won’t be used against THEM someday, think again. This is dangerous territory!

  28. #28 by brewski on August 15, 2010 - 8:01 am

    Richard, Larry,
    Just a simple question:
    Have you ever had your child’s teacher tell you that she didn’t have time to teach your child since she has to spend all her time with the non-English speaking kids?
    Yes or No?

  29. #29 by Larry Bergan on August 15, 2010 - 8:35 am

    I don’t own any children.

  30. #30 by cav on August 15, 2010 - 8:43 am

    Maybe you did brewski, once, but that doesn’t mean that all attempts to meet non-English speakers where they are is necessarily equated the presence of illegal immigrants in our schools

    My guess – more of the stuff NCLB and the press to modify the classroom experience in the whole, have presented to the education community.

    Sadly, I don’t think the direction the newest actors are preparing to take is going to be any improvement.

  31. #31 by Larry Bergan on August 15, 2010 - 8:49 am

    brewski:

    Not particularly happy about the fact I never had children. Just never happened. I guess the answer would be no.

  32. #32 by brewski on August 15, 2010 - 9:02 am

    Cliff has children. I wonder how many times it happened to him.

  33. #33 by cav on August 15, 2010 - 10:11 am

    All law, logic, looniness and shite.

  34. #34 by cav on August 15, 2010 - 10:16 am

    Scissors, Glue, Pencils? Check. Cleaning Spray?
    By STEPHANIE CLIFFORD

    When Emily Cooper headed off to first grade in Moody, Ala., last week, she was prepared with all the stuff on her elementary school’s must-bring list: two double rolls of paper towels, three packages of Clorox wipes, three boxes of baby wipes, two boxes of garbage bags, liquid soap, Kleenex and Ziplocs.

    “The first time I saw it, my mouth hit the floor,” Emily’s mother, Kristin Cooper, said of the list, which also included perennials like glue sticks, scissors and crayons.

    Schools across the country are beginning the new school year with shrinking budgets and outsize demands for basic supplies. And while many parents are wincing at picking up the bill, retailers are rushing to cash in by expanding the back-to-school category like never before.

    Now some back-to-school aisles are almost becoming janitorial-supply destinations as multipacks of paper towels, cleaning spray and hand sanitizer are crammed alongside pens, notepads and backpacks.

    (Gee, wonder if the Military has the same problems?)

  35. #35 by Becky Stauffer on August 15, 2010 - 10:31 am

    Brewski @28,

    No. But then my kids were in school a long time ago, so maybe ESL issues were not so common then. But I can answer for the grandkids, too. No, their teachers have never said that.

    Perhaps the school your children attend has a higher rate of ESL students than those my grandchildren attend.

    What are you getting at, Brewski?

  36. #36 by Larry Bergan on August 15, 2010 - 11:14 am

    My school used to give away manila paper and boondoggle to any child interested in creating something.

    I was eating lunch one day in the mall I worked at and saw a sign that sold credit cards which would help teachers buy supplies. I think that’s when I realized we were in deep trouble.

  37. #37 by brewski on August 15, 2010 - 11:44 am

    I am getting at that the number of illegal immigrants who come here are indeed a real burden on our social services where we have to pay to educate their children, and they pull existing resources away from legal residents.

  38. #38 by Becky Stauffer on August 15, 2010 - 11:51 am

    But, Brewski, it that a hypothetical, or has that really happened to you or someone you know? Can you quantify the problem?

  39. #39 by brewski on August 15, 2010 - 12:17 pm

    Not a hypothetical, actually happened to my next door neighbor, ardent liberal, Obama yard sign, and recently totally disgusted and fed up about illegal immigration. She is now part of the 70% of the country that supports the SB 1070.

  40. #40 by cav on August 15, 2010 - 12:22 pm

    BOONDOGGLE!

    We should be thankful they weren’t having us craft with ‘quagmire’ ™.

  41. #41 by Richard Warnick on August 15, 2010 - 12:24 pm

    brewski–

    I don’t have children, and I am not up to date on the state of elementary schools today.

    I notice you ignored my question about the Tea Partyers.

  42. #42 by Richard Warnick on August 15, 2010 - 12:38 pm

    Salt Lake Tribune editorial about Sandstrom’s unconstitutional anti-immigrant bill, today:

    So, what’s this bill really about? It’s about playing on people’s fears of the “other” during an economic downturn with high unemployment. It’s about playing on people’s resentment of others whom they believe get something for nothing. It’s about racism.

    Will stoking fears and resentment pay off politically for the right-wing? It’s worked in the past.

  43. #43 by brewski on August 15, 2010 - 3:37 pm

    Richard,
    I ignored your question since it deserved to be ignored. It falls into the “when did you stop beating your wife” category.

  44. #44 by James Farmer on August 15, 2010 - 4:52 pm

    brew:

    Actually, Richard’s question is fair. Your wife beating example is pregnant because it assumes facts not in evidence or otherwise established. The unconstitutionality of SB 1070 has been established.

  45. #45 by Larry Bergan on August 15, 2010 - 5:31 pm

    We should be thankful they weren’t having us craft with ‘quagmire’ ™.

    Very heavily paraphrasing from Cecil B’s “The Ten Commandments”:

    Old man: “But Pharaoh, how can I make bricks without straw?

    Edward G. Robinson: (cracking whip), “work harder, old man!”

  46. #46 by brewski on August 15, 2010 - 7:53 pm

    James,

    Richard should not ask why do Tea Partiers support the bill. He should be asking why do most Americans support the bill.

    The word “liberty” appears once in Judge Bolton’s rulling:

    Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked.

    So this is the liberty argument to which I will assume Richard refers.

    It is odd that neither the US AG nor the judge mentioned that under Federal law that legal aliens are already required to carry papers. So would Holder and Bolton agree then that Federal law is unconstitutional since it might violate the liberty of legal aliens?

    TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER II > Part VII > § 1304 Section (e)

    Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d)

    So it is ok to require legal aliens to carry papers, but not ok for a police officer to ask for them only after another lawful contact?

    Also, Bolton’s logic seems a bit absurd when she says that people who have been arrested will have their liberty restricted, since at that point they have already been arrested for something else, so they don’t have any liberty at that time to restrict.

  47. #47 by James Farmer on August 15, 2010 - 8:35 pm

    brew:

    You are missing the point and arguing with strawmen. The law – SB1070 – is unconstitutional because it runs afoul of the preemption clause. Arguing that the state law does nothing more than the federal law is irrelevant and, quite frankly, a strawman argument.

  48. #48 by brewski on August 15, 2010 - 9:01 pm

    James,
    Are you calling Richard a strawman? He is the one who said

    Don’t they believe in liberty?

    So I answered his question directly as he asked it.
    Are you having another Alzheimer’s moment?

  49. #49 by cav on August 15, 2010 - 9:05 pm

    A luminescent bar-code on the forehead should suffice.

  50. #50 by James Farmer on August 15, 2010 - 9:13 pm

    brew:

    In case you could not figure it out, the below argument is what I refer:

    It is odd that neither the US AG nor the judge mentioned that under Federal law that legal aliens are already required to carry papers. So would Holder and Bolton agree then that Federal law is unconstitutional since it might violate the liberty of legal aliens?

    Your comment embodies the very definition of a strawman argument. Irrelevant and off point.

    PS. Where in my comment did you see me use the word “liberty”?

  51. #51 by brewski on August 15, 2010 - 9:24 pm

    James,
    I was and am addressing Richard’s question about liberty. It was all on point.

  52. #52 by Richard Warnick on August 15, 2010 - 10:18 pm

    I guess there’s no logical or morally defensible answer to the question of why the Tea Partyers (1) loudly proclaim their devotion to the Constitution, and (2) back blatantly unconstitutional bills.

    The Trib editorial I quoted (#42 above) is the best answer we’re going to get.

    It’s about playing on people’s fears of the “other” during an economic downturn with high unemployment. It’s about playing on people’s resentment of others whom they believe get something for nothing. It’s about racism.

    As I’ve said before, the Tea Partyers are just a re-branding of the Bush 20-percenters. They are still fear-mongering.

  53. #53 by brewski on August 15, 2010 - 10:41 pm

    Except that it’s 51% according Gallup.

    If we want to trade editorials, here is mine:

    The Arizona law is not about race; it’s not an attack on Latinos or legal immigrants. It’s about one thing and one thing only: making immigration enforcement a reality. It is time for a national debate: Do we or don’t we want to enforce the country’s immigration laws? If the answer is yes, the Arizona law is a necessary and lawful tool for doing so. If the answer is no, we should end the charade of inadequate, half-hearted enforcement, enact an amnesty now, and remove future penalties for immigration violations.

    Read the whole thing here:
    http://www.city-journal.org/2010/eon0430hm.html

  54. #54 by Mike Picardi on August 15, 2010 - 10:49 pm

    This bill is about the race of the people they want the local police forces to take into custody. What makes this racist, is the fact that nowhere in the bill does Sandstrom spell out, or even suggest, how the employers are to be dealt with.
    It is ALSO a “crime” to hire and illegal alien, so go after the businesses too.
    Also, just because a teacher needed to deal with a student that did not speak English well, does NOT mean that student is an illegal alien. Your jump to that conclusion and lack of concern about the unlawful practice by the employers, makes your argument null and void in my book.

  55. #55 by brewski on August 15, 2010 - 11:01 pm

    just because a teacher needed to deal with a student that did not speak English well

    There was no “a” student who did not speak English well. It was that most of the whole class did not speak English at all. So if you have 3 kids who speak English, and 20 who don’t, then the 3 kids get screwed because the teacher has to deal with the other 20.

    does NOT mean that student is an illegal alien

    No it doesn’t. It’s just that they all freely admit to “not having papers” when asked [en Espanol]. It isn’t like there are any consequences.

    Your jump to that conclusion

    I didn’t.

    and lack of concern about the unlawful practice by the employers

    Not true. I have posted on here more than once my proposals for punishing employers.

    makes your argument null and void in my book.

    Your book is emperically wrong.

  56. #56 by Mike Picardi on August 15, 2010 - 11:10 pm

    and only 3 kids get “screwed” AWH!!..too bad. Now you may have a feeling from the “other side” where the 20 have been getting screwed for generations. Get used to it, you will soon be the minority, or I guess you know that, as you are showing your fear of loosing the upper hand.

  57. #57 by Mike Picardi on August 15, 2010 - 11:11 pm

    And OH! so sorry Brewski, your book is emphatically “right”..I got it now!

  58. #58 by brewski on August 16, 2010 - 8:25 am

    Mike,
    Are you willing to screw your own kids’ education on the matter of principle.

  59. #59 by Mike Picardi on August 16, 2010 - 10:02 am

    brewski :
    Mike,
    Are you willing to screw your own kids’ education on the matter of principle.

  60. #60 by Mike Picardi on August 16, 2010 - 10:03 am

    I am not a breeder..I do not have kids. And if i did, I would still do all I could to work for a Humane solution to this,,you know nothing about me..so stop assuming,

  61. #61 by brewski on August 16, 2010 - 10:13 am

    So, not assming anything about you other than what you have written, if you had kids you would be fine if they learned nothing in the 2nd grade while the teacher spent all her/her effort on the 20 non English speaking kids. So if you had kids you be ok with making them pay for your open border principles.

  62. #62 by Richard Warnick on August 16, 2010 - 10:16 am

    brewski–

    Thanks for the editorial link. The argument presented boils down to, “OK the AZ anti-immigrant law was unconstitutional but they hastily amended it and all better now.” No, it’s still unconstitutional and an assault on civil liberties.

    The Salt Lake Tribune didn’t have their editorial on the Sandstrom bill online yesterday, but now here’s a link. It takes the Utah anti-immigrant bill apart piece by piece.

  63. #63 by Mike Picardi on August 16, 2010 - 11:41 am

    brewski :
    So, not assming anything about you other than what you have written, if you had kids you would be fine if they learned nothing in the 2nd grade while the teacher spent all her/her effort on the 20 non English speaking kids. So if you had kids you be ok with making them pay for your open border principles.

    There is no such thing as open border approach..you are assuming that these children are illegals to fit you own narrative. And yes, I believe that the educational system is for all and if that be the case, we need to stop the outlay of money for wars that are illegal and put those funds into the schools to educate ALL Americans, not just the white ones.
    Remember, in about 5 years, whites will be the minority in America, so you better find other ways to deal with your bigotry and racism because you'll be just one of a few. I hope I am still alive to see the swing from the white majority of racist people to the majority of people of color. You best hope they do not decide to pay you guys back..make you sit in the back of the bus, and take away some of you rights as you are now attempting to do to them.

  64. #64 by Richard Warnick on August 16, 2010 - 12:38 pm

    Mike–

    Fixed your blockquote tag.

  65. #65 by brewski on August 16, 2010 - 1:16 pm

    Mike,
    I have not said one word which is bigoted or racist. You on the other hand have. You are one scary dude.

    I am glad you didn’t have any children.

  66. #66 by Larry Bergan on August 17, 2010 - 7:28 pm

    TOT, (totally off topic):

    But maybe we should start paying some attention to the real criminals.

  67. #67 by Cliff on August 17, 2010 - 8:04 pm

    Brewski, You have long argued against affirmative action. Such a position demonstrates either ignorance of institutionalized racism or your own.

    Personally, I dont think you are a racist but rather, have insufficient education on the ethnic and cultural realities in America

  68. #68 by brewski on August 17, 2010 - 8:34 pm

    Personally, I dont think you are a racist

    Wow, what a 180.

    I am fully aware of racism. I am also am fully aware of the complexities of life and the complexities of advantage and disadvantage.

    So you will have a hard time convincing me that my numerous childhood classmates of color, many of whom had parents who were professors, doctors and engineers, were disadvantaged relative to my white classmates whose parents were single moms trying to get by on a secretary’s salary.

    You will also have a hard time convincing me that my African-American senior-executive boss (of a Fortune 500 company) in New Jersey, who had an au pair, whose kids went to private school, who had a beach house on the Delaware shore, were disadvantaged compared to my girlfriend at the time, who lived in a trailer park.

    So I need no lecture on the realities of racism. Yes, I know in places like UVM, dockside in Nantucket, and by some warehouse managers in Utah, it is prevalent. But just as prevalant is the disadvantage of income, lack of education, geography and personal situation.

    So race-based preferences are a crude-proxy at best to level the playing field. A much more intelligent solution would be admissions with some consideration given to parents’ education and perhaps geography, than only race and sex.

    That way a black child of professionals in Palo Alto isn’t given preference over a white kid of farmers in Calexico.

  69. #69 by Cliff Lyon on August 17, 2010 - 8:51 pm

    Brewski, that you can have anecdotal evidence of upwardly mobile Black people is NOT a sufficient argument.

    The overwhelming facts remain. Is there a correlation between skin color and standard of living, education, life expectancy, crime, unemployment, opportunity?

    Lets go with facts here rather than the rantings of a nobody afraid to even disclose his/her real name.

  70. #70 by brewski on August 17, 2010 - 9:27 pm

    You call them anecdotal evidence. I call them people. So while you correlate numbers, real people within those numbers get prefence they don’t need over someone who really does. So much for fairness.

    There is also ample correlation between height and lack of baldness with professional success.

    There is ample evidence of a correlation between education and proximity to the Canadian border.

    Independent of color, there is also ample correlation with other advantages such as parental education, geography, household income and geograhy.

    So if correlation is all you have to stand on then why use that one variable at the exclusion of all others? Why not make prefences based on other proven variables of disadvantage?

    Also, what are you personally willing to give up? Will you make sure your privileged white children don’t go to any competitive college or get any competitive job since they need to make room for someone less privileged? How much are you willing to sacrifice your own kids for your principles?

    Or are you like the Clintons who waffle on about the virtue of affirmative action and the unfairness of life for the privileged, while their daughter went to Sidell Friends, Stanford, and then worked at McKinsey? Wasn’t she white and privileged and wasn’t she taking the place that should have gone to someone less advantaged? Or is that somehow different? I mean, “that was our child so our child isn’t the one who needs to pay, it’s someone else’s less connected child who needs to pay.”

    So are you totally unaware of your white liberal privileged hypocrisy?

    By the way, I don’t see you mocking cav for his anonymity. Why just me?

  71. #71 by brewski on August 17, 2010 - 9:47 pm

    Fifty-seven percent of Americans said they felt that a student’s academic record should be the sole criterion for university admission.
    The survey found widespread support for affirmative action programs in the realm of jobs and education which would give preference to people who come from an economically disadvantaged background, regardless of their gender or ethnicity. Six in 10 overall said they favored such programs.

    – LA Times, 2003

  72. #72 by cav on August 18, 2010 - 7:31 am

    Cliff:

    the rantings of a nobody afraid to even disclose his/her real name.

    brewski:

    I don’t see you mocking cav for his anonymity.

    I tip my hat to brewski, who has made many, often astute, anonymous contributions – though quite differently informed than my own. He may be a punk, but he’s our punk.

  73. #73 by Larry Bergan on August 18, 2010 - 9:19 pm

    brewski:

    It’s the combination of not using a real name and sometimes talking bologna. cav doesn’t purposefully give out false information.

  74. #74 by brewski on August 19, 2010 - 7:36 am

    Larry,
    Show me where I have purposefully given out false information.

  75. #75 by cav on August 19, 2010 - 9:05 am

    Maybe it’s authority with which you present.(not knocking your experience or ability). It’s just that somewhere deep within all of us is a general cluesessness that can either mask realities we know nothing of, or be used as a mask (do I really want this bloggy blather, and the relative depth of my cluelessness to be associated with my otherwise not interesting / or rather – pilar of the community – self)?

    Call me Joe, Joe the plumber. Call me whatever you like, but we the clueless are out here by the billions. Some of us have two, or even as many as five phone numbers. I just have settled of a pleasurable enough ring-tone.

  76. #76 by cav on August 19, 2010 - 9:53 am

    I just haven’t settled on a pleasurable enough ring-tone. Once againg asking forgiveness for the error.

  77. #77 by James Farmer on August 19, 2010 - 11:19 am

    brew:
    Show me where I have purposefully given out false information.

    We can start with your assertion that the children of the CEO of Xerox received special privileges, etc., not afforded other children similarly situated.

  78. #78 by brewski on August 19, 2010 - 2:22 pm

    James, you are truly a moron.

    I did not assert that. I asked if they should. My question seem to throw everyone in a tizzy since they all realized how immoral their own position is.

    Second of all, they are all African-American so are granted special privilges automatically without asking for it. I have been on that side of table for hiring and admissions committees and I have seen first hand how privileges are given based solely on color and sex even if the candidate is privileged. This was done even for candidates who did not indicate on their applications that they were African-America, but the HR dweebs (Glenden types) filled it in for them based on their appearance, and then granted preferences accordingly.

    You lose.

    Brewski 20, James 0

  79. #79 by James Farmer on August 19, 2010 - 9:06 pm

    brew:

    Poor boy, all mad to the point of ad hominem rants.

    Reread your comments – you most certainly did assert that, over and over again.

  80. #80 by brewski on August 20, 2010 - 6:23 am

    show me.

  81. #81 by James Farmer on August 20, 2010 - 8:49 pm

    Nah. Get your little green men to do the leg work. It’s there in the record for all to see.

  82. #82 by brewski on August 20, 2010 - 8:55 pm

    I will take that as your confession that you can’t since it isn’t there.

    Brewski 21, James 0

  83. #83 by James Farmer on August 21, 2010 - 12:09 am

    Time and time and time again you stated the evidence and citations to support your assertion re the children of the Xerox CEO were previously posted by you, and that I should review those citations. That, in itself, is an admission by you that you did make the assertion. I will save you the public spanking by not taking the time to go dig those comments up.

  84. #84 by brewski on August 21, 2010 - 3:38 pm

    If I did time and time again then show me.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: