There was a TV network called Nickelodeon that made shows for children. In it occasionally people got “slimed“. It was humorous and done in fun. Later, you could buy cans of “slime“ as a toy for kids. All of this to say that you have done a huge disservice to slime by comparing it to Stephen Miller. Slime had some utility, some humor, and some capacity for fun. Stephen Miller has none of those. He is not slime. He is beneath the slime.
In basic training we were often told that we were lower than whale shit at the bottom of the ocean. That's low, but I think Pee Wee German is even lower than that.
Old man complaint here: I think technically, kids had the can of slime toy years before "You Can't Do That on Television" aired. I have great childhood memories of playing with slime, even the Slime boardgame. But by the time Nickelodeon came along, I was like "phooey! That's kids stuff." In all other respects, I respect and will defend to the death your right to "stick up for slime" over that unctuous Stephen Miller.
Miller’s worldview aligns with white‑nationalist and nativist movements, which historically targeted Jews. His ethnic origin doesn’t "explain" this contradiction; it simply shows that identity and ideology can diverge sharply. Individuals are not avatars of their ethnic group.
If Miller’s actions "reflect on Jews," then by the same logic: Clarence Thomas reflects on all Black Americans; Bobby Jindal reflects on all Indian Americans and Amy Coney Barrett reflects on all Catholics. That logic collapses immediately. It’s the logic of bigotry: treating a group as a monolith.
I don't think Amy Coney Barrett and J.D. Vance reflect on all Catholics. But they do illuminate a certain strain among those who claim to embrace Catholicism, and that strain should be vigorously attacked by actual Catholics, just as White Christian Nationalism needs to be relentlessly attacked by actual Christians. Because these frauds tend to be the loudest voices in the room, they create the perception among non-Christians that they reflect what Christianity is about. It becomes the obligation of real Christians to denounce them and refuse to let them claim the name of Christianity.
For those with such a perception--and their numbers remain legion--I recommend a documentary short film called "Stranger at the Gate." It was nominated for an Academy Award in 2022. It's about a man who planned to blow up a mosque in the Midwest because he was convinced their religion turned them into terrorists. In planning his attack, he began attending services at the mosque, feigning interest so he could case the building. The people were so welcoming and kind to him, he decided not to carry out the attack. When he told them what he had been planning and how he had deceived them, they didn't kick him out; they invited him in further. Ultimately, he joined their community. You can watch the 30-minute film free on YouTube:
Great point. It's always a mistake to treat ethnic groups as monolithic.
Scott Bessent is gay and married to a man. Richard Grenell is another gay man happy to be part of Trump/MAGA.
Kristi Norm, Brooke Rollins- MAGA women ready to prove their toughness by being cruel.
Stephen Miller? I simply do not understand how a man descended from immigrants, and who is Jewish, can be so avid to demean and persecute vulnerable people.
I suspect there's a lot of self-hatred there. Heaven help us, Miller looks in his mirror and desperately wants to see Reinhard Heydrich.
Well said. A pillar of Demento & Co’s shtick is cherrypicking the most extreme example of the left, e.g. the defund the police group, to paint all Democrats as “the radical left”. Similarly, some on the left tend to paint all Christians as extreme right bigots.
I think the notion of being a "shanda" is not that the shanda's actions *should* reflect on other Jews, but acknowledging the likelihood that bigots will seize the opportunity to use them that way unfairly.
Anyway, Miller isn't a great example of a "shanda for the goyim" of this kind, because the very things he's guilty of are things that the antisemites *like* (white nationalism -- and boy, the other Nazi cool kids must be sneering at him behind his back), and there isn't a stereotype of white nationalist Jews. He's more of an internal embarassment in that way -- a shanda, period, in my opinion. Bernie Madoff, for example, is a much better example of what a shanda means in the sense of the full phrase.
Indeed. My point is only that a Madoff or a Thomas are not archetypes and that ethnic groups are not monolithic --- something that too often escapes the popular mind simply to reduce cognitive effort. Even highly educated, reflective people fall into this because our brains are wired to compress, categorize and predict --- even when the prediction is wrong. Not rational, but very human. And accordingly it regularly shows up elsewhere in our existence since our brains are constantly trying to compress complexity into something manageable --- whether in art (one abstract painting means modern art is nonsense), science (an individual gets sick after a vaccine shot, so vaccines are bad) or even in romantic relationships (a bad breakup somehow signifies "men are..." or "women are...").
I would vote for an otherwise unknown down-ballot candidate based on ethnicity or gender or photo. Here’s my thinking: I live in a county that has a sizeable Native population. Tribal names are distinctive. If the candidate is Native and female, then I’m looking at a candidate who grew up with two counts against her, yet here she is. Typically, such candidates are democrats— and yes, that figures in heavily.
I am white, and many tribal issues are not mine— and— people deserve representation. Especially if they have historically had little. I have plenty of folks already looking out (maybe too much) for me and mine.
I didn’t have your prescient reasoning, but I voted for women and people with once were considered “funny names “. Perhaps still are. I am a 65 y/o woman. A change has to come. And vote the old folks out. We need more energy, vim and vigor, not old ones like Susan Collin’s who thinks seniority gives her the ability to check DJT which she hasn’t used.
It's bad enough to hear young ageists criticize older people for not quitting their jobs or moving out of their houses because these elitists think life owes them something and the aging should just hand theirs over. Perhaps ageist seniors have witnessed much decline of the elderly. It would be tragic if they simply absorbed this bigotry that's running rampant in our country.
I am a poor 65 year old. Still working, can you believe as Geriatric Care Manager? I want my elder friends and clients to have great lives. but, I think we need new ideas, new energy. What we have now is not working. Yes, we oldsters have much to contribute: experience and cogent analysis, support. We have to encourage younger people to get involved and change systems that benefited most of us. It is time to past the baton. I won’t be here long. Anyway you look at it my life is more than half over
Agreed, BUT, Miller and all the other mooks reflect the hypocrisy of the ethnic identities they embrace. Miller would have been the most vicious kapo in the camps and probably wouldn't regret his actions when the camp guards turned their guns on him.
The thing is, true White Nationalists would not consider Stephen Miller white! As a grandchild of Eastern European Jewish immigrants, (which also describes me) he reminds me of a blind, black guy in the Ku Klux Klan.
Except for gender, which is generally obvious, how are we supposed to choose among the candidates, who are, according to the question, unknown to us?
I spent a fair amount of time researching every person on my ballot. Where there was no information available, I did not vote. I don’t see the point of doing so.
I agree. Though I think voting by party is defensible. Given Joe Smith v. Joe Jones, I would feel okay voting for the Democrat, at least in today's wildly polarized parties. The Dem would be more likely to vote along lines I'd approve. But, yeah, it's not great.
In my area at least, "stealth" Republicans running as Democratic/Independent candidates happens. Some candidates refuse to disclose party affiliation, too. It's not required on campaign signs or literature here. (I have the misfortune of living in Coward Hawley's district. It's like living in occupied territory.)
I had a lot of information through the Banner (I live in Montgomery County). The exceptions were candidates for the Democratic Central Committee. I didn't vote for any of them. 4 males at random, 4 females at random. I left the selection to the people who cared enough to know who they were.
In Howard, we had a couple of the candidates for Central Committee come by the house and we liked them. So we voted for them, and the 18 other people with whom they made common cause, according to the postcards they were handing out.
Can you expound a little more on what it means to be a shanda to the goyim, as opposed to a really awful person who happens to be Jewish? To me, a shanda is a rephrehensible Jew who embodies a goyishe stereotype about Jews. A horrible Jewish person who is horrible for reasons that are not particularly associated with Jews is a shanda to humanity, but not to the goyim in particular.
E.g., Bernie Madoff was a shanda to the goyim because he was a money-grubber who would swindle his own mother (or, as he actually did, Elie Wiesel.) Bugsy Siegel was not, because Jews aren't particularly known to be murderous gangsters. (We are considered dishonest, but we don't like to get our hands dirty.)
Pedophilia isn't a Jewish stereotype. Epstein was a shanda, but because of the ways in which he acquired and used money to manipulate powerful adults. On that yardstick he's not that remarkable. If it weren't for the pedophilia, he wouldn't even stand out as compared to, say, Jared Kushner. I'd probably put him on the Trump shanda list, but definitely not in the number one spot.
Miller is a detestable person for reasons that almost defy description. I'd put him on the undisputed top of a list of horrible people in Trump's circle who happen to be Jewish. But, again, abject cruelty is not a Jewish stereotype -- so is he really a shanda?
Also, you shouldn't write a column about horrible people who happen to be Jewish. There is no relationship between their Jewishness and the list. That doesn't mean it's not right and meet (as the Episcopalians say) to point out that Stephen Miller's inability to process the fact that he would have died in the gas chambers and is now basically doing the same thing to other people for more or less the same reasons is a form or pathological cognitive dissonance. But "bad people who happen to be Jewish" is just bigotry, whereas "bad people who profess to believe the teachings of Jesus Christ" is a legitimate criticism.
I really like this comment, and one earlier objecting to any individual person "reflecting on" any larger (human so diverse in all but the characteristic by which they are sorted and grouped for the purpose) population. Using individual examples to justify stereotypes is an existing practice - perhaps even human tendency - so examining it openly in these thoughtful ways is beneficial. I'm sure the earlier linked article does so, but since I no longer subscribe to Washington Post it is not available to me. I'm sure there are others here who no longer subscribe.
I pi ked eeny-meeny but really it's just most reprehensible to vote based on ethnicity or gender. If you're staring at Stephen Miller's face, it's absolutely acceptable to vote against that - it has nothing to do with ethnicity or gender. When you SEE Valdemort, you just know.
In the rankings I think that I would flip Epstein and Miller. I guess he has never heard of Nuremberg -- he definitely crossed the line into that territory.
My grandfather was in the KKK in small town IN during the 1920s because of immigrants & the Jews who controlled Wall Street. My maternal uncle thought we should have been allied with the Germans during WW II, & my mother wouldn't let my father's long-time friend & colleague in the house because--do you need me to explain? So I don't understand Miller & other Jew & folks of eastern/southern European descent who hate immigrants. Don't they realize that they, too, are among those who are innately unAmerican??????
I don't understand the anti-immigrant fever from the get-go. My mother's parents were immigrants; my father's ancestry goes back to the Mayflower. But the whole point of the United States is that it doesn't (or isn't supposed to) matter where you came from or when you or your ancestors washed up on these shores. Immigration is one of the things that made these country great AND there has long been anti-immigrant hatred abroad in the land. Just let it go already.
I think it's a matter of "we got here first, so you don't count". Almost everyone is a descendant of an immigrant (and Native Americans are, also, if you go back far enough). Italians and Irish were discriminated against in the early 1900s, and Eastern European Jews were looked down upon by the German Jews who arrived earlier. As they say, "What's the difference between a poor immigrant and a Supreme Court Justice? Two generations!"
If the Supreme Court Justice remembers his/her origins and helps poor immigrants, he/she is a model American. If he/she oppresses poor immigrants, he/she is a model bigot.
I think I partially understand it. There are a lot of folks who are scared to death by immigrants and their children who are happier & more successful than they are. My grandfather blamed immigrants & the Jews on Wallstreet for the failure of the family business. It was a flour mill. Changing economic & transportation infrastructure doomed.
I wish I still had a copy of an opinion essay published in a pre-revolution 1700s NYC newspaper, republished by a history professor on a young internet, saved and lost in the memory of my first laptop. The essay bemoaned the influx of immigrants who did not speak our language, did not share our cultural values and were taking opportunities away from our offspring. It was talking about the Germans.
Scapegoating and vilifying migrants has become an influential political strategy, heightening fear and hostility as a way to energize supporters and frame national decline as the result of immigration rather than structural issues. There is also the fear of being threatened by inevitable demographic shifts: immigration has been the entire source of U.S. population growth between 2022 and 2023, due to low birth rates. Further, despite strong evidence that immigration boosts labor supply, innovation, and GDP, the administration frames immigrants as economic threats. In reality, reduced immigration is projected to dampen GDP and weaken consumer spending by $60–$110 billion over 2025–26. But obviously the economic downsides do not outweigh the assumed political benefits of maintaining a hard line. So, the animus is best understood as a political strategy rooted in demographic anxiety, amplified by rhetoric that casts immigrants as threats, and operationalized through aggressive enforcement.
One of many very good reasons. Immigration is absolutely critical because of an aging population, a shrinking worker‑to‑retiree ratio, and fertility rates far below replacement. Immigration is not just helpful --- it is mathematically essential to the survival of Social Security and other age‑based programs.
Every time I think about Stephen Miller, I remember the video from his high school that shows him fulminating against the janitors during a speech for a class president election, and he is gently escorted away from the mic by other students who realize that he is mentally disturbed. And I wonder how this young man has gone through the rest of his life, consumed by total hatred of immigrants and other scapegoat groups, and never got any help from a licensed psychologist.
I think ethnicity is a defensible way to distinguish between candidates I know nothing about. I'd vote for the non-white candidate, as long as they aren't a Republican. Also, I'm white.
As far as voting when I know very little about the candidates... I try not to be in that situation, by checking out what candidates have said, who's endorsed them, their previous positions, etc. Occasionally I vote on looks, as last week with one of the candidates for county council. Her copious mailings had 3 different photos of her, and in each one she was wearing so much makeup that she looked like a clown. Just couldn't take her seriously.
If I can't find any reason to vote for or against, I admit I go by looks, ethnicity, and gender. Most of the government is run by White males, so I vote for those who aren't, trying for some balance.
But I always vote by party, especially now. Anybody willing to be in a political party that says Donald Trump should be President of the United States does not deserve any office. I vote for the only ones who can defeat that party, and that means Democrats. Sorry, third party candidates; I've voted for some of you in the past, but you have no hope of beating the GOP candidate, so I have to vote for someone who can.
Even voting by party can steer you wrongly. Our excellent Township Supervisor, for whatever reason, runs as a Republican, but the office is so far removed from national politics that it would be perverse of me to oppose her solely because of her party.
In fact, once I happened to greet her while she was distributing campaign literature for an upcoming election. She leaned over and whispered to me that while she was obliged to hand out these Republican flyers, actually the Democrat running for that office was a better choice. My respect for her shot up out of sight, and I've voted for that single Republican ever since.
There was a TV network called Nickelodeon that made shows for children. In it occasionally people got “slimed“. It was humorous and done in fun. Later, you could buy cans of “slime“ as a toy for kids. All of this to say that you have done a huge disservice to slime by comparing it to Stephen Miller. Slime had some utility, some humor, and some capacity for fun. Stephen Miller has none of those. He is not slime. He is beneath the slime.
Ha! “beneath slime.” As in lowest of the lows. Filthiest of the filth. Shitiest of the shits….
All true!
I also agree that Epstein even dead deserves to be #1…. Where should we place Netanyahu? Or does just belong on his own list as Dr. Evil?
In basic training we were often told that we were lower than whale shit at the bottom of the ocean. That's low, but I think Pee Wee German is even lower than that.
At least we lower-than-whale-shits were there to serve the country in one way or another, not to overthrow it.
Bibi prolly belongs in his own lowest-of-the-low category: B.B., as in Below Bottom.
How about amending the label to "toxic slime?"
Old man complaint here: I think technically, kids had the can of slime toy years before "You Can't Do That on Television" aired. I have great childhood memories of playing with slime, even the Slime boardgame. But by the time Nickelodeon came along, I was like "phooey! That's kids stuff." In all other respects, I respect and will defend to the death your right to "stick up for slime" over that unctuous Stephen Miller.
Whale shit…. Now that’s getting DOWN … and indeed Lil’Stevie is definitely below even that …. Down to the depths hell.
Miller’s worldview aligns with white‑nationalist and nativist movements, which historically targeted Jews. His ethnic origin doesn’t "explain" this contradiction; it simply shows that identity and ideology can diverge sharply. Individuals are not avatars of their ethnic group.
If Miller’s actions "reflect on Jews," then by the same logic: Clarence Thomas reflects on all Black Americans; Bobby Jindal reflects on all Indian Americans and Amy Coney Barrett reflects on all Catholics. That logic collapses immediately. It’s the logic of bigotry: treating a group as a monolith.
No arguments here.
I don't think Amy Coney Barrett and J.D. Vance reflect on all Catholics. But they do illuminate a certain strain among those who claim to embrace Catholicism, and that strain should be vigorously attacked by actual Catholics, just as White Christian Nationalism needs to be relentlessly attacked by actual Christians. Because these frauds tend to be the loudest voices in the room, they create the perception among non-Christians that they reflect what Christianity is about. It becomes the obligation of real Christians to denounce them and refuse to let them claim the name of Christianity.
Don't forget the perception that the suicidal 9/11/01 aero-terrorists accurately characterized practitioners of the Muslim religion.
For those with such a perception--and their numbers remain legion--I recommend a documentary short film called "Stranger at the Gate." It was nominated for an Academy Award in 2022. It's about a man who planned to blow up a mosque in the Midwest because he was convinced their religion turned them into terrorists. In planning his attack, he began attending services at the mosque, feigning interest so he could case the building. The people were so welcoming and kind to him, he decided not to carry out the attack. When he told them what he had been planning and how he had deceived them, they didn't kick him out; they invited him in further. Ultimately, he joined their community. You can watch the 30-minute film free on YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPbbl1S6foM
I think you missed the word “perception” in what Nancy said.
I did. I edited my comment accordingly.
Great point. It's always a mistake to treat ethnic groups as monolithic.
Scott Bessent is gay and married to a man. Richard Grenell is another gay man happy to be part of Trump/MAGA.
Kristi Norm, Brooke Rollins- MAGA women ready to prove their toughness by being cruel.
Stephen Miller? I simply do not understand how a man descended from immigrants, and who is Jewish, can be so avid to demean and persecute vulnerable people.
I suspect there's a lot of self-hatred there. Heaven help us, Miller looks in his mirror and desperately wants to see Reinhard Heydrich.
Well said. A pillar of Demento & Co’s shtick is cherrypicking the most extreme example of the left, e.g. the defund the police group, to paint all Democrats as “the radical left”. Similarly, some on the left tend to paint all Christians as extreme right bigots.
I think the notion of being a "shanda" is not that the shanda's actions *should* reflect on other Jews, but acknowledging the likelihood that bigots will seize the opportunity to use them that way unfairly.
Anyway, Miller isn't a great example of a "shanda for the goyim" of this kind, because the very things he's guilty of are things that the antisemites *like* (white nationalism -- and boy, the other Nazi cool kids must be sneering at him behind his back), and there isn't a stereotype of white nationalist Jews. He's more of an internal embarassment in that way -- a shanda, period, in my opinion. Bernie Madoff, for example, is a much better example of what a shanda means in the sense of the full phrase.
Indeed. My point is only that a Madoff or a Thomas are not archetypes and that ethnic groups are not monolithic --- something that too often escapes the popular mind simply to reduce cognitive effort. Even highly educated, reflective people fall into this because our brains are wired to compress, categorize and predict --- even when the prediction is wrong. Not rational, but very human. And accordingly it regularly shows up elsewhere in our existence since our brains are constantly trying to compress complexity into something manageable --- whether in art (one abstract painting means modern art is nonsense), science (an individual gets sick after a vaccine shot, so vaccines are bad) or even in romantic relationships (a bad breakup somehow signifies "men are..." or "women are...").
I would vote for an otherwise unknown down-ballot candidate based on ethnicity or gender or photo. Here’s my thinking: I live in a county that has a sizeable Native population. Tribal names are distinctive. If the candidate is Native and female, then I’m looking at a candidate who grew up with two counts against her, yet here she is. Typically, such candidates are democrats— and yes, that figures in heavily.
I am white, and many tribal issues are not mine— and— people deserve representation. Especially if they have historically had little. I have plenty of folks already looking out (maybe too much) for me and mine.
I didn’t have your prescient reasoning, but I voted for women and people with once were considered “funny names “. Perhaps still are. I am a 65 y/o woman. A change has to come. And vote the old folks out. We need more energy, vim and vigor, not old ones like Susan Collin’s who thinks seniority gives her the ability to check DJT which she hasn’t used.
It's bad enough to hear young ageists criticize older people for not quitting their jobs or moving out of their houses because these elitists think life owes them something and the aging should just hand theirs over. Perhaps ageist seniors have witnessed much decline of the elderly. It would be tragic if they simply absorbed this bigotry that's running rampant in our country.
I am a poor 65 year old. Still working, can you believe as Geriatric Care Manager? I want my elder friends and clients to have great lives. but, I think we need new ideas, new energy. What we have now is not working. Yes, we oldsters have much to contribute: experience and cogent analysis, support. We have to encourage younger people to get involved and change systems that benefited most of us. It is time to past the baton. I won’t be here long. Anyway you look at it my life is more than half over
Anyone can adopt a new position. Age is irrelevant.
Agreed, BUT, Miller and all the other mooks reflect the hypocrisy of the ethnic identities they embrace. Miller would have been the most vicious kapo in the camps and probably wouldn't regret his actions when the camp guards turned their guns on him.
Lest we forget, Heydrich was blown up by the Resistance in 1942, depriving people of the opportunity to see him hang at Nuremberg.
The thing is, true White Nationalists would not consider Stephen Miller white! As a grandchild of Eastern European Jewish immigrants, (which also describes me) he reminds me of a blind, black guy in the Ku Klux Klan.
Except for gender, which is generally obvious, how are we supposed to choose among the candidates, who are, according to the question, unknown to us?
I spent a fair amount of time researching every person on my ballot. Where there was no information available, I did not vote. I don’t see the point of doing so.
I agree. Though I think voting by party is defensible. Given Joe Smith v. Joe Jones, I would feel okay voting for the Democrat, at least in today's wildly polarized parties. The Dem would be more likely to vote along lines I'd approve. But, yeah, it's not great.
In my area at least, "stealth" Republicans running as Democratic/Independent candidates happens. Some candidates refuse to disclose party affiliation, too. It's not required on campaign signs or literature here. (I have the misfortune of living in Coward Hawley's district. It's like living in occupied territory.)
I had a lot of information through the Banner (I live in Montgomery County). The exceptions were candidates for the Democratic Central Committee. I didn't vote for any of them. 4 males at random, 4 females at random. I left the selection to the people who cared enough to know who they were.
In Howard, we had a couple of the candidates for Central Committee come by the house and we liked them. So we voted for them, and the 18 other people with whom they made common cause, according to the postcards they were handing out.
Same
Can you expound a little more on what it means to be a shanda to the goyim, as opposed to a really awful person who happens to be Jewish? To me, a shanda is a rephrehensible Jew who embodies a goyishe stereotype about Jews. A horrible Jewish person who is horrible for reasons that are not particularly associated with Jews is a shanda to humanity, but not to the goyim in particular.
E.g., Bernie Madoff was a shanda to the goyim because he was a money-grubber who would swindle his own mother (or, as he actually did, Elie Wiesel.) Bugsy Siegel was not, because Jews aren't particularly known to be murderous gangsters. (We are considered dishonest, but we don't like to get our hands dirty.)
Pedophilia isn't a Jewish stereotype. Epstein was a shanda, but because of the ways in which he acquired and used money to manipulate powerful adults. On that yardstick he's not that remarkable. If it weren't for the pedophilia, he wouldn't even stand out as compared to, say, Jared Kushner. I'd probably put him on the Trump shanda list, but definitely not in the number one spot.
Miller is a detestable person for reasons that almost defy description. I'd put him on the undisputed top of a list of horrible people in Trump's circle who happen to be Jewish. But, again, abject cruelty is not a Jewish stereotype -- so is he really a shanda?
Also, you shouldn't write a column about horrible people who happen to be Jewish. There is no relationship between their Jewishness and the list. That doesn't mean it's not right and meet (as the Episcopalians say) to point out that Stephen Miller's inability to process the fact that he would have died in the gas chambers and is now basically doing the same thing to other people for more or less the same reasons is a form or pathological cognitive dissonance. But "bad people who happen to be Jewish" is just bigotry, whereas "bad people who profess to believe the teachings of Jesus Christ" is a legitimate criticism.
Read my definition, linked to near the top of the column. It's exactly the point you make.
Only the last of my points. I still don't get why you'd rank Epstein as the top shanda or Miller as a shanda at all.
I really like this comment, and one earlier objecting to any individual person "reflecting on" any larger (human so diverse in all but the characteristic by which they are sorted and grouped for the purpose) population. Using individual examples to justify stereotypes is an existing practice - perhaps even human tendency - so examining it openly in these thoughtful ways is beneficial. I'm sure the earlier linked article does so, but since I no longer subscribe to Washington Post it is not available to me. I'm sure there are others here who no longer subscribe.
I pi ked eeny-meeny but really it's just most reprehensible to vote based on ethnicity or gender. If you're staring at Stephen Miller's face, it's absolutely acceptable to vote against that - it has nothing to do with ethnicity or gender. When you SEE Valdemort, you just know.
In the rankings I think that I would flip Epstein and Miller. I guess he has never heard of Nuremberg -- he definitely crossed the line into that territory.
My grandfather was in the KKK in small town IN during the 1920s because of immigrants & the Jews who controlled Wall Street. My maternal uncle thought we should have been allied with the Germans during WW II, & my mother wouldn't let my father's long-time friend & colleague in the house because--do you need me to explain? So I don't understand Miller & other Jew & folks of eastern/southern European descent who hate immigrants. Don't they realize that they, too, are among those who are innately unAmerican??????
I don't understand the anti-immigrant fever from the get-go. My mother's parents were immigrants; my father's ancestry goes back to the Mayflower. But the whole point of the United States is that it doesn't (or isn't supposed to) matter where you came from or when you or your ancestors washed up on these shores. Immigration is one of the things that made these country great AND there has long been anti-immigrant hatred abroad in the land. Just let it go already.
I think it's a matter of "we got here first, so you don't count". Almost everyone is a descendant of an immigrant (and Native Americans are, also, if you go back far enough). Italians and Irish were discriminated against in the early 1900s, and Eastern European Jews were looked down upon by the German Jews who arrived earlier. As they say, "What's the difference between a poor immigrant and a Supreme Court Justice? Two generations!"
If the Supreme Court Justice remembers his/her origins and helps poor immigrants, he/she is a model American. If he/she oppresses poor immigrants, he/she is a model bigot.
I think I partially understand it. There are a lot of folks who are scared to death by immigrants and their children who are happier & more successful than they are. My grandfather blamed immigrants & the Jews on Wallstreet for the failure of the family business. It was a flour mill. Changing economic & transportation infrastructure doomed.
I wish I still had a copy of an opinion essay published in a pre-revolution 1700s NYC newspaper, republished by a history professor on a young internet, saved and lost in the memory of my first laptop. The essay bemoaned the influx of immigrants who did not speak our language, did not share our cultural values and were taking opportunities away from our offspring. It was talking about the Germans.
Scapegoating and vilifying migrants has become an influential political strategy, heightening fear and hostility as a way to energize supporters and frame national decline as the result of immigration rather than structural issues. There is also the fear of being threatened by inevitable demographic shifts: immigration has been the entire source of U.S. population growth between 2022 and 2023, due to low birth rates. Further, despite strong evidence that immigration boosts labor supply, innovation, and GDP, the administration frames immigrants as economic threats. In reality, reduced immigration is projected to dampen GDP and weaken consumer spending by $60–$110 billion over 2025–26. But obviously the economic downsides do not outweigh the assumed political benefits of maintaining a hard line. So, the animus is best understood as a political strategy rooted in demographic anxiety, amplified by rhetoric that casts immigrants as threats, and operationalized through aggressive enforcement.
I'm in favor of more immigration. I want to keep receiving my Social Security.
One of many very good reasons. Immigration is absolutely critical because of an aging population, a shrinking worker‑to‑retiree ratio, and fertility rates far below replacement. Immigration is not just helpful --- it is mathematically essential to the survival of Social Security and other age‑based programs.
If you haven't Timothy Egan's book, "Fever in the Heartland," about the KKK takeover of Indiana in the early 1920s, I highly recommend it.
Thank you, Randy for the suggestion. Every sentient person growing up in IN knows the story.
Excellent book.
Every time I think about Stephen Miller, I remember the video from his high school that shows him fulminating against the janitors during a speech for a class president election, and he is gently escorted away from the mic by other students who realize that he is mentally disturbed. And I wonder how this young man has gone through the rest of his life, consumed by total hatred of immigrants and other scapegoat groups, and never got any help from a licensed psychologist.
Because of his shiny bald head as well as his cruel persona, l just call him Dickhead.👩🦲
I think ethnicity is a defensible way to distinguish between candidates I know nothing about. I'd vote for the non-white candidate, as long as they aren't a Republican. Also, I'm white.
As far as voting when I know very little about the candidates... I try not to be in that situation, by checking out what candidates have said, who's endorsed them, their previous positions, etc. Occasionally I vote on looks, as last week with one of the candidates for county council. Her copious mailings had 3 different photos of her, and in each one she was wearing so much makeup that she looked like a clown. Just couldn't take her seriously.
If I can't find any reason to vote for or against, I admit I go by looks, ethnicity, and gender. Most of the government is run by White males, so I vote for those who aren't, trying for some balance.
But I always vote by party, especially now. Anybody willing to be in a political party that says Donald Trump should be President of the United States does not deserve any office. I vote for the only ones who can defeat that party, and that means Democrats. Sorry, third party candidates; I've voted for some of you in the past, but you have no hope of beating the GOP candidate, so I have to vote for someone who can.
Even voting by party can steer you wrongly. Our excellent Township Supervisor, for whatever reason, runs as a Republican, but the office is so far removed from national politics that it would be perverse of me to oppose her solely because of her party.
In fact, once I happened to greet her while she was distributing campaign literature for an upcoming election. She leaned over and whispered to me that while she was obliged to hand out these Republican flyers, actually the Democrat running for that office was a better choice. My respect for her shot up out of sight, and I've voted for that single Republican ever since.
As far I’m concerned, they’re both Number 2.