Kinder, Küche, Kirche

For a while now I've been seeing sporadic publications by someone named Josef Joffe. His views always seem kind of crazy. But only kind of. And since he lacks clear-cut affiliations with crazy institutions, I tend to think maybe he's not as crazy as he seems. But then I see another article and I think "how crazy is this guy?" But, here he is, the editor of Die Zeit in Germany and, frankly, I don't think of Continental newspaper editors as likely candidates for padded cells. This virtually uncritical review of Mark Steyn's book in The New York Sun is, however, the last straw. The man's 'round the bend -- as much if not more so than Steyn himself:

If the Europeans have thrown in the generative towel, Mr. Steyn plows ahead, the Muslims have not. They are lean, mean, and super-fertile, and they are thrust forward by a mighty sense of moral superiority as they look down on the decadent, libertine, and slothful West. Again, Mr. Steyn has a point. There is a lassitude about Europe that stands in stark, possibly tragic contrast to its glorious past — when its adventurers roamed the four corners of the globe as conquerors, when it produced everything, from the Renaissance to the fax machine, that makes up Western civilization.

Honestly, what is one to say? There's a long and, frankly, not especially distinguished tradition of this sort of thing. You may recall that as far back as The Great Gatsby sensible people were satirizing this as blowhard Tom Buchanan recommends Rise of the Colored Empire by "this man Goddard," a reference to Lothrop Stoddard's forgotten non-masterwork The Rising Tide of Color. Actual arguments about economics and international relations tend to go missing here as we try and blend together anxiety about the changing social role of women with anxiety about the changing ethnic composition of society and serve it up as a tale of foreign menace and western decline. The next step, which Steyn already seems prepared to take, is to start castigating the broad population for its weak-kneed unwillingness to see the necessity of drastic measures from whence it's a short step to the need to abrogate democracy, etc., etc., etc.

Comments

The Muslims are clearly the Mexicans of Europe.

Posted by Steve | December 18, 2006 10:41 AM

Wasn't he Eddie Murphy's dad from Coming to America?

Posted by JP | December 18, 2006 10:44 AM

I thought the Spanish were the Mexicans of Europe?

Posted by Drew Miller | December 18, 2006 10:45 AM

The point is that civilization is a function of white genes. If we don't make more white people then civilization goes away.

I wonder if all the Fighting Keyboardists have shackled their mates to the hearth and have produced 8, 9, or 10 white babies to turn back the onslaught.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | December 18, 2006 10:54 AM

The New York Sun is basically a neocon propaganda sheet that has gotten some recognition by taking the name and the motto ("It Shines for All") of a famous, but long deceased, newspaper. It cunningly exploits the Islam-Will-Conquer-the-World paranoia that's swept through New York since 9/11.

Posted by Peter | December 18, 2006 10:59 AM

No, silly. The Spanish are the North Carolinians of Europe. The Arabs are the Mexicans.

Posted by Ben | December 18, 2006 10:59 AM

Thanks Peter. And here I was, about to subscribe.

Posted by JP | December 18, 2006 11:02 AM

Stripped of the racist nonsense, demographic trends really do exist. Take Russia. Among ethnic Russians, the birthrate is cratering and life expectancies have fallen drastically, to the point that the population is shinking. But among Muslims, who make up about 15-20% of the population, birthrates are very high. By mid-century, barring very dramatic changes in current trends, the population of Russia will be between 1/3 and 1/2 Muslim, and a majority-Muslim Russia will be a reality in the lifetimes of most readers.

Posted by JR | December 18, 2006 11:08 AM

I liked the original title of the book: Which Lucky Lady/Ladies Wants/Want to Make Some White Babies With Mark Steyn?

Posted by norbizness | December 18, 2006 11:10 AM

Isn't it refreshing to see Germans make such racial arguments? And by refreshing I mean scary as fuck.

Posted by Reality Man | December 18, 2006 11:14 AM

There is a lassitude about Europe that stands in stark, possibly tragic contrast to its glorious past — when its adventurers roamed the four corners of the globe as conquerors, when it produced everything, from the Renaissance to the fax machine, that makes up Western civilization.

This is just... odd. Europe has never been stronger or richer, nor have its ideas - political, scientific, technological, economic, ethical, aesthetic and artistic - ever been more dominant than right now. I'd say this is our high point, but I'm sure that the trend will continue for the foreseeable future.

Posted by ajay | December 18, 2006 11:21 AM

yea, the dude is nuts. the first piece of his i saw was in Foreign Policy writing about Israel. the premise, seriously, is that even if Israel never existed as some people wish (um, what?), there would still be problems in the middle east (um, duh). the entire piece is a string of straw men, he never cites any credible politician or commentator who's actually making the argument he's 'rebutting'. its an utter waste of ink. i also remember him, for some reason, taking a line to lecture Scott Ritter on WMD. seriously, one of the only people to be right about it, and you still take a swipe. you must be insane. anyway here's the article, read it if you feel like punching something in the near future.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=2737

bah, subscription only. try searching for it, "A World Without Israel"

Posted by Mr. Todd | December 18, 2006 11:42 AM

It's true that Steyn is spouting alarmism and ethnocentrism.

But it's also true that high birth rates in many poor countries (mostly Southeast Asia, Africa, and the Middle East) tend to create instability and conflict. The same is also true in poor (mostly Muslim) minority communities in Europe. High birthrates in those communities lead to a surplus of poor unemployed angry young men, some of whom then turn to violence.

The solution is not to raise fertility rates in the West (especially not by appealing to racism or nationalism!). It's to lower fertility rates in poor countries and in poor communities, through the dissemination of birth control and women's education and opportunity. That will enrich the poor folks, as well as making them less prone to violence.

Posted by Mr. Noah | December 18, 2006 12:09 PM

It's to lower fertility rates in poor countries and in poor communities, through the dissemination of birth control and women's education and opportunity.

As a liberal, I'm completely on board with the idea here, but doesn't it sound uncomfortably close to what they accuse us of doing with abortion?

Posted by Steve | December 18, 2006 12:26 PM

I look forward to being conquered by tall, muscley Swedes who make you listen to Abba a lot.

Posted by Linus | December 18, 2006 12:30 PM

I blame the NY Times for making Josef Joffe nuts. It must be contagious, if you come into contact with the right (or wrong) people....

Seriously: Mr. Joffe used to write fairly liberal commentary and editorials, when he was an editor at the "Sueddeutsche Zeitung" in Munich (one of Germany's large daily newspapers). Then he left for a stint at the NY Times (several articles of his appeared in the NY Times Magazine), after which he went back to become Publisher of "Die Zeit". That (weekly) paper has since moved ever rightward, and he has become insufferable... As I said, I blame the NY Times....

Posted by Shining Raven | December 18, 2006 12:45 PM

Linus, leave us out of your perverted little fantasies. Unless your conquering Swedes happen to have a Roxette CD as well.

Posted by collin | December 18, 2006 12:47 PM

religion aside, JR makes and interesting comment about Russia.

We see the worlds biggest country, with huge natural resources, advanced weaponry, and a seeming inability to govern itself well. Their birth rate is almost nil, their life expectancy is falling, and their young alienated.

Russia neighbors China, which has no lack of people and needs resources, and Muslim nations which don't like them, have growing populations, and an agressive religion. To the west a passive, some say declining Europe, isn't likely to help.

And to top it off. If Global Warming continues the Russian lands, nearly empty now, become more desirable while warmer areas suffer.

Anyone see a problem?

Posted by K | December 18, 2006 12:48 PM

I've been hearing about these ethnic take-overs for 30 years now. Hasn't happened. These ideas seem about as credible as peak oil and the second comming; "Seriously people!" says the apocryphal hysteriac, "It's going to happen this generation! You have to believe me!" The idea that a minority population in the U.S. or Europe could start at the ground level without any capital and redo an entrenched white culture when said minorities are shut out of the educational system, the media, and the boardrooms is pure political hate-mongering.

Mr. Noah has a fantastic solution above.

Posted by Matt | December 18, 2006 12:54 PM

Ditto to what Mr. Noah said.

Mr. Steyn's point, as summarized by Joffe, is not completely ridiculous. Certainly it would be wrong to promote ethnocentrism and racism as a solution to rising Muslim populations. However it would also be nice if the philosophy of secular rationalism was espoused with a little more pride and vigor both here and in Europe. It would be unfortunate if writers are forbidden to espouse pride simply because they are German.

Posted by ludwig | December 18, 2006 12:55 PM

One of the many defects of argments like Joffe's, including the cleaned-up versions offered by folks like JR here, is that they treat quite fluid social categories as if they were permanent and natural.

Take Mexicans in the US. In 50 years, if not 25, someone named Gonzalez will be as white as someone named Geoghegan or Grabowski.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | December 18, 2006 1:00 PM

Hasn't the "birth dearth" meme swept through the poorly informed blognoscenti yet? Iran is almost below replacement. Tunisia is below replacement. Fertility is plummeting in Bangledesh, Pakistan, and southern India. China is aging, Mexico will soon as well. Apart from sub-saharan Africa (and a few other hold-outs like Afghanistan) -- the world will soon be running out of people!

Mr Todd wrote:
It's to lower fertility rates in poor countries and in poor communities

Hmm -- how about we shoot them with contraceptive darts? It works for over-fertile South African elephants -- why not pooor people?

As for joffe -- I'm very uncomfortable with Xenophobic Germans. Since way back when Kaiser Wilhem invented the term "yellow-peril" (also here), it's been nothing but trouble.

Posted by Ikram | December 18, 2006 1:03 PM

"...frankly, I don't think of Continental newspaper editors as likely candidates for padded cells."

You need to spend more time reading continental newspapers. European media tend to be more reasonable on some issues than their American counterparts, but racial politics and immigration are definitely not on the list.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | December 18, 2006 1:18 PM

LaFollette is right. American progressives tend to assume Western Europe is a model of what we'd like to see here. This is true on many issues, but definitely not on immigration (and arguably race/ethnicity in general). For better or worse, the United States probably has the most enlightened immigration politics of any major country.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | December 18, 2006 1:46 PM

It's interesting to see the "yes, but" responses by those whose juices are set flowing by a nice global racial argument. For the record, no, Noah, your pet theory is not "fact" (learn some demographics), and Ludwig, when you say "forbidden to espouse pride simply because they are German" what the hell are you talking about?

Posted by c | December 18, 2006 2:03 PM

Seriously folks, Jello Biafra was waaay ahead of y'allz

Efficiency and progress is ours once more,
now that we've got the neutron bomb,
It's nice and quick and clean and gets things done...

Posted by Leinad | December 18, 2006 2:06 PM

After reading things Mr. Swyne has written, you start to understand how U.S. troops can torture prisoners and level Iraqi cities (e.g., Fallujah) without qualm. His chief function seems to be taking crude jingoism and sectarian hatred (e.g., Franklin Graham) out of the sewers and refining them into something he mistakes for Wildean wit. His middle-brow audience then pretends as though he is writing something original and daring.

There are genuine demographic problems in Europe, but these come off as farce by the time Mr. Swyne gets through manhandling them. Then we have the even more egregious George Weigel--theologian to the neocons--whose specialty is panegyrics to our Fearless Leader, Dubya. You would think you were reading about Charles Martel battling the Saracens. Please excuse me; I have to go hurl my lunch.

Posted by Doktor Merkwürdigeliebe | December 18, 2006 2:07 PM

lemuel pitkin: "LaFollette is right. American progressives tend to assume Western Europe is a model of what we'd like to see here. This is true on many issues, but definitely not on immigration (and arguably race/ethnicity in general). For better or worse, the United States probably has the most enlightened immigration politics of any major country."

Has it ever occured to you that this is connected?

Immigration is, and has always been, a bane on the country. This is why Jonah Goldberg is in favor of it - he says immigrants "fight off socialism". More accurately, Americans are unwilling to vote for social programs if the benefits will flow to illegals who just jumped the border. Yes, there's a large dose of racism in there as well, but if it were only African-Americans and Native Americans we could deal with it and overcome it in time. An American welfare state couldn't handle the endless masses of Mexicans. Furthermore, immigrants have always been used as cheap scab labor to hold down wage rates, and that is still happening. We can have a progressive nation or we can have mass immigration, but we can't have both. Hurray for anti-immigration, isolationism, and protectionism.

Posted by Firebug | December 18, 2006 2:14 PM

Matt concludes: "the necessity of drastic measures from whence it's a short step to the need to abrogate democracy"

C'mon, that's 180 degrees backwards. In Europe, it's the undemocratic elite that wants to keep Muslim immigration flowing in, while the masses want it halted and/or reversed. Take a look at what the European Establishment had to say when Pym Fortuyn was assasinated by a leftist for attacking Muslim immigration: Basically, that he had it coming.

Posted by Steve Sailer | December 18, 2006 2:19 PM

Remember how for neoconservatives, it's always 1938?

Well, judging from this string, Kinder, Küche, Kirche, for liberals it's always 1938 too.

Folk memories imperialize the mind long after they are obsolete.

Posted by Steve Sailer | December 18, 2006 2:25 PM

Steve Sailer said:
it's the undemocratic elite that wants to keep Muslim immigration flowing in

Ok Steve- - let's have some names. Who are the 'undemocratic elite' -- unelected leaders like the Queen? Commissioners on the European Commission? CEOs of major corporations (Airbus, Volkswagon, Virgin)? Authors?

Second -- which members of this 'undemocratic elite' have advocated maintance or increase of Muslim immigration? Enquiring minds want to know.

Posted by Anon | December 18, 2006 3:10 PM

"Ok Steve - - let's have some names"

From my May 8, 2002 UPI article:

UPI, May 8, 2002

More than a few members of Europe's political establishment appear to believe that Pim Fortuyn -- the frank anti-immigration Dutch politician who was assassinated Monday, allegedly by a leftist activist -- had it coming.

Although frequently denounced as an "extreme-rightist," Fortuyn was an outspokenly gay man of generally libertarian (and sometimes even libertine) views...

By calling for an end to Muslim immigration, the charismatic Fortuyn aroused novel interest among voters in the upcoming national election in the Netherlands, where the dominant political parties had long conspired to prevent open debate over immigration policy. The political upstart, who had enjoyed an outside chance of being elected prime minister on May 15, particularly objected that Muslim immigrants tended to be intolerant of homosexuals like himself. He called for programs to assimilate resident Muslims into the traditional Dutch culture of open-mindedness.

In response to his killing, El Mundo, a leading Spanish paper, cast much of the blame on the victim in convoluted but clearly angry prose: "A criminal response to the incendiary racist calls of these distant heirs of Nazism, introduces a terrible new element in a Europe that is fearful and harassed by demagoguery: that of vengeful violence, which can only engender more violence."

... Belgian Foreign Minister Louis Michel implied that the dead man had been just too darn democratic for a modern Euro-democracy: "Democratic parties have to campaign in a very cautious way, and in a balanced and serene way to try to orientate the debate toward democratic values.

The Irish Times editorialized, "It is the very essence of democracy to allow anti-democratic views to be expressed." Apparently, trying to win an election on an anti-immigration plank is inherently "anti-democratic."

Mainstream newspapers and politicians hinted that Fortuyn was a racist, a fascist or even a Nazi. The Irish Times went on: "Nevertheless the murder will serve to highlight the rise of the far right in European politics and may in the long run gain votes for those involved in simplistic, racially-motivated campaigns. Today, on the 57th anniversary of the defeat of fascism, such trends strike a sad note."

Norman Lamont, the former Tory chancellor of the exchequer, wrote, "Britain has been fortunate to avoid the rise of extreme Right-wing, hateful politicians like Jean-Marie Le Pen and Pim Fortuyn, the Dutchman who was murdered in Hilversum."

Aftonbladet, the leading circulation Swedish newspaper, weighed in with, "The brown parties of Europe have a new martyr." Brown was Hitler's color.

In this atmosphere of vicious resentment, British Prime Minister Tony Blair's grudging-sounding admonition against killing anti-immigrationists -- "No matter what feelings political figures arouse, the ballot box is the place to express them" -- seems like the height of liberality.

In George Orwell's novel 1984, one of the few outlets granted Party members from the stultifying regime of political correctness was the periodic Two Minute Hate. The face of Big Brother's mythical enemy Emmanual Goldstein, the official embodiment of evil, would appear on the screen and everybody would shriek at him in fury.

The French final round presidential election campaign was, in effect, a continent-wide Two Week Hate, with anti-immigrationist Jean-Marie Le Pen standing in for Goldstein. Should we be at all surprised that on the very next day, some enraged extremist killed Fortuyn?

Posted by Steve Sailer | December 18, 2006 3:26 PM

By the way, there is a popular myth among the media that Pym Fortuyn's murderer was just some animal rights loony and the assassination had nothing to do with anti-anti-immigration hysteria. However, the killer's first court appearance proved that wrong.

The London Daily Telegraph reported:

"Facing a raucous court on the first day of his murder trial, he said his goal was to stop Mr. Fortuyn exploiting Muslims as 'scapegoats' and targeting "the weak parts of society to score points" to try to gain political power. He said: 'I confess to the shooting. He was an ever growing danger who would affect many people in society. I saw it as a danger. I hoped that I could solve it myself.'"

The Boston Globe noted:

"Van der Graaf said that he had sensed an increasingly unpleasant and anti-Muslim atmosphere in society after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States—a time when Fortuyn's star was beginning its meteoric rise. Van der Graaf said Fortuyn, 54, had tried to use that atmosphere for his own aggrandizement. 'I saw him as a highly vindictive man who used feelings in society to boost his personal stature. The ideas he had about refugees, asylum seekers, the environment, animals. . . . He was always using or abusing the weak side of society to get ahead.'"

Reported Expatica.com:

"Van der Graaf claimed, according to the Algemeen Dagblad, he was greatly influenced by politicians who compared Fortuyn with Austrian far-right leader Jorg Haider and Benito Mussolini."

Posted by Steve Sailer | December 18, 2006 3:31 PM

If we could actually put a brake on the unholy alliance between big business and leftist multi-cultis who are preventing us from actually *enforcing* immigration laws, I think the general population would be quite happy with a reasonable level of immigration from Mexico. It's the endless flood of illegal immigration, the de facto open borders, that rightly piss the public off. I suspect the same kind of thing is true in Europe -- that as Steve implies, the population feels it has lost control of immigration policy to elites who are not willing to do what it takes to get to a moderate immigration level.

Posted by MQ | December 18, 2006 3:39 PM

Dear Rich Moguls of Western Civilization,

If you want the teeming masses to whelp more puppies, then make it LESS EXPENSIVE TO RAISE THEM ABOVE THE POVERTY LEVEL. You have only yourselves to blame you greedy bastards.

Love,
MNPundit

PS: Not White
PPS: The notion of a coming wave of fertile Muslims overwhelming Europe really sets me off.

Posted by MNPundit | December 18, 2006 3:58 PM

Thank you Steve for recycling your four year old UPI article, full of quotes from published pundits and politicians. I agree that pundits form an undemocratic elite (even pundits named Sailer?) -- but I think its a big strech to call politicians like Norman Lamont 'undemocratic'

But do you actually have anything any quotes that want to keep Muslim immigration flowing in? None of the quotes you cite take that position. Disliking Fortuyn is not want[ing] to keep Muslim immigration flowing in any more than disliking Rumsfeld is supporting "more troops in Iraq".

Do you have anything on that point, or did you just make it up?

Posted by Anon | December 18, 2006 4:06 PM

Sure.

The "democracy deficit" in Europe is not exactly a secret. Try Googling on it. And that the ruling elites have long favored immigration more than the masses, as measured by political opinion polls isn't a secret either.

For example, look how the EU is going ahead with negotiations to incorporate Turkey, with its 70 million Muslims, into the European Union. The upshot would be fairly similar to the US legally opening the borders with Mexico to create a common labor market.

None of this is secret and I'm surprised you haven't heard of it.

Posted by Steve Sailer | December 18, 2006 4:24 PM

Being more pro-immigration than "the masses" doesn't necessarily translate into wanting open borders, although that's the caricature favored by folks who don't want to debate the issue seriously.

Posted by Steve | December 18, 2006 4:58 PM

Pym Fortuyn wanted to debate immigration seriously and look what it got him.

The short hand term "open borders" is in fact even technically accurate for European Union expansion issues -- note the vast influx of Polish workers into Britain, something like an order of magnitude more than the Blair Government promised following Poland joining the EU. Turkey wants the same thing when it joins, which would allow 70 million Muslims to move anywhere they want within the EU.

Posted by Steve Sailer | December 18, 2006 5:25 PM

C,

If you read Joffe's op-ed, you'll find that his argument is Europeans don't take enough pride in their history and culture, while Islam seems to encourage opposite sentiments. Matthew may think these arguments are bunk because they have been used to support extremist ideologies in the past....well that isn't taking the problem very seriously in my view. It's as if it is out of bounds for a national public to be concerned about its demographics and how it will relate to its future.

I can't believe I'm defending Joffe anyway. I don't like him any more than Matt does. But in general Matt's post is not up to his usual standards. Matt speaks as if anyone who casts doubt on the dictums of post-national multi-cultural liberalism ought to be labeled "crazy", especially if that person happens to be German. The reality is much more complicated. Although nationalism presents all kinds of problems and the cultural xenophobia advocated by Steyn is repugnant, it is nonetheless true that culturally homogeneous states (as in Europe) tend to have better social integration, less inequality, etc. Perhaps we should take the time to seriously think about why that is. We may have to admit that the solidarity necessary for implementing social justice is easier to achieve within national states, and that putting the breaks on the dissolution of national identities may, paradoxically, point the way to a more just international order. Consequently the movement against immigration both here and abroad may well be good thing, even if the xenophobic feelings such movements use are repugnant to us good liberals.

Moreover, in order to understand the context of Joffe's argument, you need to be familiar with just how badly the integration of Muslim immigrants in Europe has gone. There is simply no comparing the ease of integration in the United States to the alienation of Muslim immigrants in Europe. The Paris riots were only a taste of the conflicts to come. The answer isn't pitting Europe against Islam--but surely something needs to change.

Posted by ludwig | December 18, 2006 5:34 PM

Steve
Following your suggestion, I googled "democracy deficit" -- the first ten hits have nothing on unelected elites wanting to keep Muslim immigration flowing in.

Thinking you may have mistyped, I added "Muslim immigration" to the search string and got a relevant hit! .. by the noted unelected pundit Steve Sailer! No point in going in further.

Posted by Anon | December 18, 2006 6:04 PM

SS: "And that the ruling elites have long favored immigration more than the masses, as measured by political opinion polls isn't a secret either."

It isn't? Good! That means it should be really easy for you to produce some evidence, right? And remember, you originally said "t's the undemocratic elite that wants to keep Muslim immigration flowing in", so no shifting the goalposts.

We want examples of people who are a) in positions of power b) undemocratic - as in unelected or unaccountable to an elected government and c) want specifically to keep Muslim immigration high or increase it.

I await your long, embarrassed silence.

Posted by ajay | December 19, 2006 5:18 AM

In Germany the Turks outnumber Arabs by something like 10:1; it is they that are the Mexicans, not the Arabs. And the analogy is apt. Almost all of the same stereotypes you hear about Mexicans stateside you hear about Turks here: they're lazy, they take German jobs, they take unfair advantage of state services, they're all criminals, and so on.

Steyn and his admirers are fools who want to make problems where none exist. The whole "Islam is going to take over Europe" thing is idiotic, because even if it did it does not necessarily lead one down the path to Islam of the threatening conservative radical kind. Just because someone's a Muslim doesn't mean that they cannot be progressive, modern, and largely secular in daily life and outlook. Germany is not awash in minarets singing out the Muslim call to prayer; rather, it is awash in church towers ringing out the Christian call to prayer, but you don't hear anyone complaining about that.

The fact of the matter is, the whole religion thing is a red herring. Joffe simply isn't enamored of brown-skinned Germans, and Steyn's idiot ravings play to that dislike.

Posted by moonbiter | December 19, 2006 5:24 AM

Steyn is rapidly approaching the point of being self-satirising. After all, "lean and mean and very fertile" is, well, hardly a list of adjectives you'd associate with the man. "Hairy", "fat", "blowhard", "bullshitter", sure. "Lean"? In his dreams.

Sailer: There is no point engaging with biological racists like your good self, but even you ought to know that Muslims in Europe aren't immigrants any more. That was 35 years ago. Strange that the US pundit corps has only discovered them in the last five years.

And the EU is not "going ahead" with negotiations to admit Turkey. They fell apart last week over the Cyprus issue. Steve Sailer: ignorant or mendacious? Enquiring minds want to know.

Posted by Alex | December 19, 2006 5:26 AM

Don't fear America, we are raising battalions of Mormons and Mexicans to combat the growing Muslim threat.

Posted by High Fertility | December 19, 2006 5:39 AM

Absolutely. Mexicans for the cooking, Mormons for the singing. (NB: it is very important not to confuse this, otherwise you will be doomed to a dark future of mariachi bands and Wonder Bread. In this future, truly, the living will envy the dead.)

Posted by ajay | December 19, 2006 9:49 AM