Home Store In Memoriam Deborah Newsletter Forum Topics Blogfeed Blogroll Facebook MySpace Contact Us About

Ingraham's pugilistic momentum can't be stopped

Reported by Chrish - June 20, 2008 -

June 19th, Day 4 of Just In, and it's already getting old. Laura Ingraham overtalked, interrupted, and scolded her guest whose views, she thought, were in opposition to hers. Ironically, had she listened, she'd find that his beef is about illegal immigration into America in general and California in particular.

She teased "The alarmism in the over-population, anti-population, zero population movement - the planet might be killing us, or at least the people." Coming back from break, she introduced the segment: "Some alarmists are convinced that the planet is so overpopulated that it's leading to our doom and destruction." She said one such person was Rick Oltman, of Californians for Population Stabilization.

She asked how he sought to enforce population stabilization. He didn't answer immediately, giving background and citing an AP report today - which I'm not allowed to quote or link to, so screw 'em, UPI had the story also: World population may top 7B in 2012. The banner at this point read "Scare tactic: population growth out of control," and Ingraham interjected flatly "so what." He rattled off more stats - US population has doubled in his lifetime, and today's teens will see 500 million Americans in theirs. Where's the growth coming from? Over 80% of it, he contends, is from immigrants and their offspring.

Ingraham offered to let him continue with his "crazy idea, that people are bad, and we should have fewer of them, because (she) actually like(s) people, and wanna have more people," but how would he enforce his world view? An international policy, like China's? He started off refocusing on California, giving more stats and projections, and she interrupted, saying he was driving her crazy. She accused him of saying something very controversial, wishing for fewer people in the US - who are the "undesirables"? She doesn't want illegal immigrants here either, but she doesn't want anyone killed. So, (putting even more words in his mouth), how would he enforce this worldview, this one-child Utopia?

He reiterated that he wants to see immigration laws enforced, to cut down the illegal immigration influx, which is driving the growth.

Ingraham finally realized they were in agreement so instead assaulted his choice of words, population stabilization, "which sounds a lot like population control, which sounds a lot like this crazy alarmism in 'The Population Bomb,'" a book from 1968. She said those predictions were ridiculous and never came to pass (some of them are coming to pass now, albeit later than the author thought). She lectured him about getting confused or mixed up with those alarmists.

He agreed but noted that overpopulation leads to lowered standards of living, and she jumped in to argue that standards are rising around the world, people are living longer, and some of the people being born are the innovators and healers and entrepreneurs. Writing a column of whatever he's doing isn't the answer; standing up for your country and sovereignty is. She also argued with his explanation that they are fighting to have border and immigration law enforced - what's that got to do with it? It's across the board, white, brown, and black.. or is it just brown people he thinks shouldn't be born?

She clearly didn't know his position before the segment, intending to castigate some "crazy" person who has a different point of view from her "conservative" one. She went ahead with her argumentative tone even though his views were aligned pretty much with hers - oopsy.

"If you talk, you repeat what you already know. If you listen, you learn." (The cookie fortune taped to my monitor.)

Comment: Some of you may recall Y6B, in 2000, when the world population hit 6 billion. To think that we're approaching 7 billion, adding an additional 1 billion people in only 12 years, is shocking. And with the "shrinking" of the globe due to economies growing, the people born now will have more consumer goods in their lifetimes than we already have now - that "rising standard of living" she spoke of translates to more stuff, more energy, more food. With the climate already in crisis it is reasonable, not crazy, to address the population issue, with information and education and facts. To deny it is crazy.