The subject is posed as a question rather than a declaration, and with one letter omitted because I want avoid deletion, and Slate's editors have published Kaus' blog about John Kerry with the following: "Kerry was 'chickensh-t,' an 'opportunist' and an 'a--hole.'" (http://www.slate.com/id/20968­50/, Kausfiles, March 10, 2004). So, the subject should comply with both The Fray's "Rules of the Road" regarding the use of language, and with Slate's precedent it has set for Kaus himself.

The rhetorical question in the subject line seems to come to mind almost as often as one reads Kaus, which mercifully is infrequent. The question certainly came to mind throughout the 2004 election and his shrill attacks on Kerry. It came to mind again during Kaus' bizarre mini-obsession with John Edwards' affair. Kaus' criticism of Obama during the recent election was largely trivial and irrelevant.

But now we are seeing something truly extraordinary in Kaus the neo-nativist: advocacy of the mass deportation of children, or those brought to this country as children. Kaus, wow; you are a piece of work. Your "analysis" doesn't consider that as children these "illegals" did not have the choice of whether to come to this country, and many of them have no memory of their "native" countries, and in fact may not even speak the language of "home." But who cares? They'ze mez'cans.

Kaus made a name for himself opposing affirmative action (a truly heroic position from a boy who grew up in Beverly Hills, the son of a state supreme court justice who went to Harvard Law and used his law degree to blog). But has he ever considered the irony that he may actually be the beneficiary of Slate's token doucheb-g blogger? There aren't any others on Slate. And either Slate's editors have elected to preserve their sanity by not reading Kaus for the past four years, or they genuinely value the diversity of having a doucheb-g write for their site.

Get ready folks. If "Bad Dream" is a sign of what we can expect from Kaus in 2009, next year is going to be epic.

Beverly Hills? Harvard? I wonder if Kaus speaks of these problems in a Valley voice or Wm. F. Buckley voice.

The children's parents made the choice and thus exposed them to the risk. It happens all the time.

I dunno if he's a doosh, but his rantings read like I gave a crazy uncle a magic marker and the side of a barn to deface.

The content is completely nonsensical and worthless; generally I avoid this particular cluster on Slate. (though the XXfactor blog is giving Kausfiles a good run lately, good grief...)

Your "analysis" doesn't consider that as children these "illegals" did not have the choice of whether to come to this country

Do you really think that he and Americans who support his stance haven't considered this? Really?

Do you really think that opposition to racial preferenes is an illegitimate view? Not just wrong, but utterly illegitimate, especially if the personal background of the person holding the view somehow disqualifies them from weighing in?

This is an annoying trait of modern liberals. You can’t conceive how any reasonable person would hold views different than yours. Therefore, you can’t conceive how anyone would want to read Kaus, or why his employers would hire him. To you, there can be no legitimate reason for any of that. In your mind, you’re surrounded by TENS OF MILLIONS of Americans whose views aren’t just wrong, they’re borderline evil. Without merit. No need to even consider. That kind of E-Z Bake intellectualism saves time, but it comes at price.

Okelly dokelly, and please list the price?

Janna:

The price is, you become (if you weren't already) close-minded and therefore uninteresting. You can never have a polite conversation with someone who disagrees with you because you wind up questioning their motives instead of examining their arguments. People react badly to ad hominem attacks and things degenerate to name calling. Happens here all the time.

To be fair, this is a problem for lots of folks across the political spectrum, but it does somehow seem more grating from liberals because in other contexts they're always going on about open-mindedness.

Y-s.

Janna,

What gopher said. (I'm pretty sure that was the first time I ever typed that line.)

And yes it does occur across the political spectrum.

In addition to being murder on the concept of civil discourse and cutting off the healthy challenge of ideas, it stunts the intellectual growth of the person engaging in such a tactic. And the idea that the original poster believes that so many – at times a majority – of his fellow citizens are small-minded bigots…that can’t be healthy.

Most people who speak their minds are considered a-holes by the other 50%. As one who is part of the 50% who agrees with Kaus, I would just like to say that I care more about protecting MY children and the future of MY children than the children of somebody here illegally. Every dollar spent on bilingual education is one dollar taken away from the education of MY children. It's no wonder our schools suck.