Millions of immigrants throughout history agree; America is the place to be! Since 15,000 B.C., when the first people migrated to North America via the land bridge with Asia, this land has been the envy of all others.
It is no wonder why those first inhabitants chose to settle here in the first place. We have the most beautiful and spacious skies, our grain has been certifiably amber since the first crop and our purple mountains have consistently been called majestic by experts.
For thousands of years, these first Americans and their descendants kept the continent to themselves. Eventually, the Europeans stopped in to see how their long-lost cousins were doing and found just how much greener the grass is on the other side.
All these Europeans invited their friends over to America and the newcomers invited their friends and eventually people were coming to America without any invitation at all. The continent-wide party had gotten way out of hand.
The native hosts of the party had been cool with just a few people coming over and hanging out, but they wanted to keep it a small event with a few select people. The party soon spiraled out of control and the guests revolted, imprisoning the indigenous Americans in the bedroom while the party continued unchecked downstairs.
We didn’t like to do it, but we had to start checking IDs at the door. America is a big place with so many sights to drink in, but there is only so much to go around before the place runs dry.
For a while, America existed as a stable party state with few to no interruptions. Sure, we had a noise violation every once in a while, but every country has at least one.
We could have continued partying on forever, but the party next door has started to die down. Still looking to maintain that good feeling, guests from that party have been trying to sneak into ours.
We have tried everything to keep these crashers out but they keep sneaking in. They tunnel under our walls, travel in makeshift rafts across the waters and use fake IDs to get in.
And once they are in, these party crashers are bringing down the party. Jobs that once belonged to loyal, hardworking Americans now belong to this scum. Sure, nobody is setting their drink on the stereo.But the party may not be strong enough to support the discarded American workers. They are already clogging up the corners, asking for handouts.
The only solution is to stop letting people into our party. We are at a point now where the party crashers are doing jobs that most American workers don’t want to (making sure nobody taps the fish tank) and good jobs are still available for the original partygoers.
But for how long? How long can the party afford to employ a talented American disc jockey, spinning the beats that all the boys and girls crave? When will capitalism supercede fun, leaving the party no choice but to cheaply employ a Mariachi-playing maestro?
What makes our American party great is the diversity that every guest brings, but there has to be a limit to the amount of people we can admit. Until the party goes worldwide, we have no choice but to keep the crashers out.
Columns represent the views of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Post.
Reader Comments
So I see we've got another Ashley Herzog on our hands. I'm sure that, when pressed, she would hide behind the characterization of her work at The Post as a series of "humor columns". So, like her and Ann Coulter, I'll ask you: Where's the joke?
I wonder, too, whether you're standing on that chair in order to reach the intellectual level of rational adults.
Excellent post! Since Mr. Anonymous decided to bring me into this, I figured I'd comment on the completely neurotic response to this column.
Yes, it is a "humor column," and a specific type -- it's a parody. He's clearly poking fun at the paranoid rhetoric surrounding the immigration debate. He has the "us vs. them" mentality nailed down perfectly (which I don't share, by the way, since I lived and worked around illegal immigrants in Texas and know most of them are decent people).
This was blindingly obvious to me, but apparently a lot of Post readers are unable to get a joke. Instead, we have drama queens comparing a satirical column to "genocides and holocausts." You'd think they'd infer from the context -- the goofy outfit and pose, for example -- that the column is not supposed to be taken seriously. I hope the people hyperventilating over this column never watch Jon Stewart or Colbert.
Oh, by the way, I would never characterize my work at The Post as a series of "humor columns." I'm a serious writer, which is why I've been published all over the country and have a book in the works. And speaking of "hiding," why don't you leave a name with your comments?
Love,
Ashley Herzog
Ashley, your friend Chris is no Jon Stewart.
Can't wait to read your book. If your "serious" work at The Post is any indication, your entry into the young conservative affirmative action machine promises to be a real birdcage liner.
Listen, much as I love a good round of finger-pointing ad name calling, this is getting silly. Bobcat, bringing Herzog into this is unfair and pointless. The column was written by one person, and he alone should bear responsibility. And from my point of view, which comes from a former humor columnist, this column was clearly supposed to be satire. Nothing more, nothing serious. As simple as that. The humor columnist does not hide behind humor, any more than the swordsman hides behind his sword, or the carpenter behind his hammer. Humor is a tool or weapon, not a shield, at least not in the proper hand. Chill.
And Herzog would do well not to look down on the noble art of the humor column. Yes, we're all very proud that your brand of circular logic has proven controversial enough to bring you success. It worked for Ann Coulter and Phyllis Schlafly, it will work wnders for you, I'm sure, and more power to you. But the humor column is a serious business that deserves respect, and should not be looked down upon by those who do "serious" work.
I could go on for hours on this, but considering it's unrelated to Yonker's column, this is hardly the place for it. And by the way, Mr. Bobcat, I see no difference between your attack on Yonker, any of the letters I've read on read along the same lines, or any of Herzog's columns, except that she at least her birdcage fodder is at least well written, which is more than I can say for you.
At last, someone else gets it. Clearly we're the only ones.
And I have great respect for humor columns because -- unlike liberals -- I can take a joke. (For more information on the left's low tolerance for humor, google the brilliant Vanity Fair column "No Jokes Please, We're Liberal")
Yeah, liberals can't take a joke. And we all know that conservatives have such a high tolerance for films like Dogma or American Pie. Please.
Now, I'm not saying that liberals don't have their faults; few things are destroying modern comedy more completely than the PC age. But the enemy here is not liberals, but people who simply can't separate joke from sincerity, fact from fiction, racism from satire.
Mr. Yonker called Mexicans and Cubans "scum." As an artist I am fond of satire but not slander, therefore I do not find his column funny. As a Mexican I believe that, as they say, what John says about Peter says more about John than it does about Peter. Yet, as a student I believe that OU’s public funds should not be used to promote hate-speech. In today’s Post someone mentioned the University Judiciaries. As a human person with a sense of dignity, I’m for that.
Whether you found the column funny or not is irrelevant; humor is subjective. However, humor you don't find funny is still humor. Yonker went extreme in his word choice to portray that the column was not serious.
I'm sorry you were offended, I truly am. But if this actually goes to judiciaries I will weep. Not for free speech, not for Yonker, but for the complete and utter death of comedy on this campus. As a human person with a sense of reality and a strong belief in the ideals of freedom and comedy, I can not condone the mere suggestion of the Post being forced to submit when it is supposed to be the last bastion of free speech.
Thank you Locke. The semi-literate bullies who want to get Chris fired are basically saying that he should lose his job and be sent to judiciaries because he joked around in a way they didn't like.
Someone posted elsewhere that "hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment" (which it is, unless you're a character in a George Orwell novel). But this column is not hate speech, it's a parody of hateful speech. A lot of readers aren't adept enough to even realize that, and the few who are keep saying, "Yeah, it was a joke, and he was trying to make fun of the anti-immigration lobby by imitating it...but he should be fired anyway because I don't think it's funny." News flash: you don't have the right to control the content of a newspaper.
I love that the "racially sensitive" crowd is now dictating how we can discuss race and immigration. Apparently, no one is allowed to write satirical columns about prejudice; everything must be deathly serious, boring, and geared toward the reading comprehension level of a fourth-grader. Otherwise, someone who's not smart enough to get the joke might be offended.
I mean, you have me and Herzog- two former Post columnists with extreme differences in opinion and long-term one-sided animosity- agreeing that this column does not qualify as truly offensive. Tell you what: why don't one of the people clamoring for judiciary intervention apply for a columnist job for next quarter, have someone completely misinterpret an innocent statement, and then see if they still call this column hate-speech.
Herzog: As a journalist, I find it incredibly ignorant that you would make this outrageous claim:
"News flash: you don't have the right to control the content of a newspaper."
Hmm... I feel like I could make an argument pointing out how very wrong you are, but I'd like to focus on something that a friend pointed out to me that seems a bit more relevant: THE ADVERTISERS DO.
Hypothetical: Let's say one of the advertisers took major offense to Yonker's complete exploitation of the opinion page. Mr. Advertiser pulls his ads out of The Post. Let's say he calls his friend who also advertises in The Post and so on and so on. Fiscally speaking, the paper would begin to hurt, perhaps ultimately affecting the content. Not only have they lost readers, but there could be a very real threat of losing their monetary supporters as well.
I think The Post should not only show more discretion in what they publish, but also pay a bit more attention to those who pay the bills.
However Ash, I would find The Post's firing of Yonker to be a bit inconsistent. You wrote offensive columns all the time and still seemed to maintain your job.
And by the way, if you so chose to respond, that last paragraph wasn't an opportunity to plug your book or pat yourself on the back for your nationwide journalistic contributions.
McRoss
Yeah, but what advertiser in their right mind would pull from a paper that's getting so much attention?
"Yeah, but what advertiser in their right mind would pull from a paper that's getting so much attention?"
That really is the key. The Post will not drop Yonker because he is helping accomplish exactly what they want-- attention and discussion of their paper. As much as some people claim to hate Chris Yonker, I have no doubt in my mind that they will pick up every edition of The Post, scouring it for more of his articles.
You clearly didn't get my point. So you think newspapers should fire columnists every time they say something "offensive"? That's a productive way to run an editorial page. Also, no need to plug my book -- Post letter writers are giving me lots of free publicity by mentioning me in every letter about this column, even though I don't work there anymore and live in DC this quarter. I guess liberals are still enraged that a conservative was allowed to write for The Post, too (they think all editorial pages should be outlets for their opinions only). But thanks for keeping me in the spotlight!
Oh and Locke -- um, who are you? One-sided animosity? Was that coming from me or you? I don't remember hating any humor columnists, but I'm sure that's a possibility.
-Ashley
RE: Locke and haroldrock's last comments: It's really a fine line. As we've seen in recent years, advertisers seem willing to only tolerate so much before they pull the plug on their dollars. Also, and not so much in The Post's case, I'd argue that ownership, not only advertisers, can exert tremendous control over the content of a paper (or a cable news operation, for that matter).
And Ashley, no matter how much I disliked your work at The Post, I, as one of the liberals about which you love to generalize, don't feel that the nation's editorial pages should be home to my views and my views alone. Nor should there be some sort of quota system, either. That said, looking at the overabundance of conservative columnists - especially syndicated columnists - appearing in the nation's papers when compared with the general will of the American people at this point (trending away from the pro-war, pro-surge stance, for instance), an important question arises: Why, then, is this the case?
It's not that printing a conservative is a boon for readership for the majority of American papers, as readership has been on a steady decline. Further, it's not that the American will is necessarily on the conservative side at this point, given poll after poll. I'd be interested, honestly, in your (or anyone's) reasoning for this fact. Is it that it's just better business for a paper to print a conservative, given the evidence to the contrary? Or is it a sign of control being exerted over the content of the paper running counter - in many cases - to the interests of the readership?
Chris: I knew you were offended when we kicked you and your uninvited guests out of our party last Friday, but I never expected THIS.
Herzog: The one sided animosity is from me, I've never been a fan of your column or your opinions. I mentioned it here only to illustrate the point that if this argument can put on the same side people with opinions that differ as much as yours and mine do, then there is something seriously amiss about the whole thing. For the record, I wrote the humor column for the post last year during fall and winter quarters, my name is Warren Locke.
Submit a comment to The Post