"the deeply stupid but very popular Mark Steyn"

I like you already.

France has demonstrated that you can get birth rates more-or-less at replacement, e.g. a stable population, with incentives that actually make it easier to raise a family.

Invest in kids and supporting young parents and it is possible to balance out the strong economic disincentives to invest in children. You know, the ones which have driven birthrates down steadily for a couple of hundred years.

A lot of people (especially progressives) also don't realize that global population is going to hit a peak relatively soon too. Your point about sustaining services for older folks is a good one as well, and it need not result in ecological catastrophe. (or, to put it another way, the fate of the planet is more in the hands of families in asia and africa than those in europe and north america.)

Gee whiz Ms. Goldberg, you call Mark Steyn "deeply stupid" as if it's a foregone conclusion with which all your unfortunate readers must agree. I must say, that's a lazy bit of writing. But then, I'm used to the fine writers over at The Corner where you'll find none of those types of shortcuts.

Ah, yes. The "stupid" fallacy. A subspecies of the ad-hominem fallacy found most frequently in liberal climes. :)

"...the deeply stupid but very popular Mark Steyn predicted “the demise of European races..."

Plus

"The thing is, though, rapidly declining birth rates really are a problem"

Equals...

mathematical proof that Steyn is not the deeply stupid one.

Liberals make me larff. Steyn was deeply stupid for years until you, O Glorious and Radiant Intelligence of the Most High Left Deigned to Look Upon the Matter at which Effulgent Time, It Became Deeply Wise to do so.

Just like my dad. He too was stupid from my 12th birthday, until I was 30 years old, reaching deep stupidity when I was 15. After my 30th birthday dad became smarter and smarter until he was nearly as smart as me.

Marc refers to the French as good example of a W. European state with replacement levels of population, but this completely ignores the basic fact it's the Muslims driving said growth. Paris will almost certainly be majority Muslim in a generation or two at most, with the rest of France soon to follow.

Mark Steyn was ahead of the curve, and you're still behind, but perhaps you're catching up...

Is Marc (the second commenter) correct that France's population growth is almost at replacement levels because of family friendly policies? I thought it was because about 10% of the population is Muslim, and their high birthrates bring up the otherwise dismal national average. Does someone have statistics on this?

"The American Prospect - Liberal Intelligence"

???

Shome mishtakte shurely?

Come on now all you surfing Steyners. Give Michelle a break. This is her "inaugural column."

Don't you know that she gets two freebie columns before you're allowed to criticize?

Jez Booker: What, yet another closet over-refreshed fan of Frank?

This is one thing that I'll never understand. Liberals like Michelle are so tethered to their reflexive dismissal of any position adopted by conservatives/white/Christians that they refuse to see the facts in front of their face. While at the same time calling Steyn "deeply stupid", she pretty much admits in her post that he is right. And Steyn, like Buchanan before him, is right.

Here's the problem: Demographic change is happening rapidly in Europe, the old liberal, European population is slowly dying out and is being replaced by a younger, more fertile, and dynamic Arab/African Muslim population. Europe may now be in the Golden Age of its secular social welfare society, female equality, and tolerance for alternative lifestyles, but in a matter of years, Europe is about to get a lot more religious and a lot more socially conservative and far less tolerant of homosexuality, women's equality, and other religions/atheism. And what's more, while the left poo-pooed the idea of eventual Muslim majorities in Europe for years, the eventual demographic change is now starting to manifest itself concretely in the daily news. Think of the Mohammed cartoon riots, Paris suburb riots, surge in anti-Semetic violence (and if one thinks this is being done by "neo-nazi" skinheads, they are very naieve). One need only read the British daily news papers like the Daily Mail to see how European societies are undergoing a rapid change with drastic consequences. It is happening, and no amount of smug, smarmy dismissals of Steyn/Buchanan type warnings will make it go away. The carefree Amsterdam society of free sex, cafes, bohemian society, and accessible drugs will soon be a thing of the past.

I just dont get it. For all the fear-mongering people like Michelle do regarding the Religious Right in America, they actually ignore or express sympathy for those groups, such as radical Muslims in Europe, who not only hold the same social views as the Religious Right, but take it to the extreme and have no fear about imposing their will on others. I suppose it is a "do-not-compute" moment for them when they must choose between liberal social values and the sacrosant church of multiculturalism. "I know they stone gays to death, but they have brown skin and are Muslim, so they MUST be better than white Christian conservatives." Unfortunately for Michelle, Europe will in a few short decades become a place that is VERY unfriendly to liberated women, homosexuals, and people named Goldberg.

Deeply stupid?

I think we've just seen what deeply stupid looks like, sweetie, and it ain't Mark Steyn.

Now get back in the kicthen and make me some breakfast.

I think it's silly to point to policies regarding working women when in countries like France, the higher birth rate is due to immigrant muslims with high unemployment rates. The deeply stupid Mark Steyn is deeply stupid for being on to this issue before it was deemed politcally correct or what? I think he has a better handle on the uncomfortable issues than I see in this post.

and it's funny that you call him deeply stupid as though you are obligated to pay lip service to a deeply stupid audience that wouldn't notice the deeply stupid was somehow right. Say what you will disagreeing with him, he's obviously a brilliant man and a super talented writer.

"Mark Steyn is deeply stupid, and in the remainder of this column I will regurgitate his thesis as my own."

Mark Steyn's mother: The nature of your defense of him damages the credibility of his cause.

LOL. Translation: Even though that idiot Steyn thinks so, declining birth rates really are a problem.

My favorite part-of course, the solutions are liberal ones! Even though they're known for shying away from uncomfortable issues. You sound like this is a virtue of liberals.

And I bet you wish you could sell as many books as the "deeply stupid" Steyn. (This is, by the way, in and of itself, stupid. Just sounds immediately childish as an effective insult. Try deeply ridiculous next time, it works better. You're welcome.)

I seem to recall that France forbids the state from collecting/ keeping statistics reporting on ethnicity, so it is difficult to speak authoritatively on the percentage of births in France to immigrants or Muslims. I have heard anecdotal support, and immigrant Muslims elsewhere do have high birth rates. I suspect it is a significant part of the answer for stable birth rates overall.

Michelle, you're hilarious! I'll be laughing about this column all day long.

It is rather unintelligent to refer to Mark Steyn as "deeply stupid." This is the kind of ad hominem attack that only reveals that you have no class. You, and "The American Prospect," should be embarrassed.

How "deeply stupid" is it to call Mark Steyn "deeply stupid"?

Indeed, I'd love to see Mark Steyn debate Michelle Goldberg. That would settle the issue rather quickly (assuming of course that Steyn was permitted to speak and not shouted down by so-called "liberals").

"I like you already."

You would. "Deeply stupid" is the kind of pointless accusation that instantly marks writers as pompous, wanna-be know-it-alls.

That Michelle has to actually agree with a fundamental detail of Steyn's premise adds a delicious layer of irony to the shrill invective.

Wow, you go from the 'deeply stupid Mark Steyn' to this...
'The thing is, though, rapidly declining birth rates really are a problem, especially for the sort of generous welfare states that liberals love. '

You admit that the 'stupid' Steyn is right.

How stupid does one have to be to agree with stupid?

Liberal stupid.

It's easy to point to Scandinavia’s social welfare programs and say they “work,” but the reality is quite a bit more complicated. As one commenter has already pointed out, much of the population growth there is due to the high birth rate among the unassimilated Muslim immigrants who despise liberal democracy and openly campaign for its destruction.

Furthermore, the "family support" programs in these countries have greatly encouraged a culture where marriage is no longer the norm and where most children are born out of wedlock. Given that cohabitating couples break up at much higher rates than married couples, an entire generation of Scandinavian children are growing up with no knowledge of what a stable home life is like. This is a recipe for societal destruction.

Of course, Scandinavia could not afford these programs if they did not outsource their national defenses to the U.S., but that is a topic for another day.

JBN | April 8, 2009 12:02 AM

Well said, except I take issue with ...radical Muslims in Europe, who not only hold the same social views as the Religious Right...

The R.R. essentially believe in the principles of the founders... of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, ideas which simply cannot be ascribed to radical Muslims. Indeed it's debatable as to whether even 'moderate' Islam holds those beliefs to be sacred, but that's a discussion for another time and place.

Moreover, most Americans, many of whom do not identify with the R.R., have 'conservative' views on issues like, say, gay marriage (which I imagine is one "social issue" you allude to when you assert there is a commonality between the two groups).

Well Michelle, you revealed your own intellectual depth in the ad hominem attack on Steyn. by all means, if you can't win an argument on the merits, resort to childish insults and straw man arguments, which seems to be the preferred methodolgy of the New left.

you are vapid and shallow

Crikey! Talk about Bizarro-world! Traditional families lead to a decline in birthrates? Down is up? Left is right? Methinks you may want to look deeper at the statistics.

"The thing is, though, rapidly declining birth rates really are a problem, especially for the sort of generous welfare states that liberals love."

Ah, so the "deeply stupid" Mark Steyn got one thing right, at least. Does this mean we can elevate him from "deeply stupid" to merely "stupid?"

""the deeply stupid but very popular Mark Steyn""



Why should anyone take you seriously?

Wow, what logic! Mark Steyn is "deeply stupid," but you're just now waking up to come to the same conclusion of population decline. Of course, in your case it's to advance your socialist agenda and sell your book.

According to this website (http://www.thelocal.se/15408/20081103/), Swedish women have 1.82 births per woman and non-Swedish born women have 2.21 births per woman.

I would imagine non-native women have higher birth rates in France, Denmark, and Norway.

The expression "deeply stupid" is thirteen characters long, including the space. Goldberg's post has generated 30 comments, many of whom from people who clearly don't spend a lot of time generally reading Tapped. I assume then that the hit count on this post far exceeds the regular hit count of most Tapped posts. All because of those 13 characters.

I wonder how much money that translates to in terms of advertising dollars per character. If it took a few seconds to type those words, we could be talking in the neighborhood of a few hundred dollars for about five seconds of work.

Note... this is in no way a criticism! Calling Mark Steyn "deeply stupid" seems to me like eminently sound financial policy. And it has the added value of being absolutely true.

If Mr. Steyn is so 'deeply stupid', your belated and ever so qualified acceptance of the main thesis of America Alone seems to indicate that your intelligence is abysmal.

deeply stupid? Are you 14 yrs old?

"Note... this is in no way a criticism! Calling Mark Steyn "deeply stupid" seems to me like eminently sound financial policy. And it has the added value of being absolutely true."

Can you really be this "deeply stupid" or are you simply a conservative posing as an idiot Leftist? Many of the comments here have pointed out the absolute fallacy of calling Steyn stupid, so you prove the complete inanity of the Left and repeat it again? What next, "I am rubber and you are glue"?

The reason that this article has drawn so much deserved criticism is that it is "deeply stupid" to call someone "deeply stupid" and then agree with them. It isn't just 13 characters but the whole article.

ANM -- You are absolutely correct... assuming, that is, that TAPPED puts absolutely no value whatsoever on honesty, intellectual civility, or being taken seriously. Otherwise, great plan! Maybe Ms. Goldberg should have dropped an F-bomb, too!

"Note... this is in no way a criticism! Calling Mark Steyn "deeply stupid" seems to me like eminently sound financial policy. And it has the added value of being absolutely true."

Can you really be this "deeply stupid" or are you simply a conservative posing as an idiot Leftist? Many of the comments here have pointed out the absolute fallacy of calling Steyn stupid, so you prove the complete inanity of the Left and repeat it again? What next, "I am rubber and you are glue"?

The reason that this article has drawn so much deserved criticism is that it is "deeply stupid" to call someone "deeply stupid" and then agree with them. It isn't just 13 characters but the whole article.

Thanks, Michelle. I was looking for a topic for a blog post today.

For being "deeply stupid", those conservatives sure were right about demographics, as the author implies but is too reluctant to admit.

Wow. Lots of comments but none about Michelle's argument. Mark Steyn must have an effective sockpuppet machine.

Michelle, Steyn could wipe the floor with you; he's an excellent writer and speaker, very intelligent, and hilarious to boot. And maybe you're smart too: your ridiculous appraisal of him certainly boosted the traffic to your blog post--but remember, its mostly due to his fans, not your merit.

The commenters defending Mark Steyn are definitely deeply stupid.

Goldberg wasn't agreeing with Steyn's thesis (that Europeans have low birth rates because of their welfare states, and therefore descendants of Muslim immigrants will form the majority).

She was arguing the opposite - that the European countries with the highest birth rates are doing so *because* of their welfare states.

This might be a source of Michelle's animosity:

Over at Amazon, the paperback version of the deeply stupid Mark Steyn's America Alone: The End of the World As We Know It is ranked #637 in sales. The paperback version of Michelle Goldberg's Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism is ranked #403,728 in sales. LOL--way to sell books, Goldberg!

Ah well, perhaps her next book will fare better. Guess it depends on how many among the reading public find Scandinavian-style socialism "dreamy."

It gives me great pleasure to know Michelle is paying my Social Security check every month.

John,

None? Really? Wow, your reading comprehension must be as compromised as Goldberg's intellectual honesty.

What most liberal 'academics' (and yes, I do realize that's an oxymoron in cases like this) like this don't seem to get is that they lose all credibility when they stoop to schoolyard insults like 'deeply stupid'. This is particularly so when they then proceed to poach off his premise to promote their own silly book based on easily refutable notions. I wonder if she is actually a double-agent whose job it is to make Steyn look even more brilliant. Either that or all her claims are actually sarcastic, but one can't tell because they lack the inflection of spoken words.

Very nice, Michelle. Maybe you could insult Rush in your next post. That would really drive up your traffic!

I guess you were using "deeply stupid" to mean "someone I disagree with." Regrettably, your usage was incorrect. Better luck next time.

A few observations, Ms. Goldberg:
1) it is because liberals have shied away from confronting these problems for so long, lest they violate PC etiquette, that they are now no longer simple problems. But that is a common thread in modern liberalism. The ostrich approach to uncomfortable issues just does not work.
2) you've been bashed enough in these comments over your ad hominem Steyn attack, but do you not find it curious that you are now in full agreement with the 'deeply stupid' Steyn's assessment of the problem (if not solution), for which his foresight bested yours by at least 3 years? Perhaps your juvenile turn of phrase has a bit of irony that's fully escaped you.
3)as to your conclusion that fiminism=natalism, is there any actual evidence? I do not suggest that replacement birthrate requires that womenfolk be barefoot & pregnant as you likely imagine us conservatives thinking, but your article presents not a shred of evidence to suppiort your conclusion. Ah, I forgot, evidence is only for those evil conservatives like Steyn; feelgoodism is all that modern liberals such as yourself need to square a circle. Natch

Ooh, Steyn has a posse.

Let's face it, his journalistic career was built on being a deductible expense in Conrad Black's accounts. It's been heading downhill ever since His Lordship went to the federal pen.

It is deeply stupid to use book sales to conservatives as evidence for someone not being deeply stupid.

Yes, Steyn is peddling stupid. He's a conservative. That's what they do. You'd think after eight years of Bush, and this kind of economic failure being endemic to conservatism, people would accept that conservatism is, by and large, a deeply stupid philosophy held by people who have reasons, be they emotional or social, to hold deeply stupid opinions.

But we also know that a deeply stupid person would not understand the dynamic; in fact they would be the ones least likely to do so.

I think you're all misinterpreting Ms. Goldberg. What she's saying is that Steyn is stupid, but in a deep way. Would you have been happier if she said, "Mark Steyn is shallowly stupid"?

I live in France, where I have to dodge the baby carriages (mommies are aggressive!) to save my life. So, I have anecdotal evidence of a birth increase here. However, the statistics are easy to find. I hate to point to Wikipedia, but here's a link on the demographics of France: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_France

The whole "Muslims are going to take over the world!" trope is a wingnut scare tactic, because, of course, we all know that Muslims run around barefoot, in dresses and head scarves, toting machine guns, yelling Death To America! and burning effigies. At least that's how the American press likes to represent Muslims. Perhaps having a look at Al Jazeera English could give Americans a more realistic picture of the Middle East. Oh, I forgot, Al Jazeera is banned in the US (except for a few places in New York).

Be that as it may, statistics on the Wiki page show birth rates in France are at replacement level, with an average of 2 children per female. In 2006, the immigrant population was 8%. Recently, there are 10M non-french residents, which is 1/6th of the population. Of them, there are 5-6M Muslims, but 3-4M of them are Arab-Berbers, and all Berbers I've met, absolutely loved George Bush, because Berbers have been victimized by Islamic extremists and they liked the possibility that Bush would kick those extremists' asses.

So, as usual, the reality is much more nuanced than the, yes I will use the phrase with glee, deeply stupid, broad-brush stroke, fear-mongering simplistic talking points that the wingnuts throw out into the ether, hoping to collect much more deeply stupid people as blind, rabid followers.

Why must little liberal children like yourselves pick the most polemical writer on the right to set up as a straw-man. If you’re going to finally cop out and admit a problem that the right has been talking about for years, at least give credit were it is due.

Bat Y’eor, Bernard Lewis, George Weigel, Daniel Pipes,—with varying levels of scholarship and restraint—suggest little or nothing for Europe’s comfort. Other authors could be added to the list. Lawrence Wright in Looming Tower, Melanie Phillips in Londonistan, Bruce Bawer in While Europe Slept, Ian Buruma in Murder in Amsterdam, and, or so it seems, a grim new book-length diagnosis of Europe’s terminal illness almost every other week.

Mark Steyn has revealed himself to be deeply stupid by his apparent inability to understand math and biology (while we expect conservatives to be deficient in the latter -- having missed one of the biggest paradigm shifts in the field with their conviction that evolution is a myth -- it's rather surprising to see someone fail arithmetic).

"In the article 'US can sit back and watch Europe implode,' Steyn claimed that the EU would be 40% Muslim by 2025, which is a nutbar projection -- even with increased immigration and olympian humping of marathon proportions. In order for Steyn's thesis to play itself out, in the space of the 12 or so intervening years before the dawning of 'Eurabia,' the Muslim population would have to skyrocket upwards from the present figure of 20 million to around 200 million."

“The expected global upheaval is without parallel in human history”

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wpp2006/wpp2006

Those alarmist U.N. conservatives

and, or so it seems, a grim new book-length diagnosis of Europe’s terminal illness almost every other week.

I think you mean "a book-length diagnosis of the author's paranoia." If you want to take Mad Mel seriously, that's your prerogative; just don't be surprised if lots of people laugh at you.

Overpopulation shmoverpopulation, let's enact all kinds of pro-natalist policies because Dear God Who Will Take Care Of Teh Old People If We Don't??!? Considering that the people who currently do the actual care of the elderly tend to make $7 an hour, I find this sudden concern for their wellbeing rather odd. As for who will fund their retirements, might it be time to reconsider a growth-based economic model that requires the constant addition of humans? Even at so-called "replacement" rates we are destroying the earth, and our very own habitat. Pro-natalists cheerily point to technology as the solution to a situation where there are too many humans. But apparently the thought of human population growth in decline is so unbearable to them that they cannot conceive that technology and human ingenuity could be harnessed to deal with it.

1. unending population growth is unsustainable
2. increased growth means increased consumption and pollution, which is also a problem, in case you haven't noticed
3. we were going to have to deal with (1) eventually so why not now

welcome to tapped.

Um, 4% of the French population is Muslim -- and they are supposed to be responsible for the entire jump in the birthrate? They must be prolific indeed. Well, my cousin is married to a French man -- or was -- and she has four children and eight grandchildren. They are not Muslim. Another French family we know has three children and they are also not Muslim.

Children used to enter the workforce at nine or fourteen so they were a relatively quick addition to the family income. Now they don't, so families aren't keen to have so many. It's not related to religion.

These Steyn fans are indeed "deeply stupid" -- or maybe crudely racist, to be more accurate.

Since so many comments have justifiably taken Michelle to task for "deeply stupid", I won't pile on.

To Harold, who said: "Um, 4% of the French population is Muslim -- and they are supposed to be responsible for the entire jump in the birthrate?"

Harold, are you "deeply stupid" too? What matters is the share among those of reproductive age, and that's a lot more than 4%!

As for Steyn, let it be known that he has supporters on the Left as well. Google Philip Longman's 2006 article "The Return of Patriarchy" for example.

بنت جده

a jewess engaging in an ad hominem attack; what a surprise.

The simple truth is that declining populations and sub-replacement level birthrates are not a good thing

sounds like another insubstantial jewess who can't admit that steyn hit a home run by exposing her - and her generation's - narcissism and self-absorption.

Of course, not to worry: if all continues to go as it is going presently, this jewess will be either dead or "converted" in 30 years' time by the apparently inescapable caliphate now sweeping over the western world.

Hey,you will do better.your posts have inspired me! - I love the way you directly get to the point, and then work outwards. I’ve been trying to do figure out what I want to say about ,that would allow me to do exactly the same thing.

the American people are deeply stupid.. have been for a lot of years.. here they are looking at fixing health care while trusting that job to corrupt politicians on both sides.. it simply isn't going to happen.. Americans the deeply stupid ones have no problem wasting a Trillion dollars and counting invading non threatening weak piss ant countries and they don't mind borrowing trillions of dollars from communist countries along with anybody who will spare them a dime.. but tell them give health care to every American and they run screaming for words like freedom.. exactly what freedoms do they think they have that Canada or France don't have.. enlighten me.. Americans always pay more get less and tell themselves they are the greatest while their fellow citizens starve like third world citizens and while they themselves kiss up to leaders that make dictators look downright kind..

Michael Garcia

oh no the grammar is atrocious.. lets not focus on the substance lets attack the grammar..