Immigration Irrationalities - in Australia

Richard Fernandez (Wretchard) was an immigrant to Australia from the Philippines. The U.S. isn't the only country with an illegal immigrant problem:

‘Just how broken a bureaucracy is,’ someone told me once, ‘can be gauged from how quickly can they take a trivial problem and turn it into an intractable one.’ Walk up to an agency with a cure for cancer and they will throw every obstacle in your path because they don’t have enough bureaucrats trained to regulate the new technology. So when the Australian Labor government was criticized for letting in too many undesirable migrants from the Middle East the predictable result was the denial of asylum to two Egyptians seeking to avoid a fatwa for converting to Christianity. It all makes sense in a twisted kind of way.


. . . “Asylum seeking” is Australia’s equivalent of the Arizona border problem. It’s the Third Rail of Australian politics. Sixty four percent [1] of Australians want asylum seekers arriving by boat to be returned and made to apply through normal channels. Even ethnic leaders [2] want the maritime human trafficking problem stopped. . .

So, converts to Christianity in Egypt facing fatwas are "not persecuted enough" to enter Australia, but militant extremist gang members enter easily.

Read the whole thing.

The political elites in both countries need a steady supply of hyphenated populations to provide sinecures for an army of activists, special pleaders and assorted faddists. What would they do with normal people? Messy multiculturalism a vast outdoor system of relief for the country classes. Hanson writes:

Take away a half-million person influx of illegal aliens of the Hispanic underclass, or take away a permanent group of largely Spanish-speaking, largely poor, and largely undereducated Mexican nationals, and within 30 years the vast majority of Mexican-Americans will assimilate in the pattern of other contemporary minority groups — and, in terms of education and compensation, achieve rough parity. Unfortunately, that would also mean that the argument for a Chicano-Latino Studies program (rather than, say, an Irish Studies program), for the self-identified Chicano journalist, or for any activist who sees his Hispanic heritage as essential rather than as incidental to his persona simply disappears. (We do not have a National Council of Das Volk; nor a self-identified “wise Greek” on the Supreme Court.)


In short, without the arrival of the illegal alien in massive numbers without education, capital, legality and English, the Hispanic activists and cultural elite have no reason to be, since soon there would be no disparity that can be blamed on oppression or racism — and thus no need for self-appointed collective representation. La Raza would have no raza when a Hilda Lopez marries Larry Smith and their daughter Linda Lopez Smith marries Billy Otomo and so on.

The double affliction under which Maher El-Gohary labors is he can’t be admitted because the voters are angry at the people who fatwa’d him — and he’s too ordinary. He doesn’t need special multicultural agencies to pander to him, a special Islamic council to speak for him; a police task force to monitor him or ethnic politicians to run in his name. A hard working, law abiding immigrant is bad news all around. . . .

Democrats want to legalize intimidation by union goons

 By taking away the right of workers to vote by secret ballot on organizing unions.   They want power concentrated in union leadership rather than in the membership.

Totalitarianism is tempting. Especially when implemented for "compassionate" reasons.

Chelsea Clinton's Wedding and "Social Justice"

Glenn Reynolds:

THE PARTY OF THE LITTLE GUY: Chelsea Clinton’s $2M Wedding. “The rehearsal dinner is reportedly taking place at the nearby Grasmere, a 525-acre estate boasting a Federal-period manor house with formal gardens, stucco guest cottages and a large stone barn complex. Another area manse rumored to be serving the family over the weekend will be Glenburn, where the Clintons are said to be staying over the weekend. Glenburn is the Rhinebeck home of Eric and Andrea Colombel. Andrea Colombel is the daughter of billionaire financier and longtime Clinton supporter George Soros.”

Victor Davis Hanson:

One requisite to being a cultural elite, unfortunately, is a certain allegiance to untruth, to saying one thing and doing another. . .


In short, money, privilege, and status create in the cultural elite both a fear of mixing it up with others that might jeopardize position and placement, and yet guilt for that very sense of entitlement and exemption. All that, in turn, only heightens the shrill and sanctimonious rhetorical demands on less blessed others to prove their morality.

But then again, Chelsea DID look lovely in the dress, with her hair back. Happy Family.

History: Where Chelsea was married.

Mom is apparently out of money now.

Why kids are not taught the Declaration of Independence

There is now considerable hostility to teaching the Declaration of Independence in schools. We are losing our history. There are historical precedents for the ideological struggles over the nature of our government which are occurring today.

Scott Johnson:

Reading the scholarly work of Woodrow Wilson is an educational experience. It is shocking to read the expressions of his disaffection for the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. As R.J. Pestritto has demonstrated, the intellectual roots of modern liberalism lie in an assault on the ideas of natural rights and limited government. . . .  

. . .  Obama perfectly reflected Wilson's views in his 2001 comments on the civil rights movement and the Supreme Court. In the course of the famous radio interview Obama gave to WBEZ in Chicago, Obama observed that the Warren Court had not broken "free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties." To achieve "redistributive change," the limitations of the Constitution would have to be overcome by the Court or by Congress.


Franklin Roosevelt touted welfare state liberalism in the "second Bill of Rights" . . .


Implicitly arguing that the teaching of the Declaration had become obsolete, Roosevelt asserted: "In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. . . .


Abraham Lincoln's argument with Stephen Douglas also came down to a disagreement over the Declaration of Independence. . .


The economic "rights" asserted by Roosevelt in his second Bill of Rights differ and conflict with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They are claims on the liberty of others. If I have a right to medical care, you must have a corresponding duty to supply it. If I have a right to a decent home, you must have a duty to provide it.


The argument for the welfare state belongs in the same family as "the arguments that kings have made for enslaving the people in all ages of the world. You will find that all the arguments in favor of king-craft were of this class; they always bestrode the necks of the people, not that they wanted to do it, but because the people were better off for being ridden." That's Lincoln again.


Lincoln memorably derided the underlying principle as "the same old serpent that says you work and I eat, you toil and I will enjoy the fruits of it."

Read the whole thing. Johnson also links further reading both pro and con concerning modern liberalism, or "progressivism", starting with George Will's excellent article on William Voegeli's new book.

Bill Whittle on helping the Declaration of Independence live again

Related:

The Timeless Magna Carta

Turning the liberalism of JFK on its head

Independence Day Oration by Frederick Douglass

Why American Liberty worked: Strong Women and Local Government

Censorship in France and America

Andrew Klavan talks about censorship of his new book in France, then comments:

The book’s French cancellation is, I realize, a rather small cultural event. Yet it gives specific color to the recent revelations on the Daily Caller website that left-wing journalists conspired to suppress scandals that might harm Barack Obama and to the brouhaha over Breitbart’s online release of a video that resulted in a government worker’s momentarily losing her job. In both stories, one thing leaps out at me: everywhere, the Left favors fewer voices and less information, and conservatives favor more. Everywhere, the Left seeks to disappear its opposition, whereas the Right is willing to meet them head-on.

Take the e-mails that the Daily Caller obtained from the now-defunct lefty Web service Journolist. Never mind the personal or psychological implications of a radio producer who lovingly imagines Rush Limbaugh’s death or a law professor who doesn’t know that the FCC has no power to deprive Fox News of a license or a reporter who wants to smear Fred Barnes and other right-wing commentators as racist in order to distract the public from the hateful radicalism of Jeremiah Wright, then Obama’s pastor. The point is not these people’s animus or ignorance or wickedness. The point is that what they desired was not victory in open debate but silence—the silence of censorship, intimidation, or the grave.

When has Rush Limbaugh ever wished a liberal’s mouth closed forever? Really, who can deny that Rush would happily argue a point with absolutely anyone anywhere? When has Fox News ever done anything to its rival cable stations but trounce them in a free competition for ratings? When has Fred Barnes ever tried to bully or intimidate someone into shutting up?

And what about Breitbart? Did he, like many a daily journalist before him, momentarily put speed over full context in releasing an NAACP video? Perhaps. But Breitbart is the grassroots nemesis of vast media conglomerates that continually and purposefully ignore, suppress, and distort information unfriendly to their ideology: release and disclosure are his reasons for being. Breitbart routinely breaks important stories that the mainstream media won’t touch. “I don’t even know about it,” chuckled ABC News’s Charlie Gibson well after Breitbart revealed corruption at the left-wing activist organization Acorn. “I just didn’t know about it,” said Bob Schieffer of CBS after Breitbart and others had been hammering at possible wrongdoing at the Justice Department in a botched case against New Black Panther thugs. And I guess the networks just didn’t know when Breitbart decisively disproved allegations that Tea Partiers hurled racist insults at lawmakers—because they continued to spread the discredited smear.

Old-media pooh-bahs like former ABC anchor Ted Koppel lament the “good old days,” when three government-licensed networks served as gatekeepers to what the public could and couldn’t know. Breitbart, meanwhile, exhorts crowds of citizens to shoot videos and gather information, telling them, “You are the media now!” Breitbart only wants more information, while the left-wing media too often operate through obscurantism and suppression.

Read the whole thing.

Presidential Priorities: Going on "The View"

Captain Ed presents a relevant cartoon by the great Michael Ramirez.

Shelby Steele sounds more and more perceptive all the time:

The president always knew that his greatest appeal was not as a leader but as a cultural symbol.

And

Well, suppose you were the first black president of the United States and, therefore, also the first black head-of-state in the entire history of Western Civilization. You represent a human first, something entirely new under the sun. There aren't even any myths that speak directly to your circumstance, no allegorical tales of ancient black kings who ruled over white kingdoms.


If anything, you may literally experience yourself as a myth in the making. . . .


Does this special burden explain Barack Obama's embrace of scale as vision (if I don't know what to do, I'll do big things)? I think it does to a degree. It means, for example, that a caretaker presidency is not an option for him. . . .

Which is why this music video parody resonates with people.  Even many on the Left.

And it's why people comment like this on Obama's vacations and golf outings.  If "scale as vision" is your mission, you need time to think.  Let other people worry about solving today's problems.

Unrealistic Expectations in Childhood

Dennis Prager frequently says that expectations, especially unrealistic expectations, are one of the greatest sources of unhappiness in our lives, John Rosemond gets specific about one unrealistic expectation which is now drummed into children by those who care about them:

My parents never told me I could be whatever I wanted to be. They told me what all parents should tell all children: I was blessed with a finite set of strengths. It was primarily my responsibility to discover what they were, develop them, and use them for the benefit of my fellow citizens. (I'd rather do this parenting thing than be King of England anyway.) . . .

Today, this "you can be anything you want to be" hooey has become ubiquitous. Enlightened parents seem to believe telling children fictions of this sort is one of the obligations of a truly caring parent. As a consequence of this lack of guidance and leadership, increasing numbers of young people in their late 20s still haven't discovered their Inner Wannabe.

I meet lots of young adults who seem to have no clue concerning what it takes to truly accomplish something of value in this life. . .

A friend recently told me of a young relative of hers who was, during her childhood, treated like "a really big fish in a little pond." She is now a "panicked, confused, college freshman."

This young woman has been told all along that she can do and be anything she wants to do and be. In college, without her parents helping her make straight A's, she is discovering that she isn't as capable a student as she's been led to believe. "She's devastated," writes my friend.

How sad, and sadder still for the fact that this young woman's devastation can be largely credited to parents who obviously never considered the old saying to the effect that good intentions pave the road to Perdition.

Some balance and honesty in encouraging children to strive for excellence, without expecting it, would help lots of kids to be happier.  And parents who expect kids to fulfill the dreams of the parent can be just as damaging as those who tell kids they can be anything they want.

Balance.

Why aren't Western Scholars interested in Soviet history? - Part III

Further to this post about the shocking lack of interest in documents from the Soviet era among Western scholars, and this one about an author who did tackle some of the Soviet archives, over opposition from the Western establishment:

A video concerning various murderous socialist systems. The murders in Ukraine started with Lenin, but got much worse during Stalin's reign. Gives you a terrible glimpse of the atrocities covered up by Walter Duranty, writing for the New York Times.   Due to his prestige, he was able to counter the true reports by other journalists.  And he received a Pulitzer Prize for his massive lies. The New York Times continues to refuse to relinquish the prize.

Observation from the video: Both the Soviet and Nazi ideologies and programs had as a goal the evolution of "the new man". Nazi ideology was based on false biology, Soviet ideology on false sociology.

An idea whose time has come: Victims of Communism Day

The Postmodern Cultural Elite

In a piece which echoes s few of the ideas here, VDH identifies what he thinks are characteristics of the "New Aristocracy" of our day:

This ad hoc meditation on cultural elitism was all prompted last week by listening to a poor white tree-trimmer lecture me on the various merits of his three different chain saws, while I was talking on the cell phone with a nasal-voiced, snotty Washington reporter — out here south of Fresno — but, in minutes, to be on the way to work at the antipode at Stanford. . .

The five characteristics he identified:

1) Truth

One requisite to being a cultural elite, unfortunately, is a certain allegiance to untruth, to saying one thing and doing another. . .

In short, money, privilege, and status create in the cultural elite both a fear of mixing it up with others that might jeopardize position and placement, and yet guilt for that very sense of entitlement and exemption. All that, in turn, only heightens the shrill and sanctimonious rhetorical demands on less blessed others to prove their morality.

Barack Obama was a genius in recognizing all this, and at a very early age no less. The subtext of Dreams from My Father, and indeed Obama’s life from 18 to 45, was to allay elite fears, guilt, and suspicions. . . .

2) Nature

The cultural elite class tends to romanticize nature, since it has little contact with it. Energy Secretary Steven Chu cheaply announces that California farms will dry up and blow away, with no clue how the tomatoes in his salad or the lamb chops on his plate are grown, cleaned, shipped — and land in his mouth. . . .

3) Muscularity

An elite is often characterized as staying fit entirely by the workout, the gym, the jog — never by chain sawing, digging, climbing, or hammering. Yet here too arises contradiction. The elite, being largely progressive, champion the muscular classes to the degree they can stay distant from them. . .

4) Gender

. . . Why can’t any of our actors talk like a Humphrey Bogart, Glenn Ford, Lee Marvin, Henry Fonda, James Stewart, Bill Holden, or Gregory Peck? I’m not asking for Jack Palance or Fess Parker, just a normal male mainstream voice. I know there are Al Pacinos and Robert De Niros, but they too seem to fade before the new wave of DiCaprios. Elites talk (and probably sound) like the freedmen in Petronius’s Satyricon

5) Logic There is little logic among the cultural elite, maybe because there is little omnipresent fear of job losses or the absence of money, and so arises a rather comfortable margin to indulge in nonsense. The idea that taxes cause scarcity, and subsidy abundance is a foreign concept. The notion that entitlements create dependency is considered Neanderthal. . . In other words, take a deep breath and imagine the opposite of everything you know by experience to be true, and you have mostly the worldview of the sheltered cultural elite, who navigate in rather protected channels and not in the open seas of the real world.