Politics
by ::G @ 2010-05-30 14:34
The main section of this weekend's Wall Street Journal contained several political topics that overcame my inertia to write something about them. I'd previously wanted to remark on the Arizona immigration law (SB 1070), but the topics of Rand Paul and the Grecian riots are also comment-worthy.
First of all, I'll consider AZ's political firestorm. I break with most other conservatives in that I don't support the immigration law. It's not a black-and-white issue of being for or against illegal immigration. Of course illegal immigration is abhorrent. It may be good for the perpetrator, because odds are his socioeconomic condition will improve, but it's bad for the United States of America in terms of additional economic burden, higher crime (one of which being the entry into the country), and loss of national sovereignty. However, the existence of the problem doesn't justify whatever solution is expedient.
The problem here is civil rights. U.S. citizens, natural-born or naturalized, don't have to carry identification. This is natural and proper, otherwise we become a police state: or would we care to have the Schutzstaffel asking us for our papers? True, permanent residents, i.e. legal aliens without naturalized citizenship, must carry their "green card" on them at all times. Point being, a Mexican national who has gone to the trouble to obtain U.S. citizenship—a non-trivial task that most natural-born Americans would be unable to do—does not have to carry ID, yet this law subjects him to harassment. Such a hypothetical citizen could be walking down the street without ID, perfectly legally, yet AZ law allows the police to stop him and ask for papers. Theoretically the police need Reasonable, Articulable Suspicion (a legal term that seems to violate English grammar) to make such an inquiry, but in practice, it's not going to matter. It's the cop's word versus the citizen's, who's going to win out?
The root cause of the problem must be addressed, i.e. put a stop to illegal immigration. We need stronger border security, because if illegal immigrants can get in, so can illegal drugs (as they obviously do). We need a streamlined immigration process. As a native speaker, I spent tens of hours to come up with 100 pages of documentation and spent a thousand dollars to get my wife her green card. Do you think most prospective immigrants have the resources, monetarily and linguistically, to do that? Of course it could be one filter, but I found it to be unreasonable. One rationale for the AZ law that I've heard is that the crime problem needs to be addressed. Well, AZ has liberal concealed weapon laws, so quit being cowards and take responsibility for your personal security instead of putting it to the cops.
Of course the cause hits close to home because I'm of mixed race, my wife's a non-citizen, and my mother's a naturalized citizen. I suppose it's easy for Caucasians who wouldn't be discriminated against not to care. Just know what your principles are: do you given a damn about civil rights, or not?
Next topic, Rand Paul. I support the guy even though he's not a candidate in my state, since we need more decent people in the Senate. The liberal media has been lambasting Paul for alleged comments regarding the Civil Rights Act. I understand where he's coming from, actually, and support his viewpoint completely. Equal treatment under the law is one thing, but the CRA is a government law forcing private enterprise to do something. In principle, it'd be nice if everyone were color-blind with respect to race, but people have a right to be inviolate in their thoughts. I have no right to tell a white guy who doesn't like Asian-looking people that he has to put aside his personal biases and treat me nicely. One can't legislate civility, good taste, or racial sensitivity. If one is truly open-minded, then they should be able to accept that some people will remain closed-minded and let them be.
A private business should be allowed more latitude to run it as the owners would. Why should the government get involved? If the lunch counter at F.W. Woolworth Company would not serve me, then I sure as hell don't want to give them my business! Plus, it'd probably be unpleasant to eat there if the other patrons were jerks. Of course, the question then becomes, where can non-Caucasians go to hang out? Well, consider that a business opportunity. Then who would fund such enterprise? Either well-off non-Caucasians or influential, open-minded Caucasians. The latter had to have existed, or the CRA wouldn't have gotten passed!
As for the riots in Greece, what is up with those anarchist crazies? The rest of the world's trying to bail out the Greek government (which is inadvisable), and people are up in arms about pay cuts, etc.?! Would they prefer that their government and economy fail? I'm sure that'd be an even more fun time than the proposed belt-tightening.
I'm of the opinion that rioters should be shot. That is, if a bunch of people go crazy and destroy property and endanger others' lives, they should be dealt with harshly. Why should they be treated any less different than an armed robber or arsonist or outright murderer who acts singly? Should it come to violent protest, at least hit the right target. Innocents should be avoided at all costs.
A couple other comments regarding the May 22nd edition of WSJ. Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell exemplifies the career politician mentality in his remarks regarding Rand Paul. He can't appreciate Paul's principles or honesty. Amusingly enough, he thinks Marco Rubio is a prime GOP contender for presidential candidate in 2012, even though Rubio is conservative in the same vein as Paul. Why? Because Rubio is of Hispanic descent. Pretty transparent, there: pander to the voters. Rendell also claims to be a "fiscal conservative"—ha! Only if you consider fiscal conservatism as being raising taxes to pay for bloated government. Peggy Noonan is quite possibly the best columnist in America. While she isn't always as conservative as I'd like, she's always logical and sensible, demonstrating mastery and wit that other pundits, particularly those on the left, can't match. Regarding the zeitgeist of loss of privacy, likely precipitated by the recent Facebook brouhaha, she remarks:
First of all, I'll consider AZ's political firestorm. I break with most other conservatives in that I don't support the immigration law. It's not a black-and-white issue of being for or against illegal immigration. Of course illegal immigration is abhorrent. It may be good for the perpetrator, because odds are his socioeconomic condition will improve, but it's bad for the United States of America in terms of additional economic burden, higher crime (one of which being the entry into the country), and loss of national sovereignty. However, the existence of the problem doesn't justify whatever solution is expedient.
The problem here is civil rights. U.S. citizens, natural-born or naturalized, don't have to carry identification. This is natural and proper, otherwise we become a police state: or would we care to have the Schutzstaffel asking us for our papers? True, permanent residents, i.e. legal aliens without naturalized citizenship, must carry their "green card" on them at all times. Point being, a Mexican national who has gone to the trouble to obtain U.S. citizenship—a non-trivial task that most natural-born Americans would be unable to do—does not have to carry ID, yet this law subjects him to harassment. Such a hypothetical citizen could be walking down the street without ID, perfectly legally, yet AZ law allows the police to stop him and ask for papers. Theoretically the police need Reasonable, Articulable Suspicion (a legal term that seems to violate English grammar) to make such an inquiry, but in practice, it's not going to matter. It's the cop's word versus the citizen's, who's going to win out?
The root cause of the problem must be addressed, i.e. put a stop to illegal immigration. We need stronger border security, because if illegal immigrants can get in, so can illegal drugs (as they obviously do). We need a streamlined immigration process. As a native speaker, I spent tens of hours to come up with 100 pages of documentation and spent a thousand dollars to get my wife her green card. Do you think most prospective immigrants have the resources, monetarily and linguistically, to do that? Of course it could be one filter, but I found it to be unreasonable. One rationale for the AZ law that I've heard is that the crime problem needs to be addressed. Well, AZ has liberal concealed weapon laws, so quit being cowards and take responsibility for your personal security instead of putting it to the cops.
Of course the cause hits close to home because I'm of mixed race, my wife's a non-citizen, and my mother's a naturalized citizen. I suppose it's easy for Caucasians who wouldn't be discriminated against not to care. Just know what your principles are: do you given a damn about civil rights, or not?
Next topic, Rand Paul. I support the guy even though he's not a candidate in my state, since we need more decent people in the Senate. The liberal media has been lambasting Paul for alleged comments regarding the Civil Rights Act. I understand where he's coming from, actually, and support his viewpoint completely. Equal treatment under the law is one thing, but the CRA is a government law forcing private enterprise to do something. In principle, it'd be nice if everyone were color-blind with respect to race, but people have a right to be inviolate in their thoughts. I have no right to tell a white guy who doesn't like Asian-looking people that he has to put aside his personal biases and treat me nicely. One can't legislate civility, good taste, or racial sensitivity. If one is truly open-minded, then they should be able to accept that some people will remain closed-minded and let them be.
A private business should be allowed more latitude to run it as the owners would. Why should the government get involved? If the lunch counter at F.W. Woolworth Company would not serve me, then I sure as hell don't want to give them my business! Plus, it'd probably be unpleasant to eat there if the other patrons were jerks. Of course, the question then becomes, where can non-Caucasians go to hang out? Well, consider that a business opportunity. Then who would fund such enterprise? Either well-off non-Caucasians or influential, open-minded Caucasians. The latter had to have existed, or the CRA wouldn't have gotten passed!
As for the riots in Greece, what is up with those anarchist crazies? The rest of the world's trying to bail out the Greek government (which is inadvisable), and people are up in arms about pay cuts, etc.?! Would they prefer that their government and economy fail? I'm sure that'd be an even more fun time than the proposed belt-tightening.
I'm of the opinion that rioters should be shot. That is, if a bunch of people go crazy and destroy property and endanger others' lives, they should be dealt with harshly. Why should they be treated any less different than an armed robber or arsonist or outright murderer who acts singly? Should it come to violent protest, at least hit the right target. Innocents should be avoided at all costs.
A couple other comments regarding the May 22nd edition of WSJ. Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell exemplifies the career politician mentality in his remarks regarding Rand Paul. He can't appreciate Paul's principles or honesty. Amusingly enough, he thinks Marco Rubio is a prime GOP contender for presidential candidate in 2012, even though Rubio is conservative in the same vein as Paul. Why? Because Rubio is of Hispanic descent. Pretty transparent, there: pander to the voters. Rendell also claims to be a "fiscal conservative"—ha! Only if you consider fiscal conservatism as being raising taxes to pay for bloated government. Peggy Noonan is quite possibly the best columnist in America. While she isn't always as conservative as I'd like, she's always logical and sensible, demonstrating mastery and wit that other pundits, particularly those on the left, can't match. Regarding the zeitgeist of loss of privacy, likely precipitated by the recent Facebook brouhaha, she remarks:
An odd thing is that when privacy is done away with, people don't become more authentic, they become less so. What replaces what used not to be said is something that must be said and is usually a lie.It seems that in this day and age, some erosion of privacy is inevitable. Even so, only a fool wouldn't be concerned.
When we lose our privacy, we lose some of our humanity; we lose things that are particular to us, that make us separate and distinctive souls, as, actually, children of God. We also lose trust, not only in each other but in our institutions, which we come to fear.
...
"Remember Jeremiah Johnson? The guy who went off by himself in the mountains and lived on his own? I'd like to do that. But they'd find me on Google Earth."
Leave a comment