Tag Archives: culture

Watching in Unanimity

Posted on by
Reply

European leaders are unanimous in their position regarding Iran and that nation’s government abuse of the people over which the mullahs reign.

From Rome to Brussels and from Paris to London, leaders have criticized what the European Union’s foreign policy chief called a “heavy-handed” and “disproportionate” response from Iranian security forces toward protesters.

But….

…European leaders are clearly gauging how much regional uncertainty they can tolerate.

Translation: European managers [sic] are unanimous in their decision to watch the hell out of the mullah’s abuses of the Iranian people. Unfortunately, those same European managers are just as unanimous their being too timid to do anything concrete in opposition to those abuses. As we might say in Texas, those worthies are all hat and no cattle. Unfortunately, though, those worthies don’t even have the hat. Stetsons are made in Texas, not in the haberdasheries of Paris or Milan.

A Thought on “Firsts”

Posted on by
Reply

Too many pundits, too many others, insist on commenting loudly (or quietly) on the first black man to do this, the first woman to do that, the first homosexual person to do the other. The loud current example is New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani. He is, according to these Wonders, the first Muslim, the first Asian American, the youngest to become the city’s mayor.

So what? What he is is an American citizen. All the rest is decidedly irrelevant to the point of meaninglessness.

Unfortunately, as long as pundits, and too many others, insist on pointing that someone is the first this to achieve something or the first that to achieve something else, as long as those pundits, et al., insist on these manufactured firsts, they continue to keep us divided from each other by claiming special accolades for their approved groups.

That divisive decision very closely approaches bigotry. At the very least, it’s insulting to those groups as the pundits insist that the groups cannot succeed on their own; they must be singled out for their immutable characteristics rather than applauded or decried for the material things they’ve done or not done.

An Activist Judge Gets It Wrong

Posted on by
Reply

DC District Senior Judge Amy Berman Jackson has ruled that

the Trump administration is legally required to secure funding for the US Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), and that failing to do so would violate a prior court order barring the government from dismantling or shutting down the agency[.]

However.

Leave aside the fact that the question of the Trump administration funding of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the question of the Trump administration dismantling or shutting down the agency are distinctly separate questions.

The fact of interest here is Jackson’s mistaken ruling that Trump must fund the CFPB. He cannot. By the statute that created the CFPB, that agency is funded solely by the penalties it exacts via its enforcement actions (pay no attention to the conflict of interest behind the curtain) and from the Federal Reserve Bank, the latter which the CFPB draws from according to CFPB-determined needs (pay no attention to the doings behind this curtain, either).

The Trump administration has no control over and no capacity to produce CFPB funding. This is the sort of shenanigan in which activist judges engage, causing increased cost and delay in cleaning up prior messes.

“Multicultural”

Posted on by
Reply

A news writer for The New York Times, Peter Baker, in typical journalism guild, misstated American culture in an interview with the left-wing network PBS‘ Washington Week With the Atlantic, as excerpted by The Wall Street Journal.

One of the things that they’ve [the Trump administration] been very successful at, and I would expect to see more of, is their war on DEI, on the notion of diversity, equity and inclusion, the notion that diversity is an admirable goal, even if you don’t necessarily want quotas. They have managed in just a very short amount of time to create a new culture in the country—not just in the government, across the board—where private employers feel the need to retreat from DEI. And you’re going to see, I think, an acceleration of that in the second year…. I think the question, though, is in a multicultural country, at some point does that begin to go too far for people and by the midterms?

Leave aside Baker’s blithe assumption that there’s nothing intrinsically racist or sexist in DEI, which favors approved races and the approved gender at the direct, deliberate expense of disapproved races and the disapproved gender. Those favoring criteria, however far down the selection tree they might be, are explicitly and by design racist and sexist.

More than that, the United States is not a mix of race, of old-world cultures, of religions, or of whathaveyous. The Unites States is a nation of a single culture, one unified by a common belief in a basic system of intrinsic rights: to life, to liberty, and to the pursuit of happiness and of a limited government granted to which by our nation’s sovereign citizens only enough power and authority to protect those intrinsic and basic rights.

Baker’s bald claim that the United States is a multicultural country is as cynical as it is wrong.

Even that queen of European identity politics, Germany’s ex-Chancellor Angela Merkel, ultimately recognized that multiculturalism is an abject failure. And that’s something that Americans have known since our inception, if unevenly put or kept in effect.

With Good Reason

Posted on by
Reply

The lede lays it out, if misleadingly so.

The Western alliance between the US and its European partners has been a pillar of the global order since the end of World War II. Bonded by a common belief in freedom and democracy, it prevented major global conflict, defeated Communism, and presided over a surge in global prosperity.

More like sharing common rhetoric, not common belief, regarding freedom and democracy. Europe’s NATO members have, since shortly after the alliance’s formation, free-loaded off American treasure and promise of blood while themselves living phat and short-changing their own obligations to the alliance. Decades of “pretty please” had no effect on that. It’s only been since Trump I’s threats to leave the alliance if those members didn’t step up to their own responsibilities that those nations started to improve, or at least give less short-shift to the alliance.

The subheadline continues the misleading aspect.

As relations between Europe and the US become increasingly strained, once unshakeable allies abroad are wondering whether the rift can be repaired.

Once unshakeable? As recently as the end of the 19th century, the US and UK were at loggerheads over a number of national-level problems. In the late 20th century, key NATO member France kicked our military forces out as that nation withdrew itself from the military aspect of the alliance, only recently rejoining.

Today, the European Union is busily attacking American multinational enterprises over the EU’s effort at censorship, its inability to compete with American goods and services sold through those enterprises, its demand for ever higher taxes in the face of lower taxes in the US. In that latter regard, the EU also is busy with its determined fratricide as it attacks Ireland over its even lower tax regime.

There’s never been anything unshakeable in our relationship with Europe, nor is there any reason to take the continent seriously, whether economically, militarily, or politically.

Even now, with European NATO members beginning to recognize that they need to act in measurable, concrete support for Ukraine in its existential struggle against the barbarian from the east, they’re still looking to us for the first move on weapons and other support, to us on “peace” initiatives vis-à-vis this war. They’re still too timid to act entirely on their own, with only a few exceptions in the form of the nations bordering Russia. Brussels is even too timorous to allow the Russian funds frozen by the EU at the start of sanctioning Russia shortly after it invaded Ukraine to be used as collateral for loans to Ukraine. Belgium is more interested in whether its funds in Russia might be seized by Putin than it is in supporting Ukraine.

Even now, fully a third of NATO’s member nations continue to welch on their own financial and equipage commitments to NATO as an alliance. With that welching, they betray their own fellow alliance members by keeping themselves wholly unable to come to the aid of their fellows should any of them be attacked.

NATO, which embodies most of Europe and so stands for Europe in so many critical ways, is steadfastly rendering itself useless and by extension is rendering Europe to irrelevance.

Why, indeed, should we take Europe seriously for anything other than their weakness being a threat to our own security given the bloodily acquisitive nature of the eastern barbarian?