Category Archives: culture

Not Far Wrong

Posted on by
Reply

Good for the Mayor, say I; he’s on the right track.

Porterville, CA, Mayor Cameron Hamilton said at a recent City Council meeting that, while he opposes bullying, he thinks it is too often used as an excuse. He added that some people need to “grow a pair.”

Naturally, this has caused outrage on the Left.

Councilwoman Virginia Gurrola…told the mayor, “It’s hard to just ‘grow a pair’ when you’re a 10-year-old girl.”

Surely, Gurrola understands that “hard” means “possible.”

And

Melissa McMurrey…told KFSN-TV that she felt attacked by the mayor’s comments. She said bullies often target young gay people.

Of course. I’m a victim. How dare you challenge my victimhood? How dare you suggest that I might actually just stop being a victim?

Personal responsibility isn’t always easy, and sometimes some folks, especially our children, need help. Despite that, though, personal responsibility matters, and it’s not something that can be wished off onto others. Self-defense is a personal obligation, not solely a thing to be used to create a burden on others.

Not even by our children. That’s what parents are for, and that’s what parents need to do a better job of teaching, right from the start—some at teaching their bully child to stop bullying, and others at teaching their bullied child how to counter the bully.

Federal Immigration Hypocrisy

Posted on by
Reply

[Cateret, NJ, Mayor Daniel] Reiman said yesterday that although he assured officials from the US Citizenship and Immigration Services that the prayer would be nondenominational, the agency declined to allow the prayer.

“They refused to budge on that.”

And, on refusing to allow any prayer at all, Reiman had no choice but to not allow the Federal ceremony to use city facilities.

Ironically, the whole thing came to a head just a day after the Supreme Court’s ruling in Town of Greece v Galloway that it was entirely appropriate that a local government open a ceremony with a prayer.

A spokeswoman for the federal agency, Katie Tichacek Kaplan, told The Associated Press that the agency has a long-standing policy to ensure that naturalization ceremonies are “conducted in a meaningful manner which is welcoming and inclusive and excludes political, commercial and religious statements.”

Never mind that this is a time to welcome our new citizens into our heritage—into their new nation’s heritage—as a Judeo-Christian nation, into our society with its Judeo-Christian underpinnings, into our culture, the benefits of which are what drew these immigrants in the first place and which encouraged them to take the five-year march toward citizenship. That’s the true meaning of the manner of welcome.

It’s not a time to encourage fractionation of our culture by discouraging their assimilation.

Reiman added

The irony is it’s in the Pledge [of Allegiance] and it’s in the oath [of citizenship]. It didn’t really make sense. They acknowledge that prayer is part of many, many services.

Here is the oath of citizenship that newly naturalized immigrants take on achieving citizenship [emphasis added]:

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.

And here is that nasty Pledge of Allegiance (which too many circles are trying to purge from our schools and public ceremonies, and too many others have simply allowed to lapse) [emphasis added]:

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

But the Feds don’t want even a nondenominational prayer uttered at a ceremony celebrating the naturalization of new American citizens.

Hmm….

Pride and Reluctance

Posted on by
Reply

Two hundred and seventy-six young girls were kidnapped by the terrorist organization* Boko Haram, whose leader is threatening to sell them into slavery, if he hasn’t already.

On the matter of offers from the US, Great Britain, Israel, and a number of others of military help both in dealing with these terrorists and presently in recovering the stolen girls, though, Nigerian pride seems more important than the safety of Nigerian children.

Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan’s spokesman Doyin Okupe, has said about foreign military aid

Nigeria is a very proud nation. We feel that to subjugate our military under another world power would be to really compromise our integrity.

How is your national integrity, President Jonathan, not already disastrously compromised by your failure to protect even your children and your present inability to recover them?

 

*Aside: Why is it that so many “news” organizations and “journalists,” all of whom pretend to respectability, keep referring to such gangs as “insurgents” or “radical Islamists?” Why are they so desperate to avoid naming these organized mobs for what they are: terrorists?

Responsibility—Another Thought

Posted on by
Reply

Failure on both sides of the question.

A southern California city aims to fight back at bullies by making it a crime to pick on others, in a measure that would protect not only school children but anyone up to age 25 who is targeted for harassment.

“We’re not talking about putting a 5-year-old in jail, we’re talking about intervening in both the bully’s life, who is a person who is hurting too, and the victim’s life,” [Carson Mayor Jim ] Dear said.

But of course. Dealing with bullies is a task for government, not for parents, not for responsible adults. Because 25-yr-old American citizens aren’t adults. After all, they’re still on mumsy’s and pop-pop’s health plan….

The ACLU, though, doesn’t think the proposed law goes far enough.

Brendan Hamme, staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, said the measure is too vague and does not even spell out how much jail time an offender could potentially face.

Naturally. Adult judgment mustn’t be allowed. That would place responsibility on the citizens, and not on government, or on the ACLU. After all, there’s that whole we’re not adults thing, again. To say nothing about how our taking care of ourselves would put a lot of self-important government officials and lawyers out of jobs.

Finally, there’s this, which makes explicit government’s intent to enter private homes:

“We are going to protect not only the kid that is bothered in school, but when you leave school and go home, we’re going to protect you as a city,” said Carson City Councilman Mike Gipson, who co-sponsored the law.

Because the business of parenting—of teaching the kid who’s a bully not to be one, and of teaching the bullied kid how to deal with bullies—is too important to be left to actual parents. Government has to do it, instead. Since parents aren’t responsible adults, you see.

Byzantine Visas

Posted on by
Reply

In a Wall Street Journal op-ed earlier in the week, Martin Lawler and Margaret Stock wrote about dysfunctional and too low limits on H-1B visas for skilled, educated foreign workers. While on the right track, though, they missed some points.

Some claim there is no shortage of science, technology, engineering or math (STEM) workers, and that US companies hire foreign employees to be “indentured workers” who can be paid low wages. In 2012, David North of the Center for Immigration Studies said, “It is well known that many H-1B workers are, in effect, indentured by employers who had filed to obtain green cards for them—they are nominally free to leave, but it can be hard to keep your resident alien application alive after leaving the employer who set it in motion.”

Lawler and Stock correctly point out the fatuousness of this erroneous claim, but they miss a larger point. Say, arguendo, that North is right. There are two solutions to this, and neither include North’s view of how such foreign workers should be treated. Lawler and Stock addressed the foolishness of the (low) quota for H-1Bs. The other solution is to cut out the nonsense on the green cards: decouple them from visas. Either the green card applicant is suitable, or he is not. His STEM education is only one criterion, and it needn’t be a critical one.

And, in support of the above correction, Lawler and Stock note that

[t]he Labor Department must certify, through a formal process, that H-1B wages are appropriate. Public notices of the jobs, including the wages, must be posted at the work site. The notices must contain specific information about filing a complaint challenging the wage and working conditions. Once the certification is issued, the US Citizenship and Immigration Services conducts a thorough review of the entire case, including details about the employer, employees and positions.

But this misses a larger point, too. Government has no business entering the premises of a private enterprise and dictating to that enterprise who it may hire, at what pay rate, or (within very broad limits) under what conditions.

Full stop.

Labor price should be as competitive as any other good or service price.