Pages

Tuesday, April 15, 2014

It's Tax Day in the US...Now Consider What Your Taxes Pay For

...among other things, they pay for the much-discussed 47% (now down to 43% these days) who pay no income taxes to lounge in the warm light of your confiscated-and-redistributed labors.  From a (now) four year old post at ZeroHedge, an illuminating chart on how someone who works one week a month at the minimum wage can effectively pull in as much as someone making a fair bit more than the national average wage, for far less effort and frustration:


Hope you're feeling good after licking that stamp and sending in your return...or clicking that e-file "submit". Your languid countrymen and the political machines that cater to them thank you.

Friday, April 11, 2014

Cost and Risk Are No Object When Someone Else Is Paying The Tab

As we discussed older parents only last week, I figure the below passage from the Daily Mail shouldn't need much commentary. The critique of peri-menopausal motherhood pretty much writes itself:
Health ministers revealed the sharp rise in older mothers in a parliamentary question. In 2012, there were 154 babies born to mothers over the age of 50, up by a third in a year. The figure has more than doubled since 2008 when there were 69 births to women aged 50 and over. In 2000 the number was 44. The number of births to mothers aged 40 and over has also risen, up 13 per cent from 26,419 in 2008 to 29,994 in 2012. It means one in 25 are to mothers who have turned 40.

Around 20 per cent of babies are born to women aged 35 or older, the highest proportion since records began in 1938. The trend is the result of women choosing to concentrate on their careers rather than settling down to have a family.

Louise Silverton, director for midwifery at the Royal College of Midwives said: ‘There are an increasing numbers of older women who are having babies and these women tend to have more complications than younger women. "This is more pronounced as women have babies at increasingly greater ages. Older mothers are more likely to have increased rates of miscarriage and ectopic pregnancies and genetic problems in the child and other issues such high blood pressure, diabetes and problems with the placenta."

The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has warned that those over the age of 40 are up to three times more likely to lose their baby than younger mothers. Their babies also face a greater risk of ill-health or abnormalities such as Down’s Syndrome.
Interestingly, two of the three women profiled in the Mail story were 50+ when they gave birth. The amount of resources and effort required, and risk borne by their children for them to realize their dreams of being an older choice mommy, is substantial. But no cost is too high and no risk too great when a lonely post-Wall future involving lots of felines looms scarily near:
Carole Hobson became Britain’s oldest mother of twins at 58 after conceiving through IVF at an Indian clinic. After four failed IVF attempts in Ukraine and Cyprus, donor embryos were implanted at a clinic in Mumbai. The single mother, now 61, spent more than £20,000 to have children and twins Frieda and Matthew were born by emergency Caesarean on Christmas Eve 2010.

Nine weeks premature and each weighing 3lb 3oz, they spent two months in neo-natal care. The qualified barrister from Kent, said: ‘In Britain we need to be better at providing for women who want to be mothers later in life. It is an indescribable joy, but it’s non-stop – it is like a full-time job.’
Reading this is breathtaking in its clinical discussion of the shabby treatment of human life, moreso when one considers the hurdles that had to be cleared in order for Freida and Matthew to survive. "Four failed IVF attempts" likely means 4-12 dead embryos babies, and an "emergency Caesarean" to deliver two children over two months premature, each weighing in at 3 lbs 3 oz and who spent two more months in the NICU, suggests that it was no small thing for these little ones to survive.

I have to admire Ms. Hobson's chutzpah, though. She chose to have babies man-not-included, and the overburdened British taxpayer--49% of whom are men of the sort she couldn't bring herself to marry--was stuck with the bill for her operation (low $20s for a C-section) and 60 days for two children in the NICU ($3.5K per baby per day, or roughly $420K). Yet she still complains that she didn't receive enough support. Amazing.

Truly, cost and risk are evidently no object when someone else is bearing it.

Wednesday, April 9, 2014

Water-Carriers for Global Feminism

This article joins a slew of similar agitprop in the mainstream conservative media of late attempting to excite right-wing Americans about the condition of Moslem women, presumably so that we putative white knights would feel motivated swoop in to rescue them, neocon style. Granted, the thrust of this specific article is primarily about censorship, but the underlying topic of said censorship is supposedly how bad Saudi females have it:
Late last week, following days of media clamor, ABC Family cancelled a pilot for Alice in Arabia. The show was to have centered upon a young woman as she attempted to escape from family kidnappers in Saudi Arabia. While Alice in Arabia would likely have been somewhat cartoonish in its philosophy, it would still have been to America’s benefit. That’s because it would have illuminated the predicament of women in Saudi Arabia.

Because in the end, women’s rights in Saudi Arabia are not a small concern. Because for thousands of women in the kingdom, each new dawn begets new slavery. Because when a woman in Saudi Arabia is accosted for wearing nail polish, or beaten at a whim, or has her genitals forcibly mutilated, or is leashed like a dog every day of her life, these are not just small inconveniences. And when five-year-old girls live and die as human piñatas, these are not simply “real-life difficulties.”
Not so good, to be sure. But some perspective is in order here, before we go grab our rifles and unwittingly muster for the militarized wing of a decadent Western feminism. For we don't need to travel to the other side of the planet to witness the systematic and systemic maltreatment of a disadvantaged sex. For each new dawn in America begets more than 1,000 new instances of men sold into years, sometimes nearly two decades, of fractional slavery in government-run slave markets. In a culture where men and boys are accosted and sometimes lose their jobs for noting that a particular woman or girl is sexually harassing them or dressed in an offensive and lewd manner, where a legally impeachable man can be evicted from his home, beaten, shot, and/or caged at the mere whim of his socially superior and legally advantaged wife/partner/cohabitant, where nearly all boys have their genitals forcibly mutilated by social custom, where a man is forced cover up neck-to-toe in polite company, or where a boy is forcibly medicated because his wards consider maleness a pathology, these are not just small inconveniences. And when (mostly) young black males whelped by choice mothers live and die like disposable bullet sponges, these are not simply "real-life difficulties". They are sexist outrages on par with that of Saudi women discussed in the quote above that should ignite righteous indignation, but perhaps because they occur in our backyard, in our neighborhoods, or right next door, we willingly blind ourselves.

Doubtless there are some who read the paragraph above and wonder what the big deal is, that the vast majority of Western men don't perceive themselves as all that oppressed, and when they are--such as being a chalimony slave or dead urban street yoot--they deserve at least some of it. I wonder if the same dynamic applies to Moslem women...perhaps they themselves don't feel all that oppressed, they buy into their culture to a certain extent, and they view the legions of slatternly Betty Freidan, Gloria Steinem, Miley Cyrus, Sandra Fluke, and Lena Dunham acolytes in the West with disgust and revulsion and not a small bit of horror?

I'll close this post by noting that it's time to set aside the neocon's messianic view of the role of American power. Our recent experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan should have taught us that remaking a culture through coercion or even moderate pressure will not be effective, and it is a mistake to even try. Feminist agitprop designed to rile up the white knights and encourage aggressive Western cultural imperialism, such as this linked article, or the two-day doesn't-violence-against-Moslem-women-make-you-mad extravaganza by a subtly sexed-up Fox News Channel's Megyn Kelly, should be recognized for what it is...and rejected. Better I think to clean up our own act, strive to model our ideals of liberty and governance, let others take note of our positive example, and cease exporting a foul liberalist culture at the point of a gun.

Sunday, April 6, 2014

Common Core Obama Hagiography Portrays Whites as Racist

Hey white folks who voted against Barack Obama! (If you were part of the 43% who voted for him, don't worry, this article isn't about you). I bet you thought your vote against Mr. Obama was based on principled opposition to his hard-left progressive politics, and the fact that he was half-black had little to nothing to do with it. Have I got a totally predictable non-surprise for you!

In case you hadn't been keeping up on world events, the only-racists-oppose-Mr.-Obama narrative has again snuck into primary school curricula, this time in the form of a reader entitled Barack Obama provided to near-universally white Bluffview Elementary students in Dupo, Illinois. I wager you don't appreciate prog projection as mandatory reading in the schools, but too bad, they won, you lost.  Now loser, go sit down in the back of the bus and endure the Narrative your liberalist rulers are inculcating primary school students about you:
But some people weren't ready for that much change. Sure Barack was a nice fellow, they said. But white voters would never vote for a black president. Other angry voices were raised. Barack's former pastor called the country a failure. God would damn America for mistreating its black citizens, he said.

Barack decided it was time to speak to Americans about race. The country's history of slavery had left the nation in pain, he said. Black people and white people were too often angry with one another. All peple were going to have to work to solve the country's problems. Only in that way could Americans make a more perfect United States.
It is at times like these, I have to ask...is it more racist to vote for someone on the basis of his skin color, or less?  Given that 95-odd percent of blacks voted for Mr. Obama, whereas 43% of whites did, the data locates racism elsewhere than in what this school text suggests.  Yet an anti-white "anti-racism" message creeps its way into a public school hymnal provided to a student body that is 89% white.  If that is not cultural aggression, maybe even a flavor of State-sponsored racism of it's own in an age of increasing overlap between the Progressive Party and the State, I'm not certain what is.

There's one way to sidestep all this "all your children are ours" baloney. For the sake of your children, rescue  them from this pathological environment and homeschool. If not for reasons of politics, then at least for reasons of scholastic achievement, particularly for your sons.

There is no such thing as a value-free, or value-neutral education. All education has moral content.  The question is then, whose morals shall your children learn?

Friday, April 4, 2014

Remember, These Folks Vote

Keep this in mind when someone tells you that voting is the key to a functioning democracy:
Kaya James, 13, got a lesson she did not expect a week ago after learning about the Civil War and the Industrial Revolution in her History class at Novi Middle School.  According to Kaya, her teacher asked the students whether they would rather be a slave or a factory worker.

Kaya said she was stunned to see the majority of the class raised their hands when they were asked if they would rather be a slave, stating they would get free food and board.
The votes of people such as these, who would rather be a slave than work for a living, just so long as they are taken care of, count one-for-one just as much as those who want to be just left alone.  Moreso, actually, since there seems to be a fair bit of overlap between those who prefer a comfortable cage over scary freedom are those that somehow manage to keep voting after they die, or vote Democrat in multiple precincts.


Wednesday, April 2, 2014

Choice Daddies

Photo: The Star.com
It's only fair that I call out men who do stuff like this, as I do women who opt for "man not included" parenthood and / or frivorce:
Morrison is now 31 and the biological father of a little boy born in India on July 26. He went to Mumbai, donated his sperm and paid an egg donor and a surrogate to carry his child. This makes him one of the few single men who have taken this unconventional route to parenthood. He paid about $5,000 to fly to India to donate sperm, $2,000 for a donated egg, $20,000 for six rounds of in vitro fertilization and $13,000 for the care of the surrogate.

Morrison is a civil servant who lives in Ottawa. He has been in serious romantic relationships, and once bought an engagement ring for a girlfriend. She ended the relationship before he could propose. All around him, friends were pairing off, settling down and having babies. He wanted to be among them. During an interview, he whipped out his iPhone and brought up photo of a mother walking down the street holding her toddler's hand. “I just thought it was so cute,” he said. He had wanted a little hand of his own to hold since his grandfather died. His grandfather's death caused Morrison to realize how much he wanted to have a child right away. He wanted to be a young father, to watch his children grow up, to make grandparents of his own parents.

“I'm not the kind of person that sits around and waits for destiny,” Morrison says.

Ethicists caution that this brand of medical tourism exploits the underprivileged women who act as surrogates. But for Morrison, it was the simplest way to start a family with a child of his own.
I'll admit to being a bit torn about Mr. Morrison's route to choice daddy parenthood. For starters, I seriously contemplated going this route myself after having been nuked in a frivorce over a decade ago, and I truly understand the appeal of parenthood without the very real threat of divorce-rape and fractional bondage should one's female partner become dissatisfied. And from a purely numbers standpoint, paying $40,000 USD to be a single father suddenly snaps into focus when the average US wedding approaches $30,000, the cost to undo that marriage nears $50,000, and the average chalimony bill is more than $5,000 annually.  Roll it all together, and the cost of marrying and subsequently re-gaining your freedom in the 50% likelihood of marital failure is around $200,000.  In some areas of the US, you can buy a house for that kind of money.

So, there are not a few solid reasons for the cynical or jaded or burned or cooly rational to opt for choice daddyhood. Yet I still oppose it, and here's why:

It's selfish to choose to be a choice daddy.

Children need the investment of both mothers and fathers.  They benefit from the social capital of two sets of grandparents. And while I strongly suspect that children raised in single-father households will have not nearly the pathologies as those raised in single-mother households, the data thus far is clear that children born to two parents and whose parents were together their entire childhood are distinctly and measurably advantaged over those who grew up in a single-parent household or those whose parents split sometime during their childhood. Moreover, and libertarians should appreciate this, which family structure(s) result in a bigger State with more excuses / pretexts for intervention? The two parent nuclear family? Or the choice family?

If non-mutant children living in a free-er society is the preferred outcome, well then the choice not to be a choice daddy is clear.

Friday, March 28, 2014

Do It For Denmark

While amusing, especially the Eiffel Tower phallic imagery, somehow I don't think this will be enough:


While any initiative that encourages men and women, if not husbands and wives, to do the beast with two backs will likely secure my approval, if for no other reason than it is a fabulous relationship lubricant in and of itself, I don't think this clever marketing ploy by the Danish travel company "Spies" will be sufficient to substantively and reverse the below-replacement 1.73 Danish fertility rate.  There are simply far too many structural obstacles standing in the way of fecundity for mere policy or gimmickry to effect lasting change.

Want more Danes (or native-born Americans, for that matter)? Well, one will need to dispense with liberalism in general, and feminism in particular.  It all needs to be defenestrated, immediately.  Especially anything that takes women out of the home and into remunerated employment for purposes of self-actualization, or encourages the same. Anything that delays family formation or the production of new members of society, particularly under-utilized "education", subsidies for child care, transfer payments to choice mommy households, man-at-fault divorce, etc.  Awarding medals or tax deductions or whatever means of boosting natalism won't cut it. One needs to re-orient the entire orientation of society, from the navel-gazing solipsism of the liberalist, toward the God-fearing "go and conquer" vigor of the right-illiberal. Anything short of that is simply a non-starter.

Until that happens, "Do It For Denmark", while clever, remains just a ploy to sell more vacations.

Saturday, March 22, 2014

So Men Do Have a Biological Clock

Galloping around the cosmos is a game for the young, doctor.
Captain Kirk, Star Trek II, The Wrath of Khan.

I'm entering my fourth decade, and one thing I've noticed about parenting infants is that it's a lot harder now than it was when I was 27, when S1 was born, or even 34 when Mrs. Wapiti and I had S3.  Sleep deprivation is an entirely new animal now than it was in the past--when I could have pounded several cans of Mountain Dew and all would be well through one, two, and even three all-nighters.  Nowadays, I just don't have nearly the energy; I appear to have found the upper limit on my heretofore seemingly limitless reserve of go-get-um. So right there I'm finding that I have a biological clock of sorts, a physical upper limit that today propels me to counsel all and sundry that parenting, like warfare or space exploration, are games for young people, not middle-aged folks in the latter half of their lifecycle.  

But I talk of a practical biological clock.  It is time now to discuss the other, well, biological clocks that apply to the human species, namely, menopause, and repeated quasi-scientific findings that women in their 30s and older have a greatly increased risk of conceiving children with genetic abnormalities. To help quantify how big this "increased risk" really is, let's put it this way--by the time women are in their 40s, their risk conceiving a child with birth defects surpasses that of cousin incest.

Think on the implications of that, for a moment.

Now, most studies of congenital abnormalities center on the mother and baby, and fail to consider the father, leading some to conclude from a lack of evidence that men, unlike women, can sire perfectly healthy children late in life with no downside risk whatsoever. Aside from the practical limits of such a stance--who wants to have babes in diapers and draw Social Security at the same time?--this omission is simply not true. We've known for a while that fathers in their 40s pose an increased risk of conceiving children with birth defects, or passing down defective recessive genes through their children that are expressed in their grandchildren.  Added to this knowledge are recent studies that have been finding problems aren't just physical, but mental.  A Malaysian study in 2011, and a just-released 2014 study from Sweden both found that older dads (i.e., age 40 or greater) conceived children who were several times more likely, even an order of magnitude more likely, to have various psychological disorders and mental illness. Unfortunately, when one considers the steadily rising average age of the Western mother, the burgeoning cohort of women who give birth after age 35 (14% in 2008, undoubtedly higher now), and that fathers are typically a few years older than mothers, it seems like a great many men, yours truly included, are conceiving children at age 40 and beyond, with a substantially higher risk of abnormalities, defects, and illnesses from advanced paternal age, if not maternal as well.

Identifying the problem...older dads and moms...is easy.  So too is proposing a solution: Earlier marriage and subsequent childbearing for both men and women, or at least, as a minimum, men declining to father children beyond their own version of The Wall.  The Devil, as he ever is, in the details, and the trick will be in how to get there, to shift the course of the cultural battleship, which is both characterized by and heavily invested in delayed adolescence, delayed adulthood, the obtainment of advanced schooling of marginal utility for both men and women, frivorce and remarriage, and misprioritized female employment.  

But make no mistake, parenting is and should be for the young.  Men do have a biological clock. Guys, do it for the children.

Friday, March 14, 2014

A Winning Message For The Party of Liberty*

I'm thinking Sen Sessions has got it:
Democrats in Washington have already cast their lot. A recent report from the Center for Immigration Studies shows that all net employment gains from 2000 to 2013 - a period of record legal
immigration - went to immigrant workers, and yet the immigration plan championed by the White House and congressional Democrats would triple the number of immigrants given permanent legal status over the next decade, and it would double the annual flow of guest workers to compete for jobs in every sector of the U.S. economy. The Democrats' plan delivers for international corporations, open-borders groups, and even workers now living in other countries - all at the expense of American workers.

Republicans could then illustrate how, on every policy front, the Left embraces an agenda that benefits only the fortunate few. Their agenda includes: energy restrictions that destroy jobs and drive up costs; maze-like administrative rules that only the largest companies can navigate; nationalized health care that shrinks the work force; Federal Reserve stimulus, which helps big firms at the expense of small savers; taxes and regulation that close plants and send work overseas; massive spending that
makes Washington a boomtown while impoverishing the nation; bureaucratic interference in schools and homes; intrusive government; a surging welfare state; endless deficits; and an increasingly open-borders immigration plan. Each of these policies directly harms working Americans. Each of these policies serves the political interests of Democrats while entailing lower pay, fewer hours, and higher unemployment for dedicated American workers.

Wherever the policies of the Left have been faithfully implemented, as in Detroit, human tragedy has followed. The future offered by the Left - a shrinking work force struggling to fund a growing welfare state - is not only unsustainable but uncompassionate. Compassion demands that we spare no effort in helping millions now jobless to realize the dream of financial independence. This is the urgent economic task of the 21st century.

Is it not time for the GOP to make a clean public break from the special-interest immigration lobby and let Democrats own - solely, completely, and exclusively - the unwise and unpopular policies they are pushing on these groups' behalf?
Forget Obamacare. While red meat for red staters, O-care may not be an issue that resonates for purple or libertarian voters. Plus, it lets go unanswered the left's projection attacks that conservatives are the party of the 1%. On the other hand, Detroit, with all its fearsome decrepit imagery, should be the albatross hung around the neck of liberalist candidates in 2014. The message should be "Look...this is what happens when you let liberalists be in charge. No jobs, no wealth, no future...unless you happen to be a Crony Corporatists, Big Labor Boss, or a Big Government Czar. A vote for us is a vote for more freedom, more jobs, and a future for you and your children."

* Note I did not say "Republican Party", which needs to make a decision as to which constituency it will serve.

Wednesday, March 12, 2014

Not Good

If one views debt as moving future consumption forward into the present, then we're presently enjoying $100T worth of prosperity--for what it's worth--that our progeny shall not:
The amount of debt globally has soared more than 40 percent to $100 trillion since the first signs of the financial crisis as governments borrowed to spend their economies out of recession and companies took advantage of record low interest rates. A $30-trillion debt increase from $70 trillion between mid-2007 and mid-2013 compares with a $3.86 trillion decline in the value of equities to $53.8 trillion, according to the Bank for International Settlements and data compiled by Bloomberg. The jump in debt, as measured by the Basel, Switzerland-based BIS in its quarterly review, is almost twice the U.S. economy.
There are four ways this ends: the debt is either paid off, written off, defaulted upon, or some combination of (1) and (2). But, no matter how this happens, these present generations--Silents, Boomers, and to a lesser extent Xers and Millennials--are literally eating the seed corn of the ones that will follow.

Monday, March 10, 2014

Suddenly, The Shoe Is On The Other Foot

"Disparate Impact" discrimination at the Federal agency specifically created by Dodd-Frank in 2010 to combat banking discrimination against protected classes? Say it ain't so!:
American Banker magazine reported on March 6 that the CFPB's employee performance-review process is plagued by exactly the kind of disparate-impact statistics that the agency uses to prove discrimination in the industries it regulates. For example, according to confidential CFPB data obtained by the magazine, 20.7% of the agency's white employees received the highest performance rating compared with 10.5% of African-American employees and 9.1% of Hispanic employees. The reviews are taken into account for pay raises and bonuses.

It would be difficult to find a government agency less vulnerable to charges of discrimination than the CFPB. Its core culture still bears the imprint of its first leader, Elizabeth Warren, the progressive firebrand and rising star of the Democratic Party who is now a senator from Massachusetts. The law that created the bureau, the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act, explicitly requires the agency to combat discrimination in consumer finance.

While working as a CFPB enforcement attorney in 2011-12, I observed the political correctness that epitomizes the agency. Workforce diversity was a top priority in hiring some 1,000 employees.   It seems inconceivable that CFPB's management could be discriminating against its workers. But disparate-impact statistics equal discrimination. Or at least that's what the CFPB tells the businesses it regulates.

The lesson the CFPB should learn from its own disparate-impact experience: Statistics are complicated. Numbers don't lie, but people often misinterpret them. Effect does not necessarily equal cause.  Are the CFPB's managers discriminating based on race, despite the agency's best intentions? Were the statistical disparities caused by cronyism, elitism, or some other problem?
One would hope that the principle of "by one's standard of measure, it will be measured" would apply here, since the CFPB does go gangbusters after lenders found to have "disparate impact" in lending, but I am not holding my breath. For we are talking about an arm of the Cathedral here, in a time of scant sunlight between party and State. It wasn't the philosophy that failed here, after all, it was just misapplied. Amiright?

My guess as to the outcome of this apparent incident of rank liberalist hypocrisy?  Corrective action will occur, in the form of Jim Crow personnel action based on race and sex, so as to restore demographic representation, another sop to big-D Diversity. And although it could be cause to Question, maybe even Notice, this unfortunate happening will not under any circumstances be allowed to impact equalitarian orthodoxy, not even a smidgen.

Friday, March 7, 2014

Yeah, We Know Which Way This Would Go

...were the sexes reversed, and a woman employed subterfuge / sabotage in order to get pregnant, we know exactly what would happen to the guy. From yahoo news:
OTTAWA (Reuters) - The Supreme Court of Canada on Friday upheld the sexual assault conviction of a Nova Scotia man for poking holes in his condoms before having consensual sex with his girlfriend in order to try to make her pregnant.

We conclude that there was no consent in this case by reason of fraud... Mr Hutchinson is therefore guilty of sexual assault," Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin and Justice Thomas Cromwell wrote in arguments joined by two other justices. The other three judges came to a similar conclusion by a different legal route.

Hutchinson, who had been out on bail, will now have to serve an 18-month prison sentence.

The written statement of facts presented by the prosecution said that Hutchinson had wanted to get his girlfriend pregnant at the time, in 2006, in order to keep their deteriorating relationship going.
So....lemme get this straight: Consensual sex that results in a pregnancy unintended by the woman == sexual assault, punishable with jail time.

Consensual sex that results in a pregnancy not intended by the man != sexual assault and nets the accuser two decades of cash.

Got it.

Thursday, March 6, 2014

Fast Fact: 0.007%

...or 2.5M : 168.  That's the ratio of Florida CCW permit holders to firearms crimes committed by those permit holders:
Since 1987, the state of Florida has issued 2.5 million concealed-carry permits,” Raso says in his latest opinion piece for the NRA News network. “Of those, only 168 people have committed firearms crimes. That’s .00672 percent of the total amount issued. If you make your establishment a “gun free” zone, you’re actually endangering yourself and your customers, as well as making yourself a target. Permit holders, he says, “are the last people you should be trying to keep out of your business.


Clearly, the law-abiding, by definition, obey the law. Zones where the legitimate possession of firearms is prohibited are in fact a soft target, ripe for the picking by the not law abiding.

Tuesday, March 4, 2014

We Don't Take Too Kindly To Your Kind Around Here

Perhaps because they look, act, and hold beliefs too similar to the Founders, the Romeike family is sent packing back to the Fatherland:
Uwe and Hannelore Romeike came to the United States in 2008 seeking political asylum. They fled their German homeland in the face of religious persecution for homeschooling their children. They wanted to live in a country where they could raise their children in accordance with their Christian beliefs.

The Romeikes were initially given asylum, but the Obama administration objected – claiming that German laws that outlaw homeschooling do not constitute persecution. “The goal in Germany is for an open, pluralistic society,” the Justice Department wrote in a legal brief last year. “Teaching tolerance to children of all backgrounds helps to develop the ability to interact as a fully functioning citizen in Germany.”

On Monday, the Supreme Court declined to hear the Romeike’s appeal – paving the way for the Christian family of eight to be deported.
The cynical part of me wonders if they had any of the liberalist cards to play, i.e., not white, not Evangelical Christian but instead, say, a black lesbian couple running from, say, Russia's dastardly laws that prohibit the evangelization of youth with gay propaganda, if this case would have turned out differently.

Also notice that "tolerance" is once again exposed for the stalking horse that it is.  In reality, it is intolerant of anything that deviates from the religion of liberalism, as we saw last week with the uproar over--and eventual veto of--clarifications to Arizona's religious freedom law that would have partially restored Arizonans' freedom of religion, conscience, and association.  We see the same thing here with the Romeike family, who fled a Nazi era law banning homeschooling four years ago, only to have their hopes dashed the other day in this, the Land of the Free.

The Fuhrer was right of course, with compulsory public schooling, all your children are ours, and use battering rams and SWAT-style raids like this one in Darmstadt last year to prove it.

On the upside, if the Romeike children can manage to stay here another six months, they may qualify for the Dream Act.

Update: Wintry Knight picked up on this as well, and confirmed my cynicism...openly homosexual couples are welcome to stay, anytime.  Openly heterosexual, apparently fecund Christian families of good moral character? Not so much.

Update 2: Well, it seems that DHS says they can stay.  I suppose it is some solace that the door to America is so wide as to include undesirables like morally upright and productive Christians of European extraction.

Wednesday, February 19, 2014

Noblesse Unobliged

Simon Grey posits that a capitalism harnessed to equal/egalitarianism creates more misery and inequality, not less:
[I]t should be obvious that socialism can never work because it assumes that inequality is always and ever the result of some form of class oppression instead of the natural consequences of human diversity. Essentially, it is theorized that inequality exists because of class oppression. In reality, class “oppression” exists because of inequality.

Where Rand’s Objectivism and capitalist apologetics goes wrong is that it strongly encourages the elites to work the system in their favor without regard for those beneath them (in fairness, Objectivists tend to do this more than capitalists, though I have personally known some capitalists like this). In essence, if you’re better than everyone, it’s best to get yours and not worry about anyone else, in the name of individualism, of course. Others should look out for themselves, if they’re so concerned.

However, this sort of thinking is no more sustainable than socialism because it sows the seeds for proletarian discontent.

...consider Christ’s words in Luke 12:48, “to whom much is given, much is expected.” What’s missing among a lot of the elite is the concept of stewardship. If you are given certain abilities—say, cleverness with money—then it follows that one has a moral responsibility to use this ability in the best way possible.

This is the essence of hierarchy: those who are talented leaders look out for those below them. Those who use their cleverness to abuse the less clever and the stupid are shirking their duty. Those who use their power to abuse the powerless are shirking their duty. Those who take advantage of or otherwise disregard their inferiors are shirking their duty. If you are given a talent, you are not only expected to make use of it and improve upon it, but you are also expected to use your talent to help those who are lacking. This is the Christian form of hierarchy writ large.

Unfortunately, the spread of egalitarianism is gutting this mindset and attitude as the assumptions of this philosophy necessarily contradict the entire notion of hierarchy. Thus, as America slides away from its Anglo-Christian roots, inequality will ironically increase as those who are in charge continue to take advantage of those beneath them, while those of the lower class will increasingly distrust and resent the elites who abuse them.
Imbued in capitalism is the assumption that the invisible hand--the aggregated effect of a mass of individuals pursuing their own self-interest--produces the most optimal collective good for society. Capitalism in and of itself is amoral--it lacks a morality save that for the individuals embedded within it. Yet, as we can and have seen, and what Simon Grey writes above, the pursuit of self-interest by a people who lack a sense of duty to their fellow man, or worse, actively predate upon them, rapidly becomes Dickensian in its effects.

The equalitarian makes it worse: if we're all equal, with equal gifts, talents, etc., then it follows logically that those who don't have as much must have failed to apply their gifts and talents as well as those that do.  They then deserve to have less...just compensation for being frivolous or less clever with their money. It's their fault they are less wealthy than those above them.   Either that, equalitarian logic goes, or there is some "oppression" in the system to explain the differential outcomes, with the result that "have nots" lay claim to the property of the "haves" as compensation for living under an unjust system. For their part, the well-off resent the confiscation and redistribution of their wealth, and therefore have little sympathy with the condition of those poorer than they, which begets more accusations of "oppression", and the cycle begins anew.

It all starts, however, with the notion that substantive diversity doesn't exist in the human species. When all are equal, and equally irreligious, this humanist humanity produces more income inequality, not less.