We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Re "assimilation," from Dalrymple in City Journal. It begins:
Acting recently as an expert witness in a murder trial, I became aware of a small legal problem caused by the increasingly multicultural nature of our society. According to English law, a man is guilty of murder if he kills someone with the intention either to kill or to injure seriously. But he is guilty of the lesser crime of manslaughter if he has been sufficiently provoked or if his state of mind at the time was abnormal enough to reduce his responsibility. The legal test here is a comparison with the supposedly ordinary man—the man on the Clapham omnibus, as the legal cliché has it. Would that ordinary person feel provoked under similar circumstances? Was the accused’s state of mind at the time of the killing very different from that of an average man?
But who is that ordinary man nowadays, now that he might come from any of a hundred countries? The accused in this instance was a foreign-born Sikh who had married, and killed, a native-born woman of the same minority. The defense argued—unsuccessfully—that an ordinary man of the defendant’s traditional culture would have found the wife’s repeated infidelity particularly wounding and would therefore have acted in the same way.
''In its most eye-catching recommendation (which goes strangely unmentioned in an Associated Press story about the memo), the DHS authors explain their preference for the word "progress" over "liberty."
"The struggle is for 'progress,' over which no nation has a monopoly," reads the memo. "The experts we consulted debated the word 'liberty,' but rejected it because many around the world would discount the term as a buzzword for American hegemony. But all people want to support 'progress,' which emphasizes that there is a path for building strong families and prosperity among the current dislocations of globalization and change. And progress is precisely what the terrorists oppose through their violent tactics and through their efforts to impose a totalitarian world view."
It seems to have escaped the authors' notice that the most formidable totalitarian movement of the 20th century – communism – was, by its own lights, "progressive." It seems to have escaped their notice that the essence of a totalitarian system is the denial of liberty (often in the name of progress). It seems to have escaped their notice that "progress" is a word that signifies nothing. Exactly what is one progressing to?''
''And while it is not a statement of official policy, it neatly captures the sophisticated government thinking about its rhetorical strategies for what used to be called the "*Global War on Terror*."
Now, thanks to the DHS brain trust, we are offered a "*Global Struggle for Security and Progress*." Perhaps with further moral and intellectual refinement, we can someday embark on a *General Effort Against Negativity and Ungoodness*.
In "1984," George Orwell famously created Newspeak, "the only language in the world whose vocabulary gets smaller every year." How things haven't changed. The Homeland Security memo begins by declaring that "Words matter," whereupon it proceeds to suggest that *some words matter so much it's best not to use them at all*. Instead, the memo proposes a "strategic terminology" to dictate the utterances of public officials regarding the so-called Global Struggle.''
Except the further consolidation of bureaucratic power.
A small-scale illustration of the above mentality. We have a friend, a bureaucrat in a local school district, who was distraught over the failure of some school taxation measure on the ballot a few years back. She asked in trying to explain its failure "where is the voice of the professionals - where are the checks and balances?"
the tragedy is, you could never explain it to her. How far off the right path she has strayed, how little she knows it.
John Kerry said something similar, not long after he'd lost the election -- the topic was the press, specifically the right wing press, and he said that there ought to be some sort of governing authority that could control this "problem" -- some sort of "board of professionals" who "understand the industry".
Hopeless -- those people are just flat hopeless. Ignorant of history, ignorant of human nature, and as a result smiley-face proto-fascists all the way.
It was very similar when the internet first appeared. Hillary made the claim that there was no "gate-keeping" function in the new system. Same as Kerry. It shows two things - how much the MSM is dependably in the tank for them and how surprised they are when a small part of that MSM turns out to not be in the tank for them. And yes - it also shows how little appreciation they have for what the Founders intended.