Category Archives: Intellectualism

WSJ Writer Uses Swift’s Name In Vain

English, IMMIGRATION, Intellectualism, Journalism, Literature

Thunder clap for Mary Anastasia O’Grady of the Wall Street Journal. She has written “A Meandering Proposal for Migrant Children.” O’Grady’s soporific letter is actually titled “A Modest Proposal for Migrant Children.” But so discursive and intellectually disemboweled is the missive—that a half-decent editor would have avoided misleading WSJ readers into imagining O’Grady’s efforts would be satirical.

I believe the woman is mocking those who dare suggest that the kids crashing the southern border are not little replicas of all our ancestors. (Lies. My own Grandpa Jack, who, as a kid, sailed the seas with his family from Russia to South Africa, was a class act—so proud, he would have died rather than demand or accept charity or welfare. Grandpa was 10 when his father sent him back ALONE to the family home, in Riga—deserted due to the perennial pogrom—to collect the money the old man had buried in the basement. Read “How The Paulis Came to America.”)

What’s really depressing about the O’Grady tract in so prominent a newspaper is how witless and turgid it is. You of the double-barreled name are no Jonathan Swift. Serious or cynical, Swift left no doubt in his reader’s mind as to what he was driving at. O’Grady’s cannot craft satire to save her life.

Dear Central American Parents,

It has come to our attention that it has become fashionable in your countries to export your children to the U.S. We’re not sure how many unaccompanied minors are sneaking over the U.S.-Mexico border without being detected. But we hear that the numbers of those apprehended by law enforcement have shot up in recent months.

A June 13 policy paper by Muzaffar Chishti and Faye Hipsman at The Migration Policy Institute cites Border Patrol data: In fiscal year 2011 only 16,067 minors traveling without adults were apprehended entering the country from Mexico. In 2012, the number caught illegally entering the country was 24,481 and in 2013, 38,833. Eight months of fiscal year 2014 have yielded 47,017 detentions of unaccompanied children. Most are Central American.

“If the influx continues apace—and it shows no signs of slowing—the administration predicts that by the end of the fiscal year on September 30, totals could reach 90,000,” the authors write.

We are writing to tell you to stop moving your children into our country. Don’t you know that way of thinking is so 19th and 20th century? Sure, many of our grandparents traveled as unaccompanied children from abroad with instructions to connect with relatives in this country. Their parents wanted them to have a shot at a better life. But now that we’re here, we’ve gone off that idea.

We’re happy to trade with you. Our country is the world’s largest consumer of illegal drugs, many of which come to us through Central America. We pay good money, in cash, for them.
Enlarge Image

Unaccompanied migrant children are shown at a Department of Health and Human Services facility in south Texas on June 14. Reuters

We understand that all those billions of dollars, going into the pockets of drug dealers, build well-armed, organized-crime networks that overwhelm your elected governments and institutions. We have heard that the extortion, kidnapping and gang violence that have blossomed—as drug capos branched out into other lines of work—have made survival in your countries an iffy proposition. We read the 2011 World Bank study that found that “narco trafficking ranks as the top cause for the rising crime rates and violence levels in Central America, a reflection in part of the sheer volume of narcotics flows through the area—90 percent of U.S.-bound drugs.”

But really, there is not much we can do about it. We’ve been trying to kick our drug habits for years and it’s just too darn hard.

Our plan for the U.S. war on drugs was that it should be fought in your countries. We remember Al Capone. That was so bad for Chicago. But we can’t stomach humanitarian crises either, and we can’t bear to see one that we played such a big role in creating, now brought to our door step.

Don’t you know how dangerous it is for teenagers to go around without their parents? In our country humans are dependent children well into their 20s. We would worry, if we were you, that your offspring might not be wearing their seat belts or that they could be eating trans fats during the long trip.

Hillary Clinton told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour last week that the children “should be sent back as soon as it can be determined who responsible adults in their families are.” (Psst, Hillary: Those adults are here!)

Of course, as always, she is thinking of the children: “Just because your child gets across the border, that doesn’t mean the child gets to stay. . . . We don’t want to send a message that is contrary to our laws, or we’ll encourage more children to make that dangerous journey.”

See? Even Hillary thinks it’s dangerous. You, on the other hand, seem to think that the risks of growing up in drug-war-torn Central America are greater than the risks of making a run for it across Mexico. You should listen to Hillary. She always puts people before politics.

Your problem is that you elect bad leaders, not like us. Ours know how to negotiate with the Taliban. You should learn from us.

You also have to realize, as the late development economist Peter Bauer wryly observed, that the way government uses per-capita gross domestic product to measure wealth, more cows make us richer but more children make us poorer. Thus your exports make our economy look even worse than it already is.

For the record, we like children. We do not advocate a Swiftian solution. But your little crumb-snatchers are showing up here with dirty hands and faces. When they grow up they’re going to steal our children’s jobs. We’ll never bring down Obama-era unemployment rates.

The pie is only so big. That’s why President Obama wants to slice it equally for everyone. If more of you start nibbling there will be less for us. So back off.

Sincerely,

Dedicated Opponents of People Exports from the South

P.S. Know any gardeners? The natives are so expensive and you don’t need to speak English to water a tree. Send recommendations, no questions asked.

Go Alweady, Bawbawa Walters!

Celebrity, Intellectualism, Journalism, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Media

Barbara Walters has promised to retire. But then so did that lip-licking lizard, Larry King. You can’t take them at their word.

In my journalism-school days one looked up to the brilliant and brave late Oriana Fallaci. Now, it’s mediocrities like colorectal crusader Katie Couric and Barbara Walters who’re considered cutting-edge clever. And they’ve sired a new crop of cretins. Can you believe that talking coifs such as Brook Baldwin and Erin Burnett of CNN are regularly asked to address university graduates? There is NOTHING these people can say that can edify or enlighten. Nothing. They are walking cliches. The same goes for the Fox News crop, with some exceptions (Gerri Willis, Elizabeth MacDonald, Melissa Francis).

As the author of America’s “Most Fascinating People List,” Barbara Walters had redefined the concept of “fascinating.” The detritus of humanity paraded by the reality TV racket is where the boorish broadcaster turned for “fascinating” figures. She was thus an integral cog in a coarsening culture. Some of her past picks for the List included Paris Hilton, Victoria and David Beckham, Kim Kardashian and Justin Timberlake.

All Walters’ interviews make the flesh crawl. Paris Hilton’s porn debut, in which the woman made narcissistic love to the camera, (i.e. herself) was transformed by Walters’ syrupy “journalism” into a PG-rated tale of innocence betrayed.

And the Walters empathic posturing concealed a good deal of cattiness, even cruelty. Her idea of getting to the guts of a story: Bringing a supremely vulnerable celebrity to tears. The wicked Walters once prefaced an interview with singer Celine Dion by pronouncing, “You are not beautiful.” She then watched gleefully as tears welled in Dion’s beautiful eyes.

The only person to rival such bitchiness is sly Katie Couric. She once interviewed Hillary Clinton while drunk with love for Obama. Couric’s below-the-belt barbs and blithe probes about Obama—but not the issues—made Hillary appear elevated by comparison. Clinton was courteous where Katie was cruel. “Someone told me your nickname in school was Miss Frigidaire. Is that true?” Couric asked. “Only with some boys,” Clinton said, laughing. The answer was quick and classy.

Good newsmen are a dying breed. Good newswomen are mostly dead already. By the time she died, Oriana Fallaci had long since been buried professionally by mediocrities like Barbara Walters. For her contempt of Islam, Fallaci was forced to flee her native Italy. She came to America, where, needless to say, she did not make it onto Barbara’s List or as a “CNN Heroes” nominee.

Ideologues Battle Intellectuals Over ’12 Years a Slave’

Intellectualism, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, libertarianism, Literature, Political Correctness, Race, Ron Paul

Libertarian gush and tosh over the film “12 Years a Slave” is worse than juvenile; it’s anti-intellectual.

Anyone who asserts that the book is “one of the greatest autobiographies [he’s] ever read,” as this libertarian educator does, can’t be serious, and if he is serious, should not be taken seriously. (And what does the choice of this lackluster “literature” say about the Ron Paul Curriculum? Maybe The Curriculum should confine itself to economics and leave the teaching of literature to those who know and love the canon of English literature.)

White Americans—liberals, conservatives and libertarians—appear constitutionally primed to convulse hysterically over all things racial. (Check out how Ann Coulter’s C-SPAN CPUKE audience goes wild when she insists the GOP is the party of blacks and Hispanics.)

Since “the 1852 publication of Uncle Tom’s Cabin,” “the slave-narrative craze” has been going strong.

An ideologue is not necessarily an intellectual. The responsibility of a public intellectual, in this case, is to provide an intellectual appraisal of a cultural product. The ideologue who isn’t an intellectual will struggle with the task (not that his readers or students will know the difference).

Not suffering the foregoing deficit, Steve Sailer nails “12 Years a Slave,” about which I ventured that “I’m no more inclined to turn to [its star] Lupita Nyong perform reruns of ‘Roots,’ for entertainment, than I am to subject myself to Oprah Winfrey and her M.O.P.E. (Most Oppressed Person Ever) ‘Butler.’”

If to go by Steve Sailer’s superb review, truth too has been lost in the gush and tosh over “12 Years a Slave.” (Gary North glosses over these “few discrepancies.”)

Writes Sailer: “12 Years a Slave is hailed by critics as a long-awaited breakthrough that finally dares to mention the subject of slavery after decades of the entertainment industry being controlled by the South. Yet as cinema encyclopedist Leonard Maltin notes”:

12 Years A Slave is a remake. What’s more, the original television film was directed by the celebrated Gordon Parks. Why no one seems to remember this is a mystery to me, yet all too typical of what I’ll call media amnesia. It first aired on PBS in 1984 as Solomon Northup’s Odyssey, reached a wider audience the following year when it was repeated as an installment of American Playhouse, and made its video debut under the title Half Slave, Half Free.

“You can watch the 1984 version online for $2.99.

The remake has more whippings, though.”

AND,

… it’s built upon a fourth-rate screenplay that might have embarrassed Horatio Alger. Screenwriter John Ridley’s imitation Victorian dialogue is depressingly bad, reminiscent of the sub-Shakespearean lines John Wayne had to deliver as Genghis Khan in The Conqueror.

The message behind the ongoing enshrinement of the rather amateurish 12 Years a Slave is that the cultural whippings of white folk for the sins of their great-great-great-great-grandfathers will continue until morale improves.

Steve McQueen (an art-house filmmaker who is a black Brit of West Indian background) directs 12 Years a Slave in a sort of minor league Passion of the Christ manner. (Incidentally, it’s obnoxious for anybody involved with movies today to call himself “Steve McQueen” instead of, say, “Steven McQueen.” In contrast, there were two 20th-century writers named Thomas Wolfe, but the second had the good manners to call himself “Tom” to minimize confusion.)

Some of the appeal to critics is that Northern whites are shown as saints of racial sensitivity in the film’s preposterous first 20 minutes. 12 Years a Slave opens in 1841 with Solomon Northup (stolidly played by the Anglo-Nigerian actor Chiwetel Ejiofor) being effusively admired by his white neighbors in Saratoga, New York. Northup is a model of prosperous bourgeois respectability, always doffing his top hat to his white peers while out riding with his wife and children in an elegant carriage. (Watch 0:24 to 0:35 in the trailer.)

How could he afford that?

Well, actually, he didn’t and couldn’t.

A glance at Northup’s ghostwritten 1853 memoir makes clear that in 1841, rather than being a pillar of this Yankee community, he was an unemployed fiddler dragged down by his own “shiftlessness”: …

READ THE REVIEW.

UPDATED: Chucky Krauthammer’s Keynesianism (Neocon Chucky: Tinkering Technocrat)

Economy, Federal Reserve Bank, Intellectualism, Neoconservatism, Regulation, Republicans

On Special Report today, Chucky Krauthammer could be heard quickly correcting his characteristic Keynesianism when fellow Fox-News panelist neoconservative George Will made him look, well, silly. As she knows nothing about economics, the blond Kirsten Powers, also empaneled to discuss the economy, was none the wiser. Neither did host Bret Baier notice Chucky stumble and recover.

The Fed had set the price of money at zero, Krauthammer noodled. In his opinion, this served as a positive impetus for steady but slow economic growth. The far cleverer George Will jumped on this, pointing out that quantitative easing was the Democratic equivalent of faux trickle-down economics. In other words, the manufacturing of paper money inflates prices on the stock exchange, enriches a few big players, and leaves the rest of us holding devalued dollars and struggling to survive. (Naturally, this is not verbatim. I paraphrase from memory, since few news outlets bother with the written word any longer.)

Like greased lightening, Krauthammer leaped to finesse his Fed demand-creation Keynesianism.

As mentioned, other than the two men involved, nobody (except a few Austrians like myself) noticed.

UPDATE (1/3): EPJ on Chucky’s Nutty Two Tier Minimum Wage Proposal. Our neocon is such a tinkering technocrat.

This is truly goofy. It would result in businesses hiring teenagers over breadwinners. Since the advocate Charles Krauthammer seems to understand that raising the minimum wage causes unemployment, his proposal has to be classified as pathological altruism.

Here’s Philip Klein on the problems with Krauthammer’s proposal:

On a Fox News panel earlier this week, Charles Krauthammer floated a proposal for a two-tiered minimum wage system in which the rate would be raised for individuals who are the breadwinners of their families and remain the same for others. But this would be an absolutely terrible idea.

MORE.