Category Archives: Literature

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.

UPDATED: Badly Written, Politically Correct Literature Stunts Students (Parent Arrested For Daring To Portest)

Education, English, Family, Liberty, Literature, Political Correctness

Easily more offensive than the salacious sex scene on page 313 of Jodi Picoult’s novel “Nineteen Minutes” is the rotten writing. The book’s titillating topics—bullying, school shootings, teen sex and pregnancy—verge on the political, their effects on young minds is to stunt and steer the child into thinking along certain narrow, politically pleasing lines.

“‘Relax,’ Matt murmured, and then he sank his teeth into her shoulder. He pinned her hands over her head and ground his hips against hers. She could feel his erection, hot against her stomach. ”

… She couldn’t remember ever feeling so heavy, as if her heart were beating between her legs. She clawed at Matt’s back to bring him closer. “‘Yeah,’ he groaned, and he pushed her thighs apart. And then suddenly Matt was inside her, pumping so hard that she scooted backward on the carpet, burning the backs of her legs.
… (H)e clamped his hand over her mouth and drove harder and harder until Josie felt him come.

“Semen, sticky and hot, pooled on the carpet beneath her.”

Ugly writing.

A dad who resides in New Hampshire, the state whose motto is “Live Free or Die,” was arrested for protesting the tract, which he felt was pornographic and age-inappropriate for his 14-year-old daughter. William Baer had exceeded his allotted, two-minute complaint time, after which he was cuffed and dragged out of the forum of educrats at the Gilford high school.

If only he had supplied the ignoramuses present with a list of classics without which children’s minds are destined to remain as dim as those of the educators who assign them such piss-poor reading material.

UPDATE (5/9): PARENT ARRESTED for daring to protest. The dulcet voice of a female is heard in the background; how she delights in her petty abuse of power over a powerless parent.

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.

Confused About The Subjective Theory Of Value Vs. Objective Standards (+ Some Laughs)

English, libertarianism, Literature, Music, Objectivism, Political Economy, Pop-Culture

At last. Someone with a funny bone (and a healthy IQ). “Best laughs of the month,” writes Jim Ostrowski about “Hollywood: The No-Good, The Bad And The Beastly.” It was also nice to hear from Jim that “CPUKE” made him pack-up laughing—this long time activist, lawyer and author for liberty deserves a good laugh.

On the other hand, on EPJ, “Hollywood: The No-Good, The Bad And The Beastly” has stimulated an interesting, if distressing, thread. Increasingly, I get why my pal Vox Day quit (and he was way more sombre than I; my writing is consistently funny.)

No cause for laughter is this to-and-fro:

Anonymous March 7, 2014 at 12:51 PM:

Sometimes a person can be too critical when giving a negative opinion it comes off as just an irritating screed. A screed that longs for the past that’s not coming back – it’s over, gone, no more – so get over it. Today’s art may not be what it should be, but I bet if and once deflation kicks in art will return to what it ought to be.

The reason why kids now days don’t read certain books but the Hunger Games is because those books (ie. Chekhov) are boring and don’t really line up with today’s issues. Well, they are. And, the author of Hunger Games is a she.

Reply
ILANA MERCER March 7, 2014 at 3:40 PM
:

I should have guessed “Hungers Games” was “written” by a girl (although, don’t discriminate, carriers of the Y Chromosome can too be girls if they want to). Could Anon’s impoverished imagination (Chekhov is not for kids and was referenced as “heavy,” not necessarily enjoyable) be a consequence of utter lack of familiarity with the greatest, most exciting books ever? Classics for kids and young adults? Are you kidding me? “Hunger Games” or “Harry Potter” will never match gripping, culturally and historically richly textured, well-written stuff (so good for real boys) like: Ivanhoe, The Count of Monte Cristo, Treasure Island, Arabian Nights, A Tale of Two Cities, Oliver Twist, The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Tom’s Midnight Garden, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, Last of the Mohicans, Les Misérables, Around the World in Eighty Days, Black Stallion, Wuthering Heights, Kiss Kiss, and even The Secret Diary of Adrian Mole. Problem is Anon has been brought up to revel in ignorance. You are perfect just they way you are. Kids nowadays don’t read b/c they’ve been told, like Anon, that they don’t need to—nothing much to learn from the great masters.

Reply
Tony March 7, 2014 at 4:56 PM
:

What i liked as a child was considered mostly crap by the elderly. And what the youths of today like i consider to be mostly crap. 30 years from now the youths will wonder how anyone other than geriatrics could possibly like Beyonce, Pharrell Williams or Rihanna.
Tastes generally remain stagnant on what we’re used to. Because of this subjective opinion and feelings of nostalgia i don’t really think it is possible to judge which is “better”.

Having said that, i am getting borderline depressed about what goes for “great movies” or “good music” these days. I don’t bother watching the Academy Awards anymore, since it has turned into a liberal self-congratulatory smugfest (with matching “best movie” nominees) so thick it raises ocean levels a yard ever year.

Reply
ILANA MERCER March 7, 2014
:

Actually, Tony, the value each consumer places on consumer goods in the marketplace is subjective. But the Subjective Theory of Value should not be confused with objective standards that determine the quality of cultural products. It’s pretty distressing to realize that libertarians confuse the two concepts and that cultural, intellectual and moral equivalence pervades our thinking as much as it does that of mainstream. To wit, applying objective, universal criteria (complexity, skill, mastery, intricacy, etc.), as the column states, it is objectively and immutably true that “B.B. King is no match for Johann Sebastian Bach.” I’m sure you can think of hundreds of similar examples: You might prefer to purchase one of Toni Morrison’s God-awful tomes, but the objective fact is that she’s no match for Shakespeare.