A Meditation on Tradition
We live in an online world governed by algorithms. One of them has learned that I like and will reliably watch 70s-themed videos of guys riding rebuilt Shovelhead choppers, especially if they are set to 70s music like the above. Often in addition to riding through beautiful country, these videos feature campfires and guys sharing some beer around them. It reminds me of how we used to spend many happy nights back in the old days.
Yet the videos aren't from the 1970s; they're guys doing it right now. There's nothing to stop you from going out and buying a Shovelhead. In addition to the used bikes you can source, you can buy a brand new Shovelhead engine and build one. These guys making the videos aren't looking at their phones at the campfire, but you can be sure they're filming the videos on their phones and sharing them with you that way. You can listen to everything from the 70s on Spotify as you go down the road, which you couldn't have done in the 1970s: the Walkman didn't even exist until '79.
Here as elsewhere, nothing has been lost. You can still do it the old way: chop your wood with an axe, as I've been doing lately in preparation for next winter. Ride your own bike. Listen to the old songs; sing the old songs.
Be free. You just have to do what your ancestors did. There's a good chance they taught you how, if you listened.
A Thomas Transcript
Updated below, but here at last is a transcript of the speech Justice Thomas gave at UT Austin.
Some highlights from the first half only:
It is my sincere hope that your work to revitalize the teaching and research of Western civilization and the American constitutional tradition will lead the way in the reform of our nation's colleges and universities. And I hope that your example will help to rejuvenate our fellow citizens' commitment to the principles of the Declaration of Independence....[A]ll too often the sentiments [voiced by the common culture] tend toward cynicism, rejection, hostility, and animus toward our country and its ideals. With the foregoing in mind, I would like to begin by addressing my first encounter with the principles of the Declaration of Independence.It is perhaps not what you would immediately think. The second paragraph of the Declaration proclaims, We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. Throughout my youth, these truths were articles of faith that were impervious to bigotry and discrimination.The American Heritage Dictionary of English Language defines self-evident as obviously true and requiring no proof, argument, or explanation. Whether they had a divine source or a worldly one, they were never questioned. They were the Holy Grail, the North Star, the Rock, immovable and unquestioned.Despite the multiplicity of laws and customs that wreaked a bigotry, it was universally believed among those blacks with whom I lived and who had very little or no formal education that in God's eyes and under our Constitution, we were equal. This was also the case with my nuns, most of whom were Irish immigrants. At home, at school, and at church, we were taught that we are inherently equal, that equality came from God, and that it could not be diminished by man....Somehow, without formal education, the older people knew that these God-given or natural rights preceded and transcended governmental power or authority. When you lived in a segregated world with palpable discrimination and the governments nearest to you enforced laws and customs that promoted unequal treatment, it was obvious that your rights or your dignity did not come from those governments, but rather from God. Though not a literate man, my grandfather often spoke of our rights and obligations coming from God, not from architects of segregation and discrimination.Men were not angels. They were subject to the constraints of antecedent rights, and we were not subject to those men, even as we were subjected to their whims. We knew that life, liberty, and property were sacrosanct....Arguably, those men committed treason against the king, risking death at the hands of an empire far mightier than the newborn United States. They thus concluded with the memorable final sentence, and I quote, and for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor. I will say it again.We mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor. Recently, I came across a definition of courage that is attributed to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. And courage is not the absence of fear, but rather the assessment that something else is more important than fear.In essence, the signers of the Declaration were saying that they were willing to die for the principles they were asserting, the supreme act of courage. Those principles were more important than their fear. Nothing in the Declaration of Independence, I now realize, matters without that final sentence.
This is an address that merits reading and consideration throughout.
Patriots Day
Raven reminds us in the comments below that we ought to commemorate the 250th anniversary of the Battle of Lexington and Concord.
On April 18, 1775, about 700 British Regulars in Boston, under Lieutenant Colonel Francis Smith, received secret orders to capture and destroy colonial military supplies reportedly stored at Concord. Through effective intelligence gathering, Patriot leaders received word weeks before the British expedition that their supplies might be at risk and had moved most of them to other locations. On the night before the battles, several riders, including Paul Revere, William Dawes and Samuel Prescott, warned area militias of the British plans and approaching British Army expedition from Boston.The first shots between Patriot militiamen and Regulars at Lexington were fired at sunrise on April 19. Eight militiamen were killed and ten wounded. Only one British soldier was wounded. The outnumbered militia quickly fell back and the Regulars proceeded to Concord, where they split into companies to search for supplies. At the Old North Bridge in Concord, approximately 400 militiamen engaged 100 Regulars at about 11:00 am, resulting in casualties on both sides. The outnumbered Regulars fell back and rejoined the main body of British troops in Concord.
Initially inconclusive, but it was the 'shot heard around the world.' It set the stage for the destruction of many empires, the liberation of peoples, and the principle that no free man shall ever accept being disarmed.
Play it Straight, Matey
The New York Times caught my eye with a story about a new study of sunken pirate treasure. Even here, though, they can't play it straight.
Pirate’s Booty Corrects a Myth About West African GoldCenturies-old European tales about Gold Coast traders adulterating precious metals hundreds of years ago are challenged by the famous Whydah Gally shipwreck.[Introductory paragraphs] Sometimes all that glitters is, in fact, real gold. But it would have been difficult to sell that idea to the many European traders who journeyed along the coast of West Africa during the age of exploration.As their vessels plied what was known as the Gold Coast, records of the era show that the English, Dutch, Swedish and other Europeans often viewed their trading partners with suspicion. There was a longstanding belief that people in that part of Africa were intentionally mixing their gold with lesser metals like silver or copper, or even with bits of glass.“It’s a recurring theme that they’re stretching the gold,” said Tobias Skowronek, a geochemist who studies archaeology at the University of Bonn in Germany.But a recent study of artifacts recovered from the wreck of a pirate ship suggests that the West African traders were not passing off adulterated gold....[Deep down at paragraph 15] The researchers found that the 27 artifacts ranged from 70 to 100 percent gold by weight.When an artifact wasn’t pure gold, the most common metals present were silver, copper, iron and lead.While it’s true that some objects were far from pure gold, these results don’t imply that West African traders were being deceitful, the team concluded.
So, in other words, the European traders were precisely right all along. The study only concludes that the admixture was probably due to a lack of skill in separating the ores, which occur together naturally in that part of Africa.
The rest of the relief due Proud Boys
A lawyer who posts on X as "Shipwrecked Crew" represented a number of J6 defendants when scarcely any other lawyers would. He got good news today.
Indians & Highlanders
For the most part the preference has shifted to “Native American Tribe Nations,” but the local community still calls itself the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians. They came out to join in the celebration of our local heritage, of which they are an indispensable part. They were demonstrating several of their cultural traditions, including Stickball, which I finally understand how to play.
The Highlander heritage is also on display.
They played, inter alia, “The Skye Boat Song.” I was definitely talking that about recently.
The Scotsman’s tent. “Amo Probos” means “I love the upright,” and is the motto of Clan Blair.
The Scotsman itself.
Appalachian True Heritage Festival
Yesterday and today in Waynesville, a charming festival.
The bandstand, with mountain music all day.
Another musical circle. Note the belt-of-harmonicas on the harmonica player.
“Outlaw Alchemy” didn’t appear to do any alchemy, but there were several herbalists in the festival.
A permanent installation helping visitors identify plants.
I think I told this story recently, but if not, here is an official version. As of the end of the war, Thomas’ Legion of Indians and Highlanders had defeated the Federal forces in these mountains. Appropriately, both the Cherokee and the Highlanders are represented here today: the Cherokee have a tent at one end, and The Scotsman Pub at the other. Men in kilts or traditional Cherokee clothing can be seen in the crowd.
This sauce was good enough that I bought some even though I make my own at home.
A Short Patriotic Interlude
In the lexicon of American strategic communications, 'propaganda' is defined as "enemy action to..." etc. As a result, American propaganda is impossible by definition.
All the same, this is what it would look like if such a thing did exist.
Savannah vs. Georgia
The FPC is assisting a resident of Savannah, Georgia who is trying to get the city's restrictions on transporting firearms lifted. I think their prospects of success are pretty good: the Attorney General of Georgia filed an amicus curaie brief that unreservedly takes their side.
The reason why he is on their side is straightforward. The state legislature of Georgia, its General Assembly, long ago passed a bill that was signed into law that forbids local governments from placing restrictions on firearms. That power is reserved to the state government only.
Savannah ignored that law and created its own regulation, which it is enforcing by having the city's police department issue fines and citations. As such, and as is increasingly normal for Democratic strongholds in red states, it is in open defiance of the state government. Unlike states vis-a-vis the Federal government, local governments are creatures of the state. They have no powers that are not granted by the legislature, and no sort of sovereignty of their own.
Nevertheless these localities are willing to court such lawsuits, as they only cost taxpayer money and might for a while allow them to get their way. If they ever manage to swing the state government, as has happened in Virginia, they'll change all the state laws to ensure they never lose again; but until then, this will have to do.
All Sorrow Fail and Sadness
The streams shall run in gladness,
The lakes shall shine and burn.
All sorrow fail and sadness
At the Mountain King's return!
His crown shall be upholden,
His harp shall be restrung.
His halls shall echo golden
To songs of yore re-sung.
It is hard for us as Americans to imagine the power that royalty has on the imagination in societies that are not, like our own, based on an ideal of social equality. For generations, the Scots sang Will Ye No Come Back Again? and The Skye Boat Song about "Bonnie Prince" Charlie, who was defeated in April 1746. (Indeed, yesterday was the anniversary of the Battle of Culloden.) After the horrors of the French Revolution and Napoleon's bloody attempts at empire, the Bourbons were restored; but, for that matter, Bonnie Prince Charlie himself was a Stewart, who had been expelled in the English Civil War and then restored. The '45, as the attempt to install him in Scotland was called, followed two earlier attempts, one in 1689 and one in 1715.
Tolkien's song thus captures something that is deeply felt in societies with a tradition of royalty. We see it too in the Arthurian stories. I wonder if it won't yet come to pass in Persia.
Clarance Thomas at UT Austin
I usually prefer transcripts, but for reasons that might be obvious the media has not elected to provide a transcript of this speech that I can find. You can advance to about 45m in if you want to hear the criticisms of Progressivism as basically hostile to the Declaration of Independence, and of Woodrow Wilson -- a man Justice Thomas has reason to hold in disdain quite apart from Wilson's Progressivism. Within about ten minutes of beginning this critique, he reminds the audience that it was old Woodrow who decided to segregate the Federal government and its workforce.
We have been fortunate to have his scholarly mind and quiet presence on the Court for so long. He has no clear equal, nor anyone sadly who is obviously a fit replacement when the day comes for him to retire.
UPDATE: Finally, a transcript.
Edward Abbey on Anarchism and Violence
While looking for one of Abbey's aphorisms yesterday, I discovered instead his Master of Arts' thesis. Like a good MA thesis it has little original thought, which is more proper in a Ph.D. dissertation; instead, it is a chance to wrestle with the key texts of an area of study. In that regard it is useful reading for others interested in the history of 19th and 20th century anarchist thought.
To my surprise, he concludes that anarchism -- not at all necessarily connected to violence, but with members of the school occasionally willing to embrace revolution and even terrorism -- had not successfully made a case the violence was either needed nor appropriate to its project. However, what struck me most was I found to be a very persuasive introduction:
Since the Second World War the idea of anarchism has enjoyed a certain revival.... [Each of an impressive list of thinkers] has attempted to draw attention to the excesses of the modern nation-state and advocated, in one way or another, the decentralization of the state's political, economic and military power.The importance of anarchism lies in the fact that it is alone among contemporary political doctrines in opposing the institution of the state, stressing the danger while denying the necessity of centralized authority. Socialism, Communism, and what is at present called Democratic Capitalism (the Welfare State) have, on the other hand, both accommodated themselves to and actively encouraged the growth of the national state. Thus supported from within and without (through international rivalry) the state has become the paramount institution of modern civilization, and exerts an increasing degree of control over the lives of all who live beneath its domination.[A]s the state continues to grow, assuming to itself not only political and military power but also more and more direct economic and social power, the average man of today finds his role subtly changed from that of citizen to that of functionary in a gigantic and fantastic ally-complex social machine. This development takes place no matter what the official ideology of the state may be, so that we may now observe a gradual convergence of ends and means In the historical evolution of such [typically] modern states as the U. S, A* and the U. S. S, R., which tend to rese[m]ble each other more and more with each passing year despite the fact that the two states originated under greatly unlike circumstances and attempted to guide their progress by official political philosophies which, in most important respects, are sharply opposed. This process of growth and convergence cannot be satisfactorily explained through the use of such conventional concepts as Democracy versus Communism, or Capitalism versus Socialism; the peculiar relevance and appeal of anarchism consists in this, that it offers a possible theoretical key to the understanding of historical developments which seem to have little connection with their customary labels.Statement of the Problem:The idea of anarchism is embarrassed, however, by its traditional association with illegality and violence.
Emphasis added.
"Illegality" is not really a cause for concern, since the state itself sets the laws and naturally enough outlaws the questioning of its existence or necessity. Even the United States, in spite of the protections of the First Amendment -- protections greatly strengthened, as we know, by the effects of the anarchist movement in the early 20th century -- outright bans advocating or teaching the idea, at least if the abolition of the government (expressly to include any subset of government) is tied to an endorsement of violence. So really, as Abbey realizes quickly enough, it's just the violence that is the problem.
The inquiry is worthy; the conclusion that violence has not been shown to be justified even by those who were most open to the idea of using violence is predicated on the fact that the idea that abolishing the state was a desirable end is something that anarchists haven't adequately persuaded enough people to believe yet (or hadn't, at least, in the 1950s). If it's not something that most people agree is desirable, no war to accomplish it is really possible; only terrorist acts and murders, rather than the spark of a genuine revolution. That's a fairly pragmatic, consequently characteristically American, and quite plausible conclusion.
Just War Theory vs. Jihad Theory
The Pope has said that he thinks the war on/with Iran is unjust. Fr. Gerald Murray disagrees and offers an argument in favor of the war being just according to Just War Theory.
Wretchard, or Richard Fernandez, says that he thinks you can't properly understand the discussion within the context of Just War Theory alone: you have to engage also the theory of Jihad, which is Iran's rather than ours.
Inevitably it requires us to consider not only what Christians believe but what the Islamic equivalent to Just War -- the doctrine of Jihad -- actually teaches. In many ways the two are as different as chalk and cheese. In the first place Christianity is a nonstate religion while Islam aims to be a “universal religion and a universal state”. From this arises a host of differences.In Just War, the core intention of hostilities is the “righting of wrongs.” Bellum has an earthly origin. Heads of states do not to go to war with the intention of pleasing God but to do particular things. This is not the case with the Jihad, which clearly states that the core intention to wage war must be to please Allah. Just War is a human creation while Jihad is a divine one.
Wretchard is one of my favorite thinkers on the subject of national and international security, so it will not surprise you that I think he has a very valid point that is not being adequately considered elsewhere.
Except here, perhaps; it comes up here and from time to time. So, there are two reasons to suspect myself of confirmation bias here: I already think that Wretchard is very much smarter than most people commenting on these matters, and I already agree with the particular assertion he's making.
For example, the 'jihadist' ideology taught by the so-called "Islamic State" (ISIS) can be contested, but it has to be conceptually severed from the protected freedom of religion, including the practice of Islam. Yet the conceptual roots of 'jihadism' are in the faith, and will come to be known to anyone who studies it closely; and anyone who studies the great scholars of Islam will find much support for the idea. Avicenna, that great philosopher, describes jihad as a kind of double good in his Metaphysics of the Healing, because it brings one closer to God's will while also providing you access to practical goods like slaves captured in the war. The philosopher Averroes, in a reflection on Plato's Republic, agrees with Plato that the best kind of women should be admitted to a kind of equality with the best kind of men, and that this equality means that they should be allowed to join in jihad and the taking of slaves and wealth. The Reliance of the Traveler, one of the great medieval works of Islamic jurisprudence, is a favorite example of Andy McCarthy's (who came to know it while prosecuting the World Trade Center bomber, an earlier example of mass killings by bomb).Apart from not suppressing Islam, you can't suppress (and ought to encourage) the study of Avicenna, especially. In any case, the 'road map' certainly can't be suppressed without trying to drive Islam out of the world. The best you can do is to acknowledge it, and work with those within the community of Muslims who oppose people pursuing violent jihad to try to convince as many people as possible that it's not a legitimate path. Ultimately, though, some will be convinced, and in part because the other side probably has a better case to make about what Muhammad and his companions really meant; certainly about what the great philosophers of his tradition meant.
Just War Theory is a Western tradition, originally a kind of gift that the Catholic Church gave to a warring Europe. It grew out of the Peace and Truce of God movements, which were attempts to restrain the brutal warfare of the Medieval period first against the Church itself, and then against noncombatants within the broader society. It invokes religion, and takes authority from Jesus' own words on the subject of peacemakers being blessed. Traditionally, it also accepts that secular lords are likely to war upon each other for many reasons, and tries to set limits on when new wars can be started.
I don't see how a war against a regime that murders its own citizens by the tens of thousands can ever be unjust, myself. But within the tradition it always comes down to who the aggressor is (jus ad bellum); and that is never resolvable because it always turns on differential claims from history. I thus don't find the tradition useful as a pragmatic approach to ethics.
(Another bias of mine: In general, the only thing our government does that I really approve of is overthrowing other, even-worse governments. Any government that violates the natural rights of its citizens is righteously overthrown according to the principles of the Declaration of Independence; I see nothing wrong with giving a helping hand to citizens who can't quite manage it themselves, as the French did for us once upon a time.)
If you are advocating for Iran being aggressed-against, you have to ignore the constant violence they have engaged in against us since 1979. Yet if you want to argue that Israel is the aggressor in the current war in Gaza, you argue that Israel is the aggressor in spite of the October 7th attacks because of a longstanding tradition of war and oppression and imperialism etc. The Iran aggression is measured from Trump's first act, excluding everything that came before; Israel's, from the very beginning of it or even earlier during the British Mandate. Very often the same people make both arguments on the same day, and at the same time. We never get to a resolution that provides anything pragmatically useful.
It is perfectly possible to make either argument under JWT, as well, which is another weakness of it as a pragmatic mechanism. The gift the Church keeps giving by continuing to raise it is not that it provides a pragmatically-useful ethical standard. It is, as it was from the beginning, that it provides a brake on the warlike impulses of the powerful secular lords of the world.
What it has never done is provide even a brake on governments like the Revolutionary Islamic Republic of Iran. It's not even fair to judge them by it; it was never a standard to which they even aspired. They have a standard of their own. It has been very clearly articulated and defended by them for four decades. There is little excuse for refusing to acknowledge and engage with it in trying to understand the moral structure of this conflict. To exclude it as a consideration is folly: perhaps self-centeredness, perhaps simply a refusal to take seriously their ideas in spite of their manifest willingness to live by and die for them (coupled with our own leadership's unwillingness to live or die by any standards, only to talk about them as if the things really mattered).
So: perhaps all of this is an exercise in confirmation bias by me, and it is fair to consider that. Still, for whatever it's worth, I think Wretchard has a good point here.
Request Denied
From the always-valuable U.S. Army W.T.F! Moments:
As the comments wryly point out, the Army brass is interpreting this as the SECWAR giving permission for the soldiers to ask permission, which the brass can then deny across the board. "No way we're giving these chuckleheads weapons!" you can imagine every Garrison Commander muttering under his breath.
I like this guy
Rabbi Shalom Landau:
If you give out of guilt, don’t call it generosity. It’s emotional leakage. No wonder you feel used, resentful, and drained. Torah already warns: give without a grudging heart. (Deuteronomy 15:10) Because giving from guilt isn't giving, it's pain management!
Trauma is isolation, so you don't really need anything to happen to be traumatized. The first time God said something wasn't good was about being alone.
Small people deal with small problems. A person is sized by the size of his problems. Enhance your problems and you will grow....
Never aspire to be the only one winning. The path to wealth runs through partnerships and relationships. When others benefit from your success you'll benefit from theirs. It's a unstoppable chain reaction!
The gambit
Some fiction captures your imagination in childhood, never to be displaced. I have a vivid memory of a short, satirical science fiction story called "Von Goom's Gambit," including a good bit of the specific wording. Imagine my delight to find that it has been preserved digitally and can still be read.
You won’t find Von Goom’s Gambit in any of the books on chess openings. Ludvik Pachman’s Moderne Schachtheorie simply ignores it. Paul Keres’ authoritative work Teoria Debiutow Szachowych mentions it only in passing in a footnote on page 239, advising the reader never to try it under any circumstances and makes sure the advice is followed by giving no further information. Dr. Max Euwe’s Archives lists the gambit in the index under the initials V. G. (Gambit), but fortunately gives no page number. The twenty-volume Chess Encyclopedia (fourth edition) states that Von Goom is a myth and classifies him with werewolves and vampires. His Gambit is not mentioned. Vassily Nikolayevitch Kryllov heartily recommends Von Goom’s Gambit in the English edition of his book, Russian Theory of the Opening; the Russian edition makes no mention of it. Fortunately Kryllov himself did not--and does not yet--know, the moves, so he did not recommend them to his American readers. If he had, the cold war would be finished. In fact, America would be finished, and possibly the world....I remember the story as being of an ordinary length for a short story and am amazed to find that it's only a few pages long.
A Very Medieval Week
How did we get to this strange passage? Even the Babylon Bee is making fun of the Pope now.
My guess is that it started with the Pope meeting with Obama adviser David Axlerod. Officially the narrative reverses that and claims that the Pope met with Axelrod after nameless Pentagon officials threatened his ambassador to the United States by invoking the Avignon Papacy, but that seems so much like an Obama-era Ben Rhodes sort of scam story that I assume it is an information operation. Probably, anyway; at least one Trump appointee at the Pentagon is enough of a history buff to have a Jerusalem Cross tattoo, a symbol of the Crusades because it was* the flag of the Kingdom of Jerusalem; and the same French king who kidnapped the Pope destroyed the Knights Templar, that most famous of Crusader orders. So maybe it happened like it's being reported in the press; but it's noteworthy that there are no names at all attributed to the threat, and nobody has stepped up to claim it. The Trump administration is not shy about making threats, after all.
The Pope had earlier condemned the war with Iran, but Popes do that sort of thing. Calling for peace is part of the job. Then this alleged meeting supposedly happened, an arcane historical reference was allegedly made by a Trump appointee, and the Vatican allegedly interpreted it as a threat. Then three Cardinals of Archdioceses that happen to also be Democratic Party strongholds -- including Chicago, where the Pope is from himself -- appeared on 60 Minutes, a show that has regularly featured media attempts to known down Republican or prop up Democratic Party figures.
The President having no lack of stomach for publicity fights decided to lash out at the Pope; the Pope, for reasons best known to himself, decided to go on a "Catholics are in Communion with Islam" tour and (people also note that he apparently opened a Muslim prayer room inside the Vatican last November); and then Trump decided to post an image of himself dressed in a costume traditionally associated with Jesus, or with Tarot Cards, while performing a 'laying on hands' healing like Aragorn or a Dungeons & Dragons Paladin. The President of Iran praised the Pope and condemned the President. All this led to a spirited debate about whether Trump or the Pope was actually the Antichrist and apparent Iranian agent Tucker Carlson decided to join in, as did Democratic funnyman John Stewart.
The last, at least, also fits in with a Team Obama information Operation. The general chaos fits in with a Team Trump Standard Operating Procedure.
Like a good Stoic, I recognize that I can't actually fix any of this or even much affect it; so I'm just trying to enjoy the wild ride. What else can you do?
* The flag is still flown in Jerusalem; I have one I brought back with me. The flag flown today is red-on-white, (argent, a Jerusalem Cross gules) rather than the gold-on-white (argent, a Jerusalem Cross or) that the Crusader Kingdom is said to have used. Those familiar with the laws of heraldry will recognize that the gold-on-white violates the Rule of Tincture. Gold/yellow and Silver/white are both 'metals,' and it's normally forbidden to place a metal on another metal. The red-and-white flag is flown by the Church in the Christian Quarter of the Old City; the Order of St. Francis, I believe, has the charge of that quarter.
Problems of Migration
CATO favors immigration, as libertarians normally do; they therefore intend this as a criticism, not an endorsement.
Asylum seekers entering legally fell 99.9 percent.... Refugees entering legally from abroad fell by about 90 percent.... Immigrant visas for legal permanent residents fell by about half.... H‑1B visas have likely fallen by about 25 percent.... Legal entry cuts are now likely 2.5 times higher than illegal entries....It is not about stopping “illegal” immigration. It is a broader assault on all types of immigration. As Americans debate the path forward on immigration, that’s a reality everyone should understand.
I wasn't under a different impression. The whole Western world is caught up in political movements that engage the question of trying to put brakes on immigration in order to preserve straining cultures. As I often point out, this set of stresses also applies to internal migration, as it does to the debate around what is called 'gentrification.' In Mexico, they're mad that Americans are immigrating. It's a human universal.
The H-1B thing is the only surprising part, because corporate donors are so much in favor of importing cheaper labor to depress American wages. I wasn't thinking even the Trump administration would stand up to them as much as they apparently have.
Senate Seconds
The Senate Committee on Homeland Security will be holding a hearing on the Second Amendment this morning. [UPDATE: April 15th] The head of the National Association for Gun Rights and a SVP of Gun Owners of America were invited to testify, so at least that part should be helpful.
UPDATE: Meanwhile in New York, the legislature wants to ban the Daisy Red Ryder BB gun. Daisy is understandably annoyed.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)