Mexico v Iraq

Given the horrible human rights violations and tyranny that is imposed by Muslim extremists and the US's abandonment of the region, why is the left not equally concerned about the women, children, homosexuals and Christians in the Middle East?

Often those who speak out against illegal immigration are dismissed as racist xenophobes who don't care about the welfare of those who are entering the US illegally. Those who speak out are concerned about overburdening schools and other public services and the associated fiscal impacts. They also wonder about the cultural effects that may result from such a large influx of non-legal pilgrims - not that Octoberfest will be canceled, but that a culture of disrespect for law and order might prevail. But no matter, they are dismissed as mean-spirited, greedy, hateful and selfish. However, those same people who favor open borders tend to oppose any intervention in Middle Eastern countries. They complain that too much money (greed?) is spent on behalf of a people who culturally are not up to the task of western democracy (bigotry?). Even though the human rights violations are on par with Nazism, they say that we have our own problems (selfish?). Women are treated like animals, homosexuals are murdered and those who don't convert or leave are literally stoned, tortured or crucified. Why are some favored for an outpouring of American compassion and tax dollars while others aren't? Is this a moral way to distribute compassion? Is something else at play?


On The Border

Granted, this is pretty rich humor. But it could have been so much better if hordes of Central American chiquillos were running past in the background. And if he could have knocked a laptop off the lectern while gesticulating so that the hard drive popped out and shattered followed by a dryly delivered, "Oh. I guess those emails have been lost too.", that would have been icing on the cake. That would have been comedy gold. But I'll give him props for a straight delivery.

There is no way in hell this issue will be resolved before election day. This is political manna from heaven. Anybody who does anything other than coddle and suckle these poor children will be painted as not just a racist (because expecting people to obey the law is inherently racist), but a horrible, heartless sub-human who hates children and wants to feed them to the wolves or catapult them into a fiery furnace. Its one thing to want to deport adults or push granny and her wheelchair over a cliff. But to want to drive busloads of children into the river or turn them over to drug lords - who just happen to be armed with some pretty sweet US supplied toasters? Oh the humanity.

If the buses weren't bought and paid for by Reid and his friends, they should have been, because this is political genius. When faced with answering for spying on the press, the Bergdahl-Gitmo house cleaning, the law is whatever I say it is, murder for movies, the VA crap care is what you can expect for all, "if you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it", IRS thuggery, the mysterious hard drive massacre - just to name a few - its just a lot easier to say that your opponents want to deport these dear, innocent, little lambs. The choice is pretty simple - those other guys just hate brown children.

That and another October surprise that shuts down your favorite park, museum or fishing hole, and this could turn out to be a pretty good year for Harry's friends.

Saving the kiddos FTW.


Both Sides Are Compassionate

Yesterday was the 20th anniversary of the tugboat massacre. Not the greatest calamity on the face of the earth, but it does call to mind what others have noted - the most basic freedom is the freedom to quit. Or in this case, leave. 

Castro's Cuba, like many other dictatorial regimes, creates barriers to opting out. In this case, Cuban Coast Guard vessels rammed a tugboat filled with people trying to flee Cuban oppression, causing it to sink and resulting in the death of many of the dissidents. Not a particularly humane way to handle the situation.

Happily, we can still leave if we don't like things in America. Oddly though, many of those currently agitating on behalf of unmitigated ingress, are often the same people who want to turn back Cuban refugees coming 70 at a time on a tugboat or one or two at a time on a rubber raft, or who find it exhausting to help women and children and the Middle East.

None of this is intended to cast aspersions but is merely intended to remind us that most everyone has deep concern and compassion for those harmed by horrible circumstances. Even those with whom we disagree. Neither side owns the capacity for compassion just as the other side is not reflexively denying aid and comfort to others because of the skin color of those in need. Just as it would be irresponsible to simplistically say the left is turning their backs on the women and girls of the Middle East because they hate people with dark skin, it is inappropriate to say that the right's resisting annexation of the Americas is the result of unchecked racism.

Life is difficult and decisions are nuanced. Let's extend the respect of listening to and considering other's reasoning on matters and refrain from ramming their tugboat with the battering ram of dismissal by racism, or other name calling, that seeks to end the argument by dehumanization of the other.

The impulse to minimize the suffering of others is laudable and decent. But the devil is in the details.


Democratic Sophism

Democrats are good at wording things in the worst possible light to paint their opponents as dark-hearted haters who are racist, sexist and homophobic to boot.  The headline below is just such an example:

The story in HuffPo.

Of course this all assumes that the economy is static and not dynamic.  But couldn't a similar headline have been written for Obamacare:

Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/341589/gao-report-obamacare-adds-62-trillion-long-term-deficit-andrew-stiles


Central American Child Exodus

The left leaning Vox has provided some more of their "explanatory journalism" for the child illmigrant crisis at the US southern border. (Harsanyi discusses their left-ness)

The transcript:
Central America is in the midst of what the world recognizes as a humanitarian crisis. Criminal gangs are taking over much of the region and a civilian was more likely to be murdered in one of these countries over the last several years, than to be killed in Iraq during the height of the insurgency. Those gangs are recruiting young teenagers and if a teenager resists recruitment, will threaten, injure or even kill the teenager or family members.

As a result many teenagers and younger children are choosing to leave their home countries and seek asylum elsewhere in the region. They're going to Mexico, to Costa Rica, to Nicaragua and many of them are going to the United States. Since October 1st of last year, 52,000 children unaccompanied by adults have been apprehended by Border Patrol and that's not counting the tens of thousands of mothers who are bringing their children into the United States to flee as well.

Of course having so many people coming to the country, admittedly without papers, is causing a lot of controversy. Part of this is because they have strained the system which was built under the Bush administration to deal with 6,000 to 8,000 kids coming across the border alone every year, not 52,000.

But part of it because some would like the border to be force field to be able to automatically refuse anyone who doesn't have proper papers for being able to set foot in the United States. But there are very good reasons that the border isn't a force field. US law has an established process so that when someone comes across the border and doesn't have papers but fears for their life, there can be a way to determine if they're eligible for asylum or another form of humanitarian relief. But that is the system that is currently being overwhelmed.

So the question facing the United States right now is how far are we willing to go in the name of immigration enforcement without undermining the humanitarian commitment that if you fear persecution and you escape to America, we will try to find a place for you.
The impulse to help those less fortunate and in need is a wonderful and noble desire. I just wonder why this same concern is missing from the Iraq and Afghanistan debates? One can argue about why we got mixed up in that part of the world in the first place (President Clinton prehaps? Or the Democratic votes in the Senate?), but why are we abandoning those women and girls to their particular horrors?

Why are they any less deserving? Only because they aren't lucky enough to share a border with us?


Limits on Welfare?

You see this wandering around the internet:

What does this mean when thinking about welfare?


War on Women

Another example of how memes would look if the right used the same tactics as the left:


Leftist Investment Hypocrisy?

Of course the hoots of hypocrisy rise from the left:

To be sure, investing via mutual funds usually puts you in the position of taking some bad with the good.  It is difficult to invest only in those things that are ideologically pure.

A response to the shouts of hypocrisy might be:

In case you are not aware of the investment practices of the left, you can find some info on it here, here and here.

More of this leftist lack of self awareness and double standard: Bain Charlatans


Still Waiting...

But Barack is a unique figure in our politics. He is someone who I think can get us past some of the divisions that we’ve had that have so riven our politics. I think he is someone who can challenge this sort of special-interests bazaar that we’ve had in Washington, and that`s what we need.
~David Axelrod