Month: July 2014

How we should respond to the unaccompanied minor crisis

by

If your opponent expects you to pull, don’t pull; push.

The whole unaccompanied minor federal operation is racist to the core. Were a parent in Illinois to put their kid on a freight car to California with the plan that the kid make his way to Los Angeles where a cousin would pick him up, CPS would put that kid in foster care and seek to terminate parental rights. So where are the cases? Why aren’t the state courts being flooded with cases? Why hasn’t there been a federal injunction filed to identify where these kids are being placed so that the state child protective services can start files? Why are we treating these kids differently than we would if they were american kids with a similar fact pattern.

Why do we even need to go to court at all to assure that all levels of government are able to do their duty? Why is the Obama administration not only not taking care that these kids not fall between the cracks but are shoving them into the cracks as deep as they possibly can with their refusal to inform state authorities where these kids are?

You can be assured that the termination of parental rights (and thus rights for the parents to get visas if these kids are ever legalized) will change the calculus that sends these children alone across the border, and quickly.

The question I have is why isn’t Governor Jindal, Governor Perry, and all the other governors who are protesting these actions not activating their own bureaucracies to do their job and treat these kids exactly like they would treat any other kid in the like circumstance?

A Bleg for a Blog-Friend

by

One of my blog-friends — who has been at bloggng almost as long as I have been — is Kate Berry, who used to blog at Venomous Kate. She lived in Hawaii way back then, but like me, she moved on to other things. In her case, the mid-west and a housekeeping blog, and writing some rather nifty cookbooks and housekeeping guides. (This is her Amazon author page.)

Kate’s husband, Mike, developed some serious health issues two years ago; issues which were alleviated by surgery, but only temporarily. His condition has worsened in the last two or three weeks, to the point where he will have to retire immediately on medical grounds. Kate has set up a site for donations, with the whole story here. My daughter and I are planning to contribute on Friday, when my pension and her VA payment is made. Kate and Mike are good people, and long-time blog-friends. There was a time when I was absolutely strapped by a sudden economic catastrophe, and those friends that I had never actually met in person came through for me. Here’s hoping that the same can happen for Kate.

Forward

by

Today is a good day in Wisconsin. The Wisconsin Supreme Court has ruled that Act 10, the legislation passed three years ago that severely limited the ability of government workers unions to collectively bargain, is constitutional. The margin was 5-2. This is pretty much the end of the road for the court challenges, as the Seventh Circuit already ruled it constitutional on a federal level. The odds of this getting cert with the SCOTUS are extremely small, and I doubt that the unions would want to waste any more money with it in the first place. I shall raise a toast to our Governor and legislature this evening when I get home from work.

“But Would You Want Your Daughter to Marry One?”

by

…one of the supporters of the other political party, that is?

The graph above reflects an estimate of what percent of Republicans and Democrats would feel displeased if their son or daughter were to marry a member of the opposing party.  I constructed the graph based on the survey data reported in this paper and referenced in this Psychology Today article.

The most interesting thing about the graph IMO is the sharp increase from 2008 to 2010…might this have something to do with the election of Barack Obama and the policies and rhetoric he has pursued since his first inauguration?  It’s too bad that there are only the 3 data points for the survey data.  In any event, it is clear that the past 50 years have seen a considerable uptrend in the belief that political divisions between the major factions are so strong as to prevent a happy and successful marriage.

I think it’s clear that this phenomenon is largely a result of what I have called the politicization of absolutely everything.  (See also my post life in the fully politicized society.)

The PT article is titled  “Why Republicans Don’t Want to Marry Democrats,” and goes on to say that  “As we’ve become increasingly polarized in America, conservatives have also defined liberals as an out group.”  I think the title is a little dishonest:  although the data shows a higher % opposed to cross-party marriages among Republicans than among Democrats, the proportion is quite substantial for both sides:  49% versus 33%.  Furthermore, the increase in such negativity from 2008 to 2010 is pretty similar:  1.81 versus 1.65.  (Also, the survey wasn’t about who people wanted to marry; it was about who they wanted their children to marry.)  And re the assertion about conservatives defining liberals as an out-group, anyone who has been paying attention over the past 6 years has seen and heard a constant stream of vituperation directed at conservatives, libertarians, and indeed anyone who dares depart from the “progressive”  worldview.  (As a very current example, see the just-uncovered comments by former IRS official Lois Lerner.)

 

A crisis of Sovereignty

by

A comment I made elsewhere:

If Ukraine is a crisis of sovereignty, then how did the conversation switch to Putin-as-devil? Taking land is the worst of it, arms from outside the second worst of it, but early on, did our advice help or hurt the Ukrainians in asserting their sovereignty and creating a healthy state?
 
In the Council, a commenter from Estonia I believe, said something along the lines of, “we told them to control the borders and grab Russian passports.”
 
Ukrainian border patrol asked for help early on. Did they get it? The oligarchs that are in control raided the state and isn’t that partly why the border control doesn’t have the resources it needs? How did this issue of border control–and including ethnic Russians into the larger state order–become all about the US/NATO/EU and its battles with Russia?
 
I worry about the Ukrainians–look what internationalizing the issue did to the Kashmiris. Just because outsiders want to help, doesn’t mean that their help will actually work.
 
And how much of the NATO stuff is various constituencies using the crisis to get particular things, increasing budgets, directing the course of the EU. Some Eastern European nations are going to get big subsidies. What does this do to sovereignty and the ability to resist outside interference?

I’ve been looking up articles on Border control and its hard because after a certain time period it’s all either US/NATO/EU propaganda, Russian propaganda, or Ukrainian propaganda fed to journalists that seem to dutifully pass it on….