Quotes

"Fascism and communism both promise "social welfare," "social justice," and "fairness" to justify authoritarian means and extensive arbitrary and discretionary governmental powers." - F. A. Hayek"

"Life is a Bungling process and in no way educational." in James M. Cain

Jean Giraudoux who first said, “Only the mediocre are always at their best.”

If you have ten thousand regulations, you destroy all respect for the law. Sir Winston Churchill

"summum ius summa iniuria" ("More laws, more injustice.") Cicero

As Christopher Hitchens once put it, “The essence of tyranny is not iron law; it is capricious law.”

"Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." Ronald Reagan

"Law is where you buy it." Raymond Chandler

"Why did God make so many damn fools and Democrats?" Clarence Day

"If I feel like feeding squirrels to the nuts, this is the place for it." - Cluny Brown

"Oh, pshaw! When yu' can't have what you choose, yu' just choose what you have." Owen Wister "The Virginian"

Oscar Wilde said about the death scene in Little Nell, you would have to have a heart of stone not to laugh.

Thomas More's definition of government as "a conspiracy of rich men procuring their own commodities under the name and title of a commonwealth.” ~ Winston S. Churchill, A History of the English Speaking Peoples

“Laws are like cobwebs, which may catch small flies, but let wasps and hornets break through.” ~ Jonathon Swift

Thursday, November 10, 2011

Babble, And Why are Some Cultures More Equal than Others? The Multicultural Lie

...Canada’s shift from a liberal democratic society that supported individual rights to a nation that placed the rights of the group above those of the individual-...

A requirement of the Naturalized Citizen of the USA is:

Language Requirement

In order to become a naturalized citizen, the applicant needs to understand English. This means that he or she must be able to not only understand English, but also be able to read, write, and speak understandable English. There are a few exceptions to this rule. Those who are over 55 and have lived in the US for 15 years are not required to learn English. Also, those who are over 50 and have lived in the US for 20 years are exempt. Finally, those who are mentally impaired are not required to learn English to become a naturalized citizen.

I voted this week and there were big voting posters with instructions in SPANISH!
So if it it required unless a person is aged or feeble mined, why is it that the voting instructions are posted in both English and Spanish? Does that imply that by virtue of having Spanish as a primary, then that person is mentally inferior? Why Spanish? Why not Italian, it is a 'Romance' language too dissimilar from Spanish?, Or French or Portuguese or Romanian?
Or is it is just some Spanish, say Mexican or Dominican or Puerto Rican that the the Government deems as inferior and just lumps Euro-Latin-Cuban Spanish into their affirmative action calculation because some bureaus have not figured out how to get around it, yet?


It persists nationwide with Spanish and has expanded elsewhere. The last time I voted in Los Angeles, instructions were written in every language in the UN and a few that even the UN does not translate. I wounder if that still persists? The way LA is, it may now provide verbal translators for the 5,400± verbal only languages that are spoken, but have no written language, around the world.


The Multicultural Lie | FrontPage Magazine
By Bruce Bawer On November 10, 2011

A number of books have criticized multiculturalism, but even if you’ve already read a bunch of them, Salim Mansur’sDelectable Lie: A Liberal Repudiation of Multiculturalism is still very much worth your attention. Mansur, a syndicated columnist who teaches political science at the University of Western Ontario and whose previous books include Islam’s Predicament: Perspectives of a Dissident Muslim, approaches multiculturalism from the distinctive viewpoint of a naturalized Canadian citizen who is also a secular Muslim born on the Indian subcontinent. At once very knowledgeable about the history of multiculturalism and richly steeped in the long tradition of Western ideas about individual liberty (of which he rightly recognizes multiculturalism as a profound philosophical violation), Mansur is also a highly effective polemicist. Although awash in learned references to thinkers ranging from Plato and Aristotle to Karl Popper and Friedrich Hayek, Mansur’s book is eminently accessible, and should be of interest to any reader who is concerned about the threat that multiculturalism poses to the Western heritage of freedom.

It’s significant that Mansur is Canadian, because Canada, as he puts it, was “the first major democracy to experiment with designing a society on the basis of multiculturalism.” He recounts the origins of this policy, which took shape largely as a response to growing pressure for Quebec’s independence (or, at the very least, for radical revision of its position in the Canadian confederation). This pressure led to Prime Minister Lester Pearson’s 1963 establishment of a Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, which in turn eventuated in the formulation of an official multicultural policy in 1968 by the government of Pierre Trudeau. Thus began Canada’s shift from a liberal democratic society that supported individual rights to a nation that placed the rights of the group above those of the individual – a process that reached its culmination under Brian Mulroney, during whose prime ministership, Mansur maintains, “Canada became the first western liberal democracy to adopt multiculturalism as the defining characteristic of the country.”

Multiculturalism, Mansur reminds us, was born in a time when the nature of immigration to North America had changed radically. A century ago, relocating from the Old World to the New was an expensive proposition; people left the lands of their birth “with some certainty of never returning”; they put the past behind them and began a new life, grateful to receive opportunities not offered to them back home. Yet all that changed, changed utterly – and a big reason for the change, as Mansur shrewdly points out, was “the arrival of wide-body aircraft,” which ended up “blurr[ing] the difference between immigrants and migrant workers.” All too many of today’s so-called immigrants to the West, after all, are not truly immigrants in the traditional sense but are, rather, people “situated in two countries…only a few short hours removed from their native lands.” They don’t break their ties to the old country, don’t undergo a dramatic psychological adjustment of the sort that was once a natural part of the immigrant experience. Nor do the countries to which they “immigrate” expect of them what they used to expect of newcomers from abroad: today’s “immigrants” can become citizens of a Western country even if they utterly despise its core values and spend much of their time back in the places they “immigrated” from.

-read on at link-

No comments:

Post a Comment