Observations from VDH:
That schizophrenia is what confuses so many about illegal immigration — the simultaneous furor over even the suggestion of compliance with federal immigration law and the occasional symbolic expressions of dislike for the United States in public fora, whether booing at the Rose Bowl at mention of America, or walking out of a California high school en masse at the sight of an American-flag T-shirt on Cinco de Mayo.
When a foreign nation is treated as the home team, and when the home team is booed in the Rose Bowl, I think we can see why the entire open-borders, non-enforcement, ‘La Raza’ paradigm of tribal chauvinism based on ethnic solidarity has been proven an abject failure — summed up by one word, “hypocrisy.”
And it’s just one factor in the continuing California decline and ascendancy of Texas and the Gulf Coast.
Well, at least they’re wising up in Holland.
“It’s fun being in a country that’s wised up, to know there’s only one culture” Prince told the British newspaper. “There’s order. You don’t wear a burqa. There’s no choice. People are happy with that.” (Burqa bans grow fashionable in Europe)
The Guardian pointed out that perhaps not every woman prevented from wearing a burqa is thrilled with the idea. The singer acknowledged: “There are people who are unhappy with everything. There’s a dark side to everything.”
Your point isn’t what you think it is.
I can’t say I’m sure what his point is supposed to be.
Yeah, it’s a little early in the day to be hitting the sauce, isn’t it?
I really don’t care what team they root for, but booing is a bit harsh. I have a good friend from Mexico who became a U.S. citizen just two weeks ago. His attitude was “I win either way!” (Obviously he is a glass-half-full kind of guy.)
Sports affiliations are emotional. They are not rational. When you grow up rooting for a team it may be harder to change your identification with them than with a country. My dad went to A&M. My son goes to UT. Guess who I still root for on Thanksgiving?
It goes without saying that you root for the one with the cyclotron.
Bill has it right. My wife is Mexican, (nationalized US citizen) with much the same attitude, Mexico or American it doesn’t matter. As long as they aren’t playing against the Civas, they are her only real team. We where watching the soccer game on the Spanish speaking channel and I thought the Americans where arrogant and deserved to be booed, and I don’t even speak Spanish. 99% of the people in the crowd where Spanish speaking because the Spanish speaking TV station was the only station promoting the game. Because they paid the bill, they announcers did the stadium announcing in Spanish. (that seemed reasonable to me) When the American team came out on the field that announcer introduced them in English and the crowd did start to cheer… until the American players ignored and disrespected them. At the end of the game they acted like total sore losers. Stomping off the stage and refusing to put on their silver metals. I don’t care what country you come from, or where you are, I wouldn’t let my son act that way after a soccer game. At the time I was thinking, “Oh great the Mexican rascals will make this into the stereotypical ‘Americans are arrogate’ while the right wing conservatives will turn this into ‘Mexicans are unassimilated'” I guess that didn’t take long.
When a government tells its citizens what they must wear, it reduces liberty. When it tells them what they can’t wear, it reduces liberty. The Dutch government, like the French, is doing the second.
So you agree that women should be allowed to wear a burka for their drivers’ license picture?
No. There is a compelling state interest in the case of drivers license photos. The proposed Dutch ban is much broader than that, and the French restrictions on headscarves that leave the face uncovered don’t have a shred of law enforcement rationale.
There’s a fine line between a government telling people what to wear or not, and protecting them from non-governmental people who force them to wear things.
When a citizen says they want to do something, and the government says, no you don’t, you’re being coerced by a third party, then the government has crossed a line into place where the burden of proof should be very high for the government.
This isn’t about freedom of expression, or clothing. There is a point at which a government realizes that it’s engaged in a cultural war. The Constitution, neither here or in Europe, is not a suicide pact.
Rand, the Bill of Rights is part of what makes our culture great. Saying that it’s wise to weaken those rights because we’re in a cultural war generally makes us weaker than stronger.
I don’t think we have to do this to win, any more than we *had* to have mass internments of Japanese-Americans to defeat the Axis.
I would argue that what the French have done, and what the Dutch propose to do to effectively restrict certain Islamic practices is counterproductive.
To some extent it will convince Muslims to move someplace else. From the narrow view of the country in question, this is a benefit if that is what the country wants.
But it also encourages Muslims in that country to withdraw from secular institutions and increase their participation in institutions that support their own sect.
Not so good, if you want the non-Islamist side to win the culture war.