In her Wall Street Journal column, Peggy Noonan opines about how the “protected” don’t have to worry about the consequences of economic shutdowns.
“…Since the pandemic began, the overclass has been in charge—scientists, doctors, political figures, consultants—calling the shots for the average people. But personally they have less skin in the game. The National Institutes of Health scientist won’t lose his livelihood over what’s happened. Neither will the midday anchor. I’ve called this divide the protected versus the unprotected. …“
I realize some sociocultural shifts are relative based on trends & technology & affluence; and some are cyclical, i.e. Woodstock et Burning Man.
I try to keep up, I really do.
But I fear we’ve open the gates to a liberty-crushing “Not-so-Brave” New World.
We see recurring examples of this in the Twitter-verse, catalyzed by their apparatchik mouthpieces
in the media.
I offer as evidence, the latest crime against the Doctrine of Intersectionality:
I don’t know Kylie Jenner and I’ve never seen an episode of The Kardashians.
Her Crime? Wearing her hair in Cornrow braids while being white.
Evidently, licensing of hairstyles – with all the deep meaning imbued by it – are now solely owned by certain races or ethnicities. Yet we have no clue who deemed this was so or how these groups were granted sole jurisdiction over these domains. Do they grant franchises or limited usage licenses or other exemptions? TBD, I suppose, by the same toxic ideology that created this cultural poison.
Inquiring minds want to know if same outrage would apply had she gone full Skin-head on Instagram. Would Richard Spencer be outraged? No, probably not…but I’m sure someone in the Twitterverse would have would have accused her of dog whistling to the neo-nazis.
One of the most fascinating discussions I’ve ever heard about socio-economic & socio-political issues.
Proof that honest discussions, which generate better understanding, can happen when we view different opinions as coming from different vantage points rather than as “the opposition.”
Despite controversies that rage over immigration, it is hard to see how anyone could be either for or against immigrants in general.
Both in the present and in the past, some immigrant groups have made great contributions to American society, and others have contributed mainly to the welfare rolls and the prisons. Nor is this situation unique to the United States. The same has been true of Sweden and of other countries in Europe and elsewhere.
Sweden was, for a long time, one of the most ethnically homogeneous countries in the world. As of 1940, only about one percent of the Swedish population were immigrants. Even as the proportion of immigrants increased over the years, as late as 1970 90 percent of foreign-born persons in Sweden had been born in other Scandinavian countries or in Western Europe.
These immigrants were usually well-educated, and often had higher labor force participation rates and lower unemployment rates than the native Swedes. That all began to change as the growing number of immigrants came increasingly from the Middle East, with Iraqis becoming the largest immigrant group in Sweden.
This changing trend was accompanied by a sharply increased use of the government’s “social assistance” program, from 6 percent in the pre-1976 era to 41 percent in the 1996-1999 period. But, even in this later period, fewer than 7 percent of the immigrants from Scandinavia and Western Europe used “social assistance,” while 44 percent of the immigrants from the Middle East used that welfare state benefit.
Immigrants, who were by this time 16 percent of Sweden’s population, had become 51 percent of the long-term unemployed and 57 percent of the people receiving welfare payments. The proportion of foreigners in prison was 5 times their proportion in the population of the country.