Princess Caroline should stay in her Castle

I, too, am surprised that the snobbish daughter of privilege and wealth, Caroline Kennedy, now wants to finally  enter politics.

My interest in Ms. Kennedy Schlossberg stems from being her contemporary, although she is just
absolutely in the elite class far above me, similar to the royal Caroline of Monaco, also born in 1957. But we commoners are permitted to gape.

In the mid-nineties Ms. Kennedy co-wrote a book on privacy.  She and another woman lawyer wrote it, but it was Caroline who got the publicity--she was on the cover of the Ladies Homes Journal.

I was quite disappointed in the magazine article, because Ms. Kennedy would reveal nothing about herself. I recall she said, "I have a great life."
And that was it!  For a cover story, one would think she would be just a tad bit more forthcoming--after all, women are naturally curious about her life as JFK and Jackie's  daughter. All she would give us in a national magazine, with herself on the cover was, "I have a great life."

The bulk of the article dealt with her privacy issue--including  tedious descriptions of precedent-setting privacy cases which her book dealt with.
It was boring, to say the least, and inappropriate in this magazine--more suitable for a law journal, perhaps.

I felt ripped off. I wrote the editor an anonymous letter, asking her why she put Ms. Kennedy, who had done nothing to achieve her high position or fame, on the cover, and then add insult to injury with such a paltry amount of personal information?

I mean, if the cover woman had been Demi Moore, we would learn about her personal details--just something, such as how she liked to spend free time with her kids--something innocent like that.

I challenged that editor, "Did you feature Ms. Kennedy  because she is your personal friend?" I could think of no other reason for this publicity, other than that
maybe the editor thought she could entice women to buy the magazine based on the cover. This cover photo would lead buyers to assume they would learn something personal or interesting about the life of the mythic president's only daughter. Fat chance that—instead we learned she has a thing about privacy. The joke was on us.

Which brings me to my main point, that of personal friendship. The rumor in the tabloids was that Ms. Kennedy developed a serious crush on Mr. Obama (recall her early endorsement of him) and that this enchantment caused a crisis in her marriage to her wealthy Jewish husband. He apparently said
"stop or else." So she stopped.

On to Act II.  Ms. Kennedy turned 50 last year--a watershed occurrence for most women. She's either menopausal or very near it. She looks at her life, and yearns for new vistas before it's too late, and beyond glimmers the excitement and pleasure of being in Washington at all the exclusive parties, and schmoozing with her idol. In other words, have your cake, and eat it, too, and what can the husband say? And all the while, achieve this with her family name and money, and little else.

In my opinion, Caroline has demonstrated aloofness towards the common people to the point of disdain, as in turning her nose up at us.  (Maybe she gleaned a few tips from her mother). Considering this aloofness, and long-standing preoccupation with privacy (as further evidenced by her unwillingness to disclose financial data in quest of her Senate appointment) she has no business in the very public arena of politics. And think--if she skates into the Senate seat, she could maneuver for more.

We can all feel sorry for her that she lost her father at such an early age. But we all suffer loss, do we not? My father died in a car accident when I was 16, and this tragedy broke apart my family forever. So pin a medal on me.

The bottom line is that Ms. Schlossberg is being back-stopped by powerful political and emotional connections to Obama. Obviously, she feels these connections can carry her through any media storm or scrutiny. Remember, the Kennedys were chums with the Clintons, until someone better came along, and Hillary was tossed out like an old shoe--so Ms. Schnozzberg is an opportunist as well as a snob.

Another factor of course is her Uncle Teddy. I am sure she is loyal to him to a fault. And now that he is gravely ill, the Kennedy presence must remain in the Senate chamber. Voila, here comes Caroline, the next generation. A script-writer couldn't do it better.

I can write all these things because she's political now--and if she gets in, as you well know she will step into Teddy's shoes, and continue the immigration  insanity perpetrated by him and his ilk.

I am just a common person, but I can at least raise up my voice. As an American  contemporary of hers, I strongly suggest that Ms. Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg remain in her incredibly privileged private bubble, for the good of the country.

*********************************************************
Recently on television, I saw on the Colbert show some man who was being interviewed because he designed an innovative wheelchair for the disabled.
Colbert broke in with a crack about how illegals might use it. He was trying to be funny. The inventor responded with high-minded words to the effect that maybe when the illegals had job opportunities in their own country, well then they wouldn’t have to come here. And the audience broke out in applause!

At this point I was beyond disgust, and switched channels.

This is what we are up against. I am actually witnessing my country falling apart.

If the USA didn’t offer me the job opportunity I felt I needed or deserved, am I entitled to a job in Canada or Austria or India? It’ s the same thing, is it not? And if this is true, what happens to the concept of borders and nationhood? This is a deeper question.

Our country seems to be judged by a different standard regarding immigration. What do we owe Mexico, or other countries?
I read an article in the New York Times: Katrina Begets a Baby Boom by Immigrants. This is dated December 11, 2006. Please see
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/11/us/nationalspecial/11babies.html?ei=5087%0A&em=&en=4a323821efa168f5&ex=1166072400&pagewanted=print
It seems illegal immigrants invaded our country to take jobs that Americans would do, except the immigrants will work for less.
It seems obvious to me that our country has had natural disasters before, and recovered from them, without the influx of illegal aliens to do the clean-up work.

We have a right to say no. We have a right to say, "Deal with your demographic problem without involving me."
But why do we have a right to say no?

Let’s say my neighbor has too many children, simply because he can, and does not care. You see, his values are quite unlike mine. Then he strides uninvited into my home, and demands that I help him get a better job, let some of his kids stay in my house, pay his food and medical bills. He moralizes, uses pity as a weapon, and says we have an obligation to him.

Charity begins at home. The welfare of my household comes first. For the sake of my family, helping him must be optional.
His lack of responsibility is the problem, and somehow he must accept his own burden. He and his family must not stay in my house.

The pity weapon seems to be working with the bleeding hearts, do-gooders, and others who feel our country must atone for its many sins. They accept the fallacy that just because we are a nation of immigrants we must always be so.
They cannot understand that, "That was then, and this is now."

You’ve heard the propaganda that the aliens do the jobs that Americans won’t do. Well,

--maybe that means that those jobs shouldn’t be done. Would our economy collapse if we didn’t get strawberries from 2000 miles away? Perhaps we should learn to do without such things.
--the work got done before the illegal aliens. Pay Americans a decent wage, and they would do the job--college students, teenagers, homeless people for instance.
-- with any problem, we must look to the government as the nexus, the convergence point.
In the old struggle between labor and management, labor has won some impressive legal benefits, including minimum wage, Social Security, Workers’ Compensation, unemployment benefits. And then there are all the bureaucratic regulations that an employer must abide by.
The employer rebels. His profits are at stake. Maybe his competitor is dipping into the inexhaustible illegal labor pool. Maybe he’s just angry and feels exploited. Maybe he’s greedy.
But it seems our government has made a tacit deal with big business to get around the gains of labor by allowing a vast horde of illegal black market labor to enter the market.
Why do these illegals get the jobs Americans won’t do? Because an illegal worker and his employer can thumb their noses at the burdensome government labor laws.

So is the solution to give amnesty to the invaders? This way they’ll be in the system, and have to pay taxes like everyone else.

Beyond making an absolute mockery of our vaunted rule of law, several other problems exist with this approach:

1) As soon as an illegal has been “legalized” he loses his utility as a black market laborer. OOPS. The employers still needs the cheap and subservient black market bodies. These companies and individuals will keep hiring illegals, meaning the flow of illegals will not cease.

2) Meanwhile, the country will be saddled with millions of invaders now nominal U.S. citizens. This is a troublesome situation, considering that these new citizens are party-crashers supreme, loyal their mother country and unwilling to assimilate. Why should they? Mexico is right across the border, and there is power in numbers. And remember, Spanish is also a language of empire--so said my Spanish teacher years ago.
They wish to be Mexican in America. And they will use their newly-acquired voting power to transform the American Southwest and any other vulnerable area into a Spanish-speaking Mexican colony where gringos will be outnumbered and unwanted.
Then comes the political agitation for Spanish as the official language, and then the call for regional autonomy. The end result will be that America will lose its territorial and cultural integrity.
Mexico will be grinning ear-to-ear, with Mexico City now regaining its preeminence as the historic center of North America.

3) Maybe we’ve got it coming. Our citizens are apathetic, preoccupied, burdened with debt and taxes, and addicted to the modern-day equivalents of bread and circuses. Cultures and countries expire in every epoch. We won’t be the first, although our cause of death may be unique.
Death will be in the form of one billion+ people, with the vast majority living as the average Mexican slum-dweller does now. We will sell our natural resources to pay our bills--even the Great Lakes will be drained. Only a thin upper crust of ruling elites will possess power and comfortable living standards. The average US standard of living may even come to resemble that of Haiti.
China will laugh at our demise. Their language and traditions have survived for tens of centuries.
So what if we lose our language? So what if our traditions disappear and our history is obscured and reinterpreted? So what if we become a lost nation? Why should I care? But I do.

4) I am not making a judgment on the wisdom of existing labor laws. But musing on this: what do labor laws mean when black market labor is so easy to acquire? It would seem that the labor gains made during our wealthy industrial period are unaffordable today.