Ahem, welcome from California to Kennedy/McCain

Interesting cutting from last week’s Irish Herald in California, sent in by one well travelled member of the Indymedia team. It’s a welcome for the McCain/Kennedy campaign to relax immigration regulations and allow illegal migrants legal status. But one of the guys on the right of the photo appears to have mixed feelings about the Senators’ initiative.

,

  • Brian Boru

    Don’t agree with my govt interfering and telling the US what to do. We have our own illegal immigrants in the South and already the dogooders are saying the govt must also give an amnesty to illegals here. That will only encourage more to come, and we would be a minority in our own country. No No No.

  • TL

    “Give me your tired, your poor,
    Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
    The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
    Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
    I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

  • Shore Road Resident

    Yeah, especially the white ones.
    ‘Irish America’ has rather conspicuously attempted to detach its own cause from that of illegals of a slightly darker hue.
    This has been widely noticed.
    The people involved in this campaign – who are a small number representing only a few tens of thousands of undocumented Irish out of a legal population of millions – are an embarrassment to the Irish nation and wider Irish America.

  • TL

    I’ll take ’em all, never mind the color, religion creed etc…

  • Joe

    3% of the US population are illegal immigrants, the vast majority being mexicans.
    If they send them all home, the US economy will collapse and there will be very little fruit and vegetables in the shops.

  • missfitz

    Joe
    Does your supposition include the thousands of legal migrant workers who are the main source of farm labour in those states?

  • Brian Boru

    “3% of the US population are illegal immigrants, the vast majority being mexicans.
    If they send them all home, the US economy will collapse and there will be very little fruit and vegetables in the shops.”

    That’s just Political-Correctness gone mad.

  • TL

    It may be dramatic but there is truth to it…
    No one is certain of the percentage of illegals of course, as they don’t show up for the census. However what is certain is that our low level industries (farming, clothing manufacture etc..) are teeming with undocumented workers.

  • Joe

    Missfitz
    No it doesn’t; there are huge numbers of illegals farming also.

    Brian Boru,
    I’m not sure what you mean by Political-correctedness going mad in this case.
    I’m not Dubja’s biggest fan but in this case, at least, he did bring forward a reasonable compromise – if the illegals came forward and declared themselves, then they would get guest worker staus for a number of years. Then they would have to return to their own countries and reapply for permanent status. If they were lawabiding citizens during their guest worker period, they would be virtually guaranteed re-enty.
    These illegals are, in general, doing low paid jobs that most Americans don’t want to do.

  • Joe

    Forgot to mention, Congress rejected Bush’s proposal, deciding instead to crack down and send the undesireables (read, spanish speaking brown people) home.

  • Brian Boru

    There was not a majority in the US Senate for the more hardline Sensennbrenner Bill so Republicans used a filibuster to stop debate (60 votes are needed to overcome this tactic). They would not have done so if they thought a majority shared their view in that chamber. Whereas the House passed the original hardline bill. Probably no legislation on this issue will be passed.

  • Joe

    Brian Boru
    Thanks for the clarification

  • joinedupthinking

    The Catholic Irish have always been amongst the most racist in the USA. Even Kennedy with all the noises he made to get the black votes did nothing to help. LBJ was the one who pushed the equality stuff through. He said, “This will lose us [Democrats] the south”. He was right but pushed it through anyway.

  • Joe

    Joinedupthinking
    I agree with what you say about LBJ. It was he who brought the blacks in from the cold and it took a lot of b***s. Unfortunately he is chiefly remembered for the Vietnam buildup

  • TL

    I think it is more an issue of age/generation than ethnic background.

  • TL

    sorry that was me comparing my grandparents…I don’t see where the Irish were any worse than the others.

  • We will always make concessions for white people which we will not make for colored.

    Sure, we are racist. Why the hell do you think we have all those laws against it?

    We are also Yankees. It’s the land where Enterprise is free but nothin’ else is.

    European immigrants are more likely to bring money.

    The downside was the Russians who brought their very efficient Mafia, something that made Nuestra Familia and the Surenos look like Girl Guides.

  • TL

    Language is a big issue as well. If you speak English your status goes up a great deal. I love to hear people speak different languages but somehow others just equate it with invasion.

  • Joe

    Yes indeed TL. But language can be used to exclude as well. I remember being on a visit to North Wales 25 years ago and decided to go to for a pint. Just as I was about to open the pub door I could clearly hear most people speaking English. But as soon as I walked in, all the conversations switched to Welsh. Slighly unnerving.

    On a side note, is it true that, in Catholic Bingo Halls, they call out the numbers in Irish if they see a protestant in the house.

  • joinedupthinking

    Joe
    Yes it is. And they keep deliberately spelling Protestant with a small ‘P’ and catholic with a capital ‘C’.
    You couldn’t be up to them.

  • Joe

    hehehehehe
    Good one

  • Dread Cthulhu

    Brian Boru: “There was not a majority in the US Senate for the more hardline Sensennbrenner Bill so Republicans used a filibuster to stop debate (60 votes are needed to overcome this tactic). They would not have done so if they thought a majority shared their view in that chamber. Whereas the House passed the original hardline bill. Probably no legislation on this issue will be passed. ”

    One clarification — one does not end debate with a filibuster, one prolongs it indefinately. The matter at issue was the opportunity to amend the bill. This was, primarily, symbollic, since the original bill had the votes to prevent amendments.

    The biggest problem is that, just as every capo has a don’s silk suit in their closet, every US Senator imagines himself President someday… grandstanding has become the order of the day in Washington, D.C.

  • “they call out the numbers in Irish”

    Most Irish-Americans wouldn’t know Irish if it bit them on the ass. They think Eyna is cool whatever the hell she says. We are more interested in taking your money. Bring lots of it.

    If you really want to learn the language and the dancing, there are classed in Mountain View. Bring money there, too.

    An exotic expat does pop up from time to time, though. Get far enough from your family and let the good times roll. I recall one wannabe shinner was talking once about the “Protestant Times” with a meaningful nod & wink.

    Then there were those loyalist Bozos on the run who thought that keeping a low profile was conducting target practice from their kitchen window to celebrate our enlightened firearms laws.

    We will put up with anything as long as you bring money.

  • Dread Cthulhu

    JUT: “The Catholic Irish have always been amongst the most racist in the USA. Even Kennedy with all the noises he made to get the black votes did nothing to help. LBJ was the one who pushed the equality stuff through. He said, “This will lose us [Democrats] the south”. He was right but pushed it through anyway. ”

    ROFLMAO!!

    Get real… its the Scot-Irish what gifted the states with the Klan, a rather Protestant organization, at least at last report.

    Besides, its only been a little more than a century that Irish Catholics have been “white” in the eyes of the Protestant majority in the states.

    As for who helped the blacks, I think you will find it was the Northern Democrats and the Republicans who supported LBJ’s Civil Rights Act. Ironies abound, if you know but where to look.

  • Joe

    And ,also, it was a Republican president who emancipated the blacks.
    There are tolerant inclusive people in every political persuasion.
    (Excepting themmus, of course.)

  • SlugFest

    Joe,

    “And ,also, it was a Republican president who emancipated the blacks.”

    A bit of a common misconception about the Emancipation Proclamation. Lincoln ‘freed’ African Americans from the states that had ceded from the union … that is, he made a judgment on lands he had no right to judge. It was fairly null and void and more of a statement than a true action. A bit like Article 3 (yes? Correct me if I’ve got the wrong article) in the Irish Constitution that claimed ownership of the six counties for all those years. The initial Emancipation Proclamation didn’t free any slaves in the north – that came later.

    The reasoning behind the Emancipation Proclamation was the belief that once black slaves in the south heard of their newfound freedom in the north, they would try their damndest to get up to the ‘union’ where they would then be free. Of course, the few that made it were then fully expected to take up arms against the south, which many did … and many died for their ‘new’ country.

    Lincoln was a great man indeed, but don’t for a second think that the Emancipation Proclamation was a wakeup call for morality – it was instead a well thought out political maneuver.

  • Slother

    Dread Cthulhu

    i think your missing the point.

    White Western Europeans’ are in the main self righteous, ignorant, stuck-up, sectarian racists. look at europe, we cant even stand each other!

    the Aussies / kiwis and there “friendly” relations with pacific rim countries?
    South Africa?
    Afica in general?
    Indo china? yes the fench sure did love vietnamese!
    Argentina who proundly boast that a large proportion of their people are from “White ethnic stock” and look down upon the other South American states.
    America and slavery and continued problems.

    ok fair enough these attitudes are now thngs have the past, well mostly, but its hardly a ringing endorsment of White Western Europeans.

    //a side rant

    Actually one thing that does piss me off about the aussies is their own condescending attidue about us over here and our troubles (pardon the pun), but having seen Austrila and actually visted the non-tourist parts there are still massive problems with aboriginals far worse than our own. the attitudes the white australians was quite suprising.

  • Joe

    Slugfest
    I think you have it slightly wrong.
    There were 3 bills.
    The first bill emancipated slaves in DC with compensation for the owners.
    The second bill, as you correctly point out, “freed” the slaves engaged in rebellion (mainly in the Confederate states, and was, as you say, more of a statement since it was unenforceable unless the Union Generals had military successes there.
    The third Bill was deemed militarily necessary to encourage slaves in the south to, as you say, run away and join the Union Army.
    However, just as he was about to sign the Bill into law, with pen in hand, Lincoln said, “I never, in my life, felt more certain that I was doing right, than I do in signing this paper.”
    He said that from a moral point of view. All the evidence supports that.
    Regards,
    Joe

  • Joe

    Sorry, forgot to mention that the 3rd bill freed all slaves, North and South.

    Real freedom only started, of course, after LBJ passed the civil rights act.

  • Brian Boru

    “We will always make concessions for white people which we will not make for colored.”

    Speak for yourself but that is not my position. The main issue for me is whether the immigrants come from a desperately poor country or a rich one. I have few concerns about people from rich countries because they are never going to stampede into another rich country because the differences in potential incomes are not big enough – especially with the lavish social-welfare systems of mainland Europe. There is indeed very grave concern in the Republic about the almost biblical exodus of Eastern Europeans from their own countries en route to ours. People fear being outnumbered and having foreigners choose our government, competition from labour willing to work for very little out of sheer desperation, the pressure on our already overstretched health-service, and especially the escalating cost of housing consequent on rocketing demand up to half of which is immigrant. There could be the seeds of a housing crash if we don’t use the transition period to introduce controls. But no politician really wants to run with that issue because Political-Correctness is rampant in Southern politics to a degree much worse than anywhere else I can think of. Oh well.

  • Dread Cthulhu

    SlugFest: “A bit of a common misconception about the Emancipation Proclamation. Lincoln ‘freed’ African Americans from the states that had ceded from the union … that is, he made a judgment on lands he had no right to judge.”

    That is a matter of legal perspective — whether or not you accept the legality of sucession. In a practical sense, only those areas which had been “reclaimed” by the Union army were the only locations where the order was enforced.

    SlugFest: “The reasoning behind the Emancipation Proclamation was the belief that once black slaves in the south heard of their newfound freedom in the north, they would try their damndest to get up to the ‘union’ where they would then be free.”

    Actually, Lincoln was playing to a different audience — Europe. By issuing the Emancipation Proclamation, he gave the seeming that the war was about slavery, under-cutting the opportunity for European nations, primarily France and England, from officially recognizing the Confederacy as a sovereign nation, as opposed to a region in rebellion. Had the Confederacy received recognition as a seperate nation, it would have open opportunities to the Confederacy. Slavery has always been a tool or red herring. Lincoln himself was more interested in the integrity of the Union than the status of chattel slaves.

  • “Speak for yourself but that is not my position.”

    I do speak for myself..

    I’m not going to pussy out with another verse of Kumbaya. I know this place is racist: white on black, black on white, brown on black. Christ, the permutations go on forever.

    I saw it in the desert where I grew up. I saw it in the Air Force, I saw it on the East Coast when the bussing started in Southie, I see it in Silicon Valley. There is no reason to delude these people when LAPD or NYPD will only screw up the illusion this week or the next.

    If you really want to change something start with the way things are, not with the world you want.

    If you tell the truth, you don’t have to remember anything.
    Sam Clemens

  • Dread Cthulhu

    From the AP:

    For those wanting a contrasting view, an article on how Mexico treats illegal aliens.

    http://tinyurl.com/prpz3

  • SlugFest

    Joe,

    “I think you have it slightly wrong.”

    I stand corrected. Though I still believe Lincoln’s motives were for the most part politically, rather than morally, motivated.

    Dread Cthulhu,
    “That is a matter of legal perspective—whether or not you accept the legality of sucession. In a practical sense, only those areas which had been “reclaimed” by the Union army were the only locations where the order was enforced.”

    The Confederates had every right, both legally and morally, to sever their ties with the Union – it’s in the constitution. This is not to say they had the moral right to continue the atrocities of slavery – they didn’t. But they did have the right to cut themselves off from the Union.

    “Actually, Lincoln was playing to a different audience—Europe …”
    I never looked at it that way, but it makes perfect sense.

    “Lincoln himself was more interested in the integrity of the Union than the status of chattel slaves. “

    Agreed. I was trying to make that point in my original post, but you said it much better than I could have.

    I have a hard time with northerners (I’m a new Yorker myself, mind you) who feel morally superior to southerners. For the most part, the north no longer had a strong need for slaves, but the south did. I’m in no way defending slavery, as I find it – and the ghosts of slavery that are still within American culture – reprehensible. But avarice and greed do strange things to men – it even gives them the ability to justify slavery. Had the northern whites been as monetarily reliant on slavery, they too would have found a way to justify it.

  • Dread Cthulhu

    Slugfest: “The Confederates had every right, both legally and morally, to sever their ties with the Union – it’s in the constitution. This is not to say they had the moral right to continue the atrocities of slavery – they didn’t. But they did have the right to cut themselves off from the Union. ”

    Do you have a citation — not necessarily challenging you, but am genuinely curious and interested. Had not heard this previously.

    Slugfest: “I have a hard time with northerners (I’m a new Yorker myself, mind you) who feel morally superior to southerners. For the most part, the north no longer had a strong need for slaves, but the south did. I’m in no way defending slavery, as I find it – and the ghosts of slavery that are still within American culture – reprehensible. But avarice and greed do strange things to men – it even gives them the ability to justify slavery. Had the northern whites been as monetarily reliant on slavery, they too would have found a way to justify it.

    In reality, slavery was a dying institution — it had reached its geographic boundries for plantation slavery, which requires a certain climate and profitable crops. Technology was starting to become a reasonable alternative to chattel slaves — they already had the cotton gin. As agriculture became more mechanized, the “peculiar instituion” would have withered. The only real question would have been what to do with the slaves. Had the South been “managed” politically a trifle more adroitly and succession avoided, it would have eventually withered away. The war itself had more to do with the North’s desire to treat the South in much the same fashion as England had controlled the colonies — ultimately, it was another war about tax adn tarriff policies, as much as anything else.

  • lib2016

    ” the ‘peculiar institution’ would have withered”

    Just as we are assured Home Rule would have come without Easter 1916, Northern Catholics would have been granted full civil rights etc. etc.?

    The fact is that events sometimes overcome the moral arguments. I oppose violence and always have and the violence of the IRA in particular always seemed to me to come at great cost ot the population on whose behalf it was being waged. After Bloody Sunday the violence became inevitable and I have to ask myself now if my decision to oppose it and vote for the SDLP may have prolonged the agony.

  • Dread Cthulhu

    Lib2016: “Just as we are assured Home Rule would have come without Easter 1916, Northern Catholics would have been granted full civil rights etc. etc.?

    The fact is that events sometimes overcome the moral arguments.”

    Ah, but I am not making moral arguements, I am making economic arguements. There is a great deal more inevitability when cash is on the line. Its the “reasonable economic man” — the fellow who will do what provides the most benefit. Unless you have fallen for Uncle Tom’s Cabin hook, line and misrepresentations, you’d have to look pretty far afield for a fella what would go to the great expense of keeping slaves just so he be less profitable than his neighbor.

    lib2016: “After Bloody Sunday the violence became inevitable and I have to ask myself now if my decision to oppose it and vote for the SDLP may have prolonged the agony. ”

    All by your lonesome? This mess took centuries and thousands of hands to build, lib2016. In its construction, you’re little more than the lame ant of fable, struggling with your own kernal and, maybe, a bit less.

  • lib2016

    Dread,

    Northern nationalists had difficult decisions to make, especially in the early days of the Troubles. Its surprising on a site like this to meet someone posting from a nationalist point of view who doesn’t recognise that fact.

    It would be equally surprising to meet a present-day unionist who doesn’t have similar problems, given the nature and history of the DUP and its links to extreme unionism.

    It must be very nice to be immediately able to recognise the correct course to follow, given that one is likely to know decent people who have died on both sides of the conflict.

  • Dread Cthulhu

    lib2016: “Northern nationalists had difficult decisions to make, especially in the early days of the Troubles. Its surprising on a site like this to meet someone posting from a nationalist point of view who doesn’t recognise that fact. ”

    For starters, I would contend that the decision was taken out of the Nationalists hands (as a community) by Bloody Sunday, if not before. Its all well and good to say there were hard decisions to be made by “Nothern nationalists,” but those decisions were not made as a community. You make it sounds as if SF/PIRA came about and polled if there should be a bomb this week. At some point, maybe Bloody Sunday, maybe before, things took on a life of their own.

    Lib2016: “It would be equally surprising to meet a present-day unionist who doesn’t have similar problems, given the nature and history of the DUP and its links to extreme unionism.”

    If I had a euro for everytime I hears the opposite on this board — “no official ties to terrorism blah, blah, blah,” I’d not have to work. The very premise of Unionism is the maintenance of the status quo — this doesn’t require a great deal of introspection or deep thought.

    lib2016: “It must be very nice to be immediately able to recognise the correct course to follow, given that one is likely to know decent people who have died on both sides of the conflict. ”

    That’s probably why I limit my examples to history — 20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing.

  • SlugFest

    Dread Cthulhu,

    “Do you have a citation—not necessarily challenging you, but am genuinely curious and interested. Had not heard this previously.”

    Um, er, actually, no. It’s a tricky and sensitive area open to interpretation, with debates still going on 140 years later. The Articles of Confederation, written in 1777, was a fairly loose document that stressed the sovereign power of each individual state. Strongly independent of each other, each state considered themselves their own little country, loosely joined together. It was an experiment, and as such, any state could leave if they felt that the experiment failed.

    Another facet of the ‘experiment’ was that when citizens from one state traveled into another strong tariffs were levied against them upon entering the ‘foreign’ state. This was both irksome for the ‘foreigner’ and taxing (pun intended) for the residents who had to make sure a bureaucracy was in place to collect such tariffs. For this reason and many, many others the US Constitution was created/adopted ten years later.

    The US Constitution transformed the nation from a group of individual states into a more defined ‘union’ – this is actually where the phrase ‘a more perfect union’ comes in. BUT while the 1787 US Constitution solidified the relationship between the states (as in, the sum is greater than the whole of its parts) it falls silent on secession. That is, it doesn’t state whether it’s legal or illegal.

    Fast forward some 80 years later, in the years leading up the Civil War, and one can easily see how the seceding states could justify – legally – their right to secede. Again, this is open to interpretation – it’s quite easy to argue either side of the fence, but given my personal penchant for rebellion and freedom, I err on the side of the south’s right to secede.

    Immediately after the Civil War, in 1869, the Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. White that secession was absolutely and unequivocally illegal, so yes, now it’s quite illegal, but back then, who’s to say?

  • SlugFest

    er … that should read ‘the whole is greater than the sum of its parts’.

  • Straight man: “On a side note, is it true that, in Catholic Bingo Halls, they call out the numbers in Irish if they see a protestant in the house. ”

    (Drum Roll…….)

    The Blow Off: “Yes it is. And they keep deliberately spelling Protestant ……….”

    (Rim Shot)

    Who the hell said that vaudeville is dead.

    You get used to skipping over the usual sectarian crap pasted on Slugger and look what happens:

    You pass up a priceless nugget or irony, a true kernel of ageless Nordie cultural myopia.

    If Gomer or Festus flew into our fair state, he got a mind wipe, coming and going, at the metal detector at LAX and at the turnstile of the Red Baron at Knott’s Camp Snoopy.

    Fifteen yards for improper Californication.

    As even the myriad of crackheads in this state know, the numbers you are going to hear in the bingo games and card rooms of California are yee, uhr, sahn, su, woo, lyo chee, bah, jyo and shi instead of haon, do, tri, ceathair, cuig, se, seacht, hocht, naoi and deich.

    Hot diggity damn, I love vaudeville.
    Good Night Mrs. Calabash — wherever you are.

  • GrassyNoel

    Slugfest- “A bit like Article 3 (yes? Correct me if I’ve got the wrong article) in the Irish Constitution that claimed ownership of the six counties for all those years”.

    Oh, so we didn’t own it then, just because the British physically planted settlers there at one time and then kept reinforcing the status quo through their overwhelming military strength?

    That always has been, and always will be an illegal act.

    If you knock on the door of a five-foot,two-inch weakling, physically empower him, beat him up, tie him and gag him and stick him in the attic, does that entitle you to live in his house, move your family in, and do what you want to and with his wife and family? Just because you had the physical strength to do so?

  • SlugFest

    GrassyNoel,

    I hear what you’re saying and have fairly strong nationalist feelings myself. I agree that Ireland’s been battered and abused by Britain for ages … and they’ve pretty much gotten away with it on the world stage.

    For the most part, my aforementioned Article 3 remark was more an ill-thought-out analogy than a true conviction on my part.

    Still, one has to ask, if Article 3 was such a true conviction in the hearts of the Irish, why did they give it up?

  • Doctor Who

    dread

    ¨Get real… its the Scot-Irish what gifted the states with the Klan, a rather Protestant organization, at least at last report.¨

    Dread it was the Ulster Scots who built your country. While they where searching high and wide your own Catholic Irish ancestors stopped in New York and Boston.

    Again you wish to show your narrow mind, why do´t you research the History of your own country before making anymore of your Ultra Republican and sickening posts relating to Northern Ireland on these threads.

  • Dread Cthulhu

    Doctor Who: “Again you wish to show your narrow mind, why do´t you research the History of your own country before making anymore of your Ultra Republican and sickening posts relating to Northern Ireland on these threads”

    Not at all, Doctor. You must not have been paying close attention to the thread.

    It was a specific sentence for a specific purpose. Joinedupthinking, for whatever reason, got it into his head that “The Catholic Irish have always been amongst the most racist in the USA.” Amazing how many people know so much that just isn’t so… Anyway, I thought I had quoted JUT, just to make sure no one misunderstood the provenence of the comment, but, perhaps, you were in something of a rush.

    Anyway, given the existence of the Klu Klux Klan, along with its various and sundry splinters, subsidiaries and remainders, here, in the United States, it was an inaccurate statement on his part — no Irish politics involved whatsoever.

    Secondly, you are accurate that the Scots-Irish have done great things in the United States — they supplied no shortage of Presidents, they settled the frontiers, etc. That said, as they have also done some terrible things, should they not also receive their fair share of the blame of American history — Andrew Jackson packing the Cherokee off on the trail of tears, Nathan Bedford Forrest as the putative founder of the KKK and its first Grand Wizard, Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, the two Bushes, etc?

  • Doctor Who

    Point taken Dread, however you could of saved yourself tghe time by maybe pointing this out in the original post. It would not of been out of context.

    I do find the majority of Irish Americans on these threads very ill informed, I am also saddened by posters like lib1916 who lets on he´s not a lifetime shinner and now blames the SDLP on prolonging the conflict in Northern Ireland. This of course makes him feel better for voting for killers, Gangsters and Bankrobbers.(ie Sinn Fein/IRA)

  • Dread Cthulhu

    Doctor Who: “Point taken Dread, however you could of saved yourself tghe time by maybe pointing this out in the original post. It would not of been out of context.

    Actually, going back, I did include a quote from Joinedupthinking in my original post (Page 1, entry 24), starting my post with JUT’s comment on Irish Catholics, then riposting with the Klan — not the deepest thought, admittedly, but, given JUT’s premise, deep thought was not really a necessity.

    Doctor Who: “I do find the majority of Irish Americans on these threads very ill informed, I am also saddened by posters like lib1916 who lets on he´s not a lifetime shinner and now blames the SDLP on prolonging the conflict in Northern Ireland. This of course makes him feel better for voting for killers, Gangsters and Bankrobbers.(ie Sinn Fein/IRA) ”

    Everyone has a mindset / lens. I’m certain even you have a blindspot or two, however small though they may be. As for voting for “killers, gangsters and bankrobbers,” Unionists, embracing the political status quo as they do, do not need additional political parties to represent their political “aspirations.” Thusly, they need no manifesto or vision statements.