30 December 2005
But, as usual, the liberals got it all wrong. The Leftist hysteria continues unabated in the press and the mainstream media. Why do so many people believe that guns are bad? We'll examine the root causes and show that gun control is not the answer to lowering crime.
I'm no fan of Michael Moore but in "Bowling for Columbine" he made a great point that our culture is full of hysteria. How many times have you heard your 10 O'clock newsanchor say, "Tonight, what you didn't know about your Garlic Press could kill you." It happens over and over again, night after night. After years and years of hearing the unfounded declarations of guns bringing violence to American streets, we begin to believe that guns are bad. The hysterical reaction to guns comes because the media focuses on issues that are :
Gun violence easily fits into those 2 categories. In the book Freakanomics, the authors ask a simple question, "Would you allow your son or daughter to go to a house with a swimming pool, or a loaded handgun?" The overwhelming response was the swimming pool. It may interest you to know that your kid is 100 times more likely to die in a swimming pool related accident than in a handgun accident. Surprised? I was. We're so used to the hearing how horrendously dangerous guns are that anything else seems like a reasonable alternative.
Are tougher laws the answer? No.
A study shows that Washington D.C. enacted a virtual ban on handguns in 1976. Between 1976 and 1991, Washington D.C.'s homicide rate rose 200%, while the U.S. rate rose 12%. If its laws are the toughest, why don't we see a commensurate decline in homicides? Because tougher laws don't work at lowering crime.
What if a state adopts Right to Carry laws? From www.justfacts.com -
In 1996, Dr. John R. Lott of the University of Chicago Law School published the results of a crime study conducted using FBI data for all 3,045 U.S. counties from 1977 to 1992.
* The study sought to answer the question, "What happens to crime when states adopt right-to-carry laws?"
* Between 1977 and 1992, 10 states adopted right-to-carry laws. Dr. Lott's study found that the implementation of these laws created:
-- no change in suicide rates,
-- a .5% rise in accidental firearm deaths,
-- a 5% decline in rapes,
-- a 7% decline in aggravated assaults,
-- and an 8% decline in murder
for the 10 states that adopted these laws between 1977 and 1992.
* Using 1995 numbers, this amounts to:
-- 1 more accidental gun death,
-- 316 less murders,
-- 939 less rapes,
-- and 14,702 less aggravated assaults
in these 10 states annually.
Like any police officer knows, when the criminal thinks he's going to have a hard time with an intended victim, he'll go somewhere else. If you have a community in which anyone could be carrying a weapon, the chances of being victimized goes down. It is common sense.
The numbers support that conclusion.
In Rich Lowry's book Legacy, he talks about how Clinton took credit for the plummeting crime rates in the 90's. The only problem is that Clinton had nothing to do with it.
From the book - page 95:
"Gun control as a crime-fighting strategy suffers from at least two fundamental flaws. First, there is nothing to suggest any connection between the level of gun ownership and violent crime. To cite just one datum: More guns were manufactured in 1997 than 1986, but the homicide rate in 1986 was 25% higher.
Second, with some 240 million guns in circulation, criminals simply won't have a problem getting access to guns unles all guns are banned and confiscated - and may be not even then.
Making a dent in crime with gun control measures, therefore, is extremely unlikely, even if it makes liberals feel like they're "doing something" about crime."
The facts show that tougher prison sentences contribute to lower crime rates, and Clinton had nothing to do with it. Just like he had nothing to do with the cyclical prosperity we enjoyed in the 80's, 90's and right now.
Today's edition of US Today highlights the problem that local and national law enforcement are trying to get their hands around.
Database matches of offenders with those who applied for aid indicate that 30 states may be affected. Sex offenders are the most likely to repeat their crimes.
This site found that over a 25-year period, child molesters had higher rates of reoffense than rapists. Individuals who were rearrested using survival analysis (which takes into account the amount of time each offender has been at risk in the community), show that over longer periods of time, child molesters have a higher failure rate—thus, a higher rate of rearrest—than rapists (52 percent versus 39 percent over 25 years).
Another study shows that child molesters in Canada were reconvicted of sexual or violent crime 42% of the time.
The long term follow-up study referred to above included a control group of non-sexual criminals. The highest rate of recidivism (77%) was for those with previous sexual offences, who selected boy victims outside the family and who were never married.
In general, rapists reoffend more often than child molesters.
Among child molesters, those with male victims have been found to have the highest recidivism rates, followed by those with unrelated female victims.
Incest offenders show the lowest recidivism rates of all sexual offenders.
22 December 2005
The airline just sent her this letter as a fond farewell. There was no mention of "best wishes", "thank you for your service", or "you'll be missed."
She was a good employee. Only 2 sick calls during her career, 11 commendations for good service, and she was always on time - even the airline can't say that.
I'm sharing the letter with you as an example of how truly amoral and completely uncaring this corporation is. Its "front line" workforce gets the "you're nobody" treatment from Management. I know, I know - 90% of them are the same. They don't care, employees are just warm bodies put in place to do a job. Corporations are supposed to be uncaring, state created entities with no moral compass. But with Christmas around the corner and Dickens on my mind - I feel that maybe just a little "thanks" from them would have been in order. Is that too much to ask? Apparently so.
NWA has 10,000 flight attendants. These are the people who interact most intimately with its customers. For decades now NWA has been putting the screws to its employees and unions with paycuts, micro-managing, lowering insurance benefits while increasing the premiums, and eliminating amenities for both customers and employees. 10 years ago management got all of the employees to agree to take a 30% paycut. The company promised that within 3 years the salary levels would "snap back" to the previous levels. 1 month after agreeing to cuts, the board of directors voted to give themselves substantial salary increases. 3 months after that, a top level board executive was charged with possession of marijuana. Was he drug tested? No. The "us/them" dichotomy at NWA is palpable. The double standards are appalling.
You'd think that with all the talk about treating your people well so that your customers get treated well (ie the Southwest and Virgin Atlantic Corporate cultures), that NWA would wake up to how powerful and easy it is to be a good employer so that your employees are happier, your stockholders are happier, and finally, your customers are happier. It doesn't take much - people don't expect alot. Just some basic simple courtesies would go along way.
My sister's opinion is that she hopes this airline goes the way of the DoDo. They already have prehistoric creatures running the board and management. It would be one less company in the world who doesn't give a rat's ass about its people, nor its customers.
16 December 2005
The cold wind pricked me through my camouflage jumpsuit. It flowed through the trees and sounded a chilling low howl in the desolate forest. I was just about to reach for my Thermos of chicken soup when a branch cracking caused my head to snap up. I scanned the 5am gloom and saw a dull red light bouncing towards me through the trees. I raised my SKS assault rifle, switched off the safety, and squinted down the sight line.
Venison is served.
15 December 2005
According to the Center for Immigration studies, almost 10 million people in the US are here illegally. During the 1990s, the United States admitted the largest number of immigrants in its history and there are no signs that immigration will decrease on its own.
We now have a resident foreign-born population of almost 29 million, twice the level of 1910. Immigrants are also more concentrated, with the top four immigrant states accounting for a 20 percent larger share of the nation's immigrant population than the top four states just 25 years before.
The immigrant flow is much less varied than before, with more than 50 percent of post-1970 immigrants coming from Spanish-speaking Latin America, a degree of ethnic concentration unprecedented in American history. And finally, ongoing mass immigration is hindering the economic assimilation of immigrants, with immigrant wages falling behind those of natives and immigrant poverty steadily growing. Mexico alone accounted for 43 percent of the growth in the foreign-born population between 1990 and 2000.
Why care? Because as you can see, the flood of illegal immigration is lowering our standards through higher illiteracy rates, raising our costs through higher welfare/entitlement payouts, and continues to reward illegals while penalizing American citizens and those people who apply for citizenship legally.
On a related note, a report today shows that 1 in 31 of US adults are in the prison system. Nearly 50 percent of all probationers at the end of last year were convicted of a felony. Twenty-six percent were on probation for a drug-law violation, and 15 percent for driving while intoxicated, said the annual Justice Department report.
12 December 2005
From the NY Daily news we find this snippet about the actor Jamie Foxx.[hat tip: Michelle Malkin]
Foxx checks his at-the-door bias
|Jamie Foxx is breaking down racial barriers starting at his front door. |
The actor, who has been campaigning tirelessly to get reformed gang leader Stan (Tookie) Williams off Death Row, admits he once refused to let more than one white man into his house.
"When I was 15, I went to play the piano for this white guy's Christmas party" in Texas, Foxx says. But when he and a friend showed up at the client's mansion, the host stopped them, saying, "I can't have two n in my house at one time."
Foxx says he was forced to send his friend home, even though his pal had given him a lift to the party.
The "Ray" star was so rankled by the experience that, once he hit it big in Hollywood, he instituted a similar quota system.
Whenever two white guys came to party at his pad, Foxx tells Oprah Winfrey in December's O, he'd tell them, "You all will have to make a decision between you two."
Foxx adds that his friends "had to counsel me and say, 'Don't fall into that same trap.' "
The Oscar winner later changed his entrance policy though, he points out, he never set a limit on white women.
Glad to see that Jamie Foxx is finally getting around to speaking about the things which really matter to him. Freeing a convicted murderer and keeping Whites out of his house.
10 December 2005
Zombie's photography skills are good. He fearlessly inserts himself into the Moonbat zone to get a look at the true face of our enemy.
I pulled the above photo out and highlighted the "No Chem Trails" section of the Moonbat's poster.
For those of you who don't know, there is an underground conspiracy movement in the US. The group's aim is to educate all of us as to the dangers of a vast governmental cover up. This Black Operation is known as ChemTrails.
ChemTrails are the vapor contrails which are produced by high altitude jet exhaust. While most people understand that these trails are crystalized water vapor, there is a segment of the unhinged Left that believe these trails are not water but dangerous mind-altering chemicals.
|"Several days ago, I was speaking with a customer in my store who happened to mention that he was in the Airforce. Needless to say, that peaked my interest. I asked him what he knew about the current jet aerosol operation. I briefly described what I was referring to and I could sense that he knew exactly what I was talking about. I brought up the possibility of the chemtrails being used as some sort of sunscreen. He replied in a very sincere manner...."well, you know that we are having problems with too much of the sun's radiation entering our atmosphere." At that point another customer joined the conversation, changed the subject and dominated the whole interchange. Soon the gentleman from the Airforce said that he really had to go and I didn't have an opportunity to ask any further questions. It was very interesting to note his reaction when I was showing him some of my chemtrail photos. He never once said oh... those are only normal contrails. In fact he didn't say anything. He wore a look which said to me that he knew exactly what I was talking about and wished he could say more." ~ Moonbat|
Like an episode from the X-files, these people sincerely believe that for 30 years the government has been introducing a cocktail of chemicals in order to reduce our population through simultaneously increasing cancer rates and suppressing birth rates, medicate us into compliance or, simply, to control our minds.
"The evidence is obvious and plentiful that these sprayings have been taking place almost daily since the Fall of '98 and many people have gotten sick and undoubtedly some have died from the effects of these pathogen/toxin sprayings, but the $64 question is WHY ?
.It should be obvious-that in order to REDUCE the world's population from its present size of six billion down to 2 billion (even over a fifty year span) would require that the majority of people now living would have to be exterminated in some way. The amazing thing about the Illuminati is that they place all their ghastly plans right out in the open for everyone to see, if people would only look and read what they are saying."
The 'science' behind this is more feeling than data. A few sites lay down impressive scientific vernacular - invoking overwhelming latin conjugates like "ion", "humidity", "magnetism", and "barium" - there is no basis for their absurd claims of chemical introduction into the environment. Much of the science behind this theory is rumor and speculation. Some sites have graphs showing ion fluctuations but that is most likely a result of solar radiation.
Of course their rantings eventually lead to Bush-bashing. One webpage even claims that an "antennae array" is part of the delivery system. [Time to break out the tinfoil hats!] They claim that the array has "something to do" with putting the chemicals into the ionosphere. They invoke the classics in order to persuade the reader that there is a government conspiracy to poison us. They bring in the big guns : The New World Order, The Bushes, Star Wars, Big Oil, FreeMasonry, the Illuminati and Tunguska. The 1908 Tunguska meteor event was apparently a plot by George Bush's great-great grandfather at world domination.
It saddens me that many of my fellow citizens actually believe this non-sense. It speaks more of lack in their lives than it does in terms of having any validity. There is just no - Zero - evidence that contrails are anything but frozen jet exhaust. But you have to remember who we're dealing with. These are people who, for the most part, are hysterical, easily frightened, and paranoid.
There is no basis in fact for these claims, obviously. Perhaps it all stems from a movie. RAGE came out in 1972 and starred George C. Scott.
And above all, the great thing about being a Conspiracy Theorist is that you don't have to pull up data or facts to support your opinion. For those on the Left, simply applying your 'feelings' to a subject automatically makes it valid. How wonderful it is to be a Liberal ... your emotions are primary, your reason is secondary. How liberating!
How's this for a Bumper Sticker: "Bush Sprayed My House and All I Got Was A Lousy Headache!"
07 December 2005
The Tribune's story, Can you imagine what he would say today?, takes the view that Lennon was an important revolutionary - politically, culturally and musically. I take the view that he was a vapid fool. Besides, we know what he'd say today, he'd be riding the "hate George Bush at any cost" wave. He'd be making appearances on Rosy O'donnell and other talkshows in order to "get the word out" that "Bush lied - People died" and spewing many other bumper sticker slogans. Yes, Lennon could definitely do slogans. That was a fundamental skill to have in the '60s. He probably would have been seen with Cindy Sheehan getting their pre-interview makeup applied down in Texas. Both would be wearing sandals, of course.
With the release of the Lennon interviews from 1970, we see that Lennon's life was not all peaches and cream. He was jealous of McCartney's success and felt that he'd been cheated. There was also animosity towards the people who didn't care for Yoko. At that time he was in a downward spiral of addictions and self-medicating drug use.
While the world endows Lennon with creating the soundtrack for the World Peace movement, reading between the lines shows that this external success was anchored in a deep well of socialist sludge, delusions of grandeur, and marital and paternal intrigues. In a telling interview with Rolling Stone, Lennon revealed that he considered himself a "genius," and admited to taking LSD "thousands of times." He drifted from pills to marijuana - eventually becoming a habitual user of heroin. He says that his bandmates "pushed him into heroin" by their treatment of Yoko.
While this indolent, inebriate, self-indulgent Leftist prick was "Turning on, tuning in, and dropping out," he was meeting with members of the Trotskyist Workers Revolutionary Party. He was alleged to have given donations to them as well as to the IRA. So much for being a peace-nik.
To think that songs such as "imagine" are capable of "changing the world" is utter rubbish. To think so is nothing more than mental masturbation. All he did with his anti-War pablum was to open the gates to the liberal hypocrisy of diversity, political correctness and secularism that we are seeing today.
It is telling that phonetically "Lennon" is indistinguishable from "Lenin." Maybe Karma exists after all and Lennon was the Communist kingpin in a former life. That explains a lot.
Did Lennon make the world a better place? Hardly. He did make himself a better place by writing some snappy jingles and making millions. Yoko is currently making about $22 million a year on John Lennon merchandising. She donates a significant amount of money to Amnesty International. So we see where her priorities are firmly set: in Leftist partisan politics and in maintaining an extravagent lifestyle. Wasn't that what it was all about from the beginning? You betcha.
For people like Lennon, a self-avowed "Working Class Hero," it is easy to slide into a utopian vision of the way the world should be. Marx, Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin all tried it but it just does not function in life like it does in theory. But they just don't get it. For all their talk about "workers rights" and the exploitations of the "working class," Lennon and his ilk are the ones who take every dollar offered.
It is a good thing that the BBC released the Lennon tapes. Now the world can see what they only guessed at in the past. A musician who should just have kept his politics to himself and wrote songs.
Take that, hippy!
I came across this article [hat tip: No Pasaran!] which lays out the reasons behind The Left's carefully crafted stances on bigotry, racism, injustice, intolerance - or any "ism" that you care to mention.
They care about these only to the extent to which it gives them leverage in pushing their mentally unbalanced agendas.
"The Left does not care about bigotry except as a carefully nurtured vice used to create artificial schisms between peoples and to leverage Leftism into undeserved power. Grand bigotries fed constantly by the Left are familiar to anyone trapped in the prison of popular culture: men are all rapists; white people are all racists; Christians are all intolerant maniacs."
"The hypocrisy of this animus is also well known. Leftists defend genuinely and dangerous misogynists like Bill Clinton and Gary Condit, but throw thoughtless condemnations at men who threaten Leftist hegemony, like Arnold Schwarzenegger and Clarence Thomas."
"Blacks who have perfect diction and who write beautiful prose are presumed to be flacks for Republican puppet masters, while blacks who sloppily mumble words from a tiny vocabulary or speak a crude and lame vernacular are championed as leaders of black society."
Go here for this incisive monograph.
06 December 2005
However, many don't know that that was Dickey's only novel. His preeminent talent was in the field of poetry.
He is America's greatest poet.
Here is a snippet from The Performance:
The last time I saw Donald Armstrong
He was staggering oddly off into the sun,
Going down, of the Philipine Islands.
I let my shovel fall, and put that hand
Above my eyes, and moved some way to one side
That his body might pass through the sun,
And I saw how well he was not
Standing there on his hands,
On his spindle-shanked forearms balanced,
Unbalanced, with his big feet looming and waving
In the great, untrustworthy air
He flew in each night, when it darkened.
Dust fanned in scraped puffs from the earth
Between his arms, and blood turned his face inside out,
To demonstrate its suppleness
Of veins, as he perfected his role.
Next day, he toppled his head off
On an island beach to the south.
And the enemy's two-handed sword
Did not fall from anyone's hands
At that miraculous sight,
As the head rolled over upon
Its wide-eyed face, and fell
Into the inadequate grave
He had dug for himself, under pressure.
Yet I put my flat hand to my eyebrows
Months later, to see him again
In the sun, when I learned how he died,
And imagined him, there,
Come, judged, before his small captors
~ from Scanning the Century: 20th Century poetry (penguin)
Dickey's poetry is incisive and thrilling. His use of imagery is unparalled. But what is most striking about his poetry, is not the poems, it is the man.
Dickey was 38 when he published his first book of poetry. "Into the Stone" came out in 1960. Dickey is the Ted Nugent of the poetry-world. He was close friends with William F. Buckley and was poetry consultant to the Library of Congress. He was, also, highly critical of other poets - most notably Robert Frost, Allen Ginsberg, Robert Bly, Anne Sexton and Sylvia Plath.
From the Paris Review of Books, 1976 – interviewed by Franklin Ashley:
FA: It seems Allen Ginsberg is the diametrical opposite of you.
JD: I certainly hope so. I think Ginsberg has done more harm to the craft that I honor and live by than anybody else by reducing it to a kind of mean that enables the most dubious practitioners to claim they are poets because they think, If the kind of thing Ginsberg does is poetry, I can do that. They damn themselves to a life of inconsequentiality when they could have been doing something more useful. It is very easy, too easy, to pick up on the latest thing in the newspapers and write a poem. That's all that Ginsberg does. He just doesn't have any talent."
FA: How do you respond to the emergence of Sylvia Plath as a celebrated figure?
JD: She's not very good. She's just someone who killed herself out of literary desperation - out of desperation to be literarily notable. Someone ought to write an article called "The Suicide Certification," which assumes that if you're a poet and you kill yourself, then you have got to be good. No way.
FA: One time you called it "suicide chic."
JD: [Al Alvarez] writes in a recent book on suicide that she [Plath] was just doing it as a gesture and she hoped it wouldn't come off. So she killed herself by mistake. She's the Judy Garland of American poetry. If you want to kill yourself, you don’t make an attempt; you do it. You make sure that the thing comes off. Suicide attempts, and the writing poems about your suicide attempts, is just pure bullshit! Sylvia Plath is of a certain talent, a very modest talent. Anne Sexton is better than she is, and I don’t care much for her either.
FA: Has the poetry of Robert Frost, particularly the country poems, been of interest or impact?
JD: I don’t care for Robert Frost, and have never been able to understand his reputation. He says a good thing now and then, but with a strange way of averting his eyes while saying it which may be profound and may be poppycock. If it were thought that anything I wrote was influenced by Robert Frost, I would take that particular work of mine, shred it, and flush it down the toilet, hoping not to clog the pipes.
FA: Did you know him?
JD: Yes, I knew him slightly, and spent a couple of afternoons with him when I was teaching at the University of Florida in 1955, and a more sententious, holding-forth old bore who expected every hero-worshipping adenoidal little twerp of a student-poet to hang on his every word I never saw.
The thing you can say about James Dickey is that he lived his life on his own terms. He was compared with Hemingway but he considered himself not at the same intellectual level as Ernest. You can say that the world just wasn't ready for James Dickey - his lifestyle was defined by wildness, his language was rough and his tolerance for liberal sentimentalities was nil. But he didn't care about what others thought, critics or anyone else. As he quotes Stephen Dedalus in A portrait..., I'm ready to make a lifelong mistake." As long as you can live your life from your own center, that is the best we can hope for.
For further reading, go here
05 December 2005
Thanks to all of you who visit regularly and, a special thanks to all who left thoughtful comments.
The fight against liberal socialist hypocrisy continues, one blog at a time.
04 December 2005
It is a fascinating piece on the mechanics that he puts into his work. You are also privvy to the background of many of his most famous novels. You're allowed a backstage pass to see where many of his characters came from.
My first exposure to Stephen King's work was back in 1988. I read "Skeleton Crew" and couldn't put it down. The fastpaced storylines, the intrigue and the plot twists and character depth was a tour-de-force in short story writing. I still remember The Jaunt as a nerve wracking suspenseful story about a little boy who goes "jaunting" - which is traveling through interstellar space. I still get the creeps just thinking about it. With that, I was hooked.
The book's over-arching theme is that to be successful in writing, you can take cues from your own life and turn them into fiction. In Stephen King's world, Life definitely imitates Art. The Shining explores what happens to an alcoholic teacher and aspiring writer while he winters in a desolate hotel with his family. It turns out that Stephen was struggling with his own drug and alcohol demons while he was writing. Carrie is based upon a character who Stephen knew in high school. He visited the girl's house, which was a trailer, and saw a huge, imposing, crucified Jesus hanging in the family room. Stephen relates that it had glowing eyes. The girl's mother was a born-again Christian who dominated the girl's life and made it impossible for her to have any normal relationships in school. To add insult to injury, the girl in Stephen's recollection was continually picked on in school; sometimes brutally. Thus Carrie was born.
Stephen owes his own writing finesse to two things: Reading voraciously and writing in great amounts. The two go hand-in-hand. Referring to Strunk & White's Elements of Style, he says that rule 17 is the most important writing rule - omit needless words. You should delete 10% off your first draft. Stephen carries a particularly vitriol for adverbs. Anything ending in "-ly" is lasered off the page.
The ending chapters deal with the car accident which almost took his life in June of 1999. Everything happens for a reason and usually something good comes of it. The good thing about his near-death experience was On Writing.
You can go here to see how a group of professional writers react to some of Stephen's commentary.
01 December 2005
Three ingredients combined to generate more and stronger hurricanes in 2005, said Bell. Warm ocean water helps fuel storms, and Atlantic water temperatures were 2 to 3 degrees above average this year, he said. There was an absence of winds high in the atmosphere that can tear hurricanes apart. And winds blowing east from Africa steered developing storms toward warmer waters where they incubated into tropical storms and hurricanes.
~ USA Today
Most climatologists agree that we are in a cyclical warming period. The key word is cyclical - it's a normal phase - not due to green house gases.
The earth's atmosphere is 348 miles (560 km) thick. With a surface area of 510,065,284.702 Km3, you can see that the volume of air that encompasses the earth is enormous. Around 1980, James Lovelock wrote a book called "GAIA." In it were all sorts of interesting tidbits about our wonderful earth. The sense I took away from that little tome is that the ability of our earth to maintain its stasis is underestimated. Although environmentalists would have you believe otherwise, I think that we have as much effect on global warming as a butterfly has on a tornado.
Our earth maintains a delicate balance - from the sea shelfs that provide most of our oxygen, to the billions of ants and other insects that contribute to the carbon cycle, our earth will be around and in good shape with or without us. Environmentalists would sooner see all humans wiped from the face of the planet because we are the 'evil' ones and the scourge of existence.
It's no wonder that most of them are Leftists. Hysteria is what they know best.
21 November 2005
Another mainstream newspiece that gives crime, murder and corruption a free pass. Again they fail to place the blame on the real causes. The blame should be placed firmly at the feet of the criminals who live there and at the "community activists" (Jesse and Al) who rake in the money but don't do anything constructive to solve the issues that are confronting their community. It is interesting to note that the most dangerous places to live in the US are predominantly black and, they all have very strict gun laws. The end of the story mentions how the police department has been "restructured" (newspeak for: there was a problem before, but now it's fixed - nudge, nudge, wink - wink!). They compare Camden to a city with the lowest crime rate - Newton, Mass. The piece says that they are basically the same cities except for all the crime. They say that it is just a matter of more money and more police. How simple! I wish I'd thought of that...
Camden, New Jersey, was the most dangerous city in the United States for the second consecutive year, according to an annual survey released on Monday.
Camden police drew criticism this summer when they failed for two days to find three missing boys who suffocated in the trunk of a car parked in the backyard of one of the victims.
Just keepin it real, ah-ite?!?
19 November 2005
These guys are real Americans - putting their lives on the line and taking the fight to the enemy, before the enemy brings their terrorism here. One of the more touching stories is about Sgt. Walt Gaya.
|"Lying in the hospital, still in Iraq, Walt Gaya was in the United States Army, but he was not an American. Not on paper, anyway: Walt was born in Argentina. He survived the blast, but his new wounds would preclude his flight from Mosul to Baghdad in time |
to participate in a swearing-in ceremony that would have been his official welcome as a new American."
He lost much of the vision in his left eye due to his stryker being hit by a IED. His courage and determination are much to be admired and I send my heartfelt thanks and prayers to him and his family. I wish him all the best on his new citizenship, as well. Welcome to America. Now it can be truly said to be the 'home of the brave.'
Semper fi !
18 November 2005
The rate in Washington D.C. is 80.6 per 100,000. That means that you are about 25% more likely to be shot and killed in our Nation's Capitol, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, than you are in Iraq.
Conclusion: We should immediately pull out of Washington D.C.
(from an anonymous emailer)
11 November 2005
The International Committee Against Christian Calendar Imperialism in U.N.O. (ICACCI) says, among other things, that -
* the UN that supposedly speaks and rules impartially for all nations of the Earth, is still using the Christian calendar which is viewed as being disrespectful for all other religions of the world.
* There are only 1 billion Christians in the 6 billion people world population.
* This clearly indicates that Christians are a minority. So how can this minority’s calendar be imposed on the UN body which supposedly represents the other 5 billion people?
* Why should Muslim or Buddhist countries have to participate in a world’s organization that denies their dignity by using another religion’s calendar?
Hhmmm. Could it be that it's because back in 45BC when the Julian Calendar was established, Islam was still almost 600 years away from being founded? These goofs need to relax and get a life. It was hard enough to try to convert the US and Britain to metrics - and that is still 30 years in the making. And it hasn't really caught on here.
I never hear any of my compatriots at Brubakers say, "Hey Jimmy, how about a .521 liter glass of Guinness?"
May God continue to bless our troops and their mission.
President Bush takes on the Cindy Sheehans of the Left (thanks Michelle Malkin):
"While it is perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs. They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein.
They know the United Nations passed more than a dozen resolutions citing his
development and possession of weapons of mass destruction. Many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his
position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: 'When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security.' That's why more than 100 Democrats in the House and the Senate, who had access to the same intelligence voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power.
"The stakes in the global War on Terror are too high, and the national interest is too important, for politicians to throw out false charges. These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will. As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who send them to war continue to stand behind them. Our troops deserve to know that this support will remain firm when the going gets tough. And our troops deserve to know that whatever our differences in Washington, our will is strong, our Nation is united, and we will settle for nothing less that victory."
The darling of the Left, former President Clinton, bombed Iraq and killed 500 people all to distract us from the Monica Lewinsky affair. The press doesn't ever bring that up, do they? Irrational hatred for Bush is the rule of the day.
09 November 2005
Comic strips used to be funny. The Peanuts, Calvin & Hobbes, Marmaduke and Beetle Bailey were written to entertain. They are classics that are peppered with humor, intelligence and moral values.
The opposite of those virtues resides in "The Boondocks."
It is a controversial and politically charged cartoon that showcases two inner-city hoodrats named Huey and Riley Freeman. The show is seen through the eyes of these two. They are pulled from their South Side (Chicago) neighborhood and dropped into the suburbs, thus the name "Boondocks". I know it sounds like such a stitch already, doesn't it? I've watched a few episodes and it is laugh-out-loud funny (not!). Huey is 10 and is already a Leftist revolutionary (how cute) and his brother is no better as he dreams of becoming a gangster rapper (what high aspirations~). He even has a tattoo that reads "Thug Blood." The show gets even MORE funny as the viewers endure Huey's bitter meditations on race in America. Of course it is the usual black racist agenda on full auto: they are victims of the military-industrial complex, white corporations, and republicans (who evidently hate all black people). The excuses continue : They are allowed to commit crime and sell drugs because "day need ta eat" .... all the ususal pablum that passes for black power politics.
As the rap group "Ghetto Boyz" say - Damn it feels good to be a gangsta! That is because it is liberating to have no responsibilities - not to the babies you create, the women you impregnate then abandon, the people you sell drugs to, the people you rob, hurt and kill, and then turn around and blame institutional racism and the police for all of it. It is sad and pathetic that a 'comic strip' like this gets any public attention - let alone it's own television show. It also speaks volumes about our liberal press, who are choking us to death with their political correctness, when they give this show a pass and even have the audacity to give the author an award!
Do everyone a favor and boycott this show. Spend that hour instead, with your children - teaching them how they're not to blame for the dysfunction, the unemployment, the crime and the squallor in the black community.
They have no one to blame but themselves. The first step to fixing a problem is in identifying it.
07 November 2005
This "Letter of Apology" was written by Lieutenant General Chuck Pitman, US Marine Corps (Ret):
For good and ill, the Iraqi prisoner abuse mess will remain an issue. On the one hand, right thinking Americans will abhor the stupidity of the actions while on the other hand, political glee will take control and fashion this minor event into some modern day massacre.
I humbly offer my opinion here:
I am sorry that the last seven times we Americans took up arms and sacrificed the blood of our youth, it was in the defense of Muslims (Bosnia, Kosovo, Gulf War 1, Kuwait, etc.).
I am sorry that no such call for an apology upon the extremists came after 9/11.
I am sorry that all of the murderers on 9/11 were Islamic Arabs.
I am sorry that most Arabs and Muslims have to live in squalor under savage dictatorships.
I am sorry that their leaders squander their wealth.
I am sorry that their governments breed hate for the US in their religious schools, mosques, and government-controlled media.
I am sorry that Yassar Arafat was kicked out of every Arab country and high-jacked the Palestinian "cause."
I am sorry that no other Arab country will take in or offer more than a token amount of financial help to those same Palestinians.
I am sorry that the USA has to step in and be the biggest financial supporter of poverty stricken Arabs while the insanely wealthy Arabs blame the USA for all their problems.
I am sorry that our own left wing, our media, and our own brainwashed masses do not understand any of this (from the misleading vocal elements of our society like radical professors, CNN and the NY TIMES).
I am sorry the United Nations scammed the poor people of Iraq out of the "food for oil" money so they could get rich while the common folk suffered.
I am sorry that some Arab governments pay the families of homicide bombers upon their death.
I am sorry that those same bombers are brainwashed thinking they will receive 72 virgins in "paradise."
I am sorry that the homicide bombers think pregnant women, babies, children, the elderly and other noncombatant civilians are legitimate targets.
I am sorry that our troops die to free more Arabs from the gang rape rooms and the filling of mass graves of dissidents of their own making.
I am sorry that Muslim extremists have killed more Arabs than any other group.
I am sorry that foreign trained terrorists are trying to seize control of Iraq and return it to a terrorist state.
I am sorry we don't drop a few dozen Daisy cutters on Fallujah.
I am sorry every time terrorists hide they find a convenient "Holy Site."
I am sorry they didn't apologize for driving a jet into the World Trade Center that collapsed and severely damaged Saint Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church - one of our Holy Sites.
I am sorry they didn't apologize for flight 93 and 175, the USS Cole, the embassy bombings, the murders and beheadings of Nick Berg and Daniel Pearl, etc....etc!
I am sorry Michael Moore is American; he could feed a medium sized village in Africa.
America will get past this latest absurdity. We will punish those responsible because that is what we do.
We hang out our dirty laundry for the entire world to see. We move on. That's one of the reasons we are hated so much. We don't hide this stuff like all those Arab countries that are now demanding an apology.
Deep down inside, when most Americans saw this reported in the news, we were like - so what? We lost hundreds and made fun of a few prisoners. Sure, it was wrong, sure, it dramatically hurts our cause, but until captured we were trying to kill these same prisoners. Now we're supposed to wring our hands because a few were humiliated?
Our compassion is tempered with the vivid memories of our own people killed, mutilated and burnt amongst a joyous crowd of celebrating Fallujahans.
If you want an apology from this American, you're going to have a long wait! You have a better chance of finding those seventy-two virgins.
Lieutenant General, USMC
02 November 2005
It's one of my favorite poems - so it is with a heavy hand that I reference this potent lyric to a dullard's past-time: Smoking.
In today's USAToday, the legislature in Washington state considers outlawing smoking outdoors.
|On Tuesday, Washington state voters will consider the first statewide ban on smoking within 25 feet of buildings that prohibit smoking. That would mean lighting up near offices, stores, theaters, restaurants and government buildings could bring a $100 fine.|
I don't smoke. I don't think that smoking is a healthy activity. It contributes to increased cancer rates, increased mortality, higher medical costs and, thereby, higher insurance premiums. I've lost many relatives to lung and throat cancer.
But I do not think that smoking should be banned and I don't think that the Big Tobacco lawsuit was a good thing.
That lawsuit established a dangerous precedent. It said to all US citizens, "You have no control. If you smoked cigarettes, you can sue Big Tobacco and get a big payout." So now, if 10 years from now you get sick and, you've eaten beef once a week - you can find some weasel attorney to sue the US Beef Council on your behalf because, obviously, the Beef Council showed up at your door and made you eat the Beef.
|"If you ban smoking outside near a door or window, essentially you have no place to smoke except your own home - and maybe not even there," Sullum says."What's next? Smoking in a house with children will be considered child abuse. Smoking around pets will be cruel to animals."|
It's just another indication that our freedoms are being legislated away. Los Angeles radio talk-show host Dennis Prager also argues that the “war on tobacco” represents a dangerous misplacement of moral values: “The next generation will ask: What preoccupied America in the final decade of the twentieth century—while unprecedented numbers of its children were being raised without fathers, while the country was living with rates of murder far higher than in any other advanced democracy . . . [while] rogue nations built stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons . . . ? The majority of [America’s] national politicians, state attorneys general and educators will be able to answer together, ‘We fought tobacco.’ Shame on them all.” (hat-tip: www.enotes.com/1984)
The tyranny of the minority goes on....
31 October 2005
The Mayor of New Orleans has denied rumors that Mardi Gras is cancelled. He says he's expecting a record number of
floats this year on Main Street.
Five black men in purple dinner jackets and bow ties were found floating today under a pier in New Orleans. DNA tests
later identified them as The Drifters. Rumor has it they were under the boardwalk, down by the sea.
Hurricane Katrina - typical woman! When she came, she was warm, wild and wet. When she left, she took the house and
all its contents with her.
Two plane loads of volunteers left Detroit Michigan today bound for New Orleans to assist with the looting.
28 October 2005
Sarcasm aside, I usually don't get upset when it comes to Art. Artists are supposed to be iconoclasts. Art is supposed to breakthrough and engage you on a mythic level. The symbols are timeless and savage. Religion, Mythologoy and Art are inextricably intertwined. That is just the way it it.
I know, I know, your first reaction to the photoset is anger. It's like a slap in the face. You see these and say, "Come on! That is not how our culture is...they're making a mokery! They don't understand."
I would ask you, Dear Reader, to suspend your anger because I'm going to let you in on a little secret.
The europeans are in love with us.
That's right. If you ask your typical Frenchman or German, they know more about US history than most high school sophomores. They love our music, our 'bluejeans', our cuisine, our wines, our luxuries and - yes - our freedoms. They love all things American. That is not to say that all of them love us - just like us, Europeans get to read only the most salacious and controversial news that trickles out of our own media. So they 'across the big pond' have a very skewed idea of what goes on here. They think that we're out of control with sex, with money and with violence. They think we're all racist Klansmen running around with guns - the Cowboy mentality.
The ones that have visited the US are much less sanguineous. They differentiate between what the media portrays and what's really going on. So when you see or hear some EU trashtalking, take it in stride.
Officially: They love to hate us. When the cameras are off, the lights turned down low and the cabernet sauvignon is being poured - the fire in their eyes ignite as they begin to tell you about the first time they heard "Blue Suede Shoes".
Reminds me of the quote by WH Auden - "Between friends differences in taste or opinion are irritating in direct proportion to their triviality."
26 October 2005
- Winston Churchill (1874-1965)
I read some comments on the thread over at SecondcityCop.blogspot.com today and I found myself having much to say on some of the America detractors who shared their views on SCC's blog.
One person held up Chalmers Johnson as a source for the case against our current foreign policy. That is like citing Ted Kennedy as an expert in Boating Safety. Johnson's vitriol for America is scarcely self-contained. He is very vocal in what he believes is a corrupt, inept and imperialistic government that is running the country. The intellectuals on the Left sincerely believe that they are smarter than you....they've got all the answers. They read crackpots like Noam Chomsky or Chalmers Johnson - authors who claim lineage to Marx and Trotsky and, who admire the socialist model - and the Left announces that these 'intellectuals' are brilliant, thoughtful and introspective.
I think that they are deluded - either by a general distrust of authority or by naivete.
But whenever someones starts talking in cliches - the "vast military-industrial complex" and "American Imperialism" you have to ask yourself if this person is really a deep thinker.
It doesn't take too much reasoning to parrot the slogans of history. That's why if left to its own devices, everyone would be a liberal. It's the message that comes through our culture, our media and from our courts. That is why it takes courage, work, research and effort to be a conservative because when you get a knowledge of history, politics and review various systems of governance you realize that the bolshevik element in ours and every other culture is there simply to destabilize. They foment revolution yet, when a State gets established - it is the intellectuals who are marched out first to be shot.
These "useful idiots" are 10 year old children; they want us to make everything "fair." They want an even-playing field for everyone - regardless of qualifications or ability. They spout the same old worn-out cliches: Diversity, glass ceiling, quotas, affirmative action, reparations - in order to keep the feelings of guilt entrenched in our collective soul.
'Too much freedom is just enough' - is a slogan that I admire. It is always refreshing to meet immigrants to the US who come from poorer countries. They are absolutely ecstatic to be here, in the "greatest country in the world."
Why is that?
The leftists would say that it is due to the fact that the immigrants are in a new place and everything that is new is good. That is not the reason. These people come from some horribly repressive countries - places where if you said something bad about a politician, or the government or openly talked about sex : you'd be imprisoned or put to death. Read Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and you'll see first hand how horrific it is to live in a place like the Soviet Union, Monte Negro, or Myanmar.
On: Chalmers Johson -
First, I cannot support Chalmers Johnson's views because he is a UC Berkley hippy with ties to the SDS. He's a "naom chomsky meets lyndon larouche" type ... America, Bad - Socialism, Good. His writings rail against Bush, Cheney and the CIA but where is the outrage against our own Border Invasion, the billions we spend on illegal immigration and on the criminals who victimize our own citizens? Johnson writes all about how much the Bushs, the CIA and Abu Graib are evil. Another "useful idiot" that gets book smart and tries to force feed his comintern agenda with a spoonful of sugar.
The '4 Sorrows' listed are laughable and, I know now why nobody reads this guy. Only someone with self-loathing & delusions of persecution could put that together.
1. Perpetual state of war - every civilization has to fight. You only preserve your country, boundaries and nation by having a strong military. Lions only attack sick, old or weak prey. "Pax Romana" is the last time a major civilization went without 'overt' battles.
2. Loss of Democracy - it's not the presidency that is eclipsing congress to take away our rights; it's the Liberal activist judges in the Courts who are "interpreting" our laws and making it up as they go along ... PC bullshit like diversity, hate crimes & the 'right to privacy' - they keep going to the EU to get precedents for interpreting our Constitution. It's outragesous!
3. Truth replaced by Propaganda - since the 60's we've been getting fed nothing but fluff and nonsense from our TV news and newspapers. The real Truth is finally getting exposed by good ole Conservative talkradio hosts (Thank you Michael Savage) and Bloggers (Thank you SCC), the Left has been spinning their Agenda since the 60's and no one ever called them on it.
4. Bankruptcy by military projects - Keep those military projects coming! The more we spend on military, the more markets we can expand into because more and more people will feel safe. And why shouldn't we? We've seen how ineffectual the UN is in a fight. Look hwo they screwed up Kosovo, how they have been a big, do-nothing pack of armed rent-a-cops. They are about as motivated as a bag of cottonballs. Chalmers says the Military and Bush will bankrupt us ...how about the billions we spend every year treating criminals to 3 meals, housing and free medical care? How about the billions we spend on giving Illegals tuition, medical care and welfare?
You and all the other "hate America" posters have a right to not like the government, the president or our military & their mission. But I don't appreciate having to hear you spit in the face of our soldiers, our constitution and our country simply because you believe in a socialist utopia.
22 October 2005
The Enviro-Nazis strike again using their pseudo-science and unchecked "enthusiasm" to impose their worldview on everyone who thinks that trees and animals are more important than human beings. The Wall Street Journal showcases just what a travesty the 1973 Endangered Species Act has been.
In 1990 Clinton jumped on the Spotted Owl bandwagon and, almost overnight, shut down 24 million acres of timber and stopping 80% of logging operations in California, Oregon and Washington. All this in an futile attempt at "saving" the Owl. The environmentalists claimed that logging was contributing to the deterioration of the owls' habitat. The governments' actions resulted in the decimation of the logging industry - the loss of 130.000 jobs, millions of dollars of revenue and the destruction of families.
The knee-jerk reaction to environmental issues is appalling. The Enviro-Activists act like nobody but them care about clean air, clean water and preserving our natural resources. And there seems to be a fringe quality interlaced throughout the Environmentalist community. The establishment of environmentalism came about due to Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring (1962). It highlighted an apocalyptic future which would come to fruition if the continued indiscriminate use of DDT continued unabated. DDT is now proven to be an effective pesticide that has saved millions of lives by reducing blood-born pathogens, such as malaria. But that factoid never gets computed by the Enviro-Nazis when calculating which 'cause' is going to get their attention next.
It turns out that much of what she wrote was not true. The science of pesticides and their environmental impacts were just coming into being when she was writing so it's somewhat understandable that she'd have some inaccuracies. But what is not forgiveable is the incessant whinings of the Enviro-Left and how they feel the need to take up the cause of every little species that gets labeled "endangered." The issue is - What is the basis for determining something is at-risk? The science has been shown to be faulty so their actions are based on false assumptions. The environmentalists have a fringe element that is, frankly, a bit frightening. Check out this ChemTrails website or this . Currently Contrails or Chemtrails are getting some press via the underground conspiracy theorists. There is even one site that claims to be able to eliminate ChemTrails simply by "willing them away" through mentalism. With many of these types it is like 'Conspiracy theory' meets grizzly addams. Not a good combination.
"Sonar hurting Whales" has now come to the forefront and smacks of being more tree-hugger hysteria. Yet another example of the non-sense that the environmentalists are spewing. "Nature" did this study but what did they use for methods? I remember distinctly that the Navy was blamed for causing Dolphin deaths - and, again it turned out that it was other Dolphins doing the damage & killings. It turns out that notall Dolphins are adorable, brighteyed "Flippers" with IQs of 110. Some of them kill other Dolphins for the fun of it. Hmmmmm.
I'm not saying that environmentalists are bad people - I'm convinced that the vast majority of them are good, decent people. It's just that their leadership and platforms need to be clearer on issues that they choose to get involved in. Otherwise they become just as indiscriminate as the chemicals that they deride. EarthFirst! wouldn't be Earth without humans.
I'm going to start a new organization: USAFirst!
17 October 2005
From the April 5 Washington Post: "TOKYO, April 5 -- The Education Ministry on Tuesday approved a controversial new series of school textbooks that critics say whitewash Japan's militaristic past. The move ignited immediate outrage among some of the country's World War II-era victims."
In this months' The Atlantic , Christopher Buckley writes a stinging satire on Japanese efforts to reframe their militaristic past into something akin to victimhood. Acting like picked on adolescents doesn't seem to fit into Japan's code of Bushido.
Here is an excerpt of the "exam" -
What historically significant event occurred on December 7?
a.) Woodrow Wilson declared war on Austria, in 1917
b.) Admiral William Bligh, of HMS Bounty fame, died in 1817, regretting he never had the opportunity to visit Japan.
c.) Charles Brooks, Jr became the first American to be executed by lethal injection, in Texas, in 1982.
d.) U.S. Secretary of State Cordell Hull flouted diplomatic protocol by speaking in a rude and disrespectful manner to Japanese imperial ambassadors in Washington, in 1941
"Bataan Death March" refers to:
a.) A Seattle grunge band.
b.) Hole no.5 at Osaka Golf Club
c.) A badly maintained highway west of Manila Bay
d.) A lesser-known funereal composition by F. Chopin
On a personal note, many former "aggressor" nations have adopted a "Who us?" mien. I spoke to a friend of mine who was born and raised in Hamburg, Germany. He told me he was going to be off for a few days last May. Knowing that Germans enjoy 6 weeks of paid vacation year round, out of curiosity I asked him what this particular holiday was for. He replied, "It is to celebrate when the allies liberated the German people from Nazi occupation." Hmmmm, I thought. The poor Germans are so burdened with guilt over 'the war' that they turned their defeat into a liberation. Just goes to show how much your choice of words goes a very long way to impacting the perception of your actions. NewSpeak aside, if you (the State) remove the word 'revolution' from the language - then people won't be able to conceptualize the idea of revolting. Get it? But I'll take a deep breath and refrain from Ranting about the state of language in our country - with the influx of Spanish speakers who won't bother to learn English.
There is actually a website devoted to the 60th anniversary of Allied Liberation.
We see this dynamic all over the world - it's not just in Japan. Although for Japan to downplay and trivialize the extent of its atrocities in China, Korea and the Phillipines - is outrageous. Here is a site that documents all the massacres commmitted by the Japs while occupying China.
Just ask the 200,000 'comfort women' or the residents of Nanking. I doubt that they would be very supportive of the revisionist Japanese history books.
What's next? Russian textbooks with the title - "Joe Stalin - Just your everyday Guy: A guide to the Lies about this gentle giant."
12 October 2005
I see illegals working as landscapers, as cement workers, as roofers, as painters, carpenters, and busboys. I was a busboy.
I don't think that Bush has his head screwed on right. I don't know precisely what type of agenda he has but he definitely has one. And it seems to be in favor of illegal immigration. "Por tu maldito amor" is a song by mariachi megastar Vincente Fernandez. The song title means "For your terrible Love" and relates how the singer's love for a woman is tearing him apart. Bush must be spending time in the White House with the strains of mariachi music flowing through the air, slamming tequila and crying over his lost loves. How can Bush support such a policy? He must not be able to see the ramifications - the divisiveness, the tax losses, taking jobs from Americans, and the decline in work quality (on skilled labor jobs). Illegal immigration is a costly business to advocate. According to the Center for Immigration Studies , the real cost of illegal immigration is in the billions. The findings:
Illegal alien households are estimated to use $2,700 a year more in services than they pay in taxes, creating a total fiscal burden of nearly $10.4 billion on the federal budget in 2002.
Among the largest federal costs: Medicaid ($2.5 billion); treatment for the uninsured ($2.2 billion); food assistance programs ($1.9 billion); the federal prison and court systems ($1.6 billion); and federal aid to schools ($1.4 billion).
If illegal aliens were legalized and began to pay taxes and use services like legal immigrants with the same education levels, the estimated annual fiscal deficit at the federal level would increase from $2,700 per household to nearly $7,700, for a total federal deficit of $29 billion.
With nearly two-third of illegals lacking a high school diploma, the primary reason they create a fiscal deficit is their low education levels and resulting low incomes and tax payments — not their legal status or their unwillingness to work.
Amnesty increases costs because illegals would still be largely unskilled, and thus their tax payments would continue to be very modest, but once legalized they would be able to access many more government services.
The fact that legal immigrants with little schooling are a fiscal drain on federal coffers does not mean that legal immigrants overall are a drain. Many legal immigrants are highly skilled.
Because many of the costs are due to their U.S.-born children, who are awarded U.S. citizenship at birth, barring illegals themselves from federal programs will not significantly reduce costs.
Although they create a net drain on the federal government, the average illegal household pays more than $4,200 a year in federal taxes, for a total of nearly $16 billion.
However, they impose annual costs of more than $26.3 billion, or about $6,950 per illegal household.
About 43 percent, or $7 billion, of the federal taxes illegals pay go to Social Security and Medicare.
Employers do not see the costs associated with less-educated immigrant workers because the costs are spread out among all taxpayers.
The main reason that it is so costly is that, if given amnesty, illegals will continue to use welfare programs - further burdening the system but to an even greater degree. The vast majority of illegal aliens will continue to have very low incomes, and make very modest tax payments. However, legal status would allow them to use many more programs.
In the immortal words of William Holden in Network: I’m mad as hell and I can't take it any more!
Por favor presidente - despiertate!
11 October 2005
His inteactions with his son, Scott - especially when they are in family counseling - are capable of making all of us recall how we thought that our fathers were, at times, a bit of an enigma. Indeed, sometimes our Dads are downright mysteries.
One of the first movies my father took me to was "Goldfinger." I must have been about 5 years old....I still remember seeing the woman in the beginning of the film who was murdered by being spraypainted gold and can hear Sean Connery say, "They painted over the part of her back where oxygen would get through. She suffocated to death."
Dr. Evil encapsulates all the bad guys that were a part of the Bond series throughout the 60's and 70's. He attempts to balance a cool, hipster, relatable quality but, comes off like a self absorbed dork. Scott recognizes this in his father and is quick to ridicule him for it.
"Your stock is rising, No.2"
08 October 2005
The Vatican is bringing in heavy hitters to dig out Gays within its seminarian ranks. Salon reports that the Catholic Church is on another "power trip" and is looking to out some closeted clergy who may be lurking. Salon claims that this is a "witch hunt" and is yet another example of how poor gays are getting picked on. A source claims that "(an) ultra-conservative minority is driving the investigations, not knowing that some of their favorite icons in the clergy and hierarchy are themselves gay." Maybe the author's finger slipped and she meant to type "vast rightwing conspiracy."
Let's be clear. Everyone knows that there are many clergy who are gay. So what? It doesn't mean that they are pedophiles.
It does mean that they shouldn't be priests.
Let me explain. If you as a person are "called" to service in an institutional religious organization, such as the Catholic church, you take an oath of Chastity. You vow to refrain from sexual activities. This is an important aspect of cultivating a higher spirituality. From time immemorial this was the proscribed process for all "medicine men," Shaman or monks. And so it is with Catholicism. I wrote about this in a previous blog. If these people consider themselves gay then they are defining themselves as, first and foremost, a sexual entity. They are coming out and saying that their sexual identity is an essential part of who they are. That is not what a priest should be doing - I don't care if it's someone who is straight or bi or whatever....It detracts from their sense of clarity and muddles their judgement.
Of course we're all human and prone to all the faults and foibles that go along with that. And I don't expect priests to not have sexual impulses but those should be far, far away - not up at the front of their daily routine. If you hear, "I'm a gay priest" - that is supposed to be accepted by our "politically correct" asinine culture. But if you say, "I'm a straight priest" people would go - "I thought you were just supposed to be a priest. Period."
|the Vatican led a campaign to purge American seminaries of critical scholarship, replacing Modernists and demanding intellectual obedience to papal control. In the United States, troublesome seminary faculty were fired, and well-read, critical priests were replaced by new immigrants from Ireland and Italy -- generally poorer and less educated men who were willing to be obedient and play by the rules.|
And being gay is not always just a matter of biology. There are many gays who are victims of sexual abuse. That abuse triggered "gay" feelings in them because the abuse occurred when the victim was "pre-verbal" and doesn't remember the acts. So they go through their lives in their early teens with these feelings of wanting to act on (act 'out') and they have the mantra of "I've been gay my whole life" buzzing in their ears. When it was Uncle Charlie who was the one who "got them gay" way back before they could understand and vocalize what was happening to them. And clinicians and psychologists know that when you are a victim of abuse you either "act it in" or you "act it out". That means you act the abuse "out" on others as a way of dealing with it or you act it "in" by doing something to yourself (ie. overeat, look at porn, masturbate excessively...etc.) So when you take the issue of unresolved sexual abuse and put that person in a position of power within a huge institution - that is a loaded gun. You're putting your congregation at risk of being victimized.
Loveline is a great source for this stuff and is the first place that I heard it asked, "when did you get gay?" Dr. Drew (addiction medicine MD) asks his "gay" callers all the time this question, and invariably, the caller can recount a specific incident where he was "turned" gay by an inappropriate sexual act while at a very early age.
|Even if the Vatican were able to "cleanse" the American seminaries this time around -- leaving only the stupid, the obedient, the terrorized, the very good liars -- the risks seem great|
If you want to see what an untreated sexual predator can do to a young man's life, check out Jeff "the Frugal gourmet" Smith's indictment. He was an ordained minister.
So if you're gay - do whatever you want with your life but don't be a priest, deacon, vicor, pastor or reverend.
04 October 2005
Oh it was so much simpler back when a red was a red.
Salim Mansur writes in yesterday's Toronto Sun a thoroughly enlightening tirade against Useful Idiots: the slogan first instituted by Vladimir Lenin. He coined the phrase "useful idiots" to describe those living in western democracies who made common cause with his Bolshevik politics.
"He understood them well, held them in contempt while exploiting their despicable naivete and self-loathing for propaganda purposes of the gulag he made of Russia, and his successors from Stalin to Gorbachev served as chief wardens."
There are many well intentioned, good hearted people on the Left who, unintentionally do the bidding of those among us who want to destabilize the Family, remove God from our society and want the State to be the be-all, end-all for all of us. It is sad and pathetic that people can't or won't recognize the dynamics of Stalinist Russia that are an intrinsic part of the Left's platform.
Take the slogan "Give peace a chance." What is implied is that we can't wait to go to war and, given other things being equal - have not the initiative to look at other avenues of conflict resolution. How long did Bush give Saddam to hide or dispose of his stockpile of WMDs before we went into militarily? 18 months! Saddam had a year and half to comply while GW used the United Nitwits to try to force compliance with inspectors. War was the last resort.
How about a slogan of "Give War a chance" because the peace-niks don't really understand who and what we are fighting against. War sometimes works. War certainly worked against the Nazis. It certainly got rid of them. Even at the time of the '30s we had a large portion of our citizenry who were actively opposed to the war. But doing battle and fighting for what you beleive in is sometimes worth the effort. I know Cindy Sheehan doesn't think so but she is a demented personality who is out of touch with reality.
So the Leftist media machine continues to brainwash us with commercials, the newspapers, and cable access News. Don't believe the hype and, don't believe the Media. I've read some sources that claim that Orwell's novel depicts what our society would be like if we went towards a more conservative bend. That is non-sense. Liberals are the ones with the agenda and who ply us with "isms"
Hitler was a social democrat (a Leftist liberal), and was a Vegan and a non-smoker. Hhhhmmmmm.....interesting, no?
01 October 2005
The Times of London reports that the effect of "hard diversity" which teaches that no culture is better than any other culture and that "differences should be celebrated," was what caused the July 7 London bombings.
They simultaneously assert that no culture is better than another, but they will happily elaborate that Western culture is actually inferior and shy away from celebrating it for fear of causing offence, the report says. We are witnessing the revolt of the civilised against civilisation.
Diversity without values is nothing.
If you dare to compare Christianity with Islam without making the point that Islam has an undercurrent of violence that is absent in Christianity, then you are not being truthful to yourself nor anyone else. For decades we have had the leftist media trying to convince us that we are wrong. "Oh, Islam is Peace" we are told, or "Diversity is our strength" or some such drivel.
The instincts of conservative pundits, it turns out, have been right all along. Not every one is created equal and not everyone who chants to allah is a terrorist. But as they say, we're not looking for a group of Norweigian nuns who are doing the killing, murder and beheadings in the name of allah. If law enforcement is racially profiling, then that means that the police are using their instincts and their intelligence in identifying a pattern to the crimes that they are tracking. It is not only commendable it should be expected.
Diversity is not the answer - it is a dead end. The political correctness and "thought policing" are reminiscent of Orwell's '1984.' The Left has shoved slogan after slogan down our throats "for the common good"
Coming soon to a Dick Durbin rally near you -
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
30 September 2005
But the title speaks volumes - Are we afraid of a planet populated by blacks?
Back in 1999, a study by a Stanford University law professor and a University of Chicago economist came to the conclusion that legalizing abortion in the 1970s may have been a leading cause of plummeting crime rates in the 1990s.
The unpublished research, conducted by Stanford's John Donohue III and Chicago's Stephen Levittand and titled "Legalized Abortion and Crime," relies heavily on previous research suggesting that unwanted children are more likely to commit crimes. It suggests that those most likely to commit crimes as young adults -- unwanted children of poor, minority or teenage mothers -- were aborted at disproportionate rates more than two decades ago. The study was reviewed and supported by Anindya Sen at the University of Waterloo.
Time Grieve at Salon misses the point of the paper. Many experts agree that the drop in crime was impacted by legalizing abortion but, abortion is only a trivial part of that. Other factors weren't included in the original study.
The point is that kids who grow up in single parent homes get messed up! This site gives ample evidence of the extent to which our children have been abandoned and put at risk for future problems (ie. drug abuse, crime, poverty). Many of these homes are fatherless. When 60 percent of all children who are born out of wedlock are black - who do you think is being impacted the most? Black families.
But we all pay a price for the scourge of single-motherhood. Many women in the black community choose to have more than one child out of wedlock. When that happens the children grow up in an environment of chaos, crisis, poor boundaries, abuse and abandonment. These seemingly subtle external factors have a HUGE impact on how the child will be when he/she gets older. Being poor or rich aren't factors in this either. A poor child can be emotionally healthier than a rich child. John Bradshaw covered these issues at length in his book "On the Family."
So, for Salon.com to go after Bill Bennett about his comment is wrong. Bennett was just echoing a truism that is getting more and more difficult to hear these days with our "PC" sensitivities. The black community has major issues and no leadership to tackle them. The rest of us can see how screwed up the situation is but we get called "racist" for even mentioning it.
We need to deal with these issues and not lock them in an ivory tower. To do so would be disasterous.