This link first popped up over the weekend, and persists through today on Drudge. Since it refuses to go away . . ..
The fact that it was a steak knife does make the situation moderately more serious perhaps, but we all know that the "zero common sense" policy in vogue throughout our society would have removed this desperate threat to our collective safety from the free population even if she had been using a butter knife or even - gasp! - a plastic knife! Heck, no doubt a crudely drawn picture of a knife would have been terrifying enough to have this child ". . . arrested and transported to the Juvenile Assessment Center" for evaluation.
A recent KFC ad features an office going into full panic mode because a woman is sitting at her desk, eating lunch, using a fork . . . and a KNIFE!!! The commercial would not be funny if not for the fact that the blind, unthinking refusal to apply reason and common sense to everyday situations pervades this country.
Friends, you are welcome to don the straitjacket and have yourselves interred in the padded cell, fed and emptied by carefully medically supervised tubes.
I, however, refuse to participate. Among many other things, life involves risk. Including the risk that you might have an original thought or encounter an unanticipated experience. I think I can handle that level of risk.
Anyone else willing to come along for the ride?
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Dammit – It Is a Spade!
(Linked Article from Brietbart, Nov 23 09:47 PM US/Eastern, By TERRY TANG, Associated Press writer)
The article referenced here relates the tale of one Jesus Manuel Cordova, a 26-year-old Mexican from Magdalena de Kino, Sonora. Sr. Cordova had entered the United States illegally, when he encountered a 9-year-old boy who had recently been in an accident with his mother. The boy had left the wreck in search of help when he encountered Cordova. They returned to the vehicle, where the boy was comforted and reassured by Cordova while the young man's mother slowly died. He waited with the boy until Border Patrol agents arrived to render assistance.
Quite properly, Cordova was taken into custody.
The incident took place in Santa Cruz County. The county sheriff, Tony Estrada, commented, "Cordova likely saved the boy . . . and his actions should remind people not to quickly characterize illegal immigrants as criminals."
Sheriff Estrada, it is particularly disturbing that a lawman should suggest that a person who has blatantly and unequivocally broken the law - such as Jesus Cordova who with disregard for the laws of the United States did of his own volition crossed the international border into this country - not be characterized as a criminal. What section of the legal code in your county defines an "illegal immigrant" as even potentially being law-abiding?
Still checking? You'll have to get back to me on that? I thought as much.
There is no question that Jesus Cordova rendered a wonderful humanitarian service to the boy he encountered while entering this country illegally. It is indeed even quite possible that the boy might have died had Sr. Cordova not been where he was.
That act of goodness does not erase or even mitigate his crime of crossing the border improperly, any more than a bank robber would be forgiven his unauthorized withdrawal if he stopped while getting away to help a doddering old lady across the street.
An illegal act is an illegal act, every time it is committed. Political Correctness be damned: that particular spade needs to be called a spade every time it is encountered.
The article referenced here relates the tale of one Jesus Manuel Cordova, a 26-year-old Mexican from Magdalena de Kino, Sonora. Sr. Cordova had entered the United States illegally, when he encountered a 9-year-old boy who had recently been in an accident with his mother. The boy had left the wreck in search of help when he encountered Cordova. They returned to the vehicle, where the boy was comforted and reassured by Cordova while the young man's mother slowly died. He waited with the boy until Border Patrol agents arrived to render assistance.
Quite properly, Cordova was taken into custody.
The incident took place in Santa Cruz County. The county sheriff, Tony Estrada, commented, "Cordova likely saved the boy . . . and his actions should remind people not to quickly characterize illegal immigrants as criminals."
Sheriff Estrada, it is particularly disturbing that a lawman should suggest that a person who has blatantly and unequivocally broken the law - such as Jesus Cordova who with disregard for the laws of the United States did of his own volition crossed the international border into this country - not be characterized as a criminal. What section of the legal code in your county defines an "illegal immigrant" as even potentially being law-abiding?
Still checking? You'll have to get back to me on that? I thought as much.
There is no question that Jesus Cordova rendered a wonderful humanitarian service to the boy he encountered while entering this country illegally. It is indeed even quite possible that the boy might have died had Sr. Cordova not been where he was.
That act of goodness does not erase or even mitigate his crime of crossing the border improperly, any more than a bank robber would be forgiven his unauthorized withdrawal if he stopped while getting away to help a doddering old lady across the street.
An illegal act is an illegal act, every time it is committed. Political Correctness be damned: that particular spade needs to be called a spade every time it is encountered.
Monday, November 19, 2007
Hey, Hugo - "Shut Up!"
Hugo Chavez is whining again. Apparently denouncing foreign leaders as "Satan" (George Bush) or "Fascists" (former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar) is reasonable and appropriate behavior from Mr. Chavez, while the King of Spain exhorting Chavez to "shut up" while Chavez repeatedly tried to interrupt current Spanish PM Zapatero during a speech being delivered at the Ibero-American Summit.
Ol' Hugo may have a legitimate point. As the duly elected president of a sovereign nation, who has repeatedly demonstrated the depth of his commitment to the personal liberty and growth of his subje... er, constituents.
Tell ya what, buddy. Why don't you stand up before the world an publicly humble yourself by apologizing to every foreign leader you have ever uttered remarks against that might be construed as inappropriate by certain hypersensitive individuals (please reference Satan and fascist above, among others). Prove what a big and noble human being you truly are!
Then, I am certain the rest of the world will get together and badger the insensitive King of Spain to atone for his own indiscretion committed upon your person.
Ol' Hugo may have a legitimate point. As the duly elected president of a sovereign nation, who has repeatedly demonstrated the depth of his commitment to the personal liberty and growth of his subje... er, constituents.
Tell ya what, buddy. Why don't you stand up before the world an publicly humble yourself by apologizing to every foreign leader you have ever uttered remarks against that might be construed as inappropriate by certain hypersensitive individuals (please reference Satan and fascist above, among others). Prove what a big and noble human being you truly are!
Then, I am certain the rest of the world will get together and badger the insensitive King of Spain to atone for his own indiscretion committed upon your person.
The Road to Hell - Or Nefarious Intent?
Letting the story lie for a weekend did not make it any more palatable. A report posted at the boston.com website of a Boston Globe article on Saturday speaks of a Boston PD plan to send plainclothes detectives into high crime neighborhoods to go door to door requesting permission from homeowners to enter the home and search their children's bedrooms for firearms. Since this is a voluntary, community goodwill program none of those pesky search warrants are needed.
Any firearms discovered in a child's bedroom will not result in charges for unlawful gun possession (unless it turns out to have been used in a previous crime). If the parents or legal guardians should elect to not participate in this programs, the detectives will simply wander on to the next home.
It is not unreasonable to believe that this program was launched with the best of intentions. Guns are a problem. How can the community be enlisted in making everyone safer? Got it - parents can let us toss their homes in search of illegal handguns!
And though the story doesn't contain such a quote, there is undoubtedly a chorus of well intentioned but naive Bostonians singing the "Only People With Something to Hide Will Have a Problem With This" song.
There are so many aspects of this program to have a problem with. Why only target the high crime neighborhoods? It couldn't have anything to do with the fact that those areas are predominantly populated by minorities, could it? Are comparatively wealthy white kids too genteel to possess or comprehend the use of a firearm?
Doubtful.
The nothing to worry about crowd has plenty to worry about. Once authorities are voluntarily granted access to the premises they are like vampires - impossible to get rid of. Anything they might see on the way to or from the bedroom is fair game, and just because Harry Homeowner doesn't think he is doing anything wrong or has anything to hide doesn't mean that is the case. A bag of fertilizer or can of Drano left out where it can be seen can be used as the foundation for a search warrant to seek additional bomb making materials. Just check the long list of common household items carried out of a parent's home every time a child commits a nationally acclaimed anti-social act.
It should not be necessary to be wary of those charged with our protection and well being. Unfortunately, to many holders of authority choose to misuse that position to solidify and extend that authority. (Other People's) civil liberties being eroded are not a concern for those individuals.
Vigilance in advance of a threat is far more effective than any amount of recovery after the threat has been exercised. The physical damage caused by a firearm, even damage that extends so far as to end a human life, is more readily recovered from than the loss of personal freedoms across the entire society.
The lost life is merely a tragedy.
Any firearms discovered in a child's bedroom will not result in charges for unlawful gun possession (unless it turns out to have been used in a previous crime). If the parents or legal guardians should elect to not participate in this programs, the detectives will simply wander on to the next home.
It is not unreasonable to believe that this program was launched with the best of intentions. Guns are a problem. How can the community be enlisted in making everyone safer? Got it - parents can let us toss their homes in search of illegal handguns!
And though the story doesn't contain such a quote, there is undoubtedly a chorus of well intentioned but naive Bostonians singing the "Only People With Something to Hide Will Have a Problem With This" song.
There are so many aspects of this program to have a problem with. Why only target the high crime neighborhoods? It couldn't have anything to do with the fact that those areas are predominantly populated by minorities, could it? Are comparatively wealthy white kids too genteel to possess or comprehend the use of a firearm?
Doubtful.
The nothing to worry about crowd has plenty to worry about. Once authorities are voluntarily granted access to the premises they are like vampires - impossible to get rid of. Anything they might see on the way to or from the bedroom is fair game, and just because Harry Homeowner doesn't think he is doing anything wrong or has anything to hide doesn't mean that is the case. A bag of fertilizer or can of Drano left out where it can be seen can be used as the foundation for a search warrant to seek additional bomb making materials. Just check the long list of common household items carried out of a parent's home every time a child commits a nationally acclaimed anti-social act.
It should not be necessary to be wary of those charged with our protection and well being. Unfortunately, to many holders of authority choose to misuse that position to solidify and extend that authority. (Other People's) civil liberties being eroded are not a concern for those individuals.
Vigilance in advance of a threat is far more effective than any amount of recovery after the threat has been exercised. The physical damage caused by a firearm, even damage that extends so far as to end a human life, is more readily recovered from than the loss of personal freedoms across the entire society.
The lost life is merely a tragedy.
Thursday, November 08, 2007
WARNING: Political Correctness Is Completely Missing Below
I’m waiting for the day. It is bound to happen any time now. Caught up in the throes of sweaty passion I reach into the bedside table drawer and pull out a condom. (Safety is very important!) Tearing open the package I quickly apply the product as intended.
And there it is.
A Susan G. Komen (fill in the activity of your choice – shtup in this case?) For The Cure Pink Ribbon emblazoned upon that object of intimate necessity. How long do you suppose Mr. Johnson is going to retain that all-important inflated ego?
That is (hopefully) a slight over-exaggeration of the omnipresent spread of the ubiquitous pink ribbon, but not by much. From wrist bands and finger rings to pasta, soup and nuts, from the gasoline you buy to the books you read to the music you fill your MP3 player with there is inevitably a pink logoed product available to you. You might be the one to fund that cure, but only if you purchase that thirty-nine cent box of macaroni and cheese. Women die from breast cancer! How dare you reach for the store brand you selfish bastard?
Now don’t get me wrong. I have nothing against breasts. Some of my best friends have breasts. They have provided me with sustenance when I was a babe and encouraged me to perform my biological duty to the survival of the species as a man. Breast cancer does deserve to be taken seriously and a cure fervently sought, not just for reasons of esthetics and entertainment but for the very real reason that this disease claims lives. Very real, irreplaceable lives of our mothers, sisters, wives and daughters. And far more than is openly spoken about, breast cancer claims the lives of men as well.
However medicine should not be funded or practiced based upon which disease can garner adherents with the best public relations capacity. These days it is politically correct to Be For Breasts! To listen to the ad campaign going on you would think that women are dropping in the streets at just about the same rate as the aliens at the end of War of the Worlds (the 1953 Byron Haskin version, not the 2005 Steven Spielberg / Tom Cruise debacle). If we don’t act now, there won’t be a woman left alive on the planet. By next Tuesday at the latest. If we’re lucky. Slapping enough pink on enough products and extracting all possible cash from consumer’s pockets though will solve the problem.
Or at least let the corporate entities prostituting their products for the cause convince you they care. And really, isn’t the fact that they care – about anything – reason enough for you to spend your money with them rather than silly factors such as quality or efficacy of their product? Yeah, they’re pretty convinced you’ll think that way. And the pink ribbon storm this nation has been buried under in recent years would seem to bear that cynical assessment out. And if such actions by some chance result in a cure in addition to moving more merchandise so much the better! One more social victory they can claim credit for during the next round of advertising.
According to statistics released by the American Cancer Society, 3 of every 24 women over the course of their lifetime can expect to confront breast cancer.
4 of every 24 men can expect to contract prostate cancer.
According to those same statistics, from birth to death 1 of every 3 women can anticipate some form of cancer.
That’s a staggering number, but not as staggering as the 1 of every 2 men who can expect a close relationship with cancer.
Men are 33% more likely to get prostate cancer than women are likely to get breast cancer. Men are 50% more likely than women to contract any form of cancer over the course of their life. Indeed, the incidence of prostate cancer continues to rise as men age. The National Cancer Institute reports that by age 75 between 50% and 75% of all men “will have cancerous changes in the prostate”. Extending those findings to a logical conclusion, living long enough subjects virtually every man to the likelihood of encountering prostate cancer.Where are the stories, the panic, the public service campaigns on behalf of men on the subject? Except for lung cancer, which is exclusively the fault of the smoker so they don’t deserve any compassion, about the only other cancer that has received press coverage comparable to breast cancer is the one that attacked Lance Armstrong’s testicles. Scary as hell for a guy to hear about – but he beat it, so we’re okay on that one! Back to the breasts!!
The fact is that medical funding should not be based upon grass roots funding, corporate cynicism, and slick special interest groups. Not even Jerry’s kids are deserving of special effort simply because their plight is often heartbreaking and makes most of us thank God he had the grace to let that particular challenge pass by our homes. Allocations of scarce resources would more ethically be based upon how broad-based the impact of the condition is and how likely research is to ameliorate or preferably cure the problem. Especially with the nightmare of socialized medicine looming over us, resources need to be focused where they can do the greatest possible good in the shortest possible time.
If we are going to insist on emotion, special interests, and non-profit foundations being the primary criteria for allocation of research dollars rather than reason and common sense, then I would like to announce the formation of my very own foundation. The “Jacob D. Vreeland, Jr. Brown Ribbon for the Cure Foundation” is committed to the elimination of prostate cancer in my lifetime. I will work tirelessly to extract as much money as humanly possible from every consumer in this great land – because I care, deeply and passionately about the ravages I will face personally when prostate cancer comes to claim me. Not to mention the trauma lurking in the shadows for an opportunity to pounce upon all the fathers, brothers, husbands and sons of this world. I want a Brown Ribbon on your breakfast cereal, your cup of coffee at the diner, on every cigarette you stick in your mouth and on every feminine hygiene pad taped to a pair of panties. I want you to see Brown Ribbons everywhere you go until you, too, become equally impassioned about making the digital rectal examination a horror of the past.
In fact, why not join me in tying a Brown Ribbon around your finger. To help you remember just what it is we are fighting for.
Don’t you care?
It's a Dangerous World Out There - Don't Compound It By Being Stupid!
A 49-year-old man in the greater Seattle, Washington, area learned a life lesson recently. Letting your ex live with you is not necessarily the best idea. There is likely a reason that person is "ex", and even compassion for the needs of another is not a great basis for continuing a post breakup living arrangement. Letting that ex get drunk and then trying for a little friends with benefits action just makes matters worse.
The gentleman in question had his lower lip bitten off by the object of his would-be affections while they were kissing in a bedroom. She was drunk, and took her little love bite apparently unexpectedly and without provocation.
Rescue personnel found his lip on the floor, but it was covered in cat hair and ultimately could not be reattached.
One thing the man should be thankful for: His ex was not Lorena Bobbitt.
The gentleman in question had his lower lip bitten off by the object of his would-be affections while they were kissing in a bedroom. She was drunk, and took her little love bite apparently unexpectedly and without provocation.
Rescue personnel found his lip on the floor, but it was covered in cat hair and ultimately could not be reattached.
One thing the man should be thankful for: His ex was not Lorena Bobbitt.
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
GE / NBC Universal Are Insensitive!
(Paraphrasing slightly): "Last July the cast of 'Heroes' gathered in New York to do something to save the planet we all have the power to do - Plant A Tree!!!!!"
That was one of the pseudo-public service announcements viewers of 'Heroes' were subjected to last night. How could such a sensitive and compassionate organization say such a thing? How could they possibly so completely dismiss the feelings of all those people on the planet who are multiple amputees or quadriplegics? Don't they realize they are mocking and dismissing the capacities of an entire class of people? Don't they care?
Seriously, going green is fine. I can't find any particular grounds for objecting to clean air or water. Heck, I've even been known to indulge in those resources on occasion myself.
There is plenty to object to in the manner it is being presented to us though. Few, if any of these mega corporations care about "global warming" or "saving the planet" or "being good stewards of the world we leave our children". The only motivating factor is corporate profitability, and the results are calculated efforts to retain the support and patronage of those who "care". The key giveaway is that the slogans are of a nature that wouldn't challenge the average two year old, and they are more often than not delivered in that tone of voice reserved for talking with two year olds as well.
NBC (et al.), present your message in meaningful, adult language. Propose real solutions to real problems rather than pretty pastel window dressings that let people feel good rather than accomplish anything purposeful. Tout the results of your actions once those results are achieved rather than telling me all the things I should be doing (but that you are to important to actually undertake yourself).
Give me some substance rather than trite platitudes. I think you would be amazed at the depth of the response.
And don't try to convince me that planting a handful of six foot tall trees in eighteen inch pots on Rockefeller Plaza in the middle of July is going to do anything other than quickly result in work for the mulch shredder.
That was one of the pseudo-public service announcements viewers of 'Heroes' were subjected to last night. How could such a sensitive and compassionate organization say such a thing? How could they possibly so completely dismiss the feelings of all those people on the planet who are multiple amputees or quadriplegics? Don't they realize they are mocking and dismissing the capacities of an entire class of people? Don't they care?
Seriously, going green is fine. I can't find any particular grounds for objecting to clean air or water. Heck, I've even been known to indulge in those resources on occasion myself.
There is plenty to object to in the manner it is being presented to us though. Few, if any of these mega corporations care about "global warming" or "saving the planet" or "being good stewards of the world we leave our children". The only motivating factor is corporate profitability, and the results are calculated efforts to retain the support and patronage of those who "care". The key giveaway is that the slogans are of a nature that wouldn't challenge the average two year old, and they are more often than not delivered in that tone of voice reserved for talking with two year olds as well.
NBC (et al.), present your message in meaningful, adult language. Propose real solutions to real problems rather than pretty pastel window dressings that let people feel good rather than accomplish anything purposeful. Tout the results of your actions once those results are achieved rather than telling me all the things I should be doing (but that you are to important to actually undertake yourself).
Give me some substance rather than trite platitudes. I think you would be amazed at the depth of the response.
And don't try to convince me that planting a handful of six foot tall trees in eighteen inch pots on Rockefeller Plaza in the middle of July is going to do anything other than quickly result in work for the mulch shredder.
Sunday, November 04, 2007
Follow This Link to the Sheboygan, Wisconsin, Police Department
Come and get me, Mayor Perez!
Mayor Juan Perez of Sheboygan, Wisconsin, had his city attorney send a cease and desist letter to resident Jeni Reisinger to remove a link to the city police department's web site from her own web site.
It seems Ms. Reisinger led a recall effort against hizzhonor in September of last year. She may or may not have engaged in racially derogatory tactics in her effort, and rightly or wrongly Mayor Perez may or may not have had his feelings hurt that one of his citizens was not one hundred percent in lockstep with his duly instituted regime. If she did, there is no question she deserves a chorus of raspberries and a resounding "shame on you!" The mayor just needs to get a thicker skin. If you think that all the world is going to love you and help advance your utopian ideals for a better tomorrow just because you garnered enough votes to win an election, politics is not for you.
Perez's purported concern is "People associate (Reisinger) with racism because of that website she designed during the recall when she had me holding a Mexican flag (with) 'Power to illegals?' captioned on it. They were calling me 'muchachito' and 'senor,' all these derogatory terms on that website, and she was the creator of that website," Perez said. "My concern was that people would have some concern over her linking to a city website." (Quote originally appeared in the Sheboygan Press, as noted in a story posted on WorldNetDaily November 3, 2007.)
The mayor is of the opinion that people must have permission to link to the city web site. That an outside web site linking to the city implies an endorsement by the city of that third party's views.
Mr. Perez, stop whining and start involving yourself with some meaningful business. As long as links are not using protected images or symbols you have no grounds for attempting to control access to a publicly accessible site. That a government entity would seek to exert such control is even more disgusting than if a private or publicly held entity were attempting the same thing. Government is an extension of the people, Mr. Mayor, not the other way around. Government exists and serves at our pleasure, not us at theirs. Politicians need to be reminded of that fact, loud and often.
For the record, I have neither received nor sought permission for any of the links recorded above or for those that are listed at the end of this article.
Come and get me, Mr. Perez, I won't go anywhere.
City of Sheboygan
Mayor of Sheboygan Home Page
City of Sheboygan Fire Department
Sheboygan City Attorney's Office (Since the mayor felt it necessary to involve the City Attorney in this, I certainly don't want to be accused of not being inclusive.)
Mayor Juan Perez of Sheboygan, Wisconsin, had his city attorney send a cease and desist letter to resident Jeni Reisinger to remove a link to the city police department's web site from her own web site.
It seems Ms. Reisinger led a recall effort against hizzhonor in September of last year. She may or may not have engaged in racially derogatory tactics in her effort, and rightly or wrongly Mayor Perez may or may not have had his feelings hurt that one of his citizens was not one hundred percent in lockstep with his duly instituted regime. If she did, there is no question she deserves a chorus of raspberries and a resounding "shame on you!" The mayor just needs to get a thicker skin. If you think that all the world is going to love you and help advance your utopian ideals for a better tomorrow just because you garnered enough votes to win an election, politics is not for you.
Perez's purported concern is "People associate (Reisinger) with racism because of that website she designed during the recall when she had me holding a Mexican flag (with) 'Power to illegals?' captioned on it. They were calling me 'muchachito' and 'senor,' all these derogatory terms on that website, and she was the creator of that website," Perez said. "My concern was that people would have some concern over her linking to a city website." (Quote originally appeared in the Sheboygan Press, as noted in a story posted on WorldNetDaily November 3, 2007.)
The mayor is of the opinion that people must have permission to link to the city web site. That an outside web site linking to the city implies an endorsement by the city of that third party's views.
Mr. Perez, stop whining and start involving yourself with some meaningful business. As long as links are not using protected images or symbols you have no grounds for attempting to control access to a publicly accessible site. That a government entity would seek to exert such control is even more disgusting than if a private or publicly held entity were attempting the same thing. Government is an extension of the people, Mr. Mayor, not the other way around. Government exists and serves at our pleasure, not us at theirs. Politicians need to be reminded of that fact, loud and often.
For the record, I have neither received nor sought permission for any of the links recorded above or for those that are listed at the end of this article.
Come and get me, Mr. Perez, I won't go anywhere.
City of Sheboygan
Mayor of Sheboygan Home Page
City of Sheboygan Fire Department
Sheboygan City Attorney's Office (Since the mayor felt it necessary to involve the City Attorney in this, I certainly don't want to be accused of not being inclusive.)
Friday, November 02, 2007
It's My Fault You're a Selfish Idiot?
I'm trying to understand this. Really, I am. I don't think I'm particularly stupid, but I'm just finding it darned near impossible to get my arms around this one.
La Raza, or more correctly the National Council of La Raza (I'd hate to be accused of insensitivity for not according the organization their proper name), released a report on the results of a study they commissioned the Urban Institute to perform. The study focused on three U.S. communities in which large raids and arrests were conducted by ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement). In total, 912 adults are reported as having been arrested, directly affecting 506 minor children.
Apparently, having Mommy and/or Daddy arrested can be stressful or possibly even traumatic for the children involved. Schools as well as other private and governmental institutions and social agencies are forced to work quickly to care for these poor innocents whose lives are disrupted. Some children are fortunate enough to be left with a single parent or extended families able to help out. Unfortunately it can be difficult for those caregivers left behind to cope with the emotional, mental, and financial stresses this situation can create.
The study suggests that ICE, schools, Congress, and social agencies all need to get together to develop a compassionate safety net in advance of raids to ensure that the traumas, psychological challenges, and stigmas faced by these innocent children and their families are mitigated to the greatest extent possible if not in fact eliminated completely.
Hunh?
A parent or parents who have either entered or remained in this country illegally have made that choice of their own volition. No one forced them to do so. That their children or others are negatively impacted by the choices these individuals have made is unquestionable. What is completely questionable is that these perpetrators should be given special consideration or treatment just because the repercussions of their poor, illegal choices will have further negative impact on others.
Does the serial drunk driver whose license is finally revoked get to keep driving because losing his job might disrupt his family? Does the bank robber with young children at home get to keep the cash and walk free just because the young ones in his life might be stressed or saddened by being deprived of their Daddy?
Of course not.
The majority of illegal aliens in this country are of Hispanic extraction, purely because most citizens of the economically challenged nation on our southern border have that ancestry. Just because they have their very own special interest group going to bat for them, "The largest national Latino civil rights and advocacy organization in the United States (NCLR)", does not make enforcement of our immigration laws racist or discriminatory. It simply means that members of that racial background have the most convenient opportunity to violate those laws and so of course they will overwhelmingly represent the violators of those particular laws.
Adults, of all races, nationalities, and genders, make choices. Some of those choices are good, while others are less well conceived. Some of those bad choices have the potential to negatively impact others, even some who are innocent of any wrongdoing or ill intent. That happens. Life is not always fair. Equally unfairly, lucky breaks are also sometimes encountered.
The fact that some selfish, inconsiderate adult seeking personal advantage at the expense of others makes choices that are not in the best interests of his or her presumed loved ones though is not my fault. Nor is it my responsibility.
La Raza, or more correctly the National Council of La Raza (I'd hate to be accused of insensitivity for not according the organization their proper name), released a report on the results of a study they commissioned the Urban Institute to perform. The study focused on three U.S. communities in which large raids and arrests were conducted by ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement). In total, 912 adults are reported as having been arrested, directly affecting 506 minor children.
Apparently, having Mommy and/or Daddy arrested can be stressful or possibly even traumatic for the children involved. Schools as well as other private and governmental institutions and social agencies are forced to work quickly to care for these poor innocents whose lives are disrupted. Some children are fortunate enough to be left with a single parent or extended families able to help out. Unfortunately it can be difficult for those caregivers left behind to cope with the emotional, mental, and financial stresses this situation can create.
The study suggests that ICE, schools, Congress, and social agencies all need to get together to develop a compassionate safety net in advance of raids to ensure that the traumas, psychological challenges, and stigmas faced by these innocent children and their families are mitigated to the greatest extent possible if not in fact eliminated completely.
Hunh?
A parent or parents who have either entered or remained in this country illegally have made that choice of their own volition. No one forced them to do so. That their children or others are negatively impacted by the choices these individuals have made is unquestionable. What is completely questionable is that these perpetrators should be given special consideration or treatment just because the repercussions of their poor, illegal choices will have further negative impact on others.
Does the serial drunk driver whose license is finally revoked get to keep driving because losing his job might disrupt his family? Does the bank robber with young children at home get to keep the cash and walk free just because the young ones in his life might be stressed or saddened by being deprived of their Daddy?
Of course not.
The majority of illegal aliens in this country are of Hispanic extraction, purely because most citizens of the economically challenged nation on our southern border have that ancestry. Just because they have their very own special interest group going to bat for them, "The largest national Latino civil rights and advocacy organization in the United States (NCLR)", does not make enforcement of our immigration laws racist or discriminatory. It simply means that members of that racial background have the most convenient opportunity to violate those laws and so of course they will overwhelmingly represent the violators of those particular laws.
Adults, of all races, nationalities, and genders, make choices. Some of those choices are good, while others are less well conceived. Some of those bad choices have the potential to negatively impact others, even some who are innocent of any wrongdoing or ill intent. That happens. Life is not always fair. Equally unfairly, lucky breaks are also sometimes encountered.
The fact that some selfish, inconsiderate adult seeking personal advantage at the expense of others makes choices that are not in the best interests of his or her presumed loved ones though is not my fault. Nor is it my responsibility.
Thursday, November 01, 2007
Question of the Day
Why is it that the overwhelming majority of individuals are highly rational and intelligent beings, but when placed in a group of more than about two people the collective IQ drops by 80 percent?
I'm a Racist? Guess I'll Have to Live With That
In a World Net Daily article (linked above) posted October 30, 2007, I discovered that I am a racist. Not because of anything I have ever said or done, but simply as an incontrovertible fact of my birth. So decrees the University of Delaware Office of Resident Life.
Every student at that university living in a residence hall is being subjected to something they like to call "Diversity Education Training". One excerpt from a document used to facilitate this indoctrination of residence hall inmates reads: "A RACIST: A racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. 'The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality. By this definition, people of color cannot be racists, because as peoples within the U.S. system, they do not have the power to back up their prejudices, hostilities, or acts of discrimination….'"
Several practices and incidents are cited, which all boil down to the university encouraging, coercing, and outright compelling students to adopt their approved ideology in order to maintain standing within the campus society.
Chairman Mao may have defined education that way. I have slightly differing opinions on the topic.
A university - ideally any educational institution - should as its foundational mission be teaching students how to think. Not what to think, not what views to hold or denounce, but how to take in data from a wide variety of sources, analyze that information, and arrive at an informed, logical conclusion from which they are able to form, express, and rationally defend their own opinions.
Using a position of authority to browbeat students into submitting to and ultimately adopting a style of thought is unethical, immoral, and illegal. Doing so under the auspices of a government sponsored institution does not make it any more right or proper.
I am not a racist. Not through my thoughts. Not through my actions. Most certainly not as an immutable condition of my birth. I owe no apologies for my white skin, nor do I owe any special concessions or considerations to people of darker skin. I am simply obligated to treat all my fellow human beings with the respect, dignity and consideration that their efforts, actions, and accomplishments deserve. Some of them are black, brown, yellow, and yes, even white. Some have dangly bits while others sport innies. None of that makes them more or less deserving than me or any other of their fellows.
Those who believe the only way they can obtain any personal power in life is by defining half the population as victims and the other half as victimizers deserve nothing but scorn, ridicule, and rejection of the thesis under which they wish to live their lives - and mine. Their ideas and arguments in support of those ideas are flawed, and worthy of rejection on their own merits. Race and gender play no part in that evaluation. Any position with the fallback defense being "if you disagree with me you are wrong and in denial and in need of psychological counseling to overcome your aberrations" (why does that bring to mind one of the positions in the Global Warming "debate"?) defines itself as fundamentally invalid.
Only an idea that can be challenged and successfully defended through reason and fact is worthy of consideration. Playground exchanges of "Is too! Is not! IS TOO!! IS NOT!!!" do not meet that criteria.
Every student at that university living in a residence hall is being subjected to something they like to call "Diversity Education Training". One excerpt from a document used to facilitate this indoctrination of residence hall inmates reads: "A RACIST: A racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. 'The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality. By this definition, people of color cannot be racists, because as peoples within the U.S. system, they do not have the power to back up their prejudices, hostilities, or acts of discrimination….'"
Several practices and incidents are cited, which all boil down to the university encouraging, coercing, and outright compelling students to adopt their approved ideology in order to maintain standing within the campus society.
Chairman Mao may have defined education that way. I have slightly differing opinions on the topic.
A university - ideally any educational institution - should as its foundational mission be teaching students how to think. Not what to think, not what views to hold or denounce, but how to take in data from a wide variety of sources, analyze that information, and arrive at an informed, logical conclusion from which they are able to form, express, and rationally defend their own opinions.
Using a position of authority to browbeat students into submitting to and ultimately adopting a style of thought is unethical, immoral, and illegal. Doing so under the auspices of a government sponsored institution does not make it any more right or proper.
I am not a racist. Not through my thoughts. Not through my actions. Most certainly not as an immutable condition of my birth. I owe no apologies for my white skin, nor do I owe any special concessions or considerations to people of darker skin. I am simply obligated to treat all my fellow human beings with the respect, dignity and consideration that their efforts, actions, and accomplishments deserve. Some of them are black, brown, yellow, and yes, even white. Some have dangly bits while others sport innies. None of that makes them more or less deserving than me or any other of their fellows.
Those who believe the only way they can obtain any personal power in life is by defining half the population as victims and the other half as victimizers deserve nothing but scorn, ridicule, and rejection of the thesis under which they wish to live their lives - and mine. Their ideas and arguments in support of those ideas are flawed, and worthy of rejection on their own merits. Race and gender play no part in that evaluation. Any position with the fallback defense being "if you disagree with me you are wrong and in denial and in need of psychological counseling to overcome your aberrations" (why does that bring to mind one of the positions in the Global Warming "debate"?) defines itself as fundamentally invalid.
Only an idea that can be challenged and successfully defended through reason and fact is worthy of consideration. Playground exchanges of "Is too! Is not! IS TOO!! IS NOT!!!" do not meet that criteria.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Response to Follow?
Following is the text of an email sent to Hillary Clinton via the "Contact Us" link on her presidential campaign web site. Do I expect anything more meaningful (or sinister) than an auto-responder generic thank-you text? Of course not. But it can't hurt to get the details out as publicly as possible.
Wouldn't it be a pleasant surprise to hear Hillary or any of the others actually respond to the question posed? On the off chance something more should come from her camp it will be posted in this space. Keep checking back!
The message that was sent:
Wouldn't it be a pleasant surprise to hear Hillary or any of the others actually respond to the question posed? On the off chance something more should come from her camp it will be posted in this space. Keep checking back!
The message that was sent:
Mrs. Clinton,
You dare to suggest that Governor Spitzer is doing a grand and noble thing by putting driver’s licenses into the hands of illegal immigrants. You express a heartwarming concern that all these people who are illegally in this country might harm themselves or possibly even others while operating a motor vehicle, as if somehow that is the fundamental underlying issue.
What exactly is it that you and your ilk are incapable of comprehending about the word "illegal" in the term ILLEGAL alien? These people, of their own volition, are violating the laws of this country. They do not require help assimilating - which most of them do not wish; they do not need help obtaining government services paid for by legal citizens and legal resident aliens; they do not need to have the "stigma" of their illegal status washed away by citizenship or pseudo-citizenship proposals that serve only to penalize those would be immigrants who have, are, or hope to follow the legal pathways to entry and possible citizenship.
The only assistance they require is in exiting this country with all possible haste. If you or anyone else is truly concerned about breaking up families that were illegally created while they were illegally present within this country I, and no doubt many others, are more than willing to foot the bill for transporting those family members back to the illegal alien's country of origin. I am certainly not harsh enough to want to forcibly separate a child from its parent just because that parent is a criminal.
Were some hypothetical individual (I almost wrote "were I", but don't want you sicking your Secret Service goons on me in the trumped up misinterpretation that I am suggesting or even implying some sort of threat against either you or your property) to enter your home and remove your valuables, I very seriously doubt you would be so magnanimous as to suggest that this "non-owner unauthorized reallocation of wealth" perpetrator should be shown compassion or showered with government - read taxpaying United States citizen - funded largesse to rectify his personal economic deprivation. I have every confidence that you would demand that the police and criminal justice system do everything possible to rectify such a wrong perpetrated against you.
How is it you can stand before the citizens of this nation and proudly proclaim that you lack the intellectual honesty to apply the same standards to those who are breaking and entering our nation and stealing our wealth, exporting it to family members in foreign countries? Is political expediency truly a satisfying, let alone acceptable, answer?
Jay Vreeland
Friday, August 31, 2007
So Long, New Jersey . . . .
And thanks for all the fish! (With apologies to Mr. Adams.)
When I first conceived of this blog entry, I intended to say that there weren't any fish. However, it later occurred to me that that is not exactly true. Minado on Rt. 10 has what is far and away the best sushi buffet I've ever enjoyed.
With so many reasons to be thankful about for leaving, it is nice to be able to come up with one true regret. I will truly miss stuffing myself so full of raw fish that it is necessary to unbuckle my belt just to sit down in the car.
When I first conceived of this blog entry, I intended to say that there weren't any fish. However, it later occurred to me that that is not exactly true. Minado on Rt. 10 has what is far and away the best sushi buffet I've ever enjoyed.
With so many reasons to be thankful about for leaving, it is nice to be able to come up with one true regret. I will truly miss stuffing myself so full of raw fish that it is necessary to unbuckle my belt just to sit down in the car.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Border Security with Lower Taxes
“What this country needs is a good 5¢ cigar.”
That sentiment has driven a lot of the innovation and success that defined the
From the Pacific Ocean to the
Production of the weapons, implementation, and maintenance of the system would be highly labor intensive. The preferred source of labor for all these endeavors would be those who are currently in this country illegally. Let them earn legal status by helping defend the boarder they thumbed their noses at previously. After say, ten years, they could be promoted from recognized illegal to legal immigrant status. Progressive steps could be included in the program to answer the demands of the path-to-citizenship crowd. Taking the equivalent of the entire
So, up to this point there is a tremendous amount of capital outlay for creation and maintenance of this neo-Maginot Line. The astute reader might well wonder where the tax reduction portion of this program comes from.
The Internet.
That’s right, the World Wide Web. In 2005, the web site www.live-shot.com caused quite the uproar by offering internet based hunting opportunities for those who are handicapped, or simply couldn’t face hunting that wasn’t reduced to the personal interaction level of a video game. The same concept can be applied here. Instead of live operators manning the guns 24x7, the weapons would instead be remotely operated via internet link. Cameras for sighting and automated firing mechanisms are proven concepts and can be readily incorporated into this plan. And that is where the profit making, tax reducing opportunity of this program comes in.
Charge Americans – heck, anyone in the world who wants to do their part to preserve the
The US-Mexico border is 1,951 miles long, or 3,433,760 yards. With a machine gun erected every 500 yards, that would require 6,868 emplacements. That represents 9,889,920 billable minutes per day, or potential annual revenue of $3,609,820,800. More than enough to self-fund this program. Premium rates could be applied for target rich times and locations to further enhance revenue generation. With current border defense resources able to be redirected to other needs and the surplus also incorporated into the federal budget, while it might be minute the net result would be the opportunity to lower taxes for the nation.
That’s a pretty good 5¢ cigar indeed.
Thursday, May 03, 2007
Starting Over - Again
It is more than a little amazing to realize eight months have passed since the list time I visited here. I certainly thought about it regularly, but always found something more important - or at least pressing - to do with the time. Here lays down one more well intentioned brick.
Tonight was the first Republican debate of the 2008 election cycle. Yes, flipping through the dial I was snagged by the Democrats last week. This week I quite intentionally sought out the Republicans. It is far too early to pay any attention to the polls or even manage to work up the slightest bit of real emotion about this election. Even with every state trying to snag February 5, and no doubt preferably figure out a way to get January 1 without tipping their hand, the truth is that what is important today will for the most part not even be discussed nine months from now. Iraq is one glaring exception to that - but doesn't an exception need to exist to prove the rule? My reason for watching was simple: I unashamedly admit that I'm a junkie. Thank you MSNBC for two fixes in two weeks, and only seven months after the last general election. I'm almost over withdrawal!
One observation: The Republicans as a group were for less interesting to look in on than the Democrats were. Who would have thought that Joe Biden would stand out as a rock star compared to the men from the Red State world, or that Ron Paul would be the closest thing to a counter punch Mike Gravel would face?
At least with this absurdly extended campaign season we can count on plenty more opportunities to enjoy these theaters of irrelevancy.
One sad note for me came during the "pre-game show". Nancy Reagan first posed for a picture with the debaters in the mock-up of Ronald Reagan's Oval Office. Later, she was escorted to her seat on the arm of Arnold Schwarzenegger. Both instances served to define what a frail, tired looking old Lady she has become. Nearly all vestiges of the fashion plate we remember from the White House years have been erased by time. It was a kick in the gut on a par with watching Ronald Reagan give his address to the 1992 nominating convention. No one knew yet of the Alzheimer's that would soon be disclosed, but even so it was painfully obvious that something was terribly wrong with The Great Communicator.
Without question she was not always loved, or lovable. But Nancy Reagan was every bit as important to the success of the Reagan Era as Ronald himself. Be well, Mrs. Reagan.
Tonight was the first Republican debate of the 2008 election cycle. Yes, flipping through the dial I was snagged by the Democrats last week. This week I quite intentionally sought out the Republicans. It is far too early to pay any attention to the polls or even manage to work up the slightest bit of real emotion about this election. Even with every state trying to snag February 5, and no doubt preferably figure out a way to get January 1 without tipping their hand, the truth is that what is important today will for the most part not even be discussed nine months from now. Iraq is one glaring exception to that - but doesn't an exception need to exist to prove the rule? My reason for watching was simple: I unashamedly admit that I'm a junkie. Thank you MSNBC for two fixes in two weeks, and only seven months after the last general election. I'm almost over withdrawal!
One observation: The Republicans as a group were for less interesting to look in on than the Democrats were. Who would have thought that Joe Biden would stand out as a rock star compared to the men from the Red State world, or that Ron Paul would be the closest thing to a counter punch Mike Gravel would face?
At least with this absurdly extended campaign season we can count on plenty more opportunities to enjoy these theaters of irrelevancy.
One sad note for me came during the "pre-game show". Nancy Reagan first posed for a picture with the debaters in the mock-up of Ronald Reagan's Oval Office. Later, she was escorted to her seat on the arm of Arnold Schwarzenegger. Both instances served to define what a frail, tired looking old Lady she has become. Nearly all vestiges of the fashion plate we remember from the White House years have been erased by time. It was a kick in the gut on a par with watching Ronald Reagan give his address to the 1992 nominating convention. No one knew yet of the Alzheimer's that would soon be disclosed, but even so it was painfully obvious that something was terribly wrong with The Great Communicator.
Without question she was not always loved, or lovable. But Nancy Reagan was every bit as important to the success of the Reagan Era as Ronald himself. Be well, Mrs. Reagan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)