Like many people these days, I have a Facebook presence. I never understood the point, but one of the lefties who never comment here anymore, one of my faves by the name of "Les" emailed me asking if I had one. Eventually I got one and I found one good reason (possibly the only one worth the effort) of having anything to do with FB and that was to try and contact old friends. It worked. I've been able to contact quite a few, including one I haven't seen in about thirty years.
Another I haven't seen in awhile is a regular poster and presented the final few minutes of one of the worst Steven Segal movies ever, called "On Deadly Ground". Absolutely horrible, except for the cool fight scenes.
Anyway, my friend posts the end of the movie which is an overwrought environmentalist pleading, not much different than your basic AlGore drivel. It shows those weepy shots of oil-covered animals and like most such calls for action, assume we can just drop oil consumption and switch to wind, solar, electric cars and fairy dust, and do it *SNAP!* just like that! Needless to say, I posted as somewhat snarky comment, mostly regarding the quality of the movie, but some directed at this part of it.
WELL! My buddy was none too pleased and launched into a raving chastisement which included knocking me out if we were close enough for him to do so (it's possible---we used to be martial arts students together). I asked him, "Why the hate, dude?" and he replied that I don't know a damned thing and that the Gulf is now just so F'd that I have no idea! There was talk about greedy oil people and such, I defended against such childish claims, he called me other names and suggested I don't know what I'm talking about.
This led to him sending me, upon my request, a sizable list of videos to watch (in order educate myself on things beyond my ability to fathom), some of which I've been able to watch and the rest still on tap. I haven't viewed enough for a report on the lot of them, but of the few I've seen some good ideas and also some conspiracy stories (hapless inventors oppressed by the man).
But I digress.
Getting back to the Gulf, I've read in this morning's paper a story from the Washington Post regarding a missing 4 million barrels of oil that spewed from the BP well. Here's some of what "experts" are saying:
"On Wednesday, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration chief Jane Lubchenco said the oil is now much less visible on the surface and present only in microscopic, dilute droplets further down. She said that was a sign that the Gulf ecosystem is resilient and processing the hydrocarbons.
But she said that 'doesn't mean the situation is benign because it is not.'
'There's so much noise out there now saying the Gulf is dead or the Gulf will come back easily,' Lubchenco said. 'The truth is in the middle.'"
That sounds reasonable. In fact, it's kinda what I was saying myself, or at least I was speaking in that tone as regards the hyperbolic nature of the Segal movie and my buddy's rants. Here's more:
"The best-case scenario is that much of this amount has been eaten by the Gulf's natural stock of oil-munching microbes."
It goes on to say that some scientists think these microbes, which I believe I've mentioned to my friend, might cause problems of their own, depleting oxygen that sea creatures need, but that no oxygen-free dead zones have been detected thus far. Ed Overton, a professor at LSU, believes the microbes, helped by the summer heat (Hurray for global warming!) was helping. In fact, he believes we're "well, well over the hump" and that the environment is in the recovery stage.
Already? I thought we had a "fragile earth"!
All seriousness aside, it's still not a joking matter. The condition, as Lubchenco said, is still a matter of great concern. The effects could last for quite some time and will likely be monitored for years to come.
But what this article points out is that nature can indeed handle quite a bit. It always has and likely always will. It's bigger than mankind and I personally doubt that we could destroy it without an intense and concerted effort on everyone's part, worldwide. That's not to say that we shouldn't play cleanly as we continue moving forward with technological developments. Of course we should. But the political games have to stop. This event is being played for the benefit of economically damaging political policy proposals, like cap and trade. We can't allow that to continue because the fact is that the condition of the earth isn't going to matter to people without jobs. And the fact is that we need oil still, (as well as coal and nuclear) because there hasn't been any really practical alternatives ready to step in and take over without breaking the bank. What's more, if we finally can drive decent cars that don't look like crap as well as don't need gas and oil, we'd still have over four thousand other products for which we need oil to produce.
UPDATE: I just read and article by Jonah Goldberg, someone that makes lib heads explode with his smarts, that actually could have been used for its own post, but contains more info regarding the actual measure of the Gulf disaster. And as he points out, despite the over-hyped nature of the environmental laments, it is still a disaster. It's just not as bad as everyone of the environmentalists and Obama people shamefully hoped it would be. Apparently it isn't enough that eleven men lost their lives. It must really suck for them when more suffering does not occur. It seems two points I can plainly see are true has thus far been validated: 1) The earth is not the fragile planet some hope is the case, and 2) Technology has advanced to the point that even with government intervention, more commonly known as "government interference", the worst scenarios of any given disaster can be mitigated effectively. The left just hates that.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Stupidity Directs Judge's Actions
This AP report demonstrates why it is so important to know as much as possible about a presidential candidate, lest he appoint an idiot to federal courts. U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton put a hold on several aspects of the new AZ law which goes into effect Thursday. There are several questionable aspects of her ruling:
"Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked,"
Apparently, she believes that the federal requirement that lawful aliens maintain legal identification on their persons at all times is a restriction on their liberty. Can you say "ass-backwards"? Having proper ID is what maintains the liberty of a lawfully-present alien. This is true for actual citizens as well. If I am pulled over for a traffic violation, my liberty will be in jeopardy if I don't have any ID, since I'm supposed to have my driver's license with my while driving. If I am merely walking the street and suspected of a crime, perhaps due to a physical resemblance to a wanted individual, my liberty will be suspended if I have no ID to prove who I am, or rather, that I am NOT the person they seek. (The horrors! I would have been profiled for my resemblance to the wanted dude!)
Further stupidity in the above quote is the implied notion that for AZ officials to wonder as to the legal status of anyone arrested and without ID is somehow foreign. Worse, is the implication that there is any less burden on the arrested "legally-present" alien if their arrest came about though federal action. In fact, would it be more or less a burden on their liberty if the crime for which they were arrested was a federal crime? In some cases, I would suspect that local cops make the arrest, but hold the suspect until the feds arrive. Since the feds don't work out of local police stations, there'd be a wait involved.
The judge put a hold on parts of the law that "...made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places."
Is this legal at all anywhere in this country? Why is it a problem here, where so many citizens, some legal aliens, are trying to find work?
"She ruled that the controversial sections should be put on hold until the courts resolve the issues."
This would have been nice had they done as much for other states, like Missouri and California, that already have similar laws in place, and for the federal law itself, already in effect and unenforced.
"Opponents argued the law will lead to racial profiling..." dishonest fear mongering of the worst kind. Playing the race card in order to enable law-breaking is reprehensible despite how typical it is. "...conflict with federal immigration law..." it can't conflict if it was patterned upon that very federal law. It aligns with federal law. "...and distract local police from fighting more serious crimes." as does stopping motorists for broken taillights. What a BS argument. The concern for "serious" crime is a sham and only mentioned to support an already weak argument for the open borders crowd. It is used in arguments for legalizing recreational drugs. It is used for arguing against laws that restrict whatever the advocate wants to support.
"There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new (law)," Bolton ruled. "By enforcing this statute, Arizona would impose a 'distinct, unusual and extraordinary' burden on legal resident aliens that only the federal government has the authority to impose."
First of all, "substantial likelihood"? Says who? There is always a likelihood that cops will arrest an innocent person. So what? That's what lawyers and one's day in court is for. That's what the court system is for, to determine whether an arrest is just or not. It's more abject fear-mongering, once again playing on the racial aspects of the situation.
Secondly, no "'distinct, unusual and extraordinary' burden" is imposed on ANY legal alien who has legitimate ID as they are lawfully required to have at all times. And really, what difference does it make WHO imposes this so-called "'distinct, unusual and extraordinary' burden", as long as it is lawfully imposed?
"Federal authorities who are trying to overturn the law have argued that letting the Arizona law stand would create a patchwork of immigration laws nationwide that would needlessly complicate the foreign relations of the United States. Federal lawyers said the law is disrupting U.S. relations with Mexico and other countries and would burden the agency that responds to immigration-status inquiries."
There's no patchwork if all states enact laws that are patterned on the federal law as AZ has done. This argument is incredibly stupid coming from "authorities". And if maintaining and enforcing existing federal law "complicates the foreign relations of the United States", then I would suggest that those engaged in said relations need to be replaced as they apparently are willing to trade our sovereignty and duty to our own citizens in order to bribe other nations to be friendly. Screw that. I'll take John Bolton over such weasels any day of the week.
But here's the one silver lining and it's a lesson for the nation, but mostly for the fools who are opposing the AZ law:
"It also led an unknown number of illegal immigrants to leave Arizona for other American states or their home countries."
And that's the point. DUH! Hello! Idiot lefty fools? Are you listening?
Imagine every state adopting the AZ example! This is evidence of what the anti-comprehensive immigration reform/amnesty people have been saying all along. You enforce the law and illegal trespassers leave. We won't have to "round up all 12+ million illegals", like some boneheads like to argue. Enforcing the laws already on the books is enough to make their decision to invade and stay unprofitable and uncomfortable. Rather than busting our collective asses to accommodate them, enforcing the laws makes them bust their asses to accommodate the country into which they mean to trespass. If you are illegally here, go back whence you came and get in the back of the line formed along the already established pathway to citizenship. While it is still there. I'd prefer it be closed for the next decade.
"Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked,"
Apparently, she believes that the federal requirement that lawful aliens maintain legal identification on their persons at all times is a restriction on their liberty. Can you say "ass-backwards"? Having proper ID is what maintains the liberty of a lawfully-present alien. This is true for actual citizens as well. If I am pulled over for a traffic violation, my liberty will be in jeopardy if I don't have any ID, since I'm supposed to have my driver's license with my while driving. If I am merely walking the street and suspected of a crime, perhaps due to a physical resemblance to a wanted individual, my liberty will be suspended if I have no ID to prove who I am, or rather, that I am NOT the person they seek. (The horrors! I would have been profiled for my resemblance to the wanted dude!)
Further stupidity in the above quote is the implied notion that for AZ officials to wonder as to the legal status of anyone arrested and without ID is somehow foreign. Worse, is the implication that there is any less burden on the arrested "legally-present" alien if their arrest came about though federal action. In fact, would it be more or less a burden on their liberty if the crime for which they were arrested was a federal crime? In some cases, I would suspect that local cops make the arrest, but hold the suspect until the feds arrive. Since the feds don't work out of local police stations, there'd be a wait involved.
The judge put a hold on parts of the law that "...made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places."
Is this legal at all anywhere in this country? Why is it a problem here, where so many citizens, some legal aliens, are trying to find work?
"She ruled that the controversial sections should be put on hold until the courts resolve the issues."
This would have been nice had they done as much for other states, like Missouri and California, that already have similar laws in place, and for the federal law itself, already in effect and unenforced.
"Opponents argued the law will lead to racial profiling..." dishonest fear mongering of the worst kind. Playing the race card in order to enable law-breaking is reprehensible despite how typical it is. "...conflict with federal immigration law..." it can't conflict if it was patterned upon that very federal law. It aligns with federal law. "...and distract local police from fighting more serious crimes." as does stopping motorists for broken taillights. What a BS argument. The concern for "serious" crime is a sham and only mentioned to support an already weak argument for the open borders crowd. It is used in arguments for legalizing recreational drugs. It is used for arguing against laws that restrict whatever the advocate wants to support.
"There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new (law)," Bolton ruled. "By enforcing this statute, Arizona would impose a 'distinct, unusual and extraordinary' burden on legal resident aliens that only the federal government has the authority to impose."
First of all, "substantial likelihood"? Says who? There is always a likelihood that cops will arrest an innocent person. So what? That's what lawyers and one's day in court is for. That's what the court system is for, to determine whether an arrest is just or not. It's more abject fear-mongering, once again playing on the racial aspects of the situation.
Secondly, no "'distinct, unusual and extraordinary' burden" is imposed on ANY legal alien who has legitimate ID as they are lawfully required to have at all times. And really, what difference does it make WHO imposes this so-called "'distinct, unusual and extraordinary' burden", as long as it is lawfully imposed?
"Federal authorities who are trying to overturn the law have argued that letting the Arizona law stand would create a patchwork of immigration laws nationwide that would needlessly complicate the foreign relations of the United States. Federal lawyers said the law is disrupting U.S. relations with Mexico and other countries and would burden the agency that responds to immigration-status inquiries."
There's no patchwork if all states enact laws that are patterned on the federal law as AZ has done. This argument is incredibly stupid coming from "authorities". And if maintaining and enforcing existing federal law "complicates the foreign relations of the United States", then I would suggest that those engaged in said relations need to be replaced as they apparently are willing to trade our sovereignty and duty to our own citizens in order to bribe other nations to be friendly. Screw that. I'll take John Bolton over such weasels any day of the week.
But here's the one silver lining and it's a lesson for the nation, but mostly for the fools who are opposing the AZ law:
"It also led an unknown number of illegal immigrants to leave Arizona for other American states or their home countries."
And that's the point. DUH! Hello! Idiot lefty fools? Are you listening?
Imagine every state adopting the AZ example! This is evidence of what the anti-comprehensive immigration reform/amnesty people have been saying all along. You enforce the law and illegal trespassers leave. We won't have to "round up all 12+ million illegals", like some boneheads like to argue. Enforcing the laws already on the books is enough to make their decision to invade and stay unprofitable and uncomfortable. Rather than busting our collective asses to accommodate them, enforcing the laws makes them bust their asses to accommodate the country into which they mean to trespass. If you are illegally here, go back whence you came and get in the back of the line formed along the already established pathway to citizenship. While it is still there. I'd prefer it be closed for the next decade.
Friday, July 23, 2010
Report On Illegals And Crime
I found this report to be very interesting. It reminded me of a CDC report showing that 60% of new syphillis cases are from the 2% of the population that are homosexuals. Here, we see 9% of the AZ population are illegals from Mexico, and they constitute 22% of the violent crimes committed (at least in Maricopa County). There is a graph that lists various crimes to illustrate what percentage is committed by illegals. There is only one that is below that 9% mark that denotes the percentage of illegals, but almost every other crime shows higher percentages of illegals being arrested (by that I'm referring to higher percentage than the 9% who are illegal). If it was Congress instead of crime, they'd be over-represented, as they are so in nearly every crime category.
The costs are very high. The report is dealing with just one state or county, but of course, there are illegals all over the country. I wonder how the stats compare nationally. Some people speak of the financial benefits of illegals (actually they usually just say "immigrants" and group them all together) and I also wonder how those alleged economic bennies match up to all these costs of criminal activity, adding also NON-violent crimes, as well as other costs to our society like welfare-type assistance for illegals.
The costs are very high. The report is dealing with just one state or county, but of course, there are illegals all over the country. I wonder how the stats compare nationally. Some people speak of the financial benefits of illegals (actually they usually just say "immigrants" and group them all together) and I also wonder how those alleged economic bennies match up to all these costs of criminal activity, adding also NON-violent crimes, as well as other costs to our society like welfare-type assistance for illegals.
Of Course Obama's A Socialist
The title of this post is take from this American Thinker article. It would have been nice to have had it available while the discussion two posts below was still in gear, but it'll do nicely enough here. That some, even some on the right, steer clear of the word in relation to the Socialist-in-Chief, one cannot dismiss his upbringing, his own recorded words (in print, on tape and video) and of course his actions, some of which the article discusses. The reality is that Obama backers, leftists and even those disturbing souls on the right can only deny. They cannot defend against the truth. This Obumble is a socialist (as well as an idiot).
There is only one aspect where I might diverge from the author, and that has to do with just how far he'll go, or how far he'll set up the next socialist (should the nation not get the message soon) toward actual socialism of the type that even the lefties CAN'T deny. He might settle for the level of control he now has for awhile. But why would he stop there?
There is only one aspect where I might diverge from the author, and that has to do with just how far he'll go, or how far he'll set up the next socialist (should the nation not get the message soon) toward actual socialism of the type that even the lefties CAN'T deny. He might settle for the level of control he now has for awhile. But why would he stop there?
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Racist, Or Just A Jerk?
I saw this and just had to post it. For someone who's a lefty, Whoopie Goldberg has always impressed me as someone who sometimes has a decent perspective, depending on the issue. On this issue of the recent Mel Gibson tirade, I am in total agreement with her, that the use of racial epithets does not indicate even latent racism within the, uh, "spewer". She makes a remark about being cut off in the car and how her emotions make her lash out. Few could honestly deny doing something similar. When emotions are high, intelligence is low. This is a fact and during emotional times, everyone is stupid and many say stupid things that don't really imply anything more than being emotional and then saying something stupid. I mean, how could Gibson be considered racist for saying such words to his girlfriend? It doesn't make sense. He's not a racist. He's pissed off. There's a difference. If he was a racist, he'd never have been with the woman to begin with.
At the same time, I see his name all over the internet. It's on the yahoo home page regarding hot topics. And it's in the news on TV. What I should be seeing more of is REAL racism that is being perpetrated by that Black Panther dude insisting that a good black man should be killing "crackers" (I love that eptithet! I'm happy to be referred to in such a happy way! Of all the things I could be called, that one just brings a smile to my face. "I hate that cracker! He kept smiling while I beat his ass!")
But that's REAL racism. Calling names is just calling names. Being pissed isn't racism, and being pissed while drunk isn't racism. Should Mel lose business because of his personal life? Too many in his line haven't over things I think are worse, or at least no better. He also carries the stigma of daring to believe in God, even though he too often displays his own imperfection (he NEEDS Jesus, doesn't he? Don't we all!) I'll still see his movies. I find the guy entertaining. I hope he finds a way to deal with whatever demons possess him. He used to be a source of pride with a previously long-standing marriage, lots of kids and even his own chapel on his property. But he's obviously got issues with booze and rage. May he find peace and may the rest of us get over this race-baiting when no racism really exists.
At the same time, I see his name all over the internet. It's on the yahoo home page regarding hot topics. And it's in the news on TV. What I should be seeing more of is REAL racism that is being perpetrated by that Black Panther dude insisting that a good black man should be killing "crackers" (I love that eptithet! I'm happy to be referred to in such a happy way! Of all the things I could be called, that one just brings a smile to my face. "I hate that cracker! He kept smiling while I beat his ass!")
But that's REAL racism. Calling names is just calling names. Being pissed isn't racism, and being pissed while drunk isn't racism. Should Mel lose business because of his personal life? Too many in his line haven't over things I think are worse, or at least no better. He also carries the stigma of daring to believe in God, even though he too often displays his own imperfection (he NEEDS Jesus, doesn't he? Don't we all!) I'll still see his movies. I find the guy entertaining. I hope he finds a way to deal with whatever demons possess him. He used to be a source of pride with a previously long-standing marriage, lots of kids and even his own chapel on his property. But he's obviously got issues with booze and rage. May he find peace and may the rest of us get over this race-baiting when no racism really exists.
Sunday, July 04, 2010
Happy 4th!
With the growth of the Tea Party movement, and the seemingly overall swelling of interest in the political, today might more, or at least, different significance than July 4th's of recent years. 9/11 brought about a patriotism based on a rejection of foreign tyranny and the feeling protecting the nation from it. Now, there is a sense of patriotism based on a rejection of domestic tyranny, manifested in bad legislation, appointments, judicial nominations and proposals still going through the process of forced feeding of an unwilling populace. More people, hopefully, are looking to our founders to remember what they had in mind for our country and our Constitution, and those who do are shocked at how far away from those ideals our leaders have tried to direct this nation.
We must resolve on this day to become even more involved, more vocal and more willing to take action as we get even closer to November. Stay on top of our representatives no matter what party they happen to represent. Make sure they understand that above all, they are to represent us.
Please keep the course and character of our nation in mind today. We must not let that course continue in the current direction. We must not allow the character of our nation to diminish any more than it has, but must insure that its character is refined and elevated so that our leadership amongst nations is again apparent.
In the meantime, don't blow off any fingers today. Enjoy the day, but remember why it's special.
We must resolve on this day to become even more involved, more vocal and more willing to take action as we get even closer to November. Stay on top of our representatives no matter what party they happen to represent. Make sure they understand that above all, they are to represent us.
Please keep the course and character of our nation in mind today. We must not let that course continue in the current direction. We must not allow the character of our nation to diminish any more than it has, but must insure that its character is refined and elevated so that our leadership amongst nations is again apparent.
In the meantime, don't blow off any fingers today. Enjoy the day, but remember why it's special.
Thursday, July 01, 2010
Mayor Daley Is An Idiot
I just read this online and frankly, it's not surprising. Aside from Daley being a Democrat, and that alone makes him an idiot, his position on gun control is about the goofiest pile of steaming bile one can imagine. This line is a gem:
"As long as I'm mayor, we will never give up or give in to gun violence that continues to threaten every part of our nation, including Chicago," said Daley, who was flanked by activists, city officials and the parents of a teenager whose son was shot and killed on a city bus while shielding a friend.
If he knew how to read, he could bone up on the studies that show a marked drop in violent crime following the enactment of concealed carry laws in states that have them. He could also see how states like his (which is also mine) have much higher murder rates per capita than do states with more reasonable gun laws. If he didn't have his fat head buried so deeply up his posterior, he would understand that the scum of the earth will not be the least bit put out by his attempt to further contribute to gun violence by continuing to disarm the law-abiding in Chicago.
The following is from the list of restrictions he's planning on enacting once the SCOTUS decision takes effect:
"• Prohibit people from owning a gun if they were convicted of a violent crime, domestic violence or two or more convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs."
He almost gets it right. Convicts, I believe, are already prohibited from gun ownership, though I might be wrong on that. But that is a good law to have. I don't mind that right being restricted for those who have proven to be a lawbreaker already. But the rest of the line poses problems. Neither domestic violence or drunk driving means one is likely to go shooting up the place. And domestic violence can mean varying degrees, with one side being somewhat, uh, less violent.
In any case, this would be a wee bit less insulting if the Mayor was not armed himself, either personally or by virtue of having bodyguards. None of his proposals should be passed without him having to surrender any arms or bodyguards that he uses for personal protection. OR, he should not be able to leave the house, or sit on his porch, or be in his garage with his bodyguards with him. Leave them in the house.
"As long as I'm mayor, we will never give up or give in to gun violence that continues to threaten every part of our nation, including Chicago," said Daley, who was flanked by activists, city officials and the parents of a teenager whose son was shot and killed on a city bus while shielding a friend.
If he knew how to read, he could bone up on the studies that show a marked drop in violent crime following the enactment of concealed carry laws in states that have them. He could also see how states like his (which is also mine) have much higher murder rates per capita than do states with more reasonable gun laws. If he didn't have his fat head buried so deeply up his posterior, he would understand that the scum of the earth will not be the least bit put out by his attempt to further contribute to gun violence by continuing to disarm the law-abiding in Chicago.
The following is from the list of restrictions he's planning on enacting once the SCOTUS decision takes effect:
"• Prohibit people from owning a gun if they were convicted of a violent crime, domestic violence or two or more convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs."
He almost gets it right. Convicts, I believe, are already prohibited from gun ownership, though I might be wrong on that. But that is a good law to have. I don't mind that right being restricted for those who have proven to be a lawbreaker already. But the rest of the line poses problems. Neither domestic violence or drunk driving means one is likely to go shooting up the place. And domestic violence can mean varying degrees, with one side being somewhat, uh, less violent.
In any case, this would be a wee bit less insulting if the Mayor was not armed himself, either personally or by virtue of having bodyguards. None of his proposals should be passed without him having to surrender any arms or bodyguards that he uses for personal protection. OR, he should not be able to leave the house, or sit on his porch, or be in his garage with his bodyguards with him. Leave them in the house.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)