Finally, a common sense ruling that denies in state tuition for illegals. The court got this right on both legal and practical grounds.
Illegals should not be given better treatment (for anything) than non resident citizens. At the end of the day, we owe our first obligation to citizens. To treat citizens worse than illegals is shameful.
Here is a copy of the ruling. It is a good read.
September 16, 2008
September 07, 2008
MCCAIN DOES NOT REALLY ADDRESS IMMIGRATION AT CONVENTION--GO FIGURE
Just another reason that you should not support the traitor McCain.
This will be the first time in my life that I vote for a Democratic President in protest to how the republicans have been handling illegal immigration and drugs from Mexico.
Please join me in protesting the Republican Presidential Nominee by not voting for McCain this November.
McCain sucks doo doo (sp?).
This will be the first time in my life that I vote for a Democratic President in protest to how the republicans have been handling illegal immigration and drugs from Mexico.
Please join me in protesting the Republican Presidential Nominee by not voting for McCain this November.
McCain sucks doo doo (sp?).
ILLEGAL KILLS BOY AND TWO WOMEN
I just don't get how an illegal with an "extensive" criminal record is allowed to stay in this country; a move by our State officials that would ultimately lead to the deaths of three people.
Because of these continued abuses by our government at the cost of its legal residents, I will not be voting for any Republicans that are less than tough on illegal immigrants.
This means no for McCain.
Because of these continued abuses by our government at the cost of its legal residents, I will not be voting for any Republicans that are less than tough on illegal immigrants.
This means no for McCain.
August 22, 2008
WOW
Here is a man that hates white women. He sounds pathetic (and a bit jealous).
Such hate . . . Cannot we just all get along?
P.S. Is this really a man? Sounds like a woman. I am so confused . . .
Such hate . . . Cannot we just all get along?
P.S. Is this really a man? Sounds like a woman. I am so confused . . .
FUNNY PICTURE OF JACKSON
I cannot listen to the guy after his comments about Obama! He always seemed off to me, but now he just seems to be totally partisan.
August 20, 2008
August 19, 2008
SAN FRAN, CALIFORNIA IS MESSED UP
I just don't get how a city can provide aid to illegal immigrants that are also felons.
This is one more reason that I am "sooooo" glad that I don't live in California anymore. California is not a State that I consider to be a positive representative of America.
In California it does pay to break the law; especially if you are an illegal. It is crazy if you ask me.
These "aid" programs to such felons are expensive and are additional evidence that the massive inflow of illegal immigrants into California continues to increase State and local deficits; and reduce the quality of life for average law abiding citizens.
I think California is fast becoming a third world State (or as close as a State can be).
I personally find it deplorable that a State continues to ignore is poor legal residents in favor of supporting programs for illegal immigrants that have "cut" in front of others that are waiting to get in this legally.
I challenge any politician to send his or her kids to an average public school in California. This would never happen as the public schools in California have to neglect the education of legal families in order to support those that break laws. Just look at the pass rate for California's HS exit exam. And to argue (after looking at these numbers) that illegal immigration doesn't hurt the education of children of parents in this country legally is insane. It can be nothing more than devastating to these kids, as it fundamentally changes the future all of California's children to some degree.
How about the drugs that continue to be unchallenged at the easiest point of entry into this Country, the southern border?
How about the congestion, pollution that makes the lives of all Californians a little worse?
How about the health care system that is overrun with expenses associated with treating illegal immigrants that will never be accounted to pay for their services; while California's legal poor are charged huge fees anytime they need to visit the ER?
I don't see the fairness of this system, but it does appear to be corrupt. And the corruption starts at the top with the politicians that seek political gain. It is truly shameful.
And these "acts" of kindness that California continues to display primarily towards illegal Latinos has never been displayed towards its historically poor Black Americans. Why is this? I just don't get how anyone can call this double standard fair; it seems racially motivated to me.
If it was truly fair, then it would provide all of California's poor with the same opportunity to look the other way when laws are broken because of poverty related circumstances. But this is not what happens. Instead, California's historically poor English speaking residents (primarily Black Americans) are forced to share their resources with those in this country illegally. This in turn just further exacerbates the difficult living conditions of these poor Americans; making life seem even more hopeless I guess?
Just look at all the Black on Brown crime (and vise versa) in California. If illegal immigration was such a benefit to Black Americans would there be so much love loss in California?
This could all change if we didn't make exceptions for one race or another and just applied the law to all.
This is one more reason that I am "sooooo" glad that I don't live in California anymore. California is not a State that I consider to be a positive representative of America.
In California it does pay to break the law; especially if you are an illegal. It is crazy if you ask me.
These "aid" programs to such felons are expensive and are additional evidence that the massive inflow of illegal immigrants into California continues to increase State and local deficits; and reduce the quality of life for average law abiding citizens.
I think California is fast becoming a third world State (or as close as a State can be).
I personally find it deplorable that a State continues to ignore is poor legal residents in favor of supporting programs for illegal immigrants that have "cut" in front of others that are waiting to get in this legally.
I challenge any politician to send his or her kids to an average public school in California. This would never happen as the public schools in California have to neglect the education of legal families in order to support those that break laws. Just look at the pass rate for California's HS exit exam. And to argue (after looking at these numbers) that illegal immigration doesn't hurt the education of children of parents in this country legally is insane. It can be nothing more than devastating to these kids, as it fundamentally changes the future all of California's children to some degree.
How about the drugs that continue to be unchallenged at the easiest point of entry into this Country, the southern border?
How about the congestion, pollution that makes the lives of all Californians a little worse?
How about the health care system that is overrun with expenses associated with treating illegal immigrants that will never be accounted to pay for their services; while California's legal poor are charged huge fees anytime they need to visit the ER?
I don't see the fairness of this system, but it does appear to be corrupt. And the corruption starts at the top with the politicians that seek political gain. It is truly shameful.
And these "acts" of kindness that California continues to display primarily towards illegal Latinos has never been displayed towards its historically poor Black Americans. Why is this? I just don't get how anyone can call this double standard fair; it seems racially motivated to me.
If it was truly fair, then it would provide all of California's poor with the same opportunity to look the other way when laws are broken because of poverty related circumstances. But this is not what happens. Instead, California's historically poor English speaking residents (primarily Black Americans) are forced to share their resources with those in this country illegally. This in turn just further exacerbates the difficult living conditions of these poor Americans; making life seem even more hopeless I guess?
Just look at all the Black on Brown crime (and vise versa) in California. If illegal immigration was such a benefit to Black Americans would there be so much love loss in California?
This could all change if we didn't make exceptions for one race or another and just applied the law to all.
July 14, 2008
MCCAIN PANDERS TO LATINOS AGAIN
Don't vote for McCain . . . I just don't get it why any Republican would continue to pander to any one group based on race; especially when there is so much controversy regarding illegal immigration and its dilution of others' voting rights (once amnesty is fully implemented).
McCain is just another Bush. They both suck and continue to neglect average citizens in hopes of political gains. I personally do not consider McCain a hero. If he ever was one, he no longer is a hero. He is just an old crony politician that has totally lost any connection he might have had to average Americans.
If we are going down the Amnesty route, then let us do it with a democrat. At least he will tax the top 1 percent more heavily to pay for this burden placed on the average citizen by corrupt politicians.
Don't vote for McCain; vote Obama!!!!
McCain is just another Bush. They both suck and continue to neglect average citizens in hopes of political gains. I personally do not consider McCain a hero. If he ever was one, he no longer is a hero. He is just an old crony politician that has totally lost any connection he might have had to average Americans.
If we are going down the Amnesty route, then let us do it with a democrat. At least he will tax the top 1 percent more heavily to pay for this burden placed on the average citizen by corrupt politicians.
Don't vote for McCain; vote Obama!!!!
June 17, 2008
June 13, 2008
BUSH SUCKS
It has been 2 days, so I thought I should reiterate that Bush really does suck. I cannot wait for 2009!!!
And to think I used to be a Republican. He and others (including McCain) have ruined that party for me. Why cannot there be leaders that understand the importance of keeping religion separate from politics, upholding our laws (even at the border), defending our youth from the drugs crossing the border, spending less not more, and leaving various popular issues of the day to be handled by the States (or the Court as it often turns out).
Final though: Bush Sucks!!!
And to think I used to be a Republican. He and others (including McCain) have ruined that party for me. Why cannot there be leaders that understand the importance of keeping religion separate from politics, upholding our laws (even at the border), defending our youth from the drugs crossing the border, spending less not more, and leaving various popular issues of the day to be handled by the States (or the Court as it often turns out).
Final though: Bush Sucks!!!
OHIO MEN GUILTY
Man, Ohio men have really changed since the last time I visited!!!
Speaking frankly about Islam, I am unwilling to accept it as a rational religions as long as it continues to promote bigotry against gays, women, etc. And for this reason I am generally cautious about Muslims.
Specifically, until Muslims do a better job of removing the hatred, etc. from their religion, and do so publicly, I do not consider it a religion worthy of at least my respect.
This is similar to my beliefs about all groups that are less than critical about their "wrongdoers."
This is one reason I am skeptical about the Roman Catholic organization (given its "handling" of its internal child molestation issues).
But of all religions, I find Islam to be the most repulsive given its continued abuse of women, gay men, and nonbelievers.
I would like to see Islamic leaders publicly and loudly say that those that commit crimes against humanity will not receive the Islamic equivalent of salvation. Mostly such leaders just say they don't agree with the acts, but hardly ever indicate if such actors will still be saved, etc.
Speaking frankly about Islam, I am unwilling to accept it as a rational religions as long as it continues to promote bigotry against gays, women, etc. And for this reason I am generally cautious about Muslims.
Specifically, until Muslims do a better job of removing the hatred, etc. from their religion, and do so publicly, I do not consider it a religion worthy of at least my respect.
This is similar to my beliefs about all groups that are less than critical about their "wrongdoers."
This is one reason I am skeptical about the Roman Catholic organization (given its "handling" of its internal child molestation issues).
But of all religions, I find Islam to be the most repulsive given its continued abuse of women, gay men, and nonbelievers.
I would like to see Islamic leaders publicly and loudly say that those that commit crimes against humanity will not receive the Islamic equivalent of salvation. Mostly such leaders just say they don't agree with the acts, but hardly ever indicate if such actors will still be saved, etc.
June 11, 2008
PRESIDENT BUSH SHOULD BE EXECUTED; IN A COURT OF LAW THAT IS
It is has been two days so I need to mention how bad a President big business Bush has been.
Recently, there has been some attempts to impeach Bush; or the beginnings of such attempts. I say good for you Congress; even though it is all for show and in the end will ultimately demonstrate how "Broadway" Congress really has been.
It still amazes me that Congress does nothing to close down the "easiest" routes of getting drugs into the U.S. The drug lords know that there is virtually no resistance at the Mexican border so these lords (that are not already in Mexico) ship their cocaine, etc. into Mexico so it can be walked or driven across the border.
At minimum, our government should protect these points of access and force the drug lords to use more difficult means of entry. If this was done the price of drugs would definitely go up as it would become more difficult to get the same quantity of drugs into the U.S.
And because this simple task of securing our borders is not done, thousands of our kids will die from drug related issues. And for what?
Because Bush does nothing about these preventable deaths, I consider him a traitor of this nations and as such should be punished to the extent possible. But this will never happen as our government is so corrupt it is disgusting. At least we can document his crimes so future generations will be aware of those that he killed here in the United States.
Recently, there has been some attempts to impeach Bush; or the beginnings of such attempts. I say good for you Congress; even though it is all for show and in the end will ultimately demonstrate how "Broadway" Congress really has been.
It still amazes me that Congress does nothing to close down the "easiest" routes of getting drugs into the U.S. The drug lords know that there is virtually no resistance at the Mexican border so these lords (that are not already in Mexico) ship their cocaine, etc. into Mexico so it can be walked or driven across the border.
At minimum, our government should protect these points of access and force the drug lords to use more difficult means of entry. If this was done the price of drugs would definitely go up as it would become more difficult to get the same quantity of drugs into the U.S.
And because this simple task of securing our borders is not done, thousands of our kids will die from drug related issues. And for what?
Because Bush does nothing about these preventable deaths, I consider him a traitor of this nations and as such should be punished to the extent possible. But this will never happen as our government is so corrupt it is disgusting. At least we can document his crimes so future generations will be aware of those that he killed here in the United States.
June 09, 2008
HAVE I MENTIONED LATELY THAT BUSH IS A TERRIBLE PRESIDENT
Man Bush really really sucks the big one. He is what is totally wrong with a lot of developed nations. You know, if you are from a "rich" family then you get to step over people that are more qualified. But I guess this has always been true; its just the way it is.
Bush is a complete idiot. Just listen to him speak. He is the worst Presidential speaker that I have ever heard. Listening to him speak is like watching President Ford walk; waiting for that one inevitable misstep or fall.
It makes you wonder about the hanging chads in the 2000 election. It makes you wonder how easy it would be to manipulate the election in order to get a "Haliburton" man elected, as VP, in order to control a truly stupid President.
The real problem is our press is so incompetent at "investigating" criminal activity that we will never know. After all, each of our major press organizations are owned by publicly owned (big) businesses.
Now, and always, publicly owned businesses have one primary responsibility; to make their shareholders richer. They are obligated to their shareholders to increase profit margins and expand revenues, and to do so quarterly.
Sure, there are rules that prohibit broadcasters from "directly" spreading lies, but what about spinning the truth, or deliberately not reporting or pursuing the truth without actually telling direct lies?
After all, given that NBC is owned by General Electric (a major corporation with significant military endeavors), what is the chance that NBC would ever report on any illegalities conducted by GE or any of its affiliates?
Have you ever wondered why there are never "breaking news" stories before "Enron goes belly up;" basically all of the major stories these days are after the fact or involve some type of sensationalistic topic that consumes a month of news time.
Who is left to ensure that the truth is discovered? We know the media will not do it, and it is unlikely that any politician will either.
I guess we are left with the whistle blowers, and the loan revolutionary. With these as our options, it is probably better that we move towards a socialistic society. After all, power really does corrupt, and we have such a great concentration of power in this country.
Bush is a complete idiot. Just listen to him speak. He is the worst Presidential speaker that I have ever heard. Listening to him speak is like watching President Ford walk; waiting for that one inevitable misstep or fall.
It makes you wonder about the hanging chads in the 2000 election. It makes you wonder how easy it would be to manipulate the election in order to get a "Haliburton" man elected, as VP, in order to control a truly stupid President.
The real problem is our press is so incompetent at "investigating" criminal activity that we will never know. After all, each of our major press organizations are owned by publicly owned (big) businesses.
Now, and always, publicly owned businesses have one primary responsibility; to make their shareholders richer. They are obligated to their shareholders to increase profit margins and expand revenues, and to do so quarterly.
Sure, there are rules that prohibit broadcasters from "directly" spreading lies, but what about spinning the truth, or deliberately not reporting or pursuing the truth without actually telling direct lies?
After all, given that NBC is owned by General Electric (a major corporation with significant military endeavors), what is the chance that NBC would ever report on any illegalities conducted by GE or any of its affiliates?
Have you ever wondered why there are never "breaking news" stories before "Enron goes belly up;" basically all of the major stories these days are after the fact or involve some type of sensationalistic topic that consumes a month of news time.
Who is left to ensure that the truth is discovered? We know the media will not do it, and it is unlikely that any politician will either.
I guess we are left with the whistle blowers, and the loan revolutionary. With these as our options, it is probably better that we move towards a socialistic society. After all, power really does corrupt, and we have such a great concentration of power in this country.
WHAT IF OBAMA DOESN'T WIN IN NOVEMBER? WAS IT ALL A RUSE?
I think Clinton would have won in November against McCain, so what if McCain wins against Obama?
How did Obama get so well financed so soon? Is it possible that he was propped up in the primary to lose in November? I know, it seems very unlikely, right?
We are always told that big business controls the government. I guess we will finally see if it is true this November.
Now, I think the one way to screw up such a wild "conspiracy theory" would be for Obama to chose Clinton as his running mate. This is why I think he would be a fool not to pick her, but then we all have our own hubris.
How did Obama get so well financed so soon? Is it possible that he was propped up in the primary to lose in November? I know, it seems very unlikely, right?
We are always told that big business controls the government. I guess we will finally see if it is true this November.
Now, I think the one way to screw up such a wild "conspiracy theory" would be for Obama to chose Clinton as his running mate. This is why I think he would be a fool not to pick her, but then we all have our own hubris.
June 08, 2008
HOW BAD DOES BUSH SUCK?
Let me tell you how terrible a president Bush has been. He has been such a bad president that he has unified a nation against "his" policies, and has forced (or allowed) us to put aside all of our racial bickering and sexist beliefs in order to select not only a black American, but also a woman for the 2008 Democratic ticket. Now that is what I call special.
Some people might not think that this is that big a deal, but during my whole life I have been repeatedly told how racially divided we are as a nation; not to mention how difficult it is for a woman to earn an equal wage. However, after 8 years of sucking on Bush's terribly corroded tail pipes, it appears that we have put all our major differences behind us in order to get rid of the Bush stank.
Of course, we could all still hate each other and this could be just another trick by the "man" used to sneak McCain through the back door. After all, Obama did receive unprecedented sums of money from the so called "grass roots." So we are either not as racially divided as we have been told by our useless media, or we are all truly being played by man in one masterfully orchestrated ruse.
Who knows.
Personally, I will not vote for McCain unless he specifically says that he will not support any amnesty legislation while he is in the White House. If he does not specifically say this to the public then I will vote for Obama and let the rich deal with all the new taxes to pay for such amnesty.
But McCain is an idiot, and to me he and Bush are the reasons that I will probably never vote for a Republican again (after doing so for the entirety of my life). Both parties suck, but at least the Democrats will find a way to make the old Republicans pay for their policies.
You heard it here first, but we are on our way to becoming a socialistic society; the next Germany or Sweden I suppose. I guess this is the truest statement of how Bush sucks; he killed the republic as we know it and it will never be the same. Oh well, new adventures, new fun for the next generation.
Some people might not think that this is that big a deal, but during my whole life I have been repeatedly told how racially divided we are as a nation; not to mention how difficult it is for a woman to earn an equal wage. However, after 8 years of sucking on Bush's terribly corroded tail pipes, it appears that we have put all our major differences behind us in order to get rid of the Bush stank.
Of course, we could all still hate each other and this could be just another trick by the "man" used to sneak McCain through the back door. After all, Obama did receive unprecedented sums of money from the so called "grass roots." So we are either not as racially divided as we have been told by our useless media, or we are all truly being played by man in one masterfully orchestrated ruse.
Who knows.
Personally, I will not vote for McCain unless he specifically says that he will not support any amnesty legislation while he is in the White House. If he does not specifically say this to the public then I will vote for Obama and let the rich deal with all the new taxes to pay for such amnesty.
But McCain is an idiot, and to me he and Bush are the reasons that I will probably never vote for a Republican again (after doing so for the entirety of my life). Both parties suck, but at least the Democrats will find a way to make the old Republicans pay for their policies.
You heard it here first, but we are on our way to becoming a socialistic society; the next Germany or Sweden I suppose. I guess this is the truest statement of how Bush sucks; he killed the republic as we know it and it will never be the same. Oh well, new adventures, new fun for the next generation.
NBA REFS SUCK
I was watching the Finals tonight and just don't get some of the touch calls that change the game. It makes the game too boring for me. Let the stars play.
There has been some mention lately that the NBA fixes games. This would at least explain why the refs seem so incompetent some times.
During the 2002 Western Finals, I too did wonder what in the hell was going on with the calls. It always appeared that Shaq was being given calls in order to boost his status.
Because of the odd string of calls made by the refs in favor of Shaq, I thought long ago that there was a concerted effort to promote his success.
I guess the NBA is a bit "Broadway" too, along with our Congress and press. At least we still have football where we still have good old cheating, but the games are not fixed.
There has been some mention lately that the NBA fixes games. This would at least explain why the refs seem so incompetent some times.
During the 2002 Western Finals, I too did wonder what in the hell was going on with the calls. It always appeared that Shaq was being given calls in order to boost his status.
Because of the odd string of calls made by the refs in favor of Shaq, I thought long ago that there was a concerted effort to promote his success.
I guess the NBA is a bit "Broadway" too, along with our Congress and press. At least we still have football where we still have good old cheating, but the games are not fixed.
COST OF ILLEGALS
Here is an example of the true cost of illegals to California.
Currently, there are about 1 million illegal families (with about 2 kids per family give or take) in California. For purposes of this example, and simplicity, we will assume that these 1 million illegal families include 1 dad, 1 mom, and 2 kids.
According to California, it spends around 9 thousand for education per kid. So for our example, each illegal family costs California around 18 thousand per year (or 18 billion in total).
Now if we assume that these illegal families do not have health care insurance; and such is paid for by California, then it is probably conservative to assume that these families cost the State around 15 thousand a year per family for "emergency room" health care. The "wholesale" price of health care for the average family of 4 is around 1500 per month. For most, this expense is paid for in good part by "employers" while the rest is paid for by the "employees." The retail (or emergency care) price of this health care is up to 3 times this. Therefore, assuming that this expense per illegal family is around 15 thousand seems fair for purposes of this example. At 15 thousand per illegal family, this health care expense costs California around another 15 billion dollars.
Now what about the expenses associated with incarcerating around 100 thousand illegals per year in California? At 40 thousand per inmate per year, this adds an additional 4 billion per year.
Now what about the expenses associated with all the infrastructure issues, such as maintaining the roads, dealing with the additional pollution, etc. Who knows what the number is, but for this example, let us assume it is at least 1 billion per year.
How about all the drugs that are brought into California directly from Mexico? How do you measure the expense associated with the fact that most of the big name drugs used in the U.S. are either walked or driven into the U.S. from Mexico? Again, who knows. But we will assume for this example that this costs California another 5 billion a year in crimes, deaths, health related issues, reduced productivity, etc.
In sum, under this example we have around 43 billion in direct expenses to California because of the illegal families now living in the State.
So what do these families give back to California? Well these families must be out earning some money right. Let us assume for this example that each family earns 60 thousand dollars. This is a guess, but it seems fair, give or take.
Now we know that around 50 percent of illegals do not pay taxes, but for this example, let us be very conservative and assume that 100 percent of the illegals pay taxes as they should. Let us further be conservative and assume that these families pay such taxes at an effective rate of 50 percent when you include sales and federal taxes (with 16 of the 50 going to the State).
Under these generous, conservative assumptions this would lead to 30 billion in total taxes (with a portion going directly and indirectly to California). Even, if we assume that 100 percent of these taxes ultimately made it to California then we are still running a 13 billion dollar deficit.
But there must be much more gains to California associated with having a cheap labor force, right? Personally, I would argue that these gains net to zero or thereabouts. First, any money saved by businesses go to these businesses profits and is therefore taxed, etc. However, if these businesses didn't have such a cheap labor force, then such savings would go to the employees as higher wages and be taxed.
Sure, maybe less businesses would be in place, and California's economy might not be growing so fast or be so large, but what would this mean to the average legal family? I would argue that there would be less traffic and a much greater quality of life. After all, how do you measure the cost of an additional hour in traffic a day because of illegals? What is an hour of a person's life worth? How about 250 hours a year?
Therefore, given all the quality of life intangibles, it could be argued that the costs associated with the deteriorating quality of life issues equals the so called "unseen" economic benefits of having this cheap, but illegal labor pool; at least for the average person.
Personally, the quality of life really deteriorated while we were living in California. Further, I never felt or realized any of these so called unseen economic benefits associated with all these illegals. Things still seemed expensive to me; much more expensive than other parts of the country. But it was the quality of life issues that made living in California unacceptable. To much time in traffic, too much pollution, just too many people. And way too many drugs and crimes.
So based on all of these assumptions, California should be experiencing around a 13 billion dollar deficit per year directly associated with its illegal families. Now this only equates to around 450 dollars per legal individual (including minors), but 13 billion is still a large sum of money. And I am sure each family of 4 could use that additional 2 thousand dollars each year.
Even though this is an example, we do know that California is running an overall deficit this year of around 14.5 billion. So maybe there is some truth in the numbers above?
I bet when you consider the huge amount of drugs coming into the U.S. from Mexico, and the quality of life issues, there are many more negatives associated with our "open border" policy. What about the thousands of people that die each year from the drug usage associated with the drugs coming across the border? The U.S. Census states that 20 thousand people die nationwide directly from illegal drug use each year. How many of these deaths are associated with the drugs coming across the border? 10, 20, 30 percent? How many of these deaths could be eliminated with a tougher border policy? I bet we could save at least a 1000 lives each year.
So what do you think?
Currently, there are about 1 million illegal families (with about 2 kids per family give or take) in California. For purposes of this example, and simplicity, we will assume that these 1 million illegal families include 1 dad, 1 mom, and 2 kids.
According to California, it spends around 9 thousand for education per kid. So for our example, each illegal family costs California around 18 thousand per year (or 18 billion in total).
Now if we assume that these illegal families do not have health care insurance; and such is paid for by California, then it is probably conservative to assume that these families cost the State around 15 thousand a year per family for "emergency room" health care. The "wholesale" price of health care for the average family of 4 is around 1500 per month. For most, this expense is paid for in good part by "employers" while the rest is paid for by the "employees." The retail (or emergency care) price of this health care is up to 3 times this. Therefore, assuming that this expense per illegal family is around 15 thousand seems fair for purposes of this example. At 15 thousand per illegal family, this health care expense costs California around another 15 billion dollars.
Now what about the expenses associated with incarcerating around 100 thousand illegals per year in California? At 40 thousand per inmate per year, this adds an additional 4 billion per year.
Now what about the expenses associated with all the infrastructure issues, such as maintaining the roads, dealing with the additional pollution, etc. Who knows what the number is, but for this example, let us assume it is at least 1 billion per year.
How about all the drugs that are brought into California directly from Mexico? How do you measure the expense associated with the fact that most of the big name drugs used in the U.S. are either walked or driven into the U.S. from Mexico? Again, who knows. But we will assume for this example that this costs California another 5 billion a year in crimes, deaths, health related issues, reduced productivity, etc.
In sum, under this example we have around 43 billion in direct expenses to California because of the illegal families now living in the State.
So what do these families give back to California? Well these families must be out earning some money right. Let us assume for this example that each family earns 60 thousand dollars. This is a guess, but it seems fair, give or take.
Now we know that around 50 percent of illegals do not pay taxes, but for this example, let us be very conservative and assume that 100 percent of the illegals pay taxes as they should. Let us further be conservative and assume that these families pay such taxes at an effective rate of 50 percent when you include sales and federal taxes (with 16 of the 50 going to the State).
Under these generous, conservative assumptions this would lead to 30 billion in total taxes (with a portion going directly and indirectly to California). Even, if we assume that 100 percent of these taxes ultimately made it to California then we are still running a 13 billion dollar deficit.
But there must be much more gains to California associated with having a cheap labor force, right? Personally, I would argue that these gains net to zero or thereabouts. First, any money saved by businesses go to these businesses profits and is therefore taxed, etc. However, if these businesses didn't have such a cheap labor force, then such savings would go to the employees as higher wages and be taxed.
Sure, maybe less businesses would be in place, and California's economy might not be growing so fast or be so large, but what would this mean to the average legal family? I would argue that there would be less traffic and a much greater quality of life. After all, how do you measure the cost of an additional hour in traffic a day because of illegals? What is an hour of a person's life worth? How about 250 hours a year?
Therefore, given all the quality of life intangibles, it could be argued that the costs associated with the deteriorating quality of life issues equals the so called "unseen" economic benefits of having this cheap, but illegal labor pool; at least for the average person.
Personally, the quality of life really deteriorated while we were living in California. Further, I never felt or realized any of these so called unseen economic benefits associated with all these illegals. Things still seemed expensive to me; much more expensive than other parts of the country. But it was the quality of life issues that made living in California unacceptable. To much time in traffic, too much pollution, just too many people. And way too many drugs and crimes.
So based on all of these assumptions, California should be experiencing around a 13 billion dollar deficit per year directly associated with its illegal families. Now this only equates to around 450 dollars per legal individual (including minors), but 13 billion is still a large sum of money. And I am sure each family of 4 could use that additional 2 thousand dollars each year.
Even though this is an example, we do know that California is running an overall deficit this year of around 14.5 billion. So maybe there is some truth in the numbers above?
I bet when you consider the huge amount of drugs coming into the U.S. from Mexico, and the quality of life issues, there are many more negatives associated with our "open border" policy. What about the thousands of people that die each year from the drug usage associated with the drugs coming across the border? The U.S. Census states that 20 thousand people die nationwide directly from illegal drug use each year. How many of these deaths are associated with the drugs coming across the border? 10, 20, 30 percent? How many of these deaths could be eliminated with a tougher border policy? I bet we could save at least a 1000 lives each year.
So what do you think?
WILL ILLEGALS IN CALIFORNIA REDUCE THE VOTING POWER OF LEGALS?
Once the illegals are given citizenship (through amnesty) legal citizens in several States will lose a significant portion of their voting power.
In California, "amnesty" would end up creating around 2 million new voters in a State of around 10 million votes (give or take). Basically, this will virtually eliminate any value associated with any Independent or Republic votes.
Just one more example of legal citizens be thrown under the bus for politicians. And another reason why we could no longer continue to live in one of these States.
In California, "amnesty" would end up creating around 2 million new voters in a State of around 10 million votes (give or take). Basically, this will virtually eliminate any value associated with any Independent or Republic votes.
Just one more example of legal citizens be thrown under the bus for politicians. And another reason why we could no longer continue to live in one of these States.
OBAMA'S HEALTH CARE PLAN
Questions: Will this universal health care plan be offered to illegal aliens? If it is, then who is going to pay for insuring 10 to 20 million illegal aliens at around 4 to 5 thousand dollars per year per alien.
Questions: If illegal aliens are not covered, then are they still going to be able to get health care at the various emergency rooms around the country? If they can still do this, then who will pay for this expense?
Questions: If illegal aliens are not covered, then are they still going to be able to get health care at the various emergency rooms around the country? If they can still do this, then who will pay for this expense?
April 04, 2008
ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS COST CALIFORNIA 10 BILLION ANNUALLY
With 1 million illegal families in California this number is probably low.
Each family requires around 18 thousand in State funding for public schooling (at 9 thousand per student). Each family requires around 10 to 16 thousand for medical services and other social services paid for by the State.
These numbers do not include the fees for the drugs brought into the State or the criminals incarcerated by the State.
So how much does each of these families pay in State taxes through their low skilled jobs?
Each family requires around 18 thousand in State funding for public schooling (at 9 thousand per student). Each family requires around 10 to 16 thousand for medical services and other social services paid for by the State.
These numbers do not include the fees for the drugs brought into the State or the criminals incarcerated by the State.
So how much does each of these families pay in State taxes through their low skilled jobs?
AMERICANS FOR LEGAL IMMIGRATION
I like the pictures! Not sure what is up with Absolut Vodka, but one "might" think that its ad was a bad idea.
The only way to get things done is with your wallet these days. You know, an American financial revolution.
The only way to get things done is with your wallet these days. You know, an American financial revolution.
March 22, 2008
CALIFORNIA'S EDUCATIONAL CRISIS
. . . In January, Education Week reported that California spends almost $1,900 below the national per-student average, ranking us 46th in the nation for education spending. The 2007 "Getting Down to Facts" studies led by Stanford University concluded that if we are going to prepare our children to participate in the global economy, school districts would need several billion dollars more each year. . .
CALIFORNIA'S 50 BILLION DOLLAR BUDGET DEFICIT
Here is some more info on California's dismal educational structure:
California ranked almost last in terms of the ratio of total school staff to students in 2005–06, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. The state had only 72% as many school staff members as the average state. With respect to administrators, California had 274 students per administrator. That was significantly higher than the U.S. average of 174 and higher still than the average of 109 in Texas, another of the five most populous states. California had only 33% as many district officials/administrators as the national average and only 63% as many school principals and assistant principals as the national average.
With respect to teachers, California ranked 49th, with 75% as many as the national average. California ranked 51st—last—on guidance counselors and librarians. California had only 1.1 guidance counselors per 1,000 students, compared to an average of 2.1 nationally and only 0.2 librarians per 1,000 students, compared to 1.1 nationally.
California ranked almost last in terms of the ratio of total school staff to students in 2005–06, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. The state had only 72% as many school staff members as the average state. With respect to administrators, California had 274 students per administrator. That was significantly higher than the U.S. average of 174 and higher still than the average of 109 in Texas, another of the five most populous states. California had only 33% as many district officials/administrators as the national average and only 63% as many school principals and assistant principals as the national average.
With respect to teachers, California ranked 49th, with 75% as many as the national average. California ranked 51st—last—on guidance counselors and librarians. California had only 1.1 guidance counselors per 1,000 students, compared to an average of 2.1 nationally and only 0.2 librarians per 1,000 students, compared to 1.1 nationally.
March 21, 2008
MRS. OBAMA DOESN'T REALLY LIKE WHITE AMERICA?
See prior post on Wright. It just goes to show you how complicated the issues are when a person that attended one of the best schools in the "world," and makes more money than 99 percent of all people in the world, still has never really been "proud" of her country.
A very "glass is half empty" attitude that reflects a psychology of racism that now exists in our nation. Truth be told, this psychology of racism causes more problems for us than just eliminating racism and poverty in American.
For example, even if we could magically eliminate the bigotry and poverty that exists in this country, a good amount of black Americans would still "perceive" racism. The simple psychology of it suggests that if you kick someone in the gut enough times, then this person will enter new relationships expecting to be kicked in the gut.
Therefore, the task of all America is not only to remove real bigotry and poverty, but also to prove to those black Americans that have suffered the effects of racism for decades that white Americans no longer hold those horrible beliefs towards black Americans. [And as Obama recently stated in his speech on Racism, this will require us to significantly improve our schools; and therefore the opportunities available to black Americans. This is however not going to be easy when our schools are also having to change their curriculum to account for large amounts of non English speaking students.]
Hopefully, if Obama becomes President some of his wife's disparaging feelings towards white Americans will dissipate just a bit (in her and others like her). This is why for me, notwithstanding the fact that Obama has made some racially insensitive statements (such as "typical white"), I think it is important for me to continue to support him in hopes of building a better tomorrow. How bigoted of me, right? Man I am confused.
A very "glass is half empty" attitude that reflects a psychology of racism that now exists in our nation. Truth be told, this psychology of racism causes more problems for us than just eliminating racism and poverty in American.
For example, even if we could magically eliminate the bigotry and poverty that exists in this country, a good amount of black Americans would still "perceive" racism. The simple psychology of it suggests that if you kick someone in the gut enough times, then this person will enter new relationships expecting to be kicked in the gut.
Therefore, the task of all America is not only to remove real bigotry and poverty, but also to prove to those black Americans that have suffered the effects of racism for decades that white Americans no longer hold those horrible beliefs towards black Americans. [And as Obama recently stated in his speech on Racism, this will require us to significantly improve our schools; and therefore the opportunities available to black Americans. This is however not going to be easy when our schools are also having to change their curriculum to account for large amounts of non English speaking students.]
Hopefully, if Obama becomes President some of his wife's disparaging feelings towards white Americans will dissipate just a bit (in her and others like her). This is why for me, notwithstanding the fact that Obama has made some racially insensitive statements (such as "typical white"), I think it is important for me to continue to support him in hopes of building a better tomorrow. How bigoted of me, right? Man I am confused.
MR. WRIGHT IS A BIGGOT
Oh well. In my life time there will always be black Americans that dislike white Americans. And, as long as the poverty rates are so high among black Americans, it is hard to imagine it otherwise.
I guess the real question is how do you convince the average white American that if they step forward to help reduce the poverty rate of the average black American that such black Americans will no longer hold their currently held resentment; whatever that means?
[It is hard to write about this as I will never know what if feels like to be a black American; I can only attempt to put out my thoughts in hopes of creating a better dialogue. I do know what it feels like to grow up alone, without loving parents, and never feeling like I quite fit in or had a home. I do know what it feels like to grow up feeling incomplete and struggling to make my way; struggling to make a home. Of course my resulting insecurities were not tied to the color of my skin so they were easy (at times) for me to hide.]
Unfortunately, I don't think color had that much to do with the original acts of slavery in the Americas, or other places for that matter. It seems to have been more about money; and the "haves" taking advantage of the "have nots."
But through these hateful acts grew hateful stereotypes that began to control our thoughts to some extent or another. And in the end, what started as pure greed somehow became an issue of race; an issue of black and white that we have used to label good and bad (and vise versa).
Then again, throughout history, cultures have spent a good amount of time "looking down" on other cultures; and even within cultures there seems to have always been class systems. This has been true in Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Americas.
I believe that people are people and our character is unrelated to the color of our skin. The color is just a convenient scape goat. If Europeans had dark skin (and Africans had light skin) I think history would still have been the same; you know, with the aristocratic few taking advantage of the many.
It has been Africa's climate that has led to its peoples' skin tone. Unfortunately, over the last 1000 years it is probably also this climate that has made living in Africa more challenging than some other countries. Thus, our situation is probably more a reflection of human nature than skin color. More a reflection of the fact that humans have spent most of our history conquering new lands than making good neighbors.
After all, we all originally came from Africa; we are all genetically African. Therefore, we are really all the same under it all. And our differences are really not differences at all; they are really similarities resulting from our primitive human nature to be the king of the mountain.
But somewhere along the line we started to allow our physical differences to define us; to be the cause of our actions.
I guess the real question is how do you convince the average white American that if they step forward to help reduce the poverty rate of the average black American that such black Americans will no longer hold their currently held resentment; whatever that means?
[It is hard to write about this as I will never know what if feels like to be a black American; I can only attempt to put out my thoughts in hopes of creating a better dialogue. I do know what it feels like to grow up alone, without loving parents, and never feeling like I quite fit in or had a home. I do know what it feels like to grow up feeling incomplete and struggling to make my way; struggling to make a home. Of course my resulting insecurities were not tied to the color of my skin so they were easy (at times) for me to hide.]
Unfortunately, I don't think color had that much to do with the original acts of slavery in the Americas, or other places for that matter. It seems to have been more about money; and the "haves" taking advantage of the "have nots."
But through these hateful acts grew hateful stereotypes that began to control our thoughts to some extent or another. And in the end, what started as pure greed somehow became an issue of race; an issue of black and white that we have used to label good and bad (and vise versa).
Then again, throughout history, cultures have spent a good amount of time "looking down" on other cultures; and even within cultures there seems to have always been class systems. This has been true in Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Americas.
I believe that people are people and our character is unrelated to the color of our skin. The color is just a convenient scape goat. If Europeans had dark skin (and Africans had light skin) I think history would still have been the same; you know, with the aristocratic few taking advantage of the many.
It has been Africa's climate that has led to its peoples' skin tone. Unfortunately, over the last 1000 years it is probably also this climate that has made living in Africa more challenging than some other countries. Thus, our situation is probably more a reflection of human nature than skin color. More a reflection of the fact that humans have spent most of our history conquering new lands than making good neighbors.
After all, we all originally came from Africa; we are all genetically African. Therefore, we are really all the same under it all. And our differences are really not differences at all; they are really similarities resulting from our primitive human nature to be the king of the mountain.
But somewhere along the line we started to allow our physical differences to define us; to be the cause of our actions.
CALIFORNIA'S IMMIGRATION CRISIS
For political reasons, the press always seems to represent that illegal immigration is an economic positive when it is all said and done. Well if this is the case, then California should be at the forefront of reaping the benefits, as a majority of the illegals currently reside in California.
So how is California doing?
The Governor recently stated that unless California takes action right now, and makes significant budgetary cuts, that California faces a projected $14.5 billion deficit by June 2009.
These cuts include a 10 percent reduction in teachers and educational spending in California. Not good, right?
Currently, there are around 30 states that spend more per student on education than California. So how can this be, given that California has an unrestricted supply of illegal immigrants?
Is it because the millions of illegal immigrants that live in California are primarily comprised on low skilled labor? Could it be that such low skilled labor provide less to the tax base than they require from California in social services such as education?
If the illegal aliens are adding so significantly to the economy of California, then should not there be a surplus of resources to help educate its children?
I guess only time will tell, but if illegal immigration is truly a good thing then why is California asking the government to keep the National Guard on the border?
So how is California doing?
The Governor recently stated that unless California takes action right now, and makes significant budgetary cuts, that California faces a projected $14.5 billion deficit by June 2009.
These cuts include a 10 percent reduction in teachers and educational spending in California. Not good, right?
Currently, there are around 30 states that spend more per student on education than California. So how can this be, given that California has an unrestricted supply of illegal immigrants?
Is it because the millions of illegal immigrants that live in California are primarily comprised on low skilled labor? Could it be that such low skilled labor provide less to the tax base than they require from California in social services such as education?
If the illegal aliens are adding so significantly to the economy of California, then should not there be a surplus of resources to help educate its children?
I guess only time will tell, but if illegal immigration is truly a good thing then why is California asking the government to keep the National Guard on the border?
March 13, 2008
WHAT'S UP EVERGREEN HIGHLANDS ASSOCIATION!!!
The move is progressing fairly well and Evergreen is a beautiful place. One thing that has been new is getting use to the rules, manners, and politics of a Home Owners Association; as we have never been part of one before.
One thing that is currently taking place is that some individuals (referred to as the "kid eaters") are attempting to put restrictions on outdoor "play sets" or jungle gyms; you know the wood ones. This is unfortunate as it seems to be creating a rift between the "kid supporters" and the "kid eaters." JUST KIDDING!!!! I AM JOKING, REALLY.
I do feel that these types of changes, which seem to be so blatantly targeting families, tend to create mild neighborhood hostilities between the traditional community members and the new families that have moved into the association.
The one item that we as adults should take on as a community is the well being and development of our kids; even if we are unrelated. In the end, we are all in it together and healthy kids in Evergreen (in our association) will support the growth of our nation as adults; and therefore kids everywhere. However, when such rules are put forth it does sadden me just a bit and brings me back to reality regarding how indifferent some people can be towards their neighbors, towards our kids. [In truth, there seems to be a struggle between the "RV" owners and the "play set" owners to some degree. How this will work out I do not know; even though I understand the desire of all parties to keep the lots clean, nice, or whatever.]
It really is a shame and I anticipate that this rule will lessen the community feel of the Evergreen Highlands if a compromise is not determined fast. I even find myself not sure if I should waive and say hello to people on the street as I am worried it might be someone that is resentful to have kids in the neighborhood; you know the kid eaters. JUST JOKING AGAIN!!!
It almost feels like we still live in the big city; but only just a bit. Otherwise things are good here.
I do think that people in Colorado are nicer than the people I met in California during law school. I also think that the move will be a good thing for the family, as things are much more family oriented here (outside the association issues) than our prior locations.
Let me just say, this place overall is much less stressful. It certainly displays fewer of the negative effects of illegal immigration that are currently overwhelming the infrastructure of Southern California. And as soon as we remove our California taint I think people will be more accepting of us; but you do get the sense that locals are "tired" of people moving here to get away from other areas that are undergoing a process of infrastructure decay.
The only thing that I find a little surprising is that locals really like to "tail gate" here. I expected such behavior in California, as things are so overcrowded, but here in Evergreen is a bit odd. It is usually a "soccer" mom that seems to be a day late getting somewhere.
One thing that is currently taking place is that some individuals (referred to as the "kid eaters") are attempting to put restrictions on outdoor "play sets" or jungle gyms; you know the wood ones. This is unfortunate as it seems to be creating a rift between the "kid supporters" and the "kid eaters." JUST KIDDING!!!! I AM JOKING, REALLY.
I do feel that these types of changes, which seem to be so blatantly targeting families, tend to create mild neighborhood hostilities between the traditional community members and the new families that have moved into the association.
The one item that we as adults should take on as a community is the well being and development of our kids; even if we are unrelated. In the end, we are all in it together and healthy kids in Evergreen (in our association) will support the growth of our nation as adults; and therefore kids everywhere. However, when such rules are put forth it does sadden me just a bit and brings me back to reality regarding how indifferent some people can be towards their neighbors, towards our kids. [In truth, there seems to be a struggle between the "RV" owners and the "play set" owners to some degree. How this will work out I do not know; even though I understand the desire of all parties to keep the lots clean, nice, or whatever.]
It really is a shame and I anticipate that this rule will lessen the community feel of the Evergreen Highlands if a compromise is not determined fast. I even find myself not sure if I should waive and say hello to people on the street as I am worried it might be someone that is resentful to have kids in the neighborhood; you know the kid eaters. JUST JOKING AGAIN!!!
It almost feels like we still live in the big city; but only just a bit. Otherwise things are good here.
I do think that people in Colorado are nicer than the people I met in California during law school. I also think that the move will be a good thing for the family, as things are much more family oriented here (outside the association issues) than our prior locations.
Let me just say, this place overall is much less stressful. It certainly displays fewer of the negative effects of illegal immigration that are currently overwhelming the infrastructure of Southern California. And as soon as we remove our California taint I think people will be more accepting of us; but you do get the sense that locals are "tired" of people moving here to get away from other areas that are undergoing a process of infrastructure decay.
The only thing that I find a little surprising is that locals really like to "tail gate" here. I expected such behavior in California, as things are so overcrowded, but here in Evergreen is a bit odd. It is usually a "soccer" mom that seems to be a day late getting somewhere.
March 11, 2008
CLINTON VS. OBAMA
If you add up the votes to date, Clinton has 13,504,000 (rounded) and Obama has 13,587,000.
There is basically 83 thousand votes that separate the two (with Obama leading). Of course, these numbers include Florida and Michigan, which have been excluded by the DNP.
You can see the potential problem the Democratic party faces. If Clinton wins PA by a big margin, then she could easily have the popular vote while trailing in the delegates (excluding the super delegates).
Personally, in a fair system it seems that the person with the most individual votes should get the nomination.
There is basically 83 thousand votes that separate the two (with Obama leading). Of course, these numbers include Florida and Michigan, which have been excluded by the DNP.
You can see the potential problem the Democratic party faces. If Clinton wins PA by a big margin, then she could easily have the popular vote while trailing in the delegates (excluding the super delegates).
Personally, in a fair system it seems that the person with the most individual votes should get the nomination.
March 03, 2008
March 01, 2008
I LEFT MY DEAD DAD AT A STRIP CLUB
A Short Story by Irm Bjorklund
It was late as I drove up to the law school recruiting social. You know the kind of social in which I would be given an opportunity to hob knob with the best partners from a few prestigious law firms.
I was a little disheveled as my dad had just died. And for some reason his perfectly perceived, but quite dead body, was in the back seat of the car blankly staring at me; but not in an impatient way. I guess his death had made me feel a little sentimental this evening, but I had no time to ponder these feelings as I was running late to this recruiting function and had to be at the top of my game.
I parked the car outside the strip joint; oh yes, did I mention that this once in a life time recruiting event was being help at what could only be described as a raunchy, run of the mill strip club filled with cigarette smoke, large brawny bouncers, and the normally scantily dressed dancers. And in the middle of all this raunchiness, there were a handful of tables, all with five or six name tags each, that we where supposed to sit down at and discuss why we wanted become the next great lawyer with several prestigious partners.
Unfortunately, I spent more time paying attention to the bouncers and strippers; and not enough time "hob knobbing" with the partners. This was a once in a lifetime opportunity but I didn’t really seem to care. I guess I was a little distracted. Maybe it was my dead dad in my car. Maybe it was the fact that I was thinking (on a subconscious level) about my ex girlfriend. Maybe it was the confusion of telling a stranger my life story in a strip club; which is oddly enough the behavior that I would probably engage in even if the partners where not here.
Strangely enough, at this moment in which my mind was wondering and my smile grew evermore fake as the minutes passed, my ex-girlfriend showed up. I guess she had heard that my dad had died and was a little concerned about my state of mind; or she just hung out at these types of places? In either case, it was a great relief to see her and to know that I could spend some time with her. We decided to leave the club to get a bite to eat and spend some time talking about us, I hoped.
I told her I would meet her outside; I just had to show my face one last time to the partners and express my gratitude for their interest. As I left the club I couldn’t seem to locate my ex anywhere. The only people in the parking lot were one huge bouncer (that seemed to follow me with his eyes) and a few strippers that where smoking and looking at me like I owed them something; like I was some type of cute puppy dog.
I am not sure what made me more uncomfortable at this moment. The thought that my dad’s body lay in the back seat of my car or the fact that my ex had seemed to have vanished.
There was only one option; to drive around searching for that one restaurant where she was eating. So I grabbed by best friend from law school, Henry Lee, and headed off to find my ex.
We took his car of course. As he drove I attempted to find my ex’s phone number in my Blackberry. But I couldn’t find it. Maybe I was a little drunk but the screen on my phone seemed very blurry and my fingers seemed just a tad bigger than normal. I guess you could say I was all thumbs.
We must have looked for two hours, but we couldn’t find her. Man this was turning out to be one weird night. I had Henry take me home so I could wallow in my loneliness in private.
I guess I had forgotten about my dead dad in the back of my car. Neither my car nor his body seemed to be a real concern. Oh well. I guess I was hoping to have some closure with my ex. Maybe she would call?
Just then the phone rang. It wasn’t her; it was “Shaq” (you know Shaquille O’Neal, the famous ball player). He needed my help with some matters in Japan. I guess my problems would have to wait until I returned home.
It was late as I drove up to the law school recruiting social. You know the kind of social in which I would be given an opportunity to hob knob with the best partners from a few prestigious law firms.
I was a little disheveled as my dad had just died. And for some reason his perfectly perceived, but quite dead body, was in the back seat of the car blankly staring at me; but not in an impatient way. I guess his death had made me feel a little sentimental this evening, but I had no time to ponder these feelings as I was running late to this recruiting function and had to be at the top of my game.
I parked the car outside the strip joint; oh yes, did I mention that this once in a life time recruiting event was being help at what could only be described as a raunchy, run of the mill strip club filled with cigarette smoke, large brawny bouncers, and the normally scantily dressed dancers. And in the middle of all this raunchiness, there were a handful of tables, all with five or six name tags each, that we where supposed to sit down at and discuss why we wanted become the next great lawyer with several prestigious partners.
Unfortunately, I spent more time paying attention to the bouncers and strippers; and not enough time "hob knobbing" with the partners. This was a once in a lifetime opportunity but I didn’t really seem to care. I guess I was a little distracted. Maybe it was my dead dad in my car. Maybe it was the fact that I was thinking (on a subconscious level) about my ex girlfriend. Maybe it was the confusion of telling a stranger my life story in a strip club; which is oddly enough the behavior that I would probably engage in even if the partners where not here.
Strangely enough, at this moment in which my mind was wondering and my smile grew evermore fake as the minutes passed, my ex-girlfriend showed up. I guess she had heard that my dad had died and was a little concerned about my state of mind; or she just hung out at these types of places? In either case, it was a great relief to see her and to know that I could spend some time with her. We decided to leave the club to get a bite to eat and spend some time talking about us, I hoped.
I told her I would meet her outside; I just had to show my face one last time to the partners and express my gratitude for their interest. As I left the club I couldn’t seem to locate my ex anywhere. The only people in the parking lot were one huge bouncer (that seemed to follow me with his eyes) and a few strippers that where smoking and looking at me like I owed them something; like I was some type of cute puppy dog.
I am not sure what made me more uncomfortable at this moment. The thought that my dad’s body lay in the back seat of my car or the fact that my ex had seemed to have vanished.
There was only one option; to drive around searching for that one restaurant where she was eating. So I grabbed by best friend from law school, Henry Lee, and headed off to find my ex.
We took his car of course. As he drove I attempted to find my ex’s phone number in my Blackberry. But I couldn’t find it. Maybe I was a little drunk but the screen on my phone seemed very blurry and my fingers seemed just a tad bigger than normal. I guess you could say I was all thumbs.
We must have looked for two hours, but we couldn’t find her. Man this was turning out to be one weird night. I had Henry take me home so I could wallow in my loneliness in private.
I guess I had forgotten about my dead dad in the back of my car. Neither my car nor his body seemed to be a real concern. Oh well. I guess I was hoping to have some closure with my ex. Maybe she would call?
Just then the phone rang. It wasn’t her; it was “Shaq” (you know Shaquille O’Neal, the famous ball player). He needed my help with some matters in Japan. I guess my problems would have to wait until I returned home.
February 29, 2008
MCCAIN = AMNESTY
Funny video.
The fact that McCain has someone like that on his staff is embassing.
Juan Hernandez used to work for Mexican President Vicente Fox, he has dual US and Mexican citizenship, and is a regular guest on major news networks where he advocates amnesty for illegal aliens and the free flow of people across the US and Mexican border.
The fact that McCain has someone like that on his staff is embassing.
Juan Hernandez used to work for Mexican President Vicente Fox, he has dual US and Mexican citizenship, and is a regular guest on major news networks where he advocates amnesty for illegal aliens and the free flow of people across the US and Mexican border.
ILLEGAL ALLIENS AND CRIME
Interesting read.
. . . Up to a third of the U.S. federal prison population is composed of non-citizens, according to Federal Bureau of Prisons statistics - but not all non-citizen prison inmates are illegal aliens. . .
Once again, how do we hold are federal officials accountable for these crimes?
. . . Up to a third of the U.S. federal prison population is composed of non-citizens, according to Federal Bureau of Prisons statistics - but not all non-citizen prison inmates are illegal aliens. . .
Once again, how do we hold are federal officials accountable for these crimes?
17 PERCECT OF FEDERAL PRISON POPULATION ARE ILLEGALS; COME ON PEOPLE
Just more shame of the federal government.
How does one hold these officials for their crimes? Revolution? Incarceration?
I am surprised there haven't been any nut jobs attempting to make "contact" with these federal officials. Maybe with all the wiretapping, all the nut jobs have been rounded up?
How does one hold these officials for their crimes? Revolution? Incarceration?
I am surprised there haven't been any nut jobs attempting to make "contact" with these federal officials. Maybe with all the wiretapping, all the nut jobs have been rounded up?
ILLEGAL ALLIEN KILLS 4 KIDS
Illegal alien van driver arrested in Minnesota schoolbus tragedy
By Michelle Malkin
February 21, 2008 06:25 PM
The local Fox affiliate in the Twin Cities finally confirms what the local papers didn’t seem to want to mention about the horrible school bus accident that killed four children. It didn’t have to happen:
Authorities have confirmed that the the driver of the van that struck the school bus that killed 4 students on Tuesday is an illegal alien.
Officials at the Immigration and Customs Enforcement are checking to see where she came from and how long she’s been in Minnesota. FOX 9 has also learned that the name she gave to police, Alainiss Morales, is an alias.
23-year-old Alainiss N. Morales was taken into custody on suspicion of criminal vehicular operation. She was arrested by the State Patrol Thursday afternoon and is being held in Lyon County Jail. County Attorney Rick Maes told the Marshall Independent charges could come later Thursday or Friday…The van was driven by Alianiss N. Morales, 23, of Minneota. The Fox 9 Investigator found Morales pleaded guilty in Chippewa County in 2006 to driving without a valid license.
State Patrol officials said Thursday they were not immediately able to confirm if Morales was unlicensed, nor could they confirm whether Morales ran a stop sign. Lt. Mark Peterson said that was still under investigation, but that the investigation was “moving forward very quickly.”
The school bus was carrying 28 students. Cottonwood Fire Chief Dale Louluagie confirmed that 3 fatalities of the crash died immediately upon impact and the fourth victim died around 8 p.m. Tuesday night.
Minneapolis is a sanctuary city. In 2003, the city voted to bar police from asking about immigration status or enforcing immigration laws. The mayor, R.T. Rybak, even asked federal agents to stop wearing vests labeled “police.” St. Paul and Worthington are also sanctuary cities.
Open borders, deadly consequences. When will they learn?
More questions:
What did “Morales’s” employer know about her illegal status and when did the employer know it?
Has she evaded deportation orders? How many?
What didn’t local police ask about her immigration status when she pleaded guilty to driving without a valid license two years ago–and will the parents of the schoolchildren hold officials accountable?
By Michelle Malkin
February 21, 2008 06:25 PM
The local Fox affiliate in the Twin Cities finally confirms what the local papers didn’t seem to want to mention about the horrible school bus accident that killed four children. It didn’t have to happen:
Authorities have confirmed that the the driver of the van that struck the school bus that killed 4 students on Tuesday is an illegal alien.
Officials at the Immigration and Customs Enforcement are checking to see where she came from and how long she’s been in Minnesota. FOX 9 has also learned that the name she gave to police, Alainiss Morales, is an alias.
23-year-old Alainiss N. Morales was taken into custody on suspicion of criminal vehicular operation. She was arrested by the State Patrol Thursday afternoon and is being held in Lyon County Jail. County Attorney Rick Maes told the Marshall Independent charges could come later Thursday or Friday…The van was driven by Alianiss N. Morales, 23, of Minneota. The Fox 9 Investigator found Morales pleaded guilty in Chippewa County in 2006 to driving without a valid license.
State Patrol officials said Thursday they were not immediately able to confirm if Morales was unlicensed, nor could they confirm whether Morales ran a stop sign. Lt. Mark Peterson said that was still under investigation, but that the investigation was “moving forward very quickly.”
The school bus was carrying 28 students. Cottonwood Fire Chief Dale Louluagie confirmed that 3 fatalities of the crash died immediately upon impact and the fourth victim died around 8 p.m. Tuesday night.
Minneapolis is a sanctuary city. In 2003, the city voted to bar police from asking about immigration status or enforcing immigration laws. The mayor, R.T. Rybak, even asked federal agents to stop wearing vests labeled “police.” St. Paul and Worthington are also sanctuary cities.
Open borders, deadly consequences. When will they learn?
More questions:
What did “Morales’s” employer know about her illegal status and when did the employer know it?
Has she evaded deportation orders? How many?
What didn’t local police ask about her immigration status when she pleaded guilty to driving without a valid license two years ago–and will the parents of the schoolchildren hold officials accountable?
February 28, 2008
BUSH: US NOT HEADED FOR RECESSION
Oh no!!!! We must already be in a recession if dumb dumb Bush thinks otherwise.
Please Bush, just don't comment on the economy. It seems everything you touch turns to poo poo (sp?).
Just leave this to the regular people.
Please Bush, just don't comment on the economy. It seems everything you touch turns to poo poo (sp?).
Just leave this to the regular people.
February 25, 2008
ROGER BJORKLUND
Another Bjorklund that had diabetes (type II) and died of a heart attack.
Maybe it is in our blood?
Maybe it is in our blood?
February 20, 2008
THE DAY MY FATHER DIED
Dear Isabella,
Not sure how this post will turn out, but here it goes.
My "dad" died on February 18, 2008, so I guess this means that a part of me has died too? Even so, I don't feel anything.
Maybe this is because this part of me died a long time ago; when he left my mom and me 39 years ago? And for these many years maybe I have already mourned his death?
I know, how dramatic, how sentimental. Boo who!
I guess when a parent leaves a child, before the child has the mental capacity to deal with it, it can leave a permanent gap in this child's self; as if something was actually amputated.
And as this child grows older, this gap might lead him or her to believe that they are incomplete; maybe even disfigured? One might (like I did) try to fill this feeling, this "gap" with stuff; lovely shiny stuff. Man I love my stuff.
I have been told that what I have been able to overcome, to accomplish is nothing short of a miracle, but I have never really felt this way. I have always felt a little incomplete; and it is undoubtedly the result of (1) not having a father (or paternal relatives) and (2) having a mother that worked and went to school full time during my formative years.
A side note regarding death: You know I have a good friend whose dad died a few years back and I remember feeling how my friend's extraordinary grief was really a positive reflection of his father's acts on this earth as a caring and loving "dad."
Of course how do you even attempt to convey to a friend that his father's death is a good thing???
In many respects the grief that a "good" parent leaves behind is this parent's final masterpiece. It is the sum of this parent's work that is reborn and forces his or her loved ones to recognize the good parenting acts, the sacrifices, etc.
In some weird way this grief is a commencement of a new beginning. And in this weird, very weird way it is this grief that is to be cherished.
This is of course easy for me to say, as I feel very little if not anything. But then my dad left my life when I was six months old, so I am not sure what I am supposed to feel for the death of this stranger. I guess nothing is okay?
You know what is "strange?" My mom called to tell me that he had died and to let me know that the Bjorklunds needed me to sign some paper work. So I said "no problem," give them my contact info, or have them give me a call so we can get the paperwork figured out. But in classic form, instead of calling me, they sent the paperwork to my mom and suggested that I call them if I had any questions.
If truth be told, I am more of a Brennan than a Bjorklund, but it is what it is.
No matter, I must go on to make a better name for us. Or to give the name that I was given more value; at least to me.
Of course this is one of those "be careful for what you wish for" issues. Even though I believe that not having a dad during my life left me with some challenges, I do not think I would have been better off if my mom and dad stayed together.
The problem for me is that the mind "shields" a child that is in a difficult situation. However, this "shielding" is often hard to undue as an adult even if one realizes that things could have been much worse.
From all of the books that I have read growing up, these type of situations can be summarized "very" simply as follows. A child that grows up receiving continuously nurturing, or constructive “feedback” or molding from two positive parents grows up relatively more assure and confident about taking that next “steps” in life on his or her own. Even if those steps turn out to be incorrect, they are taken with a sense of confidence and purpose.
Second, a child that grows up not receiving this continuously nurturing feedback grows up with a little less certainty about taking these next steps. These steps are taken tentatively; and can be taken defensively no matter if they are the correct steps. This defensive posture can, however, lead to successes that are aimed at escaping or filling a gap in ones self image. One or two psychosis might be present.
And finally, a child that grows up receiving continuously damaging, or negative feedback grows up to be one giant walking psychosis. And in the very worst cases, a child might end up truly psychotic.
As with many issues of popular debate, I believe that very few people are born psychotic; or with psychosis that result in them being very poor parents, spouses, etc. I think that a vast majority of the people that display these types of problems “learned” them from poor or abusive parents, or other abusive situations that took place outside the immediate home.
Sure some people might be born with psychotic tendencies (as discussed in a prior post), but generally speaking these tendencies are learned.
And at the other end of the spectrum, nurturing parents are generally rewarded for their efforts with an ongoing relationship with their children. Nurturing parents don’t usually raise children that have zero contact with them as adults.
No matter how poor a dad my father was, I have little doubt that these beginnings were planted very early on in his life. Abusive parenting normally leads to abusive or neglectful parents. It is this cycle of life that undoubtedly requires great focus to break. It is this cycle of life that I work everyday to break in hopes of never permanently disappointing you Isabella.
Wish me luck. :)
Not sure how this post will turn out, but here it goes.
My "dad" died on February 18, 2008, so I guess this means that a part of me has died too? Even so, I don't feel anything.
Maybe this is because this part of me died a long time ago; when he left my mom and me 39 years ago? And for these many years maybe I have already mourned his death?
I know, how dramatic, how sentimental. Boo who!
I guess when a parent leaves a child, before the child has the mental capacity to deal with it, it can leave a permanent gap in this child's self; as if something was actually amputated.
And as this child grows older, this gap might lead him or her to believe that they are incomplete; maybe even disfigured? One might (like I did) try to fill this feeling, this "gap" with stuff; lovely shiny stuff. Man I love my stuff.
I have been told that what I have been able to overcome, to accomplish is nothing short of a miracle, but I have never really felt this way. I have always felt a little incomplete; and it is undoubtedly the result of (1) not having a father (or paternal relatives) and (2) having a mother that worked and went to school full time during my formative years.
A side note regarding death: You know I have a good friend whose dad died a few years back and I remember feeling how my friend's extraordinary grief was really a positive reflection of his father's acts on this earth as a caring and loving "dad."
Of course how do you even attempt to convey to a friend that his father's death is a good thing???
In many respects the grief that a "good" parent leaves behind is this parent's final masterpiece. It is the sum of this parent's work that is reborn and forces his or her loved ones to recognize the good parenting acts, the sacrifices, etc.
In some weird way this grief is a commencement of a new beginning. And in this weird, very weird way it is this grief that is to be cherished.
This is of course easy for me to say, as I feel very little if not anything. But then my dad left my life when I was six months old, so I am not sure what I am supposed to feel for the death of this stranger. I guess nothing is okay?
You know what is "strange?" My mom called to tell me that he had died and to let me know that the Bjorklunds needed me to sign some paper work. So I said "no problem," give them my contact info, or have them give me a call so we can get the paperwork figured out. But in classic form, instead of calling me, they sent the paperwork to my mom and suggested that I call them if I had any questions.
If truth be told, I am more of a Brennan than a Bjorklund, but it is what it is.
No matter, I must go on to make a better name for us. Or to give the name that I was given more value; at least to me.
Of course this is one of those "be careful for what you wish for" issues. Even though I believe that not having a dad during my life left me with some challenges, I do not think I would have been better off if my mom and dad stayed together.
The problem for me is that the mind "shields" a child that is in a difficult situation. However, this "shielding" is often hard to undue as an adult even if one realizes that things could have been much worse.
From all of the books that I have read growing up, these type of situations can be summarized "very" simply as follows. A child that grows up receiving continuously nurturing, or constructive “feedback” or molding from two positive parents grows up relatively more assure and confident about taking that next “steps” in life on his or her own. Even if those steps turn out to be incorrect, they are taken with a sense of confidence and purpose.
Second, a child that grows up not receiving this continuously nurturing feedback grows up with a little less certainty about taking these next steps. These steps are taken tentatively; and can be taken defensively no matter if they are the correct steps. This defensive posture can, however, lead to successes that are aimed at escaping or filling a gap in ones self image. One or two psychosis might be present.
And finally, a child that grows up receiving continuously damaging, or negative feedback grows up to be one giant walking psychosis. And in the very worst cases, a child might end up truly psychotic.
As with many issues of popular debate, I believe that very few people are born psychotic; or with psychosis that result in them being very poor parents, spouses, etc. I think that a vast majority of the people that display these types of problems “learned” them from poor or abusive parents, or other abusive situations that took place outside the immediate home.
Sure some people might be born with psychotic tendencies (as discussed in a prior post), but generally speaking these tendencies are learned.
And at the other end of the spectrum, nurturing parents are generally rewarded for their efforts with an ongoing relationship with their children. Nurturing parents don’t usually raise children that have zero contact with them as adults.
No matter how poor a dad my father was, I have little doubt that these beginnings were planted very early on in his life. Abusive parenting normally leads to abusive or neglectful parents. It is this cycle of life that undoubtedly requires great focus to break. It is this cycle of life that I work everyday to break in hopes of never permanently disappointing you Isabella.
Wish me luck. :)
CREEPY OLD MEN
Dear Isabella,
I showed up early today to pick you up from preschool; so I sat in the car and watched you play with your friends. I watched you run from this place to that as only a toddler can; as if everything is new.
And I watched the smile on your face grow and grow with every foot of elevation as one of your teachers picked you up so you could grab hold of the "rings." Man it looked like you were having a good time.
I never would have guessed how much fun it would be just to watch you smile; but it is truly one of life’s rewards. I sat in the car and watched you have fun. And in the end it was I that was smiling, that was feeling young.
Off course, all along worrying about your safety. Worrying that you might trip or get hurt. Worrying that you might fall. I guess that is just part of it, part of the constant conflict of being a parent.
On one hand it is great to watch you run about. Yet I have this voice in my head that won't let me stop worrying. I am such a "dad," such a nerd.
P.S. I guess some men sitting in cars and watching kids play are not totally creepy.
I showed up early today to pick you up from preschool; so I sat in the car and watched you play with your friends. I watched you run from this place to that as only a toddler can; as if everything is new.
And I watched the smile on your face grow and grow with every foot of elevation as one of your teachers picked you up so you could grab hold of the "rings." Man it looked like you were having a good time.
I never would have guessed how much fun it would be just to watch you smile; but it is truly one of life’s rewards. I sat in the car and watched you have fun. And in the end it was I that was smiling, that was feeling young.
Off course, all along worrying about your safety. Worrying that you might trip or get hurt. Worrying that you might fall. I guess that is just part of it, part of the constant conflict of being a parent.
On one hand it is great to watch you run about. Yet I have this voice in my head that won't let me stop worrying. I am such a "dad," such a nerd.
P.S. I guess some men sitting in cars and watching kids play are not totally creepy.
MY LIFE AND DRUGS
Copied from a earlier post on Clemens . . .
Please note the names and dates have been changed to protect the guilty (innocent? you be the judge).
I have written numerous times about the pitiful job our government is doing in protecting our youth from serious drugs. So why have I spent so much time blubbering on about this topic? It is because I have been surrounding by drugs in one form or another from my teens to my late 20's. And during this period I witnessed many people that I knew and cared about make bad choices with respect to drugs that changed their lives for ever. And in one circumstance end a life.
Moreover, when I look back on my life I realize that I was very fortunate not to have been one of those persons. It would have been quite easy for me to have made one severely poor decision; as I almost made several that could have changed my life for ever. From my experiences, I have no doubt that luck played a good part in me avoiding the perils of drug use and addition. I also believe that if my home life was just a "bit" more uncomfortable I probably would have decided to abuse drugs as a form of "self medication."
Really, it shocks me that parents don't realize how pervasive drugs are; but then maybe the parents I know “now” are not from the neighborhoods in which I grew up. And the parents that need to be concerned are too busy working two or three jobs just to keep things together. Ironically enough, it is this courageous effort to keep a family together that results in young kids having to make adult decisions regarding drug use.
Let me just say that I know that drug use is prevalent in middle and upper class families. As with any family, when parents are not around kids will have to make these type of adult decisions, or might explore their curiosities. However, I would argue that middle and upper class families have more resources to fix problems caused by their children making poor decisions. Therefore, the lower class kids that make these same decisions tend to suffer longer-term complications.
Therefore, when you consider the fact that our government has failed to stop the drugs from entering this country in any meaningful manner, and the fact that the long-term risks associated with drug availability and use by “poorer” families are potentially staggering, our government's handling of this matter is shameful.
I was the child of a single parent who worked full time while attending school full time. I spent most of my waking hours without parental supervision. From the time of 2nd grade, I remember getting myself ready in the morning and walking to school. Most of the time until high school my walk was between one and two miles each way. Not that bad, but less than ideal by today’s standards for a middle class family. And most of the time, my mother was busy until late at night.
Did I mention that until my late teens we were basically broke? Bottom line, I had lots of unsupervised time in which to get in to trouble; and I often took advantage of this opportunity. Can you say “troublemaker”?
I was a young kid having to make adult decisions; or at least a kid being presented with choices that required an adult's sensibility. So you can see how easy it would have been for me to make a very poor decision that I would have had to live with for ever.
There were a handful of times that I can remember in which I was an instance away from making such game breakers. I therefore consider myself lucky to have made it through all of these hurdles with relatively few abrasions. Some might even say it is a miracle, but I prefer the term lucky as I don’t consider myself any more deserving than anyone else that was in my situation.
Now back to the point of this rambling. Drugs were everywhere when I was a kid; especially when I was in high school. At my prom I can still remember the surprise on my date’s face when she saw all of the cocaine that was piled up on a table of one of my friend's room. Fortunately my drug of choice in high school was beer. Even so, beer often left me in situations that could have been very bad as I made many poor decisions. Decisions that I would not tolerate as a parent because of the potential risk to others, etc.
Two years after high school I think most of my friends had some type of drug problem. Two people that were close to me ended up going to federal prison directly (or indirectly?) because of drug use. This would ultimately change their lives and indirectly lead to the death of one of them.
Some of my friends had to go to rehab for their additions. However, no matter the degree of their drug use, everyone that I knew that played around with drugs ultimately had the course of their lives changed in some fashion.
For some it was a minor change, but it changed their lives nonetheless. For whatever reason, it was during this period that I started to look evermore to academics. I think the primary reason was I wanted a "way out." I wanted to escape from my surroundings and those around me, and I kind of knew that if I just worked very hard (and put blinders on) that I might find a better more supporting life. And you know what, I did, but I was lucky. Really lucky.
And let me tell you that the availability of drugs did not go away in college or even law school. Especially law school. Man there were a lot of "pot" heads at UCLA. And some used harder drugs to either pass the time or help them stay up to study. But in Los Angeles drugs are everywhere. Cocaine is everywhere. Methamphetamines are everywhere. And really most middle class parents just don't realize it.
Bottom line, because the federal government has failed to do the simplest task of securing our border, I think our government officials are to be blamed for the ongoing drug problems many or our kids face. And when I see these two-faced officials cross examine a professional athlete and accuse him of being a bad influence, it becomes apparent that we either have the dumbest officials ever representing us, or these officials are basically corrupt to the point where the interests of our kids are not any of their true concern; they are just using this professional athlete as smoke and cover for their own indiscretions.
Please note the names and dates have been changed to protect the guilty (innocent? you be the judge).
I have written numerous times about the pitiful job our government is doing in protecting our youth from serious drugs. So why have I spent so much time blubbering on about this topic? It is because I have been surrounding by drugs in one form or another from my teens to my late 20's. And during this period I witnessed many people that I knew and cared about make bad choices with respect to drugs that changed their lives for ever. And in one circumstance end a life.
Moreover, when I look back on my life I realize that I was very fortunate not to have been one of those persons. It would have been quite easy for me to have made one severely poor decision; as I almost made several that could have changed my life for ever. From my experiences, I have no doubt that luck played a good part in me avoiding the perils of drug use and addition. I also believe that if my home life was just a "bit" more uncomfortable I probably would have decided to abuse drugs as a form of "self medication."
Really, it shocks me that parents don't realize how pervasive drugs are; but then maybe the parents I know “now” are not from the neighborhoods in which I grew up. And the parents that need to be concerned are too busy working two or three jobs just to keep things together. Ironically enough, it is this courageous effort to keep a family together that results in young kids having to make adult decisions regarding drug use.
Let me just say that I know that drug use is prevalent in middle and upper class families. As with any family, when parents are not around kids will have to make these type of adult decisions, or might explore their curiosities. However, I would argue that middle and upper class families have more resources to fix problems caused by their children making poor decisions. Therefore, the lower class kids that make these same decisions tend to suffer longer-term complications.
Therefore, when you consider the fact that our government has failed to stop the drugs from entering this country in any meaningful manner, and the fact that the long-term risks associated with drug availability and use by “poorer” families are potentially staggering, our government's handling of this matter is shameful.
I was the child of a single parent who worked full time while attending school full time. I spent most of my waking hours without parental supervision. From the time of 2nd grade, I remember getting myself ready in the morning and walking to school. Most of the time until high school my walk was between one and two miles each way. Not that bad, but less than ideal by today’s standards for a middle class family. And most of the time, my mother was busy until late at night.
Did I mention that until my late teens we were basically broke? Bottom line, I had lots of unsupervised time in which to get in to trouble; and I often took advantage of this opportunity. Can you say “troublemaker”?
I was a young kid having to make adult decisions; or at least a kid being presented with choices that required an adult's sensibility. So you can see how easy it would have been for me to make a very poor decision that I would have had to live with for ever.
There were a handful of times that I can remember in which I was an instance away from making such game breakers. I therefore consider myself lucky to have made it through all of these hurdles with relatively few abrasions. Some might even say it is a miracle, but I prefer the term lucky as I don’t consider myself any more deserving than anyone else that was in my situation.
Now back to the point of this rambling. Drugs were everywhere when I was a kid; especially when I was in high school. At my prom I can still remember the surprise on my date’s face when she saw all of the cocaine that was piled up on a table of one of my friend's room. Fortunately my drug of choice in high school was beer. Even so, beer often left me in situations that could have been very bad as I made many poor decisions. Decisions that I would not tolerate as a parent because of the potential risk to others, etc.
Two years after high school I think most of my friends had some type of drug problem. Two people that were close to me ended up going to federal prison directly (or indirectly?) because of drug use. This would ultimately change their lives and indirectly lead to the death of one of them.
Some of my friends had to go to rehab for their additions. However, no matter the degree of their drug use, everyone that I knew that played around with drugs ultimately had the course of their lives changed in some fashion.
For some it was a minor change, but it changed their lives nonetheless. For whatever reason, it was during this period that I started to look evermore to academics. I think the primary reason was I wanted a "way out." I wanted to escape from my surroundings and those around me, and I kind of knew that if I just worked very hard (and put blinders on) that I might find a better more supporting life. And you know what, I did, but I was lucky. Really lucky.
And let me tell you that the availability of drugs did not go away in college or even law school. Especially law school. Man there were a lot of "pot" heads at UCLA. And some used harder drugs to either pass the time or help them stay up to study. But in Los Angeles drugs are everywhere. Cocaine is everywhere. Methamphetamines are everywhere. And really most middle class parents just don't realize it.
Bottom line, because the federal government has failed to do the simplest task of securing our border, I think our government officials are to be blamed for the ongoing drug problems many or our kids face. And when I see these two-faced officials cross examine a professional athlete and accuse him of being a bad influence, it becomes apparent that we either have the dumbest officials ever representing us, or these officials are basically corrupt to the point where the interests of our kids are not any of their true concern; they are just using this professional athlete as smoke and cover for their own indiscretions.
February 14, 2008
TEXAS SEX TOYS
With all the problems we have, it still is amazing that people spend time pushing this issue. Let me just say that Lawrence (as cited) is a holding years ahead of its time.
SELLING MY SOUL
It is funny how things change. When Reagan was President I was a proud Republican that believed the larger the federal government was the more inefficient it was. I also believed that the more the federal government taxed its residents the less incentive there was for individuals to go that extra mile at work.
Basically, I believed (and still do) that our federal government should be smaller rather than bigger, and that our taxes in total (i.e., sales, income, and SS taxes) should be less than 50 percent.
I also didn’t consider it the place (and still don’t) for the federal government to spend its time discussing the morality of one’s sexual orientation or a woman’s right to choose.
However, now that Bush has been President for 8 years I can no longer consider myself a Republican. I am now a registered Independent.
Under Bush, the federal government 1) continues to get bigger, which will eventually drive up taxes, 2) continues to push its sexual orientation / religious agenda, 3) continues to act inappropriately with and for big businesses, and 4) continues to ignore our southern border despite the drugs, etc. that continue to flow across it.
To me, these are not Republican (i.e., Lincoln) ideals or actions. And if they have become such, then I can no longer consider myself a Republican. I guess there is a time in all of our lives in which we must decide what to do when certain of our beliefs or actions seem to be in conflict.
To me I consider the current Republican’s permissive attitude towards our immigration problem to be dreadful. I also consider certain of their social positions to be discriminatory and hateful. At the end of the day, the current Republican Party is not the party of the future. It is a party that lacks any meaningful vision on the big issues. And, unfortunately, what it lacks in vision it makes up with its “good old boy” policies.
As there is no one party today that shares an agenda that is both tough on immigration and socially progressive, I find myself left in a position in which I must prioritize my issues and then see which candidates support my more important issues. Sometimes this seems to be an act of selling my soul. For example, how do I determine what is more important, a candidate that is tough on immigration but is a bigot, or a candidate that is soft on immigration and . . . well you get the rest.
Fortunately, as none of the current Presidential candidates are hard on illegal immigration, I don’t have to sell my soul this time; but the possibility of having to do so in the future is disconcerting.
It is an odd position to be in to have to prioritize my beliefs, and potentially vote for someone that holds one belief in common, but holds other beliefs I believe to be repugnant. I guess I should be grateful that I am just one very small piece of the puzzle.
Life and all of its complex issues certainly seemed easier, simpler when I was younger.
Basically, I believed (and still do) that our federal government should be smaller rather than bigger, and that our taxes in total (i.e., sales, income, and SS taxes) should be less than 50 percent.
I also didn’t consider it the place (and still don’t) for the federal government to spend its time discussing the morality of one’s sexual orientation or a woman’s right to choose.
However, now that Bush has been President for 8 years I can no longer consider myself a Republican. I am now a registered Independent.
Under Bush, the federal government 1) continues to get bigger, which will eventually drive up taxes, 2) continues to push its sexual orientation / religious agenda, 3) continues to act inappropriately with and for big businesses, and 4) continues to ignore our southern border despite the drugs, etc. that continue to flow across it.
To me, these are not Republican (i.e., Lincoln) ideals or actions. And if they have become such, then I can no longer consider myself a Republican. I guess there is a time in all of our lives in which we must decide what to do when certain of our beliefs or actions seem to be in conflict.
To me I consider the current Republican’s permissive attitude towards our immigration problem to be dreadful. I also consider certain of their social positions to be discriminatory and hateful. At the end of the day, the current Republican Party is not the party of the future. It is a party that lacks any meaningful vision on the big issues. And, unfortunately, what it lacks in vision it makes up with its “good old boy” policies.
As there is no one party today that shares an agenda that is both tough on immigration and socially progressive, I find myself left in a position in which I must prioritize my issues and then see which candidates support my more important issues. Sometimes this seems to be an act of selling my soul. For example, how do I determine what is more important, a candidate that is tough on immigration but is a bigot, or a candidate that is soft on immigration and . . . well you get the rest.
Fortunately, as none of the current Presidential candidates are hard on illegal immigration, I don’t have to sell my soul this time; but the possibility of having to do so in the future is disconcerting.
It is an odd position to be in to have to prioritize my beliefs, and potentially vote for someone that holds one belief in common, but holds other beliefs I believe to be repugnant. I guess I should be grateful that I am just one very small piece of the puzzle.
Life and all of its complex issues certainly seemed easier, simpler when I was younger.
February 13, 2008
CLEMENS GETS GRILLED BY CONGRESS?
I don't get this. If Congress is truly concerned about our kids using drugs, then why does it not secure the Mexican border?
Right now, according to the DEA, over 66 percent of the cocaine used in the USA gets physically walked or driven across the border from Mexico. What does this mean?
This means that the South American countries that produce cocaine ship it to Mexico so that it can then be "reshipped" into the United States via the ground.
To me, this means that the cocaine producers think that it would be more difficult to ship the cocaine directly from South America via the air or sea. Specifically, it means that these drug "lords" think that it is safer to make two trips and basically walk the drugs across an unprotected border; and that shipping the drugs via air or sea would be more expensive.
So what is the big deal you might ask? Remember that according to the Census around 40 thousand people die in the USA because of direct and indirect illegal drug use. [See prior post for links.] One might wonder how many of these deaths are related to the drugs that get walked or driven across the border.
What if it was 20 percent? What if it was 10 percent? Then we could speculate that between 4000 and 8000 people die (directly or otherwise) each year from the drugs that are smuggled into the USA from Mexico (or the drug dealers that continue to enter the country in order to set up "meth" labs).
Some people argue that securing the border won't change the amount of drugs that come into this country, or the costs to bring them here. Personally I just don't get that reasoning.
If we secured our border and eliminated the foot trafficking of drugs, then the drug cartels would have to spend more money to either fly, ship, or drive their drugs to the USA. Further, I would argue that this would help us either find more drug shipments or (at minimum) materially drive the prices up.
If either of these events were to happen, then it might just make some of these drugs less available to our kids. Maybe we could make these drugs 20 percent less available? If so, then maybe we could save 20 percent of the 4000 to 8000 lives each year (e.g., at least 800 lives a year).
To me, there would be some drop off in the lives that are lost each year to illegal drug use if we would just secure the border. Maybe just 100 lives? Maybe 1600 lives?
At any rate, the only reason that our Congress ignores this fact is that most of its members are paid and bought by big business; or are more concerned with their careers than our kids. It also tells me that most of the members of Congress are so far removed from this drug issue that they just don’t care.
What does it tell you? How many lives would need to be saved before securing the border made sense to you? This is just another reason that our immigration policy is a disgrace to our nation and kids.
I guess the Congress is hoping that all of the new immigrants will pay for our Social Security needs. A problem caused by a big, corrupt government spending money it never had in the bank.
Question: Why is Congress allowed to spend money it collects in the name of Social Security (“SS”) on non SS items?
MY LIFE AND DRUGS
I have written numerous times about the pitiful job our government is doing in protecting our youth from serious drugs. So why have I spent so much time blubbering on about this topic? It is because I have been surrounding by drugs in one form or another from my teens to my late 20's. And during this period I witnessed many people that I knew and cared about make bad choices with respect to drugs that changed their lives for ever. And in one circumstance end a life.
Moreover, when I look back on my life I realize that I was very fortunate not to have been one of those persons. It would have been quite easy for me to have made one severely poor decision; as I almost made several that could have changed my life for ever. From my experiences, I have no doubt that luck played a good part in me avoiding the perils of drug use and addition. I also believe that if my home life was just a "bit" more uncomfortable I probably would have decided to abuse drugs as a form of "self medication."
Really, it shocks me that parents don't realize how pervasive drugs are; but then maybe the parents I know “now” are not from the neighborhoods in which I grew up. And the parents that need to be concerned are too busy working two or three jobs just to keep things together. Ironically enough, it is this courageous effort to keep a family together that results in young kids having to make adult decisions regarding drug use.
Let me just say that I know that drug use is prevalent in middle and upper class families. As with any family, when parents are not around kids will have to make these type of adult decisions, or might explore their curiosities. However, I would argue that middle and upper class families have more resources to fix problems caused by their children making poor decisions. Therefore, the lower class kids that make these same decisions tend to suffer longer-term complications.
Therefore, when you consider the fact that our government has failed to stop the drugs from entering this country in any meaningful manner, and the fact that the long-term risks associated with drug availability and use by “poorer” families are potentially staggering, our government's handling of this matter is shameful.
I was the child of a single parent who worked full time while attending school full time. I spent most of my waking hours without parental supervision. From the time of 2nd grade, I remember getting myself ready in the morning and walking to school. Most of the time until high school my walk was between one and two miles each way. Not that bad, but less than ideal by today’s standards for a middle class family. And most of the time, my mother was busy until late at night.
Did I mention that until my late teens we were basically broke? Bottom line, I had lots of unsupervised time in which to get in to trouble; and I often took advantage of this opportunity. Can you say “troublemaker”?
I was a young kid having to make adult decisions; or at least a kid being presented with choices that required an adult's sensibility. So you can see how easy it would have been for me to make a very poor decision that I would have had to live with for ever.
There were a handful of times that I can remember in which I was an instance away from making such game breakers. I therefore consider myself lucky to have made it through all of these hurdles with relatively few abrasions. Some might even say it is a miracle, but I prefer the term lucky as I don’t consider myself any more deserving than anyone else that was in my situation.
Now back to the point of this rambling. Drugs were everywhere when I was a kid; especially when I was in high school. At my prom I can still remember the surprise on my date’s face when she saw all of the cocaine that was piled up on a table of one of my friend's room. Fortunately my drug of choice in high school was beer. Even so, beer often left me in situations that could have been very bad as I made many poor decisions. Decisions that I would not tolerate as a parent because of the potential risk to others, etc.
Two years after high school I think most of my friends had some type of drug problem. Two people that were close to me ended up going to federal prison directly (or indirectly?) because of drug use. This would ultimately change their lives and indirectly lead to the death of one of them.
Some of my friends had to go to rehab for their additions. However, no matter the degree of their drug use, everyone that I knew that played around with drugs ultimately had the course of their lives changed in some fashion. For some it was a minor change, but it changed their lives nonetheless.
For whatever reason, it was during this period that I started to look evermore to academics. I think the primary reason was I wanted a "way out." I wanted to escape from my surroundings and those around me, and I kind of knew that if I just worked very hard (and put blinders on) that I might find a better more supporting life. And you know what, I did, but I was lucky. Really lucky.
And let me tell you that the availability of drugs did not go away in college or even law school. Especially law school. Man there were a lot of "pot" heads at UCLA. And some used harder drugs to either pass the time or help them stay up to study. But in Los Angeles drugs are everywhere. Cocaine is everywhere. Methamphetamines are everywhere. And really most middle class parents just don't realize it.
Bottom line, because the federal government has failed to do the simplest task of securing our border, I think our government officials are to be blamed for the ongoing drug problems many or our kids face. And when I see these two-faced officials cross examine a professional athlete and accuse him of being a bad influence, it becomes apparent that we either have the dumbest officials ever representing us, or these officials are basically corrupt to the point where the interests of our kids are not any of their true concern; they are just using this professional athlete as smoke and cover for their own indiscretions.
Right now, according to the DEA, over 66 percent of the cocaine used in the USA gets physically walked or driven across the border from Mexico. What does this mean?
This means that the South American countries that produce cocaine ship it to Mexico so that it can then be "reshipped" into the United States via the ground.
To me, this means that the cocaine producers think that it would be more difficult to ship the cocaine directly from South America via the air or sea. Specifically, it means that these drug "lords" think that it is safer to make two trips and basically walk the drugs across an unprotected border; and that shipping the drugs via air or sea would be more expensive.
So what is the big deal you might ask? Remember that according to the Census around 40 thousand people die in the USA because of direct and indirect illegal drug use. [See prior post for links.] One might wonder how many of these deaths are related to the drugs that get walked or driven across the border.
What if it was 20 percent? What if it was 10 percent? Then we could speculate that between 4000 and 8000 people die (directly or otherwise) each year from the drugs that are smuggled into the USA from Mexico (or the drug dealers that continue to enter the country in order to set up "meth" labs).
Some people argue that securing the border won't change the amount of drugs that come into this country, or the costs to bring them here. Personally I just don't get that reasoning.
If we secured our border and eliminated the foot trafficking of drugs, then the drug cartels would have to spend more money to either fly, ship, or drive their drugs to the USA. Further, I would argue that this would help us either find more drug shipments or (at minimum) materially drive the prices up.
If either of these events were to happen, then it might just make some of these drugs less available to our kids. Maybe we could make these drugs 20 percent less available? If so, then maybe we could save 20 percent of the 4000 to 8000 lives each year (e.g., at least 800 lives a year).
To me, there would be some drop off in the lives that are lost each year to illegal drug use if we would just secure the border. Maybe just 100 lives? Maybe 1600 lives?
At any rate, the only reason that our Congress ignores this fact is that most of its members are paid and bought by big business; or are more concerned with their careers than our kids. It also tells me that most of the members of Congress are so far removed from this drug issue that they just don’t care.
What does it tell you? How many lives would need to be saved before securing the border made sense to you? This is just another reason that our immigration policy is a disgrace to our nation and kids.
I guess the Congress is hoping that all of the new immigrants will pay for our Social Security needs. A problem caused by a big, corrupt government spending money it never had in the bank.
Question: Why is Congress allowed to spend money it collects in the name of Social Security (“SS”) on non SS items?
MY LIFE AND DRUGS
I have written numerous times about the pitiful job our government is doing in protecting our youth from serious drugs. So why have I spent so much time blubbering on about this topic? It is because I have been surrounding by drugs in one form or another from my teens to my late 20's. And during this period I witnessed many people that I knew and cared about make bad choices with respect to drugs that changed their lives for ever. And in one circumstance end a life.
Moreover, when I look back on my life I realize that I was very fortunate not to have been one of those persons. It would have been quite easy for me to have made one severely poor decision; as I almost made several that could have changed my life for ever. From my experiences, I have no doubt that luck played a good part in me avoiding the perils of drug use and addition. I also believe that if my home life was just a "bit" more uncomfortable I probably would have decided to abuse drugs as a form of "self medication."
Really, it shocks me that parents don't realize how pervasive drugs are; but then maybe the parents I know “now” are not from the neighborhoods in which I grew up. And the parents that need to be concerned are too busy working two or three jobs just to keep things together. Ironically enough, it is this courageous effort to keep a family together that results in young kids having to make adult decisions regarding drug use.
Let me just say that I know that drug use is prevalent in middle and upper class families. As with any family, when parents are not around kids will have to make these type of adult decisions, or might explore their curiosities. However, I would argue that middle and upper class families have more resources to fix problems caused by their children making poor decisions. Therefore, the lower class kids that make these same decisions tend to suffer longer-term complications.
Therefore, when you consider the fact that our government has failed to stop the drugs from entering this country in any meaningful manner, and the fact that the long-term risks associated with drug availability and use by “poorer” families are potentially staggering, our government's handling of this matter is shameful.
I was the child of a single parent who worked full time while attending school full time. I spent most of my waking hours without parental supervision. From the time of 2nd grade, I remember getting myself ready in the morning and walking to school. Most of the time until high school my walk was between one and two miles each way. Not that bad, but less than ideal by today’s standards for a middle class family. And most of the time, my mother was busy until late at night.
Did I mention that until my late teens we were basically broke? Bottom line, I had lots of unsupervised time in which to get in to trouble; and I often took advantage of this opportunity. Can you say “troublemaker”?
I was a young kid having to make adult decisions; or at least a kid being presented with choices that required an adult's sensibility. So you can see how easy it would have been for me to make a very poor decision that I would have had to live with for ever.
There were a handful of times that I can remember in which I was an instance away from making such game breakers. I therefore consider myself lucky to have made it through all of these hurdles with relatively few abrasions. Some might even say it is a miracle, but I prefer the term lucky as I don’t consider myself any more deserving than anyone else that was in my situation.
Now back to the point of this rambling. Drugs were everywhere when I was a kid; especially when I was in high school. At my prom I can still remember the surprise on my date’s face when she saw all of the cocaine that was piled up on a table of one of my friend's room. Fortunately my drug of choice in high school was beer. Even so, beer often left me in situations that could have been very bad as I made many poor decisions. Decisions that I would not tolerate as a parent because of the potential risk to others, etc.
Two years after high school I think most of my friends had some type of drug problem. Two people that were close to me ended up going to federal prison directly (or indirectly?) because of drug use. This would ultimately change their lives and indirectly lead to the death of one of them.
Some of my friends had to go to rehab for their additions. However, no matter the degree of their drug use, everyone that I knew that played around with drugs ultimately had the course of their lives changed in some fashion. For some it was a minor change, but it changed their lives nonetheless.
For whatever reason, it was during this period that I started to look evermore to academics. I think the primary reason was I wanted a "way out." I wanted to escape from my surroundings and those around me, and I kind of knew that if I just worked very hard (and put blinders on) that I might find a better more supporting life. And you know what, I did, but I was lucky. Really lucky.
And let me tell you that the availability of drugs did not go away in college or even law school. Especially law school. Man there were a lot of "pot" heads at UCLA. And some used harder drugs to either pass the time or help them stay up to study. But in Los Angeles drugs are everywhere. Cocaine is everywhere. Methamphetamines are everywhere. And really most middle class parents just don't realize it.
Bottom line, because the federal government has failed to do the simplest task of securing our border, I think our government officials are to be blamed for the ongoing drug problems many or our kids face. And when I see these two-faced officials cross examine a professional athlete and accuse him of being a bad influence, it becomes apparent that we either have the dumbest officials ever representing us, or these officials are basically corrupt to the point where the interests of our kids are not any of their true concern; they are just using this professional athlete as smoke and cover for their own indiscretions.
SUPERDELEGATES SUPER PROBLEM
It looks like Obama could get the "popular" vote, but still not be nominated because of the Superdelegates.
If the Democrats really want to make this a historic moment that might materially change our country's future, then there should be zero backroom deals, and the popular vote should control who is nominated.
I like Obama and would like a chance to vote for this man. I am more conservative than Obama on the immigration issue (as if you couldn't tell), but when I review all of the current candidates none appear to oppose amnesty. Oh well.
If we are going to go down the road of amnesty, then we need a Democratic president to pay for it.
If the Democrats really want to make this a historic moment that might materially change our country's future, then there should be zero backroom deals, and the popular vote should control who is nominated.
I like Obama and would like a chance to vote for this man. I am more conservative than Obama on the immigration issue (as if you couldn't tell), but when I review all of the current candidates none appear to oppose amnesty. Oh well.
If we are going to go down the road of amnesty, then we need a Democratic president to pay for it.
February 08, 2008
BOYCOTT SANTUARY CITIES?
An August 14, 2006 report produced by the Congressional Research Service listed 31 cities and counties that have “don’t ask, don’t tell” sanctuary policies in place.
IMMIGRATION SUPPORT
Questions:
If illegal immigration only had positive results, then would breaking this law be okay?
How are the results determined? Who decides what is positive?
If the result are never positive, then is it okay to break the law? How about in Bizzaro World?
If illegal immigration is so positive, then why are African Americans still worse off than Latinos?
If illegal immigration only had positive results, then would breaking this law be okay?
How are the results determined? Who decides what is positive?
If the result are never positive, then is it okay to break the law? How about in Bizzaro World?
If illegal immigration is so positive, then why are African Americans still worse off than Latinos?
GALLUP POLL
I still don't get how McCain can be so far ahead. I guess if you haven't lived in California (or one of the border States) the issue of illegal immigration is not that big of a concern.
I still won't vote for McCain. I would however like the chance to vote for Obama. If it is McCain and Obama, then I will vote for Obama as I think he is just a tad bit more conservative on certain issues (funny isn't it?).
If it is Clinton and McCain, then I will not vote for either of them because of the immigration issue. However, if McCain wins, then maybe Arizona would get a better Senator to represent them. But McCain will never win. He has decided to piss off some on the immigration isssue and others on the war issue. The only way for a Republican to win this time around is to be hard on illegal immigration and more open to change on the war issue.
I still won't vote for McCain. I would however like the chance to vote for Obama. If it is McCain and Obama, then I will vote for Obama as I think he is just a tad bit more conservative on certain issues (funny isn't it?).
If it is Clinton and McCain, then I will not vote for either of them because of the immigration issue. However, if McCain wins, then maybe Arizona would get a better Senator to represent them. But McCain will never win. He has decided to piss off some on the immigration isssue and others on the war issue. The only way for a Republican to win this time around is to be hard on illegal immigration and more open to change on the war issue.
LATINO VOTERS -- SAY NO TO MCCAIN
I am not sure why this is even a story, as illegal immigrants from the Americas continue to be given citizenship. As such, Latinos will continue to constitute a larger and more important voting group. Can anyone say "no brainer."
As this group (from the Americas) has historically voted for Democratic candidates (at least for the first 3 generations), continuing to allow illegal immigration will certainly continue to shift the voting rights of legal citizens (for better or worse) and continue to favor Democrats.
This could certainly push this country towards a more socialistic system (similar to that of the United Kingdom) and change our political landscape for generations to come. For this reason, there is something so "un-American" about ILLEGAL immigration; especially when it is "allowed" for political reasons, or "used" to drastically change the political landscape (or for the specific benefit of some).
There is also something so un-American about granting law breakers with a windfall benefit. It is one thing to ignore such people, but to actually give them an intangible asset is very strange.
For these reasons, the whole "amnesty" issue now being pushed by certain Republicans will forever confuse me. It seems to be a form of long-term political suicide.
Of all the laws that one can break, I think illegally entering this country is the only one that actually pays off on a regular basis. If you are one of the 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants, the argument goes, you cannot efficiently be deported and therefore MUST be given citizenship (i.e., an intangible assets certainly worth thousands of dollars).
Again, this seems to be an extreme leap in logic to me. How about just enforcing the existing laws? Who ever said that we need to round up 12 million people?
It is as if, because it would be difficult for the most powerful country in the world to round up 12 plus million people, our government is taking the position that the existing laws cannot be enforced. It is as if we are just throwing our hands up in the air and walking off in a huff of frustration. Maybe this is just a line of BS being sold to us?
How about just enforcing the existing laws with a reasonable amount of resources and not worrying about having to "round up" 12 plus million people. How about trying this first?
Questions:
If you are a poor citizen and steal food to feed your family (but unfortunately get caught) you certainly do not get rewarded for your deeds. So why is there a different standard for illegal immigration? Is it political?
And each time an illegal immigrant is given citizenship, the numbers suggest that the voting rights of Independents and Republicans get diminished just a little bit more. So why do we punish those that have not broken our laws?
If an inner city kid sells drugs to feed his or her family, then why do we send this person to prison for as long as we can? Why don't we show concern for the plight of such inner city kids? After all, the drugs are predominately coming from Mexico as a result of our border policy. There is something very strange, un-American about sacrificing our poor citizens (that are certainly disenfranchised from years of neglect) for the benefit of certain others that are not even citizens. One doesn't have to wonder very long why there is so much brown on black crime in places like California.
As I have stated in the past, I will never support McCain as he is a pro amnesty Republican. And if we as a society are to absorb 12 to 20 million unexpected poor immigrants then we probably need a Democratic president to help pay for it. We will need to raise taxes to pay for all of its tangible and intangible costs including:
* The impact on our education system;
* The impact on our health care system;
* The impact on our penal system;
* The impact of allowing drugs to freely cross our borders;
* The impact on our other infrastructure items caused by overcrowding in certain cities;
* The increased hatred that is created among all groups that illegal immigration causes; and
* The potential impact on our country's security by continuing to permit porous borders as a result of being afraid to piss certain nations off or being called a racist society.
February 01, 2008
JFK ASSASSINATION
I too don't understand how the final head shot could have come from about "9" o'clock (with JFK at 12 o'clock) when it appears the final shot forced JFK's head back and to his left (or around 11 o'clock).
The physics of it is unclear, but would seem to suggest the final shot was fired from a position in front of JFK (i.e., somewhere much closer to 5 o'clock). If this is the case then it could not have come from the book depository.
The physics of it is unclear, but would seem to suggest the final shot was fired from a position in front of JFK (i.e., somewhere much closer to 5 o'clock). If this is the case then it could not have come from the book depository.
January 29, 2008
DON'T VOTE FOR MCCAIN
As McCain is a pro amnesty Senator, I would never vote for him; especially for President.
As a registered Independent, next November I will first and foremost look for a candidate that will not reward those that are in this country illegally with citizenship. [However, it is unlikely that I will find one!]
My position is that the current laws should be enforced, and until a reasonable effort is made at this (including protecting the border from drugs, etc.), I will not support new immigration legislation. However, if there are only pro amnesty candidates for the next Presidential election, then I will vote Democratic; certainly not Republican. [Right now, I like Obama versus Clinton.]
My next position will be the war. It is time to start bringing our troops home; and McCain will not do this soon enough. I think this is a more difficult moral issue, as we probably should have never entered Iraq in the first place.
Questions:
Do we owe it to the people to stay in Iraq until the country is operating at a prewar level? I don't know what the answer is to this question, but my preliminary thought is that a well communicated timetable is a good idea.
And what do we do if the killing escalates once we leave? Again, do we owe it to the people to go back in and restore the "peace?" I generally think that our withdraw should be slow enough so this doesn't happen; at least right off the bat. And if it happens once we are out completely then (assuming the locals want it) we should be prepared to send a small number of forces back in to help stop such violence.
Again, this is a really tough one and I don't have the answers, but I think we should think about these possibilities before we act in the first place.
Bush has really put this country in a whole for decades to come. For this reason, I think it is important that we continue to remind ourselves, and the rest of the world, just how bad Bush was as President. I not only think he was an incompetent president, but I also think he was a greedy, immoral President.
He was certainly a "privileged" individual that should never have been in this position, as he has never been forced to deal with real issues from an "average" person's perspective.
There is no doubt that Bush would never have been admitted to Yale if he was the son of an ordinary working class family. He probably would be managing a Wendy's or something. You know a good job, but in no way President.
Unfortunately, the office of the President is now a big business position; and therefore will probably be filled with affluent individuals for years to come. Clinton was the one exception and he did very well notwithstanding his personal issues.
As a registered Independent, next November I will first and foremost look for a candidate that will not reward those that are in this country illegally with citizenship. [However, it is unlikely that I will find one!]
My position is that the current laws should be enforced, and until a reasonable effort is made at this (including protecting the border from drugs, etc.), I will not support new immigration legislation. However, if there are only pro amnesty candidates for the next Presidential election, then I will vote Democratic; certainly not Republican. [Right now, I like Obama versus Clinton.]
My next position will be the war. It is time to start bringing our troops home; and McCain will not do this soon enough. I think this is a more difficult moral issue, as we probably should have never entered Iraq in the first place.
Questions:
Do we owe it to the people to stay in Iraq until the country is operating at a prewar level? I don't know what the answer is to this question, but my preliminary thought is that a well communicated timetable is a good idea.
And what do we do if the killing escalates once we leave? Again, do we owe it to the people to go back in and restore the "peace?" I generally think that our withdraw should be slow enough so this doesn't happen; at least right off the bat. And if it happens once we are out completely then (assuming the locals want it) we should be prepared to send a small number of forces back in to help stop such violence.
Again, this is a really tough one and I don't have the answers, but I think we should think about these possibilities before we act in the first place.
Bush has really put this country in a whole for decades to come. For this reason, I think it is important that we continue to remind ourselves, and the rest of the world, just how bad Bush was as President. I not only think he was an incompetent president, but I also think he was a greedy, immoral President.
He was certainly a "privileged" individual that should never have been in this position, as he has never been forced to deal with real issues from an "average" person's perspective.
There is no doubt that Bush would never have been admitted to Yale if he was the son of an ordinary working class family. He probably would be managing a Wendy's or something. You know a good job, but in no way President.
Unfortunately, the office of the President is now a big business position; and therefore will probably be filled with affluent individuals for years to come. Clinton was the one exception and he did very well notwithstanding his personal issues.
January 24, 2008
WE FINALLY MOVED TO COLORADO
After moving to California to attend law school over a decade ago, we finally moved. Let me just say that California left a very bad taste in my mouth; and a small glimpse of this country's future. A country no longer concerned with right or wrong, or the rule of law. A country that no longer puts the family before the all mighty dollar. [Or maybe this stuff was never really that important, but just a story taught to us as kids. ]
Needless to say, I consider California a very "political" State; and a very (intentionally) racially divided State. California embodies the spirit of Bush, Clinton, and all the other "career politicians" that view public life as a "job" (to be protected or used as a tool to obtain wealth and fame) versus a calling to do selfless good.
California is a State that encourages cheating, and really doing whatever it takes to look out for number one, assuming you don't get caught of course. It is a State that seems to be okay with sacrificing our common courtesies in the name of fame or the greenback.
An example of what I consider to be this erosion of common courtesy is California's permissive, if not deliberately divisive stance on illegal immigration irrespective of its devastating impact on California's average, if not poor residents.
Quite frankly it was exhausting watching Republican leaders ignore the consequences illegal immigration (and the huge amount of drugs crossing the border) in order to provide businesses with a source of cheap labor. Likewise, it was exhausting watching Democrats ignore this issue in order to build a larger voting base. Again, both parties seem very self serving when it comes to this issue. Certainly not what I would consider the selfless acts of noble public figures. [Again, maybe this has always been the way this country operated. But couldn't we strive for more?]
Here is an example. When a poor American illegally takes some food to feed his family (and gets caught) we do not cut this person a break and say, "Go ahead take the food and forget the law this one time." Moreover, if this person is a black American, suffering from the economic hangover of racism, we certainly do not show this person any compassion. In fact, based on current statistics (and one too many Rodney King videos) it could be argued that we go the extra mile as a society to punish this persons. All in the pursuit of "justice," or the law; even if this person is suffering.
So why do we continue to use different rules, standards for those that illegally enter this country? I can only imagine that it is to put more money in certain wealthy pockets and votes in other career politician pockets. Even if it means that the poorest of our citizens will continue to be ignored (can anyone say Katrina?). Even if it means that the poorest of our citizens will have to pay the costs of hastily bringing 12 million uneducated immigrants in this country.
[If we truly are concerned with the well being of the illegal immigrant, then why don't we show the same concern for our poor inner city kids that are also struggling to find a viable future? I imagine that we truly don't care about poor Americans, and certainly not poor black Americans. I imagine the reason that we look the other way is that our politicians are bought and sold by the businesses that benefit from illegal immigration. But that is just the cynic in me.]
I will need to find more time, words to expand on this, and our decision to move, but let me just say that California (and really LA) had become so crowded that it was unbearable to commute to work, or even go shopping! It had become so crowded that its residents now depersonalize each other just to get through the day; and to justify the unending rudeness displayed towards one another.
But then what can one expect with over 4 million illegal immigrants moving into to California in just the last 10 years alone. Personally, it felt like the entire 4 million lived in Southern California so maybe the total is much more than 4 million. [Should I say it again, Los Angeles is so so crowded!!!]
I would surmise that this environment of looking the other way by our career politicians has also "helped" California become one of the most expensive States to live. Way too expensive for what has become a depersonalized sardine way of life.
Do I have to mention the crime and drugs coming from Mexico? How about the diminishing health care and educational standards. And the outrageous sales and income taxes required to finance the waive after waive of poor immigrants.
I guess California was not what I expected or a place that I could continue to support. It seems to be a very narcissistic place. Or maybe this is just the culture of any big city? After all, "cheating," or whatever you want to call it, seems to be acceptable in our nation's sports and businesses to a certain extent.
Baseball players are seemingly encouraged to use steroids just as long as they don't get caught. After all we do need our heroes even if they are fake.
Business executives are encouraged to take chances in order to be the captains of industry (even at the expense of shareholders and employees). Moreover, local businesses are encourage to ignore our local poor by illegally using undocumented employees.
This (new) culture embarrasses me. It makes me question the motives of the Republic party. It is what made me change my affiliation to Independent. It also makes me wonder how righteous a country we really are.
Needless to say, I consider California a very "political" State; and a very (intentionally) racially divided State. California embodies the spirit of Bush, Clinton, and all the other "career politicians" that view public life as a "job" (to be protected or used as a tool to obtain wealth and fame) versus a calling to do selfless good.
California is a State that encourages cheating, and really doing whatever it takes to look out for number one, assuming you don't get caught of course. It is a State that seems to be okay with sacrificing our common courtesies in the name of fame or the greenback.
An example of what I consider to be this erosion of common courtesy is California's permissive, if not deliberately divisive stance on illegal immigration irrespective of its devastating impact on California's average, if not poor residents.
Quite frankly it was exhausting watching Republican leaders ignore the consequences illegal immigration (and the huge amount of drugs crossing the border) in order to provide businesses with a source of cheap labor. Likewise, it was exhausting watching Democrats ignore this issue in order to build a larger voting base. Again, both parties seem very self serving when it comes to this issue. Certainly not what I would consider the selfless acts of noble public figures. [Again, maybe this has always been the way this country operated. But couldn't we strive for more?]
Here is an example. When a poor American illegally takes some food to feed his family (and gets caught) we do not cut this person a break and say, "Go ahead take the food and forget the law this one time." Moreover, if this person is a black American, suffering from the economic hangover of racism, we certainly do not show this person any compassion. In fact, based on current statistics (and one too many Rodney King videos) it could be argued that we go the extra mile as a society to punish this persons. All in the pursuit of "justice," or the law; even if this person is suffering.
So why do we continue to use different rules, standards for those that illegally enter this country? I can only imagine that it is to put more money in certain wealthy pockets and votes in other career politician pockets. Even if it means that the poorest of our citizens will continue to be ignored (can anyone say Katrina?). Even if it means that the poorest of our citizens will have to pay the costs of hastily bringing 12 million uneducated immigrants in this country.
[If we truly are concerned with the well being of the illegal immigrant, then why don't we show the same concern for our poor inner city kids that are also struggling to find a viable future? I imagine that we truly don't care about poor Americans, and certainly not poor black Americans. I imagine the reason that we look the other way is that our politicians are bought and sold by the businesses that benefit from illegal immigration. But that is just the cynic in me.]
I will need to find more time, words to expand on this, and our decision to move, but let me just say that California (and really LA) had become so crowded that it was unbearable to commute to work, or even go shopping! It had become so crowded that its residents now depersonalize each other just to get through the day; and to justify the unending rudeness displayed towards one another.
But then what can one expect with over 4 million illegal immigrants moving into to California in just the last 10 years alone. Personally, it felt like the entire 4 million lived in Southern California so maybe the total is much more than 4 million. [Should I say it again, Los Angeles is so so crowded!!!]
I would surmise that this environment of looking the other way by our career politicians has also "helped" California become one of the most expensive States to live. Way too expensive for what has become a depersonalized sardine way of life.
Do I have to mention the crime and drugs coming from Mexico? How about the diminishing health care and educational standards. And the outrageous sales and income taxes required to finance the waive after waive of poor immigrants.
I guess California was not what I expected or a place that I could continue to support. It seems to be a very narcissistic place. Or maybe this is just the culture of any big city? After all, "cheating," or whatever you want to call it, seems to be acceptable in our nation's sports and businesses to a certain extent.
Baseball players are seemingly encouraged to use steroids just as long as they don't get caught. After all we do need our heroes even if they are fake.
Business executives are encouraged to take chances in order to be the captains of industry (even at the expense of shareholders and employees). Moreover, local businesses are encourage to ignore our local poor by illegally using undocumented employees.
This (new) culture embarrasses me. It makes me question the motives of the Republic party. It is what made me change my affiliation to Independent. It also makes me wonder how righteous a country we really are.
DON'T USE ESSENTIAL ESPRESSO
Beware. The service of EssentialEspresso.com ("Essential Espresso) is horrible and the company often lies about its product availability.
Another very poorly run California company.
Another very poorly run California company.
July 06, 2007
ANOTHER WINNER
Jeff Bliss Fri Jul 6, 12:06 AM ET
July 6 (Bloomberg) -- Ezeiquiel Lopez already had a rap sheet that stretched all the way to Texas when, police said, he shot Kenosha County, Wisconsin, Deputy Sheriff Frank Fabiano in the head, killing him.
Lopez, 45, an illegal immigrant from Mexico, was free at the time of the May shooting, after having been jailed for two prior violent crimes. By law, he should have been deported, but federal immigration authorities didn't know he had been in custody, and state and local police didn't tell them.
The case isn't an exception. Fewer than half the foreigners convicted of crimes in the U.S. -- most of whom are in the country illegally -- are deported after serving their sentences, according to the Homeland Security Department's inspector general.
Cases like Lopez's point up holes in the nation's overwhelmed immigration system, said Representative David Price, a North Carolina Democrat who heads a panel overseeing Homeland Security Department funding. "There's no convincing case for putting anything higher on the priority list in terms of deportation than persons who've committed crimes,'' Price said.
With the failure in the Senate of the immigration bill, which would have expanded a program to deport criminal aliens, Price is sponsoring a plan to increase spending to identify and expel such immigrants by 31 percent, to $180 million.
Monthly Checks
Price's legislation, which passed the House June 15, would require the immigration agency to check monthly with the nation's prisons and jails to get an up-to-date number of incarcerated illegal immigrants. Another provision in the legislation would expand a program to deputize local and state police to help identify potential deportees among people they arrest.
The push comes after the U.S. launched highly publicized raids rounding up farm hands, meatpackers and textile workers -- few of whom have criminal backgrounds -- for deportation.
None of the 1,300 workers arrested at meatpacker Swift & Co.'s Greeley, Colorado, plant in December and the 360 arrested in March at New Bedford, Massachusetts-based textile maker Michael Bianco Inc. had been charged with a violent crime, said Marc Raimondi, a spokesman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Raimondi said the Bush administration isn't ignoring criminal immigrants, and that such raids often uncover illegal activity, such as money-laundering and identity theft. The administration is requesting a $29 million boost for the criminal-deportation program in the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1, a 21 percent increase from its current $137 million budget.
"We've been adding resources,'' said John Torres, director of U.S. detention and removal operations. The Homeland Security inspector general's report estimates there are currently 302,500 deportable immigrants in American jails and prisons. Identifying candidates for deportation isn't easy, though: They're scattered among 5,033 prisons and jails, some run by the federal government, some by states and some, as in Kenosha County, by localities.
"This problem has become so large that the federal government can't handle it alone,'' said Sheriff Jim Pendergraph of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, which since last year has identified 2,100 people for deportation by working with the federal government.
Torres says the inspector general's figures on deportations are out of date, and says he's in the middle of a review to figure how to better foster communications between federal officials and the prisons and jails. Even so, he says, he has only enough staff to cover half of those facilities.
Federal Focus
Torres is focusing on federal prisons, where 27 percent of those incarcerated were born in other countries, according to the Government Accountability Office. In 2006, the U.S. sent 88,830 criminal immigrants back to their native countries with the help of agents and judges who work within prison walls to speed up the deportation process. About 107,000 non-criminal aliens were also deported.
Price said Torres's strategy overlooks illegal immigrants in state and local prisons and jails, which make up 93 percent of the country's facilities.
In Kenosha County, officers stopped alerting immigration officials about aliens in custody during the 1980s because federal budget cuts left no money for the deportations, said Captain Gary Preston, head of the local jail. "Law enforcement just got into the habit of not bothering,'' he said.
Resuming Contact
In 2005, Lopez twice pleaded guilty to battery in Kenosha County circuit court, and spent nearly nine months in the county jail. Kenosha County Jail officials didn't resume informing immigration officials about foreign-born inmates until November 2006 at the urging of federal officials, Preston said. That was 2 1/2 months after Lopez was released, according to jail records.
On May 16, Lopez, fueled by tequila and $200 worth of cocaine, allegedly shot Fabiano three times after the officer ordered him out of the van he was driving, according to court records. Fred Cohn, Lopez's attorney, said his client isn't guilty.
Lopez is now set to be processed for deportation regardless of the outcome of his trial, said Michael Keegan, a spokesman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
To contact the reporters on this story: Jeff Bliss in Washington jbliss@bloomberg.net
July 6 (Bloomberg) -- Ezeiquiel Lopez already had a rap sheet that stretched all the way to Texas when, police said, he shot Kenosha County, Wisconsin, Deputy Sheriff Frank Fabiano in the head, killing him.
Lopez, 45, an illegal immigrant from Mexico, was free at the time of the May shooting, after having been jailed for two prior violent crimes. By law, he should have been deported, but federal immigration authorities didn't know he had been in custody, and state and local police didn't tell them.
The case isn't an exception. Fewer than half the foreigners convicted of crimes in the U.S. -- most of whom are in the country illegally -- are deported after serving their sentences, according to the Homeland Security Department's inspector general.
Cases like Lopez's point up holes in the nation's overwhelmed immigration system, said Representative David Price, a North Carolina Democrat who heads a panel overseeing Homeland Security Department funding. "There's no convincing case for putting anything higher on the priority list in terms of deportation than persons who've committed crimes,'' Price said.
With the failure in the Senate of the immigration bill, which would have expanded a program to deport criminal aliens, Price is sponsoring a plan to increase spending to identify and expel such immigrants by 31 percent, to $180 million.
Monthly Checks
Price's legislation, which passed the House June 15, would require the immigration agency to check monthly with the nation's prisons and jails to get an up-to-date number of incarcerated illegal immigrants. Another provision in the legislation would expand a program to deputize local and state police to help identify potential deportees among people they arrest.
The push comes after the U.S. launched highly publicized raids rounding up farm hands, meatpackers and textile workers -- few of whom have criminal backgrounds -- for deportation.
None of the 1,300 workers arrested at meatpacker Swift & Co.'s Greeley, Colorado, plant in December and the 360 arrested in March at New Bedford, Massachusetts-based textile maker Michael Bianco Inc. had been charged with a violent crime, said Marc Raimondi, a spokesman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Raimondi said the Bush administration isn't ignoring criminal immigrants, and that such raids often uncover illegal activity, such as money-laundering and identity theft. The administration is requesting a $29 million boost for the criminal-deportation program in the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1, a 21 percent increase from its current $137 million budget.
"We've been adding resources,'' said John Torres, director of U.S. detention and removal operations. The Homeland Security inspector general's report estimates there are currently 302,500 deportable immigrants in American jails and prisons. Identifying candidates for deportation isn't easy, though: They're scattered among 5,033 prisons and jails, some run by the federal government, some by states and some, as in Kenosha County, by localities.
"This problem has become so large that the federal government can't handle it alone,'' said Sheriff Jim Pendergraph of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, which since last year has identified 2,100 people for deportation by working with the federal government.
Torres says the inspector general's figures on deportations are out of date, and says he's in the middle of a review to figure how to better foster communications between federal officials and the prisons and jails. Even so, he says, he has only enough staff to cover half of those facilities.
Federal Focus
Torres is focusing on federal prisons, where 27 percent of those incarcerated were born in other countries, according to the Government Accountability Office. In 2006, the U.S. sent 88,830 criminal immigrants back to their native countries with the help of agents and judges who work within prison walls to speed up the deportation process. About 107,000 non-criminal aliens were also deported.
Price said Torres's strategy overlooks illegal immigrants in state and local prisons and jails, which make up 93 percent of the country's facilities.
In Kenosha County, officers stopped alerting immigration officials about aliens in custody during the 1980s because federal budget cuts left no money for the deportations, said Captain Gary Preston, head of the local jail. "Law enforcement just got into the habit of not bothering,'' he said.
Resuming Contact
In 2005, Lopez twice pleaded guilty to battery in Kenosha County circuit court, and spent nearly nine months in the county jail. Kenosha County Jail officials didn't resume informing immigration officials about foreign-born inmates until November 2006 at the urging of federal officials, Preston said. That was 2 1/2 months after Lopez was released, according to jail records.
On May 16, Lopez, fueled by tequila and $200 worth of cocaine, allegedly shot Fabiano three times after the officer ordered him out of the van he was driving, according to court records. Fred Cohn, Lopez's attorney, said his client isn't guilty.
Lopez is now set to be processed for deportation regardless of the outcome of his trial, said Michael Keegan, a spokesman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
To contact the reporters on this story: Jeff Bliss in Washington jbliss@bloomberg.net
July 04, 2007
ONE FOR LITTLE BUSHY
"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
HAPPY JULY 4TH
Did you know that 3 of the first 5 Presidents died on July 4th? Adams (2nd), Jefferson (3rd), and Monroe (5th) all died on July 4th.
Fact Monster
Reconstruction Timeline
Presidential Rankings
Fact Monster
Reconstruction Timeline
Presidential Rankings
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
