Just Mad Ramblings

SLIPPERY SLOPE ARGUMENT IS LOGICALLY FLAWED

2011-11-03T12:17:00.000-06:00

Dear Isabella,

Enclosed are my thoughts concerning one of the arguments used against permitting same-sex marriages. As same-sex marriage is a topic of much debate these days, I am writing this blog in a vague attempt to summarize my feelings about condemning people for their genetic character. I have faith that there will be less discrimination, less stigmatization, and less hurt in the world by the time you are on your own -- you know, when you are 35 years old.

Your loving father,

Shawn

Professor Volokh wrote a very good article regarding same-sex marriage and the “slipper slope” arguments used against it. Let me just say that I encourage others to read this article, as it brings up several good points that are generally applicable irrespective of the one slippery slope argument discussed below.

It has always been my position that the contention that same-sex marriage could lead us to a “slippery slope” leading to polygamy (or bestiality) is logically flawed. It is my position that by definition different-sex marriage leads us to this slope. Specifically, “marriage,” as a sanctioned institution, is what creates the slippery slope that requires us to determine what types of marriages are acceptable among consenting adults. To conclude that same-sex marriage is the cause of the slippery slope is the result of making a morale judgment before the logical argument begins.

Particularly, polygamy is the would-be consequence of different-sex marriage (or marriage in and of itself) and not same-sex marriage. History bears this out, as men with more than one “wife” have existed publicly from the beginning of time. It is only when one views same-sex marriage as deviant in some way that you put it before different-sex marriage as the starting point for the slippery slope argument.

Again, please read Professor Volokh's article for a more detailed discussion.

This blog is intentionally short as I will discuss same-sex marriage in more detail in two upcoming blogs. One will discuss the decision of the Roman Catholic Church (“RCC”) to abandon its adoption services in Massachusetts, because it has determined that children are better off with no home than a gay home. Let me just say now that this is just one more case in which the RCC has put the welfare of our children second. Also, in this blog I will discuss the RCC’s continued discrimination against women and its continued policy of covering up child molestation cases in order to protect its priest. These three items are insupportable to me and are indications of how old-fashioned the RCC has become.

The second blog will discuss same-sex marriage as it pertains to the Constitution and a recent case Lawrence v. Texas. As Randy Barnett so eloquently details in his 2003 article, this case (to me) indirectly provides another way to examine this issue (i.e., liberties versus licenses -- and the potential application of the Equal Protection Clause). Given that I went to Boston University as an undergraduate, I find special pride in Professor Barnett’s article. I am especially glad to see a thoughtful constitutional writing put together by Justice Kennedy in Lawrence (something that is very lacking in the writings of Scalia and other originalist).

Please note that Professor Barnett also coauthored an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in Lawrence. To me this brief frames a very important question. Specifically, what liberties, which are not specifically mentioned in its text, are covered by the Constitution? As the founding fathers recognized, and as referenced in Madison’s famous dialogue in his draft writing of the Bill of Rights, not all of the people’s liberties are (or could be) spelled out in the Bill of Rights. Answering this question requires a courageous and thoughtful person as it is not easy. For this reason, I find Scalia’s writings (dissents) so disappointing. After reading Scalia’s dissents, one might think that the Constitution does not protect my liberty to eat more than 3000 calories in any given day. I guess the question is, “so does it?” I think in answering this absurd question do we further define what "liberty" really means and what it covers. One more question. Could Congress make it illegal for me to eat after 9 p.m.? Certainly I don't have a fundamental right (or liberty) in the Constitution to eat after 9 p.m., but nonetheless such a law would seem invasive to my ability to live my life as I generally see fit. Do I have a constitutionally protected liberty to drive? Or is this a license? Could driving be outlawed altogether? Driving certainly impacts others (and has the potential to kill) when it is not performed with basic skills.

It has always been my contention that if the Constitutional analysis is done correctly one should examine the “liberty” that is sought to be protected (and not the specific “act” -- such as sodomy). Assuming this is done, the specific “act” should only be controlled through legislation if it directly conflicts or infringes on the same (or similar) underlying liberty of the public -- with special attention given to "commercial" transactions.

For example, the right to use drugs in one’s home could be argued to infringe on the public’s right to tranquility in the home (or on the public streets) because of the resulting criminal behavior or physical damage or harm that such drug use will cause in enough cases. This argument could also apply to prostitution. Moreover, the “customer” relationship in such transactions creates a unique situation in which one is vulnerable and could be harmed -- not to mention the issue of true "consent." These situations are totally different, from consenting adults engaging in sodomy as part of a relationship, because they involve transactions that have been shown to result in public or personal harmed -- and where "consent" is at question.

MEDICAID IS A CHOICE

2011-02-22T11:41:00.001-07:00

We spend $400 billion every year on health care for people who can't otherwise afford it.

Personally, as this is a choice we make, it might make more sense for the States to decide if such care is going to be provided. Such States could then tax its residents to cover the costs. This might force States to be more competitive, effective in providing such services. Especially those States that exploit cheap labor.

I understand the debate of providing health care to all and generally agree with it. However, it should be paid for and not financed through additional deficit spending. In such a world, we might have a two-tier system; with the public "HMO" tier being paid for by premiums and taxes (which could only be used for such health care expenses).

How many uninsured individuals are there right now? I thought it was something like 40 million. If we take the 400 billion the Fed pays and the other 100 to 200 billion the States pay, couldn't we just pay the premiums for the uninsured?

Maybe the money paid includes insurance for the undocumented individuals that number around 20 million; and that is why is seems like the governments are paying way too much for health care.

I guess the only way this system could work is for all individuals in the U.S.A. to be documented and paying their fair share. A national sales tax might help?

FINANCIAL CHAOS

2011-02-21T12:12:00.030-07:00

We are living in a time of financial chaos. Currently the Government has accumulated debts (loans) of over $14 trillion. This amount is almost 100 percent of our nation's GDP; and does not include its off balance sheet obligations. This also doesn't include the States' debt obligations of around $3 trillion; or their various off balance sheet obligations.

The Government is going to collect around $2.5 trillion in taxes this year. However, it will spend about $3.9 trillion. This will add another $1.4 trillion to our Federal deficit. Are we becoming more like Japan like some people fear?

Japan has around 900 trillion Yen in debt obligations; which is almost 200 percent of its GDP. Japan brings in around 40 trillion Yen in tax revenues each year and spends about 55 percent of this amount on social security and debt servicing.

Based on our numbers, I expect the market to retest its lows sometime during the next five years. However, I would expect Japan to face a new crisis first if our deficits are to have this type of impact on our economy.

SPITTING IN THE FACE OF GOD

2011-02-21T12:10:00.000-07:00

To assume that life has value only because it was a "gift" from God seems to be limit, or eliminate what we term as the inherent value of life.

For instance, does life have less value if God does not exist? To assume that it only has value because of "creation" seems to eliminate the "inherent" value of life we now hold to be true; and therefore, seems to suggest that such a gift is worthless without our Godly giver.

SPEED OF LIGHT

2011-02-21T12:00:00.001-07:00

What if the speed of light is not constant, but is in fact relative? We might call it the relative speed of light.

What if the speed of light is moderately altered by the physical characteristics of the galaxy in which in travels through? Namely the diameter of the galaxy and the gravitational forces, masses within such galaxy.

It seems odd that we assume that the speed of light is a constant when we have not been able to test this notion from a point outside of our own galaxy. Maybe we should put an asterisk after this notion, theory to indicate that the speed of light is only (relatively) constant within our galaxy?

Doesn't light slow (no matter how slight) as it passes through solid objects?

TIME TRAVEL

2011-02-21T11:47:00.001-07:00

I argue that time travel could be proven to be an impossibility by combining complex physics and logical equations; basically, by combining the complex and the simple.

If we assume time travel is possible, then what is the probability that time travel would be perfected as time approached infinity?

This "time travel probability" should approach 100 percent as time approached infinity.

As this (time travel) probability approached 100 percent, then what is the probability that someone would travel back in time and alter the course of our history. Let's call this the probability of someone violating our own "time travel prime directive."

Given the fragility of humans, it could be argued that as time approached infinity that the probability of humans violating this (time travel) prime directive would approach 100 percent.

Furthermore, it could be argued that the probability of humans violating this (time travel) prime directive at a prior point in time (from now) would also approach 100 percent as time approached infinity. As such, if time travel was possible, we should currently know of its existence; even if we are unable to reproduce it now.

Otherwise, the perfection of time travel and humans would have had to occur simultaneously. Now what is the probability of that happening?

BCS

2011-02-21T11:10:00.005-07:00

The BCS is a joke. The games should be determined by rankings; number 3 should play 4, etc.

Or, college football should get rid of the "13th^" game of the season and have a playoff with the top 8 teams (with 2 weeks between each round).

The first round would be held when the 13th game is normally held. The second round would be two weeks later and the championship game would be two weeks later.

This would add one game for most teams and two games for a couple.

The remaining teams (ranked 9 to 22) could play games during the off weeks according to rank; basically, the strongest teams play each other.

SPACE TRAVEL

2011-02-21T11:01:00.004-07:00

How do we effect space travel? We need to figure out how to rewrite DNA in order to control atomic particles. We need to figure out how to combine computer science, physics, and microbiology.

How does light (photons) pass through objects?

JAMIELSLAW

2008-08-22T19:27:00.000-06:00

Sanctuary cities and gangs.

BUSH SUCKS

2008-06-13T17:52:00.000-06:00

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!!!

HAVE I MENTIONED LATELY THAT BUSH IS A TERRIBLE PRESIDENT

2008-06-09T22:08:00.000-06:00

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.

WHAT IF OBAMA DOESN'T WIN IN NOVEMBER? WAS IT ALL A RUSE?

2008-06-09T22:00:00.000-06:00

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 BAD DOES BUSH SUCK?

2008-06-08T22:14:00.001-06:00

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.

NBA REFS SUCK

2008-06-08T21:20:00.000-06:00

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.

COST OF ILLEGALS

2008-06-08T19:02:00.001-06:00

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?

WILL ILLEGALS IN CALIFORNIA REDUCE THE VOTING POWER OF LEGALS?

2008-06-08T18:55:00.000-06:00

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.

TOPIX ON IMMIGRATION AND SCHOOLS

2008-04-04T03:02:00.001-06:00

LONEWACKO ON OBAMA

2008-04-04T03:01:00.001-06:00

FUTURE OF CALIFORNIA'S KIDS???

2008-04-04T02:59:00.001-06:00

Nice article.

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS COST CALIFORNIA 10 BILLION ANNUALLY

2008-04-04T02:42:00.000-06:00

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?

CALIFORNIA'S EDUCATIONAL CRISIS

2008-03-22T22:56:00.000-06:00

. . . 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

2008-03-22T22:41:00.001-06:00

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.

MRS. OBAMA DOESN'T REALLY LIKE WHITE AMERICA?

2008-03-21T18:27:00.000-06:00

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.

MR. WRIGHT IS A BIGGOT

2008-03-21T18:04:00.002-06:00

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.

CALIFORNIA'S IMMIGRATION CRISIS

2008-03-21T18:04:00.001-06:00

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?

WHAT'S UP EVERGREEN HIGHLANDS ASSOCIATION!!!

2008-03-13T19:27:00.000-06:00

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.

CLINTON VS. OBAMA

2008-03-11T21:12:00.000-06:00

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.

I LEFT MY DEAD DAD AT A STRIP CLUB

2008-03-01T15:03:00.000-07:00

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.

ILLEGAL ALLIENS AND CRIME

2008-02-29T16:59:00.000-07:00

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?

17 PERCECT OF FEDERAL PRISON POPULATION ARE ILLEGALS; COME ON PEOPLE

2008-02-29T16:47:00.000-07:00

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?

BUSH: US NOT HEADED FOR RECESSION

2008-02-28T19:07:00.000-07:00

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.

ROGER BJORKLUND

2008-02-25T21:25:00.000-07:00

Another Bjorklund that had diabetes (type II) and died of a heart attack.

Maybe it is in our blood?

THE DAY MY FATHER DIED

2008-02-20T23:05:00.000-07:00

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. :)

CREEPY OLD MEN

2008-02-20T22:45:00.000-07:00

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.

MY LIFE AND DRUGS

2008-02-20T21:57:00.000-07:00

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.

TEXAS SEX TOYS

2008-02-14T00:58:00.001-07:00

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

2008-02-14T00:14:00.000-07:00

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.

CLEMENS GETS GRILLED BY CONGRESS?

2008-02-13T17:39:00.000-07:00

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.

SHOW ME THE MONEY SENATE!!!

2008-02-08T21:00:00.000-07:00

MORE GOOD INVESTING SITES

2008-02-08T19:39:00.000-07:00

LONE WACKO

2008-02-08T18:38:00.000-07:00

I guess I am not the only wacko out there.

HOOVER ON ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

2008-02-08T18:37:00.000-07:00

IMMIGRATION SUPPORT

2008-02-08T18:32:00.000-07:00

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?

NPG

2008-02-08T18:28:00.001-07:00

IMMIGRATION BLOG

2008-02-08T18:21:00.000-07:00

Got to love Michelle Malkin's blogs.

CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES

2008-02-08T18:14:00.000-07:00

Good stuff.

NUMBERSUSA

2008-02-08T18:12:00.001-07:00

GALLUP POLL

2008-02-08T17:43:00.000-07:00

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.

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION FACT SHEETS

2008-02-08T17:37:00.000-07:00

Interesting.

See ICE for more information.

LATINO VOTERS -- SAY NO TO MCCAIN

2008-02-08T13:03:00.000-07:00

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.

JFK ASSASSINATION

2008-02-01T17:16:00.000-07:00

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.

WE FINALLY MOVED TO COLORADO

2008-01-24T21:38:00.000-07:00

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.

ANOTHER WINNER

2007-07-06T10:38:00.000-06:00

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

ONE FOR LITTLE BUSHY

2007-07-04T15:09:00.000-06:00

"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

2007-07-04T14:49:00.000-06:00

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

American Presidents

Bill of Rights

Founding Fathers

Presidential Religions

President Slave Owners

HOT STOCKS

2007-07-01T21:56:00.000-06:00

MTX
PPDI
CYT
APD
ACL
DOX
AMT
CE
NNDS
OKE
RNR
RE
VLO
DHR
BRL
CSCO
GLW
ROH
AAPL
RIMM
MS
FXC

ISAIAH WASHINGTON

2007-06-29T12:45:00.000-06:00

I find it odd when bigots complain of bigotry.

If anything, this guy seems to be devoted to sabotaging his career. He in effect is creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Specifically, by expecting bigotry, or claiming bigotry in odd situations he comes off as just a little crazy. I imagine this makes him less "marketable."

But on a positive note, when he has trouble getting jobs in the future he will have another opportunity to blame it on bigotry.

This is another sad situation in which his claim of bigotry probably lessens our sensitivity to others' claims of similar treatment.

From the AP:

LOS ANGELES - "Grey's Anatomy" star Isaiah Washington said racism was a factor in his firing from the hit ABC series after he twice used an anti-gay slur.

Washington, who initially used the epithet during an onset clash with a co-star, told Newsweek magazine that "someone heard the booming voice of a black man and got really scared and that was the beginning of the end for me."

He tried to make amends by expressing remorse and volunteering to enter a counseling program to understand how the confrontation got out of hand, he told Newsweek.

"My mistake was believing that I would get the support from my network and all of my cast mates across the board. My mistake was believing I could correct a wrong with honesty and sincerity," he said in the interview posted online Thursday.

"My mistake was thinking black people get second chances. I was wrong on all fronts," he said.

His unwillingness to act like a submissive black at work was part of the problem, Washington said.

"Well, it didn't help me on the set that I was a black man who wasn't a mush-mouth Negro walking around with his head in his hands all the time. I didn't speak like I'd just left the plantation and that can be a problem for people sometime," he said.

"I had a person in human resources tell me after this thing played out that `some people' were afraid of me around the studio. I asked her why, because I'm a 6-foot-1, black man with dark skin and who doesn't go around saying `Yessah, massa sir' and `No sir, massa' to everyone?

"It's nuts when your presence alone can just scare people, and that made me a prime candidate to take the heat in a dysfunctional family," he said.

ABC declined comment Thursday. In its one public statement regarding Washington, issued in January, the network said his actions were "unacceptable."

Washington, who used the slur against co-star T.R. Knight during a confrontation with Patrick Dempsey, repeated the word backstage at the Golden Globes in January in denying the first incident. A public apology to Knight and others followed.

A FUNNY STORY

2007-06-19T14:15:00.000-06:00

TBC

I don't think I have told anyone this story, but between 1987 and 1988 I bought 500 shares of Microsoft. Before I finish this story, let us just say that these 500 shares were worth 17.4 million dollars in 2001. Ten thousand to 17 million in less than 15 years!!!! Now here is the "funny" part.

ANCESTRY PART FOUR

2007-06-18T14:43:00.000-06:00

Here is an update from Sally:

. . . Yes, [Isabella's great granddad Dick] went to school for awhile in Iowa, I believe Ames University. And in high school he was in a band, playing the drums. He and Mom both loved music. [Dick] use to read the encyclopedia in his "spare" time, was always wanting to know about something, and encouraged us kids to use them. He was also very artistic, though he never worked at it, it just came naturally. He was so very proud of your mom for her achievements, both as a child and an adult. Pat has that same type of intellect as [Dick] did [in my opinion].

Also Grandpa Brennan's father [William] was a street car driver, and I actually have a photo of him at work, with grandpa [Harold] on the street car when he was a small boy. Grandpa Brennan [Harold] had an auto shop back in Iowa when Dad was young. I think he wanted Dad to go into business with him, but dad was not really into it. When we were kids Dad would have Grandpa work on his car every time we went to Portland for a visit. . .

. . . Both Grandpa [Harold] and Grandma Brennan left school at about the age of 14 as the times were very hard then, and they needed to work. Grandma left home very young as her father died and her mother remarried a "jerk" who was not very nice to grandma. . .

. . . Grandma Price also left school early, and worked as a nurses assistant and a telephone operator. German was spoken in their home when she was a child and she understood it very well. She used to watch those old WWII movies where they spoke German and would understand everything they said. Grandma's father was a lush. Great grandma Krantz had 2 bachelor brothers who used to help out a lot, and would bring over food all the time, especially when her husband was gone. She had 8 kids to feed!

FINANCIAL SITES

2007-06-14T00:26:00.000-06:00

For those that dabble in the stock market, here are some interesting sites:

BloggingStocks

Fast Money Stock Picks

TheStreet.com

Cramer Watch [go monkey!!!]

Cramer's Mad Money [a good recap]

Market Watch

Money Central

Notable Calls

PFBlog

Short Cramer's Picks

Stock Pickr

Street Insight

Barrons

NASDAQ

Yahoo!Finance

THE ONION

2007-06-12T23:22:00.000-06:00

Got to love the Onion!

ANCESTRY PART THREE

2007-06-06T00:01:00.000-06:00

Dear Isabella,

I spent most of last night getting a better understanding of your paternal ancestors; at least those on my mother's side. I should thank my aunt Sally as she has been a great help in providing me with the bulk of the information.

So far I have been able to trace your ancestry back to several individuals including the following.

The "small" picture:

Richard Francis Brennan [1922 to 1987] of Iowa. "Dick" was one of your paternal great grandfathers. He was the son of Harold Francis Brennan [1902 to 1985] and Ethel Anderson [1901 to 1977]. Dick was basically a 4th generation American Brennan. Most of his American ancestors came to the USA right around the 1850s to 60s from Ireland. I do not think he had a college education, but need to confirm this fact. As I recall, he was in sales for a good portion of his life.

Jane Price [1923 to 1995] of Iowa. Jane was one of your paternal great grandmothers. She was the daughter of Irene Krantz [1899 to 1995] and Russell Price [1902 to 1982]. Jane's family (at least on the Price side) has longer ties with the USA. She was a 9th generation American on the Price side; dating back to Gerard, Buckles, and Brown.

I have very fond memories of both Dick and Jane and miss them both. I also have fond memories of Irene Krantz. She was always bugging me to pray; on the positive side she was always making me food during our visits. Near the end, both she and Jane were living together in California.

I have Jane's nose and think that you will have it too. It is a nice nose and has served me well [whatever that means???].

My fond memories of Jane and Dick include several Christmases in which I played with their youngest son Mike (who was 2 years my senior). These moments were the closest thing I had to normalcy during my young life in which my mother and I lived in 4 major cities during my first 12 years. Thus, it is somewhat odd that my other Christmases were not generally "memorable." I guess this has been one reason that I have never really been a Christmas person; at least until you were born. I do find great enjoyment watching you rip through the gift wrapped boxes with such anticipation -- irrespective of what is inside the box. You are a true joy to have around, but don't tell your mother as I keep telling her how rough I have it. So far she is buying it!!!!

The "big" picture:

Reverend John Gerard. The Gerard house still survives to this day; it was built by John Hays in 1743. It became the home of David Gerard, a minister, who was the founder of Gerrardstown. I think John was a 1st generation American.

You are a direct decedent of his daughter Sarah Gerard [1740 to 1815]. Sarah married James Buckles [1732 to 1797]. They had a son John Buckles [1761 to 1828] and this John had a son David Buckles. Man this is confusing!!! You should see the chart . . . it still boggles my mind! [I guess this makes David Buckles a 4th generation American, give or take.]

Robert Buckles (of England) and Ann Brown; and their son James Buckles.

John and Mary Brooks; and their daughter Mary Brooks.

Elizabeth Corault who married David Buckles; and their son John Buckles [1812 to 1898]. I guess the name John was very popular. :) [This makes John Buckles 5th generation, give or take. Are you keeping up?]

Eleanor Wilson and Willis Northcut; and their daughter Mary Northcut [1815 to 1887] who married John Buckles; and their daughter D. Buckles [1841 to 1901]. Confused yet? I am. [This makes D. Buckles 6th generation, give or take.]

Augustine Price and Mary Shrack; and their son Daniel Price [1838 to 1907] who married D. Buckles; and their son H.P. Price [1860 to 1948]. [This makes H.P. Price 7th generation, give or take.]

H.P. Price married Anna Jean Hamilton [1867 to 1940] and had a son Russell Price [8th generation].

Martin Krantz [1865 to 1951] who married M.F. Zimmer [1867 to 1945]. They had a daughter Irene Krantz.

It looks like above the Krantz bloodline there is a connection to "M. Gilley". Above the Zimmer bloodline there is a connection to "M. Kelly". It is not clear how many generations they go back.

Man this is tiring!!!

John Clark of Ireland who marred Alice Smith of Ireland. They had a daughter Alice Clark [1861 to 1938] of Iowa [1st generation].

Alice married James Brennan [1856 to 1923; also 1st generation] of NY. They had a son William Brennan [1882 to 1930] who married Gertrude Day [1882 to 1944] of Iowa. They had a son (your GG grandfather) Harold Francis Brennan [3rd generation].

Harold married Ethel Anderson [also 3rd generation?].

Above the Anderson line there is a connection to a "A. Geiger", a "John M. Geiger" [1842 to 1877], a "Sara E. Habough", a "William Geiger", and a "J. Alexander".

ANCESTRY PART TWO

2007-06-04T16:07:00.000-06:00

Dear Isabella,

Your grandfather Louis on your mother's side recently gave us a certificate from 1864 that is entitled "THE UNION DEFENDERS CERTIFICATE, IN SUPPORT & DEFENSE OF THE GOVERNMENT, THE UNION AND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, AGAINST THE GREAT REBELLION".

This certificate basically states that one of Louis' relatives (named Louis Norris) served as a volunteer in Tennessee's infantry and was killed in Lafayette on October 31, 1864, after serving 2 years and 3 months.

It has been hard to get information regarding Louis' side of the family so this is a nice piece of additional information.

P.S. On my Dad's side, I am researching a family farm located in Sweden. This has also been a challenge.

WHAT IS UP WITH THE FED?

2007-06-03T17:19:00.000-06:00

One thing I don't get is why PhDs at the FED rely so much (basically totally) on "formulas," and not enough on how it "feels" to the average person, when analysing our economy's health.

I understand that inflation is "bad" and that it is important to control the growth of our economy's "core" prices; even though I personally find it more important to control the growth of our non core prices such as food and gas.

However, isn't it also bad when people can't afford their mortgage payments and end up loosing their homes? I mean, the first people to suffer when the FED raises its rates are the poor and the shrinking middle class.

In today's global economy, I also understand that it is not always easy to grasp (or control) the various factors that might impact the USA's core inflation numbers. So maybe all the FED feels that it can do is raise rates. But then again maybe it is time to take a different approach? Maybe the government (Treasury) could control the supply of money more?

Let me give you an uneducated example. From a non-formula driven point of view, it just seems that the FED rate of 5.25 is too high for the average working person. After all, the first person that really feels the Fed's rate increases is the less well off person. Credit card rates go up, which I guess is the point to stop spending. But what if someone already has a bunch of debt?

I guess, things are going to cost more for the have nots either way, right? But is this going to slow down our economy? Are the poor really causing our core prices to increase too fast? [And doesn't a slower economy imply an increased rate of unemployment?]

And what about the lagging mortgage rates? If someone doesn't have a large sum of money saved to make a significant (20%) down payment on a home, then how is this person suppose to afford to buy a new home with a FED rate above 5 percent?

So why is inflation "bad?" There are many good discussion regarding this, but here is just one.

. . . If inflation is indeed just a general rise in prices, why is it regarded as bad news? What kind of damage does it do? Mainstream economists maintain that general price increases cause speculative buying, which generates waste. Inflation, it is maintained, also erodes the real incomes of pensioners and low-income earners and causes a misallocation of resources.

Despite all these assertions regarding the side effects of what they define as inflation, mainstream economics doesn’t tell us how all these bad side effects are caused.

Why should a general rise in prices hurt some groups of people and not others? Why should a general rise in prices weaken real economic growth? Or how does inflation lead to the misallocation of resources? Furthermore, if inflation is just a rise in prices, surely it is possible to offset its bad side effects by adjusting everybody’s incomes in the economy in accordance with this general price increase. However, once it is established that inflation is about the destruction of the process of wealth generation then all the above questions are easily answered.

We have seen that increases in the money supply set in motion an exchange of nothing for something. They divert real funding away from wealth generators toward the holders of the newly created money. This is what sets in motion the misallocation of resources, not price increases as such, which is only the manifestation of this misallocation.

Moreover, the beneficiaries of the newly created money, i.e., money out of "thin air"— are always the first recipients of money, and so they can divert a greater portion of wealth to themselves. Obviously, those who either don’t receive any of the newly created money or get it last will find that what is left for them is a diminished portion of the pool of real funding.

Additionally, real incomes fall not because of general rises in prices, but because of increases in the money supply, which gives rise to nonproductive consumption. In other words, inflation depletes the real pool of funding, which undermines the production of real wealth—i.e., a lowering of real incomes.

General increases in prices, which follow increases in money supply, are an indication that the erosion of peoples’ purchasing power has taken place. It is not the symptoms of a disease but rather the disease itself that causes the physical damage. Likewise, it is not a general rise in prices but increases in the money supply that inflict the physical damage on wealth generators . . .

I know the rates are still historically low (or at least that is what they say), but we are at a point in our history in which the gap between the have and "have nots" is also really growing.

If one of the main goals as a people is to buy a home, then (in lieu of our increasing poverty numbers) how can we expect the average person to afford a home with the FED rates above 5 percent?

I guess the argument is that if core inflation gets out of hand, then this makes things even more difficult for the "have nots." But core inflation excludes food and gas prices so this reasoning doesn't totally make sense to me. I think it would be more important for someone to be able to afford a home than a new plasma TV.

I would think a FED rate of between 3 and 4 percent would be ideal. How about you? Why not deal with inflation with controlling the money supply or our governments spending?

. . . It also becomes obvious that rather than fighting inflation, it is the Fed itself that generates the inflationary process. On this Mises wrote,

To avoid being blamed for the nefarious consequences of inflation, the government and its henchmen resort to a semantic trick. They try to change the meaning of the terms. They call "inflation" the inevitable consequence of inflation, namely, the rise in prices. They are anxious to relegate into oblivion the fact that this rise is produced by an increase in the amount of money and money substitutes. They never mention this increase. They put the responsibility for the rising cost of living on business. This is a classical case of the thief crying "catch the thief." The government, which produced the inflation by multiplying the supply of money, incriminates the manufacturers and merchants and glories in the role of being a champion of low prices.

It is amazing that almost forty years ago the champion of present inflationary policies, Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan wrote the following,

The law of supply and demand is not to be conned. As the supply of money (of claims) increases relative to the supply of tangible assets in the economy, prices must eventually rise. Thus the earnings saved by the productive members of the society lose value in terms of goods. When the economy’s books are finally balanced, one finds that this loss in value represents the goods purchased by the government for welfare or other purposes with the money proceeds of the government bonds financed by bank credit expansion . . .

SOCIAL STUDIES FOR KIDS

2007-05-27T23:12:00.000-06:00

An old, but good link regarding How Laws Are Made.

Ben's Guide.

Nothing like a good timeline:

American Revolutionary War Timeline.

American Indians.

George Washington Letter to Senate on Cherokee Indians.

Native Americans.

The Learning Page.

Maps of U.S. History.

The U.S. Constitution.

The Articles of Confederation.

U.S. History.

Infoplease.

Learn Spanish.

Weekly Spanish.

WASHINGTON POST ARTICLES

2007-05-26T19:27:00.000-06:00

Interesting . . . First article seems "somewhat" related to my post on the UCs 2007 admission numbers.

Illegal immigration's harmful effects
The Washington Times: May 25 , 2007 -- by Carol M. Swain

The Congressional Black Caucus has not been an effective voice for working-class Americans on the issue of immigration reform.

African Americans should expect and demand more from the CBC, because its members have elected to organize as a racial caucus. By doing so, CBC members have placed upon themselves the obligation to represent the interests of the millions of black constituents who have faithfully and repeatedly sent them to Washington.

Instead, CBC members have ignored social-science studies, congressional testimony and census data documenting the harm that high levels of immigration have caused and are continuing to have on low-wage, low-skill workers. Intervention is needed. African Americans and their allies should hold CBC members and other Democrats accountable for failing to represent the interests of their constituents.

It was Sen. Chuck Schumer, New York Democrat, who chaired the Senate committee that held hearings on black male unemployment in spring of 2007. James Wright, a journalist writing for Afro-American News, reported that Sen. Barack Obama, Illinois Democrat, chose not to sit on Mr. Schumer's committee. At the time that Mr. Wright's newspaper went to press in March, no CBC representatives were seated on the bicameral committee of House and Senate members.

Given their past stances, CBC members can be expected to support amnesty for illegal immigrants and the proposed new guest-worker program that will further disadvantage working-class Americans and those who will compete with the new immigrants for housing, health care, education and other benefits provided to low- and moderate-income Americans.

We need only focus on unemployment to get an idea of how African Americans and other historically disadvantaged groups are adversely affected by high levels of immigration. Consider that black unemployment rates are usually double the rate of whites and are higher than the rates of Hispanics. For example, in April 2007, the national unemployment rate was 4.5 percent. The black unemployment rate was 8.2 percent, with the rate for black males at 9.7 percent. The rate for Hispanics was 5.4 percent. Moreover, the Bureau of Labor statistics has forecast that in the next seven years the Hispanic labor force will be 6.3 million workers greater than the black workforce. As well, by 2014, the black workforce will lag behind the Hispanics, Asians and white non-Hispanics in labor-force participation.

Employed African Americans include a disproportionate percentage of high-school dropouts and graduates who compete directly with legal and illegal immigrants for low-wage, low-skill jobs.

New immigrants arriving since 1990 have increased the supply of labor by 25 percent for the kinds of jobs traditionally taken by poorly educated Americans. Using data from 2000-2004, Steven Camarota of the Center for Immigration Studies has found that while immigrant workers constituted 15 percent of the U.S. labor force, they were a whopping 40 percent of workers without high-school diplomas. Only 12 percent had greater than a high school diploma.

The greatest competition for low-skill jobs is now occurring among people at the margins of society, a multiracial group that includes poorly educated blacks, whites and Hispanics. It is no wonder members of the working-class are the ones most upset about high levels of immigration.

Whether the topic is education, poverty, housing, health care or unemployment, blacks remain clustered at the bottom of the ladder in a most desperate situation. Therefore, their need for representation in Congress is ongoing -- the more vigorous, the better.

The interests of American citizens should trump any obligations to illegal immigrants who have willfully broken the nation's laws and demanded rights and privileges not guaranteed by the Constitution. Often these immigrants show open hostility and disdain for African Americans, the very group whose civil-rights movement has benefitted them enormously.

CBC members should be expected to bring more to their districts than descriptive representation and loud rhetoric about race and rights. Effectively representing their constituents should trump symbolism and the Caucus's tendency to pursue abstract rights for imagined coalition partners. If the CBC is to fulfill its goals and obligations to America, it must be actively involved in shaping immigration legislation to take into consideration the needs of the most vulnerable Americans.

Carol M. Swain, Professor of Political Science and Law at Vanderbilt University, is the editor of Debating Immigration (Cambridge University Press, 2007).

A Bill That Earned Its Doubters
The Washington Post : May 24 , 2007 -- by George F. Will

Compromise is incessantly praised, and it has produced the proposed immigration legislation. But compromise is the mother of complexity, which, regarding immigration, virtually guarantees -- as the public understands -- weak enforcement and noncompliance.

Although the compromise was announced the day the Census Bureau reported that there now are 100 million nonwhites in America, Americans are skeptical about the legislation, but not because they have suddenly succumbed to nativism. Rather, the public has slowly come to the conclusion that the government cannot be trusted to mean what it says about immigration.

In 1986, when there probably were 3 million to 5 million illegal immigrants, Americans accepted an amnesty because they were promised that border control would promptly follow. Today the 12 million illegal immigrants, 60 percent of whom have been here five or more years, are as numerous as Pennsylvanians; 44 states have populations smaller than 12 million. Deporting the 12 million would require police resources and methods from which the nation would rightly flinch. So, why not leave bad enough alone?

Concentrate on border control and on workplace enforcement facilitated by a biometric identification card issued to immigrants who are or will arrive here legally. Treat the problem of the 12 million with benign neglect. Their children born here are American citizens; the parents of these children will pass away.

Under current immigration policies, America is importing another underclass, one "with the potential to expand indefinitely," according to Heather Mac Donald of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. To sentimentalists who cling to "the myth of the redeeming power of Hispanic family values, the Hispanic work ethic, and Hispanic virtue," she says:

From 1990 to 2004, Hispanics accounted for 92 percent of the increase in poor people. Only 53 percent of Hispanics earn high school diplomas, the lowest among American ethnic groups. Half of all children born to Hispanic Americans in 2005 were born out of wedlock -- a reliable predictor of social pathologies.

The legislation supposedly would shift policy from emphasizing family unification to emphasizing economic criteria (skills) when setting eligibility for immigrants. Critics say this will sunder families. But the sundering has happened; it was done by illegal immigrants who left family members behind and are free to reunite with their families where they left them.

Anyway, the supposed shift from emphasizing family relations -- the emphasis that results in "chain migration" -- to economic merit may be diluted to nothingness. It is highly suspicious that there was a rush -- fortunately stymied -- to pass this legislation through both houses and get it to conference, where the majority of participants will be Democrats eager to court Hispanic votes.

Some Democrats argue that liberalism's teetering achievement, the welfare state, requires liberal immigration policies. The argument is: Today there are only 3.3 workers for every retiree. In January, the first of 77 million baby boomers begin to retire. By the time they have retired, in 2030, there will be 2.2 workers for every retiree -- but only if the workforce is replenished by 900,000 immigrants a year.

On Monday, however, Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation stunned some senators who heard his argument that continuing, under family-based immigration, to import a low-skilled population will cost the welfare state far more than the immigrants' contributions to the economy and government. He argued that low-skilled immigrants are costly to the welfare state at every point in their life cycle and are very costly when elderly. Just the 9 million to 10 million adults already here illegally will, if given amnesty, cost an average of $300,000 -- cumulatively, more than $2.5 trillion-- in various entitlements (Social Security, food stamps, Medicaid, housing, etc.) over 30 years.

To those who say border control is impossible -- often these are the same people who said better policing could not substantially reduce crime, until it did -- one answer is: It took just 34 months for the Manhattan Project to progress from the creation of the town of Oak Ridge in the Tennessee wilderness to the atomic explosion at Alamogordo, N.M. That is what America accomplishes when it is serious.

In an attempt to anesthetize people who sensibly say "border control and workplace enforcement first," important provisions of the legislation would supposedly be "triggered" only when control of the border is "certified" by the president. But in what looks like a parody of the Washington mentality, certification would be triggered not by border control but by the hiring of border control agents and other spending. So, the supposedly hardheaded aspects of the legislation actually rest on the delusion that spending equals the achievement of the intention behind the spending. By that assumption, we have long since tranquilized and democratized Iraq.

2007 UC ADMISSION NUMBERS

2007-05-14T16:54:00.000-06:00

Here are some of the 2007 numbers reported by the Regents:

2007 APPLICATIONS

Total = 73,825

Whites = 27,164 (36.7%)

African Americans = 3,527 (4.7%)

Asians = 20,837 (28.2%)

Latinos = 14,941 ( 20.2%)

Numbers include undocumented residents, as such are generally considered residents for admissions purposes.

2007 ADMITS

Total = 57,318 [Basically 78% of "Total Applications"]

Whites = 20,370 (35.4% of Total) [Basically 75% of "White Applications"]

African Americans = 2,071 (3.7%) [Basically 57% of "AA Applications"; too low!]

Asians = 20,250 (35.3%) [Basically 97% of "Asian Applications"]

Latinos = 10,715 (18.7%) [Basically 72%, or the same "rate" as White Americans]

The admission policies are still very subjective and differ by campus.

LAST YEAR'S (2006) FRESHMAN CLASS

Total Accepts = 37,168

Whites = 11,981 (32.2%)

African Americans = 1,117 (3.0%) [Just 96 , or 2% at UCLA!]

Asians = 15,527 (41.8%)

Latinos = 6,041 (16.3%)

Since my law schools days at UCLA (oh so long ago), I have found a few things troubling about the admissions policies established by the Regents. Let me give you one specific, current example.

For as long as I can remember, the Regents have been vigorously attempting to increase the representation of what it labels as "Underrepresented Students." Oddly enough, by definition these students are basically comprised of individuals that are getting into the UCs at rates (or ratios) materially less than White Americans.

These groups include Latinos, African Americans, and Native Americans. So far so good; as I think I get the "general reasoning" behind this policy. [Specifically, if the rates are much less than White Americans, then there must be something wrong now; or there must have been some past wrong doing or discrimination. Seems simplistic, but I get the gist.]

But here is the rub, which I think is implicitly unfair to African Americans (and Native Americans). The Regents include both 1st and 2nd generation immigrants (no matter the legal status) in this group of Underrepresented Students; and allows these individuals to get the special benefits only available to such Underrepresented Students.

[The "top 4 percent of public schools" program was one program that was originally designed to provide such benefits. Those reviewing the applications apply other benefits under the subjective portion of the UCs' application process. See prior posts.]

It seems odd to expect (or push???) these new immigrants to be getting into the UCs at the same "rates" (or ratios) as families that have been in this country for multiple generations. And this is exactly what the UCs are attempting to do; especially with respect to Latinos given their increasing numbers. It also seems odd to think that if the UCs are attempting to correct past discrimination that giving special benefits to recent immigrants will accomplish this task. In fact, I would argue that it would have the exact opposite impact.

As you can see, 72% of the Latino Applications get accepted to one of the UCs. This compares to the 75% for White Americans. Given the significant portion of Latino families that have "foreign born" parents, 72% seems exceptional. Certainly not what I would consider "Underrepresented Students." [True, this rate reflects the benefits put into place by the UCs to increase Latino representation; especially the "top 4 percent" program of late.]

Basically, I think it is unfair to our historically poor for the Regents to give 1st and 2nd generation immigrants "special benefits." It is especially harmful to African Americans living in California that have and continue to be disproportionately poor; even poorer on average than recent immigrants.

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem giving these residents (assuming they are documented) the same opportunities as everyone else. After all, this is the American way.

It is also the American way to "pay your dues" when you first come to this country. To me, this means that you work as hard as possible to make a better future for your kids, and their kids -- without asking for any "special" considerations.

[Here is my "example":

Assume that there is a group of “French Americans” that historically has been disproportionately poor because of certain discriminatory actions taken by our government several generations back. Further assume that because of these actions it is unlikely that these French Americans will ever equal the economic prosperity of other Americans unless some new, specific action is taken.

Now assume that there is another group of poor Irish Americans that has been immigrating in droves to the USA in order to pursue the American dream. Assume that over that last 20 years, the amount of Irish Americans now living in California (alone) has increased by around 4 million or 30 percent.

Question: Based on the above, would you also expect the number of Irish Americans attending the various CA universities to have increased by 30 percent (over the last 20 years)? I would argue no; especially if these new Irish Americans are generally poor.

Question: Based on the above, would you expect the new (4 million) Irish Americans to be getting into the CA universities at the same rates as more established families? Again, I would argue no.

Questions: Would you consider it appropriate to give these new Irish Americans “special,” beyond the normal considerations when determining their admissibility to the CA universities? What if such special considerations would result in reducing admissions for poor, but established French Americans? What if good portions of these new Irish Americans are in the USA illegally?]

Here are some interesting facts:

In 2005, there were approximately 35 million people living in California. Around 9.6 million of these people were foreign born. In 1995, the number of foreign born was still fairly high (at around 7 million, give or take).

In 2005, 35% percent of California's population was Latino. This was up from around 32% in 2000.

[Given that the majority of our foreign born are Latinos, I would not expect (under a fair application process) for these numbers to translate into a dramatic increase in Latino representation at the UCs. But that is just me. After all, it took my families YEARS before anyone got a college education.]

In 2005, 6.1% percent of California's population was African American. This was down from around 6.7% in 2000.

In 1997, 14.7% of UC freshman admits were Latinos. In 2007, 18.7% of UC freshman admits were Latinos. An increase of 27.2% since 1997.

In 1997, 3.8% of UC freshman admits were African American. In 2007, 3.6% of UC freshman admits were African American. A decrease of 5% since 1997.

Again, I think it is intrinsically unfair to give 1st and 2nd generation immigrants "special benefits" that are not readily available to average residents. It is especially harmful to African Americans living in California that have and continue to be disproportionately poor; and quite frankly continue to leave California given that high schools (and local communities) are becoming more geared to serving our increasingly Spanish speaking population.

MACARTHUR PARK

2007-05-07T19:24:00.000-06:00

This guy is nuts? Can you feel the hate?

ANOTHER BLACK EYE FOR LA POLICE

2007-05-07T00:09:00.000-06:00

I can't say that I am all that surprised by this report, or the events. Actually, every since the enactment of "Special Order 40" the tension and anger seems to be growing and growing in Los Angeles. There is a lot of hate in this city on all sides.

So many resources are spread so thin. I think it will only get worse before it gets better. Hard to imagine that our schools, etc. can get much worse.

P.S. On the one hand Special Order 40 is basically asking citizens to support those that break certain federal laws, while on the other hand the city is condemning others that cannot handle this request or are "strained" by the entire situation.

The result is that 80 officers are off the streets, and law suits are being filed that will cost this city millions. Personally, I don't think it is appropriate to expect this stuff to not happen when laws are selectively enforced. We are such a dysfunctional family.

In one respect, it is like a parent who smokes telling her children not to smoke. Or, some might argue that it is more like a parent who smokes telling just a few of her children not to smoke, while permitting the others to smoke. Does anyone benefit in this last situation? Man this stuff is confusing. :)

It is especially more explosive when you consider the gang / drug issues that we have in LA and all the complications (or at least anger) that Special Order 40 theoretically creates. Basically, no one is happy in an environment of selective enforcement.

Just more problems our children will have to solve; as I am way too old for this stuff. But, on a positive side, I no longer wonder why LA has never been able to get a handle on its drug and gang problems. And like all good problems, the situation in LA has become so complicated that actually attempting to outline cause and effect is becoming impossible.

Here is part of a very "critical" write-up:

Some of the most violent criminals at large today are illegal aliens. Yet in cities where crime from these lawbreakers is highest, the police cannot use the most obvious tool to apprehend them: their immigration status. In Los Angeles, for example, dozens of gang members from a ruthless Salvadoran prison gang have snuck back into town after having been deported for such crimes as murder, shootings, and drug trafficking. Police officers know who they are and know that their mere presence in the country is a felony. Yet should an LAPD officer arrest an illegal gangbanger for felonious reentry, it is the officer who will be treated as a criminal by his own department — for violating the LAPD’s rule against enforcing immigration law.

The LAPD’s ban on immigration enforcement is replicated in immigrant-heavy localities across the country — in New York, Chicago, Austin, San Diego, and Houston, for example. These so-called "sanctuary policies" generally prohibit a city’s employees, including the police, from reporting immigration violations to federal authorities.

Sanctuary laws are a testament to the political power of immigrant lobbies. So powerful is this demographic clout that police officials shrink from even mentioning the illegal alien crime wave. "We can’t even talk about it," says a frustrated LAPD captain. "People are afraid of a backlash from Hispanics." Another LAPD commander in a predominantly Hispanic, gang-infested district sighs: "I would get a firestorm of criticism if I talked about [enforcing the immigration law against illegals]." Neither captain would speak for attribution.

But however pernicious in themselves, sanctuary rules are a symptom of a much broader disease: the near total loss of control over immigration policy. Fifty years ago, immigration policy may have driven immigration numbers, but today the numbers drive policy. The non-stop increase of legal and illegal aliens is reshaping the language and the law to dissolve any distinction between legal and illegal immigration and, ultimately, the very idea of national borders.

It is a measure of how topsy-turvy the immigration environment has become that to ask police officials about the illegal crime problem feels like a gross social faux pas, something simply not done in polite company. And a police official, asked to violate this powerful taboo against discussing criminal aliens, will respond with a strangled response—sometimes, as in the case of a New York deputy commissioner with whom I spoke, disappearing from communication altogether. At the same time, millions of illegal aliens work, shop, travel, and commit crimes in plain view, utterly confident in their de facto immunity from the immigration law.

I asked the Miami Police Department’s spokesman, Detective Delrish Moss, about his employer’s policy on illegal law-breakers. In September 2003, the force had arrested a Honduran visa violator for seven terrifying rapes. The previous year, Miami officers had had the suspect, Reynaldo Elias Rapalo, in custody for lewd and lascivious molestation, without checking his immigration status. Had they done so, they would have discovered his visa overstay, a deportable offense. "We have shied away from unnecessary involvement dealing with immigration issues," explains Detective Moss, choosing his words carefully, "because of our large immigration population."

Police commanders may not want to discuss, much less respond to, the illegal alien crisis, but its magnitude for law enforcement is startling. Some examples:

• In Los Angeles, 95 percent of all outstanding warrants for homicide (which total 1,200 to 1,500) target illegal aliens. Up to two-thirds of all fugitive felony warrants (17,000) are for illegal aliens.

• A confidential California Department of Justice study reported in 1995 that 60 percent of the bloody 18th Street Gang in California is illegal (estimated membership: 20,000); police officers say the proportion is undoubtedly much greater. The gang collaborates with the Mexican Mafia, the dominant force in California prisons, on complicated drug distribution schemes, extortion, and drive-by assassinations, and is responsible for an assault or robbery every day in Los Angeles County. The gang has dramatically expanded its numbers over the last two decades by recruiting recently arrived youngsters, a vast proportion illegal, from Central America and Mexico.

• The leadership of the Columbia Li’l Cycos gang, which uses murder and racketeering to control the drug market around L.A.’s MacArthur Park, was about 60 percent illegal in 2002, says former Assistant U.S. Attorney Luis Li. Frank "Pancho Villa" Martinez, a Mexican Mafia member and illegal alien, controlled the gang from prison, while serving time for felonious reentry following deportation.

Good luck finding any reference to such facts in official crime analysis. The LAPD and the Los Angeles City Attorney recently requested a judicial injunction against drug trafficking in Hollywood. The injunction targets the 18th Street Gang and, as the press release puts it, the "non-gang members" who sell drugs in Hollywood on behalf of the gang. Those "non-gang members" are virtually all illegal Mexicans, smuggled into the country by a trafficking ring organized by 18th Street bigs. The illegal Mexicans pay off their transportation debt to the gang by selling drugs; many soon realize how lucrative that line of work is and stay in the business.

The immigration status of these non-gang "Hollywood dealers," as the City Attorney calls them, is universally known among officers and gang prosecutors. But the gang injunction is silent on the matter. And if a Hollywood officer were to arrest an illegal dealer (known on the street as a "border brother") for his immigration status, or even notify Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE),* he would be severely disciplined for violation of Special Order 40, the city’s sanctuary policy.

Not sure about the numbers. Some see high to me; but even if they were cut in half, the issues, problems would still seem significant. How many drug related crimes are acceptable? How many of our kids need to abuse drugs before we consider the 60 percent (plus) of the cocaine and meth that is coming across the border to be a problem?

It is clear to me that to attack the drugs at the border would significantly reduce the cheap labor available to businesses. So we ignore the drugs coming across the border and focus on keeping our economy number 1.

It is sad that we seem to care more about economic prosperity than the well being of our children. As a society, our first goal should be the well being our our children. At least, that should be the goal for a truly moral, spiritual society. Maybe it is time to examine if this is still a primary goal; or is it more about keeping up with the Jones?

Really, one is about the future leaders of our country, and requires great selflessness. The other is about amassing as much stuff in the here and now. One is for other future individuals, and the other really is not. But that is just the cynic in me.

For the last 50 years, the people of the USA have been relying too much on "institutional" care for the well being of our kids. More and more, both parents are out of the house, while the kids are cared for by others. Also, as recently reported the gap between the have and the have-nots has been growing (to unacceptable levels). Maybe it is time for a change?

Please take a look at the book by Dr. Brazelton called "The Irreducible Needs of Children" for an interesting take on the impact that using others to take care of our kids during the first 2 years has on our kids.

See Encounter Books.

DEMS TAKE WHITE HOUSE IN 2008 IF . . .

2007-05-06T23:00:00.000-06:00

. . . our troops are still in Iraq (with no real, meaningful change) and the Democratic nominee promises to bring them back if she (or he) wins. It is that simple in my opinion.

However, to ensure this result, the existing Congress, or at least the Dems have to allow the troops to stay in Iraq; while simultaneously shouting that we need to start bringing the troops home. One way to do this is to propose spending legislation that is filled with unrelated junk; and therefore, has no chance of passing or surviving a veto.

[This all presumes that Big Business Bush continues to fail, which seems a safe bet at this point.]

In fact, it is to the Dems' benefit (with respect to taking the White House) that the troops are not on their way home and that no time table has been set before the election. If the troops are coming home before the election, then numerous variables come into play that could make our country much more neutral with respect to the issue of Iraq.

For instance, if the troops are coming home (by the means of a gradual pull out), then what impact would a full scale civil war (in which hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are sure to die) have on our view towards Iraq? Would people be more inclined to permit our troops to stay if domestic killings drastically increased by tenfold during this pull out? If so, then a Republican Senator from Arizona might just get the winning vote.

What if the violence not only drastically increased, as our troops started coming home, but other countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia got involved in the mess? After all, the Saudis have suggested that they will back the Sunnis if needed.

That is why I say that it is to the Dems' benefit that the troops are not on their way home and that no time table has been set before the election. It is my view that before the 2008 Presidential Election the Dems will huff and puff, but will not blow any doors down that effect any meaningful change.

P.S. It is really very odd (and demonstrates just how poorly Bush and his nit wits planned out this war) that at the beginning of the Iraq war, the USA supported the Shiites, as they were generally oppressed, killed under Saddam.

However, given that Iran is predominately controlled by Shiites, now the USA, Saudis, etc., are concerned that the Shiites are getting too powerful (in Iraq?); and this might somehow lend itself to the Iraqi Shiites becoming more like, or uniting with the Iranian Shiites.

This sounds all too familiar. I remember how the USA supported Saddam against Iran because our government was very concerned that the Islamic extremism spreading throughout Iran might just spread to the entire Middle East. See Iranian Revolution (also know as the "Islamic Revolution") for more information.

So how did we go about addressing this concern? We supported the Sunnis and Saddam as he invaded Iran in 1980 (you know, about a year after the Iran hostage crisis began).

It does seem to be true that history has the habit of repeating itself. Especially when a nit wit like Big Business Bush is in office.

FREUD'S THEORY

2007-04-27T22:09:00.000-06:00

I am currently reading a great book by Dr. Brazelton called "The Irreducible Needs of Children". I highly recommend this book for anyone that is wondering how the mind, spirit develops early on in life, and how important a consistent nurturing environment is to that process. Other great authors on this topic include Erikson, Burlingham, and Piaget.

This is a okay summary of Freud's theory, and a brief description of his beginnings.

How about Erikson. This has a cool chart adapted from Erikson's 1959 "Erikson's 1959 Identity and the Life Cycle". I like the focused discussion on a child's development.

Some more links:

Psychology

Child Related Articles

Killer Genes [Are some people born killers? How about the boy from VA Tech?]

Serial Murder

Mayhem

BUSH OFFICIAL LINKED TO CALL-GIRL PROBE

2007-04-27T20:42:00.000-06:00

" . . . Tobias, 65, who is married, told ABC News there had been "no sex" during the women's visits to his condo. His name was on a list of clients given to ABC by Deborah Jeane Palfrey, who owns the escort service and has been charged with running a prostitution ring in the nation's capital. . . ."

Riiiiight! Do all of Bush's good old boys think we are slow?

DRUG RELATED CRIMES CONTINUE TO CROWD THE COURTS

2007-04-27T09:23:00.000-06:00

Just another problem that will continue to grow until we do something within the border States.

FOOTBALL PLAYER RUNS INTO KID

2007-04-27T00:16:00.000-06:00

As a parent, this is hard to watch. Glad that he is okay.

RCC CALLS HOMOSEXUALITY [SSM] EVIL

2007-04-23T16:21:00.000-06:00

This is just another reason that the RCC is not for me.

To consider a biological condition to be "evil" is hateful. [See prior posts.]

I have never met a "heterosexual" (or straight) male that suggests that his own sexual orientation is a choice; probably because doing so would be to admit that he "could" have a relationship with a man. But this same person, for some reason, does generally consider homosexuality a "choice." This appears to be a real double standard to me.

Think about it. If you are a heterosexual male, and say that you could never choose to be in a relationship with another man, then your current preference is not a conscious choice. It is a biological condition generally determined by the time of your birth. This does not change just because you are gay.

From everything that I have read, not to mention from my own personal experiences, I have every reason to think that one's sexual orientation is the result of biology most of the time. Sure, in a very few instances, this orientation might be the result of a repetitive childhood trauma that has effectively removed the choice from one's conscious.

Either way, it is not a "conscious" choice. I know it is not a choice for me; so why should I presume that it is for someone that is different than me?

Nature does have deviations. Just as some people are color blind, left handed, etc., it should be expected that a portion of the population will be born with characteristics that are not the "norm." This does not make such evil, as such occurrences are completely natural.

LIMBO

2007-04-21T00:32:00.001-06:00

". . . Although Catholics have long believed that children who die without being baptized are with original sin and thus excluded from heaven, the Church has no formal doctrine on the matter. Theologians, however, have long taught that such children enjoy an eternal state of perfect natural happiness, a state commonly called limbo, but without being in communion with God . . ."

Am I the only one that finds this funny, sad, weird?

To think that any child would be punished because he or she was not baptized does not sound God like to me. In fact, the general teachings about being excluded from heaven unless all of the sacraments are completed seem so arcane and fundamentally flawed. Really, if you had truth, true faith in your heart, then why should any God care if you jumped through all of the hoops the Pope holds up? Don't you find it odd that these rules basically mean that over 60 percent of the world's population, including good portions of our friends and family, will never be "saved?" This sounds like a gimmick to me. Like propaganda; utilized for the sole purpose of controlling the faithful.

Do you think that Jesus would have supported "limbo" of children that had not been baptized?

I just don't get this one. But then I also don't get how we can calmly go through life thinking (and not really caring) that our own beliefs mean that significant portions of the people we know will not be "saved" under the rules of the seven sacraments.

Are we that much smarter than the next guy? Are our beliefs really that much better? Do you really think that zero Jews, Islams, Buddhists, Hindus, etc. will make it into heaven? This doesn't sound correct to me.

The concept of being saved as promoted by the RC Church is just too simplistic and is anything but Godly.

I don't think heaven would be such a worthy place to go if it truly enforced such rules. This is not my heaven.

Salvation? Vatican II? Very interesting stuff. Maybe, as one Pope suggested, it is just about having a true heart?

But what if you are "born a sociopath" in which certain things are out of your control? What if you are beaten and raped during most of your childhood and turn out to be a sociopath? Isn't there still hope for you? Or was that hope literally beaten out of you?

How does our church deal with the fact that we are not all given the same opportunity to develop a healthy faith?

How would you treat such a person if it was up to you?

IMUS

2007-04-20T13:45:00.001-06:00

TBC

ARE THERE MANY THOUGHTFUL AMERICANS?

2007-04-20T13:42:00.000-06:00

TBC

PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION

2007-04-20T13:40:00.000-06:00

I haven't read the Opinion in detail, but my preliminary take on it is that I agree with Justice Kennedy's ruling (as usual). I really think that Justice Kennedy has written some great, pioneering opinions in the past.

I do believe that a woman should have a (generally) unfettered "legal" right to end a pregnancy at any time before the baby is viable outside the woman. This does create complications in varying forms as technology advances, but for now this type of standard should give any woman contemplating an abortion just under two trimesters to weigh all of the issues.

[With all the technical mumbo jumbo aside, see below, I think that we as a society need to ask ourselves how our willingness to permit so many abortions (and later term abortions) impact our ability to properly care for our living children and provide for their wellbeing. Is there any subconscious (or group think phenomenon) that is occurring that actually diminishes our ability to nurture our kids?

Maybe our society’s willing to accept so many abortions causes, forces us to shut part of ourselves off to our living children? Maybe we shut part of ourselves off to our living children to allow for the possibility of a future abortion. Who knows? This is just theoretical wonderings about the unconscious impact of abortions (even if such abortions are performed by strangers).]

[Partial birth abortion appears to be a late second trimester procedure and is referred to as an "intact D&E." Please see the bottom for a description.]

However, when it comes to partial birth abortion, it does seem that one of its primary goals is to ensure that the baby is "born dead." If this is truly the case, then it does seem to fall within the time frame of when a fetus might be "viable" outside the woman. For this reason, I do not object to this procedure being outlawed, as there are other procedures (types of abortions) that are still available for situations in which the woman's life is at risk (the one, generally required "exception" missing from the federal statue that led to this case).

P.S. I think that an abortion should be as humane as possible. Specifically, it does "feel" wrong that the skull of a living, well developed fetus is punctured (to allow the brains to be sucked out) to the extent this might be painful to a viable fetus.

As a father, this thought is gruesome; especially if the baby is along enough to be viable on its own or in an incubator. Before this point of viability, I accept a woman's right to control her body and be the master of her domain (generally no matter how gruesome the abortion might appear or sound).

Once the fetus is viable, then both lives need consideration. However, if the fetus is killing the mother for some reason, then she should be given an avenue to save her life. I would prefer an option (such as a C section) that might allow both lives to be saved, but the woman's life should be given preference (assuming this is her choice) if only one life can be saved.

As I understand this ruling, there are such alternatives still available to women that face imminent risk if they continue carrying their babies. However, I need to fully read the opinion to see if this seems to be the case.

[There is something cold about the amount of abortions that are performed in this country. There is also something seemingly inconsistent about telling our children on one hand how special they are, but on the other not feeling that unborn children are as special. Who determines if a child is special; or when a child becomes special. These are all very difficult questions that need to be balanced with a woman’s right to control her body. Of course, at some point this right also needs to be balanced with one’s responsibly for one’s choices. I guess there are several factors that bear on this issue and help create the complications.]

Here is part of the Opinion that is particularly graphic:

. . . This is an abortion doctor’s clinical description. Here is another description from a nurse who witnessed the same method performed on a 26-week fetus and who testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee:

“ ‘Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby’s legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby’s body and the arms—everything but the head. The doctor kept the head right inside the uterus….

“ ‘The baby’s little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby’s arms jerked out, like a startle reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he is going to fall.

“ ‘The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby’s brains out. Now the baby went completely limp… .

“ ‘He cut the umbilical cord and delivered the placenta. He threw the baby in a pan, along with the placenta and the instruments he had just used.’ ” Ibid.

Dr. Haskell’s approach is not the only method of killing the fetus once its head lodges in the cervix, and “the process has evolved” since his presentation. Planned Parenthood, 320 F. Supp. 2d, at 965. Another doctor, for example, squeezes the skull after it has been pierced “so that enough brain tissue exudes to allow the head to pass through.” App. in No. 05–380, at 41; see also Carhart, supra, at 866–867, 874. Still other physicians reach into the cervix with their forceps and crush the fetus’ skull. Carhart, supra, at 858, 881. Others continue to pull the fetus out of the woman until it disarticulates at the neck, in effect decapitating it. These doctors then grasp the head with forceps, crush it, and remove it. Id., at 864, 878; see also Planned Parenthood, supra, at 965.

Some doctors performing an intact D&E attempt to remove the fetus without collapsing the skull. See Carhart, supra, at 866, 869. Yet one doctor would not allow delivery of a live fetus younger than 24 weeks because “the objective of [his] procedure is to perform an abortion,” not a birth. App. in No. 05–1382, at 408–409. The doctor thus answered in the affirmative when asked whether he would “hold the fetus’ head on the internal side of the [cervix] in order to collapse the skull” and kill the fetus before it is born. Id., at 409; see also Carhart, supra, at 862, 878. Another doctor testified he crushes a fetus’ skull not only to reduce its size but also to ensure the fetus is dead before it is removed. For the staff to have to deal with a fetus that has “some viability to it, some movement of limbs,” according to this doctor, “[is] always a difficult situation.” App. in No. 05–380, at 94; see Carhart, supra, at 858. . . .

GONZALES SHOULD GO

2007-04-20T13:37:00.000-06:00

TBC

QUESTIONS REGARDING VIRGINA TECH

2007-04-20T13:36:00.000-06:00

TBC

WOODEN

2007-04-01T21:41:00.000-06:00

Wooden's Pyramid of Success!!!!

A man way ahead of his time.

THINGS THAT MAKE ME WONDER

2007-03-04T00:42:00.000-07:00

Things that make me wonder:

Have you ever wondered why it has become the common practice of politicians to say nothing meaningful while they speak to us, the public?

This is especially true with Bush. Remember Big Business Bush's old Press Secretary Scott McClellan? He was good at not saying anything. Unfortunately, he was so obvious (or bad at hiding it) he was asked to resign. Of course, Tony Snow still says nothing, but he is a much better speaker and can more easily deflect questions.

Don't you find it odd that it is hard to get information, or straight answers from these individuals that represent us? This is true on both sides of the isle.

Why has everything become classified? Is it to protect us, or those that classify our government's records? Some things I can understand, but why the overkill? Our government should be transparent. But it has become so murky.

This seems to be the total opposite of the way things should be. If a politician is asked a question, then the answer given should represent what that politician not only knows, but also what he or she believes needs further consideration; or what information needs to be protected and why. Why is this not done?

Maybe these politicians only speak such truths to the businesses that fund their lives. You know, the corporations and individuals that they truly represent behind the scenes.

Another thing, do you ever wonder if "pundents" were intentionally put on the air to help provide "smoke" or cover for these politicians; in order to stir the passions of the average person, but without any real desire to get to the truth or investigate anything.

I never understood why people are paid to argue one "side" or another of an issue without ever focusing on what they really believe, or getting to an agreement regarding the open issues before the program ends. It is as if nothing gets said.

Why do "news" agency pay people to argue, bicker with each other, irrespective of the facts, instead of working together towards a common goal? It seems to be so focused on the "dramatics." This focus on the dramatics is just one more indicator that Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC are not in the business of investigating issues. They are in the business of selling air time. This is one reason that I have stopped watching these channels.

Another indicator is that these news channels spend much of their time talking about how the other news channels are not "balanced." Is this really news? It is as if the heads of these channels got together and decided to focus on each other in order to not really focus on anything at all. In this way, the channels themselves represent pundents, mindlessly arguing points against the other channels with the sole purpose of "winning" the debate; with zero desire to get to the truth, uncover criminal behavior, etc.

The major news channels will resist investigating political corruption because their bosses (and major owners) are the same people that fund the politicians in hopes of getting favorable legislation passed. Moreover, these news channels are not going to investigate corporate corruption to the extent it involves one of their shareholder's companies.

So what do the major news channels do with their time. They spend 1 month on the late Ms. Smith -- who if anything represents what is wrong with this country. You know, the pursuit of fame, greed, manipulation, quick fixes, etc. She is not news, but she is another drug used by the media to keep us all stupid to the behind the scene stuff.

P.S. For the first time in my life, I am embarrassed to be an American; but I have no other home. So I sit up late at night and write my concerns down for others to read. Hopefully, I am not alone. Hopefully, we can make a difference.

Oh captain my captain -- where have you gone? :) :)

DRUGS COMING FROM MEXICO

2007-02-28T19:12:00.000-07:00

Imagine all of the drugs that don't get caught as they are crossing the border. Imagine all of these that make it into the inner cities, that put people in jail, that kill people, and that create drug related crimes.

Imagine that this could be materially reduced with significantly increased border security. Too bad that big business needs cheap labor (and controls Congress) or we could make some improvements.

This still amazes me. For around 4 billion dollars, we could "basically" secure the Mexican border. This would by far pay for itself in reduced drug related crimes and deaths throughout the United States.

However, where would big business get cheap labor that it could exploit; such labor allowing big business to avoid employing our own poor -- which would require providing benefits and paying its portion of SS taxes, etc.

This is one more indicator that Congress is bought and paid for by big business.

What else could it be? Why else would our Congress ignore the easiest route for getting drugs into this country. Given that we find no issue with going to Colombia for raids (and are spending some money on the issue), it must be because of the all mighty dollar.

Our Congress' inefficiency on this issue is evidence of either its guilt or stupidity; and I don't consider our Congress to be made up of stupid individuals. Unfortunately, they are just not righteous ones.

They live in a world that is not impacted by the things (like drug related crimes) that impact the average person; and unfortunately they lack both the empathy and vision to address the average person's needs. But if you mess with their dollars, they will go to war to defend our economy.

Some things never change.

POVERTY GAP

2007-02-24T23:20:00.000-07:00

More evidence that our own poor are being ignored so that big business can exploit cheap labor, immigrants.

Question: How can there be jobs that Americans won't do if we have so many poor citizens? Maybe there are jobs that our citizens won't do without requiring benefits; or requiring businesses to pay its share of SS?

The use of illegal immigrants saves big business money and drives down wages.

By Tony Pugh
McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON - The percentage of poor Americans who are living in severe poverty has reached a 32-year high, millions of working Americans are falling closer to the poverty line and the gulf between the nation's "haves" and "have-nots" continues to widen.

A McClatchy Newspapers analysis of 2005 census figures, the latest available, found that nearly 16 million Americans are living in deep or severe poverty. A family of four with two children and an annual income of less than $9,903 - half the federal poverty line - was considered severely poor in 2005. So were individuals who made less than $5,080 a year.

The McClatchy analysis found that the number of severely poor Americans grew by 26 percent from 2000 to 2005. That's 56 percent faster than the overall poverty population grew in the same period. McClatchy's review also found statistically significant increases in the percentage of the population in severe poverty in 65 of 215 large U.S. counties, and similar increases in 28 states. The review also suggested that the rise in severely poor residents isn't confined to large urban counties but extends to suburban and rural areas.

The plight of the severely poor is a distressing sidebar to an unusual economic expansion. Worker productivity has increased dramatically since the brief recession of 2001, but wages and job growth have lagged behind. At the same time, the share of national income going to corporate profits has dwarfed the amount going to wages and salaries. That helps explain why the median household income of working-age families, adjusted for inflation, has fallen for five straight years.

These and other factors have helped push 43 percent of the nation's 37 million poor people into deep poverty - the highest rate since at least 1975.

The share of poor Americans in deep poverty has climbed slowly but steadily over the last three decades. But since 2000, the number of severely poor has grown "more than any other segment of the population," according to a recent study in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

"That was the exact opposite of what we anticipated when we began," said Dr. Steven Woolf of Virginia Commonwealth University, who co-authored the study. "We're not seeing as much moderate poverty as a proportion of the population. What we're seeing is a dramatic growth of severe poverty."

The growth spurt, which leveled off in 2005, in part reflects how hard it is for low-skilled workers to earn their way out of poverty in an unstable job market that favors skilled and educated workers. It also suggests that social programs aren't as effective as they once were at catching those who fall into economic despair.

About one in three severely poor people are under age 17, and nearly two out of three are female. Female-headed families with children account for a large share of the severely poor.

According to census data, nearly two out of three people in severe poverty are white, (10.3 million) and 6.9 million are non-Hispanic whites. Severely poor blacks (4.3 million) are more than three times as likely as non-Hispanic whites to be in deep poverty, while extremely poor Hispanics of any race (3.7 million) are more than twice as likely.

Washington, D.C., the nation's capital, has a higher concentration of severely poor people - 10.8 percent in 2005 - than any of the 50 states, topping even hurricane-ravaged Mississippi and Louisiana, with 9.3 percent and 8.3 percent, respectively. Nearly six of 10 poor District residents are in extreme poverty.

MORE

BY THE NUMBERS

States with the most people in severe poverty:

California - 1.9 million
Texas - 1.6 million
New York - 1.2 million
Florida - 943,670
Illinois - 681,786
Ohio - 657,415
Pennsylvania - 618,229
Michigan - 576,428
Georgia - 562,014
North Carolina - 523,511

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

BUSH IS CREATING THE NAFTA NUCLEAR HIGHWAY

2007-02-24T21:23:00.000-07:00

The NAFTA superhighway is going to permit at least 17,000 trucks to come into the USA from Mexico each day. Not to mention the thousands of U.S. trucks that will be returning from Mexico.

Are all off these trucks going to be inspected for the "bomb" or WMDs? Are they going to be checked with Nuclear monitors? Can we trust Big Business Bush to do this?

There will only be around around 4 million trucks to be inspected!

Bush is a danger to us all.

Nukes at the border? Where is our new and improved Congress?

BUSH IS KILLING OUR KIDS

2007-02-24T17:07:00.000-07:00

Won't the NAFTA superhighway make the "war on drugs" more difficult?

The DEA already suggests that 66+ percent of the cocaine used in the USA is routed from Colombia to Mexico so that it can be smuggled into this country over the border.

The DEA also states that up to 80 percent of the “meth” used in this country is controlled by the Mexican drug cartels. Again, this extremely destructive drug is made available to our kids via the border.

The percentage of the heroin smuggled into this country from Mexico (after it is produced in other countries such as Afghanistan) is also staggering.

Now the NAFTA superhighway is going to permit 17,000 trucks to come into the USA from Mexico each day to make "deliveries." Are all off these trucks going to be inspected for drugs? How about the U.S. trucks coming back from Mexico?

Bottom line -- I don’t see how this can help our war on drugs.

Bush is giving the drug cartels just one more method of getting these drugs into our country.

All the deaths and lives ruined by these drugs are on Bush’s soul. Oh wait, I forgot he doesn’t have a soul. Never mind.

NAFTA SUPERHIGHWAY?

2007-02-23T15:52:00.000-07:00

Superhighway?

Again, how can this not favor big business and hurt the average Joe? Just "another" Bush policy I don't get.

Bush pushed me from being a Republican to an Independent. But the more I hear about new rules that continue to benefit big business I wonder if I should consider being a Democrat?

I must be getting old! I am starting to believe in taxing the rich more (i.e., income over $500,000), forcing China to allow its currency to fluctuate (or impose fines), and supporting our manufacturing and scientific base.

Look what you did Bush!!! You are such a bad President that you turned me demo!!!! How could you??? :) :) :)

NO HOMELESS DUMPING???

2007-02-22T17:38:00.000-07:00

Another issue I don't get.

What are the hospitals supposed to do? Are they supposed to permanently keep the homeless? Are they supposed to push them out the door (i.e., just discharge them) to avoid the dumping issue?

Why don't they do this? Why do hospitals attempt to take the homeless anywhere?

Hospitals are not generally allowed to refuse them service -- at a cost of 2 billion a year!

This issue, plus the 4 million + illegal immigrants in California, has put a real drain on our hospitals; and this expense gets pushed down to us all -- homeless or not.

How many hospitals closed last year? Was it close to 80 in California?

The hospitals might need to take a stand and make this a police issue following discharge; but then I am unfamiliar with all the rules that bind our hospitals.

This is another area that hurts our poor, uninsured residents (with valid SS numbers) as such expenses (which are enhanced to cover those that have no incentive to pay their bills or have fake SS numbers) can haunt them for life.

ANNA NICOLE SMITH? WHO CARES.

2007-02-22T17:34:00.000-07:00

Is Anna Nicole Smith really news? How about no!

We have a war going on in Iraq, drugs galore are crossing the border, a ruined city in the south, impoverished kids all over and all the news can talk about is Anna.

Aren't there any VPs out there breaking the law?

Another sign that the major news channels do not care about investigative journalism. They do not care about improving our country or addressing material issues. They are, after all, owned by the same individuals that own our biggest corporations.

OBAMA?

2007-02-22T17:30:00.000-07:00

I don’t get it.

If the USA (and I guess White Americans in this case???) is so racist; as continually reported in the news, then how in hell does anyone expect Obama to win? If he truly has a chance, then this country cannot be as racist as reported. Right?

Maybe, just maybe, this gives our profit driven media another reason to avoid doing real journalism (you know the investigative type) in an effort to talk about nothing.

Or maybe, the USA isn’t so racist and all the other times the media reports on how we are, it is just an excuse to avoid doing real journalism.

It is one or the other.

RACISM OR RESPECT?

2007-02-22T16:10:00.000-07:00

If you do not respect parts of a different (or sub) culture are you automatically a racist? For example, can our citizens not respect parts of the Mexican culture without being "racists"? Let’s make this easier -- can our citizens not respect part of the French culture / society and not be considered racists (or bigoted). The answer is clearly yes, but this answer doesn’t inflame or get ratings. Darn! :)

Here is another example. The fact that most people in the USA would not appreciate it if 30 million French citizens were illegally smuggled into this country (some bringing drugs) by big business does not make them racists. But then this would never be characterized as racism.

One more example. If you do not respect “rap” or “gangster rap” and you "mock" this form of music (which some people might argue is a sub cultural representation) are you a racist?

I think respect and racism get easily confused in the media; but probably “overlap” on the fringes.

BROWN ON BLACK CRIME IS UP

2007-02-22T16:00:00.000-07:00

Latino vs. African American crime is up 11 percent in Southern California as the demographics of once African American neighborhoods continue to shift.

Again, it is unfortunate that our poorest citizens are made to deal with our immigration (not to mention drug) policies. It is truly embarrassing that lives of these citizens are lost as businesses and drug dealers reap the benefits of our border policy.

It might be argued that our application of our immigration laws are “in effect” bigoted, as they benefit "certain" business owners to the great detriment of our inner city residents.

This issue doesn’t get much more obvious than when you examine our “war on drugs.”

Remember that 66 percent (and maybe more) of the cocaine used in the USA is physically brought into this country across the Mexican border. This means that these drugs get produced in South American, sent to Mexico, and then smuggled into the USA.

So why is this? It is because crossing the Mexican border is the "easiest" method of getting these drugs into the country. Boats and planes create much more issues and costs.

[Our government rather send agents to Colombia than protect our border -- meaning that our government is really not interested in fighting the war on drugs to the extent it deprives big businesses of cheap labor. Where are our family values? If all we stand for is the buck, then we really haven't created anything worth continuing.]

Also remember that most of the “meth” used in this country is either smuggled into this country from Mexico or is produced in the USA by immigrants that illegally crossed the border.

The list of drugs goes on. [As discussed in a prior post, between 20 and 40 thousand people die each year from the direct use of all illegal drugs. Not to mention all the people we put in jail, or the babies that are born addicted to drugs.]

And whom do you think is most negatively impacted by the availability of these drugs. One “might” argue it is poor inner city kids.

TATTOOS

2007-02-21T03:19:00.000-07:00

Do you ever think about getting a tattoo? How about when you were younger? I have thought about it, now that I am no longer wearing a suit. :)

LA TATTOOS

MIAMI INC [Great show!]

CONGRESSMAN PERATA IS A BIGOT

2007-02-20T15:48:00.000-07:00

I am not sure how Perata can use the term “cracker” and not be considered a bigot. This is a truly embarrassing use of what some consider a racial slur.

The fact that a State congressman can use such a racially insensitive term without being asked to resign is pitiful. He is supposed to be the best of the best, not just an ordinary Joe. And certainly not a bigot.

If we do not want to be judged based on the color of our skin, then this type of "rhetoric" must be made unacceptable. Until this is done, I really don’t see how our State’s message can be interpreted as one of “acceptance” or equality.

Question: Would you hold open a door for someone that you thought did not like you because of the color of your skin, or called one of your neighbors a racial slur for whatever reason; or would you just ignore this person.

Ultimately, I don’t see how bigotry towards White Americans can do anything more than divide us and create feelings of resentment in the typical White American. Feelings that might ultimately be detrimental towards our goal of creating a color blind society. We all need to be committed to this goal or we will stumble.

Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata was more than blunt in a press conference Thursday to talk about lawmakers' end of session three-week sprint that starts on Monday -- at one point referring to "crackers" in San Diego.

On the controversial issue of granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, Perata may have created some of his own controversy with his comments Thursday. When asked if he would move the bill to the governor's desk, Perata said he hadn't thought about it but would keep in mind that it is a hot-button issue in an election year.

"Immigration is a red meat issue. You've got all these crackers down in San Diego taking on the governor. Even the governor was shocked," he said, referring to Schwarzenegger's assessment of the rhetoric surrounding the immigration debate in that part of the state. "Those aren't the people I represent. But there is no point in getting into a pitched, vocal battle with these people ... if you start getting engaged with these people, you get tar all over yourself."

And Perata said that while it "means a lot to the people of the state of California" he didn't sound convinced that it is a battle worth going through again this year.

"I think the bill on its merits should be passed into law. Now that is different from the political climate. My responsibility is to look at all things, including in an election year, the political climate. I don't want to give undue advantage in an election year to people I believe do not have the best interest of this democracy at heart, some of those people that I intemperately call crackers."

PRISON TRANSFERS ILLEGAL

2007-02-20T15:37:00.000-07:00

"California's 33 state prisons were designed for roughly 100,000 inmates but now hold more than 174,000, and a federal judge has given the state until June to reduce overcrowding.

Corrections officials had hoped that inmates would volunteer to transfer to other states, but only 460 have done so. Earlier this month, Corrections Secretary James Tilton said forced transfers would be next. He wanted to move up to 5,000 inmates to private prisons in Arizona, Indiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma and Tennessee.

To fight overcrowding, Schwarzenegger also has asked lawmakers to review sentencing laws and consider an $11 billion prison and jail building program."

I wonder if we can really address this issue of overcrowding without addressing the inflow of people into California.

People seem to be tired of the overcrowding of our prisons, our freeways, emergency rooms, etc., but overcrowding to some extent seems to be a natural byproduct of ignoring illegal immigration and the drugs coming from Mexico.

RACISM???

2006-11-16T18:50:00.000-07:00

One thing that I have noticed lately in the media is that pro immigration "spokespersons" seem to be suggesting (more and more) that any one that is for tougher border security must be a racist. If this is a deliberate strategy, I think it is a very poor one.

To me, it suggests that such spokespersons specifically (and maybe the immigrants they talk for very generally???) have a degree of hatred, dislike, or disrespect and or ignorance for others, different races, cultures, etc.

After all, to suggest that “if you are not Latino (or Chicano) and are for tougher border security, or a fence, then you must be racist” is such a horrible generalization that it "must" be rooted in a true dislike or disrespect (if its just politics) of the targets of the statement.

Suggesting that "racism" is the real issue is very "easy" to do given our country's history with slavery. After all, it is very hard, if not impossible, to prove that you are not a racist.

Using the "r" word in this context, when the claim is made so broadly, is extremely disrespectful to all of those that are the object of such generalization (and are not racists). However, and more importantly, such (false) claims do great injustice to those that truly suffer racism, as they numb us to other similar claims. Sad.

Again, this is the bizarre world we live in which voting citizens of the USA need to defend their laws (in hopes of limiting the drugs flowing in from Mexico or whatever) in the face of being called a racist. Quite frankly, I am not totally sure why "we" care what foreign nationals call us when our kids have so much at stake (or when such disrespect is shown).

Bottom line, these spokespersons are not generating any warm and fuzzy feelings in my gut. Nor are they generating any support. Just more questions if you ask me.

CONGRESSMAN ELTON GALLEGLY

2006-11-14T17:08:00.000-07:00

What is he crazy? This is California; the home of the undocumented immigrant. That is partly why we have the 10th highest effective tax rate, a 45 billion dollar State deficit, streets full of cocaine and meth; not to mention closing hospitals, high crime rates, and all the other "good" stuff.

Did I mention that there are only a few schools in LA County that I would consider sending my daughter? And to get into one of those schools you just need to buy a million dollar plus home. Of course there are always private schools at 20 thousand plus a year. Don't worry; I am sure there are plenty of benefits to compensate us all. Now if we could just figure how to get our share of the benefits from Big Business Bush.

This is the bizarre world of California in which the legal citizens, residents need to defend wanting to obey the law and reduce the drugs from coming into the USA to outsiders.

This is one crazy place, but then again it is the land of OZ. I think this is just another reason why we need to enforce our laws (or change the laws) and treat our rights to vote as precious; and should be defended against the influence of outsiders.

Maybe we should all break the law when it helps us or our family? Maybe we should all fudge a little with our taxes, take something from the local store if we need it, and "borrow" some of our neighbor's tools? If we all break the law we should be okay and there is nothing that could be done, right? The movement of no respect; sounds good?

Question: How many people do you actually trust? Does our culture foster trust building or just building fortunes?

California Chronicle : November 13 , 2006 -- by Congressman Elton Gallegly:

In the past two columns, I've discussed two magnets that attract illegal immigrants to the United States. Employment, of course, is the big one. The second is the acceptance of easily forged, foreign-issued identification by banks to open accounts. That practice is also a boon to drug smugglers and terrorists.

But many other magnets, provided by states and local governments, provide incentives for illegal immigrants to migrate here.

While it's true that the federal government provides some benefits for illegal immigrants - such as lower education and emergency health care - some states go far beyond that.

California offers some of the greatest benefits to illegal immigrants, which is why it is home to an estimated 40 percent of the U.S. illegal population. If California doesn't change its tactics towards illegal immigrants, it could see that percentage climb much higher with all the associated troubles it brings.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, state legislatures introduced more than 500 pieces of legislation targeting illegal immigration during the first six months of this year. At least 57 of those bills passed, the highest number ever recorded. The bills were spread out among 27 states. California was not among them.

Instead, California is one of only 10 states that provides in-state college and university tuition to illegal immigrants. That's grossly unfair to a legal high school student who moves out of California for a year, then returns to attend college. That student will pay about $17,000 a year more than an illegal student - who shouldn't be entitled to attend anyway.

In addition, California spends nearly $1 billion a year in Medi-Cal services for an average of 780,000 illegal immigrants a month, over and above emergency health services.

Births to Medi-Cal-covered and illegal immigrant women jumped 25 percent from 1995 to 2004, from about 85,000 to 105,000 a year. Costs associated with those births skyrocketed 135 percent.

The federal government is trying to rein in those costs by requiring proof of citizenship or legal status to receive full benefits, which is slated to go into effect this summer. But according to at least one published report, California officials are looking into ways to skirt those requirements.

Of course, not all illegal immigrants take advantage of Medi-Cal for pay their health care bills. Many just don't pay. Hospitals are forced to pick up the slack, amounting to an estimated $1.4 billion a year. Hospitals pass the costs onto paying patients or close their doors.

Local governments also provide magnets for illegal immigrants. Los Angeles and San Francisco, for instance, have declared themselves to be sanctuaries where cooperation with federal immigration authorities is disallowed. These sanctuary laws, such as Los Angeles' Special Order 40, are illegal under the 1996 federal immigration law and a 1999 U.S. Supreme Court ruling. But, as we've already seen, federal immigration laws are rarely enforced.

More than 375,000 known illegal immigrants have been ordered deported but have disappeared pending immigration hearings. It seems likely most are hiding in declared sanctuaries.

In an attempt to force compliance with the law, the House passed provisions in two spending bills this year that would withhold Homeland Security and other federal funds from state and local governments with sanctuary policies.

Another magnet is the acceptance of the matricula consular card as legitimate identification by police and local government agencies, including both Los Angeles and Ventura Counties. With this easily forged, foreign government-issued ID, illegal immigrants can use an array of county services and avoid arrest.

Only illegal immigrants, criminals and terrorists need consular cards for identification. Those legally in the country would have other identification. Anyone using a consular card should be assumed to be illegally in the country and arrested, not coddled.

The above are just some of the magnets that draw illegal immigrants to California. Fortunately, there's an easy fix. End sanctuaries. Assume that anyone who offers a consular card as identification is here illegally and arrest them. End subsidized higher education for illegal immigrants. Provide emergency care for anyone, but if they're illegally in the United States send them home when they have recovered.

As I said in the first of this series of columns, the current debate about the House and Senate immigration bills is a debate about enforcing our laws. Until the United States returns to its foundation as a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws, discussion about any other aspects of immigration reform is mute.

California and its cities and counties need to recognize they are part of the problem. Other states are stepping up to the plate, even as the House tries to force the federal government to do the same. California and local officials must take a lead in this endeavor, by reconsidering its policy of accepting consular cards as legitimate identification and turning a blind eye to the problems illegal immigration causes in our state.

BUSH SUCKS

2006-11-08T13:11:00.000-07:00

The Nation has spoken; and Bush really does suck! He is in bed with corporate American, and for that the generally corrupt Republican Party must go -- with Bush soon to follow.

Most of us are tired of his horrible handling of the Iraq war. We need to set a timetable and let Iraq step up or fail. We cannot force people to want democracy. It is something that individuals need to fight for on their own. Personally, our troops should be out of Iraq within 2 years at the latest.

Most of us are also tired of feeling like Bush, the Republicans are in bed with big business. In fact, I think it was this "corruption" that has led to the Republicans' unwillingness to face our border security issues (and our national drug problem -- see prior posts).

If Lincoln was the father of the Republican Party, then Bush might just be the "killer." Bush really really sucks!

P.S. Did I mention that I was tired of Bush "preaching" to me!!! He must be the dumbest President of my lifetime. He is the single most important reason that I am no longer a Republican.

I am now a lonely Independent Party member. Oh no!!! Help me . . .

I believe in the rule of law; and think that those that break our laws should be punished, or at least fined. Do you think that those behind the Enron scandal should be in jail? How about people that break other laws? Should it just be a just don't get caught; or should we focus on the values, democracy that our laws represent? This is a bizarre time in which the lawlessness in its many forms might just be the way to go. Maybe “bizarro” Superman was right all a long. :)

I believe in a tougher border security policy aimed at reducing the drugs now being smuggled across the Mexican border that kill thousands of our citizens each year.

I believe in protecting our youngest citizens (and especially our pre HS kids).

I believe in the value of protecting our individual liberties.

I believe in a woman’s right to choose through the second trimester.

I believe in same-sex marriage. Being gay is not a choice. Could you choose to be gay?

I believe in not mixing our politics with our religions.

I believe in a balanced budget. Those were the days. :)

I believe in eliminating the companies and lobbyists’ hold on our government.

I believe in eliminating the “pork” now in DC, and our politicians’ ability to add such specially earmarked pork in our legislation; and our politicians ability to accept gifts or have other conflicts of interest.

I believe in a reduced and more intelligent international policy; a policy that focuses on the welfare of its citizens first and foremost; and not big business.

FREDERICK DOUGLASS

2006-10-29T12:59:00.000-07:00

Some more leaders of our nation:

". . . Influential leaders of the abolition movement (1810-60) included:

William Lloyd Garrison - Published The Liberator newspaper
Harriet Beecher Stowe - Author of Uncle Tom's Cabin
Frederick Douglass - Nation's most powerful anti-slavery speaker, a former slave
Harriet Tubman - Helped 350 slaves escape from the South, became known as a "conductor" on the "Underground Railroad". . ."