Today's "Daily Dose" from the website of W.C. Douglas, M.D.
MEDIA PIGS MISINFORMING PUBLIC ABOUT SO-CALLED "EPIDEMIC"
Those filthy swine... The swine flu "epidemic" is only a few days old, and Big Pharma is already plotting to make a fortune.
European drug maker Roche announced it was scaling up production of Tamiflu, giving a boost to its stock price and sending millions into the Roche coffers. GlaxoSmithKline, which makes the anti-flu drug Relenza, is also seeing its stock price climb, as investors hope this swine flu is the biggest thing since the bubonic plague.
There's only one problem here – it's not going to happen. You read the Daily Dose because I always give you the straight scoop, and because I'm not afraid to tell you when the mainstream has it wrong.
And they have it wrong on swine flu. It won't be an epidemic – it'll barely even be a ripple. I've run medical clinics in Africa – I know what an epidemic looks like.
And this isn't it.
The media is blowing swine flu out of proportion so it can feed its 24-hour news cycle – the same media, mind you, that had us convinced that avian flu was going to destroy the planet a few years ago.
But here are the facts about swine flu – it has affected so few people in America that it's hardly worth discussing. There are 64 confirmed cases in America as I'm writing this – not 6,000 or even 600. There are 64.
Of course, the media is fixated on the 100 or so people who have died in Mexico from the swine flu. But let me clue you into something that no one seems to be discussing – health care in Mexico is ABSOLUTELY TERRIBLE. I know – I've been there more times than I can count.
Disease spreads rapidly through Mexico because large areas of the country lack clean water and basic sanitation. Seeing a doctor – let alone a qualified doctor – is a luxury unavailable to most of the population. Of course the flu is killing people in Mexico – so are a lot of other diseases that are successfully treated in America. People in Mexico still die from diarrhea, for Pete's sake!
Yes, they have apparently had some cases of bad swine flu in Mexico. They've had lots of dengue fever and chagas, too, but you don't need to stay up at night worrying about it. Beating the swine flu isn't any different from beating the regular flu. Wash your hands. Avoid large crowds if you can. Get plenty of rest and fluids if you start getting sick.
And don't be afraid to eat pork or any other meat, for that matter, as it's not the pigs who are getting sick. Of course, I'm not recommending you eat Mexican pork – or any food produced in Mexico, for that matter. Hopefully the tainted peppers outbreak of 2008 taught us that. But don't change your diet because of some so-called swine flu epidemic.
It's no epidemic. It's no public health catastrophe. It's good theatre – and nothing more.
copyright (c) 2009 by http://www.douglassreport.com/
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
BUYER BEWARE ALERT
My wife and I recently had an eye-opening experience with Direct TV which I want to share with my readers. We are both in our eighties, but we are neither senile nor stupid.
After many years with Direct TV, my wife and I decided to drop that service over a dispute of what appeared to be some double billing and which we could not resolve with Direct TV representatives. We switched to Dish TV and notified Direct TV to stop their service to us. About a month later, after we had already paid the closing bill, we received a special Direct TV bill for $224.00.
My wife called Direct TV to find out why we got that additional billing. She was informed that the $224.00 was an early cancellation penalty. When she asked how they came up with that, she was told that when we ordered a couple of additional receivers, which they installed on 9-25-08, we agreed to a 24-month contract extension. That was news to us.
When the installer finished, he handed my wife a yellow copy entitled, "Installation/Service Satisfaction Checklist," which he asked her to sign. On the backside was a whole page of fine print. Because we thought that she was just acknowledging that the installation order had been completed to our satisfaction, she did not read that fine print before signing the copy. AT NO TIME did the Direct TV representative tell me that we were also getting a 24-month sevice extension when I placed the order for the two additional receivers. And the installer did not tell us so either.
It wasn't until after we received the early cancellation penalty bill that we noticed the back of the yellow form she signed had a small heading "DirectTV Equipment Lease Addendum." About a third of the way down the page there was a "Programming Commitment" section which told us we were agreeing to a 24-month contract extension.
I think the method employed by Direct TV is a borderline deceptive trade practice. We should have been advised at the time of placing the order that we would be obligated for an additional two years. And when the installer gave us the yellow form to sign it was too late because he had already completed his work. That was pretty sneaky of Direct TV.
By the way, when we ordered Dish TV, their representative never told me that we were going to be saddled with a two-year contract. Their installer gave us a 24-month term agreement form to sign, but that was not shown to us until after he had completed his work. I suspect that the cable companies, like Comcast and AT&T, do the same thing - that is their reprsentatives don't tell prospective customers about any contract terms and their installers don't do it either.
So, BUYER BEWARE! If you've recently signed up for a satellite or cable TV service and were not informed about your contractural obligations, you might want to look closely over the paper work you received from the installer. And if you plan to switch providers or intend to order some additional equipment, and if you plan to sign up for one of these services for the first time, you have now been warned NOT TO LET THEM SNEAK ONE OVER ON YOU!
After many years with Direct TV, my wife and I decided to drop that service over a dispute of what appeared to be some double billing and which we could not resolve with Direct TV representatives. We switched to Dish TV and notified Direct TV to stop their service to us. About a month later, after we had already paid the closing bill, we received a special Direct TV bill for $224.00.
My wife called Direct TV to find out why we got that additional billing. She was informed that the $224.00 was an early cancellation penalty. When she asked how they came up with that, she was told that when we ordered a couple of additional receivers, which they installed on 9-25-08, we agreed to a 24-month contract extension. That was news to us.
When the installer finished, he handed my wife a yellow copy entitled, "Installation/Service Satisfaction Checklist," which he asked her to sign. On the backside was a whole page of fine print. Because we thought that she was just acknowledging that the installation order had been completed to our satisfaction, she did not read that fine print before signing the copy. AT NO TIME did the Direct TV representative tell me that we were also getting a 24-month sevice extension when I placed the order for the two additional receivers. And the installer did not tell us so either.
It wasn't until after we received the early cancellation penalty bill that we noticed the back of the yellow form she signed had a small heading "DirectTV Equipment Lease Addendum." About a third of the way down the page there was a "Programming Commitment" section which told us we were agreeing to a 24-month contract extension.
I think the method employed by Direct TV is a borderline deceptive trade practice. We should have been advised at the time of placing the order that we would be obligated for an additional two years. And when the installer gave us the yellow form to sign it was too late because he had already completed his work. That was pretty sneaky of Direct TV.
By the way, when we ordered Dish TV, their representative never told me that we were going to be saddled with a two-year contract. Their installer gave us a 24-month term agreement form to sign, but that was not shown to us until after he had completed his work. I suspect that the cable companies, like Comcast and AT&T, do the same thing - that is their reprsentatives don't tell prospective customers about any contract terms and their installers don't do it either.
So, BUYER BEWARE! If you've recently signed up for a satellite or cable TV service and were not informed about your contractural obligations, you might want to look closely over the paper work you received from the installer. And if you plan to switch providers or intend to order some additional equipment, and if you plan to sign up for one of these services for the first time, you have now been warned NOT TO LET THEM SNEAK ONE OVER ON YOU!
MEXICAN FLU AND SWINE FLEW
A couple of news items come to mind - the swine flu and Senator Spcter's flight to the Democrtic party.
As we approach Stinko de Mayo, we can thank Mexico for exporting the swine flu to other parts of the world. Outbreaks have been reported in the U.S., Canada, Europe, New Zealand and Israel. France has called for the European Union member states to stop all airline flights between the continent and Mexico. Shouldn't we do the same? Because pork is not kosher in Israel and the Middle East, some Israelis have demanded that the swine flu be called the "Mexican Flu."
The Obama administration, worried about hurting the pork industry, will no longer call it the swine flu - it is now officially the "H1N1 flu," evidence that the silly season is upon us. H1N1? Sounds like one of those robots (R-2D-2) from the Star Wars movies. And speaking of silly, Egypt has just ordered the slaughter of all the country's 300,000 pigs, even though it has not had a single case of swine flu and the virus is not transmitted by pigs. Since the religious schools in Egypt teach children that Jews are pigs, maybe instead of the four-legged swine, what they really meant was to kill all the Jews.
As for Mexico, first it exports illegal immigrants in droves across its border with the U.S., and now it is exporting a disease that may make us all sick. So, instead of that H1N1 shit, why can't we call it what it really is - the Mexican flu? Oops! - I suppose that's not diplomatically or politically correct.
Arlen Specter, the long-time moderate, if not liberal, republican senator from Pennsylvania, has switched to the Democratic party. But he didn't switch because he is now a true believer in his new party's agenda. He fled his former party to avoid being defeated in the upcoming Republican primary where polls showed him behind by 20 percentage points. So, in order to preserve his seat in the Senate, Specter fled the Republican party. I call that the "swine flew."
I'll give Specter this much - at least he was honest when he announced why he caught the swine flew. His switch and the expected seating of comedian Al Franken from Minnesota will give the democrats a 60 vote filibuster-proof majority in the senate. That's not necessarily good for the country. Worse though, Specter's flight leaves the Republican party looking more and more like an extreme right-wing party. And that's not good for both the party and the country.
As we approach Stinko de Mayo, we can thank Mexico for exporting the swine flu to other parts of the world. Outbreaks have been reported in the U.S., Canada, Europe, New Zealand and Israel. France has called for the European Union member states to stop all airline flights between the continent and Mexico. Shouldn't we do the same? Because pork is not kosher in Israel and the Middle East, some Israelis have demanded that the swine flu be called the "Mexican Flu."
The Obama administration, worried about hurting the pork industry, will no longer call it the swine flu - it is now officially the "H1N1 flu," evidence that the silly season is upon us. H1N1? Sounds like one of those robots (R-2D-2) from the Star Wars movies. And speaking of silly, Egypt has just ordered the slaughter of all the country's 300,000 pigs, even though it has not had a single case of swine flu and the virus is not transmitted by pigs. Since the religious schools in Egypt teach children that Jews are pigs, maybe instead of the four-legged swine, what they really meant was to kill all the Jews.
As for Mexico, first it exports illegal immigrants in droves across its border with the U.S., and now it is exporting a disease that may make us all sick. So, instead of that H1N1 shit, why can't we call it what it really is - the Mexican flu? Oops! - I suppose that's not diplomatically or politically correct.
Arlen Specter, the long-time moderate, if not liberal, republican senator from Pennsylvania, has switched to the Democratic party. But he didn't switch because he is now a true believer in his new party's agenda. He fled his former party to avoid being defeated in the upcoming Republican primary where polls showed him behind by 20 percentage points. So, in order to preserve his seat in the Senate, Specter fled the Republican party. I call that the "swine flew."
I'll give Specter this much - at least he was honest when he announced why he caught the swine flew. His switch and the expected seating of comedian Al Franken from Minnesota will give the democrats a 60 vote filibuster-proof majority in the senate. That's not necessarily good for the country. Worse though, Specter's flight leaves the Republican party looking more and more like an extreme right-wing party. And that's not good for both the party and the country.
Monday, April 27, 2009
NO JEWISH STATE
Recently, in my blog "A Poisonous Provacation?" (4-18-09), I called attention to the declaration of the Palestinian Authority (PA) that it will not recognize Israel as a Jewish state. And now Jordan’s King Abdullah II has told David Gregory on NBC's Meet the Press that Israel faces all-out war within 18 months if it does not come to terms with the Arab world and allow the establishment of a new Palestinian state with its capital in Jerusalem.
The Jordanian monarch stated that Jerusalem is the key to any settlement and must be divided for any peace process to succeed. PA leader Mahmoud Abbas has declared that the Palestinians will not accept "1 cm. less" of land as delineated by the pre-1967 borders.
Israel should not be cowered by any dubioous threats of all-out war. The demands by Abbas and his Arab Allies cannot be accepted by Prime Minister Netanyahu. And if Abbas and the PA will not recognize Israel as a Jewish state, why even bother to seek a peace? On Monday, Abbas reiterated his refusal to accept a Jewish state. Here is a report on his latest pronouncement:
ABBAS: "I DON'T ACCEPT" ISRAEL AS A JEWISH STATE
by Malkah Fleisher
IsraelNationalNews.com
April 27, 2009
Palestinian Authority (PA) Chairman and Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas openly refused Monday to recognize Israel as a Jewish State. The statement came as a direct slap against Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's insistence that such an acknowledgement is a necessary condition for "progress" in final-status talks.
An uproar ensued in the PA two weeks ago following an initial statement by Netanyahu aides in which it appeared the prime minister had issued an ultimatum, with PA officials calling Netanyahu's insistence on this basic understanding a "provocation" and promising a "poisonous effect" on the Israel-PA relationship. Netanyahu later clarified that recognition of Israel as the state of the Jewish people was a necessary component for progress in negotiations with the PA, although it would not prevent the initiation of the talks.
This is the first time since Netanyahu's statement on the matter that Abbas has publicly rejected the notion of Israel as a Jewish State.
"A Jewish state, what is that supposed to mean?" Abbas asked at a speech Monday in Ramallah. "You can call yourselves what you want, but I don't accept it and I say so publicly."
The Ramallah-based Abbas government has been propped up by the United States and Israel since the PA's first democratic election in 2006, in which the Hamas terrorist organization won almost twice the number of parliamentary seats as Fatah. Both Israel and the United States rejected the election results, and instituted Fatah leader Abbas as PA "President," calling him a "moderate" alternative to Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh and political bureau chief, Khaled Mashaal, who is based in Damascus.
Israel has also thwarted several assassination attempts on Abbas by providing intelligence to Ramallah-based PA officials before the attempts could take place.
Abbas will meet for talks in Washington, D.C. with U.S. President Barack Obama on May 28, 10 days after Netanyahu meets with the American president, according to the Jordan Times.
The Jordanian monarch stated that Jerusalem is the key to any settlement and must be divided for any peace process to succeed. PA leader Mahmoud Abbas has declared that the Palestinians will not accept "1 cm. less" of land as delineated by the pre-1967 borders.
Israel should not be cowered by any dubioous threats of all-out war. The demands by Abbas and his Arab Allies cannot be accepted by Prime Minister Netanyahu. And if Abbas and the PA will not recognize Israel as a Jewish state, why even bother to seek a peace? On Monday, Abbas reiterated his refusal to accept a Jewish state. Here is a report on his latest pronouncement:
ABBAS: "I DON'T ACCEPT" ISRAEL AS A JEWISH STATE
by Malkah Fleisher
IsraelNationalNews.com
April 27, 2009
Palestinian Authority (PA) Chairman and Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas openly refused Monday to recognize Israel as a Jewish State. The statement came as a direct slap against Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's insistence that such an acknowledgement is a necessary condition for "progress" in final-status talks.
An uproar ensued in the PA two weeks ago following an initial statement by Netanyahu aides in which it appeared the prime minister had issued an ultimatum, with PA officials calling Netanyahu's insistence on this basic understanding a "provocation" and promising a "poisonous effect" on the Israel-PA relationship. Netanyahu later clarified that recognition of Israel as the state of the Jewish people was a necessary component for progress in negotiations with the PA, although it would not prevent the initiation of the talks.
This is the first time since Netanyahu's statement on the matter that Abbas has publicly rejected the notion of Israel as a Jewish State.
"A Jewish state, what is that supposed to mean?" Abbas asked at a speech Monday in Ramallah. "You can call yourselves what you want, but I don't accept it and I say so publicly."
The Ramallah-based Abbas government has been propped up by the United States and Israel since the PA's first democratic election in 2006, in which the Hamas terrorist organization won almost twice the number of parliamentary seats as Fatah. Both Israel and the United States rejected the election results, and instituted Fatah leader Abbas as PA "President," calling him a "moderate" alternative to Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh and political bureau chief, Khaled Mashaal, who is based in Damascus.
Israel has also thwarted several assassination attempts on Abbas by providing intelligence to Ramallah-based PA officials before the attempts could take place.
Abbas will meet for talks in Washington, D.C. with U.S. President Barack Obama on May 28, 10 days after Netanyahu meets with the American president, according to the Jordan Times.
A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP IN JEOPARDY
OBAMA MIDDLE EAST POLICY SHOWS CHANGE IN VALUES
by Star Parker
Townhall.com
April 27, 2009
Barack Obama's obvious comfort level with leaders of un-free countries shouldn't surprise anyone. He is not only our first black president. He is also our first president who doesn't like the free country he was elected to lead and feels his job is to change it.
Obama's cordial encounter with Venezuelan thug Hugo Chavez, his bow of deference in London to the Saudi Arabian king, are extensions of behavior we have always seen on the black left. Jesse Jackson openly embraced Chavez, as well as having maintained relations with the likes of Libyian dictator Muammar Qaddafi and Yasir Arafat.
This should be kept in mind as our president now makes his own effort to bring peace to the Middle East.
It should be clear to anyone conscious and watching that central to Obama's Middle East strategy is to disabuse the long held notion that there exists a "special relationship" between the United States and Israel. The sense of unique kinship between our country and the Jewish state has existed since Israel's founding just 60 years ago.
The Arab world has always resented the US-Israel connection and has felt that because of this, Americans would never be an honest broker in Arab-Israeli negotiations.
Obama is out to change this. His first hundred days, from his very first television interview -- given to an Arab television network -- have focused on warming up our relations with Islamic nations and cooling down our Israeli ones.
We should appreciate that this shift is more than a technical change in diplomatic strategy. It reflects a change in values.
The "special" American-Israeli relationship has always reflected the shared values and traditions of the two countries. A commitment to freedom sustained by traditional Judeo-Christian core values.
Freedom House is a widely respected non-partisan organization that publishes annual reports on the state of freedom around the world.
They rate the state of freedom on a scale of 1-7, with 1 being most free.
According to the latest Freedom House data, released this past January, in the area of "political rights", Israel rates a 1. On "civil liberties", Israel gets a 2.
And Israel's Arab neighbors? On "political rights", Egypt ranks 6, Jordan 5, Syria 7, and Lebanon 5. On "civil liberties", Egypt ranks 5, Jordan 5, Syria 6, and Lebanon 4.
Oil rich Saudi Arabia, to whose king the President of the United States bowed deeply at the waist, ranks 7 in "political rights" and 6 in "civil liberties."
Freedom House also reports on freedom of the press. Of 18 countries in the Middle Eastern/North African area, they report only one country with a free press. Israel. Eleven of these countries have no free press, including Jordan, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. Egypt and Lebanon are rated partly free.
Despite being the youngest country in the region, Israel's per capita gross domestic product is five times higher than the average of all its neighbors. Also, despite having no great endowment of natural resources, its GDP per capita, at $24,097, is higher than Saudi Arabia's, $22, 296, which has, by far, the world's largest oil production and reserves.
The great American writer Mark Twain visited the Holy Land in 1867 before Jews made their miraculous return to their ancient homeland. He reported that there was nothing there. "Palestine is desolate and unlovely."
You have to be either blind or have a political agenda to refuse to see the incredible miracle that has occurred in the re-birth of the Jewish nation.
Of course, there is a special relationship between the United States and Israel. The same values and traditions have produced in both places freedom and prosperity from nothing.
Should we denigrate Arabs and Muslims? Certainly not. But anyone who thinks that peace and prosperity will come from abandoning those very values that got us to where we are, and along with this our friends who share those values, is deeply misguided.
Unfortunately, today we have an American president who is set on doing just that. Principled Americans and Israelis should tighten seatbelts and prepare to defend the truths we hold dear.
by Star Parker
Townhall.com
April 27, 2009
Barack Obama's obvious comfort level with leaders of un-free countries shouldn't surprise anyone. He is not only our first black president. He is also our first president who doesn't like the free country he was elected to lead and feels his job is to change it.
Obama's cordial encounter with Venezuelan thug Hugo Chavez, his bow of deference in London to the Saudi Arabian king, are extensions of behavior we have always seen on the black left. Jesse Jackson openly embraced Chavez, as well as having maintained relations with the likes of Libyian dictator Muammar Qaddafi and Yasir Arafat.
This should be kept in mind as our president now makes his own effort to bring peace to the Middle East.
It should be clear to anyone conscious and watching that central to Obama's Middle East strategy is to disabuse the long held notion that there exists a "special relationship" between the United States and Israel. The sense of unique kinship between our country and the Jewish state has existed since Israel's founding just 60 years ago.
The Arab world has always resented the US-Israel connection and has felt that because of this, Americans would never be an honest broker in Arab-Israeli negotiations.
Obama is out to change this. His first hundred days, from his very first television interview -- given to an Arab television network -- have focused on warming up our relations with Islamic nations and cooling down our Israeli ones.
We should appreciate that this shift is more than a technical change in diplomatic strategy. It reflects a change in values.
The "special" American-Israeli relationship has always reflected the shared values and traditions of the two countries. A commitment to freedom sustained by traditional Judeo-Christian core values.
Freedom House is a widely respected non-partisan organization that publishes annual reports on the state of freedom around the world.
They rate the state of freedom on a scale of 1-7, with 1 being most free.
According to the latest Freedom House data, released this past January, in the area of "political rights", Israel rates a 1. On "civil liberties", Israel gets a 2.
And Israel's Arab neighbors? On "political rights", Egypt ranks 6, Jordan 5, Syria 7, and Lebanon 5. On "civil liberties", Egypt ranks 5, Jordan 5, Syria 6, and Lebanon 4.
Oil rich Saudi Arabia, to whose king the President of the United States bowed deeply at the waist, ranks 7 in "political rights" and 6 in "civil liberties."
Freedom House also reports on freedom of the press. Of 18 countries in the Middle Eastern/North African area, they report only one country with a free press. Israel. Eleven of these countries have no free press, including Jordan, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. Egypt and Lebanon are rated partly free.
Despite being the youngest country in the region, Israel's per capita gross domestic product is five times higher than the average of all its neighbors. Also, despite having no great endowment of natural resources, its GDP per capita, at $24,097, is higher than Saudi Arabia's, $22, 296, which has, by far, the world's largest oil production and reserves.
The great American writer Mark Twain visited the Holy Land in 1867 before Jews made their miraculous return to their ancient homeland. He reported that there was nothing there. "Palestine is desolate and unlovely."
You have to be either blind or have a political agenda to refuse to see the incredible miracle that has occurred in the re-birth of the Jewish nation.
Of course, there is a special relationship between the United States and Israel. The same values and traditions have produced in both places freedom and prosperity from nothing.
Should we denigrate Arabs and Muslims? Certainly not. But anyone who thinks that peace and prosperity will come from abandoning those very values that got us to where we are, and along with this our friends who share those values, is deeply misguided.
Unfortunately, today we have an American president who is set on doing just that. Principled Americans and Israelis should tighten seatbelts and prepare to defend the truths we hold dear.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
REVERSE DISCRIMINATION MAY FINALLY BE PUT TO REST
There is no question that for many years in the past, African-Americans suffered from discrimination in employment. It was difficult for blacks to obtain decent jobs and difficult for them to obtain promotions once they got such jobs. In order to remedy those problems, the courts and the government enacted measures designed to level the palying field.
Initially I supported these measures - that was until reverse discrimination began to creep in. For example, of the hundreds of criminal justice students I've taught, some were outstanding, others good, some mediocre and, of course, there were also poor students. While the majority of my outstanding students were white, I did have some really good black students as well.
During the course of 25 years, five or six whites stood out above my other outstanding students. I encouraged them to apply for positions with the Houston Police Department, which they did. They did very well through the entire application process, passing all exams, including physical agility and polygraph tests, as well as a psychological evaluation. They were informed that, while they qualified for employment, they would be put on a waiting list that could last as much as two years or more. Needless to say, they didn't stick around to wait.
I contacted one of my "higher-up" friends at HPD and asked him to explain why, when the department was short of officers and running one police academy after another, my students were put on a two-year long waiting list. He told me, off the record of course, that most successful white applicants had to wait while HPD increased the number of blacks on its roster. He went on to say that in order to fill the ranks with black officers, HPD had to accept a bunch of sorry applicants. Now that was reverse discrimination, any way you look at it. And it really pissed me off!
There has also been reverse discrimination in promotions. White police officers and firefighters have been passed over for promotions that were given to blacks, even though they did much better on the promotional examination than their black competitors. The excuse was always that blacks were unfairly handicapped because they received an inferior public school education. True, but how long should that excuse continue to fly?
When the Supreme Court, in Brown vs. Board of Education, ordered public schools to be integrated, forced bussing had to be employed in order to achieve that end. After a period of successful integration, schools became resegregated due to racial residential patterns. Today's predominantly black schools fare far worse on educational test scores than schools with mostly white students. While a good number of blacks have done well on promotional exams, most blacks still cannot compete with whites on these tests.
So, should whites be penalized because they still receive a better eduacation? Not as far as I'm concerned. A case involving the promotion of some firefighters in Connecticut is now before the Supreme Court. I hope this case will finally put to rest the practice of reverse discrimination. George Will wrote an execellent column on this case. Here it is:
THE WRECK OF THE RACIAL SPOILS SYSTEM
by George Will
Townhall.com
April 26, 2009
WASHINGTON -- Wednesday morning, a lawyer defending in the Supreme Court what the city of New Haven, Conn., did to Frank Ricci and 17 other white firemen (including one Hispanic) was not 20 seconds into his argument when Chief Justice John Roberts interrupted to ask: Would it have been lawful if the city had decided to disregard the results of the exam to select firemen for promotion because it selected too many black and too few white candidates?
In 2003, the city gave promotion exams -- prepared by a firm specializing in employment tests, and approved, as federal law requires, by independent experts -- to 118 candidates, 27 of them black. None of the blacks did well enough to qualify for the 15 immediately available promotions. After a rabble-rousing minister with close ties to the mayor disrupted meetings and warned of dire political consequences if the city promoted persons from the list generated by the exams, the city said: No one will be promoted.
The city called this a "race-neutral" outcome because no group was disadvantaged more than any other. So, New Haven's idea of equal treatment is to equally deny promotions to those who did not earn them and those, including Ricci, who did.
Ricci may be the rock upon which America's racial spoils system finally founders. He prepared for the 2003 exams by quitting his second job, buying the more than $1,000 worth of books the city recommended, paying to have them read onto audiotapes (he is dyslexic), taking practice tests and practice interviews. His studying -- sometimes 13 hours a day -- earned him the sixth-highest score on the exam. He and others denied promotions sued, charging violations of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection of the law.
The city claims that the 1964 act COMPELLED it to disregard the exam results. The act makes it unlawful for employers to discriminate against an individual regarding the "terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of such individual's race." And two Senate supporters of the 1964 act, both of them leading liberals (Pennsylvania Democrat Joseph Clark and New Jersey Republican Clifford Case), insisted that it would not require "that employers abandon bona fide qualification tests where, because of differences in background and educations, members of some groups are able to perform better on these tests than members of other groups."
In a 1971 case, however, the Supreme Court sowed confusion by holding that the 1964 act proscribes not only overt discrimination but also "practices that are fair in form, but discriminatory in operation." But what New Haven ignored is that the court, while proscribing tests that were "discriminatory" in having a "disparate impact" on certain preferred minorities, has held that a disparate impact is unlawful only if there is, and the employer refuses to adopt, an equally valid measurement of competence that would have less disparate impact, or if the measurement is not relevant to "business necessity." One of the city's flimsy excuses for disregarding its exam results was that someone from a rival exam-writing firm said that although he had not read the exam the city used, his company could write a better one.
New Haven has not defended its implicit quota system as a remedy for previous discrimination, and has not justified it as a way of achieving "diversity," which can be a permissible objective for schools' admissions policies, but not in employment decisions. Rather, the city says it was justified in ignoring the exam results because otherwise it might have faced a "disparate impact" lawsuit.
So, to avoid defending the defensible in court, it did the indefensible. It used anxiety about a potential challenge under a statute to justify its violation of the Constitution. And it got sued.
Racial spoils systems must involve incessant mischief because they require a rhetorical fog of euphemisms and blurry categories (e.g., "race-conscious" measures that somehow do not constitute racial discrimination) to obscure stark facts, such as: If Ricci and half a dozen others who earned high scores were not white, the city would have proceeded with the promotions.
Some supporters of New Haven, perhaps recognizing intellectual bankruptcy when defending it, propose a squishy fudge: Return the case to the trial court to clarify the city's motivation. But the motivation is obvious: to profit politically from what Roberts has called the "sordid business" of "divvying us up by race."
Initially I supported these measures - that was until reverse discrimination began to creep in. For example, of the hundreds of criminal justice students I've taught, some were outstanding, others good, some mediocre and, of course, there were also poor students. While the majority of my outstanding students were white, I did have some really good black students as well.
During the course of 25 years, five or six whites stood out above my other outstanding students. I encouraged them to apply for positions with the Houston Police Department, which they did. They did very well through the entire application process, passing all exams, including physical agility and polygraph tests, as well as a psychological evaluation. They were informed that, while they qualified for employment, they would be put on a waiting list that could last as much as two years or more. Needless to say, they didn't stick around to wait.
I contacted one of my "higher-up" friends at HPD and asked him to explain why, when the department was short of officers and running one police academy after another, my students were put on a two-year long waiting list. He told me, off the record of course, that most successful white applicants had to wait while HPD increased the number of blacks on its roster. He went on to say that in order to fill the ranks with black officers, HPD had to accept a bunch of sorry applicants. Now that was reverse discrimination, any way you look at it. And it really pissed me off!
There has also been reverse discrimination in promotions. White police officers and firefighters have been passed over for promotions that were given to blacks, even though they did much better on the promotional examination than their black competitors. The excuse was always that blacks were unfairly handicapped because they received an inferior public school education. True, but how long should that excuse continue to fly?
When the Supreme Court, in Brown vs. Board of Education, ordered public schools to be integrated, forced bussing had to be employed in order to achieve that end. After a period of successful integration, schools became resegregated due to racial residential patterns. Today's predominantly black schools fare far worse on educational test scores than schools with mostly white students. While a good number of blacks have done well on promotional exams, most blacks still cannot compete with whites on these tests.
So, should whites be penalized because they still receive a better eduacation? Not as far as I'm concerned. A case involving the promotion of some firefighters in Connecticut is now before the Supreme Court. I hope this case will finally put to rest the practice of reverse discrimination. George Will wrote an execellent column on this case. Here it is:
THE WRECK OF THE RACIAL SPOILS SYSTEM
by George Will
Townhall.com
April 26, 2009
WASHINGTON -- Wednesday morning, a lawyer defending in the Supreme Court what the city of New Haven, Conn., did to Frank Ricci and 17 other white firemen (including one Hispanic) was not 20 seconds into his argument when Chief Justice John Roberts interrupted to ask: Would it have been lawful if the city had decided to disregard the results of the exam to select firemen for promotion because it selected too many black and too few white candidates?
In 2003, the city gave promotion exams -- prepared by a firm specializing in employment tests, and approved, as federal law requires, by independent experts -- to 118 candidates, 27 of them black. None of the blacks did well enough to qualify for the 15 immediately available promotions. After a rabble-rousing minister with close ties to the mayor disrupted meetings and warned of dire political consequences if the city promoted persons from the list generated by the exams, the city said: No one will be promoted.
The city called this a "race-neutral" outcome because no group was disadvantaged more than any other. So, New Haven's idea of equal treatment is to equally deny promotions to those who did not earn them and those, including Ricci, who did.
Ricci may be the rock upon which America's racial spoils system finally founders. He prepared for the 2003 exams by quitting his second job, buying the more than $1,000 worth of books the city recommended, paying to have them read onto audiotapes (he is dyslexic), taking practice tests and practice interviews. His studying -- sometimes 13 hours a day -- earned him the sixth-highest score on the exam. He and others denied promotions sued, charging violations of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection of the law.
The city claims that the 1964 act COMPELLED it to disregard the exam results. The act makes it unlawful for employers to discriminate against an individual regarding the "terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of such individual's race." And two Senate supporters of the 1964 act, both of them leading liberals (Pennsylvania Democrat Joseph Clark and New Jersey Republican Clifford Case), insisted that it would not require "that employers abandon bona fide qualification tests where, because of differences in background and educations, members of some groups are able to perform better on these tests than members of other groups."
In a 1971 case, however, the Supreme Court sowed confusion by holding that the 1964 act proscribes not only overt discrimination but also "practices that are fair in form, but discriminatory in operation." But what New Haven ignored is that the court, while proscribing tests that were "discriminatory" in having a "disparate impact" on certain preferred minorities, has held that a disparate impact is unlawful only if there is, and the employer refuses to adopt, an equally valid measurement of competence that would have less disparate impact, or if the measurement is not relevant to "business necessity." One of the city's flimsy excuses for disregarding its exam results was that someone from a rival exam-writing firm said that although he had not read the exam the city used, his company could write a better one.
New Haven has not defended its implicit quota system as a remedy for previous discrimination, and has not justified it as a way of achieving "diversity," which can be a permissible objective for schools' admissions policies, but not in employment decisions. Rather, the city says it was justified in ignoring the exam results because otherwise it might have faced a "disparate impact" lawsuit.
So, to avoid defending the defensible in court, it did the indefensible. It used anxiety about a potential challenge under a statute to justify its violation of the Constitution. And it got sued.
Racial spoils systems must involve incessant mischief because they require a rhetorical fog of euphemisms and blurry categories (e.g., "race-conscious" measures that somehow do not constitute racial discrimination) to obscure stark facts, such as: If Ricci and half a dozen others who earned high scores were not white, the city would have proceeded with the promotions.
Some supporters of New Haven, perhaps recognizing intellectual bankruptcy when defending it, propose a squishy fudge: Return the case to the trial court to clarify the city's motivation. But the motivation is obvious: to profit politically from what Roberts has called the "sordid business" of "divvying us up by race."
Friday, April 24, 2009
GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, DOCTORS DO !
Another good and funny (or is it?) piece sent to me by a friend:
DOCTORS VS. GUN OWNERS
Doctors
(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.
(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.
(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.
(Statistics courtesy of U.S. . Dept of Health and Human Services.)
Now think about this:
Gun Owners
(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000. (Yes, that's 80 million)
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year for all age groups is 1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.
(Statistics courtesy of FBI)
So, statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.
Remember: GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, DOCTORS DO!
Fact: Not everyone has a gun, but almost everyone has at least one doctor.
Please alert your friends to this alarming threat.
WE MUST BAN DOCTORS BEFORE THIS GETS COMPLETLY OUT OF HAND!!
Out of concern for the public at large, I withheld the statistics on LAWYERS for fear the shock would cause people to panic and seek medical attention.
DOCTORS VS. GUN OWNERS
Doctors
(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.
(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.
(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.
(Statistics courtesy of U.S. . Dept of Health and Human Services.)
Now think about this:
Gun Owners
(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000. (Yes, that's 80 million)
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year for all age groups is 1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.
(Statistics courtesy of FBI)
So, statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.
Remember: GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, DOCTORS DO!
Fact: Not everyone has a gun, but almost everyone has at least one doctor.
Please alert your friends to this alarming threat.
WE MUST BAN DOCTORS BEFORE THIS GETS COMPLETLY OUT OF HAND!!
Out of concern for the public at large, I withheld the statistics on LAWYERS for fear the shock would cause people to panic and seek medical attention.
FALLOUT FROM MISS USA 2009 PAGEANT
Recently, I blogged "And the Truth Shall.........." (4-22-09) about how political correctness and a bigoted judge caused Miss California to lose the Miss USA 2009 pageant title. Since then Carrie Prejean has been urged by a multitude of sympathizers to file a lawsuit. Two reports, one in today's Townhall.com by John McCaslin and the other one from The Gaea News, reveal that the fallout over the controversy is far from over.
JUDGE MARIO by John McCaslin:
The 2009 Miss California controversy isn't going away, with renewed calls for gay activist Perez Hilton, whose real name is Mario Armando Lavandeira Jr.,to apologize to Miss California Carrie Prejean for his "appalling level of vitriol."
Miss Prejean, as everybody has now heard, defended traditional marriage, as did the majority of Californians when confronted with Proposition 8.
To the angst of many, the Miss USA organization has been silent on its judge-instigated assault on one of its beauty queens, as has the National Organization for Women, which has stated previously that it supports "the right of lesbians to live their lives with dignity and security, and the rights of equal marriage for all."
Meanwhile, the Miss USA Web site is being peppered with irate letters from across the country, including one writer who will "never watch Miss USA again. Never!!! And I have noted all of the sponsors and will not support nor provide one cent to their businesses."
The Gaea News reports: Miss USA runner-up could file suit over discrimination says legal analyst.....
..........legal analyst Mercedes Colwin has said that Prejean may have grounds to turn to court.
"It’s her religious beliefs which prompted her to say ‘I don’t believe in same-sex marriages.’ So she was espousing her beliefs," and could sue for a violation of Title VII, which forbids discrimination on the basis of religion," Fox News quoted Colwin as saying.
Colwin added: "If she really feels some tremendous stress as a result of losing - and I’m certain she’s probably devastated from what happened to her - she can articulate a viable claim for monetary compensation for psychic injury."
Colwin also said that "garden-variety psychic injury case" may land Prejean with 50,000-100,000 dollars if she had a medical expert to testify, otherwise she would probably bank less than 25,000 dollars if successful.
However, Judge Andrew Napolitano, senior legal analyst, countered the suggestion saying the suit would land in trash since the government was not involved in the contest and there was no violation of rights in that private enterprise.
EDITOR'S NOTE: In the event that Judge Napolitano is correct, I sure hope that Carrie Prejean will file a defamation lawsuit against Mario Armando Lavandeira Jr., aka Perez Hilton. After all, that malicious effeminate twit publicly defamed her by declaring that "Miss California lost because she's a dumb bitch."
JUDGE MARIO by John McCaslin:
The 2009 Miss California controversy isn't going away, with renewed calls for gay activist Perez Hilton, whose real name is Mario Armando Lavandeira Jr.,to apologize to Miss California Carrie Prejean for his "appalling level of vitriol."
Miss Prejean, as everybody has now heard, defended traditional marriage, as did the majority of Californians when confronted with Proposition 8.
To the angst of many, the Miss USA organization has been silent on its judge-instigated assault on one of its beauty queens, as has the National Organization for Women, which has stated previously that it supports "the right of lesbians to live their lives with dignity and security, and the rights of equal marriage for all."
Meanwhile, the Miss USA Web site is being peppered with irate letters from across the country, including one writer who will "never watch Miss USA again. Never!!! And I have noted all of the sponsors and will not support nor provide one cent to their businesses."
The Gaea News reports: Miss USA runner-up could file suit over discrimination says legal analyst.....
..........legal analyst Mercedes Colwin has said that Prejean may have grounds to turn to court.
"It’s her religious beliefs which prompted her to say ‘I don’t believe in same-sex marriages.’ So she was espousing her beliefs," and could sue for a violation of Title VII, which forbids discrimination on the basis of religion," Fox News quoted Colwin as saying.
Colwin added: "If she really feels some tremendous stress as a result of losing - and I’m certain she’s probably devastated from what happened to her - she can articulate a viable claim for monetary compensation for psychic injury."
Colwin also said that "garden-variety psychic injury case" may land Prejean with 50,000-100,000 dollars if she had a medical expert to testify, otherwise she would probably bank less than 25,000 dollars if successful.
However, Judge Andrew Napolitano, senior legal analyst, countered the suggestion saying the suit would land in trash since the government was not involved in the contest and there was no violation of rights in that private enterprise.
EDITOR'S NOTE: In the event that Judge Napolitano is correct, I sure hope that Carrie Prejean will file a defamation lawsuit against Mario Armando Lavandeira Jr., aka Perez Hilton. After all, that malicious effeminate twit publicly defamed her by declaring that "Miss California lost because she's a dumb bitch."
WHERE TO RETIRE
Sent to me by a good friend, too good and too funny not to pass on in my blog.
You can retire to Phoenix , Arizona where.....
1. You are willing to park 3 blocks away because you found shade.
2. You've experienced condensation on your butt from the hot water in the toilet bowl.
3. You can drive for 4 hours in one direction and never leave town.
4. You have over 100 recipes for Mexican food.
5. You know that "dry heat" is comparable to what hits you in the face when you open your oven door.
6. The 4 seasons are: tolerable, hot, really hot, and ARE YOU KIDDING ME??!!
You can retire to California where...
1. You make over $250,000 and you still can't afford to buy a house.
2. The fastest part of your commute is going down your driveway.
3. You know how to eat an artichoke.
4. You drive your rented Mercedes to your neighborhood block party.
5. When someone asks you how far something is, you tell them how long it will take to get there rather than how many miles away it is.
6. The 4 seasons are: Fire, Flood, Mud, and Drought.
You can retire to New York City where....
1. You say "the city" and expect everyone to know you mean Manhattan ....
2. You can get into a four-hour argument about how to get from Columbus Circle to Battery Park, but can't find Wisconsin on a map.
3. You think Central Park is "nature."
4. You believe that being able to swear at people in their own language makes you multi-lingual.
5. You've worn out a car horn. ( ed note: if you have a car)
6. You think eye contact is an act of aggression.
You can retire to Maine where...
1. You only have four spices: salt, pepper, ketchup, and Tabasco.
2. Halloween costumes fit over parkas.
3. You have more than one recipe for moose.
4. Sexy lingerie is anything flannel with less than eight buttons.
5. The four seasons are: winter, still winter, almost winter, and construction.
You can retire to the Deep South where...
1. You can rent a movie and buy bait in the same store.
2. "Y'all" is singular and "all y'all" is plural.
3. "He needed killin'" is a valid defense.
4. Everyone has 2 first names: Billy Bob, Jimmy Bob, Mary Sue, Betty Jean, Mary Beth, etc.
5. Everything is either "in yonder," "over yonder" or "out yonder." It's important to know the difference, too..
You can retire to Colorado where....
1. You carry your $3,000 mountain bike atop your $500 car.
2. You tell your husband to pick up Granola on his way home and so he stops at the day care center.
3. A pass does not involve a football or dating.
4. The top of your head is bald, but you still have a pony tail.
You can retire to the Midwest where...
1. You've never met any celebrities, but the mayor knows your name.
2. Your idea of a traffic jam is ten cars waiting to pass a tractor.
3. You have had to switch from "heat" to "A/C" on the same day.
4. You end sentences with a preposition: "Where's my coat at? "
5. When asked how your trip was to any exotic place, you say, "It was different!"
AND You can retire to Florida where..
1. You eat dinner at 3:15 in the afternoon.
2. All purchases include a coupon of some kind -- even houses and cars.
3. Everyone can recommend an excellent dermatologist.
4. Road construction never ends anywhere in the state.
5. Cars in front of you often appear to be driven by headless people.
You can retire to Phoenix , Arizona where.....
1. You are willing to park 3 blocks away because you found shade.
2. You've experienced condensation on your butt from the hot water in the toilet bowl.
3. You can drive for 4 hours in one direction and never leave town.
4. You have over 100 recipes for Mexican food.
5. You know that "dry heat" is comparable to what hits you in the face when you open your oven door.
6. The 4 seasons are: tolerable, hot, really hot, and ARE YOU KIDDING ME??!!
You can retire to California where...
1. You make over $250,000 and you still can't afford to buy a house.
2. The fastest part of your commute is going down your driveway.
3. You know how to eat an artichoke.
4. You drive your rented Mercedes to your neighborhood block party.
5. When someone asks you how far something is, you tell them how long it will take to get there rather than how many miles away it is.
6. The 4 seasons are: Fire, Flood, Mud, and Drought.
You can retire to New York City where....
1. You say "the city" and expect everyone to know you mean Manhattan ....
2. You can get into a four-hour argument about how to get from Columbus Circle to Battery Park, but can't find Wisconsin on a map.
3. You think Central Park is "nature."
4. You believe that being able to swear at people in their own language makes you multi-lingual.
5. You've worn out a car horn. ( ed note: if you have a car)
6. You think eye contact is an act of aggression.
You can retire to Maine where...
1. You only have four spices: salt, pepper, ketchup, and Tabasco.
2. Halloween costumes fit over parkas.
3. You have more than one recipe for moose.
4. Sexy lingerie is anything flannel with less than eight buttons.
5. The four seasons are: winter, still winter, almost winter, and construction.
You can retire to the Deep South where...
1. You can rent a movie and buy bait in the same store.
2. "Y'all" is singular and "all y'all" is plural.
3. "He needed killin'" is a valid defense.
4. Everyone has 2 first names: Billy Bob, Jimmy Bob, Mary Sue, Betty Jean, Mary Beth, etc.
5. Everything is either "in yonder," "over yonder" or "out yonder." It's important to know the difference, too..
You can retire to Colorado where....
1. You carry your $3,000 mountain bike atop your $500 car.
2. You tell your husband to pick up Granola on his way home and so he stops at the day care center.
3. A pass does not involve a football or dating.
4. The top of your head is bald, but you still have a pony tail.
You can retire to the Midwest where...
1. You've never met any celebrities, but the mayor knows your name.
2. Your idea of a traffic jam is ten cars waiting to pass a tractor.
3. You have had to switch from "heat" to "A/C" on the same day.
4. You end sentences with a preposition: "Where's my coat at? "
5. When asked how your trip was to any exotic place, you say, "It was different!"
AND You can retire to Florida where..
1. You eat dinner at 3:15 in the afternoon.
2. All purchases include a coupon of some kind -- even houses and cars.
3. Everyone can recommend an excellent dermatologist.
4. Road construction never ends anywhere in the state.
5. Cars in front of you often appear to be driven by headless people.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
PATRIOTISM OVER ANY OTHER ISM
Recently, I forwarded those on my adress list an e-mail that had nothing to do with patriotism. However, one individual on the list misread the message, believing it to be about patriotism. This was her reply: "What passes for 'patriotism' covers a lot of ugly sins no matter what country that patriotism is directed toward, doesn't it? Hooray for those mature enough to grow beyond it."
Perhaps I am misreading her reply, but it sure looks like an attack on the whole of patriotism. That really gets my dander up. Patriotism is defined as love and devotion to one's country and a patriot is one who loves, supports and defends his country. And what the hell is so bad about that? This country could sure use some more love and devotion. Too many of our citizens spend too much time bad-mouthing the United States, while taking their freedoms and privileges for granted.
Can patriotism be carried to extremes? Of course it can. In 1775, English author Samuel Johnson published his famous line that "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." Okay, so there have been some bad acts committed in the name of patriotism, but that is no reason to condemn patriotism as a whole. Religion has also had its share of scoundrels, but that is no reason to condemn religion.
I, for one, am proud to be an American. I volunteered for and gladly served in the U.S. Army during WWII. That was my way of thanking America for taking my family in as refugees from Nazi Germany. Had I been born in the U.S., I would have felt it my duty to up and serve in our military while we were at war. I love to hear the Star Spangled Banner sung like it was years ago, before a new generation of singers started showing off by putting their personal spin on it. As an expression of my love for our country, I proudly fly our beautiful flag in front of my home, day and night.
I am a strong believer in universal military service. Upon reaching the age of 18, all able bodied men should serve a term in our armed forces. (I would leave military service voluntary for women.) I believe that it is patriotic to serve in the peace corps and in the glorified national service corps started by President Cinton, and now being reinvigorated by President Obama. But that kind of service doesn't come close to equaling the patriotism of serving in our armed forces and putting one's life on the line for our country.
The lady who set me off on this little trip is really very nice. She is, however, rather unconventional. As for me, I'll take patriotism over any other ism. According to her way of thinking though, that makes me immature.
Perhaps I am misreading her reply, but it sure looks like an attack on the whole of patriotism. That really gets my dander up. Patriotism is defined as love and devotion to one's country and a patriot is one who loves, supports and defends his country. And what the hell is so bad about that? This country could sure use some more love and devotion. Too many of our citizens spend too much time bad-mouthing the United States, while taking their freedoms and privileges for granted.
Can patriotism be carried to extremes? Of course it can. In 1775, English author Samuel Johnson published his famous line that "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." Okay, so there have been some bad acts committed in the name of patriotism, but that is no reason to condemn patriotism as a whole. Religion has also had its share of scoundrels, but that is no reason to condemn religion.
I, for one, am proud to be an American. I volunteered for and gladly served in the U.S. Army during WWII. That was my way of thanking America for taking my family in as refugees from Nazi Germany. Had I been born in the U.S., I would have felt it my duty to up and serve in our military while we were at war. I love to hear the Star Spangled Banner sung like it was years ago, before a new generation of singers started showing off by putting their personal spin on it. As an expression of my love for our country, I proudly fly our beautiful flag in front of my home, day and night.
I am a strong believer in universal military service. Upon reaching the age of 18, all able bodied men should serve a term in our armed forces. (I would leave military service voluntary for women.) I believe that it is patriotic to serve in the peace corps and in the glorified national service corps started by President Cinton, and now being reinvigorated by President Obama. But that kind of service doesn't come close to equaling the patriotism of serving in our armed forces and putting one's life on the line for our country.
The lady who set me off on this little trip is really very nice. She is, however, rather unconventional. As for me, I'll take patriotism over any other ism. According to her way of thinking though, that makes me immature.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
HEROIC TEENAGER
An excellent blog, PacoVilla's Corrections blog, contained the following post by Bob Walsh, one of Paco's regular contributors:
"Teenager Saves Deputy in Fight in Valley Springs." Since we often hear about bystanders doing nothing or actively interfering with Law Enforcement it is nice to hear about a kid stepping in, at risk to himself. I grant you this was an Explorer Scout on a ride-along and not a casual passer by, but still the kid is 16 and he dove in when three people were trying to kill a cop. That deserves some notice.
The kid deserves much more than some notice. This Explorer Scout should be given the Carnegie Medal which is awarded for extraordinary civilian heroism. I have sent his nomination to the Carnegie Foundation.
The details of this heroic California teen's response to an extremely dangerous situation were reported by Dana Nichols in the Stockton Reord. The report merits nationwide attention and that is why I am reproducing it in my blog. Here is the report:
TEEN RESCUES DEPUTY DURING BRAWL
Assailant had arm on Calaveras lawman's throat
By Dana M. Nichols
Record Staff Writer
April 21, 2009
VALLEY SPRINGS - A 16-year-old Explorer Scout riding along Friday with a Calaveras County sheriff's deputy may have saved the deputy's life during a brawl in Valley Springs, a Sheriff's Department spokesman said Monday.
Sgt. Dave Seawell, a department spokesman, did not identify the teenager but said Deputy Michael Dittman was on the verge of losing consciousness during a Friday night brawl when the Explorer intervened to pull an assailant's forearm off of Dittman's throat.
"I think he probably saved Dittman's life," Seawell said.
According to a written release, Dittman was called about 11:30 p.m. to a disturbance in the 100 block of Daphne Street in Valley Springs. Dittman reported that he arrived to find three men fighting on the front porch of a residence.
The deputy reportedly ordered the men to stop fighting. They ignored the command, and Dittman prepared to use his stun gun, Seawell said in the release.
The release described the events as follows:
Thomas E. Jones, 51, at the time was reportedly trying to restrain his son, Thomas C. Jones, from assaulting Michael Koppi, 22. But when the elder Jones realized the stun gun was pointed at his son, he confronted Dittman.
The deputy warned Thomas E. Jones to get out of the way. At that point, Thomas C. Jones broke free from Koppi and charged at Dittman.
The stun gun malfunctioned, and all three men then assaulted Dittman.
The deputy, realizing his stun gun failed to operate, tried to reholster it.
Thomas E. Jones grabbed the stun gun while Thomas C. Jones punched Dittman in the face. The deputy lost the stun gun to the elder Jones, who tried to turn it on the deputy. He failed to do so when Dittman struck the elder Jones on the arm with his baton.
The deputy said he struck both Joneses with his baton multiple times with little or no effect. The younger Jones wrestled the baton away while the older Jones punched the deputy in the face.
The fight continued, and Dittman and the younger Jones fell to the ground while the older Jones punched the deputy in the face. The younger Jones pushed his forearm into the deputy's throat.
Dittman reported he felt himself on the verge of losing consciousness when the Explorer intervened, pulling the arm away.
Then the elder Jones pushed the Explorer away.
As Dittman tried to get control of the younger Jones, his father tried to choke Dittman.
For a second time, Dittman felt himself on the verge of passing out and reluctantly was finally reaching for his firearm when Deputy Josh Crabtree arrived and successfully stunned Thomas E. Jones with a stun gun. Dittman and the Explorer were then able to handcuff Thomas C. Jones.
The father was booked into Calaveras County Jail on charges of battery on a peace officer, assault on a peace officer with a stun gun, resisting arrest, removing a weapon from a peace officer and public intoxication. His bail was set at $110,000.
His son was jailed on charges of assault with a deadly weapon on a peace officer, battery on a peace officer, resisting arrest, removing a weapon from a peace officer and public intoxication. His bail was set at $125,000.
Koppi was booked into jail on charges of battery on a peace officer, resisting arrest and public intoxication. A 16-year-old girl was also arrested at the scene for public intoxication and resisting or delaying an officer.
Dittman was treated at Mark Twain St. Joseph's Hospital for multiple cuts and bruises to his head and neck.
The Explorers program is a division of the Boy Scouts of America devoted to exploring careers.
"This is not something we expect our Explorers to do," Seawell said. Combat is not part of the program, he said.
"Teenager Saves Deputy in Fight in Valley Springs." Since we often hear about bystanders doing nothing or actively interfering with Law Enforcement it is nice to hear about a kid stepping in, at risk to himself. I grant you this was an Explorer Scout on a ride-along and not a casual passer by, but still the kid is 16 and he dove in when three people were trying to kill a cop. That deserves some notice.
The kid deserves much more than some notice. This Explorer Scout should be given the Carnegie Medal which is awarded for extraordinary civilian heroism. I have sent his nomination to the Carnegie Foundation.
The details of this heroic California teen's response to an extremely dangerous situation were reported by Dana Nichols in the Stockton Reord. The report merits nationwide attention and that is why I am reproducing it in my blog. Here is the report:
TEEN RESCUES DEPUTY DURING BRAWL
Assailant had arm on Calaveras lawman's throat
By Dana M. Nichols
Record Staff Writer
April 21, 2009
VALLEY SPRINGS - A 16-year-old Explorer Scout riding along Friday with a Calaveras County sheriff's deputy may have saved the deputy's life during a brawl in Valley Springs, a Sheriff's Department spokesman said Monday.
Sgt. Dave Seawell, a department spokesman, did not identify the teenager but said Deputy Michael Dittman was on the verge of losing consciousness during a Friday night brawl when the Explorer intervened to pull an assailant's forearm off of Dittman's throat.
"I think he probably saved Dittman's life," Seawell said.
According to a written release, Dittman was called about 11:30 p.m. to a disturbance in the 100 block of Daphne Street in Valley Springs. Dittman reported that he arrived to find three men fighting on the front porch of a residence.
The deputy reportedly ordered the men to stop fighting. They ignored the command, and Dittman prepared to use his stun gun, Seawell said in the release.
The release described the events as follows:
Thomas E. Jones, 51, at the time was reportedly trying to restrain his son, Thomas C. Jones, from assaulting Michael Koppi, 22. But when the elder Jones realized the stun gun was pointed at his son, he confronted Dittman.
The deputy warned Thomas E. Jones to get out of the way. At that point, Thomas C. Jones broke free from Koppi and charged at Dittman.
The stun gun malfunctioned, and all three men then assaulted Dittman.
The deputy, realizing his stun gun failed to operate, tried to reholster it.
Thomas E. Jones grabbed the stun gun while Thomas C. Jones punched Dittman in the face. The deputy lost the stun gun to the elder Jones, who tried to turn it on the deputy. He failed to do so when Dittman struck the elder Jones on the arm with his baton.
The deputy said he struck both Joneses with his baton multiple times with little or no effect. The younger Jones wrestled the baton away while the older Jones punched the deputy in the face.
The fight continued, and Dittman and the younger Jones fell to the ground while the older Jones punched the deputy in the face. The younger Jones pushed his forearm into the deputy's throat.
Dittman reported he felt himself on the verge of losing consciousness when the Explorer intervened, pulling the arm away.
Then the elder Jones pushed the Explorer away.
As Dittman tried to get control of the younger Jones, his father tried to choke Dittman.
For a second time, Dittman felt himself on the verge of passing out and reluctantly was finally reaching for his firearm when Deputy Josh Crabtree arrived and successfully stunned Thomas E. Jones with a stun gun. Dittman and the Explorer were then able to handcuff Thomas C. Jones.
The father was booked into Calaveras County Jail on charges of battery on a peace officer, assault on a peace officer with a stun gun, resisting arrest, removing a weapon from a peace officer and public intoxication. His bail was set at $110,000.
His son was jailed on charges of assault with a deadly weapon on a peace officer, battery on a peace officer, resisting arrest, removing a weapon from a peace officer and public intoxication. His bail was set at $125,000.
Koppi was booked into jail on charges of battery on a peace officer, resisting arrest and public intoxication. A 16-year-old girl was also arrested at the scene for public intoxication and resisting or delaying an officer.
Dittman was treated at Mark Twain St. Joseph's Hospital for multiple cuts and bruises to his head and neck.
The Explorers program is a division of the Boy Scouts of America devoted to exploring careers.
"This is not something we expect our Explorers to do," Seawell said. Combat is not part of the program, he said.
AND THE TRUTH SHALL ..........
Question: "Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit? Why or why not."
Answer: "Well I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land that you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And you know what? In my country, in my family, I think I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there. But that’s how I was raised, and I think it should be between a man and a woman. Thank you very much."
The question was asked of Miss California during the Miss USA 2009 pageant by one of the judges, gossip blogger Perez Hilton, who is openly gan and calls himself "queen of all media." Carrie Prejean's honest answer was met with both applause and boos. Up to then, she had been favored to win the Miss USA title, but she ended as runner-up to Miss North Carolina.
There is no doubt in my mind that by giving a truthful answer, Prejean, the favorite, submarined her chances of becoming Miss USA. Hilton, on the other hand, denied that her opposition to same-sex marriage cost Prejean the title. Hilton, the BITCH of all media, said her answer was the worst in pageant history and "Miss California lost because she's a dumb bitch."
Come on, let's get real! Carrie Prejean was done in by poltical correctness. Had she supported same-sex marriage, she would have become Miss USA. A devout Chrisitan, she answered a loaded question truthfully and paid a heavy price for her personal beliefs. Hilton was out of his ever loving BIGOTED mind when he made his hateful castigation of Prejean's well-phrased unrehearsed answer.
Later Hilton said that Prejean should have "left her politics and her religion out because Miss USA represents all Americans." Hey you stupid asshole! Simply put, you asked the question and she answered it. Prejean is an American too. If you really wanted to keep politics and religion out of the pageant, you would not have asked a provocative question about gay marriage.
Beauty pagent contestants should not be judged on their personal beliefs. It seems obvious to me that Prejean was a victim of personal prejudices by some of the judges. The real DUMB BITCH at the Miss USA pageant was non other than Perez Hilton. Piss on that malicious effeminate twit! God bless Carrie Prejean!
Answer: "Well I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land that you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And you know what? In my country, in my family, I think I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there. But that’s how I was raised, and I think it should be between a man and a woman. Thank you very much."
The question was asked of Miss California during the Miss USA 2009 pageant by one of the judges, gossip blogger Perez Hilton, who is openly gan and calls himself "queen of all media." Carrie Prejean's honest answer was met with both applause and boos. Up to then, she had been favored to win the Miss USA title, but she ended as runner-up to Miss North Carolina.
There is no doubt in my mind that by giving a truthful answer, Prejean, the favorite, submarined her chances of becoming Miss USA. Hilton, on the other hand, denied that her opposition to same-sex marriage cost Prejean the title. Hilton, the BITCH of all media, said her answer was the worst in pageant history and "Miss California lost because she's a dumb bitch."
Come on, let's get real! Carrie Prejean was done in by poltical correctness. Had she supported same-sex marriage, she would have become Miss USA. A devout Chrisitan, she answered a loaded question truthfully and paid a heavy price for her personal beliefs. Hilton was out of his ever loving BIGOTED mind when he made his hateful castigation of Prejean's well-phrased unrehearsed answer.
Later Hilton said that Prejean should have "left her politics and her religion out because Miss USA represents all Americans." Hey you stupid asshole! Simply put, you asked the question and she answered it. Prejean is an American too. If you really wanted to keep politics and religion out of the pageant, you would not have asked a provocative question about gay marriage.
Beauty pagent contestants should not be judged on their personal beliefs. It seems obvious to me that Prejean was a victim of personal prejudices by some of the judges. The real DUMB BITCH at the Miss USA pageant was non other than Perez Hilton. Piss on that malicious effeminate twit! God bless Carrie Prejean!
NOT FROM TEXAS GUN DEALERS
President Obama, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano and Attorney General Eric Holder are all claiming that the Mexican drug cartels are getting 90 percent of their military assault weapons from the United States, mostly from Texas gun dealers. Their allegations are obviously designed to restore the ban on such weapons, a 10-year ban that had been allowed to expire during the Bush administration.
On 3-27-09, I blogged "Drug Cartels Do Not Get Military-Style Weapons From Texas Gun Dealers." In today's Townhall.com, John Stossel had a column in which he blamed our drug prohibition laws, rather than our demand for drugs, for the violence of the drug cartels. Interestingly though, he also debunked the Obama administration's claim that the Mexican drug cartels were getting most of their guns from America's licensed gun dealers.
Here is what John Stossel wrote about that:
'The president says, "More than 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States, many from gun shops that line our shared border, and that's why we're ramping up the number of law enforcement personnel on our border".
That 90 percent figure has been repeated many times, but FactCheck.org says it's bogus:
"The figure represents only the percentage of crime guns that have been submitted by Mexican officials and traced by U.S. officials. ... U.S. and Mexican officials both say that Mexico recovers more guns than it submits for tracing ... ".
And FactCheck says Mexico only submits those it already has reason to believe came from the United States.'
On 3-27-09, I blogged "Drug Cartels Do Not Get Military-Style Weapons From Texas Gun Dealers." In today's Townhall.com, John Stossel had a column in which he blamed our drug prohibition laws, rather than our demand for drugs, for the violence of the drug cartels. Interestingly though, he also debunked the Obama administration's claim that the Mexican drug cartels were getting most of their guns from America's licensed gun dealers.
Here is what John Stossel wrote about that:
'The president says, "More than 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States, many from gun shops that line our shared border, and that's why we're ramping up the number of law enforcement personnel on our border".
That 90 percent figure has been repeated many times, but FactCheck.org says it's bogus:
"The figure represents only the percentage of crime guns that have been submitted by Mexican officials and traced by U.S. officials. ... U.S. and Mexican officials both say that Mexico recovers more guns than it submits for tracing ... ".
And FactCheck says Mexico only submits those it already has reason to believe came from the United States.'
TWICE PUNISHED
This week's CBS Sunday Morning had a segment dealing with a woman and two men who had been released from prisons after having been locked up for a number of years before being exonerated of crimes for which they were wrongly convicted. Their stories were similar in that all three found it difficult, if not impossible, to find jobs despite the fact they had been wrongly convicted and had the newspaper articles and court papers to prove their innocense.
What does that tell us about our society when it refuses to give ex-cons another chance? It tells us that we are really not all that forgiving. We punish them twice - first by sending them to prison and then by refusing to employ them when they get out, even if we know they were really innocent when imprisoned.
Although I am a hard-ass law and order advocate, I also believe in "with justice for all." Everyone needs to know for sure that there will be consequences, such as jail time, for committing unlawful acts. But when someone is wrongfully convicted, their prison time should never be held against them. And if we hold that someone has paid his "debt to society" once he has completed his prison sentence, then we owe him a good chance to take his rightful place in the community.
A supervisor at the nature center where I do my volunteer work told me they have a policy of not allowing anyone to become a volunteer if they've got a criminal record. For an organization that cannot survive without volunteer workers that policy doesn't make any sense if it's true. I can see barring sex offenders from volunteering at a place where children visit all the time. I can see persons convicted of violent crimes being barred. I cannot see barring a run-of-the-mill type offender if he wants to do volunteer work.
Social scientists and criminal justice authorities are all in agreement that employment is the key factor in preventing the recidivism of offenders released from prison. Generally, about half of all parolees are returned to prison, either for violating parole conditions or for committing new crimes. It is true that many of these parole violators were holding down a job, but you can bet your entire bankroll that any ex-con who is out of work and cannot find a decent job will be committing new crimes.
When I was a California state parole agent back in the late '60s, parolees had little trouble finding work, especially if they were warned that failure to obtain and maintain employment would get them returned to prison on a parole violation, no ifs, ands or buts! Those without skills found work as unskilled laborers. Those with specific skills found employment in their area of expertise. Employers were willing, if not eager, to give ex-cons a second chance. It made the employers feel good. I even had an Indiana bank robber working for one of Southern California's largest banking institutions.
Obviously, nowadays many employers are no longer willing to employ ex-cons. What has happened since the late '60s? Putting aside the current economic crisis, I blame politicians for a change in attitudes. Well before our economy went south, ex-cons found it increasingly difficult to find a job. Politicians discovered that they could get elected by campaigning on a law and order platform. They called attention to horrific crimes, often exacerbating crime rates, and promised to put criminals away.
While crime rates were indeed high, political office seekers were responsible for making the crime problem seem far worse than it actually was. They scared the shit out of the public to get themselves elected and in the process changed the attitudes of employers who had always been willing to give ex-cons another chance. And sadly, now ex-cons can't even get a job if they were wrongly convicted and presented proof of that fact to prospective employers.
EDITOR'S NOTE; When the director of the nature center came to one of our early morning meetings, I asked him if it was true that they would not use any volunteers with a criminal record. He informed me that the use of ex-cons as volunteers was not prohibitive. A criminal record check is run on every staff and volunteer applicant. Each case would be judged on the basis of the crime for which the applicant was convicted. After the director had left, one of my fellow volunteers said, "Bullshit, he's not going to use a volunteer once he finds out that he has a criminal record." I suspect he's right.
What does that tell us about our society when it refuses to give ex-cons another chance? It tells us that we are really not all that forgiving. We punish them twice - first by sending them to prison and then by refusing to employ them when they get out, even if we know they were really innocent when imprisoned.
Although I am a hard-ass law and order advocate, I also believe in "with justice for all." Everyone needs to know for sure that there will be consequences, such as jail time, for committing unlawful acts. But when someone is wrongfully convicted, their prison time should never be held against them. And if we hold that someone has paid his "debt to society" once he has completed his prison sentence, then we owe him a good chance to take his rightful place in the community.
A supervisor at the nature center where I do my volunteer work told me they have a policy of not allowing anyone to become a volunteer if they've got a criminal record. For an organization that cannot survive without volunteer workers that policy doesn't make any sense if it's true. I can see barring sex offenders from volunteering at a place where children visit all the time. I can see persons convicted of violent crimes being barred. I cannot see barring a run-of-the-mill type offender if he wants to do volunteer work.
Social scientists and criminal justice authorities are all in agreement that employment is the key factor in preventing the recidivism of offenders released from prison. Generally, about half of all parolees are returned to prison, either for violating parole conditions or for committing new crimes. It is true that many of these parole violators were holding down a job, but you can bet your entire bankroll that any ex-con who is out of work and cannot find a decent job will be committing new crimes.
When I was a California state parole agent back in the late '60s, parolees had little trouble finding work, especially if they were warned that failure to obtain and maintain employment would get them returned to prison on a parole violation, no ifs, ands or buts! Those without skills found work as unskilled laborers. Those with specific skills found employment in their area of expertise. Employers were willing, if not eager, to give ex-cons a second chance. It made the employers feel good. I even had an Indiana bank robber working for one of Southern California's largest banking institutions.
Obviously, nowadays many employers are no longer willing to employ ex-cons. What has happened since the late '60s? Putting aside the current economic crisis, I blame politicians for a change in attitudes. Well before our economy went south, ex-cons found it increasingly difficult to find a job. Politicians discovered that they could get elected by campaigning on a law and order platform. They called attention to horrific crimes, often exacerbating crime rates, and promised to put criminals away.
While crime rates were indeed high, political office seekers were responsible for making the crime problem seem far worse than it actually was. They scared the shit out of the public to get themselves elected and in the process changed the attitudes of employers who had always been willing to give ex-cons another chance. And sadly, now ex-cons can't even get a job if they were wrongly convicted and presented proof of that fact to prospective employers.
EDITOR'S NOTE; When the director of the nature center came to one of our early morning meetings, I asked him if it was true that they would not use any volunteers with a criminal record. He informed me that the use of ex-cons as volunteers was not prohibitive. A criminal record check is run on every staff and volunteer applicant. Each case would be judged on the basis of the crime for which the applicant was convicted. After the director had left, one of my fellow volunteers said, "Bullshit, he's not going to use a volunteer once he finds out that he has a criminal record." I suspect he's right.
Monday, April 20, 2009
10 FREE SPEECH RULES IN ACADEMIA
Apparently, free speech rights have been modified in left-wing academia. Read about it in this column by Mike Adams from today's Townhall.com:
ANARCHY IN UNC
by Mike Adams
Last week, I was away speaking at Michigan State University. While I was gone, my inbox filled with requests that I write about the recent disruption of Tom Tancredo’s speech at UNC-Chapel Hill. I am pleased to do so. As a professor in the UNC system, I’m also pleased to explain why this embarrassing incident occurred.
If one is to understand the Tancredo incident one must be familiar with ten rules that apply to free speech and to other rights in the UNC system. One must also understand the origin of at least some of these ten rules. Once one is properly educated in these rules, it becomes obvious that Tom Tancredo is not a victim in any sense of the word. In fact, it is Tancredo, not the protestors, who should be embarrassed.
1. Groups, not individuals, possess rights. Many observers are confused into thinking that Tom Tancredo’s constitutional rights were violated last week in Chapel Hill. This is based on the antiquated notion that free speech is an individual right. Because our Founding Fathers owned slaves (read: violated individual rights) those rights have now been transferred from individuals to groups.
2. The rights of any given group are determined by the extent of historical oppression the group has suffered. Obviously, as a group, African-Americans now have rights because of slavery. Illegal aliens also have rights, as a group, because the conditions that caused them to become "illegal" were oppressive.
3. Oppression need not have occurred in this country to produce rights in this country. Some will note that the oppression that produced illegal immigration occurred in another country implying that this does not create any rights here in this country. This criticism assumes the legitimacy of the term "countries," which like the term "laws" is suspect. It should also be noted that prior to any discussion of how to patrol our border, the term "border" is designated as oppressive. This helps us to think globally.
4. Jews are exempt from rule #3. Jews have suffered a lot throughout history. But most of that suffering occurred in other countries. Since the Jews now control so much of America and probably planned 911 there is no need to grant them unnecessary rights.
5. Rights do not compel responsibility. The notion of responsibility is antithetical to the notion of collectivism. Notions of responsibility help to advance capitalism, which help to advance oppression. In other words, it is irresponsible to advance responsibility because it is responsible for a lot of group oppression.
6. Whites may establish rights temporarily by acting as spokespersons for oppressed groups. The fact that most of the people protesting Tancredo were, like Tancredo, whites in the country legally, is irrelevant. They had free speech rights because they were speaking up for the oppressed. Tancredo did not because he was speaking out against the oppressed and, hence, advancing oppression.
7. Oppressed groups need not give consent to their spokespersons. White liberals always know what is best for minorities who do not always know what is best for them.
8. Vandalism is a permissible form of expression. Jonathan Curtis, a UNC administrator, aided and abetted the theft of the conservative Carolina Review in 1996. He went unpunished. Since then, the administration has been reluctant to suggest that lawlessness is illegal. Lawlessness can be a good way of showing how laws are oppressive. This includes pounding on windows and shattering glass while people are trying to speak.
9. An effect may precede its cause. The protestors claimed that the Tancredo incident was the fault of the police who sprayed pepper spray to disperse the crowd. It should not matter that the disruption happened first. These kids have taken sociology courses where they are taught that labeling someone "delinquent" causes delinquency. They have taken education courses where they are taught that labeling someone as "slow" causes bad grades. These assertions are not backed up by longitudinal studies that can separate cause and effect. That would constitute "evidence" and evidence is oppressive. In fact, the videotape of the protestors smashing a window is oppressive.
10. The law is an instrument of oppression and criminality is a form of expression. Tom Tancredo supports the enforcement of the law. He is an oppressor. The protestors were breaking the law as a form of expression. In the same way, illegal immigration is a form of expression protected by the First Amendment and unaffected by antiquated notions like "citizenship." Citizenship is oppressive.
Now that you have heard the rules and know something of their origin you may decide to sympathize with the protestors. Or you may decide that I’ve been right about what I’ve been saying in this column for the last six years. And why I often feel like an alien in a strange land speaking a language no one understands.
ANARCHY IN UNC
by Mike Adams
Last week, I was away speaking at Michigan State University. While I was gone, my inbox filled with requests that I write about the recent disruption of Tom Tancredo’s speech at UNC-Chapel Hill. I am pleased to do so. As a professor in the UNC system, I’m also pleased to explain why this embarrassing incident occurred.
If one is to understand the Tancredo incident one must be familiar with ten rules that apply to free speech and to other rights in the UNC system. One must also understand the origin of at least some of these ten rules. Once one is properly educated in these rules, it becomes obvious that Tom Tancredo is not a victim in any sense of the word. In fact, it is Tancredo, not the protestors, who should be embarrassed.
1. Groups, not individuals, possess rights. Many observers are confused into thinking that Tom Tancredo’s constitutional rights were violated last week in Chapel Hill. This is based on the antiquated notion that free speech is an individual right. Because our Founding Fathers owned slaves (read: violated individual rights) those rights have now been transferred from individuals to groups.
2. The rights of any given group are determined by the extent of historical oppression the group has suffered. Obviously, as a group, African-Americans now have rights because of slavery. Illegal aliens also have rights, as a group, because the conditions that caused them to become "illegal" were oppressive.
3. Oppression need not have occurred in this country to produce rights in this country. Some will note that the oppression that produced illegal immigration occurred in another country implying that this does not create any rights here in this country. This criticism assumes the legitimacy of the term "countries," which like the term "laws" is suspect. It should also be noted that prior to any discussion of how to patrol our border, the term "border" is designated as oppressive. This helps us to think globally.
4. Jews are exempt from rule #3. Jews have suffered a lot throughout history. But most of that suffering occurred in other countries. Since the Jews now control so much of America and probably planned 911 there is no need to grant them unnecessary rights.
5. Rights do not compel responsibility. The notion of responsibility is antithetical to the notion of collectivism. Notions of responsibility help to advance capitalism, which help to advance oppression. In other words, it is irresponsible to advance responsibility because it is responsible for a lot of group oppression.
6. Whites may establish rights temporarily by acting as spokespersons for oppressed groups. The fact that most of the people protesting Tancredo were, like Tancredo, whites in the country legally, is irrelevant. They had free speech rights because they were speaking up for the oppressed. Tancredo did not because he was speaking out against the oppressed and, hence, advancing oppression.
7. Oppressed groups need not give consent to their spokespersons. White liberals always know what is best for minorities who do not always know what is best for them.
8. Vandalism is a permissible form of expression. Jonathan Curtis, a UNC administrator, aided and abetted the theft of the conservative Carolina Review in 1996. He went unpunished. Since then, the administration has been reluctant to suggest that lawlessness is illegal. Lawlessness can be a good way of showing how laws are oppressive. This includes pounding on windows and shattering glass while people are trying to speak.
9. An effect may precede its cause. The protestors claimed that the Tancredo incident was the fault of the police who sprayed pepper spray to disperse the crowd. It should not matter that the disruption happened first. These kids have taken sociology courses where they are taught that labeling someone "delinquent" causes delinquency. They have taken education courses where they are taught that labeling someone as "slow" causes bad grades. These assertions are not backed up by longitudinal studies that can separate cause and effect. That would constitute "evidence" and evidence is oppressive. In fact, the videotape of the protestors smashing a window is oppressive.
10. The law is an instrument of oppression and criminality is a form of expression. Tom Tancredo supports the enforcement of the law. He is an oppressor. The protestors were breaking the law as a form of expression. In the same way, illegal immigration is a form of expression protected by the First Amendment and unaffected by antiquated notions like "citizenship." Citizenship is oppressive.
Now that you have heard the rules and know something of their origin you may decide to sympathize with the protestors. Or you may decide that I’ve been right about what I’ve been saying in this column for the last six years. And why I often feel like an alien in a strange land speaking a language no one understands.
JEWISH KILLING FIELDS OF EASTERN EUROPE
During the Nazi occupation of Eastern Europe, many locals were all too willing, if not eager, to help the German occupiers round up and extermiate the Jews among them. Aside from the well-known Nazi death camps in which some six million Jews were slaughtered, thousands more died in small killing fields throuout occupied parts of Eastern Europe.
The historic hatred of Jews, especially in Eastern Europe and in the Muslim world, is why it is extremely important that there be a place of refuge for people of the Jewish faith. Tlhere is only one such refuge - the State of Israel, which the Palestinians and their brethren Arabs have vowed to destroy.
Here is a story on the Jewish killing fields of Eastern Europe as reported in The New York Times by Ethan Bronner:
NEW LOOKS AT THE FIELDS OF DEATH FOR JEWS
by Ethan Bronner
The New York Times
April 19, 2009
JERUSALEM — In the Ukrainian town of Berdichev, Jewish women were forced to swim across a wide river until they drowned. In Telsiai, Lithuania, children were thrown alive into pits filled with their murdered parents. In Liozno, Belarus, Jews were herded into a locked barn where many froze to death.
Holocaust deniers aside, the world is not ignorant of the systematic Nazi slaughter of some six million Jews in World War II. People know of Auschwitz and Bergen-Belsen; many have heard of the tens of thousands shot dead in the Ukrainian ravine of Babi Yar. But little has been known about the hundreds, perhaps thousands, of smaller killing fields across the former Soviet Union where some 1.5 million Jews met their deaths.
That is now changing. Over the past few years, the Yad Vashem Holocaust museum and research center in Israel has been investigating those sites, comparing Soviet, German, local and Jewish accounts, crosschecking numbers and methods. The work, gathered under the title "The Untold Stories," is far from over. But to honor Holocaust Remembrance Day, which starts Monday evening, the research is being made public on the institution’s Web site.
"These are places that have been mostly neglected because they involved smaller towns and villages," said David Bankier, head of the International Institute for Holocaust Research at Yad Vashem. "In many cases, locals played a key role in the murders, probably by a ratio of 10 locals to every one German. We are trying to understand the man who played soccer with his Jewish neighbor one day and turned to kill him the next. This provides material for research on genocide elsewhere, like in Africa."
For the purposes of this project, a killing field entails at least 50 people, said the project director, Lea Prais. The killing began in June 1941 with the German invasion of the Soviet Union. From the Baltic republics in the north to the Caucasus in the south, Nazi death squads combed the areas.
The first evidence for what took place was gathered right after the war by Soviet investigating committees largely focused on finding anti-Soviet collaborators.
The new research checks that evidence against German records, diaries and letters of soldiers, as well as accounts by witnesses and the few surviving Jews, some of whom climbed out of pits of corpses. Sometimes, the researchers said, the Soviets seemed to have exaggerated, and that is noted on the Web site. One goal of the project is to learn more exactly the numbers killed.
One little-known case comes from a German sailor who filmed killings in Liepaja, Latvia. The film has been on view for some years at the Yad Vashem museum. But the new Web site has a forgotten video of a 1981 interview with the sailor, Reinhard Wiener, who said he had been a bystander with a movie camera.
According to part of his account, "After the civilian guards with the yellow armbands shouted once again, I was able to identify them as Latvian home guardsmen. The Jews, whom I was able to recognize by now, were forced to jump over the sides of the truck onto the ground. Among them were crippled and weak people, who were caught by the others.
"At first, they had to line up in a row, before they were chased toward the trench. This was done by SS and Latvian home guardsmen. Then the Jews were forced to jump into the trench and to run along inside it until the end. They had to stand with their back to the firing squad. At that time, the moment they saw the trench, they probably knew what would happen to them. They must have felt it, because underneath there was already a layer of corpses, over which was spread a thin layer of sand."
Ms. Prais said one of the discoveries that had most surprised her was the way in which Soviet Jews who survived the war made an effort to commemorate those who had perished. In distant fields and village squares they often placed a Star of David or some other memorial, despite fears of overt Jewish expression in the Soviet era.
"The silent Jews of the Soviet Union were not so silent," she said.
The slaughter that some of them had escaped defies the imagination. One case Ms. Prais and her colleagues have cross-referenced involves what happened in the town of Krupki, Belarus, where the entire Jewish community of at least 1,000 was eliminated on Sept. 18, 1941.
A German soldier who took part in the mass killing kept a diary that was found on his body by the Allies, she said. In it, he wrote of having volunteered as one of "15 men with strong nerves" asked to eliminate the Jews of Krupki. "All these had to be shot today," he wrote. The weather was gray and rainy, he observed.
The Jews had been told they were to be deported to work in Germany, but as they were forced into a ditch, the reality of their fate became evident. Panic ensued. The soldier wrote that the guards had a hard time controlling the crowd.
"Ten shots rang out, 10 Jews popped off," he wrote. "This continued until all were dispatched. Only a few of them kept their countenances. The children clung to their mothers, wives to their husbands. I won’t forget this spectacle in a hurry...."
The historic hatred of Jews, especially in Eastern Europe and in the Muslim world, is why it is extremely important that there be a place of refuge for people of the Jewish faith. Tlhere is only one such refuge - the State of Israel, which the Palestinians and their brethren Arabs have vowed to destroy.
Here is a story on the Jewish killing fields of Eastern Europe as reported in The New York Times by Ethan Bronner:
NEW LOOKS AT THE FIELDS OF DEATH FOR JEWS
by Ethan Bronner
The New York Times
April 19, 2009
JERUSALEM — In the Ukrainian town of Berdichev, Jewish women were forced to swim across a wide river until they drowned. In Telsiai, Lithuania, children were thrown alive into pits filled with their murdered parents. In Liozno, Belarus, Jews were herded into a locked barn where many froze to death.
Holocaust deniers aside, the world is not ignorant of the systematic Nazi slaughter of some six million Jews in World War II. People know of Auschwitz and Bergen-Belsen; many have heard of the tens of thousands shot dead in the Ukrainian ravine of Babi Yar. But little has been known about the hundreds, perhaps thousands, of smaller killing fields across the former Soviet Union where some 1.5 million Jews met their deaths.
That is now changing. Over the past few years, the Yad Vashem Holocaust museum and research center in Israel has been investigating those sites, comparing Soviet, German, local and Jewish accounts, crosschecking numbers and methods. The work, gathered under the title "The Untold Stories," is far from over. But to honor Holocaust Remembrance Day, which starts Monday evening, the research is being made public on the institution’s Web site.
"These are places that have been mostly neglected because they involved smaller towns and villages," said David Bankier, head of the International Institute for Holocaust Research at Yad Vashem. "In many cases, locals played a key role in the murders, probably by a ratio of 10 locals to every one German. We are trying to understand the man who played soccer with his Jewish neighbor one day and turned to kill him the next. This provides material for research on genocide elsewhere, like in Africa."
For the purposes of this project, a killing field entails at least 50 people, said the project director, Lea Prais. The killing began in June 1941 with the German invasion of the Soviet Union. From the Baltic republics in the north to the Caucasus in the south, Nazi death squads combed the areas.
The first evidence for what took place was gathered right after the war by Soviet investigating committees largely focused on finding anti-Soviet collaborators.
The new research checks that evidence against German records, diaries and letters of soldiers, as well as accounts by witnesses and the few surviving Jews, some of whom climbed out of pits of corpses. Sometimes, the researchers said, the Soviets seemed to have exaggerated, and that is noted on the Web site. One goal of the project is to learn more exactly the numbers killed.
One little-known case comes from a German sailor who filmed killings in Liepaja, Latvia. The film has been on view for some years at the Yad Vashem museum. But the new Web site has a forgotten video of a 1981 interview with the sailor, Reinhard Wiener, who said he had been a bystander with a movie camera.
According to part of his account, "After the civilian guards with the yellow armbands shouted once again, I was able to identify them as Latvian home guardsmen. The Jews, whom I was able to recognize by now, were forced to jump over the sides of the truck onto the ground. Among them were crippled and weak people, who were caught by the others.
"At first, they had to line up in a row, before they were chased toward the trench. This was done by SS and Latvian home guardsmen. Then the Jews were forced to jump into the trench and to run along inside it until the end. They had to stand with their back to the firing squad. At that time, the moment they saw the trench, they probably knew what would happen to them. They must have felt it, because underneath there was already a layer of corpses, over which was spread a thin layer of sand."
Ms. Prais said one of the discoveries that had most surprised her was the way in which Soviet Jews who survived the war made an effort to commemorate those who had perished. In distant fields and village squares they often placed a Star of David or some other memorial, despite fears of overt Jewish expression in the Soviet era.
"The silent Jews of the Soviet Union were not so silent," she said.
The slaughter that some of them had escaped defies the imagination. One case Ms. Prais and her colleagues have cross-referenced involves what happened in the town of Krupki, Belarus, where the entire Jewish community of at least 1,000 was eliminated on Sept. 18, 1941.
A German soldier who took part in the mass killing kept a diary that was found on his body by the Allies, she said. In it, he wrote of having volunteered as one of "15 men with strong nerves" asked to eliminate the Jews of Krupki. "All these had to be shot today," he wrote. The weather was gray and rainy, he observed.
The Jews had been told they were to be deported to work in Germany, but as they were forced into a ditch, the reality of their fate became evident. Panic ensued. The soldier wrote that the guards had a hard time controlling the crowd.
"Ten shots rang out, 10 Jews popped off," he wrote. "This continued until all were dispatched. Only a few of them kept their countenances. The children clung to their mothers, wives to their husbands. I won’t forget this spectacle in a hurry...."
Saturday, April 18, 2009
A POISONOUS PROVOCATION ?
The Obama administration, the United Nations, the European Union and Russia all want Israel to accept the concept of two independent states, Israel and Palestine, existing peacefully side by side. The "Quartet" is pressuring Israel to make suicidal concessions to the Palestinians. Israel's former prime minister, Ehud "The Idiot" Ohlmert and Tzipi Livni, the new leader of the Kadima party, were both willing to make concessions which would have led to the eventual disappearance of the Jewish state.
Fortunately for Israel, Bibi Netanyahu, its new prime minister, will not agree to any such concessions. He and Avigor Lieberman, the new foreign minister, both insist that Israel is not bound by the declarations made during the U.S. sponsored peace conference at Annapolis, Maryland in November 2007.
Netanyahu is willing to restart long-stalled negotiations with Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas, but only if the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state, something they have adamantly refused to do. As a matter of fact, the PA called Netanyahu's demand for recognition of Israel as a Jewish state a "provocation" that might have a "poisonous effect" on the region.
A poisonous provocation? The Palestinians and their Arab brethren, as well as many other Muslims throughout the world, are profoundly provoked by the mere mention of the word "Jew," not just by the existence of a Jewish state. Their historic hatred of Jews knows no bounds. And these are the Muslims that Obama, in his inaugural address, promised to "reach out" to.
A recent Norwegian poll (see my blog "Why Bother" [4-3-09]) showed that a majority of Palestinians were opposed to a two-state solution. 33 percent opted for the annihilation of the state of Israel, whether by political means or force of arms - to be replaced by a single Islamic republic on all parts of the country; and 20 percent favored a united Israeli-Palestinian state, to be eventually engulfed by the latter population. P.A. leaders continuously boast that there will be a Palestinian state "from the river to the sea," meaning that there will be no State of Israel.
Since the Palestinians will not recognize Israel as a Jewish state, Netanyahu should tell President Obama, Secretary Clinton and special envoy George Mitchell that they need to do a reality check - there can be no peace between Israel and a bunch of hate mongerers who have vowed to annihilate the Jewish state.
Here is a report from IsraelNationalNews.com on the Palestinian response to Netanyahu's demand that Israel be recognized as a Jewish state:
ARUTZ SHEVA IsraelNationalNews.com
April 18, 2009
PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY: RECOGNITION OF ISRAEL AS JEWISH STATE A 'PROVOCATION'
by Hana Levi Julian
The Palestinian Authority has rejected Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s condition for moving ahead on negotiations to establish "two states for two peoples."
PA spokesman Nabil Abu Rudaineh on Thursday night slammed Netanyahu’s insistence that the PA first accept the concept of Israel as a Jewish State before Israel continues talks to establish a new Arab country within its current borders.
Netanyahu told United States Middle East envoy George Mitchell earlier in the evening that Israel is willing to discuss the creation of a PA State – but only if the PA recognizes Israel as a Jewish State.
"Israel expects the Palestinians to first recognize Israel as a Jewish State before talking about two states for two peoples," Netanyahu said.
The Fatah-led PA government based in Ramallah has agreed in the past to recognize Israel, but not as a Jewish State.
Abu Rudaineh called Netanyahu’s words a "provocation" and claimed that the new Israeli government was placing obstacles before the "solution" of two states for two peoples being promoted by the United States.
The aide to PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas called on the international community to examine Israeli policy, charging that it might have a "poisonous effect" on the region.
Fortunately for Israel, Bibi Netanyahu, its new prime minister, will not agree to any such concessions. He and Avigor Lieberman, the new foreign minister, both insist that Israel is not bound by the declarations made during the U.S. sponsored peace conference at Annapolis, Maryland in November 2007.
Netanyahu is willing to restart long-stalled negotiations with Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas, but only if the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state, something they have adamantly refused to do. As a matter of fact, the PA called Netanyahu's demand for recognition of Israel as a Jewish state a "provocation" that might have a "poisonous effect" on the region.
A poisonous provocation? The Palestinians and their Arab brethren, as well as many other Muslims throughout the world, are profoundly provoked by the mere mention of the word "Jew," not just by the existence of a Jewish state. Their historic hatred of Jews knows no bounds. And these are the Muslims that Obama, in his inaugural address, promised to "reach out" to.
A recent Norwegian poll (see my blog "Why Bother" [4-3-09]) showed that a majority of Palestinians were opposed to a two-state solution. 33 percent opted for the annihilation of the state of Israel, whether by political means or force of arms - to be replaced by a single Islamic republic on all parts of the country; and 20 percent favored a united Israeli-Palestinian state, to be eventually engulfed by the latter population. P.A. leaders continuously boast that there will be a Palestinian state "from the river to the sea," meaning that there will be no State of Israel.
Since the Palestinians will not recognize Israel as a Jewish state, Netanyahu should tell President Obama, Secretary Clinton and special envoy George Mitchell that they need to do a reality check - there can be no peace between Israel and a bunch of hate mongerers who have vowed to annihilate the Jewish state.
Here is a report from IsraelNationalNews.com on the Palestinian response to Netanyahu's demand that Israel be recognized as a Jewish state:
ARUTZ SHEVA IsraelNationalNews.com
April 18, 2009
PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY: RECOGNITION OF ISRAEL AS JEWISH STATE A 'PROVOCATION'
by Hana Levi Julian
The Palestinian Authority has rejected Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s condition for moving ahead on negotiations to establish "two states for two peoples."
PA spokesman Nabil Abu Rudaineh on Thursday night slammed Netanyahu’s insistence that the PA first accept the concept of Israel as a Jewish State before Israel continues talks to establish a new Arab country within its current borders.
Netanyahu told United States Middle East envoy George Mitchell earlier in the evening that Israel is willing to discuss the creation of a PA State – but only if the PA recognizes Israel as a Jewish State.
"Israel expects the Palestinians to first recognize Israel as a Jewish State before talking about two states for two peoples," Netanyahu said.
The Fatah-led PA government based in Ramallah has agreed in the past to recognize Israel, but not as a Jewish State.
Abu Rudaineh called Netanyahu’s words a "provocation" and claimed that the new Israeli government was placing obstacles before the "solution" of two states for two peoples being promoted by the United States.
The aide to PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas called on the international community to examine Israeli policy, charging that it might have a "poisonous effect" on the region.
Friday, April 17, 2009
GOD SAVE US FROM THAT DEGENERATE FEMALE DEGRADING BURGER KING
By now, I'm sure many of you have seen the latest funny Burger King TV commercial featuring SpongeBob SquarePants and a bevy of female dancers with a cushion-like square on their behinds. Except for the square butts, the leggy dancers are very sexy, as is a hottie gyrating in a skin-tight short red dress. Call me a lecherous old man if you will, but I thoroughly enjoy that commercial.
Feminist and some parental groups do not share my pleasure. The parental groups complain that by using SpongeBob in a sexy commercial, Burger King is corrupting young children. Feminists are not concerned about the children, but they are up in arms over Burger King's sexy commercials, complaining loudly that they are degrading to women.
Come on folks, get a life! While kids may associate Burger King with SpongeBob, do you really think that young children are going to be otherwise influenced in any way by that commercial because the TV character appears in it? If so, your children must be half-wits. If you're concerned about sexual corruption, then you should home-school your kids and avoid enrolling them in public schools. And be sure not to let your children watch any of those perfume and cosmetic ads either.
As for sexy TV commercials, this is not a first for Burger King. A previous commecial showed a good looking chick licking a whopper similar to the way she would lick a male sex organ. And then there was the commercial with a scantily attired Paris Hilton washing and polishing a car with her lucious gyrating body while lapping up a whopper. By all means, let's see that one again! And again and again!
Feminists insist that the sexy Burger King commercials are degrading to women. Really? Under what rock have these man-haters been hiding? Have they ever been to a beach? I have. And what I saw was an eye-popping display of boobs and butts because women were wearing bikinis that revealed a lot more than they covered up. And what about those enticing mini-skirts many women are wearing? If feminists see those bikinis and skirts as degrading, they must believe that us despicable men are forcing women to wear them?
Speaking of degrading, have those complaining feminists ever watched the behavior of female college students at spring break gatherings? Or for that matter, how about you parents? The drunken debauchery and orgies that take place during spring break are most certainly degrading, but the bottom line is that your daughters are degrading themselves and no one is forcing them to do so.
As for Burger King, please keep bringing us those funny sexy TV commercials. I do not lick your burgers but I sure do enjoy eating those double whoppers with cheese.
Feminist and some parental groups do not share my pleasure. The parental groups complain that by using SpongeBob in a sexy commercial, Burger King is corrupting young children. Feminists are not concerned about the children, but they are up in arms over Burger King's sexy commercials, complaining loudly that they are degrading to women.
Come on folks, get a life! While kids may associate Burger King with SpongeBob, do you really think that young children are going to be otherwise influenced in any way by that commercial because the TV character appears in it? If so, your children must be half-wits. If you're concerned about sexual corruption, then you should home-school your kids and avoid enrolling them in public schools. And be sure not to let your children watch any of those perfume and cosmetic ads either.
As for sexy TV commercials, this is not a first for Burger King. A previous commecial showed a good looking chick licking a whopper similar to the way she would lick a male sex organ. And then there was the commercial with a scantily attired Paris Hilton washing and polishing a car with her lucious gyrating body while lapping up a whopper. By all means, let's see that one again! And again and again!
Feminists insist that the sexy Burger King commercials are degrading to women. Really? Under what rock have these man-haters been hiding? Have they ever been to a beach? I have. And what I saw was an eye-popping display of boobs and butts because women were wearing bikinis that revealed a lot more than they covered up. And what about those enticing mini-skirts many women are wearing? If feminists see those bikinis and skirts as degrading, they must believe that us despicable men are forcing women to wear them?
Speaking of degrading, have those complaining feminists ever watched the behavior of female college students at spring break gatherings? Or for that matter, how about you parents? The drunken debauchery and orgies that take place during spring break are most certainly degrading, but the bottom line is that your daughters are degrading themselves and no one is forcing them to do so.
As for Burger King, please keep bringing us those funny sexy TV commercials. I do not lick your burgers but I sure do enjoy eating those double whoppers with cheese.
DRUNKEN DEPUTIES: THE ERA OF PROFESSIONAL COURTESY IS OVER
Alcohol problems among police officers are neither new nor unique to LASO. What's different is that in the L.A. area drunken cops are being arrested by officers from other police agencies. No more free rides for a "brother officer." By the way, if I worked for a sheriff like Lee Baca, I'd be drinking too.
Here is a Los Angeles Times story on LASO's alcohol problem as reported by Richard Winton:
ALCOHOL A GROWING PROBLEM IN THE L.A. COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, REPORT SAYS
Liquor-related arrests of department employees have nearly tripled since 2004, watchdog agency finds. Baca and unions are at odds on new policy barring drunk deputies from carrying guns.
By Richard Winton
LOS ANGELES TIMES
April 16, 2009
There has been a dramatic upswing in the number of Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies arrested for alcohol-related offenses in recent years, suggesting a growing drinking problem within the department, a county watchdog agency reported Wednesday.
Last year, 70 sworn and civilian employees of the Sheriff's Department were arrested. The majority of those arrests involved employees driving off-duty while under the influence of alcohol, according to an annual report produced by the county Office of Independent Review. In many cases, drunk deputies were carrying firearms at the time of their arrests.
Michael Gennaco, the head of the office, said alcohol-related arrests have nearly tripled since 2004. Alcohol-related incidents in 2009 are at the same pace as last year, he said.
In one case last year, an off-duty deputy who drank heavily at a New Year's party inadvertently shot his cousin in the lower abdomen while showing off his new holster.
"From one point of view, this incident was a fluke, an accident that could have been much worse if the bullet had struck a vital area," Gennaco wrote in his report. "But the investigation of the incident made it clear that the event would likely not have happened if either the deputy had not been intoxicated or he had not had his firearm on him."
As a result of that incident, Sheriff Lee Baca sought to implement one of the nation's toughest policies barring deputies from carrying firearms while under the influence of alcohol. The unions have opposed the policy, saying that it would endanger deputies. The matter is now with the county's employee relations commission.
Gennaco's report also cited two cases in which deputies drew their guns after coming out of bars. In one case, a deputy followed a bar hostess to her car, flashed his badge, told her he'd "like to molest her" and kissed her on the neck. He displayed his handgun before kissing her again, according to the report. The deputy pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor charge of disturbing the peace and was suspended for 15 days, the report said.
In the other case, an intoxicated deputy got into an argument with bar patrons and waved his handgun to prove he was an officer, the report stated. That deputy received a "significant suspension," according to the report.
Gennaco said the department, which in the past had been reluctant to talk about alcohol abuse with its employees, has recently taken steps to educate them about the problem.
For example, Undersheriff Larry Waldie now e-mails employees, describing the conduct of deputies involved in alcohol-related arrests, Gennaco said. In one e-mail, Waldie revealed that a nine-year veteran was arrested for driving under the influence after being involved in a traffic collision. The deputy went into a "long tirade of verbal abuse and profanity toward police officers," Waldie said. The deputy's companion, who was also a deputy, was arrested for being drunk in public. That deputy was vomiting at the scene and paramedics feared he had alcohol poisoning, according to the report.
In the past, Gennaco said, officers may have overlooked the transgressions of a colleague who drank too much and got into trouble. But today, law enforcement attitudes toward excessive drinking have changed, he said.
"The era of professional courtesy is over. In the old days officers from other departments would stop a drunk deputy's car and as courtesy drive them home. That has gone away, and I am not sure all deputies understand that," he said. "In a lot of cases the stopping officer now reports the deputy is angry they are not being given special treatment."
Baca acknowledged Wednesday that the number of alcohol-related arrests indicated that some deputies have a drinking problem.
"This is a personal failure that has public consequences," Baca said. "I don't know how they can look anyone from Mothers Against Drunk Driving in the face."
Gennaco's report praised the department for improving its policies on the use of stun guns and on removing an unruly inmate from a jail cell. The reforms followed a February 2007 incident in which a deputy stunned an inmate who was standing on top of a bunk bed in his cell. The inmate fell to the floor and was left paralyzed from the chest down.
Gennaco's report, however, expressed concern that deputies in field assignments were being transferred to work in the jails as a punishment for misconduct.
Here is a Los Angeles Times story on LASO's alcohol problem as reported by Richard Winton:
ALCOHOL A GROWING PROBLEM IN THE L.A. COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, REPORT SAYS
Liquor-related arrests of department employees have nearly tripled since 2004, watchdog agency finds. Baca and unions are at odds on new policy barring drunk deputies from carrying guns.
By Richard Winton
LOS ANGELES TIMES
April 16, 2009
There has been a dramatic upswing in the number of Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies arrested for alcohol-related offenses in recent years, suggesting a growing drinking problem within the department, a county watchdog agency reported Wednesday.
Last year, 70 sworn and civilian employees of the Sheriff's Department were arrested. The majority of those arrests involved employees driving off-duty while under the influence of alcohol, according to an annual report produced by the county Office of Independent Review. In many cases, drunk deputies were carrying firearms at the time of their arrests.
Michael Gennaco, the head of the office, said alcohol-related arrests have nearly tripled since 2004. Alcohol-related incidents in 2009 are at the same pace as last year, he said.
In one case last year, an off-duty deputy who drank heavily at a New Year's party inadvertently shot his cousin in the lower abdomen while showing off his new holster.
"From one point of view, this incident was a fluke, an accident that could have been much worse if the bullet had struck a vital area," Gennaco wrote in his report. "But the investigation of the incident made it clear that the event would likely not have happened if either the deputy had not been intoxicated or he had not had his firearm on him."
As a result of that incident, Sheriff Lee Baca sought to implement one of the nation's toughest policies barring deputies from carrying firearms while under the influence of alcohol. The unions have opposed the policy, saying that it would endanger deputies. The matter is now with the county's employee relations commission.
Gennaco's report also cited two cases in which deputies drew their guns after coming out of bars. In one case, a deputy followed a bar hostess to her car, flashed his badge, told her he'd "like to molest her" and kissed her on the neck. He displayed his handgun before kissing her again, according to the report. The deputy pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor charge of disturbing the peace and was suspended for 15 days, the report said.
In the other case, an intoxicated deputy got into an argument with bar patrons and waved his handgun to prove he was an officer, the report stated. That deputy received a "significant suspension," according to the report.
Gennaco said the department, which in the past had been reluctant to talk about alcohol abuse with its employees, has recently taken steps to educate them about the problem.
For example, Undersheriff Larry Waldie now e-mails employees, describing the conduct of deputies involved in alcohol-related arrests, Gennaco said. In one e-mail, Waldie revealed that a nine-year veteran was arrested for driving under the influence after being involved in a traffic collision. The deputy went into a "long tirade of verbal abuse and profanity toward police officers," Waldie said. The deputy's companion, who was also a deputy, was arrested for being drunk in public. That deputy was vomiting at the scene and paramedics feared he had alcohol poisoning, according to the report.
In the past, Gennaco said, officers may have overlooked the transgressions of a colleague who drank too much and got into trouble. But today, law enforcement attitudes toward excessive drinking have changed, he said.
"The era of professional courtesy is over. In the old days officers from other departments would stop a drunk deputy's car and as courtesy drive them home. That has gone away, and I am not sure all deputies understand that," he said. "In a lot of cases the stopping officer now reports the deputy is angry they are not being given special treatment."
Baca acknowledged Wednesday that the number of alcohol-related arrests indicated that some deputies have a drinking problem.
"This is a personal failure that has public consequences," Baca said. "I don't know how they can look anyone from Mothers Against Drunk Driving in the face."
Gennaco's report praised the department for improving its policies on the use of stun guns and on removing an unruly inmate from a jail cell. The reforms followed a February 2007 incident in which a deputy stunned an inmate who was standing on top of a bunk bed in his cell. The inmate fell to the floor and was left paralyzed from the chest down.
Gennaco's report, however, expressed concern that deputies in field assignments were being transferred to work in the jails as a punishment for misconduct.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
PAY NOW OR PAY LATER
After I blogged "Environmentalists Be Damned!" (4-10-09), I received the following e-mail:
"Just to make sure I have this straight, because you and others, myself included, chose to buy homes in a hurricane-prone area we should now spend billions of tax dollars to build a flood gate to not only protect our investment but also to subsidize a bunch of developers so they can get rich building overpriced housing. And we want all the taxpayers of the US to help us do this. Sounds about right, environment be damned. Way more than two sides to this."
What a bunch of illogical horseshit! Throwing a guilt trip on us for buying a home in a hurricane-prone area just doesn't fly. Most of us do not live on or even near ocean-front property. We moved to the Houston-Galveston area because that's where the jobs were.
According to the sender's line of reasoning, no one should have bought a home in a hurricane-prone area. That means no one should be living within a 100 miles of the Gulf of Mexico's shoreline and no one should be living within the whole State of Florida. Furthermore, with that line of reasoning no one should be living in the Midwest and the South because they are tornado-prone areas, and no one should be living in California because it is an earthquake-prone area.
The sender does not think taxpayers should have to pay for the massive floodgates proposed by Texas A&M professor William Merrell, floodgates that will protect thousands and thousands of homeowners in the Houston-Galveston area. Well, I've got news for him! The $5 billion price tag for building the flood gates and for extending existing seawalls and building new seawalls is chicken feed when compared to the cost of a major hurricane. And who does he think ends up paying for much of the devastation left behind by hurricanes, if not the taxpayers?
The taxpayers have paid billions for the devastation brought about by - just to name three hurricanes - Hurricane Andrew in Florida, Hurricane Katrina in Louisiana and Mississippi, and Hurricane Ike. If a future hurricane were to score a direct hit on Galveston Island, the cost to taxpayers would far exceed the cost of building the seawalls and floodgates proposed by Prof. Merrell.
And what about those evil get-rich developers with their overpriced housing? That complaint sure sounds like something straight out of a far-left playbook. Even if there were to be absolutely no further development along the Gulf Coast, the cost to taxpayers will be astronomical every time another hurricane strikes our shores.
On this Tax Day, it all boils down to this - taxpayers can pay now for property protection or pay much more later for property losses. Spending up to $5 billion to protect the residents of and the property along the Texas coast makes damn good fiscal sense, the "lefties" and environmentalists notwithstanding.
"Just to make sure I have this straight, because you and others, myself included, chose to buy homes in a hurricane-prone area we should now spend billions of tax dollars to build a flood gate to not only protect our investment but also to subsidize a bunch of developers so they can get rich building overpriced housing. And we want all the taxpayers of the US to help us do this. Sounds about right, environment be damned. Way more than two sides to this."
What a bunch of illogical horseshit! Throwing a guilt trip on us for buying a home in a hurricane-prone area just doesn't fly. Most of us do not live on or even near ocean-front property. We moved to the Houston-Galveston area because that's where the jobs were.
According to the sender's line of reasoning, no one should have bought a home in a hurricane-prone area. That means no one should be living within a 100 miles of the Gulf of Mexico's shoreline and no one should be living within the whole State of Florida. Furthermore, with that line of reasoning no one should be living in the Midwest and the South because they are tornado-prone areas, and no one should be living in California because it is an earthquake-prone area.
The sender does not think taxpayers should have to pay for the massive floodgates proposed by Texas A&M professor William Merrell, floodgates that will protect thousands and thousands of homeowners in the Houston-Galveston area. Well, I've got news for him! The $5 billion price tag for building the flood gates and for extending existing seawalls and building new seawalls is chicken feed when compared to the cost of a major hurricane. And who does he think ends up paying for much of the devastation left behind by hurricanes, if not the taxpayers?
The taxpayers have paid billions for the devastation brought about by - just to name three hurricanes - Hurricane Andrew in Florida, Hurricane Katrina in Louisiana and Mississippi, and Hurricane Ike. If a future hurricane were to score a direct hit on Galveston Island, the cost to taxpayers would far exceed the cost of building the seawalls and floodgates proposed by Prof. Merrell.
And what about those evil get-rich developers with their overpriced housing? That complaint sure sounds like something straight out of a far-left playbook. Even if there were to be absolutely no further development along the Gulf Coast, the cost to taxpayers will be astronomical every time another hurricane strikes our shores.
On this Tax Day, it all boils down to this - taxpayers can pay now for property protection or pay much more later for property losses. Spending up to $5 billion to protect the residents of and the property along the Texas coast makes damn good fiscal sense, the "lefties" and environmentalists notwithstanding.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
A GREAT ABE LINCOLN QUOTE LINCOLN NEVER MADE
A close friend, who was the Administrative Sergeant of the Houston Police Department's narcotics division and served in high county government positions after his retirement from HPD, sent me an e-mail depicting a "beat up" copy of a "great Abe Lincoln quote." As of late, the quote is being widely circulated throughout cyberspace.
Actually, Lincoln never made the statements quoted on that "beat up" copy. They were written by Reverend William J.H. Boetcker in the early 20th century, reprinted in a column by Ann Landers, quoted in a speech by Ronald Reagan, and read into the Congressional Record.
Although wrongly attributed to Lincoln, Boetcker's 10 "you cannot" statements are well worth noting, especially in these troubled economic times. That is why I have reproduced them in this blog.
The following facts were provided by The Association for Rational Thought:
STATEMENT
There is a list of ten statements beginning with "You cannot .. ." that are popularly attributed to Abraham Lincoln, (1809 - 1865) Sixteenth President of the United States. They sound so wise and so much like things he would have said that they are frequently quoted and attributed to him in print. They are:
1. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
2. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
3. You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.
4. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
5. You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence.
6. You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
7. You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
8. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
9. You cannot establish security on borrowed money.
10. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they will not do for themselves.
But alas! Lincoln did not say these things. They were written in 1916 by the Rev. William J. H. Boetcker, a Presbyterian clergyman and pamphlet writer. In 1942, a group called the Committee for Constitutional Government gave out a great many leaflets entitled "Lincoln on Limitations" that contained on one side a real Lincoln quote and on the other side the 10 Boetcker statements. Boetcker was credited with his statements on the leaflet, but their proximity in print to one real quote by Lincoln, plus the title of the leaflet, led people to think that Lincoln had said the ten listed statements. They were repeated in many printed sources, and are still regarded by many as authentic Lincoln quotes. Carl Sandburg, Lincoln's most famous biographer, dismissed them as spurious.
SOURCES
1. Boller, Paul F., Jr., and John George. They Never Said It: A Book Of Fake Quotes, Misquotes, & Misleading Attributions (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989), pp. 82-84, 145.
2. Kominsky, Morris. The Hoaxers (Boston: Branden Press, 1970), pp. 18 - 27.
Actually, Lincoln never made the statements quoted on that "beat up" copy. They were written by Reverend William J.H. Boetcker in the early 20th century, reprinted in a column by Ann Landers, quoted in a speech by Ronald Reagan, and read into the Congressional Record.
Although wrongly attributed to Lincoln, Boetcker's 10 "you cannot" statements are well worth noting, especially in these troubled economic times. That is why I have reproduced them in this blog.
The following facts were provided by The Association for Rational Thought:
STATEMENT
There is a list of ten statements beginning with "You cannot .. ." that are popularly attributed to Abraham Lincoln, (1809 - 1865) Sixteenth President of the United States. They sound so wise and so much like things he would have said that they are frequently quoted and attributed to him in print. They are:
1. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
2. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
3. You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.
4. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
5. You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence.
6. You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
7. You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
8. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
9. You cannot establish security on borrowed money.
10. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they will not do for themselves.
But alas! Lincoln did not say these things. They were written in 1916 by the Rev. William J. H. Boetcker, a Presbyterian clergyman and pamphlet writer. In 1942, a group called the Committee for Constitutional Government gave out a great many leaflets entitled "Lincoln on Limitations" that contained on one side a real Lincoln quote and on the other side the 10 Boetcker statements. Boetcker was credited with his statements on the leaflet, but their proximity in print to one real quote by Lincoln, plus the title of the leaflet, led people to think that Lincoln had said the ten listed statements. They were repeated in many printed sources, and are still regarded by many as authentic Lincoln quotes. Carl Sandburg, Lincoln's most famous biographer, dismissed them as spurious.
SOURCES
1. Boller, Paul F., Jr., and John George. They Never Said It: A Book Of Fake Quotes, Misquotes, & Misleading Attributions (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989), pp. 82-84, 145.
2. Kominsky, Morris. The Hoaxers (Boston: Branden Press, 1970), pp. 18 - 27.
Monday, April 13, 2009
DON'T BOW TO KING ABDULLAH, THAT MISOGYNISTIC PIG
On April 8, Dennis Miller appeared on Bill O'Reilly's Fox News program and responded to a question about President Obama's bow to Saudi King Abdullah. As usual, Miller responded with his trademark of humorous sarcasm.
Miller's comments were very much in line with my blog, "A Blatant White House Lie" (4-11-09). Here is the transcript of what he had to say:
DENNIS MILLER: As far as that gesture goes, I don't know what you want to call it, but you might go back to the previous Democratic administration with Bill Clinton, 'cause I'm pretty sure he had an accurate phrase for that gesture that just happened there.
The thing about the Saudis is they are the grown-up equivalent of our childhood imaginary friends. And if you start kissing butts on them, they present it to you five times a day. So you're setting a bad precedent.
Listen, I like Gates. I like the way we're handling Iraq, which is staying in like Bush would. I like him going to the mat in Afghanistan. But we gotta quit apologizing to every B-lister in a leopard skin fez and a doorman's outfit from the Plaza Hotel.
America is a great country and we need not constantly chide ourselves. They're the ones who whip themselves on the back, not us.
BILL O'REILLY: OK. Now the White House says it wasn't a bow, and you're saying... what?
MILLER: I don't want to get into that 'what is is.' The guy came up to a guy dressed up like Sergeant Bilko in a sketch and bent over down to his hips. Whatever you want to call that, it looks weird. He's the president of the United States.
You know what? If he's gonna bow for this misogynistic pig, why doesn't he bow for the Queen, for God's sakes? She's done a lot more good in this world than him. If he doesn't like to bow, fine. Don't bow for anybody. But don't bow to this misogynist.
Miller's comments were very much in line with my blog, "A Blatant White House Lie" (4-11-09). Here is the transcript of what he had to say:
DENNIS MILLER: As far as that gesture goes, I don't know what you want to call it, but you might go back to the previous Democratic administration with Bill Clinton, 'cause I'm pretty sure he had an accurate phrase for that gesture that just happened there.
The thing about the Saudis is they are the grown-up equivalent of our childhood imaginary friends. And if you start kissing butts on them, they present it to you five times a day. So you're setting a bad precedent.
Listen, I like Gates. I like the way we're handling Iraq, which is staying in like Bush would. I like him going to the mat in Afghanistan. But we gotta quit apologizing to every B-lister in a leopard skin fez and a doorman's outfit from the Plaza Hotel.
America is a great country and we need not constantly chide ourselves. They're the ones who whip themselves on the back, not us.
BILL O'REILLY: OK. Now the White House says it wasn't a bow, and you're saying... what?
MILLER: I don't want to get into that 'what is is.' The guy came up to a guy dressed up like Sergeant Bilko in a sketch and bent over down to his hips. Whatever you want to call that, it looks weird. He's the president of the United States.
You know what? If he's gonna bow for this misogynistic pig, why doesn't he bow for the Queen, for God's sakes? She's done a lot more good in this world than him. If he doesn't like to bow, fine. Don't bow for anybody. But don't bow to this misogynist.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
A BLATANT WHITE HOUSE LIE
Recently I blogged, "Absurd Apologies And A Bow From Our President" (4-6-09), wherein I was critical of President Obama's bow to Saudi King Abdullah at the G20 conference in London. I was far from alone in my criticism. The blogosphere was full of condemnations of Obama for bowing to Abdullah.
In response to the avalanche of criticism, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs denied that Obama had bowed to Abdullah. Gibbs stated that there had been no bow whatsoever because the President had merely bent over to shake the hand of the much shorter Saudi monarch.
What a crock! Video taken by a pool of European journalists clearly shows Obama (6' 1.5") bowing to Abdullah. Video of Obama's earlier meeting with Queen Elizabeth (5' 4") clearly shows him shaking her hand without bending over. The British monarch is every bit as short as Abdullah, if not shorter. So, in this instance, the White House Press Secretary is a blatant liar!
Worst of all is the fact that our President bowed to the dictator of a country that treats its women like chattel, that stones adulterers to death, and that teaches its school children to hate Christians and Jews. What does that tell us about President Obama?
Obama's bow to Abdullah was obviously designed to prove that he meant it when, in his inaugural address, he promised that his administration would reach out to the Muslim World.
When Obama bowed to King Abdullah he committed an embarrassing (to the U.S.) error in judgement that the White House tried to cover up with a blatant lie.
Bowing to a monarch is symbolic of obedience and subservience. As a private citizen Obama can bow to whomever he likes, but not as the leader of our country. The President of the United States should never bow to anyone under any circumstances!
In response to the avalanche of criticism, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs denied that Obama had bowed to Abdullah. Gibbs stated that there had been no bow whatsoever because the President had merely bent over to shake the hand of the much shorter Saudi monarch.
What a crock! Video taken by a pool of European journalists clearly shows Obama (6' 1.5") bowing to Abdullah. Video of Obama's earlier meeting with Queen Elizabeth (5' 4") clearly shows him shaking her hand without bending over. The British monarch is every bit as short as Abdullah, if not shorter. So, in this instance, the White House Press Secretary is a blatant liar!
Worst of all is the fact that our President bowed to the dictator of a country that treats its women like chattel, that stones adulterers to death, and that teaches its school children to hate Christians and Jews. What does that tell us about President Obama?
Obama's bow to Abdullah was obviously designed to prove that he meant it when, in his inaugural address, he promised that his administration would reach out to the Muslim World.
When Obama bowed to King Abdullah he committed an embarrassing (to the U.S.) error in judgement that the White House tried to cover up with a blatant lie.
Bowing to a monarch is symbolic of obedience and subservience. As a private citizen Obama can bow to whomever he likes, but not as the leader of our country. The President of the United States should never bow to anyone under any circumstances!
Friday, April 10, 2009
ENVIRONMENTALISTS BE DAMNED !
I'm all for saving the environment. I belong to The Nature Conservancy, the World Wildlife Fund, Environmental Defense and several other environmental organizations. I recycle newspapers, aluminum cans, glassware and plastics. I do volunteer work at a nature center and, because I love animals, I used to be a volunteer at the Houston zoo. I'm not trying to toot my horn - I just want to show that I am a friend of the environment when I say that too many environmentalists are unreasonable, if not downright nutty.
Case in point. Hurricane Ike, which struck the Texas Gulf Coast just east of Galveston last September, was the third most destructive hurricane to strike the United States. Ike left an estimated $24 billion of property damage, 82 deaths and 202 missing in its wake. Had the storm not taken a last minute turn to the north from its northwest track, it would have made a direct hit on Galveston and Houston and the storm surge would have been far more catastrophic to property and lives.
Galveston Island was protected from Ike's tidal surge by a 10 mile long seawall that is 17 feet high and 16 feet thick at its base. The city, nevertheless, suffered extensive property damage because the tidal surge came up the unprotected entrance to Galveston Bay and then came around to flood the island from its back side. Thousands were left homeless. The devastation was even worse on the western part of the island which is not protected by a seawall even though it was hit by the hurricane's clean side.
William Merrell, a Texas A&M University at Galveston oceanographer, has a plan that will protect Galveston and nearby coastal areas from a hurrican's storm surge. He calls for an extension of the seawall all the way to the western end of Galveston Island and for a new sea wall on the Bolivar Peninsula, which is east of Galveston Bay.
In order to protect Houston and other cities along Galveston Bay, Merrell proposes the construction of huge floodgates at the entrance to the bay, like those used in the Netherlands. He also calls for smaller gates at San Louis Pass and the Intracostal Waterway, both of which are west of Galveston Island.
Much of the Netherlands is at sea level or below. The retractable Dutch floodgates have been very successful in protecting that vulnerable nation from the fury of the North Sea. A floodgate in Texas City, which is between Houston and Galveston, protected that city from Hurricane Ike's storm surge.
The seawall extension on Galveston Island, the new seawall on Bolivar Peninsula, and the flood gates at Galveston Bay, San Louis Pass and the Intracostal Waterway could cost as much as $5 billion. Texas Gov. Perry's Commission for Disaster Recovery and Renewal unanimously recommeded the state funding for a feasibility study of Merrell's plan. Commissioner Bill King, the former mayor of Kemah (a city on Galveston Bay), said: "The benefits are obvious. To protect the entire Gulf Coast from a storm surge would be an incredible benefit."
An incredible benefit? Not according to environmentalists. They are firmly opposed to the flood gates because they "would inhibit fish migration." That doesn't make any sense at all. The gates would only be closed for an approaching hurricane. They would remain open at all other times.
The flood gate opposition is reminiscent of the snail darter controversy which in 1973 delayed construction of the Tellico Dam on the Little Tennessee River. Environmentalists filed a law suit to halt construction of the dam because it would threaten the survival of the snail darter, a tiny little fish. Eventually they lost the lawsuit but the resultant delay came at a great cost to taxpayers.
Another concern about the additonal seawall construction and installation of flood gates was expressed by Jim Blackburn, a prominent environmental attorney. Blackburn announced that the greatest concern environmentalists have about Merrell's plan is that it "would give carte blanche to developers and businesses to continue building in sensitive areas" once additional costal areas are protected from storm surges.
So there you have it. Merrell's plan would protect existing costal properties and save countless lives. Environmentalists would rather see the destruction of existing property and loss of lives in order keep developers at bay and to protect the migration of fish on those few occasions when the flood gates are closed. That is unreasonable and downright nutty.
Environmentalists be damned! My home, the homes of my neighbors, and thousands and thousands of homes in the Houston-Galveston area are threatened every time a hurricane is poised to strike directly at Galveston. Hurricane Ike caused tremendous damage in the Galveston Bay area, but it could have been far worse. We dodged a bullet with Ike because a last minute change in direction caused it to make landfall 15 miles east of Galveston, thus leaving us on the clean side of this deadly storm. The next time we might not be as lucky.
Case in point. Hurricane Ike, which struck the Texas Gulf Coast just east of Galveston last September, was the third most destructive hurricane to strike the United States. Ike left an estimated $24 billion of property damage, 82 deaths and 202 missing in its wake. Had the storm not taken a last minute turn to the north from its northwest track, it would have made a direct hit on Galveston and Houston and the storm surge would have been far more catastrophic to property and lives.
Galveston Island was protected from Ike's tidal surge by a 10 mile long seawall that is 17 feet high and 16 feet thick at its base. The city, nevertheless, suffered extensive property damage because the tidal surge came up the unprotected entrance to Galveston Bay and then came around to flood the island from its back side. Thousands were left homeless. The devastation was even worse on the western part of the island which is not protected by a seawall even though it was hit by the hurricane's clean side.
William Merrell, a Texas A&M University at Galveston oceanographer, has a plan that will protect Galveston and nearby coastal areas from a hurrican's storm surge. He calls for an extension of the seawall all the way to the western end of Galveston Island and for a new sea wall on the Bolivar Peninsula, which is east of Galveston Bay.
In order to protect Houston and other cities along Galveston Bay, Merrell proposes the construction of huge floodgates at the entrance to the bay, like those used in the Netherlands. He also calls for smaller gates at San Louis Pass and the Intracostal Waterway, both of which are west of Galveston Island.
Much of the Netherlands is at sea level or below. The retractable Dutch floodgates have been very successful in protecting that vulnerable nation from the fury of the North Sea. A floodgate in Texas City, which is between Houston and Galveston, protected that city from Hurricane Ike's storm surge.
The seawall extension on Galveston Island, the new seawall on Bolivar Peninsula, and the flood gates at Galveston Bay, San Louis Pass and the Intracostal Waterway could cost as much as $5 billion. Texas Gov. Perry's Commission for Disaster Recovery and Renewal unanimously recommeded the state funding for a feasibility study of Merrell's plan. Commissioner Bill King, the former mayor of Kemah (a city on Galveston Bay), said: "The benefits are obvious. To protect the entire Gulf Coast from a storm surge would be an incredible benefit."
An incredible benefit? Not according to environmentalists. They are firmly opposed to the flood gates because they "would inhibit fish migration." That doesn't make any sense at all. The gates would only be closed for an approaching hurricane. They would remain open at all other times.
The flood gate opposition is reminiscent of the snail darter controversy which in 1973 delayed construction of the Tellico Dam on the Little Tennessee River. Environmentalists filed a law suit to halt construction of the dam because it would threaten the survival of the snail darter, a tiny little fish. Eventually they lost the lawsuit but the resultant delay came at a great cost to taxpayers.
Another concern about the additonal seawall construction and installation of flood gates was expressed by Jim Blackburn, a prominent environmental attorney. Blackburn announced that the greatest concern environmentalists have about Merrell's plan is that it "would give carte blanche to developers and businesses to continue building in sensitive areas" once additional costal areas are protected from storm surges.
So there you have it. Merrell's plan would protect existing costal properties and save countless lives. Environmentalists would rather see the destruction of existing property and loss of lives in order keep developers at bay and to protect the migration of fish on those few occasions when the flood gates are closed. That is unreasonable and downright nutty.
Environmentalists be damned! My home, the homes of my neighbors, and thousands and thousands of homes in the Houston-Galveston area are threatened every time a hurricane is poised to strike directly at Galveston. Hurricane Ike caused tremendous damage in the Galveston Bay area, but it could have been far worse. We dodged a bullet with Ike because a last minute change in direction caused it to make landfall 15 miles east of Galveston, thus leaving us on the clean side of this deadly storm. The next time we might not be as lucky.
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
HERO OF THE DAY
A friend sent me this story. I don't know whether it's true or not. I sure hope it is! Please join me in shedding a few tears. Here is how the story reads:
At a fundraising dinner for a school that serves children with learning disabilities, the father of one of the students delivered a speech that would never be forgotten by all who attended. After extolling the school and its dedicated staff, he offered a question:
'When not interfered with by outside influences, everything nature does, is done with perfection. Yet my son, Shay, cannot learn things as other children do. He cannot understand things as other children do. Where is the natural order of things in my son?'
The audience was stilled by the query.
The father continued. 'I believe that when a child like Shay, who was mentally and physically disabled comes into the world, an opportunity to realize true human nature presents itself, and it comes in the way other people treat that child.'
Then he told the following story:
Shay and I had walked past a park where some boys Shay knew were playing baseball. Shay asked, 'Do you think they'll let me play?' I knew that most of the boys would not want someone like Shay on their team, but as a father I also understood that if my son were allowed to play, it would give him a much-needed sense of belonging and some confidence to be accepted by others in spite of his handicaps.
I approached one of the boys on the field and asked (not expecting much) if Shay could play. The boy looked around for guidance and said, 'We're losing by six runs and the game is in the eighth inning. I guess he can be on our team and we'll try to put him in to bat in the ninth inning.'
Shay struggled over to the team's bench and, with a broad smile, put on a team shirt. I watched with a small tear in my eye and warmth in my heart. The boys saw my joy at my son being accepted.
In the bottom of the eighth inning, Shay's team scored a few runs but was still behind by three. In the top of the ninth inning, Shay put on a glove and played in the right field. Even though no hits came his way, he was obviously ecstatic just to be in the game and on the field, grinning from ear to ear as I waved to him from the stands. In the bottom of the ninth inning, Shay's team scored again.
Now, with two outs and the bases loaded, the potential winning run was on base and Shay was scheduled to be next at bat. At this juncture, do they let Shay bat and give away their chance to win the game?
Surprisingly, Shay was given the bat. Everyone knew that a hit was all but impossible because Shay didn't even know how to hold the bat properly, much less connect with the ball. However, as Shay stepped up to the plate, the pitcher, recognizing that the other team was putting winning aside for this moment in Shay's life, moved in a few steps to lob the ball in softly so Shay could at least make contact.
The first pitch came and Shay swung clumsily and missed. The pitcher again took a few steps forward to toss the ball softly towards Shay. As the pitch came in, Shay swung at the ball and hit a slow ground ball right back to the pitcher. The game would now be over.
The pitcher picked up the soft grounder and could have easily thrown the ball to the first baseman. Shay would have been out and that would have been the end of the game. Instead, the pitcher threw the ball right over the first baseman's head, out of reach of all team mates.
Everyone from the stands and both teams started yelling, 'Shay, run to first! Run to first!' Never in his life had Shay ever run that far, but he made it to first base. He scampered down the baseline, wide-eyed and startled. Everyone yelled, 'Run to second, run to second!' Catching his breath, Shay awkwardly ran towards second, gleaming and struggling to make it to the base.
By the time Shay rounded towards second base, the right fielder had the ball. The smallest guy on their team who now had his first chance to be the hero for his team. He could have thrown the ball to the second-baseman for the tag, but he understood the pitcher's intentions so he, too, intentionally threw the ball high and far over the third-baseman's head.
Shay ran toward third base deliriously as the runners ahead of him circled the bases toward home. All were screaming, 'Shay, Shay, Shay, all the Way Shay.' Shay reached third base because the opposing shortstop ran to help him by turning him in the direction of third base, and shouted, 'Run to third! Shay, run to third!' As Shay rounded third, the boys from both teams, and the spectators, were on their feet screaming, 'Shay, run home! Run home!'
Shay ran to home, stepped on the plate, and was cheered as the hero who hit the grand slam and won the game for his team.
'That day,' said the father softly with tears now rolling down his face, 'the boys from both teams helped bring a piece of true love and humanity into this world.'
Shay didn't make it to another summer. He died that winter, having never forgotten being the hero and making me so happy, and coming home and seeing his Mother tearfully embrace her little hero of the day!
At a fundraising dinner for a school that serves children with learning disabilities, the father of one of the students delivered a speech that would never be forgotten by all who attended. After extolling the school and its dedicated staff, he offered a question:
'When not interfered with by outside influences, everything nature does, is done with perfection. Yet my son, Shay, cannot learn things as other children do. He cannot understand things as other children do. Where is the natural order of things in my son?'
The audience was stilled by the query.
The father continued. 'I believe that when a child like Shay, who was mentally and physically disabled comes into the world, an opportunity to realize true human nature presents itself, and it comes in the way other people treat that child.'
Then he told the following story:
Shay and I had walked past a park where some boys Shay knew were playing baseball. Shay asked, 'Do you think they'll let me play?' I knew that most of the boys would not want someone like Shay on their team, but as a father I also understood that if my son were allowed to play, it would give him a much-needed sense of belonging and some confidence to be accepted by others in spite of his handicaps.
I approached one of the boys on the field and asked (not expecting much) if Shay could play. The boy looked around for guidance and said, 'We're losing by six runs and the game is in the eighth inning. I guess he can be on our team and we'll try to put him in to bat in the ninth inning.'
Shay struggled over to the team's bench and, with a broad smile, put on a team shirt. I watched with a small tear in my eye and warmth in my heart. The boys saw my joy at my son being accepted.
In the bottom of the eighth inning, Shay's team scored a few runs but was still behind by three. In the top of the ninth inning, Shay put on a glove and played in the right field. Even though no hits came his way, he was obviously ecstatic just to be in the game and on the field, grinning from ear to ear as I waved to him from the stands. In the bottom of the ninth inning, Shay's team scored again.
Now, with two outs and the bases loaded, the potential winning run was on base and Shay was scheduled to be next at bat. At this juncture, do they let Shay bat and give away their chance to win the game?
Surprisingly, Shay was given the bat. Everyone knew that a hit was all but impossible because Shay didn't even know how to hold the bat properly, much less connect with the ball. However, as Shay stepped up to the plate, the pitcher, recognizing that the other team was putting winning aside for this moment in Shay's life, moved in a few steps to lob the ball in softly so Shay could at least make contact.
The first pitch came and Shay swung clumsily and missed. The pitcher again took a few steps forward to toss the ball softly towards Shay. As the pitch came in, Shay swung at the ball and hit a slow ground ball right back to the pitcher. The game would now be over.
The pitcher picked up the soft grounder and could have easily thrown the ball to the first baseman. Shay would have been out and that would have been the end of the game. Instead, the pitcher threw the ball right over the first baseman's head, out of reach of all team mates.
Everyone from the stands and both teams started yelling, 'Shay, run to first! Run to first!' Never in his life had Shay ever run that far, but he made it to first base. He scampered down the baseline, wide-eyed and startled. Everyone yelled, 'Run to second, run to second!' Catching his breath, Shay awkwardly ran towards second, gleaming and struggling to make it to the base.
By the time Shay rounded towards second base, the right fielder had the ball. The smallest guy on their team who now had his first chance to be the hero for his team. He could have thrown the ball to the second-baseman for the tag, but he understood the pitcher's intentions so he, too, intentionally threw the ball high and far over the third-baseman's head.
Shay ran toward third base deliriously as the runners ahead of him circled the bases toward home. All were screaming, 'Shay, Shay, Shay, all the Way Shay.' Shay reached third base because the opposing shortstop ran to help him by turning him in the direction of third base, and shouted, 'Run to third! Shay, run to third!' As Shay rounded third, the boys from both teams, and the spectators, were on their feet screaming, 'Shay, run home! Run home!'
Shay ran to home, stepped on the plate, and was cheered as the hero who hit the grand slam and won the game for his team.
'That day,' said the father softly with tears now rolling down his face, 'the boys from both teams helped bring a piece of true love and humanity into this world.'
Shay didn't make it to another summer. He died that winter, having never forgotten being the hero and making me so happy, and coming home and seeing his Mother tearfully embrace her little hero of the day!
BRADY BUNCH IS SALIVATING
The "Brady Bunch" is my term for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and all the other gun control advocates.
In the past month, 53 people have died in seven mass shootings. Single shooters gunned down four Oakland (CA) police officers in one incident and three Pittsburgh (PA) officers in another. 13 people were shot to death by a deranged shooter in Binghamton even though New York has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. The Brady Bunch is salivating.
Here is a statement from the Brady Campaign's website: Enough is Enough! Our Leaders Must Act. Saturday's murder of three police officers by a killer wielding an assault rifle in Pittsburgh, following Friday's tragic shooting in Binghamton, New York that left 13 dead and four others injured are the latest in an epidemic of mass shootings in America. We have witnessed major shootings in senior centers, churches, high schools, colleges, and workplaces. Over and over Congress opts to do nothing while the body count continues to rise. What horrendous shooting will it take for our leaders to act or does Congress know no bounds to the bloodletting because it has been paralyzed by the gun lobby? The Congress and the White House must act to protect our families and communities from gun violence. Our weak, nearly non-existent, gun laws at the national level contribute to this loss of innocent life. Enforcing those laws alone will not solve the problem.
Other gun control advocates have chimed in with calls for restrictiions on gun ownership for private citizens. They range from banning assault rifles, limiting magazine capacity, levying extremely high taxes on gun and ammo purchases, mental health checks of all prospective gun buyers, registration of all privately owned guns, to outright bans on handgun ownership.
What kind of guns are being used in these mass shootings. Two of the Oakland police officers were killed with a hangun and the other two with an assault rifle, as were the Pittsburgh officers. Most of the other mass shootings involved handguns. One shooting was committed with an ordinary rifle. The Binghamton nut-case used two handguns for which he had been issued a permit from the state that severely limits handgun ownership.
The Brady Bunch is also using the deadly violence of the Mexican drug cartels to call for strict limits on gun sales. Gun control advocdates, along with some government officials, claim that the cartels are getting guns smuggled into Mexico by using "straw buyers" to purchase arms at gun shops and gun shows in this country, primarily in Texas. While a few guns have been purchased by straw buyers, claims that the cartels are receiving their arms throug gun shop and gun show purchases are bogus.
In my recent blog (Drug Cartels Do Not Get Military-Style Weapons from Texas Gun Dealers [3-27-09]), I included a Townhall.com column in which David Harsanyi wrote: During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing this week, titled "Law Enforcement Responses to Mexican Drug Cartels," one senator after another tried to induce law enforcement officials, who have every motivation to play along, to claim that military-style arms are streaming into Mexico from the United States. Not one expert agreed. The Los Angeles Times, in fact, recently reported that the "enhanced weaponry" used by drug cartels "represents a wide sampling from the international arms bazaar, with grenades and launchers produced by U.S., South Korean, Israeli, Spanish or former Soviet bloc manufacturers. Many had been sold legally to governments, including Mexico's, and then were diverted onto the black market."
As a former law enforcement officer I know that whenever any cop is killed in the line of duty it's like a death in the family. It is estimated that there are 235 million firearms (handguns, rifles, and shotguns) owned by civilians and that "assault weapons" are only about one percent of the guns used in crime. Those of us who believe the Second Amendment gives citizens the right to own guns would not turn them over to the government if the possession of handguns and certain other firearms were to be prohibited. And, of course, criminals are not going to turn their guns in either. Thus, strict gun controls, including a ban on assault weapons, would not really make police work any less dangerous.
The Brady Bunch is using scare tactics in the hope that a frightened public will pressure legislators into passing severe restrictions on gun purchases, if not outright bans. The truth is that 99 percent of American gun owners use their guns responsibly for self-defense or sporting purposes. The Brady Bunch ignores the fact that outlaws own all the guns in countries that have outlawed guns. And speaking of those horrible assault weapons, the fact that Jim Brady was shot with a .22 caliber pistol is being conveniently overlooked.
In the past month, 53 people have died in seven mass shootings. Single shooters gunned down four Oakland (CA) police officers in one incident and three Pittsburgh (PA) officers in another. 13 people were shot to death by a deranged shooter in Binghamton even though New York has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. The Brady Bunch is salivating.
Here is a statement from the Brady Campaign's website: Enough is Enough! Our Leaders Must Act. Saturday's murder of three police officers by a killer wielding an assault rifle in Pittsburgh, following Friday's tragic shooting in Binghamton, New York that left 13 dead and four others injured are the latest in an epidemic of mass shootings in America. We have witnessed major shootings in senior centers, churches, high schools, colleges, and workplaces. Over and over Congress opts to do nothing while the body count continues to rise. What horrendous shooting will it take for our leaders to act or does Congress know no bounds to the bloodletting because it has been paralyzed by the gun lobby? The Congress and the White House must act to protect our families and communities from gun violence. Our weak, nearly non-existent, gun laws at the national level contribute to this loss of innocent life. Enforcing those laws alone will not solve the problem.
Other gun control advocates have chimed in with calls for restrictiions on gun ownership for private citizens. They range from banning assault rifles, limiting magazine capacity, levying extremely high taxes on gun and ammo purchases, mental health checks of all prospective gun buyers, registration of all privately owned guns, to outright bans on handgun ownership.
What kind of guns are being used in these mass shootings. Two of the Oakland police officers were killed with a hangun and the other two with an assault rifle, as were the Pittsburgh officers. Most of the other mass shootings involved handguns. One shooting was committed with an ordinary rifle. The Binghamton nut-case used two handguns for which he had been issued a permit from the state that severely limits handgun ownership.
The Brady Bunch is also using the deadly violence of the Mexican drug cartels to call for strict limits on gun sales. Gun control advocdates, along with some government officials, claim that the cartels are getting guns smuggled into Mexico by using "straw buyers" to purchase arms at gun shops and gun shows in this country, primarily in Texas. While a few guns have been purchased by straw buyers, claims that the cartels are receiving their arms throug gun shop and gun show purchases are bogus.
In my recent blog (Drug Cartels Do Not Get Military-Style Weapons from Texas Gun Dealers [3-27-09]), I included a Townhall.com column in which David Harsanyi wrote: During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing this week, titled "Law Enforcement Responses to Mexican Drug Cartels," one senator after another tried to induce law enforcement officials, who have every motivation to play along, to claim that military-style arms are streaming into Mexico from the United States. Not one expert agreed. The Los Angeles Times, in fact, recently reported that the "enhanced weaponry" used by drug cartels "represents a wide sampling from the international arms bazaar, with grenades and launchers produced by U.S., South Korean, Israeli, Spanish or former Soviet bloc manufacturers. Many had been sold legally to governments, including Mexico's, and then were diverted onto the black market."
As a former law enforcement officer I know that whenever any cop is killed in the line of duty it's like a death in the family. It is estimated that there are 235 million firearms (handguns, rifles, and shotguns) owned by civilians and that "assault weapons" are only about one percent of the guns used in crime. Those of us who believe the Second Amendment gives citizens the right to own guns would not turn them over to the government if the possession of handguns and certain other firearms were to be prohibited. And, of course, criminals are not going to turn their guns in either. Thus, strict gun controls, including a ban on assault weapons, would not really make police work any less dangerous.
The Brady Bunch is using scare tactics in the hope that a frightened public will pressure legislators into passing severe restrictions on gun purchases, if not outright bans. The truth is that 99 percent of American gun owners use their guns responsibly for self-defense or sporting purposes. The Brady Bunch ignores the fact that outlaws own all the guns in countries that have outlawed guns. And speaking of those horrible assault weapons, the fact that Jim Brady was shot with a .22 caliber pistol is being conveniently overlooked.
Monday, April 06, 2009
AMERICANS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEADLY VIOLENCE OF MEXICAN DRUG CARTELS
Art Rascon is an Emmy award winning reporter and anchor at Houston's KTRK-TV's 13 Eyewitness News. Sunday morning he hosted the program City View. The last part of that program dealt with the deadly violence of Mexican drug cartels. At the end of City View, Rascon made some personal comments which hit the nail right on the head.
If you've been reading my blogs you know that I have long advocated going after drug users because of the law of supply and demand. Americans demand the drugs that are being supplied by the cartels. If there were no demand for illicit drugs there would be no suppliers like the Mexican drug cartels.
Rascon probably would not agree with some of my recommendations for solving our nation's drug crisis, but both of us are after the same outcome - a society absent of drug dependency. He was kind enough to send me a transcript of his closing City View remarks. Here is what Art Rascon had to say:
BEFORE WE GO, SOME CLOSING THOUGHTS ABOUT THE BRUTAL BATTLE AMONG DRUG THUGS SOUTH OF THE BORDER. I'VE SPENT A LOT OF TIME REPORTING OUT OF MEXICO, CENTRAL AND SOUTH AMERICA. SURE THEY HAVE THEIR TROUBLES; CORRUPT GOVERNMENTS, MASSIVE UNEMPLOYMENT, EXTREME POVERTY, BAD ECONOMIES. BUT WHAT IS BOOMING THERE IS THIS: DRUGS
THEY PLANT THEM. THEY GROW THEM. THEY MANUFACTURE THEM. THEY BOX THEM AND THEN THEY SEND THEM. AND WHERE DO THEY GO? HERE, TO HOUSTON AND TO THE REST OF THE COUNTRY. IN FACT, 90-PERCENT OF DRUG CONSUMPTION COMES FROM THE U.S. SO, YES, WE CAN EXPRESS ALL THE ANGER IN THE WORLD ABOUT HOW MEXICO AND OTHER LATIN AMERICAN COUNTRIES NEED TO DESTROY THE DRUG CARTELS AND BRING THE SMUGGLER'S TO THEIR KNEES...BUT FOR ALL THAT'S WORTH, ONE THING IS SURE... THERE WOULD BE NO ONE SELLING, IF THERE WAS NO ONE BUYING.
WE, AMERICANS ARE THE BUYERS. WHAT A SAD TALE THIS IS. WE ARE KEEPING THE DRUG CARTELS ALIVE. SO, IF WE WANT TO COMBAT THIS PROBLEM WHY NOT TAKE A LOOK AT OUR OWN NEIGHBORHOOD, OUR OWN FRIENDS, OUR OWN FAMILIES. YES, OUR BROTHERS AND SISTERS, SONS AND DAUGHTERS..EVEN OUR PARENTS. AMERICANS MAKE UP A VAST MAJORITY OF DRUG USE IN THE WORLD, AND AS WE TURN A BLIND EYE, SOMEONE WE KNOW IS GETTING HIGH.
IT'S TIME TO STOP, LOOK AROUND, AND TAKE ACTION. MY RECENT CONVERSATION WITH A 15-YEAR OLD KID WENT SOMETHING LIKE THIS: WHY DID YOU START? BECAUSE I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE COOL...BECAUSE EVERYONE ELSE IS DOING IT. DO YOUR PARENTS KNOW? ARE YOU KIDDING, MY PARENTS DON'T TALK TO ME." THERE IN LIES THE PROBLEM. TALK, ASK, QUESTION...AND THEN ACT. AS A FATHER OF SIX... I ASK ALL THE TIME, AND I'LL NEVER STOP.
HAVE A GREAT DAY... THANKS FOR WATCHING CITY VIEW. I'M ART RASCON
If you've been reading my blogs you know that I have long advocated going after drug users because of the law of supply and demand. Americans demand the drugs that are being supplied by the cartels. If there were no demand for illicit drugs there would be no suppliers like the Mexican drug cartels.
Rascon probably would not agree with some of my recommendations for solving our nation's drug crisis, but both of us are after the same outcome - a society absent of drug dependency. He was kind enough to send me a transcript of his closing City View remarks. Here is what Art Rascon had to say:
BEFORE WE GO, SOME CLOSING THOUGHTS ABOUT THE BRUTAL BATTLE AMONG DRUG THUGS SOUTH OF THE BORDER. I'VE SPENT A LOT OF TIME REPORTING OUT OF MEXICO, CENTRAL AND SOUTH AMERICA. SURE THEY HAVE THEIR TROUBLES; CORRUPT GOVERNMENTS, MASSIVE UNEMPLOYMENT, EXTREME POVERTY, BAD ECONOMIES. BUT WHAT IS BOOMING THERE IS THIS: DRUGS
THEY PLANT THEM. THEY GROW THEM. THEY MANUFACTURE THEM. THEY BOX THEM AND THEN THEY SEND THEM. AND WHERE DO THEY GO? HERE, TO HOUSTON AND TO THE REST OF THE COUNTRY. IN FACT, 90-PERCENT OF DRUG CONSUMPTION COMES FROM THE U.S. SO, YES, WE CAN EXPRESS ALL THE ANGER IN THE WORLD ABOUT HOW MEXICO AND OTHER LATIN AMERICAN COUNTRIES NEED TO DESTROY THE DRUG CARTELS AND BRING THE SMUGGLER'S TO THEIR KNEES...BUT FOR ALL THAT'S WORTH, ONE THING IS SURE... THERE WOULD BE NO ONE SELLING, IF THERE WAS NO ONE BUYING.
WE, AMERICANS ARE THE BUYERS. WHAT A SAD TALE THIS IS. WE ARE KEEPING THE DRUG CARTELS ALIVE. SO, IF WE WANT TO COMBAT THIS PROBLEM WHY NOT TAKE A LOOK AT OUR OWN NEIGHBORHOOD, OUR OWN FRIENDS, OUR OWN FAMILIES. YES, OUR BROTHERS AND SISTERS, SONS AND DAUGHTERS..EVEN OUR PARENTS. AMERICANS MAKE UP A VAST MAJORITY OF DRUG USE IN THE WORLD, AND AS WE TURN A BLIND EYE, SOMEONE WE KNOW IS GETTING HIGH.
IT'S TIME TO STOP, LOOK AROUND, AND TAKE ACTION. MY RECENT CONVERSATION WITH A 15-YEAR OLD KID WENT SOMETHING LIKE THIS: WHY DID YOU START? BECAUSE I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE COOL...BECAUSE EVERYONE ELSE IS DOING IT. DO YOUR PARENTS KNOW? ARE YOU KIDDING, MY PARENTS DON'T TALK TO ME." THERE IN LIES THE PROBLEM. TALK, ASK, QUESTION...AND THEN ACT. AS A FATHER OF SIX... I ASK ALL THE TIME, AND I'LL NEVER STOP.
HAVE A GREAT DAY... THANKS FOR WATCHING CITY VIEW. I'M ART RASCON
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)