"You can depend on Depend to keep you dry for at leasst 900 miles. And now, from the maker of America's best adult diapers, stay tuned for the next chapter of AEROSPACERS GONE WILD."
PREVIOUSLY ON AEROSPACERS GONE WILD: Last March, Lisa Nowak became the first astronaut ever to be fired by NASA. The Navy then assigned Lisa, who holds the rank of captain, to a nondescript job at the Corpus Christi (Texas) Naval Air Station. Lisa is scheduled for trial on attempted kidnapping and other charges in Florida in late September. Lisa is accused of attempting to harm Airforce Captain Colleen Shipman, the current lover of her former lover, fellow astronaut Bill "Billy-O" Oefelein.
CURRENT EPISODE: Billy-O, Nowak's and Shipman's hot lover, became the second astronaut to be fired by NASA. Billy-O, a naval aviator with the rank of commander, was assigned to a non-flying post at the Navy's Network Wafare Command in Norfolk, Virginia, effective June 1. This places him closer to where Colleen is stationed, but much farther away from where Lisa is stationed.
NEXT ON AEROSPACERS GONE WILD: Will Lisa and Billy-O be drummed out of the Navy for their adulterous relationship? Lisa and her lawyer are preparing for her defense in Florida. She will probably claim that she was only trying to keep Billy-O from being injured after she read Colleen's e-mail to Billy-O, telling him her "first urge will be to rip your clothes off, throw you on the ground, and love the hell out of you."
"Stay tuned to AEROSPACERS GONE WILD, brought to you by the makers of Depend, the adult diaper preferred by astronauts on a mission to get there first. You can depend on Depend to keep you dry for at least 900 miles."
Sunday, June 03, 2007
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
BOO! BOO A LA ESTADOS UNIDOS!!
Long ago, I lost interest in beauty pageants. When I was young, I did enjoy the swimsuit competition. Then the feminists screwed it all up by pressuring the pageants to minimalize the swimsuit competition, claiming that it was degrading to women. In its place, up popped a silly question and answer segment designed to determine the brightest of the contestants.
The only time I pay any attention to these spectacles is when they are involved in some sort of scandal or controversy. Which brings me to the Miss Universe pageant which just concluded in Mexico City. Poor Rachel Smith, Miss USA. She slipped and fell on her butt during the evening gown competition, Yet, she showed a lot of class when she picked herself back up. Unfortunately for her, the Mexican audience had absolutely no class, booing Rachel throughout the pageant.
What did Rachel do to derserve this booing? Absolutely nothing whatsoever! Poor Rachel was a victim of the hatred Mexicans and other Latinos have for the government of the United States. This hatred is based a lot less on our immigration and Iraq policies than on the long history of our interference in the internal affairs of Latin American countries. In order to protect our business intrests, we have supported tinpot military dictators who ignored or oppressed the poverty stricken masses and we openly or clandestinely supported the overthrow of elected leaders with communist leanings.
In the past, our government has done everything possible to ensure that the leaders of "Banana Republics" were friendly to the American businesses which exploited Latin America for its rich resources and for its cheap labor. These leaders and their families and friends were often rewarded with huge payoffs and other perks, such as mansions and secret bank accounts in the United States.
Throughout Latin America, society has consisted of a small percentage of extremely wealthy families and a huge population living in the squalor of abject poverty, a perfect breeding ground for communism. Thus, it should not have come as a surprise to our government when communists were elected to power or when dictatorships were overthrown by Marxist insurgents claiming to fight for the poor masses. The Cold War with the Soviet Union served to intensify our efforts to defeat Latin America's Marxist insurgencies and to topple leftist leaders from office.
In Cuba we supported an oppressive and corrupt dictator, General Fulgencio Batista, who was in league with the American Mafia and with American corporations. Immediately after Fidel Castro came to power in 1959, our government supported his overthrow, not because of his suspected communist leanings, but because he was seen as unfriendly to the established American business interests in Cuba, Thus, we drove Castro into the arms of the Soviet Union.
In 1973, we clandestinely participated in a military coup which overthrew Salvador Allende. a Marxist who had been elected President of Chile. For years, we contunued to support the military dictaorships of Chile, including that of General Augusto Pinochet, a cruel, oppressive and corrupt dictator.
In Nicaragua we were long-time supporters of the Somoza family dictatorship, another group of corrupt military officers who accumulated immense wealth from American corporations. In the 1970s, the Sandinistas, a Marxist group led by Daniel Ortega, came to power after fighting and defeating the Somoza family's National Guard. The Reagan Presidency then bankrolled and supplied the Nicaraguan Contra rebels who, after a long and bloody civil war, overthrew Ortega's Sandinista government.
And now, we are in conflict with Hugo Chavez, a populist and socialist, who was elcted President of Venezuela in 1998. Chavez won on the promise of helping the poor by forcing foreign oil companies and other corporations to share more of their profits and wealth with Venezuela. In 2002, a military coup sponsored by the wealthy and supported by the United States, overthrew Chavez. But, in just a few days, Chavez was able to resume his Presidency when the poor took to the streets in huge numbers, demanding that their popular leader be returned to power.
So, because of our opposition to pro-poor Latin American leaders, Rachel Slmith had to endure the indignity of booing at the Miss Universe pageant in Mexico City. Even though our interference in Latin America's internal affairs may have earned their disrespect, that in no way justified the rude behavior of the audience. Which begs the question - if the Mexicans hate us so much, why should we support immigration legislation and other policies which will benefit Mexico's economy and its wealthy class, all to the detriment of our taxpayers and many American workers?
The only time I pay any attention to these spectacles is when they are involved in some sort of scandal or controversy. Which brings me to the Miss Universe pageant which just concluded in Mexico City. Poor Rachel Smith, Miss USA. She slipped and fell on her butt during the evening gown competition, Yet, she showed a lot of class when she picked herself back up. Unfortunately for her, the Mexican audience had absolutely no class, booing Rachel throughout the pageant.
What did Rachel do to derserve this booing? Absolutely nothing whatsoever! Poor Rachel was a victim of the hatred Mexicans and other Latinos have for the government of the United States. This hatred is based a lot less on our immigration and Iraq policies than on the long history of our interference in the internal affairs of Latin American countries. In order to protect our business intrests, we have supported tinpot military dictators who ignored or oppressed the poverty stricken masses and we openly or clandestinely supported the overthrow of elected leaders with communist leanings.
In the past, our government has done everything possible to ensure that the leaders of "Banana Republics" were friendly to the American businesses which exploited Latin America for its rich resources and for its cheap labor. These leaders and their families and friends were often rewarded with huge payoffs and other perks, such as mansions and secret bank accounts in the United States.
Throughout Latin America, society has consisted of a small percentage of extremely wealthy families and a huge population living in the squalor of abject poverty, a perfect breeding ground for communism. Thus, it should not have come as a surprise to our government when communists were elected to power or when dictatorships were overthrown by Marxist insurgents claiming to fight for the poor masses. The Cold War with the Soviet Union served to intensify our efforts to defeat Latin America's Marxist insurgencies and to topple leftist leaders from office.
In Cuba we supported an oppressive and corrupt dictator, General Fulgencio Batista, who was in league with the American Mafia and with American corporations. Immediately after Fidel Castro came to power in 1959, our government supported his overthrow, not because of his suspected communist leanings, but because he was seen as unfriendly to the established American business interests in Cuba, Thus, we drove Castro into the arms of the Soviet Union.
In 1973, we clandestinely participated in a military coup which overthrew Salvador Allende. a Marxist who had been elected President of Chile. For years, we contunued to support the military dictaorships of Chile, including that of General Augusto Pinochet, a cruel, oppressive and corrupt dictator.
In Nicaragua we were long-time supporters of the Somoza family dictatorship, another group of corrupt military officers who accumulated immense wealth from American corporations. In the 1970s, the Sandinistas, a Marxist group led by Daniel Ortega, came to power after fighting and defeating the Somoza family's National Guard. The Reagan Presidency then bankrolled and supplied the Nicaraguan Contra rebels who, after a long and bloody civil war, overthrew Ortega's Sandinista government.
And now, we are in conflict with Hugo Chavez, a populist and socialist, who was elcted President of Venezuela in 1998. Chavez won on the promise of helping the poor by forcing foreign oil companies and other corporations to share more of their profits and wealth with Venezuela. In 2002, a military coup sponsored by the wealthy and supported by the United States, overthrew Chavez. But, in just a few days, Chavez was able to resume his Presidency when the poor took to the streets in huge numbers, demanding that their popular leader be returned to power.
So, because of our opposition to pro-poor Latin American leaders, Rachel Slmith had to endure the indignity of booing at the Miss Universe pageant in Mexico City. Even though our interference in Latin America's internal affairs may have earned their disrespect, that in no way justified the rude behavior of the audience. Which begs the question - if the Mexicans hate us so much, why should we support immigration legislation and other policies which will benefit Mexico's economy and its wealthy class, all to the detriment of our taxpayers and many American workers?
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
NICE KITTY - OH SHIT !!!
Once in a while, it doesn't hurt to tell a deprecating story on yourself, especially if it's really true. Yesterday, something happened that I will never forget as long as I live in the few years that I have left. My wife is on an out-of-state trip for a week, leaving me to babysit Angie, our cute little Maltese.
Yesterday afternoon, I took Angie out into the backyard so she could pee. She did her business, God bless her. Then she took a few steps toward one of the flower beds, stopped and took the three-legged pointer stance. We were about 15 - 20 feet away. I saw what looked like a kitty cat in the bushes. I could not see clearly because I've had capillary leakage (bleeding) in both eyes for well over a year.
I wanted to shoo the intruder away, so Angie and I approached to within two or three feet of the kitty. It did not run, but it raised its long bushy tail - oh shit!!! It was only then that I realized it was a skunk. Too late! Angie and I were both sprayed. We both stunk like - well, unless you've smelled a skunk's spray, it's awfully hard to describe. I immediately stripped naked and threw my clothes in the middle of the yard.
We went back inside. I sponge bathed Angie in a solution of half and half vinegar and water. Did the same for myself, then took a shower using dishwasher detergent instead of the usual Dial soap. Then I sprayed everything with Febreze. All to no avail. The problem is that you can't get stunk spray out of a dog's coat. Angie has really spread it around. Now, more than 24 hours later, the whole house smells like a skunk.
Well, it was a cat of sorts - a polecat. I just hope the neighbors did not file a police report about their kids hearing loud cussing and seeing me running around the yard naked. But if they did, that's nothing compared to what the wife will do to me upon her return. If the house still stinks, you know who'll get blamed - it wont be cute little Angie. Laugh if you must, but please pray for me!
Yesterday afternoon, I took Angie out into the backyard so she could pee. She did her business, God bless her. Then she took a few steps toward one of the flower beds, stopped and took the three-legged pointer stance. We were about 15 - 20 feet away. I saw what looked like a kitty cat in the bushes. I could not see clearly because I've had capillary leakage (bleeding) in both eyes for well over a year.
I wanted to shoo the intruder away, so Angie and I approached to within two or three feet of the kitty. It did not run, but it raised its long bushy tail - oh shit!!! It was only then that I realized it was a skunk. Too late! Angie and I were both sprayed. We both stunk like - well, unless you've smelled a skunk's spray, it's awfully hard to describe. I immediately stripped naked and threw my clothes in the middle of the yard.
We went back inside. I sponge bathed Angie in a solution of half and half vinegar and water. Did the same for myself, then took a shower using dishwasher detergent instead of the usual Dial soap. Then I sprayed everything with Febreze. All to no avail. The problem is that you can't get stunk spray out of a dog's coat. Angie has really spread it around. Now, more than 24 hours later, the whole house smells like a skunk.
Well, it was a cat of sorts - a polecat. I just hope the neighbors did not file a police report about their kids hearing loud cussing and seeing me running around the yard naked. But if they did, that's nothing compared to what the wife will do to me upon her return. If the house still stinks, you know who'll get blamed - it wont be cute little Angie. Laugh if you must, but please pray for me!
Monday, May 28, 2007
A MOUTH AS BIG AS HER BUTT
There are a number of Hollywood limouzine liberals who have injected themselves into politics in an abrasive manner. Barbara Streisand and Alec Baldwin promised to leave the United States if George Bush were to win a second term as President. If only they had kept their promises. Streisand and Baldwin have made some outrageous radical statements, but they are moderates when compared to Rosie O'Donnell.
O'Donnell has criticized our invasion of Afghanistan in response to the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center. She said that the 3,000 deaths of innocent people did not justify our killing of innocent people in the country which sheltered the terrorists responsible for the 9/11 attack. She claims that we have killed 655,000 innocent Iraqi civilians and, because "we are bombing innocent people in other countries," America is the world's worst terrorist state.
O'Donnel believes that Building Seven of the World Trade Cemter was deliberately destroyed on 9/11 by sinister forces in the U.S. government. She sided with Iran in the British hostage incident by claiming the British entered Iranian waters as a deliberate provocation, comparing it to the Gulf of Tonking incident which led to the Vitenam War. Commenting on Islamic terrorists, O'Donnell stated, "Radical Christianity is just as threatening as Radical Islam."
O'Donnell is the most radical gun control freak in the land. She would outlaw guns for everyone with the exception of police officers. She advocates jailing anyone who owns a gun. She has called for the impeachment of President Bush. She is one of the most outspoken critics of the war in Iraq.
Now, Rosie O'Donnel has every right to express her opinions. That is the American way. But, her mouth is as big as her butt. She should have been fired from ABC's The View months ago for constantly making outrageous unsubstantiated charges against our government during a time of war.
O'Donnell has finally left The View. She got pissed off at the producers and quit in a huff because they showed her hassle with co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck on a split screen. ABC and Barbara Walters did not fire her because she increased that program's viewership tenfold. Money talks, bullshit walks.
I have lost all respect for Barbara Walters, who I used to admire. She never publically criticized O'Donnell's ridiculous and outrageous postions. Instead, Walters always chose to defend Rosie as a valued and beloved co-host of The View. Count on O'Donnell getting her own show on some TV network and count on gullible viewers tuning in by the millions.
O'Donnell has criticized our invasion of Afghanistan in response to the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center. She said that the 3,000 deaths of innocent people did not justify our killing of innocent people in the country which sheltered the terrorists responsible for the 9/11 attack. She claims that we have killed 655,000 innocent Iraqi civilians and, because "we are bombing innocent people in other countries," America is the world's worst terrorist state.
O'Donnel believes that Building Seven of the World Trade Cemter was deliberately destroyed on 9/11 by sinister forces in the U.S. government. She sided with Iran in the British hostage incident by claiming the British entered Iranian waters as a deliberate provocation, comparing it to the Gulf of Tonking incident which led to the Vitenam War. Commenting on Islamic terrorists, O'Donnell stated, "Radical Christianity is just as threatening as Radical Islam."
O'Donnell is the most radical gun control freak in the land. She would outlaw guns for everyone with the exception of police officers. She advocates jailing anyone who owns a gun. She has called for the impeachment of President Bush. She is one of the most outspoken critics of the war in Iraq.
Now, Rosie O'Donnel has every right to express her opinions. That is the American way. But, her mouth is as big as her butt. She should have been fired from ABC's The View months ago for constantly making outrageous unsubstantiated charges against our government during a time of war.
O'Donnell has finally left The View. She got pissed off at the producers and quit in a huff because they showed her hassle with co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck on a split screen. ABC and Barbara Walters did not fire her because she increased that program's viewership tenfold. Money talks, bullshit walks.
I have lost all respect for Barbara Walters, who I used to admire. She never publically criticized O'Donnell's ridiculous and outrageous postions. Instead, Walters always chose to defend Rosie as a valued and beloved co-host of The View. Count on O'Donnell getting her own show on some TV network and count on gullible viewers tuning in by the millions.
Sunday, May 27, 2007
CHINA EXPORTS POPULATION CONTROL
We all know that China, the world's most populous country, has been practicing population control for both people and their pets. By law, Chinese couples are allowed to have only one child and they face heavy fines for having any additional children. Households are limited to one registered pet dog. Unregistered dogs are clubbed to death by the police, often in front of their horrified owners.
Globalization has made it possible for China to export a form of population control. It did not take long for clever Chinese entrepreneural captalists to discover they could increase their profits by substituting cheaper falsely labeled ingredients in food products and medicine, and with bulking up some products by secretly adding a cheaper substance. However, oops, the mislabled ingredients or bulked-up products are often poisonous.
A good case in point. Last year a Chinese company shipped a load of diethylene glycol to Panama. That chemical is the potent poison found in antifreeze. The product was falsely labeled as glycerin, a syrup often used in medicines, which is much more epensive than diethylene glycol. The Panamanian government mixed together the ingredients for several hundred thousand bottles of cough medicine, believing the diethylene glycol to be glycerin. As a result, 365 people died, many of them children.
Earlier this year, cats and dogs in our country were poisoned by eating tainted "cuts and gravy" style pet food manufactured by Menu Foods, a Canadian company. Menu Foods, which makes pet foods for most brands sold in this country, obtained the wheat gluten used in moist pet foods from China. Unbeknownst to Menu Foods, the Chinese had added melamine, a substance found in plastics, to the wheat gluten in order to bulk it up. The melamine led to kidney failure, killing many cats and dogs.
The most recent exportation of population control from China involves 6,000 tubes of toothpaste. When the shipment arrived in Panama it was discovered that the toothpaste had been adulterated with diethylene glycol, the same substance which, when used to make cough medicine, killed nearly 400 Panamanians last year. Some of the tainted toothpaste was shipped on to the Dominican Republic. An Australian newspaper reported that the toothpaste containing diethylene glycol had also been exported from China to Australia. And now, the Nicaraguan pol9ice have also seized 6,000 tubes of Chinese toothpaste suspected of containing diethylene glycol.
Scientists believe that if the world's population continues to increase at its present rate, the earth will not be able to produce enough food to sustain life. In that event, will people turn to cannibalism in order to survive? Why has the People's Republic failed to control its food and medicine industries when it controls almost every aspect of Chinese life? Hmmm, rather than trying to control the populations of other countries, could the exportation of poisonous foods and medicines be a way for China to soften us up as it prepares to fight in World War III?
ADDENDUM: On May 31, it was reported that Chinese made toothpaste containing diethylene glycol has been found on the shelves of our country's dollar-type stores.
Globalization has made it possible for China to export a form of population control. It did not take long for clever Chinese entrepreneural captalists to discover they could increase their profits by substituting cheaper falsely labeled ingredients in food products and medicine, and with bulking up some products by secretly adding a cheaper substance. However, oops, the mislabled ingredients or bulked-up products are often poisonous.
A good case in point. Last year a Chinese company shipped a load of diethylene glycol to Panama. That chemical is the potent poison found in antifreeze. The product was falsely labeled as glycerin, a syrup often used in medicines, which is much more epensive than diethylene glycol. The Panamanian government mixed together the ingredients for several hundred thousand bottles of cough medicine, believing the diethylene glycol to be glycerin. As a result, 365 people died, many of them children.
Earlier this year, cats and dogs in our country were poisoned by eating tainted "cuts and gravy" style pet food manufactured by Menu Foods, a Canadian company. Menu Foods, which makes pet foods for most brands sold in this country, obtained the wheat gluten used in moist pet foods from China. Unbeknownst to Menu Foods, the Chinese had added melamine, a substance found in plastics, to the wheat gluten in order to bulk it up. The melamine led to kidney failure, killing many cats and dogs.
The most recent exportation of population control from China involves 6,000 tubes of toothpaste. When the shipment arrived in Panama it was discovered that the toothpaste had been adulterated with diethylene glycol, the same substance which, when used to make cough medicine, killed nearly 400 Panamanians last year. Some of the tainted toothpaste was shipped on to the Dominican Republic. An Australian newspaper reported that the toothpaste containing diethylene glycol had also been exported from China to Australia. And now, the Nicaraguan pol9ice have also seized 6,000 tubes of Chinese toothpaste suspected of containing diethylene glycol.
Scientists believe that if the world's population continues to increase at its present rate, the earth will not be able to produce enough food to sustain life. In that event, will people turn to cannibalism in order to survive? Why has the People's Republic failed to control its food and medicine industries when it controls almost every aspect of Chinese life? Hmmm, rather than trying to control the populations of other countries, could the exportation of poisonous foods and medicines be a way for China to soften us up as it prepares to fight in World War III?
ADDENDUM: On May 31, it was reported that Chinese made toothpaste containing diethylene glycol has been found on the shelves of our country's dollar-type stores.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
A NORMAL PART OF BLACK CULTURE ?
Recently, Kathleen Parker, a Wahington Post Writers Group columnist, wrote an op ed piece about a white teacher who was constantly subjected to reprehensible racist slurs and other indignities by her black students while school officials excused such behavior as normal black culture. Since most of you probably have'nt read Parker's column, I am going to cover some of the highlights.
Elizabeth Kandrac was a teacher at Brentwood Middle School, a predominantly black school, in North Charleston, South Carolina. She made frequent complaints to school officials about being subjected to racially charged verbal abuse. In addition to a daily barrage of vulgar language, Kandrac had books and desks thrown at her, and had her bicycle tires punctured.
Other teachers and students corroborated Kandrac's account. One male teacher, a war veteran, "testified he would rather return to (fight in) Vietnam than to Brentwood." When officials with the Charleston County School District failed to take any remedial action, she took her complaints to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
According to Parker, the students' slurs "make shock jock Don Imus look like a church deacon." Parker wrote, "Let's be clear: What these children called this teacher is beyond reprehensible and could only be construed as hostile and threatening. Here's a sample: white b---, white m--- f---, white c---, white a---, white ho." School officials told her that if she couldn't handle the foul language she was in the wrong school.
Since they believed the same vulgarities were commonly used in black homes, school officials simply considered the racially charged profanity as a normal part of black culture. Instead of acting on the complaints, Kandrac's competence was questioned and when her EEOC complaint was made public, she was suspended. Eventually she lost her job.
Parker wrote, "Here's what we know without question: If majority white students had used similar language toward black students and teachers, the case would have been plastered on the front page of The New York Times until heads rolled. A black Kandrac would have a million-dollar book deal, a movie contract and hundreds of interviews to juggle. Her oppressors and those who passively facilitated her abuse would have been pilloried by the media - their faces all over the evening news - whiile the reverends Al (Sharpton) and Jessee (Jackson) organized protests."
So, instead of being able to cash in on her abuse, this white teacher was fired. Kathleen Parker is to be commended for bringing this sordid example of reverse discrimination to our attention. And who is responsible for imposing this racially biased double standard on our society? Blacks? No, nor any other minority group. It's white liberals on a guilt trip over past wrongs commited against blacks in this country.
I must confess that I often use vulgar language. That does not make it right. Black, white, yellow, purple or whatever color one might be, the use of offensive language, racially charged slurs, and threatening behavior is not justifiable. Black culture, my ass!
Elizabeth Kandrac was a teacher at Brentwood Middle School, a predominantly black school, in North Charleston, South Carolina. She made frequent complaints to school officials about being subjected to racially charged verbal abuse. In addition to a daily barrage of vulgar language, Kandrac had books and desks thrown at her, and had her bicycle tires punctured.
Other teachers and students corroborated Kandrac's account. One male teacher, a war veteran, "testified he would rather return to (fight in) Vietnam than to Brentwood." When officials with the Charleston County School District failed to take any remedial action, she took her complaints to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
According to Parker, the students' slurs "make shock jock Don Imus look like a church deacon." Parker wrote, "Let's be clear: What these children called this teacher is beyond reprehensible and could only be construed as hostile and threatening. Here's a sample: white b---, white m--- f---, white c---, white a---, white ho." School officials told her that if she couldn't handle the foul language she was in the wrong school.
Since they believed the same vulgarities were commonly used in black homes, school officials simply considered the racially charged profanity as a normal part of black culture. Instead of acting on the complaints, Kandrac's competence was questioned and when her EEOC complaint was made public, she was suspended. Eventually she lost her job.
Parker wrote, "Here's what we know without question: If majority white students had used similar language toward black students and teachers, the case would have been plastered on the front page of The New York Times until heads rolled. A black Kandrac would have a million-dollar book deal, a movie contract and hundreds of interviews to juggle. Her oppressors and those who passively facilitated her abuse would have been pilloried by the media - their faces all over the evening news - whiile the reverends Al (Sharpton) and Jessee (Jackson) organized protests."
So, instead of being able to cash in on her abuse, this white teacher was fired. Kathleen Parker is to be commended for bringing this sordid example of reverse discrimination to our attention. And who is responsible for imposing this racially biased double standard on our society? Blacks? No, nor any other minority group. It's white liberals on a guilt trip over past wrongs commited against blacks in this country.
I must confess that I often use vulgar language. That does not make it right. Black, white, yellow, purple or whatever color one might be, the use of offensive language, racially charged slurs, and threatening behavior is not justifiable. Black culture, my ass!
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
IMMIGRATION TOMFOOLERY
The following comments were made by a close friend who is a retired state police agency manager and were made in response to my blog MEXIFORNIA, MEXAS, MEXIZONA AND NUEVO MEXICO.
In 1986 the immigration laws were revamped and thousands or millions of Mexicans were granted amnesty. One reason this law passed was because of the stiff penalties that were written in for employers of undocumented workers and the money which was appropriared for enforcing the immigration laws. Guess what? No money ever filtered down to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or the Border Patrol. In fact their budgets were eventually cut.
The sad thing is that we already have sufficient laws that if enforced would take care of the immigration problem. I was recently in Arizona and spoke to a law enforcement official who told me that they still catch and release illegal immigrants with no penalties. The National Guard was even deployed to the border. All they are allowed to do is watch, report and take no action. Several men dressed like soldiers recently crossed the border in southern Arizona displaying automatic weapons in front of three National Guardsmen. They did nothing but stand there and scratch their asses. They were later given a commendation for following orders.
Several Texas Sheriffs, whose counties were on the border with Mexico, were given millions of dollars last year to augment the border patrol with enforcing immigration laws. Supposedly, local officers from other jurisdictions were going to be imported to the area to help out. It turns out that few illegals were arrested by the local deputies and the overall expenditures amounted to tens of thousands of dollars per arrest. Where did the money go? Give me a break!
In 1986 the immigration laws were revamped and thousands or millions of Mexicans were granted amnesty. One reason this law passed was because of the stiff penalties that were written in for employers of undocumented workers and the money which was appropriared for enforcing the immigration laws. Guess what? No money ever filtered down to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or the Border Patrol. In fact their budgets were eventually cut.
The sad thing is that we already have sufficient laws that if enforced would take care of the immigration problem. I was recently in Arizona and spoke to a law enforcement official who told me that they still catch and release illegal immigrants with no penalties. The National Guard was even deployed to the border. All they are allowed to do is watch, report and take no action. Several men dressed like soldiers recently crossed the border in southern Arizona displaying automatic weapons in front of three National Guardsmen. They did nothing but stand there and scratch their asses. They were later given a commendation for following orders.
Several Texas Sheriffs, whose counties were on the border with Mexico, were given millions of dollars last year to augment the border patrol with enforcing immigration laws. Supposedly, local officers from other jurisdictions were going to be imported to the area to help out. It turns out that few illegals were arrested by the local deputies and the overall expenditures amounted to tens of thousands of dollars per arrest. Where did the money go? Give me a break!
SACK DRAGGING COPS
The following comments were made by a close friend who is a retired state police agency manager and were made in response to my blog CAN'T COPS HAVE FUN ANYMORE?
The reason the Washington Chief of Police put up the warning signs to police officers during National Police Week is because of the complaints from local business owners. There is nothing worse than a bunch of drunk cops who believe that they are entitled to free drinks, meals and discounted room rates. If they don't get it, look out! This permeates law enforcement from top to bottom.
Beer distributors and liquor wholesalers have always been big targets. They have to hide when any retirement party or promotion is announced. They will wind up furnishing all the beverages sometimes to the tune of thousands of dollars. Add to that other freebies like hospitality rooms, ice, bartenders, and clean up crews. Of course, in return you seldom see a beer truck or whiskey drummer getting a ticket. In fact, I have literally seen beer trucks getting police escorts through traffic snarls to get to county fairs and concerts to sell their products. What the cops don't know is that most of the product that gets donated to their parties is usually out of date and scheduled to be destroyed.
Cops who accept or solicit freebies are called sack draggers. I once worked with a cop in a major Texas city who never paid for a meal. He would literally make sure that his meal was free by saying to the waitress, "Cops eat free here, right?" If he was denied a free meal, he would make a scene and leave. Upper management cops are just as bad. The only difference is that they put the arm on upper scale restaurants. No fast food for lieutenants or above.
Christmas at the cop shop is a wonderful time of year. Gift baskets of liquor, frozen turkeys and hams litter the squad room. Each year Dillard's department stores send a letter to every police and fire department offering a substantial discount for Christmas shopping on a certain date. It's a nice gesture. The loser is the restaurant owner in the mall that gets hit with all the cops and their families who expect to eat free.
The reason the Washington Chief of Police put up the warning signs to police officers during National Police Week is because of the complaints from local business owners. There is nothing worse than a bunch of drunk cops who believe that they are entitled to free drinks, meals and discounted room rates. If they don't get it, look out! This permeates law enforcement from top to bottom.
Beer distributors and liquor wholesalers have always been big targets. They have to hide when any retirement party or promotion is announced. They will wind up furnishing all the beverages sometimes to the tune of thousands of dollars. Add to that other freebies like hospitality rooms, ice, bartenders, and clean up crews. Of course, in return you seldom see a beer truck or whiskey drummer getting a ticket. In fact, I have literally seen beer trucks getting police escorts through traffic snarls to get to county fairs and concerts to sell their products. What the cops don't know is that most of the product that gets donated to their parties is usually out of date and scheduled to be destroyed.
Cops who accept or solicit freebies are called sack draggers. I once worked with a cop in a major Texas city who never paid for a meal. He would literally make sure that his meal was free by saying to the waitress, "Cops eat free here, right?" If he was denied a free meal, he would make a scene and leave. Upper management cops are just as bad. The only difference is that they put the arm on upper scale restaurants. No fast food for lieutenants or above.
Christmas at the cop shop is a wonderful time of year. Gift baskets of liquor, frozen turkeys and hams litter the squad room. Each year Dillard's department stores send a letter to every police and fire department offering a substantial discount for Christmas shopping on a certain date. It's a nice gesture. The loser is the restaurant owner in the mall that gets hit with all the cops and their families who expect to eat free.
Monday, May 21, 2007
CAN'T COPS HAVE FUN ANYMORE?
Cops deserve a break every so often and they have their own way of having fun. So, why has District of Columbia Police Chief Cathy Lanier prohibited the thousands of visiting police officers, who will be in Wahington for this week's National Police Week activities, from having any fun?
Chief Lanier has ordered that fliers warning officers to obey the capital's rules about disorderly conduct, public intoxication and profanity, be prominently posted in all bars and hotels, and passed out downtown. The fliers included the statement that "The unacceptable behavior of some participants in activities associated with National Police Week has not gone unnoticed." Shit, can't cops have fun anymore?
No profanity? For cops, profanity is the primary means of communication, while English is their second language. This prohibition has the effect of silencing cops. Isn't that a viloation of a cop's right to free speech? No public intoxication? Hey, that's downright un-American. Drinking to excess is a way of allowing officers to get their minds off all the assholes, including some of their fellow cops, they have to deal with day in and day out. And, what about disorderly conduct? Well, that's in the eye of the beholder - isn't that the God-given right of common behavior for off-duty cops?
Here are some examples of the unique ways cops have fun. When the fuddy-duddy police chiefs of several neighboring communities prohibited all public off-duty drinking in their jurisdictions, their officers all went to a particular bar in the one neighboring community which permitted such drinking. Oh, what fun was had by all. There were the knock-down drag-out brawls and once there was even a shoot-out between two officers from different departments.
In one area, officers got together with some bar owners for an exclusive once-a-month cop's night. The way it worked, the cops and their guests were charged a cover fee which entitled them to all they could drink for free. Outsiders, unless they were good looking babes, were barred from these "private" parties. These Romanesque-like orgies came to a screeching halt after some imbecile cop brought his wife along. Seeing so many of his fellow married officers, whose wives were her friends, in the intimate company of other women caused a vituperative eruption of volcanic proportions. She threatened divorce and ratted the affair to the local police administration. What a killjoy!
I've been to a few police conferences in my time. For some officers, trashing hotel rooms is a favorite activity. One one occasion, a bunch of drunk officers drove through a number of (formerly) beautiful hotel flower beds. Once, in the middle of the night, a couple of officers shot at the resident swans in a hotel pond. Fortunately, they were so drunk that they missed the poor creatures. And then there is the joy of staggering down the corridor at three or four o'clock in the morning while shouting at the top of your voice so that all the other hotel guests on that floor can share in the fun you are having.
I remember one conference in San Diego (California) when a whole bunch of us crossed the border into Tijuana (Mexico). After imbibing at a few bars we ended up at a theater of sorts where they staged live sex shows. When there was a call for volunteers, about a dozen of our fellow officers scurried up to the stage. I can tell you that those amateurs performed admirably with a troupe of professional ladies, and they were able to do so in front of several hundred theater patrons. Now, those cops really had fun.
It looks like Chief Lanier is taking all the fun out of National Police Week. As a woman, she seems to have a narrow-minded viewpoint about off-duty fun at police gatherings. Thanks to Cathy Lanier, all good fun loving manly cops finally have a real reason to claim that women have no business doing police work.
Chief Lanier has ordered that fliers warning officers to obey the capital's rules about disorderly conduct, public intoxication and profanity, be prominently posted in all bars and hotels, and passed out downtown. The fliers included the statement that "The unacceptable behavior of some participants in activities associated with National Police Week has not gone unnoticed." Shit, can't cops have fun anymore?
No profanity? For cops, profanity is the primary means of communication, while English is their second language. This prohibition has the effect of silencing cops. Isn't that a viloation of a cop's right to free speech? No public intoxication? Hey, that's downright un-American. Drinking to excess is a way of allowing officers to get their minds off all the assholes, including some of their fellow cops, they have to deal with day in and day out. And, what about disorderly conduct? Well, that's in the eye of the beholder - isn't that the God-given right of common behavior for off-duty cops?
Here are some examples of the unique ways cops have fun. When the fuddy-duddy police chiefs of several neighboring communities prohibited all public off-duty drinking in their jurisdictions, their officers all went to a particular bar in the one neighboring community which permitted such drinking. Oh, what fun was had by all. There were the knock-down drag-out brawls and once there was even a shoot-out between two officers from different departments.
In one area, officers got together with some bar owners for an exclusive once-a-month cop's night. The way it worked, the cops and their guests were charged a cover fee which entitled them to all they could drink for free. Outsiders, unless they were good looking babes, were barred from these "private" parties. These Romanesque-like orgies came to a screeching halt after some imbecile cop brought his wife along. Seeing so many of his fellow married officers, whose wives were her friends, in the intimate company of other women caused a vituperative eruption of volcanic proportions. She threatened divorce and ratted the affair to the local police administration. What a killjoy!
I've been to a few police conferences in my time. For some officers, trashing hotel rooms is a favorite activity. One one occasion, a bunch of drunk officers drove through a number of (formerly) beautiful hotel flower beds. Once, in the middle of the night, a couple of officers shot at the resident swans in a hotel pond. Fortunately, they were so drunk that they missed the poor creatures. And then there is the joy of staggering down the corridor at three or four o'clock in the morning while shouting at the top of your voice so that all the other hotel guests on that floor can share in the fun you are having.
I remember one conference in San Diego (California) when a whole bunch of us crossed the border into Tijuana (Mexico). After imbibing at a few bars we ended up at a theater of sorts where they staged live sex shows. When there was a call for volunteers, about a dozen of our fellow officers scurried up to the stage. I can tell you that those amateurs performed admirably with a troupe of professional ladies, and they were able to do so in front of several hundred theater patrons. Now, those cops really had fun.
It looks like Chief Lanier is taking all the fun out of National Police Week. As a woman, she seems to have a narrow-minded viewpoint about off-duty fun at police gatherings. Thanks to Cathy Lanier, all good fun loving manly cops finally have a real reason to claim that women have no business doing police work.
Sunday, May 20, 2007
MEXIFORNIA, MEXAS, MEXIZONA AND NUEVO MEXICO
A group of senators from each party have reached a compromise on an immigration bill which, if it becomes law, will put an estimated 12 million illegal aliens on the path to citizenship. Its detrators claim the bill will grant amnesty to the illegals because their presence in this country will be immediately legalized. Its supporters deny that the bill grants amnesty because the illegals will have to meet a number of specific requirements and pay some hefty fines in order to acquire citizenship.
Where do they get this 12 million estimate from? No one really knows how many illegal aliens there are in this country. There are probably more than 20 million. 12 or 20 million, that is a staggering number. It will be logistically impossible to deport millions of illegal aliens. Besides, if we were to deport just a couple of million or so, the results would be catastrophic.
Americans thrive on cheap labor. The illegals work on our farms, in construction, on our garbage trucks, in our homes as domestics, on our yards, in our food processing plants, and in many other kinds of low-skilled jobs. Thus, deporting significant numbers of illegals could bring our country close to economic collapse. But, calling illegal aliens "undocumented workers" is akin to calling illegal drug dealers "unlicensed pharmacists" and will not solve anything. So what is the answer to this immense problem?
Well, if we do nothing, which is what we are doing now, they will just keep coming. We can discourage this invasion by not allowing their children to attend our public schools, by denying them free medical services and by denying them any welfare benefits. But, many people would consider the denial of these services to be cruel and inhumane. We could build an impenetrable wall along the lenght of our border with Mexico, but that would cost billions of dollars and take years to build.
There is no good solution to the illegal immigration problem. The previous amnesty law (1986), which was intended to stop the influx of illegals, unleashed a tsunami of unlawful border crossings which continues unabated. If the compromise immigration bill passes and becomes law, we will have more than 20 million new citizens within eight to 13 years.
It is not inconceivable that by the year 2020, a majority of voters in California, Texas, Arizona and New Mexico will chose to secede from the union and petition for annexation by Mexico. Then Mexifornia, Mexas, Mexizona and Nuevo Mexico will become new states in northern Mexico.
Where do they get this 12 million estimate from? No one really knows how many illegal aliens there are in this country. There are probably more than 20 million. 12 or 20 million, that is a staggering number. It will be logistically impossible to deport millions of illegal aliens. Besides, if we were to deport just a couple of million or so, the results would be catastrophic.
Americans thrive on cheap labor. The illegals work on our farms, in construction, on our garbage trucks, in our homes as domestics, on our yards, in our food processing plants, and in many other kinds of low-skilled jobs. Thus, deporting significant numbers of illegals could bring our country close to economic collapse. But, calling illegal aliens "undocumented workers" is akin to calling illegal drug dealers "unlicensed pharmacists" and will not solve anything. So what is the answer to this immense problem?
Well, if we do nothing, which is what we are doing now, they will just keep coming. We can discourage this invasion by not allowing their children to attend our public schools, by denying them free medical services and by denying them any welfare benefits. But, many people would consider the denial of these services to be cruel and inhumane. We could build an impenetrable wall along the lenght of our border with Mexico, but that would cost billions of dollars and take years to build.
There is no good solution to the illegal immigration problem. The previous amnesty law (1986), which was intended to stop the influx of illegals, unleashed a tsunami of unlawful border crossings which continues unabated. If the compromise immigration bill passes and becomes law, we will have more than 20 million new citizens within eight to 13 years.
It is not inconceivable that by the year 2020, a majority of voters in California, Texas, Arizona and New Mexico will chose to secede from the union and petition for annexation by Mexico. Then Mexifornia, Mexas, Mexizona and Nuevo Mexico will become new states in northern Mexico.
Friday, May 18, 2007
CALLED BY GOD OR THE DEVIL?
I suspect that most of you have read or heard about the stupid sadistic asshole from Arkansas who placed his two month old infant daughter inside a microwave oven and turned it on for up to 20 seconds. As a result, the child suffered critical burns to her face, neck, shoulder and a hand.
Joshua Mauldin, 19, told Galveston (Texas) police investigators that he was under stress over being left alone with the baby in a hotel room. He became agitated and tossed the baby on one of the two beds, then on the other before hitting her in the groin. Mauldin then put the baby in the hotel room safe, then in a refrigerator and finally inside the microwave oven.
Mauldin told the police that he left the small town of Warren, Arkansas because "he was called to be a minister by God." He decided to start his ministry as a preacher in Galveston, a city once known for its wide open gambling and prostitution. Let's hope Mauldin confused God with the Devil. Otherwise, his calling will give preachers a bad rap.
There are only three other known instances in which a child was burned in this manner. In 2006, an Ohio mother was charged with killing her baby by cooking the child to death in a microwave oven. It is extemely hard to contemplate the commission of such a horrendous cruel crime.
Mauldin is being held in jail, unable to come up with his bail, which has been set at $250,000. Thank the almighty God for that. A grand jury has indicted Mauldin on a charge of injury to a child causing serious bodily harm. If convicted, he faces a sentence of five to 99 years in prison. Considering the nature of this crime, or the one in which a mother recently mutilated the genitals of her three month old infant son, how can any self-respecting person be opposed to the death penalty?
Joshua Mauldin, 19, told Galveston (Texas) police investigators that he was under stress over being left alone with the baby in a hotel room. He became agitated and tossed the baby on one of the two beds, then on the other before hitting her in the groin. Mauldin then put the baby in the hotel room safe, then in a refrigerator and finally inside the microwave oven.
Mauldin told the police that he left the small town of Warren, Arkansas because "he was called to be a minister by God." He decided to start his ministry as a preacher in Galveston, a city once known for its wide open gambling and prostitution. Let's hope Mauldin confused God with the Devil. Otherwise, his calling will give preachers a bad rap.
There are only three other known instances in which a child was burned in this manner. In 2006, an Ohio mother was charged with killing her baby by cooking the child to death in a microwave oven. It is extemely hard to contemplate the commission of such a horrendous cruel crime.
Mauldin is being held in jail, unable to come up with his bail, which has been set at $250,000. Thank the almighty God for that. A grand jury has indicted Mauldin on a charge of injury to a child causing serious bodily harm. If convicted, he faces a sentence of five to 99 years in prison. Considering the nature of this crime, or the one in which a mother recently mutilated the genitals of her three month old infant son, how can any self-respecting person be opposed to the death penalty?
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
A BUMP IN THE ROAD TO RUIN
"Somebody help me." You've probably seen the television commercial with that plea by the guy who had it all - wife and kids, huge house, beautiful lawn, riding lawnmower, sumptuous swimming pool, large SUV and big boat - but was "in debt up to my eyeballs."
I'm sure you've seen the commercial which says, "Lower your payments an average of $400 a month." Or the one which says, "Consolidate your debts into one low monthly payment.." These commercials are ads for the refinancing of homes or for a debt consolidation loan. Unless the debtor changes his spending ways, these solutions are merely a bump in the road to ruin.
The major cause of debt is that good old American invention - the credit card. If you don't have cash on hand, buy it with a credit card. You don't have to be uneducated to run up huge debts. Studies have shown that college students, who run up substantial debts with credit cards, will continue with their undisciplined spending habits once they have graduated and entered the real world.
The ideal financial situation is the one in which a consumer is relatively debt free. That requires a lot of self-discipline - one should never spend beyond one's means. The most glaring example of undisciplined spending is our federal government, with Congress and the Administration running up a humongous deficit by breaking every principle of fiscal responsibility.
Except for a mortgage and for automobile payments, one's purchases should never exceed one's ability to pay them off within 30 days. Debt can lead to a lot of problems. It is the leading cause for our high divorce rate. When good people become desperate debtors, they may turn into thieves and robbers.
Keeping up with the Joneses is one of Anerica's most serious financial diseases. That, and the easy availability of credit cards, is a prescription for finacial disaster. I know of several people who kept getting pre-approved credit card applications long after they went through bankruptcy. I know of dead beats who are being hounded by bill collectors, including collectors for credit card companies, that keep geting those same credit card applications.
Refinancing a home or obtaining a debt consolidation loan simply enables the debtor to keep on spending like there's no tomorrow. The only way to get out of debt is to change one's lifestyle. No more unnecessary purchases. No impulse buying. No more going out to eat every night. No more cruises or other costly vacations if one cannot afford them. No boats or other recrecatioal vehicles. It means driving a compact car instead of a luxury vehicle.
Getting out from under debt also requires one to cancel and destroy each and every credit card once they have been paid off. Home refinancing and debt consolidation, by themselves, are only temporary fixes - a bump that might slow one down for a short while, before it's full speed ahead again on the road to ruin.
I'm sure you've seen the commercial which says, "Lower your payments an average of $400 a month." Or the one which says, "Consolidate your debts into one low monthly payment.." These commercials are ads for the refinancing of homes or for a debt consolidation loan. Unless the debtor changes his spending ways, these solutions are merely a bump in the road to ruin.
The major cause of debt is that good old American invention - the credit card. If you don't have cash on hand, buy it with a credit card. You don't have to be uneducated to run up huge debts. Studies have shown that college students, who run up substantial debts with credit cards, will continue with their undisciplined spending habits once they have graduated and entered the real world.
The ideal financial situation is the one in which a consumer is relatively debt free. That requires a lot of self-discipline - one should never spend beyond one's means. The most glaring example of undisciplined spending is our federal government, with Congress and the Administration running up a humongous deficit by breaking every principle of fiscal responsibility.
Except for a mortgage and for automobile payments, one's purchases should never exceed one's ability to pay them off within 30 days. Debt can lead to a lot of problems. It is the leading cause for our high divorce rate. When good people become desperate debtors, they may turn into thieves and robbers.
Keeping up with the Joneses is one of Anerica's most serious financial diseases. That, and the easy availability of credit cards, is a prescription for finacial disaster. I know of several people who kept getting pre-approved credit card applications long after they went through bankruptcy. I know of dead beats who are being hounded by bill collectors, including collectors for credit card companies, that keep geting those same credit card applications.
Refinancing a home or obtaining a debt consolidation loan simply enables the debtor to keep on spending like there's no tomorrow. The only way to get out of debt is to change one's lifestyle. No more unnecessary purchases. No impulse buying. No more going out to eat every night. No more cruises or other costly vacations if one cannot afford them. No boats or other recrecatioal vehicles. It means driving a compact car instead of a luxury vehicle.
Getting out from under debt also requires one to cancel and destroy each and every credit card once they have been paid off. Home refinancing and debt consolidation, by themselves, are only temporary fixes - a bump that might slow one down for a short while, before it's full speed ahead again on the road to ruin.
Monday, May 14, 2007
RESTAURATEUR OF THE YEAR
It's really great to know that money doesn't count for everything to some people. Jeff Ruby, the owner of a swanky steakhouse in Louisville, gave O.J. Simpson and his entourage the heave-ho from his restaurant the night before the Kentucky Derby.
Simpson and a party of twelve had been seated in the restaurant. Another customer came up to Ruby and was "giddy" about seeing the legally innocent but morallly guilty murderer of his ex-wife Nicole and Ron Goldman. It was then that Ruby asked Simpson to leave. He and his guests left quietly. His lawyer, calling the ouster a publicity stunt, announced that Simpson would not sue Ruby.
Ruby explained that he was sickened by the attention Simpson still gets. "I didn't want to serve him because of my convictions of what he's done to those families (Nicole's and Goldman's). The way he continues to torture the lives of those families with his behavior, attitude and conduct." Ruby did not want to experience the attention Simpson was getting in the steakhouse, saying that it "makes me sick to my stomach."
Jeff Ruby gets my vote for Restaurateur of the Year. Can you imagine how much he would have made had he served Simpson's party of twelve? How many other restaurateurs would have sacrificed a large sum of money like that? And what does it say about the people who make up Simpson's entourage? To me, they're nothing but a bunch of pukes who have no shame.
Simpson and a party of twelve had been seated in the restaurant. Another customer came up to Ruby and was "giddy" about seeing the legally innocent but morallly guilty murderer of his ex-wife Nicole and Ron Goldman. It was then that Ruby asked Simpson to leave. He and his guests left quietly. His lawyer, calling the ouster a publicity stunt, announced that Simpson would not sue Ruby.
Ruby explained that he was sickened by the attention Simpson still gets. "I didn't want to serve him because of my convictions of what he's done to those families (Nicole's and Goldman's). The way he continues to torture the lives of those families with his behavior, attitude and conduct." Ruby did not want to experience the attention Simpson was getting in the steakhouse, saying that it "makes me sick to my stomach."
Jeff Ruby gets my vote for Restaurateur of the Year. Can you imagine how much he would have made had he served Simpson's party of twelve? How many other restaurateurs would have sacrificed a large sum of money like that? And what does it say about the people who make up Simpson's entourage? To me, they're nothing but a bunch of pukes who have no shame.
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
THOSE PRODUCT REGISTRATION CARDS
Have you recently purchased a new television set, a new computer printer, a new refrigerator, or any other new product which carries a 90 day, a one year, or a limited life-time warranty? If so, did you return the product registration card? When you fail to return the registration card, you may be in for a rude awakening if the product develops a defect within the stated warranty period.
Consumer protection laws require the manufacturer to stand behind their warranties, whether or not the purchaser registered the product purchase. What I don't like about those cards is that they include a check list for a lot of personal information such as your annual income, your educational attainment, your occupation, your family and household make-up, your hobbies, and other crap. They do that to sell this information to other merchandizers. That's why you get more and more junk mail.
Let me tell you what happened to me. Believing that the warranties would be good even if I didn't mail in the product registration cards, I just stopped mailing them in. When a new (top brand) computer printer I had purchased went on the blink, I contacted the manufacturer in accordance with the instructions in the owner's manual. I was informed that because I did not register the product at the time of purchase, the warraanty period started on the date of manufacture, rather than on the date of purchase. While my printer was serviced in accordance with the warranty, I lost half of the covered one year period by not returning the product registration card.
Now, I always return the product registration cards and I strongly suggest all of you do the same if you want to be covered for the entire warranty period. However, when I send the cards in, I do not check off any of the personal information items. I only list my name, address, and phone number, the product name and model number, the serial number if called for, and the place and date of purchase. By the way, the manufacturers also want your registration so they can notify you in case of a product recall. So, for your own protection, don't forget to return those product registration cards.
Consumer protection laws require the manufacturer to stand behind their warranties, whether or not the purchaser registered the product purchase. What I don't like about those cards is that they include a check list for a lot of personal information such as your annual income, your educational attainment, your occupation, your family and household make-up, your hobbies, and other crap. They do that to sell this information to other merchandizers. That's why you get more and more junk mail.
Let me tell you what happened to me. Believing that the warranties would be good even if I didn't mail in the product registration cards, I just stopped mailing them in. When a new (top brand) computer printer I had purchased went on the blink, I contacted the manufacturer in accordance with the instructions in the owner's manual. I was informed that because I did not register the product at the time of purchase, the warraanty period started on the date of manufacture, rather than on the date of purchase. While my printer was serviced in accordance with the warranty, I lost half of the covered one year period by not returning the product registration card.
Now, I always return the product registration cards and I strongly suggest all of you do the same if you want to be covered for the entire warranty period. However, when I send the cards in, I do not check off any of the personal information items. I only list my name, address, and phone number, the product name and model number, the serial number if called for, and the place and date of purchase. By the way, the manufacturers also want your registration so they can notify you in case of a product recall. So, for your own protection, don't forget to return those product registration cards.
Saturday, May 05, 2007
STINKO DE MAYO
In the United States, Cinco de Mayo is a holiday which is celebrated by people of Mexican descent to honor Mexico's victory over the French at the Battle of Puebla in 1862. Parades are held in cities with large populations of Mexicans, including citizens of this country and those who are not citizens, whether they are here legally or illegally. Mexiczn flags are prominently displayed in those parades.
The public display of the Mexican flag is a symbol of loyalty to Mexico and, accordingly, it is an affront to many Americans. Parade sponsors try to sugarcoat the holiday by claiming that it is only a celebration of culture and diversity. The defenders of Mexican nationalism point out that other ethnic groups in this country have their own celebrations. Fair enough - let's look at some other celebrations.
The Irish celebrate St. Patrick's Day. Parades held on that day, by and large, do not involve the carrying of the flag of Ireland. Many people, whether Irish or not, wear green items of clothing on the holiday which celebrates the fable that St. Patrick chased all the snakes out of Ireland. That explains why many a good Irishman drinks to excess - they found themselves seeing a bunch of slithering snakes which were supposed to be extinct, an experience more frightening than seeing pink elephants.
Columbus Day is a celebration of pride for Italians in this country. It honors their countryman who, while financed by the Queen of Spain, is given credit for the discovery of America. That discovery is also notable for an exchange of gifts between the Europeans and the American Indians. The Europeans gave the Indians smallpox and other diseases, while the Indians returned the favor by giving the Europeans syphilis. You will see few, if any, Italian flags carried in Columbus Day parades.
The Chinese and Vietnamese have their own New Year celebrations. No foreign flags there. The only Vietnamese flags ever publicly displayed were those carried by disloyal American anti-war protestors during the '60s and '70s. These New Year celebrations are notable for dragon dances in which six or more men line up underneath a dragon costume and, starting with the second one in line, butt their heads against the butt of the man in front of them.
Cinco de Mayo and its Mexican flag waving is fine when celebrated in Mexico. You don't see Mexicans in Texas celebrating San Jacinto Day, a holiday honoring the defeat of the Mexican army by a small rag-tag band of Texans. General Santa Anna, who slaughtered the vastly outnumbered defenders of the Alamo, bravely led his troops at San Jacinto while naked in the sack, thrusting his weenie into the pistil of The Yellow Rose Of Texas.
(Colonel James Morgan, a wealthy landowner who lived in close proximity to the San Jacinto battlefield, claimed he sent Emily West, his mulatto paramour, to shack-up with Santa Anna so as to divert the general's attention away from leading his troops. In recognition of that historic seduction, Morgan's identured servant Emily came to be known as The Yellow Rose Of Texas.)
To those who say that we do not have a right to be affronted by the Mexican flag waving, I say horseshit. When the San Jose major league soccer team relocated to Houston, it was renamed the Houston 1836. 1836 was the year that the City of Houston was founded, but it also happened to be the year of Santa Ana's defeat at San Jacinto. Houston's Mexican community was so offended by the name that the team changed it to the Houston Dynamo. Cinco de Mayo? No, its Stinko de Mayo!
The public display of the Mexican flag is a symbol of loyalty to Mexico and, accordingly, it is an affront to many Americans. Parade sponsors try to sugarcoat the holiday by claiming that it is only a celebration of culture and diversity. The defenders of Mexican nationalism point out that other ethnic groups in this country have their own celebrations. Fair enough - let's look at some other celebrations.
The Irish celebrate St. Patrick's Day. Parades held on that day, by and large, do not involve the carrying of the flag of Ireland. Many people, whether Irish or not, wear green items of clothing on the holiday which celebrates the fable that St. Patrick chased all the snakes out of Ireland. That explains why many a good Irishman drinks to excess - they found themselves seeing a bunch of slithering snakes which were supposed to be extinct, an experience more frightening than seeing pink elephants.
Columbus Day is a celebration of pride for Italians in this country. It honors their countryman who, while financed by the Queen of Spain, is given credit for the discovery of America. That discovery is also notable for an exchange of gifts between the Europeans and the American Indians. The Europeans gave the Indians smallpox and other diseases, while the Indians returned the favor by giving the Europeans syphilis. You will see few, if any, Italian flags carried in Columbus Day parades.
The Chinese and Vietnamese have their own New Year celebrations. No foreign flags there. The only Vietnamese flags ever publicly displayed were those carried by disloyal American anti-war protestors during the '60s and '70s. These New Year celebrations are notable for dragon dances in which six or more men line up underneath a dragon costume and, starting with the second one in line, butt their heads against the butt of the man in front of them.
Cinco de Mayo and its Mexican flag waving is fine when celebrated in Mexico. You don't see Mexicans in Texas celebrating San Jacinto Day, a holiday honoring the defeat of the Mexican army by a small rag-tag band of Texans. General Santa Anna, who slaughtered the vastly outnumbered defenders of the Alamo, bravely led his troops at San Jacinto while naked in the sack, thrusting his weenie into the pistil of The Yellow Rose Of Texas.
(Colonel James Morgan, a wealthy landowner who lived in close proximity to the San Jacinto battlefield, claimed he sent Emily West, his mulatto paramour, to shack-up with Santa Anna so as to divert the general's attention away from leading his troops. In recognition of that historic seduction, Morgan's identured servant Emily came to be known as The Yellow Rose Of Texas.)
To those who say that we do not have a right to be affronted by the Mexican flag waving, I say horseshit. When the San Jose major league soccer team relocated to Houston, it was renamed the Houston 1836. 1836 was the year that the City of Houston was founded, but it also happened to be the year of Santa Ana's defeat at San Jacinto. Houston's Mexican community was so offended by the name that the team changed it to the Houston Dynamo. Cinco de Mayo? No, its Stinko de Mayo!
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
I'M CALLING ON BEHALF OF - - - -
Like many others, I make contributions to a number of charities. I give what I think I can afford, once a year, except for some emergencies, such as the Katrina disaster, when I made additional contributions to the Red Cross and the Salvation Army. Since I do not earn enough to itemize deductions, my contributions are not intended lower my income taxe payments. I chose organizations that do work in areas of special interest to me.
Since charitable organizations are exempt from the fedetral and state "no call" lists, every week I get a number of telephone solicitations that start out with, "Mr. - - -, I'm calling on behalf of - - - - -." These telemarketing calls are a real nuisance, especially since they are usually made while I am occupied with something that requires my complete attention. My response is a truthful one - "We do not accept solicitations over the phone."
Most of these solicitations are from professional fund raisers who, by contract, may retain up to 50% or more of what they raise by these calls. Some are outright scams. The most notorious scams are from telephone solicitors purporting to represent the rank and file officers of local, state or federal police agencies. These scam artists will usually resort to an intimidating tone once you start to turn them down.
What really frosts me is that I get calls or written solicitations from charities which are already the recipients of my annual contributions. Many years ago, I started out giving $100 each year to the Special Olympics. Ever since, I have been getting mailings from that charity at the rate of about once a month. I got so aggravated by these frequent mail solicitations that I reduced my contributions, first to $50, then eventually to $25. The only reason I am still donating to Special Olympics is because it is a worthy cause.
For 35 years, I was a member of a Zoo, paying $100 anually for my membership. From time to time during those years, I gave additional money to the zoo's "Adopt an Animal" program. When the zoo was raising money to construct a new primate section, I made a substantial contribution to that project. For eight years, I worked as a volunteer in the primate section. Three days a week I cleaned cages and habitats. I became a real expert in one area - just call me a Professor of Primate Poop.
One evening a couple of years ago, I received a telephone call which really ticked me off. "Mr. - - -, this is Judy from the zoo." I knew there was no Judy on the staff and I found out the zoo had hired a professional fund raiser. After donating nearly $5,000 to the zoo, I get hustled by a deceptive out-of-state telemarketer - no thanks. You can bet that her true name is not even "Judy." That, together with the cavalier way I was shown the gate when I stopped volunteering, is the reason this zoo will never see another red cent from me. (I quit because, at my age, I no longer felt safe driving the 26 miles between my home and the zoo.)
Another thing that bugs me about charities is that once you start contributing to them, most will include your name, address and phone number on a list of their donors which they sell to other fund raising organizations, a practice which only leads to more of those annoying mailings and telemarketing calls.
Now, when I get a call from a charity to which I am already making annual contributions, this is what I tell them - "Look, I donate to - - - - - once a year what I can afford and I get sick and tired of getting calls from you for more. If you call again, - - - - - will never get another dime from me." Their usual response - "Oh, I'm sorry, we'll put you on our no call list."
There are many worthwhile charities and I intend to keep on giving to those which share my interests, provided they stop hustling me for additional contributions. My suggestion is that you check to see how much of your contribution is applied to fund raising. Anything above 10% is too much. The Smile Train and the Nature Conservancy are two outstanding charities.
The Smile Train, an organization of physicians which performs cleft surgery on little children in third world countries, applies 100% of all contributions to these surgeries and to the training of doctors in those countries. The fund raising costs are borne entirely by the doctors who do the cleft surgeries for The Smile Train.
The Nature Conservancy does not send me annoying mailings. It goes about quietly buying up large tracts of land for nature preserves all over the world, land that is threatened by development. Unlike the Sierra Club and other environmental groups, The Nature Conservancy does not ask anyone to sign petitions, nor does it politicize its cause.
Since charitable organizations are exempt from the fedetral and state "no call" lists, every week I get a number of telephone solicitations that start out with, "Mr. - - -, I'm calling on behalf of - - - - -." These telemarketing calls are a real nuisance, especially since they are usually made while I am occupied with something that requires my complete attention. My response is a truthful one - "We do not accept solicitations over the phone."
Most of these solicitations are from professional fund raisers who, by contract, may retain up to 50% or more of what they raise by these calls. Some are outright scams. The most notorious scams are from telephone solicitors purporting to represent the rank and file officers of local, state or federal police agencies. These scam artists will usually resort to an intimidating tone once you start to turn them down.
What really frosts me is that I get calls or written solicitations from charities which are already the recipients of my annual contributions. Many years ago, I started out giving $100 each year to the Special Olympics. Ever since, I have been getting mailings from that charity at the rate of about once a month. I got so aggravated by these frequent mail solicitations that I reduced my contributions, first to $50, then eventually to $25. The only reason I am still donating to Special Olympics is because it is a worthy cause.
For 35 years, I was a member of a Zoo, paying $100 anually for my membership. From time to time during those years, I gave additional money to the zoo's "Adopt an Animal" program. When the zoo was raising money to construct a new primate section, I made a substantial contribution to that project. For eight years, I worked as a volunteer in the primate section. Three days a week I cleaned cages and habitats. I became a real expert in one area - just call me a Professor of Primate Poop.
One evening a couple of years ago, I received a telephone call which really ticked me off. "Mr. - - -, this is Judy from the zoo." I knew there was no Judy on the staff and I found out the zoo had hired a professional fund raiser. After donating nearly $5,000 to the zoo, I get hustled by a deceptive out-of-state telemarketer - no thanks. You can bet that her true name is not even "Judy." That, together with the cavalier way I was shown the gate when I stopped volunteering, is the reason this zoo will never see another red cent from me. (I quit because, at my age, I no longer felt safe driving the 26 miles between my home and the zoo.)
Another thing that bugs me about charities is that once you start contributing to them, most will include your name, address and phone number on a list of their donors which they sell to other fund raising organizations, a practice which only leads to more of those annoying mailings and telemarketing calls.
Now, when I get a call from a charity to which I am already making annual contributions, this is what I tell them - "Look, I donate to - - - - - once a year what I can afford and I get sick and tired of getting calls from you for more. If you call again, - - - - - will never get another dime from me." Their usual response - "Oh, I'm sorry, we'll put you on our no call list."
There are many worthwhile charities and I intend to keep on giving to those which share my interests, provided they stop hustling me for additional contributions. My suggestion is that you check to see how much of your contribution is applied to fund raising. Anything above 10% is too much. The Smile Train and the Nature Conservancy are two outstanding charities.
The Smile Train, an organization of physicians which performs cleft surgery on little children in third world countries, applies 100% of all contributions to these surgeries and to the training of doctors in those countries. The fund raising costs are borne entirely by the doctors who do the cleft surgeries for The Smile Train.
The Nature Conservancy does not send me annoying mailings. It goes about quietly buying up large tracts of land for nature preserves all over the world, land that is threatened by development. Unlike the Sierra Club and other environmental groups, The Nature Conservancy does not ask anyone to sign petitions, nor does it politicize its cause.
Monday, April 16, 2007
JESSEE JACKSON AND AL SHARPTON IDENTIFIED AS ROGUE RACE-BAITING TERRORISTS
Who had the audacity to call Jessee Jakson and Al Sharpton terrorists? Don Imus? No. Rush Limbaugh? No. The Grand Lizard of the Kook Klucks Klown? No. The Duke lacrosse players who were terrorized by these two charlatans? No. It was Jason Whitlock, a columnist for the KANSAS CITY STAR. Appearing on MSNBC's TUCKER television program during its coverage of the Imus flap, Whitlock had some harsh things to say about these two "leaders" of the black community. According to the April 12 program transcript, Whitlock made the following remarks.
"But these guys have driven the issue and -- and I would say to CBS, don't negotiate with terroriists, because that's what Jessee Jackson and Al Sharpton are. They go around the country lighting fires and dividing people, and then start picking everyone's pocket."
"You never see them go back and apologize for the messes they make. Jessee Jackson todaly, right now, should be down at Duke, apologizing to those soccer (sic) players, rather than trying to turn these basketball players at Rutgers into the ultimate victims."
"He owes the people down at Duke an apology for going and stirring in that mess, and dividing people and dividing this nation. They're terrorists. They go around this country starting fires, and they need to be stopped."
Is Whitlock some kind of honky (white) bigot? No. He is a respected black journalist - or at least up to now he was. Whitlock was immediately attacked by black commentators for the remarks he made on TUCKER and for similar things he wrote in a column on the Imus flap.
When Tucker Carlson asked Whitlock why Jackson and Sharpton "have so much power?," Whitlock replied, "Now, this one here, I will put on the media." He went on to say, "other than Jessee and Al lining their pockets, they have done nothing."
OK, so Whitlock misidentified the sport of the falsely accused lacrosse players, but that should not detract from his factual description of Jackson and Sharpton as terrorists. It has long been charged that, given the opportunity, these shake-down artists will confront corporations, threatening to hold demonstrations in front of their offices and threatening them with boycuts of their products if they did not make substantial contributions to Jackson's Rainbow PUSH Coalition and Sharpton's National Action Network. If you and I made such threats, we would be facing criminal charges for extortion.
Although I have been criticizing Jackson and Sharpton for many years in much the same way as Whitlock, I have never thought of them as terrorists. They pretend to be civil rights advocates when in fact they are practitioners of perpetual victimhood. That is the only way they can get the photo-ops and media spotlight they need to keep the money rolling in, so they don't have to get a job and work for a living like the rest of us. It takes a lot of courage for a black man to take them on. Jason Whitlock is a very brave man.
Kathleen Parker, a WASHINGTON POST columnist, describes Jackson and Sharpton as "those two rogue race-baiting reverends." She's sure got that right. Come to think of it, by combining Whitlock's and Parker's description of these phony preachers, we end up identifying Jackson and Sharpton as rogue race-baiting terrorists. African-Americans would have a better chance at a piece of the American pie if they would only give the boot to those charlatans, stop wallowing in victimhood, and quit blaming every misfortune on racism.
"But these guys have driven the issue and -- and I would say to CBS, don't negotiate with terroriists, because that's what Jessee Jackson and Al Sharpton are. They go around the country lighting fires and dividing people, and then start picking everyone's pocket."
"You never see them go back and apologize for the messes they make. Jessee Jackson todaly, right now, should be down at Duke, apologizing to those soccer (sic) players, rather than trying to turn these basketball players at Rutgers into the ultimate victims."
"He owes the people down at Duke an apology for going and stirring in that mess, and dividing people and dividing this nation. They're terrorists. They go around this country starting fires, and they need to be stopped."
Is Whitlock some kind of honky (white) bigot? No. He is a respected black journalist - or at least up to now he was. Whitlock was immediately attacked by black commentators for the remarks he made on TUCKER and for similar things he wrote in a column on the Imus flap.
When Tucker Carlson asked Whitlock why Jackson and Sharpton "have so much power?," Whitlock replied, "Now, this one here, I will put on the media." He went on to say, "other than Jessee and Al lining their pockets, they have done nothing."
OK, so Whitlock misidentified the sport of the falsely accused lacrosse players, but that should not detract from his factual description of Jackson and Sharpton as terrorists. It has long been charged that, given the opportunity, these shake-down artists will confront corporations, threatening to hold demonstrations in front of their offices and threatening them with boycuts of their products if they did not make substantial contributions to Jackson's Rainbow PUSH Coalition and Sharpton's National Action Network. If you and I made such threats, we would be facing criminal charges for extortion.
Although I have been criticizing Jackson and Sharpton for many years in much the same way as Whitlock, I have never thought of them as terrorists. They pretend to be civil rights advocates when in fact they are practitioners of perpetual victimhood. That is the only way they can get the photo-ops and media spotlight they need to keep the money rolling in, so they don't have to get a job and work for a living like the rest of us. It takes a lot of courage for a black man to take them on. Jason Whitlock is a very brave man.
Kathleen Parker, a WASHINGTON POST columnist, describes Jackson and Sharpton as "those two rogue race-baiting reverends." She's sure got that right. Come to think of it, by combining Whitlock's and Parker's description of these phony preachers, we end up identifying Jackson and Sharpton as rogue race-baiting terrorists. African-Americans would have a better chance at a piece of the American pie if they would only give the boot to those charlatans, stop wallowing in victimhood, and quit blaming every misfortune on racism.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
IMUS IS NOT A BLACK HIP-HOP ARTIST
This time, Don Imus, the radio shock-jock, has really let his mouth overload his ass. By now, unless you live under a rock, you have heard that he denigrated the Rutgers women's basketball team, which reached the finals of the NCAA tournament, by referring to the players as "nappy-headed hos." His racially charged remarks constituted a hurtful insult to the eight black team members.
Imus, who I do not believe is a racist, was trying to be funny. Like his good buddy Kinky Friedman, he has told racial and ethnic jokes on many past occasions. Imus should have taken a page out of Kinky's book. At the start of the last Texas gubernatorial race, Kinky's polling nmbers were amazingly high (just below those of the incumbent governor), but his candidacy quickly flamed out when his past jokes came back to bite him in the ass. His long ago nightclub comedy routine came to light and did not sit well with the Texas electorate.
Imus' problem was that he sees himself as both comedian and political commentator. Politicial notables and media personalities have been frequent guests on his radio program. Had Imus stuck strictly to his role as a shock-jock, as has his arch enemy Howard Stern, his reprehensible remarks about the Rutgers players would not have created the same degree of outrage that is now swirling about him.
Imus, reduced to the pathetic image of a groveling tortured soul, has apologized daily to no avail. Leading the charge in demanding that he be fired are those paragons of hypocricy, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, who make their living by fanning the flames of racial hatred whenever and wherever the opportunity arises, only to depart without extinguishing the fires they lit. No one demanded that Jackson be fired as head of the Rainbow PUSH Coalition when, in 1984, he made his infamous anti-Semitic "Hymietown" crack about New York City, and when he called Jews "hymies" - and he was not trying to be funny at the time.
Politicians and media personalities continue to suck up to Sharpton, despite his leading role in 1987 in the Tawana Brawley hoax which ruined a falsely accused prosecutor's career and led to the suicide of a falsely accused cop. (See my blog DEMOCRATS AND MEDIA PERSONALITIES SUCK UP TO A CHARLATAN, January 28, 2007.) Sharpton has never apologized for his reprehensible role in that hoax. To this day he continues to insist that Brawley's false accusations were true and that he became involved only because she came to him for help. That is a bald-faced lie. Sharpton and his two cohorts initiated their involvement with Brawley after the police investigation became public, and that involvement is what marked him a leader in the black community. Nor has Sharpton ever accepted responsibility for the eight deaths he caused in 1995 after he organized and led a protest against a Jewish landlord.
Since Sharpton and Jackson have loudly injected themselves into the Imus flap, it should be mentioned that they also led the black outrage in the Duke University "rape" case. The accusations by a paid black exotic (nude) dancer that she had been gang raped by white Duke lacrosse players at an off-campus team party also turned out to be a hoax. Just today, the North Carolina Attorney General droped all charges and announced that the accused players had been completely exonerated. Are Sharpton and Jackson going to apologize for their role in stirring up the black community against the falsely accused players? Don't hold your breath!
Imus is not a black hip-hop artist. Where is the black outrage against the hip-hop pop culture in which black rappers freely rap about "bitches," "hos" and "niggas?" Although Sharpton and Jackson have denounced "gangsta" rap, they have never organized any demonstrations of black outrage against the offending rappers or their record label companies. Nor have those two charlatans ever led any protests against black comedians like Dave Chappelle and Chris Rock for the frequent use of the same vocabulary in their comedy routines.
Today, MSNBC announced it will no longer simulcast Imus' broadcasts. In the end, as with MSNBC, he may still get fired by CBS. Imus could also lose his radio show because some of his biggest sponsors are withdrawing their ads or because his audience might desert him. Thus far, Aetna, American Express, GEICO, General Motors, Proctor & Gamble and Staples, among others, have pulled their ads from his program. As always, money talks, bullshit walks.
Imus, who I do not believe is a racist, was trying to be funny. Like his good buddy Kinky Friedman, he has told racial and ethnic jokes on many past occasions. Imus should have taken a page out of Kinky's book. At the start of the last Texas gubernatorial race, Kinky's polling nmbers were amazingly high (just below those of the incumbent governor), but his candidacy quickly flamed out when his past jokes came back to bite him in the ass. His long ago nightclub comedy routine came to light and did not sit well with the Texas electorate.
Imus' problem was that he sees himself as both comedian and political commentator. Politicial notables and media personalities have been frequent guests on his radio program. Had Imus stuck strictly to his role as a shock-jock, as has his arch enemy Howard Stern, his reprehensible remarks about the Rutgers players would not have created the same degree of outrage that is now swirling about him.
Imus, reduced to the pathetic image of a groveling tortured soul, has apologized daily to no avail. Leading the charge in demanding that he be fired are those paragons of hypocricy, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, who make their living by fanning the flames of racial hatred whenever and wherever the opportunity arises, only to depart without extinguishing the fires they lit. No one demanded that Jackson be fired as head of the Rainbow PUSH Coalition when, in 1984, he made his infamous anti-Semitic "Hymietown" crack about New York City, and when he called Jews "hymies" - and he was not trying to be funny at the time.
Politicians and media personalities continue to suck up to Sharpton, despite his leading role in 1987 in the Tawana Brawley hoax which ruined a falsely accused prosecutor's career and led to the suicide of a falsely accused cop. (See my blog DEMOCRATS AND MEDIA PERSONALITIES SUCK UP TO A CHARLATAN, January 28, 2007.) Sharpton has never apologized for his reprehensible role in that hoax. To this day he continues to insist that Brawley's false accusations were true and that he became involved only because she came to him for help. That is a bald-faced lie. Sharpton and his two cohorts initiated their involvement with Brawley after the police investigation became public, and that involvement is what marked him a leader in the black community. Nor has Sharpton ever accepted responsibility for the eight deaths he caused in 1995 after he organized and led a protest against a Jewish landlord.
Since Sharpton and Jackson have loudly injected themselves into the Imus flap, it should be mentioned that they also led the black outrage in the Duke University "rape" case. The accusations by a paid black exotic (nude) dancer that she had been gang raped by white Duke lacrosse players at an off-campus team party also turned out to be a hoax. Just today, the North Carolina Attorney General droped all charges and announced that the accused players had been completely exonerated. Are Sharpton and Jackson going to apologize for their role in stirring up the black community against the falsely accused players? Don't hold your breath!
Imus is not a black hip-hop artist. Where is the black outrage against the hip-hop pop culture in which black rappers freely rap about "bitches," "hos" and "niggas?" Although Sharpton and Jackson have denounced "gangsta" rap, they have never organized any demonstrations of black outrage against the offending rappers or their record label companies. Nor have those two charlatans ever led any protests against black comedians like Dave Chappelle and Chris Rock for the frequent use of the same vocabulary in their comedy routines.
Today, MSNBC announced it will no longer simulcast Imus' broadcasts. In the end, as with MSNBC, he may still get fired by CBS. Imus could also lose his radio show because some of his biggest sponsors are withdrawing their ads or because his audience might desert him. Thus far, Aetna, American Express, GEICO, General Motors, Proctor & Gamble and Staples, among others, have pulled their ads from his program. As always, money talks, bullshit walks.
Monday, April 09, 2007
CIVIL RIGHTS FOR EX-CONS?
Many years back, ex-felons, criminals who have served their time and are said to have paid their debt to society, were denied the right to vote and to hold public office, both recognized as basic civil rights. Back then, an ex-con could vote or hold public office only if he had been granted a rarely bestowed pardon by the governor of the state in which he had been convicted. Civil libitarians questioned the appropriateness of what they perceived as perpetual punishment.
Over the years, most states have come to restore these rights automatically once the felon has completed his sentence. Some have waiting periods before these rights are automatically restored. Florida, Kentucky and Virginia require ex-felons to apply for the restoration of their civil rights regardless of how long they have been out of prison. However, Florida is about to grant the automatic restoration of civil rights to ex-cons who have not been convicted of certain offenses, such as sex crimes, murder, and other crimes of major violence.
Ex-felons are generally barred from receiving the state licenses required of teachers, law enforcement related personnel, lawyers, doctors, realtors, barbers, beauticians, and others. Back in the '60s, California started hiring some ex-felons as correctional counselers if they met the educational requirements for these positions. Because they were less likely to be conned by the cons, those counselers were much more effective than the ones who had never been incarcerated. Ex-felons are also prohibited from possessing firearms, a reasonable denial of second amendment rights.
Ex-felons also have problems in obtaining ordinary employment. In most instances, bonding companies will refuse to bond them. Many businesses are reluctant, if not opposed, to hire ex-cons even though there is not a shred of evidence that their work performance and on-the-job behavior is any different from that of ordinary employees. This leads them to falsify employment applications, and when that is discovered, they are fired even if they have been performihng well on the job.
California and other states used to require drug offenders to register upon completion of their sentence. That is no longer the case. Now, all states require sex offenders to register with the police agency having jurisdiction over their place of residence. Whenever they move, they are required to notify that agency and to register with the appropriate police agency if they move to a different jurisdiction. In most places, sex offenders are prohibited from living within a specified distance of any school, day care center, park, or any other place where children might gather.
Miami has some of the toughest sex offender restrictions in the nation. Sex offenders in that city are prohibited from residing within 2,500 feet of any place where children might gather. That makes it impossible for them to reside anywhere within the City of Miami. Those restrictions have the effect of making sex offenders homeless. Miami has an ordinance prohibiting the homeless from taking up residence under bridges. Recently, however, the probation department placed six sex offenders underneath one of the bridges because there was no other place for them to live. They were ordered to register with the police as residing under the bridge and they are visited nightly by a probation officer.
During World War II, many ex-felons served with distinction and honor in the U.S. Army and Marine Corps. Indeed, a substantial number of prison inmates were granted early releases so that they could volunteer for service in the armed forces of our country. Since the end of the Viet Nam war, ex-cons have been barred from serving in the all-volunteer military services. Because our armed forces have been stretched to the limit by the war in Iraq, waivers have been granted to some ex-felons in an effort to overcome a serious decline in recruitment.
Even though I am a hard law and order advocate, I have always felt that ex-felons should have their civil rights restored. Since we want them to be good citizens, we should give them the right to vote and to hold public office if they have paid their debt to society. Because the recidivism rate is about 50%, a waiting period of no more than five years after discharge from a felon's sentence may be appropriate. Instead of a blanket prohibition against granting occupational licenses, applications by ex-cons should be considered on a case by case basis.
Sexual predators, especially child molesters, should be required to register, but restrictions on where they can reside, unlike those in Miami, should be reasonable. You can bet that those six sex offenders under that Miami bridge will soon dissapear to take up residence somwhere in the city and, because they will be living less than 2,000 feet from children, they will not register as required.
The denial of civil rights to ex-felons is a denial of justice. Once, they have served their time and paid their debt to society, ex-cons should not continue to be punished.
Over the years, most states have come to restore these rights automatically once the felon has completed his sentence. Some have waiting periods before these rights are automatically restored. Florida, Kentucky and Virginia require ex-felons to apply for the restoration of their civil rights regardless of how long they have been out of prison. However, Florida is about to grant the automatic restoration of civil rights to ex-cons who have not been convicted of certain offenses, such as sex crimes, murder, and other crimes of major violence.
Ex-felons are generally barred from receiving the state licenses required of teachers, law enforcement related personnel, lawyers, doctors, realtors, barbers, beauticians, and others. Back in the '60s, California started hiring some ex-felons as correctional counselers if they met the educational requirements for these positions. Because they were less likely to be conned by the cons, those counselers were much more effective than the ones who had never been incarcerated. Ex-felons are also prohibited from possessing firearms, a reasonable denial of second amendment rights.
Ex-felons also have problems in obtaining ordinary employment. In most instances, bonding companies will refuse to bond them. Many businesses are reluctant, if not opposed, to hire ex-cons even though there is not a shred of evidence that their work performance and on-the-job behavior is any different from that of ordinary employees. This leads them to falsify employment applications, and when that is discovered, they are fired even if they have been performihng well on the job.
California and other states used to require drug offenders to register upon completion of their sentence. That is no longer the case. Now, all states require sex offenders to register with the police agency having jurisdiction over their place of residence. Whenever they move, they are required to notify that agency and to register with the appropriate police agency if they move to a different jurisdiction. In most places, sex offenders are prohibited from living within a specified distance of any school, day care center, park, or any other place where children might gather.
Miami has some of the toughest sex offender restrictions in the nation. Sex offenders in that city are prohibited from residing within 2,500 feet of any place where children might gather. That makes it impossible for them to reside anywhere within the City of Miami. Those restrictions have the effect of making sex offenders homeless. Miami has an ordinance prohibiting the homeless from taking up residence under bridges. Recently, however, the probation department placed six sex offenders underneath one of the bridges because there was no other place for them to live. They were ordered to register with the police as residing under the bridge and they are visited nightly by a probation officer.
During World War II, many ex-felons served with distinction and honor in the U.S. Army and Marine Corps. Indeed, a substantial number of prison inmates were granted early releases so that they could volunteer for service in the armed forces of our country. Since the end of the Viet Nam war, ex-cons have been barred from serving in the all-volunteer military services. Because our armed forces have been stretched to the limit by the war in Iraq, waivers have been granted to some ex-felons in an effort to overcome a serious decline in recruitment.
Even though I am a hard law and order advocate, I have always felt that ex-felons should have their civil rights restored. Since we want them to be good citizens, we should give them the right to vote and to hold public office if they have paid their debt to society. Because the recidivism rate is about 50%, a waiting period of no more than five years after discharge from a felon's sentence may be appropriate. Instead of a blanket prohibition against granting occupational licenses, applications by ex-cons should be considered on a case by case basis.
Sexual predators, especially child molesters, should be required to register, but restrictions on where they can reside, unlike those in Miami, should be reasonable. You can bet that those six sex offenders under that Miami bridge will soon dissapear to take up residence somwhere in the city and, because they will be living less than 2,000 feet from children, they will not register as required.
The denial of civil rights to ex-felons is a denial of justice. Once, they have served their time and paid their debt to society, ex-cons should not continue to be punished.
Saturday, April 07, 2007
PRICE GOUGING TAXPAYERS AND SICK SENIORS
Lately, we have been bombarded with television commercials praising the Medicare Drug Prescription Program and asking us to oppose any changes thereto which may be proposed by Congress. Fred Thompson, former U.S. Senator from Tennessee and current District Attorney on television's LAW AND ORDER, editorialized the same message over the radio. Why the campaign to keep the drug prescription program in its present form?
The pharmaceutical industry is fighting a possible repeal of the provision which prohibits Medicare from negotiating drug prices with pharmaceutical companies. This provision results in the price gouging of taxpayers and sick seniors. The Veterans Administration has the right to negotiate drug prices with the result that, in many cases, it gets drugs for less than half of what they cost Medicare.
Which members of Congress wrote the Medicare drug prescription bill? None of them. It was written by lobbyists for the pharmaceutical industry. That industry spends over a 100 million dollars a year lobbying Congress. Those lobbyists sneaked in the provision which prohibits Medicare from negotiating the price of drugs. When presented to Congress, the bill was so voluminous that few members of Congress or their staffs were able to read it before it was voted on.
Whenever anyone suggests that the prohibition against price negotiations be repealed, they are told that the drug manufacturers have to charge the prices they do in order to have the millions and millions of dollars needed for research and development. The development of new life-saving drugs, they claim, would be impeded if the negotiating prohibition were to be removed from the Medicare drug prescription law.
The pharmaceutical industry has always claimed that it spends most of its income on research and development. That is not true, and never has been. They spend far more money on marketing and lobbying than they ever do on research and development. In addition to the cost of lobbing, the industry spends obscene amounts on television commercials, print media ads, and pitches for their drugs to physicians and hospitals.
For a couple of years back in the mid-'50s, I worked as a "drug detail man" - now known as a pharmaceutical sales representative - for a small pharmaceutical manufacturer. My job was to call on doctors and persuade them to prescribe my company's products in their medical practice. I was given plenty of samples to leave with them and I was able to take them out to lunch or dinner occasionally. Once, I was even able to take a doctor to the Patterson-Harris world heavyweight boxing championship fight. However, my company did not have the resources to compete with its larger competitors in enticing doctors to prescribe the drugs being pitched.
What were some of these enticements? Actually, bribes would be a more accurate description. Some pharmaceutical companies would provide interest free loans to furnish the offices of new doctors. Many of those loans would be forgiven if the doctor prescribed their drugs exclusively. Most companies provided gifts to doctors. One company gave doctors expensive pens. Once the word got around, dcctors would ask the detail man for one of the pens. Those doctors were told that they could have one only if they would use it to prescribe his company's products. For their favorite doctors, some companies covered the costs for office Christmas parties.
Las Vegas was in my territory. When I pitched my company's products to the chief physician of a large clinic, this is what he told me. "Look, I'll be frank with you. Every month, - - - - - - takes all of our people and our wives or husbands to a dinner show at one of the casinos. You do that, and I'll be glad to have us prescribe some of your products. Otherwise, you're wasting your time and ours by calling on us." One can only speculate on how much it cost to take six doctors, six nurses, three receptionists, three lab technicians, and four business office employees, together with all their wives, husbands, girlfriends or boyfriends out to a Las Vegas casino for dinner and drinks every month.
In those days, pharmaceutical advertisements were limited to multi-full-page color spreads in medical journals. Even then, marketing expenditures far exceeded the expenditures for research and development. Do the pharmaceutical companies end up paying for the obscene amount they spend on lobbying and marketing? No! They profit from it by charging consumers higher prices. The Veterans Administration gets its drugs for a lot less than Medicare. The Canadians get the same drugs for a lot less than Americans. The price gouging of taxpayers and sick seniors will continue as long as Medicare is prohibited from negotiating for the price of prescription drugs.
The pharmaceutical industry is fighting a possible repeal of the provision which prohibits Medicare from negotiating drug prices with pharmaceutical companies. This provision results in the price gouging of taxpayers and sick seniors. The Veterans Administration has the right to negotiate drug prices with the result that, in many cases, it gets drugs for less than half of what they cost Medicare.
Which members of Congress wrote the Medicare drug prescription bill? None of them. It was written by lobbyists for the pharmaceutical industry. That industry spends over a 100 million dollars a year lobbying Congress. Those lobbyists sneaked in the provision which prohibits Medicare from negotiating the price of drugs. When presented to Congress, the bill was so voluminous that few members of Congress or their staffs were able to read it before it was voted on.
Whenever anyone suggests that the prohibition against price negotiations be repealed, they are told that the drug manufacturers have to charge the prices they do in order to have the millions and millions of dollars needed for research and development. The development of new life-saving drugs, they claim, would be impeded if the negotiating prohibition were to be removed from the Medicare drug prescription law.
The pharmaceutical industry has always claimed that it spends most of its income on research and development. That is not true, and never has been. They spend far more money on marketing and lobbying than they ever do on research and development. In addition to the cost of lobbing, the industry spends obscene amounts on television commercials, print media ads, and pitches for their drugs to physicians and hospitals.
For a couple of years back in the mid-'50s, I worked as a "drug detail man" - now known as a pharmaceutical sales representative - for a small pharmaceutical manufacturer. My job was to call on doctors and persuade them to prescribe my company's products in their medical practice. I was given plenty of samples to leave with them and I was able to take them out to lunch or dinner occasionally. Once, I was even able to take a doctor to the Patterson-Harris world heavyweight boxing championship fight. However, my company did not have the resources to compete with its larger competitors in enticing doctors to prescribe the drugs being pitched.
What were some of these enticements? Actually, bribes would be a more accurate description. Some pharmaceutical companies would provide interest free loans to furnish the offices of new doctors. Many of those loans would be forgiven if the doctor prescribed their drugs exclusively. Most companies provided gifts to doctors. One company gave doctors expensive pens. Once the word got around, dcctors would ask the detail man for one of the pens. Those doctors were told that they could have one only if they would use it to prescribe his company's products. For their favorite doctors, some companies covered the costs for office Christmas parties.
Las Vegas was in my territory. When I pitched my company's products to the chief physician of a large clinic, this is what he told me. "Look, I'll be frank with you. Every month, - - - - - - takes all of our people and our wives or husbands to a dinner show at one of the casinos. You do that, and I'll be glad to have us prescribe some of your products. Otherwise, you're wasting your time and ours by calling on us." One can only speculate on how much it cost to take six doctors, six nurses, three receptionists, three lab technicians, and four business office employees, together with all their wives, husbands, girlfriends or boyfriends out to a Las Vegas casino for dinner and drinks every month.
In those days, pharmaceutical advertisements were limited to multi-full-page color spreads in medical journals. Even then, marketing expenditures far exceeded the expenditures for research and development. Do the pharmaceutical companies end up paying for the obscene amount they spend on lobbying and marketing? No! They profit from it by charging consumers higher prices. The Veterans Administration gets its drugs for a lot less than Medicare. The Canadians get the same drugs for a lot less than Americans. The price gouging of taxpayers and sick seniors will continue as long as Medicare is prohibited from negotiating for the price of prescription drugs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)