This Page

has been moved to new address

Bloviating Zeppelin

Sorry for inconvenience...

Redirection provided by Blogger to WordPress Migration Service
Bloviating Zeppelin: October 2007

Bloviating Zeppelin

(in-ep-toc'-ra-cy) - a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

Wednesday, October 31, 2007

Adam The Cat


I'm tired of bad news; how about some uplifting news (thanks Dave!) for a change? From The Press Democrat (Sonoma and Santa Rosa, CA):


Burned cat finds permanent home
By RAYNE WOLFE, THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

It won’t feel any different to Adam the cat, but from this day forward, Sonoma County’s most famous cat has a permanent home.

It’s the same house in which he rested each night under the watchful eye of his nurse, Tina Wright, of Animal Hospital of Cotati.

The little black cat is well enough after five months of surgeries and skin grafts to be officially adopted.

“I gave it a lot of thought because I have other pets, but what I realized is that he has bonded so strongly to me, I just didn’t want to break that bond,” said Wright, who will adopt the cat.

The cat was found in a cage on June 21, severely burned over 45 percent of his body, on the banks of Paulin Creek in Santa Rosa’s Apple Valley neighborhood. Two teenaged girls were arrested in connection with the crime. (How heinous can this be?! Any of my readers care to donate a cup of gas for some select girls?)

The little cat lost his tail, the tops of his ears and most of the muscle mass on his back and garnered fans around the globe for his fighting spirit.

Even as good wishes continue to arrive for his recovery, his life will now gravitate away from the hospital setting and more toward settling into his home.

At seven months old, Adam may look a bit on the small side, but the folks at Forgotten Felines are expecting him to live a long and happy life. A $40,000 medical fund, built from donations, paid for his care and will continue to pay for any future medical care.


I was ready for a story with a happy ending. And Adam has his own video; go here.


BZ

Tuesday, October 30, 2007

Intemperate

Perhaps it would be intemperate of me, but I would suggest the following solution regards my Secretary of State Condi Rice's recent crossing with a Code Pink Loon:



I find it reprehensible that this bitch wasn't immediately dumped to the ground, poste haste, with a Tazer, with a 7.62 round to the temple as suggested, or even a righteous FN 5.7 X 28mm handgun.

Someone needs to be fired for this lack of protection, because I pay tax dollars to protect my Secretary of State, no matter where she goes. Anyone besides me, examining this photo, thinking: Condi has nerves of steel?


BZ

Monday, October 29, 2007

Things You Need To Know (About the Demorats' Plans For Your Future):

Yes, I cribbed this wholly and unabashedly from Congressman John Campbell's blog, but I believe that each and every point needs to be further exposed to the light of day.

From Campbell's Green Eyeshades Blog:

The Top 10 Things Democrats Don't Want You to Know


Posted by: John Campbell

The Republican Staff on the Ways and Means Committee put this fact sheet together, I feel it is quite enlightening, and wanted to share it with you.

When Chairman Rangel introduced his long-awaited tax legislation yesterday morning, there were certain things he conveniently forgot to mention. Among the things the Democratic Majority doesn’t want you to know about the “Mother of All Tax Hikes”:


1. MARRIAGE PENALTY ON STEROIDS: The bill imposes a surtax of 4% on single filers with incomes above $150,000 and $200,000 for married couples filing jointly. After years of fighting efforts to repeal the marriage penalty, the Majority is taking the battle to a new level by putting a massive new marriage penalty into the tax code.

2. KISS YOUR DEDUCTIONS GOODBYE: The surtax is imposed on adjusted gross income, not taxable income. That may sound like an arcane difference, but it is an important one. Now, when filling out your tax return, you add up your income to get your adjusted gross income and then subtract deductions for things like charitable contributions, mortgage interest, state and local taxes, medical expenses, un-reimbursed business expenses, or your standard deduction. But the surtax is applied to the AGI before you take deductions. So it has the effect of taxing people on items that they can ordinarily deduct.

3. MAKING THE U.S. A LEADER IN HIGH TAXES: Combined with the implicit sunset of the lower personal marginal tax rates after 2010, the Democrats’ plan would have the effect of raising the top personal federal marginal income tax rate to more than 44%. The other 29 OECD countries – essentially other developed nations - have an average personal top marginal tax rate of 35.7%. In fact, only five OECD countries would have higher top marginal tax rates in 2011 than the U.S. if the Rangel bill is enacted.

4. SMALL BUSINESS TRIPLE-WHAMMY: Millions of Americans who own small businesses and who pay taxes on that income on their individual tax returns are going to face a triple-whammy. First, they will be hit with the 4% surtax on some of their income. Second, many of them will lose the Section 199 manufacturing deduction that lowers taxes on their business income. And third, this is happening at the same time as incorporated businesses get an across-the-board rate cut, making it even tougher for these small business engines of job-creation to compete.

5. FUZZY MATH: A summary of the Chairman’s bill indicates it repeals the AMT but includes a provision called “Limitation of Benefits” to keep high income individuals from benefiting too much from repeal. But the Limitation of Benefits RAISES $36 billion more than it would “cost” to repeal the AMT. So even the alleged tax cut is by any definition a tax hike.

6. IF A TREE FALLS IN A FOREST: Like the famous Zen question, “what is the sound of one hand clapping?” the Chairman’s bill forces us to ponder how to give tax cuts to people who don’t pay taxes. The answer is to have other hard-working Americans pay more taxes so the government can write a bigger check to folks who have no income tax liability. The Chairman’s bill would spend close to $40 billion over the next decade in various forms of “tax cuts” for (e.g., payments from IRS to) people who don’t pay income taxes.

7. TAXING PHANTOM INCOME: The bill would require businesses of all sizes and sectors to discontinue the use of an accounting regime for their inventory known as LIFO (Last-in-First-Out). They would have eight years to pay the taxes resulting from the forced revaluation of their inventory, even though they would have had no economic income. The income might be phantom, but the $106 billion in taxes that will be paid and the associated impacts on businesses certainly won’t be.

8. CAPITAL LOSSES: Current law provides a top tax rate on long-term capital gains of 15%. The surtax, because it is applied to Adjusted Gross Income, has the effect of raising the tax rate on long-term gains by another 4% or more for millions of Americans. This assault on the jobs and growth-producing 2003 tax cut presages what lies ahead as we approach the sunset of the Bush tax cuts.

9. GETTING A HEAD START ON A RUN IN THE WRONG DIRECTION: In 2003, Congress lowered the top tax rate on dividends to 15%. All signals suggest that the Democrats want to let those lower rates expire at the end of 2010, sending the top tax rate on dividends back to the top marginal tax rate, which will be 39.6%. As a helpful head start, the Chairman’s bill subjects dividends to the surtax, so taxpayers can begin to get accustomed to seeing more of their retirement savings eroded by taxes, setting the stage for the leap to 44% or more after 2010.

10. THE WRONG CHOICE FOR AMERICAN COMPETITIVENESS: The Democrats claim this bill is responsive to Treasury Secretary Paulson’s efforts to advance U.S. competitiveness. But the Secretary never embraced a proposal to delay the ability of businesses to take deductions for legitimate business expenses. Despite the Majority’s rhetoric to the contrary, this bill will make it much harder for American companies to compete abroad.

_________________________


So, Mr. & Mrs. Conservative Voter -- you still think it's an enviable idea to "take a stand" and either stay home, vote for Ron (Losertarian) Paul or write-in Mickey Mouse come election day?

Methinks ya might wanna re-consider those choices and stick with somebody from the GOP.

Just a thought . . .


BZ

Saturday, October 27, 2007

Taxing The Internet


So, you think that e-mails or the internet cannot be taxed? Or that taxing your e-mails was nothing but the most transparent of hoaxes?

Perhaps you should think again.

This time, we have temporarily avoided that bullet.

But do NOT think that it will not be placed onto future Demorat tax screens:

The Senate has approved a seven-year extension of the Internet tax ban and has adjusted the moratorium’s language to protect online services such as e-mail from taxation.

The Senate voice vote comes one week after the House passed a bill calling for a four-year moratorium. The ban, which prevents state and local authorities from taxing Internet access and related services, was first approved in 1998, and was set to expire Nov. 1.

Tax ban proponents had been seeking a permanent ban, but most had conceded that four years was the best-case scenario. The seven-year ban approved by the Senate came as an 11th-hour surprise, according to those familiar with the issue.

Again, you think the World Wide Web is a free society with little control or taxation? If your Congress thought about not taxing it now, do not think they won't consider taxing it later:


In recent days, technology experts had become increasingly concerned not only about the tax ban’s expiration, but about new language in the House version that would have exposed common online services such as e-mail to taxation by state and local governments.

According to a report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, changes to the language in the tax ban approved by the House exposed many online services to local taxation.

When people say it's not about the money, it's ALL about the money.

And trust me, when the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT even remotely suspects it's losing out on a taxable strata, it WILL find, identify and then TAX that strata.

Free e-mails? Free access?

NFL, folks. And that doesn't stand for the National Football League.


BZ

Friday, October 26, 2007

Connecting The Dots


I'll broach an issue that I haven't yet seen pointedly addressed in the Blogosphere -- though I don't know why.

Katrina v. Southern Fornicalia:
Have you, in casual pondering not yet wondered (and I know you have) why the massive difference between the two catastrophic events? In terms of both reaction of the local populace and reaction of emergency services? And the ways local and federal bureaucracies have responded?

I proffer: it is the difference between night and day, victim and hero, training and free will.

Competence v. complete incompetence. Expectation & entitlements v. self determination. Corruption v. exposure.


Katrina:
Louisiana Governor Kathleen Babineaux Blanco is no leader. A white female, she provided ZERO leadership from the get-go. She was excellent at pointing fingers in absentia and post-event. From Wikipedia, a generally left-leaning site:

Governor Blanco did make a request to the Federal government for additional National Guard troops (to supplement the 5,700 Louisiana National Guard troops available in Louisiana at the time).[52]

However, the necessary formal request through the Federal National Guard Bureau was not made until Tuesday, a full day after the hurricane hit and when much of the city was already under water. Blanco also failed to activate a compact with other states that would have allowed her to bypass Washington in a request for additional troops. Even if an earlier request had been made, the logic of mobilizing troops from outlying areas, such as Arizona or California is regarded as questionable by many, given the closer proximity of Federal U.S. First Army troops under the direction of Lieutenant General Russel L. Honoré.

To the extent that the lax security situation in New Orleans delayed or prevented humanitarian aid workers from entering the city safely in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, state officials can be held accountable.

And then enter Mayor Ray Nagin; or should I say, exit Mayor Ray Nagin. The CHOCOLATE Mayor. When the going gets tough, the tough get going. Or, when the going gets tough, the spineless set their family up in Houston.

From Houston's Clear Thinker (where the bulk of N.O. refugees landed -- and then Houston's crime rate elevated markedly):

The primary responsibility for dealing with emergencies does not belong to the federal government. It belongs to local and state officials who are charged by law with the management of the crucial first response to disasters. First response should be carried out by local and state emergency personnel under the supervision of the state governor and his/her emergency operations center.

The actions and inactions of Gov. Blanco and Mayor Nagin are a national disgrace due to their failure to implement the previously established evacuation plans of the state and city. Gov. Blanco and Mayor Nagin cannot claim that they were surprised by the extent of the damage and the need to evacuate so many people. Detailed written plans were already in place to evacuate more than a million people. The plans projected that 300,000 people would need transportation in the event of a hurricane like Katrina. If the plans had been implemented, thousands of lives would likely have been saved.

We all saw the video, we saw the endless FoxNews, CNN, C-SPAN, ABC, CBS, NBC coverage.


Southern California:
Where isthe outpouring of money for this disaster?

I submit this:

The two incidents revolve around:


  • Entitlements v. reality;
  • Government provisions v. reality;
  • Training v. a lack therof

___________________


Louisiana: a corrupt state and local government;

An expectation of the populace to expect certain levels of performance from the federal gov't;

__________________


And that's all I need to say about that.


BZ

Thursday, October 25, 2007

Reprehensible Fornicalia Demorat


Didn't I write this??

Didn't I say in my post yesterday that, following the stupid comment by Harry Reid on Monday, within one day someone would come to the forefront and blame the fires on President Bush? Didn't I write that, didn't I promise you that would occur?


Wait a day; another Demorat will ultimately find a more direct way to link these fires to the GOP. Mark my words."

And if Harry Reid can politicize the Southern Fornicalia fires, why can't:

Fornicalia Lt. Governor John Garamendi -- whose job it is essentially to receive a paycheck, have an office, get a per diem and a car -- was elected, horribly, to the LG position on January 1st of this year, against Tom McClintock who is, in my estimation, the most logical, the most sensible, the most intelligent politician on the continent (the reasons he wasn't elected, of course). Would it shock you to read that the 62-year-old Garamendi is a registered Demorat?

Last night, on Chris Matthews' Hardball, Garamendi said (highlights are mine, for obvious reasons):

MATTHEWS: Raging wildfires in California have consumed now more than 1,200 homes and businesses and forced hundreds of thousands of people to flee the area.
President Bush will visit the fire-damaged region Thursday.

For an update, we turn to California Lieutenant Governor John Garamendi.

Governor, thank you for joining us.

Is the federal government doing what it has to do here?

LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR JOHN GARAMENDI (D), CALIFORNIA:
Well, they’re doing a lot. And we appreciate what they have done thus far.

Resources are coming in, the U.S. Forest Service, 70 units from Arizona and Nevada. And all that’s good. I have got some doubt about the value of President Bush coming out here.

That—you know, how many times did he go to New York—to New Orleans, and still made promises, but hasn’t delivered? We have the Terminator out here, Governor Schwarzenegger, who is doing a good job. And we will see.

MATTHEWS: Do you think it’s public relations, rather than action?

GARAMENDI: Of course it’s public relations.

The action is taking place by the hardworking firefighters, the men and women, the police that are out there on the line, and the community that’s pulling together to support each other. That’s where the action is taking place.

And I know—OK, President Bush comes out. We will be polite. But, frankly, that’s not the solution. How about sending our National Guard back from Iraq, so that we have those people available here to help us?

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you what you think the situation will be by Thursday, when the president arrives? Will these fires still be raging?

GARAMENDI: We have some indication that the Santa Ana winds are going to die down tomorrow. If they do, these fires will set down. They won’t be out for several days, if not for several weeks.

But we will have less of a blowup that we’re having today and yesterday and the day before. It’s really all about the winds. If those winds do die down, then we will see this fire set down. On the other hand, when the winds die down, it usually turns around from the other direction, and will blow back into areas that haven’t yet burned. We’re in for a tough situation for several more days. Thursday is likely to be another tough day.

MATTHEWS: Do you think the president’s arrival will distract from the efforts to fight the fire?

GARAMENDI: Absolutely, no doubt about it.

The president goes someplace, you have got a huge entourage. You have got Secret Service all over the place and all the chaos that comes with whatever the president arrives, wherever the president happens to arrive.

But, listen, what we really need are those firefighters. We need the equipment. We need—frankly, we need our troops back from Iraq. We will get on here. Whether he comes or not, that’s not really—really the issue. I just hope that, if he does come, he brings more than he brought to New Orleans.

MATTHEWS: OK, thank you. It’s great having you on, Governor, Lieutenant Governor John Garamendi of the state of California.

Quite frankly, Garamendi is full of partisanshit. Here are the figures for the National Guard in Fornicalia:

  • 2,000 currently in Iraq;
  • 17,000 still in Fornicalia

In addition, I doubt the National Guard is tasked with taking much firefighting equipment to Iraq.

Garamendi, you are such a useless tool.


BZ


P.S.


Amid worries of new blazes adding to the firestorm already afflicting the region, a man in Hesperia has been arrested on suspicion of arson, and police reported shooting and killing another arson suspect after chasing him out of scrub behind Cal State San Bernardino.

You know that a number of these fires have got to be copycats.

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

Demorats:

1. True Patriots
2. Foot In Mouth Disease


1. True Patriots:

Originally at Texas Fred's, this is a photo I believe all need to see -- a photo that requires little, if any explanation:




Obama Osama doesn't like wearing a flag lapel pin? Guess he doesn't agree with respecting the national anthem, either.

2. Foot In Mouth Disease:




One reason why we have the fires in California is global warming,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters Tuesday, stressing the need to pass the Democrats’ comprehensive energy package.

Moments later, when asked by a reporter if he really believed global warming caused the fires, he appeared to back away from his comments, saying there are many factors that contributed to the disaster.


Wait a day; another Demorat will ultimately find a more direct way to link these fires to the GOP. Mark my words.


BZ

Tuesday, October 23, 2007

Fire


I called in to Jenn's Jungle Republic Radio show Monday afternoon. Her blog is here.

She is in the midst of a remarkable Southern California fire -- actually, 8 or more fires. Complicated, of course, by the horrendous Santa Ana winds.

It made me reflect on any number of issues I'd encountered a few years ago, and that I must consider every year.

I chose, in 1993, to leave the flatlands of Fornicalia and seek environs into the higher Sierra Nevada mountains, at around 4,000 feet. I had survived a divorce and, following a late night murder adjacent my house, involving drugs, I concluded that I didn't want much more to do with civlization. I trundled up I-80 to the point where I could afford a house funded by the proceeds of my prior home's sale. If I couldn't have the square footage, then at least I could have the distance from the barbarians at my own personal gate.

The first day in my house was the evening of July 4th, 1993. I had only enough time to assemble the bed my great-grandfather hand-built in 1899 and nothing else. Everything else lay scattered about the patio, the interior, the U-Haul truck.

Since then, I've come to appreciate the difference between living in an urban environment, and an environment that was much more and much less.

Yes, I am not living in an area where everyone rests asshole-to-elbow. And I am not under a focused government that wants to license all of your cats, for Christ's sake. And places cameras at every fucking intersection in order to make more cash. And has the almost daily crack of gunfire, the hourly ring of reverberating sirens from cops and fire personnel. And the consistent droning of blades from cop helos over crime scenes.

Where I am, I know the PostMaster. I know everyone running the local store -- and the local hotel. I could have credit, if I wanted, at my store. I have but to ask for a thing and he will order it. When packages get delivered, I find them on my deck, undisturbed, and I know they will arrive safely. The property above me has horses; I can occasionally hear them whinny in the night. I can hear Union Pacific trains run downhill under dynamic braking; and then UP trains struggling uphill in Run 8.

But there are downsides as well. I am connected to the internet via a dial-up modem. My life won't get any better than that. I've been posting on BZ via a dial-up for years now.

And then there is fire.

I live not far from a major roadway: Interstate 80. And also a major transcontinental railroad: Union Pacific's Number One and Number Two tracks from San Francisco. Which is also shared by daily Amtrak runs; #5 westbound, and #6, eastbound.

I've had fires started by assholes throwing their cigarettes from railway cars.

I had a local fire started by some idiot flatlander who parked their car over some pine needles. Which then cooked their propane tank. Which then released, which then shot flames some 250 feet over the local pines.

It made me evaluate then and every season: what is valuable, what can be left behind.

I would ask to all of you: if you only had 5 minutes, what would you take out of your home?


BZ

Monday, October 22, 2007

Crazy Like A Cobra


Wait; don't I mean: "crazy like a fox?"

No; like a cobra. Who? Current Russian president Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin.

Putin is constitutionally-prohibited from seeking a third term as president this coming spring. But, dear readers, please understand that he is not going away. Not at all.

Putin, 55 (b. 10-07-1952) was personally selected by Boris Yeltsin to succeed him. Putin's background consists of a law degree, as well as having worked for the KGB from 1975 to 1991. Yeltsin then placed Putin strategically into the various Russian intelligence organizations that replaced the KGB.

That written, Putin will be around for some time to come. At a recent general congress of the United Russia party, many delegates got up and "begged" Putin to amend their constitution so that he could run for a third term. Though he refused, he did agree to lead the "short list" of U.R. candidates for State Duma elections this December.


What that means is this: in the next Duma convention, Vladimir Putin could become Prime Minister. And if so, where do you suppose the real power will transition? And who will become President? And how much true power will he have?

The real writing on the wall: United Russia delegates agreed to make the text of a Putin speech their precise party platform.

But let's do also what I call the Logical Extension: by doing this, throwing his current weight behind the United Russia party, has not Russia returned to a One Party system once more? I would submit that it has. And with Putin in complete control.

Here's what shall occur in the future: Putin will in fact become PM. His presidential choice shall likely be Viktor Zubkov -- Russia's current Prime Minister. A man who owes Putin any number of favors and a man who shall do Putin's bidding.


Putin will then continue his sabre-rattling, his associations with Iran, and any other nation-state he feels will help place Russia back into a position of global fear. That is to say, the fear of Russia.


BZ

Sunday, October 21, 2007

Off The Map


This post is highly unusual for me; it has broached and addressed issues I'd either purposely not wanted to deal with, or merely treated prior with indifference.

I had occasion on Saturday to watch a number of John Edward Cross Country programs.

For those not familiar, John Edward (John Edward McGee) is a medium of sorts who happens to perform public "readings" for an audience on television. He will receive vibes or clues or signals, and then focuses in on a specific person or persons and barrages them with various questions as he narrows down the situation. He provides himself as a conduit of sorts between the living and the dead.

At first blush he appears to be a second milennium version of a cheap parlor trick, whereupon he is attempting to "outguess" or "suss out" the true circumstances of those he has targeted. In other words, he provides persons he chooses with revealing information about their loved ones who have died.

His "targets," his "marks" then release more information for him to use and/or manipulate and, with that, he manages to focus even more closely on individual or family issues. John Edward is nothing if not astoundingly intelligent, extremely sensitive with regard to persons' emotions, and possessed of a human radar for truth and fabrication second to none. I would want him, for example, as the ultimate instructor for my Interview & Interrogation classes. He is more attuned to the human mind and its workings than most anyone I've ever seen -- Good guy or Bad guy. He would put the incisive abilities of Hannibal Lecter to shame.


To say that I am extremely skeptical of such a thing in general is to be very kind. In today's environment, there are numerous technological advantages to be enjoyed by such a man as Edward, as opposed to the time of, say, Harry Houdini -- who discovered most all if not all of the secrets held by those who offered themselves as "mediums." Houdini lived to debunk the mediums of his time -- until the passing of his mother, whereupon he seemed to make a complete 180.

As an aside, an excellent book I am currently reading is "The Secret Life of HOUDINI: The Making of America's First Superhero" by William Kalush and Larry Sloman.

This is not to say that those credited with supernatural or unusual powers are not unique individuals unto themselves. Only after his passing was it realized that, for example, Harry Houdini was a remarkably physical specimen of a human being, able to twist, turn, contort, unhinge and dislocate various joints and then replace them when it suited. He had and exhibited not only a physical genius, but a mental genius as well, coupled with the ability to portray himself as a likeable character on a one-on-one and a larger scale. He was all showman and manipulator.

Is this John Edward the same kind of person, albeit circa 2007? I wonder.

He performs nothing physically, so we may eliminate that challenge. He must therefore rely upon his emotive, empathetic and likeability scale. I suggest it is no small thing that the bulk of his audience consists of women.

Like any good businessman or woman, one must know one's target audience; I would also suggest that Edward has his scope firmly and most specifically set.

And then further I would ask: who attends a John Edward show, and what is their inherent proclivity? Is his audience comprised primarily of skeptics? Or does it consist of those who wish, somehow, if but for a moment, for a connection between themselves and their loved ones who have, under a myriad of circumstances, passed this mortal plane? Of women? Whose seeming Job One is to believe, to believe him in the first place -- because they oh-so-want-to?

How much easier does that make one's "conduit" task from the get-go?

I submit: so much easier.

Penn & Teller, in their very first Showtime program entitled Penn & Teller's Bullshit, targeted Edward and others in terms of "talking to the dead," and indicated their fecundity lies in what is termed "cold reading."

Oddly enough, Edward will provide "private" readings, though only when his current list is exhausted. His website makes no mention of cost or place. I might think that a private reading would run to the five-figures. But this is apparently a well-kept secret. You pays your money, and you takes your chances.

And strangely, you can also purchase "appreciation pins," books and journals from his website. An "appreciation pin" is $7.00; a bookmark is $3.00; his Crossing Over book is $13.00. Other books are $10.00 and $29.00.

A marketer? Clearly. He seems to have most venues covered: radio, television, books and, of course, his website.

And yet, when I watched his show, he seemed all at once prescient, fallible, human, connected, insightful, concerned, in control and command, driven and, also, subject to the prairie winds of The Dead.

Who is he? What is he?

After watching, I honestly do not know. There is that kernel, that small kernel . . .



BZ

Saturday, October 20, 2007

Box Of Rocks


1. MOONBAT OF THE WEEK:


DemoRAT Representative Pete Stark made an absolutely, resoundingly, irredeemably ridiculous, offensive and despicable comment recently. Though that comment shall be reproduced in a moment, I offer: how low, how base, how completely Off The Reservation, how mindless, how nonsensical, how swept up in you or your party's megalomania, how incredibly stupid can you be to say, in public, as a representative of an official American party:

Where are you (President Bush) going to get that money? Are you going to tell us lies like you're telling us today? Is that how you're going to fund the war? You don't have money to fund the war or children. But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement?"


Stark was speaking in reference to Bush's veto of the SCHIP expansion bill, when the House failed to override that veto. Stark then went into another dimension entirely. If you were to search for the definition of "feckless" in any dictionary, you would find Stark's outline drawing.

While members of Congress are passionate about their views, what Congressman Stark said during the debate was inappropriate and distracted from the seriousness of the subject at hand—providing health care for America's children," Pelosi said.


And please understand: though this Moonbat, this miniscule Demorat molecule named Stark spewed this verbal vomit, many or most on The Left truly believe that the Demorat Party has stepped away from them -- that is to say, the Demorats are Insufficiently Left for The Left. And trust me, The Left are pushing and driving and shoving and pulling for the Demorat Party to lean further left. And with each push, they are driving wedges between themselves and the Electorate, insofar as we witness the General Betray-Us issue, Hillary's $5,000 Per Child, ad nauseum.

There is a reason the approval rating of Congress rests at 11% -- lower than Bush -- and the lowest approval rating ever.
Stark deserves two words: Vile. Obscene.

2. CHINA GROWS:

And sucks resources at a prodigious rate. And is predicted to outstrip the USA shortly, in terms of production:


For the first time in modern history, China will next year contribute more to global economic growth than the United States.

While China's economy is still far smaller than America's, it has overtaken the UK as the world's fourth biggest economy. With the IMF projecting 10% growth this year, the country will pump more new money into the global system next year than the US, which is expected to grow by just 1.9%.

Of course, it helps if you have 1.4 billion people at hand, a full 20% of the entire world's population. And you pay laborers next to nothing. And they're as plentiful as dust mites -- and as disposable as well.
By the way, you'll be seeing Chinese Cars marketed on American soil shortly.

3. DIRECT FROM YOUR WORST DREAMS:

I have dreams; sometimes recurring dreams. Sometimes I have the Flying Dream. Sometimes I have the Snakes Dream. Sometimes I have the I Can't Pull The Trigger Dream. I have also had (gulp!) the Snake Emerges From The Toilet Dream.

This ain't no dream, and just in time for Halloween:



There was no Halloween bogeyman in the closet for one Brooklyn woman -- just a 7-foot-long python in her toilet.

Nadege Brunacci was washing her hands in her bathroom before dawn Monday when she glanced back and saw the slithering serpent peeking out from her toilet, most of its body hidden in the pipes.

See the movie Snakes On A Plane?


Anyone with phobias?


Check out some photos:





BZ

Friday, October 19, 2007

The Law of the Sea Treaty


This treaty would allow the UN to be on steroids.

This would mandate, essentially, that the US would bend over for Kyoto protocols, via the back door.

International judges and bureaucrats would be deciding the future of THIS nation if the treaty is ratified. These judges and bureaucrats are lining up, rubbing their hands, suits ready.

We could see our Constitutional form of government eroded by treaties. With scarcely any debate.


Go there now!

Reject the Law of the Sea Treaty. Because if not exposed to the light of day it shall be passed in the dark, quickly, shoved and rammed through by agendist forces. From the site:


The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea - commonly known at the Law of the Sea Treaty, or LOST - is the darling project of the transnational progressives, or "transies."

Their goal is nothing less than the establishment of world government at the expense of traditional sovereignty.

Unfortunately, the Bush Administration has decided to push for immediate ratification of this fatally-flawed accord. This is a monumental and dangerous policy shift.



Though the website is broken down into a number of different divisions, if you can spare the time, please try to understand the depth and breadth of this Globalist document.

Once signed, the document turns over a massive amount of authority from our own internal government to a global body which considers not any amount of individual national need.

This is simply another attempt to completely equalize every nation on the planet. As if, for example, the United States is the equivalent of, say, Burundi or Sierra Leone.

The Globalists are attempting, once again, to count on your collective ignorance. After all, how could something entitled "The Law Of The Sea Treaty" be anything but effective, proper and sensible?

Col. Jessep: You want answers?
Kaffee: I think I'm entitled.
Col. Jessep: You want answers?
Kaffee: I want the truth.
Col. Jessep: You can't handle the truth.


The truth is the LAST thing the Demorats and Globalists want exposed to the Light of Day.



BZ

Thursday, October 18, 2007

Reflection Upon The Contrast


- vs. -





BZ

Wednesday, October 17, 2007

Pelosi Balloon Busted


Support for Demorat Speaker Pelosi's house resolution to condemn Turkey for its 1915 Armenian killings is becoming dust in the wind:


Whether it will come up or not, what the action will be, remains to be seen,” Ms. Pelosi told reporters on Capitol Hill today. Her uncertainty stood in sharp contrast to her earlier pledge to bring the measure to the floor if it emerged from the House Foreign Affairs Committee, which it did a week ago by 27 to 21.

Worried about antagonizing Turkish leaders, House members from both parties have been withdrawing their support from the resolution, which had been backed by the Democratic leadership.

The measure’s prospects were weakened further today when Representative
John P. Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat who heads the Appropriations subcommittee on military matters, spoke out against it.

“What happened nearly 100 years ago was terrible,” said Mr. Murtha, who has urged the speaker not to bring up the resolution for a vote. “I don’t know whether it was a massacre or a genocide, but that is beside the point. The point is, we have to deal with today’s world.”


John Murtha went "off the reservation" on the issue -- a bit surprising.
But what really happened is this: the Blogosphere became absolutely alive with the issue, and those connected to the 'sphere spread the word through blogs, new media and those NASTY Conservative talk shows.

The ONLY reason for the creation of this resolution was to enable Demorats to cut off support to our troops in Iraq because, had the resolution passed, Turkey would have cut off Incirlink Air Base and our ability to either operate from or through the country. Troops would have had their supplies, ammunition, food, etc. primarily cut off. The move was purely political.

Support of Congress is at its lowest ever -- 11%. And Pelosi's failure to overtly attempt to short shrift our troops once more will place her even more squarely in the sights of Leftist Moonbats. After all, no politician is sufficiently Left for The Left.

And who says the Blogosphere isn't influential?

My thanks to all who blogged on the issue!


BZ

Access of Weevils


Iran and Russian, Ahmadinnerjacket and Putin, are the bestest of buddies.

In a recent meeting:

Russian leader Vladimir Putin met his Iranian counterpart Tuesday and implicitly warned the U.S. not to use a former Soviet republic to stage an attack on Iran. He also said countries bordering the Caspian Sea must jointly back any oil pipeline projects in the region. At a summit of the five nations that border the inland Caspian Sea, Putin said none of the nations' territory should be used by any outside countries for use of military force against any nation in the region. It was a clear reference to long-standing rumors that the U.S. was planning to use Azerbaijan, a former Soviet republic, as a staging ground for any possible military action against Iran.


Is oil involved? That's like saying, in a bad news report, that "alcohol may have been involved":


Putin, whose trip to Tehran is the first by a Kremlin leader since World War II, warned that energy pipeline projects crossing the Caspian could only be implemented if all five nations that border the sea support them.

Putin did not name a specific country, but his statement underlined Moscow's strong opposition to U.S.-backed efforts to build pipelines to deliver hydrocarbons to the West, bypassing Russia.


The two newfound friends shall be meeting in the near future:


TEHRAN (Reuters) - Russian President Vladimir Putin invited Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Tuesday to travel to Moscow for talks, Russian news agency Interfax reported. The invitation followed a meeting between Putin and Ahmadinejad, who is fighting calls from Western powers to stop nuclear work that Washington says is aimed at building atomic bombs. Tehran says its intentions are peaceful.


We must ask: cui bono -- who benefits?

Iran: it acquires Russian nuclear hardware;
Russia: it acquires Iranian oil and: "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"



BZ

Lies & Tinfoil


(subtitled: "I'm not making this shit up.")

Air America radio host Randi Rhodes was mugged recently,

. . . in a violent attack Sunday evening, losing several teeth when viciously attacked in a suspicious mugging.

Uh oh. Do I see this coming? Read on:
What was odd about Randi Rhodes mugged is that she was wearing a jogging suit, had no jewelry or watch, and carried no purse. So, why was Randi Rhodes attacked?

Was it a random hate crime, a mugging gone awry, or a
brutal beating ordered by someone nursing a grudge against a popular liberal talk show host?

According to Air America Radio late night host Jon Elliott, Rhodes was beaten up pretty badly, losing several teeth and will probably be off the air for at least the rest of the week. At of late Monday night we have not able to locate any press accounts of the attack and nothing has been posted on the AAR website.

I do indeed think that I'm perceiving an horrendousiscious conspiracy!

Fellow host Jon Elliott claimed on the liberal radio network that Rhodes had been mugged while walking her dog, Simon, on Sunday night. Elliot, who said Rhodes lost several teeth in the attack, waxed about a possible conspiracy.

"Is this an attempt by the right-wing, hate machine to silence one of our own?" he asked on the air, according to Talking Radio, a blog. "Are we threatening them? Are they afraid that we’re winning? Are they trying to silence intimidate us?"


"Progressives," don thy tinfoil! -- because it's all a fabrication:


Rhodes' lawyer told the Daily News she was injured in a fall while walking her dog. He said she's not sure what happened, and only knows that she fell down and is in a lot of pain. The lawyer said Rhodes expects to be back on the air Thursday. He stressed there is no indication she was targeted or that she was the victim of a "hate crime."



Once again, the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. My favorite comment on this blog:


It is a suspicious act that smells of typical right wing reprisal. When conducting a war of wits with an unarmed enemy they will revert to that which is their only weapon. BRUTE FORCE. Perhaps Randi will get a larger dog that is capable of protecting her. My most sincere prayers and best wishes go out to Randi who continues to show great bravery in the face of pure evil. Like the bullet holes in Thom Hartmans car, this is evidence that the right wing noise machine is seeking to silence the voices of truth that are spreading across Americas air waves. Suppression and intimidation are no strangers to those who fight for liberty and truth. Be the battles fought in the court rooms such as Randis victory over CACI or broadcasting the truth about the current criminal activities of the present illegal administration. We must continue with renewed enthusiasm to expose and bring to justice the malicious and anti American forces that have stolen our nation and our democracy. Get well soon Randi we have a special purple heart for you brave sister. Love you always, Peter L

Peter, dude, check your local grocery store for more Reynolds Wrap.



BZ

Tuesday, October 16, 2007

The Left Is Wrong -- Again

1. HEALTH CARE:

From Monday's Paul Harvey show:

If you think dentistry is expensive in the United States, in Britain dentists are refusing to accept government patients. Many Brits are pulling their own teeth for toothaches. 58% of British dentists say the quality of dental care is worse since the new government health insurance came about, and 84% of their patients protest that it’s almost impossible to get an appointment.


2. GLOBAL WARMING:


ONE of the world's foremost meteorologists has called the theory that helped Al Gore share the Nobel Peace Prize "ridiculous" and the product of "people who don't understand how the atmosphere works".

Dr William Gray, a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts, told a packed lecture hall at the University of North Carolina that humans were not responsible for the warming of the earth.

His comments came on the same day that the Nobel committee honoured Mr Gore for his work in support of the link between humans and global warming.

"We're brainwashing our children," said Dr Gray, 78, a long-time professor at Colorado State University. "They're going to the Gore movie [An Inconvenient Truth] and being fed all this. It's ridiculous."

Really? How shocking!


BZ

Monday, October 15, 2007

Recall


Another recall; this time from a Chinese playground equipment manufacturer.


BZ

Indoctrination


I am so glad I don't have children in a Fornicalia public school -- or any Fornicalia school, for that matter:
"Mom and Dad" as well as "husband and wife" have been banned from California schools under a bill signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who with his signature also ordered public schools to allow boys to use girls restrooms and locker rooms, and vice versa, if they choose.

"We are shocked and appalled that the governor has blatantly attacked traditional family values in California," said Karen England, executive director of Capitol Resource Institute.

"With this decision, Gov. Schwarzenegger has told parents that their values are irrelevant. Many parents will have no choice but to pull their children out of the public schools that have now become sexualized indoctrination centers."

"Arnold Schwarzenegger has delivered young children into the hands of those who will introduce them to alternative sexual lifestyles," said Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families, which worked to defeat the plans. "This means children as young as five years old will be mentally molested in school classrooms.

But wait, it gets better:
Further, homecoming kings now can be either male or female – as can homecoming queens, and students, whether male or female, must be allowed to use the restroom and locker room corresponding to the sex with which they choose to identify.


Indoctrination, pure and simple, with the threat of legal action.

Just wait; coming soon to a state near you.



BZ

Sunday, October 14, 2007

New to the BZ "Usual Suspects" List!


Those "familiar with the way I work" know that I don't add anyone to my Usual Suspects blogroll unless I personally read and recommend them. I don't place anyone into any roll on my blog "in bulk," so to speak (which is highly unusual in the Blogosphere) unless they correspond to my senses. And I vet my Usual Suspects list to the highest of my personal standards. I seek not volume in my U.S. list, but quality first and foremost. Hence:

Though I live in Fornicalia and work in its capital, with some exceptions I tend to try to stay away from Fornicalia-only politics; I purposely attempt to keep my issues broader and of greater national interest -- at first not by design but because those were the issues of my primary hunger. Since my first installment in 2004 I've managed to grow my audience slowly but surely and for that, yes, I thank each and every one of my readers and, of course, those who chance to drop by for whatever wacky reason. You are all appreciated!

Still and all, the bulk of my posts deal with wider-ranging ideas, thoughts and issues because I have learned that most of my readers don't live in Fornicalia and, then obviously, local politics would be of lesser interest. However:





For those who want a continual view into Sacramento, Fornicalia politics, I must now officially adopt, recommend and add to my Usual Suspects list the fabulous Fetching Jen, who has been a constant in the Fornicalia blogosphere since November of 2004. She states, from her blog header, that she is: A columnist for The Sacramento Union, FJ is a modish, only semi-hip, conservative woman of today's world. Fetching Jen semi-politely rants about politics, people, the liberal conundrum, today's culture, personal responsibility and goodness, all mixed into the fray. Why be upright, respectable, pure and decent, and Conservative? Fetching Jen will tell you. Return to common sense.

Those who wish to read her column in The Sacramento Union (Sacramento's first newspaper from 1851, and home to Mark Twain and many of his own columns!) should trot here when she appears! You cannot possibly go wrong when visiting Fetching Jen's blog for the latest in revealing insight regarding Fornicalia's shady political dealings! Further, Jen's son went to the US Naval Academy -- so God bless her son for his service, her family for its sacrifice -- and you for reading her blog!


Henry Babcock possesses a wonderful insight into things idiosyncratic and nonsensical. That is to say, his tolerance for things Left leaning is -- ahem -- not limitless. His posts are wrapped in a wonderful graphic Top Secret dossier fashion, making them all the more appealing! His entire blog appears as a classified folder -- an extraordinarily creative idea!

Please, if you will, visit my new Usual Suspects each and every day; they shall not disappoint!


BZ

Saturday, October 13, 2007

Some Truths


Not quite a Box of Rocks post, but you can see it from here:

It is late Friday, around 6pm as I begin this entry. I've cruised and surfed the internet, visited my favorite blogs and news sites, and thought that perhaps I should update my Usual Suspects list with two more -- but that's for another day, I suppose. Or tomorrow.

In any event, it rained a good portion of the day. Sitting upstairs, I can see the drops shaking the green deciduous leaves. My mind wandered and I thought: it's time. Time for my friend Frederic:

(Claude) Frederic Bastiat, born June 30th of 1801 and died of tuberculosis on December 24th, 1850, was a young French man of massive proportions -- mental, not physical.

I was introduced to Bestiat when I read this quote one day in passing:

The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else.

My attention was captured then and there. A short time later I order his small book entitled "The Law" from Amazon.com. It was one of the best orders I'd ever made, and $6.00 well spent. You need not spend this cash; merely go here to have the complete text of The Law.

Bestiat was something of the theorist, an economist, a libertarian, a man who believed in the greatest of freedoms. He railed against socialism and those non-workers who would plunder the good works of those who labored.

He asked: What is Law?


What, then is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense. Each of us has a natural right -- from God -- to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties?

If every person has the right to defend -- even by force -- his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right -- its reason for existing, its lawfulness -- is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force -- for the same reason -- cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.

Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?

If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.


Can you think of a more appropriate summation of all that you believe in terms of Law? I myself cannot.

What do we have, then, when we abrogate law? What do we have, then, when we allow the lawbreakers -- or the lawless -- to rule? And then make the rules?

What do we do as a nation, as a United States, when we allow ourselves to be fractured, to be divided, to be wedged, to be pitted one against another on as many levels as possible? What do we do as a nation when we are told that, as masses, there are those select few who by dint of their source or origin are allowed to break The Law whilst we, we who labor, we who form the backbone of this country, who built this country, who have its history in our hands -- yes, we who are the source, the fount of all monies -- are told that we cannot? That we must look the other way when some select few break our laws? And to shut up and fund them? With smiles on our stultified faces?

And then why do we not ask: if our laws are inapplicable to only a select few, and those few are newcomers, they are not invested in this nation, they will not speak our language, they will not immerse, they instead attempt to make this country into a carbon copy of that which they left -- this nation which we built with our blood -- then why is it that we only are tasked with obeying? With paying?

Why should we obey?

Why should we pay?

I wrote in a previous post about my decision to vote for a GOP candidate come 2008 -- essentially, anyone other than a Demorat.

I wrote yesterday about the excesses of the Demorats and what one can expect with a Demoratic president come 2008. I reflect now upon some of the comments I proffered to that post:


I can actually only see two ways out: 1. Violence thrust upon us again via terrorism from within, or 2. Violence upon the government by the people OR a national united revolution in terms of tax refusal, non-compliance with certain laws or strictures. Absent those very two shocking and critical actions I don't see the Quiet Citizens, those who OBEY laws, who PAY the freight, having the ability to perform sufficient actions to enact a major change. We are, in truth, too BUSY doing one primary thing: WORKING so that those in either GOVERNMENT or those parasites who suck from our labors and give back NOTHING may BENEFIT from our labors. And I really do not know how much longer we can keep this country on its current path of fiscal irresponsibility -- on both sides. The ONLY politician I've EVER heard speak OPENLY about budget cuts, restrictions, paring back, is Fornicalia Senator Tom McClintock -- who was running for Governor against Arnold and lost majestically.

I continued further in response:

I still want to think that Conservatism stands for something, but I'm just not sure such an animal can exist publicly and acquire votes. The electorate simply wants too much mollycoddling, too much "gimme," too much of what it wants when it wants it. And LAWSUITS drive a MASSIVE amount of what we do in this society in terms of corportions and in terms of how we live and account for our day-to-day lives. I WANT to say I can reliably vote for someone on the GOP side but -- I am forced to, as Fred rightly acknowledges -- I must consider the person closest, despite any number of failings, CLOSEST to my own core beliefs.

No one mostly wants to compromise; we all wish to live in our ideal.

But.

Day by day, I watch as my country -- as my very own party -- seems to grow so very far from me -- yes, in inches -- but day-by-day -- away from me and my ideals. From Conservatism.

Motivated by cash. By cash. How despicably base. Have we learned nothing? Are we doomed to repeat history because we are indifferent or -- even worse -- purposeful?

The cartoon seems apropos, does it not?

It pains me to write this.



BZ

Friday, October 12, 2007

So?


You think the Demorats couldn't possibly be any worse than the worst of our GOP handful of Presidential candidates? A good idea to stay home on election day? You may want to consider this:
By now, everyone knows Rep. Charles B. Rangel is poised to introduce the “mother” of all tax reforms, the biggest and most expensive tax code overhaul since 1986. But what they don’t know is how the New York Democrat plans to pay the more than $1 trillion price tag — and that uncertainty is fueling rampant speculation from Capitol Hill to K Street.

Let's see; hmmm. How might that be paid? Wait a minute, I'm thinking, thinking. . .

Plus:

Clinton recently floated the idea of issuing a $5,000 bond to each baby born in the United States to help pay for college and a first home, but it immediately inspired Republican ridicule and she quickly said she would not implement the proposal.

She defended that decision yesterday, saying she is focusing on proposals with more political support and she is not formally proposing anything she can't fund without increasing the deficit: "I have a million ideas. The country can't afford them all."


Oh, sure we can. What's another series of fiscal deaths by a million paper cuts?

BZ

Thursday, October 11, 2007

Leftist Intolerance!


There is something free, something wayfaring, something vagabondish about the homeless. They make one harken back to the days of ultimate freedom where wanderers of good heart hopped local freight trains, ate beans from a can, did odd jobs for the occasional pinch of tobacco, watched from the vast expanse of waving grass on a hill at dusk, as the sun set upon a day filled with independence, self-determination and the liberation from an onerous, exceedingly-compartmentalized lifestyle.

Or, on the other hand, Homeless persons are those who have been cast aside by society in one oppressive form or another, Life having delivered one or a series of shivs to the back -- likely at the behest of despotic GOP policies. One must immediately realize, of course, that there is nothing about being Homeless that money cannot solve. If only, if only we were to throw sufficient cash at the Homeless problem, well, it would simply dry up overnight. Therefore through of a set of circumstances no fault of their own, the Homeless are not only to be tolerated but truly embraced -- and actually, just a bit envied. Are they not the ultimate in downtrodden yet uplifting free spirits?

Such is the view of the Left; more specifically, the view of the Left in San Francisco, one of the most -- if not the most liberal city in the United States. This is the city that voted to censor Michael Savage. This is the city whose councilman felt we need no military -- the police can handle any national matter. This is the city where plastic grocery bags are outlawed. This is the city where there is no "minimum wage" for businesses -- there must now be a living wage for McD workers. This is the city where the city council also wants to abolish Fleet Week and do away with those horribly visible (and unsafe!) examples of militarism, the US Navy's Blue Angels.

Yet, despite all this Goodness, the SF Left has decided to cross the line into OPPRESSION. And this decision was not (thank Gaia!) made by the city government, but by the city's residents. How little the plebs understand! Witness:
San Francisco - the liberal, left-coast city conservatives love to mock - could be undergoing a transformation when it comes to homeless people. Although the city would still be a poor choice for a pep rally for the war in Iraq, indications are that residents have had it with aggressive panhandlers, street squatters and drug users.

"Maybe there has been an epiphany," says David Latterman, president of Fall Line Analytics, a local market research firm. "People have realized they can hate George Bush but still not want people crapping in their doorway."


You mean to tell us all, including my dear readers, that there may not be something inherently and intrinsically good and admirable in all Homeless persons??
  • "But the other day Jenny is bringing the kids back from the park, and some guy is standing on the corner throwing up on himself."
  • "People are just pissed. For the first time, even the left is saying they've had enough."
  • "We go out to drive the kids to school," he says, "and there's human poop between the cars."
  • "One city official estimated that nine out of 10 say they are not interested in a shelter or housing when approached."

And let me tell you what I've seen personally and why I seldom travel, unless forced, to San Francisco anymore:

I've seen the gangs not only take over, unimpeded, the housing areas just south of Pier 39 and the other popular tourist venues, but spill over into these tourist areas. I've watched bangers slash into crowds en masse and rip off bags and packages wholesale, then challenge the tourists to get them back. I've watched disgusting human pieces of crap, NOT the, quote, homeless, unquote, drop pants to their ankles in front of 30 to 40 people and defecate into the clothing at their feet. Then check the surrounding crowd for reactions. I've watched panhandlers work in teams accost only the smaller of tourists (always with children) and demand cash -- nothing more complicated than strong-arm robbery. I've watched alcohol sodden formerly-human meatbags stagger into walls replete with days-old vomit caked in their beards and running in rivulets down their shirts with, as they turned away, the pants stained with glistening urine and congealed excrement.

And read this again: "One city official estimated that nine out of 10 say they are not interested in a shelter or housing when approached."

Dare I posit: does the worm turn?



BZ

Wednesday, October 10, 2007

Is This Really Fred?



BZ

Tuesday, October 09, 2007

Trends


Everyone loves immigration. Everyone loves immigrants. Nationwide. Worldwide. Right?

Wrong.

The Pew Research Center released a poll October 4th which indicated:

The publics of the world broadly embrace key tenets of economic globalization but fear the disruptions and downsides of participating in the global economy. In rich countries as well as poor ones, most people endorse free trade, multinational corporations and free markets. However, the latest Pew Global Attitudes survey of more than 45,000 people finds they are concerned about inequality, threats to their culture, threats to the environment and threats posed by immigration. Together, these results reveal an evolving world view on globalization that is nuanced, ambivalent, and sometimes inherently contradictory.

Regarding globalization, the trend indicates:

There are signs that enthusiasm for economic globalization is waning in the West -- Americans and Western Europeans are less supportive of international trade and multinational companies than they were five years ago. In contrast, there is near universal approval of global trade among the publics of rising Asian economic powers China and India.

There was also very interesting recent news from Switzerland regarding immigration, in which recent national elections appear to be distilling down to immigration issues:

SCHWERZENBACH, Switzerland: The posters taped on the walls at a political rally here capture the rawness of Switzerland's national electoral campaign: Three white sheep stand on the Swiss flag, as one of them kicks a single black sheep away."For Greater Security," the poster reads.

Suddenly, the campaign has turned into a nationwide debate over the place of immigrants in one of the world's oldest democracies and over what it means to be Swiss.

Even Switzerland, the most limp-wristed of the limp-wristed in terms of immigration policies, finds itself discussing an issue publicly that, a short time ago, would never have been mentioned under one's breath in public.

But this kind of puts the capper on it all: if former Mexican President Vicente Fox praises our President Bush for anything, then I know Bush has it wrong. Witness:


NEW YORK (AP) - Former Mexican President Vicente Fox said Monday that the United States is letting racism dictate its policies, especially when it comes to immigration.

"The xenophobics, the racists, those who feel they are a superior race ... they are deciding the future of this nation," he said, without naming names, in an interview with The Associated Press.

In his first interview to promote his new book, "Revolution of Hope," Fox applauded President Bush's desire to pass an immigration accord that would allow more Mexicans to work legally in the U.S.

Folks, when you play the "Xenophobe Card" with Mexican immigration or the "Hitler Card" regarding most any other topic (with some very rare exceptions), then I simply tune you out. Consider Fox not just tuned out but off. In the US, for example, 92% of the people think our government should do more to minimize illegal immigration. That's not just clear, that's the electorate screaming at the tops of our voices.

Meanwhile, literally back at the ranch, Farmers in Fornicalia are threatening that, because of greater focus on illegal immigrants, their fields may stand to rot; my reply is: that's a temporary price to pay for greater security and CONTROL of our nation. And temporary it will be. Economics and employment abhor vacuums, like nature.

Growers said not only is the supply of workers getting smaller, but the federal guest worker program known as the H-2A Visa is too time-consuming.

I'm telling you, people, it's like I've written oh-so-many times:

Regarding ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION:
  • With Demorats, it's about the VOTES = FREE VOTES
  • With Republicans, it's about the MONEY = CHEAP LABOR


BZ