When I read the description of the story, I said to myself, "This must have taken place in a third-world country or something." Luckily, I was right. Thankfully there's not yet a chance that this kind of lawsuit could happen in America, where people may be dumb enough to get away with frivolous lawsuits, but where we're at least smart enough to recognize legal definitions and many of us have passed a sex education course.
A man is being accused of raping a woman over the phone during phone sex.
The story takes place in Tunisia, where a 30-year-old man was engaged in phone sex with a 20-year-old woman. The man never touched the woman, but during the course of phone sex, he admits to have heard the woman scream and that she "reported bleeding." Somehow in the mind of the woman's family lawyer, this constitutes a "rape" because there was a physical result. The woman was taken to the doctor and the medical examination determined that she was "no longer a virgin."
The case is actually going to court! The lawyer representing the woman, Maha al-Metebaa, says that the case needs careful investigation because the allegations are unprecedented. He claims that while a sexual act did not happen due to the lack of physical proximity, it also did happen because there is a physical impact in the nature of the loss of virginity.
I personally do not know what the Tunisian court system can decree as a punishment for rape, but I'm guessing it's not lenient. This is apparently a country that still determines virginity without taking into account the innumerable ways in which a hymen can be broken without penetration, and probably considers non-virginal women as "unmarryable" and otherwise useless.
Someone needs to ship a couple sex education booklets to the citizens of Tunisia - or at least to this braindead lawyer.
At the very least, the woman should be charged with raping herself. After all, any penetration that they would claim broke her hymen and made her no longer a virgin would HAVE to have been committed by herself. Even claiming "coersion" or something, the man is in no way at fault for what she did to herself. A woman going to jail for raping herself is at least slightly less nonsensical than a man going to jail for raping her over the phone.
Your thoughts?
(I can't make this craziness up!)
Read more!
Monday, April 28, 2008
Friday, April 25, 2008
Infusion Confusion
The time has come for yet another project that will interest me for a month and then I'll give up on it like all the others. But at least a month will be long enough to score a few results! I'm interested in liquor infusion, and my chosen canvas is currently vodka.
I've been looking at many websites to find the best recipe for my first creation: bacon-infused vodka. I don't want to waste my time and vodka attempting to create "better versions" of vodkas that are already readily available in any liquor store. They already make an orange-flavored vodka, so why bother making my own (until I get good at it and I realize it'd be much better home-infused)? There are very few commercially-made bacon-infused vodkas. In fact, I believe there are NO commercially-available bacon-infused vodkas. The only places you'll find them are in bars because the bartenders infuse them there for use in unique concoctions.
Here is the recipe that I found over on BrowniePointsBlog.com:
1. Fry up three strips of bacon.
2. Add cooked bacon to a clean pint sized mason jar. Trim the ends of the bacon if they are too tall to fit in the jar. Or you could go hog wild and just pile in a bunch of fried up bacon scraps. Optional: add crushed black peppercorns.
3. Fill the jar up with vodka. Cap and place in a dark cupboard for at least three weeks. That’s right- I didn’t refrigerate it.
4. At the end of the three week resting period, place the bacon vodka in the freezer to solidify the fats. Strain out the fats through a coffee filter to yield a clear filtered pale yellow bacon vodka.
5. Decant into decorative bottles and enjoy.
I think that this is the recipe I will use, since it makes the most sense, involves very little work and it only will use a pint of my 750-mL bottle - leaving me with about 280mL (if my math is correct).
I also stumbled upon a site called Infusions of Grandeur, where they've got a lot of vodka-infusing information and recipes. The interesting photos remind me of Cockeyed.com with the accompanying quotes/captions. I plan on trying to create their vanilla vodka recipe, their caramel vodka recipe, or perhaps just their vanilla-caramel vodka recipe!
I'm really hoping that this will be an interesting experience. And that it will finally get me over my distaste for vodka in general.
I will let you all know when my grand experiments finally begin. I currently have all of the vodka, bacon and containerware for my first attempt, but I'm interested in picking up a cheap filtration system because the site recommends taking borderline-decent vodka and filtering it multiple times before attempting the infusions in the first place. It seems like a good idea. We'll have to wait and taste and see... Read more!
I've been looking at many websites to find the best recipe for my first creation: bacon-infused vodka. I don't want to waste my time and vodka attempting to create "better versions" of vodkas that are already readily available in any liquor store. They already make an orange-flavored vodka, so why bother making my own (until I get good at it and I realize it'd be much better home-infused)? There are very few commercially-made bacon-infused vodkas. In fact, I believe there are NO commercially-available bacon-infused vodkas. The only places you'll find them are in bars because the bartenders infuse them there for use in unique concoctions.
Here is the recipe that I found over on BrowniePointsBlog.com:
1. Fry up three strips of bacon.
2. Add cooked bacon to a clean pint sized mason jar. Trim the ends of the bacon if they are too tall to fit in the jar. Or you could go hog wild and just pile in a bunch of fried up bacon scraps. Optional: add crushed black peppercorns.
3. Fill the jar up with vodka. Cap and place in a dark cupboard for at least three weeks. That’s right- I didn’t refrigerate it.
4. At the end of the three week resting period, place the bacon vodka in the freezer to solidify the fats. Strain out the fats through a coffee filter to yield a clear filtered pale yellow bacon vodka.
5. Decant into decorative bottles and enjoy.
I think that this is the recipe I will use, since it makes the most sense, involves very little work and it only will use a pint of my 750-mL bottle - leaving me with about 280mL (if my math is correct).
I also stumbled upon a site called Infusions of Grandeur, where they've got a lot of vodka-infusing information and recipes. The interesting photos remind me of Cockeyed.com with the accompanying quotes/captions. I plan on trying to create their vanilla vodka recipe, their caramel vodka recipe, or perhaps just their vanilla-caramel vodka recipe!
I'm really hoping that this will be an interesting experience. And that it will finally get me over my distaste for vodka in general.
I will let you all know when my grand experiments finally begin. I currently have all of the vodka, bacon and containerware for my first attempt, but I'm interested in picking up a cheap filtration system because the site recommends taking borderline-decent vodka and filtering it multiple times before attempting the infusions in the first place. It seems like a good idea. We'll have to wait and taste and see... Read more!
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
PETA and Tube Meat
If you're unfamiliar with the term "tube meat", which is short for "test tube meat", which is a layman's term for "in vitro meat" - here's the rundown on this scientific breakthrough which has been going on for about 100 years:
It all starts with one mad scientist named Dr. Alexi Carrel. Okay, maybe not "mad" as much as "Nobel laureate" - but the experiment that started the whole thing must have seemed crazy at the time, back in 1908. He took a piece of embryonic chicken heart and put it in a nutrient broth. That's it. The real craziness was that the heart cells didn't die - they multiplied. It doubled in size every day, never aging or dying off, just expanding and filling the container. When the container was full, Carrel would remove a small piece of the mass, place it in a new container, and the process would resume. It continued for 36 years, up until Carrel's death in 1944.
Unfortunately, after the doctor's death, the chicken heart tissue was improperly cared for by some lab assistant and it died. Attempts have been made to recreate the experiment, but to little success. Still, it has inspired many ideas about the potential of such a setup.
Winston Churchill once said in 1932, "We shall escape the absurdity of growing a whole chicken in order to eat the breast or wing by growing these parts separately under a suitable medium."
The 1953 sci-fi novel "The Space Merchants" features the idea that most of the world's meat supply comes from a giant chicken heart named Chicken Little that gets harvested every day as it grows and fills its concrete vault.
As we fast-forward to the present and our more-advanced technology, we are getting more advanced with our methods of harvesting meat without the rest of the animal. Scientists are figuring out more about the harvesting of meat tissue, the conditions for growing it, and tons of speculation about whether or not it can become commercially available at competitive prices. Also, there is much speculation regarding the taste and how the experiment can be modified to create "new flavors" and such.
So with all of this prospect of meat-eating and processed flesh, why is it that the animal-rights group PETA is ENDORSING the Tube Meat program and offering $1 MILLION to anyone who can make it commercially available?
That's right. A million dollars is the prize money up for grabs directly from the "Animals Are Not Ours to Eat" gestapo just for making this in vitro meat product commercially available. The whole situation completely baffles me, because from every standpoint, PETA should be against tube meat. After hitting myself on the head with a blunt object for a few minutes, I was able to see things from PETA's often-insane perspective and there are no reasons I can find why they would be on-board with this scientific breakthrough.
1) First of all, harvesting tissue for the tube meat processing requires the death of an animal. It's possible to use fertilized embryos for this process, which would only require cages animals being forced to mate and produce the fertilized embryos - but that's still outside of PETA's realm of acceptance. However, scientists say that it's much more difficult to get embryonic samples to produce only the meaty muscle tissue and limit the amount of bone and other non-edible tissues that are cultivated. The optimal tissue for this process is straight-up muscle tissue, which can only be collected by killing the animal. I was pretty sure that PETA is against that kind of thing.
2) By "that kind of thing", I also mean that PETA is adamantly against any scientific research that takes place at the expense of animal's lives or comfort. They don't want you testing lipstick on bunnies. They don't approve of using laboratory mice, even if it's to try and cure cancer or AIDS. Why would they be totally cool and in favor of science that is being tested with these farm critters as we cage, manipulate and/or kill in our attempts to cultivate their organ and muscle tissues? PETA - where in your doctrine is this acceptable to you?
3) I understand that PETA is trying to promote a type of meat that doesn't kill animals (except for the ones used to grow the initial meat source, as previously mentioned). They apparently want to eat meat without the guilt of killing animals. But doesn't this logic completely contradict their war against fur and FAKE FUR? They are opposed to FAKE fur because it promotes the "allure" of real fur, which means that it's somehow making it acceptable to enjoy fur-like things which means more killing of critters. How can they by okay with "non-kill meat" when it promotes the "allure" of tasty real meat, which means that meat itself is acceptable and and will result in the killing of more delicious critters. You can argue that "non-kill meat" will mean an alternative to "real meat" and less animals will die, but can't you make the same argument about fake fur? And isn't that what all those crappy tofu-burgers and veggie-patties are supposed to be for?
So with all of the above craziness going on that is boggling my mind about PETA's decision to sponsor a prize for creating this tube meat, my mind practically exploded upon reading the following criterion for how the prize money will be awarded:
"A team of 10 PETA jurors will taste the entries to make sure they match the texture and flavor of chicken, and they must score at least 80 out of 100 points to win the prize."
THE TASTE OF THE MEAT IS BEING JUDGED BY PETA???
PETA isn't supposed to eat real meat!! So how can they be a proper judge for the taste comparison of the tube meat and its real counterpart?? There's no way that an un-biased comparison can be made, let alone the fact that I wouldn't trust them to know what REAL meat tastes like!
To create a random horrible analogy to describe my horror of this scenario - that's like having a U.S. Senator test-play GTA IV and judge if it feels as awesome as REALLY KILLING A HOOKER!
I'm not using that analogy to suggest that eating meat is as bad as killing a hooker - I'm saying that senators aren't supposed to know the delight of actually killing hookers, just like PETA members aren't supposed to know the delight of actually eating meat.
*takes a breath*
With all of that said, I am totally in favor of tube meat and all of these scientific advances. I just needed that long diatribe to illustrate why it is wrong that I'm agreeing with something being promoted by PETA - the reason being that PETA shouldn't be promoting it in the first place. Of course, it follows right along with their protests to save the lives of puppies and yet they drive around in a puppy-kill-mobile.
My only qualms with the idea of test tube meats is going to be that fact that it won't taste the same. There's a certain flavor in meat that comes from what the animal is fed. The amount of activity or lack thereof is what determines the fat content and stringiness of cuts of meat. I believe that the optimum that science will create between resulting product and cost to create it will be a uniform slab of meat with no marbling of fat or anything like that. It will likely be ground up, as ground meats are the most cost-efficient and the texture problem will be solved thusly. Also, science will be able to easily ALTER the tastes of meats cultivated in this manner - wouldn't we not be far off from cultivating human flesh for consumption since it'd be just as easy of a process as chicken or beef? The case WILL be argued, and someone WILL do it once the technology is made available to corporations and citizens start creating tube meat "microbrews" to their hearts' content.
Imagine the legendary Thanksgiving tur-duc-ken (turkey, duck and chicken) now available in one combined meat slab! How about infusing some pumpkin pie and mashed potatoes into the nutrient broth used to cultivate turkey meat tissue and creating Thanksgiving Meat? The possibilities are endless. Maybe that's what worries me.
I frankly still think that there's still too much untapped meat flesh out there that's NOT being consumed when it really should be. I'd rather start eating the available cats and dogs and horses and rats that other countries will eat, to which we in the U.S. have turned up our noses, before I worry about speeding up the process to make extra meat just for the additional benefit of not having to slaughter the animal or deal with bones in the buffalo wings.
What do you think? Is PETA contradicting itself on the meat front? Would you eat test-tube meat products? Would you eat a dog? Would you like to taste human flesh without all those pesky first-degree murder trials?
(The history of Tube Meat)
(PETA's million-dollar contest)
(One whackjob who actually points out why PETA shouldn't be okay with Tube Meat)
Read more!
It all starts with one mad scientist named Dr. Alexi Carrel. Okay, maybe not "mad" as much as "Nobel laureate" - but the experiment that started the whole thing must have seemed crazy at the time, back in 1908. He took a piece of embryonic chicken heart and put it in a nutrient broth. That's it. The real craziness was that the heart cells didn't die - they multiplied. It doubled in size every day, never aging or dying off, just expanding and filling the container. When the container was full, Carrel would remove a small piece of the mass, place it in a new container, and the process would resume. It continued for 36 years, up until Carrel's death in 1944.
Unfortunately, after the doctor's death, the chicken heart tissue was improperly cared for by some lab assistant and it died. Attempts have been made to recreate the experiment, but to little success. Still, it has inspired many ideas about the potential of such a setup.
Winston Churchill once said in 1932, "We shall escape the absurdity of growing a whole chicken in order to eat the breast or wing by growing these parts separately under a suitable medium."
The 1953 sci-fi novel "The Space Merchants" features the idea that most of the world's meat supply comes from a giant chicken heart named Chicken Little that gets harvested every day as it grows and fills its concrete vault.
As we fast-forward to the present and our more-advanced technology, we are getting more advanced with our methods of harvesting meat without the rest of the animal. Scientists are figuring out more about the harvesting of meat tissue, the conditions for growing it, and tons of speculation about whether or not it can become commercially available at competitive prices. Also, there is much speculation regarding the taste and how the experiment can be modified to create "new flavors" and such.
So with all of this prospect of meat-eating and processed flesh, why is it that the animal-rights group PETA is ENDORSING the Tube Meat program and offering $1 MILLION to anyone who can make it commercially available?
That's right. A million dollars is the prize money up for grabs directly from the "Animals Are Not Ours to Eat" gestapo just for making this in vitro meat product commercially available. The whole situation completely baffles me, because from every standpoint, PETA should be against tube meat. After hitting myself on the head with a blunt object for a few minutes, I was able to see things from PETA's often-insane perspective and there are no reasons I can find why they would be on-board with this scientific breakthrough.
1) First of all, harvesting tissue for the tube meat processing requires the death of an animal. It's possible to use fertilized embryos for this process, which would only require cages animals being forced to mate and produce the fertilized embryos - but that's still outside of PETA's realm of acceptance. However, scientists say that it's much more difficult to get embryonic samples to produce only the meaty muscle tissue and limit the amount of bone and other non-edible tissues that are cultivated. The optimal tissue for this process is straight-up muscle tissue, which can only be collected by killing the animal. I was pretty sure that PETA is against that kind of thing.
2) By "that kind of thing", I also mean that PETA is adamantly against any scientific research that takes place at the expense of animal's lives or comfort. They don't want you testing lipstick on bunnies. They don't approve of using laboratory mice, even if it's to try and cure cancer or AIDS. Why would they be totally cool and in favor of science that is being tested with these farm critters as we cage, manipulate and/or kill in our attempts to cultivate their organ and muscle tissues? PETA - where in your doctrine is this acceptable to you?
3) I understand that PETA is trying to promote a type of meat that doesn't kill animals (except for the ones used to grow the initial meat source, as previously mentioned). They apparently want to eat meat without the guilt of killing animals. But doesn't this logic completely contradict their war against fur and FAKE FUR? They are opposed to FAKE fur because it promotes the "allure" of real fur, which means that it's somehow making it acceptable to enjoy fur-like things which means more killing of critters. How can they by okay with "non-kill meat" when it promotes the "allure" of tasty real meat, which means that meat itself is acceptable and and will result in the killing of more delicious critters. You can argue that "non-kill meat" will mean an alternative to "real meat" and less animals will die, but can't you make the same argument about fake fur? And isn't that what all those crappy tofu-burgers and veggie-patties are supposed to be for?
So with all of the above craziness going on that is boggling my mind about PETA's decision to sponsor a prize for creating this tube meat, my mind practically exploded upon reading the following criterion for how the prize money will be awarded:
"A team of 10 PETA jurors will taste the entries to make sure they match the texture and flavor of chicken, and they must score at least 80 out of 100 points to win the prize."
THE TASTE OF THE MEAT IS BEING JUDGED BY PETA???
PETA isn't supposed to eat real meat!! So how can they be a proper judge for the taste comparison of the tube meat and its real counterpart?? There's no way that an un-biased comparison can be made, let alone the fact that I wouldn't trust them to know what REAL meat tastes like!
To create a random horrible analogy to describe my horror of this scenario - that's like having a U.S. Senator test-play GTA IV and judge if it feels as awesome as REALLY KILLING A HOOKER!
I'm not using that analogy to suggest that eating meat is as bad as killing a hooker - I'm saying that senators aren't supposed to know the delight of actually killing hookers, just like PETA members aren't supposed to know the delight of actually eating meat.
*takes a breath*
With all of that said, I am totally in favor of tube meat and all of these scientific advances. I just needed that long diatribe to illustrate why it is wrong that I'm agreeing with something being promoted by PETA - the reason being that PETA shouldn't be promoting it in the first place. Of course, it follows right along with their protests to save the lives of puppies and yet they drive around in a puppy-kill-mobile.
My only qualms with the idea of test tube meats is going to be that fact that it won't taste the same. There's a certain flavor in meat that comes from what the animal is fed. The amount of activity or lack thereof is what determines the fat content and stringiness of cuts of meat. I believe that the optimum that science will create between resulting product and cost to create it will be a uniform slab of meat with no marbling of fat or anything like that. It will likely be ground up, as ground meats are the most cost-efficient and the texture problem will be solved thusly. Also, science will be able to easily ALTER the tastes of meats cultivated in this manner - wouldn't we not be far off from cultivating human flesh for consumption since it'd be just as easy of a process as chicken or beef? The case WILL be argued, and someone WILL do it once the technology is made available to corporations and citizens start creating tube meat "microbrews" to their hearts' content.
Imagine the legendary Thanksgiving tur-duc-ken (turkey, duck and chicken) now available in one combined meat slab! How about infusing some pumpkin pie and mashed potatoes into the nutrient broth used to cultivate turkey meat tissue and creating Thanksgiving Meat? The possibilities are endless. Maybe that's what worries me.
I frankly still think that there's still too much untapped meat flesh out there that's NOT being consumed when it really should be. I'd rather start eating the available cats and dogs and horses and rats that other countries will eat, to which we in the U.S. have turned up our noses, before I worry about speeding up the process to make extra meat just for the additional benefit of not having to slaughter the animal or deal with bones in the buffalo wings.
What do you think? Is PETA contradicting itself on the meat front? Would you eat test-tube meat products? Would you eat a dog? Would you like to taste human flesh without all those pesky first-degree murder trials?
(The history of Tube Meat)
(PETA's million-dollar contest)
(One whackjob who actually points out why PETA shouldn't be okay with Tube Meat)
Read more!
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Illegal Immigrants Pay Taxes?
I read this article, and the numbers just don't add up. Probably because the "experts" are just guessing at so many things that they really can't honestly give a real number. But they're saying it's "a lot" and a "significant portion" of illegal immigrants are reportedly paying taxes.
I figured that April 15th would mean scouring the web for a news article to rant about that related to Tax Day - luckily I found one that coincides with my disapproval of all things illegal immigrant.
According to this article, illegal immigrants paid taxes in the amount of $9 billion for 2005.
Now let's explain the flawed logic that comes up with that summarization:
(1) While most of us legal citizens work at jobs that tend to withhold taxes which means a possible refund if you're still in a lower tax bracket, most illegal immigrants are illegally hired as independant contractors which means that they have no taxes withheld and owe money come April.
(2) Most illegal immigrants fear filing taxes if they have pending returns, so they don't file. Some illegal immigrants who don't have refunds (see (1)) apparently feel guilty enough to try and file. Even though they have no social security number, they can still apply for an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number from the IRS with no questions asked and they get grouped in the ITIN category like all other foreigners with no Social Security numbers, legal or not.
(3) Another way that the IRS is guessing at illegal immigrant tax reporting is 9 million W-2 forms that have mismatched names and Social Security numbers. So they're able to attempt an estimation from that information based on guessing the percentage of identity theft and fraud is being committed by illegal immigrants which includes getting paychecks under fake names and Social Security numbers, since $40 billion of the $53 billion reported this way in 2004 had taxes withheld (1).
Are you starting to see how any numbers they come up with just aren't able to be verified or even possible to estimate?
So the article claims that illegal immigrants are paying $9 billion of tax money going into Social Security which they'll never see again because they're here illegally and therefore can't receive Social Security (except by using fake names and/or identity theft). Of course, that's the $9 billion that happens to be a result of (3), which we've already established is impossible to tell how much of that identity theft and other errored reporting is due to illegal immigrants.
Spokesman Mark Hinkle said Social Security does not know how much of the $9 billion can be attributed to illegal immigrants. The number is certainly not 100 percent, but a significant portion probably comes from taxes paid by illegal immigrants.
Notice the words 'not 100 percent' combined with 'significant portion' and 'probably'.
So that's the entire basis of why they felt the need to make this statement:
Ford said a majority of economists agree that illegal immigrants are a net benefit for the U.S. economy.
I do not believe for one minute that the not-100-percent amount of $9 billion is anywhere NEAR the difference between the amount of money used in hospitals and schools and other services that tax money pays for which illegal immigrants reap the benefits of and the amount actually being accumulated in tax money as a result of illegal immigrants. What's worse is that most of this money coming in from taxes is at the federal level, while most of the tax-funded resources being used by illegal immigrants is paid by STATE tax money. So it's the states that suffer while the federal government reaps the meager rewards.
The last thing that pissed me off about this article was the ever-present "let's interview an illegal immigrant and give detailed information rather than arrest this criminal or call the police" section:
Among those she has assisted is Eric Jimenez, a self-employed handyman who has worked in Nashville for several years.
He feels obliged to pay taxes — even though, as Pantoja said, "nothing would happen" to him if he did not.
"I have an idea, a mentality, that to be a good citizen you have to pay taxes," he said. "Also, I'm conscious of the fact that the money we pay in taxes supports the schools and all the public services."
Why is Eric Jimenez not on a deportation vehicle headed back to Latin America?
To be a good citizen, you have to obey the laws - like legally entering the country in order to use those public services! While I applaud his sentimentality and marvel at his grasp of the English language that is so rare to find among the illegal immigration population - I still must deplore the fact that he is a criminal who is here illegally and apparently getting hired and able to rent a place to live and brazen enough to get interviewed and have his name printed in newspapers.
I.C.E. - GET ON THIS!
All in all, it's a horrible article that attempts to reason with people to accept illegal immigration by creating made-up numbers about how they possibly defy stereotypes and actually pay SOME taxes. But we know the truth.
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IS ILLEGAL.
(The not-100-percent correct article)
Read more!
I figured that April 15th would mean scouring the web for a news article to rant about that related to Tax Day - luckily I found one that coincides with my disapproval of all things illegal immigrant.
According to this article, illegal immigrants paid taxes in the amount of $9 billion for 2005.
Now let's explain the flawed logic that comes up with that summarization:
(1) While most of us legal citizens work at jobs that tend to withhold taxes which means a possible refund if you're still in a lower tax bracket, most illegal immigrants are illegally hired as independant contractors which means that they have no taxes withheld and owe money come April.
(2) Most illegal immigrants fear filing taxes if they have pending returns, so they don't file. Some illegal immigrants who don't have refunds (see (1)) apparently feel guilty enough to try and file. Even though they have no social security number, they can still apply for an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number from the IRS with no questions asked and they get grouped in the ITIN category like all other foreigners with no Social Security numbers, legal or not.
(3) Another way that the IRS is guessing at illegal immigrant tax reporting is 9 million W-2 forms that have mismatched names and Social Security numbers. So they're able to attempt an estimation from that information based on guessing the percentage of identity theft and fraud is being committed by illegal immigrants which includes getting paychecks under fake names and Social Security numbers, since $40 billion of the $53 billion reported this way in 2004 had taxes withheld (1).
Are you starting to see how any numbers they come up with just aren't able to be verified or even possible to estimate?
So the article claims that illegal immigrants are paying $9 billion of tax money going into Social Security which they'll never see again because they're here illegally and therefore can't receive Social Security (except by using fake names and/or identity theft). Of course, that's the $9 billion that happens to be a result of (3), which we've already established is impossible to tell how much of that identity theft and other errored reporting is due to illegal immigrants.
Spokesman Mark Hinkle said Social Security does not know how much of the $9 billion can be attributed to illegal immigrants. The number is certainly not 100 percent, but a significant portion probably comes from taxes paid by illegal immigrants.
Notice the words 'not 100 percent' combined with 'significant portion' and 'probably'.
So that's the entire basis of why they felt the need to make this statement:
Ford said a majority of economists agree that illegal immigrants are a net benefit for the U.S. economy.
I do not believe for one minute that the not-100-percent amount of $9 billion is anywhere NEAR the difference between the amount of money used in hospitals and schools and other services that tax money pays for which illegal immigrants reap the benefits of and the amount actually being accumulated in tax money as a result of illegal immigrants. What's worse is that most of this money coming in from taxes is at the federal level, while most of the tax-funded resources being used by illegal immigrants is paid by STATE tax money. So it's the states that suffer while the federal government reaps the meager rewards.
The last thing that pissed me off about this article was the ever-present "let's interview an illegal immigrant and give detailed information rather than arrest this criminal or call the police" section:
Among those she has assisted is Eric Jimenez, a self-employed handyman who has worked in Nashville for several years.
He feels obliged to pay taxes — even though, as Pantoja said, "nothing would happen" to him if he did not.
"I have an idea, a mentality, that to be a good citizen you have to pay taxes," he said. "Also, I'm conscious of the fact that the money we pay in taxes supports the schools and all the public services."
Why is Eric Jimenez not on a deportation vehicle headed back to Latin America?
To be a good citizen, you have to obey the laws - like legally entering the country in order to use those public services! While I applaud his sentimentality and marvel at his grasp of the English language that is so rare to find among the illegal immigration population - I still must deplore the fact that he is a criminal who is here illegally and apparently getting hired and able to rent a place to live and brazen enough to get interviewed and have his name printed in newspapers.
I.C.E. - GET ON THIS!
All in all, it's a horrible article that attempts to reason with people to accept illegal immigration by creating made-up numbers about how they possibly defy stereotypes and actually pay SOME taxes. But we know the truth.
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IS ILLEGAL.
(The not-100-percent correct article)
Read more!
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Police Gear
I stumbled across this new site for purchasing police gear and some of the deals are pretty good. You can get Blackhawk Gear, some military-style gear and knives and clothing. I was looking at maybe getting a Master Parachuter hat for $5 - until I remembered I'm afraid of heights.
They've got a really need storm-proof lighter that's armored, waterproof and can keep a lit flame even in 80 mph winds. Too bad most of my friends stopped smoking. And don't live in hurricane-heavy areas...
Anyway, I recommend taking a look, especially through their clearance section. Both of their clearance sections.
Enjoy!
This is a sponsored post for L.A. Police Gear.
Read more!
They've got a really need storm-proof lighter that's armored, waterproof and can keep a lit flame even in 80 mph winds. Too bad most of my friends stopped smoking. And don't live in hurricane-heavy areas...
Anyway, I recommend taking a look, especially through their clearance section. Both of their clearance sections.
Enjoy!
This is a sponsored post for L.A. Police Gear.
Friday, April 11, 2008
Airplanes!
So even an agorophobic like me is aware of the current situation involving the FAA and their horrible safety inspection record that has led to airlines grounding planes indefinitely in order to be serviced and inspected - leading to hundreds of flights being cancelled every day for some airlines.
To be honest, it makes me glad that I'm not someone who flies very often.
I don't want this to be a "sucks to be you" rant, but I would like to give my opinion on the matter. Because I enjoy giving my opinion.
I'm pretty sure that this whole thing started an entire month ago when the Federal Aviation Agency found out that there were missed safety inspections at Southwest Airlines and ordered an audit of their maintenance records. This led to the discovery that dozens of Southwest airplanes hadn't been inspected for cracks in their fuselages. The result was a $10.2 million fine for the airline.
That's when the whistleblowers stepped forward. Safety inspectors for the FAA claimed that the FAA treats airlines more as "customers" rather than companies that need to be regulated and inspected. In fact, "the FAA's chief maintenance inspector at Southwest, Douglas T. Gawadzinski, knowingly allowed Southwest to keep planes flying that put passengers at risk, and that another inspector knew of the problem and did nothing.
Southwest is not the only carrier that has benefited from a "cozy" relationship with regulators, said Tom Brantley, president of the Professional Aviation Safety Specialists union that represents FAA inspectors.
In testimony prepared for the hearing, Brantley details maintenance and safety issues at United, Continental Airlines Inc., Northwest Airlines Corp., Hawaiian Airlines Inc. and elsewhere where the carriers were given great leeway by the FAA to correct problems that inspectors on the ground said merited more serious attention. Financial penalties for infractions suggested by inspectors against United and other carriers also were ignored or significantly reduced by the time they were assessed, he added."
From there on out, it's just been a back-and-forth between the FAA that is now being brought to light for NOT having inspected planes and the airlines and their airplanes that apparently NEED to be ACTUALLY inspected. This led to the grounding of dozens of airplanes in order to be inspected and given clean bills of health, which results in hundreds and hundreds of cancelled flights for these airlines.
The price of fuel is already skyrocketing to the point of airlines raising their rates and cramming a body into every possible seat - which means that cancelled flights have no way of transferring their passengers to other airlines' flights because they're already overbooked as it is. Airlines are declaring bankrupcy left and right because of the loss of revenue due to grounded planes, fines and a lack of customer satisfaction (not to mention some airlines giving vouchers and paying for hotels as an attempt to compensate).
So I guess what this all boils down to is:
Would you rather:
1) Expose the FAA for the corrupt agency that it has become, which means that airplanes will finally be inspected and maintained, but at the cost of higher prices with cancelled flights on less options of non-bankrupt airlines.
2) Go back to an "ignorance is bliss" lifestyle of less-outrageously expensive tickets on a number of airlines to travel on airplanes that "probably" are safe to fly, knowing that the last time a jumbo jet actually crashed was Nov. 12, 2001.
Don't look at me to advocate one or the other. I'm just saying that these are the two paths - and people didn't seem to be too troubled with option #2 until the bubble was burst on the blissful ignorance and we've automatically careened into option #1 with no hope of going back.
I'm just positing that both were viable options.
Frankly, I'm torn between the two. With all of the comedians chuckling it up over our insane airport security procedures, this is just icing on the cake for them since they'll search you three different ways to make sure you don't have any toothpaste containers over 3 ounces large but apparently won't bother to inspect the plane for cracks along the fuselage. But the point is, does it matter? Are you any more safe after they've finally searched the plane for cracks? Would those cracks have actually taken down your plane and it would have been blood on the hands of the FAA?
One would think that if this wonton disregard for inspection and regulation had gone on for so long - there would have been more evidence of it in airplane crashes and whatnot. Right? Wouldn't you have expected to see this eerie string of plane crashes that after long investigation showed that they were the result of something that should have been caught in an inspection, which would lead to the investigation into the FAA's inspection and then we'd be right back to where we are now - but it would have made a lot more sense.
Maybe I just have a weird way of thinking about these things. Maybe it's the fact that I fly at most two roundtrips per year and never internationally. Maybe it's just the stream of headlines...
ATA Airlines filed for bankruptcy.
SkyBus filed for bankruptcy.
Aloha Airlines filed for bankruptcy.
Frontier Airlines filed for bankruptcy.
Are we looking at the end of passenger aviation? If we do get to keep flying, will we be safe under the watchful eye of a federal agency that likes to look away? Wouldn't it be easier if we let them keep doing it but back in secrecy so that ticket prices could go down and flights could resume at the potential risk of a few plane crashes? What are your thoughts on the matter?
(The whistle gets blown)
(The flights are cancelled)
Read more!
To be honest, it makes me glad that I'm not someone who flies very often.
I don't want this to be a "sucks to be you" rant, but I would like to give my opinion on the matter. Because I enjoy giving my opinion.
I'm pretty sure that this whole thing started an entire month ago when the Federal Aviation Agency found out that there were missed safety inspections at Southwest Airlines and ordered an audit of their maintenance records. This led to the discovery that dozens of Southwest airplanes hadn't been inspected for cracks in their fuselages. The result was a $10.2 million fine for the airline.
That's when the whistleblowers stepped forward. Safety inspectors for the FAA claimed that the FAA treats airlines more as "customers" rather than companies that need to be regulated and inspected. In fact, "the FAA's chief maintenance inspector at Southwest, Douglas T. Gawadzinski, knowingly allowed Southwest to keep planes flying that put passengers at risk, and that another inspector knew of the problem and did nothing.
Southwest is not the only carrier that has benefited from a "cozy" relationship with regulators, said Tom Brantley, president of the Professional Aviation Safety Specialists union that represents FAA inspectors.
In testimony prepared for the hearing, Brantley details maintenance and safety issues at United, Continental Airlines Inc., Northwest Airlines Corp., Hawaiian Airlines Inc. and elsewhere where the carriers were given great leeway by the FAA to correct problems that inspectors on the ground said merited more serious attention. Financial penalties for infractions suggested by inspectors against United and other carriers also were ignored or significantly reduced by the time they were assessed, he added."
From there on out, it's just been a back-and-forth between the FAA that is now being brought to light for NOT having inspected planes and the airlines and their airplanes that apparently NEED to be ACTUALLY inspected. This led to the grounding of dozens of airplanes in order to be inspected and given clean bills of health, which results in hundreds and hundreds of cancelled flights for these airlines.
The price of fuel is already skyrocketing to the point of airlines raising their rates and cramming a body into every possible seat - which means that cancelled flights have no way of transferring their passengers to other airlines' flights because they're already overbooked as it is. Airlines are declaring bankrupcy left and right because of the loss of revenue due to grounded planes, fines and a lack of customer satisfaction (not to mention some airlines giving vouchers and paying for hotels as an attempt to compensate).
So I guess what this all boils down to is:
Would you rather:
1) Expose the FAA for the corrupt agency that it has become, which means that airplanes will finally be inspected and maintained, but at the cost of higher prices with cancelled flights on less options of non-bankrupt airlines.
2) Go back to an "ignorance is bliss" lifestyle of less-outrageously expensive tickets on a number of airlines to travel on airplanes that "probably" are safe to fly, knowing that the last time a jumbo jet actually crashed was Nov. 12, 2001.
Don't look at me to advocate one or the other. I'm just saying that these are the two paths - and people didn't seem to be too troubled with option #2 until the bubble was burst on the blissful ignorance and we've automatically careened into option #1 with no hope of going back.
I'm just positing that both were viable options.
Frankly, I'm torn between the two. With all of the comedians chuckling it up over our insane airport security procedures, this is just icing on the cake for them since they'll search you three different ways to make sure you don't have any toothpaste containers over 3 ounces large but apparently won't bother to inspect the plane for cracks along the fuselage. But the point is, does it matter? Are you any more safe after they've finally searched the plane for cracks? Would those cracks have actually taken down your plane and it would have been blood on the hands of the FAA?
One would think that if this wonton disregard for inspection and regulation had gone on for so long - there would have been more evidence of it in airplane crashes and whatnot. Right? Wouldn't you have expected to see this eerie string of plane crashes that after long investigation showed that they were the result of something that should have been caught in an inspection, which would lead to the investigation into the FAA's inspection and then we'd be right back to where we are now - but it would have made a lot more sense.
Maybe I just have a weird way of thinking about these things. Maybe it's the fact that I fly at most two roundtrips per year and never internationally. Maybe it's just the stream of headlines...
ATA Airlines filed for bankruptcy.
SkyBus filed for bankruptcy.
Aloha Airlines filed for bankruptcy.
Frontier Airlines filed for bankruptcy.
Are we looking at the end of passenger aviation? If we do get to keep flying, will we be safe under the watchful eye of a federal agency that likes to look away? Wouldn't it be easier if we let them keep doing it but back in secrecy so that ticket prices could go down and flights could resume at the potential risk of a few plane crashes? What are your thoughts on the matter?
(The whistle gets blown)
(The flights are cancelled)
Read more!
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Balloon Ban?
Every now and then, one of the news stories I read about just catches my attention for multiple reasons at once. The headline of the article was about a ban on metallic balloons. My first thought was about the recent Mythbusters episode about the lead balloon and how they busted the saying by actually constructing a lighter-than-air lead balloon. Eventually, once I clicked on the article, I realized that they were talking about Mylar balloons. But a BAN on them??
Apparently the Pacific Gas and Electric Co. of Northern California is complaining that Mylar balloons that come into contact with power lines have caused more than 200 blackouts in the past year in their service area. So a California senator proposed a bill that makes it illegal to sell metallic balloons that are filled with a lighter-than-air gas which could allow the balloon to rise high enough to hit a power line.
Believe it or not, there already ARE laws regarding the sale of metallic balloons. California law already requires that helium-filled metallic balloons must be sold with weights to hold them down. But Senator Scott said those weights are often candies or action figures designed to be removed by children.
This bill, if passed, would make California the first state to ban the sale of these balloons filled with helium.
Barry Broad, a lobbyist for The Balloon Council, objects to what he calls a "wacky" attempt to criminalize a party toy.
In other news...
THERE'S A BALLOON COUNCIL?? WITH LOBBYISTS???
Apparently so. They even have a website:
http://www.balloonhq.com/BalloonCouncil/index.html
Meanwhile, the bill has already cleared the Senate Public Safety Committee, sets a $100 fine for selling the helium-filled balloons starting in 2010. Repeat offenders could be charged with misdemeanors.
I've actually READ the bill. I hunted it down and looked at the wording and such.
Apparently it would be a crime to sell or distribute metallic balloons that are filled with helium (and any balloon that has a metallic or conductive string or is tied to a metallic balloon). The law says nothing about selling or distributing non-inflated metallic balloons or about selling or distributing helium as seperate entities. Which means that the law doesn't care if you fill that balloon up yourself.
Also, the law "shall not apply to manned hot air balloons, or to
balloons used in governmental or scientific research projects." Which means that all you'd have to do is claim it's for your science fair project and you and your distributor are off the hook?? I suppose you could also tie a basket to the balloon and place a small creature in the basket - but I don't know if hamster balloons would count as "manned" for the sake of this law.
I'm a little irked that official government parties could probably have helium-filled Mylar balloons but my birthday party would require two separate purchases and having to fill the balloons myself.
Anyway, it's a stupid law. And The Balloon Council agrees.
Really, are you going to disagree with The Balloon Council? How could you??
(The news article about the ban)
(Once more, a link to The Balloon Council, in all its official-type glory)
(The ACTUAL BILL, in all its balloon-popping pomposity)
Read more!
Apparently the Pacific Gas and Electric Co. of Northern California is complaining that Mylar balloons that come into contact with power lines have caused more than 200 blackouts in the past year in their service area. So a California senator proposed a bill that makes it illegal to sell metallic balloons that are filled with a lighter-than-air gas which could allow the balloon to rise high enough to hit a power line.
Believe it or not, there already ARE laws regarding the sale of metallic balloons. California law already requires that helium-filled metallic balloons must be sold with weights to hold them down. But Senator Scott said those weights are often candies or action figures designed to be removed by children.
This bill, if passed, would make California the first state to ban the sale of these balloons filled with helium.
Barry Broad, a lobbyist for The Balloon Council, objects to what he calls a "wacky" attempt to criminalize a party toy.
In other news...
THERE'S A BALLOON COUNCIL?? WITH LOBBYISTS???
Apparently so. They even have a website:
http://www.balloonhq.com/BalloonCouncil/index.html
Meanwhile, the bill has already cleared the Senate Public Safety Committee, sets a $100 fine for selling the helium-filled balloons starting in 2010. Repeat offenders could be charged with misdemeanors.
I've actually READ the bill. I hunted it down and looked at the wording and such.
Apparently it would be a crime to sell or distribute metallic balloons that are filled with helium (and any balloon that has a metallic or conductive string or is tied to a metallic balloon). The law says nothing about selling or distributing non-inflated metallic balloons or about selling or distributing helium as seperate entities. Which means that the law doesn't care if you fill that balloon up yourself.
Also, the law "shall not apply to manned hot air balloons, or to
balloons used in governmental or scientific research projects." Which means that all you'd have to do is claim it's for your science fair project and you and your distributor are off the hook?? I suppose you could also tie a basket to the balloon and place a small creature in the basket - but I don't know if hamster balloons would count as "manned" for the sake of this law.
I'm a little irked that official government parties could probably have helium-filled Mylar balloons but my birthday party would require two separate purchases and having to fill the balloons myself.
Anyway, it's a stupid law. And The Balloon Council agrees.
Really, are you going to disagree with The Balloon Council? How could you??
(The news article about the ban)
(Once more, a link to The Balloon Council, in all its official-type glory)
(The ACTUAL BILL, in all its balloon-popping pomposity)
Read more!
Friday, April 04, 2008
Korea and Dogmeat
South Korea is the only country where dogmeat is consumed. In fact, every year dogs are consumed by the millions in the country. Frankly, I wish that this notion could spread to the USA - where the pet population is out of control and animal shelters are filled to capacity and we have PETA killing 96% of the animals being "rescued" and we have old celebrities hawking the idea to "spay or neuter your pets" to try and ease the overpopulation.
In 1988, to try and improve popularity with some good publicity before hosting the Olympics, South Korea's capital Seoul banned dogmeat and snakemeat as "abhorrent food." Despite the much-ignored ban, South Koreans still eat between two and four million dogs every year and there are more than 500 dogmeat restaurants in the capital alone.
So what's a government to do?
They're trying to finally classify dogs as livestock.
The whole point of it is that a livestock classification would mean that dogmeat could get the food safety standards of the other meats being consumed in South Korea and protect the health of those eating it. Since dogs are not currently classed as livestock, there are no hygiene regulations on their slaughter at all. I think that even a vegan member of PETA would at least agree that if a slaughter is going to be done, it should be hygienic and regulated for safety.
I, for one, think this is a great idea.
I've always advocated the notion that things made of meat (other than humans) can be eaten. I will admittedly draw the line when it comes to humans - not out of any ethical or moral reasoning, but because that would mean that I could be eaten and that doesn't benefit me in the least. I'm also not that hugely in favor of eating things that could become extinct. However, I do believe that those animals should be bred in captivity like you would on any farm, just to keep the numbers up and set aside a nice fat percentage for consumption.
As for dogs, there's just too many of them running around. SOMETHING's got to thin out those herds. Cars aren't working fast enough, and no matter how many get their gonads removed as advocated by TV celebs, there's three more taking its place and breeding like crazy. The same goes for cats, but they're not as meaty as dogs. Perhaps a cat breeding farm could genetically create some meatier cats that aren't running and jumping around so much that their becomes stringy and tough; that's a possibility in the future. But we should be eating dogs.
It's certainly more humane to slaughter a dog in a hygienic and regulated facility and harvest the USDA-regulated meat to feed a low-income family than to inject it with poison and dump the carcass in a dumpster.
If you don't agree, you're obviously a member of PETA.
(The article about Korea and their dogmeat)
Read more!
In 1988, to try and improve popularity with some good publicity before hosting the Olympics, South Korea's capital Seoul banned dogmeat and snakemeat as "abhorrent food." Despite the much-ignored ban, South Koreans still eat between two and four million dogs every year and there are more than 500 dogmeat restaurants in the capital alone.
So what's a government to do?
They're trying to finally classify dogs as livestock.
The whole point of it is that a livestock classification would mean that dogmeat could get the food safety standards of the other meats being consumed in South Korea and protect the health of those eating it. Since dogs are not currently classed as livestock, there are no hygiene regulations on their slaughter at all. I think that even a vegan member of PETA would at least agree that if a slaughter is going to be done, it should be hygienic and regulated for safety.
I, for one, think this is a great idea.
I've always advocated the notion that things made of meat (other than humans) can be eaten. I will admittedly draw the line when it comes to humans - not out of any ethical or moral reasoning, but because that would mean that I could be eaten and that doesn't benefit me in the least. I'm also not that hugely in favor of eating things that could become extinct. However, I do believe that those animals should be bred in captivity like you would on any farm, just to keep the numbers up and set aside a nice fat percentage for consumption.
As for dogs, there's just too many of them running around. SOMETHING's got to thin out those herds. Cars aren't working fast enough, and no matter how many get their gonads removed as advocated by TV celebs, there's three more taking its place and breeding like crazy. The same goes for cats, but they're not as meaty as dogs. Perhaps a cat breeding farm could genetically create some meatier cats that aren't running and jumping around so much that their becomes stringy and tough; that's a possibility in the future. But we should be eating dogs.
It's certainly more humane to slaughter a dog in a hygienic and regulated facility and harvest the USDA-regulated meat to feed a low-income family than to inject it with poison and dump the carcass in a dumpster.
If you don't agree, you're obviously a member of PETA.
(The article about Korea and their dogmeat)
Read more!
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
Florida Teens Are Idiots!
It's hard to describe the jaw-dropping idiocy that I read about in this article. So I'm just going to copy it.
ORLANDO, Fla. -- A recent survey that found some Florida teens believe drinking a cap of bleach will prevent HIV and a shot of Mountain Dew will stop pregnancy has prompted lawmakers to push for an overhaul of sex education in the state.
The survey showed that Florida teens also believe that smoking marijuana will prevent a person from getting pregnant.
State lawmakers said the myths are spreading because of Florida's abstinence-only sex education, Local 6 reported.
They are proposing a bill that would require a more comprehensive approach, the report said.
It would still require teaching abstinence but students would also learn about condoms and other methods of birth control and disease prevention.
The bill just passed its first vote in a committee, Local 6 reported.
(In case you think I'm making this up)
How can this really be blamed on poor sex education?
Honestly, I blame the sheer idiocy of Florida teenagers. Sure, one could argue that they're only idiotic because of a lack of education, and since this is regarding sex, it would be the result of poor sex education. But if these kids actually think these above ideas are TRUE - then there's just a general lack of brainpower going on upstairs that far surpasses any blame you could point at the abstinence-only sex education curriculum.
Although I do have to give them partial credit for their notion that drinking bleach will prevent HIV.
After all, if you get an idiotic Florida teenager to drink ENOUGH bleach, it will prevent that dumbass from contracting HIV once s/he is dead.
We should be TEACHING that piece of information, just to clean up the gene pool just a little bit. There's too many regulations out there prolonging the lives of the stupid kids enough to have them procreating. A few little tests like these would easily correct that.
Okay, I'm going back to work now. Read more!
ORLANDO, Fla. -- A recent survey that found some Florida teens believe drinking a cap of bleach will prevent HIV and a shot of Mountain Dew will stop pregnancy has prompted lawmakers to push for an overhaul of sex education in the state.
The survey showed that Florida teens also believe that smoking marijuana will prevent a person from getting pregnant.
State lawmakers said the myths are spreading because of Florida's abstinence-only sex education, Local 6 reported.
They are proposing a bill that would require a more comprehensive approach, the report said.
It would still require teaching abstinence but students would also learn about condoms and other methods of birth control and disease prevention.
The bill just passed its first vote in a committee, Local 6 reported.
(In case you think I'm making this up)
How can this really be blamed on poor sex education?
Honestly, I blame the sheer idiocy of Florida teenagers. Sure, one could argue that they're only idiotic because of a lack of education, and since this is regarding sex, it would be the result of poor sex education. But if these kids actually think these above ideas are TRUE - then there's just a general lack of brainpower going on upstairs that far surpasses any blame you could point at the abstinence-only sex education curriculum.
Although I do have to give them partial credit for their notion that drinking bleach will prevent HIV.
After all, if you get an idiotic Florida teenager to drink ENOUGH bleach, it will prevent that dumbass from contracting HIV once s/he is dead.
We should be TEACHING that piece of information, just to clean up the gene pool just a little bit. There's too many regulations out there prolonging the lives of the stupid kids enough to have them procreating. A few little tests like these would easily correct that.
Okay, I'm going back to work now. Read more!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
