I'm sure you already know how much I am against protesters. It's a running theme in this blog of mine. And apparently yesterday there was a protest here in Chicago led by "Tibetans of the Midwest" that consisted of a short march and then a bunch of yelling outside the Chinese consulate and eventually some minor damage was done.
In my usual state of mind, I am at an impasse regarding the whole China-Tibet situation. On the one hand, it's mean to just storm in, take over land and beat down any nails that try sticking up with a hard military hammer. On the other hand, that's just how things are done and you can't eradicate "mean" from the world. I mean, the only way to stop this situation (and I mean REALLY stop it) is war. Tibet obviously can't do anything against China, both for size/strength reasons as well as the whole pacifist government-in-exile thing. It would need to rely on a country big enough to "liberate" it from China's hands. Which would probably be America, since we're the country everyone looks to for barging into smaller countries and doing what they can't do for themselves. Of course, the largest group in favor of freeing Tibet is the hippie population, which is the least likely to pick up a gun and do something about it.
I'm a little sad that empires are kind of gone. While I realize it was a less peaceful time in history, the notion of living in a country that kicks other country's asses and then takes over sounds keen. Of course, living in a country that sucks and gets trampled on and absorbed into another country wouldn't be great, but if they were good enough to kick our asses, they must be doing SOMETHING right and now that we're part of it, maybe we can get in on the action. Like some better healthcare to pay for the bayonet wound created while we got taken over by a country with better healthcare.
I still think that the solution to the illegal immigration problem in America is just storming in and taking over Mexico. They should just let us, really. Then as part of America, we'd be responsible for taking care of it since their numbers would officially reflect ours. We could move in and industrialize and cultivate and throw some Starbucks locations in there to generate some economic flow. Plus, maybe some of these illegals would move back to be with their families since we'd be bringing jobs THERE instead of having them come HERE to STEAL our jobs.
Anyway, back to Tibet and this insane protest. I call it insane because it's not going to do anything. Protests just don't do anything. The farther away the situation is that you're protesting and the larger the situation is, the less you're going to be able to affect anything and the more you look like idiots for trying. And this situation is across the freakin' Pacific Ocean. I just don't understand what they're expecting to accomplish other than looking like idiots.
Do they think that there's some mentally-challenged newbie who is friends with the Chinese military leader and is working his first day at this consulate after living in a cave for 60 years? He'd see 600 protesters with big signs chanting "Free Tibet" and flip out when a rock goes through the window and he says "OH NO THEY'RE SERIOUS! AND THEIR SIGNS ARE SO SUCCINCT! WHAT A GREAT ARGUMENT! THEY'RE RIGHT!" and calls up his buddy in charge of the entire Chinese military and tells him that there's a crushable number of protesters in another country who are armed with rocks and not afraid to use only one of them so we'd better hand Tibet back over to the Dalai Lama and withdraw the troops??
The only thing dumber than a group of protesters might be the individual protesters themselves.
Demonstrator Tenzin Palkyi, 21, a student at the University of Minnesota on spring break, carried a sign with gruesome pictures of Tibetans she said had been murdered by the Chinese government because of their opposition to Chinese rule.
Seriously, if your idea of a rockin' Spring Break is displaying tableaus of murdered bodies while screaming and marching - you obviously don't eat lunch at the popular kids' table.
One protester, who did not want to be named, said many people knew nothing about Tibet other than the Dalai Lama, which he said was not what the march was about. "It's not about just China or Tibet, it's about basic human rights."
I'm hoping that he didn't want to be named because he knew the possible consequences of being dumb enough to march with the "Tibetans of the Midwest" in a protest of China's occupation of Tibet and murdering Tibetans - and then saying the protest isn't just about China or Tibet.
You can't march in that kind of protest with signs saying "FREE TIBET" and then say it's not about Tibet - it's about "human rights".
That's like throwing a temper tantrum over Denny's not giving you a free Grand Slam breakfast meal and then claiming "This isn't about me getting free food - it's about ending world hunger."
If you can understand the logic there, you're hopefully smart enough to know that protesting is useless, or if you have to be an idiot and protest, at least you'll be smart enough to not say insanely-stupid things about why you're protesting.
And sometimes, that's the least I can hope for. So when ARE we going to take over Mexico, anyway?
(An article about the protest)
Read more!
Showing posts with label protest. Show all posts
Showing posts with label protest. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Immigrants vs Western Union
It's a tale as old as time (well, the time when illegal immigrants started flooding the USA) - illegal immigrant crosses border, takes up a job that should have gone to an American citizen, and when his low (but higher-than-you'd-think) paycheck comes in, there's a quick dash to the Western Union to wire ill-gotten monies back home to his relatives who are feeding off the crimes of their border-crossing savior. Now try thinking that thought WITHOUT the words "Western Union" - and you'll find that it's a difficult task.
After all, Western Union is just about the only way we tend to think about wiring money from one place to another. It's embedded in our collective minds the same way that Kleenex is synonymous with "tissues" and Band-Aid is synonymous with "adhesive bandages". It's this dominance over the money-wiring industry (not to mention efficiency and effectiveness) that allows Western Union to pretty much set its own fees and there's little, if any, alternative to get your money to someone else as quickly as they can.
That's where the illegal immigrants come in. Some jackass immigration advocate named Carlos Arango is organizing the Chicago branch of the Western Union boycott that's supposedly happening around the country. Mostly in high-illegal cities, of course. Their problem with the system is that Western Union (and I quote):
"They get all this money, and all they have to do is push a button" to send the money over, he said.
Yea, that's right, asshole. They get your dirty money, push a button, and your criminal funds go off to Mexico and your relatives. And they have every damned right to charge you whatever they want in order to do that.
It's called business - and they're quite good at it.
You know what you SHOULD try to do? Go somewhere else. If you don't want to be charged $10 by the best company just to get your money to your family, go find someone else to do it. The choices are few and far-between, but you ALWAYS have options. You could pay some OTHER illegal $5 to simply walk back to Mexico and deliver the money for you. Odds are that the process would take a lot longer, and would be less reliable that your money would actually get there. You have the choice. It's just really freakin' obvious which is the best choice. And unfortunately, it will cost you that $10.
You know what you SHOULDN'T try to do? Demand things of the business that's been properly handling your financial transactions and threaten to withhold your business from them. First off, you're asking them to donate $1 per every money transfer toward economic development in the U.S. and in countries being sent money. Do you even understand the word "donate", you numbskull? It's a voluntary decision to be charitable, not a contractual obligation spurred on by angry protesters! And why would that money be put into economic development in all of these countries where you need to send your money? On a national level from a government standpoint, I could see that helping other countries economically helps us economically - especially when it means fewer criminals will cross the border to steal work from our citizens because their country is in the crapper. But on a business standpoint for a company that makes billions of dollars BECAUSE your country is in the crapper and that's why you need to wire money there? That would be BAD business. And no amount of protest will lead to a company doing BAD business to appease the foolish masses.
Oh, and as far as the above statement goes, about some kind of anguish that the company charges $10 for the employee to "get the money and push a button" - are you arguing that the effort required to wire the money is so seemingly little that it doesn't warrant the $10 in your mind? Because it took a helluva lot of business savvy and financial planning to SET UP the system in the first place. Plus, the business itself needs to pay to keep its doors open, keep the place running, and keep staff paid to they will come in to work and push the button that wires your money. It's called running a business - and it takes money to do that, you dumbass!
"They are becoming billionaires on the backs of immigrant workers," Arango said during a news conference near a Western Union check-cashing store in Pilsen.
Western Union spokesman Daniel Diaz wouldn't comment directly on the boycott, saying: "We are very proud to provide consumers with fast, reliable and trusted service."
You're damned right, Diaz! You have every right to set your prices, because you're the best in the business with the fastest and most reliable service available. If any of these protesters give you lip about your prices, you should remind them of the easiest solution to their problems:
"You don't want to pay to wire money? Then go the hell back to your own country where you belong and then you won't have to wire money anymore!"
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IS ILLEGAL.
(News article from the Chicago branch of the insanity)
Read more!
After all, Western Union is just about the only way we tend to think about wiring money from one place to another. It's embedded in our collective minds the same way that Kleenex is synonymous with "tissues" and Band-Aid is synonymous with "adhesive bandages". It's this dominance over the money-wiring industry (not to mention efficiency and effectiveness) that allows Western Union to pretty much set its own fees and there's little, if any, alternative to get your money to someone else as quickly as they can.
That's where the illegal immigrants come in. Some jackass immigration advocate named Carlos Arango is organizing the Chicago branch of the Western Union boycott that's supposedly happening around the country. Mostly in high-illegal cities, of course. Their problem with the system is that Western Union (and I quote):
"They get all this money, and all they have to do is push a button" to send the money over, he said.
Yea, that's right, asshole. They get your dirty money, push a button, and your criminal funds go off to Mexico and your relatives. And they have every damned right to charge you whatever they want in order to do that.
It's called business - and they're quite good at it.
You know what you SHOULD try to do? Go somewhere else. If you don't want to be charged $10 by the best company just to get your money to your family, go find someone else to do it. The choices are few and far-between, but you ALWAYS have options. You could pay some OTHER illegal $5 to simply walk back to Mexico and deliver the money for you. Odds are that the process would take a lot longer, and would be less reliable that your money would actually get there. You have the choice. It's just really freakin' obvious which is the best choice. And unfortunately, it will cost you that $10.
You know what you SHOULDN'T try to do? Demand things of the business that's been properly handling your financial transactions and threaten to withhold your business from them. First off, you're asking them to donate $1 per every money transfer toward economic development in the U.S. and in countries being sent money. Do you even understand the word "donate", you numbskull? It's a voluntary decision to be charitable, not a contractual obligation spurred on by angry protesters! And why would that money be put into economic development in all of these countries where you need to send your money? On a national level from a government standpoint, I could see that helping other countries economically helps us economically - especially when it means fewer criminals will cross the border to steal work from our citizens because their country is in the crapper. But on a business standpoint for a company that makes billions of dollars BECAUSE your country is in the crapper and that's why you need to wire money there? That would be BAD business. And no amount of protest will lead to a company doing BAD business to appease the foolish masses.
Oh, and as far as the above statement goes, about some kind of anguish that the company charges $10 for the employee to "get the money and push a button" - are you arguing that the effort required to wire the money is so seemingly little that it doesn't warrant the $10 in your mind? Because it took a helluva lot of business savvy and financial planning to SET UP the system in the first place. Plus, the business itself needs to pay to keep its doors open, keep the place running, and keep staff paid to they will come in to work and push the button that wires your money. It's called running a business - and it takes money to do that, you dumbass!
"They are becoming billionaires on the backs of immigrant workers," Arango said during a news conference near a Western Union check-cashing store in Pilsen.
Western Union spokesman Daniel Diaz wouldn't comment directly on the boycott, saying: "We are very proud to provide consumers with fast, reliable and trusted service."
You're damned right, Diaz! You have every right to set your prices, because you're the best in the business with the fastest and most reliable service available. If any of these protesters give you lip about your prices, you should remind them of the easiest solution to their problems:
"You don't want to pay to wire money? Then go the hell back to your own country where you belong and then you won't have to wire money anymore!"
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IS ILLEGAL.
(News article from the Chicago branch of the insanity)
Read more!
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Elvira Arellano Finally Arrested!
That's right! Read 'em and weep, liberals and other amnesty-advocates! Your precious "famous face of the suffering" has been taken into custody and will hopefully be getting deported AGAIN. As for what's going to happen to her son, I still believe she has no right to custody of her son after what she's put him through. Take him back to Chicago and let him live with a foster family that will provide actual parenting that doesn't involve trips across the border to deal with government agencies and policies.
Here's how it went down:
After talking to news media inside the church, Arellano and her supporters got into their van to head north to San Jose, where she was scheduled to speak at another church, Lozano said. Moments after they got in the van, an unmarked vehicle stopped them.
The driver of Arellano's van, Roberto Lopez, poked his head out of the van because he wanted to see why they were being blocked. Several other unmarked vehicles surrounded their van.
Agents came out of all the cars screaming at the top of their lungs for her to get out, Lozano said. Her 8-year-old son, Saul, started to cry, and Arellano said to everyone in the car, "Calm down. Don't have any fear. They can't hurt me."
Then she turned to the people who were about to arrest her and she said, "You're going to have to give me a minute with my son," Lozano said. She spent time with her son in the car, and then surrendered.
It was over in less than two minutes. She was arrested Sunday on Main Street, near Our Lady Queen of Angels, where Arellano slept Saturday night and where she's held several press conferences Saturday and Sunday.
If you have any thought in your head, then you can't argue "how could this happen?" A known fugitive who's been in "hiding" for over a year decides to go in public and start holding press conferences - it's a matter of time before an arrest gets made. I would have preferred that this happen in Chicago, where she was captured and deported once before, to show that breaking the law is a crime and you WILL be brought to justice. Having this takedown finally occur over in Los Angeles worries me.
We all know how lenient Southern California tends to be with its illegals - letting them even take over the cities as "sanctuary cities" where they don't even HAVE to hide because they've abolished all law enforcement.
At least we can finally take solace in the fact that she's been captured again.
Now I'll just wait for news about her deportation - or mock the Chicagoans who will be holding vigils and protests here in Chicago to protest the ICE's decision to deport an illegal immigrant criminal.
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IS ILLEGAL.
(The story that tipped me off to this turn of events)
Read more!
Here's how it went down:
After talking to news media inside the church, Arellano and her supporters got into their van to head north to San Jose, where she was scheduled to speak at another church, Lozano said. Moments after they got in the van, an unmarked vehicle stopped them.
The driver of Arellano's van, Roberto Lopez, poked his head out of the van because he wanted to see why they were being blocked. Several other unmarked vehicles surrounded their van.
Agents came out of all the cars screaming at the top of their lungs for her to get out, Lozano said. Her 8-year-old son, Saul, started to cry, and Arellano said to everyone in the car, "Calm down. Don't have any fear. They can't hurt me."
Then she turned to the people who were about to arrest her and she said, "You're going to have to give me a minute with my son," Lozano said. She spent time with her son in the car, and then surrendered.
It was over in less than two minutes. She was arrested Sunday on Main Street, near Our Lady Queen of Angels, where Arellano slept Saturday night and where she's held several press conferences Saturday and Sunday.
If you have any thought in your head, then you can't argue "how could this happen?" A known fugitive who's been in "hiding" for over a year decides to go in public and start holding press conferences - it's a matter of time before an arrest gets made. I would have preferred that this happen in Chicago, where she was captured and deported once before, to show that breaking the law is a crime and you WILL be brought to justice. Having this takedown finally occur over in Los Angeles worries me.
We all know how lenient Southern California tends to be with its illegals - letting them even take over the cities as "sanctuary cities" where they don't even HAVE to hide because they've abolished all law enforcement.
At least we can finally take solace in the fact that she's been captured again.
Now I'll just wait for news about her deportation - or mock the Chicagoans who will be holding vigils and protests here in Chicago to protest the ICE's decision to deport an illegal immigrant criminal.
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IS ILLEGAL.
(The story that tipped me off to this turn of events)
Read more!
Friday, August 17, 2007
Elvira Arellano, Go Back to Mexico!
Fine, accuse me of being a hateful person for using the phrase "Go back to Mexico." I'll say it as many times as I have to until something gets done and this criminal is back where she belongs: Mexico, her country of origin from which she entered the US illegally. TWICE.
For those of you who aren't aware of the year-long story of The Illegal Who Cried "Sanctuary" - here's a recap:
- In 1997, Arellano attempted to cross the Mexico/US border with fake papers. She was caught and deported back to Mexico.
- In December of 2002, as part of a terrorist sting at O'Hare, Arellano was arrested for working under a false Social Security number.
- In 2003, she was convicted in federal court of Social Security fraud and ordered to leave the country.
- Somehow three years go by, and she decides to hole up in a church here in Chicago, claiming sanctuary to avoid deportation from officials. The date is August 16th, 2006.
So now it's one year later. She's been using her "anchor baby" to literally do her bidding between here in Chicago and Washington D.C., taking an eight-year-old boy and turning him into her personal media-whore. And she's made an announcement: She's going to leave her sanctuary on September 12 to travel to Washington D.C. to lobby for immigration reform.
Feds: It's up to you to catch her.
I say that with just the SLIGHTEST bit of hope that something will actually be done. After all, it's been an entire freakin' year and nobody's bothered to do ANYTHING about it yet. She just stays cooped up in the church, and nobody's deported her yet. Even though they have every right to. That's right! The whole myth of "sanctuary" is pretty much a lie. The only thing that's protecting her in her "sanctuary" is the fact that the public would outcry federal agents breaking into a church.
Which they have every legal right to do. They can bust in there and catch her and deport her ass back to Mexico where she belongs. They just haven't, because of whiny bleeding-heart liberals. And probably some devout Christians. But mostly the liberals.
So here's what needs to happen: On September 12th, there needs to be an operation to arrest her, publicly and openly. I want a van with a federal agent and a newscaster chosen to get the "exclusive story" in the front, and a few local police cars in the vicinity in case they sneak out the back. As soon as she's sighted - go in for the takedown. Make it known on public television that if you are an illegal immigrant, YOU WILL BE DEPORTED!
You know what? Add in that van a person from child protective services! I want that child to be torn from the arms of this abusive and/or neglectful mother to show that not only are "anchor babies" a horrible idea, but you CANNOT make them "do your bidding". For the love of all things good and holy, if I were a single parent in Chicago, I still would not be letting my 8-year-old go to the store to get groceries - let alone allow him to walk to and from school by himself.
I certainly wouldn't let him travel to MEXICO with some woman from a random immigration rights group!
That's called "bad parenting". Hopefully it's bad enough to warrant child services making a case against her. She's a criminal who left her child in the custody of practically a stranger to travel to Mexico. She should be found unfit to care for her child (who she obviously hasn't cared for anywhere other than this room in a church) and since HE is a citizen and SHE isn't - take Saul Arellano away and into a foster home with real parents who'll give him an actual childhood and won't make him go to Mexico to appeal to governments about immigration reform.
You call it "breaking up a family". I call it "justice".
Don't let her get to Washington, federal agents! The only reason I would accept for not arresting her outright here in Chicago and deporting her ass is that you want to do it in Washington because you have the home court advantage. It's a criminal walking straight to a police station and yelling "I'm a criminal but I shouldn't be arrested for it!" Take her down, in the middle of the lobby for immigration reform. Let the public know that we don't need immigration reform - we need to enforce our immigration laws.
Oh, and be sure to have lots of agents stationed outside the area, so that when they pop out to arrest and deport Arellano - there are people ready to catch all of the fleeing illegals who are frightened by the presence of ICE agents. I've always said that the best place to sweep for illegal immigrants is at an immigration reform conference or protest.
Seriously, feds! Just take a look online or at websites! Find out where and when these protests and lobbies are being held - and then show up to arrest and deport all of the illegals! It's time to enforce the laws and scare some of these MILLIONS of criminals back to their countries of origin because they'll know we're finally enforcing the laws!
Feds, we can't do this without you. Help us take down Elvira Arellano and make a statement.
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IS ILLEGAL.
Read more!
For those of you who aren't aware of the year-long story of The Illegal Who Cried "Sanctuary" - here's a recap:
- In 1997, Arellano attempted to cross the Mexico/US border with fake papers. She was caught and deported back to Mexico.
- In December of 2002, as part of a terrorist sting at O'Hare, Arellano was arrested for working under a false Social Security number.
- In 2003, she was convicted in federal court of Social Security fraud and ordered to leave the country.
- Somehow three years go by, and she decides to hole up in a church here in Chicago, claiming sanctuary to avoid deportation from officials. The date is August 16th, 2006.
So now it's one year later. She's been using her "anchor baby" to literally do her bidding between here in Chicago and Washington D.C., taking an eight-year-old boy and turning him into her personal media-whore. And she's made an announcement: She's going to leave her sanctuary on September 12 to travel to Washington D.C. to lobby for immigration reform.
Feds: It's up to you to catch her.
I say that with just the SLIGHTEST bit of hope that something will actually be done. After all, it's been an entire freakin' year and nobody's bothered to do ANYTHING about it yet. She just stays cooped up in the church, and nobody's deported her yet. Even though they have every right to. That's right! The whole myth of "sanctuary" is pretty much a lie. The only thing that's protecting her in her "sanctuary" is the fact that the public would outcry federal agents breaking into a church.
Which they have every legal right to do. They can bust in there and catch her and deport her ass back to Mexico where she belongs. They just haven't, because of whiny bleeding-heart liberals. And probably some devout Christians. But mostly the liberals.
So here's what needs to happen: On September 12th, there needs to be an operation to arrest her, publicly and openly. I want a van with a federal agent and a newscaster chosen to get the "exclusive story" in the front, and a few local police cars in the vicinity in case they sneak out the back. As soon as she's sighted - go in for the takedown. Make it known on public television that if you are an illegal immigrant, YOU WILL BE DEPORTED!
You know what? Add in that van a person from child protective services! I want that child to be torn from the arms of this abusive and/or neglectful mother to show that not only are "anchor babies" a horrible idea, but you CANNOT make them "do your bidding". For the love of all things good and holy, if I were a single parent in Chicago, I still would not be letting my 8-year-old go to the store to get groceries - let alone allow him to walk to and from school by himself.
I certainly wouldn't let him travel to MEXICO with some woman from a random immigration rights group!
That's called "bad parenting". Hopefully it's bad enough to warrant child services making a case against her. She's a criminal who left her child in the custody of practically a stranger to travel to Mexico. She should be found unfit to care for her child (who she obviously hasn't cared for anywhere other than this room in a church) and since HE is a citizen and SHE isn't - take Saul Arellano away and into a foster home with real parents who'll give him an actual childhood and won't make him go to Mexico to appeal to governments about immigration reform.
You call it "breaking up a family". I call it "justice".
Don't let her get to Washington, federal agents! The only reason I would accept for not arresting her outright here in Chicago and deporting her ass is that you want to do it in Washington because you have the home court advantage. It's a criminal walking straight to a police station and yelling "I'm a criminal but I shouldn't be arrested for it!" Take her down, in the middle of the lobby for immigration reform. Let the public know that we don't need immigration reform - we need to enforce our immigration laws.
Oh, and be sure to have lots of agents stationed outside the area, so that when they pop out to arrest and deport Arellano - there are people ready to catch all of the fleeing illegals who are frightened by the presence of ICE agents. I've always said that the best place to sweep for illegal immigrants is at an immigration reform conference or protest.
Seriously, feds! Just take a look online or at websites! Find out where and when these protests and lobbies are being held - and then show up to arrest and deport all of the illegals! It's time to enforce the laws and scare some of these MILLIONS of criminals back to their countries of origin because they'll know we're finally enforcing the laws!
Feds, we can't do this without you. Help us take down Elvira Arellano and make a statement.
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IS ILLEGAL.
Read more!
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
It's a "Hate Crime" to Hate Crime??
I'm told that this all started back on July 5th. Or at least around then. A group of protesters from a group supporting a Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act went on a hunger strike to further press this issue of giving relief to illegal immigrant children for secondary eduaction and making college and military service another pathway of amnesty to making them legal citizens. Okay, so already we've got a rather dumb idea. But it all started to really hit the fan when Michael Savage had his say:
"I would say let them fast till they starve to death. ... Because then we won't have a problem about giving them green cards because they're illegal aliens."
And bleeding-heart liberal San Francisco went ablaze in fervor over the remarks. They went so far as to waste taxpayer money (because taxpayers are responsible for paying their representatives' salaries) by having Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval introduce a resolution Tuesday condemning the "defamatory language used by radio personality Michael Savage against immigrants." And soon, more will be wasted as the Supervisor plans to call a vote on the official condemnation.
I'm asking of you: Who did he defame, and how were they defamed?
The protesters on the hunger strike trying to get amnesty for illegal immigrants? How did he defame them? By disagreeing with their stance on an issue? By not taking their method of protest seriously? If not agreeing with a method of protest or the reason for the protest and verbalizing it is wrong, then all counterprotests would result in "condemnation" and "defamation" news, wouldn't it?
The illegal immigrants? The ones who want us to help pay for them to go to college and cheat their way into legal citizenship? How were they defamed? Michael Savage doesn't want them to get green cards. He called them exactly what they are - illegal aliens. That's not defamation at all. It's stating the obvious. They're not citizens, and they're here illegally. They are criminals. Okay, Michael Savage didn't say that, but I am. Does that mean I've defamed illegal immigrants by posting this?
Good. Defamation is a way of reducing the fame and popularity of someone. And the less famous and popular we make the criminals walking amongst us and the less public support they're receiving as a result - the better.
Now let's get to the idea that this is "hate speech" or a "hate crime":
As for hate speech, I think the only appropriate response is, "SO WHAT?" Speech can be hateful. As long as there are hateful emotions, there will be hateful words and hateful speech to express that hatred.
As for calling it a crime? No f-ing way. The man has done nothing criminal in the least. In fact, he's expressing hatred and outrage about CRIME being committed by ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS! How can it be a "hate crime" to hate a crime? The only criminals here are the illegal immigrants - especially those who want more support and help to continue their criminal lives here and seek amnesty for the crimes they've committed.
Here's the real problem. Government officials are going out of their way to officially condemn this radio show host for the comments that he made. But here's the thing: he was telling the government officials themselves to stay the course and NOT give in to some piddly little hunger strike. In his own words (which you wouldn't hear in the biased liberal media who's comparing him to Imus), "the logical conclusion of a hunger strike is starvation. That's their right."
Savage went on to explain that the hunger strikers are illegal aliens, "who stole free college educations and then had the audacity to demand citizenship because they were slippery enough to beat the system out of a college degree!" The strikers, he said "owe the U.S. taxpayer reimbursement for their college degrees, and any other public benefits they may have cadged over their years here illegally. Then they should be deported."
If it's condemnable to speak up and speak out against illegal immigrants robbing citizens of so many resources, demanding that we be reimbursed for what they've stolen, or calling for their deportation - then I'm willing to bet that some hippie in San Francisco is writing up a proposal to condemn me as well.
And I'd welcome it. After all, there's no such thing as bad publicity. And illegal immigration is ILLEGAL. Strange how not a single Latino-based or Civil-Liberty-based organization will accept that...
(A story about the Michael Savage condemnation)
Read more!
"I would say let them fast till they starve to death. ... Because then we won't have a problem about giving them green cards because they're illegal aliens."
And bleeding-heart liberal San Francisco went ablaze in fervor over the remarks. They went so far as to waste taxpayer money (because taxpayers are responsible for paying their representatives' salaries) by having Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval introduce a resolution Tuesday condemning the "defamatory language used by radio personality Michael Savage against immigrants." And soon, more will be wasted as the Supervisor plans to call a vote on the official condemnation.
I'm asking of you: Who did he defame, and how were they defamed?
The protesters on the hunger strike trying to get amnesty for illegal immigrants? How did he defame them? By disagreeing with their stance on an issue? By not taking their method of protest seriously? If not agreeing with a method of protest or the reason for the protest and verbalizing it is wrong, then all counterprotests would result in "condemnation" and "defamation" news, wouldn't it?
The illegal immigrants? The ones who want us to help pay for them to go to college and cheat their way into legal citizenship? How were they defamed? Michael Savage doesn't want them to get green cards. He called them exactly what they are - illegal aliens. That's not defamation at all. It's stating the obvious. They're not citizens, and they're here illegally. They are criminals. Okay, Michael Savage didn't say that, but I am. Does that mean I've defamed illegal immigrants by posting this?
Good. Defamation is a way of reducing the fame and popularity of someone. And the less famous and popular we make the criminals walking amongst us and the less public support they're receiving as a result - the better.
Now let's get to the idea that this is "hate speech" or a "hate crime":
As for hate speech, I think the only appropriate response is, "SO WHAT?" Speech can be hateful. As long as there are hateful emotions, there will be hateful words and hateful speech to express that hatred.
As for calling it a crime? No f-ing way. The man has done nothing criminal in the least. In fact, he's expressing hatred and outrage about CRIME being committed by ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS! How can it be a "hate crime" to hate a crime? The only criminals here are the illegal immigrants - especially those who want more support and help to continue their criminal lives here and seek amnesty for the crimes they've committed.
Here's the real problem. Government officials are going out of their way to officially condemn this radio show host for the comments that he made. But here's the thing: he was telling the government officials themselves to stay the course and NOT give in to some piddly little hunger strike. In his own words (which you wouldn't hear in the biased liberal media who's comparing him to Imus), "the logical conclusion of a hunger strike is starvation. That's their right."
Savage went on to explain that the hunger strikers are illegal aliens, "who stole free college educations and then had the audacity to demand citizenship because they were slippery enough to beat the system out of a college degree!" The strikers, he said "owe the U.S. taxpayer reimbursement for their college degrees, and any other public benefits they may have cadged over their years here illegally. Then they should be deported."
If it's condemnable to speak up and speak out against illegal immigrants robbing citizens of so many resources, demanding that we be reimbursed for what they've stolen, or calling for their deportation - then I'm willing to bet that some hippie in San Francisco is writing up a proposal to condemn me as well.
And I'd welcome it. After all, there's no such thing as bad publicity. And illegal immigration is ILLEGAL. Strange how not a single Latino-based or Civil-Liberty-based organization will accept that...
(A story about the Michael Savage condemnation)
Read more!
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
Rallying Against Rap? Tough.
When I was growing up, there was a word repeated over and over from my parents. "Tough." Perhaps it was an abbreviated version on a phrase "Tough _____" and my parents were sparing me the obscenity or softening the blow. Which I guess would make it a contradictory statement. But anyway, when things weren't going right, when I wasn't happy with a situation, when I had a problem that I wasn't able to solve by myself:
"Tough."
It's a motto that, while it didn't seem to affect me physically, and although I'm still a bit of a non-confrontational person at heart, I still live by. Or at least try to spread to others. Whether it's about "toughening up" or "toughing it out" - society could learn a lot from that brand of parenting and that brand of giving into a situation and making yourself more tough by ACCEPTING it rather than by bitching about it with a stupid rally or protest.
Which is where this topic turns, towards the rallies being held across the nation, but especially here in Chicago. Rallies to debate the controversial lyrics in rap music. Some are here to piss and moan that rap music degrades women and glorifies violence and other naughty things that parents shouldn't want their children to grow up thinking, doing or being in general. Some are here to cry "censorship" for trying to remove words from a language, and more specifically from a music genre. Some are here just because some newly-famous jackass is here and they flock to stupid ideas and anyone spouting them because they have no minds of their own. To all these people, and any others coming to rally for one reason or another:
"Tough."
The system is damned fine the way it is, for the most part. Deal with it.
Rap is riddled with "bad words" and what many call "bad ideas" and "bad beliefs". So? Music has always contained questionable material, and it perseveres. Way back when, don't you think there was some argument going on about women being referred to as "hound dogs" and lying about being "high-class"? That's right, even the King was a bit "misogynistic" - if you want to fall for exaggerations. And what about the racist undertones of "Play that funky music, white boy"? Face it, it's always going to be there. That's the crazy thing about freedom of speech and freedom of thought - it literally takes all kinds.
So after we accept that music can always contain questionable material, it comes down to how it's handled, and by whom. If it's on the radio, it's handled by the FCC. As much as it shouldn't be, that's who it's currently handled by. For decent radio, like this XM satellite radio stuff, which I believe ISN'T under FCC rule - it's handled by the person listening to the radio. George Carlin said it best, "A radio has two knobs, you know. One to turn it off, and one to change the station!" If you don't like it, don't listen to it.
And if you're a parent, claiming you don't have the power to change the station when your child is listening to it without you - you still have the power to instill decency in your child no matter what the radio provides for them. If a song on the radio has more effect on your child's attitude towards women than YOU as a PARENT do - what does that say about your parenting skills? After all, that's what this boils down to. Parents at these rallies want everyone to parent their children EXCEPT THEMSELVES, so they can complain about how crappy their children are behaving and acting. Well guess what, parents?
"Tough."
YOU'VE got to be in charge of your kid, not some rapper. And don't even try to play the "but they look up to them" card - just because I looked up to Superman as a kid doesn't mean I jumped off of buildings trying to fly. My PARENTS sat me down and reminded me that while it all looks cool and Superman's a great guy - I have to obey the laws of gravity. And just because your kid looks up to someone who talks about "shooting bitches" - you have to remind them that they have to obey the laws of the city/state/federal government. Oh, and that they have to obey the laws of decency, too. YOU instill their values and their morals, so THEY can decide to follow it when confronted with rappers and how they treat their bitches.
The music industry does half the battle for you, parents. The radio stations have to censor the cussing themselves, or pick up Radio-Edit versions of the songs. Does that eliminate the potty-talk? Mostly. Does it alter the messages of demeaning women and glorifying violence? Nope. But again, that's where parenting comes in - before the police wind up coming in later on in life.
So where does all of this violence and women-bashing come from? Why is rap music being blamed for trends in society? Because these researchers (and especially pompous douchebags with holier-than-thou attitudes) still can't get it through their skulls that CORRELATION DOES NOT MEAN CAUSATION! Rap music is more offensive to people than ever. Society is more offensive to people than ever. Does that mean rap is to blame for society's ills? Couldn't it also mean that rap's ills are due to society? That since it's cooler and "in" to be shocking and promote violence and sex (sex sells, and it always will) - that's what leads music companies to hire/produce artists with songs portraying just that? I think that's the most likely story. The MARKET and the DOLLAR is what drives the trends, and vice-versa. Society wants more violent video games and is willing to pay - the market makes it happen. Kids would rather shell out money for Parental-Advisory-stickered CDs instead of cleaner rap music that the whole family can enjoy? Then that's what's going to get produced.
Don't get mad at the rappers, get mad at the recording studios willing to produce it to make a profit off your children's skewed value system (I mean AFTER getting mad at yourself for allowing your child to have a skewed value system and the cashflow to affect the marketplace accordingly).
Or as I once heard, "Don't hate the player, hate the game."
Or as my mom used to say:
"Tough."
Read more!
"Tough."
It's a motto that, while it didn't seem to affect me physically, and although I'm still a bit of a non-confrontational person at heart, I still live by. Or at least try to spread to others. Whether it's about "toughening up" or "toughing it out" - society could learn a lot from that brand of parenting and that brand of giving into a situation and making yourself more tough by ACCEPTING it rather than by bitching about it with a stupid rally or protest.
Which is where this topic turns, towards the rallies being held across the nation, but especially here in Chicago. Rallies to debate the controversial lyrics in rap music. Some are here to piss and moan that rap music degrades women and glorifies violence and other naughty things that parents shouldn't want their children to grow up thinking, doing or being in general. Some are here to cry "censorship" for trying to remove words from a language, and more specifically from a music genre. Some are here just because some newly-famous jackass is here and they flock to stupid ideas and anyone spouting them because they have no minds of their own. To all these people, and any others coming to rally for one reason or another:
"Tough."
The system is damned fine the way it is, for the most part. Deal with it.
Rap is riddled with "bad words" and what many call "bad ideas" and "bad beliefs". So? Music has always contained questionable material, and it perseveres. Way back when, don't you think there was some argument going on about women being referred to as "hound dogs" and lying about being "high-class"? That's right, even the King was a bit "misogynistic" - if you want to fall for exaggerations. And what about the racist undertones of "Play that funky music, white boy"? Face it, it's always going to be there. That's the crazy thing about freedom of speech and freedom of thought - it literally takes all kinds.
So after we accept that music can always contain questionable material, it comes down to how it's handled, and by whom. If it's on the radio, it's handled by the FCC. As much as it shouldn't be, that's who it's currently handled by. For decent radio, like this XM satellite radio stuff, which I believe ISN'T under FCC rule - it's handled by the person listening to the radio. George Carlin said it best, "A radio has two knobs, you know. One to turn it off, and one to change the station!" If you don't like it, don't listen to it.
And if you're a parent, claiming you don't have the power to change the station when your child is listening to it without you - you still have the power to instill decency in your child no matter what the radio provides for them. If a song on the radio has more effect on your child's attitude towards women than YOU as a PARENT do - what does that say about your parenting skills? After all, that's what this boils down to. Parents at these rallies want everyone to parent their children EXCEPT THEMSELVES, so they can complain about how crappy their children are behaving and acting. Well guess what, parents?
"Tough."
YOU'VE got to be in charge of your kid, not some rapper. And don't even try to play the "but they look up to them" card - just because I looked up to Superman as a kid doesn't mean I jumped off of buildings trying to fly. My PARENTS sat me down and reminded me that while it all looks cool and Superman's a great guy - I have to obey the laws of gravity. And just because your kid looks up to someone who talks about "shooting bitches" - you have to remind them that they have to obey the laws of the city/state/federal government. Oh, and that they have to obey the laws of decency, too. YOU instill their values and their morals, so THEY can decide to follow it when confronted with rappers and how they treat their bitches.
The music industry does half the battle for you, parents. The radio stations have to censor the cussing themselves, or pick up Radio-Edit versions of the songs. Does that eliminate the potty-talk? Mostly. Does it alter the messages of demeaning women and glorifying violence? Nope. But again, that's where parenting comes in - before the police wind up coming in later on in life.
So where does all of this violence and women-bashing come from? Why is rap music being blamed for trends in society? Because these researchers (and especially pompous douchebags with holier-than-thou attitudes) still can't get it through their skulls that CORRELATION DOES NOT MEAN CAUSATION! Rap music is more offensive to people than ever. Society is more offensive to people than ever. Does that mean rap is to blame for society's ills? Couldn't it also mean that rap's ills are due to society? That since it's cooler and "in" to be shocking and promote violence and sex (sex sells, and it always will) - that's what leads music companies to hire/produce artists with songs portraying just that? I think that's the most likely story. The MARKET and the DOLLAR is what drives the trends, and vice-versa. Society wants more violent video games and is willing to pay - the market makes it happen. Kids would rather shell out money for Parental-Advisory-stickered CDs instead of cleaner rap music that the whole family can enjoy? Then that's what's going to get produced.
Don't get mad at the rappers, get mad at the recording studios willing to produce it to make a profit off your children's skewed value system (I mean AFTER getting mad at yourself for allowing your child to have a skewed value system and the cashflow to affect the marketplace accordingly).
Or as I once heard, "Don't hate the player, hate the game."
Or as my mom used to say:
"Tough."
Read more!
Sunday, August 05, 2007
PETA: Dogs WE Love Are BETTER!
That's right, you read the title correctly - PETA is at it again.
This time, they're doing something even more ridiculous than usual: they're attacking celebrities for buying instead of adopting. PETA has just decided that animals in shelters "deserve" owners more than animals available for purchase from a breeder or just a common pet shop. Protests were organized (of course) and as the protesters donned their Paris Hilton and Britney Spears masks, they waved their signs reading things like:
"Shelter Dogs Are Dying and I Don't Care"
Alright, let me get something straight right off the bat: these celebrities are being attacked because they purchased dogs rather than adopted from an animal shelter.
Really think about this for three seconds. There are two dogs. One is in a shelter, one is in a pet shop. Both are available to be taken home as somebody's pet. But because one was bred and has papers and you genetically know where it came from - that makes it worse to bring home and love? That's PETA's argument. That because you wanted a prettier pet that is the breed of dog you were looking for in the first place instead of one "slated to die" in an animal shelter - that makes you someone they can target in a protest.
Know the most hilarious part of this whole story??
PETA is protesting because these unadopted shelter dogs are going to be put down - but PETA is responsible for putting down so many shelter animals every year.
Their signs should really read: "Why did you buy that dog? Now we have to go kill one from a shelter!"
This whole thing is just insane. PETA, you idiots, the LAST thing you should be protesting is a person willing to take in a dog and care for it - especially those with enough wealth to care for it luxuriously. After all, you held your little protest right by your latest crazy billboard about "animal birth control".
That's right - PETA thinks that the best way to save animals from the shelters (where PETA will likely kill them) is simply to spay/neuter all of the dogs and cats in California.
WAIT WAIT WAIT - isn't PETA the insane group that wants us to leave animals alone completely, not to anything harmful to them ever (even things that aren't harmful but sometimes LOOK harmful or could be harmful if done in the completely wrong way) and to let them all roam free to do as they please? And yet they want it MANDATED to chop off the sex organs of every dog and cat in the state of California??
Well, PETA, two can play at your little CRAZY GAME!
Since PETA is so fond of taking situations animals find themselves in and then relating it to actual tragedies of human circumstances (remember the animal cages made to look like Holocaust concentration camps?) - here's one for you, Ingrid Newkirk!
Africa. Too many Africans. They're all dying of disease and starvation due to poverty. There's just too many of them to share the little resources they have. So instead of coming in and putting them out of their misery (why hasn't anyone thought of euthanasia in Africa?) - we're just going to cut off the testicles of every African man and remove the uterus from all African women. In time, the population will acheive balance once more and the few Africans left who avoided castration or migrated from another continent can live peacefully without dying of starvation and poverty from overpopulation!
Okay, so the plight in African countries is a lot more complex than simple overpopulation - but socioeconomic trends show that lower tiers of socioeconomic status have lots more children, so as to provide a bigger support structure over time. So there IS a lot of breeding going on, and one COULD theorize that sterilization could improve things. By killing off families by destroying their support structure and letting another family have a chance at their food and shelter...
No matter how you look at it, it's a grim picture. One grim enough to warrant a shock video sequence from the masters of terrorist propaganda: PETA itself.
Back to the matter at hand: PETA is usually up in arms about people owning animals in the first place, aren't they? When did "animal liberation" suddenly become "animals-other-than-pets liberation"? As soon as I'd heard about a protest regarding Paris and Britney purchasing dogs, I thought it was going to be in protest against animal ownership and "animals are not ours to own" bullshit. But I was wrong.
Because even PETA agrees that animals can be owned, and that it gives the owner the right to do whatever they choose to with that animal.
Don't believe me? I didn't think you would. That's why I've got a link to the PETA employee trial where the lawyer for PETA stated exactly that in his closing arguments: "It was PETA's property, and she had the absolute legal authority to put the dog down."
Still really pisses me off that those puppy-killers got away with it all.
And here's a little bit of extra thought, thanks to a provoked defense in a comment on LJ:
It doesn't matter either way. PETA wants all pets dead, matter-of-factly.
They don't want us breeding dogs and cats. Because breeding them means there's going to be more of them getting owned instead of adoptable pets from shelters. And the bred pets might wind up in the shelters anyway, given pet-owning trends.
They don't want animals breeding by themselves. Because if they "accidentally" breed, that's more "unwanted" pets being put in shelters and being "slated to die" - sometimes by PETA's own hands in a "rescue mission". That's why they're sponsoring billboards for a movement to spay/neuter all dogs and cats in California.
So if they can't breed themselves, and we can't breed them - that's the extinction of dogs and cats. At PETA's hands, all their arguments coming together. Hell, they kill over 90% of the ones they "rescue" anyway, right?
PETA would rather have them all dead. That's the logic I get from it.
But then again, you can't trust PETA with any form of logic...
Read more!
This time, they're doing something even more ridiculous than usual: they're attacking celebrities for buying instead of adopting. PETA has just decided that animals in shelters "deserve" owners more than animals available for purchase from a breeder or just a common pet shop. Protests were organized (of course) and as the protesters donned their Paris Hilton and Britney Spears masks, they waved their signs reading things like:
"Shelter Dogs Are Dying and I Don't Care"
Alright, let me get something straight right off the bat: these celebrities are being attacked because they purchased dogs rather than adopted from an animal shelter.
Really think about this for three seconds. There are two dogs. One is in a shelter, one is in a pet shop. Both are available to be taken home as somebody's pet. But because one was bred and has papers and you genetically know where it came from - that makes it worse to bring home and love? That's PETA's argument. That because you wanted a prettier pet that is the breed of dog you were looking for in the first place instead of one "slated to die" in an animal shelter - that makes you someone they can target in a protest.
Know the most hilarious part of this whole story??
PETA is protesting because these unadopted shelter dogs are going to be put down - but PETA is responsible for putting down so many shelter animals every year.
Their signs should really read: "Why did you buy that dog? Now we have to go kill one from a shelter!"
This whole thing is just insane. PETA, you idiots, the LAST thing you should be protesting is a person willing to take in a dog and care for it - especially those with enough wealth to care for it luxuriously. After all, you held your little protest right by your latest crazy billboard about "animal birth control".
That's right - PETA thinks that the best way to save animals from the shelters (where PETA will likely kill them) is simply to spay/neuter all of the dogs and cats in California.
WAIT WAIT WAIT - isn't PETA the insane group that wants us to leave animals alone completely, not to anything harmful to them ever (even things that aren't harmful but sometimes LOOK harmful or could be harmful if done in the completely wrong way) and to let them all roam free to do as they please? And yet they want it MANDATED to chop off the sex organs of every dog and cat in the state of California??
Well, PETA, two can play at your little CRAZY GAME!
Since PETA is so fond of taking situations animals find themselves in and then relating it to actual tragedies of human circumstances (remember the animal cages made to look like Holocaust concentration camps?) - here's one for you, Ingrid Newkirk!
Africa. Too many Africans. They're all dying of disease and starvation due to poverty. There's just too many of them to share the little resources they have. So instead of coming in and putting them out of their misery (why hasn't anyone thought of euthanasia in Africa?) - we're just going to cut off the testicles of every African man and remove the uterus from all African women. In time, the population will acheive balance once more and the few Africans left who avoided castration or migrated from another continent can live peacefully without dying of starvation and poverty from overpopulation!
Okay, so the plight in African countries is a lot more complex than simple overpopulation - but socioeconomic trends show that lower tiers of socioeconomic status have lots more children, so as to provide a bigger support structure over time. So there IS a lot of breeding going on, and one COULD theorize that sterilization could improve things. By killing off families by destroying their support structure and letting another family have a chance at their food and shelter...
No matter how you look at it, it's a grim picture. One grim enough to warrant a shock video sequence from the masters of terrorist propaganda: PETA itself.
Back to the matter at hand: PETA is usually up in arms about people owning animals in the first place, aren't they? When did "animal liberation" suddenly become "animals-other-than-pets liberation"? As soon as I'd heard about a protest regarding Paris and Britney purchasing dogs, I thought it was going to be in protest against animal ownership and "animals are not ours to own" bullshit. But I was wrong.
Because even PETA agrees that animals can be owned, and that it gives the owner the right to do whatever they choose to with that animal.
Don't believe me? I didn't think you would. That's why I've got a link to the PETA employee trial where the lawyer for PETA stated exactly that in his closing arguments: "It was PETA's property, and she had the absolute legal authority to put the dog down."
Still really pisses me off that those puppy-killers got away with it all.
And here's a little bit of extra thought, thanks to a provoked defense in a comment on LJ:
It doesn't matter either way. PETA wants all pets dead, matter-of-factly.
They don't want us breeding dogs and cats. Because breeding them means there's going to be more of them getting owned instead of adoptable pets from shelters. And the bred pets might wind up in the shelters anyway, given pet-owning trends.
They don't want animals breeding by themselves. Because if they "accidentally" breed, that's more "unwanted" pets being put in shelters and being "slated to die" - sometimes by PETA's own hands in a "rescue mission". That's why they're sponsoring billboards for a movement to spay/neuter all dogs and cats in California.
So if they can't breed themselves, and we can't breed them - that's the extinction of dogs and cats. At PETA's hands, all their arguments coming together. Hell, they kill over 90% of the ones they "rescue" anyway, right?
PETA would rather have them all dead. That's the logic I get from it.
But then again, you can't trust PETA with any form of logic...
Read more!
Monday, July 16, 2007
Waukegan - You Are Not Dead To Me!
Rejoice!
The aldermen of Waukegan may keep their jobs in my eyes, for they held true to their words and did not back down from the swarm of protesters who used everything from prayer vigils to corporate boycotts to coerce the city councilmen away from their initial 7-2 ruling in favor of applying for the federal program which will train some police officers and give them the power to set the deportation process in motion. Even though the hall only had enough seats for 200 people, of course the city had to sell 400 tickets to the meeting. This led to over 100 people having to stand in the room and hallways, hoping for a seat to open up. This is in addition to the hundreds outside, still protesting for and against the measure.
The new count? 8-2 in favor of applying for the federal program!
The extra vote came from the Mayor, also in favor of applying for the program. While I have not yet confirmed this, I suspect that the two "nay"s were the same as the first vote, those two aldermen who claimed it would lead to racial profiling or that it would frighten even the legal immigrants and they wouldn't be able to trust the police.
While it IS true that the ability to deport extends not just to illegal immigrants, but also to legal immigrants - that only applies to those who are arrested for heinous crimes like murder, rape and some drug-related felonies.
So hey, legal immigrants - don't murder or rape or smuggle cocaine! Got it??
That's all it takes! Don't commit these crimes! I'm more than willing to admit that harsher laws don't really have that desired effect to deter criminals from committing those crimes - but you have to admit that once deportation is on the line for immigrants (both legal and illegal), they're hopefully going to think twice before KILLING SOMEONE. I mean "think thrice", because if you're going to kill someone without a second thought, you don't deserve deportation - you deserve the death penalty.
Maybe now that we've shown that SOME City Councils out there have the balls to follow through with their decision to apply for this great federal program that cuts down on the red tape and paperwork, we can get some other cities with high illegal immigration populations to apply for it as well.
This is a trend that needs some momentum, and we need to keep it going bigger and stronger. Maybe someday major cities like Chicago will be able to participate and we can finally start ENFORCING the laws that ALREADY EXIST!
Write your City Council! Tell them to apply for 287(g) and get your local law enforcement this training program!
An article ringing in the good news! Read more!
The aldermen of Waukegan may keep their jobs in my eyes, for they held true to their words and did not back down from the swarm of protesters who used everything from prayer vigils to corporate boycotts to coerce the city councilmen away from their initial 7-2 ruling in favor of applying for the federal program which will train some police officers and give them the power to set the deportation process in motion. Even though the hall only had enough seats for 200 people, of course the city had to sell 400 tickets to the meeting. This led to over 100 people having to stand in the room and hallways, hoping for a seat to open up. This is in addition to the hundreds outside, still protesting for and against the measure.
The new count? 8-2 in favor of applying for the federal program!
The extra vote came from the Mayor, also in favor of applying for the program. While I have not yet confirmed this, I suspect that the two "nay"s were the same as the first vote, those two aldermen who claimed it would lead to racial profiling or that it would frighten even the legal immigrants and they wouldn't be able to trust the police.
While it IS true that the ability to deport extends not just to illegal immigrants, but also to legal immigrants - that only applies to those who are arrested for heinous crimes like murder, rape and some drug-related felonies.
So hey, legal immigrants - don't murder or rape or smuggle cocaine! Got it??
That's all it takes! Don't commit these crimes! I'm more than willing to admit that harsher laws don't really have that desired effect to deter criminals from committing those crimes - but you have to admit that once deportation is on the line for immigrants (both legal and illegal), they're hopefully going to think twice before KILLING SOMEONE. I mean "think thrice", because if you're going to kill someone without a second thought, you don't deserve deportation - you deserve the death penalty.
Maybe now that we've shown that SOME City Councils out there have the balls to follow through with their decision to apply for this great federal program that cuts down on the red tape and paperwork, we can get some other cities with high illegal immigration populations to apply for it as well.
This is a trend that needs some momentum, and we need to keep it going bigger and stronger. Maybe someday major cities like Chicago will be able to participate and we can finally start ENFORCING the laws that ALREADY EXIST!
Write your City Council! Tell them to apply for 287(g) and get your local law enforcement this training program!
An article ringing in the good news! Read more!
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Earth Day, Earth Month, Earth Year?
Back in the 1500's, Copernicus was figuring out that the Earth was not the center of the universe. Apparently, nobody bothered to let the Earth know that.
Sure, it sounds like a mean thing to say - accusing the Earth of thinking that it's the center of the universe. Well, take a good hard look at reality and you'll see that we humans still have this mindset that the Earth still IS the center of the universe. We just no longer think of its LOCATION as the center of the universe. We still have the SETI program and other scientists and wingnuts scanning the airwaves for extraterrestrials trying to contact us. Why would E.T. want to talk to us? Surely, being the center of the universe and focal point of everything - any alien communication should certainly be coming OUR way. Aliens in other galaxies MUST be figuring out ways to talk to EARTH!
But I digress. This is about Earth Day and how it has been manipulated into a gigantic guilt-trip overexaggeration of its former self.
Earth Day started not only as a response to a 1969 oil spill, but as a culmination of an earth-friendly ecological movement. Industrialization had been booming, and people decided it was time to think a little bit more about the environment. Gaylord Nelson, a senator from Wisconsin, called for an "environmental teach-in" which he called Earth Day to be celebrated on April 22, 1970. That's it. One day to be recognized, not even asking for it to be an annual thing, which happened to be on the birthday of the man who founded Arbor Day almost a hundred years earlier in 1872. I don't know if this is coincidence or planning on Nelson's part.
The Earth Day of 1970 went well, for the most part. 20 million people celebrated that day, and events were led by Senator Nelson himself. And because NO non-political celebration should EVER be without political undertones, the events were modeled after Vietnam War protest events, and part of the festivities including actual protests of the Vietnam War. In fact, war protests were a part of Earth Day for a while after it became a national holiday repeated in 1971 and each year afterwards. Nothing screams "hippie liberalism" like combining environmentalism and war protestation!
Also in the aftermath of the 1970 Earth Day were the creation of the Clean Air Act as well as the foundation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The celebration of Earth Day is celebrated globally, observed in 175 countries by more than half a billion people each year. It is considered to be the largest-celebrated secular holiday in the world.
So why isn't that enough?
This season, I was greeted with posters and advertisements on the trains and buses for Earth Month Chicago. April 17th through May 20th was to be a celebration of Earth Month, completely disregarding the history and importance April 22nd had in the beginning. All of a sudden, it wasn't enough to focus on the Earth and ways to improve it for one entire day - now the Earth deserved more. It deserved an entire month! An entire month to be celebrated by ONE CITY. Why bother having one day that over 500 million people in 175 countries can share, when one city in one country can spread it arbitrarily over a month??
Are you starting to see the flaws in the logic?
The only thing that the Earth Month Chicago was doing that Earth Day simply couldn't was... No, wait - not a single thing during Earth Month Chicago couldn't have been done on Earth Day. The only difference is that the normal gamut of activities and events one would normally find on Earth Day were being spread across this period of a month. And it wasn't even that the events were to take longer - they were just broken up in little bits everywhere around this month. Whether it was the used cellphone recycling drive, the Green Business Conference, eyeglasses collection or even the recycling convention for household chemicals and computers (I can't figure out why those two are together) - all the events could either be crammed into one day, or could have been celebrated simultaneously in DIFFERENT CITIES. Hell, you could have one in the downtown area and one in a north suburb and one in a south suburb for all I care - get it DONE in ONE DAY and that's your EARTH DAY.
There's no excuse for it to take an entire month. Especially since it's not even a calendar month in any sense. At least Black History month is all of February. This is April 17 - May 20; a very-arbitrary 34 days! It's incredibly hard to celebrate a festival period if you have no clue when it ends or begins. It's even harder if you don't even care in the first place. But the madness doesn't end there - no, not by a long shot...
"Make EVERY month Earth Month!"
That's right - they're actually suggesting that what used to be a one-day-a-year celebration and good idea become an every-day-all-year monotony! There's a reason why most holidays are ONE day out of the entire year - because we'd get sick and tired of it every day and it would lose all its meaning and special qualities! If every day were Valentine's Day, not only would we become disgusted and enraged as the colors pink and red, develop diabetes at more-alarming rates, and probably see the divorce rate spike after a few weeks of love-based torture - but we'd lose all honor and respect for the holiday itself. Not that we had much for a "Hallmark Holiday" in the first place, but that's still more respect than most of us hold for Earth Day as it is.
So let's try and save what little sanctity there is left of Earth Day.
Not a month, not all year. Just one day - April 22nd. Like the other half-billion people in 175 countries.
You know, the people of the Earth we created a Day to focus on. Read more!
Sure, it sounds like a mean thing to say - accusing the Earth of thinking that it's the center of the universe. Well, take a good hard look at reality and you'll see that we humans still have this mindset that the Earth still IS the center of the universe. We just no longer think of its LOCATION as the center of the universe. We still have the SETI program and other scientists and wingnuts scanning the airwaves for extraterrestrials trying to contact us. Why would E.T. want to talk to us? Surely, being the center of the universe and focal point of everything - any alien communication should certainly be coming OUR way. Aliens in other galaxies MUST be figuring out ways to talk to EARTH!
But I digress. This is about Earth Day and how it has been manipulated into a gigantic guilt-trip overexaggeration of its former self.
Earth Day started not only as a response to a 1969 oil spill, but as a culmination of an earth-friendly ecological movement. Industrialization had been booming, and people decided it was time to think a little bit more about the environment. Gaylord Nelson, a senator from Wisconsin, called for an "environmental teach-in" which he called Earth Day to be celebrated on April 22, 1970. That's it. One day to be recognized, not even asking for it to be an annual thing, which happened to be on the birthday of the man who founded Arbor Day almost a hundred years earlier in 1872. I don't know if this is coincidence or planning on Nelson's part.
The Earth Day of 1970 went well, for the most part. 20 million people celebrated that day, and events were led by Senator Nelson himself. And because NO non-political celebration should EVER be without political undertones, the events were modeled after Vietnam War protest events, and part of the festivities including actual protests of the Vietnam War. In fact, war protests were a part of Earth Day for a while after it became a national holiday repeated in 1971 and each year afterwards. Nothing screams "hippie liberalism" like combining environmentalism and war protestation!
Also in the aftermath of the 1970 Earth Day were the creation of the Clean Air Act as well as the foundation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The celebration of Earth Day is celebrated globally, observed in 175 countries by more than half a billion people each year. It is considered to be the largest-celebrated secular holiday in the world.
So why isn't that enough?
This season, I was greeted with posters and advertisements on the trains and buses for Earth Month Chicago. April 17th through May 20th was to be a celebration of Earth Month, completely disregarding the history and importance April 22nd had in the beginning. All of a sudden, it wasn't enough to focus on the Earth and ways to improve it for one entire day - now the Earth deserved more. It deserved an entire month! An entire month to be celebrated by ONE CITY. Why bother having one day that over 500 million people in 175 countries can share, when one city in one country can spread it arbitrarily over a month??
Are you starting to see the flaws in the logic?
The only thing that the Earth Month Chicago was doing that Earth Day simply couldn't was... No, wait - not a single thing during Earth Month Chicago couldn't have been done on Earth Day. The only difference is that the normal gamut of activities and events one would normally find on Earth Day were being spread across this period of a month. And it wasn't even that the events were to take longer - they were just broken up in little bits everywhere around this month. Whether it was the used cellphone recycling drive, the Green Business Conference, eyeglasses collection or even the recycling convention for household chemicals and computers (I can't figure out why those two are together) - all the events could either be crammed into one day, or could have been celebrated simultaneously in DIFFERENT CITIES. Hell, you could have one in the downtown area and one in a north suburb and one in a south suburb for all I care - get it DONE in ONE DAY and that's your EARTH DAY.
There's no excuse for it to take an entire month. Especially since it's not even a calendar month in any sense. At least Black History month is all of February. This is April 17 - May 20; a very-arbitrary 34 days! It's incredibly hard to celebrate a festival period if you have no clue when it ends or begins. It's even harder if you don't even care in the first place. But the madness doesn't end there - no, not by a long shot...
"Make EVERY month Earth Month!"
That's right - they're actually suggesting that what used to be a one-day-a-year celebration and good idea become an every-day-all-year monotony! There's a reason why most holidays are ONE day out of the entire year - because we'd get sick and tired of it every day and it would lose all its meaning and special qualities! If every day were Valentine's Day, not only would we become disgusted and enraged as the colors pink and red, develop diabetes at more-alarming rates, and probably see the divorce rate spike after a few weeks of love-based torture - but we'd lose all honor and respect for the holiday itself. Not that we had much for a "Hallmark Holiday" in the first place, but that's still more respect than most of us hold for Earth Day as it is.
So let's try and save what little sanctity there is left of Earth Day.
Not a month, not all year. Just one day - April 22nd. Like the other half-billion people in 175 countries.
You know, the people of the Earth we created a Day to focus on. Read more!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
