Panem et Circenses

Saudi Arabia bans women from Beijing Olympics?

2008-08-07T07:10:00.001-05:00

How to reconcile these 2 quite different viewpoints on women's rights:

A. Women are equal to men in every way, and to treat them any differently (except for obstetrics) is sexist, repressive and patronizing.

B. Women are physically inferior to men in every regard, to the point where the most able female athlete has no chance whatever of placement in a field open to both sexes. Therefore creating a separate class of incompetents (from which all men are barred regardless of age, strength, past history) is the only means by which women may excel. Professionally coached female athletes with unlimited time and resources for equipment, practice etc. must be protected at all cost against competition from 70 year old, senile, arthritic male amputees.

Does not endorsement of "A" as absolute truth, and law, not require endorsement of "not B"?

The state of the financial market

2008-07-19T09:37:00.003-05:00

Somehow, Bernanke, the Federal Reserve, the media, etc. have differed only as to whom blame should be assigned, the extent of the problem, etc.
What's missing?
The fact that the current problem is not a single entity, but an unfortunate confluence of three separate factors, all of which were necessary elements. However, the applicable moral and legal standards are quite different.
The first is the acceptable interest rate. I commented 50 years ago that "usury was whatever rate banks were not permitted to charge", meaning there is no specific limit below which regular commerce functions and above which only criminal behavior exists. The interest rate, however unpleasant to the borrowers, should be a filter through which only stable and solvent applicants could pass to borrow money. The rate in and of itself did not cause the current state of affairs, and correcting it (absent other measures) will not affect a successful cure.
A greater fault lies with the perception that the value of residential housing will invariably rise, and that this concept is sufficient motivation for borrowers properly to manage their finances. This is a complete fantasy, since one need merely hark back 30 years to see a more realistic price for the same property, and that enough fluctuation may occur during the term of the loan to destroy any equity.
The final error is the illusion that people need not be protected from bad choices, are capable of acting in their own interest, will work to avoid the consequences of an error.

Capitalism Adjusted

2008-06-15T10:29:00.003-05:00

    There is a fundamental flaw in capitalism as a theoretical financial concept. The basic premises:
1. capitalism is (so far) the best method for bringing new projects, industries, and inventions to market.
2. capitalism no longer exists when the owner of the business does not require capital (i.e., has enough money that more investors are superfluous).
3. since investing always involves some risk, and since failed businesses are frequently complete losses to investors, it is reasonable to allow profit to the investors (owners of common stock) if the business succeeds.
    However:
    Only the original investor (the common stock owner) took a risk. If the stock is sold or inherited, the next owner did not make the same decision, and by definition their exposure to loss is less - because the stock is worth something at the time of the sale (which was not true at the point of the original investment).
    Why do the successive owners of the same share of stock receive the same benefits as the original investor?
    Continued trading and dividends on existing stock REDUCES incentive for the capitalization of new businesses.
    This could be "adjusted" by re-arranging the capital gains tax as a sliding scale. The first 1,000% return (10 times the initial risk) on investment (after sale of stock) ISN'T TAXED AT ALL. The next 1,000% is taxed at 25% of its income, the next 1,000% at 50%, etc. so that (as the investor is more and more distant from the original decision, which is the introduction of the stock and product into the market, and any real risk) the return is more heavily taxed.
    This will instantly make new issues of stock more attractive than existing, funding new jobs, durable goods spending, research, etc.
    The ZERO capital gains on the first 1,000%, which is only taxed as ordinary income, means that middle income investors will make more real money on this than the wealthy - whose tax bracket is higher.

A feminist icon under the microscope of history

2008-06-08T09:18:00.003-05:00

Margaret Sanger, the sacrosanct founder of Planned Parenthood, has not been quite so pristine as her current acolytes profess.
She spoke at a Ku Klux Klan rally in 1926. Her comments included "nigger" in reference to blacks, and Aboriginal Australians as "the lowest known species of the human family, just a step higher than the chimpanzee in brain development".
She also addressed the New York legislature: "Jewish people and Italian families, who are filling the insane asylums, who are filling the hospitals and filling our feeble-minded institutions, these are the ones the tax payers have to pay for the upkeep of, and they are increasing the budget of the State, the enormous expense of the State is increasing because of the multiplication of the unfit in this country and in the State."

Perhaps Hillary's response would be of interest, but who among the media would dare bell the cat?

"Student" protests: is there a solution?

2008-05-02T08:12:00.003-05:00

The media's patience with anyone professing to be a student is evidently unlimited, especially if the subject of their righteous indignation is illegal immigration or terrorism (more closely related than readily apparent).

But, is there some action that can be taken, legally, to deal with this?
Of course - only the will is lacking (or should we say, the financial and political influences of Mexico and Saudi Arabia are still present).

If there actually were a State Department (instead of a sorry assortment of paid lobbyists for special interests) the following steps would already have been taken:
1. a video of the demonstrators and a list of members of these organizations would be examined
2. U.S. citizens separated out (Group 1)
3. legal residents (visa, green card) separated out (Group 2)
4. illegals separated out: visa over-stayers, "students" not registered at or attending school, those with criminal history but not yet deported, those with unpaid student loans, fraudulent references, etc. (Group 3)

Group 1: their name, home address, school, and photo are sent to their local newspaper and police department, their names go on the no-fly list, all their phone calls are monitored, the IRS audits their tax returns permanently, their bank records are examined for transfers to foreign agents, passports reviewed for visits to terrorist states, videos rented, books read, etc.

Group 2: is summoned to appear at an INS hearing in 3 days to explain why they should not be deported. Failure to appear results in an arrest warrant, seizure of any tuition paid, expulsion from school, any class credits or degrees voided, eviction from campus housing, revocation of driver's license, closure of bank account and credit cards, passport warning sent to Homeland Security and all airlines.

Group 3: Homeland Security SWAT raid on campus in full regalia (black uniforms with face masks, body armor, automatic weapons, stun grenades), forcibly arrested, every measure in Group 2 applied, then deported to Iraq regardless of country of origin.

The only question is whether we act in time (yesterday would be better than today, today is better than tomorrow), or do we get to "analyze the problem" after it's too late (as in the UK, where the terrorist threat is native-born citizens).

There are only 2 possible endgames here:

1. they will kill us
2. we will kill them

The "Sub-prime crisis" cured

2008-04-30T08:19:00.003-05:00

The "remedy" that has been applied is:
1. the infusion of more worthless currency into the economy (speed up the Federal printing press)
2. lowering the prime rate.

Both encourage promiscuous lending practices, and destroy conservative investments.

This will end very badly.
And it could all be fixed with a few lines in the tax code - if anyone were interested.
1. home mortgage interest becomes only deductible up to X times the prime rate, or simply X (to be set by the Fed). This will kill off future speculation, and is beyond the reach of local rabble-rousing populist demagogues.
2. tax on income derived from writing and servicing home mortgages becomes a function of the average mortgage rate over the life of the loan - (prime rate × 2). Example: mortgage rate 10, prime rate 2.5, difference 5, tax is based on 5 times the commission.

Reverend Wright's feat of superhuman strength

2008-04-29T08:49:00.001-05:00

Somehow, no one in the media noticed that Wright's historical comments have done something previously only believed possible through plate tectonics: he has moved Israel into Africa ("on what continent did everything in the Bible from Genesis to Malachi take place?").

To what may we attribute this minor error:
Is he an idiot, or at best, illiterate?
Is his afro-centric education entirely of this poor quality?
Is he aware of his error, but arrogance causes him to lie to gain a political advantage over those who foolishly look to him for guidance?

Obama vs. Clinton

2008-04-27T09:31:00.002-05:00

Can they be separated as to character? Method? Agenda?
Yes, but not in any manner the ever-vigilant media will express.

Obama's conduct is typical of a machine politician, indistinguishable from any Tammany office-seeker or traditional liberal rabble rouser in the style of Huey Long. No better, no worse as to character.
However, his purpose as office-holder is far more sinister, which is to replace as many whites as possible in the social-engineering mechanism and make blacks the sole beneficiaries of intensive reparations, affirmative action programs, and endless conversations about race. Self-loathing white liberal civil rights advocates will be purged as vehemently as ex-Klansmen. Every worthless race-baiting black racist anti-semitic huckster (Maxine Waters, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Gus Savage, Sharpe James, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Donna Brazile, Spike Lee, Frances Cress Welsing, Louis Farrakhan, Mary Frances Berry, Carol Moseley Braun, Leonard Jeffries, bell hooks, Cynthia McKinney) will have a prominent place in the new power structure, and will begin the first order of business in January 2009 by settling old grudges.

More detail on the beliefs of these worthies: http://ejit-panem.blogspot.com/2005_04_01_archive.html

Hillary's agenda is much less dangerous: merely to tax every white male to death to subsidize her distorted view of the correct society. In this, she falls comfortably among Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, FDR… and Obama.
However, she has absolutely no moral standards, no code of personal conduct whatever. She is, in the classical, medical and legal sense, a pathological liar. She lies automatically, with no thought to consequences. She does not understand that she can be detected, or that there can be consequences: she's always right, even when she makes it up.

I can predict, with absolute certainty, that if one of these wretches achieves the office it will cause us to look upon the misdeeds of G. W. Bush with tolerance if not fondness, in much the same way that his misconduct has caused us to remember Nixon quite differently than he was.

Women vs. science

2008-04-27T09:20:00.001-05:00

Competence in mathematics is sexist, racist, elitist, obsolete, and socially unacceptable.

It is not properly subjective, and does not respect the value of all diverse points of view, with added weight to those who have been completely wrong, thoroughly discredited, silenced or silent in the past.

Therefore it must be rejected, on the well-settled principle of disparate impact. The failure of women and "minorities" (ethnic groups present as a large percentage of the population, but dismal failures despite every conceivable advantage) to achieve Nobel stature in the sciences may not be attributed to lack of competence, but is, instead, proof positive that science is mis-construed as being derived from fact and logic.
Science, all science, is subjective, relative, personal, volatile, and interpretive. If we all say so, it has become true.

It's not the future, it's the present - just ask Larry Summers where his job went.

Paris Hilton is "punished"?

2007-06-04T08:35:00.000-05:00

Now, let's just suppose that the little trollop were, instead, a member of that privileged class: white males.
And (he) flashed his genitalia in public, "accidentally" let his costume slip at appropriate moments, etc.
What would be the consequences?

1. instant arrest with forcible take-down, tasering for fun etc. by the latent homosexual steroid-abusing LA Sheriff's Officers
2. severe beating by other inmates while in custody - always a harmless source of amusement to the jail staff
3. conviction on all counts, lengthy prison term imposed (several years, minimum)
4. permanent identification as a Level 1 sex offender, requiring registration, name, crime, photo and home address posted to internet, limited choices of residence (and any other unconstitutional ex post facto punishment that occur to any future legislator or prosecutor)

Does anyone believe that LA is so devoid of moral standards that no one, at all, has brought this to the attention of the LA prosecutor's office?
If no, the sooner that California is re-claimed by the Pacific Ocean the better.
If yes, why hasn't the U.S. Attorney removed them from office?

Military recruitment goals?

2006-10-10T09:09:00.000-05:00

Military selection is very simple, but it's not in the government's interest to reveal the details - too disquieting. How does it work (you may well ask)?

Little boys become physically large, psychologically susceptible to the corrosive influence of war toys, John Wayne movies, TV cop shows, etc., sexually violent, and (in general) excellent raw material for use as cannon fodder (as we used to say). This wretched condition is preferred for training, because the inductee is:
1. stupid
2. really stupid
3. has absolutely no idea how the world works
4. death is an unknown concept
5. patriotism (killing people you don't know) really sounds like a cool idea
6. you have nothing to lose (see 4, above)

If they were to wait even another 2 or 3 years, the embryonic juvenile intellect begins to stir, and trainees would begin to say things like "why is this a good idea?", and are generally less tractable, more resistant, and less vulnerable to lies.

So, in summary, the underlying principle is: "boys get big before they get smart, and that's just what we want - muscular, adrenaline-saturated, violent imbeciles".

Has the Death Penalty Become Meaningless?

2006-05-21T12:07:00.000-05:00

Despite the predictable liberal outcry, a death sentence does not mean (as the law clearly states) "to be taken to a place of execution, and put to death in the manner prescribed by law". Instead, it has degenerated into "to be taken to a safe rent-free residence, provided with the finest legal talent to make arguments devoid of merit, and to enjoy free food, clothing, medical treatment, entertainment, exercise equipment, television, movies and an extensive library, and live at the taxpayer’s expense until the appeals, requests for clemency, pardons, and new trials are exhausted."
If I'm sentenced to pay a fine, and it's not paid on time, the punishment is almost the same: the People lost the use of the money for the delay period.
If I'm sentenced to jail, and I'm not incarcerated on time, the punishment is almost the same: I've been punished to the same degree, "rehab" (non-existant fiction) works the same way, the only difference is that I am segregated from society at a different date - maybe better, maybe worse.
Imagine the consequences if the length of the sentence to be imposed was shortened by the length of the pre-trial detention, motions, trial, verdict, sentence, appeal, re-trial, re-sentence and final incarceration? This is the exact effect failure to execute criminals promptly, it reduces the severity of the sentence.
However: a death sentence is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.
It means that your remaining life expectancy is ZERO. The sentence is NOT "we're going to kill you", which is true even if it happens in 30 years. The sentence is "we're going to kill you now". No means “as rapidly as possible after pronouncement of sentence”, since execution at the mooment of the crime is not possible, justice is best served by no more delay than the letter of the law requires.
If the execution did not take place on time, the sentence itself is now meaningless - since what was clearly intended, and imposed, did not, and can not, take place.
Death at some future date has NOTHING to do with death immediately.
Why don't courts require ALL of the defense post-sentence arguments (motions, appeal, new trial) to be presented at ONE TIME (as they are in civil cases), with no additional delays?

I'd like to see a tax line on my 1099 that says, "Check here to pay an additional $20 to continue to house and feed convicted felons on death row." If enough people contribute, the people have spoken and no-one can complain about the cost of long delays in executions.
Let me add this should be worded as a plebiscite with a simple plurality deciding. Checking the box mean support for and permanent enrollment in the plan.
Failure to check the box counts as support for the plan, but not a deduction for the filer.
Negative votes must be in long-hand, notarized, and mailed separately.
Not only will the funding come from those subscribing, but the funding will be limited to that source exclusively - no foundations, no tax money, no charity.
As popular support dries up, the standard of living on death row will decline - first, no more video games, athletic equipment, VCR.
Some of the funding can be re-couped by making and selling vieos of the inmates during the last stages of their incarceration - the ones where the light, heat, clothing, medicine and finally food are shut off due to budget constraints.

"Only $29.95: watch as Tookie Williams, Jr. writhes starving, emaciated, bleeding from every orifice in his dark frozen cell until Satan finally reclaims his property!"

I'll take 3 copies, please.

Immigration: Plan B

2006-04-20T12:38:00.000-05:00

The current debate over the immigration problem will not be solved by any of the methods proposed. The people who employ illegal aliens are the same people who employ Congress, and it is not in their interests to permit the rule of law, or the express will of the People, to interfere with their business affairs.

The reason why the "fence" proposal is before us to critique at all is because they (our masters) are already satisfied that, if implemented, no mere barricade will substantially reduce the profits they enjoy through employment of illegal aliens. The ease and speed with which other methods will be substituted to keep the ranks of their servants full will not inconvenience them in the least.

If there were any serious doubt as to whether a fence would cause them financial injury, it would not be discussed at all. Nothing injurious to our ruling class is ever exposed to public scrutiny, let alone public debate. The display of the fence proposal is merely yet another use of the shopworn "don't fling me in that briar patch" tactic.

Even if a fence is completely successful, the illegal alien labor pool still includes all of the 12 to 20 million already here, who will have much less reason to leave when they no longer fear new arrivals as competitors, and their services will immediately become more valuable if "guest worker status" (amnesty, pardon, your choice of false self-serving euphemism) is granted to some.

Why is that?

Because the guest workers will be covered by Federal and State minimum hourly wage laws, Social Security, workman's compensation, unemployment insurance, and payroll tax withholding, which will price them at the same level as the American citizens currently doing these jobs, but far above what illegal aliens are being paid now.

Illegal aliens will still be the cheapest form of labor, but fewer numbers not easily replenished from Mexico means that their pay will go up, and they will take home more than a guest worker doing the same job. How many guest workers will continue to work legally for less money, when by definition they will not retire here and do not expect any benefit from the other deductions?

A fence is not a solution for other reasons. The model frequently used for comparison (Israel) is not appropriate, since their purpose is to exclude proscribed foreigners at all cost. Certainly, the Border Patrol won't shoot fence jumpers. They will simply be arrested and released to try again, not only because it suits the privileged few who impose or withhold enforcement of immigration law, but because we haven't the funds to pay for an army to interdict every illegal alien, or incarcerate, try, convict and formally deport them - we won't do it now.

If the fence were built, how long would it be before the identity of the contractor be detected as Carlyle, Haliburton or Bechtel (over an opaque umbrella of holding companies, subcontractor, consultants, etc.)? Does anyone doubt that this will occur, and that the fence project will run far beyond whatever budget constraints and time-to-completion estimates are released?

The fence will then not only fail to solve or substantially reduce the magnitude of the problem, it will instead serve to make control of the illegal labor market by our betters even more complete and thorough, who will also reap vast profits from the purchase of the underlying property, planning, construction, maintenance, repair, improvement and (eventual) demolishment or replacement of the fence to the value of tens of billions of dollars.

What could be done to solve the problem, if the will to do so were strong? If a fence, guest workers, etc. can be called Plan A (what is now entertained as remedy), Plan B is what the ruling class does not wish you to explore.

Plan B removes the motive for the employment of illegal aliens by the enactment and rigorous imposition of severe sanctions against the employers, but not the aliens.

Examining this in reverse order: the aliens will simply be detained, securely identified by fingerprint, photograph, genealogical recital, signature specimen, and a DNA sample taken by the non-invasive cheek swap method. They are then fined 100% of whatever funds and property they possess, warned that a repetition will incur more severe penalties, and deported.

The employers, transporters, and providers of false documentation shall be fined 10 times the gross value of all wages etc. paid to illegal aliens, 90% of which being immediately used to retire the national debt. If the amount cannot be determined, $100,000 per illegal alien per year shall be presumed to be correct with $100,000 as the minimum per illegal alien. Fines shall be paid within 24 hours, or the employer shall be held in custody until paid. Civil petitions to block this forfeiture or recover the funds shall be dismissed sua sponte, with the court costs assessed at $100,000 per action. No penalty shall be concurrent or dismissed as covered by a conviction or plea to another violation. No reduced charges or penalties shall be accepted. If sufficient funds are not available to satisfy the fine, the employer's entire personal holdings including real estate, pension, etc. shall be seized and administered by a receiver pending resolution of a bankruptcy petition. If the violator be a corporation, the executive(s) responsible for the hiring shall suffer the same penalty as well as the corporation.

A second violation results in mandatory imprisonment for 1 year, and forfeiture of all assets.

How to detect and punish these employers without enormous expense to the taxpayers, establishment of yet another vast inefficient bureaucracy, and concomitant corruption of public employees?

Any illegal alien whose information results in the conviction of an employer on immigration or any other criminal or civil violation shall be granted enhanced status as an applicant for legal status, and awarded up to 5% of the fines actually collected. Any illegal alien already convicted of any crime or violation in the United States, or previously deported, shall not be eligible for this program.

Do not ask whether this modest proposal will receive popular favor, and the fervent endorsement of prominent political figures. Of course not.

Ask, rather, whether it could actually be done, and would it achieve the desired goal.

Hamburg Firestorm

2005-07-13T18:23:00.000-05:00

I was especially saddened by the "British firebombing of Hamburg, Germany in 1943."

Luckily, many residents of Hamburg escaped this tragedy. Among them were leaders of the political opposition, prominent members of the clergy, newspaper editors and reporters, union leaders, non-traditonal artists and musicians, communists, socialists, anarchists, Poles, Slavs, Jews, gypsies, mental patients, career criminals, homosexuals, beggars, retarded children and adults, and people suffering from hereditary illnesses.

How did they escape this horrible experience? What providential intervention preserved them from this terrible fate?

Their friends and neighbors, the good citizens of Hamburg, had already betrayed them to the Nazis, and they were already dead. Hamburg cheerfully and willingly participated in the arrest, re-location, torture and murder of all of these people.

In attempting to express sympathy for those who are innocent victims of war and terror, do not make the assumption that all civilians are innocent. The death tolls in France, Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, Holland, Norway, Poland, etc. were all the inevitable result of the legal German government elected and supported by these same good citizens of Hamburg, who were entirely pleased with the results, and (if asked today) still behave as if the nature of their error is still a mystery to them.

"As ye sow, so shall ye reap".

Addiction: A Caustic View

2005-07-13T18:06:00.000-05:00

I think this is a appropriate moment to clarify "addiction".

Addiction is the behavioral pattern of persisting to do something that you enjoy or profit from, but that has immediate consequences (legal, social or medical) to society in general, and potentially harmful future consequences to yourself.

Being an immature, shallow, self-indulgent person with no attention span or self-control, you continue to wallow in the behavior, but refuse to accept the consequences: "I like it, I don't want to stop - I just don't want to pay for it - I want you to pay for it".

Addiction (alcoholism, smoking, drug abuse) is not a disease, it's a form of irresponsibility. Addiction is "substance abuse", only in so far as the substance being abused is truth. Addicts have absolutely no interest in being "cured", they insist on continuing the pattern - they just don't want the consequences (social ostracism, bankruptcy, pain, jail, death). A common thread woven through the lives of all addicts: they're all pathological liars.

This is why mental illness is completely different from addiction: mental patients will do ANYTHING to stop, to feel better, to break the pattern - even suicide. Mental patients are fear relapse more than death - they just can't deal with it effectively.

I can cure any addict in 1 hour: every time you take a hit off that crack pipe, I strike you in the face with this 3 foot long piece of re-bar. Much cheaper, and the small number of failures will be easier to recognize (i.e., banks won't hire a person with long bloody scars across their face).

Addiction has become the cash cow for the medical profession (blood-sucking thieves), and as long as we "pretend" to be helping these creatures (subsidizing their entertainment and excusing their behavior), their doctors, insurance companies and health care providers will continue to drain the economy.

Gun Control Hypocrisy

2005-07-13T17:59:00.000-05:00

The entire government "policy" (meaning a consistent goal-oriented series of laws, statements, actions, etc.) on firearms is a complete hypocrisy.

Private citizens have, as part of the social contract, surrendered their right to personal self-defense to the federal government in return for the promise of safety. The government's single, original, oldest, most essential reason for being is to "provide for the common defense", which can only be accomplished on a military scale by combined action (not personally).

In my opinion, the guarantee of safety against foreign powers is a reasonable exchange for giving up my right to invade Iraq personally.

However, on a more local and personal note: I don't believe that a similar exchange of rights and obligations has ever occurred between private citizens and the local governments. Since it is already a matter of law that the police do not have an obligation to protect you from crime, the benefits accruing to them from this (extorting tax money, unlimited right of search and seizure, immunity from criminal prosecution) are already unacceptable. Since there is no exchange (I have received nothing), the contract is void, and my right to protect myself is then unaffected by local law.

This would be merely annoying and frustrating if it were not for the fact that our tax money is being used (without our specific knowledge or consent) "for purposes of national policy" to provide weapons and training for foreigners who are known criminals, terrorists, murders and drug traffickers, who eventually use them against our interests, if not against us directly.

Why are they so careless and generous about lavishly bestowing fully-automatic weapons, claymores, RPGs, etc. to every tyrannical banana-republic, sunglass-wearing bloody-handed, corrupt, in-bred maniac on the planet, but remarkably circumspect in permitting our citizens some means to offset police incompetence?

This is as much proof as I need that the restrictive gun laws in the US are intended to prevent any form of insurrection, and have nothing whatever to do with crime, accidental discharge-related death of little children, wildlife preservation, and all the other self-serving excuses Ted Kennedy has offered, most earnestly, in support for these laws. Being armed isn't necessary in order to make strong statements in opposition to the current government - but clearly they're more comfortable with a nation of sheep rather than wolves. Does Mr. Kennedy suspect that we well suspect his motivation? And that a sincere statement (in an un-guarded moment) is more likely to be "don't shoot me, Mr. Kopechnie!"?

The present administration would like to advance their little fantasies in small steps, secure in the knowledge that when they choose to knock on your door, there will be nothing you can do about it.

Security At the Mexican Border

2005-06-26T09:56:00.000-05:00

I'm convinced that no passive obstacle or human presence will deter illegal crossings.
However, the use of police dogs to "subdue" people with whom the police wish to have conversation (not necessarily suspected of a crime, not a fleeing fugitive, not a convictedcriminal) has become pandemic with no successful legal challenges.
What would the Court do if the police announced "We don't care if you're not the person we're looking for, or innocent. If you don't surrender we will send in a member of the force who is a homicidal manic with super-human strength and reflexes, armed with knives, who is deaf and has no sympathy or mercy, and will savagely stab and mutilate your body until we restrain him"?
This is what dogs do at the behest of law enforcement.
Since we already use this method on our own citizens, why not adopt it for border use?
Needed: 2 fences 100 yards apart, 20 feet high, the entire width of the border. Electrification, razor wire, etc. may be omitted to save money.
How does it work: the area between the fences is patrolled by US agents that do not speak English or Spanish, and have no interest in the age, sex, physical condition, money, drugs, threats, or weapons of the burglar, andare absolutely incorruptible. There are enough of them that some are always on patrol, and have excellent vision, hearing etc.

Don't use people, who feel sympathy, become bored, take bribes, get tired, don't care, go to sleep.

Instead, use tigers.

Marriage vs. Civil Union

2005-06-26T09:37:00.001-05:00

I'm still waiting for an accurate description of how they differ; "civil union is the same, except not married" is, of course, complete nonsense.
Does the surviving partner in a civil union inherit all common property, and the entire estate of the deceased (and childless) partner automatically (as does the spouse)?
Can they be disinherited (the spouse always has the right to choose between their portion as described in the will and the proportion of the estate determined by State law cannot be disinherited, except by consent)?
What if the domicile or place of death is not the state of residence or registration of the CU?
Real estate: does the survivor become the sole tenant at death (i.e., the common property passes outside the will)?
Can one partner sponsor the other for immigration?
Can one partner force their insurance carrier to cover the other (as is true in marriages)? Quickly: let's all accept gratuities from homosexuals dying of AIDS to get them on our policies, and bankrupt the insurance carriers.
Are pension plans now required to provide benefits?
How does their adoption status differ from married, if at all?
Do they have the same standing as plaintiffs for "loss of services and consortium" in civil litigation?
Will states allow an exemption as a dependent for tax purposes?
Does this make one party the "head of a household" for tax purposes?
How is this dissolved? By a simple stipulation?
Does it create common finances during the period in which the union existed?
What if one partner says "yes" and the other "no" to a divorce? Resolved as a simple contract dispute, or by the domestic relations law?

Not one word has issued from the various legislatures clarifying these matters of great consequence. Might the reason be lack of interest ("I'm too busy avoiding indictment/counting my money/running for re-election")?
Or lack of competence ("I'm a lawyer, how would I know what those things mean?")?

"political arm"? "military arm"? Let's Define Our Terms

2005-06-26T09:30:00.000-05:00

"Military" arm: terrorists (without uniforms, and therefore not military) who practice murder, extortion and kidnapping for "political" purposes (ref: "Arafat's personal fortune estimated at $3B", "Winnie Mandela's death squad murders opponents who disagree with her husband")

Political arm: terrorists who defend, explain, apologize for, hide, protect and fund them, and pretend that there is no relationship ("we don't know where they are, what they're going to do, or how they got those arms/explosives/funds/passports"). Of course, Gerry Adams has nothing to do with blowing up British police stations - he only raises the money to buy their weapons.

And the way in which they differ is....?

Immigration: Are There More Choices?

2005-06-26T09:18:00.000-05:00

For a brief moment, setting aside any thought of guilt or innocence, law or justice, in favor of a pragmatic approach to safety:

I'm beginning to see the presence of muslim aliens (legal and illegal) in this country in much the same way as the earliest known AIDs carriers; any attempt to impose actual structure on the problem (mandatory testing, quarantine, public disclosure of the names of known carriers, prosecution of intentional infection) was instantly met with righteously indignant comments such as, "they're entitled to the same privacy and personal freedom as you are", "we can't just lock them up merely because they spread fatal diseases", etc.
Since then, due to our delicate and sensitive natures, tens of millions dead (world wide, including, of course, the ones we didn't offend), and hundreds of billions of dollars wasted in medical costs, lost earnings, etc. with no end in sight.

Considering only the greatest good for the greatest number: wouldn't it have been much better to have simply killed them before they infected everyone? After all, they were going to die anyway.

Will we look back in a decade or so, as we huddle, dressed in rags, around a small fire built of the rubble of what used to be American cities, eating rats and garbage, and wonder much the same thing about muslim aliens?

"Considering only the greatest good for the greatest number: wouldn't it have been much better to have simply killed them before they killed everyone? After all, they want to die anyway."

America's Legal Systems In Chaos

2005-06-26T09:15:00.000-05:00

Let me suggest an important difference between citizens and... others (legal and illegal aliens).
A citizen can be prosecuted, etc. but is still a permanent legal resident. He may be dead or in jail, but he's still a citizen.
Aliens are only here if we want them to be. The standards of conduct we impose on them need not be fair, merely uniformly applied.
Dare anyone suggest that the personal liberty of someone who has no, repeat no, right to be physically present here without our permission has a value equal to that of my right to safety?
Of course, they have the right to express that opinion, but I suggest that there are about 240 million who, if the question were posed as I have done, would instantly answer "absolutely not".
Dispensing with any pretence of obedience to law, justice etc. (since the administration seems bent on so doing), let's hypothesize only on pragmatic grounds.
Would the citizens be safer, and financially more secure, if all aliens were deported? Yes or no?
If yes, why not now?
If no, why not?

Civil Rights, Revisited

2005-04-17T16:37:00.000-05:00

Charles Barron (New York City Councilman, on the subject of reparations for slavery) -- "I want to go up to the closest white person and say: 'You can't understand this, it's a black thing' and then slap him, just for my mental health." [Deroy Murdock, "Dems Need to Houseclean" National Review Online, January 6, 2003.]
Sharpe James (mayor of Newark, New Jersey referring to his light-skinned black opponent in the 2002 Democratic primary) -- "the faggot white boy." [Deroy Murdock, "Dems Need to Houseclean" National Review Online, January 6, 2003.]
Willie Brown (then-California assembly speaker, after a 1995 victory over Republicans in a leadership battle) -- "The white boys got taken fair and square." When asked by ABC correspondent Judd Rose if he regretted that comment, Mr. Brown replied, "It was an adequate and accurate description of a collection of people who had been defeated on this occasion." [Deroy Murdock, "Dems Need to Houseclean" National Review Online, January 6, 2003.]
Noel Ignatiev (white Harvard professor and editor of "Race Traitor" magazine) -- "Keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females, too, until the social construct known as the white race is destroyed. Not deconstructed, but destroyed." [Robert Boatman, "Trent Lott's of the Left," Frontpagemag.com (online), January 3, 2003.]
Donna Brazile (Director of Al Gore's 2000 presidential campaign) -- "A white-boy attitude is 'I must exclude, denigrate and leave behind.' " [Robin Givhan, Clearing the Decks at Gore Headquarters, Washington Post, Nov. 16, 1999, p. C1.]
Nathan McCall (journalist for the Washington Post in his autobiography "Makes Me Wanna Holler") -- "The fellas and I were hanging out on our corner one afternoon when the strangest thing happened. A white boy … came pedaling a bicycle casually through the neighborhood. … Somebody spotted him and pointed him out to the rest of us. 'Look! What's that motherfucka doin' ridin' through here?! Is he crraaaazy?!' … We caught him on Cavalier Boulevard and knocked him off the bike. … Ignoring the passing cars, we stomped him and kicked him. My stick partners kicked him in the head and face and watched the blood gush from his mouth. I kicked him in the stomach and nuts, where I knew it would hurt. Every time I drove my foot into his balls, I felt better … one dude kept stomping, like he'd gone berserk … When he finished, he reached down and picked up the white dude's bike, lifted it as high as he could above his head, and slammed it down on him hard. … We walked away, laughing, boasting, competing for bragging rights about who'd done the most damage." [Nathan McCall, Makes Me Wanna Holler: A Young Black Man in America, Random House, 1993, p. 3.]
Robin Morgan (white author) -- "My white skin disgusts me. My passport disgusts me. They are the marks of an insufferable privilege bought at the price of others' agony. If I could peel myself inside out I would be glad. If I could become part of the oppressed I would be free." [Robert Boatman, "Trent Lott's of the Left," Frontpagemag.com (online), January 3, 2003.]
Spike Lee (film director) -- "When talking about the history of this great country, one can never forget that America was built upon the genocide of Native Americans and enslavement of African people. To say otherwise is criminal." [Lee Gives 'The Patriot' a Thumbs-Down, Los Angeles Times, July 7, 2000, p. F2.]
Spike Lee (film director) -- "I'm convinced AIDS is a government-engineered disease. They got one thing wrong, they never realized it couldn't just be contained to the groups it was intended to wipe out. So, now it's a national priority. Exactly like drugs when they escaped the urban centers into white suburbia." [Janet Braunstein, "Spike's Message Obscured," Detroit Free Press, Nov. 9, 1992, p. 4F.]
George P. Bush (son of Florida Governor Jeb Bush and his Mexican-born wife Columba, and nephew of the President speaking to a gathering of Hispanics) -- ". . . we have to fight for our race, we have to find the leaders who represent us."[Reuters, Aug. 2, 2000.]
Marcus Jacoby (the only white on the historically black Southern University football team from 1996 to 1998) -- "I heard the entire stadium booing me. Fans were yelling 'Get the white boy out.' " Mr. Jacoby left the team because of repeated death threats. [Ira Berkow, Race: "Keeping Score in Louisiana," The Oregonian, Aug. 1, 2000, p. A6.]
Ann Rhodes (University Relations Vice President at the University of Iowa speaking after it was discovered a black woman staged a phony hate crime) -- "I figured it was going to be a white guy between 25 and 55 because they're the root of most evil." [Greg Smith, "Black Student Arrested in Racist Threats at Iowa Dental School," AP, April 20, 2000. Scott Hogenson, "College Official Calls White Men 'Root of Most Evil,'" CNSNews.com, April 21, 2000.]
Ice Cube (black rap musician) -- "Ice Cube wishes to acknowledge white America's continued commitment to the silence and oppression of black men. . . . White America needs to thank black people for still talkin' to them 'cause you know what happens when we stop." [pamphlet included in his 1992 album The Predator.]
Randall Robinson (black race activist and head of TransAfrica, a group that promotes racial solidarity between black Africans and black Americans) -- "In the autumn of my life, I am left regarding white people, before knowing them individually, with irreducible mistrust and dull dislike." [Randall Robinson, Defending the Spirit: A Black Life in America, 1998, p.xiii.]
Randall Robinson (black race activist and head of TransAfrica, a group that promotes racial solidarity between black Africans and black Americans) -- "My father died in 1974 at the age of sixty-eight, of what the family now believes to have been Alzheimer's disease. Toward the end, and not lucid, he slapped a nurse, telling her not to 'put her white hands on him.' His illness had afforded him one final brief honesty. I was perversely pleased when told the story." [Randall Robinson, Defending the Spirit: A Black Life in America, 1998, p.xiii.]
Frances Cress Welsing (black psychiatrist) --"White male homosexuality may be viewed as the symbolic attempt to incorporate into the white male body more male substance by either sucking the penis of another male and orally ingesting the semen, or by having male ejaculate deposited in the other end of the alimentary canal. Through anal intercourse, the self-debasing white male may fantasize that he can produce a product of color, albeit that the product of color is fecal matter." [Frances Cress Welsing, The Isis Papers: The Keys to the Colors, Third World Press, 1991, p. 47.]
Frances Cress Welsing (black psychiatrist) -- "On both St. Vanlentine's Day and Mother's Day, the white male gives gifts of chocolate candy with nuts. . . . If his sweetheart ingests 'chocolate with nuts,' the white male can fantasize that he is genetically equal to the Black male." [Frances Cress Welsing, The Isis Papers: The Keys to the Colors, Third World Press, 1991, p. 76.]
Frances Cress Welsing (black psychiatrist) -- "Is it not also curious that when white males are young and vigorous, they attempt to master the large brown balls, but as they become older and wiser, they psychologically resign themselves to their inability to master the large brown balls? Their focus then shifts masochistically to hitting the tiny white golf balls in disgust and resignation -- in full final realization of white genetic recisiveness." [Frances Cress Welsing, The Isis Papers: The Keys to the Colors, Third World Press, 1991, p. 141.]
Chancellor Williams (Afrocentrist and author of The Destruction of Black Civilization) -- "The necessary re-education of Blacks and a possible solution of the racial crisis can begin . . . only when Blacks fully realize this central fact to their lives: the white man is their Bitter Enemy." [Phil Collier and David Horowitz, The Race Card, 1997, p. 104.]
Elizabeth Smith (Texaco vice president for investor relations) -- "White males are only hired by default," [Jon E. Dougherty, "White Males Need Not Apply at Texaco," WorldNetDaily.com, March 31, 1999.]
Carol Moseley Braun (former U.S. Senator responding to a column by George Will on her many financial scandals) -- "I think because he couldn't say 'nigger' he used the word 'corrupt.' George Will can just take off his hood and go back to wherever he came from." [George Will, Moseley-Braun May Find Defeat, Chicago Sun-Times, Sept. 7, 1998, p. 19. Scott Fornek, Moseley-Braun Writes Apology, Chicago Sun-Times, Sept. 9, 1998, p. 24.]
Rodolfo Acuna (professor of Chicano studies at Cal State Northridge) "There's a growing feeling 'Why should we pay for all these senior citizens' if the majority of them are white and all they were willing to pay for was prisons?" [Jonathan Tilove, Generation Gap Becoming Racial Gap, San Francisco Examiner, Nov. 23, 1997, p. A17.]
Stephen Klineberg (Rice University sociologist on the defeat of a ballot initiative in Houston that would have outlawed affirmative action) "I think this shows that Houston has transcended its redneck Southern past and is recognizing its destiny as a multiethnic, international city in a global economy." [Jesse Katz, Houston Thinks Globally in OK of Affirmative Action, Los Angeles Times, Nov. 6, 1997, p. A14.]
Amiri Baraka (poet laureate of the state of New Jersey) -- "Come up, black dada nihilismus. Rape the white girls. Rape their fathers. Cut the mothers' throats." [from "Black Dada Nihilismus".]
Amiri Baraka (poet laureate of the state of New Jersey) "When I die, the consciousness I carry I will to black people. May they pick me apart and take the useful parts, the sweet meat of my feelings. And leave the bitter bullshit rotten white parts alone. (from his classic "Leroy") [John McAlpin, "NJ Gov. Seeks Authority to Fire Poet," AP, Oct. 6, 2002.]
Robert Mugabe (President of Zimbabwe who is taking the land of white farmers and revoking their citizenship) -- "Our party must continue to strike fear in the heart of the white man, our real enemy!" [J.T. Young, "Zimbabwean double standard," Washington Times, January 14, 2003, p. A15.]
Robert Mugabe (President of Zimbabwe who is taking the land of white farmers and revoking their citizenship) -- "Zimbabwe is for black people not white people." ["Zimbabwe 'Votes' " American Renaissance, April 2002, p. 9.]
John Street (black mayor of Philadelphia) -- "Let me tell you: The brothers and sisters are running this city. Oh yes. The brothers and sisters are running this city. Running it! Don't let nobody fool you; we are in charge of the City of Brotherly Love. We are in charge! We are in charge! [Cynthia Burton, "Street Talk Hits a Nerve on Race," Philadelphia Inquirer, April 17, 2002, p. A1.]
Harris Sussman (white "diversity consultant," in a front-page article in Managing Diversity, a publication subscribed to by U.S. government agencies) -- "When we say 'white people,' we mean the people of greed who valued things over people, who value money over people. We know exactly what their values are and where they lead. We have all paid a terrible price for those values . . . ." [White People, Washington Times, Feb. 13, 1997, p. A10.]
William Raspberry (black columnist)- "It is hard to think of whites-only groups formed for the benefit of their members that could gain our approval. Perhaps an organization of white LA police officers formed to help its members improve their attitudes towards minorities . . . . It's always illegitimate for white men to organize as white men." [William Raspberry, "Dubiously Exclusive," Washington Post, Nov. 24, 1995.]
Maggie Gallagher (white columnist) -- "I hate the idea of being white. I never think of myself as belonging to the 'white race.' Those who do, in my experience, are invariably second-raters, seeking solace for their own failures. I can think of few things more degrading than being proud to be white." [Maggie Gallagher, "The Rhetoric of Race," NY Post, Oct. 20, 1995, p. 25.]
Leonard Jeffries (chairman of the African-American studies department of the City College of New York, interviewed in the May, 1995 issue of Rutherford magazine) : Q: But the black man is no longer a slave. A: The slave should be waking up, thinking of ways to slit the slavemaster's throat. . . . Q: What kind of world do you want to leave to your children? A: A world in which there aren't any white people. . . . [T.L. Stanclu & Nisha Mohammed, Leonard Jeffries Jr., Rutherford, May 1995, p. 13.]
Paul Mooney (black comedian) -- "White people are scared, because minorities are taking over. White people are worried because they can't out-f*** the Mexicans --minorities in numbers alone are taking over, and white folks are scared because they are afraid that we are going to do to them exactly what they've done to us. And they are absolutely right. When the s*** turns around, we are going to treat you exactly like you've treated us: like s***."[ Danyel Smith, Full Moon, The Bay Guardian, 3/3/93.]
Art Carey (white columnist) -- "White Guys also tend to have wide hips, flat butts, bulging love handles, fat guts, sunken chests, weak chins, spindly arms, treble voices, red necks and, after a certain age, thinning hair or bald heads. Some may find these anatomical peculiarities appealing, believe it or not . . . . Think of the most obnoxious White Guy you know. Guess what? He's going to croak . . . you get to watch White Guys die."[ Art Carey, "The Great White Dopes," San Jose Mercury News, June 15, 1993.]
Kay Patterson (state senator in the South Carolina legislature writing in an invitation to black politicians) -- "Now please don't bring any of your 'White-Friends,' this is a 'Colored' meeting."[ Patterson offers no apology for actions, Post and Courier (Columbia) 4/5/93, p. 3B.]
Jocelyn Walters (journalism student at the University of Georgia in the campus-related paper called The Red & Black) "I'm talking to you, white America. You're wrong. You're evil.... Your greed is overwhelming. Your lust for power disgusting. The blood on your hands signifies what a demon you are. . . . " "You have always thrived off of the blood and sweat of others. You drink them. It is your sustenance.... You make me sick! Sick with anger. Sick with disgust. Sick with the desire to ruin you like you have ruined so many others . . . . [Jocelyn Walters, "Blacks Should revolt against white, male America," The Red and Black, Feb 15, 1993.]
Richard Parry-Jones (white vice president of Ford Motor Company) -- "we are trapped in a monocultural environment that is dominated by old white males. We need to change." [AP, Ford Ties Executives Perks Pay to Merit, Dec. 24, 1999.]
Susan Sontag (white intellectual) "The truth is that Mozart, Pascal, Boolean Algebra, Shakespeare, parliamentary government, baroque churches, Newton, the emancipation of women, Kant, Marx, and Ballanchine ballets don't redeem what this particular civilization has wrought upon the world. The white race is the cancer of human history."
Sonny Carson (black activist in New York when asked if he was anti-Semitic) "I am anti-white. I don’t limit my ‘anti’ to just one group of people." [Mark Mooney, "Ex-Dinkins Organizer Boasts He’s ‘AntiWhite’" New York Post, October 21, 1989, p. 3.]
Miles Davis (black jazz musician) "If somebody told me I had only one hour to live, I’d spend it choking a white man. I’d do it nice and slow." [Miles Davis Can’t Shake Boyhood Racial Abuse, Jet March 25, 1985.]
Eldridge Clever (former Black Panther leader on why he raped white women) "Rape was an insurrectionary act. It delighted me that I was defying and trampling upon the white man’s law, upon his system of values, and that I was defiling his women . . . ." [Eldridge Clever, Soul on Ice, McGraw-Hill, 1968, p.14.]
Gus Savage (former U.S. Representative from Chicago to a white member of the press) "I don’t talk to you white motherf*ckers. . . . You bitch motherf*ckers in the white press. . . . F*ck you, you motherf*cking *sshole . . . white devils." [Marilyn Rauber, "Reporter Says Black Rep Hurled Racial Slurs," New York Post, June 27, 1991, p. 18.]
Chino Wilson (in an editorial in the Daily Collegian, campus newspaper at Penn State University) "After looking at all the evidence there is only one conclusion: white people are devils . . . . I believe that we must secure our freedom and independence from these devils by any means necessary, including violence. . . . To protect ourselves we should bear arms (three handguns and two rifles, maybe an M-16) immediately and form a militia. . . . So black people, let us unite, organize and execute." [Chino Wilson, "African American Students Should Not Trust ‘Devilish’ White People," The Daily Collegian, Penn State University, January 28, 1992.]
Khalid Abdul Muhammed (former assistant to Louis Farrakhan - current leader of the New Black Panther Party) -’Hollywood is owned by these so-called Jews. Look at the movies they make about us, Black people killing Black people. Let’s make some revolutionary movies where we kill white people in the movie. Kill ‘em so hard you have to cover up your popcorn from the blood spraying out of the screen." [Speech at San Francisco State University, May 21, 1997.]
Khalid Abdul Muhammed (on what South African blacks should do to any whites who refuse to leave South Africa): "We kill the women. We kill the babies. We kill the blind. We kill the cripples. We kill them all. . . . When you get through killing them all, go to the goddamn graveyard and kill them a-goddamn-gain because they didn’t die hard enough."[November 29, 1993 speech at Kean College in Union, New Jersey.]
Mary Frances Berry (current head of U.S. Commission on Civil Rights) - "Civil rights laws were not passed to protect the rights of white men and do not apply to them." [Civil Rights Under Reagan, San Francisco, ICS Press, 1991, p. 141.]
Augustin Cebada (Head of the Brown Berets, a Hispanic activist organization at a July 4, 1996 rally) - "We’re here today to show L.A., show the minority people here, the Anglo-Saxons, that we are here, the majority, we’re here to stay. We do the work in this city, we take care of the spoiled brat children . . . we are the majority here and we are not going to be pushed around."
Augustin Cebada "Go back to Simi Valley, you skunks! Go back to Woodland Hills! Go back to Boston! Go back to Plymouth Rock, Pilgrims! Get out! We are the future. You are old and tired. Go on. We have beaten you. Leave like beaten rats. You old white people, it is your duty to die. . . ." [Quoted in Barbara Coe, Reconquista, The Takeover of America, California Coalition for Immigration Reform, 1998, p. 20.]
Prof. Jose Angel Gutierrez (University of Texas, Arlington) "We have an aging white America. They are dying. They are shitting in their pants with fear! . . . I love it!" - [Speech of Jan. 1995, quoted in Coe, Reconquista, p. 16.]
Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall (in a conversation with Justice William Douglas about racial preferences) "You guys have been practicing discrimination for years. Now it is our turn." [William O. Douglas, The Court Years 1939-1975, New York, Random House, 1980.]
bell hooks (black professor of English at City College of New York) "I am writing this essay sitting beside an anonymous white male that I long to murder." [From her book A Killing Rage, quoted by David Horowitz in Hating Whitey, Spence Publishing, 1999, p. 31.]
Sister Souljah (rap artist and black activist) "If black people kill black people every day, why not have a week and kill white people." [R.W. Apple "Jackson Sees ‘Character Flaw’ in Clinton’s Remarks on Racism, New York Times, June 19, 1992.]
Ice Cube (black rapper and actor, on the anti-Korean album Death Certificate) "So don’t follow me up and down your market. or your little chop suey ass will be a target. So pay your respects to the black fist or we’ll burn your store right down to a crisp." [Eric Briendel, "Rap Star to Koreans: ‘We’ll Burn Your Stores,’ " New York Post, Dec. 5, 1991, p. 29.]
Amiri Baraka (black poet and writer) "You cant steal nothin from a white man, he’s already stole it he owes you anything you want, even his life. All the stores will open up if you will say the magic words. The magic words are: Up against the wall motherfucker this is a stick up!" [Quoted in Anne Wortham, The Other Side of Racism, Ohio State University Press, 1981, p. 257.]
Mario Obledo - (1998 Presidential Medal of Freedom recipient and former head of Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund - MALDEF) "California is going to be a Mexican state, we are going to control all the institutions. If people don’t like it they should leave." [Tom Leykis Radio Show, June 7, 1998.]
Malcolm X - "The death of over 120 white people is a very beautiful thing." [Speech in Los Angeles on June 3, 1962 upon learning of a plane crash. He also said on numerous occasions, "The white man is the devil."]
Rev. James Cone - "What we need is the destruction of whiteness, which is the source of human misery in the world." [Quoted in David Horowitz, Hating Whitey, Spence Publishing, 1999, p. 44.]
Art Torres (former chairman, California Democratic Party) - "Remember, [Proposition] 187 [the measure to cut public benefits to illegal aliens] is the last gasp of white America." [The Social Contact, Summer 1998, p. 290.]
Willie Brown (Mayor of San Francisco to a white parent complaining that affirmative action would penalize his children) "I don’t care about your idiot children." [The Social Contract, Summer 1998, p. 290.]

Sexual Harassment

2005-04-12T19:05:00.000-05:00

"Sexual harassment" is a polite, well-intentioned, gallant, complimentary statement made by a man you don't want to have sex with.
"Flattery" is a disgusting, lewd, obscene, degrading, immoral and lascivious statement made by a man you do want to have sex with.
The crime exists entirely in the subject's mind, and she enjoys complete license to interpret it favorably (and receive sexual gratification), or unfavorably (and ruin the life of her admirer).
See how well that works?
What women now have, enjoy, have developed to an art form, teach their female children, and practice even when obligated by their own rules to virginity or chastity, is the right to solicit all men within visual range by physical provocation (un-buttoned blouse, short skirt, transparent top, un-necessary bending, leg crossing, clothing adjustment).
Having done this, they then reserve the right to dispose of the results as follows:
» Retain (prolong the attention of) those that they find suitable… until they change their mind.
» Reject (insult, demean, ridicule, strike, have arrested, or request that another gentleman “defend their honor” by assaulting) those that they are not satisfied with... until they change their mind.
When women cease advertising themselves as sexual appliances and soliciting the attention of men through biological methods only, they can complain of objectionable behavior.

The Toilet Seat

2005-03-21T18:00:00.000-05:00

I find the toilet seat controversy to be a perfect model-in-miniature of "feminist" (self-indulgent, irresponsible) theory.

Let's examine it more closely, shall we?

Women: always need the seat down, expect to find it and leave it that way. They have no concern or interest as to whether the next user is a man, for whom this is an inconvenience. They are reared from infancy to expect that some man will invariably appear and repair whatever failure they create (flat tire, computer crash, quite a long list: "things women need done, but will not do themselves"), expect nothing in return, and then retreat into anonymity.

Men: need the seat both ways, and realize (properly) that either mode of departure may be inconvenient to the next user, and (wisely) conserve energy and leave it as-is. Why exert yourself to benefit a person who may prefer the opposite?

How do they differ?

Women expect the world to be made to suit them, in advance.

Men do the obvious, and considerate, thing: LEAVE IT AS YOU USED IT.

DUI: a new solution?

2005-03-13T11:39:00.000-05:00

The threat of criminal sanctions may have reached a point of diminishing returns, in that the remaining DUI offenders and potential offenders are less likely to alter their behavior than those originally targeted by law enforcement. Therefore, there will continue to be a substantial number of offenders un-responsive to the imposition of stricter standards or harsher penalties.
I have a suggestion for a possible legislative project, from the perspective of civil, rather than criminal, law:

Motor vehicle liability insurance (where required, as here in New York) has as it's purpose not to protect the guilty driver (the "tortfeasor") from economic loss, but to guarantee a source of recovery to the injured victim or next of kin. As a fiduciary responsibility to their own stockholders, insurance companies must provide attorneys for DUI defendants.
Currently, despite the fact that litigation of damages frequently occurs after the criminal court has rendered a verdict as to the defendant's guilt, the defendant's insurance company still fully indemnifies the defendant against the injured plaintiff's financial recovery.
I believe that this system, consistent with conventional tort law in New York, does not serve the public interest. A legislative change, specifically directed at DUI cases, may have a profound impact on the behavior of defendants, the financial interests of insurance companies, and the public's welfare.
As a matter of public policy, as well as common sense, intentional criminal acts preclude insurance coverage as financial protection for the defendant. Certainly, home owners insurance does not provide protection if you're sued by someone you shot intentionally. It is only to protect the DUI victim's financial interest that this exception is made.

What I propose is a change in the order of recovery by the successful injured victim. Currently, the order of exposure to liability is as follows:
1. insurance carrier (up to the limit of the policy).
2. the DUI defendant's property.
Legislation can reverse of this order, so that (where criminal guilt is already a matter of record) the defendant's assets are seized first. This need not be without limits; as a preliminary first step, safety factors in the current bankruptcy statutes still protect the defendant and their family.
At the exhaustion of the defendant's assets, any remaining judgment is recovered from the defendant's insurance company. How does this change affect the interested parties?
> The injured plaintiff is not adversely affected by this, but STILL get the same amount of money.
> The plaintiff's attorney's fees will remain as they are - a percentage of the full recovery.
> The defendant's insurance company will pay out less money in almost all cases, and no money in cases where the defendant's assets are sufficient to fully satisfy the judgment. This will have the secondary effect of a slight reduction in premiums, especially for motorists with assets (i.e., homeowners might pay lower premiums through a lien on the property favoring the insurance company, etc.).
> Insurance companies will probably still provide an attorney for their defendant/client to protect their own interests, even if their financial exposure is secondary.
> Motorists with previous DUI history will, in my opinion, be much more careful to avoid another violation, knowing that a conviction will result in the loss of his savings, his house, his car, and his pension.
> If the defendant is married, the innocent spouse would still retain all of their own personal property, and (generally) 50% of the marital property (house, etc.) - similar to divorce law. A wife would not be bankrupt because her husband lost the case.

In addition to the financial benefit, both to the insurance companies and the public (fewer accidents, fewer lives lost or ruined), there is also a moral victory which comes with forcing the convicted DUI defendant to fully accept the consequences of his act, rather than lay the financial burden on the driving public (as the current system does).
This plan will, of course, require studies, adjustments, etc., but I believe it can be an effective tool for saving lives.

Deportation: expense vs. effectiveness

2005-03-13T11:28:00.000-05:00

"We can't afford to deport all illegal aliens" has been over-used to "explain" the failure of INS/HLS etc. to perform their mandatory function under the law.
Is it going to cost more to deport them than the illegals will consume during their lives as the price of local municipal services, police, courts (you need not be legal to use the courts to sue, etc.), jails, parole, public schools, welfare, free medical treatment, etc. that they will render less available to taxpaying citizens?
Each child in the California school sysem is using over $6,500 worth of public money annually now, times 12 years in school, comes to how much? Add easily $1000. medical annually per family, tax revenue lost (because the workers they displace pay taxes), etc.
Deportation will cost much less than 1% as much as lifetime public assistance.
How to do this? Begin with the ones who are currently arrested, and released.
If not, why not?
The only question is "what obscene and carefully concealed private interest motivates the legislatures' refusal to enforce the existing laws?".

"Israeli bulldozers destroy houses of Palestinians"

2005-03-13T11:23:00.000-05:00

"...razing dozens of homes in the Rafah refugee camp in retaliation for the deaths of five Israeli soldiers..."
I agree, it's so tragic. Losing one's house is a disproportionate price to pay for merely being an accessory to murder: it's far too lenient.
The proper, measured, reasonable and proportionate response is to accurately identify those arabs who were repeatedly warned against any involvement with known terrorists (and advised of the penalties), knowingly participated in storage of contraband weapons, sheltered the terrorists before, during and after the attacks on Israelis, and lied about their conduct when questioned ("No, my son has not been here").
Then shoot them, exactly the way any decent arab would - and does, to their brother and sister arabs suspected of complicity with the Israeli government.
Or do you impose lesser standards of morality and conduct on arabs, giving great allowance for their barbarism, ignorance, intolerance and stupidity?

Deportation of illegals made more effective

2005-03-13T11:17:00.000-05:00

An idea as to how to discourage repeat offenders: it's quite simple - just dispense with the idea that the place they came FROM must be the place they're going TO.
I call it "cross-cultural relocation".
The "deportation destination" countries can be persuaded to accept immigrants at much lower cost than our current catch-and-release futility. And, of course, if they don't agree, that will make the deportees reception a bit more colorful, won't it?
Why send them back to a place where they feel comfortable, know the language and customs, like the weather, and can use the same methods to attempt e-entry? Why not go the extra mile, literally?
Instead, give them a challenge - if they're good enough to get back again, perhaps we could consider them more favorably.
Rather a shock to get off the plane etc. and find yourself in a country where you know no-one, have no skills, no way to get money, everyone hates you etc.
Instead of being released at the Tex/Mex border, again, for the 20th time, you're getting off the plane in Singapore...
Does this cost more money?
Only the first time.

Affirmative action?

2005-03-13T11:11:00.000-05:00

My favorite poster child for "affirmative action" (a formal system of illegal preferences and quotas benefitting un-qualified members of non-caucasian ethnic groups) was Imelda Marcos, the famous ex-porn star and widow of the Philipine dictator and multi-billionaire, who was entitled to preference in employment, housing, education, etc. based on her name, despite the fact that ethnically she is, of course, Asian.

I, on the other hand, as a descendant of Appalchian coal miners, am legally presumed to be the recipient of all the privieges of the racist white power structure (the mine owners?), and therefore should properly stand aside and give my place in line to a person whose personal conduct and morals (she and her husband stole over $5 billion from her citizens and US taxpayers) should have landed her in jail.

Should convicted criminals vote?

2005-03-13T11:05:00.000-05:00

In many States, a felony conviction (generally defined as a crime with a minimum sentence greater than 1 year imprisonment) revokes voting privileges, as well as several other civic benefits.
Should this be continued?
A reason to continue the current policy is that many states (including New York) have a mechanism for restoration of most privileges revoked by criminal conviction. New York calls this a "Certificate of Relief From Civil Disabilities" (under Article 23 of the Penal Law), and the process can be done "pro se" (representing oneself without a lawyer) with only minimal fees (if any) by personal application to the Criminal Court where the original conviction was rendered. The process is very similar to a pre-sentence investigation. The applicant swears to his current moral and productive behavior, and asks that a crime long past not be held against him with regard to certain privileges. The local Probation Dep't. conducts an investigation (work, neighbors, etc.) and submits a finding to the Court. If favorable, the application is generally granted.
Notice of this method is made known to persons convicted at the time of sentencing, but most of them are no more capable of helping themselves than they were of obeying the law.
Im my opinion, the usual rule of "exhaustion of available remedies as a prerequesite" precludes simply permitting felons to vote. If they apply for a Certificate or equivalent, and are unreasonably denied, there is still an appeal process. Until this has proven ineffectual no additional steps are needed.
Perhaps federal guidelines to make the analysis and determination for a Certificate more consistant among the States would be a productive inquiry.

Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee?

2005-03-13T10:51:00.000-05:00

This is a very old, and very blatant fiction.
Dr. M. T. Mehdi, the founder, president, CEO, editor etc. of this "committee" was interviewed by main-stream media 25 years ago when he bitterly complained of being unfairly excluded from the "press only" areas and conferences.
When asked about his credentials, and the origin and scope of his organization, he responded (somewhat paraphrased) "Well, for the moment it's just me and my typewriter. But that's hardly the point, is it?".
What began as a joke in poor taste has become a very loud and strident voice of hysteria and anti-Semitism, almost entirely due to the media's magnification of this non-entity. Any membership, funding, power etc. that he has accumulated began with the false premise that the Committee existed. It didn't. He invented himself, and you believed it.
Why not ask the State Department whether Mehdi is (properly) registered as a lobbyist (the paid agent of a foreign power)?
Are any Islamic fundamentalist (i.e. terrorist) organizations funding him? Why not ask? Let's see the tax returns of his Committee as well... I love fiction.

English imposed on the multi-cultural public

2005-03-13T10:44:00.000-05:00

I used to work in New York City, and used mass transit daily, beginning when the fare was $.15.
I had an idea that would serve a number of purposes, if the proper authorities were so inclined. Currently, subway ads (car walls, stations, etc.) are polylingual, and many contain NO English. This serves no civic purpose, and allows non-English readers to continue to "coast" without ever becoming part of American mainstream culture. How to cure this?
#1. New Transit Authority rule for all ads: all signs must not only contain English, but exactly the same content (as far as practicable) as in the other (2nd) language.
#2. There's no First Amendment problem - it's a commercial transaction, the Transit Authority can do anything they want that serves the public interest. They certainly don't accept ads from the Klan, or liquor, pornography or cigarettes.
#3. The ad must BEGIN in English, then the 2nd language, in the same size and style text. If the ad has long text content, perhaps each line could be translated immediately below, alternately? Shorter ads would finish the 1st line in English, then begin the 1st line in the 2nd language? A short study, or running both types simultaneously should determine the best method.
Advantages: every ad can be read by an English reader. Every ad in the 2nd language can be read by a person literate in that language.
What's different? The proximity of the English text will, over time, increase the level of literacy of the 2nd language readers. They're going to see it every day, they're a captive audience. The more they read the ads, the more English they absorb. Every commercial display becomes a "public interest" message, at no cost to the taxpayer. It's a win-win situation. It can't hurt that English-only readers could, if curious, pick up some familiarity with 2nd languages as well. This means more exposure to the 2nd language products - good for business.
All it takes is the will to solve the problem. We must never become like Quebec, where French is 1st, and English is the "2nd language".

Dan Rather was the victim, but who is the perpetrator?

2005-03-13T10:40:00.000-05:00

...and why, do you suppose, is not one word being offered as to the most obvious motive and source?
Let's examine the factors, shall we?
The Guard memo purports to add cumulative weight to an argument already won or lost based on the sympathies of the listener (you already believe he slacked off in the Guard, or you don't), there is no news here.
Even if true, it's a safe event, since the public's attention span would have long expired by 11/2/04. The timing suggests an alternate purpose.
It's the product of a person safely dead, and therefore immune to cross-examination.
It's not only a forgery, but a very bad forgery. I can do better.
It was absolutely certain to be detected, either by Bush (attempting to discredit it) or Kerry (attempting to authenticate it).
Now, who would be badly damaged by having such an amateur schoolboy prank blow up in their face, while trying to make a point on a subject of no consequence?
Who would benefit from harmless additional exposure to a stale and relatively innocuous accusation, when the up-side (so to speak) is to badly taint Kerry's (Rather's, CBS's, &c.) credibility ("they lie about everything, for example, supra")?

The source is Karl Rove (Bush's Donald Segretti), or someone acting on the specific or implicit behest of Bush ("will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?").

Atlanta Shootings: Preventable?

2005-03-13T10:30:00.000-05:00

...and all these pompous morons running around like Chicken Little, asking "how did this happen?"
Which is true: they really don't KNOW the answer? Or they're AFRAID that the answer will cost them their jobs?

The answer (which I correctly anticipated instantly, before the sordid details were made public): affirmative action added an unqualified, un-motivated, overweight little black girl to the sheriff's department, and the killer noticed it before the Sheriff did. Because "it's only fair" that she have this job, 4 people are dead. It was inevitable, and it's certainly going to happen again.

Atlanta is not the only location where the public's right to be protected has been subordinated to the "larger purpose" of diversity. There are 85 lb. women on the NYC police force barely able to carry their radios, and not tall enough to see out of a car window - their hat brims are wider than their shoulders. Sooner or later, they get someone else killed - their partner or a member of the public. So far, the police have been extremely careful not to let the truth out when this DOES happen.

Every professional deputy, guard or corrections officer knows that close contact between a prisoner and a firearm is a murder waiting to happen, and made vastly more dangerous if the contact is limited to 2 people. Police remove and secure their weapons when fingerprinting suspects, when entering correction facilities, etc.
Letting an un-shackled prisoner near a single armed officer should be grounds for dismissal.