FOXNews destroyed CNN, CNN Headline News and MSNBC in August, according to this report. Fox had 11 of the 12 highest rated cable news shows with only CNN's "Larry King Live" breaking Fox's bid for a total sweep. And King's show lost 27% of its viewers to less than 50% that of "On the Record With Greta Van Susteren" and 40% that of "The O'Reilly Factor", cable news' top show. It couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of bleeding heart liberals. Headline News overtook MSNBC as the #3 cable news network on the strength of Nancy Grace's show. If you've never seen Nancy Grace's show, it can only be described as . . . well . . . Damn!
TAGS: FOXNews, CNN, Bill O'Reilly, Greta Van Susteren
Wednesday, August 31, 2005
Save Louisiana - invade Canada
The Wall Street Journal points to this report which is a must-read before drawing any conclusions about the disaster facing New Orleans. Note: For some reason, only part of this report is making it to the blogosphere. I urge you to read it all. It is an exhaustive special report by the New Orleans newspaper, The Times Picayune. You'll learn that there is not now nor was there ever a way to really protect New Orleans and the surrounding area from Katrina. Almost every effort to protect the city has resulted in actually increasing the risk. The bottom line is that the levees built all along the Mississippi River up to a thousand miles to the north of New Orleans down to those that surround the city today are in large part responsible for what we are seeing now.
The Mississippi River Delta, which used to extend well out into the Gulf of Mexico, harbored barrier islands, forests and marshes that all helped to protect the city to some degree and the area around the city to a large degree. That delta was formed over tens of thousands of years by mud and silt washed down the Mississippi River by its annual floods. When the Corps of Engineers began building levees in the 1800's to protect cities, towns and farmland from the river's annual flooding (at the insistence of those affected citizens and the politicians who represented them), the river lost trillions of tons of dirt and silt which it had used to build the delta. The sea began to reclaim its lost territory. Add to this the removal of water, oil and gas from beneath and the entire delta began to sink with no replenishment from above. The barrier islands shrank and the seawater killed off the marshes and forests. Billions of dollars have been spent in what, obviously, has been a futile effort to save the city from an unavoidable catastrophe. A catastrophe that everyone in a position of political power at the local, state and national level knew was inevitable and had so known for many years. Indeed, those involved in civil engineering, oil exploration, exploitation and refining, transportation, ports, engineering colleges, universities and anyone who read this newspaper's special report all knew that the disaster which confronts New Orleans today was unavoidable. A storm the size of Katrina, or larger, with a glancing blow or a direct hit from a smaller storm on New Orleans would destroy the city and there was little, if anything, that could be done to protect it. Our only saving grace is that a gigantic amount of planning and money had gone into the rescue and recovery effort that the authorities knew would someday be necessary. We are seeing that effort now.
The question asked by The Times Picayune very early in Part I of its report is, "Should the city even be rebuilt?", because the disaster is bound to be repeated; it's only a matter of time.
The long-term solution? Invade Canada. We need their dirt. We need to start removing dirt from Canada by the trillions of cubic yards and sending it down the Mississippi to replenish the delta. The United States has fought wars over taxation without representation (Revolution), economic strangulation (1812, Barbary Pirates), Manifest Destiny (Mexico), European meddling in our sphere of influence (Spain), to help our friends (WW I), annihilation avoidance (WW II, Gulf War I, Cold War, GWoT), and "there rather than here" (Korea, Viet Nam, Gulf War II). So, why not fight a war over dirt? We could call it our Dirty War. The Canadians must give us their dirt or we must go and take it. (This post's title and this final paragraph are tongue-in-cheek so please save the hate messages for another time, like when I advocate the invasion of Venezuela or some other God forsaken land.)
TAGS: hurricane, Katrina, New Orleans, Mississippi Delta, levees
The Mississippi River Delta, which used to extend well out into the Gulf of Mexico, harbored barrier islands, forests and marshes that all helped to protect the city to some degree and the area around the city to a large degree. That delta was formed over tens of thousands of years by mud and silt washed down the Mississippi River by its annual floods. When the Corps of Engineers began building levees in the 1800's to protect cities, towns and farmland from the river's annual flooding (at the insistence of those affected citizens and the politicians who represented them), the river lost trillions of tons of dirt and silt which it had used to build the delta. The sea began to reclaim its lost territory. Add to this the removal of water, oil and gas from beneath and the entire delta began to sink with no replenishment from above. The barrier islands shrank and the seawater killed off the marshes and forests. Billions of dollars have been spent in what, obviously, has been a futile effort to save the city from an unavoidable catastrophe. A catastrophe that everyone in a position of political power at the local, state and national level knew was inevitable and had so known for many years. Indeed, those involved in civil engineering, oil exploration, exploitation and refining, transportation, ports, engineering colleges, universities and anyone who read this newspaper's special report all knew that the disaster which confronts New Orleans today was unavoidable. A storm the size of Katrina, or larger, with a glancing blow or a direct hit from a smaller storm on New Orleans would destroy the city and there was little, if anything, that could be done to protect it. Our only saving grace is that a gigantic amount of planning and money had gone into the rescue and recovery effort that the authorities knew would someday be necessary. We are seeing that effort now.
The question asked by The Times Picayune very early in Part I of its report is, "Should the city even be rebuilt?", because the disaster is bound to be repeated; it's only a matter of time.
The long-term solution? Invade Canada. We need their dirt. We need to start removing dirt from Canada by the trillions of cubic yards and sending it down the Mississippi to replenish the delta. The United States has fought wars over taxation without representation (Revolution), economic strangulation (1812, Barbary Pirates), Manifest Destiny (Mexico), European meddling in our sphere of influence (Spain), to help our friends (WW I), annihilation avoidance (WW II, Gulf War I, Cold War, GWoT), and "there rather than here" (Korea, Viet Nam, Gulf War II). So, why not fight a war over dirt? We could call it our Dirty War. The Canadians must give us their dirt or we must go and take it. (This post's title and this final paragraph are tongue-in-cheek so please save the hate messages for another time, like when I advocate the invasion of Venezuela or some other God forsaken land.)
TAGS: hurricane, Katrina, New Orleans, Mississippi Delta, levees
Katrina vs Global Warming
Go to TCS and read James Glassman's analysis of the viciousness of the enviro-terrorist's attacks in the 48 hours since the hurricane hit. If you choose not to believe him, follow his links to the NWS statistics on the history of big storms and see if you can find any correlation whatsoever in big storm frequency and severity versus the supposed global warming effect. Also please note that the loudmouthed ex-nazi's in Germany have not and will not come close to meeting their supposed Kyoto Treaty goals. Nor will the French, Belgians, Spanish, Italians, Japanese, Canadians, Swiss nor just about anybody except, possibly, the Chinese, who supported the treaty because they were given almost no goals to acheive.
TAGS: hurricane, Katrina, global warming
TAGS: hurricane, Katrina, global warming
Katrina Relief Organizations
This is only a partial list which is growing almost by the hour.
Relief Organizations:
Red Cross: 1-800-HELP-NOW
Episcopal Relief & Development: 1-800-334-7626
United Methodist Committee on Relief: 1-800-554-8583
Salvation Army: 1-800-SAL-ARMY
Catholic Charities: 1-800-919-9338
FEMA Charity tips
National Voluntary Organizations Active in Disaster
Louisiana Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
TAGS: hurricane, Katrina, victims, relief, New Orleans, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama
Relief Organizations:
Red Cross: 1-800-HELP-NOW
Episcopal Relief & Development: 1-800-334-7626
United Methodist Committee on Relief: 1-800-554-8583
Salvation Army: 1-800-SAL-ARMY
Catholic Charities: 1-800-919-9338
FEMA Charity tips
National Voluntary Organizations Active in Disaster
Louisiana Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
TAGS: hurricane, Katrina, victims, relief, New Orleans, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama
Katrina is all Bush's fault
Wow! I thought I had seen and heard about all of the irresponsible, childish, ignorant and beyond-the-pale commentary possible against George Bush. Drunk, cocaine addict, Hitler/SS/Nazi, plotted and carried out 9/11 attacks, let all the poor folks just die, racist, gunslinging cowboy, carry on in Iraq so more American sons and daughters can die, etc., etc, ad infinitum, ad nauseam.
But I guess that only the tip of the iceberg of Bush-hatred had been exposed by the lefties, to date. Now they come out of their poisonous, worm-infested lairs to blame Bush for Hurricane Katrina. Pay attention to this. You may or may not believe all this but, if you don't, just follow the links. Notice that what you are not going to see a whole lot of is, "Pray for the souls of those who lost their lives," or, "Pray for the survival of the victims," or, "How can I help?", or, "Call this number to volunteer," or, "Donate here," or, "X, Y, Z needed here," or "I'll be offline for a few days because I am a FEMA emergency volunteer." What you are going to see is the following irresponsible filth hurled at the president of the United States.
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. - For They That Sow the Wind Shall Reap the Whirlwind - blames Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, President Bush and Vice President Chaney for causing the hurricane.
Corrente, responding to this article - "Because drowning his (Bush's) own people isn't enough for him: his plans also include suffocating them, too."
DC Media Girl, responding gleefully to this article apparently expects all the citizens of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama to die because of the war in Iraq - "The chickens come home to roost"
Democratic Veteran agrees with DC Media - "Thanks be to the Preznit. Hear the wind. Hear the Wind Blow. See the Preznit. See the Preznit Blow. Regularly."
Rising Hegemon - "Thanks to Bush's Iraqi invasion, this disaster is going to cause more to die OVER HERE as well as OVER THERE as surely as a major terrorist hit!"
Suburban Guerrilla - "Thank you, BushCo."
Off the Kuff, responding to this NYT article - "...we're going to need to confront the questions about whether or not what has happened this week could have been ameliorated..."
Mahablog - "...but Bush played guitar while Mississippi drowned."
Corrente, again, responding to this article - "Savage irony, eh? Bush fights a war in Iraq for oil (back), and the port of New Orleans floods because Bush cut the flood control money to pay for the war (back). And then, the same oil we fought so hard to seize in the Mideast, floating on the floodwaters, catches fire..."
The Left Coaster, responding to this article, forgets that this isn't Cuba. The federal government lacks the authority to order an evacuation - "...whether or not the federal government acted quickly enough to issue an evacuation order."
Kos with his usual poison - "Well, in all fairness, he was busy playing guitar and trying to kill social security."
Rising Hegemon , responding to this article - "He may be disciplined in getting his R&R but he's just a lazy mother-fucker to me."
I will update this post throughout the day as I find more of this sophomoric slobbering and spitting.
UPDATE 1:
AfterDowningStreet.org - featuring the poor, addled Cindy Sheehan, mumbling about this - "George is finished playing golf and telling his fables in San Diego , so he will be heading to Louisiana to see the devastation that his environmental policies and his killing policies have caused."
plunge25 -"...Bush clearly wants a fucking cookie for ending his 5 week vacation a day and a half early..."
Stephanie's Shadows 2 - "I predicted this was going to happen as soon as i heard bush had made president, i said we were all damned. Then again when he won his second term. We are all damned if we don't do anything about it now. So either be damned or fight. You choose. Save us, or kill us. I am going to go to die trying. Peace."
Mike the Bike - "All but lost in the din of the Hurricane Katrina news noise was the sound of the Liar In Chief revving up yet another rationale for the Iraqi War."
Huffington Post - blames Bush AND God - "We have to pay for the mistakes of our administration; to deal with a God that does not take our ill-advised wars into account when planning his storms."
TAGS: hurricane, Katrina, Bush, New Orleans, Iraq, war, oil, Halliburton
But I guess that only the tip of the iceberg of Bush-hatred had been exposed by the lefties, to date. Now they come out of their poisonous, worm-infested lairs to blame Bush for Hurricane Katrina. Pay attention to this. You may or may not believe all this but, if you don't, just follow the links. Notice that what you are not going to see a whole lot of is, "Pray for the souls of those who lost their lives," or, "Pray for the survival of the victims," or, "How can I help?", or, "Call this number to volunteer," or, "Donate here," or, "X, Y, Z needed here," or "I'll be offline for a few days because I am a FEMA emergency volunteer." What you are going to see is the following irresponsible filth hurled at the president of the United States.
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. - For They That Sow the Wind Shall Reap the Whirlwind - blames Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, President Bush and Vice President Chaney for causing the hurricane.
Corrente, responding to this article - "Because drowning his (Bush's) own people isn't enough for him: his plans also include suffocating them, too."
DC Media Girl, responding gleefully to this article apparently expects all the citizens of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama to die because of the war in Iraq - "The chickens come home to roost"
Democratic Veteran agrees with DC Media - "Thanks be to the Preznit. Hear the wind. Hear the Wind Blow. See the Preznit. See the Preznit Blow. Regularly."
Rising Hegemon - "Thanks to Bush's Iraqi invasion, this disaster is going to cause more to die OVER HERE as well as OVER THERE as surely as a major terrorist hit!"
Suburban Guerrilla - "Thank you, BushCo."
Off the Kuff, responding to this NYT article - "...we're going to need to confront the questions about whether or not what has happened this week could have been ameliorated..."
Mahablog - "...but Bush played guitar while Mississippi drowned."
Corrente, again, responding to this article - "Savage irony, eh? Bush fights a war in Iraq for oil (back), and the port of New Orleans floods because Bush cut the flood control money to pay for the war (back). And then, the same oil we fought so hard to seize in the Mideast, floating on the floodwaters, catches fire..."
The Left Coaster, responding to this article, forgets that this isn't Cuba. The federal government lacks the authority to order an evacuation - "...whether or not the federal government acted quickly enough to issue an evacuation order."
Kos with his usual poison - "Well, in all fairness, he was busy playing guitar and trying to kill social security."
Rising Hegemon , responding to this article - "He may be disciplined in getting his R&R but he's just a lazy mother-fucker to me."
I will update this post throughout the day as I find more of this sophomoric slobbering and spitting.
UPDATE 1:
AfterDowningStreet.org - featuring the poor, addled Cindy Sheehan, mumbling about this - "George is finished playing golf and telling his fables in San Diego , so he will be heading to Louisiana to see the devastation that his environmental policies and his killing policies have caused."
plunge25 -"...Bush clearly wants a fucking cookie for ending his 5 week vacation a day and a half early..."
Stephanie's Shadows 2 - "I predicted this was going to happen as soon as i heard bush had made president, i said we were all damned. Then again when he won his second term. We are all damned if we don't do anything about it now. So either be damned or fight. You choose. Save us, or kill us. I am going to go to die trying. Peace."
Mike the Bike - "All but lost in the din of the Hurricane Katrina news noise was the sound of the Liar In Chief revving up yet another rationale for the Iraqi War."
Huffington Post - blames Bush AND God - "We have to pay for the mistakes of our administration; to deal with a God that does not take our ill-advised wars into account when planning his storms."
TAGS: hurricane, Katrina, Bush, New Orleans, Iraq, war, oil, Halliburton
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
France: a fearful nation
Numerous news reports, analyses, commentaries and books have lately been detailing the fears which possess the French people these days. One writer, Christophe Lambert, the chief of the advertising giant, Publicis, has made a splash in recent days with La Société de la peur (The Fearful Society). His book says that France is petrified with "fear of the future, fear of losing, fear of others, fear of taking a risk, fear of solitude, fear of growing old. Other things that the French fear:
Fear of anyone named Williams at Roland-Garros
Fear of no economic growth
Fear of bad Beaujolais
Fear of Ronald McDonald
Fear of Mark in Mexico
Fear of unemployment
Fear of actually finding a job
Fear of Google and Yahoo
Fear of Lance Armstrong
Fear of Lance Armstrong's un-retiring
Fear of ethics and science
Fear of Turkey
Fear of turkey (pdf)
Fear of a constitution older than 50 years
Fear of foreign investment
Fear of politician's cheating wives
Fear of Congolese football players
Fear of foreign tourists
Fear of actually helping Africans
Fear of Yogi the bear
Fear of "oui"
Fear of the Logan
Fear of not kissing up to Islam
Fear of "Oh, no! Another American!"
Fear of Chinese bras
Fear of the international wine market
Fear of throwing anything away, like rotting food
Fear of any coherent economic policies
Fear of admitting colonial crimes
Fear of their crummy rugby players not playing
Fear of foreign armies juiced on performance enhancing drugs
Fear of No Pasaran
TAGS: France, fearful
Fear of anyone named Williams at Roland-Garros
Fear of no economic growth
Fear of bad Beaujolais
Fear of Ronald McDonald
Fear of Mark in Mexico
Fear of unemployment
Fear of actually finding a job
Fear of Google and Yahoo
Fear of Lance Armstrong
Fear of Lance Armstrong's un-retiring
Fear of ethics and science
Fear of Turkey
Fear of turkey (pdf)
Fear of a constitution older than 50 years
Fear of foreign investment
Fear of politician's cheating wives
Fear of Congolese football players
Fear of foreign tourists
Fear of actually helping Africans
Fear of Yogi the bear
Fear of "oui"
Fear of the Logan
Fear of not kissing up to Islam
Fear of "Oh, no! Another American!"
Fear of Chinese bras
Fear of the international wine market
Fear of throwing anything away, like rotting food
Fear of any coherent economic policies
Fear of admitting colonial crimes
Fear of their crummy rugby players not playing
Fear of foreign armies juiced on performance enhancing drugs
Fear of No Pasaran
TAGS: France, fearful
Martial Law declared in New Orleans
Good. Shoot all looters on sight.
TAGS: hurricane, Katrina, New Orleans, martial law, looters, looting
TAGS: hurricane, Katrina, New Orleans, martial law, looters, looting
Friday, August 26, 2005
Iraq - 8 months and no Constitution?
Reviewing memeorandum this morning, I see the usual breast beating, finger pointing, tongue wagging, self flagellation, second thoughts, self doubts, veiled threats, second guessing, etc. etc. concerning the failure of the Iraqis to agree on a new constitution in the eight months since their election in January. Eight months and no constitution? Outrageous!!!!
The United States adopted the Articles of Confederation, which served us fairly well through the Revolutionary War but were woefully inadequate for actually running a country, on November 15, 1777, after 16 months of debate. Recognizing the failure of the Articles to allow the actual governing of a country, work began, after a fashion, on a Constitution in September, 1786 and the document was signed for submission to the Congress and the states on September 17, 1787. And this with a model to use whose shortcomings were already well known. So, one could argue that our Constitution, required some 135 months to complete. Since the U. S. Constitution is the oldest single document prescribing the governance of a country still in existence today, we worked slowly but we did it right. But that is still 135 months, not 8.
Canada's "constitution", if we can call it that, is not a single document, like ours, but a series of acts of the British and Canadian Parliaments, as well as legislation, judicial decisions and agreements between the federal and provincial governments. It also includes a bunch of "unwritten" procedures, such as the resignation of the Prime Minister if he lose a confidence vote in Parliament. Imagine what David Boies could have done in court in 2000 to an unwritten procedure for the end of one government and the beginning of another. Anyway, the first Canadian Constitution went into effect in 1867, but was written by the British. In fact, the Canadian people did not gain control of their own constitution until 1982 when Great Britain ceded control to Canada. So, one could argue that the Canadian Constitution which is in effect today required 115 years to establish. That's a whole hell of a lot longer than 8 months.
Great Britain also lacks a single document which could be called a constitution. Britain relies even more on unwritten aspects of governance than do the Canadians. British law goes all the way back to the Magna Carta of 1215. One could say that the British have been negotiating a constitution for 790 years, or one could say that after 790 years the British still don't have a constitution. 790 years is a lot longer than 8 months.
The history of the constitution of France is more complicated but doesn't consume as many years. Lafayette wrote a kind of Bill of Rights or maybe a Declaration of Independence, called the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen which was adopted in 1789. Lafayette wrote it with the help of his friend, Thomas Jefferson. So, if there were any debate or negotiations at all, they would have occurred between the good Marquis and Jefferson. Certainly, these negotiations and debates, if there even were any, did not include bombings and mass murder perpetrated by Jefferson's and Lafayette's followers on one another. Then, try to follow this:
The Constitution of 1789
The Constitution of 1791
The Constitution of 1793
The Constitution of 1795
The Constitution of the Year VIII
The Constitution of the Year X
The Constitution of the Year XII
The Charter of 1814
The Charter of 1830
The constitution of the Second French Republic 1848
The constitution of the French Second Empire 1852
The constitution of the French Third Republic 1875
Vichy France - no constitution at all
The constitutional law of 1945
The constitution of the French Fourth Republic 1946
The constitution of the French Fifth Republic 1958
Whew! If the Iraqis thought they had all this to look forward to, I'd opt for an out-and-out, to-the-death civil war. Just settle the issue once and for all and avoid 200 plus years of failure.
My point here is that all of the aforementioned squawking about Iraq's failure to agree on a Xeroxed copy of The Constitution of the United States of America in eight months while struggling to maintain life and limb in the face of open warfare in the streets, cities and towns as well as under indirect attack from at least 3 neighboring states (Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia, if you don't read the news much), is actually sort of understandable, given the above short histories. Add into this mix, or mess, if you prefer, the fact that there are three distinct groups of people doing the negotiating who basically have hated each others' guts and been actively engaged in killing one another for centuries, and you can see the problems. Try to imagine the negotiations and debate in America if the Georgians, Carolinians, Marylanders and Virginians were engaged in the mass murder of the New Englanders who wanted to see all the Pennsylvanians, Rhode Islanders and Mainers dead dead dead. And all this while the Mexicans, the Canadians and the, er, Hawaiians were supplying arms, bombs, fighters and encouragement to one group or another. Do you think we would have had a constitution hammered out of a pre-existing document and with 10 years experience under our belts in 8 months? And the Iraqis have no pre-existing document to guide them, except ours, which is hand-written in English, a language most of them can't read or understand.
TAGS: Iraq, constitution, patience, patience, patience,
The United States adopted the Articles of Confederation, which served us fairly well through the Revolutionary War but were woefully inadequate for actually running a country, on November 15, 1777, after 16 months of debate. Recognizing the failure of the Articles to allow the actual governing of a country, work began, after a fashion, on a Constitution in September, 1786 and the document was signed for submission to the Congress and the states on September 17, 1787. And this with a model to use whose shortcomings were already well known. So, one could argue that our Constitution, required some 135 months to complete. Since the U. S. Constitution is the oldest single document prescribing the governance of a country still in existence today, we worked slowly but we did it right. But that is still 135 months, not 8.
Canada's "constitution", if we can call it that, is not a single document, like ours, but a series of acts of the British and Canadian Parliaments, as well as legislation, judicial decisions and agreements between the federal and provincial governments. It also includes a bunch of "unwritten" procedures, such as the resignation of the Prime Minister if he lose a confidence vote in Parliament. Imagine what David Boies could have done in court in 2000 to an unwritten procedure for the end of one government and the beginning of another. Anyway, the first Canadian Constitution went into effect in 1867, but was written by the British. In fact, the Canadian people did not gain control of their own constitution until 1982 when Great Britain ceded control to Canada. So, one could argue that the Canadian Constitution which is in effect today required 115 years to establish. That's a whole hell of a lot longer than 8 months.
Great Britain also lacks a single document which could be called a constitution. Britain relies even more on unwritten aspects of governance than do the Canadians. British law goes all the way back to the Magna Carta of 1215. One could say that the British have been negotiating a constitution for 790 years, or one could say that after 790 years the British still don't have a constitution. 790 years is a lot longer than 8 months.
The history of the constitution of France is more complicated but doesn't consume as many years. Lafayette wrote a kind of Bill of Rights or maybe a Declaration of Independence, called the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen which was adopted in 1789. Lafayette wrote it with the help of his friend, Thomas Jefferson. So, if there were any debate or negotiations at all, they would have occurred between the good Marquis and Jefferson. Certainly, these negotiations and debates, if there even were any, did not include bombings and mass murder perpetrated by Jefferson's and Lafayette's followers on one another. Then, try to follow this:
The Constitution of 1789
The Constitution of 1791
The Constitution of 1793
The Constitution of 1795
The Constitution of the Year VIII
The Constitution of the Year X
The Constitution of the Year XII
The Charter of 1814
The Charter of 1830
The constitution of the Second French Republic 1848
The constitution of the French Second Empire 1852
The constitution of the French Third Republic 1875
Vichy France - no constitution at all
The constitutional law of 1945
The constitution of the French Fourth Republic 1946
The constitution of the French Fifth Republic 1958
Whew! If the Iraqis thought they had all this to look forward to, I'd opt for an out-and-out, to-the-death civil war. Just settle the issue once and for all and avoid 200 plus years of failure.
My point here is that all of the aforementioned squawking about Iraq's failure to agree on a Xeroxed copy of The Constitution of the United States of America in eight months while struggling to maintain life and limb in the face of open warfare in the streets, cities and towns as well as under indirect attack from at least 3 neighboring states (Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia, if you don't read the news much), is actually sort of understandable, given the above short histories. Add into this mix, or mess, if you prefer, the fact that there are three distinct groups of people doing the negotiating who basically have hated each others' guts and been actively engaged in killing one another for centuries, and you can see the problems. Try to imagine the negotiations and debate in America if the Georgians, Carolinians, Marylanders and Virginians were engaged in the mass murder of the New Englanders who wanted to see all the Pennsylvanians, Rhode Islanders and Mainers dead dead dead. And all this while the Mexicans, the Canadians and the, er, Hawaiians were supplying arms, bombs, fighters and encouragement to one group or another. Do you think we would have had a constitution hammered out of a pre-existing document and with 10 years experience under our belts in 8 months? And the Iraqis have no pre-existing document to guide them, except ours, which is hand-written in English, a language most of them can't read or understand.
TAGS: Iraq, constitution, patience, patience, patience,
Thursday, August 25, 2005
Families removing Sheehan's crosses
Crosses bearing the names of soldiers and Marines killed in Iraq are being removed from Cindy Sheehan's anti-American camp outside President Bush's Crawford, Texas, ranch by family members. One father, Gary Qualls, father of Louis Qualls, 20, a Marine killed in Fallujah last year, has set up the principal pro-American camp in Crawford, called "Camp Qualls". Mr. Qualls said,
I only know of one cross at Sheehan's camp which is there with the permission of a loved one left behind, that of her son Casey. And that cross is there without the permission of Casey's father, sisters and brother, grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins. So, I would have to say that Casey's cross is not there with his family's permission, only that of his poor, heartbroken mother who has allowed herself to be used by the leftist, anti-American, Hanoi Jane bloc.
Another camp has been set up directly across the road from the anti-American Sheehan camp. It is called "Camp Reality" and 500 signs saying "We Support Our Troops" and "This Is Bush Country" are being set up today. A large American flag will be unfurled on the site as well. The sponsors of the pro-American site claim to have collected over 400,000 petitions supporting President Bush and the war effort. If this is not a typo, if the sponsors really meant petitions and not signatures, then we are looking at possibly millions of signatures on those petitions. Are the MSM and the Congress awake?
I am awaiting the first physical confrontation when the anti-Americans try to stop a family member from removing a cross. I think that it is inevitable that some drugged-up smelly Howard Stern type hippie who doesn't recognize the difference between 1975 and 2005 or some fat ass like Oliver Willis, who has suckled at America's generous teat for far too long, gets uppity with a bereaved family member and loses some teeth. I suppose that losing some teeth wouldn't be such a bad thing for the porcine Willis as it would allow him to suck more efficiently.
Referring to the pro-American family members arriving daily, the pro-American caravans that are en route and the pro-American petitions as well as calls, emails and support letters, Mr. Qualls said,
TAGS: Camp Qualls, Camp Reality, crosses, Crawford, Bush, Iraq, KIA, heroes, Camp Casey, anti-American
Anti-war protesters never asked for my permission to put up a cross for my son for their cause. They are not respecting our sons and daughters. One by one, [Mrs. Sheehan's] crosses are coming down.As of yesterday morning at least 17 crosses bearing KIA American's names had been removed by family members, many of those 17 more than once. Mr. Qualls has had to remove his son's crosses 3 different times because the heartless and disrespectful anti-war leftists keep putting them back up. Some mothers of Fort Hood soldiers killed in Iraq who found duplicate crosses of their fallen loved ones presented one cross each to Fort Qualls and took the duplicates home with them.
I only know of one cross at Sheehan's camp which is there with the permission of a loved one left behind, that of her son Casey. And that cross is there without the permission of Casey's father, sisters and brother, grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins. So, I would have to say that Casey's cross is not there with his family's permission, only that of his poor, heartbroken mother who has allowed herself to be used by the leftist, anti-American, Hanoi Jane bloc.
Another camp has been set up directly across the road from the anti-American Sheehan camp. It is called "Camp Reality" and 500 signs saying "We Support Our Troops" and "This Is Bush Country" are being set up today. A large American flag will be unfurled on the site as well. The sponsors of the pro-American site claim to have collected over 400,000 petitions supporting President Bush and the war effort. If this is not a typo, if the sponsors really meant petitions and not signatures, then we are looking at possibly millions of signatures on those petitions. Are the MSM and the Congress awake?
I am awaiting the first physical confrontation when the anti-Americans try to stop a family member from removing a cross. I think that it is inevitable that some drugged-up smelly Howard Stern type hippie who doesn't recognize the difference between 1975 and 2005 or some fat ass like Oliver Willis, who has suckled at America's generous teat for far too long, gets uppity with a bereaved family member and loses some teeth. I suppose that losing some teeth wouldn't be such a bad thing for the porcine Willis as it would allow him to suck more efficiently.
Referring to the pro-American family members arriving daily, the pro-American caravans that are en route and the pro-American petitions as well as calls, emails and support letters, Mr. Qualls said,
More are on the way.
TAGS: Camp Qualls, Camp Reality, crosses, Crawford, Bush, Iraq, KIA, heroes, Camp Casey, anti-American
New York Times - failure to communicate
The New York Times has run into a little trouble in Gainesville, Florida. The first issue of The Gainesville Guardian, a weekly paper targeted to about 15,000 local black residents and wholly owned by the NYT, made its first appearance this week. The editor of the new paper, Charlotte Roy, was fired by the NYT on Monday, just before the paper's initial publication. From what I can gather, she was fired for insisting that the new weekly was founded to serve the African American community in Gainesville while the honchos in New York wanted to play it as a "community" paper without acknowledging who made up the community.
The new weekly has been under fire from blacks for some time prior to its first edition as, among other things, a "white newspaper in blackface," and accusations that the NYT's management had "turned to people of color for their economic salvation," and were "journalistic carpetbaggers."
"We wish Charlotte well," publisher Jim Doughton said. "We are very grateful and appreciative of all her good work in getting the first issue out." Not appreciative enough to continue paying her salary, apparently.
TAGS: New York Times, Gainesville Guardian, African Americans, black community
The new weekly has been under fire from blacks for some time prior to its first edition as, among other things, a "white newspaper in blackface," and accusations that the NYT's management had "turned to people of color for their economic salvation," and were "journalistic carpetbaggers."
"We wish Charlotte well," publisher Jim Doughton said. "We are very grateful and appreciative of all her good work in getting the first issue out." Not appreciative enough to continue paying her salary, apparently.
TAGS: New York Times, Gainesville Guardian, African Americans, black community
World's safest nuclear reactor - from India
A thorium breeder reactor that can produce 600 MW of electricity for two years with no refueling and practically no control maneuvers has been designed by two Indian scientists. Go here to learn what thorium is. I would explain all this to you, as I completely understand all this fictionable and fuctionable materials business, but the highly specialized and technical details would cause your eyes to roll up in your head and, besides, I have pressing matters to attend to, today. Like, reading Drudge, etc. The neat thing is that the seed fuel for the reactor can come from decommissioned nuclear weapons.
If all this is true, we need to order, oh, about a hundred of them. Reactors, not nuclear weapons.
TAGS: India, breeder reactor, thorium breeder reactor, nuclear weapons, fission, thorium
If all this is true, we need to order, oh, about a hundred of them. Reactors, not nuclear weapons.
TAGS: India, breeder reactor, thorium breeder reactor, nuclear weapons, fission, thorium
Don't talk to the press
Don't talk to reporters, camerapersons, photographers, anybody from the press, anytime, anywhere, about anything for any reason. Here's a good example why.
Colonel Thomas Spoehr, the director of materiel for the Army staff, told New York Times reporter Michael Moss the following:
Let's look at what Moss wrote. "For the second time since the Iraq war began, the Army is struggling to replace body armor that is failing to protect American troops from the most lethal attacks of insurgents." That sentence alone contains two lies and a misrepresentation. 3 months from specifications-to-delivery is lightening fast, not struggling, lie number 1. The enemy is not using the advanced ammo against our troops, lie number 2. "Insurgents" is the common MSM misrepresentation of our enemies (Cindy Sheehan calls them "freedom fighters"). They are TERRORISTS.
Then Moss goes on to claim that, "The ceramic plates in vests worn by most personnel cannot withstand certain munitions the insurgents use." That's a lie. Moss was told specifically that the munitions were not yet being used against our troops.
Moss wrote, "But more than a year after military officials initiated an effort to replace the armor with thicker, more resistant plates, tens of thousands of soldiers are still without the stronger protection because of a string of delays in the Pentagon's procurement system." Well, this sentence contains a stupid mistake as well as another lie. Moss confused The Interceptor vests, which the Army has been distributing for over a year, with the newly modified armored vests which the Army has been distributing since March. A stupid mistake. And this after only 3 months from specifications through design, prototyping, testing, re-design, further prototyping, further testing, Army approval, manufacturing and quality control specifications designed and implemented, manufacture launch, quality control testing, delivery to the Pentagon and then delivery and distribution to Iraq. That's not "a string of delays." Another lie.
TAGS: Interceptor, body armor, boronic carbide, New York Times, lies, misrepresentations, stupid mistake
Colonel Thomas Spoehr, the director of materiel for the Army staff, told New York Times reporter Michael Moss the following:
The Army had become aware of a new type of armored vest for the soldiers. It is made of boronic carbon plates which are second only to diamonds as the hardest substances known to man. The older armored vests would stop shrapnel but not modern bullets. The new vests will stop most all the ammo being used against our boys in theaters around the world today. The new vests are also significantly lighter than the old, 16 pounds versus 24 pounds. The new vest, called The Interceptor, costs about $1000 each and the Army began ordering them. They are extremely difficult to make and require great precision in their manufacture.Here's what reporter Michael Moss of The New York Times wrote:
The Army wasn't satisfied because it knew that there existed certain types of ammunition that, if our enemies could get hold of them, would defeat even the new vests. So the Army told the vest suppliers to go to work to develop even better armor than the new vests which were the best in use in the world today. The Interceptor would stop an AK-47 fired from ten feet. The suppliers came back with some modifications which added 2 pounds of weight and $300 cost to the vests, but the vests could now protect the soldiers from ammo which is still not being used against them as yet. The Army set the new specifications in January of this year and by March had already begun to distribute the new vests to the troops in Iraq. That's fast, by any measurement.
For the second time since the Iraq war began, the Pentagon is struggling to replace body armor that is failing to protect American troops from the most lethal attacks of insurgents.Col. Spoehr was adamant that the advanced ammo was not and is still not being used against our soldiers but that we will be ready if it ever is. That's not what Moss wrote. Why not?
The ceramic plates in vests worn by most personnel cannot withstand certain munitions the insurgents use. But more than a year after military officials initiated an effort to replace the armor with thicker, more resistant plates, tens of thousands of soldiers are still without the stronger protection because of a string of delays in the Pentagon's procurement system.
Let's look at what Moss wrote. "For the second time since the Iraq war began, the Army is struggling to replace body armor that is failing to protect American troops from the most lethal attacks of insurgents." That sentence alone contains two lies and a misrepresentation. 3 months from specifications-to-delivery is lightening fast, not struggling, lie number 1. The enemy is not using the advanced ammo against our troops, lie number 2. "Insurgents" is the common MSM misrepresentation of our enemies (Cindy Sheehan calls them "freedom fighters"). They are TERRORISTS.
Then Moss goes on to claim that, "The ceramic plates in vests worn by most personnel cannot withstand certain munitions the insurgents use." That's a lie. Moss was told specifically that the munitions were not yet being used against our troops.
Moss wrote, "But more than a year after military officials initiated an effort to replace the armor with thicker, more resistant plates, tens of thousands of soldiers are still without the stronger protection because of a string of delays in the Pentagon's procurement system." Well, this sentence contains a stupid mistake as well as another lie. Moss confused The Interceptor vests, which the Army has been distributing for over a year, with the newly modified armored vests which the Army has been distributing since March. A stupid mistake. And this after only 3 months from specifications through design, prototyping, testing, re-design, further prototyping, further testing, Army approval, manufacturing and quality control specifications designed and implemented, manufacture launch, quality control testing, delivery to the Pentagon and then delivery and distribution to Iraq. That's not "a string of delays." Another lie.
TAGS: Interceptor, body armor, boronic carbide, New York Times, lies, misrepresentations, stupid mistake
Wounded veterans and families taunted at hospital
The Washington DC police department has been giving permission since March to an anti-war group to demonstrate at the front entrance of Walter Reed Medical Center. The anti-war group is most visible on Friday evenings which is the most popular time for families to visit their wounded at the hospital.
The MSM had been ignoring this travesty until Drudge broke it last night. The anti-war group sets out caskets on the sidewalk and some carry signs saying, "Maimed For Lies" and "Enlist Here To Die For Halliburton". Imagine a family that has to pass a line of coffins everytime they arrive to visit a badly wounded son or daughter who is hanging on to life inside the hospital. Unbelievable. Really, it's not so unbelievable when you consider who is leading this rabble.
Medea Benjamin of Code Pink is the honcho in charge. She has expressed support for the Viet Cong, the Sandinistas of Nicaragua and the communists of Cuba. In fact, she expresses support for any enemy of the United States. "There's no one who will talk about how the other side is good." I call her an enemy of the American people. And I call the DC police department gutless swine for allowing this to proceed.
The MSM had been ignoring this travesty until Drudge broke it last night. The anti-war group sets out caskets on the sidewalk and some carry signs saying, "Maimed For Lies" and "Enlist Here To Die For Halliburton". Imagine a family that has to pass a line of coffins everytime they arrive to visit a badly wounded son or daughter who is hanging on to life inside the hospital. Unbelievable. Really, it's not so unbelievable when you consider who is leading this rabble.
Medea Benjamin of Code Pink is the honcho in charge. She has expressed support for the Viet Cong, the Sandinistas of Nicaragua and the communists of Cuba. In fact, she expresses support for any enemy of the United States. "There's no one who will talk about how the other side is good." I call her an enemy of the American people. And I call the DC police department gutless swine for allowing this to proceed.
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
Darwin, Creationism and Intelligent Design
I don't understand all this hullabaloo over religion vs science. Why does it have to be "vs"? I think that The Creation, Genesis and all that are quite compatible with science and Darwin, or whomever. What neither science nor Darwinism nor creationism nor intelligent design-ism are compatible with is this; "this kind of belief is damaging to the well-being of the human race," from Herbert A. Hauptman, who shared the Nobel chemistry prize in 1985 for his work on the structure of crystals, on belief in God.
Hauptman may be highly educated and skilled in the workings of crystals but is woefully ignorant of the human race. Woefully ignorant and his statement is irresponsible and borders on insanity. Maybe his brain crystalized during one experiment or another.
Genesis says that the world was created in six days and then, on the seventh day, God kicked back on His sofa with a remote and watched the Steelers kick butt all over the field or the Yankees blow another World Series, depending on the season. How long is a God day? Well, since God has been around forever, I would think that a God day would be a long one. A very long one. A billion years, maybe. Ten billion, maybe. Maybe we don't know. 24 hours just seems to be a bit stingy where God is concerned. If we don't know, today, how long a God day is, what chance could the writers of Genesis have had to know? They were just guessing, which is the best that they could do in those days. Shoot, they didn't even have a cure for the common cold back then.
I think that religion should embrace science, and vice versa, because science is perhaps bringing us ever closer to knowing just how long God's day might be. Now, consider this. Since The Big Guy Himself doesn't reside here on earth, how could His day possibly be from sunrise to sunset? The 24 hour day, at least to the best of our knowledge, exists for the earth and nowhere else (a Mars day is pretty close). If God lived on Jupiter, His day would be only about 10 hours, or roughly 5 hours from sunup to sunset. Really short, really stingy. Jupiter spins really fast. God would get dizzy if He had to live there. Dizzy enough to create Democrats, I suppose. Or maybe He did that out of spite after the Yankees lost, again. If God lived on Mercury, His day would be 58 earth days long, or 29 earth days from sunrise to sunset. So, where does God live? Where is His house? Where does He walk His dog, or whatever? How long is His day? Who knows? Anyone who insists that a God day is the same as an earth day is just as misguided and ignorant as the aforementioned Nobel prize winning Herbert A. Hauptman.
Now, let's talk about Darwinism and intelligent design. How can anyone argue against intelligent design? Are you saying that God is stupid? Ever taken a close look at a rose? On the other hand, how can anyone argue against the theory of evolution? Haven't you ever seen Jurassic Park I, II, and/or III? Are you saying that Michael Crichton and Steven Spielberg are liars? Curse you for eternity if you are.
I think the big thing here amongst the non believers is that they want to get a solid fix on everything. They want bricks and mortar and nothing ephemeral is allowed. They want to know. Being unable to know is unacceptable, so they simply claim to know. Since no one knows God, at least not personally or on a first-name basis, until it's too late, anyway, it is easiest for them to claim that He doesn't exist. They exacerbate this bit of foolishness further by claiming that belief in Him is dangerous. Dangerous to whom? I don't feel the least little bit threatened. They do, however, because, They. Do. Not. Know. Can't see it, can't feel it, can't smell it, can't hear it, can't be, period.
The true believers, on the other hand, insist that He is, and six 24 hour-days was all it took to create this mess, and Darwin was simply mistaken. Well, if six earth days were all the longer that it took to create this disaster (see Hotel Rwanda), then I should think that He could fix it in just a couple more. I do have some sympathy for the true believers because, if they ever allowed themselves to think about a ten billion year God day, then they might realize that it is going to require a long long time for this nightmare we call humanity to be fixed (see the Cold War). And further, they might have to consider fixing it ourselves, rather than wait for The Big Kahuna to do it for us. That would require some sweat on their part. I know I am changing persons here, left and right. Call it poetic license.
So, we end up with the ACLU, bloodless pagans all, versus the evangelicals, so blinded by the revelation that I wonder at their ability to navigate back and forth to church 6 times a week without stepping in holes and breaking ankles. Must be a miracle of some sort. Don't tell me that Jesus didn't feed thousands with a basket of trout and a couple of loaves of Wonder bread. I've seen Kreskin and Geller at work. And don't tell me that Darwin was a fake. Have you ever seen a platypus?
Others with opinions, misguided or otherwise:
Cosmic Variance, Pharyngula, Challies Dot Com, Political Mess, Woodshavings, Robot Person
I'm having big troubles with Blogger, or maybe my broadband carrier. It is raining like hell here. If you get a trackback ping from me but no link, please try back in a couple of hours. It will take you that long to read all of August's posts, anyway.
Running Scared, Alex Whalen, Telic Thoughts, Peace Like a River, Societas,
TAGS: Darwin, Darwinism, intelligent design, God, ACLU, pagans
Hauptman may be highly educated and skilled in the workings of crystals but is woefully ignorant of the human race. Woefully ignorant and his statement is irresponsible and borders on insanity. Maybe his brain crystalized during one experiment or another.
Genesis says that the world was created in six days and then, on the seventh day, God kicked back on His sofa with a remote and watched the Steelers kick butt all over the field or the Yankees blow another World Series, depending on the season. How long is a God day? Well, since God has been around forever, I would think that a God day would be a long one. A very long one. A billion years, maybe. Ten billion, maybe. Maybe we don't know. 24 hours just seems to be a bit stingy where God is concerned. If we don't know, today, how long a God day is, what chance could the writers of Genesis have had to know? They were just guessing, which is the best that they could do in those days. Shoot, they didn't even have a cure for the common cold back then.
I think that religion should embrace science, and vice versa, because science is perhaps bringing us ever closer to knowing just how long God's day might be. Now, consider this. Since The Big Guy Himself doesn't reside here on earth, how could His day possibly be from sunrise to sunset? The 24 hour day, at least to the best of our knowledge, exists for the earth and nowhere else (a Mars day is pretty close). If God lived on Jupiter, His day would be only about 10 hours, or roughly 5 hours from sunup to sunset. Really short, really stingy. Jupiter spins really fast. God would get dizzy if He had to live there. Dizzy enough to create Democrats, I suppose. Or maybe He did that out of spite after the Yankees lost, again. If God lived on Mercury, His day would be 58 earth days long, or 29 earth days from sunrise to sunset. So, where does God live? Where is His house? Where does He walk His dog, or whatever? How long is His day? Who knows? Anyone who insists that a God day is the same as an earth day is just as misguided and ignorant as the aforementioned Nobel prize winning Herbert A. Hauptman.
Now, let's talk about Darwinism and intelligent design. How can anyone argue against intelligent design? Are you saying that God is stupid? Ever taken a close look at a rose? On the other hand, how can anyone argue against the theory of evolution? Haven't you ever seen Jurassic Park I, II, and/or III? Are you saying that Michael Crichton and Steven Spielberg are liars? Curse you for eternity if you are.
I think the big thing here amongst the non believers is that they want to get a solid fix on everything. They want bricks and mortar and nothing ephemeral is allowed. They want to know. Being unable to know is unacceptable, so they simply claim to know. Since no one knows God, at least not personally or on a first-name basis, until it's too late, anyway, it is easiest for them to claim that He doesn't exist. They exacerbate this bit of foolishness further by claiming that belief in Him is dangerous. Dangerous to whom? I don't feel the least little bit threatened. They do, however, because, They. Do. Not. Know. Can't see it, can't feel it, can't smell it, can't hear it, can't be, period.
The true believers, on the other hand, insist that He is, and six 24 hour-days was all it took to create this mess, and Darwin was simply mistaken. Well, if six earth days were all the longer that it took to create this disaster (see Hotel Rwanda), then I should think that He could fix it in just a couple more. I do have some sympathy for the true believers because, if they ever allowed themselves to think about a ten billion year God day, then they might realize that it is going to require a long long time for this nightmare we call humanity to be fixed (see the Cold War). And further, they might have to consider fixing it ourselves, rather than wait for The Big Kahuna to do it for us. That would require some sweat on their part. I know I am changing persons here, left and right. Call it poetic license.
So, we end up with the ACLU, bloodless pagans all, versus the evangelicals, so blinded by the revelation that I wonder at their ability to navigate back and forth to church 6 times a week without stepping in holes and breaking ankles. Must be a miracle of some sort. Don't tell me that Jesus didn't feed thousands with a basket of trout and a couple of loaves of Wonder bread. I've seen Kreskin and Geller at work. And don't tell me that Darwin was a fake. Have you ever seen a platypus?
Others with opinions, misguided or otherwise:
Cosmic Variance, Pharyngula, Challies Dot Com, Political Mess, Woodshavings, Robot Person
I'm having big troubles with Blogger, or maybe my broadband carrier. It is raining like hell here. If you get a trackback ping from me but no link, please try back in a couple of hours. It will take you that long to read all of August's posts, anyway.
Running Scared, Alex Whalen, Telic Thoughts, Peace Like a River, Societas,
TAGS: Darwin, Darwinism, intelligent design, God, ACLU, pagans
Rev. Robertson has cure for Chavez
The Rev. Pat Robertson suggests a solution for the Hugo Chavez problem in Venezuela. I'll go the good reverend one better. Perhaps he could lead a one-man suicide assassination squad to Venezuela and handle the problem himself, personally.
Two birds with one stone and all that.
He'd probably be a Rudy supporter, too. Damn!
TAGS: Pat Robertson, Hugo Chavez, Venezuela, assassination, moron
Two birds with one stone and all that.
He'd probably be a Rudy supporter, too. Damn!
TAGS: Pat Robertson, Hugo Chavez, Venezuela, assassination, moron
Response to "The last word on Mexico"
I thought that I would take a moment here to answer as many of the commenters as possible. First, pay a visit to this site: The Thorn Tree which is a forum sponsored by Lonely Planet. Now, before you go, let me warn you that this is a very liberal site, therefore the response to my post is, er, somewhat strident in nature. Notice as you peruse the comments that there is not one, zero, zip, nada different idea on the immigration/border problems facing us. I don't mind criticism or different ideas or discussion or even argument. What I do mind is dismissal without any competing thought. "You're wrong because . . . because . . . you just ARE!"
Are you back? Ok, on to the comments on this post. Richard at HyScience has some personal experience with some of the things that even the least corrupt of the people have to do to get along.
Jack at Armed Victim knows that this will be a BIG political issue in upcoming elections. My prediction: Nothing substantial will be done, unless Rudy gets elected. The key term here is, "Political Will", which Rudy exhibited in New York and which all the other serious candidates seem to lack.
Debbie at Chew on This has some thoughts and asked me a question to which she received another screed, probably more than she wanted.
To Anonymous, I say,"Viva la corner of Jackson and Vine." It has about the same impact.
Aaron at Blah Blah Blah (visit his site and you will see that it is quite appropriately named) says I fit right in with the LaShawn Barber crowd. Thanks for the complement, Aaron!
T-Steel at Palm Trees in the Ghetto puts him in his place, however. Interesting name for a blog, T-Steel. It kind of fits in with the Mexico post.
El Loco does the requisite lefty name-calling bit. To be expected.
John Moore is right. It ain't gonna happen but something has to be done. And John, the only reason that I paint the situation as static is because of the pressure relief valve that our porous border provides. My point is this; block off that pressure relief and all hell is going break out and at our expense.
Paul, MarkJ, Sidney Carton, Ben Cameron, Kimberley and Zach at Our Way of Life disagree with the proposed solution. Fellers (and ladies), I'm not all that enamored with it myself and I'm the guy what wrote it. However, what you propose is not ever going to happen. Never, and that's a long time. And if it takes the building of a wall to seal the border, then I'm all for it. It's just that, in my humble opinion, the wall has to be the first step of many. Also, I said that we should build government housing with some brains this time. I didn't say it was possible to do so.
M. P. Jackson thinks he's Samuel Clemons. MP, get yourself a blog and then sit down and write a post as detailed and well thought out as mine in 3 hours, give or take, without benefit of a editor and let me check it. Anyway, you missed far more egregious errors. How about this sentence; "Kind of like Chicago." Or this one; "No." Good ones, eh?
Kevin has a point. However, I would ask him if he has any idea how many ex-politicians and ex-bureaucrats are currently rotting away in U. S. prisons, on trial, indicted and awaiting trial or under investigation? Chew on that a bit and get back to me. FYI, my guess is that the number is about 1000 times greater than that of Mexico when our population is only about 3 times greater.
Rightwinger says it's not fair to U. S. citizens and he/she is exactly right. But, then neither was 9/11, 12/7/41 or the 1972 Olympic basketball gold medal game.
Sue Bob (Jerri Lynn Ward) asks, "How do we assimilate people who don't understand the concept of the Rule of Law?" Well, Sue Bob, "assimilation" means that these people are taught about rule of law and, well, assimilate it. I think.
Jameson says that there are no solutions. Hmmm. Gotta be one somewhere, even if mine ain't it. I sure could use a link to that Spengler fellow that you mention.
Sangroncito tags me. For those of you who may be bilingually challenged, "Sangroncito" means "The Little Grouch", or something like that.
A Layman's Point of View accuses me of being a Communist, then rubs salt in that festering wound by mentioning such mundane things as economics. Look here, Mr. Layman, Gender: male, Location: Connecticut, USA, a philosophical and deep thinker such as myself has no time to consider such run-of-the-mill minor details like "How the hell are we supposed to pay for this?" I leave that to the plebes. You know, the president and the Congress.
Derek Copold says we should start confiscating the businesses who hire illegals. Now that's Communism! Mexico doesn't have an illegal immigrant problem, Derek. Mexico has an illegal border-crossing problem. The people from the south who cross Mexico's border are headed north, towards us. There are no vacancies in Mexico to fill, unless you refer to the starving minions.
Mike McK leaves a very interesting comment. Mike says that he is Mexican and a maricón. I doubt the first, but it is possible and I have no idea about the second and don't care. Maricón means "queer", as in "a queer". No, not "gay" or "homosexual". Be that as it may, Mike says that I am ignorant of the culture, but fails to mention an example of the culture of which I am ignorant. I think I know the culture too damned well. If he is truly Mexican, then he obviously is not indian or indigenous, at least not 100%, unless he was adopted by an Anglo family. He says the U. S. stole Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California. He must mean like the "Mexicans" stole those areas from Spain and Spain stole them from a myriad of indian tribes. The largest of which were the Aztecs who stole their territory from indian tribes that inhabited the land before the Aztecs stole it from them, tearing out and eating their still beating hearts as a sign of Aztekkkian superiority. Hey, Mike, quién fue Flores Magón?
Goddessaradia, I finally wrote something to which you are not diametrically opposed. Hooray! The problem that I see with your proposal to give them aid is that we have given them billions and it has been squandered. Giving them more billions will just allow more squandering. Right now, Mexico should be sitting in the catbird seat with the price of oil over $60 per barrel. Unfortunately, PEMEX, the national oil company (there are no private oil companies permitted in Mexico) is one of the world's most indebted companies. That's right, with our private oil concerns making their already fat stockholders even fatter, a national oil company that sells every single drop it can produce at exorbitant prices owes four times more money to creditors than Exxon, which is almost six times bigger than PEMEX. PEMEX owes some $42.5 billion. If they cannot take care of their own money, how much care do you think they'll take with ours? Goddessaradia adds a second comment where she "sees flaws". Sigh.
TAGS: debt, Pemex, Aztecs, Mexico, border, immigration, refugees, U.N., Muslim, Islam, jihad, terrorists, Aztlan, al Andalus
Are you back? Ok, on to the comments on this post. Richard at HyScience has some personal experience with some of the things that even the least corrupt of the people have to do to get along.
Jack at Armed Victim knows that this will be a BIG political issue in upcoming elections. My prediction: Nothing substantial will be done, unless Rudy gets elected. The key term here is, "Political Will", which Rudy exhibited in New York and which all the other serious candidates seem to lack.
Debbie at Chew on This has some thoughts and asked me a question to which she received another screed, probably more than she wanted.
To Anonymous, I say,"Viva la corner of Jackson and Vine." It has about the same impact.
Aaron at Blah Blah Blah (visit his site and you will see that it is quite appropriately named) says I fit right in with the LaShawn Barber crowd. Thanks for the complement, Aaron!
T-Steel at Palm Trees in the Ghetto puts him in his place, however. Interesting name for a blog, T-Steel. It kind of fits in with the Mexico post.
El Loco does the requisite lefty name-calling bit. To be expected.
John Moore is right. It ain't gonna happen but something has to be done. And John, the only reason that I paint the situation as static is because of the pressure relief valve that our porous border provides. My point is this; block off that pressure relief and all hell is going break out and at our expense.
Paul, MarkJ, Sidney Carton, Ben Cameron, Kimberley and Zach at Our Way of Life disagree with the proposed solution. Fellers (and ladies), I'm not all that enamored with it myself and I'm the guy what wrote it. However, what you propose is not ever going to happen. Never, and that's a long time. And if it takes the building of a wall to seal the border, then I'm all for it. It's just that, in my humble opinion, the wall has to be the first step of many. Also, I said that we should build government housing with some brains this time. I didn't say it was possible to do so.
M. P. Jackson thinks he's Samuel Clemons. MP, get yourself a blog and then sit down and write a post as detailed and well thought out as mine in 3 hours, give or take, without benefit of a editor and let me check it. Anyway, you missed far more egregious errors. How about this sentence; "Kind of like Chicago." Or this one; "No." Good ones, eh?
Kevin has a point. However, I would ask him if he has any idea how many ex-politicians and ex-bureaucrats are currently rotting away in U. S. prisons, on trial, indicted and awaiting trial or under investigation? Chew on that a bit and get back to me. FYI, my guess is that the number is about 1000 times greater than that of Mexico when our population is only about 3 times greater.
Rightwinger says it's not fair to U. S. citizens and he/she is exactly right. But, then neither was 9/11, 12/7/41 or the 1972 Olympic basketball gold medal game.
Sue Bob (Jerri Lynn Ward) asks, "How do we assimilate people who don't understand the concept of the Rule of Law?" Well, Sue Bob, "assimilation" means that these people are taught about rule of law and, well, assimilate it. I think.
Jameson says that there are no solutions. Hmmm. Gotta be one somewhere, even if mine ain't it. I sure could use a link to that Spengler fellow that you mention.
Sangroncito tags me. For those of you who may be bilingually challenged, "Sangroncito" means "The Little Grouch", or something like that.
A Layman's Point of View accuses me of being a Communist, then rubs salt in that festering wound by mentioning such mundane things as economics. Look here, Mr. Layman, Gender: male, Location: Connecticut, USA, a philosophical and deep thinker such as myself has no time to consider such run-of-the-mill minor details like "How the hell are we supposed to pay for this?" I leave that to the plebes. You know, the president and the Congress.
Derek Copold says we should start confiscating the businesses who hire illegals. Now that's Communism! Mexico doesn't have an illegal immigrant problem, Derek. Mexico has an illegal border-crossing problem. The people from the south who cross Mexico's border are headed north, towards us. There are no vacancies in Mexico to fill, unless you refer to the starving minions.
Mike McK leaves a very interesting comment. Mike says that he is Mexican and a maricón. I doubt the first, but it is possible and I have no idea about the second and don't care. Maricón means "queer", as in "a queer". No, not "gay" or "homosexual". Be that as it may, Mike says that I am ignorant of the culture, but fails to mention an example of the culture of which I am ignorant. I think I know the culture too damned well. If he is truly Mexican, then he obviously is not indian or indigenous, at least not 100%, unless he was adopted by an Anglo family. He says the U. S. stole Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California. He must mean like the "Mexicans" stole those areas from Spain and Spain stole them from a myriad of indian tribes. The largest of which were the Aztecs who stole their territory from indian tribes that inhabited the land before the Aztecs stole it from them, tearing out and eating their still beating hearts as a sign of Aztekkkian superiority. Hey, Mike, quién fue Flores Magón?
Goddessaradia, I finally wrote something to which you are not diametrically opposed. Hooray! The problem that I see with your proposal to give them aid is that we have given them billions and it has been squandered. Giving them more billions will just allow more squandering. Right now, Mexico should be sitting in the catbird seat with the price of oil over $60 per barrel. Unfortunately, PEMEX, the national oil company (there are no private oil companies permitted in Mexico) is one of the world's most indebted companies. That's right, with our private oil concerns making their already fat stockholders even fatter, a national oil company that sells every single drop it can produce at exorbitant prices owes four times more money to creditors than Exxon, which is almost six times bigger than PEMEX. PEMEX owes some $42.5 billion. If they cannot take care of their own money, how much care do you think they'll take with ours? Goddessaradia adds a second comment where she "sees flaws". Sigh.
TAGS: debt, Pemex, Aztecs, Mexico, border, immigration, refugees, U.N., Muslim, Islam, jihad, terrorists, Aztlan, al Andalus
Thursday, August 18, 2005
The last word on Mexico
Before I start, let me tell you that I live in Mexico. The whys and hows as to my presence here are not too important (I'm not a fugitive from justice). I teach English. That's about it. But I live here. In Oaxaca City, Oaxaca State. I've been here for about 6 months and lived in Puebla City, Puebla State, for 8 years prior to moving to Oaxaca. I think I know Mexico much better than most anyone up North, including those who live along the border regions. I don't spend much time in the tourist hotspots like the Cabos, Cancun, Acapulco, Puerto Vallarta, Huatulco and all the rest, except for the occasional vacation.
I avoid Mexico City like the plague because Mexico City is a plague. So is Tijuana, Juarez, Nuevo Laredo, Tuxtla Gutierrez (Chiapas), Monterrey, Reynosa and Matamoros and just about all points in between. Oaxaca City itself would be included on this list if I were a Mexican. Since I'm a Gringo, I get along OK but I have to be ever vigilant and extra vigilant with my sons, aged 6 and 9.
Why is Mexico such a mess? It's the culture. Don't scoff. I live here, remember? Mexicans do not understand the very basics of Rule of Law. They don't understand them and I don't believe they ever will. The single missing ingredient here is accountability. You can steal just about whatever you want to steal here, and if you share the spoils with the political powers that be as well as local, state and federal law enforcement, you can get along quite nicely. Kind of like Chicago.
Mexican politicians believe that it is their right to enrich themselves at the expense of their constituents. It comes with the territory, so to speak. Mexicans as a whole are not capable of viewing society as a whole. They do not understand that what is injurious to society is injurious to the individual. My father used to tell me that one's rights end at the beginning of the other fellow's nose. Mexicans don't see it that way. A Mexican believes that his rights extend as far as he can push or bully his way. That the extension of his rights might be deleterious to society as a whole is a thought which never crosses his mind. A basic lack of civility abounds.
Mexico was born in treachery and corruption and has not changed much in 185 odd years. The Independence (the Revolution is altogether different) was lead by Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla (Hidalgo), a Catholic priest with at least two daughters fathered out-of-wedlock, Jose Morelos y Pavon (Morelos), another Catholic priest who fathered two sons and a daughter by different women in different cities, and Agustin de Iturbide, a mestizo (Spanish father and Indian mother) officer in the army of Spain, or rather, New Spain, as Mexico was called in those days. In order to get his military commission, Iturbide had to claim that he was creole (born in New Spain but of 100% Spanish blood). Iturbide, thinking that independence by the native Mexicans was the coming thing, joined Hidalgo's insurrection. When Hidalgo refused to make Iturbide commander of his forces, Iturbide switched sides in a snit. Kind of like Benedict Arnold. There were many others involved, like Allende and Guerrero, but these three were the principals.
The Mexican independence wars were not like that of America's. Hidalgo and Morelos lead two different forces in two different areas. The was no Continental Congress, no Declaration of Independence, no organized army under central command. And, also unlike the Continental Army under George Washington, the rebels greatly outnumbered the Spanish forces and met with almost instant success. At one time Hidalgo's army alone totaled 100,000 fighters. However, Catholic priests do not successful military commanders make. Hidalgo and Allende were betrayed, captured and shot by Spanish firing squad. Morelos was defeated by a daring cavalry charge by a greatly outnumbered Spanish cavalry lead by Iturbide. Remember him? He had been fighting for Hidalgo. Morelos met the same fate as Hidalgo.
Now, get this. Hidalgo, Allende and Morelos were not fighting for true Mexican Indian independence. They were fighting against the Spanish King Joseph, brother of Napoleon, who had been installed on the Spanish throne by the little guy himself, to the detriment of the deposed King Ferdinand VII. Hidalgo and the rest were fighting against Nappy/Joe and for Ferdy 7, supposedly. The independence fight was over with all the leaders shot dead until, in 1820, Spanish military officers in Mexico City revolted and overthrew the government of New Spain while hardly firing a shot. They were lead by, guess who? Iturbide, who was changing allegiances faster than JLo changes bed partners.
Iturbide declared himself Emperor Augustin I and ruled, for a short time, what was maybe the largest swath of territory under one man's rule in world history. Mexico stretched from what is now Oregon all the way south to Panama. That claim to land was a result of Spanish land claims, which Iturbide believed that the newly declared Mexican state now possessed. The fact that there were no "Mexicans", Indian, Spanish, creole, mestizo or otherwise, for thousands and thousands of miles, made no difference. It didn't make any difference, either, to Vicente Guerrero and Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna. They joined together to overthrow Iturbide, and after less than two years on his newly created throne, Emperor Iturbide was exiled to Paris. He later returned, landing on a beach, to regain his throne. The character of Zorro's antagonist in the Antonio Banderas movie was very loosely based on this incident. Iturbide was almost immediately captured, without the help of Zorro, and shot by firing squad. Mexican history goes basically downhill from there.
Let's talk about what the Mexicans call "The Revolution" for a moment. Again, treachery, betrayal, corruption and murder are the highlights of this sordid tale. It was lead by a diminutive fellow named Francisco Madero. Americans think of the revolution in Mexico as a years-long affair. It wasn't. The revolution began, officially, on November 20, 21 or 22, 1910 (depends on which book you read) when Madero, who had sought refuge in Texas, crossed the Rio Grande and took up the fight against the government of President Porfirio Diaz. Diaz had been elected some 5 or 6 consecutive times and had gotten himself named president-for-life, and had become, for all practical purposes, the emperor of Mexico. Madero, along with the fabled Zapata, Pancho Villa and many others, attacked Diaz and the revolution was over by May, 1911 when Diaz fled to Paris. Six months and Diaz was gone. Madero got himself elected president, and rightfully so. Then the typical Mexican games began. Because of what happened next, many consider that the Mexican revolution lasted from 1910-1920. Mexicans refer to the time after April, 1911 as Decada de Dolores, decade of pain. Madero didn't last long. He, along with his VP, Pino Suarez, were assassinated by an army general who fancied himself as emperor, one Victoriano Huerta. So, the fight was on, again. Over the next 9 years or so, Huerta was defeated and driven into exile, Zapata was assassinated by a former colleague at arms, Venustiano Carranza was elected president, then he was assassinated, Villa was assassinated, and basically everybody was killing everybody else, all in pursuit of the throne, presidential desk, or whatever. One poor guy was officially the president for, like, 45 minutes or so, before being unceremoniously relieved of command. I don't think he was shot. I think he wisely just signed over his office and got the hell out of Dodge.
Through all this agony of death by assassination, death by firing squad, death by hanging, death in battle, exile to Paris, corruption, betrayal and treachery, most of the wealthy landowners remained wealthy landowners and the poor just got poorer. In the United States, we name streets, cities, counties and states after our revolutionary heroes and other heroes who came down the pike in later years. Almost all of these heroes were successful at what they were trying to do ,from Washington to Houston to Bush, even if they died doing it (Crockett, Bowie, Travis, Lincoln). In Mexico, the streets, cities, municipalities and states are named after people and incidents that were, on the whole, failures. I say incidents, because many streets in Mexico carry names like "9 de Noviembre" or the like, to commemorate a massacre or some such incident. The city of Morelia, the state of Hidalgo, the Zapatista movement, etc. are all examples, also. I know of no street in the U.S. named "Saigon 1975".
That brings us to today, when the makeup of the Mexican government hasn't changed too much since 1821. Oh, they don't run around assassinating other government officials, the drug cartels and police do that. And no one has the temerity to declare himself emperor. It is more or less understood. I guess I should say that it was more or less understood. The election of Vicente Fox as president broke, at least temporarily, the rule of the PRI (Institutional Revolutionary Party) that had ruled Mexico since the 20's. Can you imagine what America would be like if one political party had ruled for so many years? See Detroit, Gary, DC for examples. And look at the name of that political party which is still the largest in Mexico and still controls most of the country. Institutionalized revolution? What the hell is that? How do you institutionalize a revolution and ever have any peace? You have a revolution, set things aright (provided that you win, of course), then forget the revolution business and get on with establishing good governance. Not here.
Today, 185 years of corruption at the national, state, municipal (municipalities are like U.S. counties) and city levels is so firmly entrenched that eliminating it would take a Herculean effort that the Mexican people are not capable of making. A Herculean effort over many years. The folks from Rudy Giuliani who were hired by the mayor of Mexico City to great fanfare, and later left town after not being paid, to research the security situation and make recommendations, estimated 30 years just to clean up the police forces. 30 years!! And what about the Departments of Tourism, Interior, Agriculture, Education, Internal Revenue, Environment, Immigration, Foreign Relations, all the sub-departments and under secretaries and tens of thousands of government programs that no one is quite sure who controls and then the powerful state governments and then the municipal governments and then the city governments with all of their respective departments, under-departments, sub departments, etc.? And then there is the federal Congress with its Chamber of Deputies and Senate plus all the various state congresses, each with its own two chambers, plus all the municipal governments and city, town and village governments, each with its own bureaucracy. Then there is the massive social security system, federal healthcare system, the army and the various federal and state and local judicial branches. All of them staffed by people, the majority of whom are desperately trying to get as much as they can as quickly as they can. Maybe in 300 years?
The U.S. Constitution was written once. Just once. It has been amended some 27 times, but these amendments are attachments to the original. Also, the first 10 amendments, the Bill of Rights, were agreed to prior to the signing of the original document. If not, many of the signers wouldn't have signed the original. So the first 10 amendments could be considered as a part of the original, which means that, in effect, our Constitution is the original, amended 17 times in some 217 years. The U. S. Constitution can arguably be viewed as a document that describes the makeup of the central government and then tells that central government what it cannot do. The Mexican Constitution, on the other hand, well, see if you can follow me here.
The first constitution was drawn up in 1824. We'll call it the 1824 Constitution. It was modeled after our constitution and basically set up the Mexican government much the same way as our government. It was also basically ignored which made it basically irrelevant, basically. An example would be presidential succession. Between 1824 and 1857 only one president completed his term and handed over power to an elected successor. These guys weren't leaving office early for family reasons, I can assure you. They were forced out, shot, hung, assassinated, exiled, etc.
In 1833, Santa Anna - he of Alamo infamy and San Jacinto fame - dumped the 1824 constitution and instituted the Siete Leyes (7 laws). So you might call this the 1833 Constitution. You might.
In 1857, both the 1824 constitution and the 1833 constitution were dumped and a reformist constitution was written. This resulted in a 3 year civil war. This we shall call the 1857 Constitution.
Then, in 1917, in the midst of the decade of pain, another constitution was written, which is called the 1917 Constitution. This constitution is in effect today, more or less, and contains some 9 Titles with various Chapters under each Title and various Sections of each Chapter under each Title. And then there are 16 Transitory Articles at the end which were for the express purpose of governing the implementation of said 1917 Constitution. There are a gazillion amendments, but the Mexicans don't attach the amendments. They are incorporated into the body of the constitution so that one needs to have a history reference book or be a brilliant historian with a photographic memory to determine what the amendments are and when they were incorporated. Then there are some Additions to the constitution which are additions, not amendments. Pay attention. The 1917 Constitution was amended, as of 2002, in 1937, 1937, 1937, 1940, 1940, 1942, 1942, 1943, 1943, 1944, 1944, 1944, 1944, 1944, 1946, 1946, 1946, 1946, 1947, 1947, 1947, 1947, 1947, 1948, 1950, 1950, 1950, 1950, 1951, 1951, 1952, 1960, 1960, 1960, 1960, 1960, 1960, 1960, 1960, 1960, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1962, 1962, 1962, 1962, 1962, 1963, 1963, 1965, 1966, 1966, 1966, 1966, 1966, 1966, 1966, 1966, 1966.
Then there were Additions to the constitution in 1940, 1942, 1942, 1942, 1944, 1946, 1946, 1947, 1949, 1960, 1960, 1962, 1963, 1966. There were also some deletions (probably concerning clean water, clean air, clean streets, free elections and drug trafficking and border control), but they are listed as "Deletions by Amendment", so I included them as amendments. There were also a handful of "Additions by Amendment", some of which inadvertently may have been included on both the above lists. So sue me.
All of these various constitutions, decrees, plans, and treaties, with a myriad of amendments, additions, deletions and suspensions along with civil wars, revolutions, wars against foreign powers (including us, twice) as well as the attendant corruption, betrayals, treasons, assassinations, overthrows, hangings, firing squads, exiles, presidents, emperors, military rulers, presidents-for-life, etc. have brought Mexico to where it is today, a basket case. Out of control. Ungovernable, except by force and bribery.
Do Mexicans realize and understand the situation in which they find themselves? No. Can or will they fix it? No. So what keeps the country from exploding into anarchy and/or another "revolution" (read Civil War)? Two things; First, no weapons. Only the police, the army and the criminals have enough weaponry to fight anything other than a short-lived, doomed to failure insurrection. Firearms of any caliber greater than .22 or 20 gauge shot are illegal in the hands of private owners in Mexico. The Zapatista Liberation Army (ELZN), operating in Chiapas under the command of the masked comedian Commandante Marcos, is really a joke only allowed to survive through the good auspices of the federal government.
Second, there is a gigantic safety valve which is protected, encouraged, supported and maintained by the Mexican government. Guess where that is? Yep, it is the northern border through which some 10,000 Mexicans flee per day along with some 600 to 1500 others from likewise failed banana and narco republics further to the south. The recent survey which is causing all the tongues to wag on both sides of the American political aisle that shows that more than 40% of Mexican citizens from all income strata favor abandoning the country for the safe harbor of the United States should tell the Mexican government something. But it doesn't. The issue will never be raised in the Congress. Those people just go about their daily business of continuing to run the nation into the ground, blithely ignoring the disastrous condition that their antics have caused and continue to cause. They are not in the least embarrassed by this. They cannot be shamed into action. Why not?
Mexicans look upon the federal government differently than most of us do, at least the Republicans and Libertarians. While we generally would prefer that the central governments (I include federal, state, county - parish, for you coonasses - and municipal, here) would just stay the hell out of our business, Mexicans look to the central governments to help them get theirs. You can have yours if I get mine first. Kind of like AARP, the NAACP, La Raza, the DNC, etc.. The reason that the Mexican Constitution is so chock full of titles, chapters, sections, sub sections, amendments, additions and deletions is because it guarantees everything to everybody. Which means, of course, that nobody, except those who already have it, gets anything. Which is exactly what the politicians want because they know they can't deliver much of anything to anybody, anytime, all the time.
What would it take to fix it? I don't think that it can be fixed. But I do know this. Closing the border with Mexico would be the single most disastrous thing that the U. S. government or any state government could do . . . to ourselves. If we did such a thing, assuming such a thing could even be done, the resulting explosion as Mexican society collapsed would wound us severely. What would you propose that we do when the starving thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands began to back up on the other side of the border and then the crush began to force its way north? Shoot them? Hit them with artillery fire, napalm, bombing sorties? Nuclear weapons? Read the following very carefully, please. It Can't Be Stopped. People who have no food, no medicine, no clothes and no hope will die in the attempt to save themselves rather than die in squalor. Look at what happened a couple of days ago. 100 South Americans, men, women and children drowned in the Pacific Ocean trying to get here. Think about that repeated tenfold, a hundredfold, a thousandfold. Do you really want to see that? Do we want to be the ones to help them die? On our very doorstep?
Now, some may read what I have written and say, "It cannot be that bad." 10,000 people a day evacuating Mexico. 70,000 per week, 300,000 per month, 3.5 million per year. Already 10 million illegals in the United States and I don't know how many more in Canada. I rest my case.
Others may read what I have written and say, "If it is truly that bad, why don't they rise against their government?" See my comments on weaponry above. So what the hell are we supposed to do? Here it is, and it is not so complicated, just hugely expensive.
I avoid Mexico City like the plague because Mexico City is a plague. So is Tijuana, Juarez, Nuevo Laredo, Tuxtla Gutierrez (Chiapas), Monterrey, Reynosa and Matamoros and just about all points in between. Oaxaca City itself would be included on this list if I were a Mexican. Since I'm a Gringo, I get along OK but I have to be ever vigilant and extra vigilant with my sons, aged 6 and 9.
Why is Mexico such a mess? It's the culture. Don't scoff. I live here, remember? Mexicans do not understand the very basics of Rule of Law. They don't understand them and I don't believe they ever will. The single missing ingredient here is accountability. You can steal just about whatever you want to steal here, and if you share the spoils with the political powers that be as well as local, state and federal law enforcement, you can get along quite nicely. Kind of like Chicago.
Mexican politicians believe that it is their right to enrich themselves at the expense of their constituents. It comes with the territory, so to speak. Mexicans as a whole are not capable of viewing society as a whole. They do not understand that what is injurious to society is injurious to the individual. My father used to tell me that one's rights end at the beginning of the other fellow's nose. Mexicans don't see it that way. A Mexican believes that his rights extend as far as he can push or bully his way. That the extension of his rights might be deleterious to society as a whole is a thought which never crosses his mind. A basic lack of civility abounds.
Mexico was born in treachery and corruption and has not changed much in 185 odd years. The Independence (the Revolution is altogether different) was lead by Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla (Hidalgo), a Catholic priest with at least two daughters fathered out-of-wedlock, Jose Morelos y Pavon (Morelos), another Catholic priest who fathered two sons and a daughter by different women in different cities, and Agustin de Iturbide, a mestizo (Spanish father and Indian mother) officer in the army of Spain, or rather, New Spain, as Mexico was called in those days. In order to get his military commission, Iturbide had to claim that he was creole (born in New Spain but of 100% Spanish blood). Iturbide, thinking that independence by the native Mexicans was the coming thing, joined Hidalgo's insurrection. When Hidalgo refused to make Iturbide commander of his forces, Iturbide switched sides in a snit. Kind of like Benedict Arnold. There were many others involved, like Allende and Guerrero, but these three were the principals.
The Mexican independence wars were not like that of America's. Hidalgo and Morelos lead two different forces in two different areas. The was no Continental Congress, no Declaration of Independence, no organized army under central command. And, also unlike the Continental Army under George Washington, the rebels greatly outnumbered the Spanish forces and met with almost instant success. At one time Hidalgo's army alone totaled 100,000 fighters. However, Catholic priests do not successful military commanders make. Hidalgo and Allende were betrayed, captured and shot by Spanish firing squad. Morelos was defeated by a daring cavalry charge by a greatly outnumbered Spanish cavalry lead by Iturbide. Remember him? He had been fighting for Hidalgo. Morelos met the same fate as Hidalgo.
Now, get this. Hidalgo, Allende and Morelos were not fighting for true Mexican Indian independence. They were fighting against the Spanish King Joseph, brother of Napoleon, who had been installed on the Spanish throne by the little guy himself, to the detriment of the deposed King Ferdinand VII. Hidalgo and the rest were fighting against Nappy/Joe and for Ferdy 7, supposedly. The independence fight was over with all the leaders shot dead until, in 1820, Spanish military officers in Mexico City revolted and overthrew the government of New Spain while hardly firing a shot. They were lead by, guess who? Iturbide, who was changing allegiances faster than JLo changes bed partners.
Iturbide declared himself Emperor Augustin I and ruled, for a short time, what was maybe the largest swath of territory under one man's rule in world history. Mexico stretched from what is now Oregon all the way south to Panama. That claim to land was a result of Spanish land claims, which Iturbide believed that the newly declared Mexican state now possessed. The fact that there were no "Mexicans", Indian, Spanish, creole, mestizo or otherwise, for thousands and thousands of miles, made no difference. It didn't make any difference, either, to Vicente Guerrero and Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna. They joined together to overthrow Iturbide, and after less than two years on his newly created throne, Emperor Iturbide was exiled to Paris. He later returned, landing on a beach, to regain his throne. The character of Zorro's antagonist in the Antonio Banderas movie was very loosely based on this incident. Iturbide was almost immediately captured, without the help of Zorro, and shot by firing squad. Mexican history goes basically downhill from there.
Let's talk about what the Mexicans call "The Revolution" for a moment. Again, treachery, betrayal, corruption and murder are the highlights of this sordid tale. It was lead by a diminutive fellow named Francisco Madero. Americans think of the revolution in Mexico as a years-long affair. It wasn't. The revolution began, officially, on November 20, 21 or 22, 1910 (depends on which book you read) when Madero, who had sought refuge in Texas, crossed the Rio Grande and took up the fight against the government of President Porfirio Diaz. Diaz had been elected some 5 or 6 consecutive times and had gotten himself named president-for-life, and had become, for all practical purposes, the emperor of Mexico. Madero, along with the fabled Zapata, Pancho Villa and many others, attacked Diaz and the revolution was over by May, 1911 when Diaz fled to Paris. Six months and Diaz was gone. Madero got himself elected president, and rightfully so. Then the typical Mexican games began. Because of what happened next, many consider that the Mexican revolution lasted from 1910-1920. Mexicans refer to the time after April, 1911 as Decada de Dolores, decade of pain. Madero didn't last long. He, along with his VP, Pino Suarez, were assassinated by an army general who fancied himself as emperor, one Victoriano Huerta. So, the fight was on, again. Over the next 9 years or so, Huerta was defeated and driven into exile, Zapata was assassinated by a former colleague at arms, Venustiano Carranza was elected president, then he was assassinated, Villa was assassinated, and basically everybody was killing everybody else, all in pursuit of the throne, presidential desk, or whatever. One poor guy was officially the president for, like, 45 minutes or so, before being unceremoniously relieved of command. I don't think he was shot. I think he wisely just signed over his office and got the hell out of Dodge.
Through all this agony of death by assassination, death by firing squad, death by hanging, death in battle, exile to Paris, corruption, betrayal and treachery, most of the wealthy landowners remained wealthy landowners and the poor just got poorer. In the United States, we name streets, cities, counties and states after our revolutionary heroes and other heroes who came down the pike in later years. Almost all of these heroes were successful at what they were trying to do ,from Washington to Houston to Bush, even if they died doing it (Crockett, Bowie, Travis, Lincoln). In Mexico, the streets, cities, municipalities and states are named after people and incidents that were, on the whole, failures. I say incidents, because many streets in Mexico carry names like "9 de Noviembre" or the like, to commemorate a massacre or some such incident. The city of Morelia, the state of Hidalgo, the Zapatista movement, etc. are all examples, also. I know of no street in the U.S. named "Saigon 1975".
That brings us to today, when the makeup of the Mexican government hasn't changed too much since 1821. Oh, they don't run around assassinating other government officials, the drug cartels and police do that. And no one has the temerity to declare himself emperor. It is more or less understood. I guess I should say that it was more or less understood. The election of Vicente Fox as president broke, at least temporarily, the rule of the PRI (Institutional Revolutionary Party) that had ruled Mexico since the 20's. Can you imagine what America would be like if one political party had ruled for so many years? See Detroit, Gary, DC for examples. And look at the name of that political party which is still the largest in Mexico and still controls most of the country. Institutionalized revolution? What the hell is that? How do you institutionalize a revolution and ever have any peace? You have a revolution, set things aright (provided that you win, of course), then forget the revolution business and get on with establishing good governance. Not here.
Today, 185 years of corruption at the national, state, municipal (municipalities are like U.S. counties) and city levels is so firmly entrenched that eliminating it would take a Herculean effort that the Mexican people are not capable of making. A Herculean effort over many years. The folks from Rudy Giuliani who were hired by the mayor of Mexico City to great fanfare, and later left town after not being paid, to research the security situation and make recommendations, estimated 30 years just to clean up the police forces. 30 years!! And what about the Departments of Tourism, Interior, Agriculture, Education, Internal Revenue, Environment, Immigration, Foreign Relations, all the sub-departments and under secretaries and tens of thousands of government programs that no one is quite sure who controls and then the powerful state governments and then the municipal governments and then the city governments with all of their respective departments, under-departments, sub departments, etc.? And then there is the federal Congress with its Chamber of Deputies and Senate plus all the various state congresses, each with its own two chambers, plus all the municipal governments and city, town and village governments, each with its own bureaucracy. Then there is the massive social security system, federal healthcare system, the army and the various federal and state and local judicial branches. All of them staffed by people, the majority of whom are desperately trying to get as much as they can as quickly as they can. Maybe in 300 years?
The U.S. Constitution was written once. Just once. It has been amended some 27 times, but these amendments are attachments to the original. Also, the first 10 amendments, the Bill of Rights, were agreed to prior to the signing of the original document. If not, many of the signers wouldn't have signed the original. So the first 10 amendments could be considered as a part of the original, which means that, in effect, our Constitution is the original, amended 17 times in some 217 years. The U. S. Constitution can arguably be viewed as a document that describes the makeup of the central government and then tells that central government what it cannot do. The Mexican Constitution, on the other hand, well, see if you can follow me here.
The first constitution was drawn up in 1824. We'll call it the 1824 Constitution. It was modeled after our constitution and basically set up the Mexican government much the same way as our government. It was also basically ignored which made it basically irrelevant, basically. An example would be presidential succession. Between 1824 and 1857 only one president completed his term and handed over power to an elected successor. These guys weren't leaving office early for family reasons, I can assure you. They were forced out, shot, hung, assassinated, exiled, etc.
In 1833, Santa Anna - he of Alamo infamy and San Jacinto fame - dumped the 1824 constitution and instituted the Siete Leyes (7 laws). So you might call this the 1833 Constitution. You might.
In 1857, both the 1824 constitution and the 1833 constitution were dumped and a reformist constitution was written. This resulted in a 3 year civil war. This we shall call the 1857 Constitution.
Then, in 1917, in the midst of the decade of pain, another constitution was written, which is called the 1917 Constitution. This constitution is in effect today, more or less, and contains some 9 Titles with various Chapters under each Title and various Sections of each Chapter under each Title. And then there are 16 Transitory Articles at the end which were for the express purpose of governing the implementation of said 1917 Constitution. There are a gazillion amendments, but the Mexicans don't attach the amendments. They are incorporated into the body of the constitution so that one needs to have a history reference book or be a brilliant historian with a photographic memory to determine what the amendments are and when they were incorporated. Then there are some Additions to the constitution which are additions, not amendments. Pay attention. The 1917 Constitution was amended, as of 2002, in 1937, 1937, 1937, 1940, 1940, 1942, 1942, 1943, 1943, 1944, 1944, 1944, 1944, 1944, 1946, 1946, 1946, 1946, 1947, 1947, 1947, 1947, 1947, 1948, 1950, 1950, 1950, 1950, 1951, 1951, 1952, 1960, 1960, 1960, 1960, 1960, 1960, 1960, 1960, 1960, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1962, 1962, 1962, 1962, 1962, 1963, 1963, 1965, 1966, 1966, 1966, 1966, 1966, 1966, 1966, 1966, 1966.
Then there were Additions to the constitution in 1940, 1942, 1942, 1942, 1944, 1946, 1946, 1947, 1949, 1960, 1960, 1962, 1963, 1966. There were also some deletions (probably concerning clean water, clean air, clean streets, free elections and drug trafficking and border control), but they are listed as "Deletions by Amendment", so I included them as amendments. There were also a handful of "Additions by Amendment", some of which inadvertently may have been included on both the above lists. So sue me.
All of these various constitutions, decrees, plans, and treaties, with a myriad of amendments, additions, deletions and suspensions along with civil wars, revolutions, wars against foreign powers (including us, twice) as well as the attendant corruption, betrayals, treasons, assassinations, overthrows, hangings, firing squads, exiles, presidents, emperors, military rulers, presidents-for-life, etc. have brought Mexico to where it is today, a basket case. Out of control. Ungovernable, except by force and bribery.
Do Mexicans realize and understand the situation in which they find themselves? No. Can or will they fix it? No. So what keeps the country from exploding into anarchy and/or another "revolution" (read Civil War)? Two things; First, no weapons. Only the police, the army and the criminals have enough weaponry to fight anything other than a short-lived, doomed to failure insurrection. Firearms of any caliber greater than .22 or 20 gauge shot are illegal in the hands of private owners in Mexico. The Zapatista Liberation Army (ELZN), operating in Chiapas under the command of the masked comedian Commandante Marcos, is really a joke only allowed to survive through the good auspices of the federal government.
Second, there is a gigantic safety valve which is protected, encouraged, supported and maintained by the Mexican government. Guess where that is? Yep, it is the northern border through which some 10,000 Mexicans flee per day along with some 600 to 1500 others from likewise failed banana and narco republics further to the south. The recent survey which is causing all the tongues to wag on both sides of the American political aisle that shows that more than 40% of Mexican citizens from all income strata favor abandoning the country for the safe harbor of the United States should tell the Mexican government something. But it doesn't. The issue will never be raised in the Congress. Those people just go about their daily business of continuing to run the nation into the ground, blithely ignoring the disastrous condition that their antics have caused and continue to cause. They are not in the least embarrassed by this. They cannot be shamed into action. Why not?
Mexicans look upon the federal government differently than most of us do, at least the Republicans and Libertarians. While we generally would prefer that the central governments (I include federal, state, county - parish, for you coonasses - and municipal, here) would just stay the hell out of our business, Mexicans look to the central governments to help them get theirs. You can have yours if I get mine first. Kind of like AARP, the NAACP, La Raza, the DNC, etc.. The reason that the Mexican Constitution is so chock full of titles, chapters, sections, sub sections, amendments, additions and deletions is because it guarantees everything to everybody. Which means, of course, that nobody, except those who already have it, gets anything. Which is exactly what the politicians want because they know they can't deliver much of anything to anybody, anytime, all the time.
What would it take to fix it? I don't think that it can be fixed. But I do know this. Closing the border with Mexico would be the single most disastrous thing that the U. S. government or any state government could do . . . to ourselves. If we did such a thing, assuming such a thing could even be done, the resulting explosion as Mexican society collapsed would wound us severely. What would you propose that we do when the starving thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands began to back up on the other side of the border and then the crush began to force its way north? Shoot them? Hit them with artillery fire, napalm, bombing sorties? Nuclear weapons? Read the following very carefully, please. It Can't Be Stopped. People who have no food, no medicine, no clothes and no hope will die in the attempt to save themselves rather than die in squalor. Look at what happened a couple of days ago. 100 South Americans, men, women and children drowned in the Pacific Ocean trying to get here. Think about that repeated tenfold, a hundredfold, a thousandfold. Do you really want to see that? Do we want to be the ones to help them die? On our very doorstep?
Now, some may read what I have written and say, "It cannot be that bad." 10,000 people a day evacuating Mexico. 70,000 per week, 300,000 per month, 3.5 million per year. Already 10 million illegals in the United States and I don't know how many more in Canada. I rest my case.
Others may read what I have written and say, "If it is truly that bad, why don't they rise against their government?" See my comments on weaponry above. So what the hell are we supposed to do? Here it is, and it is not so complicated, just hugely expensive.
Mark in Mexico's
MEXICAN REFUGEE ASSIMILATION PLAN
First, we tell the Mexican government, and I don't just mean the president, I mean the whole damned government, just what they are. A bunch of incompetent, corrupt, criminal nincompoops and we're taking charge.
Then we militarize the border. We blockade it with an airtight blockade not seen since the Civil War (ours). We institute checkpoints all along the border and begin bringing in the refugees. And believe me, these are not immigrants or aliens or illegals, they are refugees.
We cross the border, by force, which will be necessary, to feed and administer to the refugees while they await passage to the United States.
We demand U.N. participation, under our direct control. If we don't get it, well, sorry Kofi or whomever, we are going to need all those billions we were giving you to help our soon-to-be new citizens. Oh, and by the way, get the hell out of New York. We also tell the Pope to hand over some of his billions. 99% of the refugees are Catholic.
We set up refugee stations in all the major cities of the United States. The incoming refugees must sign an agreement to go where we send them and stay there for 10 years minimum, unless they have to be moved by the government. Penalty for breaking this promise - hunted down and expelled . . . for life.
We begin building government subsidized housing, with some brains this time, in those cities to house the refugees and get them out of the refugee centers as rapidly as possible. This government housing will be designed and built to scatter the refugees to all parts of their new homes. This avoids the ghettoization of the refugees and will help force their assimilation. No more 'hoods and ghettos and barrios will be permitted until U.S. citizenship has been attained. Then, if they want to live in a ghetto or 'hood or barrio, so be it. Failure to comply . . . expulsion for life.
The incoming refugees must sign an agreement to master the English language to a to-be-established government standard at government run schools in their new homes within 2 years maximum. They must also sign up to become American citizens no sooner than 10 years after their crossing and no later than 12 years, period. Penalty for failure to comply . . . expulsion for life.
We create another massive bureaucracy (I know, I know, but we've got no other choice) to oversee the assimilation. The refugees will be issued special ID's which will allow them to attain driver's licences, Social Security cards, get into public schools, get legal jobs, etc.. Note: any refugees who return to Mexico, either before or after gaining U.S. citizenship, forfeit everything, including right-of-return . . . for life.
Ten years before they can vote, ten years before they can move without our permission, the border back under our control (it is not under our control now, the Mexican government has control), the border sealed except where we allow refugee passage, no ghettoization in the United States permitted for 10 years, U. S. citizens' private property which is required will either be purchased through eminent domain or leased at fair market value (and played with some intelligence - if we need a few hundred yards of someone's south pasture, don't take the whole damned ranch), and a bureaucracy under tight Executive control with Congressional and Judicial oversight should all do the trick, short term.
And for the long term? We begin inviting the northern Mexican border states to join the American republic. The Cabos, Baja California Norte, Sonora, Chihuahua, Nuevo Leon, Cuahuila and Tamaulipas would be invited to join, all of each or in parts, first as territories and then as states. When a Mexican state agrees to our terms, which would be federal control for some period of time in order to clean out the nests of vipers in the statehouses, municipal governments and police forces, we simply move our blockade south. Then we pick off Baja California Sur, Sinaloa, Durango, Zacatecas and San Luis Potosi, again, each state in its entirety or in parts. If the Mexican central government objects, it would not be allowed to use force to hang onto its seceding states. If force were to be attempted, it would be met by counter force, in effect freeing the people from the enslavement they have for so long endured. Almost all of the rules, regulations and OVERSIGHT required of the refugees would also be required of the residents of the new territories/states. Mexicans aren't dumb, there just aren't any decent schools here.
When WE think that the Mexican state has been shrunk to a small enough size that it is barely manageable by whatever central government is left, then we can stop. If that point is not reached, then its on to Guatemala.
Then we militarize the border. We blockade it with an airtight blockade not seen since the Civil War (ours). We institute checkpoints all along the border and begin bringing in the refugees. And believe me, these are not immigrants or aliens or illegals, they are refugees.
We cross the border, by force, which will be necessary, to feed and administer to the refugees while they await passage to the United States.
We demand U.N. participation, under our direct control. If we don't get it, well, sorry Kofi or whomever, we are going to need all those billions we were giving you to help our soon-to-be new citizens. Oh, and by the way, get the hell out of New York. We also tell the Pope to hand over some of his billions. 99% of the refugees are Catholic.
We set up refugee stations in all the major cities of the United States. The incoming refugees must sign an agreement to go where we send them and stay there for 10 years minimum, unless they have to be moved by the government. Penalty for breaking this promise - hunted down and expelled . . . for life.
We begin building government subsidized housing, with some brains this time, in those cities to house the refugees and get them out of the refugee centers as rapidly as possible. This government housing will be designed and built to scatter the refugees to all parts of their new homes. This avoids the ghettoization of the refugees and will help force their assimilation. No more 'hoods and ghettos and barrios will be permitted until U.S. citizenship has been attained. Then, if they want to live in a ghetto or 'hood or barrio, so be it. Failure to comply . . . expulsion for life.
The incoming refugees must sign an agreement to master the English language to a to-be-established government standard at government run schools in their new homes within 2 years maximum. They must also sign up to become American citizens no sooner than 10 years after their crossing and no later than 12 years, period. Penalty for failure to comply . . . expulsion for life.
We create another massive bureaucracy (I know, I know, but we've got no other choice) to oversee the assimilation. The refugees will be issued special ID's which will allow them to attain driver's licences, Social Security cards, get into public schools, get legal jobs, etc.. Note: any refugees who return to Mexico, either before or after gaining U.S. citizenship, forfeit everything, including right-of-return . . . for life.
Ten years before they can vote, ten years before they can move without our permission, the border back under our control (it is not under our control now, the Mexican government has control), the border sealed except where we allow refugee passage, no ghettoization in the United States permitted for 10 years, U. S. citizens' private property which is required will either be purchased through eminent domain or leased at fair market value (and played with some intelligence - if we need a few hundred yards of someone's south pasture, don't take the whole damned ranch), and a bureaucracy under tight Executive control with Congressional and Judicial oversight should all do the trick, short term.
And for the long term? We begin inviting the northern Mexican border states to join the American republic. The Cabos, Baja California Norte, Sonora, Chihuahua, Nuevo Leon, Cuahuila and Tamaulipas would be invited to join, all of each or in parts, first as territories and then as states. When a Mexican state agrees to our terms, which would be federal control for some period of time in order to clean out the nests of vipers in the statehouses, municipal governments and police forces, we simply move our blockade south. Then we pick off Baja California Sur, Sinaloa, Durango, Zacatecas and San Luis Potosi, again, each state in its entirety or in parts. If the Mexican central government objects, it would not be allowed to use force to hang onto its seceding states. If force were to be attempted, it would be met by counter force, in effect freeing the people from the enslavement they have for so long endured. Almost all of the rules, regulations and OVERSIGHT required of the refugees would also be required of the residents of the new territories/states. Mexicans aren't dumb, there just aren't any decent schools here.
When WE think that the Mexican state has been shrunk to a small enough size that it is barely manageable by whatever central government is left, then we can stop. If that point is not reached, then its on to Guatemala.
Now, I hacked this out in about 3 hours, although I have been thinking about it for a long long time. I've read scores of opinions, from one extreme, like Pat Buchanan who, I think, would just prefer to see them all nuked, to various La Raza types who expect to recover an Aztlan that, in fact, never existed except in their minds. Kind of like al Andalus. What I don't see are any viable alternatives to the somewhat radical one that I have expressed here. I see lots of platitudes, lots of warnings, lots of "we better do this" and "we better do that," but I have yet to see one single plan that might have a chance of succeeding over the long term. Hence, one now exists and you saw it here first.
Let me add one final note. The Muslims are here. They are up in the mountains converting one individual, one family, one village, one congregation at a time. They are in the poorest of the inner city ghettos, again converting one individual, one family, one congregation at a time. There are about 90 million Mexicans today. If the Muslims convert 10% of them, and can turn 1% of those converts into jihadists, that's 90,000 bloodthirsty jihadist killers clamoring at our back door. 90,000 potential murderers of our innocent men, women and children probing at our border defenses, such as they are, by land, air and sea, 24/7. Think about that a little before you dismiss the aforementioned too quickly.
Others with opinions, see the comments and trackbacks following this post as well as:
Right Side of the Rainbow, Immigration Lawyer, In Search of Utopia, Wizbang, A North American Patriot, Nice Doggy, Bill Quick, Beyond Borders, Immigration Watchdog, Freedom Nation, A Certain Slant of Light, La Shawn Barber, HCS's and Gen's Place, Wizbang, again, No Speed Bumps, Arthur Chrenkoff, Narcissistic Views, Yippee Ki Yay, The Captain, Double Toothpicks, Right Wing News, Immigration Watchdog, Right Minded, Election 2008 Countdown, Beyond Borders Blog, Anderson@Large, Media Lies, Paxalles, Area 417, Hopperbach, Blogcritics, Mark's Forum, Three Knockdown Rule, Liberal Lie, Conservative Truth
TAGS: Mexico, border, immigration, refugees, U.N., Muslim, Islam, jihad, terrorists, Aztlan, al Andalus
Let me add one final note. The Muslims are here. They are up in the mountains converting one individual, one family, one village, one congregation at a time. They are in the poorest of the inner city ghettos, again converting one individual, one family, one congregation at a time. There are about 90 million Mexicans today. If the Muslims convert 10% of them, and can turn 1% of those converts into jihadists, that's 90,000 bloodthirsty jihadist killers clamoring at our back door. 90,000 potential murderers of our innocent men, women and children probing at our border defenses, such as they are, by land, air and sea, 24/7. Think about that a little before you dismiss the aforementioned too quickly.
Others with opinions, see the comments and trackbacks following this post as well as:
Right Side of the Rainbow, Immigration Lawyer, In Search of Utopia, Wizbang, A North American Patriot, Nice Doggy, Bill Quick, Beyond Borders, Immigration Watchdog, Freedom Nation, A Certain Slant of Light, La Shawn Barber, HCS's and Gen's Place, Wizbang, again, No Speed Bumps, Arthur Chrenkoff, Narcissistic Views, Yippee Ki Yay, The Captain, Double Toothpicks, Right Wing News, Immigration Watchdog, Right Minded, Election 2008 Countdown, Beyond Borders Blog, Anderson@Large, Media Lies, Paxalles, Area 417, Hopperbach, Blogcritics, Mark's Forum, Three Knockdown Rule, Liberal Lie, Conservative Truth
TAGS: Mexico, border, immigration, refugees, U.N., Muslim, Islam, jihad, terrorists, Aztlan, al Andalus
South Africa as dangerous as Iraq
A South African opposition politician has charged that the murder rate in South Africa, 43 per 100,000, is roughly equal to Iraq's. That's pretty bad. Iraq is a country at war with itself and South Africa claims to be a developed nation. Of course, there are still a lot of unmarked mass grave to be found in Iraq, which could put that country back in the lead as the world's most dangerous place.
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
Stunning development in stem cell research
British scientists have grown stem cells from umbilical cord cells and grown them into new liver tissue. Using techniques developed on board the international space station, the scientists say that they may be able to use this technique to duplicate the 200 to 300 different types of tissues that comprise the human body. This would allow the repair, replacement and treatment of a whole host of diseases such as liver disease, diabetes, strokes and heart conditions.
TAGS: stem cell, research, British, umbilical cord, embryonic stem cells,
"Acquiring stem cells from embryos also has major limitations because it is difficult to obtain enough cells to transplant, as well as getting the right tissue type for the patient," Dr McGuckin said. "Using cord blood gets over that obstacle because we can produce more stem cells, and, with a global birth rate of 100 million babies a year, there is a better chance of getting the right tissue type for the many patients out there waiting for stem cell therapy."The stem cells are produced in a weightless atmosphere which prevents the cells from determining which way is up and the cells can't begin to develop into unwanted tissue. Stem cell therapy holds the promise of treatment for diseases and injuries, like spinal cord injuries, that currently have no effective treatment. Obviously, using umbilical cord blood instead of embryonic stem cells also avoids a whole host of moral and religious contentiousness.
TAGS: stem cell, research, British, umbilical cord, embryonic stem cells,
Annan and his U. N. digging deeper hole
More shoes drop on Kofi Annan and the staggering United Nations. Those people must feel like they're sitting under a well shod millipede. First comes Sen. Norm Coleman who is co-sponsoring a bill with Sen. Richard Lugar to withhold dues to the U. N. if reforms aren't instituted. With Lugar, head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on board, the bill is probably a done deal. It's nice to see Dick Lugar getting off his dead ass for a change.
And, as if to put an exclamation on the point that the U.N. is in need of fresh leadership and an extreme makeover, comes this report that the U. N.'s United Nations Development Program, working through yet another U.N. agency called Program of Assistance to the Palestinian People, gave money to the Palestinian Withdrawal Committee to "help the Palestinian Authority communicate to the populace about the withdrawal and its economic and social impact." Think of the salaries and overhead involved here. Anyway, The Palestinians spent the money to produce thousands of banners, signs, mugs and T-shirts reading, "Today Gaza and Tomorrow the West Bank and Jerusalem." All part of a campaign by the Palestinians to portray Israel's pullout from the Gaza Strip as a great victory for the Intifada. The U.N.'s defense? UNDP spokesman, William Orme, said that the UNDP was not told about the propaganda campaign or about the slogan. In other words, the U.N. had no idea where the money was to be spent. Great.
Oh, but that ain't all, not by a long shot. Carina Perelli, head of the U.N.'s Electoral Assistance Division, has been formally charged after a review into claims of an abusive and sexually offensive environment in her division. Perelli had been under investigation since April, after a U.N.-commissioned management review quoted staff as saying "sexual innuendo is part of the `fabric'" of the Electoral Assistance Division. She is also being investigated for permitting some staff to spend electoral money on inappropriate travel and to pay for a university degree for one worker.
All this in addition to sexual harassment charges against U.N. refugee chief Ruud Lubbers, forcing his resignation, formal criminal charges of accepting kickbacks in the massive Oil-for-Food scandal against Benon Sevon, forcing his resignation (after a two year paid vacation in Australia), investigations into Kofi Annan's son's involvement in the Oil-for-Food scandal, investigations of Kofi Annan's brother for accepting bribes in the U.N. procurement division, a guilty plea for accepting bribes by procurement officer Alexander Yakovlev, and numerous well documented charges of sexual exploitation and pedophilia by U.N. peacekeepers in Congo, Bosnia and elsewhere. Whew!
Sen. Coleman says, "If they don't put in place a system of management reform that provides for greater accountability ... they're not going to be worried about withholding of money, they're going to be worried about Congress simply not appropriating money. That's what's going to happen." To explain the significance of that threat, Congress can appropriate the money but withhold payment until satisfied with reform progress, which would include Annan's resignation. If Congress gets angry enough to refuse to appropriate money, then the gigantic, tottering U.N. bureaucracy would be S.O.L. for 60% of its operating budget for a full year. Ouch! I would hazard a guess that if the U.N. bureaucrats really thought that 60% of them were going to get the ax, it would be Annan, anon..
TAGS: United Nations, Kofi Annan, Yakovlev, corruption, Benon Sevon, Norm Coleman, Richard Lugar, peacekeepers, sexual harassment, bribes, kickbacks
And, as if to put an exclamation on the point that the U.N. is in need of fresh leadership and an extreme makeover, comes this report that the U. N.'s United Nations Development Program, working through yet another U.N. agency called Program of Assistance to the Palestinian People, gave money to the Palestinian Withdrawal Committee to "help the Palestinian Authority communicate to the populace about the withdrawal and its economic and social impact." Think of the salaries and overhead involved here. Anyway, The Palestinians spent the money to produce thousands of banners, signs, mugs and T-shirts reading, "Today Gaza and Tomorrow the West Bank and Jerusalem." All part of a campaign by the Palestinians to portray Israel's pullout from the Gaza Strip as a great victory for the Intifada. The U.N.'s defense? UNDP spokesman, William Orme, said that the UNDP was not told about the propaganda campaign or about the slogan. In other words, the U.N. had no idea where the money was to be spent. Great.
Oh, but that ain't all, not by a long shot. Carina Perelli, head of the U.N.'s Electoral Assistance Division, has been formally charged after a review into claims of an abusive and sexually offensive environment in her division. Perelli had been under investigation since April, after a U.N.-commissioned management review quoted staff as saying "sexual innuendo is part of the `fabric'" of the Electoral Assistance Division. She is also being investigated for permitting some staff to spend electoral money on inappropriate travel and to pay for a university degree for one worker.
All this in addition to sexual harassment charges against U.N. refugee chief Ruud Lubbers, forcing his resignation, formal criminal charges of accepting kickbacks in the massive Oil-for-Food scandal against Benon Sevon, forcing his resignation (after a two year paid vacation in Australia), investigations into Kofi Annan's son's involvement in the Oil-for-Food scandal, investigations of Kofi Annan's brother for accepting bribes in the U.N. procurement division, a guilty plea for accepting bribes by procurement officer Alexander Yakovlev, and numerous well documented charges of sexual exploitation and pedophilia by U.N. peacekeepers in Congo, Bosnia and elsewhere. Whew!
Sen. Coleman says, "If they don't put in place a system of management reform that provides for greater accountability ... they're not going to be worried about withholding of money, they're going to be worried about Congress simply not appropriating money. That's what's going to happen." To explain the significance of that threat, Congress can appropriate the money but withhold payment until satisfied with reform progress, which would include Annan's resignation. If Congress gets angry enough to refuse to appropriate money, then the gigantic, tottering U.N. bureaucracy would be S.O.L. for 60% of its operating budget for a full year. Ouch! I would hazard a guess that if the U.N. bureaucrats really thought that 60% of them were going to get the ax, it would be Annan, anon..
TAGS: United Nations, Kofi Annan, Yakovlev, corruption, Benon Sevon, Norm Coleman, Richard Lugar, peacekeepers, sexual harassment, bribes, kickbacks
Just don't call me Johnson
This poor lady probably has grounds for a libel suit. She received her monthly bill from Comcast and it was in the name of "Bitch Dog". Maybe they just couldn't spell LaChania (too many capital letters). And so does this guy, who received his bill from People's Energy addressed to "scrotum bag". Maybe those people couldn't spell Jefferoy (too many e's). Look, if you can't carry monikers that are simple, like John or Mary, you deserve what you get, Ms. Bitch Dog and Mr. scrotum bag. I receive all my bills addressed to "Emperor of the North Pole" so as to avoid confusion with any other emperors on the customer lists and preclude libel suits.
Why I don't go to the movies
I don't go to the movies too much anymore, and this is the biggest reason why. The business is populated by a bunch of sixth graders.
Sebastian Holsclaw tells it righteously
Sebastian Holsclaw at Obsidian Wings says to let this do the talking for Cindy Sheehan. Sebastian intimates that a "smear campaign" is being waged against Sheehan and that such a campaign is "not only awful, it is also counterproductive." He's right, although I think one can draw a clear line between presenting facts and opinion on one side and a smear campaign on the other. Disagreeing with Sheehan, as the majority clearly do; accusing her of besmirching the memory of her fallen soldier son, as other mothers and fathers of fallen children have done; begging her to desist and come back home, as most of her family has done; pointing out the MSM's fascination with her at the expense of our fighting men and women, which is clearly the case here; identifying some of her most vociferous supporters as those who have stated on the record that the deaths of our sons and daughters, including hers, is justified; none of those things, to my mind, comprise a smear. On the other hand, accusing her of knowingly accepting the support of the American Communist Party, as even I did here, is a stretch and could justifiably be argued as constituting a smear.
I think that Sebastian is right. Just let her talk and the agenda will become clear.
TAGS: Iraq, war on terror, Cindy Sheehan, politics
I think that Sebastian is right. Just let her talk and the agenda will become clear.
TAGS: Iraq, war on terror, Cindy Sheehan, politics
Wall falls on 9/11 commission
The 9/11 commission's credibility is getting buried under a ton of debris as "The Wall" falls on it. Mary Jo White's prescient warnings in 1995 to Janet Reno and Jamie Gorelick has fallen into the nefarious hands of The New York Post. The 9/11 commission was also privy to these memos from White but chose not to mention them, presumably because Gorelick was a member of the commission.
OK, let's see what everybody else is saying:
The Anchoress is getting confused. I think that is the intent.
Betsy at Betsy's Page asks, "If they couldn't be fully honest about this part of the history, what else might they have been ignoring or downplaying?"
The Captain says, "Once again, the 9/11 Commission gets exposed as a dangerous cover-your-ass effort by bureaucrats who made national security an almost impossible task for operational units. Again, we ask: what else got left out of the report?"
Ranting Profs says, "Several former senior officials in the Clinton administration did not return phone calls this week seeking comment on the newly declassified documents. I'll bet."
Wizbang says, "Remember, this was at the exact time Clinton accused Lewinsky of telling people about the affair. Clearly he knew the Presidency was in jeopardy. Do you think maybe he was distracted?"
Patrick Ruffini says, "'Finally confirmed, officially' are weasel words from the pre-9/11 days when we mistakenly believed anti-terrorism was just gumshoe work. It's a sign that the Clinton perspective on national security hasn't changed much since that pleasant sojourn from history."
Jon Henke at QandO says, "He should not, however, pretend that he would have been a regular President John Wayne had he only known who was behind the attack."
Austin Bay, who has been there and done that, says, "If Jamie Gorelick wasn’t the weakest commission member, she was the most compromised."
John (not Juan) Cole at Balloon Juice says, "Again, while all the second-guessing is interesting (and goodness knows the Democrats would be trumpeting this were roles reversed), what is more interesting is why this is all coming out right now." I think that's being a bit cynical, John, but then you are talking about politics, aren't you?
Marc at USS Neverdock says, "No wonder Jamie Gorelick was on the 9/11 commission."
Ace from his HQ says, "Hmmm... didn't I just cover the Mary Jo White memo last week? And how she pled to tear down Jamie Gorelick's Wall of Silence, and warned it would end in tragedy?" ("pled" may look strange but is an acceptable past tense and past participle of "plead", as is "pleaded".)
TAGS: 9/11, Jamie Gorelick, Janet Reno, 9/11 Commission, Mohammed Atta, hijackers, incompetence, Able-Danger, Curt Weldon, Mary Jo White, The Wall
"This is not an area where it is safe or prudent to build unnecessary walls or to compartmentalize our knowledge of any possible players, plans or activities."So, in the past two weeks we have this development and then, just yesterday, this bombshell. And now, today, we've got the White memos.
"The single biggest mistake we can make in attempting to combat terrorism is to insulate the criminal side of the house from the intelligence side of the house, unless such insulation is absolutely necessary. Excessive conservatism . . . can have deadly results."
"We must face the reality that the way we are proceeding now is inherently and in actuality very dangerous."
"What troubles me even more than the known problems we have encountered are the undoubtedly countless instances of unshared and unacted-upon information that reside in some file or other or in some head or other or in some unreviewed or not fully understood tape or other."
"These can be disasters waiting to happen."
OK, let's see what everybody else is saying:
The Anchoress is getting confused. I think that is the intent.
Betsy at Betsy's Page asks, "If they couldn't be fully honest about this part of the history, what else might they have been ignoring or downplaying?"
The Captain says, "Once again, the 9/11 Commission gets exposed as a dangerous cover-your-ass effort by bureaucrats who made national security an almost impossible task for operational units. Again, we ask: what else got left out of the report?"
Ranting Profs says, "Several former senior officials in the Clinton administration did not return phone calls this week seeking comment on the newly declassified documents. I'll bet."
Wizbang says, "Remember, this was at the exact time Clinton accused Lewinsky of telling people about the affair. Clearly he knew the Presidency was in jeopardy. Do you think maybe he was distracted?"
Patrick Ruffini says, "'Finally confirmed, officially' are weasel words from the pre-9/11 days when we mistakenly believed anti-terrorism was just gumshoe work. It's a sign that the Clinton perspective on national security hasn't changed much since that pleasant sojourn from history."
Jon Henke at QandO says, "He should not, however, pretend that he would have been a regular President John Wayne had he only known who was behind the attack."
Austin Bay, who has been there and done that, says, "If Jamie Gorelick wasn’t the weakest commission member, she was the most compromised."
John (not Juan) Cole at Balloon Juice says, "Again, while all the second-guessing is interesting (and goodness knows the Democrats would be trumpeting this were roles reversed), what is more interesting is why this is all coming out right now." I think that's being a bit cynical, John, but then you are talking about politics, aren't you?
Marc at USS Neverdock says, "No wonder Jamie Gorelick was on the 9/11 commission."
Ace from his HQ says, "Hmmm... didn't I just cover the Mary Jo White memo last week? And how she pled to tear down Jamie Gorelick's Wall of Silence, and warned it would end in tragedy?" ("pled" may look strange but is an acceptable past tense and past participle of "plead", as is "pleaded".)
TAGS: 9/11, Jamie Gorelick, Janet Reno, 9/11 Commission, Mohammed Atta, hijackers, incompetence, Able-Danger, Curt Weldon, Mary Jo White, The Wall
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)