Martha Stewart: Convicted Felon...
So Martha has been found guilty of something. At this point, information is all over the blogosphere and I'm not quite sure as to what they found her guilty of, or why, but I will chime in (tentatively).
My view of this case is that Martha is the victim of an unusal set of circumstances, as follows:
1. Her broker got a hot tip, or inferred hot info based on another client's actions, and as she was a big-money client, he let her know. He knew where his (and the firm's) bread was buttered.
2. Martha was in a position to VERIFY this tip with the CEO of the company in question (ImClone).
3. She then lied, or at least, stretched/obscurd the truth when the SEC came knocking at her door.
4. She's a rich woman and a celebrity.
Without knowing everything said in the courtroom or the evidence presented, let's bear a few things in mind:
1. This kind of stuff happens in the Securities buisness ALL THE TIME. Rest asured that if your broker calls you with information, he has already taken care of his larger clients, and the firm has made it's money, now it's his turn to drum up a commission.
2. The Federal Government has NEVER adequately defined the concept of "Insider Trading". Based on my own experience (18 years of it) on Wall Street, all they do is trade on inside information. The difference is that this was not made immediately public (i.e. that ImClone was going to get turned down by the FDA). If you do not believe in the concept of insider information, I submit for your cogitation the name SIAC.
SIAC is the clearing house for most financial info and news for the street.
3. The same folks after Martha for making 40+K on a hot tip, somehow neglected to look into Hilary Clinton's amazing 100K profit on a cattle venture that went bust.
4. In the end, the broker is "guilty" of doing his job: protecting his client's position. He cut corners, but he had an ethical responsibility to let her know what he knew or to at least let her know something was up, even if not in so many words.
5. Martha got the info from the horse mouth (i.e. Waksal) right after she called. The average person does not have this capability.
So, what really is Martha guilty of? Lying to the Feds? Probably, but I think that's understandable. I wouldn't doubt they leaned on her hard initially. But insider trading? Give me a break. The myth of Chinese Walls disappeared a VERY long time ago and to pretend otherwise is ludicrous. Martha is being prosecuted because of who she is and because of who she was connected to. End of story.
Friday, March 05, 2004
Thursday, March 04, 2004
Why I love Lileks...
If you haven't heard of or read James Lileks, you must be living in a cave. Here's an intersting article he wrote concerning a major diference between Bush and Kerry:
http://www.nola.com/search/index.ssf?/base/news-0/107830235847020.xml?nola
Yep, that about sums it up. That's the paternalistic impulse of most liberals (small "L" deliberate): stop it ,kids, or I'll send you to your room. Don't MAKE me come up there! No dessert for you, now go stand in the corner.
Kerry suffers from the same disease that most democrats (small "d" intentional) suffer from: they are afraid, scared shitless, to exercise power, unless it is the power to tax us to death and give the money to someone else.
This is because thay have leraned the wrong lessons about the proper use of power (whether military, political or economic). Their thinking is still skewed by the examples of Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Clinton, who applied American power in totally inappropriate ways.
Truman tethered the United States to the United Nations, and thus achieved a stalemate that still exists. There is no, and never has been, any formal agreement to cease hostilities between North and South Korea. Truman should have stood up to China when he had the opportunity and failed to do so because he was afraid of the spectre of intervention by the Soviet Union (Stalin however, had no such concerns. Russian "advisors" were in combat daily with the U.S. Air Force and Naval Aviation).
Kennedy and LBJ tried to restrain American power within the bounds of limited political objectives, to the exclusion of the MAIN political objective: keeping South Vietnam free and (somewhat) democratic. They also lost the public relations war because every time American troops had a success, it was reported a s a failure somewhere else. For example, the Tet offensive practically wiped out the Viet Cong as a viable force, but Johnson never insisted on a follow up that might have seen American troops cross the DMZ and put an end to Vietnamese communism for a generation or so. Instead, Americans saw pictures of their embassy under attack and smelled defeat.
As for Carter, a third-rate theocratic regime in black pajamas held this country hostage for 444 days. When American power was exercised (the ill-fated Operation Eagle) the failure was an excuse to not try it again, or to not try something else. The Iranians were able to score a propaganda victory and escape punishment for daring to challenge the United States. The potential for the American Big Stick was thought to be threat enough while "negotiations' went on. Sometimes the Stick has to be displayed menacingly enough to make it a potential reality. Instead, Carter folded and encouraged an entire generation of religious fanatics to be bolder and more destructive. Witness 9/11.
Clinton, of course, had no trouble unleashing the U.S. Military on Christians in Texas, but couldn't get around to beating up a tin-pot, drug-dealing marauder in Mogadishu because that would have involved sending tanks there. That would seem too much like an occupation. Then again, that ill-concieved mission was thrust upn us by the United Nations. Clinton was of the mind that if he just let international organizations take care of foreign policy he could just concentrate on domestic stuff, like burning a building full of right-wing religious nuts. Clinto, need I remind anyone, is the guy who put Aristede in power in Haiti. I guess putting a dictator in priest's clothing into a position of authority was a good use of American power.
The lesson that is learned from all of this is that a democrat can usually be counted upon to miss the point of any exercise of influence --- which is to actually influence stuff, anything at all.
Time may prove George W. Bush wrong, but for the time being, it doesn't look that way. For now it looks like a constructive and effective example of how one exercises power and influence. Treating the world as if it's full of four year olds is NOT the way to do it.
If you haven't heard of or read James Lileks, you must be living in a cave. Here's an intersting article he wrote concerning a major diference between Bush and Kerry:
http://www.nola.com/search/index.ssf?/base/news-0/107830235847020.xml?nola
Yep, that about sums it up. That's the paternalistic impulse of most liberals (small "L" deliberate): stop it ,kids, or I'll send you to your room. Don't MAKE me come up there! No dessert for you, now go stand in the corner.
Kerry suffers from the same disease that most democrats (small "d" intentional) suffer from: they are afraid, scared shitless, to exercise power, unless it is the power to tax us to death and give the money to someone else.
This is because thay have leraned the wrong lessons about the proper use of power (whether military, political or economic). Their thinking is still skewed by the examples of Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Clinton, who applied American power in totally inappropriate ways.
Truman tethered the United States to the United Nations, and thus achieved a stalemate that still exists. There is no, and never has been, any formal agreement to cease hostilities between North and South Korea. Truman should have stood up to China when he had the opportunity and failed to do so because he was afraid of the spectre of intervention by the Soviet Union (Stalin however, had no such concerns. Russian "advisors" were in combat daily with the U.S. Air Force and Naval Aviation).
Kennedy and LBJ tried to restrain American power within the bounds of limited political objectives, to the exclusion of the MAIN political objective: keeping South Vietnam free and (somewhat) democratic. They also lost the public relations war because every time American troops had a success, it was reported a s a failure somewhere else. For example, the Tet offensive practically wiped out the Viet Cong as a viable force, but Johnson never insisted on a follow up that might have seen American troops cross the DMZ and put an end to Vietnamese communism for a generation or so. Instead, Americans saw pictures of their embassy under attack and smelled defeat.
As for Carter, a third-rate theocratic regime in black pajamas held this country hostage for 444 days. When American power was exercised (the ill-fated Operation Eagle) the failure was an excuse to not try it again, or to not try something else. The Iranians were able to score a propaganda victory and escape punishment for daring to challenge the United States. The potential for the American Big Stick was thought to be threat enough while "negotiations' went on. Sometimes the Stick has to be displayed menacingly enough to make it a potential reality. Instead, Carter folded and encouraged an entire generation of religious fanatics to be bolder and more destructive. Witness 9/11.
Clinton, of course, had no trouble unleashing the U.S. Military on Christians in Texas, but couldn't get around to beating up a tin-pot, drug-dealing marauder in Mogadishu because that would have involved sending tanks there. That would seem too much like an occupation. Then again, that ill-concieved mission was thrust upn us by the United Nations. Clinton was of the mind that if he just let international organizations take care of foreign policy he could just concentrate on domestic stuff, like burning a building full of right-wing religious nuts. Clinto, need I remind anyone, is the guy who put Aristede in power in Haiti. I guess putting a dictator in priest's clothing into a position of authority was a good use of American power.
The lesson that is learned from all of this is that a democrat can usually be counted upon to miss the point of any exercise of influence --- which is to actually influence stuff, anything at all.
Time may prove George W. Bush wrong, but for the time being, it doesn't look that way. For now it looks like a constructive and effective example of how one exercises power and influence. Treating the world as if it's full of four year olds is NOT the way to do it.
Trees and Forests...
Lifted from FreeRepublic.com (The same article apeared in the NYPost today):
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1090557/posts
I have several issues with some of the things said in this report by the relatives of the 9/11 dead. I think there are some people (understandably) that are letting their grief do their thinking for them.
The brouhaha is over the use of 9/11 as a campaign war cry and the apparent lack of taste such use implies. This, I remind you, comes from people who have forgotten the other 9 million people in this city and would love to see "Ground Zero" turned into a Disneyland of grief with a 19 acre memorial. Talk about poor taste?
There are some of us, like ,myself, that were fortunate and were not injured, nor did we lose family and friends, but who are also scarred by the events of 9/11. While we understand the need to remember, we also do not see the need to keep prime commercial real-estate vacant. We need jobs, the City needs money and business needs a place to conduct business if this City is to recover and survive. Your grief and bitterness do not entitle you to keep the rest of us hostage to your whims, and some of you should stop wearing 9/11 as a badge entitling you to dictate the course of events. We have an elected government for that and people with investment capital to spend to help it along.
In that regard, some of the things said in that article rub me the wrong way. Especially the remarks about Bush having the nerve to refer to 9/11 when it occured on his watch.
True, Bush was in the White House and granted, the intelligence services and law enforcement failed us on that day. However, I remind you that Bill Clinton was offered Osama's head three seperate times and refused, presumably because he was too busy screwing the hired help. We must also take into account that Al Gore's tantrum in November 2000-January 2001 prevented Bush from getting his team in place, possibly in time to do something, anything, about 9/11 before it occured. That, of course, is pure conjecture on my part. This does not obsolve Bush and Co of all responsibility for someone being asleep at the wheel, but it does mitigate the circumstances somewhat. I can guarentee you that had Al Gore been in the White House, we'd still be having our giant Oprah-moment and not fighting back.
Does the use of 9/11 as a campaign issue smack of poor taste? Debatable, in my opinion. I can tell you that any politician worth his salt would use 9/11 in some form to make his case for either keeping his job or of replacing the encumbant. Democrats, of course, would use it emotionally, Republicans tend to think of it as being used logically. Regardless, someone would have used it.
However, Bush is actually doing something about 9/11 and when viewed in that light, I don't see the problem. We've scattered the Taliban, removed a dangerous regime in Baghdad and gotten the Libyans to play ball. We've idenitifed (finally) our enemies as such, and we're working towards solutions. Those solutions may not be to everyone's tastes, but they are still better options than launching cruise missiles at aspirin factories, which was the previous administration's modus operandi.
The only way to prevent more 9/11's is to exercise American power, something that has been out of fashion for the last 30 years or so. I'm not talking about bombing the rest of the world flat (although some places deserve it), but using American power and influence to change things for the better. Have a disgusting dictator who threatens the world with WMD's and the support of terrorism? Invade his country and eliminate him. Got a madman in the mountains of Afghanistan with a God complex and a shitload of money? Kill or capture him before he becomes Dr. No.
It just makes sense.
I personally do not see any problem with Bush using 9/11 as a politial issue when you consider that his potential opponents would rather have American policy and defense subordinated to the United Nations or France. Espcially when the opposition's solution revolves around pap psychology and flawed theories/beliefs about the efficacy of international law.
We are committed to a course of action now, for better or for worse, and to continue on the present course makes more sense than to have gone this far only to pull up stakes and pack the tent away, which is what John Kerry would do. Unfortunately, there are some people out there who still don't get it and they need reminders in any way, shape or form they can get them, because the average attention span is measured in MPH. If a Bush commercial depicts the events of 9/11, so much the better, because a picture is worth a thousand words.
Sometimes you have to shock and outrage to get your message across.
Lifted from FreeRepublic.com (The same article apeared in the NYPost today):
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1090557/posts
I have several issues with some of the things said in this report by the relatives of the 9/11 dead. I think there are some people (understandably) that are letting their grief do their thinking for them.
The brouhaha is over the use of 9/11 as a campaign war cry and the apparent lack of taste such use implies. This, I remind you, comes from people who have forgotten the other 9 million people in this city and would love to see "Ground Zero" turned into a Disneyland of grief with a 19 acre memorial. Talk about poor taste?
There are some of us, like ,myself, that were fortunate and were not injured, nor did we lose family and friends, but who are also scarred by the events of 9/11. While we understand the need to remember, we also do not see the need to keep prime commercial real-estate vacant. We need jobs, the City needs money and business needs a place to conduct business if this City is to recover and survive. Your grief and bitterness do not entitle you to keep the rest of us hostage to your whims, and some of you should stop wearing 9/11 as a badge entitling you to dictate the course of events. We have an elected government for that and people with investment capital to spend to help it along.
In that regard, some of the things said in that article rub me the wrong way. Especially the remarks about Bush having the nerve to refer to 9/11 when it occured on his watch.
True, Bush was in the White House and granted, the intelligence services and law enforcement failed us on that day. However, I remind you that Bill Clinton was offered Osama's head three seperate times and refused, presumably because he was too busy screwing the hired help. We must also take into account that Al Gore's tantrum in November 2000-January 2001 prevented Bush from getting his team in place, possibly in time to do something, anything, about 9/11 before it occured. That, of course, is pure conjecture on my part. This does not obsolve Bush and Co of all responsibility for someone being asleep at the wheel, but it does mitigate the circumstances somewhat. I can guarentee you that had Al Gore been in the White House, we'd still be having our giant Oprah-moment and not fighting back.
Does the use of 9/11 as a campaign issue smack of poor taste? Debatable, in my opinion. I can tell you that any politician worth his salt would use 9/11 in some form to make his case for either keeping his job or of replacing the encumbant. Democrats, of course, would use it emotionally, Republicans tend to think of it as being used logically. Regardless, someone would have used it.
However, Bush is actually doing something about 9/11 and when viewed in that light, I don't see the problem. We've scattered the Taliban, removed a dangerous regime in Baghdad and gotten the Libyans to play ball. We've idenitifed (finally) our enemies as such, and we're working towards solutions. Those solutions may not be to everyone's tastes, but they are still better options than launching cruise missiles at aspirin factories, which was the previous administration's modus operandi.
The only way to prevent more 9/11's is to exercise American power, something that has been out of fashion for the last 30 years or so. I'm not talking about bombing the rest of the world flat (although some places deserve it), but using American power and influence to change things for the better. Have a disgusting dictator who threatens the world with WMD's and the support of terrorism? Invade his country and eliminate him. Got a madman in the mountains of Afghanistan with a God complex and a shitload of money? Kill or capture him before he becomes Dr. No.
It just makes sense.
I personally do not see any problem with Bush using 9/11 as a politial issue when you consider that his potential opponents would rather have American policy and defense subordinated to the United Nations or France. Espcially when the opposition's solution revolves around pap psychology and flawed theories/beliefs about the efficacy of international law.
We are committed to a course of action now, for better or for worse, and to continue on the present course makes more sense than to have gone this far only to pull up stakes and pack the tent away, which is what John Kerry would do. Unfortunately, there are some people out there who still don't get it and they need reminders in any way, shape or form they can get them, because the average attention span is measured in MPH. If a Bush commercial depicts the events of 9/11, so much the better, because a picture is worth a thousand words.
Sometimes you have to shock and outrage to get your message across.
Tuesday, March 02, 2004
How to Fix Haiti (and other helpful household hints)...What I'm about to advocate may shock and alarm you, but it just might work. I expect to get flamed for it, but I feel it should be atleast thought about by someone in a position to actually do it.
Haiti is a mess. Mexico is a mess. There are at least two dozen shitholes on the world map that resemble countries in that they have borders (usually arbitrarily drawn) and things that sorta-kinda look like civilization, but which cannot, for a variety of reasons, pull together something that actually IS a country.
There is a solution, although many people would consider it "politically incorrect" or a manifestation of "imperialism", but it has worked in the past and would work just as well in this day and age if it hadn't fallen out of favor.
The solution is colonization.
The fastest way to fix Haiti would be to send three or four thousand Americans there for five years. We're not talking Marines, government technicians, of NGO's here, we're talking Joe and Jane Average from Butte, Montana, or the John Q. Public family of Racine, Illinois. Send these folks on a Survivor-like trek through the hinterlands of Port-au-Prince. Deny them television, shopping malls, telephones and running water, supply them with enough money, and then watch them get to work.
No running water? No problem. An American would hire people with the expertise in wells, plumbing, purification and sewage. Next thing you know, clean running water. Junior can't get an education? Someone builds a school-like building and hires a teacher lady, next thing ya know, Junior's taking the Harvard entrance exam. Nothing resembling a representational republic that defends the country and pick up the trash? Watch 'em start delegating authority amongst themselves.
Tell an American he can't have something and just watch how quickly that something materializes.
And when the five years are up, and Haitians have running water, schools, medicial clinics with real doctors, television and newspapers, a philharmonic, and maybe even a hockey team, send 'em home. In the meantime, enough of civilization willhave rubbed off on the Haitians to allw them to keep up what has been left for them. Do this and a place like Haiti would be revolutionized (nicely and correctly) within a year.
We (meaning Westerners) used to do this, until we got guilty about it and invented political correctness. It worked for the Roman Empire, it worked for the British and it would work right here on our own doorstep. Give Haiti (or anyplace else) the same expectations for life, the human and economic potential of Terre Haute, Indiana, and watch civilized governments, roads, medicine and higher standards of living blossom.
Mao once said "let a thousand flowers bloom", and he was right, only his fertilizer was discharged from the barrel of a gun. The same can be said of Cuba, Haiti and Afghanistan. Let's see what happens when you have a different gardener.
Haiti is a mess. Mexico is a mess. There are at least two dozen shitholes on the world map that resemble countries in that they have borders (usually arbitrarily drawn) and things that sorta-kinda look like civilization, but which cannot, for a variety of reasons, pull together something that actually IS a country.
There is a solution, although many people would consider it "politically incorrect" or a manifestation of "imperialism", but it has worked in the past and would work just as well in this day and age if it hadn't fallen out of favor.
The solution is colonization.
The fastest way to fix Haiti would be to send three or four thousand Americans there for five years. We're not talking Marines, government technicians, of NGO's here, we're talking Joe and Jane Average from Butte, Montana, or the John Q. Public family of Racine, Illinois. Send these folks on a Survivor-like trek through the hinterlands of Port-au-Prince. Deny them television, shopping malls, telephones and running water, supply them with enough money, and then watch them get to work.
No running water? No problem. An American would hire people with the expertise in wells, plumbing, purification and sewage. Next thing you know, clean running water. Junior can't get an education? Someone builds a school-like building and hires a teacher lady, next thing ya know, Junior's taking the Harvard entrance exam. Nothing resembling a representational republic that defends the country and pick up the trash? Watch 'em start delegating authority amongst themselves.
Tell an American he can't have something and just watch how quickly that something materializes.
And when the five years are up, and Haitians have running water, schools, medicial clinics with real doctors, television and newspapers, a philharmonic, and maybe even a hockey team, send 'em home. In the meantime, enough of civilization willhave rubbed off on the Haitians to allw them to keep up what has been left for them. Do this and a place like Haiti would be revolutionized (nicely and correctly) within a year.
We (meaning Westerners) used to do this, until we got guilty about it and invented political correctness. It worked for the Roman Empire, it worked for the British and it would work right here on our own doorstep. Give Haiti (or anyplace else) the same expectations for life, the human and economic potential of Terre Haute, Indiana, and watch civilized governments, roads, medicine and higher standards of living blossom.
Mao once said "let a thousand flowers bloom", and he was right, only his fertilizer was discharged from the barrel of a gun. The same can be said of Cuba, Haiti and Afghanistan. Let's see what happens when you have a different gardener.
Understand This..
Read This post from Freeperville:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1088666/posts
And then my response:
I'm pretty sick and tired of the rest of the world (and the whining panywaists in this country)that believe the solution to every issue is for AMERICANS to make the first move, for AMERICANS to make a sacrifice, for AMERICANS to make an attempt to understand.
Maybe it's about time the rest of the world tried to understand US for a change? After all, that seems to be the whole crux of the matter, isn't it, this lack of understanding?
I guess Westerners, and in particular, Americans perplex the Arab world so much that the only way to furtehr the cause of comprehension is to run an airliner into an office building. I'm reminded of the anology that states that if you try to teach a chimp to write, he eventually gets frustrated and stick the pen in your eye. That seems appropos here.
Americans have, in the past, attempted to save Arabs from other Westerners (Kosovo), from each other (Two Gulf Wars), from destruction and imperialism from other western nations (the French problems in Post-WWII Algeria, for example have their roots in the American belief in self-determination), or from Israel, as Western a nation as one is liable to find anywhere. Israeli restraint is directly tied to American diplomacy and aid, otherwise, there would be Synagoue in place of the Pyramids.
In the meantime, Americans have fed the world's hungry, invested in the oilfields of the Middle East and defended them with thier own blood, and have never asked for a blessed thing in return.
Ergo, chimps and writing implements.
If we wanted your resources, we could have stolen them in 1991, instead we went home, and now pay close to $2 for gas. If we wanted your land, we could have occupied it a million times over, instead we went home. If we wanted to destroy your culture, there would be a mushroom cloud over Mecca. Instead, the country that has the ability to wipe you off the planet, and doesn't, gets castigated as a morally inferior people, while yours do their level best to blow up daycare centers, because God told you to. I understand, already, how f***ked up YOU people are.
To the Arab world and their apologists, I say this: I can guarentee you that 9.5 out of 10 Americans cannot find Jordan on a map. I can further guarentee that 12 out of 10 wouldn't make an effort to find out where it was, unless Jordan somehow managed to get into the Super Bowl. None of us can tell the difference between a Sunni and Shi'ite, nor do we care. We don't have to -- we're Americans.
Read This post from Freeperville:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1088666/posts
And then my response:
I'm pretty sick and tired of the rest of the world (and the whining panywaists in this country)that believe the solution to every issue is for AMERICANS to make the first move, for AMERICANS to make a sacrifice, for AMERICANS to make an attempt to understand.
Maybe it's about time the rest of the world tried to understand US for a change? After all, that seems to be the whole crux of the matter, isn't it, this lack of understanding?
I guess Westerners, and in particular, Americans perplex the Arab world so much that the only way to furtehr the cause of comprehension is to run an airliner into an office building. I'm reminded of the anology that states that if you try to teach a chimp to write, he eventually gets frustrated and stick the pen in your eye. That seems appropos here.
Americans have, in the past, attempted to save Arabs from other Westerners (Kosovo), from each other (Two Gulf Wars), from destruction and imperialism from other western nations (the French problems in Post-WWII Algeria, for example have their roots in the American belief in self-determination), or from Israel, as Western a nation as one is liable to find anywhere. Israeli restraint is directly tied to American diplomacy and aid, otherwise, there would be Synagoue in place of the Pyramids.
In the meantime, Americans have fed the world's hungry, invested in the oilfields of the Middle East and defended them with thier own blood, and have never asked for a blessed thing in return.
Ergo, chimps and writing implements.
If we wanted your resources, we could have stolen them in 1991, instead we went home, and now pay close to $2 for gas. If we wanted your land, we could have occupied it a million times over, instead we went home. If we wanted to destroy your culture, there would be a mushroom cloud over Mecca. Instead, the country that has the ability to wipe you off the planet, and doesn't, gets castigated as a morally inferior people, while yours do their level best to blow up daycare centers, because God told you to. I understand, already, how f***ked up YOU people are.
To the Arab world and their apologists, I say this: I can guarentee you that 9.5 out of 10 Americans cannot find Jordan on a map. I can further guarentee that 12 out of 10 wouldn't make an effort to find out where it was, unless Jordan somehow managed to get into the Super Bowl. None of us can tell the difference between a Sunni and Shi'ite, nor do we care. We don't have to -- we're Americans.
Osama for Men....
Caught this on FreeRepublic:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1088782/posts
Imagine, a cologne named after and bearing the fcae of a mass murderer.
"Combining the exciting stench of rotting flesh, fresh from the cave, with just a hint of napalm. A scent guarenteed to get you the 72 virgins of your choice..."
And Muslims complain about crass AMERICAN consumerism and materialism?
Caught this on FreeRepublic:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1088782/posts
Imagine, a cologne named after and bearing the fcae of a mass murderer.
"Combining the exciting stench of rotting flesh, fresh from the cave, with just a hint of napalm. A scent guarenteed to get you the 72 virgins of your choice..."
And Muslims complain about crass AMERICAN consumerism and materialism?
Monday, March 01, 2004
The Dangers of Stress...
Lifted from the Financial Times of London, via Lucianne.com, and submitted for your perusal:
http://www.ftnewspaper.com/ftusa/hosting/jdi/JEFI1B0.html
If you're really intersted, please check out the comments for the thread in which this was posted on Lucianne's site. There's obviously a great deal of misunderstanding about the consequences of stress on the original thread. Most of the reaction tends towards condescension ("if you can't take the heat..."), or pious lectures ("We must understand that..."). What strikes me as funny about both extremes in the replies is that no one a) seems to take into account just what KINDS of stress cause people to completely lose their marbles and b) just how stress can turn an ordinary, well-adjusted person into either a vegetable or a homicidal maniac.
Well, I'm here to tell you all about stress and just what it can do to you. I did not choose the name of the blog by accident, you know. This is the Lunatic's Asylum for a reason; in the past year, I lost my marbles, big time. A combination of therapy and medications have got me as near normal as I'm ever going to get (normal itself is a relative term. After all, who defines normal?). But I can tell you that stress defininately put me in that position.
In addition to the "normal" stresses of family, job and the fast pace at which we all live, my stress included a few things that the typical stress victim might not always encounter in their daily lives. Being under an airliner as it slams into the largest building in New York City, certainly qualifies as unusual, I would think. Being covered in a layer of dust that used to be concrete, steel, glass and people, would also qualify. Watching people make the dreadful choice about whether to burn, get crushed or leap from 100 stories to their death doesn't help. In this regard, compared to a great many other New Yorkers, I'm not so unique, but when you consider that there are six billion-plus people on the planet, it does put me (and those like me) into an exclusive club.
Let's not forget the stresses those that engaged in rescue and clean-up operations after Spetember 11th were exposed to as well. It cannot be easy, to say the least, to pick through a twisted, burning, pile of steel and concrete, festooned with burnt body parts and the flotsam and jetsom of what used to be offices, your colleagues or your family memebers, with the added danger of the whole thing threatening to collapse and trap you in it as well.
That's stress. That's stress of astronomical proportions. if you''ve experienced anything like these stresses, you too would do things like, walk around armed, be paranoid, watch aircraft to the exclusion of all other activities. You too would jump at loud nosies, dive for cover when the lights flickered, or eye everyone as a (potential) deadly threat.
You might even go as far as to physically threaten someone who sneaked up on you, and since you might be armed, have the means to carry out such a threat. You might not sleep for days for fear of recurring nightmares, stop eating, drink yourself to sleep and often be oblivious as to where you are and what you're doing. You might even wear coats, with hood pulled over your head, at your desk, and perhaps spend time collecting survival gear, hoarding anti-biotics and buying ammunition for the expected Muslim invasion.
Then there are the stresses of everyday life, although I don't know how many of you are stopped multiple times a day by tourists seeking directions to the sight of a terrorist attack. Apparently, people need a map because they cannot find a smoking ruin that takes up 1/6th of the available real estate below Chambers Street without a guide. Many of them seem to need to bring their families with them, and a camcorder to record the event for posterity. A sort of Oprah-like "We were there moment". When you stop to consider that the place is a the scene of a ghastly mass-murder, it does in fact make one think about just how truly morbid, insensitive and stupid your fellow human beings are.
If terrorist actions, turning the scenes of terrorism into a sort of Disneyland, souvenir hunting, and the unbridled and tasteless capitalism that followed (every merchant in Chinatown had 9/11 or WTC T-shirts available for sale the following day, it seemed), don't turn you into an automaton that hates and is disgusted by his fellow human beings, I don't know what will.
I personally can now see why someone might snap and go ballistic in the Great Post Office of Society. I've been there, and fortunately, I didn't hurt anyone.
Just take this as a friendly reminder from your devoted blogger: Stress has the potential to kill, and not just you, but anyone you might choose to take with you, if you were so inclined. Take the time to smell the roses. Forget the fact that you have a deadline occasionally and go to a museum. Play with your kids. Read a good book. Take a walk in the woods somewhere. Life is short enough as it is without you doing your level best to shorten it even more.
And if you think you need it, get some help.
Lifted from the Financial Times of London, via Lucianne.com, and submitted for your perusal:
http://www.ftnewspaper.com/ftusa/hosting/jdi/JEFI1B0.html
If you're really intersted, please check out the comments for the thread in which this was posted on Lucianne's site. There's obviously a great deal of misunderstanding about the consequences of stress on the original thread. Most of the reaction tends towards condescension ("if you can't take the heat..."), or pious lectures ("We must understand that..."). What strikes me as funny about both extremes in the replies is that no one a) seems to take into account just what KINDS of stress cause people to completely lose their marbles and b) just how stress can turn an ordinary, well-adjusted person into either a vegetable or a homicidal maniac.
Well, I'm here to tell you all about stress and just what it can do to you. I did not choose the name of the blog by accident, you know. This is the Lunatic's Asylum for a reason; in the past year, I lost my marbles, big time. A combination of therapy and medications have got me as near normal as I'm ever going to get (normal itself is a relative term. After all, who defines normal?). But I can tell you that stress defininately put me in that position.
In addition to the "normal" stresses of family, job and the fast pace at which we all live, my stress included a few things that the typical stress victim might not always encounter in their daily lives. Being under an airliner as it slams into the largest building in New York City, certainly qualifies as unusual, I would think. Being covered in a layer of dust that used to be concrete, steel, glass and people, would also qualify. Watching people make the dreadful choice about whether to burn, get crushed or leap from 100 stories to their death doesn't help. In this regard, compared to a great many other New Yorkers, I'm not so unique, but when you consider that there are six billion-plus people on the planet, it does put me (and those like me) into an exclusive club.
Let's not forget the stresses those that engaged in rescue and clean-up operations after Spetember 11th were exposed to as well. It cannot be easy, to say the least, to pick through a twisted, burning, pile of steel and concrete, festooned with burnt body parts and the flotsam and jetsom of what used to be offices, your colleagues or your family memebers, with the added danger of the whole thing threatening to collapse and trap you in it as well.
That's stress. That's stress of astronomical proportions. if you''ve experienced anything like these stresses, you too would do things like, walk around armed, be paranoid, watch aircraft to the exclusion of all other activities. You too would jump at loud nosies, dive for cover when the lights flickered, or eye everyone as a (potential) deadly threat.
You might even go as far as to physically threaten someone who sneaked up on you, and since you might be armed, have the means to carry out such a threat. You might not sleep for days for fear of recurring nightmares, stop eating, drink yourself to sleep and often be oblivious as to where you are and what you're doing. You might even wear coats, with hood pulled over your head, at your desk, and perhaps spend time collecting survival gear, hoarding anti-biotics and buying ammunition for the expected Muslim invasion.
Then there are the stresses of everyday life, although I don't know how many of you are stopped multiple times a day by tourists seeking directions to the sight of a terrorist attack. Apparently, people need a map because they cannot find a smoking ruin that takes up 1/6th of the available real estate below Chambers Street without a guide. Many of them seem to need to bring their families with them, and a camcorder to record the event for posterity. A sort of Oprah-like "We were there moment". When you stop to consider that the place is a the scene of a ghastly mass-murder, it does in fact make one think about just how truly morbid, insensitive and stupid your fellow human beings are.
If terrorist actions, turning the scenes of terrorism into a sort of Disneyland, souvenir hunting, and the unbridled and tasteless capitalism that followed (every merchant in Chinatown had 9/11 or WTC T-shirts available for sale the following day, it seemed), don't turn you into an automaton that hates and is disgusted by his fellow human beings, I don't know what will.
I personally can now see why someone might snap and go ballistic in the Great Post Office of Society. I've been there, and fortunately, I didn't hurt anyone.
Just take this as a friendly reminder from your devoted blogger: Stress has the potential to kill, and not just you, but anyone you might choose to take with you, if you were so inclined. Take the time to smell the roses. Forget the fact that you have a deadline occasionally and go to a museum. Play with your kids. Read a good book. Take a walk in the woods somewhere. Life is short enough as it is without you doing your level best to shorten it even more.
And if you think you need it, get some help.
Sunday, February 29, 2004
An Open Letter to Andrew Sullivan
I have a great deal of respect for Andrew Sullivan. He is a fantastic writer and an usually clear thinker. I swear, I wish I had 1/10 of the talent that he does. If you haven't stopped by his website (www.andrewsullivan.com), I strongly recommend that you do so.
That having been said, there are a few things on which we disagree on. That's fine, this is America, after all, and people are allowed to have differences of opinion, provided they don't bring them up someplace like the local university, television or polite company. When you do any of those things, you get branded as a "hater".
Be that as it may, one area where Mr. Sullivan and I diverge is on the issue of homosexual marriage. Mr. Sullivan supports the right of homosexuals to enjoy the privilege of matriomony and all the attendent legal benefits that extend from it. I guess that is to be expected since Mr. Sullivan is, by his own admission, a homosexual. I do not agree with him, and I base this disagreement upon my personal beliefs that homosexual activity is contrary to nature, is abhorrent, and immoral.
Mr. Sullivan, this past Saturday, listed a quotation from Hannah Arendt in his Daily Dish, that attempted to tie the concept of homosexual union into the American beliefs in the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Fair enough, I guess, if you believe that the individual has the right to decide for himself which laws and conventions of society he wishes to abide by and which he chooses to discard. This is a dangerous idea. While we all relish the idea of freedom, it must be clear that freedom must have limits sometimes, for the good of society as a whole. For example, it has been determined that drug usage is bad for society, therefore, drug usage is proscribed by law. Those that continue to indulge in the use, production or sale of illegal narcotics go to prison. The freedom to pump heroin into one's veins must be limited by the effect that such action has on the whole of society.
To take this analogy one step further, the Mayor of San Francisco recently decided that, contrary to the laws of the State of California, he had the right to decide that he would not enforce the statues in which marriage is considered the union between people of opposite sexes. The Mayor, an elected official sworn to uphold the law, thinks this particular law is wrong. Fine, that's his opinion. There are also people who feel that the laws against heroin use are wrong too. However, until the law states that it's okay to shoot up heroin or to marry someone of the same gender, then it's illegal. People who perform illegal acts go to prison.
The Mayor of San Francisco, however, is not in prison. He's being hailed as a hero for defying a law that he disagrees with. He did not try to get the law changed by legal means, he did not bring the matter before a court or a legislature, he took the law into his own hands. He has set a dangerous precedent.
If the Mayor of San Francisco can decide which laws he chooses to obey and enforce, then why can't the rest of us? Why can't I decide that the laws against assault and battery are inconvenient and stupid and take a baseball bat to the next person I see? What if anti-discrimination laws fell into my "don't like 'em" category, and I decided to take my baseball bat to the next homosexual I see? Or maybe the next black person? My defense would be, "Well, if an elected official has he right to decide which laws are pertinent, which are wrong and which should be obeyed, why shouldn't?"
Naturally, I do not advocate anyone using a baseball bat for anything other than it was intended for, i.e. the sport of baseball. But this is America, a place in which, according to most liberals (small "l" intentional) most people haven't the most rudimentary clues as to how to think for themselves unless there is a government program for it. So, if one were to apply the warped logic of baseball bats and homosexuals like I just did (in conjecture) to reality, I can guarentee you there would be an awful lot of hurting homosexuals out there. That's not fair, it's not even moral, but it is part and parcel of what happens when people are given the wrong example.
The second area in which I disagree with Mr. Sullivan is the argument he often makes about homosexual rights being equated with civil rights.
You have civil rights, Mr. Sullivan --- you can vote, read and watch on TV whatever you want, travel without being asked for identification every 12 feet, you cannot be arrested without cause, you have the right to legal advice if you are, you or your property cannot be searched without a legal warrant. You have the right to date or engage in sexual congress with anyone you want, so long as you are not violating any laws. In fact, society has bent over backwards (no pun intended) to look the other way at what most of us agree are disgusting and immoral sexual practices. That goes for straight people too, or are you implying that S&M is fit for public display?
This is not a civil rights issue, Mr. Sullivan, it is a societal issue. Society has decided that marriage is an institution that is reserved between memebrs of the opposite sex. Until society says that changes, that's the way it is. But openly flouting the law, encouraging the same and applauding those that do it, is not the way to change it. The only way it changes is when the question is put before the public in a legal manner --- by referendum. If we ever got a national referendum in this country (assuming the two major parties would actually let the people have a say in how we run our affairs), I would bet that homosexual marriage would be defeated, overwhelmingly. Will you then beat your breast and wail that the whole thing is blatantly unfair and a violation of your rights, or would you accept the wisdom of the populace to do what they honestly believed was the best thing for all involved?
Why not advocate that, Mr. Sullivan?
By the way, when it comes to the "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" stuff, only the pursuit is actually guarenteed.
I have a great deal of respect for Andrew Sullivan. He is a fantastic writer and an usually clear thinker. I swear, I wish I had 1/10 of the talent that he does. If you haven't stopped by his website (www.andrewsullivan.com), I strongly recommend that you do so.
That having been said, there are a few things on which we disagree on. That's fine, this is America, after all, and people are allowed to have differences of opinion, provided they don't bring them up someplace like the local university, television or polite company. When you do any of those things, you get branded as a "hater".
Be that as it may, one area where Mr. Sullivan and I diverge is on the issue of homosexual marriage. Mr. Sullivan supports the right of homosexuals to enjoy the privilege of matriomony and all the attendent legal benefits that extend from it. I guess that is to be expected since Mr. Sullivan is, by his own admission, a homosexual. I do not agree with him, and I base this disagreement upon my personal beliefs that homosexual activity is contrary to nature, is abhorrent, and immoral.
Mr. Sullivan, this past Saturday, listed a quotation from Hannah Arendt in his Daily Dish, that attempted to tie the concept of homosexual union into the American beliefs in the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Fair enough, I guess, if you believe that the individual has the right to decide for himself which laws and conventions of society he wishes to abide by and which he chooses to discard. This is a dangerous idea. While we all relish the idea of freedom, it must be clear that freedom must have limits sometimes, for the good of society as a whole. For example, it has been determined that drug usage is bad for society, therefore, drug usage is proscribed by law. Those that continue to indulge in the use, production or sale of illegal narcotics go to prison. The freedom to pump heroin into one's veins must be limited by the effect that such action has on the whole of society.
To take this analogy one step further, the Mayor of San Francisco recently decided that, contrary to the laws of the State of California, he had the right to decide that he would not enforce the statues in which marriage is considered the union between people of opposite sexes. The Mayor, an elected official sworn to uphold the law, thinks this particular law is wrong. Fine, that's his opinion. There are also people who feel that the laws against heroin use are wrong too. However, until the law states that it's okay to shoot up heroin or to marry someone of the same gender, then it's illegal. People who perform illegal acts go to prison.
The Mayor of San Francisco, however, is not in prison. He's being hailed as a hero for defying a law that he disagrees with. He did not try to get the law changed by legal means, he did not bring the matter before a court or a legislature, he took the law into his own hands. He has set a dangerous precedent.
If the Mayor of San Francisco can decide which laws he chooses to obey and enforce, then why can't the rest of us? Why can't I decide that the laws against assault and battery are inconvenient and stupid and take a baseball bat to the next person I see? What if anti-discrimination laws fell into my "don't like 'em" category, and I decided to take my baseball bat to the next homosexual I see? Or maybe the next black person? My defense would be, "Well, if an elected official has he right to decide which laws are pertinent, which are wrong and which should be obeyed, why shouldn't?"
Naturally, I do not advocate anyone using a baseball bat for anything other than it was intended for, i.e. the sport of baseball. But this is America, a place in which, according to most liberals (small "l" intentional) most people haven't the most rudimentary clues as to how to think for themselves unless there is a government program for it. So, if one were to apply the warped logic of baseball bats and homosexuals like I just did (in conjecture) to reality, I can guarentee you there would be an awful lot of hurting homosexuals out there. That's not fair, it's not even moral, but it is part and parcel of what happens when people are given the wrong example.
The second area in which I disagree with Mr. Sullivan is the argument he often makes about homosexual rights being equated with civil rights.
You have civil rights, Mr. Sullivan --- you can vote, read and watch on TV whatever you want, travel without being asked for identification every 12 feet, you cannot be arrested without cause, you have the right to legal advice if you are, you or your property cannot be searched without a legal warrant. You have the right to date or engage in sexual congress with anyone you want, so long as you are not violating any laws. In fact, society has bent over backwards (no pun intended) to look the other way at what most of us agree are disgusting and immoral sexual practices. That goes for straight people too, or are you implying that S&M is fit for public display?
This is not a civil rights issue, Mr. Sullivan, it is a societal issue. Society has decided that marriage is an institution that is reserved between memebrs of the opposite sex. Until society says that changes, that's the way it is. But openly flouting the law, encouraging the same and applauding those that do it, is not the way to change it. The only way it changes is when the question is put before the public in a legal manner --- by referendum. If we ever got a national referendum in this country (assuming the two major parties would actually let the people have a say in how we run our affairs), I would bet that homosexual marriage would be defeated, overwhelmingly. Will you then beat your breast and wail that the whole thing is blatantly unfair and a violation of your rights, or would you accept the wisdom of the populace to do what they honestly believed was the best thing for all involved?
Why not advocate that, Mr. Sullivan?
By the way, when it comes to the "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" stuff, only the pursuit is actually guarenteed.
Can we shoot 'em, please?
I have an idea on how to stop the flow of illegal immigrants into the country. It will be nasty, but it would be a solution, and it comes in several parts. See if you agree:
Part 1 - Give everyone who is presently illegally in the country 180 days to settle their affairs and then get them the hell out. Exceptions are to be made for the following class of person(s):
- Those with relatives serving in the U.S. Military
- Those in hospitals receiving care for life-threatening diseases or conditions. When treatment is completed, they can leave.
- Those with legitimate visas, although they will be required to periodically check in with the nearest local police station or government agency, until the visa expires, then they may leave.
- Those currently in the process of qualifying for citizenship.
After 180 days, any police officer or government official may ask for valid immigration papers or proof of any of the conditions stated above. If these are not forthcoming, violators will either be shot on the spot, or arrested and sent to a open-air, fenced in facility in the Mojave desert, sans food, water, medical care or legal representation.
Part 2 - The United States government should inform what passes for a government in Mexico that it will consider the NEXT Mexican to cross the border after a certain date to be the spearhead of an invasion, which will be repulsed with military force, and probably won't be stopped until US forces overrun the Mexican oilfields.
Part 3 - Anyone attempting to enter the country on a hijacked freighter (like the 500 or so Haitians this week), airliner, bus, automobile, train, mule, horse or donkey will be considered pirates and sentenced to the death penalty.
Part 4 - anyone who comes ashore on a rickety raft, innertube, or other floating contrivance and leaves said contrivance on the shore, will be charged with littering, sentenced to 4,000 hours of community service cleaning public restrooms, and then executed and/or sent to the fenced-in, open-air facility in the Mojave desert, etc, etc.
Part 5 - The United States government should announce to all countries applicable that if unchecked immigration continues, we will consider it an act of economic warfare and act accordingly with embargoes, higher tariffs and blockades of ports, border crossings, etc.
Part 6 - Political asylum may no longer be granted unless by Presidential decree or order, on a case by case basis. Those waiting to be granted asylum can wait in whatever shithole it is they came from originally.
Part 7 - A policy should be put in place reviving the institution of "indentured servants" for only the most talented/promising illegals. Those that posses skills or talents will be sold at auction at the fenced-in, open-air facility mentioned above. They will be paid minimum wage, without benefits, until such time as their debt to their employer is paid, plus an equal amount to the United States government. After these debts are paid, the servant may leave or be executed, his/her choice.
Part 8 - the US /Mexican border shall be mined, and patrolled by armed Marines with vicious dogs. Desert waterholes not in use by local farmers will be poisoned to prevent their use. The US Airforce will fly overwatch over the border region with orders to shoot or drop munitions on anyone within a 1000 yard "free fire zone" along the border.
Part 9 - The privledge of citizenship shall no longer be granted to children born in the United States to non-US nationals. The same for welfare benefits.
Part 10 - English will be decreed the chief lingua franca of the United States, and an English proficiency exam will be included in the requirements for obtaining citizenship. No federal money will be spent on bi-lingual education, the government will no longer spend money to print forms and publications in languages other than English. Licenses to operate television or radio stations in a language other than English will be revoked, and no new ones will be issued. Foreign language newspapers will be banned.
Part 11 - No hospital, medical clinic, private physician or medical professional shall render medical care to someone who cannot prove US citizenship, unless said person is unconscious, in labor, a child, or in immediate danger of death. No physician or medical professional or hospital/clinic may be sued for refusing treatment to one who cannot prove citizenship.
Part 12 - The United States government shall require proof of vaccination against the following diseases, prior to allowing entry into the country:
Tuberculosis, measles, rubella, smallpox, anthrax, mumps, tetanus and the heartbreak of psoriasis. Anyone without such documentation will confined to the fenced-in, open-air facility, etc, etc, until such proof can be obtained.
I don't consider any of this unnecessarily harsh. It's what a government is supposed to when it takes it responsibility to protect it's borders seriously. As for the fenced-in, open-air facility, we used to have one on Ellis Island. Remember that place?
I have an idea on how to stop the flow of illegal immigrants into the country. It will be nasty, but it would be a solution, and it comes in several parts. See if you agree:
Part 1 - Give everyone who is presently illegally in the country 180 days to settle their affairs and then get them the hell out. Exceptions are to be made for the following class of person(s):
- Those with relatives serving in the U.S. Military
- Those in hospitals receiving care for life-threatening diseases or conditions. When treatment is completed, they can leave.
- Those with legitimate visas, although they will be required to periodically check in with the nearest local police station or government agency, until the visa expires, then they may leave.
- Those currently in the process of qualifying for citizenship.
After 180 days, any police officer or government official may ask for valid immigration papers or proof of any of the conditions stated above. If these are not forthcoming, violators will either be shot on the spot, or arrested and sent to a open-air, fenced in facility in the Mojave desert, sans food, water, medical care or legal representation.
Part 2 - The United States government should inform what passes for a government in Mexico that it will consider the NEXT Mexican to cross the border after a certain date to be the spearhead of an invasion, which will be repulsed with military force, and probably won't be stopped until US forces overrun the Mexican oilfields.
Part 3 - Anyone attempting to enter the country on a hijacked freighter (like the 500 or so Haitians this week), airliner, bus, automobile, train, mule, horse or donkey will be considered pirates and sentenced to the death penalty.
Part 4 - anyone who comes ashore on a rickety raft, innertube, or other floating contrivance and leaves said contrivance on the shore, will be charged with littering, sentenced to 4,000 hours of community service cleaning public restrooms, and then executed and/or sent to the fenced-in, open-air facility in the Mojave desert, etc, etc.
Part 5 - The United States government should announce to all countries applicable that if unchecked immigration continues, we will consider it an act of economic warfare and act accordingly with embargoes, higher tariffs and blockades of ports, border crossings, etc.
Part 6 - Political asylum may no longer be granted unless by Presidential decree or order, on a case by case basis. Those waiting to be granted asylum can wait in whatever shithole it is they came from originally.
Part 7 - A policy should be put in place reviving the institution of "indentured servants" for only the most talented/promising illegals. Those that posses skills or talents will be sold at auction at the fenced-in, open-air facility mentioned above. They will be paid minimum wage, without benefits, until such time as their debt to their employer is paid, plus an equal amount to the United States government. After these debts are paid, the servant may leave or be executed, his/her choice.
Part 8 - the US /Mexican border shall be mined, and patrolled by armed Marines with vicious dogs. Desert waterholes not in use by local farmers will be poisoned to prevent their use. The US Airforce will fly overwatch over the border region with orders to shoot or drop munitions on anyone within a 1000 yard "free fire zone" along the border.
Part 9 - The privledge of citizenship shall no longer be granted to children born in the United States to non-US nationals. The same for welfare benefits.
Part 10 - English will be decreed the chief lingua franca of the United States, and an English proficiency exam will be included in the requirements for obtaining citizenship. No federal money will be spent on bi-lingual education, the government will no longer spend money to print forms and publications in languages other than English. Licenses to operate television or radio stations in a language other than English will be revoked, and no new ones will be issued. Foreign language newspapers will be banned.
Part 11 - No hospital, medical clinic, private physician or medical professional shall render medical care to someone who cannot prove US citizenship, unless said person is unconscious, in labor, a child, or in immediate danger of death. No physician or medical professional or hospital/clinic may be sued for refusing treatment to one who cannot prove citizenship.
Part 12 - The United States government shall require proof of vaccination against the following diseases, prior to allowing entry into the country:
Tuberculosis, measles, rubella, smallpox, anthrax, mumps, tetanus and the heartbreak of psoriasis. Anyone without such documentation will confined to the fenced-in, open-air facility, etc, etc, until such proof can be obtained.
I don't consider any of this unnecessarily harsh. It's what a government is supposed to when it takes it responsibility to protect it's borders seriously. As for the fenced-in, open-air facility, we used to have one on Ellis Island. Remember that place?
It is what it is, unless we tell you it ain't...
The latest from Neal Boortz:
... It's getting ridiculouser and ridiculouser. Illegal aliens have their thongs in a bunch. Not only do we have the people who live here complaining about insensitivity and wanting politically correct labels for themselves, the illegal immigrants are getting in on the action. Their complaint? The phrase "illegal aliens" is the moral equivalent of a racial slur. You've got to be kidding me.
The Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials says "we do find that term very offensive and liken it to the 'n' word as well." This group is urging the use of the phrase "undocumented workers." Have we reached a point in society where if we don't like the truth, we simply choose a less offensive way to express it?
They are illegal aliens. They're here illegally, and they're aliens. How about this for a new term: law-breakers.
How ridiculously funny. Well, if you object to "illegal immigrant" or "undocumented worker", try this one on for size:
Obnoxious pieces of human garbage seeking to suckle on the American tit?
That just about describes it, doesn't it?
The latest from Neal Boortz:
... It's getting ridiculouser and ridiculouser. Illegal aliens have their thongs in a bunch. Not only do we have the people who live here complaining about insensitivity and wanting politically correct labels for themselves, the illegal immigrants are getting in on the action. Their complaint? The phrase "illegal aliens" is the moral equivalent of a racial slur. You've got to be kidding me.
The Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials says "we do find that term very offensive and liken it to the 'n' word as well." This group is urging the use of the phrase "undocumented workers." Have we reached a point in society where if we don't like the truth, we simply choose a less offensive way to express it?
They are illegal aliens. They're here illegally, and they're aliens. How about this for a new term: law-breakers.
How ridiculously funny. Well, if you object to "illegal immigrant" or "undocumented worker", try this one on for size:
Obnoxious pieces of human garbage seeking to suckle on the American tit?
That just about describes it, doesn't it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)