The people who "make the laws" in this country are totally divorced from reality. They have no first-hand experience of the consequences of their self-interested, politically-motivated (in-)actions which are simply designed to maintain their rice bowl at all costs, with no thought given to what happens tomorrow. So long as this basic necessity (how do I best maintain my office and power today?) is met, who gives a crap what the Proles think? So long as they pay their taxes and vote the right way in elections, and their emotions can be appealed to, they're not important. When the Proles finally discover they've been had, the reaction is not to reconcile them or change tactics, but instead to insult them by calling them racists, Nazis and ignorant clods. Which is not far from what they think about us in the first place. The Political Class then wonders why it gets nasty voice mails and death threats, and are --in poll-after-poll -- rated as just slightly-less-popular than Ebola.
The Ruling Classes of the United States are under the mistaken impression that they Know Better. This Paternalism comes in two flavors: For Your Own Good (Republicans) and For All Our Sakes (Democrats), and neither is a very good philosophy, nor is either very amenable to modification. In years past, this was not a difficult system to maintain, as the lines of communication and dissemination were restricted, and often bought-and-sold adjuncts of either party. Not so now with the explosion of the Internet, blogging, cell phones, and Social Networking.
The technical ignorance (not to mention the reduced mental capacity) of the Rulers is astounding. The People of Official Washington still live in the technical atmosphere of the 20th Century, while the rest of us have advanced into the 21st. We are more aware, as they become less so. It explains much of the recent dissent (which used to be patriotic before it was directed at a man who represents the greatest hopes and aspirations of a formerly-oppressed minority who can't keep race out of anything he does -- then it's somehow blatantly unfair) and much of the apparent disconnect between Governor and Governed. We know what they do now; the Internet and the 24-hour news cycle make this possible, but the politicians have not seemed to grasp this fact, and it gives us Regular Folks access to the weapons which no ideology or government can withstand; Facts and the ability to disseminate, organize around them, and focus attention upon them...quickly. This is the virtue of the New Technology that they haven't grasped; it makes mass political movements -- and the ability to change the habits and activities of government -- possible in a way that the Old Methods could never hope to achieve. This why Tea Parties are "dangerous bigots" and why state laws against illegal immigration are akin to "Apartheid and Jim Crow". The New Technology, and the ability to organize political movements with it threatens the Statist view of the purpose of government, and their rank within it.
It's my belief that had Chinese dissidents been equipped with cellphones, portable video cameras and the Internet that Tiannamen Square could never have happened, and the China might actually be a fledgling democracy rather than a dictatorship in Capitalist clothing right now. Why do you think the Chinese government hates Google so much?
This inability to recognize and reconcile the effects of New Technology is perhaps the sole reason why politicians keep trying the same tried-and-failed "solutions" to the same, persistent problems they never "solved" the first seventeen times around, always convinced of the (eventual) efficacy of their efforts. In a world of greatly expanded communications, their channels still only go one way -- outwards from the center of power. You only have to notice that in a day and of age of ubiquitous cameras, microphones and instantaneous debate on the Internet, that most politicians seem to forget themselves (an awful lot) and say the stupidest things over open mikes or in snippets that wind up on YouTube, which serve to give insight to us all about their innermost feelings and attitudes. It's the reason why the President of the United States can announce his hostility to Capitalism and Economic Freedom by saying "at some point, you've made enough money...", and half the country knows about it three minutes later. Not only does half the country know about it within three minutes, but they're debating it in chatrooms and forums on ten thousand platforms, and posting their defenses or refutations in a million blogs! And that Regal Pronouncement was made at a carefully-staged event where SWAT teams were called in to keep protesters at bay, presumably a 'safe" place for President Odickhead to chat with some of his most rabid cohorts and confidantes.
It's as if they assumed that every camera and microphone in the room was on their side --and accounted for -- and that these snapshots of Obama's stupidity would never leak out of the hermetically-sealed room. This inability to get any "feedback" from the greater public -- or more accurately the inability to listen to and interpret dissent when it makes itself known -- results in a ruling class which finds itself absolutely stunned that The People resent and reject the unchecked immigration, government bailouts, vast expansions of bureaucracy and a chilling vision of the future in which Private Property and Free Markets no longer exist. This vision is absolutely vital to the Political Class' continued survival -- the Parties play off each other in a Pro-and-Con arrangement in a ballet of power, voting blocs and campaign contributions which can only work when both sides are able to control the means of communication -- but which does not serve any greater public good. They are simultaneously aware of what they're doing, and unaware that anyone is watching. This new paradigm perplexes and vexes them to no end, and their only retreat is back into their cocoon, an the cycle of Bad Government Run By Bad People continues apace.
Many of the issues we face today are not so much about Right vs. Left or Pro- vs. Anti-, as much as they are about communication. One side of the Great Debates of Our Day -- the people who pay the taxes and supply the votes which support the political structure -- are not entirely certain the Other Side is hearing what they say, or worse, is quite happy to go on ignoring their wishes and concerns. You can pick from a multitude of reasons why this is; They don't care. There's too much money in Washington to be made. Ideology. Stupidity. Politics. All of the Above.
I'm reminded of an old saying (the origin of which I can't recall) that states -- paraphrasing -- that if YOU refuse to engage in politics, you will be ruled by those who will engage in it. Politics is perhaps the dirtiest and basest of all human endeavors, because at it's foundation, it involves the ability to manipulate and coerce people, often against their wills. It's become clear that those who will engage in politics are far from being the best and brightest people available and we're now ruled by a class of craven, manipulative people possessed of a bulletproof-stupidity, an unwillingness to listen to what The Rest of Us are saying, and an arrogance that can only come from complete separation from the greater part of society, and which blames us when their failures run full-circle.
This bunch of idiots -- people who live and die by the methods and ideas of the past, who seem more concerned with their personal status and comfort, who couldn't find their own asses with both hands and a flashlight on a good day -- have almost succeeded in creating a system wherein every activity you engage in has a political significance; filling up your gas tank, mowing your own lawn, what your children are taught in school, what you buy or sell, right down to the very food you eat and what medical care you should be entitled to, is somehow controlled, directed, taxed, sanctioned or prohibited by some layer of government.
Somewhere in all of these processes, Government has a hand -- mostly because it gave itself permission to do so while you were not looking. This has been achieved by both parties for their own, often contradictory, reasons. They have taken away, in many cases, your right of choice -- and we're not talking about "Choice" in the sense that you have the right to an abortion as Birth Control of Last Resort as an adjunct to a hedonistic and irresponsible lifestyle, but your right to decide for yourself, on any subject. The few true freedoms you have left are already in their crosshairs. We have the Right, and the Means, to ensure that it doesn't progress any further, and beyond that, to begin to reverse the process by which we're all discounted, ignored and abused by an unresponsive and irresponsible government run by the least productive and self-obsessed.
We have this power because we're all firmly grounded in reality. We're all talking to each other, and exchanging ideas. We're holding those in power to account. We're organizing and informing ourselves with the new technologies which the Politicians don't fully understand (and which they don't yet control, but they're working on it!), and we're making sure that even the meekest amongst us has a way to express their opinions, and find like-minded individuals for mutual support. In the 1960's/70's, these were the activities of the Political Left. Today, they are the activities of the Political Center, and the Not-Really-Political-Just-Really-Pissed-Off. What the Flower-Power-Stop-The-War-Impeach-Nixon crowd hoped to achieve back then, is now technically feasible, but it's now being directed in a more positive direction (the great flaw of the ideological and political movements of the Left of Days-Gone-By is that they were all, without exception, about negatives) by advocating on behalf of the Great Middle.
Just my $0.02.
Saturday, May 01, 2010
Illegal Alien Roundup...
Alas, not a real one. That would make us all heartless Nazis, you see, and then we'd be critically short of iceberg lettuce and might even have to make our own beds, or, Heaven Forbid!, watch our own children. No, this is a Roundup of a different sort, wherein people who are smarter and more eloquent than I am defend the State of Arizona from the onslaught of liberal verbal diarrhea (is there any other kind?) directed against it.
Mark Steyn reckons that the state of Arizona has now been subjected to more, and tougher, sanctions than Iran.
Whilst Peggy Noonan pretty much says that it's perhaps time the political class shut their filthy pie holes about immigration, since they've utterly failed in their duties to regulate it.
Update: The Washington Examiner posts "Ten Dumbest Things Said About the Arizona Immigration Bill".
Mark Steyn reckons that the state of Arizona has now been subjected to more, and tougher, sanctions than Iran.
Whilst Peggy Noonan pretty much says that it's perhaps time the political class shut their filthy pie holes about immigration, since they've utterly failed in their duties to regulate it.
Update: The Washington Examiner posts "Ten Dumbest Things Said About the Arizona Immigration Bill".
Friday, April 30, 2010
Immigration Laws and Me...
One of the arguments against Arizona's new immigration-enforcement law is that it threatens to turn the desert into a Police State, full of racist police officers (all police officers are racists, according to Al Sharpton. It's a requirement for the job) empowered to harass every Brownskin in sight and ask that most-cliched of Movie Nazi phrases "Your papers, please?".
The Law says (and it's only mimicking Federal Law here) that if someone already in contact with the police for a reasonable assumption of criminal activity or civil violation cannot prove they are a citizen of the United States, or in the country legally (producing some form of state-issued identification or a Green Card upon demand) , they are, therefore, presumed to be in the country illegally and subject to deportation.
But a question left unasked is what happens when the State and Federal Governments deliberately make it more difficult to obtain a document proving citizenship...for actual citizens?
If you've been reading this blog, then you know of my trials and tribulations with obtaining a New York State Non-Driver's Identification card. I can't satisfy the valid photo-id requirements because my previously-state-issued photo identification documents have expired, and are, naturally, not valid for the purposes of obtaining this Holy Grail.
I can give them a birth certificate which states that I was born on May 2, 1967 in Beth Israel Hospital in Manhattan to a American Citizens (one of them a New York City Police Officer -- it says right there "Father's Occupation: Police Officer"). I can produce the necessary proofs of address. I can give them a Social Security Card. But my old driver's licence and State-Department-issued Passport are both expired, and therefore invalid for this purpose, and so the whole process dies a feeble death just within sight of the goal.
Without that Identification card, finding work becomes a little bit more difficult, since other laws require employers to verify the citizenship and immigration status of their hires. And guess what? A social Security Card and Birth Certificate don't constitute positive proof of either for these purposes! There needs to be a piece of state-issued identification with a photograph on it.
Now, what should happen, if I were to be stopped by a police officer for some offense, and he asked me for my proof of citizenship -- and I don't have one, even though I am a native-born Son?
I'm all for sending illegal immigrants back where they came from if they don't have permission to be in the country, but why is that the government -- in a half-assed-and-day-late-and-dollar-short effort to fight illegal immigration and terrorism -- in the process of making it more difficult for illegals and terrorist to obtain identity documents, make it harder for citizens to get them, too?
Probably because it's easier to inconvenience the taxpaying innocent than it is to actually catch the bad guys, perhaps?
I should probably be very careful about jaywalking or littering in front of a cop, or else I might have to write this blog from Sicily in future.
The Law says (and it's only mimicking Federal Law here) that if someone already in contact with the police for a reasonable assumption of criminal activity or civil violation cannot prove they are a citizen of the United States, or in the country legally (producing some form of state-issued identification or a Green Card upon demand) , they are, therefore, presumed to be in the country illegally and subject to deportation.
But a question left unasked is what happens when the State and Federal Governments deliberately make it more difficult to obtain a document proving citizenship...for actual citizens?
If you've been reading this blog, then you know of my trials and tribulations with obtaining a New York State Non-Driver's Identification card. I can't satisfy the valid photo-id requirements because my previously-state-issued photo identification documents have expired, and are, naturally, not valid for the purposes of obtaining this Holy Grail.
I can give them a birth certificate which states that I was born on May 2, 1967 in Beth Israel Hospital in Manhattan to a American Citizens (one of them a New York City Police Officer -- it says right there "Father's Occupation: Police Officer"). I can produce the necessary proofs of address. I can give them a Social Security Card. But my old driver's licence and State-Department-issued Passport are both expired, and therefore invalid for this purpose, and so the whole process dies a feeble death just within sight of the goal.
Without that Identification card, finding work becomes a little bit more difficult, since other laws require employers to verify the citizenship and immigration status of their hires. And guess what? A social Security Card and Birth Certificate don't constitute positive proof of either for these purposes! There needs to be a piece of state-issued identification with a photograph on it.
Now, what should happen, if I were to be stopped by a police officer for some offense, and he asked me for my proof of citizenship -- and I don't have one, even though I am a native-born Son?
I'm all for sending illegal immigrants back where they came from if they don't have permission to be in the country, but why is that the government -- in a half-assed-and-day-late-and-dollar-short effort to fight illegal immigration and terrorism -- in the process of making it more difficult for illegals and terrorist to obtain identity documents, make it harder for citizens to get them, too?
Probably because it's easier to inconvenience the taxpaying innocent than it is to actually catch the bad guys, perhaps?
I should probably be very careful about jaywalking or littering in front of a cop, or else I might have to write this blog from Sicily in future.
This Is Why Europe is Screwed...
Via Ann Althouse.
The Dutch debate the merits of Free-Range-dog-walking versus Sex in a Public park.
I wonder what the law says about having sex with a leashed dog in a public park?
Seriously, people who think in this way deserve to go extinct.
When I think of all that passes for "civilization" in the Modern World, we have the Dutch engrossed in the topic of Dog Poop-vs.-Hot-and-Cold-Running-Spluge in the Public Square, and Muslims wondering if it's strictly kosher to eat a goat one has previously buggered. Societies who are obsessed with such subjects are societies which will eventually come to grief.
On the Dutch side, you have a society which is so fat, dumb and happy that it can afford to expend braincells on finding ways to make itself even dumber.
On the Muslim side, you have a society so mired in mindless superstition and taboo that you wonder if they'll ever make the Great Leap Forward into the 21st Century.
If these are the Great Debates which grip the attention of the average European, or Muslim, then we're quite possibly witnessing the beginning of the end of mankind. From Primates we came and to Primates we shall return.
The Dutch debate the merits of Free-Range-dog-walking versus Sex in a Public park.
I wonder what the law says about having sex with a leashed dog in a public park?
Seriously, people who think in this way deserve to go extinct.
When I think of all that passes for "civilization" in the Modern World, we have the Dutch engrossed in the topic of Dog Poop-vs.-Hot-and-Cold-Running-Spluge in the Public Square, and Muslims wondering if it's strictly kosher to eat a goat one has previously buggered. Societies who are obsessed with such subjects are societies which will eventually come to grief.
On the Dutch side, you have a society which is so fat, dumb and happy that it can afford to expend braincells on finding ways to make itself even dumber.
On the Muslim side, you have a society so mired in mindless superstition and taboo that you wonder if they'll ever make the Great Leap Forward into the 21st Century.
If these are the Great Debates which grip the attention of the average European, or Muslim, then we're quite possibly witnessing the beginning of the end of mankind. From Primates we came and to Primates we shall return.
Turning Trees Into Tires...
An interesting article on a synthetic rubber and oil substitute made by a process which breaks down living plant material.
Imagine my surprise when the article stated that trees cause smog! Al Gore -- the single biggest smog producer in America -- was unavailable for comment.
(H/T Instapundit)
Imagine my surprise when the article stated that trees cause smog! Al Gore -- the single biggest smog producer in America -- was unavailable for comment.
(H/T Instapundit)
The Economic "Recovery"...
Yesterday, my local paper, The Staten Island Advance (suitable for wrapping fish, or training your puppies) printed this report on the effects of the recession on my own neighborhood.
Despite their best efforts, neither President Odickhead, nor Mayor Bloomberg, has covered themselves in glory when it comes to dealing with economic issues. In fact, they've been asleep at the switch, preferring to exercise their power, and devote their attention to, their social engineering projects (for Obama, Reparations for Slavery and Implementing Technocratic Socialism, for Blooomberg, removing all the Proles from public view so that the Upper East Side Brahmin class doesn't have to suffer our company).
I'm going to go out on a limb here, and make a prediction; you will begin to see many more stories like this in local newspapers very soon. The return of the "Changing Face of the Neighborhood" story, with an economic rather than cultural slant, is an old favorite, of course. I remember similar stories being written in the Advance when Jimmy Carter presided over 21% interest rates and similar rates of unemployment. It's one of the standby's that all newspapers resort to when there isn't anything to report (or, at least, anything they WANT to report about. The Advance is almost as slanted as (P)MSNBC).
When restaurants close down and the "We Buy Gold" signs go up, you're probably not "turning a corner" and "things are slowly getting better" as President Bambi likes to say, is probably not exactly the truth. Three financial crises rolled-into-one, a useless $787 billion "Stimulus Plan" a $700 billion AIG/GM/Wall Street Bailout, and a "Health" "Care" "Plan" which was already in the red and useless the day it was signed into law, and we're talking about prosecuting Goldman Sachs for running a huge bait-and-switch scheme and betting against it's own clients?
Don't get me wrong; the people at Goldman who will be brought up on charges (maybe) are probably guilty as hell. But if they are guilty of what they're accused of doing, it's only because the people who lord over them allowed it to happen, partly out of self-interest, but mostly out of rank ignorance. The results are empty storefronts and three family-owned businesses that I have patronized for near-on 30 years in this neighborhood going belly up, unemployment, and no prospects of a decent job for far too many.
Obama can be excused his ignorance -- because he couldn't find his own ass with both hands and a flashlight, on a good day, and can't even recite his bedtime prayers without a teleprompter. I expect him to be ignorant and clueless, because I never bought any of the lofty rhetorical and Messiah bullshit. Unfortunately, we're stuck with him for the time being, but that doesn't mean the supporting cast (like the insufferable Barney Fwank, Congressional Spokesmodel for Sodomy, and man who prevented the investigation of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, which are at the root of the Subprime Mortgage Scandal) need to stick around come November. More than any other group of people, they're responsible for setting up and perpetuating a system that allows (alleged) criminals to prosper, allows professional politicians with less sense than a retarded Irish Setter to stay in office forever, and empowers half the population to avoid income taxes or live exclusively on Welfare.
More than any other group, they're (the Politicians) responsible for the shuttered shops, the devastated neighborhoods, the closed family businesses, and the devastated economy. And it's not just the ones in Washington, it's the local guys too -- everytime Washington gives you a tax cut, you can bet your ass that state and local taxes rise to take advantage of your "windfall". But that's okay: you got a new law that limits the amount of sugar in your donut.
It was for your own protection. Oh, and for "the Children".
Obama can go out and trumpet "The Recovery Plan" all he wants; it's a lie. He knows it is, but can't admit it, because it would kill him -- figuratively and politically, at least (we could only be so lucky!). Take a walk down your main drag and see if you believe the "recovery" is happening.
Locally, Bloomberg ran on a platform, in part, of being the most capable person to help guide the city through this financial crisis, since he's a billionaire. He spent a shitload of his personal fortune to change the term-limits law to allow him a third term, and then a shitload more to barely squeak out a victory over a mannequin. And what did he do, right out of the gates? Why,he led the assault of Salty Foods and Sugary Drinks which are "responsible" for the "Obesity Epidemic" and "Health Care Problems" that cost us all money. A vital adjunct to his successful "Make-McDonald's-post-the-number-of-calories-in-a-Big Mac" campaign.
It's people like Mike Bloomberg that give Republicans a bad name. But then again, he only has an "R" at the end of his name because that was the cheapest label to buy.
No cutting of budgets, no fiscal austerity measures, no reorganizing the City's Finances, not even a pledge to go after old favorites like Welfare Frauds and Diplomat Scofflaws. What and how you eat is more important to Micheal Bloomberg than the whether or not you will retain the ability to even buy food in the first place.
If you live in Staten Island, New York, and your neighborhood is beginning to show the effects of deep economic troubles, the streets are slowly filling with Spanish-speaking, illegal day-laborers, and property crime is on the rise, you begin to realize that your future is in the hands of Two Idiots.
Despite their best efforts, neither President Odickhead, nor Mayor Bloomberg, has covered themselves in glory when it comes to dealing with economic issues. In fact, they've been asleep at the switch, preferring to exercise their power, and devote their attention to, their social engineering projects (for Obama, Reparations for Slavery and Implementing Technocratic Socialism, for Blooomberg, removing all the Proles from public view so that the Upper East Side Brahmin class doesn't have to suffer our company).
I'm going to go out on a limb here, and make a prediction; you will begin to see many more stories like this in local newspapers very soon. The return of the "Changing Face of the Neighborhood" story, with an economic rather than cultural slant, is an old favorite, of course. I remember similar stories being written in the Advance when Jimmy Carter presided over 21% interest rates and similar rates of unemployment. It's one of the standby's that all newspapers resort to when there isn't anything to report (or, at least, anything they WANT to report about. The Advance is almost as slanted as (P)MSNBC).
When restaurants close down and the "We Buy Gold" signs go up, you're probably not "turning a corner" and "things are slowly getting better" as President Bambi likes to say, is probably not exactly the truth. Three financial crises rolled-into-one, a useless $787 billion "Stimulus Plan" a $700 billion AIG/GM/Wall Street Bailout, and a "Health" "Care" "Plan" which was already in the red and useless the day it was signed into law, and we're talking about prosecuting Goldman Sachs for running a huge bait-and-switch scheme and betting against it's own clients?
Don't get me wrong; the people at Goldman who will be brought up on charges (maybe) are probably guilty as hell. But if they are guilty of what they're accused of doing, it's only because the people who lord over them allowed it to happen, partly out of self-interest, but mostly out of rank ignorance. The results are empty storefronts and three family-owned businesses that I have patronized for near-on 30 years in this neighborhood going belly up, unemployment, and no prospects of a decent job for far too many.
Obama can be excused his ignorance -- because he couldn't find his own ass with both hands and a flashlight, on a good day, and can't even recite his bedtime prayers without a teleprompter. I expect him to be ignorant and clueless, because I never bought any of the lofty rhetorical and Messiah bullshit. Unfortunately, we're stuck with him for the time being, but that doesn't mean the supporting cast (like the insufferable Barney Fwank, Congressional Spokesmodel for Sodomy, and man who prevented the investigation of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, which are at the root of the Subprime Mortgage Scandal) need to stick around come November. More than any other group of people, they're responsible for setting up and perpetuating a system that allows (alleged) criminals to prosper, allows professional politicians with less sense than a retarded Irish Setter to stay in office forever, and empowers half the population to avoid income taxes or live exclusively on Welfare.
More than any other group, they're (the Politicians) responsible for the shuttered shops, the devastated neighborhoods, the closed family businesses, and the devastated economy. And it's not just the ones in Washington, it's the local guys too -- everytime Washington gives you a tax cut, you can bet your ass that state and local taxes rise to take advantage of your "windfall". But that's okay: you got a new law that limits the amount of sugar in your donut.
It was for your own protection. Oh, and for "the Children".
Obama can go out and trumpet "The Recovery Plan" all he wants; it's a lie. He knows it is, but can't admit it, because it would kill him -- figuratively and politically, at least (we could only be so lucky!). Take a walk down your main drag and see if you believe the "recovery" is happening.
Locally, Bloomberg ran on a platform, in part, of being the most capable person to help guide the city through this financial crisis, since he's a billionaire. He spent a shitload of his personal fortune to change the term-limits law to allow him a third term, and then a shitload more to barely squeak out a victory over a mannequin. And what did he do, right out of the gates? Why,he led the assault of Salty Foods and Sugary Drinks which are "responsible" for the "Obesity Epidemic" and "Health Care Problems" that cost us all money. A vital adjunct to his successful "Make-McDonald's-post-the-number-of-calories-in-a-Big Mac" campaign.
It's people like Mike Bloomberg that give Republicans a bad name. But then again, he only has an "R" at the end of his name because that was the cheapest label to buy.
No cutting of budgets, no fiscal austerity measures, no reorganizing the City's Finances, not even a pledge to go after old favorites like Welfare Frauds and Diplomat Scofflaws. What and how you eat is more important to Micheal Bloomberg than the whether or not you will retain the ability to even buy food in the first place.
If you live in Staten Island, New York, and your neighborhood is beginning to show the effects of deep economic troubles, the streets are slowly filling with Spanish-speaking, illegal day-laborers, and property crime is on the rise, you begin to realize that your future is in the hands of Two Idiots.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Found a New Blog...
Found a new blog in the "Blogs We Love To Read" section over at Lucianne.com. If you don't stop by there occasionally, you're missing out.
Anyways, here's Joy Tiz writing about Arizona's controversial new immigration law.
Incidentally, it's only 'controversial' if you're a Libtard; otherwise, it's about getting government to do what's it supposed to. "Controversy" nowadays is almost always manufactured.
It was a good read, and I'm adding Joy's blog to my Link list.
Anyways, here's Joy Tiz writing about Arizona's controversial new immigration law.
Incidentally, it's only 'controversial' if you're a Libtard; otherwise, it's about getting government to do what's it supposed to. "Controversy" nowadays is almost always manufactured.
It was a good read, and I'm adding Joy's blog to my Link list.
If This is How Eric Holder Will Prosecute Terrorists...
I wouldn't be surprised if most of them were walking the streets, just after lunchtime, on the same their trials start.
Oh, wait! I forgot; to a Libtard all Muslims are automatically innocent,and it's the presence of Rich White Men that makes people want to kill us. Why, they'd probably be free after morning coffee in that case! Anyways, read this and then wonder about what sort of resources the FBI is devoting to the problem of "domestic terrorism" (i.e. White folks getting uppity) -- and start wondering, once again, if the best and brightest are truly in charge, and really concerned with our safety and defense.
Now, I'd like to be fair to Agent Larsen, because she might be a perfectly nice lady, and I don't know her personally. But assuming that story has reasonably accurate quotes in it, and bears a decent-enough resemblance to a near-approximation of the flow of events as they happened, you have to shake your head in disbelief, and wonder if:
Agent Larsen isn't the worst FBI agent in all of America.
* Agent Larsen might have been slightly zonked on Cold Medicine, and might not really responsible for her unpreparedness.
* Agent Larsen is on the Ethereal Plane, not Planet Earth.
* Agent Larsen actually gives a shit.
* Agent Larsen might be one of those Affirmative-Action cases promoted to a grade way over head, overwhelmed by the details and procedures applicable to the preparation and presentation of evidence in a criminal proceeding.
* Agent Larsen has no real evidence against anyone.
Your guess is as good as mine.
Could it be all five? Just might. No where is it graven in stone that every FBI agent is a true professional, and that just because someone's been hauled to court that the evidence against them must be rock-solid and beyond reproach. But an even more pertinent question would be:
Might we assume that the Fed'ral Gub'mint has little-to-absolutely-no case whatsoever against the members of the Hutaree Militia, but they were arrested and charged anyway because the Obama Administration needed some White Supremacist Boogeymen to try and smear the Tea Party -- and a way to equate The Tea Party with the Jackbooted Homophobic Right-wing Christian Racist Militias they're convinced are right now plotting the assassination Barack Hussein Obama?
It's not totally unknown for the Government to drag people into courts on trumped up charges they know they can't possibly prove, just to make a political statement. If I were a judge and one of the investigating officers (that the prosecutors tried to make her unavailable as a witness speaks volumes) upon whose evidence the guilt or innocence of nine people depended upon, can't remember details of the case or seems to be off on Mars, then I'd start to wonder about the motivation behind the charges myself.
Oh, wait! I forgot; to a Libtard all Muslims are automatically innocent,and it's the presence of Rich White Men that makes people want to kill us. Why, they'd probably be free after morning coffee in that case! Anyways, read this and then wonder about what sort of resources the FBI is devoting to the problem of "domestic terrorism" (i.e. White folks getting uppity) -- and start wondering, once again, if the best and brightest are truly in charge, and really concerned with our safety and defense.
Now, I'd like to be fair to Agent Larsen, because she might be a perfectly nice lady, and I don't know her personally. But assuming that story has reasonably accurate quotes in it, and bears a decent-enough resemblance to a near-approximation of the flow of events as they happened, you have to shake your head in disbelief, and wonder if:
Agent Larsen isn't the worst FBI agent in all of America.
* Agent Larsen might have been slightly zonked on Cold Medicine, and might not really responsible for her unpreparedness.
* Agent Larsen is on the Ethereal Plane, not Planet Earth.
* Agent Larsen actually gives a shit.
* Agent Larsen might be one of those Affirmative-Action cases promoted to a grade way over head, overwhelmed by the details and procedures applicable to the preparation and presentation of evidence in a criminal proceeding.
* Agent Larsen has no real evidence against anyone.
Your guess is as good as mine.
Could it be all five? Just might. No where is it graven in stone that every FBI agent is a true professional, and that just because someone's been hauled to court that the evidence against them must be rock-solid and beyond reproach. But an even more pertinent question would be:
Might we assume that the Fed'ral Gub'mint has little-to-absolutely-no case whatsoever against the members of the Hutaree Militia, but they were arrested and charged anyway because the Obama Administration needed some White Supremacist Boogeymen to try and smear the Tea Party -- and a way to equate The Tea Party with the Jackbooted Homophobic Right-wing Christian Racist Militias they're convinced are right now plotting the assassination Barack Hussein Obama?
It's not totally unknown for the Government to drag people into courts on trumped up charges they know they can't possibly prove, just to make a political statement. If I were a judge and one of the investigating officers (that the prosecutors tried to make her unavailable as a witness speaks volumes) upon whose evidence the guilt or innocence of nine people depended upon, can't remember details of the case or seems to be off on Mars, then I'd start to wonder about the motivation behind the charges myself.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
The Advance of Technology and Illegal Immigration...
One the major aspects of uncontrolled illegal immigration is the question of what one is to do with 12-15 million people who crossed the border or overstayed their visas in order to take unskilled jobs, or suckle at the government teat, when technology -- as it always does -- makes many of those jobs unnecessary?
Some would suggest that once all the good lettuce-picking and pool-cleaning jobs are gone, many of these Illegal Immigrants will simply "go home". Maybe that's true, but it's much more likely that many will decide to stay, trying to give it a go, or more likely, become Wards of the State because the generous Welfare System makes this an attractive option.
Again, many would suggest that the solution to this possibility is to make Welfare a unattractive option by lowering benefits and raising eligibility standards (encouraging those who think of staying to leave, or to attain citizenship), but then this runs afoul of the Permanent Underclass which believes that it has a right to a generous Welfare system, citing a past history of discrimination and oppression, and that lowering their benefits in order to keep others out of the system would affect them disproportionately.
So, what results is a system of inertia, which only becomes a much more expensive and troublesome proposition, and so some would suggest another route altogether -- which is Amnesty; turn those who would otherwise suck on the Welfare teat into Instant Citizens, and we should hope, taxpayers. Hey, if you can't beat 'em, then let them join the club, and hope they don't piss in the potted palms too much, right?
Except that we know this never, ever happens.The results are usually dismal, and entirely foreseeable. No society has ever survived without a continuing, and politely enforced by custom, system of assimilation,or by notdefending it's sovereignty.
If I can be permitted -- for rhetorical reasons -- to conflate two apparently-different situations in order to illustrate a point, I would liken the problem of Illegal Immigration in some ways to the problems of Slavery.
What many people might overlook is that in the 1860's technology was making the need for masses of stoop laborers a more expensive and increasingly-unnecessary proposition. Mechanical harvesters, The Cotton Gin, Steam Engines, the Telegraph and Railroads were on the verge of making entire occupations obsolete, or reducing the need for physical labor. One of the issues that faced Southern plantation owners in those days was not so much the moral question of "Is slavery a good thing?", or even a more self-serving "Does a continuation of the slave-plantation system make economic sense with the advance of technology", but rather "what do you do with 4 million blacks who will soon be out of work, off the plantation and out of your control, and nursing legitimate grievances that might explode into violence?"
The answer some came up with was to try to maintain the Status Quo, even by force of arms. Eventually, this too would have failed (as it in fact, did) because it would make more economic sense to invest in machines than slaves in the long run. The issue was one of control. The system would have to be perpetuated as matters of personal survival and societal cohesion, rather than as matters of economics or freedoms. This is, in part, the origin of the Secessionist Movement, and the Confederacy.
Now, I'm not defending the Confederacy, nor am I saying in any way whatsoever that "Slavery was good", or even a necessary evil. I'm making the argument, probably poorly, was that given the choice between permanently supporting millions of slaves as a matter of personal survival, or granting freedom to millions of poor, uneducated, unskilled and superfluous workers with legitimate beefs for which to exact vengeance for, the choice of perpetuating the Old System was preferable to the imagined alternative. This mindset (and thebehaviors it engendered) probably also colored (excuse the term) in some ways the recovery of the South in the years after the Civil War -- because technology that might have helped repair the damage to the economy was purposely not invested in in order to help sustain the Plantation System as it was, and because failure to more quickly assimilate or concilliate a potential, wage-earning labor pool, was delayed by the bad feelings engendered by defeat and Reconstruction.
Had it not been for the defeat of the Confederacy, and the slow erosion of old attitudes by law and experience, we might still be talking about an American Apartheid system. I'm not saying that things are perfect now, but they are infinitely better than what could have been imagined by even the most optimistic and well-meaning Mint-Julip-sipper 200 years ago.
We're sorta-kinda approaching the same circumstances with Illegal Immigrants today.
Technology is advancing in such a way as to make even more categories of physical labor obsolete. I don't know about you, but in a world where it's possible to build machines which put entire regiments of skilled workers (accountants, computer programmers, stockbrokers, journalists, technicians of all sorts) out of work every few years, where crops are being genetically-engineered to be easier to grow and harvest, and where improved standards and levels of education are making the choice between unskilled labor and a desk job in an air-conditioned office a no-brainer, then it's only a matter of time before the masses of Illegal Immigrants we have now find themselves in much the same boat as former-slaves were in, post-Freedom. They simply will not have the tools or access to the means to support and better themselves except under great hardship, and they often won't be encouraged to obtain them. For the most part, they will form a New Permanent Underclass. Eventually, that Underclass will become another self-perpetuating source of discontent, racial politicking, and Welfare statism.
The question is: do we really wish allow the conditions for another five, seven, maybe even ten, generations of such people to sit around, supported by the taxpayer from increasingly-scarce funds, and laboring under the obstacles imposed by government fiat to keep them there for a new class of racial hucksters and politician to further exploit? Or do we nip the problem in the bud now, and encourage them to either assimilate NOW, or kindly leave?
The major differences between the plight of African Slaves and Illegal Immigrants is that the slaves were brought here against their will, and their return was problematic at best, and logistically and economically, impossible. The legacy of maltreatment and oppression would leave deep scars that would take generations to heal, if in fact they ever do (and there are entire networks of people dedicated to seeing that they never do -- on both sides of the issue). Society was eventually convinced of it's sin of keeping people in bondage vile and had a responsibility and obligation to "help them along" when things changed. It's only through the vagaries of politics that this "help" acquired the status of a birthright -- and became a system just waiting to be plundered by opportunists.
Many Illegal Aliens made a choice to come here, and since they were able to walk, drive, fly, or sail to these shores, they are perfectly free and capable of making the journey in reverse. Unlike the days of Slavery, no one is stopping them or has a vested interest in detaining them. If conditions are so bad in their home countries perhaps they might take some of what they learned here and apply it to the problem of improving their lot in life back home, and be happier for it. We already know, some of these folks have an incredible capacity for work. We should hope to keep the best and brightest and most motivated, of course, but the great mass do not fall into this category, sadly.
In the meantime, the specter of 12-15 million illegals who aren't even making an attempt to assimilate, who regard education as something akin to a sulphuric-acid enema, who come from cultural backgrounds with practices utterly alien -- and often disgusting -- to us, and who find made-to-order-and-generous-services-delivered-at-no-expense-to-themselves simply making themselves at home is a terrifying vision of the future. We've already had vast experience with this very mindset with African-Americans and it's deleterious effects on Civil Society. Do we really want to repeat the experiment? Or have we learned our lessons -- cultural and moral -- well enough, already?
Technology is on it's way to to making the days of the Illegal Immigrant landscaper,fruit-picker, taxi driver, newsagent, roofer and busboy a thing of the past. Those who can't keep up will fall into permanent poverty, and become an even bigger headache for the taxpayer and a further impediment to the laudable goal of "good government".
Some would suggest that once all the good lettuce-picking and pool-cleaning jobs are gone, many of these Illegal Immigrants will simply "go home". Maybe that's true, but it's much more likely that many will decide to stay, trying to give it a go, or more likely, become Wards of the State because the generous Welfare System makes this an attractive option.
Again, many would suggest that the solution to this possibility is to make Welfare a unattractive option by lowering benefits and raising eligibility standards (encouraging those who think of staying to leave, or to attain citizenship), but then this runs afoul of the Permanent Underclass which believes that it has a right to a generous Welfare system, citing a past history of discrimination and oppression, and that lowering their benefits in order to keep others out of the system would affect them disproportionately.
So, what results is a system of inertia, which only becomes a much more expensive and troublesome proposition, and so some would suggest another route altogether -- which is Amnesty; turn those who would otherwise suck on the Welfare teat into Instant Citizens, and we should hope, taxpayers. Hey, if you can't beat 'em, then let them join the club, and hope they don't piss in the potted palms too much, right?
Except that we know this never, ever happens.The results are usually dismal, and entirely foreseeable. No society has ever survived without a continuing, and politely enforced by custom, system of assimilation,or by notdefending it's sovereignty.
If I can be permitted -- for rhetorical reasons -- to conflate two apparently-different situations in order to illustrate a point, I would liken the problem of Illegal Immigration in some ways to the problems of Slavery.
What many people might overlook is that in the 1860's technology was making the need for masses of stoop laborers a more expensive and increasingly-unnecessary proposition. Mechanical harvesters, The Cotton Gin, Steam Engines, the Telegraph and Railroads were on the verge of making entire occupations obsolete, or reducing the need for physical labor. One of the issues that faced Southern plantation owners in those days was not so much the moral question of "Is slavery a good thing?", or even a more self-serving "Does a continuation of the slave-plantation system make economic sense with the advance of technology", but rather "what do you do with 4 million blacks who will soon be out of work, off the plantation and out of your control, and nursing legitimate grievances that might explode into violence?"
The answer some came up with was to try to maintain the Status Quo, even by force of arms. Eventually, this too would have failed (as it in fact, did) because it would make more economic sense to invest in machines than slaves in the long run. The issue was one of control. The system would have to be perpetuated as matters of personal survival and societal cohesion, rather than as matters of economics or freedoms. This is, in part, the origin of the Secessionist Movement, and the Confederacy.
Now, I'm not defending the Confederacy, nor am I saying in any way whatsoever that "Slavery was good", or even a necessary evil. I'm making the argument, probably poorly, was that given the choice between permanently supporting millions of slaves as a matter of personal survival, or granting freedom to millions of poor, uneducated, unskilled and superfluous workers with legitimate beefs for which to exact vengeance for, the choice of perpetuating the Old System was preferable to the imagined alternative. This mindset (and thebehaviors it engendered) probably also colored (excuse the term) in some ways the recovery of the South in the years after the Civil War -- because technology that might have helped repair the damage to the economy was purposely not invested in in order to help sustain the Plantation System as it was, and because failure to more quickly assimilate or concilliate a potential, wage-earning labor pool, was delayed by the bad feelings engendered by defeat and Reconstruction.
Had it not been for the defeat of the Confederacy, and the slow erosion of old attitudes by law and experience, we might still be talking about an American Apartheid system. I'm not saying that things are perfect now, but they are infinitely better than what could have been imagined by even the most optimistic and well-meaning Mint-Julip-sipper 200 years ago.
We're sorta-kinda approaching the same circumstances with Illegal Immigrants today.
Technology is advancing in such a way as to make even more categories of physical labor obsolete. I don't know about you, but in a world where it's possible to build machines which put entire regiments of skilled workers (accountants, computer programmers, stockbrokers, journalists, technicians of all sorts) out of work every few years, where crops are being genetically-engineered to be easier to grow and harvest, and where improved standards and levels of education are making the choice between unskilled labor and a desk job in an air-conditioned office a no-brainer, then it's only a matter of time before the masses of Illegal Immigrants we have now find themselves in much the same boat as former-slaves were in, post-Freedom. They simply will not have the tools or access to the means to support and better themselves except under great hardship, and they often won't be encouraged to obtain them. For the most part, they will form a New Permanent Underclass. Eventually, that Underclass will become another self-perpetuating source of discontent, racial politicking, and Welfare statism.
The question is: do we really wish allow the conditions for another five, seven, maybe even ten, generations of such people to sit around, supported by the taxpayer from increasingly-scarce funds, and laboring under the obstacles imposed by government fiat to keep them there for a new class of racial hucksters and politician to further exploit? Or do we nip the problem in the bud now, and encourage them to either assimilate NOW, or kindly leave?
The major differences between the plight of African Slaves and Illegal Immigrants is that the slaves were brought here against their will, and their return was problematic at best, and logistically and economically, impossible. The legacy of maltreatment and oppression would leave deep scars that would take generations to heal, if in fact they ever do (and there are entire networks of people dedicated to seeing that they never do -- on both sides of the issue). Society was eventually convinced of it's sin of keeping people in bondage vile and had a responsibility and obligation to "help them along" when things changed. It's only through the vagaries of politics that this "help" acquired the status of a birthright -- and became a system just waiting to be plundered by opportunists.
Many Illegal Aliens made a choice to come here, and since they were able to walk, drive, fly, or sail to these shores, they are perfectly free and capable of making the journey in reverse. Unlike the days of Slavery, no one is stopping them or has a vested interest in detaining them. If conditions are so bad in their home countries perhaps they might take some of what they learned here and apply it to the problem of improving their lot in life back home, and be happier for it. We already know, some of these folks have an incredible capacity for work. We should hope to keep the best and brightest and most motivated, of course, but the great mass do not fall into this category, sadly.
In the meantime, the specter of 12-15 million illegals who aren't even making an attempt to assimilate, who regard education as something akin to a sulphuric-acid enema, who come from cultural backgrounds with practices utterly alien -- and often disgusting -- to us, and who find made-to-order-and-generous-services-delivered-at-no-expense-to-themselves simply making themselves at home is a terrifying vision of the future. We've already had vast experience with this very mindset with African-Americans and it's deleterious effects on Civil Society. Do we really want to repeat the experiment? Or have we learned our lessons -- cultural and moral -- well enough, already?
Technology is on it's way to to making the days of the Illegal Immigrant landscaper,fruit-picker, taxi driver, newsagent, roofer and busboy a thing of the past. Those who can't keep up will fall into permanent poverty, and become an even bigger headache for the taxpayer and a further impediment to the laudable goal of "good government".
Al Sharpton: Jackass...
Whenever I hear Al Sharpton refer to something in terms of "morality", I usually have to stifle the almost-uncontrollable urge to have myself a big 'ol bellylaugh.
Then I have to stifle the disturbing urge to quickly jump into the shower and scrub myself thoroughly with a Brillo pad.
Al Sharpton is one to talk about "Apartheid" since he derives his supposed-stature, infamy, political influence and living from a system of racial double standards in which the subjects of Race, Affirmative Action, the Welfare State, Educational preferences, violent crime, social disintigration and so on, are taboo for a White Guy to offer an opinion upon (doing so gets you tarred as "racist", and a picket line, if Al doesn't like your point of view), but that Al and the brain-dead, mental-plantation-latter-day-government-slave-personal-irresponsibility-is-my-birthright crowd can twist and warp those conventions in order to benefit from those double standards....usually at someone else's expense, and without regard to "fairness" or legality.
I also find it laughable that some of Sharpton's political bent (not necessarily The Rev, himself) who object to the concept of a person having to prove their immigration status after being arrested, are also some of the same people who not so long ago advocated for the creation of a National ID card system...and who have continually voted to renew the Patriot Act, and laws concerning the use of warrent-less wiretaps, and such, while cynically screaming that such things are a violation of Civil Rights.
If Bill (First Black President!) or Hillary has anything to say about this -- because you just know it's coming -- I'll probably puke, but before that happens I should certainly hope they think before they speak -- although with Bill, this is sort of like dropping someone into a room full of power tools and lumber and demanding they bake you a Red Velvet cake; It's beyond hope.
But I digress.
The reasons why Sharpton disagrees with Arizona's new immigration law have nothing to do with the defense of Civil Rights or improving the conditions of life in these United States (the Law is not aimed at individuals an dcreating a new class of criminals, so much as it is individuals who are already breaking existing Law who are the targets). Rather, his motivations revolve around keeping a law intended to prevent the abuse of the welfare system, criminal activity, enhance national security, and save valuable taxpayer money from becoming the harbinger of what he secretly dreads might happen to the carefully-constructed Racial Spoils system that depends so heavily upon voter fraud, welfare, and the ability to inflame racial hatreds and disagreements for personal gain.
In other words: He's protecting his own wallet, and the ability of a permanent underclass (it's permanent in the sense that there's too much easy money,political capital and emotion invested in it for it to be discontinued, or even changed slightly) to continue benefiting from the System as it stands now.
After all: If Whitey comes for the illegal Hispanics now, it's only a matter of time before Whitey comes for the Brothers and Welfare Queens who support you, right Al?
I'm willing to give The Rev the benefit of the doubt up to this point; if he can prove that such a law MUST lead to a violation of someones civil rights, then it's incumbent upon him to present the proof. The truth is, the law only went into affect a few days ago, and insofar as I know no one's rights have been raped by it as of this date. If Sharpton can prove a negative, then by all means, he should do so. I'll be the first to congratulate him for this amazing feat. Until then, he should probably keep his mouth shut because, otherwise, all he's doing is stirring up hatred, fear and enmity for no discernible reason....except his own enrichment.
When Al Sharpton tells the truth about Tawana Brawley, accepts his responsibility for the Freddy's Mart murders and fire, takes President Obambi (First Half-Black President!) to task for making overtly racial overtures to race-based voting blocs -- and a host of other things -- perhaps he'll have the respect and standing from which to make "moral" pronouncements.
Otherwise, it's just Al blowing a lot of hot air and guarding his rice bowl.
Then I have to stifle the disturbing urge to quickly jump into the shower and scrub myself thoroughly with a Brillo pad.
Al Sharpton is one to talk about "Apartheid" since he derives his supposed-stature, infamy, political influence and living from a system of racial double standards in which the subjects of Race, Affirmative Action, the Welfare State, Educational preferences, violent crime, social disintigration and so on, are taboo for a White Guy to offer an opinion upon (doing so gets you tarred as "racist", and a picket line, if Al doesn't like your point of view), but that Al and the brain-dead, mental-plantation-latter-day-government-slave-personal-irresponsibility-is-my-birthright crowd can twist and warp those conventions in order to benefit from those double standards....usually at someone else's expense, and without regard to "fairness" or legality.
I also find it laughable that some of Sharpton's political bent (not necessarily The Rev, himself) who object to the concept of a person having to prove their immigration status after being arrested, are also some of the same people who not so long ago advocated for the creation of a National ID card system...and who have continually voted to renew the Patriot Act, and laws concerning the use of warrent-less wiretaps, and such, while cynically screaming that such things are a violation of Civil Rights.
If Bill (First Black President!) or Hillary has anything to say about this -- because you just know it's coming -- I'll probably puke, but before that happens I should certainly hope they think before they speak -- although with Bill, this is sort of like dropping someone into a room full of power tools and lumber and demanding they bake you a Red Velvet cake; It's beyond hope.
But I digress.
The reasons why Sharpton disagrees with Arizona's new immigration law have nothing to do with the defense of Civil Rights or improving the conditions of life in these United States (the Law is not aimed at individuals an dcreating a new class of criminals, so much as it is individuals who are already breaking existing Law who are the targets). Rather, his motivations revolve around keeping a law intended to prevent the abuse of the welfare system, criminal activity, enhance national security, and save valuable taxpayer money from becoming the harbinger of what he secretly dreads might happen to the carefully-constructed Racial Spoils system that depends so heavily upon voter fraud, welfare, and the ability to inflame racial hatreds and disagreements for personal gain.
In other words: He's protecting his own wallet, and the ability of a permanent underclass (it's permanent in the sense that there's too much easy money,political capital and emotion invested in it for it to be discontinued, or even changed slightly) to continue benefiting from the System as it stands now.
After all: If Whitey comes for the illegal Hispanics now, it's only a matter of time before Whitey comes for the Brothers and Welfare Queens who support you, right Al?
I'm willing to give The Rev the benefit of the doubt up to this point; if he can prove that such a law MUST lead to a violation of someones civil rights, then it's incumbent upon him to present the proof. The truth is, the law only went into affect a few days ago, and insofar as I know no one's rights have been raped by it as of this date. If Sharpton can prove a negative, then by all means, he should do so. I'll be the first to congratulate him for this amazing feat. Until then, he should probably keep his mouth shut because, otherwise, all he's doing is stirring up hatred, fear and enmity for no discernible reason....except his own enrichment.
When Al Sharpton tells the truth about Tawana Brawley, accepts his responsibility for the Freddy's Mart murders and fire, takes President Obambi (First Half-Black President!) to task for making overtly racial overtures to race-based voting blocs -- and a host of other things -- perhaps he'll have the respect and standing from which to make "moral" pronouncements.
Otherwise, it's just Al blowing a lot of hot air and guarding his rice bowl.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)