I admittedly have failed to comment properly on my feelings and position on the so-called DREAM Act and the reason why I am opposed to it. This has not been due to a lack of position, but, in fact, due to my inability to craft a piece that did my position justice.
In short, I feel that EVERY FOREIGN-BORN person should go through the SAME path to U.S. citizenship. Seems fair, doesn't it? If everyone follows the law, then everyone is on equal footing at the time they start the process. Should you get special consideration and get an easier path to citizenship because you have already been living here for many years, using our public education system and social services? The only scenario by which that could happen would be if you were violating U.S. Immigration law, so the answer to that question should be a resounding, "No!"
My position on this piece of legislation also stems from my view on illegal immigration, and my belief that you should receive punishment for breaking the law, not a reward, especially a reward of preferential treatment. Rather than rehash my own personal view on illegal immigration, I would like to provide for you the following excerpt from "Two Californias" by Victor Hanson.
This excerpt below is from Hanson's larger piece on his experiences while traveling through California's once-rich Central Valley, Hanson's home soil, commenting on the desolate wasteland of poverty and welfare-state conditions that the valley has now become due to overregulation and illegal immigration.
This piece holds a special personal significance to me because of my own family's tie in the first half of the 1900s to agriculture, not in the Central Valley, but right here, in Orange County, where four generations ago, my forbearers took the LEGAL path to citizenship:
Fresno’s California State University campus is embroiled in controversy over the student body president’s announcing that he is an illegal alien, with all the requisite protests in favor of the DREAM Act. I won’t comment on the legislation per se, but again only note the anomaly. I taught at CSUF for 21 years. I think it fair to say that the predominant theme of the Chicano and Latin American Studies program’s sizable curriculum was a fuzzy American culpability. By that I mean that students in those classes heard of the sins of America more often than its attractions. In my home town, Mexican flag decals on car windows are far more common than their American counterparts.
I note this because hundreds of students here illegally are now terrified of being deported to Mexico. I can understand that, given the chaos in Mexico and their own long residency in the United States. But here is what still confuses me: If one were to consider the classes that deal with Mexico at the university, or the visible displays of national chauvinism, then one might conclude that Mexico is a far more attractive and moral place than the United States.
So there is a surreal nature to these protests: something like, “Please do not send me back to the culture I nostalgically praise; please let me stay in the culture that I ignore or deprecate.” I think the DREAM Act protestors might have been far more successful in winning public opinion had they stopped blaming the U.S. for suggesting that they might have to leave at some point, and instead explained why, in fact, they want to stay. What is it about America that makes a youth of 21 go on a hunger strike or demonstrate to be allowed to remain in this country rather than return to the place of his birth?
I think I know the answer to this paradox. Missing entirely in the above description is the attitude of the host, which by any historical standard can only be termed “indifferent.” California does not care whether one broke the law to arrive here or continues to break it by staying. It asks nothing of the illegal immigrant — no proficiency in English, no acquaintance with American history and values, no proof of income, no record of education or skills.
It does provide all the public assistance that it can afford (and more that it borrows for), and apparently waives enforcement of most of California’s burdensome regulations and civic statutes that increasingly have plagued productive citizens to the point of driving them out.
How odd that we over-regulate those who are citizens and have capital to the point of banishing them from the state, but do not regulate those who are aliens and without capital to the point of encouraging millions more to follow in their footsteps. How odd — to paraphrase what Critias once said of ancient Sparta — that California is at once both the nation’s most unfree and most free state, the most repressed and the wildest.
I think Hanson makes some fantastically valid points here. While I understand that illegal immigration and the DREAM Act can be very emotional subjects for quite a large number of people living here in the United States, both citizen and non-citizen alike, I think that a good deal of the people who fall on my side of the fence on this issue are troubled mostly by two factors. This group of people's widespread inability to first admit, then hold themselves accountable for violating the law of the land in which they so desire to live, and secondly, what seems to be more of an allegiance to the place in which they do not want to live than to the place in which they do want to live.
When American citizens break the law, we pay fines or get to live in one of our many taxpayer-funded state or federal correctional institutions. Should it not be the case for the non-citizen who knowingly violated U.S. immigration law?
While it is not my intention to ruffle feathers, but my intention to get people on both sides of the argument to think rationally about this issue, I must ask the question. "If Mexico is so fantastic, why are you here in the United States? If you love Mexico so so very much, why did you not stay and try to fix it - try to fight to make your beloved homeland a better place, even if it is just in your neighborhood, or home town? Why do you fly the Mexican flag above the U.S. flag, yet make the choice to live in the country whose flag you fly below the flag of that nation that you chose to not live in anymore?"
These are not rhetorical questions, mind you. These are questions that many of the people that are being flagged as "racists" for opposing illegal immigration and the DREAM Act genuinely would like to have answered by the people on the opposite side of the argument.
Before you get on your soap box and start yelling out charges of elitism and racism, think on one thing - something that Hanson touches on in his article. If you are playing any game, any sport, in the world in which you are on a team, would you not want the person sitting or standing next to you to have an allegiance to your team above all other teams? Would you not want them playing their heart out just as much as you for your team and not have an underlying allegiance to the other team?
Now, consider, that you are not just playing a game, but you are ensuring the future of the greatest democracy to ever exist in the history of mankind - securing its future for your children, your loved ones, securing it for all the good that nation does in the world. Wouldn't you want the person standing next to you to have an allegiance above all others to your nation, and not some other nation? This is what America wants of her citizens, and I do not think it to be an unreasonable request.
If you watch a documentary on people taking the legal path to citizenship, you will see that there is a point in the immigration process where they are asked to pledge their allegiance to the United States of America above all other nations in the world, including the nation which they have left to come to America. You will see that the people making this pledge take that part of the process very seriously - that they labor on it and give it much thought - they struggle with it, but in most cases, they make that pledge. Most notably, you will see by their emotions, that their pledge is genuine.
The illegal immigrant has never had to make that pledge. They have never actually had to contemplate that choice between allegiance to their home country and ours. They get to straddle the fence. They get to live here while their true loyalty remains elsewhere. We are letting them skip a very important and noteworthy step in joining our team. I do not think it is wrong for Americans to want the people living in this country to not be allowed to skip that step.
We have a legal immigration process in place that has served this nation for quite some time. A legal immigration process that does not reward violation of that process, but in fact, deters violation. Many of us believe that our nation is best served by keeping things that way. That's not elitism, and that's not racism. That, my friends, is American Patriotism, and that, my friends, is what we want from those of you who make the choice to join our team...AMERICAN patriotism.
Not only are you incorrect in thinking that most of those who oppose illegal immigration and the DREAM Act do not want you to be able to join the team, but I believe you would find that most of us actually want you on the team. All we are asking is that you join the team according to the rule book - the same rule book that we are going to expect you to follow once you are a member of the team. You are asking us to believe that you are going to follow that rule book when you and yours have already broken its rules. Do you see how that might be of concern to us? Sadly, I don't think that you do.
Dennis Miller said it best when he commented, "We don't mind you joining the party, we just want you to sign the guest book so we know who's here." Again, it's not that Americans don't want you to join the team, we just want you to do it the right way, and we want you to be dedicated 100% to our team. I don't think that is too much to ask.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Three Million-Dollar Questions...
Senior Business Writer for LifeInc. on Today, Allison Linn, recently reported on a study conducted by the RAND corporation, USC, and the University of Michigan in which middle-aged couples were asked the following three questions:
•If the chance of getting a disease is 10 percent, how many people out of 1,000 would be expected to get the disease?
•If five people all have the winning numbers in the lottery and the prize is $2 million, how much will each of them get?
•Let’s say you have $200 in a savings account. The account earns 10 percent interest per year. How much would you have in the account at the end of two years?
Couples in which both people answered the questions correctly had an average net worth of $1.7 million, while couples where neither could answer these questions correctly had an average net worth of $200,000.
So, when you are out there searching for your lifetime mate, make sure you have these questions handy!
In case you need some help, the answers are: 100, $400,000 and $242.
•If the chance of getting a disease is 10 percent, how many people out of 1,000 would be expected to get the disease?
•If five people all have the winning numbers in the lottery and the prize is $2 million, how much will each of them get?
•Let’s say you have $200 in a savings account. The account earns 10 percent interest per year. How much would you have in the account at the end of two years?
Couples in which both people answered the questions correctly had an average net worth of $1.7 million, while couples where neither could answer these questions correctly had an average net worth of $200,000.
So, when you are out there searching for your lifetime mate, make sure you have these questions handy!
In case you need some help, the answers are: 100, $400,000 and $242.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
An America Where We Watch A Man's Home Burn Over A $75 Tax Bill
You'd expect King George to let one of the colonists' homes burn over money owed to the crown in 1773, but a local American government letting a constituent's home burn over $75 in unpaid fire taxes in 2010?
I was truly at a loss for words when I read about this happening. Imagine the sight...in an America where since 9/11, we have elevated the firefighter up to a well-deserved position of heroism and the embodiment of all that is good with America, firefighters literally standing and watching a home burn over $75. A man lost his home, all of his possessions, and even worse, witnessed his three dogs and cat burn to death as his home went up in flames. Again, all over $75.
Gene Cranick, who lives in a rural area outside the city limits of South Fulton, Tennessee is required to pay $75 per year to be covered by the South Fulton Fire Department. While Gene had paid the $75 for the previous two years, he claims to have forgotten to pay it this year. So, when Gene's home caught fire and the South Fulton Fire Department arrived on scene, the "firefighters" literally refused to fight the fire that was engulfing his home. They laid a water line around a neighbor's home, who had paid the $75, to ensure that Cranick's fire did't spread, but as for Cranick, he was on his own.
I cannot think of a more un-American story that I have read in a long time, though I must say, America, my definition of you is rapidly changing because of stories like this.
I would like my America to have firefighters like the men and women who risked their lives on 9/11, like the men and women who risk their lives day in and day out in this country everyday. I do not want my America to have firefighters that make me think of Fahrenheit 451 and a government that would let your home burn to the ground, let your pets burn to death, all over $75...all over what you owe the government.
I'll spare you the tirade over America's changing landscape and how if we keep on this course, the government will one day tell us when we can go to the bathroom, but you can see what I am getting at here.
$75? Firemen standing around, watching a man's home burn to the ground and his animals being killed. Here? In my America? Over $75?
The only good part of the story is that Gene's son, Timothy, went down to the fire house to lodge a complaint and ended up punching Fire Chief David Wilds in the face. Sorry, Chief, you had that one coming. Let's hope the judge goes easy on Timothy and takes into consideration the special circumstances of the case.
I also take issue with what City Manager Jeff Vowell had to say about the situation: "I have no problem with the way any of my people handled the situation. They did what they were supposed to do. It's a regrettable situation any time something like this happens."
I am really hoping that City Manager Jeff Vowell lives outside city limits at one point and forgets to pay his $75 so we can see how "regrettable" he feels that situation ends up being.
I tried to send a comment to the city on their website, but it seems server traffic may be keeping the messages from getting through. Or, the city has grown tired of criticism and disabled certain methods of contacting them.
The message I wanted to send was: "I hope that you relish in the negative publicity and public outcry that your city and its local government have earned from the rest of America. The first question that popped into my head is whether or not your "fire" department would have acted to extinguish the fire had Mr. Cranick paid you in cash there on the scene. Had I been standing there, I'd have paid the $75 for him. To allow the destruction of Mr. Cranick's property and the deaths of his animals over $75 is absolutely ridiculous. Your city, it's local government and your policies are a wildly apt example of what is wrong with America today. You should all be very proud of yourselves. You embody everything that America should NOT be."
I still find this all so unbelievable and wrong.
I was truly at a loss for words when I read about this happening. Imagine the sight...in an America where since 9/11, we have elevated the firefighter up to a well-deserved position of heroism and the embodiment of all that is good with America, firefighters literally standing and watching a home burn over $75. A man lost his home, all of his possessions, and even worse, witnessed his three dogs and cat burn to death as his home went up in flames. Again, all over $75.
Gene Cranick, who lives in a rural area outside the city limits of South Fulton, Tennessee is required to pay $75 per year to be covered by the South Fulton Fire Department. While Gene had paid the $75 for the previous two years, he claims to have forgotten to pay it this year. So, when Gene's home caught fire and the South Fulton Fire Department arrived on scene, the "firefighters" literally refused to fight the fire that was engulfing his home. They laid a water line around a neighbor's home, who had paid the $75, to ensure that Cranick's fire did't spread, but as for Cranick, he was on his own.
I cannot think of a more un-American story that I have read in a long time, though I must say, America, my definition of you is rapidly changing because of stories like this.
I would like my America to have firefighters like the men and women who risked their lives on 9/11, like the men and women who risk their lives day in and day out in this country everyday. I do not want my America to have firefighters that make me think of Fahrenheit 451 and a government that would let your home burn to the ground, let your pets burn to death, all over $75...all over what you owe the government.
I'll spare you the tirade over America's changing landscape and how if we keep on this course, the government will one day tell us when we can go to the bathroom, but you can see what I am getting at here.
$75? Firemen standing around, watching a man's home burn to the ground and his animals being killed. Here? In my America? Over $75?
The only good part of the story is that Gene's son, Timothy, went down to the fire house to lodge a complaint and ended up punching Fire Chief David Wilds in the face. Sorry, Chief, you had that one coming. Let's hope the judge goes easy on Timothy and takes into consideration the special circumstances of the case.
I also take issue with what City Manager Jeff Vowell had to say about the situation: "I have no problem with the way any of my people handled the situation. They did what they were supposed to do. It's a regrettable situation any time something like this happens."
I am really hoping that City Manager Jeff Vowell lives outside city limits at one point and forgets to pay his $75 so we can see how "regrettable" he feels that situation ends up being.
I tried to send a comment to the city on their website, but it seems server traffic may be keeping the messages from getting through. Or, the city has grown tired of criticism and disabled certain methods of contacting them.
The message I wanted to send was: "I hope that you relish in the negative publicity and public outcry that your city and its local government have earned from the rest of America. The first question that popped into my head is whether or not your "fire" department would have acted to extinguish the fire had Mr. Cranick paid you in cash there on the scene. Had I been standing there, I'd have paid the $75 for him. To allow the destruction of Mr. Cranick's property and the deaths of his animals over $75 is absolutely ridiculous. Your city, it's local government and your policies are a wildly apt example of what is wrong with America today. You should all be very proud of yourselves. You embody everything that America should NOT be."
I still find this all so unbelievable and wrong.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
The Use Of Nazi Symbolism In Today's America...
Let me tell you a little bit about Germany's Nazi party and some of what they accomplished while in power.
Some of this is going to be difficult to hear, perhaps even difficult to comprehend, but I challenge anyone to prove to me what I am about to tell you as not being the complete and utter truth.
Upon entering the abandoned mine shafts that served as the final gold reserves for the Nazis, allied troops discovered wooden crates that contained millions of human teeth with gold fillings that had been pried from the corpses of concentration camp victims.
U-boat enlisted men towards the end of the war were wearing socks made from fabric that was strengthened with human hair shaved from the heads of concentration camp victims.
Much of what we know today regarding the effects of temperature shock on the human body was discovered by concentration camp doctors who experimented with freezing cold and scalding hot water tanks and human guinea pigs.
Early in the war, the German Nazi party called on Jewish families to surrender their more expensive possessions for the good of the party and the state, but when Nazi controllers felt the donated items were not of enough value, each corner house in Jewish neighborhoods was made an example of by having two males dragged from the house and shot in the street.
Nazi concentration camp doctors would inject prisoners with different chemicals to measure the human body's tolerance levels to these chemicals and learn how much of each chemical it took to kill a person. Even women and children were injected with lethal amounts of chemicals.
Jewish men in Poland were offered the opportunity to make a decision...whether they would want to watch their wife, or their teenage daughter, be gang-raped by SS soldiers, but they had to chose one.
During the liberation of France, any priests caught assisting the allies by German soldiers were executed upon their capture.
The Nazi regime symbolized so much of evil, of pain, of suffering...the Nazi regime symbolizes the very worst that man can do to his fellow man. That is why it turns my stomach when I see people in this country on both sides depicting our politicians as Hitler, or plastering swastikas all over their protest signs.
It is obvious through the use of Nazi symbolism in this country’s current political climate that most Americans truly do not understand the atrocities that are represented by this symbolism. We are better than this, America.
Some of this is going to be difficult to hear, perhaps even difficult to comprehend, but I challenge anyone to prove to me what I am about to tell you as not being the complete and utter truth.
Upon entering the abandoned mine shafts that served as the final gold reserves for the Nazis, allied troops discovered wooden crates that contained millions of human teeth with gold fillings that had been pried from the corpses of concentration camp victims.
U-boat enlisted men towards the end of the war were wearing socks made from fabric that was strengthened with human hair shaved from the heads of concentration camp victims.
Much of what we know today regarding the effects of temperature shock on the human body was discovered by concentration camp doctors who experimented with freezing cold and scalding hot water tanks and human guinea pigs.
Early in the war, the German Nazi party called on Jewish families to surrender their more expensive possessions for the good of the party and the state, but when Nazi controllers felt the donated items were not of enough value, each corner house in Jewish neighborhoods was made an example of by having two males dragged from the house and shot in the street.
Nazi concentration camp doctors would inject prisoners with different chemicals to measure the human body's tolerance levels to these chemicals and learn how much of each chemical it took to kill a person. Even women and children were injected with lethal amounts of chemicals.
Jewish men in Poland were offered the opportunity to make a decision...whether they would want to watch their wife, or their teenage daughter, be gang-raped by SS soldiers, but they had to chose one.
During the liberation of France, any priests caught assisting the allies by German soldiers were executed upon their capture.
The Nazi regime symbolized so much of evil, of pain, of suffering...the Nazi regime symbolizes the very worst that man can do to his fellow man. That is why it turns my stomach when I see people in this country on both sides depicting our politicians as Hitler, or plastering swastikas all over their protest signs.
It is obvious through the use of Nazi symbolism in this country’s current political climate that most Americans truly do not understand the atrocities that are represented by this symbolism. We are better than this, America.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
There Goes Our President, Re-writing History Again...
Remember "Bush-isms"? It was when George The Great Satan Junior would say something and then we'd get to watch it played over and over again at nauseau and get to hear about how not smart he is be. Well, this morning, I have the pleasure of sharing an "Obama-ism" with you:
"Long before America was even an idea, this land of plenty was home to many peoples. The British and French, the Dutch and Spanish, to Mexicans, to countless Indian tribes. We all shared the same land," President Obama told the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.
Mexico declared its independence on September 16, 1810. It was recognized on September 27, 1821.
The United States of America declared its independence in 1776.
Granted, The Master and Commander was in a room full of Mexicans, so you can expect him to do some pandering - after all, even Barbara Boxer might be on the chopping block this November, so there's some real fear goin' on out there - but, to throw them into the list of people that were here before America is a prime example of this President's view that the hard-working, law-abiding, American taxpayer should always come second to whatever group he is pandering to at the time.
Now, let me add some further items to the conversation that I think of when I hear this quote. The British? Yes, they were here. Technically, that was us before the revolution, there chief, though obviously you do not consider yourself to be among the "descendants" of those British subjects that attained their independence in the Revolution, even when, really, regardless of when you got here, if you are a citizen, in a way, you are. Another prime example of the logic this President shows time and time again where he is much more concerned about being a citizen of the world than of this country. By the way, have you apologized to the Queen for the Revolution yet? Clearly, America was just as much at fault there as we were for winning World War II.
Also, if the Mexicans were Mexicans before Mexico even existed, isn't that some racial profiling right there? Anyone who is of Hispanic descent that was born in North America is a "Mexican" right, regardless of when the nation of Mexico came into existence and regardless of whether or not people were actually living within the borders of a country called Mexico? Is that why you think that every person who was born in Mexico also has a right to U.S. citizenship, regardless of whether or not they respect our laws and want to be a part of this nation, not just a foreign national living and working in America, but whose loyalty ultimately remains to their home country?
And lastly, "We all shared the same land." Yes, that is your vision, isn't it? Where we all share everything and nobody owns anything and everybody owns everything. So, in your fantasy land, did the British and the Indians share the land? Did America and the Indians share the land? Are we still sharing it with them today? What about the wars that we fought with Spain and Mexico? Were we sharing the land with them during the wars? Would you have not fought those wars and simply explained how we should share the land and not fight over it?
Yes, my brown little minions, go forth and tell the people in the barrio that the Democrats will share their land and its opportunities with you, regardless of whether or not you came her legally, for you see, it is all our land together, a shared land with free healthcare, education and a whole bunch of things that were once considered opportunities you worked for, yet today are somehow magically entitled civil rights. Citizen and non-citizen, taxpayer and non-taxpayer, all living together in harmony, everyone with an equal share, regardless of what laws you break, regardless of how much more you take out of America than put back in...
"Long before America was even an idea, this land of plenty was home to many peoples. The British and French, the Dutch and Spanish, to Mexicans, to countless Indian tribes. We all shared the same land," President Obama told the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.
Mexico declared its independence on September 16, 1810. It was recognized on September 27, 1821.
The United States of America declared its independence in 1776.
Granted, The Master and Commander was in a room full of Mexicans, so you can expect him to do some pandering - after all, even Barbara Boxer might be on the chopping block this November, so there's some real fear goin' on out there - but, to throw them into the list of people that were here before America is a prime example of this President's view that the hard-working, law-abiding, American taxpayer should always come second to whatever group he is pandering to at the time.
Now, let me add some further items to the conversation that I think of when I hear this quote. The British? Yes, they were here. Technically, that was us before the revolution, there chief, though obviously you do not consider yourself to be among the "descendants" of those British subjects that attained their independence in the Revolution, even when, really, regardless of when you got here, if you are a citizen, in a way, you are. Another prime example of the logic this President shows time and time again where he is much more concerned about being a citizen of the world than of this country. By the way, have you apologized to the Queen for the Revolution yet? Clearly, America was just as much at fault there as we were for winning World War II.
Also, if the Mexicans were Mexicans before Mexico even existed, isn't that some racial profiling right there? Anyone who is of Hispanic descent that was born in North America is a "Mexican" right, regardless of when the nation of Mexico came into existence and regardless of whether or not people were actually living within the borders of a country called Mexico? Is that why you think that every person who was born in Mexico also has a right to U.S. citizenship, regardless of whether or not they respect our laws and want to be a part of this nation, not just a foreign national living and working in America, but whose loyalty ultimately remains to their home country?
And lastly, "We all shared the same land." Yes, that is your vision, isn't it? Where we all share everything and nobody owns anything and everybody owns everything. So, in your fantasy land, did the British and the Indians share the land? Did America and the Indians share the land? Are we still sharing it with them today? What about the wars that we fought with Spain and Mexico? Were we sharing the land with them during the wars? Would you have not fought those wars and simply explained how we should share the land and not fight over it?
Yes, my brown little minions, go forth and tell the people in the barrio that the Democrats will share their land and its opportunities with you, regardless of whether or not you came her legally, for you see, it is all our land together, a shared land with free healthcare, education and a whole bunch of things that were once considered opportunities you worked for, yet today are somehow magically entitled civil rights. Citizen and non-citizen, taxpayer and non-taxpayer, all living together in harmony, everyone with an equal share, regardless of what laws you break, regardless of how much more you take out of America than put back in...
Monday, September 20, 2010
Hitler's Ho 229 Could Have Had Us All Speaking German By 1950...
I have always said that you go through school, and they teach you some of the facts, but they certainly do not teach you the whole story. When they taught us that we were the first to land on the moon, they defintiely did not tell us that it was thanks to the Nazi V-2 rocket program and a team of SS scientists that we pardoned and gave asylum to after World War II. Here is another piece of technology that the mythical "they" never want us to know about. It is the precursor to our own Stealth Bomber, Stealth Fighter, and even Cold War-era flying wing experimental aircraft. It is the Nazi Ho 2-29 bomber. The following is from an email that has been circulating on the internet, sent to me by my good friend Captain Hooker:
"Keep in mind, this aircraft was built in the 1940's. It resembles our Stealth bombers of today. Had Hitler got these into production sooner, the world wouldn't be what it is today.
With its smooth and elegant lines, this could be a prototype for some future successor to the stealth bomber. But this flying wing was actually designed by the Nazis 30 years before the Americans successfully developed radar-invisible technology. Now an engineering team has reconstructed the Horten Ho 2-29 from blueprints, with startling results.
Blast from the past: The full-scale replica of the Ho 2-29 bomber was made with materials available in the 40s.
Futuristic: The stealth plane design was years ahead of its time. It was faster and more efficient than any other plane of the period and its stealth powers did work against radar. Experts are now convinced that given a little bit more time, the mass deployment of this aircraft could have changed the course of the war.
The plane could have helped Adolf Hitler win the war. First built and tested in the air in March 1944, it was designed with a greater range and speed than any plane previously built and was the first aircraft to use the stealth technology now deployed by the U.S. in its B-2 bombers. Thankfully Hitler's engineers only made three prototypes, tested by being dragged behind a glider, and were not able to build them on an industrial scale before the Allied forces invaded.
From Panzer tanks through to the V-2 rocket, it has long been recognized that Germany 's technological expertise during the war was years ahead of the Allies.
But by 1943, Nazi high command feared that the war was beginning to turn against them, and were desperate to develop new weapons to help turn the tide.
Nazi bombers were suffering badly when faced with the speed and maneuverability of the Spitfire and other Allied fighters. Hitler was also desperate to develop a bomber with the range and capacity to reach the United States .
In 1943 Luftwaffe chief Hermann Goering demanded that designers come up with a bomber that would meet his requirements, one that could carry 1,000 kg over 1,000km flying at 1,000km/h.
A full scale replica of the Ho 229 bomber made with materials available in the 1940s at preflight.
A wing section of the stealth bomber. The jet intakes were years ahead of their time. Two pilot brothers in their thirties, Reimar and Walter Horten, suggested a flying wing design they had been working on for years. They were convinced that with its drag and lack of wind resistance such a plane would meet Goering's requirements.
Construction on a prototype was begun in Goettingen in Germany in 1944.
The centre pod was made from a welded steel tube, and was designed to be powered by a BMW 003 engine. The most important innovation was Reimar Horten's idea to coat it in a mix of charcoal dust and wood glue.
Vengeful: Inventors Reimar and Walter Horten were inspired to build the Ho 2-29 by the deaths of thousands of Luftwaffe pilots in the Battle of Britain.
The 142-foot wingspan bomber was submitted for approval in 1944, and it would have been able to fly from Berlin to NYC and back without refueling, thanks to the same blended wing design and six BMW 003A or eight Junker Jumo 004B turbojets. They thought the electromagnetic waves of radar would be absorbed, and in conjunction with the aircraft's sculpted surfaces the craft would be rendered almost invisible to radar detectors. The plane was covered in radar absorbent paint with a high graphite content, which has a similar chemical make-up to charcoal. This was the same method eventually used by the U.S. in its first stealth aircraft in the early 1980s, the F-117A Nighthawk.
After the war the Americans captured the prototype Ho 2-29s along with the blueprints and used some of their technological advances to aid their own designs. But experts always doubted claims that the Horten could actually function as a stealth aircraft.
Now using the blueprints and the only remaining prototype craft, Northrop-Grumman (the defense firm behind the B-2) built a full-size replica of a Horten Ho 2-29.
Luckily for Britain, the Horten flying wing fighter-bomber never got much further than the blueprint stage above.
Thanks to the use of wood and carbon, jet engines integrated into the fuselage, and its blended surfaces, the plane could have been in London eight minutes after the radar system detected it. It took them 2,500 man-hours and $250,000 to construct, and although their replica cannot fly, it was radar-tested by placing it on a 50 ft articulating pole and exposing it to electromagnetic waves. The team demonstrated that although the aircraft is not completely invisible to the type of radar used in the war, it would have been stealthy enough and fast enough to ensure that it could reach London before Spitfires could be scrambled to intercept it.
If the Germans had had time to develop this aircraft, it could well have had an impact, says Peter Murton, aviation expert from the Imperial War Museum at Duxford, in Cambridgeshire.
In theory the flying wing was a very efficient aircraft design, which minimized drag. It is one of the reasons that it could reach very high speeds in dive and glide modes and had such an incredibly long range.
The research was filmed for a forthcoming documentary on the National Geographic Channel."
"Keep in mind, this aircraft was built in the 1940's. It resembles our Stealth bombers of today. Had Hitler got these into production sooner, the world wouldn't be what it is today.
With its smooth and elegant lines, this could be a prototype for some future successor to the stealth bomber. But this flying wing was actually designed by the Nazis 30 years before the Americans successfully developed radar-invisible technology. Now an engineering team has reconstructed the Horten Ho 2-29 from blueprints, with startling results.
Blast from the past: The full-scale replica of the Ho 2-29 bomber was made with materials available in the 40s.
Futuristic: The stealth plane design was years ahead of its time. It was faster and more efficient than any other plane of the period and its stealth powers did work against radar. Experts are now convinced that given a little bit more time, the mass deployment of this aircraft could have changed the course of the war.
The plane could have helped Adolf Hitler win the war. First built and tested in the air in March 1944, it was designed with a greater range and speed than any plane previously built and was the first aircraft to use the stealth technology now deployed by the U.S. in its B-2 bombers. Thankfully Hitler's engineers only made three prototypes, tested by being dragged behind a glider, and were not able to build them on an industrial scale before the Allied forces invaded.
From Panzer tanks through to the V-2 rocket, it has long been recognized that Germany 's technological expertise during the war was years ahead of the Allies.
But by 1943, Nazi high command feared that the war was beginning to turn against them, and were desperate to develop new weapons to help turn the tide.
Nazi bombers were suffering badly when faced with the speed and maneuverability of the Spitfire and other Allied fighters. Hitler was also desperate to develop a bomber with the range and capacity to reach the United States .
In 1943 Luftwaffe chief Hermann Goering demanded that designers come up with a bomber that would meet his requirements, one that could carry 1,000 kg over 1,000km flying at 1,000km/h.
A full scale replica of the Ho 229 bomber made with materials available in the 1940s at preflight.
A wing section of the stealth bomber. The jet intakes were years ahead of their time. Two pilot brothers in their thirties, Reimar and Walter Horten, suggested a flying wing design they had been working on for years. They were convinced that with its drag and lack of wind resistance such a plane would meet Goering's requirements.
Construction on a prototype was begun in Goettingen in Germany in 1944.
The centre pod was made from a welded steel tube, and was designed to be powered by a BMW 003 engine. The most important innovation was Reimar Horten's idea to coat it in a mix of charcoal dust and wood glue.
Vengeful: Inventors Reimar and Walter Horten were inspired to build the Ho 2-29 by the deaths of thousands of Luftwaffe pilots in the Battle of Britain.
The 142-foot wingspan bomber was submitted for approval in 1944, and it would have been able to fly from Berlin to NYC and back without refueling, thanks to the same blended wing design and six BMW 003A or eight Junker Jumo 004B turbojets. They thought the electromagnetic waves of radar would be absorbed, and in conjunction with the aircraft's sculpted surfaces the craft would be rendered almost invisible to radar detectors. The plane was covered in radar absorbent paint with a high graphite content, which has a similar chemical make-up to charcoal. This was the same method eventually used by the U.S. in its first stealth aircraft in the early 1980s, the F-117A Nighthawk.
After the war the Americans captured the prototype Ho 2-29s along with the blueprints and used some of their technological advances to aid their own designs. But experts always doubted claims that the Horten could actually function as a stealth aircraft.
Now using the blueprints and the only remaining prototype craft, Northrop-Grumman (the defense firm behind the B-2) built a full-size replica of a Horten Ho 2-29.
Luckily for Britain, the Horten flying wing fighter-bomber never got much further than the blueprint stage above.
Thanks to the use of wood and carbon, jet engines integrated into the fuselage, and its blended surfaces, the plane could have been in London eight minutes after the radar system detected it. It took them 2,500 man-hours and $250,000 to construct, and although their replica cannot fly, it was radar-tested by placing it on a 50 ft articulating pole and exposing it to electromagnetic waves. The team demonstrated that although the aircraft is not completely invisible to the type of radar used in the war, it would have been stealthy enough and fast enough to ensure that it could reach London before Spitfires could be scrambled to intercept it.
If the Germans had had time to develop this aircraft, it could well have had an impact, says Peter Murton, aviation expert from the Imperial War Museum at Duxford, in Cambridgeshire.
In theory the flying wing was a very efficient aircraft design, which minimized drag. It is one of the reasons that it could reach very high speeds in dive and glide modes and had such an incredibly long range.
The research was filmed for a forthcoming documentary on the National Geographic Channel."
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Much Bigger Than A Single Report...
At the request of the Master and Commander, the Secretary of State has filed a report with the United Nations, stating that his administration is meeting the mandates of the UN's Human Rights Council through efforts that include filing a lawsuit to stop the state of Arizona from enforcing a law that was passed by its elected officials.
Like a number of my fellow Americans, I find it very disturbing that the Obama Administration is reporting one of our state governments to those jokers at the UN as a violator of human rights because of its enforcement of the nation's immigration laws within its borders. This is further proof that the Master and Commander is more concerned with what the world thinks, than what America's citizens think.
In explaining what is wrong with this filing by the Obama Administration, we must start by looking at what is wrong with the United Nations. While this organization does a lot of good in the world through the funding and resources of the world's industrialized nations, it also turns a blind eye to a hell of a lot of really bad things that go on in the world.
This misguided organization will put some of the world's worst human rights violators on its Human Rights Council in the interest of playing fair and making sure that everyone has a turn. The UN deploys peace-keeping forces that have orders to stand by and watch while horrible atrocities occur. The organization also gives an equal voice to some of the most oppressive regimes on the planet, then turns around and views itself as righteous.
"Everyone gets to ride the merry-go-round at school today because it is only fair!" the UN exclaims. Rational Americans reply with disgust, "Even if little Johnny Iran is killing government protesters in the streets, he still gets a turn?!" The UN's answer..."Yes, of course."
Next, we must look at the United States, our long-standing engagement policy with the UN, and how the Obama Administration is changing that policy for the worse. The U.S. has a very strong track record of participation in the UN when it comes to putting our men and women in uniform in harm's way to do good out there in the world, even at times, trying to steer this misguided organization to do the right thing.
We have also, however, had a very strong track record of not participating in a number of the organization's ridiculous propaganda programs, and most importantly, worked hard to ensure that the U.S. does not end up in a submissive position with the UN, something that has long been viewed as detrimental to our security.
To summarize, the United States has had a long-standing policy of involvement in the UN programs that actually make a difference in the world, yet at the same time, has shunned involvement in the organization's misguided propaganda programs that put giving all nations an equal voice above the importance of human rights and security.
All of that, my friends, like so many other things in our lives, is changing under the rule of the Master and Commander. Say what you want to about the Bush Administration, but one thing you cannot say is that at any point did that group of people put what the world thought of us before the security and welfare of the citizens of the United States of America.
You have to reserve that comment for the current administration. It started with a whirlwind tour of the world in the early days of his presidency with the Master and Commander going nation to nation, bowing in submission before world leaders, shaking hands with Hugo Chavez, and apologizing for such things as winning World War II and fighting the War on Terror. Today, it continues with this President bowing to the will of the world, making his own country and its people a secondary priority to world opinion by participating in the latest UN propaganda program.
This participation in UN propaganda is most recently apparent with the filing of a Universal Periodic Review report by the Obama Administration. Implemented in 2006 by the UN, this report that would have been viewed as a "suggestion" by the Bush administration was obviously viewed as a "requirement" by the one-worlders in Washington.
The UN "requires" every member nation to submit a report every four years on what they have done to "improve the human rights situations in their countries and to fulfill their human rights obligations." In addition to filing this report, which breaks from our long-standing policy of not buying into the UN's propaganda programs, the Master and Commander has reported that one of the things his administration has done to comply with the mandates of the UN Human Rights Council is file a lawsuit against the U.S. State of Arizona, seeking to stop the state from enforcing the recently-passed SB 1070 bill, allowing law enforcement officials to question the citizenship and immigration status of people within the state who are suspect of breaking the law.
The UN's Universal Periodic Review and its report are a prime example of a propaganda program. Each nation provides its own report and when looking at the UN's track record of human rights enforcement, it can clearly be seen that this program is nothing more than yet another propaganda piece in the UN's arsenal to win positive public opinion for itself around the world. What do you think China's communist party leaders are putting in their report? What do you think Iran is putting in its report? And even if Iran did own up and report "we're working on not killing people who protest the government anymore", do you think the UN is actually going to do something about it? Their track record definitely points to no.
Throughout the history of the UN, the U.S. has been a strong part of the organization when lives were on the line, but did not buy into their propaganda programs for a very good reason...the strength and security of our nation. The Master and Commander, obviously doesn't agree.
Not only is the current U.S. administration readily buying into the UN's Universal Periodic Review propaganda program, it is apparent that the administration is also willing to sacrifice the will, security, and welfare of its citizens in order to win positive world opinion from a world stage that includes the supporters of our enemies, including the United Nations.
Like a number of my fellow Americans, I find it very disturbing that the Obama Administration is reporting one of our state governments to those jokers at the UN as a violator of human rights because of its enforcement of the nation's immigration laws within its borders. This is further proof that the Master and Commander is more concerned with what the world thinks, than what America's citizens think.
In explaining what is wrong with this filing by the Obama Administration, we must start by looking at what is wrong with the United Nations. While this organization does a lot of good in the world through the funding and resources of the world's industrialized nations, it also turns a blind eye to a hell of a lot of really bad things that go on in the world.
This misguided organization will put some of the world's worst human rights violators on its Human Rights Council in the interest of playing fair and making sure that everyone has a turn. The UN deploys peace-keeping forces that have orders to stand by and watch while horrible atrocities occur. The organization also gives an equal voice to some of the most oppressive regimes on the planet, then turns around and views itself as righteous.
"Everyone gets to ride the merry-go-round at school today because it is only fair!" the UN exclaims. Rational Americans reply with disgust, "Even if little Johnny Iran is killing government protesters in the streets, he still gets a turn?!" The UN's answer..."Yes, of course."
Next, we must look at the United States, our long-standing engagement policy with the UN, and how the Obama Administration is changing that policy for the worse. The U.S. has a very strong track record of participation in the UN when it comes to putting our men and women in uniform in harm's way to do good out there in the world, even at times, trying to steer this misguided organization to do the right thing.
We have also, however, had a very strong track record of not participating in a number of the organization's ridiculous propaganda programs, and most importantly, worked hard to ensure that the U.S. does not end up in a submissive position with the UN, something that has long been viewed as detrimental to our security.
To summarize, the United States has had a long-standing policy of involvement in the UN programs that actually make a difference in the world, yet at the same time, has shunned involvement in the organization's misguided propaganda programs that put giving all nations an equal voice above the importance of human rights and security.
All of that, my friends, like so many other things in our lives, is changing under the rule of the Master and Commander. Say what you want to about the Bush Administration, but one thing you cannot say is that at any point did that group of people put what the world thought of us before the security and welfare of the citizens of the United States of America.
You have to reserve that comment for the current administration. It started with a whirlwind tour of the world in the early days of his presidency with the Master and Commander going nation to nation, bowing in submission before world leaders, shaking hands with Hugo Chavez, and apologizing for such things as winning World War II and fighting the War on Terror. Today, it continues with this President bowing to the will of the world, making his own country and its people a secondary priority to world opinion by participating in the latest UN propaganda program.
This participation in UN propaganda is most recently apparent with the filing of a Universal Periodic Review report by the Obama Administration. Implemented in 2006 by the UN, this report that would have been viewed as a "suggestion" by the Bush administration was obviously viewed as a "requirement" by the one-worlders in Washington.
The UN "requires" every member nation to submit a report every four years on what they have done to "improve the human rights situations in their countries and to fulfill their human rights obligations." In addition to filing this report, which breaks from our long-standing policy of not buying into the UN's propaganda programs, the Master and Commander has reported that one of the things his administration has done to comply with the mandates of the UN Human Rights Council is file a lawsuit against the U.S. State of Arizona, seeking to stop the state from enforcing the recently-passed SB 1070 bill, allowing law enforcement officials to question the citizenship and immigration status of people within the state who are suspect of breaking the law.
The UN's Universal Periodic Review and its report are a prime example of a propaganda program. Each nation provides its own report and when looking at the UN's track record of human rights enforcement, it can clearly be seen that this program is nothing more than yet another propaganda piece in the UN's arsenal to win positive public opinion for itself around the world. What do you think China's communist party leaders are putting in their report? What do you think Iran is putting in its report? And even if Iran did own up and report "we're working on not killing people who protest the government anymore", do you think the UN is actually going to do something about it? Their track record definitely points to no.
Throughout the history of the UN, the U.S. has been a strong part of the organization when lives were on the line, but did not buy into their propaganda programs for a very good reason...the strength and security of our nation. The Master and Commander, obviously doesn't agree.
Not only is the current U.S. administration readily buying into the UN's Universal Periodic Review propaganda program, it is apparent that the administration is also willing to sacrifice the will, security, and welfare of its citizens in order to win positive world opinion from a world stage that includes the supporters of our enemies, including the United Nations.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Why I Oppose The Mosque Near Ground Zero
I must admit that I agree more with the people who do not want the Muslim Community Center and Mosque built near Ground Zero than those who do. I do see Mayor Michael Bloomberg's point about being able to build what you want on the land that you own, and I do see the Master and Commander's view on religious freedom in America and the message it might send, though as I said yesterday, I highly disagree with his invocation of the Founding Fathers to make his point, and more importantly, disagree with his position on the issue.
But, do you know what else I see? I see why if your loved one was killed on 9/11/01, you might not want to have to walk by a Muslim Community Center and Mosque with a questionable background on the way to the "hallowed ground" of the World Trade Center to visit the 9/11 memorial, or just to spend some time in the general area that you know your loved one spent the last few minutes of their life.
Do some research, and you will find that there were, in fact, a number of Muslims that died as victims of the attacks, but even the highest most trustworthy estimates put that number at well under 100 of the almost 3,000 victims that perished that day. A much larger number of the victims were believers in Christ-based faiths and Judaism. While the conspiracy theorists, far-leaning thinkers, and honestly, U.S.-haters, do not want us classifying them as such, the 19 men that caused 9/11 considered themselves to be Muslim. Regardless of the merits and beliefs of Islam and how the religious beliefs of most Muslims (especially those here in the U.S.) greatly differ in belief from what was carried out on 9/11, all the evidence seems to point to the fact that these 19 guys considered themselves to be Muslim and considered themselves to be waging a holy war against America and its Christians and Jews. All that being said, you really can see how the families of the victims and a large number of Americans might not want that Muslim Community Center and Mosque built right there, just a couple blocks from Ground Zero. I tend to find myself agreeing with this point.
What I would like to know more about, however, in light of this debate that I am hearing, is the background and financing trail of this group that wants to build this Muslim Community Center and Mosque right there next to Ground Zero. So, show me that this is a 100% completely upstanding group of Muslims who do not believe in violence, and do not believe that the September 11th attacks were something that we had coming, and maybe you will sway me. It just seems right now, that the jury is still out on that.
Do they have ties to terrorist groups and does their money have ties to terrorist groups? It seems no one is able to give us a straight answer on that, including the people that want to build the mosque. The people who want this mosque most definietly do not seem to be able to prove without a reasonable doubt that absolutely none of their money and support comes from extremist groups with an agenda. I do see that as a huge problem and a major part of this story, and my decision, which as I said, leans more towards the fact that this mosque should not be built there.
Yes, Mr. Bloomberg, they own the land and should be able to build what they want to on it by the letter of the law, and yes, Mr. Master and Commander, in that perfect little world that seems to only exist in your mind, we should live by the letter of the law in regards to religious freedom and what that means in America today, however, there are times when you need to look at things subjectively, regardless of what the laws say on paper. Isn't that what you believe about illegal immigration, Senor Obamos?
So, for now, I oppose the building of this mosque that close to Ground Zero. I understand the New York City Mayor's position, but disagree with it. I understand the President of The United States of America's position, but disagree with it, and will go as far as to say that I think he is speaking prematurely and has made a mistake that will cost him and his party some support from the American middle.
I understand what the separation is between the average everyday Muslim and these fanatical extremists, but let's not delude ourselves into thinking that there are not extremist Muslims with agendas still living and working in this country. And let's not forget what a small group of dedicated, like-minded people out to kill as many Americans as they can are capable of doing.
But, do you know what else I see? I see why if your loved one was killed on 9/11/01, you might not want to have to walk by a Muslim Community Center and Mosque with a questionable background on the way to the "hallowed ground" of the World Trade Center to visit the 9/11 memorial, or just to spend some time in the general area that you know your loved one spent the last few minutes of their life.
Do some research, and you will find that there were, in fact, a number of Muslims that died as victims of the attacks, but even the highest most trustworthy estimates put that number at well under 100 of the almost 3,000 victims that perished that day. A much larger number of the victims were believers in Christ-based faiths and Judaism. While the conspiracy theorists, far-leaning thinkers, and honestly, U.S.-haters, do not want us classifying them as such, the 19 men that caused 9/11 considered themselves to be Muslim. Regardless of the merits and beliefs of Islam and how the religious beliefs of most Muslims (especially those here in the U.S.) greatly differ in belief from what was carried out on 9/11, all the evidence seems to point to the fact that these 19 guys considered themselves to be Muslim and considered themselves to be waging a holy war against America and its Christians and Jews. All that being said, you really can see how the families of the victims and a large number of Americans might not want that Muslim Community Center and Mosque built right there, just a couple blocks from Ground Zero. I tend to find myself agreeing with this point.
What I would like to know more about, however, in light of this debate that I am hearing, is the background and financing trail of this group that wants to build this Muslim Community Center and Mosque right there next to Ground Zero. So, show me that this is a 100% completely upstanding group of Muslims who do not believe in violence, and do not believe that the September 11th attacks were something that we had coming, and maybe you will sway me. It just seems right now, that the jury is still out on that.
Do they have ties to terrorist groups and does their money have ties to terrorist groups? It seems no one is able to give us a straight answer on that, including the people that want to build the mosque. The people who want this mosque most definietly do not seem to be able to prove without a reasonable doubt that absolutely none of their money and support comes from extremist groups with an agenda. I do see that as a huge problem and a major part of this story, and my decision, which as I said, leans more towards the fact that this mosque should not be built there.
Yes, Mr. Bloomberg, they own the land and should be able to build what they want to on it by the letter of the law, and yes, Mr. Master and Commander, in that perfect little world that seems to only exist in your mind, we should live by the letter of the law in regards to religious freedom and what that means in America today, however, there are times when you need to look at things subjectively, regardless of what the laws say on paper. Isn't that what you believe about illegal immigration, Senor Obamos?
So, for now, I oppose the building of this mosque that close to Ground Zero. I understand the New York City Mayor's position, but disagree with it. I understand the President of The United States of America's position, but disagree with it, and will go as far as to say that I think he is speaking prematurely and has made a mistake that will cost him and his party some support from the American middle.
I understand what the separation is between the average everyday Muslim and these fanatical extremists, but let's not delude ourselves into thinking that there are not extremist Muslims with agendas still living and working in this country. And let's not forget what a small group of dedicated, like-minded people out to kill as many Americans as they can are capable of doing.
Monday, August 16, 2010
"The writ of our founders must endure"
When speaking recently on the proposed Muslim Community Center and Mosque to be built near Ground Zero, The Master and Commander commented that "The writ of our founders must endure", referring, of course to, as he said, "our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable".
First off, know that I don't want to go back in time and change anything - I am not saying that this country was founded incorrectly, that we need to fix it (though it would be nice to go back in time and have an America that was always free of slavery), but I do want us to think about something when we think of the Founding Fathers, and most definitely when we invoke their intentions with our fine nation during its initial creation in the context of furthering our political views today (I'm talking to you, Master and Commander).
Think along the lines of me not wanting to go back and change too many things because we will not end up with the same nation that we have today. Sure, there is room for improvement over history, but who knows what you'll end up with if you got back and start tampering with things.
That being said, however, can we all please remember that this nation was founded by a group of white, Christ-based faith believing, mostly slave-owning, straight (definitely in the closet if not) men, who, while progressive for their time in terms of their thinking on government, established a nation that did not allow women the right to vote or own land and allowed for a person to be enslaved in permanent bondage and servitude.
I personally am sick and tired of hearing how it was the intention of this group of men that all men and women of all races (literally every human being on the planet) should be equal in all regards, and should all have equal rights including a civil right to water, food, shelter and public services. I am not saying that I don't believe in this, and I am not saying that I do not want this nation to have those principles today, but what I am saying is let's not go back and revise history in our minds to think that the Founding Fathers, the guys who were at the Continental Congress, fought in the Revolution, and established the framework for the United States of America, believed in these same principles, because quite clearly, they did not.
If you go back and read what most of the founders of the United States of America were writing at the time, you will most definitely see that it was not their intention for non-Christ-based faiths, women voters, women land owners, and people of color to have an equal place in the country as them. White, Christ-fearing land owner, you're in and here's your ballot - all others, some other, lesser role of servitude, and don't bother coming to the polls on election day.
Again, let's stick to our values and what we know to be right, but can we all please stop portraying the Founding Fathers as saints, because quite frankly, they were far from it.
First off, know that I don't want to go back in time and change anything - I am not saying that this country was founded incorrectly, that we need to fix it (though it would be nice to go back in time and have an America that was always free of slavery), but I do want us to think about something when we think of the Founding Fathers, and most definitely when we invoke their intentions with our fine nation during its initial creation in the context of furthering our political views today (I'm talking to you, Master and Commander).
Think along the lines of me not wanting to go back and change too many things because we will not end up with the same nation that we have today. Sure, there is room for improvement over history, but who knows what you'll end up with if you got back and start tampering with things.
That being said, however, can we all please remember that this nation was founded by a group of white, Christ-based faith believing, mostly slave-owning, straight (definitely in the closet if not) men, who, while progressive for their time in terms of their thinking on government, established a nation that did not allow women the right to vote or own land and allowed for a person to be enslaved in permanent bondage and servitude.
I personally am sick and tired of hearing how it was the intention of this group of men that all men and women of all races (literally every human being on the planet) should be equal in all regards, and should all have equal rights including a civil right to water, food, shelter and public services. I am not saying that I don't believe in this, and I am not saying that I do not want this nation to have those principles today, but what I am saying is let's not go back and revise history in our minds to think that the Founding Fathers, the guys who were at the Continental Congress, fought in the Revolution, and established the framework for the United States of America, believed in these same principles, because quite clearly, they did not.
If you go back and read what most of the founders of the United States of America were writing at the time, you will most definitely see that it was not their intention for non-Christ-based faiths, women voters, women land owners, and people of color to have an equal place in the country as them. White, Christ-fearing land owner, you're in and here's your ballot - all others, some other, lesser role of servitude, and don't bother coming to the polls on election day.
Again, let's stick to our values and what we know to be right, but can we all please stop portraying the Founding Fathers as saints, because quite frankly, they were far from it.
Monday, August 9, 2010
Charlie Brown's B-17
Look carefully at the B-17 and note how shot up it is - one engine dead, tail, horizontal stabilizer and nose shot up. It was ready to fall out of the sky (this is a painting done by an artist from the description of both pilots many years later). Then realize that there is a German ME-109 fighter flying next to it. Now read the story below. I think you'll be surprised...
Charlie Brown was a B-17 Flying Fortress pilot with the 379th Bomber Group at Kimbolton, England. His B-17 was called 'Ye Old Pub' and was in a terrible state, having been hit by flak and fighters. The compass was damaged and they were flying deeper over enemy territory instead of heading home to Kimbolton.
After flying the B-17 over an enemy airfield, a German pilot named Franz Stigler was ordered to take off and shoot down the B-17. When he got near the B-17, he could not believe his eyes. In his words, he "had never seen a plane in such a bad state". The tail and rear section was severely damaged, and the tail gunner wounded. The top gunner was all over the top of the fuselage. The nose was smashed and there were holes everywhere.
Despite having ammunition, Franz flew to the side of the B-17 and looked at Charlie Brown, the pilot. Brown was scared and struggling to control his damaged and blood-stained plane.
Aware that they had no idea where they were going, Franz waved at Charlie to turn 180 degrees. Franz escorted and guided the stricken plane to, and slightly over, the North Sea towards England. He then saluted Charlie Brown and turned away, back to Europe. When Franz landed he told the CO that the plane had been shot down over the sea, and never told the truth to anybody. Charlie Brown and the remaining members of his crew told their commanding officers all about the German pilot at their mission debriefing, but were ordered never to talk about it.
More than 40 years later, Charlie Brown wanted to find the Luftwaffe pilot who saved the crew. After years of research, Franz Stigler was found. He had never talked about the incident, not even at post-war reunions.
They met in the USA at a 379th Bomber Group reunion, together with 25 people who are alive now - all because Franz never fired his guns that day.
When asked why he didn't shoot them down, Stigler later said, "I didn't have the heart to finish those brave men. I flew beside them for a long time. They were trying desperately to get home and I was going to let them do that. I could not have shot at them. It would have been the same as shooting at a man in a parachute."
Both Brown and Stigler died in 2008.
While there are many hoaxes and false tales circulating in email and on the web, this story is true: http://www.snopes.com/military/charliebrown.asp
Charlie Brown was a B-17 Flying Fortress pilot with the 379th Bomber Group at Kimbolton, England. His B-17 was called 'Ye Old Pub' and was in a terrible state, having been hit by flak and fighters. The compass was damaged and they were flying deeper over enemy territory instead of heading home to Kimbolton.
After flying the B-17 over an enemy airfield, a German pilot named Franz Stigler was ordered to take off and shoot down the B-17. When he got near the B-17, he could not believe his eyes. In his words, he "had never seen a plane in such a bad state". The tail and rear section was severely damaged, and the tail gunner wounded. The top gunner was all over the top of the fuselage. The nose was smashed and there were holes everywhere.
Despite having ammunition, Franz flew to the side of the B-17 and looked at Charlie Brown, the pilot. Brown was scared and struggling to control his damaged and blood-stained plane.
Aware that they had no idea where they were going, Franz waved at Charlie to turn 180 degrees. Franz escorted and guided the stricken plane to, and slightly over, the North Sea towards England. He then saluted Charlie Brown and turned away, back to Europe. When Franz landed he told the CO that the plane had been shot down over the sea, and never told the truth to anybody. Charlie Brown and the remaining members of his crew told their commanding officers all about the German pilot at their mission debriefing, but were ordered never to talk about it.
More than 40 years later, Charlie Brown wanted to find the Luftwaffe pilot who saved the crew. After years of research, Franz Stigler was found. He had never talked about the incident, not even at post-war reunions.
They met in the USA at a 379th Bomber Group reunion, together with 25 people who are alive now - all because Franz never fired his guns that day.
When asked why he didn't shoot them down, Stigler later said, "I didn't have the heart to finish those brave men. I flew beside them for a long time. They were trying desperately to get home and I was going to let them do that. I could not have shot at them. It would have been the same as shooting at a man in a parachute."
Both Brown and Stigler died in 2008.
While there are many hoaxes and false tales circulating in email and on the web, this story is true: http://www.snopes.com/military/charliebrown.asp
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Americans Owe Less...
You have no doubt heard by now, or perhaps have experienced first hand, that credit is a lot harder to come by than it was just a couple years ago. This may, in fact, not be such a bad thing for American consumers, forcing them to live within their means and drive down debt balances.
In March 2009, outstanding non-mortgage debt in the U.S. was $2.54 Trillion. By March 2010, that number had dropped to $2.45 Trillion. That's just about $9 Billion, but it is a good start in the right direction.
There have now been 18 straight months that have seen the level of revolving debt drop, with $935 Billion in March 2009, down to $853 Billion in March 2010.
Also, there are 16% less Americans that are 90 days behind or more on their credit cards today than a year ago, and 20% less that are 60 days behind or more on a car loan.
In March 2009, outstanding non-mortgage debt in the U.S. was $2.54 Trillion. By March 2010, that number had dropped to $2.45 Trillion. That's just about $9 Billion, but it is a good start in the right direction.
There have now been 18 straight months that have seen the level of revolving debt drop, with $935 Billion in March 2009, down to $853 Billion in March 2010.
Also, there are 16% less Americans that are 90 days behind or more on their credit cards today than a year ago, and 20% less that are 60 days behind or more on a car loan.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Can We Talk About Spending Cuts, Please?...
We are going to be hearing some fierce debate in the coming weeks, and perhaps months, about the expiration of the Bush tax cuts from 2001 and 2003. While I do see this as something that we should be debating, the fact remains that the expiration of these tax cuts, as they will be allowed to expire by The Master and Commander, will only affect the top three percent of households in the country. The problem with the equation, however, is that these are the three percent of households that run the small businesses that create the jobs that we need so badly right now. I am hearing from the Master and Commander's Money Manager that they are now, after record-setting spending and borrowing, concerned about the growing national debt, and believe that allowing these tax cuts on people making more than $250,000 a year to expire will help bring down the deficit. Perhaps it will, but I also believe that the expiration of these tax cuts may have an effect on job creation by enterpreneurs. There will be a change in their bottom line and that change could result in them becoming wary of creating new jobs. Unlike the federal government, most people spend less when their income is reduced.
While all of this debate about the tax cuts is needed, I would very much like to see our government leaders, especially those on a particular side of the aisle, talking more about spending cuts. Spending cuts? In the middle of the worst economic crisis in history, with less and less money coming in, you want us to spend less? Now, that's just crazy talk, stupid constituent! There are so, so many ways in which our local, state, and federal governments can cut down on their spending, much in the same way that they have all seen the rest of America do during this crisis. We are not holding the federal government and this administration to the spending cuts that we should be seeing.
For a great example of government waste, click here to see a bill from the U.S. IRS issued to an Orange County resident for 1-cent. Now, of course, this is a drop in the well, nothing compared to other spending, etc. etc., but it is a good concrete example of somewhere we could start - proof positive that there are places that we could cut wasteful spending - most likely proof positive that if we are seeing waste like this, there is also waste elsewhere that we could cut.
So, as we all get caught up in this debate on the tax cuts, let's watch for the slight of hand and these politicians try to take our eyes away from where we should be looking - forcing them to spend less and save more, just like the rest of us are doing.
While all of this debate about the tax cuts is needed, I would very much like to see our government leaders, especially those on a particular side of the aisle, talking more about spending cuts. Spending cuts? In the middle of the worst economic crisis in history, with less and less money coming in, you want us to spend less? Now, that's just crazy talk, stupid constituent! There are so, so many ways in which our local, state, and federal governments can cut down on their spending, much in the same way that they have all seen the rest of America do during this crisis. We are not holding the federal government and this administration to the spending cuts that we should be seeing.
For a great example of government waste, click here to see a bill from the U.S. IRS issued to an Orange County resident for 1-cent. Now, of course, this is a drop in the well, nothing compared to other spending, etc. etc., but it is a good concrete example of somewhere we could start - proof positive that there are places that we could cut wasteful spending - most likely proof positive that if we are seeing waste like this, there is also waste elsewhere that we could cut.
So, as we all get caught up in this debate on the tax cuts, let's watch for the slight of hand and these politicians try to take our eyes away from where we should be looking - forcing them to spend less and save more, just like the rest of us are doing.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
$20,000 In "Stimulus" Money For Two Road Signs That Were Up For About A Month...
Make no mistake about it...I love living in Aliso Viejo, and I am planning to continue to do so for the foreseeable future. One of the great things about living where I do is our large number of parks and open areas. Every single street is beautifully landscaped and literally every part of the city is well maintained. We have a great fireworks show every Fourth of July and a lot of community activities, including a brand new aquatic center. Now, we all know that this doesn't come cheap. I currently pay $339.52 a year to the city association to help fund our pleasing-to-the-eye lifestyle.
Another great thing about Aliso Viejo is that thanks to this city association fund, our streets are re-paved much more often than they are in other cities. As soon as you are within the city, you immediately notice how well the streets are maintained. So, earlier this year when signs went up and preparations began for the re-paving of all of the streets around our community, I didn't really give it a second thought. They were just re-paving the streets again. That was, however, until they put up the big green signs at either end of the roadwork stating the re-paving of these roads could be credited back to "The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act".
Now don't get me wrong, at some point down the road if using "stimulus" money right now results in a reduction in my city association dues, I will be pleased as punch, but I find it hard to believe that I am going to see that. I am sure the money saved will just be put into another areas of the community.
Either way, these large green signs got me thinking about all of the areas in other parts of Orange County that could have probably used that stimulus money much more than Aliso Viejo. I began to wonder why with the horrific state of some of the schools in Orange County was this federal stimulus money going to pave the roads in a community where the residents paid an association fee to pave the roads? Didn't this just seem like more government waste?
By the time I was done thinking about it, I was, as usual, pretty steamed. It seemed ridiculous to spend this money on our roads in Aliso Viejo instead of on schools, children's programs, or GOD FORBID! reducing taxes for the middle class!
While I am admittedly sorry that I did not do so, but I had planned on having Teresa take a picture of me standing next to one of those big green signs with the little Soviet flag that is part of my cold war display at the house, but we never got around to it. The roadwork finished up months ago and while I sometimes think on those big green signs once in a while, I have moved on to other things.
That was until today when I ran across this article about my now-gone big green signs. An article that explains, quite simply, that the reason that my roads were being paved instead of money going to schools or reducing tax burdens was to employ the people who were working on the road outside my house.
The true purpose of the project was to ensure those road workers had money in their pockets. Money that they would take outside of our community, back home to theirs, and spend. Exactly how the stimulus money is supposed to work, right? I get it - I'm onboard - I'm part of the team! Well, as much as I can be.
I then, however, began to reflect on what I know about any government-funded projects...the $500 paper clip. Anyone who tells you that a large percentage of the funding for any project doesn't simply get wasted and blown on inflated hourly rates, inflated material costs, and the bureaucracy that makes it all possible, is just flat out lying.
The proof of this is in the fact that my two big green signs supposedly cost $10,000 a piece to make, put up, and take down. Multiple that $10,000 by all of the big green signs that are going up wherever "stimulus" money is being spent across this fine nation, and we, the taxpayer, are spending millions of dollars on those big, temporary green signs.
I think some of the Facebook comments I saw put it best: "Waste our money to let us know you're wasting our money."...and..."Way to go, big government...and thank you, people who support big government. You are doing one hell of a job!"
Signs of the Stimulus
Some Call it Transparency, Others Another Example of Government Waste
By JONATHAN KARL and GREGORY SIMMONS
As the midterm election season approaches, new road signs are popping up everywhere – millions of dollars worth of signs touting "The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act" and reminding passers-by that the program is "Putting America Back to Work."
On the road leading to Dulles Airport outside Washington, DC there's a 10' x 11' road sign touting a runway improvement project funded by the federal stimulus. The project cost nearly $15 million and has created 17 jobs, according to recovery.gov.
However, there's another number that caught the eye of ABC News: $10,000. That's how much money the Washington Airports Authority tells ABC News it spent to make and install the sign – a single sign – announcing that the project is "Funded by The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act" and is "Putting America Back to Work." The money for the sign was taken out of the budget for the runway improvement project.
ABC News has reached out to a number of states about spending on stimulus signs and learned the state of Illinois has spent $650,000 on about 950 signs and Pennsylvania has spent $157,000 on 70 signs. Other states, like Virginia, Vermont, and Arizona do not sanction any signs.
One state brags it posts signs but manages to keep the process cost-effective. The Tennessee Department of Transportation boasts, "There are a total of 324 signs statewide for a total cost of $12,931 and an average of $37.67 each." The reason for the small cost, they say, is that their signs are small-- about equal to a speed limit sign.
In response to questions by ABC News, Jill Zuckman of the Department of Transportation said, "The best estimate is that states have spent about $5 million of the $28 billion spent on road projects on signs – or less than .02 percent of overall project spending."
Still, some Republicans are crying foul. Congressman Darrell Issa, Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, sent a letter to Earl Devaney, Chairman of the Recovery Act and Transparency and Accountability Board, requesting an investigation to "determine the scope and impact of the Obama administration's guidance" regarding signs to stimulus recipients.
Rep. Issa writes that the passage of the Stimulus Bill, "has provided an opportunity for the Obama administration to claim political credit for the various projects around the country that have been funded by this redistribution of taxpayer dollars."
At the center of the controversy are a series of guidelines provided to stimulus recipients. In the letter, Rep. Issa cites what he calls "perhaps the most overly political guidance on stimulus advertising" involving the Department of Housing and Urban Development and a stimulus recipient. According to investigators from the oversight committee, HUD provided the Office of Native American Programs with information on "signage requirements." The document suggested a sign template informing the public the projects had been, "Funded By: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Barack Obama, President."
Congressman Aaron Schock (R-IL) has joined the chorus of Republican outrage over stimulus signs and claims at least $20 million has been spent on them. He told ABC News, "I think it's a bit of an oxymoron to spend tens of millions of dollars of taxpayer money, borrowed money, on a bunch of signs to tell them how we are spending their taxpayer money."
Schock's office provided ABC News with administration guidance on stimulus signs sent to him from a constituent. The document, dated March of 2009, outlines the "General Guidelines for Emblem and Logo Applications." The Recovery Act logo which was provided not only looks oddly similar to the Obama logo from the 2008 campaign but its stated purpose, according to the document, is to act as "a symbol of President Obama's commitment to the American people to invest their tax dollars wisely and put Americans back to work."
Rep. Schock argues that the signs are not a wise investment at all, but rather, a waste of money. He took to the House floor today to offer a bill, "to prevent funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 from being used for physical signage indicating that a project is funded by such Act, and for other purposes."
Massachusetts Democrat James McGovern fired back, "This is the best we can get? Not putting up signs?" He continued, "How about paying for the tax cuts for the rich that my friends on the other side of the aisle passed? Hundreds of billions of dollars in debt that you put on the backs of my kids and my grandkids so that the wealthiest of the wealthy in this country can get a tax break."
When asked about Republican outcry over spending on stimulus signs, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs quipped, " I'm glad the Republicans have noticed the several – nearly 11,000 road projects that are underway this summer."
-Robin Gradison and Avery Miller contributed to this report.
Another great thing about Aliso Viejo is that thanks to this city association fund, our streets are re-paved much more often than they are in other cities. As soon as you are within the city, you immediately notice how well the streets are maintained. So, earlier this year when signs went up and preparations began for the re-paving of all of the streets around our community, I didn't really give it a second thought. They were just re-paving the streets again. That was, however, until they put up the big green signs at either end of the roadwork stating the re-paving of these roads could be credited back to "The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act".
Now don't get me wrong, at some point down the road if using "stimulus" money right now results in a reduction in my city association dues, I will be pleased as punch, but I find it hard to believe that I am going to see that. I am sure the money saved will just be put into another areas of the community.
Either way, these large green signs got me thinking about all of the areas in other parts of Orange County that could have probably used that stimulus money much more than Aliso Viejo. I began to wonder why with the horrific state of some of the schools in Orange County was this federal stimulus money going to pave the roads in a community where the residents paid an association fee to pave the roads? Didn't this just seem like more government waste?
By the time I was done thinking about it, I was, as usual, pretty steamed. It seemed ridiculous to spend this money on our roads in Aliso Viejo instead of on schools, children's programs, or GOD FORBID! reducing taxes for the middle class!
While I am admittedly sorry that I did not do so, but I had planned on having Teresa take a picture of me standing next to one of those big green signs with the little Soviet flag that is part of my cold war display at the house, but we never got around to it. The roadwork finished up months ago and while I sometimes think on those big green signs once in a while, I have moved on to other things.
That was until today when I ran across this article about my now-gone big green signs. An article that explains, quite simply, that the reason that my roads were being paved instead of money going to schools or reducing tax burdens was to employ the people who were working on the road outside my house.
The true purpose of the project was to ensure those road workers had money in their pockets. Money that they would take outside of our community, back home to theirs, and spend. Exactly how the stimulus money is supposed to work, right? I get it - I'm onboard - I'm part of the team! Well, as much as I can be.
I then, however, began to reflect on what I know about any government-funded projects...the $500 paper clip. Anyone who tells you that a large percentage of the funding for any project doesn't simply get wasted and blown on inflated hourly rates, inflated material costs, and the bureaucracy that makes it all possible, is just flat out lying.
The proof of this is in the fact that my two big green signs supposedly cost $10,000 a piece to make, put up, and take down. Multiple that $10,000 by all of the big green signs that are going up wherever "stimulus" money is being spent across this fine nation, and we, the taxpayer, are spending millions of dollars on those big, temporary green signs.
I think some of the Facebook comments I saw put it best: "Waste our money to let us know you're wasting our money."...and..."Way to go, big government...and thank you, people who support big government. You are doing one hell of a job!"
Signs of the Stimulus
Some Call it Transparency, Others Another Example of Government Waste
By JONATHAN KARL and GREGORY SIMMONS
As the midterm election season approaches, new road signs are popping up everywhere – millions of dollars worth of signs touting "The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act" and reminding passers-by that the program is "Putting America Back to Work."
On the road leading to Dulles Airport outside Washington, DC there's a 10' x 11' road sign touting a runway improvement project funded by the federal stimulus. The project cost nearly $15 million and has created 17 jobs, according to recovery.gov.
However, there's another number that caught the eye of ABC News: $10,000. That's how much money the Washington Airports Authority tells ABC News it spent to make and install the sign – a single sign – announcing that the project is "Funded by The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act" and is "Putting America Back to Work." The money for the sign was taken out of the budget for the runway improvement project.
ABC News has reached out to a number of states about spending on stimulus signs and learned the state of Illinois has spent $650,000 on about 950 signs and Pennsylvania has spent $157,000 on 70 signs. Other states, like Virginia, Vermont, and Arizona do not sanction any signs.
One state brags it posts signs but manages to keep the process cost-effective. The Tennessee Department of Transportation boasts, "There are a total of 324 signs statewide for a total cost of $12,931 and an average of $37.67 each." The reason for the small cost, they say, is that their signs are small-- about equal to a speed limit sign.
In response to questions by ABC News, Jill Zuckman of the Department of Transportation said, "The best estimate is that states have spent about $5 million of the $28 billion spent on road projects on signs – or less than .02 percent of overall project spending."
Still, some Republicans are crying foul. Congressman Darrell Issa, Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, sent a letter to Earl Devaney, Chairman of the Recovery Act and Transparency and Accountability Board, requesting an investigation to "determine the scope and impact of the Obama administration's guidance" regarding signs to stimulus recipients.
Rep. Issa writes that the passage of the Stimulus Bill, "has provided an opportunity for the Obama administration to claim political credit for the various projects around the country that have been funded by this redistribution of taxpayer dollars."
At the center of the controversy are a series of guidelines provided to stimulus recipients. In the letter, Rep. Issa cites what he calls "perhaps the most overly political guidance on stimulus advertising" involving the Department of Housing and Urban Development and a stimulus recipient. According to investigators from the oversight committee, HUD provided the Office of Native American Programs with information on "signage requirements." The document suggested a sign template informing the public the projects had been, "Funded By: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Barack Obama, President."
Congressman Aaron Schock (R-IL) has joined the chorus of Republican outrage over stimulus signs and claims at least $20 million has been spent on them. He told ABC News, "I think it's a bit of an oxymoron to spend tens of millions of dollars of taxpayer money, borrowed money, on a bunch of signs to tell them how we are spending their taxpayer money."
Schock's office provided ABC News with administration guidance on stimulus signs sent to him from a constituent. The document, dated March of 2009, outlines the "General Guidelines for Emblem and Logo Applications." The Recovery Act logo which was provided not only looks oddly similar to the Obama logo from the 2008 campaign but its stated purpose, according to the document, is to act as "a symbol of President Obama's commitment to the American people to invest their tax dollars wisely and put Americans back to work."
Rep. Schock argues that the signs are not a wise investment at all, but rather, a waste of money. He took to the House floor today to offer a bill, "to prevent funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 from being used for physical signage indicating that a project is funded by such Act, and for other purposes."
Massachusetts Democrat James McGovern fired back, "This is the best we can get? Not putting up signs?" He continued, "How about paying for the tax cuts for the rich that my friends on the other side of the aisle passed? Hundreds of billions of dollars in debt that you put on the backs of my kids and my grandkids so that the wealthiest of the wealthy in this country can get a tax break."
When asked about Republican outcry over spending on stimulus signs, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs quipped, " I'm glad the Republicans have noticed the several – nearly 11,000 road projects that are underway this summer."
-Robin Gradison and Avery Miller contributed to this report.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
My Take On Illegal Immigration - Part 2
While I view most of it as political fluff, the Master and Commander claims to have done quite a bit already in working towards solving the illegal immigration issue:
"The President and his administration have provided the technical assistance to develop key elements of a bipartisan immigration bill and have taken important steps to make interior enforcement smarter, more effective, and reflective of our values, as well as addressing problems in the detention system to improve accountability and safety."
This may be the only part of what this administration claims to have done that has any substance, though, in reality, all this is saying they have done is dedicate taxpayer funded resources to drafting this new immigration bill and inactively starting working against enforcement of our current immigration laws.
I will talk a bit more on the lawsuit that my federal government just filed against one of the states in our union a bit later, but a good example of this passive stance against enforcement is the fact that one of the reasons cited in this lawsuit for not enforcing current immigration law is that we do not have the facilities to house those that would be detained. So, you just let people break the law because you don't have room for them in your jails? That makes sense. I am sure that will help create a safer America.
"A proposal for comprehensive immigration reform has been presented in the Senate, based on a bipartisan framework the administration helped Senators Schumer and Graham develop."
This bill will be far from bi-partisan by the time it is on the Master and Commander's desk to be signed into law, and really, probably isn't that bipartisan as it stands right now. One party makes a deal with one member of the other party, and all the sudden, a state of bipartisanship exists? I am not buying it.
"The President's unprecedented strategic and integrated approach to border protection and security efforts have increased pressure on illegal trafficking organizations, resulting in record seizures of illegal weapons and bulk cash transiting from the United States to Mexico, lowered average violent crime statistics in states along the Southwest border, and reduced illegal immigration into the United States."
Just because you are doing more than ever before, doesn't necessarily mean that you are doing enough. Record seizures also mean that a record amount of illegal drugs, drug money, and criminals, are still getting through our porous border. While violent crime statistics may be down in the border states, the workload of those trying to enforce our immigration laws is also unprecedented. The reduced number of illegal immigrants has nothing to do with any type of new enforcement methods, or any efforts of the current administration. Illegal immigration is down as a result of America's faltering economy.
"The administration has also eliminated the FBI backlog of background checks for legal immigration applications, and launched a new website that allows legal immigrants to check the status of their applications online and via text message for the first time ever. In its first month alone, three million people registered to receive text message updates on their applications."
This is fantastic news! I am happy to hear it, but I would really like to know how our system is going to handle the millions and millions of applications that are to be filed when amnesty is granted by the passage of the Master and Commander's reform. Who will be in place, and how will they handle that workload? What resources are going to be in place to apprehend and detain those who do not come in and register and those that do not pass the review process?
While these may be some "fine examples" of some of the steps that have been taken, I still think that this administration has been greatly lacking in their response, especially when it comes to securing the border and enforcing our current immigration laws. Where are the numbers that prove that the Master and Commander is taking a stand and enforcing our current immigration laws? Where is the proof that they are doing nothing more than sitting back, waiting, and trying to get through to the coming elections, pushing a bill that will bring about changes that we may not have the resources to support? I just don't see what I was looking for on your website, Master and Commander...
"The President and his administration have provided the technical assistance to develop key elements of a bipartisan immigration bill and have taken important steps to make interior enforcement smarter, more effective, and reflective of our values, as well as addressing problems in the detention system to improve accountability and safety."
This may be the only part of what this administration claims to have done that has any substance, though, in reality, all this is saying they have done is dedicate taxpayer funded resources to drafting this new immigration bill and inactively starting working against enforcement of our current immigration laws.
I will talk a bit more on the lawsuit that my federal government just filed against one of the states in our union a bit later, but a good example of this passive stance against enforcement is the fact that one of the reasons cited in this lawsuit for not enforcing current immigration law is that we do not have the facilities to house those that would be detained. So, you just let people break the law because you don't have room for them in your jails? That makes sense. I am sure that will help create a safer America.
"A proposal for comprehensive immigration reform has been presented in the Senate, based on a bipartisan framework the administration helped Senators Schumer and Graham develop."
This bill will be far from bi-partisan by the time it is on the Master and Commander's desk to be signed into law, and really, probably isn't that bipartisan as it stands right now. One party makes a deal with one member of the other party, and all the sudden, a state of bipartisanship exists? I am not buying it.
"The President's unprecedented strategic and integrated approach to border protection and security efforts have increased pressure on illegal trafficking organizations, resulting in record seizures of illegal weapons and bulk cash transiting from the United States to Mexico, lowered average violent crime statistics in states along the Southwest border, and reduced illegal immigration into the United States."
Just because you are doing more than ever before, doesn't necessarily mean that you are doing enough. Record seizures also mean that a record amount of illegal drugs, drug money, and criminals, are still getting through our porous border. While violent crime statistics may be down in the border states, the workload of those trying to enforce our immigration laws is also unprecedented. The reduced number of illegal immigrants has nothing to do with any type of new enforcement methods, or any efforts of the current administration. Illegal immigration is down as a result of America's faltering economy.
"The administration has also eliminated the FBI backlog of background checks for legal immigration applications, and launched a new website that allows legal immigrants to check the status of their applications online and via text message for the first time ever. In its first month alone, three million people registered to receive text message updates on their applications."
This is fantastic news! I am happy to hear it, but I would really like to know how our system is going to handle the millions and millions of applications that are to be filed when amnesty is granted by the passage of the Master and Commander's reform. Who will be in place, and how will they handle that workload? What resources are going to be in place to apprehend and detain those who do not come in and register and those that do not pass the review process?
While these may be some "fine examples" of some of the steps that have been taken, I still think that this administration has been greatly lacking in their response, especially when it comes to securing the border and enforcing our current immigration laws. Where are the numbers that prove that the Master and Commander is taking a stand and enforcing our current immigration laws? Where is the proof that they are doing nothing more than sitting back, waiting, and trying to get through to the coming elections, pushing a bill that will bring about changes that we may not have the resources to support? I just don't see what I was looking for on your website, Master and Commander...
My Take On Illegal Immigration - Part 1
If you type "Barak Obama on illegal immigration" into Bing, the top search result is the Master and Commander's own web site that was created when he was running for office, www.barakobama.com. I decided that I should grab and re-post a part of his plan on how to deal with illegal immigration before it disappears from the site like it was a bad review of General Petraeus on www.moveon.org.
Here is the first part of Obama's web site info (more on the second part later):
The President has made it clear that the only way to truly secure the borders and have an orderly immigration system that honors our traditions as both a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants is through comprehensive reform grounded in the principles of responsibility and accountability:
Responsibility from the federal government to secure our borders: The Obama administration takes this responsibility very seriously and has dedicated unprecedented resources to securing our borders and reducing the flow of illegal traffic in both directions.
Responsibility from unscrupulous businesses that break the law: Employers who exploit undocumented workers undermine American workers, and they have to be held accountable.
Responsibility from people who are living in the United States illegally: Undocumented workers who are in good standing must admit that they broke the law, pay taxes and a penalty, learn English, and get right with the law before they can get in line to earn their citizenship.
Comprehensive immigration reform is essential to continuing the tradition of innovation that immigrants have brought to the American economy and to ensuring a level playing field for American workers. It's also essential to providing lasting and dedicated security for our borders.
I agree that we need to overhaul the current immigration system, and that we need to secure the border. I believe that changing current U.S. policy can effect the tide of illegal immigration to the point at which many of illegal immigration's problems can be solved. I believe there is a diplomatic solution, but until your diplomacy starts working, you put boots on the ground to solve the problems now. You use actions and not words. You don't push policy and wait for it to work so that the extra boots are not needed. I sometimes believe this is what the Master and Commander is hoping for; a way to be involved without actually getting involved.
I believe that we should crack down on the businesses that are hiring and exploiting illegal immigrants. Now, I know not every business that hires illegal immigrants is exploiting them, but realistically, I have to think it is widespread enough that we should be doing something about it. While it may be unpopular, in the mean time, until the law changes, we need to enforce the current laws by citing and heavily fining the business owner and deporting the workers that are working for them illegally. It is the letter of the law, regardless of its popularity.
I laugh at the administration's use of the phrase "undocumented workers who are in good standing". That really shows you how the Master and Commander and his administration view our current U.S. immigration policy. They view it as unjust and they want to change it. They, in my opinion, do not view crossing the border into the U.S. illegally as a crime.
You name the laws that we as citizens can break that will continue to leave us in "good standing". Try getting a traffic ticket and not paying it, then see the "standing" in which you find yourself. It should not be up to us to determine which laws we choose to obey and which laws we choose to ignore, and it should most definitely not be up to an illegal immigrant or a Presidential administration to make that decision either.
Since we are knee-deep in changing decades-old policy while the Master and Commander is in command, how about we make these two minor changes? In order to be citizen of the United States, you can no longer just blindly marry into it. If you are a citizen and want to marry a non-citizen, how about that person become a citizen in the same manner that everyone else has to? Also, how about if neither you, nor your wife or partner are citizens, and you just happen to have a baby while you are "visiting" the United States, you and your partner have to apply for citizenship for you and your baby, again, that same way everyone else has to?
That's no immigration by marriage, and no anchor babies. I'll even meet you in the middle and agree that everyone born here from now on, regardless of their parent's citizenship be required to go through a citizenship process at the age of maturity. I'll take your citizenship test and your English test -- bring it on. Oh, and by the way, just to clarify, if I decided to move to France tomorrow and become a member of their collective society, I would have no problem with the understanding that I would have to learn French and pass a citizenship test over there. That's only fair, right?
I know that so many on the other side of the aisle want to paint this as a race and segregation issue, but for many of us, it is just not the case. We are wanting people to abide by the laws like we do, pay taxes like we do, and be just as loyal to our nation as we are.
We want to see you rooting for America, abiding by its laws (all of them), and helping us to continue to build what many of us believe to be the greatest nation in the history of mankind. I always quote back to Dennis Miller who said that he doesn't mind you joining the party, he just would like you to sign the guest book so we know who is here.
Oh, and don't think I purposely glossed over this part: "Undocumented workers who are in good standing must admit that they broke the law, pay taxes and a penalty, learn English, and get right with the law before they can get in line to earn their citizenship." What this means, is that once the new policy is enacted by the Master and Commander, the policy of the United States of America will no longer be to deport people who have entered the country illegally as long as they meet certain criteria, doing away with our current policy of deporting in all cases except for reasons of political asylum.
I am honestly torn on this issue because I do agree with our current law, but at the same time, we have to be realistic about the cost and probability of deporting literally millions of people. If we see a policy that calls for illegal immigrants to actually admit that they have broken the law, agree to pay fines, back taxes and penalties on those back taxes, learn our language, and then get in line to be reviewed for citizenship, just like everyone else, I fully understand that supporting it might be the best thing for everyone.
I would also like to see, however, the resources in place that are ready to act with the full support of the administration to deport the people who do not come in and register, pay their fines, back taxes and penalties and/or who are denied citizenship in the review process for whatever reason. You will excuse my skepticism about the Master and Commander acting against the largest single pool of potential voters and their families and friends who already have the vote once his new immigration policy is in place.
More on this issue later...
Here is the first part of Obama's web site info (more on the second part later):
The President has made it clear that the only way to truly secure the borders and have an orderly immigration system that honors our traditions as both a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants is through comprehensive reform grounded in the principles of responsibility and accountability:
Responsibility from the federal government to secure our borders: The Obama administration takes this responsibility very seriously and has dedicated unprecedented resources to securing our borders and reducing the flow of illegal traffic in both directions.
Responsibility from unscrupulous businesses that break the law: Employers who exploit undocumented workers undermine American workers, and they have to be held accountable.
Responsibility from people who are living in the United States illegally: Undocumented workers who are in good standing must admit that they broke the law, pay taxes and a penalty, learn English, and get right with the law before they can get in line to earn their citizenship.
Comprehensive immigration reform is essential to continuing the tradition of innovation that immigrants have brought to the American economy and to ensuring a level playing field for American workers. It's also essential to providing lasting and dedicated security for our borders.
I agree that we need to overhaul the current immigration system, and that we need to secure the border. I believe that changing current U.S. policy can effect the tide of illegal immigration to the point at which many of illegal immigration's problems can be solved. I believe there is a diplomatic solution, but until your diplomacy starts working, you put boots on the ground to solve the problems now. You use actions and not words. You don't push policy and wait for it to work so that the extra boots are not needed. I sometimes believe this is what the Master and Commander is hoping for; a way to be involved without actually getting involved.
I believe that we should crack down on the businesses that are hiring and exploiting illegal immigrants. Now, I know not every business that hires illegal immigrants is exploiting them, but realistically, I have to think it is widespread enough that we should be doing something about it. While it may be unpopular, in the mean time, until the law changes, we need to enforce the current laws by citing and heavily fining the business owner and deporting the workers that are working for them illegally. It is the letter of the law, regardless of its popularity.
I laugh at the administration's use of the phrase "undocumented workers who are in good standing". That really shows you how the Master and Commander and his administration view our current U.S. immigration policy. They view it as unjust and they want to change it. They, in my opinion, do not view crossing the border into the U.S. illegally as a crime.
You name the laws that we as citizens can break that will continue to leave us in "good standing". Try getting a traffic ticket and not paying it, then see the "standing" in which you find yourself. It should not be up to us to determine which laws we choose to obey and which laws we choose to ignore, and it should most definitely not be up to an illegal immigrant or a Presidential administration to make that decision either.
Since we are knee-deep in changing decades-old policy while the Master and Commander is in command, how about we make these two minor changes? In order to be citizen of the United States, you can no longer just blindly marry into it. If you are a citizen and want to marry a non-citizen, how about that person become a citizen in the same manner that everyone else has to? Also, how about if neither you, nor your wife or partner are citizens, and you just happen to have a baby while you are "visiting" the United States, you and your partner have to apply for citizenship for you and your baby, again, that same way everyone else has to?
That's no immigration by marriage, and no anchor babies. I'll even meet you in the middle and agree that everyone born here from now on, regardless of their parent's citizenship be required to go through a citizenship process at the age of maturity. I'll take your citizenship test and your English test -- bring it on. Oh, and by the way, just to clarify, if I decided to move to France tomorrow and become a member of their collective society, I would have no problem with the understanding that I would have to learn French and pass a citizenship test over there. That's only fair, right?
I know that so many on the other side of the aisle want to paint this as a race and segregation issue, but for many of us, it is just not the case. We are wanting people to abide by the laws like we do, pay taxes like we do, and be just as loyal to our nation as we are.
We want to see you rooting for America, abiding by its laws (all of them), and helping us to continue to build what many of us believe to be the greatest nation in the history of mankind. I always quote back to Dennis Miller who said that he doesn't mind you joining the party, he just would like you to sign the guest book so we know who is here.
Oh, and don't think I purposely glossed over this part: "Undocumented workers who are in good standing must admit that they broke the law, pay taxes and a penalty, learn English, and get right with the law before they can get in line to earn their citizenship." What this means, is that once the new policy is enacted by the Master and Commander, the policy of the United States of America will no longer be to deport people who have entered the country illegally as long as they meet certain criteria, doing away with our current policy of deporting in all cases except for reasons of political asylum.
I am honestly torn on this issue because I do agree with our current law, but at the same time, we have to be realistic about the cost and probability of deporting literally millions of people. If we see a policy that calls for illegal immigrants to actually admit that they have broken the law, agree to pay fines, back taxes and penalties on those back taxes, learn our language, and then get in line to be reviewed for citizenship, just like everyone else, I fully understand that supporting it might be the best thing for everyone.
I would also like to see, however, the resources in place that are ready to act with the full support of the administration to deport the people who do not come in and register, pay their fines, back taxes and penalties and/or who are denied citizenship in the review process for whatever reason. You will excuse my skepticism about the Master and Commander acting against the largest single pool of potential voters and their families and friends who already have the vote once his new immigration policy is in place.
More on this issue later...
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Don't Forget To Watch The Oily Magic Show Tonight
I've been refraining from saying it, but I'm just going to go ahead with it already. Can you imagine how apeshit everyone would be going with The White House right now over this oil spill were The Great Satan George Junior still in office right now?
I am hoping that we finally see The Magician grow a pair over this oil spill when he speaks to us tonight. It kinda seems like he's been laying the foundation over the past few days to finally get in BP's face.
While I do understand how after blaming The Bush for eight years, it can be the go to response for Democrats that are appearing on The TV to talk about the oil spill, but really, you are going to need to do better than that. We need to take a long, hard look at oil drilling, its regulations, lack of regulations, and lack of adherance to regulations. Blaming The Great Satan George Junior for this isn't going to get us anywhere. We need to determine if our regulations did enough, if BP met them, and what we do if they did not. We need to quickly ensure all of our offshore drilling rigs have met regulations and get back on track.
Another thing I have noticed that some folks out there are starting to do is to compare the oil spill with Hurricane Katrina. Apples and oranges. Katrina was a swift-moving hurricane that killed people who could not, or just refused to, evacuate out of its path. Katrina's devastation was quick and deadly - killing a large number in a short period of time. It's economic and environmental impact will last for decades.
This oil spill, on the other hand, despite the fast-gushing oil we see at its source, moved relatively slowly over the water. There was well over a month of warning to react to ensure that this oil did not reach the coastline. The spill's devastation will be quick and deadly to a lot of wildlife, but to humans, it's devastation will take some time. Economic impacts will take months and health issues will take years to surface. The environmental impact may be around for well over one hundred years.
But, if we are going to make a comparison, here are some things to think about:
- Think reasonably about all of the other natural disasters that hit America (hurricanes, floods, earthquakes) and you will see that the response to those disasters before, during, and immediately after, all falls into the hands of local and state officials. The federal government doesn't usually get involved until the point at which the state's governor asks for federal assistance. Yet, with Katrina, the blame for a lack of planning, action, and response fell on the federal government, especially after the fact. Why was Katrina different than any other hurricane and who could have possibly known for sure what was going to happen before hand?
- This oil spill is different. This is a man-made disaster that occurred on federal "land" on an offshore oil rig that was OK'd by and regulated by the federal government. Do you see how this was the responsibility of the federal government from the very beginning? Have not, historically, the problems of the federal government fallen at the feet of whoever is President at the time?
- The Great Satan Geroge Junior called for a mandatory evacuation before Katrina hit, and while criticized, it is generally accepted that federal relief efforts were well underway four days after the hurricane hit with emergency funding signed and FEMA engaged. What is often overlooked is that both Mayor Ray Nagin of New Orleans and Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco refused to issue mandatory evacuations of the city despite being advised to do so by the federal government.
What is also overlooked is that in the case of natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina, standard emergency management protocol calls for local and state officials to be prepared to manage the situation for three days until a federal response can be made. That would mean that the planning to ensure proper warning, mandatory evacuations, and transportation for citizens would be responsibility of the officials in the city of New Orleans and the state of Louisiana, not the federal government. Local officials don't really get any of the blame for what happened before, during and after Katrina, though, do they?
- I must say that within four days of the start of this oil spill, I did not see a massive response from the federal government, i.e. the current administration. It really seems like it took them a couple of weeks to even get up to speed on what was really going on and about 45 days before you could see them finally realizing what a big deal this was going to be.
- Bush went to New Orleans eight times in the first 46 days, and was condemned for not visiting enough. Obama took 49 days to visit the Gulf region three times.
The Great Satan George Junior will continue to be criticized for not getting out his chair on the morning of 9/11 for eight minutes and not getting aid to New Orleans for four days, but I do believe in the long run, history will better remember this oil spill and will better remember that it took The Magician 45 days to realize that this was going to have an effect on his Presidency...oh, I mean, the American people.
I am hoping that we finally see The Magician grow a pair over this oil spill when he speaks to us tonight. It kinda seems like he's been laying the foundation over the past few days to finally get in BP's face.
While I do understand how after blaming The Bush for eight years, it can be the go to response for Democrats that are appearing on The TV to talk about the oil spill, but really, you are going to need to do better than that. We need to take a long, hard look at oil drilling, its regulations, lack of regulations, and lack of adherance to regulations. Blaming The Great Satan George Junior for this isn't going to get us anywhere. We need to determine if our regulations did enough, if BP met them, and what we do if they did not. We need to quickly ensure all of our offshore drilling rigs have met regulations and get back on track.
Another thing I have noticed that some folks out there are starting to do is to compare the oil spill with Hurricane Katrina. Apples and oranges. Katrina was a swift-moving hurricane that killed people who could not, or just refused to, evacuate out of its path. Katrina's devastation was quick and deadly - killing a large number in a short period of time. It's economic and environmental impact will last for decades.
This oil spill, on the other hand, despite the fast-gushing oil we see at its source, moved relatively slowly over the water. There was well over a month of warning to react to ensure that this oil did not reach the coastline. The spill's devastation will be quick and deadly to a lot of wildlife, but to humans, it's devastation will take some time. Economic impacts will take months and health issues will take years to surface. The environmental impact may be around for well over one hundred years.
But, if we are going to make a comparison, here are some things to think about:
- Think reasonably about all of the other natural disasters that hit America (hurricanes, floods, earthquakes) and you will see that the response to those disasters before, during, and immediately after, all falls into the hands of local and state officials. The federal government doesn't usually get involved until the point at which the state's governor asks for federal assistance. Yet, with Katrina, the blame for a lack of planning, action, and response fell on the federal government, especially after the fact. Why was Katrina different than any other hurricane and who could have possibly known for sure what was going to happen before hand?
- This oil spill is different. This is a man-made disaster that occurred on federal "land" on an offshore oil rig that was OK'd by and regulated by the federal government. Do you see how this was the responsibility of the federal government from the very beginning? Have not, historically, the problems of the federal government fallen at the feet of whoever is President at the time?
- The Great Satan Geroge Junior called for a mandatory evacuation before Katrina hit, and while criticized, it is generally accepted that federal relief efforts were well underway four days after the hurricane hit with emergency funding signed and FEMA engaged. What is often overlooked is that both Mayor Ray Nagin of New Orleans and Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco refused to issue mandatory evacuations of the city despite being advised to do so by the federal government.
What is also overlooked is that in the case of natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina, standard emergency management protocol calls for local and state officials to be prepared to manage the situation for three days until a federal response can be made. That would mean that the planning to ensure proper warning, mandatory evacuations, and transportation for citizens would be responsibility of the officials in the city of New Orleans and the state of Louisiana, not the federal government. Local officials don't really get any of the blame for what happened before, during and after Katrina, though, do they?
- I must say that within four days of the start of this oil spill, I did not see a massive response from the federal government, i.e. the current administration. It really seems like it took them a couple of weeks to even get up to speed on what was really going on and about 45 days before you could see them finally realizing what a big deal this was going to be.
- Bush went to New Orleans eight times in the first 46 days, and was condemned for not visiting enough. Obama took 49 days to visit the Gulf region three times.
The Great Satan George Junior will continue to be criticized for not getting out his chair on the morning of 9/11 for eight minutes and not getting aid to New Orleans for four days, but I do believe in the long run, history will better remember this oil spill and will better remember that it took The Magician 45 days to realize that this was going to have an effect on his Presidency...oh, I mean, the American people.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
It's Finally Time To Comment On The Magician & This Oil Spill...
I have done my best to give this thing time. I have done my best to not be reactionary. I have done my best to not be swayed by media sources. I have still reached the following conclusion, though:
I am not impressed with this administration's efforts to date. While you cannot accuse them of doing nothing, and I do see that significant efforts are being made, I feel that these efforts were not undertaken as quickly as they should have been and while in an "unprecedented" volume, the efforts I am seeing are still not enough. While your efforts on any task may be the most by volume that have ever been done in history, it does not automatically mean that you are doing enough by default.
The Magician says that they explored every alternative, have done all that they could have, and would have tried anything that they know would have worked. I argue that they could have authorized the building of sand barriers along the coastlines much sooner than they did, could have better ensured that more resources were fighting in the water and not waiting until the oil reached the shore. When you are in a crisis, it is wise in the best of circumstances to not undertake efforts that you know will have no effect on the situation, but at the same time, if there is a chance that something will have an effect, you try it. You don't just sit there and wait for a better alternative to be suggested.
I must admit, also, I am bothered by the fact that The Magician has not had a direct conversation with BP's CEO at this point. I don't think the American people are asking you to pick up the phone and shout at the guy, but they are asking you to take command of the situation in the manner that you claim to have done. How do you command a situation when you have not had a direct conversation with the person that is in charge of the most important part of your operations?
I think that we need to take a long look at the fact that while drilling at these "incredible" depths, there are not enough safeguards in place, obviously, to make sure that this does not happen. We should take a long hard look at our drilling policies as a whole. While I understand some people's argument that a lapse in regulation and governance is to blame, we also need to look at the market and supply and demand as it relates to our current environmental policies. We're still using gas, which requires oil. We don't want to see oil rigs off our coastlines, so we force the oil companies to drill further and further out at deeper and deeper depths, then get upset when they cannot repair wells that are too deep. Do you not think that BP would much rather be drilling oil that is under the beach than under a mile of ocean? Why aren't they? Because we've told them that they can't, yet at the same time, demand low gas prices.
While I do appreciate the fact that The Magician has visited the area, I do still make the argument that he has not done so enough. Regardless of the fact of what he can and cannot do personally while there, the American people want to see him down there fixing this thing. A three hour stay on four hours of flight time so that he can get back home for the holiday weekend does not impress me.
Again, whether or not he is effecting the situation, the people of the Gulf Region would have at least liked to have known he was in the area, working well into the night and early morning with local officials, not see him stroll on the beach for a few hours and then go home. How in the world does a politician like The Magician not understand that? Also, I still think The Magician flew to California more times for campaigning this election season than he flew to the Gulf Region since this spill started. That says a lot to me.
The bottom line, Mr. Magician, is that we are not asking you to perform for the cable shows, we are asking you to perform for the American people, especially those that are being directly effected by this oil spill. Sometimes, when you need to get things done, you just don't take the time to figure out exactly whose butt to kick, you kick them all until people and resources get moving and start fixing the problem. Empowering local resources, moving federal resources, taking the time to be cool, calm and collected, you are doing, but commanding, you are not.
I am not impressed with this administration's efforts to date. While you cannot accuse them of doing nothing, and I do see that significant efforts are being made, I feel that these efforts were not undertaken as quickly as they should have been and while in an "unprecedented" volume, the efforts I am seeing are still not enough. While your efforts on any task may be the most by volume that have ever been done in history, it does not automatically mean that you are doing enough by default.
The Magician says that they explored every alternative, have done all that they could have, and would have tried anything that they know would have worked. I argue that they could have authorized the building of sand barriers along the coastlines much sooner than they did, could have better ensured that more resources were fighting in the water and not waiting until the oil reached the shore. When you are in a crisis, it is wise in the best of circumstances to not undertake efforts that you know will have no effect on the situation, but at the same time, if there is a chance that something will have an effect, you try it. You don't just sit there and wait for a better alternative to be suggested.
I must admit, also, I am bothered by the fact that The Magician has not had a direct conversation with BP's CEO at this point. I don't think the American people are asking you to pick up the phone and shout at the guy, but they are asking you to take command of the situation in the manner that you claim to have done. How do you command a situation when you have not had a direct conversation with the person that is in charge of the most important part of your operations?
I think that we need to take a long look at the fact that while drilling at these "incredible" depths, there are not enough safeguards in place, obviously, to make sure that this does not happen. We should take a long hard look at our drilling policies as a whole. While I understand some people's argument that a lapse in regulation and governance is to blame, we also need to look at the market and supply and demand as it relates to our current environmental policies. We're still using gas, which requires oil. We don't want to see oil rigs off our coastlines, so we force the oil companies to drill further and further out at deeper and deeper depths, then get upset when they cannot repair wells that are too deep. Do you not think that BP would much rather be drilling oil that is under the beach than under a mile of ocean? Why aren't they? Because we've told them that they can't, yet at the same time, demand low gas prices.
While I do appreciate the fact that The Magician has visited the area, I do still make the argument that he has not done so enough. Regardless of the fact of what he can and cannot do personally while there, the American people want to see him down there fixing this thing. A three hour stay on four hours of flight time so that he can get back home for the holiday weekend does not impress me.
Again, whether or not he is effecting the situation, the people of the Gulf Region would have at least liked to have known he was in the area, working well into the night and early morning with local officials, not see him stroll on the beach for a few hours and then go home. How in the world does a politician like The Magician not understand that? Also, I still think The Magician flew to California more times for campaigning this election season than he flew to the Gulf Region since this spill started. That says a lot to me.
The bottom line, Mr. Magician, is that we are not asking you to perform for the cable shows, we are asking you to perform for the American people, especially those that are being directly effected by this oil spill. Sometimes, when you need to get things done, you just don't take the time to figure out exactly whose butt to kick, you kick them all until people and resources get moving and start fixing the problem. Empowering local resources, moving federal resources, taking the time to be cool, calm and collected, you are doing, but commanding, you are not.
Monday, June 7, 2010
The "Unbanked" Walk Among Us
They are called the "unbanked", and as crazy as it may sound to the rest of us, they are the 25.6% of U.S. households that have no standing bank accounts.
Ever wonder how those horrid payday loans and places like CashCall (R.I.P. Gary Coleman) stay in business? The one out of every four households that does not give themselves an alternative because, for whatever the reason, they would rather, or must, pay high fees and loan costs because they do not have a checking account.
A recent FDIC survey shows that this group now includes over 30 million households.
Imagine...no bank to put your money in...no debit card...no credit card...just cash and some hiding places in your house somewhere.
The survey found that the group is made up mostly of the so-called "minority" groups and 71% of the "unbanked" households earn less than $30,000 per year.
As you can imagine, only 18% of America's banks are making efforts to capture this demographic, as most banks do not seek to open branches in "underbanked" areas.
As part of a 2005 law, however, the FDIC is required to track and report industry efforts to bring banking services to the "unbanked".
Ever wonder how those horrid payday loans and places like CashCall (R.I.P. Gary Coleman) stay in business? The one out of every four households that does not give themselves an alternative because, for whatever the reason, they would rather, or must, pay high fees and loan costs because they do not have a checking account.
A recent FDIC survey shows that this group now includes over 30 million households.
Imagine...no bank to put your money in...no debit card...no credit card...just cash and some hiding places in your house somewhere.
The survey found that the group is made up mostly of the so-called "minority" groups and 71% of the "unbanked" households earn less than $30,000 per year.
As you can imagine, only 18% of America's banks are making efforts to capture this demographic, as most banks do not seek to open branches in "underbanked" areas.
As part of a 2005 law, however, the FDIC is required to track and report industry efforts to bring banking services to the "unbanked".
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Some Questions That Popped Into My Head Last Night...
When you change political parties, don't you end up with two sets of people that don't want to re-elect you?
What do you do if you have an allergic reaction to allergy medicine?
Isn't people assuming that I am pro-illegal-immigration racial profiling?
Isn't people assuming you're a racist if you're anti-illegal-immigration a type of racial profiling as well?
Why is it when I take a survey and select that I am of Hispanic dissent, and the survey then asks me what my country of origin is, I have to select "Other" and type in "The United States of America"?
How many other people have a great grandmother that was born in the United States?
Is it not also racial-profiling when people come up to me, start speaking to me in Spanish, then get upset when I cannot understand them? How about when I am at Wal-Mart, wearing a blue shirt, and people think I work there?
Was it really all that crazy after 9/11, when 15 of the 19 hijackers were determined to be from Saudi Arabia, to start stopping people that "looked" Saudi? Would it have made more sense to start stopping everyone with blonde hair, blue eyes, and fair skin?
What about when a crime is committed and the suspect description is a "male Hispanic" so law enforcement starts looking for a male Hispanic...Is that racial profiling? What else are they supposed to do?
Are you going to tell me in all of your life that there has never been a single time when someone has stopped you because it "looked" like you didn't "belong" there? (You must have never driven an old beat up car through Newport Beach before, then.)
Can I share just one night's worth of questions without offending too many people?
What do you do if you have an allergic reaction to allergy medicine?
Isn't people assuming that I am pro-illegal-immigration racial profiling?
Isn't people assuming you're a racist if you're anti-illegal-immigration a type of racial profiling as well?
Why is it when I take a survey and select that I am of Hispanic dissent, and the survey then asks me what my country of origin is, I have to select "Other" and type in "The United States of America"?
How many other people have a great grandmother that was born in the United States?
Is it not also racial-profiling when people come up to me, start speaking to me in Spanish, then get upset when I cannot understand them? How about when I am at Wal-Mart, wearing a blue shirt, and people think I work there?
Was it really all that crazy after 9/11, when 15 of the 19 hijackers were determined to be from Saudi Arabia, to start stopping people that "looked" Saudi? Would it have made more sense to start stopping everyone with blonde hair, blue eyes, and fair skin?
What about when a crime is committed and the suspect description is a "male Hispanic" so law enforcement starts looking for a male Hispanic...Is that racial profiling? What else are they supposed to do?
Are you going to tell me in all of your life that there has never been a single time when someone has stopped you because it "looked" like you didn't "belong" there? (You must have never driven an old beat up car through Newport Beach before, then.)
Can I share just one night's worth of questions without offending too many people?
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Sending A Proposal To UPS Via FedEx?
I am not going to sit here and say that I completely cover every eventuality every time, but c'mon, business world, pay attention to the details!
In a recent Inc. Magazine article in which writers asked decision-makers from some of the world's toughest customers how to get your foot in the door if you are a small business, Kathy Homeyer, director of supplier diversity for UPS, offered the following advice:
"The biggest no-no is not knowing our competition. People will say, 'I've got this really exciting proposal I want you to look at.' I'll say, 'Go ahead and send it to me.' Then, they send it to me by FedEx. It happens everyday. Just be smart. Know the company you are pitching to and know their likes and dislikes. You get such brownie points with me when you come in with a UPS envelope and have an account all set up. It's just the little things like that, the icing on the cake."
In a recent Inc. Magazine article in which writers asked decision-makers from some of the world's toughest customers how to get your foot in the door if you are a small business, Kathy Homeyer, director of supplier diversity for UPS, offered the following advice:
"The biggest no-no is not knowing our competition. People will say, 'I've got this really exciting proposal I want you to look at.' I'll say, 'Go ahead and send it to me.' Then, they send it to me by FedEx. It happens everyday. Just be smart. Know the company you are pitching to and know their likes and dislikes. You get such brownie points with me when you come in with a UPS envelope and have an account all set up. It's just the little things like that, the icing on the cake."
Monday, May 17, 2010
Stupid Banks, Leave Me Alone Already About Your Damned Overdraft "Protection"!
They email me once a week. They send me a letter once a week. Leave me alone already, Chase!
An amazing improvement in banking is going to happen on August 15, 2010. Banks will no longer be able to honor debit card transactions that exceed the amount that you actually have in your account without your permission. This means that a $1 purchase will not overdraw you and come with accompanying $34 overdraft fee (well, that's what Chase's letter says they charge - your bank might charge even more). Many Americans have felt the sting of that $35 candy bar, but from now on, unless you tell the bank to authorize transactions in this manner, they can longer stick it to you like that.
So, in accordance with the new credit and debit card laws enacted by the U.S. Congress, I received a letter in the mail from one of the banks I have a debit card from, Chase, telling me that I needed to make a choice...Overdraft, or nor overdraft? A declined $1 purchase, or a paid $1 purchase with a $34 overdraft fee? Needless to say, I quickly went online and told Chase where they could stick their overdraft protection and their $34 fee.
Here's where Chase started really getting on my nerves. Since electing for NO OVERDRAFT, I have been getting email after email and letter after letter warning me of the serious, life-altering mistake that I have made. Naturally, Chase is worried because they are about to no longer be able to literally steal millions and millions of dollars from its customer with these b.s. overdraft charges on debit card purchases $34 at a time. They've never made a dime off of me in fees, and the emails and letters continue!
"When you don't have enough money to make a purchase or pay for something unexpected," the most recent letter exclaims, "Chase Debit Overdraft Coverage may allow your everyday debit card transactions to be authorized at our discretion."
If you're in a real emergency and you need some serious help, that debit card is not going to buy you a ticket home, or a $500 part for your car. The overdraft "protection" that Chase is offering is not going to be enough money to help you out if you are in a real jam. The overdraft "protection" offered to you by these banks on your debit card is designed to make money for the banks from your mistake, or your misfortune.
For any reason, if you overdraw, they will authorize it - oh, you better believe it - but it's not to help you! It's to generate revenue for the bank.
While Chase now limits its $34 dings to three per day, that is not always the case at every bank. Sometimes, there are no daily limits to fees. Imagine if you started your day overdrawn without knowing it and you went in the morning and bought coffee or breakfast. Then, later in the day, you buy a magazine at the book store and lunch to eat while you're reading that magazine. Even later in the day, you stop at the grocery store on the way home, stop and get your dry cleaning, stop and buy pet food, and finally buy dinner at a take-out place.
Oh, you'd better believe your bank is going to pay for your debit card purchases, my friends. In the course of the day, they'll loan you the money because you owe them $34 x 7 transactions to the tune of $238. Don't believe me? Ask around. We've all got at least one friend that has fallen victim to this debit card overdraft "protection" b.s. Again, I have to point out that some banks are starting to limit the number of transactions per day they will ding you with a fee, but for Chase's three times a day limit, that is still $102.
America, don't overdraw - know what's in your account, but more importantly, if you make a mistake and don't know how much you have in your account, don't give these banks the right to gouge you with their overdraft "protection" by agreeing to let them keep this revenue generator on your debit card!
Also, there is a loop hole of which you should be aware. It's hidden in the fine print of your notices, so they hope you get bored with reading the Bank-ese before you get to it, but even though you may COMPLETELY OPT OUT of overdraft "protection", if you have recurring automatic charges set up to bill to your debit card and one or more of those recurring charges causes you to be overdrawn, the bank does still have the right to pay it because your recurring payment has authorized them to do so, regardless of what you have and have not agreed to in terms of Overdraft. So, don't put your recurring automatic charges on a debit card. Put then on a credit card instead.
Again, the bottom line is that the best thing you can do is always know exactly what is in your accounts at all times, know what transactions are hitting the bank automatically, and be conscious of all of this when you are out and about town spending money with your cards. Needless to say, we're not perfect, so in the case of an unexpected event, make sure you've declined that overdraft protection so the bank cannot take you for hundreds of dollars in fees.
Oh, and by the way, Chase, if you're reading this - stop emailing me and stop sending me letters, trying to scare me into giving you free money!
An amazing improvement in banking is going to happen on August 15, 2010. Banks will no longer be able to honor debit card transactions that exceed the amount that you actually have in your account without your permission. This means that a $1 purchase will not overdraw you and come with accompanying $34 overdraft fee (well, that's what Chase's letter says they charge - your bank might charge even more). Many Americans have felt the sting of that $35 candy bar, but from now on, unless you tell the bank to authorize transactions in this manner, they can longer stick it to you like that.
So, in accordance with the new credit and debit card laws enacted by the U.S. Congress, I received a letter in the mail from one of the banks I have a debit card from, Chase, telling me that I needed to make a choice...Overdraft, or nor overdraft? A declined $1 purchase, or a paid $1 purchase with a $34 overdraft fee? Needless to say, I quickly went online and told Chase where they could stick their overdraft protection and their $34 fee.
Here's where Chase started really getting on my nerves. Since electing for NO OVERDRAFT, I have been getting email after email and letter after letter warning me of the serious, life-altering mistake that I have made. Naturally, Chase is worried because they are about to no longer be able to literally steal millions and millions of dollars from its customer with these b.s. overdraft charges on debit card purchases $34 at a time. They've never made a dime off of me in fees, and the emails and letters continue!
"When you don't have enough money to make a purchase or pay for something unexpected," the most recent letter exclaims, "Chase Debit Overdraft Coverage may allow your everyday debit card transactions to be authorized at our discretion."
If you're in a real emergency and you need some serious help, that debit card is not going to buy you a ticket home, or a $500 part for your car. The overdraft "protection" that Chase is offering is not going to be enough money to help you out if you are in a real jam. The overdraft "protection" offered to you by these banks on your debit card is designed to make money for the banks from your mistake, or your misfortune.
For any reason, if you overdraw, they will authorize it - oh, you better believe it - but it's not to help you! It's to generate revenue for the bank.
While Chase now limits its $34 dings to three per day, that is not always the case at every bank. Sometimes, there are no daily limits to fees. Imagine if you started your day overdrawn without knowing it and you went in the morning and bought coffee or breakfast. Then, later in the day, you buy a magazine at the book store and lunch to eat while you're reading that magazine. Even later in the day, you stop at the grocery store on the way home, stop and get your dry cleaning, stop and buy pet food, and finally buy dinner at a take-out place.
Oh, you'd better believe your bank is going to pay for your debit card purchases, my friends. In the course of the day, they'll loan you the money because you owe them $34 x 7 transactions to the tune of $238. Don't believe me? Ask around. We've all got at least one friend that has fallen victim to this debit card overdraft "protection" b.s. Again, I have to point out that some banks are starting to limit the number of transactions per day they will ding you with a fee, but for Chase's three times a day limit, that is still $102.
America, don't overdraw - know what's in your account, but more importantly, if you make a mistake and don't know how much you have in your account, don't give these banks the right to gouge you with their overdraft "protection" by agreeing to let them keep this revenue generator on your debit card!
Also, there is a loop hole of which you should be aware. It's hidden in the fine print of your notices, so they hope you get bored with reading the Bank-ese before you get to it, but even though you may COMPLETELY OPT OUT of overdraft "protection", if you have recurring automatic charges set up to bill to your debit card and one or more of those recurring charges causes you to be overdrawn, the bank does still have the right to pay it because your recurring payment has authorized them to do so, regardless of what you have and have not agreed to in terms of Overdraft. So, don't put your recurring automatic charges on a debit card. Put then on a credit card instead.
Again, the bottom line is that the best thing you can do is always know exactly what is in your accounts at all times, know what transactions are hitting the bank automatically, and be conscious of all of this when you are out and about town spending money with your cards. Needless to say, we're not perfect, so in the case of an unexpected event, make sure you've declined that overdraft protection so the bank cannot take you for hundreds of dollars in fees.
Oh, and by the way, Chase, if you're reading this - stop emailing me and stop sending me letters, trying to scare me into giving you free money!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)