Motorists Unfairly Targeted As Cash Cow For Government

My readers know that I am a huge fan of traffic cops and traffic tickets and how, acting as the state's prostitutes, these officers work the streets, making money for "daddy". Turns out, even the CEO of the Automobile Club of Southern California agrees with me. While he doesn't use the same colorful terms that I tend to use, Thomas V. McKernan does agree that motorist are enduring treatment that is "inappropriate and unfair".

"Everyone agrees that state and local governments need sufficient resources to provide California's citizens with vital services, such as education, public libraries, law enforcement, and emergency services," McKernan writes, "but more often these days, state lawmakers and local officials turn to motorists to generate funds to plug budget holes and underwrite spending on a variety of projects - which, frankly, is inappropriate and unfair."

McKernan goes on to state that while it is reasonably fair for drivers to pay taxes and fees that go to roads, the CHP, the DMV, and other driver-related services, it is not right that drivers are forced to pay for services unrelated to driving.

Cars are an easy thing to target as a quick way to generate some revenue here in Taxifornia because there are so many of them. A $5 increase in fees gets the greedy politicians $150 million.

"What's more," McKernan says, "state and local governments have discovered less obvious ways to obtain money by raising fees. A good example is traffic tickets, which now consist not only of a simple fine but also of multiple added penalties that can quadruple a violation's cost." Your $100 car pool violation comes with NINE added fees and penalties that can bring its total cost to $440. Ironically, one of these fees is to help pay for the construction of courthouses, despite the fact that very few people actually go anywhere near a courthouse when they pay their traffic tickets.

You already pay taxes to pay for fire and police services, but some cities will also charge you a "crash" fee when you use those services at the time of an auto accident. The money from your "crash" fee usually goes into a general fund, not directly to police and fire budgets. Some cities, like Laguna Woods and their famous cameras at El Toro and Moulton, and at Leisure World Gate 12, fine you the same $430 for turning right without making a complete stop as they would if you just flat out sped through a red light. This generates large amounts of money for these cities.

In Taxifornia, we now pay 1.15% of the value of our car as a "vehicle license fee".

In summary, McKernan says, "Government must come up with real solutions to budget issues, fairly allocate appropriate taxes and fees among the population, and not focus on a single group, such as motorists, which are perceived to be an easy target."

Who Is To Blame? Let's Do A Better Job Of Figuring That Out

At least you never disappoint in being completely and totally predictable, mainstream media. Quite literally, even before the suspect in the Arizona shooting was identified, already blame was being placed on political discourse and specific people other than the shooter. Journalism, this is a prime example of why I left a promising career in you very early on. As I came to realize that facts and the truth were actually very subjective things to you, I sought a career elsewhere.

Honestly, I was holding out hope for you that you weren't going to once again fly off the handle, dive into the deep end, and sensationalize why this horrible tragedy happened, but as usual, journalism, you have proven to us all once again that ratings and sensationalism will always trump responsible reporting. The Founding Fathers saw your role as so important in our society that it is protected by the constitution. Today, however, journalism, you are no longer earning that privilege.

Yesterday, as the whack-job who committed this horrible crime was still playing his twisted game with society and the government in court, I read and heard story after story and heard plea after plea about how the political discourse and rhetoric of the day was to blame for this incident. I'd like to say that I am doing my best to see it, but honestly, journalism, I can't say that I am trying that hard, because I just don't see it.

This is a classic case of a complete and total psychopath who was determined to make his mark on the world somehow, no matter how heinous an act it took. He knew his life was destined for obscurity and set out to shock us all.

Journalism isn't alone in this, though. The politicians are also chiming in with just as much fervor to support the ridiculous. I mean no disrespect to the people who have died, those who were injured, and their families, but to simply blame this all on political discourse and what we perceive as an elevated level of it here in America today is simply inaccurate in this case.

This self-appointed "revolutionary" was going to strike out against the world, regardless of what was going on around him. It was simply a matter of him choosing a high-profile victim, then picking what he felt was the right time and place. This is the classic MO of all of these whack-jobs in the past. Take a minute and think back to all of the assassinations and assassination attempts that you have ever seen in a documentary or news story, or read about somewhere, and you will find that this one is no different.
Freedom of speech, the right to assemble, and the right to political discourse are some of the most important concepts that have made America such a wonderful nation. We have the right to speak out against the government and we have the right to question the policies of whoever happens to be making the laws at the time, regardless of their political party and beliefs. While I would never think to downplay this tragedy and how saddened I am by it, I am also bothered by the fact that journalists, politicians, and some Americans are misidentifying the cause of this incident in misguided attempts to change and dull political discourse to a level of their liking. I just do not think it is a good idea to tamper with something that has worked so well in this nation since its founding.

The thought that doing away with political discourse will somehow keep something like this from happening again is as crazy as never going outside because you might get hurt, or never driving in a car because you might get in an accident. We better not say that healthcare reform sucks, or that we don't like Nancy Pelosi, or that we think taxes are too high, because there might be some whack-job out there who is going to hear that and then go on a shooting spree. Well, you better do away with high school all-together, then, America, because you now have to make sure that there isn't a single high school student in the entire country that is ever teased or heckled or excluded so that we can ensure that something like this never happens again.

I am not saying that we shouldn't learn from what happened in Tucson, but I am saying that we need to be learning the right lessons and not fabricating politically-motivated rhetoric about political rhetoric. Let's look at why this whack-job was still walking the streets, and why he was able to buy a gun and ammunition despite obvious warning signs. Let's make sure that he was not part of a larger group of people, and truly acted alone. Quit blaming political discourse and look at what was really going on here. Look at what we could have done to avoid this by getting this kid off the streets when there were clear warning signs that something like this was coming, not how we can use this tragedy to make American politics more comfortable for those who don't want to be bothered by the discourse and just want the easy answers - the easy road.

Taxifornia Police Officers Can Now Search Your Cell Phone Without A Warrant

I have long made the argument that if the government and law enforcement want to listen in on my cell phone conversations, they can feel free to do so because they are not going to find anything interesting. My biggest argument against it would be that it would be a waste of taxpayer money for them to take the time to do so. Also, I would hope that if they are going to listen to my cell phone calls, they at least obtain a warrant, thus following proper channels and the law.

What if, however, it came down to a police officer wanting to search the actual contents of my cell phone for incriminateing evidence? Again, they are not going to find anything, but now we are no longer talking about a conversation flowing in the air waves, but something that I carry around with me in my pocket. Quite clearly, they would need to obtain a warrant to go through the contents of my cell phone, right? Well, according to the champions of individual civil liberties, the Taxifornia Supreme Court, no, they do not. Just how an officer can search your person if they suspect you of a crime, they can now, in Taxifornia at least, search the contents of your cell phone.

I agree that, for the most part, the law abiding have nothing to worry about in terms of being incriminated by the contents of their cell phone, but if a corrupt officer has your phone, who knows what they could put on there. Crooked cops have been known to plant drugs, so why not plant incriminating evidence on your cell phone?

I have always viewed the need for the police to obtain a search warrant as a check and balance to the authority of the arresting officers by the courts. Was this check and balance of the power of the police not the reason that the Founding Fathers added the Fourth Amendment to the constitution? When we start doing away with the obtaining of warrants prior to search, we are removing the check and balance that was the intention of the Fourth Amendment. Without search warrants obtained from a judge, we are removing the oversight of the conduct of the police by the court.

Good Riddance To The Taxinator! You Turned Out To Be A Damned Politician After All...

I would like to thank the Taxinator for giving us, the idiots who voted for him, one last slap in the face while he is on his way out the door. Whenever one of these politicians, especially the ones that claim that they are not really politicians, is on their way out of office, they always take the time to cast a few pardons here and there, regardless of whether or not they are deserved. In most cases, they are to friends of friends and colleagues of colleagues, and friends and/or colleagues of money-givers and future business partners.

Yesterday, the Taxinator did a favor for Father Of The Year Fabian Nunez and his murdering son, Esteban. Nunes is the rightfully disgraced former head Democrat in Sacramento who is now a business partner of the Taxinator's chief political advisory firm.

Raise your hand if you took part in a murder in college. Now, raise your hand if you got to plead your murder charge down to 16 years and didn't have to stand trial because your daddy was the Democratic Speaker of the House in Taxifornia when it came time for you to pay for your crime.

Now, raise your hand if your daddy was able to befriend a Democrat in Republicans' clothing who happened to be governor and on his last day in office got your sentence cut down to seven years.

Look, only one person in the entire state has his hand up! Oh, and don't go crying special treatment, Taxifornia murderers who are serving your full terms. According to the politicians, Esteban Nunez was subject to the same fair-for-everyone Taxifornia justice system as you.

I also love that Arnie (who, thank all of the powers in the universe will no longer be the the Taxinator by the end of the day today) didn't even have the balls to let the family of the young man that Esteban Nunez helped murder know about the reduction in sentence either in person, or through lackey communication. 

Fred Santos, the father of Luis Santos, had to hear it from reporters when asked how he felt about it.

Arnie ran on the platform that he was not a typical politician and probably somewhere in that steroid-encrusted brain of his still thinks that he is not, but this last minute back-door deal to reduce the sentence of a cold-blooded murderer tells me a different story. Sometimes, it would seem, the non-politician can turn out to be an even worse politician than the self-admitted politicians. Good riddance to yet another lying, cheating, despicable Taxifornia politician.

Illegal Immigration & The DREAM Act

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.

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...

Why California Should Continue To Try Children As Adults For Murder

California law says suspects 14 and older can be charged and tried as adults. About 20 percent of murders in the state are committed by people between the ages of 11 and 17.

Think about that for a second...think back to what you were doing when you were 11 years old. Try to find the situation that you were in at 11 years old that would have led you to commit murder.

I was in fifth grade at Webber Elementary in Westminster. I was playing Junior All-American Football and Little League Baseball. I was in karate, and playing on a basketball team at the Westminster Boys & Girls Club. I spent a lot of time at home with my family, hanging out with my friends from the neighborhood, and venturing off further than our parents wanted us to go, up to the liquor store our parents said was too far away, to play video games and buy more candy than we probably should have.

To think that there is a good percentage of kids out there who are committing murder at or around that same age is just astounding to me.

Before you counter my statement with my South Orange County livin' lifestyle, I'll counter back that I grew up in the poorest neighborhood in Westminster, an area heavily worked by a well-known street gang at the time, yet still, here I sit today, never having murdered anyone.

I was able to get to 18 without killing. Is it wrong of us not to expect that of all young people in California? I don't think it is an unrealistic goal. Again, I defer to my theory that if I've done it, anyone can do it.

With a number like 20 percent of murders being committed by people who are not yet adults, what choice do we have other than to try these kids as adults? 

As juveniles, they will go into the system, be released when they are 18, essentially having served very little time for the murder that they have committed.

Our murder rates are bad enough as they are...can you imagine if on top of that, these kids knew that even if they murdered someone, they got a free pass on their 18th birthday? While I will grant that there may be certain special circumstances in all mandatory sentence laws that should be overturned by a judge and taken on a case by case basis, making a declaration as a society that if you commit a murder at 14, you could be thrown in jail for the rest of your life, sends a powerful message.

Let me also counter your argument in advance that at that age, you do not really have an understanding of the law and the consequences of your actions. Again, think back to when you were that age and tell me that you didn't know right from wrong, that you didn't know that you shouldn't kill other people, and that you didn't have an understanding that you would go to jail for doing so.

Why Trying Terrorists On U.S. Soil Is Such A Huge Mistake

It has been decided that Khalid Sheikh Mohammad will be tried on U.S. soil in a U.S. court room, just as if he had held up a liquor store or the Try N' Save.

In the wake of 9/11, Bush the Great Satan Junior put a $25 million bounty on Osama Bin Laden’s head, calling on any mercenary in the world to bring us his corpse.

After the decision to treat KSM like a common street thug, I am beginning to wonder if that attack had occurred on 9/11/2009 instead, if the Magician would have put out an All Points Bulletin with strict orders to bring Osama bin Laden in alive so that he could stand trial in a U.S. federal court, afforded the full rights and liberties of a U.S. citizen, much like KSM will be.

I do understand that there is a difference between Osama bin Laden and KSM, but this is as close as you can get to OBL, folks. Is KSM any less a terrorist than OBL? Was Goring less of a Nazi than Hitler?

Unfortunately, the decision has been made and there is nothing that we can do about it. America voted for hopey changey and that is what has been delivered to our doorstep…delivered just as easily as the invitation for every terrorist in the world to be in New York City during these upcoming trials.

Under the Bush administration, they were terrorists, but under the Obama administration, they are federal criminals. That is not just a play on words, folks, but in fact, two very different categories of criminal.

While I absolutely agree 100% that every American citizen should be given a fair trail for committing crimes in America, I do not, however, agree that an act of war committed by a foreign nationals, especially acts committed primarily against U.S. civilians, should not fall under the same category as a U.S. citizen who has committed a federal crime.

Again, this is not just a matter of semantics, but a matter of us creating a dangerous precedence; a matter of changing how the Western world has dealt with terrorism from September 11, 2001 until now.

If you refer back to Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, it reads, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

This defines what a citizen is in the context of the 14th Amendment, which has been in place since we had to re-define citizenship and the rights afforded to citizens and non-citizens following the Civil War. Under this wording, a foreign national does not have the same rights afforded to a U.S. citizen, including our right to a fair trial, tax-payer provided defense attorneys, etc., until the point at which they are brought to and housed within the jurisdiction of a U.S. state, either voluntarily, or against their will.

That is the reason why Gitmo was at Gitmo and not on U.S. soil. Frankly, the U.S. constitution does not apply to you until you are on U.S. soil as defined by the constitution. Gitmo, and the rest of our military bases around the world, are not governed in relation to foreign nationals as being covered under the U.S. constitution. Whether you agree with Bushie or not, this is why the terrorists, aka enemy combatants, were housed at Gitmo. That is also why you try war criminals and terrorists in a military tribunal and most definitely not on U.S. soil. Why in the world would you want to give the people that are fighting against you…the people that are trying to kill U.S. citizens the very same rights and liberties of a U.S. citizen?

I don’t know, and I wouldn’t think you would, but that is a question we are going to need to ask our President. What The Magician has done by bringing these terrorists to trial in a federal court on U.S. soil is immediately change their classification from a terrorist and enemy combatant to simply a foreign national who has committed a federal crime. He has reduced 9/11 from an act of war and barbarism against the American people to a federal crime committed against the people who were murdered that day. This act by The Magician moves this from a military matter of war to a civil matter of federal crime, providing these terrorists (oh, sorry, criminals) with the same liberties and rights that we all have as U.S. citizens in a federal courtroom. What a fantastic reward for masterminding the death of 4,000 of us! Honorary citizenship!

This President has made these terrorists honorary citizens of the United States, just as we do with any foreign nationals that we catch committing a crime against us within our borders. Access to tax-payer funded courts, judges, lawyers, resources, and jails (yes, some serve out their sentences here because we don’t want them to be mistreated when we send them back home to their own jails). The right to a fair trial for a foreign national who has committed a crime on our soil may make us a better country, Mr. Magician, but these guys aren't students who stayed here too long on an expired student visa and robbed a 7-11 -- these are the fundamentalists who masterminded the 9/11 attacks, and you have just humanized, and yes, even Americanized them in a way that we will be paying for even long after you have left office.

The Laguna Woods Rant

I would like to share with you an email exchange I recently had with the City Manager for the City of Laguna Woods regarding their red light cameras and a violation that we received.

Here is the email I sent to the City Manager for the City of Laguna Woods:

The City of Laguna Woods has become a spending-free zone for us. My wife received a traffic "violation" from your camera at Gate 12 -- I am sure you know the one because it makes you a lot of money. Her second traffic violation in a decade and it cost us $433 with traffic school. This is literally "parkway robbery" and you should be ashamed of yourselves for sticking it to people who drive through your city at a whopping 29 mph and miss a yellow light by seconds. We are residents of Aliso Viejo and rest assured that we and anyone we know will no longer be spending ANY of our dollars in your city, we hope to a sales tax loss for your city of the tune of way more than the $433 that it cost us for that traffic ticket. I am sure there are legitimate ways for the your city to make money without sticking it to the hard working people that support it.

Here is the City Manager's response to me:

If any part of your wife's car had entered the intersection before the light turned red, she would not have received a ticket. If you enter on yellow and the light turn red before you are through, you do not get a ticket. The only way to get a ticket is if the light is already red before you enter the intersection. I am sorry, but that is simply against the law. If there had been a deputy at the corner, he or she would have issued a ticket. If the light is red, one needs to stop. We have had many accidents at both the intersections at which we have red light cameras. We placed these cameras after a car ran a red light and hit an ambulance in route to Saddleback Hospital. In December, one of our councilmembers was driving in another city and a car ran a red light and broadsided her car - her car was totaled and she was lucky to walk away with only 4 broken ribs. The driver of the vehicle who hit her said the light turned from yellow to red only a second before he entered the intersection. Using your logic, he would not receive a ticket because there wasn't actually a police officer on site when he "ran"the redlight. The City of Laguna Woods believes firmly that the redlight cameras save lives. We do not make any money on the citations from these cameras - the cost of the equipment and the deputy who views each video before a ticket is issued costs the City more than a $100,000 a year in excess of ticket revenue.

This is not quite the response I was expecting, but it got me thinking about something.

First and foremost, I did not mention in my email that I felt these cameras are unfair because there is not an officer present -- the City Manager inferred that I meant that, probably because of other emails or arguments that they have heard. Obviously, my email got lumped together with all of the other complaints.

Getting lumped together with all of the others is the problem I have with these red light cameras. There is not consideration of each particular situation -- there is no interpretation by a human being as to what the conditions were and what the situation was for this particular occasion.

Yes, there is an officer reviewing the video, but all you can see is the intersection from the one point of view -- you do not see opposing traffic, and you do not have the same perspective that an officer on-site would have.

I have been and will always be opposed to this mechanized form of law enforcement. While the accidents that have occurred at these intersections are unfortunate -- why should I be paying the price today for an accident that occurred years before I entered the intersection?

As I have said before, this is a fundamental flaw in our traffic enforcement policies. Are all drivers equally skilled? No, but the laws assume that we are equally unskilled. We post a numbered speed limit that is determined to be what is a safe speed, on average, then blanket everything with a clause that says that number might not always be the safe speed, so if we interpret that speed to be lower than the posted speed limit, we can ticket you anyway. You have some laws that are open to interpretation, but then also nail people with traffic cameras that leave room for no interpretation. Seems like they want to have their cake, eat it too, and take our money while they're doing it.

Bibendum, The Michelin Man...

We all know him and just about all of us love him, whether or not we’ve ever purchased his tires, but how much do we really know about the Michelin Man?

I hadn’t given him much thought until my wife pointed out that the Michelin tires I bought a few months back had the Michelin Man right on the sidewall. Then, just a few weeks ago, there was an article about him in Fortune Magazine, so I just had to read it.

His name his Bibendum, which is a Latin gerundive which means, "Drinking to be done." To understand why they gave him a name synonymous with drinking, you must remember that 107 years ago, only wealthy well-to-do’s could afford cars and drinking and driving wasn’t really frowned upon yet.

Though he has become such a lasting icon, Bibendum came from pretty simple beginnings. Bibendum first came to the mind of Edouard Michelin when he and his brother Andres were at an auto expo in Lyon in 1894 and Edouard commented that some stacks of tires in a row looked like a line-up of tire men...all you had to do was add the arms.

It was just four years later in 1898 that Bibendum appeared in his first Michelin ad, a poster that depicted him as being so tough that he was eating broken glass.

Later in 1898, Bibendum was depicted as having just triumphed over two other tire men in a fight who looked notably like John Boyd Dunlop and the then-chief of Continental Tire.

Bibendum as a mascot made his debut in Paris in 1898 as well when an actor was paid to stand behind a cardboard cut-out of Bibendum at a cycle show to entertain the show’s patrons.

Bibendum was so popular an attraction at the show that Michelin’s rivals started shoving patrons, trying to get them away from the Michelin exhibit, and police had to be called in to restrain them.

It might seem a little much, but early tire manufacturing was a very competitive business that in those days catered only to the folks who were affluent enough to be able to afford motorized, wheeled transportation.

The industry's competitiveness even sparked a series of Bibendum ads in the early 1900s that had him standing in triumph, sword-in-hand, over fields of battered and bloodied tire men, crying out for mercy.

Then, in 1914, we finally saw the makings of the Bibendum of today when he appeared in an ad as a middle-aged good samaritan driver, cigar-in-mouth, lending a fellow motorist his best tire from his mid-section.

Today, you can catch the Michelin Man at auto expos and trade shows. Due to the risk of liability in today’s world, the actor inside Bibendum is under strict instructions not to say anything. Bibendum will take a picture with you, but he won’t put his arm around you, and keep his hands visible in front of him at all times. They’ve kept his name, but you won’t see today’s Bibendum bibending anymore...

Keep Your Plutonium...

You’ve heard of the police stings where they send notices to people with arrest warrants that say they have won a car or a boat, then when the unsuspecting criminal shows up to claim their prize, they get handcuffed instead...You’ve also heard of programs where law enforcement officials buy back weapons, right?

Well, frighteningly enough, there is enough unaccounted-for nuclear material in Russia that they are combining the sting and the buyback and have offered to buy nuclear material at $8.25 per milligram, then are arresting the people that bring in large quantities of material.

The program has yielded an arrest of a former government enrichment plant worker. The man, Leonid Grigorow, received word from the Russian government that they were closing his plant in 1992, but when Leonid’s requests for disposal of the plant’s weapons-grade plutonium went completely unanswered by the Russian government, he simply put all 400 grams of the plant’s plutonium in a lead case, took it home, and put it in his garage, where it has been since 1992.

Upon hearing about the buyback program, Leonid did the math and realized that 400 grams at $8.25 per milligram would yield him $3.3 million, but when he went to turn in the plutonium, Leonid was arrested.

Let’s all thank the Russian government for teaching everyone that turning in plutonium to the proper officials will result in an arrest, while selling it to terrorists will actually probably get you the $3.3 million.

“Damn Right I’m Paranoid!”

At times, I have been accused of being paranoid. Maybe it is because I love to watch documentaries on crime so that I can stay informed on the criminal mind that is constantly working against us, the people who work for a living.

If always keeping in mind that there are dangerous people out there and being wary of placing myself in situations where they can get at me and my loved ones is paranoia, then I welcome being called paranoid.

Did you grow up in a neighborhood where gunfire broke the night silence at least once a week? I did. It may sound like an after-school special, or a sub-plot from Boyz N' The Hood, but by the time I graduated from high school, I’d been to five funerals of murder victims that I had known personally...and I grew up in Orange County, California.

Maybe that’s why I have an understanding that there are people and places in the country that are dangerous. Why, just last Friday, there was a shooting in Newport Beach and the suspect fled down the 73 South, the same toll road Teresa and I use everyday. Did I see the suspect? No, but I did almost get hit by a Newport Beach Patrol Car that passed me on Pacific Park in the bike lane, racing to catch up with the chase without his siren or lights on.

This guy’s sworn duty is to protect me and he almost killed me with his pursuit-induced bad driving, so can you image the capability of doing damage of someone who is intending to hurt me?

Now, I am not endorsing that we all live in fear, and I do not consider how I live living in fear, but it cannot hurt to be cautious of our surroundings and to watch for warning signs.

Last Friday, in Kansas City...why is it that when a meat-packing plant worker has walked into the plant and murdered five people, it seems like everyone saw it coming, but did nothing about it other than to stand around afterwards and say, “I knew it was going to happen.” Were they afraid of being accused of paranoia?

We live in an America where you can be at work and have a co-worker standing in front of you, gun in hand, and literally passing judgement by saying, “You haven’t done anything to me, so you can go,” then moving on to the next co-worker.

You’d better hope you didn’t accidentally spill coffee on this guy yesterday, or have taken too long in the bathroom when he needed to use it, because today is the day that he is going to walk in and end your life for it.

Oh, but I’m paranoid...

Move Over Nevada, Here Comes California and Lee Baca...

As you may recall, a few years back, Californians voted to allow California’s Native American tribes to use gambling in order to pull their people out of poverty.

I will be the first to admit that usually gambling and the theory behind it generating revenue sounds wonderful at first, but then later leads to an array of negative social impacts.

I think, however, that for the most part, legalized gambling on California’s reservations has had a positive impact. Today, however, I’m not bringing up legalized gambling for Native Americans because of the moral issues. The side-effect of legalized gambling in California that I am talking about is the side-effect of politician after politician then using legalized gambling as a solve-all for the entire society’s economic problems.

We voted to give gambling to the Native American tribes because they were impoverished. We obviously felt bad for this entire sub-group of Americans because other than the land we took from the Spanish, bought from the French or the Russians (of course, after those folks took it from the Native Americans), our government directly took all of the land that makes up the U.S. from this group of people’s ancestors.

I, myself, am descended from a line of the Blackfoot people who had their land taken away. So, I think Californians did a good thing by giving the Native American tribes a way out of poverty.

For the most part, this has worked and has had a positive impact.

Now that it has worked, though, the California politicians, like LA County Sheriff Lee Baca, want their share of the money. Is Lee Baca and his cohorts blaming Gray Davis for the financial state of California’s Sheriff Departments? No, of course not, they are blaming it on the successful Native American gambling tribes because they are not paying taxes.

These people do not pay taxes because they are considered to be a sovereign nation within the borders of the U.S. This is due to the treaties that the U.S. Government made with their forefathers.

Not like it has never been done before, but Lee Baca wants us to tear up that treaty and get these Native American tribes paying 25% of their gambling revenue to the State of California.

You may soon see folks outside your grocery store with petitions trying to get this on the ballot. You may even receive a petition in the mail like I did with a letter from Lee Baca explaining how these Native Americans and their lack of paying taxes are going to contribute to the death of California’s Sheriff Deputies and result in tax increases for all hard-working Californians.

Nowhere in this letter does Baca address the financial debacle of Davis and his cohorts, but he is sure ready to blame the state’s money problems on people who are not required by law to pay taxes, and a 25% tax at that.

Now, are you ready for an even better one? This petition that Lee Baca is supporting and asking you to sign is going to also increase state revenue by adding 30,000 slot machines to the already legal card clubs and race tracks in California.

If this one passes, how far are we from completely legalizing gambling in the state of California? Well, we would sure be a hell of a lot closer than we were five years ago.

Baca claims to be worried about the number of Deputies that he is going to have to cut from patrols, but how many more criminals are we inviting to our state by further legalizing gambling?

Please do all of California a favor and do not sign this petition. It is going to bring another 30,000 slot machines to California and not to reservation casinos, but to neighborhoods where people live and are raising their children.

Lee Baca and his cohorts say that the Native American tribes owe Californians because we have “given them” a monopoly on gambling. Hey, not too bad...they got gambling and we got to destroy their entire civilization because it fit our national interest best and got to steal an entire nation’s worth of land from their great-grandparents so the government could turn around and sell it to us at $50,000 an acre.

Our government destroyed their way of life, so the least they can do is pay us 25% of their gambling earnings, right?