Friday, June 4, 2010

Mexico just keeps screwing us


The Mexican government is opening a satellite consular office on Catalina Island -- a small resort off the California coast with a history of drug smuggling and human trafficking -- to provide the island's illegal Mexican immigrants with identification cards, The Washington Examiner has learned.

The Mexican consular office in Los Angeles issued a flier, a copy of which was obtained by The Examiner, listing the Catalina Island Country Club as the location of its satellite office. It invites Mexicans to visit the office to obtain the identification, called matricular cards, by appointment.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, a Republican whose district includes Catalina Island, said handing out matricular cards will exacerbate an already dangerous situation.

"Handing out matricular cards to Mexicans who are not in this country legally is wrong no matter where it's done," he said. "But on Catalina it will do more damage. It's a small island but there's evidence it's being used as a portal for illegals to access mainland California." More here:


Thanks for the help, Mexico.  You know, I never used to "hate" Mexico or Mexicans but that may be starting to change.

Hp public service announcement

Israel is evil.

Fun with anti-semitism.

Andrew Klavan strikes again.

A rich and brilliant baby.

3.5 million views in a week on youtube and two offers from Hollywood. My wife's only comment, "Someone's got too much time on their hands..."

fri pins

Thursday, June 3, 2010

Friday Is National Doughnut Day

Krispy Kreme (yuck) free doughnut with no purchase. Dunkin' Donuts (yum) free doughnut with beverage purchase. I'm here to help.

Details

A response to Mexico's Presidente

Congressman Tom McClintock Representing The 4th District of California
M. Speaker:

I rise to take strong exception to the speech of the President of Mexico while in this chamber today.

The Mexican government has made it very clear for many years that it holds American sovereignty in contempt and President Calderons behavior as a guest of the Congress confirms and underscores this attitude.

It is highly inappropriate for the President of Mexico to lecture Americans on American immigration policy, just as it would be for Americans to lecture Mexico on its laws.


It is obvious that President Calderon does not understand the nature of America or the purpose of our immigration law.

Unlike Mexicos immigration law — which is brutally exclusionary — the purpose of Americas law is not to keep people out. It is to assure that as people come to the United States, they do so with the intention of becoming Americans and of raising their children as Americans.

Unlike Mexico, our nation embraces immigration and what makes that possible is assimilation.

A century ago President Teddy Roosevelt put it this way. He said:

“In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American…There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag… We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language … and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”

That is how we have built one great nation from the people of all the nations of the world.

The largest group of illegal immigrants now comes from Mexico. A recent RAND discovered that during most of the 20th Century, while our immigration laws were actually enforced, assimilation worked and made possible the swift attainment of the American dream for millions of immigrants seeking to escape conditions in Mexico.

That is the broader meaning of our nations motto, e pluribus unum from many people, one people, the American people.

But there is now an element in our political structure that seeks to undermine that concept of E Pluribus Unum. It seeks to hyphenate Americans, to develop linguistic divisions, to assign rights and preferences based on race and ethnicity, and to elevate devotion to foreign ideologies and traditions, while at the same time denigrating American culture, American values and American founding principles.

In order to do so, they know that they have to stop the process of assimilation. In order to do that, they must undermine our immigration laws.

It is an outrage that a foreign head of state would appear in this chamber and actively seek to do so. And it is a disgrace that he would be cheered on from the left wing of the White House and by many Democrats in this Congress.

Arizona has not adopted a new immigration law. All it has done is to enforce existing law that President Obama refuses to enforce. It is hardly a radical policy to suggest that if an officer on a routine traffic stop encounters a driver with no drivers license, no passport, and who doesnt speak English, that maybe that individual might be here illegally.

And to those who say we must reform our immigration laws I reply that we dont need to reform them we need to enforce them. Just as every other government does. Just as Mexico does.

Above all, this is a debate of, by and for the American people. If President Calderon wishes to participate in that debate, I invite him to obey our immigration laws, apply for citizenship, do what 600,000 LEGAL immigrants to our nation are doing right now, learn our history and our customs, and become an American. And then he will have every right to participate in that debate.

Until then, I would politely invite him to have the courtesy while a guest of this Congress to abide by the fundamental rules of diplomacy between civilized nations not to meddle in each others domestic debates.

Diversity Lane.

Who said it?

"I think Israel has an absolute right to deal with its security interest. I put all this back on two things: one, Hamas, and, two, Israel's need to be more generous relative to the Palestinian people who are in trouble in Gaza," #### said, according to a transcript of the interview, in which he went on to discuss Hamas's control of Gaza:

"[The Israelis have] said, 'Here you go. You're in the Mediterranean. This ship — if you divert slightly north you can unload it and we'll get the stuff into Gaza.' So what's the big deal here? What's the big deal of insisting it go straight to Gaza? Well, it's legitimate for Israel to say, 'I don't know what's on that ship. These guys are dropping eight — 3,000 rockets on my people,'" #### said.

You'll never believe it.  For the answer and h/t, click here.

Wednesday, June 2, 2010

Some Tiger Humor

Hamas rejects flotilla aid

Jerusalem (CNN) -- Israel has attempted to deliver humanitarian aid from an international flotilla to Gaza, but Hamas -- which controls the territory -- has refused to accept the cargo, the Israel Defense Forces said Wednesday.

Palestinian sources confirmed that trucks that arrived from Israel at the Rafah terminal at the Israel-Gaza border were barred from delivering the aid.  More here:

I guess they didn't need the "aid" that badly.

Israel is the "bad guy".


Clearly, Israel is in the wrong regarding their handling of the Turkish flotilla recently in the news. These are the facts. They are not in dispute:
  1. Israel imposed a blockade on the Gaza Strip in order to prevent further importation of weapons into the zone. This was done because Israel was vilified for firing back at Palestinians who were firing dozens of rockets at Israel daily. 
  2. Israel notified the 6 ships in the Turkish flotilla that they would not be allowed to pass the blockade without having their ships searched for weapons. Five of the ships cooperated, one did not.
  3. Israel boarded the ship which refused to comply. Immediately [as shown on the video] upon boarding the ship Israeli soldiers were attacked by crew members. [These crew members have been called "passengers" but since this ship was self-described as delivering humanitarian aid, everyone onboard should be considered "crew".]
  4. In spite of being inundated by crew members wielding clubs, metal pipes and knives, the Israeli soldiers told each other "don't shoot, don't shoot". It wasn't until the crew members on the "humanitarian" ship stole the Israeli weapons and began shooting that the Israelis returned fire and due to the fact that they believe in guns shot better, killed 9 of the crew members.
There's no disputing that nobody on either side wanted things to turn out this way. However, when a country with a fully capable military tells you not to do something, it's perhaps a good idea to comply- or at the very least, not attempt to argue the point using brute force.

It's clear and obvious to anyone thinking clearly that the objective of the sixth ship was only to attempt to break the blockade. They weren't there to lend humanitarian aid- they were there to create a confrontation that would bring world-wide attention to their cause. They were even "dying for a confrontaion [sic] with Israeli troops". They got their wish. They forced the issue. Now Israel is the "bad guy".

Here's what they would have you believe should have happened.
  1. Palestinians should have been allowed to bomb the ELS out of Isreal. The fact is- it was their land first. Except that plenty of current Israeli residents can make exactly the same claim to the land. I mean, the number of original residents are dwindling 60 years later but given that people in the middle east can let a war continue for centuries without a resolution in sight, 60 years is only a bat of the eyelash in comparison.
  2. The ships in the flotilla should have been allowed to continue on their route to the strip to deliver weapons humanitarian aid without resistance. The fact that they were warned not to do so should not be taken into consideration.
  3. They should have been allowed to kill the Israeli soldiers for boarding their ship so they could continue on their way.
  4. They should have been allowed to disregard the blockade because- you know- they were delivering weapons humanitarian aid.
Now, the truth is that the quantity and quality of the weapons actually found on the ship (as of now) aren't enough to raise an eyebrow of anyone thinking clearly. However, you could also consider this instance a dry run- particularly since there is already another flotilla en route to the strip. Of course, that flotilla is only carrying weapons humanitarian aid so there's nothing to worry about.

It's absolutely inconceivable that the first ship intentionally raised a ruckus and didn't even have any weapons in the first place just so the Israelis would think twice about boarding another ship carrying weapons humanitarian aid.  That idea would be completely ridiculous. Except to anyone thinking clearly.

Tuesday, June 1, 2010

Peanuts redux

She's not even ashamed of being a Liberal.

"and guess what this Liberal would be all about. This Liberal would be all about Sociali... uh uh um um..."

Is This Joke Racist?



No because you can just flip it [the punchline] just flip it and it's just as funny. Unless you flip it and then you're a racist. I swear, blaming racism for everything is just the left's way of keeping us from EVER being equal.

Fox News is a 24 hour a Day Racism Engine.

Sarah Silverman said,
"The entire Fox News Channel is a twenty-four-hour-a-day racism engine, but it's all coded, all implied," she continued. "Lou Dobbs used to scream on CNN about ‘immigration,' not ‘filthy Mexicans.' I suspect the racist messages about Asians that permeate the media are subtler, and therefore more difficult to combat."



Of course, this is true... if you want it to be. I mean, it makes it even easier than ever before to call someone a racist without having any basis for doing so. Racism is a funny thing. The people running around calling other people "racists" are just as unabashed as the Klan used to be about running around calling black people "Niggers".

Of course, I don't intend to give her statements more credit than they're due. I think she's a very funny comedian... sometimes... but that's just it- she's a comedian. She makes a living saying things to make people laugh and to get attention. It could be that this was part of a joke but she spends so much of her time being un-funny, we have no real way of knowing. It's just my opinion, but she should probably stick to what she knows best and if we ever figure out what that is, she should go do it.

SO Naive...

Of course they'll call him a racist...

Interesting Read... Perhaps.

From TYWKIWDBI:

Here's a wonderful quote from Isaac Azimov:
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."
That was quoted in Newsweek magazine in January of 1980.   The situation doesn't appear to have improved in the past 30 years.

Quote found at Reddit, where someone recommended a book from 1966 by Richard Hofstadter: "Anti-Intellectualism in American Life," the Amazon review of which offers this excerpt:
Unfortunately, America's practical culture has never embraced intellectuals. The intellectuals' education and expertise are viewed as a form of power or privilege. Intellectuals are seen as a small arrogant elite who are pretentious, conceited, snobbish. Geniuses' are described as eccentric, and their talents dismissed as mere cleverness. Their cultured view is seen as impractical, and their sophistication as ineffectual. Their emphasis on knowledge and education is viewed as subversive, and it threatens to produce social decadence.

Instead, the anti-intellectuals believe that the plain sense of the common man is altogether adequate and superior to formal knowledge and expertise from schools. The truths of the heart, experience, and old-fashioned principles of religion, character, instinct, and morality are more reliable guides to life than education. After all, we idolize the self-made man in America.

Hofstadter goes on to cite examples of anti-intellectualism from the nations founding to today. For example, the founding fathers were sages, scientists, and men of cultivation, yet the Federalists attacked the brilliant Thomas Jefferson by portraying the curiosity of his active mind as too trivial and ridiculous for important affairs...

Turning to education, Hofstadter points out that broad public education in the US was started not for developing the mind or the pride of learning for its own sake, but for its supposed political and economic benefits. Children were viewed not minds to be developed, but as citizens to be trained for a stable democracy.
Might be an interesting book.  Anyone read it?

TYWKIWDBI intends to remain a refuge for intellectuals.
The only point with which I disagree is the last one. TYWKIWDBI isn't really a "refuge for intellectuals". There is nothing in their content which would indicate any tendency toward sophistication nor toward higher thought. It is, however, an interesting blog for autodidacts. I find their statement about being a "refuge for intellectuals" to be showy and disturbing- something akin to getting a crest embroidered onto a blazer for honors students in a public school.

As you might have guessed, I am personally anti-intellectualism. In all the years I've lived, I've learned that the more verbose and wordy an individual or an idea is, the more likely it is to be flowery bullshit. The great minds I've known have universally been able to express complex and complicated ideas clearly and plainly. Once someone starts to use math to explain Einstein's Theory of Relativity, I know they don't really understand it.

Yes... well.

Sure it's just a typo but it's in the first major paragraph and made by a guy advertised as "Daniel W. Drezner is professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University." I mean, he should really know better than to allow typos to go unnoticed. I guess I should have seen it coming after the first two sentences though. There is nothing more distasteful to me than someone who uses asterisks to thinly veil the fact that they're swearing.

I know- the only people who swear do so because they lack the vocabulary to choose a better word for what they're really trying to say. Fuck that. Sometimes an expletive is the sartorial word for expressing a perspective or opinion and if you're going to curse, do it. How many times have you wanted to smack a fancy-pants from the suburbs who says, "Oh for gosh sakes"?

Go ahead and smack them. It probably won't do them any good, but you'll feel better and you'll no doubt get the support and adulation of the people around you.

I really am not too happy about giving this guy any more press than he deserves but if it was worth instapundit's time, I guess I can make an exception.


Right... "weren't exactly Christ-like". I can only presume that this is religion-baiting since the icon of non-violence is clearly Gandhi. Furthermore, if you think Christ is a symbol of nonviolence, just wait for the second coming immediately following God deciding, "enough".

Speaking of which, Mr. Drezner says, "Indeed, the parallels between Israel and -- gulp -- North Korea are becoming pretty eerie." [as also pointed out by instapundit]. I fail to see the similarities between the two particularly since Israel is a sane nation but I do  see how Israel has gotten to the point of "enough".

I like Mr. Drezner's sense of black humor when he says "... they were dying for a confrontation with Israeli forces." although based on his other writing, it was unintentional and perhaps unnoticed by him, his typist, his proofreading staff, and his editor (collectively known as "himself").

He continues with more highly sophisticated prose by saying "... it should be possible without, you know, killing more than ten people" yet only nine people were killed so what's his point? I mean, there were 6 ships in the flotilla. Five of them heard, understood, and complied with Israel's legitimate command to submit to a search. One ship decided they knew better and as a direct result of their actions, experienced the loss of several crew members (aka "passengers" according to left-leaning news sources).

Let's face it- for as long as heavily biased reporters, columnists, and news sources continue on this path, no righteous and reasonable nation or individual in this world is safe.


Full article here.

The latest news:
The Turkish organizers of the Gaza Strip-bound flotilla that was boarded this morning by Israeli commandos knew well in advance that their vessels would never reach Israeli waters. That's because the organizers belong to a nonprofit that was banned by the Israeli government in July 2008 for its ties to terrorism finance.
 Full article here.