This is not really a tale of two cities, but it is a tale of two groups of people in the same city; Phoenix, Arizona.
This weekend there were two groups of people coming to Phoenix for two very different reasons and with two very different behaviors. One group came to the Phoenix Comicon, and the other group came to protest bill 1070 which was signed into law recently by the Governor of Arizona.
Attendees at the Phoenix Comicon included a lot of people who are in the entertainment industry, many of whom are quite liberal in their beliefs. Celebrities included Wil Wheaton, LeVar Burton, Johnathan Frakes, John Schneider, James Marsters, Aaron Douglas, Gary Lockwood, Kier Dullea, Stan Lee, Chas Masterson, and many more. The underlying theme in what many of these people talked about inevitably involved their thankfulness to the fans who allow them to do what they love to do, and a deep seated respect for their fans. They respected the people who came to see them, and the people who came to see them gave their respect in return.
Then there are the people who came to Phoenix to protest bill 1070. These are people whose whole outlook seems to revolve around disrespect. They disrespect both Federal and State laws regarding illegal immigration. Some of them have disrespected the international border of the United States. They disrespect the Constitution of the United States by demanding “rights” that are not rights at all, but a privilege. They disrespect the populace in general by demanding the people of Arizona be punished by a boycott that will predominantly harm the very people they claim to be supporting.
You get what you give. Respect is never earned through disrespect.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Idiocracy
"Idiocracy" is a 2006 comedic film, directed by Mike Judge and starring Luke Wilson and Maya Rudolph.
The film tells the story of two people who are taken into a top-secret hibernation experiment that goes haywire, and awaken 500 years in the future. They discover that the world has degenerated to the point where advertising, commercialism, and cultural anti-intellectualism run rampant and what is left of humanity is a uniformly stupid society.
Until the last few weeks I would have categorized such a movie as interesting entertainment, but highly implausible. Then evidence to the contrary kept mounting.
Attorney General Eric Holder criticizes the Arizona Anti-Illegal Immigration bill, then admits he hasn't even read it. Head of the Department of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, criticizes the bill then admits she hasn't read it. State Department representative P J Crowley, among others in the State Department, criticizes the Arizona bill then admits he hasn't read it. The Mayor of Los Angeles begins a boycott of Arizona and doesn't realize his own state has a law equivalent to the Arizona bill.
What's going on here? Idiocracy! We don't even have to wait 500 years for it.
The film tells the story of two people who are taken into a top-secret hibernation experiment that goes haywire, and awaken 500 years in the future. They discover that the world has degenerated to the point where advertising, commercialism, and cultural anti-intellectualism run rampant and what is left of humanity is a uniformly stupid society.
Until the last few weeks I would have categorized such a movie as interesting entertainment, but highly implausible. Then evidence to the contrary kept mounting.
Attorney General Eric Holder criticizes the Arizona Anti-Illegal Immigration bill, then admits he hasn't even read it. Head of the Department of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, criticizes the bill then admits she hasn't read it. State Department representative P J Crowley, among others in the State Department, criticizes the Arizona bill then admits he hasn't read it. The Mayor of Los Angeles begins a boycott of Arizona and doesn't realize his own state has a law equivalent to the Arizona bill.
What's going on here? Idiocracy! We don't even have to wait 500 years for it.
Friday, May 14, 2010
Ignorance revisited
I pointed out earlier that so many people who potificated endlessly about Arizona's illegal alien law have invariably not even read it. Then guess what?
United States Attorney General Eric Holder who went on at great length last week about the failings of the Arizona law was finally asked If he had actually read the law. His answer? No, he had not "had the time" to read 10 pages. So how did he form his opinions about it? He glanced at it and read "media reports".
Great. He is deciding things by listening to politically controlled media rather than reading things for himself and actually putting two brain cells together and attempting to think. I'm sorry, but that is just moronic.
Oh, and how about those in California (or would that be Kallefornia) that are so opinionated about the Arizona law? Would it surprise them to know that they have a state illegal alien law of their own which says:
Calif. Penal Code Sec. 834b
"(b) With respect to any such person who is arrested, and suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws, every law enforcement agency shall do the following:
"(1) Attempt to verify the legal status of such person as a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted as a permanent resident, an alien lawfully admitted for a temporary period of time or as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of immigration laws. The verification process may include, but shall not be limited to, questioning the person regarding his or her date and place of birth, and entry into the United States, and demanding documentation to indicate his or her legal status."
Oh, and this is not an option. That's what a "shall" statement means. EVERY law enforcement agency in the state is absolutely required to abide by this. Furthermore this law says:
"(c) Any legislative, administrative, or other action by a city, county, or other legally authorized local governmental entity with jurisdictional boundaries, or by a law enforcement agency, to prevent or limit the cooperation required by subdivision (a) is expressly prohibited."
This means it is against the law to not abide by this law.
Maybe we should boycott Kallefornia? After all, their law doesn't expressly prohibit "profiling".
United States Attorney General Eric Holder who went on at great length last week about the failings of the Arizona law was finally asked If he had actually read the law. His answer? No, he had not "had the time" to read 10 pages. So how did he form his opinions about it? He glanced at it and read "media reports".
Great. He is deciding things by listening to politically controlled media rather than reading things for himself and actually putting two brain cells together and attempting to think. I'm sorry, but that is just moronic.
Oh, and how about those in California (or would that be Kallefornia) that are so opinionated about the Arizona law? Would it surprise them to know that they have a state illegal alien law of their own which says:
Calif. Penal Code Sec. 834b
"(b) With respect to any such person who is arrested, and suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws, every law enforcement agency shall do the following:
"(1) Attempt to verify the legal status of such person as a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted as a permanent resident, an alien lawfully admitted for a temporary period of time or as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of immigration laws. The verification process may include, but shall not be limited to, questioning the person regarding his or her date and place of birth, and entry into the United States, and demanding documentation to indicate his or her legal status."
Oh, and this is not an option. That's what a "shall" statement means. EVERY law enforcement agency in the state is absolutely required to abide by this. Furthermore this law says:
"(c) Any legislative, administrative, or other action by a city, county, or other legally authorized local governmental entity with jurisdictional boundaries, or by a law enforcement agency, to prevent or limit the cooperation required by subdivision (a) is expressly prohibited."
This means it is against the law to not abide by this law.
Maybe we should boycott Kallefornia? After all, their law doesn't expressly prohibit "profiling".
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
There are no UN experts on human rights
Now Arizona is even making the international scene over our law to allow police to arrest illegal aliens. Supposed “experts” in human rights for the United Nations have spoken.
“GENEVA — Arizona's new law on illegal immigration could violate international standards that are binding in the United States, six U.N. human rights experts said Tuesday.
"The UN experts also said they are concerned about the enactment of a law prohibiting Arizona school programs featuring the histories and cultures of ethnic minorities because everyone has the right to learn about his own cultural and linguistic heritage.
The six U.N. human rights experts, who are unpaid, are:
"Jorge Bustamante of Mexico, special rapporteur on the human rights of migrants.
"Githu Muigai of Kenya, special rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.
"James Anaya of the United States, special rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people.
"Farida Shaheed of Pakistan, independent expert in the field of cultural rights.
"Vernor Munos Villalobos of Costa Rica, special rapporteur on the right to education.
"Gay McDougall of the United States, independent expert on minority issues.”
Maybe “expert” means people who used to be “pert” because there is certainly no indication that anyone at the United Nations has any idea on human rights issues. Let’s look at recent history.
March 2010
Iran was given a seat on the UN Commission on the Status of Women, which works to promote gender equality. Of course this was the same country that hung a woman last week and in April Iranian women were rebuked for causing earthquakes with their immodest dress.
Now, women in Iran are being admonished, and threatened with arrest and imprisonment, for having tan skin. Tehran's police chief, Brig Hossien Sajedinia, has declared: "In some areas of north Tehran we can see many suntanned women and young girls who look like walking mannequins. We are not going to tolerate this situation and will first warn those found in this manner and then arrest and imprison them."
Sounds like the “experts" at the UN are right on top of the situation alright. But of course there are other times that their “expertise” has failed them, like in 1994.
In the Spring and early Summer of 1994 something over 1,000,000 people were killed as an act of genocide in Rwanda. Now in the UN’s defense their mandate forbids intervening in the internal politics of any country unless the crime of genocide is being committed.
Oh, but that’s right, genocide WAS being committed. Of course that didn’t prevent the UN from stepping right up and doing, uh, absolutely nothing in spite of the fact that on April 9, UN observers witnessed the massacre of children at a Polish church in Gikondo. The same day, 1,000 heavily armed and trained European troops arrived to escort European civilian personnel out of the country. The troops did not stay. Media coverage picked up on the 9th as the Washington Post reported the execution of Rwandan employees of relief agencies in front of their horrified expatriate colleagues. On April 9–10, US Ambassador Rawson and 250 Americans were evacuated.
Still the UN did exactly nothing.
Of course Arizona has also been called misguided by our current president. Of course at the time of the Rwanda genocide then-president Bill Clinton later came to regret in a Frontline television interview that he also did exactly nothing in response to the Rwanda genocide. In the interview, five years after the genocide, Clinton stated that he believes if he had sent 5,000 U.S. peacekeepers, more than 500,000 lives could have been saved.
Pardon me if I puke over all the “experts” who have not even read the Arizona law and have no idea that people here are being killed by illegal aliens. The last three law officers killed in the state were murdered by illegal aliens, and a sheriff deputy was shot just about a week ago because he ran across over 15 illegal aliens being smuggled into Arizona. Of course there was also the farmer who was killed by an illegal just last month. He was providing the illegal alien with water.
Now the United Nations “experts” claim that Arizona is bound by an agreement made by the United States. There are two equally viable solutions to that problem. Can you think of what they might be?
“GENEVA — Arizona's new law on illegal immigration could violate international standards that are binding in the United States, six U.N. human rights experts said Tuesday.
"The UN experts also said they are concerned about the enactment of a law prohibiting Arizona school programs featuring the histories and cultures of ethnic minorities because everyone has the right to learn about his own cultural and linguistic heritage.
The six U.N. human rights experts, who are unpaid, are:
"Jorge Bustamante of Mexico, special rapporteur on the human rights of migrants.
"Githu Muigai of Kenya, special rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.
"James Anaya of the United States, special rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people.
"Farida Shaheed of Pakistan, independent expert in the field of cultural rights.
"Vernor Munos Villalobos of Costa Rica, special rapporteur on the right to education.
"Gay McDougall of the United States, independent expert on minority issues.”
Maybe “expert” means people who used to be “pert” because there is certainly no indication that anyone at the United Nations has any idea on human rights issues. Let’s look at recent history.
March 2010
Iran was given a seat on the UN Commission on the Status of Women, which works to promote gender equality. Of course this was the same country that hung a woman last week and in April Iranian women were rebuked for causing earthquakes with their immodest dress.
Now, women in Iran are being admonished, and threatened with arrest and imprisonment, for having tan skin. Tehran's police chief, Brig Hossien Sajedinia, has declared: "In some areas of north Tehran we can see many suntanned women and young girls who look like walking mannequins. We are not going to tolerate this situation and will first warn those found in this manner and then arrest and imprison them."
Sounds like the “experts" at the UN are right on top of the situation alright. But of course there are other times that their “expertise” has failed them, like in 1994.
In the Spring and early Summer of 1994 something over 1,000,000 people were killed as an act of genocide in Rwanda. Now in the UN’s defense their mandate forbids intervening in the internal politics of any country unless the crime of genocide is being committed.
Oh, but that’s right, genocide WAS being committed. Of course that didn’t prevent the UN from stepping right up and doing, uh, absolutely nothing in spite of the fact that on April 9, UN observers witnessed the massacre of children at a Polish church in Gikondo. The same day, 1,000 heavily armed and trained European troops arrived to escort European civilian personnel out of the country. The troops did not stay. Media coverage picked up on the 9th as the Washington Post reported the execution of Rwandan employees of relief agencies in front of their horrified expatriate colleagues. On April 9–10, US Ambassador Rawson and 250 Americans were evacuated.
Still the UN did exactly nothing.
Of course Arizona has also been called misguided by our current president. Of course at the time of the Rwanda genocide then-president Bill Clinton later came to regret in a Frontline television interview that he also did exactly nothing in response to the Rwanda genocide. In the interview, five years after the genocide, Clinton stated that he believes if he had sent 5,000 U.S. peacekeepers, more than 500,000 lives could have been saved.
Pardon me if I puke over all the “experts” who have not even read the Arizona law and have no idea that people here are being killed by illegal aliens. The last three law officers killed in the state were murdered by illegal aliens, and a sheriff deputy was shot just about a week ago because he ran across over 15 illegal aliens being smuggled into Arizona. Of course there was also the farmer who was killed by an illegal just last month. He was providing the illegal alien with water.
Now the United Nations “experts” claim that Arizona is bound by an agreement made by the United States. There are two equally viable solutions to that problem. Can you think of what they might be?
Sunday, May 9, 2010
You don't get it both ways
It can be successfully argued that the federal government has defaulted on its responsibility to protect the states against foreign invasion. As a result at least one state, Arizona with more to come, have decided that self protection in the form of state laws pertaining to how to handle illegal aliens is required. Then comes the next step.
The federal government is considering a lawsuit to prevent the states from protecting themselves against the very thing the federal government has failed to do.
You don't get it both ways.
The federal government cannot fail to do its job and at the same time prevent the states from protecting themselves from federal government failure. The right to self protection cannot be usurped by the federal government. This is particularly true since the the only authority the constitution gives to the federal government is to set a uniform set of rules regarding naturalization of aliens who are "legally" in the United States (Aticle 1, Section 8).
Since all powers not specifically given to the federal governemnt are reserved to the states, or the people, the federal government has no authority to prevent a state from protecting itself from illegal foreign invasion.
Eric Holder, go pound sand.
The federal government is considering a lawsuit to prevent the states from protecting themselves against the very thing the federal government has failed to do.
You don't get it both ways.
The federal government cannot fail to do its job and at the same time prevent the states from protecting themselves from federal government failure. The right to self protection cannot be usurped by the federal government. This is particularly true since the the only authority the constitution gives to the federal government is to set a uniform set of rules regarding naturalization of aliens who are "legally" in the United States (Aticle 1, Section 8).
Since all powers not specifically given to the federal governemnt are reserved to the states, or the people, the federal government has no authority to prevent a state from protecting itself from illegal foreign invasion.
Eric Holder, go pound sand.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
I have a dream
Every morning on “Conservative Talk Radio” in Phoenix I hear Dr. Martin Luther King saying, “I have a dream today. One day my four little children will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”
Last night I had a dream. It didn’t make any sense at all, but it made me think of something this morning. Why is it that when something makes no sense in a dream do we not realize it makes no sense? Why don’t we realize we are dreaming as opposed to thinking rationally? That in turn prompted me to wonder about something else. When people who are awake do something completely illogical, are they just not thinking or are they dreaming?
Here in Arizona we recently passed a bill which can be used to allow local police to arrest people who are in this country illegally. Arresting a lawbreaker, what a concept. The result has been that a significant segment of the liberal population across the country has taken up the idea of boycotting Arizona businesses and in particular conventions and resorts. They claim they are doing this because arresting illegal aliens would be targeting Hispanic people, yet they don’t realize it is they who are targeting Hispanic people.
Right or wrong, a large segment of hospitality industry employees are Hispanic. I won’t even debate whether they are here legally or illegally. Regardless of their status, a boycott of resorts and conventions have a direct bearing on their employment. No conventions, no vacationers, no need for hospitality employees.
So let’s get this straight. Because an illegal alien law might possibly be mis-used, although we can’t identify exactly how, we will boycott the industry that employs the people we are claiming to help so that they all lose their jobs?
Does the illogic of this escape everyone? Is this a dream or perhaps a nightmare?
Last night I had a dream. It didn’t make any sense at all, but it made me think of something this morning. Why is it that when something makes no sense in a dream do we not realize it makes no sense? Why don’t we realize we are dreaming as opposed to thinking rationally? That in turn prompted me to wonder about something else. When people who are awake do something completely illogical, are they just not thinking or are they dreaming?
Here in Arizona we recently passed a bill which can be used to allow local police to arrest people who are in this country illegally. Arresting a lawbreaker, what a concept. The result has been that a significant segment of the liberal population across the country has taken up the idea of boycotting Arizona businesses and in particular conventions and resorts. They claim they are doing this because arresting illegal aliens would be targeting Hispanic people, yet they don’t realize it is they who are targeting Hispanic people.
Right or wrong, a large segment of hospitality industry employees are Hispanic. I won’t even debate whether they are here legally or illegally. Regardless of their status, a boycott of resorts and conventions have a direct bearing on their employment. No conventions, no vacationers, no need for hospitality employees.
So let’s get this straight. Because an illegal alien law might possibly be mis-used, although we can’t identify exactly how, we will boycott the industry that employs the people we are claiming to help so that they all lose their jobs?
Does the illogic of this escape everyone? Is this a dream or perhaps a nightmare?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
