Monday, May 28, 2007

The "Fairness Doctrine" Venezuelan Style...














.
Venezuelan troops used tear gas and rubber bullets on peaceful prostestors who'd gathered to oppose the Chavez regime's refusal to renew Radio Caracas Television's (RCTV's) broadcast license, earlier today (Monday, May 28, 2007).


University students blocked a major highway just hours after the Chavez government forced RCTV off the air, claiming it was "subversive" and claiming the station had backed a 2002 coup attempt against him.


RCTV was replaced with TVES a new public channel that launched its transmissions with various artists singing pro-Chavez music, followed by an exercise show. The socialist President claims he's "democratizing the airwaves" by turning over the station to public use


Founded in 1953, RCTV regularly topped viewer ratings in Venezuela, but Chavez accused the netowrk of "poisoning" Venezuelans with programming that promoted Capitalism.


Germany, which holds the European Union Presidency, expressed concern over Venezuela letting RCTV's license expire "without holding an open competition for the successor license." It also said the "EU expects Venezuela to uphold freedom of speech.


Protestors vowed to continue their protests in opposition to Chavez' tyrannical rule.

Sunday, May 27, 2007

An Abuse of the Patriot Act?....I Don't Think So...




A federal Judge, U.S. District Judge Anne Aiken, in Eugene, Oregon declared that four of the nine fires linked to Kevin Tubbs (shown left with 2nd member of the eco-terrorism groups, ELF & ALF to plead guilty on conspiracy and arson charges) were "acts of terrorism" and sentenced the 38 y/o radical to 12 years and seven months in a federal prison.

"Fear and intimidation can play no part in changing the hearts and minds of people in a democracy," said Aiken in her ruling.

For his part, Tubbs said, "I am disgusted, sickened, saddened and totally ashamed that I played any part in any of the incidents." Tubbs had hooked up with the radical groups back in 1995 when he joined an ELF encampment dedicated to stoping the U.S. Forest Service from logging trees that had been burned by fire. After that, Tubbs regularly picked targets, recruited members and built incendiary devices, although when it came to actually setting the fires, he generally served as a look-out, or driver, according to U.S. Attorney Kirk Engdahl.

OK, so America's domestic WoT provisions have been used, for the first time, on non-jihadist terrorists.

Can anyone doubt that ELF and ALF are terrorist organizations?

Of course not! How could we doubt that? They carry out terroristic acts against U.S. citizens and entities all the time!

So, why shouldn't they be treated as.....well, as terrorists?


SEE: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070525/ap_on_re_us/ecoterror_sentence

Thursday, May 24, 2007

Yet Another PHONEY “Disparate Impact” Lawsuit???






Disparate impact is NOT proof of discrimination.
.
I’ll say that again for those a little slow on the uptake, Disparate Impact is NOT proof of discrimination.
.
Moreover, our laws are clear that "Disparate Impact" cannot be used to prove discrimination on either an individual or class action basis.
.
Any lawyers care to disagree?
.
Every single standard (from the LSATs, to the MCATs, to HS Regents exams) has a disparate impact, and not merely between blacks and whites, but between all ethnic groups, in fact, there would be some disparate impact no matter how you divided the people taking those tests.
.
As a "proof of discrimination," Disparate Impact is a legal canard. It is the Civil Rights version of the classic “slip & fall” scam.
.
But “Disparate Impact” has been used by women’s groups to dilute the physical standards and by black groups to dumb down the written exams for a whole host of .Municipal Services.
.
WHY? Is it not obvious that higher standards render a higher quality workforce?

Of course it's obvious and especially post-9/11 one would think that workforce quality would trump all other concerns. "Diversity" is fine, but it's value-neutral. If one CANNOT prove that more females and more minorities on any given job would improve the overall efficiency (ie. cops shooting better, firefighters running, climbing faster) then that concern MUST take a back-seat to demonstrable quality and that quality is best measured on standardized written and physical exams - the more arduous, the better, meaning, the more arduous and demanding the exam, the better quality workforce rendered.
.
For the past twenty years the FDNY written entrance exam, like its NYPD counterpart, has been so dumbed down that a group of mentally handicapped people were once bused in to take an NYPD written entrance exam and most of those mildly retarded people passed the entrance exam!
.
That's an outrage!
.
Disparate Impact proves nothing at all. It merely shows that one given group is doing less well than others. That information should be neither surprising, nor actionable.
.
Remember “Test Bias?”
.
Quietly, it’s been proven NOT to exist!
.
Those who challenged the SAT exam on “Test Bias” failed to prove their case as the largest disparity in SAT scores were found to be on the mathematical portion of the exam, where concepts like "2, 4, division, multiplication and subtraction" are known to be the same for everyone. Even on the Verbal portion, the proponents of "Test Bias" couldn't come up with examples of overt bias, for instance the claim that "inner city students never having seen a yacht couldn't be expected to know what one is."
.
Really? Few working and middle class whites have seen a yacht and fewer rural whites, still and yet most of them had no trouble "knowing what one was." In fact, many blacks and Hispanics did too.
.
Given that “Test Bias” is a canard, then it stands to reason that “Disparate Impact” is also a ruse.
.
The charge that blacks are only 2.9% of the FDNY and Hispanics only 4.5% only seems to indicate that the best candidates from those groups overwhelmingly take other opportunities.
.
Moreover, as Heather MacDonald of the Manhattan Institute states the very same disparities exist on the SAT, LSAT and the MCAT tests!
.
Moreover, Military pilots and Special Forces have even less “diversity,” as fewer than 1% of the Navy’s pilots are female and less than 3% are minority. There are almost no females in the U.S. Special Forces and again under 3% minorities.
.
It seems more than reasonable to presume that so long as the same exam is given to every candidate the exam is, by definition, “FAIR.”
.
In fact, if anything, the case can far easier be made that BOTH the written and physical FDNY entrance exams should be made much tougher, NOT any easier.
.
I don’t ask much. In this case all I ask if that if you’re going to charge an exam like the FDNY entrance exam with discrimination, be able to prove how that test was designed to discriminate specifically against YOU.
.
“Disparate Impact” does not do that. A person truly discriminated against must be able to point to a specific action and its malicious intent to get redress.
.
Is that the kind of Justice Department America wants?
.
One that would be the quality of First Responders behind other, less vital considerations?
.
If you disagree, please, by all means do, but please be prepared to prove how giving the same exam to every candidate, no matter how arduous the standards, "discriminates" against a specific ethnic, racial or gender group. I've yet to see any actual proof of that.

More Discrimination Against Gays???






Yes, gay men remain banned for life from donating blood, the government said Wednesday, leaving in place, at least for now, as a 1983 prohibition meant to prevent the spread of HIV through transfusions.

The Food and Drug Administration reiterated its long-standing policy on its Web site Wednesday.

As gay sex remains one of the primary routes of transmission of the AIDS virus.

Of course, this sound FDA decision has its detractors; “I am disappointed, I must confess," said Dr. Celso Bianco, executive vice president of America's Blood Centers, whose members provide nearly half the nation's blood supply.

Last year the Red Cross and two other blood groups criticized the policy as "medically and scientifically unwarranted." In March 2006, the Red Cross, the international blood association AABB and America's Blood Centers proposed replacing the lifetime ban with a one-year deferral following male-to-male sexual contact. New and improved tests, which can detect HIV-positive donors within just 10 to 21 days of infection, make the lifetime ban unnecessary, the blood groups told the FDA.

(Yeah, why err on the side of protecting the general population?)


In a document posted Wednesday, the FDA said it would change its policy if given data that show doing so wouldn't pose a "significant and preventable" risk to blood recipients.

The FDA said HIV tests currently in use are highly accurate, but still can’t detect the virus 100 percent of the time. The estimated HIV risk from a unit of blood is currently about one per 2 million in the United States, according to the agency.

Critics of the exclusionary policy said it bars potential healthy donors, despite the increasing need for donated blood, and discriminates against gays. The FDA recognized the policy defers many healthy donors but rejected the suggestion it's discriminatory.

As it’s not only gays who’re barred from blood donation. Anyone who's used intravenous drugs or been paid for sex also is permanently barred from donating blood.

But we all know that there aren’t any angry gay men out there who’d look to donate tainted blood to introduce AIDS infected blood into the nation’s blood supply....are there?

SARKOZY!!!

















<
Man, could we clone this guy and get him to run over here?

Seriously, this guy’s going where few American Pols Left or Right seem willing to go.

He’s recently gone on record saying NO to any mass legalization of illegal immigrants in France and now, as part of his overall reforms package he’s looking to exempt overtime from social security charges (NOT BAD), NOT replacing half of retiring public servants as they retire (GREAT), forcing the unemployed to accept work (ABSOLUTELY AWESOME) and ending special pensions enjoyed by some in public sector (ALSO GREAT).

Of course, Mr. Sarkozy is going to need a lot of help (in Parliament) to get that agenda passed and he’s hoping to gain a large amount of parliamentary support in the upcoming June Parliamentary elections.

Polls suggest his UMP party may win 40% of the vote, giving it an absolute majority in the national assembly. The polls indicate the UMP could get at least 365 of the chamber's 577 seats - far more than the opposition Socialists, who are predicted to win 28% of the vote.

The legislative elections will be held in two rounds, on 10 and 17 June.

I’ve heard the charge here, that “Sarkozy would be a Centrist Democrat here.”

.
REALLY?!

Which “Right-wing Republican" running has had the balls to offer such promises here?!

Any Democrats standing firm against “any kind of mass legalization of illegal immigrants?”

Not a chance!

Again, can we clone this guy???....PLEASE!?

Monday, May 21, 2007

On the Sadly Misguided Soros Axis






When I was a College student living at home, I probably had some of the same confusion that all too many Americans suffer from today. I’m sure I believed things (probably based on feelings) like “income inequality leads to social unrest.”

I’ve since wised up.

George Soros (the money behind MoveOn.org and MediaMatters, etc) believes in the command economy.

He sees Capitalism as akin to Nazism and socialism as the only cure. That makes him both a political and economic simpleton...and an evil man, as well.

Mao, Stalin and Hitler were the world’s worst socialist dictators, and in that order.

Too many people, for far too long have tried to deny that BOTH Stalin & Mao were worse than Hitler in every conceivable way.

Capitalism (the free market economy) is economic democracy, where consumers are the “voters” and businesses vie to give the consumer what he/she wants – the highest quality at the lowest possible price. THAT’S actual democracy in action.

Socialism CANNOT EXIST without mass murder and theft. ALL of the “land (property) reforms” of Stalin, Mao and Hitler resulted in that. In fact, of the three, Hitler saw the flaws of the “command economy” earlier than the other two, and moved toward a state sanctioned, highly regulated economy – a sort of pseudo-socialism.

Stalin killed between 30-50 MILLION civilians and Mao between 70-100 MILLION civilians in their various “land (property) reforms, as people who own and develop properties (lands and businesses) do not generally surrender them except over “their dead bodies.”

Albania and Bulgaria where the world’s last two socialist/command economies and were basket-cases until they switched to more market based economies.

George Soros, like Laura D’Angelis Tyson (the Clinton economic advisor) lauded those Balkan basket-cases. Soros reviles the French, German and Scandinavian models that retain private ownership of lands and commercial ventures by private citizens and has only begrudgingly called those Corporatist economies (the USA is also a Corporatist economy right now) with somewhat larger welfare states as “slightly better than America’s.”

There is no such thing as “democratic socialism.” As “We the people” have no greater collective rights, than we do individual rights, ergo, it is unlawful for even a 90% majority to vote to confiscate and redistribute the property of the remaining 10%.

That is to say, that if 90% of any given nation (it’d never happen) were to vote to confiscate the holdings of the richest 10% and redistribute them, they would be just as morally wrong as if any single one of them decided to do a home invasion on their own.

That’s not at all hard to understand, is it?

It shouldn’t be, it IS America’s “Founding Design.”

That’s the very reason America’s Founders enshrined all those individual protections FROM government action in those first TEN Amendments (The Bill of Rights) – they deeply believed that the minority must be protected at all times, from “the tyranny of the majority,” and the “minority” they were most concerned with, was well-off, property owners, who are indeed a “minority” in almost every society.

The WRONG Focus on Illegal Immigration












There are two major problems with the way discussions about ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION are framed, the first is that they’re framed as part of the overall “immigration debate,” and the second is that it’s framed as “an illegal immigrant,” or “migrating worker” problem rather than what it really is “an ILLICIT EMPLOYER problem.”

This has led to two primarily wrong “solutions” to this problem and with illegal immigration costing EVERY American $19,000 over the cost of their lives, it IS definitely a major problem!

The first wrong-headed “solution” is putting the focus on the illegal aliens themselves, as though they were immigrants who somehow have a right, or even a profound desire to be here. This kind of “solution” is the dumbest, in that seeks some form of Amnesty (pathway to citizenship) for the illegal aliens already here.

It’s dumb because, (1) it defeats the primary purpose over which such people support illegal immigration – CHEAP LABOR, as once they’re made citizens, they’ll be subject to the Minimum Wage laws, that ILLICIT EMPLOYERS subvert by hiring illegal aliens. They’ll also be eligible for a host of social services that are a disincentive to work. In fact, those social services are one of the things that makes so many American citizens “unwilling to do all those menial, low paying jobs,” AND (2) the vast majority of the illegal alien workforce here migrate back and forth between here and Latin America. They come here for the work and leave to be with their family and friends at HOME.

The second and by far, the most disastrously wrong focus is considering the problem to be a trespassing problem or “illegal alien” or “migrating worker” problem.

The overwhelming bulk of the illegal aliens here come for jobs that are unavailable in their homelands. The problems for America are (1) this veritable human trafficking serves to deliberately subvert American laws on minimum wage, withholding income and FICA taxes from employees and (2) serves to lower the American “wage floor” – the wage rate paid to all unskilled labor in America and all other wage rates are tethered to that “wage floor.”

The bulk of the problem really is "an illegal employer" problem, rather than an "illegal immigration" problem.
.
So, in that vein, fining employers is a "win-win!" It's good for the government coffers and good for the American people. OK, it's very bad for a very few Americans who are making illicit profits off human exploitation, but it's to the greater good of the vast majority of Americans.Fine an employer $10,000 for hiring an "undocumented worker," and $10,000 for hiring a worker "off-the-books." Those fines must be levied per offense, so if a Slaughterhouse or a Meat Packing plant, for instance, has hired 300 illegals, the total fines will equal $20,000 X 300 workers or $6 Million for that plant. For second offenses, the fines would double and a federal prison sentence should be required of BOTH the plant manager AND the company's CEO at the time the infractions were discovered.
.
Yes, those fines and second offense jail terms would have to be applied to small businesses (landscapers) and even homeowners who deliberately use illegal immigrant workers.Under those conditions, the jobs would dry up.
.
Once the jobs dried up, the draw would dry up and the illegal immigrants here for work, would then self-deport.The 10-15% or so who are here for nefarious purposes will be caught up in various criminal procedures. We must then draw up some agreements whereby we pay for the incarceration of Americans abroad and those countries pay for their citizens incarcerated here.
.
The canard that “cheap labor = cheaper goods and services,” is proven false every day. One such example is the Nike’s Air Jordans saga. Air Jordans were mass produced in Indonesia for pennies and with transportation and distribution costs factored in, their total cost was around $3 per unit, and yet they sold for $150 and up.

The reason is that market prices are determined by demand and what the market will pay and NOT the mere cost of production. Ergo, cheaper illegal immigrant labor does NOT always translate into cheaper goods and services for Americans.
.
As far as the overall “immigration debate” goes, I don't see the need for anything more than changing legal immigration to a more "merit based" approach (ending family reunification AND the “anchor baby” system and moving to a system that allows people in based on skills America needs) and bolstering our porous borders (fences and more border guards).
.
I have to say I don't now, nor have I ever had much sympathy for illicit employers who seek to use illegal immigrant labor to bolster profits and deliver cheaper goods & services to their customers and the latter is certainly a very lofty goal, perhaps the most lofty there is, but it's still no excuse for breaking the law.

Employers who use illegal immigrant labor are (1) reducing the wage floor - the price paid to unskilled labor in this country and reducing the wage floor puts a persistent downward pressure on all other wage rates, (2) they don't withhold taxes from these workers, increasing the tax burden on the rest of us, (3) their illicit activity and their lobbying for continuing it maintain a porous border that post-9/11 has become a major security risk and (4) they're involved in human exploitation, very close in its depravity to that engaged in by all the other human traffickers - illegals are paid a sub-standard wage, often dozens of them live huddled together in cramped apartments, with barley enough to live on.
.
It seems hideously wrong for a select few (unscrupulous "businessmen") to profit at the expense of EVERYone else. These white collar thugs (because they're far worse then mere white-collar criminals - embezzlers and such) don't care that every illegal alien here costs EVERY American $19,000 over the course of their time here. They don't care that they've depressed wages or that they've weakened our national security.Fine them, jail them (if necessary)...then the illegal jobs dry up...and then the overwhelming bulk of the illegal immigrants self-deport.

Some have argued that hiring illegal aliens “hurts no one, increases profitability and makes millions of jobless illegal alien/migrant workers “happy.” Well, hiring illegal aliens is against the law.

There's really no way to rationalize that....well, short of changing the law and moving to an "open border policy, but that would be suicide! A nation without borders quickly becomes a nation without a common language and a common culture, which is to say, "not a nation at all."

We don't allow people to do illegal things simply because those things benefit them or make them happy. Many people like to speed. The fines (now many are over $200 for significant speeding) are very good thing.

They both generate revenue for government AND they serve as a deterrent for offenders.

Owning a business in ANY nation (and God, I really hate to admit this) is a privilege. The fact that you need a myriad of licenses and must go through a gauntlet of government inspections to open most businesses proves that.

Illegal aliens will work for below subsistence wages because they're willing to live at below subsistence levels (ten and more illegals sharing a one BR apt).

The bottom-line is that there’s really no downside to going after America’s white collar THUGS hard.

After all, what are they going to do, shut down their businesses?

And even if heavy fines and jail time puts some businesses out of business, the void left, will draw ten new entrepreneurs looking to fill that niche and take advantage of that opportunity.

There’s no question that America is better off without illegal immigrant labor and the best way of dealing with this is as an “ILLICIT EMPLOYER” problem.
American Ideas Click Here!