Sunday, December 30, 2007
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Who woulda thunk it? Enforcement of immigration laws leads to a decrease in illegal immigration on the Texas border:
A strict policy to arrest, prosecute and jail illegal aliens who cross into the U.S. has shown significant success in reducing crossings and crime along the Texas border, U.S. Customs and Border Patrol officials said this month.
The first 45 days of Operation Streamline — a collaborative effort of local, state and federal agencies in Texas — has resulted in decreased illegal border crossings and crime since its implementation Oct. 31 compared with last year's numbers, said Laredo Border Patrol Sector chief patrol agent Carlos X. Carrillo.
"As more and more illegal aliens are prosecuted and incarcerated under Streamline-Laredo, the word is spreading quickly that illegal entry has its consequences," Mr. Carrillo said. "Those found guilty of violating this statute face penalties that can include fines and up to six months in prison."
And even more bizarre, this has led to a decrease in other types of crime in Laredo:
The Laredo Police Department's crime data for Oct. 31-Dec. 15 indicates a year-to-date reduction in reported crimes of approximately 30 percent, and a 36 percent decrease in major crimes during the 45-day Streamline-Laredo reporting period.
Could it be that keeping out illegal aliens, people who have already shown a contempt for the law, also decreases the overall crime rate? Say it ain't so!
Thursday, December 27, 2007
The award for the stupidest blog I have read in a long time goes to journalist David Lindorff at This Can't Be Happening. A sampling of some of his better posts:
Global Warming Will Save America from the Right...Eventually
Say what you will about the looming catastrophe facing the world as the pace of global heating and polar melting accelerates. There is a silver lining.
Look at a map of the US.
The area that will by completely inundated by the rising ocean—and not in a century but in the lifetime of my two cats—are the American southeast, including the most populated area of Texas, almost all of Florida, most of Louisiana, and half of Alabama and Mississippi, as well as goodly portions of eastern Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina.
Of course, Mr. Lindorff does not mention, and he is probably not even aware at all, of the compelling evidence that human-induced global warming is a myth.
While the Democratic and Republican candidates for president blather on about non-issues like who will be meaner to immigrants, who will use the most water on torture victims, who wanted to be president at the youngest age, who’s the best Christian and other such nonsense, and while Congress and the president dance their meaningless dance of pretend conflict, let’s for a moment ponder something more momentous.
What if the US just packed up and left Iraq and Afghanistan, and brought the troops all home, shut down the 750-odd overseas bases we operate around the globe, and slashed our military budget by 75 percent?
Ah yes, and when we leave the people of Iraq and Afghanistan to the tender mercies of al Qaeda, what then?
Lindorff claims to be a journalist who has written for Businessweek, Salon, The Nation, Los Angeles Daily News, and many other outlets. And that's probably true, the crap he writes is politically indistinguishable from the crap we hear from the lamestream media every day. All that he and his brethren do is parrot the fashionable PC line. There is no critical examination of dogma like global warming. There is no independent thinking.
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
Saturday, December 22, 2007
This is so hilarious I can't stop laughing. The state-owned oil company of Venezuela, after having seized the operations of foreign-owned companies, now is seeking help from them!
CARACAS, Dec 22 (Reuters) - Venezuela aims to more than triple output from its Orinoco heavy crude reserve in five years and will start looking for companies that can help achieve that goal from January, the national oil company said on Saturday.
State-owned oil company PDVSA said it would develop new projects to produce 2 million barrels per day from the Orinoco region within five years.
Recently nationalized projects in the Orinoco now produce a little more than 600,000 barrels a day, PDVSA said.
"Given the success obtained in the Orinoco oil belt, a process of selection will start in January to select partner companies with minority participation in integrated improvement and production developments," PDVSA said in a statement.
Venezuela's left-wing government took over several Orinoco oil projects earlier this year, forcing companies like Chevron and BP to accept minority holdings under new terms.
Exxon Mobil and ConocoPhillips quit the OPEC nation over the takeovers.
One of the things about the left that has long left an impression on me is how readily they assume that everyone they deal with is completely stupid and will fall for anything. Does Thugo think that oil industry executives are complete dimwits? They have to earn a profit, or else they lose their jobs. They're not going to do business with the government of Venezuela if they think they will get screwed again.
Friday, December 21, 2007
Monday, December 17, 2007
I'm glad that the Einsteins at the Chronicle of Higher Education were kind enough to grace us with this amazing discovery:
Judging by their campaign contributions thus far in the presidential election season, people who work on college campuses in America lean to the left.
Or perhaps, as Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, told the Chronicle of Higher Education, they are simply tired of Republican President Bush and want a Democrat in the White House.
That assessment emerges from a review of campaign donations by the Chronicle, which follows higher education matters. Using data from the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan research group, the Chronicle found that more than three-fourths of the $6.2 million in donations went to Democrats, with Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., receiving by far the most, $2.1 million.
Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., came in second with $1.6 billion.
Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney ranked third and topped the field of Republicans, pulling in about $564,000 from faculty members, administrators and others.
Republican Rudy Giuliani, the former New York mayor, came in fourth at about $462,000, followed by Democrat John Edwards, a former North Carolina senator, at $351,000.
Among higher education institutions, no Texas college cracked the list of 10 whose employees were the most generous donors, according to the Chronicle. The top three were Harvard University, whose employees gave $281,000; Stanford University, $135,850; and Columbia University, $120,350.
I'm shocked, I tell you, shocked! I thought that college employees were all diehard Republicans and NRA members.
But the best part of the article, concerns the Center for Responsive Politics, a "nonpartisan" research group, whose executive director Sheila Krumholz says "perhaps they are simply tired of Republican President Bush and want a Democrat in the White House."
Yeah Sheila, if you were any more nonpartisan, you would be Hillary Clinton.
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Bolivian Socialist President (and friend of Thugo Chavez) has begged European diplomats to intermediate in a dispute with the governors of four provinces that are threatening to secede:
SANTA CRUZ (AFP) — Bolivian President Evo Morales met European diplomats about possibly mediating a crisis between the government and provinces threatening to declare autonomy, his spokesman Alex Contreras said Saturday.
Morales spoke with ambassadors from the European Union late Friday in La Paz as the country's four wealthiest provinces threatened to break away from central government control Saturday, a move Morales warned could provoke the army's intervention.
Amid fears that the tense political showdown over Morales' efforts to rewrite the constitution could tip into civil unrest, demonstrations were due to take place Saturday in the eastern states of Santa Cruz, Tarija, Beni and Pando, in which the governors were to formally announce greater self-rule.
"There was an exchange of views and (discussion of) the possibility that they could be monitors of a possible dialogue with the provinces and President Evo Morales," Contreras told local press of the meeting.
The European ambassadors passed on to Morales the views of the leaders of the rebel provinces, and Morales told them his government was willing to launch a dialogue, according to Contreras.
"It was a positive meeting," he said, adding it was crucial to establish a dialogue that could reach a compromise to ease the mounting crisis.
The leaders of the regions are protesting Morales's moves to overhaul the constitution to boost the president's powers and to redistribute much of the eastern provinces' wealth to the poor Andean highlands.
I can just picture what the limousine marxists in the USA and Europe are thinking about this. Those awful eastern province Bolivians must be racist, sexist, homophobic lackeys of Rush Limbaugh, and are probably on the payroll of Halliburton while being manipulated behind the scenes by Karl Rove.
Friday, December 14, 2007
Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle has announced he won't seek re-election next year. It's about time this loser hung it up.
Earle made a career out of prosecuting his biggest political rivals like US Senator Kay Bailey Hutcheson and US Congressman Tom Delay on phony charges. He couldn't stand the fact that the first woman senator from Texas was a Republican, so he pressed false charges against her. Likewise, he couldn't stand the fact that Delay engineered a redrawing of the congressional districts in Texas that gave advantage to Republicans, so he has prosecuted him on false charges.
Listen to this crap from Amber Moon:
Texas Democrats defended Earle as a fair prosecutor.
"Voters returned Ronnie Earle to office time and again because he conducted his office with fairness and integrity. Ronnie Earle wasn't intimated by political bullies and treated Republicans and Democrats alike without regard to politics or ideology," said Texas Democratic Party spokeswoman Amber Moon.
Hey stupid, the only reason why Earle prosecuted any Democrats at all was because he wouldn't have had anything to do with his time if he hadn't. You can't throw a brick in Austin without hitting a Democrat.
Goodbye and good riddance, Ronnie. You should have been tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail long ago.
Don't you just love it when someone like Jane Fonda espouses marxism yet lives the lifestyle of a wealthy capitalist? She and her father made fortunes from acting in movies. She made another fortune from her exercise videos, and she also lived it up as the wife of billionaire Ted Turner.
But Jane did not want to allow the people of Indochina to pursue prosperity. She gave moral support to brutal dictators who denied the people of Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos their basic freedoms. Millions were senselessly slaughtered by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia while many Vietnamese died trying to escape communism, bravely going out to sea in tiny, overcrowded boats.
Now we are witnessing the spectacle of another despot in Venezuela who may end up causing as much or even more misery than occurred in Indochina. One of his henchmen, Interior Minister Pedro Carreno, was recently questioned about wearing expensive designer clothes while espousing socialism:
CARACAS (Reuters) - A video of a Gucci- and Louis Vuitton-clad politician attacking capitalism then struggling to explain how his luxurious clothes square with his socialist beliefs has become an instant YouTube hit in Venezuela.
Venezuelan Interior Minister Pedro Carreno was momentarily at a loss for words when a journalist interrupted his speech and asked if it was not contradictory to criticize capitalism while wearing Gucci shoes and a tie made by Parisian luxury goods maker Louis Vuitton.
"I don't, uh ... I ... of course," stammered Carreno on Tuesday before regaining his composure. "It's not contradictory because I would like Venezuela to produce all this so I could buy stuff produced here instead of 95 percent of what we consume being imported."
You can say the same about any member of the left, in any country. They want to live the privileged life of the nomenklatura, while most people are denied their basic rights and have to struggle just to survive.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
In the latest epidose in the war of words between Little Green Footballs and Gates of Vienna. Charles Johnson demanded that GoV remove his 'copyrighted' image of the forged Killian memo.
Before I say this, I want to make it clear that I am not denigrating Charles' brilliant contributions in unmasking the Killian memo forgeries. But Charles do you really have a copyright for the forged memo? Just because you showed how they can be easily replicated in Microsoft Word doesn't give you a copyright. If anyone has such a copyright, it is whoever forged them. Or can anyone have a valid claim to a copyright of a forgery? I doubt it.
You always get to read some really awful BS in the lamestream media. This essay by Jonathan Leake in the Times online is a gem:
For Al Gore revenge really has proved to be a dish best served cold. Seven years after losing the American presidential elections to George Bush on a legal technicality, Gore is turning his vanquisher into an object of global ridicule for his refusal to act on climate change.
He's already written The Assault on Reason, a lacerating attack on Bush, and laced his speeches on climate change with references to the president's refusal to accept the science of global warming.
Notice how Leake smugly refers to the "science of global warming", as if the matter is settled among climatologists. And how he asserts that Gore lost to Bush in 2000 on a 'legal technicality', as if the electoral college, which is the only recognized authority for the presidential election in the US constitution, is merely a 'technicality'.
Gore had crystallized the anger and frustration that is spreading through the Bali meeting over what is seen to be American intransigence over cutting emissions.
Earlier, the EU had also accused the United States of failing to act on the climate and threatening to boycott a U.S.-hosted conference of major economies next month.
So what if that doesn't work, Jonathan? Are you going to hold your breath until you turn blue? Or is Al going to take the internet back from us?
Bush has just 140 days left in office and is looking for a lasting legacy. Could Gore be trying to ensure that his presidency will instead forever be linked with climatic disaster?
Bush's term will end on January 20, 2009. That's 404 days from now. You'll have to deal with that evil climatic disaster-maker just a little while longer.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
A new, refereed article in International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society disputes the myth that global warming is caused by human CO2 emissions:
The report was written by David Douglass at the University of Rochester, John Christy at the University of Alabama, and Benjamin Pearson and S. Fred Singer at the University of Virginia.
"Our findings basically are that fingerprints - that is to say the pattern of warming - that's predicted by greenhouse models does not match the fingerprints of observations, so there is a disconnect between greenhouse models and the actual reality of observations," Singer told Cybercast News Service."This means that the greenhouse effect - while real - is not very important in producing climate change," he said. "It's a lot smaller than what the models calculate."
Singer said the reason why the models "overestimate the effectiveness of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is that the models ignore what are called negative feedbacks which occur in the atmosphere, such as clouds, which reduce the effect of the greenhouse gases.""Their models just don't consider them properly," he said.
But Bracken Hendricks, a senior fellow at the liberal Center for American Progress, told Cybercast News Service, that the study is "radically out of step with the complete scientific consensus."
Notice how Hendricks doesn't make reference to any data, nor any theories concerning climate change. He merely repeats the mantra of the 'complete scientific consensus' (that doesn't exist).
But Singer said, "We have to remember that the climate has always been changing ever since we have records, and we have geologic records going back millions and millions of years. We know that there have been huge climate changes on the earth long before human beings actually came into existence.
"We are fairly sure that what's causing the warming are changes in the sun," he said. "These are very subtle changes that are very difficult to observe. The sun is really a quite variable star."
Hendricks, however, said because of the IPCC report, "the assertion that this is caused by increased solar activity or these sorts of things is out of step with the vast consensus."
"It's dangerous to get into a game of dueling science," he added. "We don't want to be gambling with the fate of the planet."
So why are you so afraid of debating the point, Hendricks? If you are so sure of yourself, the facts should speak for themselves.
But Singer said because global warming is a natural event. "There is little point to try to control emission of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, which means that all of this legislation and all of these efforts to find substitutes for fossil fuels are pointless, useless and very, very expensive," he said.
Hendricks countered, saying that alternative energy will be a multi-billion dollar industry and "an opportunity to revitalize our global competitiveness" through innovation and job creation.
Hendricks sounds like a walking advertisement for al-Gore's "carbon credits" company.
Monday, December 10, 2007
I just read two articles about Iran. The differences are striking. The first is by Mustafa Dominic, a financial analyst at a London hedge fund:
The American intelligence reports’ recent assertion that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 does not change anything about the current situation as long as it does not fundamentally change the minds of American policymakers. Judging from President Bush's dismissive response, this doesn't seem to be the case. The truth is, Americans do not need a pretext to continue their bullying of Iran, which is precisely why Iranians want to and in fact should build nuclear capacity.
Because recent headlines in the American press about Iran usually revolve around her nuclear ambitions, the American public tends to forget the background of the conflict with Iran. It started roughly in 1953 when a coup d'état backed by America and Britain removed the elected Prime Minister Mosaddeq in favor of America-friendly Shah of Iran.
This clown is still whining about something that happened 54 years ago, when Bush was 7 years old. Mossadeq would have been overthrown with or without American help, but the lefties still can't get over it.
Mustafa, instead of living in a capitalist democracy like the UK, why don't you try living in Iran? Then tell us if you think that you want to trust the rulers of Iran with nukes.
Read about Iranian students protesting at Tehran university:
Holding banners demanding freedom and chanting slogans denouncing President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iranian students on Sunday smashed through Tehran University's main gate.
In a two-hour demonstration, they called for the release of three students sentenced to prison on charges of printing anti-Islamic images in student newspapers — allegations they deny. For months, students have been protesting the regime's removal of professors who aren't sufficiently Islamist.
I recall during the cold war we had these armchair Marxists like Hanoi Jane, Jean Paul Sartre, etc., who praised the communist countries while living in comfort in a capitalist democracy. Now we have armchair islamists like Mustafa Dominic, who praise an 'islamic republic' while living in the comfort of a secular democracy.
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
Rock and Roll at its Very Finest
After reading Andrew Goodwin's brainfart, in which he proves without question that he is the stupidest man on the planet earth, I had to get my fix of the band that took Rock and Roll to its highest level.
This is Communications Breakdown from Led Zeppelin's first album. Amazingly, Plant and Bonham were only 19 years old when they recorded the album. Page and Jones were in their late twenties.
Andrew Goodwin: EAT DEATH SCUM.
Andrew Goodwin, writing in Slate, claims that the song Stairway to Heaven almost "destroyed" Led Zeppelin:
Led Zeppelin, which is reuniting for a one-off charity gig in London on Dec. 10, appears to be positioning itself to make the Biggest News in the History of Rock: a new album and world tour—a prospect described by Billboard's Ray Waddell as "like twenty Super Bowls rolled into one." While there are still many obstacles to a Zeppelin tour, the most vexing may be that Robert Plant will have to overcome his reluctance to sing the song that has done the most damage to the band. Yes, "Stairway to Heaven."
Variously described as "a song of hope" (Plant), "an optimistic song" (Jimmy Page), and "a wedding song" (these words popped into Plant's mind as he was finishing the lyrics—his unconscious muse tipping him off to the mixed blessing that he had just received), "Stairway to Heaven" remains the closest thing Zeppelin has to a hit, as it was their policy not to release singles. In 1971, when the band refused to edit the song into four minutes of radio-friendly pop, stations simply started playing the whole track, and it soon became the most requested song on rock radio.
It also turned Zeppelin into a joke. It was "Stairway" that branded Zeppelin as spaced-out mystics. It was "Stairway" that drove them to the madness of the absurd fantasy sequences in their movie The Song Remains the Same. It was "Stairway" that sold them to a mass audience that found it amusing to hold lighters aloft throughout the song, perhaps under the understandable impression that they were attending a concert by the Moody Blues. Plant has disowned "Stairway." But "Stairway" would be an essential component in any set list constructed by a band calling itself Led Zeppelin.
Goodwin does not proceed to explain how Stairway 'almost destroyed' Zeppelin. And the clown projects his music tastes on to other people by claiming they found it 'amusing' to hold lighters aloft during a song, even though I have seen it done at many different music concerts of many different genres of music.
All this essay by Goodwin accomplishes is his disdain for Zeppelin's music. That band have almost never received positive reviews from music critics. I went to see their first performance in Dallas during their final tour in 1977. I loved the concert and came home enraptured. The next morning I read the reviews in the local papers and wondered if the critics had gone to the same concert I had attended. All they did was criticize the performance up, down, and sideways, often without any supporting facts and often by getting the facts completely wrong. Reading their reviews one would think the audience would have booed and left early. But they didn't and the critics didn't bother to mention that the entire audience were dancing on top of their chairs.
Goodwin is stupid and he knows nothing about Led Zeppelin whatsoever. He is merely projecting a bunch of ridiculous nonsense onto people whom he knows nothing about at all.
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
Monday, December 03, 2007
I have complained in the past about the extreme leftwing bias of the "mainstream media". Their continually biased reporting gives the Democrat party a strong advantage in the US political arena. However, there are disadvantages to this near-monopoly, because Democrat politicians get very little critical feedback on many of their ideas and activities. Thus, they often find themselves completely out of touch with broad segments of the American voters. Then, to my considerable amusement, they express shock and dismay when their candidates for office lose to Republicans.
The Anchoress comments on this echo chamber phenomenon, in a recent post about the recent faux pas of Her Thighness:
Perhaps this is the danger of surrounding yourself with loyal “yes” people and with press members who only write what is pleasing to you: you have no one to tell you that some gags just won’t work, that some one-liners are simply out of the question for you, and that some remarks - already of questionable taste - uttered from your lips border on the tawdry and almost make your presidential campaign look like a parody on MAD-TV.
I can think of many examples when Democrats relied too heavily on feedback from their ideological comrades in the "mainstream media". The most obvious example occurred during the events leading up to Bill Clinton's impeachment, and the subsequent victory of W during the 2000 election. I could personally care less who Clinton has sex with, but there are many other people, some of whom were lifelong Democrat voters, who were not amused by Clinton's white house liason with Monica Lewinsky. And the Democrats' vicious attacks on Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr were nothing short of stupid.
In the 2000 presidential election, W won the electoral vote by carrying states that had voted reliably Democrat for years, including West Virginia. This was due in part to the Lewinsky affair, and also to Democrat's support for gun control, that has much support in the mainstream media but very little support in some states, especially those with large rural areas.
Will we see a realingment in the media due to the increased popularity on Fox News Channel vs. CNN and other lefwing outfits? Good question.
Amazing that Chavez and his gang of thugs even allowed this to happen
CARACAS, Venezuela - Humbled by his first electoral defeat ever, President Hugo Chavez said Monday he may have been too ambitious in asking voters to let him stand indefinitely for re-election and endorse a huge leap to a socialist state.
"I understand and accept that the proposal I made was quite profound and intense," he said after voters narrowly rejected the sweeping constitutional reforms by 51 percent to 49 percent.
Opposition activists were ecstatic as the results were announced shortly after midnight — with 88 percent of the vote counted, the trend was declared irreversible by elections council chief Tibisay Lucena.
Some shed tears. Others began chanting: "And now he's going away!"
Foes of the reform effort — including Roman Catholic leaders, media freedom groups, human rights groups and prominent business leaders — said it would have granted Chavez unchecked power and imperiled basic rights.
Chavez reminds me so much of the Clintons. Anyone who opposed anything they did or wanted to do was branded an "extremist". Anyone who criticized them or felt that they had brokken the laws was branded a "hater". Newt Gingrich and Kenneth Starr were singled out for especially ferocious treatment.
The left are no friends of democracy. They CAN'T STAND it when someone disagrees with them.
Sunday, December 02, 2007
As has been discussed in this blog and elsewhere, the evidence that humans are causing global warming is scanty. So why do so many influential people buy this load of blarney? One of the motives may be discerned from a report from the UN, that debating society for third world despots:
The report says the rich nations will need to cough up $86 billion per year by 2015 to "strengthen the capacity of vulnerable people." Half the money, ostensibly, would go toward "climate-proofing" developing nations' infrastructure, whatever that means, while the other half would help the poor cope with related risks. Of course, the ambiguity is on purpose. You and I know that the bulk of this money will be skimmed off by tinhorn dictators, the same rabble that runs the U.N.
The report was conveniently released just a week before the world's nations gather in Bali to hammer out yet another Kyoto-style climate treaty. This will be another attempt to shame the developed world into turning over their hard-earned gold and silver to the rest of the world.
But shouldn't they include the Martians in this boondoggle? The polar icecaps on Mars have been shrinking. That must be Bush's fault.
Saturday, December 01, 2007
The British National Socialist Health Service, which many US leftists want to emulate, has turned down one in six of their citizens over the age of 50 on the basis of cost
One in six said they had been denied treatment on the NHS on the basis of cost.
A poll of 6,000 over-50s, carried out by Saga and Populus, found that 52 per cent would be prepared to meet the cost of treatments for diseases such as cancer.
The findings showed that they would be willing to pay an average of about £1,500 a year for medicines. One in 10 would be prepared to spend more than £5,200 a year.
And this is what will happen in the USA, if the Oinkubus and other lefties get their way. People over 50 will be denied treatment. Women and minorites (even those who are illegal aliens) will be given priority over white men.
Moreover, the overall quality of health care will decline. Our federal government has proven time and time again to be completely incompetent. Putting something as important as health care under its complete control will be a disaster. Better hope you stay healthy!