Thursday, April 29, 2010

Yet another leftard pretends Arizona is Nazi central.

This is one of the more ridiculous reactions to the AZ anti-illegal law that I've come across. I can only assume that this woman is one of those New Yorkers who lives in isolation from the outside world.

She says she works at Bellevue, but her though processes make me wonder if she isn't a patient.

Here is the response I posted:

The easiest way for people in Arizona to prove that they are legal residents is to pull out their Arizona driver's license or state-issued ID card. If someone lives here, then that is something that they should already have.

Arizona does not issue ID cards to illegal aliens. You must be either a US citizen, or a legal alien with the proper documentation.

Federal law requires legal aliens to carry their green card at all times. So even if someone is a legal resident of the US, but lives in another state, they will still be able to prove that they are here legally.

The people who will be most affected by this are Americans from other states which DO issue driver's licenses to illegal aliens. I confess I don't know off the top of my head which states do this, but it is my understanding that some states do. I work at ASU and we have many out of state students who will likely be affected by this. The good news is that this law has not gone into effect yet. They have plenty of time to obtain an AZ driver's license or ID card.

This new law does not authorize the police to go around asking for ID from every person they see. Such a law would never have been passed.

What it does do is require police officers to determine the legal status of the people they are already interacting with. Why this should be so controversial is really beyond me. If a police officer pulls you over for running a stop-sign and asks for your license, one of the first things he or she does is check to see if you have any outstanding warrants. How is checking to make sure that you are here legally any different? If someone is not here legally, then they are breaking the law. This is an irrefutable truth. Try as I might, I really, really can't get my head around the idea that the police are not supposed to enforce the law.

The full text of the law can be found here:

Wednesday, April 28, 2010

Boo fucking hoo

Truck driver arrested in AZ, forced to show birth certificate

The ICE agents who arrested this guy are federal agents who deal with illegal aliens as part of their daily routine. If they thought he was an illegal alien then they probably had good reason. You won't find out what that reason is from the article of course, because telling the whole truth would interfere with the narrative. If the ICE agents acted inappropriately or made a mistake then I sincerely hope they will be reprimanded.

Having a commercial driver's license doesn't prove anything. While AZ does not issue driver's licenses to illegals, there are other states that do. Where was his license from? The article doesn't say. (Check again, it does not say.)

As for AZ licenses, they would serve as proof that the person was either a citizen or a legal alien since AZ doesn't issue licenses to illegals. If you are a citizen then they want your birth certificate or proof of naturalization at the DMV. If you are a legal alien then they want the documentation to prove that you are here legally.

A fake license might get you past a bouncer at a club, but the cops can call that license up on the computer in their patrol car and verify whether it is real or not. They also look at state issued ID for a living, so even if they didn't have access to a terminal they'd be able to spot all but the best of fakes on sight. You also have to ask yourself why they would assume that a license was fake and the person was an illegal alien. It's not like the cops are going to go around assuming that everyone is an illegal alien and challenging us to prove otherwise. There would have to be reasonable suspicion that someone was an illegal before the issue would even come up.

As for a person's license being lost or stolen, all you have to do is go to the AZDOT website and they'll send you a replacement in the mail.

Legal aliens are required by law to carry their green card with them at all times. So even if they don't have an AZ license, they're still supposed to have proof that they are here legally.

Given that some other states do issue ID to illegals, this may cause problems for Americans who live in AZ but whose licenses are issued by other states. There are many ASU students who fall under that category. The good news is that these people now have time before this law goes into effect to get their shit together and get an AZ license or ID card.

No normal person is going to go around without proper identification. Even if they don't drive they would still need a state-issued ID card to function in society. The only people who don't carry ID are illegal aliens and criminals.

If Joe Blow has a warrant from Illinois, hiding out in Arizona under an assumed name becomes a lot easier if he avoids carrying ID. If the cops interact with him in an official capacity they will give him a hard time, and might even arrest him, but he still has a better shot at avoiding extradition if they have trouble determining who he is.

Lets not forget all of the criminals who come up from Mexico also. Hiding out in the US is easy for Mexican criminals because they can just blend in with all of the other illegal aliens. US law enforcement isn't necessarily looking for them, and there is an underground support system already in place to help them work under the table and find a place to live anonymously. Meanwhile they can get back to their life's work of being a criminal

The Federal government has refused to enforce its own legislation, which places the burden for enforcement on the states. I'm very glad that I live in a state that is willing to step up to the plate and take care of the problem. The people who cast this as some kind of "human rights" issue are foolish at best. There is no universal right of domicile in the United States of America. Leftists want illegals here, and want them to have the power to vote here because the American people reject leftist crap for the most part. This is a center-right country and always has been. Bringing in illegals is simply a ploy to manipulate the political complextion of the country. The left wants to expand the ranks of people who will support their evil nonsense, and they see illegals as a ready made "victim" group they can fool into supporting their agendas. All of their whining is cover for a scheme to jerrymander the electoral system, only instead of moving the border they simply move people from one side of it to the other. Their bullshit is as transparent as it is rancid. They will be punished for it in due time.

I fully expect that this law stand up to legal scrutiny in the courts and I hope that other states will adopt similar legislation.

Here is the full text of the law in case anyone is confused about exactly what it says:

As for me, I'd love to get deported "back" to Ireland.

Get me set up in a nice apartment in Dublin where the music never stops, the bars never close, and the fiery lasses like Americans.

The more I think about it, the better that idea sounds.

If anyone would like to sic ICE on me, I'd appreciate it.

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

Excess demand??

Nation Faces Shortage of 150,000 Doctors in 15 Years

Apparently one of the side effects of ObamaCare is that there won't be enough doctors to treat everyone, at least in theory. I don't really believe that because if there is more demand for a good or service then the supply will also increase.

Let me be the first to say that if more people are able to pay for medical care, then that is not a bad thing. I'm in no way a fan of ObamaCare, but I will not criticize it for enabling consumers to pay for medical treatment.

Monday, April 12, 2010

Lieberman falls back on an old canard

Dropping 'Islamic extremism' term is 'Orwellian and counterproductive'

“The failure to identify our enemy for what it is, violent Islamist extremism, is offensive….”

Why does he feel the need to complain about this policy on purely subjective grounds?

Criticisms of objective reality based on purely subjective criteria are fundamentally invalid.

Anything can be “offensive” to anyone at any time and for any reason, including no reason at all. It is an argument that has absolutely no rigor attached to it. One that can be made without anything to substantiate it. This is why it is a favorite the left. Anyone can claim to be “offended” when presented with facts they cannot refute. Leftists love to shift the rules of evidence from the real to the subjective when they have a losing argument (and they cannot lie outright), and this is merely the easiest way for them to do so.

So why is Lieberman doing it here? He undermines his own position when he trots out that old canard, and needlessly so because the factual arguments he does make are very strong.

I think it must be second nature to him, something he does without really thinking about it or understanding what it is that he is actually doing.

The violation of Democracy

According to Rasmussen, a full 58% of the public supports repeal of the Dems new "health care plan." Two weeks ago only 54% of the public supported repeal.

Now just stop and think about that for a moment. A majority of Americans were opposed to this new legislation before it passed, and almost 60% of Americans are in favor of repealing it now. The Dems began working to pass this monstrosity over a year ago against majority opposition that only increased as time went on.

So how is it possible that the Dems passed it, knowing full well that doing so was against the wishes of the majority of Americans from whom the legitimacy of our government is derived?

Because the Democrats don't believe in Democracy. The Dems have turned the federal government into a rogue organization. In a republic, it is the consent of the governed that makes the laws legal. Laws that are passed without this consent violate the sovereignty of the American people and are fundamentally invalid. Attempts to enforce such a law constitute tyranny.

Back when Bush was in office the left continuously portrayed him as a would-be tryant, someone who sought to destroy our republic and turn it into a fascist dictatorship. If there is anything I've learned about the left, it is that they consistently project their own sins onto those they oppose. If they accuse someone of something without merit, then you can be dead certain that it is something that they themselves are guilty of, or would be if they had the chance.

This is what makes the accusations of racism against the Tea Party movement so telling. Such accusations are complete fabrications and have no basis in reality. The fact that the left screams this so loudly and vehemently is to me positive proof that they themselves are racists.

But then the concept of racism has been bandied about so much that its actual meaning has been thoroughly conflated with other concepts that have nothing to do with it. It has devolved into a gratuitous accusation that can mean anything, or nothing, at all. How can one defend against a charge of nothing? This is even more diabolical than the old standby "Do you still beat your wife?" At least in this question the actual crime is clearly specified and understood, even if the question itself is rigged to ensure that the accused can never be found innocent.

The debasement of racism as a concept is quite intentional. The most pernicious use of language by the left involves what I call Nothing Words. These are terms to which emotions can be attached but which have no real concrete meaning, or a definition that is an antonym of their most obvious interpretation. This goes beyond being a mere euphemism into the realm of deliberately deceptive language.

"Social Justice" is a good example of this. What does this term actually mean? A naive person might assume it means something good because justice is a good thing. Who would not be in favor of justice? In truth this phrase promotes abusing the power of the state to confiscate money from one person or group and give it to another. In other words, Marxism.

"Affirmative Action" is another good one. What does this term mean? This term is even more ephemeral than the previous one. Attempting to break it down and derive some notion of its meaning from its constituent words is futile because the meaning of both is dependent upon the context in which they are used. It would be like trying to figure out what a "Blue Maybe" is. But as anyone knows, this term is just a cover for racial, sexual and other forms of discrimination on the part of the left.

What a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.

Perhaps someone should come up with an updated version of the Devil's Dictionary to explain these terms. Call it the Democrat's Dictionary.

Wednesday, April 7, 2010

Crazy cuts both ways

Sex Education Could Mean Charges for Teachers

I'm so very glad that I'm not a teenager living in Wisconsin.

This story is a strong reminder for me of why I detest "social conservatives" almost as much as I despise leftists.

I guess their notions of small government and individual liberty only apply to topics where they're not completely bug-fuck insane.

I don't know what is worse, the fact that you've got a social authoritarian prosecutor trying to write his own legislation, in direct opposition to the legislation that was actually passed, or that sex between two 17 year olds is considered a crime there.

As always, the usual suspects are trying to indoctrinate young people, and fighting with each other over who gets to do it.

Why the hell are people so neurotic when it comes to sex? Why is this issue such a source of never-ending insanity?

To me the whole idea of specialized "Sex Education" is ridiculous. Not because I'm one of those people who says that sex is such a serious touchy subject that it should only be dealt with in the home, in secret, where no one else can hear.

On the contrary, the ubiquitous nature of sex makes it something that should be as ordinary and unremarkable as driving a car or anything other normal activity in life.

We don't let children drive cars, but we don't hide the existence of cars from them. Why do we treat sex any differently? Kids know about cars and know that people drive them. They see cars and have some idea of how to operate one long before they actually get behind the wheel.

Now some, particularly the neurotic and intellectually dishonest, will pretend that I'm promoting the sexual abuse of children under the guise of "sex education." Well all I can say is that I'm most definitely not. There are evil people who want to abuse children and they need no excuse. What I am promoting is a world where sex is not hidden away and treated like some dread secret. Where the average person knows as much as possible about it long before the time comes when they will actually start doing it themselves.

I'm not one who buys into the unspoken and irrational belief that sex is somehow bad, and that knowledge of sex somehow ruins a child's "innocence."

If you want teenagers to be sexually responsible you have to teach them to be, starting LONG before they reach puberty. Hiding sex from them, or trying to brainwash into believing that it is somehow dirty or evil or shameful or any of the other neuroses that seem to persist among certain subcultures, is just plain crazy.

I find it peculiar that many of these "social conservatives" will teach their children the responsible use of firearms from a young age, and yet go completely nutty when it comes to sex. If someone is irresponsible with a gun, people get maimed and killed. If someone is irresponsible when it comes to sex, people get pregnant. Not a good outcome of course, but not nearly as bad as what can happen when firearms are misused.

The reason this matters is that teenagers are walking around with loaded guns in their pants, and I'm not just talking about the guys either. What sense does it make to carefully instruct them in the care and use of a firearm that they won't generally have access to, while completely ignoring the loaded gun that is part of their own anatomy?

I've been watching this circus act my whole life and I don't expect it to change anytime soon. I have no doubt that 50 years from now people will still be waxing psychiatric over sex, and being especially psychotic when it comes to the knowledge and understanding that the young have about sex.

Observations of leftists in the wild

After reading posts on from leftists who portray businesses as if they were evil, I’m starting to understand the pathology behind the nutters who claim that the Apollo moon landings were shot in a TV studio.

It takes a special form of intense self-deception to maintain the twisted world view that casts the engines of human progress as evil. The wheel wasn't invented by a cave-man government bureaucrat. It was invented by someone who was looking for something that would increase his or her survival potential. In other words it was invented by someone inspired by the profit motive. The leftists don't understand this because they are the unintended consequence of a world where losers are no longer culled from the gene pool. Civilization trumps natural selection.

The world is not a perfect place, and it never will be. Human beings are flawed and limited and some are quite evil and mad. This is reflected in the nature of our institutions, including everything from governments to companies to country-clubs. This is why power must be limited, why checks and balances are essential, and why each individual must ultimately be empowered to defend his or her own liberty from the forces of tyranny whether they come from a corrupt government or a corrupt business.

The view of leftists that casts government as the white knight protector of the people against the predations of private enterprises is ridiculously sophomoric. These people know nothing of the nature of evil. They unwittingly rail against a cartoon concept of villainy, often at the behest of real villains. Reading their comments and getting a glimpse into the way they think is like hanging out with a bunch of middle schoolers. Kids really do say the darnest things!

Monday, April 5, 2010

Parents send their kids to Yale?

New rule forbids romantic relationships between students and faculty

The rationale behind this new rule?

"Parents don’t send their kids to Yale to sleep with their professors. Why don’t we say that?"

Since when did Yale University make a habit of admitting juveniles?

I have no issue with a rule forbidding romantic relationships between students and faculty. Given the power disparity between these two groups such a rule is only common sense. What I do have an issue with is the rationale behind it.

College students are not children.

Yale University is not band camp.

In my lifetime I have seen the definition of childhood creep ever upwards, and I'm only 37. Back when I was 18 or 19, a person that age was expected to be an adult. Not an adult in the same way that a 40-something with a mortgage and 3 kids is, but an adult nonetheless. Today a person that age is expected to be an infant, and is treated accordingly not only by our culture but by our institutions.

I was out on my own at the age of 20, and that actually made me something of a late bloomer in 1993. Today people well into their twenties, who should be making their way out into the world under their own steam, are instead still living with their parents as if high school never ended.

This new rule at Yale is nothing more than another manifestation of the perpetual adolescence that has been foisted upon the younger adults of this country.

I work at a University where our students aren't simply presumed to be infants, but legally classified as such. Would you believe that by default a 25 year old is classified as a dependant of his or her parents as far as financial aid is concerned?

Sunday, April 4, 2010

The Tea Parties are about racism

Or at least that is what the lefties would have us believe.

As a member of the local Tea Party movement in the Phoenix east valley region, I can tell you first hand that it is not. Not only is the tea party movement not racist in any way, but race isn't even a topic that the tea party touches on, even tangentially.

The people accusing us of racism are completely disconnected from reality.

Seriously though.

It is one thing to have philosophical differences with a group of people. It is quite another to dishonestly paint them as villains, and especially in such a childish and transparent way. Who would actually believe the things that they say about us? The more time goes by and the more outlandish their accusations become, the less convinced I am that anyone believes them.

Racism???? Really? Is that the best they can do? Can’t they at least come up with a canard that isn’t also a cliche? Please, if you’re going to tell hateful lies about me, at least make them interesting.

Why do they do this? Why can’t they debate us on the issues?

Because they would lose. Leftist ideology just doesn’t stand up to the harsh light of truth, logic, and reason. The leftists have long known this, hence the emergence of post-modernist “thought” with its denial of objective reality itself, as best revealed by the Sokal Hoax.

These people are wrong and they know it. But just like any other cultie they are unable to actually turn away from the lies they have swallowed and find the truth. For them the only thing that can be done is to start hurling irrational insults and hope that enough people are distracted by them to lose track of the real issues. But the very fact that they are doing this shows just how desperate and fearful they really are. They’re not even trying to confuse the public with sophistry, they’re going straight to the ad hominem attacks, way down there at the bottom of the barrel.

Keep it up comrades, you’re winning our battles for us.

Saturday, April 3, 2010

Evil vs Incompetence

The more I look at the state of affairs in the US today, the more convinced I am that our plight is not directly the result of evil on the part of leftists, but of incompetence on the part of conservatives.

Conservatives have allowed themselves to be bullied by the left. Conservatives have allowed their public image to be dishonestly mis-defined by the left. Conservatives have grown afraid to present themselves and their ideas to the public. They have ceased to present these ideas in a positive and energetic way. Instead they do so almost apologetically, and then only when something that the left does is especially egregious, such as ObamaCare. Conservatives have allowed themselves to be shamed based on slander and cast as a caricature of their true nature.

Then of course we have the Republican party. Choosing between the Democrats and the Republicans is like deciding whether you'd like to be tossed a hand grenade or force fed a shit sandwich.

First the Repubs handed us McCain in 2008, and now they seem to want Romney to be the new golden boy. Are you fucking kidding me? These jackasses are what the Republican party thinks passes for presidential candidates?

It is easy to blame the left for being evil. I would welcome a world without them in it. But the fact is that they exist and unless human nature changes they will always be there to cause problems. Some people are fucked in the head in certain ways and the result is that they become leftists. These people are not going away. Neither are they going to change. They are like cockroaches. The most we can do is keep them at bay.

This is where the Republicans have failed, and dramatically so. The left can only get a foothold when conservatives fail to live up to the expectations of independents.

A perfect example of this is health care reform. ObamaCare is a good example of that hand grenade, but why did it even see the light of day in the first place? If conservatives had sought health care reform (and not as a half-assed response to ObamaCare) and pursued real solutions to the existing problems, then ObamaCare would have been stillborn.

There are issues that are important to enough people that the left has succeeded in using those issues to trick voters into pulling the lever for the leftist candidate. This was only possible because the Republicans FAILED to address those issues.

This is why we now have the Tea Party movement. It is almost entirely comprised of conservatives who feel betrayed by the Republican party. I'm one of them.

This brings me to JD Hayworth. Why is it that a Republican congressman who was voted out of office is now suddenly considered a good candidate for the senate? Getting rid of RINO McCain is a perfectly good idea, but with Hayworth? If he had been doing his job he'd still be a congressman.