A mutual friend forward an email from Jay who is a young passionate believer of Al Gore’s global warming. It’s rare when a liberal opens up and speaks in coherent sentences. In many way, Jay reminds me of me when I was in my early twenties. That’s why I wrote back to him.
He expended a lot of effort writing and deserves a careful answer. I hope you also find it helpful. cb
Jay: I'm sure I'm going to regret this because you will feel the need to defend yourself (which you have the right to do), sparking off yet another political-based argument, but I can't sit back any longer and listen to this slander about the environment any more. This is long, so please give it the respect it deserves.
Jay: Of all the things I care about politically, the environment is without a doubt the one thing I care the most deeply about – not because it will immediately and directly affect you or me, but because of the longstanding and future implications it has on our world. The world is shrinking…
Ex-Liberal: I’m not sure I know what you mean by shrinking… but okay. You sound like a “population bomb” theorist…
Jay: …and the ONE thing that will be there for our children and their children and their children's children is the planet that we all inhabit.
Ex-Liberal: It is good that you care for our progeny. That is not usually a leftist attribute. I also accept the evidence of global warming. I accept that global warming has warmed the planet for 100,000 years, and will continue to warm our planet for another 100,000 years, with minor 1,500-year heating cycles that may occur.
Jay: To deny that the environment is not important and that "a far off glacier melting" will have no impact is to deny that we don't need air to breathe. Is terrorism and the threat to our lands a serious issue that must be met? Most certainly. Is terrorism the most important issue we have to worry about right now? Probably – it certainly is the most salient. However, why must we play this game of black and white where one issue must be so important to remain on the agenda that it doesn't allow room for other important concerns, such as the environment?
Ex-Liberal: This is not an either/or black/white red/blue issue. This is an apples/kangaroo argument – one that more closely resembles the “how do I deal with the home-invasion robbers who are threatening to kill my family right now?” argument versus the inane “boxers or briefs,” or “Mac or PC” arguments that preoccupy so many intellectually lazy Americans.
Ex-Liberal: There are also disingenuous and dangerous implications to your arguments as well. The disingenuousness comes from liberal environmentalists’ 1) irrational preference for fossil fuel over nuclear energy, 2) the prevailing hypocrisy illustrated by Al Gore’s energy bill, and 3) their refusal to intellectually grasp facts like electric cars create MORE carbon emissions than regular cars because of our present reliance of fossil fuels to generate electricity (and the loss of electrical power due to electrical resistance) before the electricity reaches the car, or the fact that we rely on more fossil fuel to create the energy needed to create hydrogen to drive hydrogen cars, and so forth. There’s a huge disconnect between their emotionally-driven passion and the effort expended to avoid their intellectual grasp of reality.
Ex-Liberal: NOTE: Our reliance of emotionally-driven passion may stem from youthful immaturity. Immature men love liberal women because they’re easier to have sex with. Immature and insecure women prefer liberal men because they’re “less judgmental” and, therefore, less of an emotional threat. But as we mature, men grow up to prefer smart women who respect themselves, while women prefer men who represent the virtues of emotional stability. It’s a good thing for America that liberals enjoy recreational sex (un-reproductive sex). Europe’s impending demise illustrates how liberal ideas can be as genocidal as death camps – without the muss or fuss. But I digress.
Ex-Liberal: The danger comes from liberal environmental disingenuousness. ELF is America’s most active terrorist group today. They use terror, arson, and vandalism to enforce their disingenuousness as a pretext of their "morally superior sensitivity" to protect the planet from those who do not accept their drivel as fact. I’m not saying that all environmentalists support terrorism but, rather, that liberal environmentalists assume that conservative environmentalists who expose liberal disingenuousness are anti-environment. I can look at the facts, use efficient cars, BBQ with propane instead of charcoal, and be environmentally-sensitive without being disingenuous. The danger comes from disingenuous liberals who want to impose their irrational policies (that actually cause greater harm to the environment) on those they ostensibly want to protect. Two examples: 1) their irrational refusal to permit nuclear energy plants to be built in the US (France gets 70 percent of their electricity from nuclear energy) in favor of fossil fuels, and 2) their refusal to permit loggers from thinning forests that would prevent millions of acres from being burned in wildfires under the pretext of “preserving the habitat.”
Ex-Liberal: Their reckless disingenuousness also leads to questions of how they expect to enforce and impose their irrational hypocrisy on other people of far dirtier nations. Because leftist (disingenuous) environmentalists are promoted and supported by leftist teachers (by brainwashing our children) who are supported by leftist politicians who create expensive and meaningless laws that hurt our country, our economy, and our environment, conservative environmentalists do more for the planet than liberal environmentalists. These arguments undermine your following arguments.
Jay: The fact of it is this: the environment should not be a Red/Blue issue (I *HATE* to quote Gore and those other "Hollywood Liberals" since their claims were kind of corny and I'm not getting my facts or statements from them); the environment should be something that everyone should genuinely have concerns about.
Ex-Liberal: Most Americans, (I’d estimate 95%-plus) are either environmentalists (defined) or at least sensitive to the environment. They are represented by all Americans, not just liberals. I consider myself an environmentalist not only because I have cleaned despoiled reefs from fishing nets and promote ecologically-sound practices for sport divers, but also because I pick up trash when I walk and turn off lights and appliances that my left-leaning wife likes to leave on (the lights are pretty, the sound of the TV is soothing, etc.). She’d consider herself as concerned for the environment as I am, but has only recently begun to care enough to get rid of her high performance MBZ 500 SL. We still have an SUV but I mostly ride my motorcycle. (I’m still working on the lights and TV.) My liberal Hollywood neighborhood is jammed with SUVs and muscle cars that they purchase under the pretext of “child safety” (again, disingenuous).
Jay: Why should they have concern? Because the effect of global warming, deforestation, air pollution, water quality, toxic waste, biodiversity, etc. has enormous implications for us that cannot be ignored. Species are going extinct at a faster rate than ever before recorded, less natural land is available to provide the essential oxygen that we all need to breathe and provide for the overall biodiversity of the world, we are depleting the earth of its natural resources like oil and coal and an exponential rate, and the list goes on.
Ex-Liberal: This is where Jay’s thesis unravels: Anyone who challenges hysterical and disingenuous leftist environmentalists either hate the planet or are, at least, anti-environment partisans. Anyone who does not share their hysterical passion of ecological paranoia threatens our planet.
Jay: Global warming IS happening.
Ex-Liberal: There is no argument. The planet has warmed for 100,000 years – long before SUVs and the Industrial Age. Some evidence shows that our planet gets hot every 1500 years before cooling again. Vikings once farmed on Greenland!
Jay: Just because we do not see tropical weather on a daily basis and because we still have blizzards and snow and cold doesn't mean it's not happening.
Ex-Liberal: Again, Jay illustrates leftist disingenuousness: Lefties, who so gratuitously antagonize conservatives for their Judeo-Christian teachings, God, religion, and faith, are the first to genuflect before alternative religions of global warming, UFOs, and cow farts.
Jay: Here's a piece of statistical fact for you: Over the last century the average temperature has climbed about 1 degree Fahrenheit around the world. During our last ice age 10,000 years ago the Earth's average temperature was only 4 degrees colder annually than what its average annual temperature is today (and those 4 degrees changed over the course of thousands of years). Small variations in the Earth's climate can have enormous effects – four degrees can be the difference between today and an ice age. In fact, many physical anthropologists, scientists, and other professionals have released data suggesting that prior to the Earth's ice ages there was actually a general GLOBAL WARMING of the earth's climate (this time by natural causes based on the sun and the position of the Earth's orbit and celestial orientation rather than through the rapid enforcement of climate change by the Earth's inhabitants).
Ex-Liberal: MANY other physical anthropologists, scientists, and other professionals have refuted that data as well (1, 2, 3, 4). Leftist theologians prevail by consensus, while scientists prevail with unassailable evidence. Galileo knows what I’m talking about.
Ex-Liberal: This goes back to liberal disingenuousness: How do leftist environmentalists have so much faith in the unproven quantification of Humanity’s contribution to global warming when they overwhelmingly fear, refute, and antagonize faithful (spiritually-connected) conservatives? Meteorologists and climatologists can barely forecast next week’s weather. The danger is not that the planet is getting warmer, but that disingenuous liberals would impose their hysterical policies on ALL Americans while ignoring the hypocrisy of Al Gore’s energy bill or his zinc mine that still pollutes the Tennessee River. (He sold it in 2003 when it threatened to expose his inconvenient hypocrisy.) Again, we are not arguing about the love of our planet and environment, but the difference between coherent and disingenuous environmentalism.
Jay: The Earth is an extremely resilient thing, to a degree, and often has ways of self-correcting for itself.
Ex-Liberal: I’m a jogger – I run the hills above Hollywood (Runyon Canyon). I’ve seen and understand the oceans’ ecosystems better than most as a scuba divemaster who has worked and dived in many of the planet’s oceans. The preachy condescension of disingenuous environmentalists also grate.
Jay: What many of these experts have proposed, consequently, is that the ice ages were a result – either because of or in part because of – the warming trend of the Earth's climate.
Ex-Liberal: So you believe that global warming will cause the next Ice Age?
Jay: When enough of those "far off glaciers" melt, the icy cold, de-salinated water that rushes out from glaciers or ice caps into the warmer, salinated ocean currents can, theoretically (my emphasis), cause the climate patterns of the Earth to self-correct, causing a general COOLING trend: oceans become cooler, changing wind currents and causing them to cool the land more rapidly and over a more expansive area for the effect of self-corrrecting for the environmental change that has happened, but in much grander and more extreme scale. This is serious and to deny it is just wrong.
Ex-Liberal: Your argument unravels here. You proposes one THEORY before concluding that this is serious and wrong to deny. This is why lefties rely on bumper stickers to argue their positions. I described rooterspeak before – a string of rational-sounding gibberish presented as undeniable fact. This, again, returns to my remarks about disingenuousness and the dangers that come with it. For such a secularly hostile group, liberals express a lot of unexplainable faith. Those who do not believe in God must create other theologies – but that’s another essay.
Jay: And as to your claims about the "historic idiocy and inherent irresponsibility of such a claim," can't you see that recent history should not and can not apply here? No "idiocy" can apply because we are in an entirely new world where the same rules do not apply. The past 50 years, and especially the past 20, have seen the largest global boom in population, technology, and pollution this world has ever seen. Some more facts for you to chew on: in the year 1650 the world's population was at 500 million (with a population doubling time - that is, the amount of time it would take the world's population to double based on the birth/death rate ratio - of 1,000 years). By 1850 there was 1 billion people in the world (with a doubling time of 200 years). By 1930, the Earth's population was at 2 billion (with a doubling time of 80 years). Today, just 77 years later, the Earth's population has jumped to an astronomical 6.6 billion with an estimated doubling time of 53 years. So, even if the current population rate stays steady, which is doubtful given the trend for decreasing doubling time, then by 2060-- when you are 81 years old and I am 75 years old, ages both of us can live to - there will be about 13 billion people in the world, all of whom will be contributing waste and pollution, depleting natural resources and raw materials, and being affected on a daily basis by the status of the Earth's environment.
Ex-Liberal: Paul Ehrlich’s “Population Bomb” theories were disproved before you were born.
Jay: So, the claim that history was "idiotic" and was an "inherent irresponsibility" is moot. We are living in a much different world than our parents and grandparents, and it's safe to say that our kids and grandchildren will be living in a different world from us.
Ex-Liberal: This argument encapsulates all of the aforementioned components – disingenuousness, rooterspeak, hysteria, and the question that comes with those dangers – how do lefties (people that Orwell and I characterize as fascist) intend to enforce the policies borne of their hysteria? Do lefties plan to create a one-world government that forces billions of people to die or abort? What does one leftist/fascist government do to enforce their will against non-compliant (free) people? How do we get Calcutta’s million homeless residents to comply? Many scientists have disproved your premises (1, 2, 3, 4). Mark Steyn explains projected flattening demographics in countries like India and China, and the shrinking populations of Europeans who are, coincidentally, dying because of the policies borne from their social hysteria.
Jay: Terrorism was not a major domestic issue 30, 40, 50 years ago (at least not to the same extent that it is today), and it's plausible to say that it will not be the same threat in 30, 40, 50 years from now that it is today.
Ex-Liberal: I would refute that as well. The media did not report or characterize terrorism the way it does today and many publications, like the New York Times, had no problem promoting propaganda that misrepresented genocide.
Ex-Liberal: And because of Islamic, European, and generally accepted anti-American bias (largely perpetuated by America’s guilt-ridden liberals), their historians would obviously portray “Jews, Christians, and Americans” no differently than they already do if they prevailed in our present conflict. History often depends upon who writes it – which by itself is why America’s freedoms are worth fighting for.
Ex-Liberal: This is also why spirituality is so important. It is harmful enough if Americans do not believe in God. But if we substitute our faith with something as preposterous as global warming AND then create policies or make war upon non-believers of that fabricated mythology, we erode freedom. Godless nations don't survive. America’s strength is our Judeo-Christian beliefs that encourage the freedoms necessary to be intellectually curious. Our freedoms are threatened by godless and disingenuous people who grow increasingly hysterical.
Jay: The environment, on the other hand, is here to stay whether we like it or not. Our past generations never took the initiative to make changes, not only in policy formation but also in cultural mindset, that can better our environment's future. We have the knowledge, resources, and technology to do so... so why don't we?
Ex-Liberal: Why don’t we what? What is your plan? How do you execute it? On what facts do you base your opinions and action plan and what are they, EXACTLY? Again, your arguments are deeply flawed.
Ex-Liberal: Look, I’m an ex-liberal and an environmentalist. The grown-ups of America (conservatives) have demonstrated a greater commitment to the environment and freedom than liberals by looking at the science and offering alternative energy sources that liberal environmentalists have refused to consider. Yes, TMI and Chernobyl were disasters, but the technology is far better understood than they were decades ago and other technologies (cars) have killed or injured millions of people over the years - yet we still use them.
Ex-Liberal: There are many MANY examples of this behavior of MANY different liberal policies. Gun control, for example, actually creates more violence wherever it is imposed; and yet, liberals continue to press for gun control despite the facts. LA, controlled for decades by lefties, boasts the dirtiest air, the worst crime, the worst schools, the worst traffic, and one of the worst qualities of life in America. If you need a bigger example, read Mark Steyn’s book and see where social liberalism has taken Europe.
Ex-Liberal: Do you need an example of charismatic leaders who rise to power from the hysterical and dissatisfied masses of uninformed disingenuous people? Look at Hitler, Stalin, Castro – the planet is full of history lessons.
Ex-Liberal: America’s global warming arguments are not about environmentalism, but of two arguments of scientific discourse and emotional hysteria. Your assumption that one must join the consensus of one viewpoint of an unproven science to be an ecologically-sensitive American; and pillory global warming heretics provides the sincerity and competence of a witch trial.
Jay: I guess the one thing that perplexes me to no end and to which I cannot wrap my arms around is why both Liberals and Conservatives refuse to cross party-lines on many issues that are traditionally "Red/Blue" issues, including the environment.
Ex-Liberal: Ayn Rand explained that when good compromises with evil, evil wins. There can be no cross-party acceptance between fact-based truth and disingenuousness, just as there could be no compromise in America for slavery or Jim Crow. There are some issues which do not deserve compromise and Republicans had to kill Democrats to end it. And the end of slavery is a good thing, I think.
Ex-Liberal: I’m a trained career investigator. I’ve conducted thousands of investigations and I review other investigations routinely. I understand the rules of evidence and why they are important to a thriving democracy. Red/Blue is not environmentalist/anti-environmentalist, but of coherence/incoherence that the global warming and other leftist social pretexts illustrate.
Jay: Yes, Republicans in general want more restricted government and they work for more pro-business ideals that conflict with environmental progressivism. But why can't they see the inherent danger in our levels of pollution, population growth, deforestation, consumption, and waste and advocate ideals that protect the environment?
Ex-Liberal: I think I have described what most of us see. If you need more examples, let me know.
Jay: The same goes for Democrats too. Democrats in general want more peace and less war and don't necessarily care that the government might be taking steps to protecting its nation's freedom and security (hence blaming Bush, the policy initiator and public face, for any problems they may see society to have).
Ex-Liberal: More peace – less war. I like that… My paternal ancestors fought Democrats to free slaves in 1865. Sometimes war is necessary. It is most often necessary when disingenuous fascists impose policies that ostensibly benefit the people. Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin, Hirohito, our forefathers, FDR… all of these leaders went to war to create peace. I spent nearly all of my active Marine Corps years in other countries. I was a career police officer. I have fought people who tried to kill me and other people. No one loves peace more than America’s warriors, which is why they fight for it - and most liberals do not.
Ex-Liberal: Blessed are the peacemakers… America’s disingenuous don’t want more peace and less war, they want coerced compliance to enforce their disingenuousness. The ONLY compromise they deserve is our patient nurturing and leadership by example.
Ex-Liberal: Conservatives are far from perfect. But while we vilify, condemn, and force the removal of Republicans like Duke Cunningham, Richard Nixon, Bill Janklow, and Mark Foley, people like Alcee Hastings, Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, and William Jefferson are still celebrated and reelected. So much for the "party of corruption."
Ex-Liberal: Our differences are not red/blue or perfect/imperfect, but of disingenuousness/virtuousness, which makes the argument for Good vs. Evil. Good should never compromise with evil. When necessary, good must sometimes make war with evil to secure our peace and freedom.
Ex-Liberal: I’m FAR from perfect, but I have made public service my life. I look at the evidence and coherence people like you bring to the table. I’m familiar with being hated by people who I expose as disingenuous. I’m familiar with insecure people who need the comfort that comes with a consensual fad. Global warming offers all the allure of a rock band. If Bono and The Goracle love liberals, liberals will love themselves all the more.
Ex-Liberal: This is the problem with godless societies: Because they don’t believe in God they force themselves to believe in something else, otherwise they become further isolated from the humanity (physically and spiritually) that most people crave. Many of my former baby boomer friends have dropped from my life over the years. Oh well, at least I can sleep at night.
Jay: Why can't Democrats cross over those party-lines as well and support the war or the government's efforts to fight terrorism?
Ex-Liberal: To support our efforts in the Middle East, liberals would have to suspend their hatred of George Bush, thereby becoming vulnerable by appearing to support Bush. Such a move requires courage. Liberals don't have courage, they have gall.
Ex-Liberal: Although I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004, I abhor some of his policies and bureaucracies (TSA, Homeland Security are two). If you understand that the Democrat/Republican partisanship comes from the rift between dishonesty and honesty, you’ll begin to understand many of the tertiary issues that keep people like you chasing your tail.
Ex-Liberal: Remember John Adams’ Thoughts on Government: The purpose of government is to make people happy. To make people happy, government must be virtuous. A government that is not virtuous is a tyranny. But if a government is virtuous and succeeds in making people happy, they no longer need government!
Ex-Liberal: This is the fundamental difference between Republicans and Democrats. The Republican Party was created to end slavery and protect the freedoms to pursue happiness, as long as they don’t violate the rights of others.
Ex-Liberal: The Democrat philosophy: the one that relied on slavery, the KKK, Jim Crow, Disenfranchisement, and their disingenuous embrace of civil rights, is one designed to make Americans dependent upon government so that government will control people (remember the "Solid South"). My blog provides many of the causes and effects of their policies and methods.
Ex-Liberal: Americans spend more money on education than any other country on the planet and yet, every Democrat-controlled public school system has deliberately retarded millions of children who must rely on prisons and unions to clothe and feed them.
Ex-Liberal: Union bosses extort funds from those workers that feed the Democrat politicians who empower the union bosses who retard our children who rely on union jobs to… it is unfortunate that, when Republicans defeated Democrats in 1865, that we didn’t outlaw the Democrat Party (like the Nazi Party) and kill or convert ALL of their remaining sympathizers. At the same time, I’m glad the Party exists – it’s a place for America’s enemies to congregate – otherwise they’d be hard to spot, like suicide bombers.
Jay: It's because both sides are often too stubborn to care or are afraid to renege on the party's platforms.
Ex-Liberal: Not at all: I’m a voting member of the Republican Central Committee in California. We have a platform that Schwarzenegger has largely ignored. I’m leaving California because I see our state as becoming too European. Europe is dying and California’s disingenuous media, politicians, educators, and unions are so preoccupied with political influence that they care not about what Europe is telling them will happen. I’m still a conservative Republican, but I will re-deploy my efforts in a friendlier, safer, healthier, less polluted city.
Ex-Liberal: Rush Limbaugh has been very critical of Republicans. The difference between Rush Limbaugh and Air America was not that one side was stubborn or “afraid to renege,” but because one pursued honesty and the other disingenuous. People, even some liberals, get tired of being lied to. The difference is that liberals will tolerate lies to be liked and Republicans are generally too busy with careers, families, and friends to worry about who likes them and who doesn’t. Air America would have found greater success if the mainstream media hadn’t already cornered leftist bias.
Jay: This is why I believe that the environment shouldn't be a Red/Blue issue – it tends to fall that way, but it shouldn't.
Ex-Liberal: It isn’t – Republicans are pro-environment, they can’t stand leftist drivel.
Jay: It sounds idealistic and rather corny, but we're all in this together. To deny substantiated fact that global warming is happening, for example, simply because of your political party preference or lack of salience in today's society given other concerns is not only ignorant, but more importantly, just plain stupid given the effects that it could have on our not-too-distant future.
Ex-Liberal: Your biggest point was built on theories that were long ago disproved. You need to catch up on your reading. Climate change is real, blaming Humanity is less certain. Forcing Humanity to alter their lives without any measurable understanding or expectation of the cause and effect of climate change is silly.
Jay: It's time to stop playing the blame-game on both sides and look at the big picture. Should we scale back our efforts in Iraq and elsewhere to make room for the environment? Definitely not.
Ex-Liberal: You have more sense than many.
Jay: But should we completely disregard the effects on the environment that global warming and a multitude of other environmentally-sensitive issues have just because we are at war and the global warming effects aren't being felt on a daily basis? Certainly not. It's time to wake up.
Ex-Liberal: As you can tell, I carefully read all of your comments and have posted our discourse on this blog – your comments and mine, unedited except for some minor grammatical errors. If you wish to explore further, I’ll be glad to participate. You’ve successfully illustrated why most liberals prefer the facility of bumper stickers, slogans, sound bites, and rooterspeak. Explaining your positions is an exhaustive process, one that self-involved people rarely take the time to participate in - and for obvious reasons. Global warming advocates, for the most part, only join the movement to be liked by other global warming advocates. Bill O’Reilly believes in it, and so do I. Ari, CJ, all of us believe that the Ice Age ended 100,000 years ago and that the climate has been changing ever since.
Ex-Liberal: No thoughtful person (except maybe flat-earth people) doubts that the climate has changed for thousands of years. But humanity’s role is less understood: and for anyone who believes in God or understands ecosystems, human nature, and the environment from an honest and scientific standpoint - AND the history of the Democrats’ reliance of false positives to control voter attitudes should be viewed more skeptically - especially when considering their hostory.
Jay: Thanks for reading all this. I know it's a bit much to handle, but obviously I feel strongly about this and have done my research (I could have discussed more statistics and facts/figures, but I figured I'd spare you more reading) and my time into this long-winded and in-depth response. So there's that.
Ex-Liberal: I hope that many people read our arguments. Please send this link to friends and ask them to write or post comments on my blog. I also hope that you read more, practice the “scientific method” and don’t revert to the bumper-sticker-Bush-Lied-Kids-Died-Halliburton-No-Blood-For-Oil arguments that so many of your peers rely on to keep this the red/blue issue that you’ve described.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
A mutual friend forward an email from Jay who is a young passionate believer of Al Gore’s global warming. It’s rare when a liberal opens up and speaks in coherent sentences. In many way, Jay reminds me of me when I was in my early twenties. That’s why I wrote back to him.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
If this isn't a case for shooting at fleeing felons in cars, I don't know what is. Let's hope that LA's leftist Police Commissioners don't get any ideas. UK cops are apparently more expendable. Oh yeah, the tune on this video is that primative rap-crap, so you might want to mute your computer before clicking...
Posted by ex-Hollywood Liberal at 5:29 PM
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates, Feb. 26 — Gunmen killed three French citizens and wounded a fourth near the holy city of Medina in Saudi Arabia early Monday, in a brazen reminder that attacks on foreigners there have not stopped despite an aggressive three-year security crackdown.
I wonder if, in their final gasps of life, those French tourists still believed that George Bush was more dangerous than Jihadists… I wonder if the survivors have figured it out…
Posted by ex-Hollywood Liberal at 1:40 PM
Monday, February 26, 2007
Jim at the Irregular Times blog thinks that Latino’s are being wrongly stereotyped about their prominence in LA’s crime picture. He bases his argument on a national picture that appears to show they only represent 5 million of the US 45 million incarcerated.
Take a look at the names and faces of the LAPD’s MOST WANTED and do the demographics yourself. And for those who think police are wrongly targeting suspects based on race, click on the photos or sketches to see what they’re wanted for…
Posted by ex-Hollywood Liberal at 7:02 AM
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Saturday, February 24, 2007
- Black residents make up 26 percent of the Dallas population, but they made up about 36 percent of the traffic stops last year. That's up about 2 percentage points – or more than 17,000 black motorists – from the previous year.
- Whites, who make up about 35 percent of the population, comprised about 40 percent of traffic stops last year. Hispanics, who also are about 35 percent of the population, made up about 24 percent of stops. Dallas police stopped over 12,000 more whites and 5,200 more Hispanics in 2006 than the previous year.
- Generally, nonwhites were searched more than whites. Black people made up about 45 percent of last year's searches, while whites made up about 22 percent. Hispanics made up about 32 percent.
From: Clark Baker [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2007 1:18 PM
Subject: Blacks still stopped in uneven numbers
Did you find racial breakdowns as to who commits crime in Dallas? Please send links, particularly those that identify the racial breakdown of criminal activity.
For example, NYC media and politicians have raised the same issues, and their demographics and crime stats appear somewhat consistent with Dallas. Heather MacDonald writes that as long as blacks commit crime in numbers wildly disproportionate to their representation in the population, police data are going to show higher involvement with blacks than with whites.
According to victims and witnesses, blacks committed 68.5 percent of all murders, rapes, robberies, and assaults in New York last year, though they are only 24 percent of the city’s population. Whites, who make up 34.5 percent of New Yorkers, committed 5.3 percent of those crimes. Blacks are nearly 13 times more likely to commit violent crimes than whites.So Jason, please get back to me on this OR, if you wish, send me the links to the statistics you used to produce your story.
In light of this massive disparity in crime rates, the police stop-and-frisk data are not just reasonable but inevitable. Last year, 55 percent of police stops were of blacks—a proportion far below the 68.5 percent of violent crime that blacks commit—while 11 percent of stops were of whites, nearly double their 5.3 percent contribution to violent crime.
(I hope he writes back…)
Posted by ex-Hollywood Liberal at 1:23 PM
(This may be old but is still very true... Source may be Jack Wheeler)
An Analysis of US Law Enforcement Agencies Upon Encountering A "Venomous Snake" Within Their Jurisdiction.Summary of the report's findings:
- FBI: Searches for but cannot locate snake. After snake is caught by the local police, FBI forms a Snake Task Force of 150 agents, sets up a command center, holds press conference and assumes credit for capture of [a] snake.
- USSS (Secret Service): Forms a protective ring of agents around snake and escorts to a safe area.
- ATF: Sends SRT team to arrest snake; they expend all of their ammo, then burn the forest down killing the snake and other local fauna. At a Congressional inquiry makes a presentation on why additional funding is required to properly train agents how to battle the threat of snakes.
- TSA: Abides by Congressional ruling to "prevent profiling" of venomous snakes, which requires "random" snake inspections. Venomous snake escapes while TSA officials strip-search non-venomous species.
- IRS-CID: Performs an in-depth investigation of the snake and writes a 100-page summary of why the snake should not be prosecuted. The investigation is closed and all agents are out of the office by 4:30 pm.
- ICE: After obtaining permission from the BPA, CBP, FBI, FPS, IRS, FINCEN, DEA, ATF, FAMS, FEMA, and the Girl Scouts of America, they mail the snake a notice to appear on a specified date for a status hearing. Snake never responds and is promptly forgotten.
- DEA: Initiates a Title 3 and an MLAT investigation on the snake's cell phone after discovering that the above agencies have begun an investigation on the snake. Spends $3M to discover the snake is not Colombian.
- U.S. Attorney's Office: Declines prosecution out of "professional courtesy."
- USBP (Border Patrol): Captures snake. Cannot communicate with snake, resulting in recruitment drive for snake handlers. Takes snake back to border (for the 4th time).
- US Forest Service: Have meeting after meeting, management wrings their hands and decide to deny any existence of a snake on public lands and all agents ordered to Washington to prevent any sighting of a snake and are trained to refer to snakes as "legal reptiles."
- Sheriff's Office: Shoots snake after driving over it several times. Puts snake in another City Police Officer's car while parked in jail parking area.
Posted by ex-Hollywood Liberal at 8:14 AM
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Journal Crétien reminds us that more Americans are killed by illegal aliens in the United States than in the Iraq War:
Illegal aliens are killing more Americans than the Iraq war, says a new report from Family Security Matters that estimates some 2,158 murders are committed every year by illegal aliens in the U.S. The group says that number is more than 15 percent of all the murders reported by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the U.S. and about three times the representation of illegal aliens in the general population.This makes sense:
- Iraq's 26 million residents are plagued by 200,000 insurgents of which half or less are active. That's an 800-to-1 citizen/terrorist ratio.
- Los Angeles' 4.3 million residents are plagued by 40,000 active gang members, of which more are active. That's a 100-to-1 citizen/terrorist ratio.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
If you love dogs you’ll know how hard it is to watch. For neurological or physiological reasons, a dog may spend hours chasing his tail. If he catches it and causes injury it could, if left untreated, cause further injury and worsen the whirling behavior.
I sense five perceptions to this problem.
- To the dog: His tail preoccupies him for long periods of time. It is the reason for, and the solution to, all of his problems. Left untreated, he will chase it until hunger, thirst, or fatigue overtakes him. When rested, he will continue his pursuit. Until treatment, training, and rehabilitation are provided, the dog will likely die after breathlessly wasting his life.
- To pet owners: The disturbing behavior interferes with their otherwise healthy relationship with the family pet. Tail-chasing also distracts him from the security that comes with his territorial instincts.
- To underdeveloped adults: Like porn, a tortured dog can provide hours of entertainment, especially for those desperate to relieve their own pain.
- To disinterested neighbors: Although annoying, the dog seems active and fully engaged.
- To criminals: Whirling dogs are too busy to protect territory or confront evil.
Let me explain:
The dog’s tail presents an imagined source of anxiety. Healthy dogs hardly notice their tails until caught in a door or stepped on. But to mentally disturbed animals, their obsessive compulsion resembles the paranormal hysteria that preoccupies our global warming alarmists.
Except for the meteorologists and climatologists who have studied our skies for centuries, most people hardly notice the weather until the game gets rained out. But to Al Gore, hot and cold days, thickening and melting ice, rain and drought, day and night, deserts and mountains all remind him of his scabbed little tale. If Gore was alone in this endeavor he’d be viewed as a deranged mongrel that needs help. The difference is that, this time, Gore has convinced other dogs to enlist more dogs to chase their tails and to recruit other whirling crazies, as if scouting for the canine version of Dance Fever.
The pet owners represent the grown-ups of America. Those of us who embrace what Thomas Sowell describes as a significant stake in society look at the weather as the inexact science it is. Unless you belong to the Flat Earth Society you’ll agree that the planet has warmed considerably since the Ice Age. But how can we believe scientists can predict the next 100,000 years when AccuWeather barely grasps the next 100 hours? And when leftist politicians dismiss internationally-recognized climatologists (1,2,3) for their heliocentric blasphemy, it’s time for America’s grown-ups to call the dog whisperer.
America’s underdeveloped adults will resist. After all, these cultists have invested much time and energy in the global warming tale. The orgy of concerts, fundraising, domestic terrorism, moonbat romances, and political enablers feel too good to surrender to the dysphoric sobriety of a wasted life. Like the seduced child who is suddenly too old for his priest, America’s moonbats have wasted too much of their lives to chase another tale. But before they start passing the Kool-Aid I have some good news – there’s always Obama and “racial profiling.”
America’s disinterested neighbors are too preoccupied with their own lives to worry one way or the other. They hear Al Gore’s growling snarls and suppose he’s doing what dogs do. Gore sounds really busy, he stays active, and he makes lots of impressive noises, so he must know what he’s doing. And regardless of what Gore’s up to, the neighbors are too busy working, raising families, punching clocks, baking cookies, and suing corporations to worry about Gore’s tale. They know that when the dust settles, Gore will take a well-deserved nap. After all, he’s been busy protecting the planet from greenhouse gases. I’m amazed that secular moonbats so willingly genuflect to cow farts. No wonder they chase their tails.
Criminals are a threat. While America is distracted by the growls, dust, and snapping of fake issues like global warming and racial profiling, immediate problems like Islam, medicine, Social Security, gangs, and public schools, are killing and crippling Americans today! To avoid any agreement with the Bush Administration, politicians seeking the moonbat vote will finance the ambitious scientists to promote the global warming issue, as long as those politicians keep the grant money coming in.
I must admit, ever since I learned that global warming will drown San Francisco, Santa Monica, and Boston I’ve been burning old tires in my back yard. But the reality is that the planet will continue to warm and humanity will adapt as we always have, as long as we survive the present global crisis.
America’s grown-ups see the dog chasing its tail. We’ve looked for parasites and mange but see nothing but bite marks and scars. We gather information, study the behaviors, and take steps to calm the animal.
As much as I like Rudy, Newt, Condi, and Mitt, I think America needs Cesar Millan in '08!
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Monday, February 19, 2007
In a recent Daily News column, essayist Stanley Crouch explains why he believes that poverty is a poor excuse for violence.
Crouch blames gangs and correctly draws parallels between KKK members “who became homicidally enraged at the idea of a black man acting as if he was a free person,” and today’s gangs that “terrorize black communities across the nation… with astonishing levels of murder and mayhem.”
Crouch recoils from “supposedly empathetic liberals” who define gang members as “victims of race and class.”
No such glib hogwash was spewed when the murderers were white and the resultant corpses were black. No one ever explained that the lower-class rednecks who were presenting themselves under peaked sheets while burning crosses, setting homes afire, bombing homes, offices and churches or murdering and mutilating their black victims, did so because they were feeling inferior to the white upper class of the South.
When the killers were white, the issues were justice and injustice, not social status or income. If there were actual justice, as we often heard during those violent Southern years of the civil rights movement, the killers would be punished for their crimes and black people would be able to walk the streets with the safety that should be the right of every citizen of this country.
Crouch writes that when gangs became more active 30 years ago, something changed:
…The opinions of those who had been so ice cold when it came to Southern racists either became quiet or looked for ways of explaining away the corpse after corpse after corpse left perforated by shotgun blasts and automatic weapons. Some were gang bangers, some were innocent bystanders, some were children caught in the crossfire.Crouch describes the disconnect between liberals who defend gang members, and residents who live in the affected neighborhoods and want gang members “controlled, incarcerated, or removed from the world.” He concludes that the majority of law-abiding low-income residents prove that gangs and their enablers can’t blame poverty or “the system.”
Crouch is partially correct. Although he accurately describes the parallels between the KKK and gangs, he ignores the common source of their pathology.
Winning Elections At Any Cost
Throughout Reconstruction (1876-1964), Democrats had felt threatened by former slaves who, Republicans insisted, were suddenly their equals. Some former slaves were elected or appointed offices, including seats in the US Congress and Senate. The thought of Republicans controlling the South was, to Democrats, a real threat – one that demanded a strong course of action. Democrats relied on sympathetic judges and the Ku Klux Klan to enforce Jim Crow laws that secured The Solid South for nearly a century.
Today’s relationship between gangs, Democrats, activist judges, and misguided policies like Special Order 40 and gun control are strikingly similar to the historical relationships between the KKK, Democrats, Plessy v. Ferguson, and Jim Crow during Reconstruction. Republicans who promoted racial equality faced the same threats, regardless of complexion. Negroes were safe, as long as they weren’t too uppity AND supported Democrats.
To distract us from the parallels identified by Stanley Crouch, Democrats have convinced Americans to believe that the historical antagonism between Republicans and Democrats was not political, but racial. And as long as voters supported their stable of Democrats, they were safe from allegations of white guilt (or self-hatred) often used to coerce behavior.
Planned or not, LA is as controlled by Democrats as the “Solid South” was 80 years ago. And because Republicans forced Democrats to outlaw lynching, Democrats now use intimidation, Oreo cookies, Judas horses and violence to influence elections. Democrats know that, 1) they cannot win national elections without California, 2) they cannot deliver California without Los Angeles, and 3) they cannot secure Los Angeles without union support. And as long as their multi-billion dollar fraud scheme continues to indoctrinate and retard students, LAUSD’s union teachers will continue to deliver fresh laborers whose illiteracy relies on artificially inflated union jobs to feed their families. And once a worker joins, union bosses are free to exploit their membership into supporting Democrats who empower the unions. (diagram)
Enter the Gladiators
Aided by Republicans who favor cheap labor, Democrats welcomed illegal aliens into sanctuary cities like Los Angeles to attract an unlimited source of desperate laborers. With uncontrolled borders, gangs and criminals followed.
Like church-burning arsonists, Democrats ignited ruses like global warming, multiculturalism, and racial profiling to distract voters.
But the greatest distraction plays out daily in the mainstream media. In a virtual coliseum that seats millions, Americans are entertained by an endless procession of modern gladiators: Police officers, immigrants, gang members, and assorted criminals that are both vilified and celebrated by their competing audiences. We are warmed by the multicultural pageantry of colors, badges, uniforms, and complexions as they pass before us. We hurl insults and epithets like tomatoes and trash, while those who distinguish themselves are cheered with equally raucous enthusiasm.
To control the restless spectators, the council and senate continuously tweak the rules. When cops have the advantage, they are blinded by artificial controls that make it difficult to identify gangs from allies. When gangs secure the advantage, injunctions are issued. When a gladiator assaults another, spectators revile him. If the crowd grows dangerous, prosecutors put him on trial which, when convicted, momentarily sates the audience.
From the relative safety of our living rooms, we are mesmerized by the cloudy donnybrook of notorious and anonymous characters. When spectators are sometimes caught like gnats in a web, we are transfixed as their lives are sucked from their convulsing bodies.
This drama does not begin or end, but continues like a one-season soap that is hopelessly looped by reruns. With our social conscience anesthetized by the formulaic spectacle of missing children, gruesome accidents, drive-by shootings, unsolved murders, wild weather, and sports highlights, few of us notice the crumbling walls of our city.
And while Stanley Crouch blames gangs, the ACLU blames police, immigrants blame racism, terrorists blame Zionists, Gore blames global warming, liberals blame America, conservatives blame the media, academics blame the military, Hillary blames swift-boaters, gays blame homophobes, parents blame teachers, Obama blames poverty, teachers blame parents, and cats blame dogs, LA Democrats quietly prepare for the next election. If that’s not a “systematic plan” for political success, I don’t know what is.
Joan Swirsky explains why Liberals Don’t Support Our Troops:
Swirsky makes an excellent point. Since the overwhelming majority of felons, addicts, predators, union members, and the mentally ill are liberals, can you imagine how motivated little Edward would have been if supported by that assembly?When Ted Kennedy’s 12-year-old namesake, Edward, got cancer in 1973 and had to have his leg amputated and then underwent arduous chemotherapy treatments, all under the onus of an unknown prognosis, the senator from Massachusetts told him to give up. It wasn’t worth the fight. Fold your tents, he said. You can’t win this battle.
Just kidding. The senator knew what a hard fight his son faced and he fought like hell to encourage him.
Bill Clinton: I saw cancer when I was a boy growing up in Little Rock. It was everywhere. So Edward, do you have a sister?
Hillary Clinton: This is just more evidence of the vast right-wing conspiracy…
John Kerry: I voted for cancer, before I voted against cancer.
Courtney Love: Hi Edward, I brought THESE to help you feel better…
Barack Obama: When I’m elected president, I will cure cancer so that people around the world will no longer have to suffer.
Al Gore: If George Bush hadn't stolen the elections, I would have ended the global warming that caused your cancer…
Al Franken: George Bush hates you, which is why he poisoned the water that caused your cancer.
Michael Moore: George Bush, Halliburton, and the Saudis want you dead to control the global oil markets.
Jimmy Carter: Zionists have done much worse to the Palestinians.
Cardinal Mahoney: Hi Eddy. I will be happy to send some priests who will visit you often when you are alone and help you feel better. Do you feel God’s love? Do you? Do you? How about NOW?
John Edwards: If you sign on this line, I’ll make sure that the doctors and pharmaceutical companies will pay for causing the loss of your leg – and I’ll only take 30 percent as a contingency fee.
Alec Baldwin: I'm moving to France - want to come with me?
Britney Spears: Wanna see my tattoos?
I explained how well-meaning pacifists become our enemy, but George Orwell went further:
Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, ‘he that is not with me is against me’. The idea that you can somehow remain aloof from and superior to the struggle, while living on food which British sailors have to risk their lives to bring you, is a bourgeois illusion bred of money and security…Troop morale is one of the most important components in any fighting force. When liberals (or so-called pacifists) negatively affect troop performance, their diminished performance can be as lethal as roadside bombs. And just as the US Constitution does not permit someone from screaming fire in a crowded theater to cause a deadly stampede, no real supporter of American troops would say anything that risks troop morale and degraded performance that leads to unnecessary deaths in the theaters of war; or the subsequent foreign and domestic carnage that will result from our failure.
What I object to is the intellectual cowardice of people who are objectively and to some extent emotionally pro-Fascist, but who don’t care to say so and take refuge behind the formula ‘I am just as anti-fascist as anyone, but—’. The result of this is that so-called peace propaganda is just as dishonest and intellectually disgusting as war propaganda.
Here are the Republicans who voted with the treasonous liberals on the non-binding anti-war resolution. Let them know how you feel by voting them OUT OF OFFICE in the next election!
Representative Michael Castle (DE)
Phone: (202) 225-4165Fax: (202) 225-2291
Representative Howard Coble (NC)
Phone: (202) 225-3065Fax: (202) 225-8611
Representative Tom Davis (VA)
Phone: (202) 225-1492Fax: (202) 225-3071
Representative John J. Duncan Jr. (TN)
Phone: (202) 225-5435Fax: (202) 225-6440
Representative Philip Sheridan English (PA)
Phone: (202) 225-5406Fax: (202) 225-3103
Representative Wayne Gilchrest (MD)
Phone: (202) 225-5311Fax: (202) 225-0254
Representative Robert Inglis (SC)
Phone: (202) 225-6030
Fax: (202) 226-1177
Representative Timothy V. Johnson (IL)
Phone: (202) 225-2371Fax: (202) 226-0791
Representative Walter Jones (NC)
Phone: (202) 225-3415Fax: (202) 225-3286
Representative Richard Keller (FL)
Phone: (202) 225-2176Fax: (202) 225-0999
Representative Mark Kirk (IL)
Phone: (202) 225-4835Fax: (202) 225-0837
Representative Steven C. LaTourette (OH)
Phone: (202) 225-5731Fax: (202) 325-3307
Representative Ronald Ernest Paul (TX)
Phone: (202) 225-2831
Representative Thomas Petri (WI)
Tel: (202) 225-2476Fax: (202) 225-2356
Representative James Ramstad (MN)
Phone: (202) 225-2871Fax: (202) 225-6351
Representative Frederick Stephen Upton (MI)
Phone: (202) 225-3761Fax: (202) 225-4986
Representative James T. Walsh (NY)
Phone: (202) 225-3701Fax: (202) 225-4042
Only two Democrats stood with our country and our soldiers in Iraq:
Representative Jim Marshall (GA)
Phone: (202) 225-6531Fax: (202) 225-3013
Representative Gene Taylor (MS)
Phone: (202) 225-5772 Fax: (202) 225-7074
Posted by ex-Hollywood Liberal at 11:16 AM
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Sweetness & Light reports that 98 percent of China’s population will celebrate the Year of the Pig more quietly, in deference (dhimmitude) to China’s 2 percent Muslim population.
China gets most of its oil from Muslim countries in the Middle East, Central Asia and Africa, where Sudan is its biggest supplier. It is also working hard to build its influence as a country that empathizes with, rather than hectors, smaller nations. China will be pleased to see its anti-porcine edict reported globally, showing its multicultural credentials and sensitivities…
Oh those culturally-sensitive Chinese… Maybe they can spread some of that open sensitivity toward their Christian and slave populations… (holding breath!)
So what happened in 1998 that caused gun violence to soar? It was actually in 1997--The Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997 was the first significant piece of legislation introduced by the new Labour government of Tony Blair in which the complete ban on private ownership of handguns was fully implemented and strictly enforced. Actually, as local friend of the Second Amendment David Kopel stated four year ago, all the 1997 act did was exterminate (provide appropriate Dalek voice modulation) exterminate! "Britain's pitiful minority of handgun target shooters" as previous laws had removed all guns higher than .22 caliber (5,54mm for our few non American readers) from the hands of the law abiding; and English law had evolved to the point that it now is impossible to use deadly force in self defense in England. Says Kopel, the lesson: More gun bans, more violent crime.Kende Agrees
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Friday, February 16, 2007
The Democrat-controlled House has issued an historic symbolic rejection of President Bush's decision to deploy more troops to Iraq on Friday. In American history, their display of courage and conviction is without precedence .
To honor all of those who signed this non-binding resolution, I urge that on April Fools Day, April 1st, 2007, all police officers shall restrict their duties to non-binding arrests, citations, correspondence, and testimony.
Your non-binding solidarity with Congress will be saluted!
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Monday, February 12, 2007
A note on LA’s upcoming elections for the LA/Hollywood Area on March 6th – here are my votes:
For LA Community College District Board of Trustees:
Seat #1: Guy Mato
Seat #3: Jozef Essavi
Seat #5: Roy Burns
Seat #7: Hector Gurule
Vote NO on L & M
I was in Sacramento this past weekend where a panel of medical experts discussed Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s recent proposal to socialize medicine in California.
Its one thing to be victimized by felons, and quite another to be hurt by someone you trust. He not only betrayed Californians, but made his supporters look like liars, or fools. His behavior may have been the push needed for my family to relocate to a state friendlier to the middle class and doctors. After 26 years of public service, I’m getting tired. Others will have to fight California’s growing European problems.
Included in the panel of experts was a Schwarzenegger representative; a bureaucrat pulled right out of Central Casting, a wrinkled pear-shaped figure concealed by fading polyester.
The physicians represented more than 100 years of medical study and practice. One expert, a Canadian who enjoyed socialized medicine until his “wife became crippled while waiting 18 months for surgery” reminded us why people served by socialized medicine come to the US for care. Other experts lamented the obvious disconnect between Schwarzenegger’s proposal and the real world.
The most powerful speaker of the group was Dr. Linda Halderman. Her passionate advocacy for healthcare was matched only by her striking beauty. Even when interrupted by Rudy Giuliani’s visit, I sensed that most of us couldn’t wait for her to continue.
She outlined many issues and suggestions related to her posts on American Thinker – posts that deserve everyone’s careful review.
In What’s Your Doctor Worth? Halderman, a Board Certified General Surgeon, describes the bureaucratic distractions that make it almost impossible to treat patients in California.
A woman was referred to Dr. Halderman after her mammogram showed a suspicious area.
Five or ten faxed pages arrive on my assistant's desk. She calls the Gynecologist's office to request additional material, including copies of the mammogram report, the patient's contact information and insurance data-if theDr. Halderman describes the lengthy process of reviewing her case, confirming insurance eligibility, charts, x-rays, medical records, interviews and examinations:
patient is insured.
I examine her carefully, assessing not only for breast abnormalities, but also for swollen glands in eight regions of the body. A heart and lung exam is done to identify problems that would make her a higher surgical risk, and the neurological, abdominal and musculoskeletal evaluations provide evidence for or against tumor spread.After reassuring her patient and frightened family, she filled out forms, ordered more testing, poring over “the list of codes required by Medi-Cal to identify the visit, choosing the most appropriate ones and hoping they don't merit automatic rejection of the bill (a frequent occurrence, prompting up to nine months of back-and-forth debate with Medi-Cal).”
Dr. Halderman describes the tearful second visit, the patient’s fear, diagnosis, treatment and the confused feelings related to a life-threatening illness.
This visit is the most difficult one for my patient and her family. I, too, find it the hardest part of being a Breast Cancer Surgeon. Some wounds cannot be healed with sutures and sterile bandages.The punch line of the story isn’t the prognosis or outcome of the patient, but the punishing bureaucratic insult that Medi-Cal paid for Dr. Halderman’s services.
Many of us agreed with someone who said he paid his maid more than California compensated Dr. Halderman. Her testimony made us all sick – but not as sick as we were by the behavior of Schwarzenegger’s representative who, during the seminar, failed to record one of a dozen or more recommendations made by these experienced and passionate doctors. One nurse advocate in the audience got up and left, too sickened by his responses. It was clear that Schwarzenegger, or at least his chosen representative, cared more about getting along with ruling Democrats than considering the needs of physicians. Many of us were left wondering why anyone would want to be a doctor in California – and marveled at the doctors' compassionate advocacy for their patients.
In her critique of Schwarzenegger’s plan, she reports that Medi-Cal is “run by nearly 6,000 Sacramento-based bureaucrats (and) spends nearly $7,500 yearly per patient… money (that) could fund a private Blue Cross-type plan for every man, woman and child that Medi-Cal currently covers.”
All of Dr. Halderman’s essays deserve careful study before Schwarzenegger and the Democrat-controlled legislature finally destroys California’s mediocre medical care system.
For more information, read all of Dr. Halderman’s reports:
What’s Your Doctor Worth?
First Do No Harm – Then Do Something
Governor Schwarzenegger’s Flawed Health Care Plan
Posted by ex-Hollywood Liberal at 6:56 PM
Several years ago, I began to notice that my switch from liberal to ex-liberal may be rooted in my attraction to smart and powerful women. My wife Carol stands at the top of my list, but when I hear the voices of Heather MacDonald, Linda Halderman, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Jill Stewart, Katy Wright, Lores Rizkalla, (uh oh… it’s a very VERY long list…) it’s impossible to listen to the Paris Hiltons, Barb Streisands, and Sue Sarandons (another very long list) of liberalism.
I’m no saint. When I was younger, I relied on gullible liberated women who longed to prove their "progressive nature" to me. Erica Jong’s axiom that men love for sex and women have sex for love helped me rationalize my sometimes cruel, abusive, or even predatory behavior - which helps me recognize fellow predators. But as I approach the big five-zero, my daydreams and objectives have evolved from the cosmetic pursuit of bottoms and busts to a more satisfying appeal of brains and brawn. I’ve learned that Americans achieve greatness through their deeds, while liberals seek greatness by convincing people to like them. Liberals are the Air America of politics, as real as global warming, as satisfying as tofu at Ruth Chris.
Speaking of strong smart women, Joan Swirsky, who succinctly explained the Pathology of Liberalism, has written an insightful article that explains Hillary Clinton’s pathologies. She describes the classic patterns of the abused wife who shares her husband for twelve years with a woman like Jennifer Flowers:
The victim feels embarrassed, hurt, demeaned, angry, and confronts her abuser. He becomes belligerent, in fact outraged at her nerve in challenging him.“I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky.”
She invariably ends up placating his “feelings,” hoping that her capitulation will “make things better.” It does not take a rich imagination to picture this scenario played out dozens if not hundreds of times as the first lady of Arkansas confronted her husband about his serial affairs or questioned his “ethics.”Swirsky also notes that, like many abusive relationships, the abusers friends tend to abandon the victim as well:
"As a U.S. senator, she knows better than most people, given her access to national security documents, that Bill Clinton treated America the way he treated her – with utter self-interest and with complete indifference!"
Malignant narcissists like Bill and his ilk are unerring in their assessment of the people who fall prey to their charm, manipulation and exploitation. Their victims are the very definition of those who suffer fools gladly because the rewards, mainly access to power, are worth the pain, disappointment, volatile outbursts and fickleness that come with the package.This explains why so many groveling liberal actors suck up to Hollywood’s narcissists.
Those who fawn over and tolerate narcissists, like Hillary, hang on even after the last dog dies. Why? Because they are afraid of the narcissist’s wrath and fully appreciate his capacity for vindictiveness. And they also know – or at least believe – as the title of the Sandra Bernhard movie said, “Without you, I’m nothing.”Joan Swirsky’s report is worth the read.
In addition, the quality that defines narcissists best is their insatiable hunger for attention – better known as “the spotlight.”
They consider everyone competition! Even their children … even their wives! And that is why it will not be her brittle, humorless, pontificating, patronizing, shrike-like demeanor or her entrenched liberalism that brings Hillary down. It will be – ruffles and flourishes here – Bill!
Posted by ex-Hollywood Liberal at 3:05 PM
Global warming is a myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment. Also, it's an undignified slapstick that people don't wait for the full report in May 2007 but instead respond, in such a serious way, to the summary for policymakers where all the "but's" are scratched, removed, and replaced by oversimplified theses.Ari Kaufman weighs in
… it's obvious that environmentalism is a new incarnation of modern leftism… Other top-level politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles their voice… Al Gore may be saying something along these lines: a sane person can't.
Thursday, February 08, 2007
Health-and-science and feature writer Joan Swirsky is not only an award-winning medical professional, but is also the recipient of seven Long Island Press Awards.
In The Pathology of Liberalism, she takes a clinical look at liberals:
Liberals, like children, live in a world of utopian dreaminess, clinging to a narrow, circumscribed reality and believing that if everyone would just be nice to each other – let’s talk, let’s chat – all the noisy death threats and pesky suicide bombings would go away, and all those grumpy grownups in the current administration would see the light.Liberals yearn to be liked:
…the most cherished value in the life of children (read liberals) is to be “liked” by their peers, a theory that Judith Rich Harris has exhaustively documented in her best-selling and revolutionary book, The Nurture Assumption.The liberal ego:
To be liked – according to the evangelical religion of liberalism – is not to engage in conflict, not to fight, not to judge, After all, if you fight with anyone, including Islamic terrorists, they won’t like you. And if you judge them as savages, murderers, enemies of democracy, they will fight you. So don’t judge them and they won’t fight you and everything will be hunky dory. Such are the fantastical fantasies of children (read liberals).
The reason why liberals have remained so intractably unhinged about President Bush is not because of their ideological differences with his conservatism. It is because of their collective inadequate egos. This is no surprise because children have “developing” egos, not fully-fledged senses of themselves, their places in the world, and their worth. Children are wildly egocentric, seeing themselves as the center of the universe and having no appreciation of the vast world that lies outside their limited awareness. In fact, they echo a saying from the Talmud: “We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are.”Swirsky cites many more examples. Although I don’t have medical degrees, Swirsky confirms many of my own observations on the streets of Los Angeles and travel around the world. So damning is her report that liberals will likely begin start calling her names. I’d rather they just hold their collective breaths, take two reality pills and call me in the morning.
Liberals entertain the conceit that they are quite evolved and superior, both morally and intellectually. In their childlike minds, they are “good” and the people who set limits, demand accountability, expect empirical results, fight their enemies and also make judgments about what is good and bad and right and wrong are “bad.”
Read more HERE