"Monkey?" What "monkey?"

"Pride comes before the fall..." Or - as my dad would say -- "The higher the monkey climbs, the more he shows his arse."

Monday, May 21, 2007

Tuberculosis, Illegal Immigrants, and the Coming Plague Of Pogroms From the Left


The “lefties” have one huge Achilles Heel in their argument supporting illegal immigration and amnesty. It is a weakness so huge, it amazes me that no one from the anti-illegal camp has recognized and embraced it.

If exploited, this is the one weakness that would turn the ‘lefties’ against the illegal immigrants with a zero-tolerance-rage that would shock the ‘right.’

First, the foundation of the argument: The lefties live in a paranoiac fear of second hand smoke; of helmetless bike riding; of tap water; of pollution of water; of landfill dumps; of mold; and of virtually anything that would give them a head cold.

Ladies and gentlemen on the left, I wish to introduce you to something most of us had thought was a condition consigned to the toxic waste dump of health-history.

The condition?

Tuberculosis.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, tuberculosis is creeping back into the health care wards of our hospitals. It is transmittable by mere breathing. It is in our public schools. It is in our apartment buildings. It is on your front lawns – depending on the current health of you’re the illegal immigrant raking your leaves.

It is popping up throughout the United States. And the primary new vector [that is to say: delivery system] of the disease is – drum roll please – illegal immigrants.

Long forgotten in the tales told of the legal immigrants who landed at Ellis Island is the very reason they landed at an island.

They were on an island to be checked for communicable diseases. If they had any one of a certain set of recognizable and easily transmitted diseases – they never made it to the mainland. They were put on the quickest boat back to East Overshoe or from wherever it was that they had come.

In this manner, nuclear families were torn apart. Yet, it was recognized that the poorest of the poor, due to poverty and lack of hygiene, were carriers of a smorgasbord of various communicable diseases which were either untreatable or extremely difficult to treat effectively.

And now?

Now we have tuberculosis being discovered at rates not seen in the living memory of the physicians treating the patients.

And make no mistake about it – tuberculosis is one hell of a serious disease. It takes months of treatment – and very expensive treatment – to get it under control.

Poorly educated illegal immigrants are also presenting a problem to health authorities who try to treat them. Since they do not fully comprehend medical procedures, some fail to complete the course of treatment.

The result: They are still contagious, but with a strain of T.B. that has a strengthened resistance to normal courses of treatment. In other words – they are spreading a more potent form of T.B.

No one in the press is making that connection, and the ‘lefties’ and the granola crowd are unable on their own to connect the dots.

The American health authorities long ago recognized what history had shown – tuberculosis is a scourge that lacerates the lungs and results in coughing fits in which gobs of blood are spit up.

And, untreated, it is fatal.

For anyone wishing to see an acting interpretation of the exciting highlights of tuberculosis [or T.B. for short] you should just watch either or both movies made in recent years on the life of Wyatt Earp.

One such flick features Dennis Quaid as the T.B. ridden Doc Holiday.
The other flick features Val Kilmer in the same role.

Quaid, in particular, consulted with a dietician to lose enough weight to recreate the emaciated condition of a T.B. victim. Kilmer was already a skinny little rail and didn’t have far to go.

When one looks at their emaciated portrayals, one can begin to understand why T.B. was known in lay terminology as “The consumption.”


Why? Because it virtually consumed the person who contracted the disease.

All victims died within a few years of contracting the disease. And, in the process of waiting for their place in God’s check-out line, they hacked, coughed and spit up infected blood while waiting in line at the bank – while attending schools – while hanging out in bars – or in church.

When I started teaching in the public schools in 1974, I was required to go to a spartan waiting room in a radiology department in Brockton. There I was subjected to a mandatory chest x-ray. Additionally, I had to have my skin punctured by a little six-pronged device. It left a little circle of puncture wounds on the forearm.

If the chest x-ray was ‘postive' and if the site of the puncture wounds turned a certain color – you could just about count on putting your teaching career on hold for quite a few months while you underwent the cure.

Why was this done to teachers? Simple! T.B. is spread by merely breathing on others. An infected teacher could wreck an entire classroom of youngsters in a very short period of time.

The youngsters, in turn, would infect their whole families.

As far as I know – nothing since then has changed about the nature of T.B. There is, in other words, not a kinder /gentler form of T.B. available in the third world countries whose citizens are invading the United States.


I can just about guarantee that the first day some kid comes home from the Dover or Newton Public Schools with a case of tuberculosis acquired from an illegal immigrant classmate will be the same day we start hearing shouts for “Quarantines and Deportation!”

When the soccer moms discover that wide-open immigration without health examinations result in their little kid going through months of isolation and antibiotic treatment for T.B., we will have a major crisis on our hands.

The crisis won’t be deportation. That will be easy enough.

The crisis will occur when we have to keep the ‘lefties’ from launching a virtual ‘pogrom’ to force the immigrants, diseased and those not diseased onto non-stop buses at gunpoint.

Some of the Granola types virtually assault cigarette smokers who are barely within shouting distance. Right now Massachusetts is trying to ban cigarette smoking on any part of any public beach.

Imagine what they’ll do when the problem isn’t a behavior [smoking] but a person’s physical condition which – unlike second hand smoke – is a VERY REAL AND PRESENT DANGER to them and to their children.

When in a room with a smoker, the barely tangential nature of any harm can be avoided by having the cigarette put out.

But – when the harm in the room is T.B. – there’s only one way to deal with it: The person carrying the disease must be ‘put out.’

Why? Because THAT danger, the danger of imminent infection with T.B. is real and present.

Ahh yes….ladies and gentlemen. Once the issue is properly re-framed as a public health issue, the liberals will turn on a pin-point. And though the ‘lefties’ may not like guns, I’m sure they’ll have no trouble making spears to assist them in the effort to drive the scourge from the neighborhood and the country.

When the public realizes that illegals operating with false identities make it difficult to keep them from leaving treatment and going elsewhere to spread the disease, well – there’s going to be all hell to pay over that situation.

It’s one thing to attack the ‘right’ as being racists for opposing illegal immigration. But – as has been proven with the anti-trans fat campaign, the anti-cigarette campaign, the anti-soda pop campaign [the list is almost endless] – when the ‘lefties’ find out about T.B. and from whence it is coming, they will become even greater “Diseasists.” [one who hates diseased people who can spread the disease.]

The AIDS campaign is instructive.

There we had and have a disease that is almost impossible for heterosexuals to catch unless they are intravenous drug users. But the hysteria that accompanied it was rammed down our throats. Even the gay activists admit that it was a scare tactic that they viewed as necessary to convince the public that ‘everyone’ was at risk. By doing so, they could be guaranteed massive funding for health research. That was their goal and it was achieved.

But T.B. is very different. T.B. is a very real threat to every person in the country. It is of special danger to the young and the elderly.

T.B. actually IS as great a danger to the general public as AIDS was falsely portrayed to be.

Gradually the lefties may come to realize that one of the primary purposes of immigration procedures and screening is to ensure that a new immigrant is not presenting, literally, the symptoms not only of T. B., but of the bubonic plague – another disease found outside the States, but rarely seen within our borders.

Another new adventure in medicine is also on the way: Leprosy. Yep – just this past week it was reported that leprosy is on the increase in the United States.

Once the public service advertising starts on that issue, the danger to the immigrants will not be T.B. – it will be the ‘lefties’ metaphorically storming Frankenstein’s Castle – that is to say, the apartments where illegals live – to drive them by force onto the Granola Express Trains to get them the hell out of the country.

We now have health nuts who insist that no one smoke on the public streets in Sharon, Massachusetts, or in barrooms, or within fifty feet of a school or within ten feet of a businesses’ doorway. They are obsessed with a fear that years in the future, maybe – just maybe – one of them might get lung cancer.

When they find out that a couple of good sneezes and hacking coughs from a T.B. victim can actually infect them on the spot with the disease, you’ll see the ‘lefties’ trading in their sandals for jackboots.

There are many good and commonsensical reasons for a legal immigration process. Of course, none of those register on the ‘left’ because anyone who even whispers about them is, of course a ‘racist.’

Since illegal immigrants are composed of Irish, Mexican, Arab, Columbian, Iranian, Chinese, and – well – virtually every ethnic and racial group on earth – I’m not sure what race it is that I’m supposed to ‘hate.’

But once illegal immigration becomes a public health issue – once little Tommy comes home from third grade and coughs up blood – well, dear reader, all bets are off.

One thing we cigarette smokers know is this: If the ‘lefties’ think they can even catch a pimple from some behavior of another person – they will move heaven and earth to consign that person to hell.

The ‘right’ tends to want the illegals just to go home and go through the normal procedures so that respect for the law – the foundation of the country – can be preserved.

When the ‘left’ finds out about T.B., the major problem for the ‘right’ will be preventing the ‘left’ from burning the poor illegal bastards in the town square.

Saturday, May 19, 2007

Illegal Immigrants: No Round-up Needed Mr. O'Reilly -- They'll Leave On Their Own


“What do you plan to do – ,” asked a recent caller to a Boston radio station. “Round up twelve million illegal immigrants and deport them? It cannot be done!” This sentiment was echoed by substitute radio talk host Emily Rooney on the Jay Severin show.

That same evening, Bill O’Reilly stated the same ridiculous proposition, and remarked that the US had rounded up some 222,000 or so, illegal immigrants this past year. At that rate, he speculated, it would take something like sixty years to deport them all.

You would think that these pundits were talking about canned peas on shelves – not about the ‘people’ equipped with legs.

For those not following this train of thought, I should point out that besides not having legs, there are other differences between canned peas and people.

Canned goods are not effected by outside stimuli unless it’s a can opener. Even then, with a can opener sitting next to it, a can of peas cannot run away. It doesn’t have a concept of self-interest.


A can of peas cannot warn a can of corn, “Watch out, the feds have can openers. They are coming for us – you’d better roll away while there’s still time!”

People, on the other hand, do respond to stimuli. And the first reaction people have to a threat is to guarantee their own self-preservation. We do that through two well-known mechanisms: Fight or Flight. A third mechanism of response to a threat is “Mending our ways.”

Anyway, that brings us to my point for today.

I agree that we probably couldn’t round up all the illegal immigrants. So, I’ll agree that it cannot be done.

However – it does not have to be done. We already know enough about human nature and law enforcement in this country to get them to leave on their own.

First Example:

In the 1960’s and early 70’s, it was not uncommon for kids to smoke marijuana openly on campuses. They would even light a joint with television cameras filming their faces.

Millions upon millions of young people smoked dope at concerts, at protests, in dormitories and on the sidewalk.

“What are you gonna do?” they would taunt the cops. “Arrest us all? You can’t do it!!! We’ll fill the jails to overflowing!!! Ha!!” And guess what? The kids were right. Trying to arrest everyone was impossible.

Hmmmm…’you cannot arrest us all.’ Sounds a bit familiar, doesn’t it?

Anyway, the situation was a law enforcement nightmare. Then ‘Someone’ came up with an idea. Mr. Someone said, “How about we stiffen the drug law penalties and enforce the ones we have? Let’s go after individuals and ignore the thousands at concerts and protests.”

The nation was in awe. Mr. Someone was suddenly a national genius. “Gee,” said the nation, “you mean put some of these people in jail and do it through high-profile court cases?”

“Yes,” said Mr. Someone, “that’s what I mean.”

For those oldsters who smoked too much dope back then and have a cloudy memory of the era, let me remind you of a few facts.

To defy the federal and state laws, there were several cities and towns which were homes to college campuses, that passed laws making public use of marijuana the equivalent of a five dollar parking ticket.

Police in those towns were instructed not to prosecute marijuana cases. The laws were openly flouted. In essence, those college towns declared themselves to be ‘sanctuary cities’ when it came to marijuana law enforcement.

Does any of this sound familiar?

Gradually the society decided that this was not a good idea.

Open disregard for the marijuana laws was not a good idea for two reasons. One of the reasons was stupid. The second reason was valid.

The stupid reason: “Marijuana is dangerous.”

There are many facts that made this a stupid reason. But this article is not about stupid laws – it’s about the stupid people making stupid policy. So – we’ll skip all the myths and lies about marijuana that were used to support the relevant drug laws.

Now the ‘good reason’ that the open violation of marijuana laws was not a bad thing:

“We are a nation of laws. If you flout one law – you may as well openly flout the others. And if that’s allowed – we’re going to end up in legal and cultural hell.”

The public use of marijuana was demoralizing to a society built on a foundation of laws. It created tremendous disrespect for police and for the government. Worse: It created disrespect for law -- and ‘law’ is the very foundation of our country and our culture. Worst of all: The disrespect for law was among the youth of the nation and that was a very poor introduction to adulthood.

So, law enforcement gave up on the crowds which were openly smoking dope. Arrests in those situations led to riots.

Instead, they targeted individuals. With stronger penalties in place, the cops started to target individuals and to make examples of them.

The results have been startling to this aged writer.

In 1970, I was a student at the University of New Hampshire in the bucolic little town of Durham.

No one could take a Saturday stroll down Main Street in that little town without passing students openly smoking joints. They’d openly offer a ‘hit’ to a passer-by if he or she seemed friendly.

That doesn’t happen in downtown Durham today.

Another example: In the late 90’s, I spent two years working in Hollywood. I worked with production crews and actors. I worked as an ‘extra’ on television and film productions.

On one occasion I was working as an extra on an Adam Sandler ‘bomb’ called “Little Nicky.” For three nights, from midnight until five a.m., some one thousand young people – all paid extras – filled a field near the Santa Anita Raceway. Since this was a full blown Hollywood film, there was little of what we would call ‘adult supervision.’

On the second evening someone in the crowd lit a joint. He passed it to the person next to him.

The result was one I had never seen when I was the age of the young people standing before me.

Shouting erupted. Virtually everyone within ‘whiffing’ and viewing distance of the joint started condemning the smokers. “Put that thing out goddammit!!! You wanna get us all in trouble? What the hell are you doing?” You’ll get us arrested!!!” The admonitions came fast and furious. Despite the fact that there were well over a thousand young people in the ‘extras group’ – and despite the fact that you’d need a helicopter and a floodlight to find a policeman – the kids who were shouting were doing so because they were afraid of being arrested!!

And note: Virtually all these ‘extras’ were aspiring actors! Yes! Bohemian types! Descendants of hippies! Yet, they were behaving as if they were the new members of the Carrie Nation ‘Nation.’

Thirty years ago these extras would have been begging to share the joint. Now they collaborated to destroy it.

And why? They DID NOT WANT TO GET ARRESTED!!!

The ‘complainers’ succeeded. The pot smokers – before my very eyes – put out the joint.

That was one of two times during my two years in Hollywood that I even smelled pot. The second time was at the corner of Hollywood and Vine. There, I caught a whiff, but I couldn’t tell who had the pot. It might have come from a passing car for all I know. But it was gone, carried away on a breeze in a matter of seconds.

Again – it is tough for young people today to imagine just how widespread and public was the use of pot in this country just thirty years ago.

And, for me – it’s tough to believe just how effective efforts to enforce the law, coupled with government advertising campaigns have been in virtually eradicating the rampant public use of the drug.

But, believe it I must. I’ve seen the result.

Law enforcement had smartened up. They stopped thinking about the ‘millions’ of pot smokers and just started picking off individuals.

It reminded me of advice I first got years ago when I was a substitute teacher. [This was in the days before there were actual school shootings.] “Jim, if you want to gain control of a classroom – just pick a kid and shoot him – the others will fall in line.”

Metaphorically speaking, that is what happened with the marijuana violators.

I know a retired college professor whose hey-day was the 60’s and early 70’s. He tells young people two things about marijuana: First, it is not dangerous. Second: you’re crazy if you use it because the penalties are too severe. This professor used to ‘grow his own’ and cultivate it.

Today? He doesn’t allow marijuana anywhere near himself for fear of legal repercussions.

Second Example:

We live in a country where taxes are paid based, for the most part, on an honor system. Don’t laugh – it’s true.

Despite the fact that we know that the government couldn’t possibly audit and/or prosecute all tax evaders, most of us who are self-employed keep track of our income and expenses and we tell the government that our calculations are honest and correct.

In this way, the United States of America pays its bills.

Some pay taxes because ‘it is the right thing to do’ -- others do it out of fear.

Since the ‘former’ are paying in order to save their souls, the latter are targeted by an IRS fear campaign. Every year during tax season, the IRS tries to announce indictments of high profile for tax evasion.

Some years ago the IRS prosecution of millionaire real estate mogul Leona Helmsley resulted in her picture on the front page of national magazines. She also ended up in jail for tax evasion.

Most recently we have seen Wesley Snipes appearing in court to explain why he hasn’t paid several million in income taxes.

The message from the IRS is the same as the one I received as a substitute teacher: “Shoot one – the rest will fall in line.”

Despite the common sense knowledge that the risks of an audit are low and the risk of prosecution even lower – the bulk of the American public coughs up its tax returns and makes payments every single year.

Why? They know that though the risk is low – the penalties are very large. And, whether they do it out of respect for law or fear of prosecution, they still do it and they keep the country afloat.

Today we have seen what happens when even the mildest effort is made to punish illegal aliens.

Some towns have made it illegal to rent an apartment to illegals and/or to employ them.

The result? Thousands of illegals have moved away from those towns. Entire apartment buildings have been emptied.

If the federal government made it clear that any illegal alien who is caught will be prosecuted and/or deported, the effect would be the same as with the drug laws and tax laws.

Even though the statistical risk of prosecution would be small, the threat of it would have tremendous consequences.

If every illegal family knew that mom or dad may not come home that night – and in fact – may find himself or herself thousands of miles away within twenty-four hours, the risks for most families would become unbearable.

It is the ‘lightning principle.” Even though we all know that the risks of being struck by lightning are very low – virtually everyone tries to stay inside and avoid open areas during a thunder and lightning storm. Even though the risk is low, the ‘punishment’ for screwing up is death by electrocution.

Even though only one illegal immigrant parent may be arrested and fail to come home during a given day – all illegal families will know that all illegal families are at risk.

Strict enforcement coupled with judgmental public service announcements would have an even greater effect.

Imagine an advertisement that went something like this:


“John and Mary came to America illegally from China. They did so to improve their family’s life. After they arrived, they had two children. John and Mary were arrested and deported on May first of this year. Their children – who are
American citizens – are now living in foster care. John and Mary came here, they say, to improve their family’s life. Now their children live on one continent and they are on another. John and Mary took a terrible gamble with their
family's life and lost. Now their actions and decisions have resulted in tearing apart the family whose life they sought to improve.

“It isn’t worth it,” said John in an interview. “Now my kids don’t have a father or a mother – AND IT’S ALL MY FAULT! Don’t make the mistake I did. Please, protect your family. If you want to come to America – a land that is great due to the rule of law – then start by obeying the first law you encounter: Obey the immigration laws. Apply for a visa.

[One is almost tempted to use a tragic-comic phrase as a tag line: "Like the advertisement says: “The Visa Card – don’t leave home without it. I did, and now my kids are paying the price.”]

Certainly public service adverstiting would re-frame the issue. It would squarely blame the parties who should be blamed for the splitting of families: the parents in those very families.

Such advertising would make illegal immigration the virtual
equivalent of child abuse. And, considering the risks to a family, that’s just what it is: child abuse.

As with the drug and anti-smoking advertising – it would take a while to sink in. But – eventually – the issue would be re-framed correctly.

Such public pressure would counter the effect of morons like Senator Kennedy who actually offer help to illegal immigrants. By mass media
advertising we will show a national collective will and purpose that is lacking in media coverage today.

In America there always will be people who, with criminal intent, violate both our drug laws and our tax laws. Most people, however, are not of a criminal bent. Those latter people take the threat of law enforcement seriously and avoid tangling with drug or tax authorities.

I dare say that most illegal immigrants are also not of a criminal bent. Most, I would estimate, are not hard core felons and they do not have the stomach to have their families torn apart nor to have to serve jail time.

When the message gets through to the illegal immigrants that the risks far outweigh the benefits there will be little need to ‘round up twelve or twenty million people.’

Why?

Because most will go home rather than accept the responsibility for, and risk of tearing their families apart by their own hand.

There they will start the immigration process through which millions of law-abiding, full-fledged Americans have gone already.

When they have completed that process, we will welcome them as we ourselves were welcomed – as fellow ‘Americans’ worthy of the name.

Sunday, May 13, 2007

Dances With Dobermans ~ Rep. Martin Walsh Considers Seat Belt Law For Dogs In Massachusetts!


An article in the May 3rd, 2007, Boston Herald stated in part –

State Rep. Martin Walsh is howling mad about dogs running wild inside moving cars and is considering filing legislation requiring drivers to buckle up their canines.


‘When I drive down the road and I see a dog running around the car, particularly on the lap and front seat,that’s crazy,' said the Dorchester Democrat.’”

The following is the headline and article we can expect to see in the Herald if such a law is passed:


Boston Herald, May 10, 2010:


“Woman Mauled by 10 Pound Schnauzer! Two hundred Stitches Required! Victim Blames Dog Seat Belt Law -
Curses Day State Rep. Walsh Was Born"

Beacon Hill -The victim, Mrs. Haversham Perkins Foster, spoke from her hospital bed – her face and lips wrapped in gauze. She mumbled through her bandages.

“I never saw it coming….but of course, I never thought of trying to put a seat belt on “Tiny” in a goddamned puppy car-seat until this state Rep. Walsh thought a new law would be a good idea.

“I guess I should have known better. After all, about five minutes before her death, my neighbor, the late Ms.Crenshaw, had tried to seat-belt her Doberman.”

[See related Article, Page 22 “Woman Dismembered In Doggy Seat Belt Brawl” ~ also, see Obituaries, ‘Crenshaw,’ Page 35]

“But Doberman’s are huge. I figured Tiny, being a Miniature Schnauzer, would be easier. I guess I’d never noticed how close Tiny’s mouth was to the rest of his little body. But – then again – I should have realized that if he can lick his own John Thomas, it’s pretty tough to grab him anywhere if he wants to maul you. Frankly, since I’m five foot, six inches tall, I didn’t really think Tiny – at twelve inches and ten pounds, could drop me like a lumberjack. I was pretty amazed.”

This reporter was amazed as well, considering Tiny’s stature. After being subdued at the scene with a tranquilizer dart by officials from the Franklin Park Zoo, Tiny is now living comfortably in the bedpan at Mrs. Foster’s bedside.

[See page 22, T.V. Schedule: Animal Planet, “Boston Animal Cops,” the Doggie Car-Seat edition. Note to viewers: this episode shows footage of violence, blood, mauling, death, human consumption. Viewer Discretion is advised.]

“Incidentally,” asked Mrs. Foster, as I rose to leave, ”have they found Ms. Crenshaw’s left foot yet? She and I went shopping at the mall the day before her passing and it would be so nice if she could be buried wearing her new shoes.”

Interviews with other mauled people revealed similar problems with the new legislation.

“I hate it when we're all in the car and Daddy makes me scratch Bingo’s whoozie,” said little Timmy Smith, of Hanover.

“But, as my dad said, someone’s got to scratch it when Bingo’s belted in his car seat. The insurance company said they won’t cover another ‘totaled’ car unless we comply with their new safety procedures. And that means scratching Bingo’s whoozie so he doesn't flip out.”

“Yes” – said Timmy's father, an accountant, “it’s gotten very complicated. You can’t even drive a dog home from Angel Memorial or the Pound without a puppy-belt car seat in place. My wife, though, absolutely refuses to comply with the A.G.’s new doggy-car-seat reg’s that were enacted pursuant to state Rep. Walsh’s law."


"Of course," he whispered in an aside, "my wife was the one who caused the van to get ‘totaled’ when she wouldn’t scratch Bingo the first time he was in the seat belt. But we’ve got to get her over that phobia. I mean – man oh man – Bingo just went nuts when he couldn’t get them scratched - he ate through the seat belt and that was it for the van - and, well - you've seen what he did to my wife....Anyway, the insurance guy said he’d never seen a van demolished starting from the inside out…..But - my wife says she'll never scratch Bingo's whoozie no matter what -- the regulations be damned. But, of course, no one's getting scratched in this house unless she learns to use her new hands - and that might not be for a year."

“New hands?" I asked.

"I'm telling you, man - Bingo was realllly teed off! The Animal Control guys said they've only seen one person who got it worse than my wife. And that was the drunk who jumped the fence at the zoo and tried to give a Cougar a back-rub."


"And it's going to take a year for your wife to recover?"

“Well - you know - if she's gonna scratch anything, she's gotta learn to wriggle her little plastic fingers and I’m told that will take a while."


“How is she now,” I asked, “when the dog is around?”

“Oh very good, actually. She walks him and they are re-bonding. Of course, my wife hates carrying that little poop-bag in her teeth, but, the law being what it is, and her new fingers being what they are, we don’t want to get fined under the pooper scooper laws.”

Further investigation by this reporter has revealed that the doggy seat belt law has caused havoc resulting in new business for some folks.

Said Mr. Rufus Reilly of ‘Canine Carseats Are Us:’

“Well, we came up with the carseat 'cuz Representative Walsh’s seat belt idea was kinda flawed from the beginning – seeing as how dogs can’t sit up on their arses for more than two seconds. I mean – what the hell do you do with their tails? A seat belt may be fine for dog breeds with their tails cut short and bobbed, like Rottweilers. But it won't work with Huskies.”

“It works with Rottweilers?” I asked.

“Well, in theory, I suppose.”

“And in reality?”

“Well, I imagine putting a seat belt on a Rottweiler is a lot like trying to mate with a bull. – But like I say, the idea of a seat belt was flawed from the beginning – that’s why the Attorney General’s Regulations now require doggy car-seats.”

“So,” I asked, “the seat belt alone didn’t work?”

“Son, let me tell you a little secret: Dogs are carnivores. They got teeth that’ll bite through a buffalo. They eat seat belts like stuffed mushrooms. So, we here at Canine Carseats Are Us” have come up with the solution."

"And that would be?"

“Our finest doggie transporter yet. It’s got a Kevlar belt and Titanium seat – it starts at twelve grand with your choice of color. And - get this - we give you a pair of chain mail gloves for free!"

This reporter then asked, “What if, say, your Rottweiler is in ‘heat?’ Is there any special procedure for ‘belting’ her in a carseat?”

"Seat-belting a Rottweiler in heat?".....Mr. Reilly’s eyes glazed and he was quiet for two minutes...."I'm sorry son...I was at Iwo Jima. Your question just gave me a flashback."

As I prepared to leave, Mr. Reilly called out, “Hey, y’uh know that question about the Rottweiler in heat? Maybe you oughtta ask Rep. Walsh about that. Maybe he knows something we don’t know.”

Or, perhaps – just perhaps we know something Rep. Walsh doesn’t know.

My guess is, it wouldn’t be the first time.

Wednesday, May 9, 2007

English Only? Yes! Death by Diversity? No!


On a sailboat off the Virgin Islands- “No mon,” Captain Teddy said to me, “Eet’s not a foreign language we be speakin’. It be English. But it’s dee way we say it. You can’t understand it because we doan wann you to unnerstan it. We doan wann dee toooreests to unnderstan us.”

Yep, “We don’t want the tourists to understand us.”

Teddy slowed his speech and explained the pattern and grammar of the incomprehensible patois spoken by the Islanders. There wasn’t a single non-English word in it, yet it was indecipherable for tourists.

British Cockney slang and idioms have similar roots. It, too, is English, but in a ‘code’ that ‘outsiders’ cannot understand. The story goes that Cockney was created to allow the planning of crimes without eavesdroppers comprehending the words.

Today we have rappers creating their own ‘code.’ It, too, is indecipherable by those not among the slum-world’s cognoscenti. Along with Rap -- Black English, and Spanish are likewise used to create separate cultures within America.

In part, use of such dialects and languages are an attempt to say to the ‘upper-class:’ “I have something you don’t have. I can say something out loud and you – despite your wealth - can’t understand a word I’m saying. In your face, baby!”

That brings us to the question of the day:

Should employers be allowed to create workplaces in which ‘English only’ is spoken?

The answer: Yes! If workers can communicate in English, they should always do so. Frankly – how in hell are they going to become perfectly fluent and comfortable in English if they don’t learn and practice the language at every opportunity?

I have known some immigrants who like to converse in their own language solely to irritate non-speakers. Some do it to gossip privately in plain sight. And some, no doubt few, but some do it to practice deceits on employers.

But, there are two simple reasons, based on culture and etiquette that dictate the answer to today’s question. Why speak English in the workplace?

1. Because it is just plain goddamned rude not to do so; and,

2. It is culturally divisive.

Since childhood we’ve been taught that it is not polite to whisper in front of others. It is not polite to pass ‘secret’ notes to others. Speaking a foreign language in the workplace is the adult equivalent of whispering and note-passing.

To use a foreign language at work is to alienate English speakers and, symbolically to declare: “I am not of your culture.” This, despite the fact that we all know that English mastery by immigrants has been key to their success in America.

Years ago, non-English speaking immigrants knew that use of their native tongue was an oxymoron: a ‘crutch’ that ‘crippled.’

In fact, the immigrants’ imperative to ‘become American’ was so great that the failure of some ‘elders’ to learn English was sometimes considered an embarrassment by the elders’ grandchildren…..But now?

Now we celebrate ‘diversity’ in an orgy of American self-loathing that is leading to cultural suicide.

We are so busy dismantling and de-constructing the cultural institutions, mythology and history that sustained us, that we no longer know what constitute the cultural values we hold dear.

Simultaneously we seem impelled to glorify the traditions of the hell-holes from which our immigrant populations have escaped.

People come to America today because they lived in countries that, variously allow or require: 1) slaveholding; 2) clitoral circumcision; 3) death for unveiled schoolgirls; 4) execution of poets; 5) tribal genocide by machete; 6) death by stoning; 7) one child families; 8) real estate theft and re-distribution; 9) female infanticide; 10) child sex slavery; 11) feeding cows instead of starving humans; 12) book bans and burning; 13) imprisonment for political speech…and the list goes on and on.

And then what do we do?

We tell them to be proud of their roots!

We tell them to ‘celebrate’ their ‘heritage!’

Hell, these are people who think “Sewage” is street pavement.


And you know those Christian Children's Fund advertisements? "This is Manuel. He lives here, in a half-pint Chinese take-out noodle box...."

Well, those ads, for many immigrant children, are the closest thing they'll ever have to 'home movies.'

Then, the third-rate minds running our public schools encourage these newcomers to celebrate and practice the few traditions of their former ‘cultures’ that don’t involve felonies and genocide.

Fortunately there are strict criminal laws that prevent them from demonstrating most of their cultural traditions at ‘Show and Tell.’

And what are we left with?

Folk dancing.

And curry…..I forgot curry.

Along with selective glorification of third-world pot-holes, the public schools are hell-bent on teaching kids that America is a hypocritical, fatally flawed country that practices imperialism.

Children are led to believe that if one of their home countries had some 'natural resource' we value highly – toilet paper for example – we would have invaded them long ago.

People come here from countries that would consider bi-focals to be the Eighth Wonder Of the World and yet we tell them to ‘celebrate’ their heritage? Are we kidding?

They should be celebrating their escapes from hell.

About the only tolerable thing to come from most of these countries is the folk dancing. That – and some native dress that make Big Bird look like an Edwardian.

For those of you who think I’m picking on some particular immigrant group or another, I answer “Not so.”

Now, a quick personal story that informs and shapes my beliefs:

In 1916, my mother’s third grade teacher gave a class assignment to write a paper about their ancestors’ home country.

My mother did not know what to write. She asked her father.

He told her to get a pencil and a paper. He told her to write down each word he said. Then he recited the following:

“My father and his family came here on a boat from Scotland when he was six years old. Scotland was a terrible place to live. We came to America and we have never looked back.”

My mother finished writing, looked to her father and said, “And…? What’s next? I’m ready to keep writing.” My grandfather’s answer?

“That’s it….. You will write nothing more. You take the paper to your teacher. If she does not like it, you tell her to talk to me.”

Now, am I proud of my Scottish heritage? Yes. They were the only people the Roman Empire couldn’t conquer, and the result was the construction of "Hadrian's Wall." [The wall was designed to keep the barbaric, pantless pagan Scot warrior maniacs -- that is to say, "My People," penned up in the North of Britain.] The Scottish men were so manly they could and do wear skirts and no one giggles. [After all - who screws with a country that still thinks the 'caber-throw' should be an Olympic sport?]

Edinburgh, Scotland, was also the birthplace of the Enlightenment. We get ‘two points’ for that.

Oh yeah – the Scots are also big on folk dancing - known as the Highland Fling -that amounts to hop-scotch with swords.

But I’m also aware – and I should mention in passing, for my ancestors, Scotland was just another corner of hell from which to escape.

I was taught that lesson about Scotland at an early age.

Now, if we really wanted to teach kids about their ethnic heritage, we’d teach them everything about their native countries.

After a few discussions of clitorectomies and ‘how we left my baby sister on a hillside to be eaten by wolves,’ the students would begin to gain something called ‘perspective.’

They’d also demand that the teachers never teach anything ever again about their home countries or their native language and culture – with one exception:

Folk dancing. [Except for the Scottish kids: no swords allowed.]

Oh – and ‘curry’….yep, I almost forgot curry….again.

And then, maybe – just maybe – they’d want to think of themselves only as Americans. They’d also want to sound like Americans.

And to sound American means to speak ‘American,’ and that means to speak “English.”


Monday, May 7, 2007

No News Is Boston Sunday Globe News


Now that the Boston Globe has closed its overseas news bureaus, you'd think they'd have some guys to cover local news with some degree of depth. But - you would be wrong.

Let's take a look at this week's Sunday Globe, May 6, 2007. There are only two news items on the front page.

The first: "Santana, Minnesota Twins Keep Red Sox in check, 2-1." O.K., that's informative.

The second: "Street Sense Wins Kentucky Derby." That, too, is news.

So much for the headlines that the 'bookies' need to know.

Now, the 'hard' news.

The first headline: "Before inmate's death, a delay in care."
This is the number one headline 'above the fold.'

Maybe it's just me, but I do not think that a story about a drug addict who died four years ago from de-tox while in prison custody
is the most pressing issue in New England.

As usual, however, the Globe had a slant to the article. Nowhere on the front page is she referenced as a 'drug addict.'

Nope! What we're dealing with here is, and I quote, "the 24-year-old mother from Lynn."

And how do they handle the problem of describing her addictions?

While she was held pending arraignment on what is termed 'a minor drug charge,' she "battled the side effects of heroin and alcohol withdrawal."

Words matter. Note that the use of the word 'battled.'

'Battled' is a very loaded word. It is used - exclusively as far as I've seen - by reporters who are describing someone who is trying to quit drugs and/or alcohol.

I have never before seen it used to describe someone involuntarily going through the D.T.'s or narcotics withdrawal. People, like this prisoner, who are involuntarily being de-toxed have 'severe withdrawal symptoms.' [Near the end of the article, they do mention her severe withdrawal and omit the word battle. But on the front page? There we find our "heroin-heroine' in a 'battle.'

People who 'battle' the disease of addiction [See: Patrick Kennedy] are making at least a token effort to give up the smack and the hooch. Addicts who 'battle' their addiction are considered noble by readers. Those who get locked in the hoosegow and get the shakes are considered 'junkies,' and therefore, to the normal reader, are not noble.

The decedent in this case was a newly hatched prisoner. She had just been arrested. If she was in a 'battle' it was because she was drafted. She did not volunteer.

On the first page the reporter also misstates the charges against the prisoner. How do I know this?

I know this because the reporter contradicts herself in the second half of the story - in Section B, on Page 7.

On the first page: "Since [her] death, as she awaited arraignment on a minor drug charge...."

Kinda sounds like she might have gotten nailed smoking a joint at a Boston Pops Concert, 'eh?

But there's quite a bit more to this story.

The charges which are enumerated in Section B of the Globe do happen to mention that she was arrested on a warrant for two counts: 1) driving without a license, 2) leaving the scene of an accident.

Upon her arrest it was discovered - and we discover in Section B - she was also wanted on a second warrant for illegal possession of a hypodermic needle.

So, the reporter tells us on the front page that the prisoner was being held on a minor drug charge.

In fact she was wanted for three offenses - none of which was a 'minor drug charge' unless you decide that carrying a hypodermic to inject heroin is a minor problem. But we don't find all this out until we plow through, almost to the end of the article.

And, unless you happen to be familiar with Massachusetts courts, you wouldn't know that the two warrants that were outstanding were for failure to show up in court in two separate counties for hearings on the various charges.

You wouldn't know that about the warrant because the reporter has left out a key word in her report. That word is default as in 'default warrant.'

This is the type of warrant the district courts of Massachusetts issue when a '24 year old Lynn mother' snubs her nose at the court and refuses to show up for mandatory scheduled court hearings.

So - this prisoner snubbed her nose at the law by 1) driving without a license; 2) showing a lack of care for others and recklessness by leaving the scene of an accident; and 3) by refusing the Commonwealth's non-negotiable invitation to show up in court for a prior hearing date on the charges.

And - to top it off - she had a second default warrant for ignoring a second court date in another county to discuss her recreational possession of a hypodermic needle.

Omitting the 'default' from 'default warrant' is a telling decision by the reporter because of how she describes the arrest.

"[on a Sunday]....she was spotted by Lynn Police as she walked to the beach with her two girls and mother..."

Ah yes...Damn those Lynn Police! They scooped a Lynn mother off the sidewalk as she and her mom and kids went to the beach. Could not they have waited? Cads!

Well - yeah - they could have waited. But the fact is, she had two outstanding warrants because she had refused to show up in two different courts on two different sets of charges.

She was arrested for failing to show up in court - not for the underlying charges.

If she had shown up at the judge's tea parties when she'd been told to do so, the police wouldn't have had to wait for an opportunity to catch her. She'd already shown she wouldn't R.S.V.P. an invitation to court - hence, the warrant was put out to arrest her whenever and wherever they found her.

It wasn't the cop's choice, nor the judge's choice that her day at the beach went down in flames.

It was her choice. If she didn't want trouble, she should have gone strolling with a bag on her head. And, if she didn't want to go through a hellish de-tox - she shouldn't have been toasted to the gills on booze and heroin as she walked her little children to the beach.

So, why is the reporter painting a sympathetic picture of the prisoner?

The reporter did it because, as it turns out, the state apparently failed to render all the de-tox help necessary to the prisoner and she died as a result.

Yep - whenever the state prison system makes a mistake - we can rely on the Globe to present a sympathetic slant that is tucked away in the story. The article goes on to explain that the state has reformed all its de-tox procedures for prisoners but, apparently, the state has not issued statements on this particular woman's death.

The article quotes the decedent's aunt, "If they had taken her to a hospital or given her fluids and just paid a little more attention to her, her two little kids would have their mom right now. Something is wrong here." [my emphasis of her words.]

You bet there's something wrong here!

If she hadn't been driving without a license, if she hadn't left the scene of an accident and - apparently - then twice failed to show up in court resulting in two default warrants, her aunt might have been able to convince her to go to de-tox.

We can speculate safely - since one cannot defame the dead - that the woman took off from the scene of the accident in part because she was an alcoholic and a junkie, was driving around half out of her mind on the streets by the sidewalks where your children walk, and she didn't want to get nabbed.

For all we know, she had a hypodermic with her when she left the accident scene - an accident which, I speculate, she probably caused. And, she apparently drove around without regard for the safety of others - let alone her two little kids. Plus, at the time of her arrest, she was heading to the beach - stoned and drunk - to monitor the safety of her children in the water.

Since she was addicted to heroin and alcohol - and addicted so severely that de-tox killed her - we can assume that the bottle and the needle mattered to her more than those two kids.

The aunt's quote would have made more sense if it had said, "If she had straightened out her life, looked at the gift that were these two children and been grateful, perhaps she'd be alive today."

Instead, some folks in the Department of Corrections, may have made mistakes in her de-tox and they are now being sued.

In any event: this headline is not news, and it is not newsworthy. It is certainly not a major headline that should concern New Englanders this week. [I'll grant you that it is of concern to the junkies who fail to show up in court and are later busted on default warrants. But, I doubt that many of them are reading the Globe today.]

The second headline: Also appearing above the fold is, "Missouri Attorney a focus in firings."

Excuse me, but to what part of Massachusetts did Missouri move? Why do we care? Hell, we don't care at all.

The Boston Globe cares, however. Why? The Globe cares because the article is critical about the non-scandal involving Bush and the eight U. S. Attorneys he fired.

The simple fact is this: It is not news. It never was. Those attorneys served at the pleasure of the President.

He could have fired them for having eczema.

That should have been the end of the story, but it wasn't.

The White House has forgotten what to do with little children who question the authority of adults. The White House should have said, "Why were they fired? Because I said so, that's why. Now eat your granola and get ready for school."

Below the fold there are three more 'headlines.'

The third headline: "A new fertility gamble for women." This is an 'egg freezing' article. It belongs on a page discussing health issues. It is not about current news and does not belong on a front page.

The fourth headline: "In digital age, more t's are crossed poorly."

Oh my God! The Globe Spotlight team must have been involved with this. Perhaps it should have had a catchier headline. "Palmer Method Wiped Out In Keyboard Attack!!!"

Literally - the article is about how using keyboards has effected the handwriting of people. This crapola is also not news. Ms. Manners could have dealt with the issue and probably has.

The last headline: "Question of scale: Is tower too tall for Chinatown?"

Whew!!! Finally!

Someone in the newsroom must have sobered up and realized they didn't have anything on the front page that would be in any way enticing to a reader seeking local news. So - they did an article on a high-rise that may or may not go into Boston.

That's it. That's the front page "news" as it is laughingly called in today's Boston Sunday Globe.

Hell - why don't they do what all the other jokesters in the newsrooms do today: Go to the Drudge Report on-line. Copy the headlines.

Lord knows, to paraphrase an old saying: "If no news is good news, then the Boston Sunday Globe is the paper for you."


Tuesday, May 1, 2007

Is it "Amber Alert!", or just "Amber Divorced Couples Arguing?"


Last night I was driving on Route 128 when I noticed the "Amber Alert" signal informing me of a white vehicle containing a 'kidnapper' and a child. The "Alert," however, left out a few details.

First: the kidnapped child was with his mother. Second: the 'kidnapper' was the child's own mother.

Third, and most importantly: the 'alert forgot to mention that the "Amber Alert" system in Massachusetts was being employed - just as it was the very first time it was used in the Commonwealth - by a divorced or divorcing couple who'd been arguing about child custody and visitation.

The 'emergency' nature of the situation - according to the television and radio news - was based on the fact that the child had an unnamed illness that 'required medication.'

Once again, the "Amber Alert" system was, in my opinion, being abused by squabbling couples tearing each other to pieces in divorce court. But now, as in some earlier Massachusetts "Amber" cases, one spouse was able to sic the state police and the entire public on the mother because of the existence of the system.

A few months ago the state got lighted up with an "Amber Alert" because fellow wanted to get his stolen car back right away. So, what did he do?

Clever fellow...he told the cops there was a 'child' in the car when it was stolen. Well - there never was a child - the car was retrieved, and he was arrested.

A few weeks ago, a baby-sitter failed to show up on time to deliver a child to its home. In the car with the baby-sitter [who, according to published reports, had had no difficulty with the child's parents and had been an exemplary baby-sitter] was the baby-sitter, the baby-sitter's own child, and the child who was being 'sat.'

With no proof whatsoever of a crime, the "Amber Alert" system was set off, the radio and television people were alerted and a few hours later the baby-sitter was located. Her child and the customer's baby were fine. So was the 'sitter.' No one was held hostage. No diaper-fire was exchanged between the police and the 'napper.

There was never an explanation published of the result of that child 'snatching.' As a matter of fact, the vicious baby-sitting 'kidnapper' was both arrested and released the same night. The bail was a token amount.

My guess? There was probably a misunderstanding about when the children were to come home, or if the baby-sitter was supposed to have the children sleep at her house - or some such misunderstanding.

After all, even in Massachusetts, vicious and mendacious kidnappers are not usually released on a few dollars bail about an hour after they are nabbed.

And what of last night's report? Why am I so cynical about it?

Well, whenever the t.v. folks get in a dither about simlar events, they invariably tell us the reason the child needs 'medication.' We all know the drill: "Seven year old Tommy Jones was last seen outside his family home. He is diabetic. He may appear disoriented or in a coma from lack of insulin...etc." or...."Young Tommy is mentally disabled and prone to seizures for which he takes medication.....etc."

But last night? Last night we were just told that the child had an illness and needed medication.

I suspect the illness was omitted from the report because it may have been something like an ear infection that required penicillin.

Also...if the child in last night's incident has a serious chronic disease or disability that required medication, it wouldn't take a genius to figure out that the mother would know that as well.

As mentioned above, the very first time "Amber Alert" was used in this state it was used by a warring couple to fight over their child. This was just the type of abuse of the system that pundits and legislators feared might happen.

Now its use appears to have been augmented to include errant baby-sitters.

Stuff like this drives me nuts.

The whole idea of the "Amber Alert" system was to deal with children snatched by strangers. In reality -- though seldom mentioned -- most children are about as likely to be hit by lightning as they are to be snatched by a stranger.

So, what's an "Amber Alert" system to do? Well, in this state, apparently, it is a tool to be used by husbands and wives to clobber each other on child custody issues and to get us all in on the act.

The result - at least at this desk - is exactly what some feared would happen if "Amber Alerts" were used as a proxy weapon by divorcing couples: Now when I see or hear of the "Amber Alert" going off, I figure it's just the result of warring parents who are wallowing in their anger.

The fact is that on average, per year, there are only about fifty such kidnappings by strangers in the United States. Yet, when the cultural terrorists who want us to live in fear start throwing numbers around, we here that over a half a million children are "kidnapped" each year.

These 'kidnappings' are usually situations where one parent takes the child for visitation and fails to return him or her.

I'm not discounting the seriousness of such situations. But I also do not believe in elevating the seriousness of such situations to a crisis-plane that is higher than their worth.

The idea of the "Amber Alert" was to nail the rare anonymous kidnapper before he could put more than a few miles between himself and the site of the kidnapping.

Parents, on the other hand, who are determined to take flight with their own child, are generally going to plan such an 'escape' to give them time to put a lot of distance between themselves and the other parent before the 'kidnapping' is discovered. In doing so, such parents render moot the effectiveness of the "Amber" systems.

I tend to get 'jaded' about some new protective program very shortly after I learn of its abuse. But, I'm sure that if the "Amber Alerts" continue to be used to score points in divorce and custody battles, I won't be the only one who starts to ignore the flashing signs over the highway.

If there are many more abuses of the system, we will all probably live to see the day the "Amber Alert" flashes the words: "Please pay attention! This is a real kidnapping! This isn't a case of a custody dispute! Really! Please? Please pay attention - this is for real - please?!"