Friday, November 2, 2007


Oh, how nice to wake up and see this bit of information. I don't hide my displeasure at America turning into a country where sheer physical numbers can force us into changing our laws to suit a definite minority of law breaking people. We have an established method for changing our own laws and those who ignore these rules are undesireable beings. But America is not alone. Seems like misery loves company. Sorry, everyone. Any suggestions? October 25, 2007 Inconvenient Truth re U.K.’s Immigrants. A TV newsman defends his racially explicit analysis of the economic impact of immigration: "Most people will be pleased that somebody is prepared to look at the facts. Immigration is a major development of our time. It is a healthy thing to know where it benefits and where it hinders our society." Question: Was it Lou Dobbs, Bill O’Reilly, or Sean Hannity? Answer: None of the above. Jon Snow is anchorman on Dispatches—a program broadcast on the U.K.’s Channel 4. Snow’s TV documentary, entitled "Immigrants: The Inconvenient Truth," reveals which immigrant communities are a "debit" and a "credit" on "Britain’s Balance sheet." [MPs fear C4 documentary on the cost of immigrants will fuel race hatred By Jonathan Oliver, Daily Mail, (UK) September 30th 2007] In making his case against certain immigrant groups Snow did not reach out to a Heritage Foundation-type research organization. The data tables cited in the documentary were drawn up for Channel 4 by a left-leaning think tank: the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR). The IPPR tables reveal that Somalis are the dependency "leaders", with almost 40 percent receiving means-tested public income support. (By contrast, only 4 percent of U.K. natives receive such support.) [Institute for Public Policy Research, Britain's Immigrants: An Economic Profile, September 2007 PDF] Only 19 percent of working age Somalis are employed. Ten percent of this group are unemployed (i.e., looking for work) while a whopping 71 percent are out of the labor force entirely (i.e., not even looking.) [Table 1.] By contrast, 78% of UK natives are employed;4% unemployed; 18% not in the labor force. At the other extreme more than 85 percent of working age immigrants from Australia, France, Canada, and Poland are employed and less than 13 percent are not in the labor force. The IPPR report claims that many Somalis came to the U.K. as refugees with little English, making it difficult to find work. Our question: how do they know work is hard to find when so many aren’t even looking? Somali immigrants also top the IPPR housing table—with 80 percent living in subsidized public housing. The next highest group is Turkish immigrants, at 49 percent. Immigrants from Australia, France, and the U.S. are the least likely to be in public housing—at 5 percent. Seventeen percent of U.K. natives live in public housing. We’ve done similar rankings for immigrant groups in this country—and a comparison is instructive. [Table 2.] Here we rank immigrant groups on the percent that receive means-tested public benefits: In the U.K.: Somalia (39% dependency; 0.14 % of U.K. population) Turkey (21.0 percent; 0.12 percent) Pakistan (11.0 percent; 0.62 percent) Bangladesh (11.0 percent; 0.35 percent) Iran (10.0 percent; 0.10 percent) ---------------------------------------------- In the U.S.: Dominican Republic (57% dependency; 0.24 % of U.S. population) Mexico (43 percent; 3.71 percent) Russia (40 percent; 0.21 percent) Honduras (38 percent; 0.13 percent) Guatemala (36 percent; 0.19 percent) Our immigrants are significantly more dependent and—thanks to the Mexicans—constitute a larger share of our population than their counterparts in the U.K. In fact, most U.K. immigrant groups have lower dependency rates than U.K. natives. [Table 2.] Of the groups with higher dependency rates, many are disproportionately refugees (e.g., the Somalis and Turkish-born) or are naturalized citizens (e.g., the Pakistanis and Bangladeshis.) Implication: The British are doing a better job of vetting public charges out of their immigrant influx than we are. (They get fewer illegals, because the English Channel is wider and deeper than the Rio Grande.) A caveat is in order. Medicaid is the most expensive and widely received means tested benefit available to U.S. immigrants. The U.K. has nothing like it. The U.K.’s system of universal health care is available, well, universally—to immigrant and native, rich and poor. Had IPPR counted national health care as a welfare benefit, the dependency gap between U.K. and U.S. immigrants would narrow, or even reverse. The economic burden of U.K. immigration would appear even larger than portrayed in the IPPR report. As Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman famously said: “It’s just obvious you can’t have free immigration and a welfare state”. -------------------------------------------------- A friend informs me that many, many native New Mexicans have totally dropped out of the health care scene. (She ought to know. She works at the state's biggest free hospital.) It is said they are fed up with interminable waiting, poorly trained doctors and the rudeness of the illegal aliens. That means that these Americans are being out on the back burner while illegal aliens are being tested, treated and given a pat on the back. The illegals have succeeded in driving the people who have paid taxes for years away from their only recourse in this age of over priced medical care. It's comparatively easy, when one's income is well into the six figure range and medical insurance is paid by your employer, to say that the U.S. (read England, Canada) should take care of everyone in this country whether legal or illegal. It's not so easy when you have two kids and your gross income is in the $25,000 range. Just think. We might get engaged in these kinds of conversations if we're not careful: Suffering from a bad case of the flu, the outraged patient bellowed, "Three weeks??? The doctor can't see me for threeweeks??? I could well be dead by then!" Calmly the voice at the other end of the line replied, "If so,would you have your wife call to cancel the appointment?"

Wednesday, October 31, 2007


I've done a Halloween page. With the scariest pictures I had. Are you trembling? The thoughts that I have, seeing these pictures, should make anyone afraid.
Don't forget there's something different when you click the header.
  • Guess who(m?) I'm quoting.
  • "As a matter of fact, I know relations between our governments is good."
  • "Those who enter the country illegally violate the law."
  • "It's in our country's interests to find those who would do harm to us and get them out of harm's way."
  • "Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?"
  • "Well, I think if you say you're going to do something and don't do it, that's trustworthiness."
  • "Will the highways on the Internet become more few?"
  • "I think if you know what you believe, it makes it a lot easier to answer questions. I can't answer your question." Council to turn off street lights at night A Yorkshire council has come up with a radical new way to save money - turning off the street lamps at night. The idea is part of a 'sustainable street lighting strategy' to be considered by City of York Council's ruling executive, says the York Press. Paul Thackray, the council's head of highway infrastructure, says it would minimise the use of natural resources, cut the energy used to power lights, and reduce light pollution. His report says Essex County Council last year agreed a similar scheme to turn off many street lights between midnight and 5am. That move had been criticised, but much of the opposition was "ill-informed", according to Mr Thackray. Opposition Labour group leader David Scott said: "We have to approach with some caution. If I lived in a street where the lights went off, I do not think I would be particularly happy with that." And Jane Mowat, of the Safer York Partnership, added: "Anything that impacted on that feeling of safety, we would be concerned about." But council leader Steve Galloway vowed the executive would not support anything that would reduce public safety. He said: "I know that members will sympathise with the thrust of the report which is aimed at reducing costs and the adverse environmental impacts of the lighting system."


Some facts (I think most of them are true):

1. China has close to 25% of the world's population.

2. Christmas became a national holiday in the US in 1890.

3. Cows sweat through their noses.

4. Deer sleep only 5 minutes a day.

5. Despite a population of well over one billion people, there are only an estimated 250 million televisions in use in China.

6. Dogs can't decipher size. That's why little dogs are mean.

7. Cleveland law forbids you to operate a motor vehicle while sitting in another person's lap.

8. Dave Matthews relocated to the United States to avoid service in the South African Military.

9. Don't even think about having sex while in a moving ambulance in Tremonton, Utah as it is extremely illegal. Of course, a stationary ambulance is another story.

10. Dentists have recommended that toothbrushes be kept at least six feet from toilets to avoid airborne particles resulting from the flush.

11. Dolphins can look in different directions with each eye. They can sleep with one eye open.

12. Cockroaches break wind every 15 minutes.

13. Coffee was first known in Europe as Arabian Wine.

14. Did you know that 85.7% of statistics are made up?

15. Donald Duck comics were banned from Finland because he doesn't wear pants.

16. During pregnancy, the average woman's uterus expands up to five hundred times its normal size.

17. China was the first country to use paper money.

18. During the average human life, you will consume 70 assorted bugs as well as 10 spiders as you sleep.

19. Did you know that crocodiles never outgrow the pool in which they live?

20. Death Valley, California, has a point that is 280 feet below sea level. ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Blogged without comment:

CULTURE Junk Science: Gore belches and moose toots We have already heard that bovine flatulence is contributing to global warming.

Now, another large animal whose methane emissions are warming the planet is under attack. This time, Scandinavian moose are the culprit—they are burping and, er, blowing too much of that other hot air. Norwegian researchers blame their national animal for producing 2,100 kilos of carbon dioxide each per year. By comparison, you would have to travel nearly 8,100 miles by car to emit that much carbon dioxide. Global-warming alarmists and PETA lunatics will undoubtedly butt antlers on this one. Hunting season is coming up in Norway and an estimated 35,000 moose (out of a total population of 120,000) will be killed. Meanwhile, Albert Gore and his gaggle of Gorons continue to prep his ‘08 presidential primary launch pad, but a new peer-reviewed study that challenges his global-warming assumptions was released this week. According to astronomer Ian Wilson, “Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth’s Climate System” (authored by Brookhaven National lab scientist Stephen Schwartz), concludes “that the global economy will spend trillions of dollars trying to avoid a warming of (about) 1.0 K by 2100 A.D. Previously, I have indicated that the widely accepted values for temperature increase associated with a double of CO2 were far too high, i.e. 2-4.5 Kelvin. This new peer-reviewed paper claims a value of 1.1 +/- 0.5 K increase.” Furthermore, Robert Giegengack, chairman of the University of Pennsylvania’s Department of Earth and Environmental Science, said this week that he does not consider global warming to be even among the top ten environmental problems. “In terms of [global warming’s] capacity to cause the human species harm, I don’t think it makes it into the top ten,” says Giegengack. “Gore’s claims that temperature increases solely because more CO2 in the atmosphere traps the sun’s heat—that’s just wrong. It’s a natural interplay. As temperature rises, CO2 rises, and vice versa. It’s hard for us to say CO2 drives temperature. It’s easier to say temperature drives CO2.”

Monday, October 29, 2007


Don't forget to click on the header.
Some things never cease to amaze me. A word of explanation to our foreign readers, first. America has a Presidential election every year. But before anyone can even think of running for that office, they go on a "campaign trail" where they attempt to raise vast sums of money (some raise more money for this one time thing, than a number of countries spend in a year.) and convince the public to vote for them. It's sort of a popularity contest, sort of a "I can tell bigger whoppers than my opponents can" event, or a "see if you can catch me in lies" event.
Every time a campaign gets underway, I am reminded that "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public" and "There's a sucker born every minute."
Every few days some inept polling group lists the "popularity" of the various contenders. I put no stock in these surveys since they are so easy to load to get the answers the people are paying for want.
It seems that an actor and television comedian named Stephen Colbert (the last t is silent) declared on his comedy show that he will run for President.
Mr. Colbert puts a lot of stock in satire and dry wit on his show. But this one is especially funny to me.
In polls held since he announced his candidacy, he will get more votes Bill Richardson.
It seems Colbert appeals to the younger generation (if it was a run off between these two, he'd get my vote too) and those who have a sense of humor.
I am still laughing at this turn of events.
I just had to include this bit of humor, too:
After Fight, Airport Embraces SUX Code SIOUX CITY, Iowa (AP) - City leaders have scrapped plans to do away with the Sioux Gateway Airport's unflattering three-letter identifier - SUX - and instead have made it the centerpiece of the airport's new marketing campaign. The code, used by pilots and airports worldwide and printed on tickets and luggage tags, will be used on T-shirts and caps sporting the airport's new slogan, "FLY SUX." It also forms the address of the airport's redesigned Web site - . Sioux City officials petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration to change the code in 1988 and 2002. At one point, the FAA offered the city five alternatives - GWU, GYO, GYT, SGV and GAY - but airport trustees turned them down. Airport board member Dave Bernstein proposed embracing the identifier. "Let's make the best of it," Bernstein said. "I think we have the opportunity to turn it into a positive." He noted that many airports, including some of the busiest, have forgettable three-letter codes. "I've got buddies that I went to college with in different cities that can't even remember their own birthdays, but they all know the Sioux City designator - SUX," he said. Mayor Craig Berenstein, who in 2002 described SUX as an "embarrassment" to the city, said he views the new slogan as a "cute little way" to make light of the situation.