I am amazed about the shenanigans elected officials can get up to in the performance of their official duties.
The anti red light runners/speeders cameras have been put under the gun by our wise City Councillors. Well, at least by some of them. Seems four of the nine Councilors refused to attend this meeting.
They were angry about the "negotiations" that led to Brad Winter becoming the president of the Council. The four accused him of reneging on his word to back other people seeking that job. Winter denied that charge. The vote on whether the city can still fine scofflaws was 3 to 2 against this action. (I wonder if those 3 have gotten any tickets?)
I remember that, long ago, I had the delicate job of stopping children's bickering. Had to be careful not to hurt any of the little tyke's feelings. (I wonder what reminded me of that?)
I'm not going to mention names, but the objections of a couple of Councilors strike me about as valid as those children's excuses were.
Happily, the bill must go to Mayor Marty before taking effect. Marty Chavez should veto it, since he's the person who had them installed in the first place. Whew, what luck.
I fired off an email to all of the Councilors this morning. Haven't gotten any replies yet, but this is what I wrote:
I find it very interesting that the City Council is implying that Albuquerque's Mayor and the Chief of Police are lying. To explain that statement, both of these officials have stated that the speeding and red light cameras, at dangerous intersections, have substantially reduced accidents and injuries. The Council, in deliberation, has questioned whether or not this is actual fact. One of my questions is: doesn't the Council have access to records that would show, or not show, whether this is true? Another question: Do any of the Council members, their families or friends have convictions re the speeding and/or red light running?
.
One more thing.
I got this in an email from a friend in another city:
"It never ceases to amaze me to what length politicians go to, to avoid stop sign cameras, that would pay for themselves in a day or two, and wuld(sic) save a lot of lives. Last Wednesday my dad got run over right in the middle of a crosswalk by some cell phone using bimbo who blew right through a stop sign and then took off in a hurry. A camera would have helped to put an end to THAT bad habit.
"Dad is OK but was limping badly for a few days, and regretting that he had just soft bread in his shoping(sic) bag instead of canned or frozen goods. He would have dented that drivers car considerably more than he did."
.
Don't forget to click the header.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
IF IT AIN'T BROKEN, DON'T FIX IT
I am amazed about the shenanigans elected officials can get up to in the performance of their official duties.
The anti red light runners/speeders cameras have been put under the gun by our wise City Councillors. Well, at least by some of them. Seems four of the nine Councilors refused to attend this meeting.
They were angry about the "negotiations" that led to Brad Winter becoming the president of the Council. The four accused him of reneging on his word to back other people seeking that job. Winter denied that charge. The vote on whether the city can still fine scofflaws was 3 to 2 against this action. (I wonder if those 3 have gotten any tickets?)
I remember that, long ago, I had the delicate job of stopping children's bickering. Had to be careful not to hurt any of the little tyke's feelings. (I wonder what reminded me of that?)
I'm not going to mention names, but the objections of a couple of Councilors strike me about as valid as those children's excuses were.
Happily, the bill must go to Mayor Marty before taking effect. Marty Chavez should veto it, since he's the person who had them installed in the first place. Whew, what luck.
I fired off an email to all of the Councilors this morning. Haven't gotten any replies yet, but this is what I wrote:
I find it very interesting that the City Council is implying that Albuquerque's Mayor and the Chief of Police are lying. To explain that statement, both of these officials have stated that the speeding and red light cameras, at dangerous intersections, have substantially reduced accidents and injuries. The Council, in deliberation, has questioned whether or not this is actual fact. One of my questions is: doesn't the Council have access to records that would show, or not show, whether this is true? Another question: Do any of the Council members, their families or friends have convictions re the speeding and/or red light running?
.
One more thing.
I got this in an email from a friend in another city:
"It never ceases to amaze me to what length politicians go to, to avoid stop sign cameras, that would pay for themselves in a day or two, and wuld(sic) save a lot of lives. Last Wednesday my dad got run over right in the middle of a crosswalk by some cell phone using bimbo who blew right through a stop sign and then took off in a hurry. A camera would have helped to put an end to THAT bad habit.
"Dad is OK but was limping badly for a few days, and regretting that he had just soft bread in his shoping(sic) bag instead of canned or frozen goods. He would have dented that drivers car considerably more than he did."
.
Don't forget to click the header.
Monday, December 3, 2007
DECEMBER 7, 1941
The following is the speech given to the members of Congress and the American people on Monday, December 7, 1941. You can almost hear Franklin D. Roosevelt's pain and anguish as you read the words. At least I can.
Click the header for more pictures.
Mr. Vice President, Mr. Speaker, members of the Senate and the House of Representatives:
Yesterday, December 7, 1941 - a date which will live in infamy - the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.
The United States was at peace with that nation, and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with its government and its Emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific.
Indeed, one hour after Japanese air squadrons had commenced bombing in the American island of Oahu, the Japanese Ambassador to the United States and his colleague delivered to our Secretary of State a formal reply to a recent American message. And, while this reply stated that it seemed useless to continue the existing diplomatic negotiations, it contained no threat or hint of war or of armed attack.
It will be recorded that the distance of Hawaii from Japan makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks ago. During the intervening time the Japanese Government has deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.
The attack yesterday on the Hawaiian Islands has caused severe damage to American naval and military forces. I regret to tell you that very many American lives have been lost. In addition, American ships have been reported torpedoed on the high seas between San Francisco and Honolulu.
Yesterday the Japanese Government also launched an attack against Malaya.Last night Japanese forces attacked Hong Kong.Last night Japanese forces attacked Guam.Last night Japanese forces attacked the Philippine Islands.Last night the Japanese attacked Wake Island.And this morning the Japanese attacked Midway Island.
Japan has therefore undertaken a surprise offensive extending throughout the Pacific area. The facts of yesterday and today speak for themselves. The people of the United States have already formed their opinions and well understand the implications to the very life and safety of our nation.
As Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy I have directed that all measures be taken for our defense, that always will our whole nation remember the character of the onslaught against us.
No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people, in their righteous might, will win through to absolute victory.
I believe that I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost but will make it very certain that this form of treachery shall never again endanger us.
Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory and our interests are in grave danger.
With confidence in our armed forces, with the unbounding determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph. So help us God.
I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7, 1941, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese Empire.
Franklin D. Roosevelt - December 8, 1941
.
That war, was not predicated on false reports and guess work. It was a vicious, unforgiveable sneak attack on a nation unprepared for such a conflict. Apologists try to say that America forced Japan to attack us. And I note, in response, that Iraq "forced" us to attack them.
I get mighty sick of the lies that swirl about the falsity mill that Washington has become.
.
Japan attacked us in order to expand its Empire. They did it without caring about the civilians who would be killed and maimed. But they had the gall to denigrate our denigrate our way of ending the war with the least loss of American life. Tough stuff, Japan. You got what was deserved.
HOW ABOUT A QUICKIE?
Friday, November 30, 2007
IT'S TIME FOR AN OLIO POST
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
WELCOME TO MEXICO, YANKEE
There is an article in the header that shows why an immigrant is against Driver's Licenses for illegals. Just click it.
I wanted to get your attention for this post. I know it succeeded in a couple of cases.
.
I'm not sure which political party I'm the most disgusted with over this Driver's Licenses (DL) for illegal aliens business. .
The Democrats, in general, seem to feel that it would be ok to give them out to people who are in this country illegally. Some of the Republican candidates agree with this. .
.
I have a problem with this, however. Since the States issue DL's why should they surrender this right to the Federal government?
.
While watching the almost total lack of any action in any sphere by the sitting Senate and House representatives over the past year, it occurred to me that we don't really need any Federal law ordering the states to issue, or not issue, DLs to illegals. It has been stated that far too many bills (laws, acts, whatever) are approved or disapproved by our representatives without that person even reading them. It may sound cavalier on my part, but it has to be an ugly fact. If it isn't true, then why are so many of them bad and totally inadequate for the subject they concern? After all, the majority of our reps are college grads and the majority of them are lawyers. I've heard, from other sites, that the poor dears are so overworked they sometimes don't have time to read what they are voting on.
.
Busy with what? Well, they have to see all the lobbyists and other people with an axe to grind to help individual businesses. And then there are the (paid for) trips to other lands, vacation spots, holiday events and tours and meetings in various locations around the U.S. and the world.
.
But about issuing DLs to illegals. Is it possible that those in power don't grasp the fact that once one has a DL, it is a simple matter to register to vote? Voter registration cards are easy to get, easy to fill out and easy to return to the registrar. If you remember the application you filled out years ago, they don't even ask if you are a citizen. So I guess that means we must be quite willing to allow non-citizens to elect our law makers. Maybe we should send a few millions to China and Iran and Russia and North Korea and any other country that wants them? And let's not forget those countries that our State Department says we shouldn't visit. They'd probably love to help elect a President and Representatives for us.
.
I'm quoting from a comment in http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071115/OPINION03/711150362 "Iowa on its own, however, could issue driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. It's a matter of public safety. That's why the New Iowans Policy Task Force, created by former Gov. Tom Vilsack, asked the 2007 Legislature to consider doing just that. That idea went nowhere, and it's not likely to go anywhere in 2008, especially after what happened in New York. Ignoring the problem, however, will not make it go away."
.
Iowa, and all our states need to recognize that we, and the illegals, are a mobile country. If I can get a license from Iowa (or any other state) it is a simple matter to then apply for a new license from any other state as a new resident.
.
I seem to remember a famous American who said, unequivocally: "Beware of entangling alliances." I feel like a definite minority accepting that quote.
Friday, November 23, 2007
IS IT IN YOUR FOOD? IS THE FED IN YOUR FOOD?
If you look carefully, you'll see a little illegal alien in this picture.
The lettuce is called mache in Spanish, Valerianella locusta in Latin. It's a gourmet form of lettuce. And it is sold in many food stores in the Southwest.
I don't know anything other than that about it. Well, maybe the fact the animal is apparently a frog, carrying who knows what diseases.
In fact the idea of consuming any of this lettuce is not being given any room in my cluttered mind.
How should I put it? "There's enough s**t in my head now"? "No more p**s and vinegar, thank you"? You get the idea.
.
When America imports food stuffs don't we have the right to ask that it be readied for us by our standards?
Well, yes. And no.
Yes, we have the right to demand this from our federal and state governments.
No we don't, according to the sellers and buyers of the the raw product. (Raw seemed to fit well here.)
.
Complaining to either of these governments (ours and theirs) can be most frustrating and lead one in circles that are like crop circles (do you suppose?) that never seem to end. If you don't believe that, here's a little test you can perform.
Write down a question to ask the IRS. Call the IRS, read the question and carefully record the response with pen and paper. Hang up, call the 1-800 number again and read the same question. Write down their answer. Hang up and call the number again. Read the question. Write down their answer. The odds are all three will be different responses. Keep calling and you might get an infinite variety of answers. And the IRS cannot be held responsible if they give you the wrong answer and you wind up with a fine and late fees. That's in their rules.
Federal Income Tax was first started in 1862 to pay for the Civil War and was eliminated in 1872. Then it was revived in 1894 and declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court the next year.
In 1913, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution made the income tax a permanent blight on our lives.
The Social Security Act was signed into law in 1935 and the first payment was made into it in 1937. Under this law, only retirement benefits were paid to the primary worker. In 1939 a change in the law added survivors benefits and benefits for the retiree's spouse and children. In 1956 Disability benefits were added. The original 1935 law contained the first national unemployment compensation program, aid to the states for various health and welfare programs, and the Aid to Dependent Children program.
Franklin Roosevelt, President and multimillionaire, saw that many businesses had no retirement nor pension plans and forced the bill through a Congress who did not want it enacted. They were afraid of losing the support of big business who supplied them with perks and money for re-election campaigns.
The cost was low to the average wage earner. A few pennies out of their paychecks. People thought, correctly, that there would be some money coming in after the business world was through with them. Poor houses would become a thing of the past. And the people were right and the houses disappeared. And contentment reigned in the country. (The children of the retirees were happy that they wouldn't have to hold two jobs to support the parents in their old age. Parents were happy because they wouldn't have to take orders from their snot nosed kids. Everybody was happy.
COLA (Cost Of Living Adjustment) were first paid in 1975. Before that, Congress played the catch me when you can game before giving them raises.
However, Congress, which gives itself and the President raises when it feels like it, decided that retired people didn't need to have their COLA figured on the same basis that Federal Government employees did. Maybe they thought that retirees paid less for food, less for cars and gasoline and repairs, less for housing costs, less for clothing than gov employees. Maybe.
.
This coming year, retirees are being treated to a magnificent 2.3% COLA because of the way it is figured. (Bean counters another 1, citizens 0.) The message I see the government sending is: If you don't like it, stick it in your gas tank. I think that perhaps the last president we had who really cared about the average citizen was John F. Kennedy.
.
Oh, clicking on the header will take you into an entirely different world.
. I confess, it was a sneaky way to get into this subject.