data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a7c1d/a7c1d9386adf8be18938cfe69f1f453fabf7cff3" alt=""
This piece of artwork accompanied a pretty good SFGate article asking the question "Do we care about animals more than people?" I think in this case the answer is a resounding 'YES!'
The Voice Of Reason... ... In A Town Gone Mad
Aliens, NOT LEGALLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, as opposed to those who are - such as a Resident Aliens - are one in the same, regardless of whether it be for “hostile occupation” or for “designed repopulation” for hostile purposes. The bottom line is, Alien means Alien - and all Aliens not legally present in the United States - to include ILLEGAL ALIENS and the children born of Illegal Alien parents - are clearly EXCLUDED for Citizenship and Residency in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
I swear, we could make some headway on this if only someone in Congress would take this on. Maybe someone has, but they're probably screaming in the dark.
AC: They were all my favorites – especially the shows at Shoreline. It's a beautiful outdoor amphitheater, the Dead's home field, with California chardonnay for sale by the glass (in addition to not being a pot-smoker, I'm not much of a beer-drinker), and I often ran into my college Deadhead friends there. We'd go sailing during the day and see the band at night.
I fondly remember seeing the Dead when I was at Cornell. It was the day of the fabulous Fiji Island party on the driveway “island” of the Phi Gamma Delta House. We'd cover ourselves in purple Crisco and drink purple Kool-Aid mixed with grain alcohol and dance on the front yard. Wait – I think got the order reversed there: We'd drink purple Kool-Aid mixed with grain alcohol and then cover ourselves in purple Crisco – then the dancing. You probably had to be there to grasp how utterly fantastic this was.
Also, I saw the Dead at Sandstone Amphitheater near Kansas City one Fourth of July, and it was an incredibly patriotic experience.
Forget the coyotes. Do you really think your biggest concern is getting bitten by a wild animal?
Frankly, if you are in Golden Gate Park, a far greater danger is that you, or your child, or your pet, will step on a dirty hypodermic needle. Step off the paths, and you'll have plenty of chances.
On a recent weekday morning, I stepped off a path in Golden Gate Park and found -- no more than 100 feet from a McDonalds and right next to scenic Alvord Lake -- a stash of 20 or more new needles, stacked up like pickup sticks, with the orange cap still on them. And tossed on the ground around the pile were dozens of used syringes or "dirty rigs.''
Clearly what they are doing now doesn't seem to be discouraging many campers. Up on Chicken Hill, just up the slope from the busy tennis courts, an entire community was just waking up when we arrived. It wasn't as if they were hiding. A wisp of smoke still curled out of the campfire, and scattered at the top of a well-traveled path were green quart beer bottles.
"It's kind of like one big family,'' camper Valo Astonea said when he poked his head out of his sleeping bag. Among the 10 to 12 campers in the area, Astonea said, there were sometimes intravenous drug users, "but we kind of frown on that here.''
That's not good enough. Inevitably when we write a story like this, there are complaints that we are unsympathetic to the homeless. But this isn't a homeless issue.
This is about a jewel of a public park, more than 1,000 acres of some of the most beautiful terrain in any city anywhere. This isn't about social welfare policy. The foliage must be cleaned along the road sides. The camps have to be controlled week after week after week. And most of all, this can't be a photo op. It has to be a steady, long-term effort.
Nevius is right - this is NOT a homeless issue. The fact is that virtually all of these folks have other places to go. The recent homeless count confirmed what most of us suspected; that nearly a third of "our" homeless became homeless somewhere else before they came here. There is no reason for people to be sleeping in the park other than that they WANT to. It's also clear that this isn't about "living the dream" or "freedom" as it is a nice, well-situated and pretty place to shoot drugs, get drunk, let dogs scare people and basically revert to a feral state. Sadly, there are a lot of allegedly sane residents in the Haight who think there's something "noble" in this. It's not noble; it's just pathetic.
Editor -- Reading through the latest of the never-ending litany of pro-illegal immigrant sob stories from The Chronicle ("Report: Deportation devastating families,'' July 17): I was floored by a comment from Human Rights Watch senior researcher Alison Parker.
"How do you explain to a child that her father has been sent thousands of miles away and can never come home simply because he forged a check?," Parker said.
Am I hearing this right? "Simply because he forged a check?" This is a person who not only violated American law in breaking into the United States in the first place, but broke the law again by forging checks. And I'm supposed to feel sorry for him?
I guess we now have the answer to the oft asked question: "What part of 'illegal' don't you understand?"
Everything, apparently.
Kudos to David K. for calling the Chronicle out for its lopsided bias on the illegal immigration issue. David nails it when he cites the Chronicle's "never-ending litany of pro-illegal immigrant sob stories." The Chronicle is Johnny-One-Note on this subject--- illegal immigrants are always sympathetic characters "just looking for a better life." OK, that is one side of the story. The Chronicle's error lies in refusing ever to present the OTHER side: the burdens and problems illegal immigrants create in this country. I have yet to see a balanced treatment of the topic from the Chronicle's writers and editors, it is always presented from a perspective of sympathy for these poor, downtrodden people who are nothing but a benefit to our economy and culture. I tend to be very much a political moderate, shaded a trifle more to the left than the right, but on this subject I am adamant: illegal immigration is an enormous problem that has severely damaged California and the nation.
sandy5274 wrote:We agree that the San Francisco Chronicle has beome one of the most pro illegal alien lawbreaker criminal backers and totally bias in it's coverage of anything these Illegal Aliens do and the SOB Story Leader of Bleeding Heart Liberal Newspapers and totally out of touch with reality as San Francisco Ding Dong Democrat Speaker Nutty Nancy Pelosi on Illegal Immigration! Since the vast majority of up to 80% of Americans want Illegal Aliens Deported and their Employers and Landlords Arrested and Jailed and Severely Fined! Get Real SF Chronicle Will You? Or become jsut another failing big city newspaper!
Recently, the California Department of Finance projected that there will be some 60 million people living in the state by 2050. At present there are 36 million. The numbers in themselves are frightening enough, but what I find terrifying is the bland assumption that a two-thirds increase in population is inevitable and that the main problem will be creating the infrastructure necessary to house, feed, educate, transport and govern all those people. To me, the main problem is how to keep them from showing up in the first place.
Somehow the numbers in themselves don’t really suggest the sobering weight of this projection. To say that for every three Californians now there will be five in 2050 doesn’t capture the scale of change. If you said that for every three houses now there will be five in 2050, or for every three cars, ditto, you might be getting a little closer to the visceral feel of the thing. But when it comes to houses and cars, California is a land of loaves and fishes, always multiplying in the most unexpected ways. To live in the state is to live with unrelenting change, whether you like it or not, and it has been that way for decades.
But this population increase will mean more than filling up San Bernardino, Riverside and Kern Counties and paving the entire midsection of the state and creating impromptu day-schools and conference centers in stopped traffic. We tend to talk about humans as if they were interchangeable — as if the Californian of 1957 were somehow equivalent to the Californian of 2007. But today’s Californian consumes far more, if you consider consumption in its broadest sense. Draw pictures of those two Californians to the scale of their consumption, and the present-day resident would dwarf his ancestor.
There’s a chance that a mid-21st-century Californian will look back in horror at the enormous consumption footprint of someone living in the state right now. That sense of horror would be good news — a sign that the coming generations had taken to heart that the way we live now, even in its current dimensions, is unsustainable. The trouble, of course, is that a population projection like this one more or less takes it for granted that not much will have changed by 2050. Otherwise, there wouldn’t be 60 million people in the state.
The point of thinking about the future is to help us think about the present. This population forecast is a vivid reminder of the assumptions that make meaningful change so hard. We can’t help believing in growth. We can’t help believing that the way to create change is simply to buy different stuff, so growth doesn’t stop. And we refuse to think seriously about the number of human beings on this planet, a kind of growth that somehow seems “natural” to us. It makes no difference how little each of those 60 million Californians will consume in 2050. The number cannot be negative. It’s nearly impossible to imagine how they could meet their water needs alone.
And then there is the impact of all those people on the other species with which they might have shared the Golden State. In 2007, we remain blindly impervious to the life-claims of almost all other forms of life — to the moral stipulation that their right to life is equivalent to ours. How it will be then I do not know, but if there are indeed 60 million people living in California in 2050, there will be nothing meaningful to be said on the matter, except as a subject of nostalgia.
We like to take it for granted that we’re moving ahead in environmental consciousness. We like to hope that the curve of our environmental awareness will catch up to the curve of our economic growth and things will somehow come into balance. But faith in our progressive enlightenment seems a little misplaced to me, especially when I remember a speech that James Madison gave to his local agricultural society nearly 190 years ago.
Madison said, simply, that we have no reason to suppose that all of Earth’s resources, which support so much living diversity, can rightfully be commandeered to support mankind alone. It seems incredible to me, in 2007, that a former president could articulate such an environmentally sound principle of conscience. But it’s a principle that should move to the very center of our thinking. It should cause us to re-examine not just how we shop and what we drive and who we elect but also how our species reproduces. It should cause us to re-imagine that once and future California, which lies only 43 years away, and make sure that it isn’t barren of all but us humans.
State's population projected to reach nearly 60 million by 2050
Monday, July 9, 2007
(07-09) 14:53 PDT SACRAMENTO, (AP) --
If you think California is crowded now, just wait until 2050.
The Department of Finance predicted Monday that California will have 59.5 million residents when the state reaches the mid-century mark — nearly 22 million more than today.
Hispanics will make up 52 percent of the population in 2050, up from 36 percent currently. Whites, now 43 percent of the population, will drop to 26 percent, while Asians' share will grow by one percentage point to 13 percent and blacks will decline from 6 percent to 5 percent, according to the department's forecast.
Hispanics are projected to become a majority of the population by 2042.
Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, D-Los Angeles, said the report demonstrated the state's need to improve school performance by Hispanics, build housing close to jobs, increase efforts to protect the environment and end the "politics of division."
"If we don't work now to end immigrant bashing and the politics of division, we will allow wedges to form that can pull apart a society whose sheer size along will require enormous tolerance and cooperation to function," he said in a written statement.
The report is updated every three to five years by the department's demographics unit. The most recent previous report was issued in 2004.
Here are some other conclusions in the report released Monday:
_ Los Angeles, with 13 million residents, will remain the state's most heavily populated county, but Riverside will overtake Orange and San Diego counties and become the second most heavily populated, with 4.7 million people.
_ Five Central Valley counties — Sutter, Yuba, Madera, Kern and San Joaquin — will have the biggest percentage increases in population in the first half of the century. Sutter's population will grow more than 200 percent from its current level, to 282,894.
_ Trinity County will have the highest percentage of whites in 2050 — nearly 90 percent. Imperial County will have the biggest percentage of Hispanics — 85 percent. Alameda County will have the biggest concentration of Asians — 33 percent. And the biggest percentage of blacks will be found in San Bernardino County — 13 percent.
Jesus. I've said it before and I'm sure I'll say it again - probably till the day I die - but I'm simply amazed at how overpopulation has simply ceased to be an issue. The writers of this are saying all of this like this is a good thing. And that fucking dickwad Fabian Nunez - can you fucking believe that motherfucker? "Surrender now, Whitey!" Fucking asshole!
I find some of these numbers to be hilarious! First off I think that the 60 million total figure is probably about right. But I think it will probably be about 70% Hispanic, 15% Asian and Arab, 10% White, and 5% Black.
The sheer numbers of non-Hispanics who flee California's coming third-world nightmare will be more than made up for by soaring birthrates, completely uncontrolled immigration and an illegal alien problem that will only grow worse and worse. The only answer to California's (and possibly the nation's) problems at this point would be a quasi-Socialist state - much like Aincient Rome right before the end. And then would come, of course, the end.
So, there you have it. 35 years. if you haven't been writing your Congressional Representatives yet you had better get a fucking move on!These days, times are tough for patriots. Americans are seen as arrogant and selfish around the world. Our reaction to such criticism has always been to turn inward. Anti-immigration and isolationism views dominate during times of national discontent -- as this Fourth of July.
The first anti-immigrant "red scare" began in 1917 as U.S. doughboys fought the Kaiser's soldiers and foreign anarchists exploded bombs in our cities.
As Hitler's armies overran France in 1940, most Americans were isolationist, opposed to fighting in the wars of others. Jews and other refugees fleeing Europe were denied entry to our homeland.
During the unpopular Korean War, U.S. Sen. Joseph McCarthy lectured us on what it meant to be un-American. Laws with strict immigration quotas followed in 1952.
Today, CNN news anchor Lou Dobbs, rails against a tsunami of illegal immigrants flooding across our border with Mexico. Pessimism over a frustrating war abroad often fuels anti-immigrant feelings here at home.To help reverse the growing trend toward Islamophobia and anti-Americanism, we must address legitimate grievances, whether by calling for stepped up condemnation of terrorism on the part of Muslims, or for justice-based solutions to international conflicts.
Equally important, our government should live up to American ideals in practice. Lofty Fourth of July rhetoric must be translated into actions worldwide that show people of all faiths that America is on their side, not against them.
ON THE MORNING OF THE ATTACKS on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, along with a million other readers of the New York Times including many who would never be able to read the paper again, I opened its pages to be confronted by a color photo showing a middle-aged couple holding hands and affecting a defiant look at the camera. The article was headlined in an irony that could not have been more poignant, "No Regrets For A Love Of Explosives." The couple pictured were Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, former leaders of the 1960s’ Weather Underground, America’s first terrorist cult. One of their bombing targets, as it happened, was the Pentagon.
"I don’t regret setting bombs," Ayers was quoted in the opening line of the Times profile; "I feel we didn’t do enough." In 1969, Ayers and his wife convened a "War Council" in Flint Michigan, whose purpose was to launch a military front inside the United States with the purpose of helping Third World revolutionaries conquer and destroy it. Taking charge of the podium, dressed in a high-heeled boots and a leather mini-skirt – her signature uniform – Dorhn incited the assembled radicals to join the war against "Amerikkka" and create chaos and destruction in the "belly of the beast." Her voice rising to a fevered pitch, Dohrn raised three fingers in a "fork salute" to mass murderer Charles Manson whom she proposed as a symbol to her troops. Referring to the helpless victims of the Manson Family as the "Tate Eight" (the most famous was actress Sharon Tate) Dohrn shouted:
Dig It. First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them, they even shoved a fork into a victim’s stomach! Wild!
Embarrassed today by this memory, but unable to expunge it from the record and unwilling to repudiate her terrorist deeds, Dorhn resorts to the lie direct. "It was a joke," she told the sympathetic Times reporter, Dinitia Smith; she was actually protesting America’s crimes. "We were mocking violence in America. Even in my most inflamed moment I never supported a racist mass murderer." In 1980, I taped interviews with thirty members of the Weather Underground who were present at the Flint War Council, including most of its leadership. Not one of them thought Dohrn was anything but deadly serious. Outrageous nihilism was the Weatherman political style. As soon as her tribute to Manson was completed, Dohrn was followed to the Flint platform by another Weather leader who ranted, "We’re against everything that’s ‘good and decent’ in honky America. We will loot and burn and destroy. We are the incubation of your mothers’ nightmares."
...And...
In my experience, what drives most radicals are passions of resentment, envy and inner rage. Bill Ayers is a scion of wealth. His father was head of Detroit’s giant utility Commonwealth Edison, in line for a cabinet position in the Nixon Administration before his son ruined it by going on a rampage that to this day he cannot explain to any reasonable person’s satisfaction (which is why he has to conceal so much). It could be said of Bill Ayers that he was consumed by angers so terrible they led him to destroy his father’s career. But in the 10 hours I interviewed him I saw none of it. What I saw was a shallowness beyond conception. All the Weather leaders I interviewed shared a similar vacuity. They were living inside a utopian fantasy, a separate reality, and had no idea of what they had done. Nor any way to measure it. Appreciating the nation to which they were born, recognizing the great gifts of freedom and opportunity their parents and communities had given them, distinguishing between right and wrong – it was all above their mental and moral ceiling.