Thursday, June 28, 2007
It isn’t principle. Principle suggests that enforcing laws already on the books would trump the craven expediency that allows politicians to ignore them when it suits their purposes–as in ignoring all the enforcement aspects of the “Immigration Control and Reform Act of 1986.”
It isn’t integrity. Integrity is about having core beliefs that can neither be bought, sold nor “horse-traded” away.
It isn’t patriotism. Patriotism would suggest that American interests come first. In various places around the country, American politicians have already granted illegal aliens drivers licenses, access to bank accounts, in-state college tuition, welfare, free schooling, free hospital services and sanctuary city protections from federal immigration officials. In some cases, you’re better off being an illegal than an American citizen when it comes to access or entitlement.
It isn’t statesmanship. The Congressional approval rating is at 14%, the lowest number since the Gallup poll began tracking it in 1973. Americans know the difference between statesman and a collection of self-interested political hacks–even if the hacks themselves don’t.
So what is it? In the words of “The Godfather’s” Vito Corleone: “It’s nothing personal. It’s strictly business.” Can you say "Wall Street Journal"? How about “trans-national corporations?” To be blunt, there are American elitists who, along with their fellow travelers in other parts of the world, believe that countries are “anachronistic” and that globalization, as in the free movement of products services–and people– without regard to culture, law or borders is the wave of the future.
American laws and American workers? Our culture, language and borders? Secondary to corporate “synchronization” on a world-wide scale. Global coordination of goods and services trumps national interest–period. American politicians? Accomplices to the ongoing sell-out of American sovereignty and the burgeoning influence of internationalist businessmen–who could care less about who produces what or where it’s done, as long as profits are maximized.
Within this odious framework, "comprehensive immigration reform" makes perfect sense.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
A tale of two advocacy groups
The New York Times: fair, balanced, and unafraid.
****related: Overheard at a Manhattan cocktail party (or a Marin / San Francisco / West LA cocktail party, for that matter):
Man: “How many hicks does it take to screw in a lightbulb?”
Woman: “I don’t know. How many?”
Second woman: ” — Excuse me, I’m sorry to interrupt. Consuela, dear? We’re running low on crab puffs again. Go fetch another tray and make the rounds again, would you?
“Now where were we. Oh yes. Hicks. Do tell, how many of them does it take to screw in a lightbulb? Because I suspect it would be plenty, given that they’re so, you know, stupid and poorly groomed.”
Monday, June 25, 2007
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
This is because of a high number of H-1B immigration visas issued, and foreign workers are driving wages in the tech fields down. Essentially, the H-1B workers are indentured servants for the tech industry.
This mass immigration is the least objectionable because the immigrants are skilled and usually English speaking. However, if you are an American student who studied your engineering and programming hard and played by the rules, doesn't it just annoy you that your hard work was just devalued? And they want American kids to work and study hard? When something pays less, you get less of it.
And so many native born Americans go work in business management or finance/insurance/real estate, where their English skills and cultural literacy give them a leg up on the people from India and China, which they definitely *don't* have in computer science.
In other words, what has happened with the H-1B visa is the white collar / upper class version of what happened to wages in the construction and building trades when large numbers of illegal alien day laborers showed up. Only in the latter case, it became easier for the unskilled and muscular to become welfare bums and "thugz".
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
You know Karl Rove would be a liar,
If he was to say to you,
The problems couldn't get much higher....
And here's some clips of that song from Jose Feliciano, a real American of Latino heritage.
U.S. Border Patrol agents seeking to secure the nation's border in some of the country's most pristine national forests are being targeted by illegal aliens, who are using intentionally set fires to burn agents out of observation posts and patrol routes.Gee, I wonder where the environmentalists are on this??? But hey, the trees were burned by "people of color", not logged by American corporations, so I guess it's okay, right?
The wildfires have destroyed valuable natural and cultural resources in the National Forest System and pose an ongoing threat to visitors, residents and responding firefighters, according to federal law-enforcement authorities and others.
In the Coronado National Forest in Arizona, with 60 miles of land along the U.S.-Mexico border, U.S. Forest Service firefighters sent in to battle fires or clear wild-land fire areas are required to be escorted by armed law-enforcement officers.
Illegal aliens--starting the forest fires that Americans won't start.
"As larger areas of the border come under operational control, we can expect violence to increase as smuggling operations can no longer operate with impunity and do not have unfettered access to the border for their criminal activities," Border Patrol Chief David V. Aguilar told a Homeland Security subcommittee this year.They all just want a better life, right?
"This explosion of aggression is an indicator how desperate and angry drug and human traffickers are at the increasing disruption of their smuggling routes," he said.
"We Didn't Start The Fire"-- THEY DID!
Monday, June 18, 2007
Senator Dorgan gets it, and sadly the greedheads and "Hispandering" immigration dreamers in the Republican Party do not.
What was the key to Reagan's victories in 1980 and 1984? Former Democrats, disgusted with the Commiecrat factions that had taken over that party. The Democrat party became dominated by either racist hypocrite hucksters like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, or America hating pseudo academics and communist leftovers (think Howard Dean or Dennis Kucinich). Today it is a Demunist Commiecrat party.
The working class, disgusted, voted for a man like Reagan, who shared their patriotism and their contempt for nanny state Commiecrats who wanted (and still want) to be their overlords.
Unfortunately, Bush the Elder lost touch, which led to a charlatan like Ross Perot appealing to many of these people in 1992. Newt won them back in 1994, but now Bush The Younger is losing them again.
Sadly, Bush The Younger is cheered on by (1) the cheap labor greedheads at the Wall Street Journal and (2) by the dewy eyed dreamers who think we can "Hispander" and make people vote Republican who frankly will be seduced by the welfare state into voting Democrat, even hardcore Commiecrat, anyway.
Now dreamers and greedheads have their place in the Republican Party. The Contract With America was in large part idealistic; thinkers like Newt who dare big dreams can be very beneficial to the Party if they are tempered by realism. Greedhead economic policies HAVE stimulated our economy, in the face of terrorism and rising commodity prices.
But the greedheads and dreamers have run amok and need to be put in check. Hopefully Tancredo (or Hunter, or Thompson) can help to do it.
2. "I don't believe in rounding up 11 million people [illegal aliens] and forcing them at gunpoint from our country."-- Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, Associated Press, 29 March 2006
Obviously, Mitt Romney is right, if only for pragmatic reasons--without a border wall to keep them out, the deported illegals are back within days, weeks tops, after they are thrown out. Dog chasing tail. It is EASILY cheaper for us to build a Great Wall from San Diego to Brownsville, stemming the flow of illegal aliens, than it is to hire that many ICE (formerly INS) agents and pay that large a bureaucracy staff to administer the roundups. Seriously. Local law enforcement is overwhelmed and cannot do it.
But this is a false argument, and very disappointing of Mitt. No significant politician, not even Tom Tancredo, has ever proposed such an action, so Governor Romney has stated a politically safe, yet useless point. Which, sadly, is all to familiar in present day American politics. Sure, we can't just round 'em up and throw 'em out, but we can better enforce our immigration laws, go after those who employ illegal aliens, secure our borders, and above all, STOP rewarding the illegals with "Z-Visa" de facto amnesty.
3. Michael Medved says that an "enforcement only" immigration bill is impossible in a Democrat controlled Congress, which is why he continues to insist on this fraud known as "Comprehensive Immigration Reform". He continues the mantra that "it's better than the status quo" because it at least secures the borders a little bit more....
Sorry, a partial securing of the border is NOT ENOUGH, it must be a FULL securing, or else it is the 1986 scam all over again. Everyone with half a brain knows that.
For starters, I wouldn't be too sure of the impossibility of real immigration reform in a Democrat dominated congress, since Tom Tancredo, the congressman that Mr. Medved loves to impugn and smear, just managed to get a bill through the U.S. House of Representatives to withhold federal emergency services funding for "sanctuary cities" that protect illegal immigrants. The House passed the amendment, 234 to 189, with 50 Democrats voting in favor.
But even if what Michael is saying is true, I can only reply: FINE. LET THE DEMOCRATS TAKE THE BLAME. Republican congressional victories in 2008 and 2010.
Why does Michael now suffer from the same "Do Something Disease" that he so rightly diagnoses in others, when it comes to this issue???? Is he that much of a Bushyrovie hack?
Sunday, June 17, 2007
If (every state moving its primary forward) turns out to be the case, we will have moved toward a de facto early national primary, which not only devalues retail politics but forces voters to make a decision all at once without seeing how candidates stand up under the rigors of campaigning. Is there an alternative? My favorite is the Delaware Plan, which came close to being endorsed by the 2000 Republican National Convention. It has four rounds of primaries or caucuses, with the 13 smallest states voting in March, followed by the 13 next largest in April, the next 12 in May, and ending with the final 12 largest states voting in June. This would leave plenty of room for retail politics, with candidates able to pick the states where they might run best.
Voters in later states would be able to judge how candidates run the gauntlet. The nominations could not be clinched until June, since the 12 largest states have 60 percent of the nation's population. The parties could endorse this system at their national conventions. Or if there was bipartisan consensus, Congress could impose it as federal law. Iowa and New Hampshire have been disproportionately powerful for 30-plus years now. But maybe not forever.
Friday, June 15, 2007
Aide: Sir, with all due respect, I don’t think you can just replace the American people as part of some political strategy.
GWB: Nonsense, boy! The Brain here’s got it all worked out. Tell him, Genius!
Karl Rove: White people are yesterday’s news, son. They don’t have kids anymore and they don’t vote in a bloc. Tomorrow is all about the Hispanic vote. It’s a plan I call “Tomorrow’s Manana,” and it’s working like a charm. Did you know that Dubya here got over 40% of the Hispanic vote in one of his elections? Now imagine if the Hispanic population were doubled! That’s over 40% of almost twice as many people!
Aide: Wouldn’t you need to get more than 50% of a group to benefit from its doubling?
Karl Rove: We may have us a bigot, here, Dubya.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
John Fund, goober greedhead of the Wall Street Journal, asks: Americans overwhelmingly support voter ID. Are they all racists? He also points out how the eight attorneys fired by the Bush administration deserved to be fired for their willingness to look the other way at voter fraud.
But he just can't bring himself to admit that the border anarchy supported by the Wall Street Journal is precisely what has made voter fraud (and fake ID's) so rampant.
Repeat after me, goober greedhead: Stolen elections and rampant corruption means that illegal immigration is a very bad idea, no matter how cheap my maid and gardener happen to be.
Meanwhile Victor Davis Hanson points out who the real bigots are:
Most cynical of all, however, are the moralistic pundits, academics and journalists who deplore the "nativism" of Americans they consider to be less-educated yokels. Yet their own jobs of writing, commenting, reporting and teaching are rarely threatened by cheaper illegal workers.
Few of these well-paid and highly educated people live in communities altered by huge influxes of illegal aliens. Their professed liberality about illegal immigration usually derives from seeing hardworking waiters, maids, nannies and gardeners commute to their upscale cities and suburbs to serve them well — and cheaply.
In general, such elites don't use emergency rooms in the inner cities and rural counties overcrowded by illegal aliens. They don't drive on country roads frequented by those without licenses, registration and insurance. And their children don't struggle with school curricula altered to the needs of students who speak only Spanish.
For many professors, politicians and columnists, the gangs, increased crime and crowded jails that often result from massive illegal immigration and open borders are not daily concerns, but rather stereotypes hysterically evoked by paranoid and unenlightened others in places like Bakersfield and Laredo.
So, what is the truth on illegal immigration?
Simple. Millions of fair-minded white, African-, Asian-, and yes even Mexican-Americans fear that we are not assimilating millions of aliens from south of the border as fast as they are crossing illegally from Mexico.
In the frontline American Southwest, entire apartheid communities and enclaves within cities have sprung up whose distinct language, culture and routines are beginning to resemble more the tense divides in the Balkans or Middle East than the traditional melting pot of multiracial America.
Concern over this inevitable slowdown in integration and assimilation is neither racist nor nativist. It grows out of real worry that when millions of impoverished arrive in mass without legality, education and the ability to speak English, costly social problems follow that will not be offset by the transitory economic benefits cheap wages may provide.
Those fretting about delays in sealing the border along with proposed fast-track visas, millions of new guest workers and neglect of existing immigration law are neither illiberal nor cynical. But their self-righteous critics may well be both.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Jim De Mint, another Senate Hero along with Jeff Sessions, points out the flaws in the bills four "enforcement triggers".
Mickey Kaus brilliantly rips apart the "comprehensive" talking points:
1. If all these enforcement measures are so wonderful, why not enact just them and drop the questionable legalization part? Bush is holding the parts of the bill everyone says they want hostage to the parts he wants.
2. If we tried the enforcement parts first, then we wouldn't have to trust the federal government. We could make sure the measures work before we go ahead with legalization (and attract a new wave of legalization-seeking illegals).
3. The bill does require "that we meet border security objectives before certain other provisions can take effect." Unfortunately, legalization is not one of those "certain other provisions." Legalization is immediate under the bill.
4. "[I]f ... they're not obeying the law, they get sent out." Of course, most of them will be obeying the law ... because what was illegal will have been legalized! As for whether the government will actually get it together to send people home if, say, they've come illegally after the January, 2007 cutoff--well, again, let's see whether that "investment" in enforcement pays off.
5. If illegals "live in fear" under the status quo, as we're told, then how is the status quo "silent amnesty"?
Monday, June 11, 2007
And of course, here is that classic "The Buggles" MTV Video link.
Hat Tip to Cap'n Ed, who makes the following very good points (I paraphrase):
The porno industry has discovered an old truth passed down from mothers to daughters: that no one buys a cow when they can get the milk for free. Pornographers helped transform the Internet into a bonanza of free pornography, but the new technology is a double-edged sword.
Moreover, production values in the porno industry have never been strong. They have spent decades turning out dull, repetitive crap in bright packages. It should come as no surprise that with the new technologies, their customers can turn out THEIR OWN equally dull, repetitive crap, and for free.
This puts the porno industry in a tough position. Having created the demand on the Web, they have undermined their position in traditional distribution channels, such as adult book stores and mail-order. None of the other channels have the impulse access and the privacy that the Web does, and they have too much overhead to compete with the freebies and the small-business model operations that have outsleazed them.
In many ways, this mirrors the problems of the traditional media. When everyone can become their own "blog" publisher, then content explodes -- and potential customers suddenly have a lot of choices, much of it free. At least Newspapers and other traditional media still have an advantge in that they create content outside of the reach of almost all of the New Media pioneers, hiring reporters around the nation and around the world. That creates a bright-line separation between them and the bloggers and independent journalists, even if the quality and the bias often leave the traditional media product open for well-deserved criticism from the bloggers.
I am reminded of an exchange from the movie, "Boogie Nights":
Porn financier Floyd Gondolli (Philip Baker Hall): "This here's the future. Videotape tells the truth."In 1979, the future was videotape and home VCR viewing, and those sleazy theatres went out of business.
Porn director Jack Horner (Burt Reynolds): "Wait a minute. You come into my house, my party, to tell me about the future? That the future is tape, videotape, and not film? That it's amateurs and not professionals? I'm a filmmaker, which is why I will never make a movie on tape."
But with the rise of YouTube and internet streaming, could "Jack Horner's" vision of actual porn films, with actual acting, elaborate storylines and professional production values, make a comeback on DVD? In other words, make an arty porn product that people might want to buy for its own sake?
(Think of it as an update on the straightlaced, and often conservative, men who used to read Playboy "for the articles" which were witty and well written.)
Probably not, because too many of the porn consumers are just interested in getting off and that's that.
Sunday, June 10, 2007
Thursday, June 07, 2007
Inside a residence along the American River, some of Sacramento's most prominent Democrats rationed lamb chops and wine without their guest of honor Thursday. Outside stood anti-war protesters, a flag-draped coffin and more than 100 guests in dinner attire, all waiting for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. . . . Mainstream Democrats mixed with liberal activists in the street outside the home of developer Eleni Tsakopoulos-Kounalakis. . . ."Mainstream Democrats" brought this upon themselves....you can't have your moonbat cake and eat it too...
The Sacramento developer and Democratic fundraiser was . . . upset with anti-war activist Stephen Pearcy, partly because he had disrupted her reception and partly because she sees herself--and [Mrs.] Clinton--as opponents of the Iraq war.In other words, don't these moonbats understand that they're supposed to be political pawns who serve the Democrats? They have some nerve to protest them instead. Some people just don't know their place!
"I don't understand why in the world he would disrupt something like our event because, frankly, it is simply appalling that he and his friends are not going after the people in this (Bush) administration who have caused this war," Tsakopoulos-Kounalakis said Monday. " . . . That man has got the wrong people, us and her, and he should be ashamed of himself. He should be absolutely ashamed." . . .
"I think a lot of people were somewhat irritated by these protesters," [guest Jim] Moose said. "On the other hand, I think people have the right to protest. I'm not outraged by these people expressing their free-speech rights, but I think these protesters are missing the boat. . . . They could have found someone more politically
conservative to protest than major Democratic candidates."
Also in other words, the "Mainstream Democrats", who know that we just can't pull out of Iraq and turn Baghdad 2007 into Saigon 1975, are fellow traveling opportunists. Nice....
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
You know, if there was a smart Democrat candidate, or even just one of the old-school labor union types, he would push an enforcement only package deal and call it "The American Worker's Living Wage Act". It would be a Nixon-To-China moment, only domestic. And by gum, he would even WIN on it.
Lucky for Republicans, the multi-commiecrat hate-Whitey (and increasingly hate the Jews and Asians too) "identity politics" faction in the party is too strong to ever contemplate that.
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Michael Medved, a talk show host and commentator I used to respect, had a great phrase to describe this mentality--the "do something disease", a term he used to describe legislation that wouldn't work but was being peddled to show that the legislators cared or because it made people feel better. Unfortunately, he has fallen victim to his own disease, and he is urging his listeners to go along with this "comprehensive" crap.
So… it’s unacceptable, even dangerous to do “nothing,” about illegal immigration? Let’s take a look at what doing “nothing” actually does for us.
Last year, the Congress passed a bill which the president signed creating close to 800 miles of security fencing along America’s southern border. The “grand bargain,” as it’s being called in the Senate, calls for hundreds fewer miles of border fencing. Hmmm… let’s see… this means by doing “nothing” and not passing this terrible immigration bill, we actually get MORE border fence. That doesn’t sound unacceptable or dangerous to me.
Next, let’s look at employer enforcement. There are numerous laws on the books right now to crack down on the hiring of illegal aliens. What’s lacking, of course, is the political will to enforce those laws. For some reason, the White House and some members of the Senate want America to believe that with the new bill will come a new courage to enforce those laws?
Show of hands… how many believe that???
So, by doing “nothing,” we still have laws against hiring illegal aliens and still have an administration with no spine for enforcement. I guess it’s not really dangerous or unacceptable to not pass the bill in this case either… let’s just enforce the laws we have.
In addition, the “temporary” worker plan does more than provide for cheap labor to come into America. According to the bill, each “temporary” worker is allowed to bring his spouse and children with him. Thus, the temporary worker has now become a permanent family in America which will likely draw more social services. The bill has yet to address the problem of “anchor babies,” so if these temporary workers have children in America, those children are now U.S. citizens. That doesn’t sound very temporary to me.
Then, there is the concept of deporting those who continue to break the law. As Bobby Eberle noted, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said that “illegal immigrants living in the United States who don’t try to gain legal worker status will be forced to leave.”
“The people who don’t apply and don’t get the Z visa are going to be hunted down and they’re going to get deported,” Chertoff told FOX News. “So there’s a very clear choice: You can either bring yourself into the system and find, you know, safety, pay your fine, and work within the law, or you can stay outside the law and we’re going to focus our attention on those people and deport them.”
What the administration and Senate “leaders” are saying is that with the passage of this bill, America will deport the law breakers. Wait a second… Didn’t they say it was impractical to consider mass deportation? And they are right, it is....
YET: Isn’t that what they are saying they will do if the new bill is passed? Ok, then let’s go after law breakers now and deport them! We don’t need a new bill to do that, do we?
Sorry, Bushyrovies, you can't have it both ways.
Meanwhile, Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama gives us 20 reasons why this bill is worse than "doing nothing".
Above all, why can't we just pass a secure the borders and enforcement only bill, and then take up the issue of what to do with the illegals trapped north of the now impenetrable border later?
Is it because the Democrats will block it? GOOD--THEN THEY, THE DEMOCRATS, TAKE THE BLAME. Republican landslides in 2008 and the Congressional elections of 2010.
(Real Republicans that is, not Bushyrovie greedheads or Hispandering romantic fools)
Monday, June 04, 2007
I've concluded that John Edwards is right! There ARE "Two Americas", largely because of people like him.
No, I'm not talking exactly about how Edwards lives in a mansion and sports $400 haircuts while charging in excess of $50,000 for speeches on the subject of "poverty in America" to breathless university crowds, all the while he assures us that he has never forgotten his meager origins (which were actually quite middle class, even well to do by Deep South standards) and how he wants us to believe that he still identifies with those who have been left out of what Bill Clinton once called "life's lottery."
Sure, that may annoy, but that's really NOT the "Two Americas" difference.
The REAL "Two Americas" divide is not one of lifestyle, of claiming to be for the poor while being filthy rich, but rather one of an attitude, a state of mind, a world view.
That world view is at the heart of the cultural divide over illegal immigration.
Their America, consisting of elites like the Breck Girl, is pushing this monstrosity of an immigration bill. And rest assured, they are not among those of us in Our America who will have to suffer the consequences of their actions.
There are, indeed, two Americas. Our America lives in homes on the streets, avenues and boulevards of this country, in increasingly close proximity to Mexican street gangs, many of which are encroaching on previously nice neighborhoods. Their America lives in gated communities. They don't even see the illegals. They hear about them on the news. They know they exist, but unless they hire them to clean their homes, they will never have contact with them.
Our America watches as our teens are decimated by methamphetamines, 75 percent of which comes across our porous southern border and straight into our communities. Their America believes such risks are worth it to ensure a plentiful supply of cheap labor.
Our America is exposed to unknown diseases every day while shopping among the illegals at Wal-Mart. Their America wouldn't be caught dead at Wal-Mart.
Our America depends on education and health care systems that are being crippled by a flood of illegals. Their America does not.
Most of Our America watches as our already mediocre government school systems are overburdened by mandates to teach the children of people who don't belong in our country. Their America sends their children to private schools.
Sometimes Our America digs deep to send our kids to private schools too, at the price of foregoing services, like the cheap immigrant gardeners and maids that service Their America.
Sadly, George W. Bush, despite our support of him, has cast his lot with Their America.
Sunday, June 03, 2007
Maybe the answer is obvious: Women get pregnant because they want to have babies. As Kay S. Hymowitz, author of "Marriage and Caste in America," puts it, "There isn't really a bright line between wanted and unwanted pregnancies." There are plenty of women who become careless about birth control on purpose.
Whether they're suburban professionals with two sons who really want a daughter and hope to "convince" hubby for a third try with a "mistake", or poor inner-city women who hope their boyfriends will stay around if there is a child in the picture, women will often subvert their better judgment to fulfill a biological urge.
This is not the sort of sentiment that sits well with the leftist feminists, who have a dogma that women are *always* the ones thinking with their heads instead of their hormones. But according to the Guttmacher Institute, there are about three million unintended pregnancies in the U.S. every year, and six in 10 U.S. women having abortions are already mothers. More than half intend to have (more) children in the future. These ladies know exactly how one gets pregnant, and how one does not.
...A disproportionate number of poor women, it turns out, account for those 1.3 million abortions every year. But this is not because, as (the "sex educators") might argue, they are disproportionately uneducated when it comes to sex and birth control. It's because, having decided to "unintentionally" get pregnant, they quickly realize that having a baby is not feasible. Whereas the suburban married professional might have to stretch her family's income a bit further to make room for an unplanned third child, the poor single woman might find herself without a man in her life four months into her pregnancy and determine that raising a child by herself just isn't an option.
(The "abstinence educators") could conclude that the poor woman simply needs a stronger education in values. But that is not quite right, either. However unfortunate her decision to abort, the poor woman probably knows that it would be better for everyone involved if her child were raised in a stable two-parent household. She just hoped that she would have one in time. Education, it seems, can do only so much.
Saturday, June 02, 2007
The 16 minutes it took Christopher Newton to die once chemicals began flowing into his veins was the longest stretch that any of the state's inmates executed since 1999 has endured, an Associated Press review shows.To quote Tony Soprano: "You don't say..."
During that span Thursday--more than twice as long as usual, and 5 minutes longer than the state's previous longest on record--Newton's stomach heaved, his chin quivered and twitched, and his 6-foot, 265-pound body twice mildly convulsed within the restraints. . . .
"It seems too long," Ohio State University surgeon Jonathan Groner said. "The whole thing seems agonizing."
He's UNCONSCIOUS, right? Why all the boo hoo hooing?
How about a little perspective, huh?
11:37 a.m.: Signal given for chemicals to begin flowing.
11:39 a.m.: Newton's eyes close.
11:40 a.m.: Newton's belly begins to heave, his chin and face shudder and twitch, and his body twice mildly convulses on the table within his restraints.
11:45 a.m.: Movements stop. (In other words, off to permanent slumberland, asshole)
11:51 a.m.: Curtain between witnesses and death chamber is pulled for coroner examination.
11:53 a.m.: Newton declared dead.
This is all that the AP story had to say about the victim:
Newton had insisted on the death penalty as punishment for choking and beating the victim, 27, his cellmate at the Mansfield Correctional Center, over a chess game in 2001.OK, but how long did the victim take to die? A rough estimate in a January 2006 AP dispatch:
The man died a few hours after the attack at Ohio State University Medical Center. Newton told authorities he made a rope and later cut a strip from his prison jumpsuit to strangle the victim when the rope broke. He also stomped on the man's head, throat and chest.Presumably "a few hours" means at least three, so that the victim took at least 164 minutes longer than Newton to die, or at least 11 times as long.
The actually time of death was 11 hours after the savage beating began, or 660 minutes, at least 41 times as long as Newton's sixteen minutes.And the murderer had it too hard, huh?
You'd think the criminal-coddling crowd would have some sympathy for the victim in this case, since he was a fellow felon, but he was only in for attempted burglary, which we suppose means his life wasn't as valuable as a murderer's.
More on those "few" hours: MANCI nurse Diane Burson testified that when she responded to cell 115, the man was not breathing and had no pulse. Burson and responding paramedics worked diligently, and eventually the victim's heart began to beat. Ditmars testified that while medical personnel were trying to save the man's life, Newton was laughing and yelling, “ ‘Let him die. I killed him.’ ” According to Douglas, Newton said, “ ‘[F]uck that bitch [the victim]. You might as well not even work on him. He is already dead.’ ” Nurse Butcher recalls Newton periodically shouting to the paramedics, “ ‘Stop, let the fucker die.’ ” State Highway Patrol Trooper Doug Hamman described Newton as singing, “‘[T]here is nothing like the taste of fresh blood in the morning.’”
After paramedics established a heartbeat, the man was taken to MedCentral Hospital, then flown to the Ohio State University Medical Center, where he was
declared brain dead around 2:30 p.m. After an autopsy, Dr. Dorothy Dean, a
forensic pathologist, concluded that he had died from a ligature strangulation. The victim also suffered other injuries to his head and body consistent with his having been kicked or stomped on.
After the assault, Newton told Lieutenant Hilbert Mealey, a MANCI CO, that he had allowed the man to lie for an hour in the cell because Newton knew that paramedics would try to save his life. Newton told Mealey that he had more fun in prison than on the outside. MANCI Lieutenant Joe Albert recalled that Newton had seemed very happy and had repeatedly asked, “ ‘Did I kill him? Is he dead?’ ” Newton also said, “[I]f he is not dead, I hope he is going to be a vegetable.”
This event is also YET ANOTHER justification for capital punishment, besides the deterrent effects. Not only do I not trust death penalty opponents when they claim that they will "lock murderers up and throw away the key" instead, but what do you do when the lifer murders, or even maims or disfigures or severely brutalizes, other inmates or guards? Sentence him to another life term?
Thanks, to "Dead Man Eating".
Friday, June 01, 2007
You know, I stuck up for Bush when the Demunist Commiecrats tried to make scandals out of nothing:
And THIS is how we, the loyal supporters, are rewarded? By being called Klansmen because we don't want our country overrun and our public services bled dry by ingrates, just so the Bushyrovies can have cheap gardeners and maids?
Kiss off, Dubby. The Bushyrovies think they can get by without us. So, let them...with "allies" like Bush, who needs political enemies?
I used to think, "hey, lesser of evils..." But, sorry, but there ARE some "sine qua non" issues, and, along with the GWOT and Supreme Court nominees, this is one of them.
We always knew Bush was a softie on immigration and suffered from the "winning through Hispandering" delusion (sorry, votes in every election since 2000 prove this a failure), but we at LEAST thought he would "do thy patient no harm" and not do something significantly worse. This bill IS significantly worse.
"No Child Left Behind" farce? Prescription drug entitlement boondoggle? Disappointing, but not deal breakers. This issue is.
Sadly, Bush and half the GOP either (1) just don't get it, or (2) are suffering from the political equivalent of Battered Wife Syndrome. This delusion of "winning through Hispandering" suggests (3) both.