I see that war rhetoric is popular with the journalists, rather than the reasoned review of the possibilities of peace talks among adversaries in the region east of Europe yet west of China. Emphasis on war talk and downplaying the coming meeting of the minds is irresponsible.
Mr. Lieberman is openly calling for opening another front. What stupidity when the troop levels are now called insufficient for the present ambitions. Is this man representing the needs of the United States of America?
The cost of this two pronged war is astronomical in both human and economic terms. This course cannot be continued. When US casualty numbers are reported, perhaps the Iraqi casualties should also be shown, be they generated by civil war or our raids.
Let me create a scenario.
Mexico and Canada have been invaded by a great power hostile to us. Do we sit by or try and help those opposing the occupation? We might ready ourselves for war, in the face of warlike rhetoric and threats made by another near neighbor. Of course we act to protect ourselves. Anybody would. Mr. Ron Paul is correct. Walk a mile in my shoes.
So Iran is interested in Iraq and Afghanistan. Of course we need to talk to Iran. And we do not need warmongers to succeed in setting off yet another Mideast war before the talks occur. Why do they not want the talks to succeed? Who is profiting by this war? Can we afford to waste these petroleum resources? How much in debt are we as a result of this war?
I do not understand why the fools did that 911 death dealing. More war mongering. We have the world we have. We must deal with the coming problems and take a long term view of the survival needs of our world community without decimating our living environment.
Our leaders are wasting time and resources to secure petroleum supplies that may run out before we can pay for the war. If the appointment of Navy to control what has been a ground war presages attacks from the sea, then perhaps the war mongers are at work. Protecting the international shipping lanes is legitimate: opening another war is not.
I think that all societies should reevaluate war mongering. Perhaps other leaders with new ideas for solving the problems will come to the forefront.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION
Immigration has been a reality since 50,000 years ago when Homo sapiens migrated to all corners of the world long before the concepts of partitioning and ownership grew out of territoriality morphed into land deeds. Migration is the history of our species.
Migration as a population relief valve has settled the world with humans but under present conditions any new migrations will be greeted by existing populations who may or may not be happy to see the newcomers. The arrival of significant numbers of a new cultural system brings change to the cultural totality through time. Recognition of enculturation mechanisms in a society is imperative. It should be remembered that the meeting of cultures has resulted in cultural blooms in art and innovation but has also produced gang activity in this country as evidenced by relationship between immigration and gang crime.
The superposition of nations over the natural migration patterns did not change the patterns. Control of the movement of peoples is a function of overpopulation as is war. War over resources also drains off excess population in the absence of somewhere to migrate.
So what does all this have to do with illegal immigration into the USA, the last human frontier on Earth?
Mexico was settled by Europeans rather earlier than the northern English colonies and already had significant Indian populations who had extensive trade routes throughout North America. Human populations prospered in Mexico as the native populations combined native and imported foods, improved agriculture and gained the metalworking technology of the Europeans. Agricultural success equaled population growth, thus setting the stage for modern migrations from Mexico to the north, where lower population densities and modern technology had created work.
Mexico’s birthrate outstrips the ability of their economy to produce well paying jobs, so the unemployed or underemployed take their chances and migrate to the USA to find work. Most of them find employment and work hard to improve their prospects while enrolling their children in our schools. These children are no longer ethnic Mexicans: they become acculturated to the USA and they become ours, illegal or not. This is an actuality, not a legal opinion. I have taught these children.
As for rounding up our friends and neighbors, I say that this is impossibility. It is simply not civilized to round people up, impound them, transport them to the border and dump them in Mexico. Then the Mexican government can deal with 12,000,000 economic refugees, feed and house them, take care of the sewage and crime problems and of course establish hostile camps all along our border. This would create an atmosphere of hatred and would encourage the development of anti-USA terrorism. It would be much better to integrate these people into our structure, put pressure on Mexico to prevent immigration and better distribute the wealth of their country and close the border to more illegal immigration through better interdiction along the border. Policies of providing free birth control needs and the education of women should be established in Mexico, along with economic incentives to restrict births. Estimates say that Mexico is exporting 500,000 people a year to the USA, a convenient pop off valve for excessive breeding. This unspoken policy on the part of the Mexican honchos has also resulted in billions of USA dollars exported to Mexico through these citizens working in the USA.
We are now at peace. Stirring up trouble is unnecessary. There is a peaceful solution to immigration and we should be committed to achieving this goal. I say listen to the leadership from Arizona, Texas, California and New Mexico. They will offer a practical solution to illegal immigration because they know the people and the circumstances.
Migration as a population relief valve has settled the world with humans but under present conditions any new migrations will be greeted by existing populations who may or may not be happy to see the newcomers. The arrival of significant numbers of a new cultural system brings change to the cultural totality through time. Recognition of enculturation mechanisms in a society is imperative. It should be remembered that the meeting of cultures has resulted in cultural blooms in art and innovation but has also produced gang activity in this country as evidenced by relationship between immigration and gang crime.
The superposition of nations over the natural migration patterns did not change the patterns. Control of the movement of peoples is a function of overpopulation as is war. War over resources also drains off excess population in the absence of somewhere to migrate.
So what does all this have to do with illegal immigration into the USA, the last human frontier on Earth?
Mexico was settled by Europeans rather earlier than the northern English colonies and already had significant Indian populations who had extensive trade routes throughout North America. Human populations prospered in Mexico as the native populations combined native and imported foods, improved agriculture and gained the metalworking technology of the Europeans. Agricultural success equaled population growth, thus setting the stage for modern migrations from Mexico to the north, where lower population densities and modern technology had created work.
Mexico’s birthrate outstrips the ability of their economy to produce well paying jobs, so the unemployed or underemployed take their chances and migrate to the USA to find work. Most of them find employment and work hard to improve their prospects while enrolling their children in our schools. These children are no longer ethnic Mexicans: they become acculturated to the USA and they become ours, illegal or not. This is an actuality, not a legal opinion. I have taught these children.
As for rounding up our friends and neighbors, I say that this is impossibility. It is simply not civilized to round people up, impound them, transport them to the border and dump them in Mexico. Then the Mexican government can deal with 12,000,000 economic refugees, feed and house them, take care of the sewage and crime problems and of course establish hostile camps all along our border. This would create an atmosphere of hatred and would encourage the development of anti-USA terrorism. It would be much better to integrate these people into our structure, put pressure on Mexico to prevent immigration and better distribute the wealth of their country and close the border to more illegal immigration through better interdiction along the border. Policies of providing free birth control needs and the education of women should be established in Mexico, along with economic incentives to restrict births. Estimates say that Mexico is exporting 500,000 people a year to the USA, a convenient pop off valve for excessive breeding. This unspoken policy on the part of the Mexican honchos has also resulted in billions of USA dollars exported to Mexico through these citizens working in the USA.
We are now at peace. Stirring up trouble is unnecessary. There is a peaceful solution to immigration and we should be committed to achieving this goal. I say listen to the leadership from Arizona, Texas, California and New Mexico. They will offer a practical solution to illegal immigration because they know the people and the circumstances.
Monday, June 04, 2007
RTA Election
ROADBUILDERS RULE
There appear to be several occurrences recently that together made a parody of our election laws.
The RTA election set forth by the roadbuilders lost in the polls but won the election. Now suspicions have arisen that the computer was programmed to flip votes, giving us an upside down tally.
Added to these coincidences is the fact that the pro RTA people did fund 22 pro RTA statements in the election booklet mailed to voters. This gave the impression that 22 people paid $100 each or the privilege of expressing their opinion about the RTA proposals
The actuality was that the pro RTA committee had paid $2200 to buy the ad spots in the election literature without noting that fact, kind of like sending letters through proxies but nobody is supposed to know about it but a few insiders. I call the opinions expressed under the aegis of the pro-RTA committee ads because that is what they were. I think it is required by law to sign an election booklet opinion when you pay for it. The pro RTA committee lawyer was ‘unaware’ of this law and received a slap on the wrist for falsifying election literature. Voters were deceived.
The parody comes in when the poor schmuck voter is sent misleading election literature. Corruption in elections is corruption in governments.
Hey man, you make a fool of us when you lie, cheat and maybe steal our tax dollars for bogus projects. First the untrustworthy election materials, now this alleged flipping off the electorate with slick rhetoric and maybe a few bucks on the side for somebody plus a very large roadbuilder mealticket, all on the taxpayer’s dollars.
What some people won’t do to get their hands on money…undermine the election process for short term goals is a guaranteed long term failure. Trust in our elections is more important than roadbuilders, trust me.
There appear to be several occurrences recently that together made a parody of our election laws.
The RTA election set forth by the roadbuilders lost in the polls but won the election. Now suspicions have arisen that the computer was programmed to flip votes, giving us an upside down tally.
Added to these coincidences is the fact that the pro RTA people did fund 22 pro RTA statements in the election booklet mailed to voters. This gave the impression that 22 people paid $100 each or the privilege of expressing their opinion about the RTA proposals
The actuality was that the pro RTA committee had paid $2200 to buy the ad spots in the election literature without noting that fact, kind of like sending letters through proxies but nobody is supposed to know about it but a few insiders. I call the opinions expressed under the aegis of the pro-RTA committee ads because that is what they were. I think it is required by law to sign an election booklet opinion when you pay for it. The pro RTA committee lawyer was ‘unaware’ of this law and received a slap on the wrist for falsifying election literature. Voters were deceived.
The parody comes in when the poor schmuck voter is sent misleading election literature. Corruption in elections is corruption in governments.
Hey man, you make a fool of us when you lie, cheat and maybe steal our tax dollars for bogus projects. First the untrustworthy election materials, now this alleged flipping off the electorate with slick rhetoric and maybe a few bucks on the side for somebody plus a very large roadbuilder mealticket, all on the taxpayer’s dollars.
What some people won’t do to get their hands on money…undermine the election process for short term goals is a guaranteed long term failure. Trust in our elections is more important than roadbuilders, trust me.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Pima County Overspending
Blogger Special
The Tuesday Republican club was hopping today...Ray Carroll and Ms. Day spoke on the county budget, which is out of control spending the tax money gathered in from the last hike in assessed evaluation. Our property taxes are ridiculous now and next year expect a 19% increase! Evidently ole Huck wants more sales tax from the populace, which has to have a 100% vote from supes to pass.
We need to back our Pima County supervisors in reining in this out of control spending. The demos control the board and voted in $14 mil pork for their own districts and $1mil for the Republican supes. This is bs, don't you think?
Evidently Sahaurita has overbuilt and their turd farm is inadequate. Get this...they want to pipe it to Tucson for us taxpayers to pay for the treatment instead of taxing themselves and paying for an improved facility. This is abuse of our system. I think this is a disclosure issue for the developers of Sahaurita. Let the people sue them.
Randy Pullen, director of the state Republican party, has blabbed bigtime and many are calling for party unity instead of Mr. Pullen leading the charge to disrupt the party. Questions raised at the meeting today included why didn't the Republicans settle on an immigration bill when they had a majority? Why did they wait until they no longer had majority? Senator Kyl was doing his job when he compromised with Senator Kennedy. He had no choice. Walking out and taking his ball and going home was not an option.
I think the party has had enough of not speaking with those who do not totally agree with their own august opinions, a surefire way to never learn anything. We need to talk and compromise and plan for the next election, rather than tearing each other down.
Enuf said.
The Tuesday Republican club was hopping today...Ray Carroll and Ms. Day spoke on the county budget, which is out of control spending the tax money gathered in from the last hike in assessed evaluation. Our property taxes are ridiculous now and next year expect a 19% increase! Evidently ole Huck wants more sales tax from the populace, which has to have a 100% vote from supes to pass.
We need to back our Pima County supervisors in reining in this out of control spending. The demos control the board and voted in $14 mil pork for their own districts and $1mil for the Republican supes. This is bs, don't you think?
Evidently Sahaurita has overbuilt and their turd farm is inadequate. Get this...they want to pipe it to Tucson for us taxpayers to pay for the treatment instead of taxing themselves and paying for an improved facility. This is abuse of our system. I think this is a disclosure issue for the developers of Sahaurita. Let the people sue them.
Randy Pullen, director of the state Republican party, has blabbed bigtime and many are calling for party unity instead of Mr. Pullen leading the charge to disrupt the party. Questions raised at the meeting today included why didn't the Republicans settle on an immigration bill when they had a majority? Why did they wait until they no longer had majority? Senator Kyl was doing his job when he compromised with Senator Kennedy. He had no choice. Walking out and taking his ball and going home was not an option.
I think the party has had enough of not speaking with those who do not totally agree with their own august opinions, a surefire way to never learn anything. We need to talk and compromise and plan for the next election, rather than tearing each other down.
Enuf said.
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
Tucson Parody Town Hall
A stacked deck may let them report what they think they want but excluding a range of participants will not change the physical limitations of Tucson, like a looming water shortage. Not wanting to mention water because the recognition of the lack thereof will cause an economic downturn is putting your head in the sand. The lack of water WILL CAUSE an economic downturn and intelligent people would be planning long term how to maintain this city for the people already here. Check the level of Lake Mead, study the Colorado River agreement and get ready for a shortage. Of course, a few "important" people might make a few bucks before more development is declared non-adaptive behavior..., so deal your marked cards and gamble with our future but above all, don't lose any $. There's still a little more to be milked.
Social irresponsibility will reap unpleasant long term consequences. Since the sample population attending the Town Hall is skewed, the results will be limited to that population and cannot be extrapolated to the whole population.
Social irresponsibility will reap unpleasant long term consequences. Since the sample population attending the Town Hall is skewed, the results will be limited to that population and cannot be extrapolated to the whole population.
Friday, April 20, 2007
OPEN MEETING LAW VIOLATIONS
It appears that the Tucson City Council has violated the Open Meeting Law during the study session of April 4, 2007.
My reasons for thinking this are:
The memorandum ‘Presentation Regarding a Proposed Public/Private Partnership for a Downtown Hotel, Convention Center and Arena (Ward 1) dated April 4, 2007 refers to an Attachment: Memorandum from Council member Ibarra dated March 28th, 2007, which names a different proposal than the proposal accepted and assigned as described on the ‘Administrative Action Report and Summary April 4, 2007’, which passes for the absence of minutes, as described by a city employee. Evidently the Norville proposal was the designated agenda item as detailed in the Ibarra Memo, but the proposal voted upon was evidently presented at the meeting and voted upon without prior notification of the populace that this proposal would be even mentioned, much less voted upon.
Now I really don’t have a dog in this fight, but I do respect and admire Arizona’s Open Meeting Law and would be suitably distraught if Boss Tweed appeared among us.
It looks like passing items not on the agenda during a study session is a violation and not having minutes is a violation. If the argument that the agenda item is broad in scope and that the other proposal fits in, then I must remind you that the title refers to ‘a proposed’ not ‘proposals’, which would tend to eliminate more than one presentation. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I always thought a study session was not the time for voting. What happened to the old idea that a proposal is presented at one meeting and voted upon at another?
I remain uneasy about the idea that this ‘item was properly agendized and voted on during the Study Session Meeting. (e mail RE: city council minutes 4/13/07). What is agendizing? The published ‘administrative action report and summary’ does not resemble the agenda, memorandum, and attachment presented to the public.
Perhaps if the populace had known that the ‘new arena a described by the CS&L study’ would be a meeting topic, more people would have attended. Evidence of secrecy and violations of the Open Meeting Law should be investigated.
Exercise your voting rights and vote against secrecy in government.
My reasons for thinking this are:
The memorandum ‘Presentation Regarding a Proposed Public/Private Partnership for a Downtown Hotel, Convention Center and Arena (Ward 1) dated April 4, 2007 refers to an Attachment: Memorandum from Council member Ibarra dated March 28th, 2007, which names a different proposal than the proposal accepted and assigned as described on the ‘Administrative Action Report and Summary April 4, 2007’, which passes for the absence of minutes, as described by a city employee. Evidently the Norville proposal was the designated agenda item as detailed in the Ibarra Memo, but the proposal voted upon was evidently presented at the meeting and voted upon without prior notification of the populace that this proposal would be even mentioned, much less voted upon.
Now I really don’t have a dog in this fight, but I do respect and admire Arizona’s Open Meeting Law and would be suitably distraught if Boss Tweed appeared among us.
It looks like passing items not on the agenda during a study session is a violation and not having minutes is a violation. If the argument that the agenda item is broad in scope and that the other proposal fits in, then I must remind you that the title refers to ‘a proposed’ not ‘proposals’, which would tend to eliminate more than one presentation. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I always thought a study session was not the time for voting. What happened to the old idea that a proposal is presented at one meeting and voted upon at another?
I remain uneasy about the idea that this ‘item was properly agendized and voted on during the Study Session Meeting. (e mail RE: city council minutes 4/13/07). What is agendizing? The published ‘administrative action report and summary’ does not resemble the agenda, memorandum, and attachment presented to the public.
Perhaps if the populace had known that the ‘new arena a described by the CS&L study’ would be a meeting topic, more people would have attended. Evidence of secrecy and violations of the Open Meeting Law should be investigated.
Exercise your voting rights and vote against secrecy in government.
Friday, April 06, 2007
Rio Nuevo Corruption
Dear Ms. Trasoff:
You must be aware of the demise of the old Indian Village by now, the relocation of the proprietor’s goods to a smaller store in La Placita, owned by a deal making developer who managed to acquire the Indian Village building and oust the long time successful business. A temporary move to La Placita and then back again to the now Rio Nuevoed building a la the Fox theater, would be fair to this business. If a developer thinks that another ‘upscale’ restaurant would generate more interest than a genuine Indian trade goods store dating from the small town days, I suppose you might be a fool to follow his advice. So renovate the old building that is not piped or vented for restaurant use back into the glorious store that does attract tourists and hotel guests out for a stroll. Think about what Tucson has been.
Are you aware that many Indian artists make a living selling work to outlets like the Indian Village? Tucson could be an Indian cultural center again and tourists would love it and goods and services would sell. Let your developer locate his blah restaurant somewhere else, like the talk o the town again or something else instructive instead of destructive to an established business with clientele.
I would like a copy of the original agreement with Mr. Bourne concerning this $100 giveaway.
Dorothy Prater Niemi
You must be aware of the demise of the old Indian Village by now, the relocation of the proprietor’s goods to a smaller store in La Placita, owned by a deal making developer who managed to acquire the Indian Village building and oust the long time successful business. A temporary move to La Placita and then back again to the now Rio Nuevoed building a la the Fox theater, would be fair to this business. If a developer thinks that another ‘upscale’ restaurant would generate more interest than a genuine Indian trade goods store dating from the small town days, I suppose you might be a fool to follow his advice. So renovate the old building that is not piped or vented for restaurant use back into the glorious store that does attract tourists and hotel guests out for a stroll. Think about what Tucson has been.
Are you aware that many Indian artists make a living selling work to outlets like the Indian Village? Tucson could be an Indian cultural center again and tourists would love it and goods and services would sell. Let your developer locate his blah restaurant somewhere else, like the talk o the town again or something else instructive instead of destructive to an established business with clientele.
I would like a copy of the original agreement with Mr. Bourne concerning this $100 giveaway.
Dorothy Prater Niemi
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)