At first I thought this was a joke of Onion-like proportions, but no, it's for real and it's worth a fisk that's for sure!
Mexico seeks changes in border plan MEXICO CITY (AP) — Mexico called on the United States to alter a plan to expand border fences designed to stem illegal immigration, saying the barriers would threaten migratory species accustomed to roaming freely across the frontier.So Mexicans are a "migratory species?" Well, glad to see them finally admit it!
Ways of minimizing environmental damage from the fences could include the creation of cross-border bridge areas so that ecosystems remain connected and "green corridors" of wilderness without roads that would be less attractive to smugglers, according to a report released Monday and prepared for the Mexican government by experts and activists from both nations.Aw, how nice, corridors of wilderness without roads, but less attractive therefore to smugglers? Really? Less attractive than these patches of "wilderness?"
The report also suggested "live" fences of cactuses, removable fencing, and more permeable barriers to allow water, insects and pollen to cross the border. Ecologists say among the species affected would be Mexican jaguars and black bears, and the endangered, antelope-like Sonora Pronghorn."Live" fences? Removable fencing? Removable by whom? Permeable barriers to allow water and insects to cross? How high do they think these fences were gonna be that insects couldn't get over them? How impermeable that they couldn't get under them? And pollen? Are they serious? Can't build a fence because pollen has to be able to "migrate?" Uh-huh....Next?
On Monday, Mexico's Environment Department said the proposed fences would seriously hurt species that cross the 1,952-mile border and that the United States needs to alter or mitigate the barriers where necessary."The eventual construction of this barrier would place at risk the various ecosystems that we share," said Environment Secretary Juan Rafael Elvira, noting that the border is not just desert, but includes mountains, rivers and wetlands.
Mexico also wants Washington to expand its environmental impact study on the fences and will file a complaint with the United Nations' International Court of Justice in the Hague, Netherlands if necessary.OK, so when do we get to complain to the UN about the impact of the Mexican government and their people on the environment of the USA? Isn't it kinda frowned upon when another country helps millions of its people sneak into another sovereign nation (i.e., INVADE it)? Can we ask for an impact study on that?
The proposed fencing includes at least 370 miles of vehicle barriers and metal walls supplemented by "virtual" barriers of sensors, mobile towers packed with sophisticated cameras, strong lights, radars and sensors and other technology.The environmental report said the fences could isolate border animals into smaller population groups, affecting their genetic diversity. The strong lights and radar could interfere with nocturnal species, and the construction and traffic along the walls could affect a wider strip of border land than just the fences themselves, activists say.
Environmentalists say construction of the fencing could wipe out endangered species like the Sonoran Pronghorn — of which only about 100 still exist — in the coming years.Exequiel Ezcurra, director of research at the San Diego Natural History Museum, said the pronghorns are used to moving across the border in search of scarce grassland.
The pronghorn "is without doubt the species in the most desperate situation, the number one victim of all the tension and movement on the border," Ezcurra said.
This is ridiculous in my opinion. I've heard it all now, don't secure the border because it might hurt animals. Yeah, that's kind of the point, just not the "animals" these people are talking about.
Stories like this justify my inability to align myself with the GOP or the Dems. Both are so subject to pressure from lobbyists, I'd rather try to vote the candidates one by one and have a set of principles I use.
This from the WSJ on Hedge Funds. The back story in brief is this: If I run a hedge fund-- instead of a salary I get a carried interest--i.e. a piece of the gain on each investment. So when the fund sells for a long term capital gain, I get a share of the gain, which of course is only taxed at 15%. Thus I make $00 plus million a year and only pay 15% tax. Fair compensation for my brilliance? I don't think that is quite fair. Neither did many congress people until now.
Now supposedly they feel that if hedge fund managers pay fair income taxes they will so increase their compensation (fees to the fund) that investors in the fund (such as 401ks like CALPERS, etc.) will be worse off. Really!!!! And of course there's nothing they could do to prevent THAT (snort)
Democrats Lose Zeal for Raising Hedge-Fund Tax By BRODY MULLINS and SARAH LUECK July 31, 2007; Page A1WASHINGTON -- Some prominent Democrats are beginning to rethink proposed tax increases on hedge-fund and private-equity managers' earnings, after an aggressive pushback by industry lobbyists and arguments that the impact could extend far beyond Wall Street.
The shift may make it tougher for any legislation to win passage, or strengthen a push to find a compromise. Democrats hold only a slim majority on Capitol Hill and defections of just a handful could delay or defeat such a measure if Republicans unite to oppose it. Until now, opposition was largely limited to Republicans.
"When you first hear about it, it seems like, 'Yes, this looks like an appealing way to generate a lot of revenue,' but when you study it more it seems like there are some serious unintended consequences," said Rep. Brian Baird of Washington, a member of a coalition of centrist Democrats who often play a deciding role on business and tax bills.
It remains to be seen, however, how any individual Democrat might vote on the issue, especially if it is combined with another, more popular Democratic priority. One such vehicle might be legislation to reduce the hit of the alternative minimum tax, which was designed to prevent the richest Americans from dodging their taxes but will ensnare growing numbers of middle-class taxpayers. That combination would fit with Democrats' broader push for tax equity.
But the new concerns being voiced come amid a concerted lobbying effort by private-equity firms and hedge funds aimed at heading off the move. Many Democratic lawmakers are also major beneficiaries of campaign donations from private-equity and hedge-fund executives, and may be wary of shutting off the spigot.
Employees at the 11 members of the industry trade group the Private Equity Council gave 69% of their $3.4 million in campaign donations to Democratic candidates last year, up from 51% of $2.7 million in 2000, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. Campaign-finance data for large hedge funds show a similar pattern of giving.A concern raised by some Democrats is whether a new tax increase on fund managers will hurt returns for public-employee retirement plans. Joe Dear, executive director of Washington state's largest government-employee pension plan, predicted that any tax increase would be passed along to investors in the form of higher management fees. If so, pension funds and other investors would see a decrease in their returns.
"The private-equity general partners are the cleverest people in the world. Does anyone really think that they will end up paying the tax bill that is aimed at them?" he said.
Other pension funds with large private-equity investments, such as the California Public Employee Retirement System, have yet to take a position on the legislation.In an interview last week, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus said the effect on pension-fund returns is an issue his committee will explore, but that it has been overstated. The Montana Democrat's committee will hold a hearing on carried interest today, and four of the panel's 11 Democrats represent states that have among the largest pension-fund investments in private-equity funds.
Private-equity funds buy companies using large amounts of borrowed money, hoping to quickly resell the acquired firms at a profit. Hedge funds are loosely regulated funds for institutional investors and rich individuals.
At issue is a proposal to increase taxes on a portion of profits fund managers receive -- known as "carried interest" -- to personal income-tax rates as high as 35%, from the current 15% capital-gains rate that now applies. The debate centers on whether the law properly regards carried interest as investment income, or should be changed to treat some or all of these profits as compensation for services. While carried interest is common to a variety of business partnerships, specific arrangements vary, even within the private-equity and hedge-fund industries.Mr. Baucus and the senior Republican on his committee, Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley, haven't yet proposed formal legislation. But possibly building to that, they have questioned whether wealthy private-equity and hedge-fund managers are avoiding their fair share of taxes.
In recent weeks, some prominent advocates of raising taxes on carried interest have emerged -- including some economic experts who worked for Republican administrations. Gregory Mankiw, formerly chairman of President Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, recently said on his blog, "Deferred compensation, even risky compensation, is still compensation, and it should be taxed as such." His comment was among several circulated to lawmakers last week by Rep. Sander Levin of Michigan, who is lead sponsor of the House Democrats' bill.
A group of House Democrats including Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel of New York introduced legislation in June to boost taxes on carried interest to 35% for private-equity and hedge-fund managers, as well as certain venture-capital and real-estate deals. He offered no estimate as to how much money such an increase would bring.
Seeking to ring a populist tone, all of the leading Democratic presidential candidates have said they would support the legislation. The major Republican presidential aspirants, like most of their party's congressional contingent, oppose the idea.
In the beginning, Democrats on Capitol Hill were mostly supportive of the tax proposal or silent about it. Now that they have studied the issue more closely, a growing number say they worry about its unintended effects. Washington Sen. Maria Cantwell fears it could reduce returns for her state's public-employee pension plan, which has reaped benefits from private-equity investments. Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon says he would prefer to focus on more-comprehensive tax reform.Translation: If Joe private citizen can be tapped for this instead of our big donors, so much the better!
Lawmakers who represent the New York City area, such as Rep. Joe Crowley, say any new taxes on fund managers could hurt Wall Street by driving private-equity and hedge-fund activity offshore. They also are concerned a tax increase could reduce the flow of business for other financial-services firms if the number of deals and stock transactions were to dry up.Other Democrats simply say Congress shouldn't rush into any changes. "It's an important issue...but there's no reason it has to be done in a certain time period," said Democratic Rep. Xavier Becerra of California. Rep. Kendrick Meek, a Florida Democrat who serves with Mr. Becerra on Ways and Means, says he was briefed for the first time on the issue last week by experts from Congress's nonpartisan research arm.
Neither Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Crowley nor Mr. Becerra have received any money from executives of major industry firms so far this election cycle.
New York Sen. Charles Schumer, the top fund-raiser for Senate Democrats -- and a perennial favorite of Wall Street donors -- was among the first in his party to question the legislation. He says Congress shouldn't single out hedge-fund and private-equity managers. Any legislation, he says, should be expanded to include managers of other investment partnerships, such as real estate, oil and gas, timber and agriculture investment vehicles. Such a move, though, would likely boost opposition to it.
Lawmakers' emerging concerns may open the door to compromise. Some Democrats have discussed a plan to raise the tax on carried interest above 15%, but lower than the 35% proposed in the House bill, an idea floated by some in the private-equity industry."I think there's some interest on the part of some individuals who are in the private-equity community in trying to find some middle ground on this issue," said Rep. Artur Davis, an Alabama Democrat.
At a hearing in the Senate Finance Committee today, executives from private-equity firm the Carlyle Group and hedge fund Oaktree Capital Management will make the case that their activity benefits the U.S. economy. Lobbyists for the industry have told lawmakers that increasing taxes on managers may decrease returns for public-employee pension plans and university endowments, both of which are increasingly reliant on the healthy returns they receive from investments in private-equity funds.
Mr. Rangel says he has heard the most concern about changing the policy from within his home state. But he said that wouldn't stop him from pursuing changes.
"How could anyone ask me, a born and raised New Yorker, to give New York preferential treatment at the expense of the tax system?" Mr. Rangel said. "My heart might say, 'I wish I could help,' but there's nothing to indicate that making an even playing field would jeopardize New York."
Friends, when you read me getting all in a lather over lawmakers wanting to take away MY tax breaks (and yours), THIS IS WHY! Tax these people FIRST, and if you still need more, then call me. I don't think I'll need to be waiting by the phone
The other day, I read this story about a Pace U. student now charged with two counts of felony hate crimes for flushing the Koran. [For more on why he might have done this, read more about the motive no one at Pace wants to talk about. ]
Contrast the draconian treatment he is getting with the punishment facing this guy.
So if he'd been slashing 42 tires belonging to the members of Pace University's Muslim student organization, then it would be a hate crime?
I guess, if you don't consider the members of our military people belonging to a group targeted solely because of their membership in that group. Or, in this guy's case, if you just don't consider them people at all, just mindless killing machines.
But no, seriously folks, what is the real difference between these two cases? Let's say it out loud shall we?
We're not afraid of offending the military. Just ask Christopher Hitchens, who obviously isn't afraid to tell it like it is. [Hat-tip LGF]
This has to stop, and it has to stop right now. There can be no concession to sharia in the United States. When will we see someone detained, or even cautioned, for advocating the burning of books in the name of God? If the police are honestly interested in this sort of "hate crime," I can help them identify those who spent much of last year uttering physical threats against the republication in this country of some Danish cartoons. In default of impartial prosecution, we have to insist that Muslims take their chance of being upset, just as we who do not subscribe to their arrogant certainties are revolted every day by the hideous behavior of the parties of God.It is often said that resistance to jihadism only increases the recruitment to it. For all I know, this commonplace observation could be true. But, if so, it must cut both ways. How about reminding the Islamists that, by their mad policy in Kashmir and elsewhere, they have made deadly enemies of a billion Indian Hindus? Is there no danger that the massacre of Iraqi and Lebanese Christians, or the threatened murder of all Jews, will cause an equal and opposite response? Most important of all, what will be said and done by those of us who take no side in filthy religious wars? The enemies of intolerance cannot be tolerant, or neutral, without inviting their own suicide. And the advocates and apologists of bigotry and censorship and suicide-assassination cannot be permitted to take shelter any longer under the umbrella of a pluralism that they openly seek to destroy.
So add this to the ever lengthening list of reasons I'll be homeschooling.
Saudi in the Classroom
A fundamental front in the war.By Stanley Kurtz
Unless we counteract the influence of Saudi money on the education of the young, we’re going to find it very difficult to win the war on terror. I only wish I was referring to Saudi-funded madrassas in Pakistan. Unfortunately, I’m talking about K-12 education in the United States. Believe it or not, the Saudis have figured out how to make an end-run around America’s K-12 curriculum safeguards, thereby gaining control over much of what children in the United States learn about the Middle East.
Suffice it to say, it's meager comfort to me that I'll be the one teaching (or at least inoculating against the teaching of others to) my kids. I can't wrap them in batting and lock them in the closet forever. They will have to go out (((((there))))) and deal with other people's children....children who have been brainwashed into believing it's all our fault that "they" hate us in Islamic Shangri La, where everyone is peaceful deep down, and only provoked by our evil ways to do anything remotely murderous to us (waaaah).
I am so scared for this country sometimes.
Surprise surprise, "young Americans" lean to the left.
And tomorrow the sun will rise in the East, so what?
Ask people who don't own much more than fits in the back of their Toyota Scion who they favor for President and what do you think they're gonna say?
Now ask them a specific question like:
- Which candidate will do the best job of keeping the economy strong?
- Which candidate best understands our enemies and will do the best job of protecting us from them?
- While we're on the subject, which candidate knows who those enemies ARE?
- Which candidate will ask you to pay the most of your income in taxes?
- Which candidate do you trust to protect your right to choose healthcare options OTHER than abortion?
You getting the picture?
Asking people in their late teens and twenties who they like best for President at this point is like asking them who they like best on American Idol. They look at the pictures, hear the names and think "Yeah, they look cool, whatever."
Let's just hope they're too busy reordering their play lists to remember where their polling place is.
I know, can you believe it? Cindy is here today and I don't have a sitter. Oh how would I love to be in Bryant Park right now, getting a front row seat for th lunacy that follows her wherever she goes.
In today's case, we'll have the Gathering of Eagles there to counter-punch, er, protest Mizzzzz Sheehan's latest pathetic departure from reality--she wants Congress to impeach Bush for (get this) commuting Scooter Libby's sentence (amongst other things). Oh, and she also wants the troops home still, but she's not directly protesting that anymore because she said she was done with protesting ("done" being a relative term in her pink colored sky-full-of-flying-pigs world apparently).
I think our local morning talk-radio star Keith Larson might also be there with his baseball glove and a copy of his permit to use the park, you know, the one Cindy and her pals failed to get? Oh how I hope he has one and will be successful in having them removed so he can play some catch instead. It would make for great theater if nothing else!
I would love to have brought you pictures and commentary from this live "event," but alas I'm not like my liberal mama counterparts who think nothing of exposing their very young children to the insane rantings of lunatics in a public park.
Alois alerts us to the plight (bwaahahaha) of a poor suffering (guffaw, snort, chortle) convicted terrorist (son of a biscuit eater) currently serving a 40 year sentence (which is not half of what he deserves) for plotting to kill innocent Americans and Britons.
Convicted terrorist Dhiren Barot has been attacked in prison—leading to requests for special treatment.As Alois says:
More of the same, always more of the same... how long are we going to be stupid enough to play this game?We're supposed to be dhimmis, and bow and scrape before the Islamic hordes. But the minute one of these terrorists gets popped, and put into a cell with decidedly unsympathetic infidels, all the rules are supposed to change.
I can see it now....Muslim wings on every Federal prison, the perfect places in which to plot and scheme some more without fear of a fight from their intended targets.
Watch the video and marvel with me at the calm and straight-faced way this "Solicitor" insists that we should even CARE about the alleged "disfiguring" of a man who planned to not just "disfigure" thousands of Americans and Britons, but who would have been indifferent to their suffering when he succeeded.
Take special note of the sound he makes on the reconnaissance video, right after the shots of the twin towers...If you pay attention, you can hear him make the sound of an explosion with his mouth.
I hope his fellow inmates beat the ever-loving shit out of him every day for forty years, and I hope no one lifts a finger to stop them.
Michelle Malkin comments on Geraldo Rivera's latest contribution to the "Illegal aliens? What Illegal aliens?" meme. Apparently, Geraldo refuses even to be outraged by an illegal alien repeat offending sex offender simply because he's an illegal alien. Is there no level too low for even Geraldo's aging knees to stoop?
Apparently, Geraldo suggested that Zina Linnik's uncle would prefer that we call her murderer a "Monster" rather than an "immigrant" (Geraldo conveniently left off the word ILLEGAL) because the Linnik family are themselves "immigrants."
OK, Geraldo, listen up, let me give you a lesson in vocabulary:
im-i-grant:
1. a person who migrates to another country, usually for permanent residence.
illegal im-i-grant:
1. a foreigner who has entered or resides in a country unlawfully or without the country's authorization.
2. a foreigner who enters the U.S. without an entry or immigrant visa, esp. a person who crosses the border by avoiding inspection or who overstays the period of time allowed as a visitor, tourist, or businessperson.
See the difference Geraldo? Zina's uncle sure does:
Zina's uncle was angry that the suspect had not been deported after being convicted in a sex crime."We are all immigrants, but we come legally," Kalchik said of his family. He added that the adults all cleared a criminal background check.
"If someone is a sex offender, or any kind of offender, he has no business being in America," he said.
Fine, well and good Geraldo, the guy is a monster, so explain to me again why America needs more "monsters?" Is there really a company called "Monsters Inc." and are they that desperate for employees?
[Insert eyeroll here]
OK, here it is, my great idea for campaign finance reform. I've been thinking about this for a while, but it really crystallized for me this morning while talking to my Dad on the phone. He just got back from San Salvador where he was on an Earthwatch research trip (studying coral reefs or some such, SCUBA and snorkeling work), and he said that one of the guys on his trip was a guy who lost an election in FL recently, state legislature I guess. He said the guy was really sincere, genuine, had great ideas, etc...But he was so disenchanted and probably won't run again b/c he said he spent ALL his time fundraising. He only talked to people at length who could get him money, and the local party officials told him who those people were, set up appointments for him, sent him on luncheons, put him on phone calls, even with donors out of state who would have an interest in having "their guy" in the FL House. People as far away as Seattle! (Microsoft) Shocked
He said it's all about money, and the money is almost ALL for TV.
So after my blood stopped boiling (and this was a Dem we're talking about, so it had nothing to do with my feeling sorry for a fellow conservative Wink ), it hit me...Why do candidates have to pay the same rates for ads that some product does? This is our democracy we're talking about, and the main way people hear the news about candidates is through this private enterprise known as television, and yet we are held hostage by that very business b/c they control who gets their message out from the git-go! Can you say conflict of interest much? It's to the point where only the very rich can run without spending all their time raising money, and that is NOT GOOD for us IMHO.
At the same time, the gov't regulates the airwaves on which these businesses send their programs (even though we all use cable, the Alphabet networks are licensed by the gov't still). So why not mandate that a requirement of licensing is a minimum amount of airtime for candidate ads for ALL candidates, period. And it should be a decent amount, and they should not be consigned to the 1 a.m. time slot or to six months out from the election either Evil or Very Mad
I'm still a free-marketeer so if they want to still sell air time to people who can afford to pay for more, OK, but they cannot give those people preference over the required air time spots. They cannot get better time slots or anything like that. All the paying customers can do is pay for time around those times, before or after, but not instead of. Anyone caught bending the rules loses their license to broadcast, period.
Same could work for radio.
And I think cable TV should be given an incentive to do the same somehow.
But the bottom line for me is that we cannot allow our election process to be reduced to the money game it has become b/c broadcasting and media have a lock on who gets to reach the rest of us with their message. If we allow this to continue, we are allowing the medium to be the message for real, and that scares me.
Oh, I'm still here...A little preoccupied lately with my latest venture, but still here...
Borrowing from Lewis Thomas tonight because, as usual I'm up too late, ruminating on the state of the world, with that monitor's hiss the only steady reminder of the reasons for my worries.
Every time I look at those girls of mine I worry. I'm sure it's the natural state of being for a parent (well, a decent one anyway), but that doesn't make it any easier for ME right now, at this moment in history. Because you know what? I'm not so sure other parents--even the decent ones--are worrying ENOUGH! How could they be? If they were, would they mindlessly send them off to public schools filled with uninspiring teachers pushing multiculturalist lies into their rapidly developing and vulnerable minds? Would they be hosting parties where kids get to drink because, well, they're gonna do it anyway, might as well be *safe* under my roof when they do (their parents' wishes be damned apparently). Would they be dressing their little girls--barely out of diapers--in miniature tramp-wear? I kid you not when I tell you I have seen 5 year olds wearing less to the mall than I'd wear to the beach! But their parents don't seem to mind...
But these aren't the only things that worry me.
I worry that my girls will grow up and be more like these people--or wish I were more like them--than they will be like me, despite my best efforts. In truth, my biggest fear is not that I won't be able to protect them from this crazy world, but rather that they will be sucked into it and become part of it in a way that will make them think of me as the crazy one, that it won't be the three of us girls looking out at the world in confusion and disgust together, but just me, all alone, sitting here wondering where I went wrong?
Let's face it, in order for me to be successful in protecting them from what I deem dangerous (aside from the obvious physical dangers like predatory adults, cars in parking lots, choking hazards, accidental bathtub drowning and falls down stairs), I have to make them UNsuccessful in the social world outside this home. If most people think differently than I do, if they worry about different things--like what the cool kids will be wearing to school in the fall, how to get the best tickets to the Hillary Duff show without taking out a second mortgage and whether or not Paris Hilton really has "changed" since prison--and I'm successful in raising my kids to be like me, won't they also be outcasts of sorts? Won't they be late-night lonely ponderers like me instead of blissfully slumbering (literally and figuratively) people like everyone else I know?
Gosh I hope not. I hope there is a happy medium. And if they find it, maybe they can turn around and teach it to me.