The Naked Emperor

20 May 2007

Shooting Down Amnesty

I know that right now there is a lot of disagreement about the new immigration compromise. Hell, It hasn't even been written yet.

But as of tonight, all arguments have been made mute. I oppose ANY amnesty for illegals, in any form.

Why the sudden decision. I can give you seven reasons.

BANG. BANG. BANG. BANG. BANG. BANG. BANG. And faster than you can read.

I was informed of the reasons suddenly at about 0130 this AM CDT.

Down the strip mall from the ER is a restaurant/bar call the "Hookah Cafe".

Their clientele on a Saturday night is mostly young, and greatly immigrant. Either Hispanic or Middle Eastern.

The crowd can get rough. I routinely have to escort clients to and from their car, when the crowd is a bit rowdy. I do this while using my right as a concealed handgun permit holder.

Tonight I had to ask young loiterers not to commit their preferred form of entertainment from directly in front of the ER. And yes, Virginia, I was armed.

About 0130, there was a gang getting pretty rowdy right in front. I went out, carrying openly, and asked them to move on.

They did.

But less then a minute later the shots rang out (forgive horrible cliche). FAST. Not automatic fire, but damned fast semi-auto. Too fast for well controlled fire by all but a serious competition shooter.

I ordered my tech to cover and call 911. I sought cover in the back of the clinic.

We waited a minute or so. I cautiously went out front to check for victims. And what I saw shocked and appalled me.

Look, I may just be a vet, but I've been doing ER for 15 years. I've seen a lot, medically speaking.

What pleased me was that the shooter was a remarkably bad shot. No victims. No damage to cars in a full parking lot. Look, I may not be the male Annie Oaklely, and I'll never win Camp Perry. But I usually hit what I aim at.

No, what horrified me was the "bystanders" were already policing up the brass. These kind folks were so compassionate to their fellow man that they were being sure a threat to society, a raving gunman, would never be convicted.

It had only been a literal minute. I'll give two to allow for combat time dilation. But within that time, there was an organized effort to cover up the crime.

Sorry, but these people, who "no comprendo", know how to commit felonies and cover for other felons. These are NOT good people.

Catch them. Convict them. Jail them. Then deport them. And never allow any of them, or any of their families back in. EVER.

I'll pay increased taxes, willingly for this.

Build a fence. Tall. Deep. And build it along the entire southern border. Search every vehicle. Every container.

The Mexican government will scream bloody murder because their economy will have to actually support their own citizens, and pay for the benefits that you and I are paying for them right now. Screw 'em.

To the politicians, I say READ THE FUCKING CONSTITUTION!!! It tells you to provide for the common defense. How can you be doing that if you won't defend our borders? It's become bloody simple. No Defense, No Vote. I don't care if you call yourself Democrat, Republican, or New Fredonian. No Defense, No Vote.

I did not like being 30 feet from a raving, and possibly drunk, madman who decided to discharge a weapon. And I don't think it is alright for my government to give a pass to these lunatics.

Would you want your daughter, or son, or wife near these people? If not, then DO SOMETHING!! Call your congressmen and senators. Better still, E-mail them. Or even better, write them by snail mail. They really pay attention to that. Tell them to throw out every one who has violated our laws. And to NEVER, EVER let those people back in.

As I said before in this blog, if you follow the law, and are willing to speak a common language, I, and most others will welcome you. We will do this with open arms, and gladly call you neighbor, friend, and citizen.

But if you commit a crime by entering my nation, or commit crimes in my nation, or cover up crimes in my nation, I will just as gladly turn your sorry ass in. And I'll fight until my government does it's job.

So if you're here illegally, GET THE HELL OUT!! Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

Y'all don't come back now, y'hear?



06 May 2007

Dam Racism

I recently got to see the British version of a classic old (1955) movie called "The Dam Busters". It's a fairly true story of a British genius who designed weapons to destroy dams in Germany during World War II and the men who carried out the mission.

I hadn't seen the movie for many years, it rarely comes on TV. And now I know why.

It's a "bad" movie. Not the acting, directing, writing, or cast. They're all very good. Some say that the final battle scene in the original "Star Wars" was stolen from "the Dam Busters".

No, it's bad because in the movie the Squadron commander's dog is named "Nigger". He' a beautiful black lab. I understand that in the American version, his name was dubbed to "Trigger". Another problem is that the commander was so taken with his dog that the code word they radioed back to tell of success was chosen for his dog. They forgot to dub that use of "nigger".

So I doubt you'll ever see it. Pity, it's a great movie otherwise. They rarely make them like that nowadays.

Coming on the heels of the Imus affair, I guess we're all a little sensitive. I just don't know what we can say anymore.

As you know, I love words. But I tire of having to chase they're ever changing meanings and correct usages.

Imus was fired for saying "ho". Is this bad now? Will Santa now have to say something else on 2007 Christmas cards? Will I now have to ask thenakedempress to pass me the long handled flat bladed cultivator when I'm out in the garden?

Frankly the whole Imus affair was handled rather badly.

At best, he's a minor national shock jock. I never heard the comments he made, and given that his audience is maybe a few million at best, I doubt if you did too. He reaches, at best, one percent of the population.

But now, with all the airplay and controversy, I'm sure you heard ABOUT his comments. It was major news McNuggets until a real story came along.

I didn't know about the team. All I know is that they played for a national championship. I don't recall what school they were from, and I don't know if they won.

He call them "nappy headed hos". I haven't bothered to check out if what he said was true. I automatically dismiss his comments because he is just a shock jock looking for attention. But I guarantee that many, if not most individuals, upon hearing about this flap, first question was "Well, is it true?".

So instead of having maybe a million or so "intellectuals" who listen to Imus wondering if any of the comments were true, all the airplay meant that there were a HUNDRED million or so asking.

And how much good did that do for the girls reputation? Thanks, Al.

Since we are all up in arms over racism, I thought I'd pose a couple of thoughts.

Notice I said thoughts, not feelings. Before you continue, please depress your psychological clutch, put your emotions in neutral and put your brain in gear.

I hope you can do that because most of my readers, all hundreds, er ones of you, are nekulturny. Very nekultury.

Are you offended?

Only if you're Russian.

In Russian, that means "uncultured", and is a high insult coming from any westerner, especially an American.

But since I know of no Russian readers, I doubt if I'll get hate mail or death threats.

I've tried my best to insult you, yet you're not offended. Why?

Because although words are powerful, they only have the power we each give them. Others have the power to speak or write words. We decide how much power to give them.

Another good example is "Nigger" or "Ho". If a non-black person uses those words towards a black, there's a racial incident. But if a black person uses them on another black person, no offense is taken. Same words, different outcome. But why?

Are members of one race allowed to use words that non members are not?

Or is is because the listener decided not to take offense from some races but will from others?

We decide, each of us individually, what power to give the words used around us.

Which bring us to the main principle of fighting racism. Consider the source.

Frankly Imus is a has-been desperately seeking attention. The girls played for a national title, among the best twenty or so people in their sport. Should your self image be "Champion", or what a person such as Imus says you are?

Not that the girls, and only the girls should have been a bit annoyed. I know I would have been. But remember the person making the comments is an attention hound. The cruelest thing you could do to him is ignore him.

Just tell Al, and Jesse, and the media,"He's just using our talent to try to get ratings. We ask that you not give him the controversy he so desperately wants. Please let the matter drop and let him crawl back into his unimportant little world. Please allow us to enjoy our hour of triumph without the flea bites and gnat stings of such parasites. Thank you. We will now entertain any questions about our team, our play, and our school, but the subject of Imus is closed.

When considering sources of racism, lets look at racism from the racist's point of view.

Classically, racism is when someone believes one race, usually his own, is superior in some or all ways to one or all other races.

We have folded the classic definition of prejudice, believing racial stereotypes into the modern definition of racism.

For the sake of argument, we will accept the following is true. We'll accept it because, well it IS true, and because it's my blog and I get to write it. Nyah Nyah Pfffft.

I have met many people of many races. I have met a few greats, mostly good people, and several outright jerks from all races. When it comes to telling the good people from the jerks, skin color is a totally unreliable indicator.

So when you go to an interview, and someone says we don't hire (insert racial epithet here), lets look at that person. For the sake of example, we'll make him white, and the interviewee black.

I've tried to recall what percentage of blacks there are here in America. Lets use 15% to argue.

So this prejudicial person has just automatically cut himself off from 15% of the available talent pool without even looking at that persons abilities. What would you call such an employer? What would you call a businessman who cut himself off from 15% of available customers without even trying?

I think the word stupid is well used here.

And if the prejudicial person is black, cutting out 85% of available talent or business makes even less sense.

So racists are, by nature, stupid.

So if someone calls you nigger, kike, wop, cracker, spic, etc. that person is stupid. I'd have included more epithets, but that's all I can recall at the moment. Guess I'm not too good at racism.

If a stupid person calls you a name, and you believe it, what does that make you?

I remember back in the second grade or so, I and another student were asked to stay by the teacher. There was a problem of cheating. It seemed that this person had cheated off my test, copying all my answers. He was so intent on writing down exactly what I did that he even put MY name on the top of his page.

That taught me a great lesson. Never accept the person next to you's answers, ever. He is probably a good bit more stupid than you are. I know that boy was.

So to sum up. Racists are stupid. One says you are (insert insult X here). Therefore you are "X".

(Insert annoying basketball buzzer here) WRONG!!!

Let's get these lessons straight. Words only have the power YOU give them. Racists are stupid. Never accept your worth to society from a stupid person.

Clear enough?

Before I end the lesson today, class, and let you turn your emotions on, lets talk about those emotions.

One should never get emotional about racism. With one great exception.

If someone makes a racist comment to you, you may feel angry. Only accept this anger if it is productive.

I'll give you an example from my own life.

My educational career was checkered at best. Moments of great failure and moments of great triumph. The failure came first.

When I went back to school with the intention of gaining admission to Veterinary school, most around me cautioned me against it. After all, I hadn't been successful at all in college so far, and Vet school is one of the hardest professional programs in the nation. They didn't think I could do it.

They told me so, and it really pissed me off. I used that anger to keep me going in tough times, both in undergraduate and in Vet school. I was determined to "show" them that I could do it. I knew that the best revenge is living well, and i was determined to succeed.

That anger kept me motivated. Here I am, years later, doing OK. And I'm a doctor.

Do not let anger over a stupid person's comments eat you up. They can if you'll let them. Only accept anger if it will help you accomplish a goal.

Some guy called you a "X" and refused to hire you? Go to school, do well there and in business, buy his business from his boss and FIRE HIS ASS. Can you think of a more eloquent or effective response to racism?

It's a lot harder than just a protest, but much more satisfying and effective.

Take it from me, making critics eat their words is one of the best moments.

until later,


04 May 2007

Political Darwinism

I've been thinking a lot lately about the Gettysburg address. Let me quote:

"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure."

And somehow, my strange brain was also thinking about Charles Darwin. You know, the guy who told us about "survival of the fittest"

But the fittest what?

It seems most of the wars we've been in for the last 60 years have been to decide this question.

In World War II, we battled Facism. The Master Races. We believed that Darwin was talking about the fittest individual, whatever his race. And we settled that argument fairly convincingly. We fought for the right of an individual to be equal, to be free from enslavement by other races.

Next, we fought the Cold War, or World War III. Capitalism vs. Communism. In other words, we struggled to decide the fittest economic system. Once again, we fought for the individual, the other side fought for the state. We fought for the rights of the individual, only this time to be free to choose his own destiny, or be enslaved by a state.

For the last twenty years we've been in World War IV, we fight to determine what Darwin meant. We've only recently begun to fight fight for the right of the individual to choose his religion, or none at all. The other side wishes to impose Islam on us all, with all it's connotations. This war is religious Darwinism.

Should you ritually wash your feet five times a day before you pray to Mecca? Should you be killed for your sexual orientation? Should women be allowed to drive? Vote? Can they be killed for adultery or perceived adultery? Can you commit murder of anyone you please as long as they are not muslim? Should All jews be killed? All Christians? Should we perpetuate a new Holocaust only orders of magnitude larger? Is Genocide God's Will?

If you answered yes to all of the above, I think you are already on the other side.

I've been called conservative. Someone once said I made Ted Nugent look like a communist. But I don't think so. I believe in the individual.

Not the State. Not any Race. Not any Religion.

States have many times committed barbarity and evil. See Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, North Korea. All races have committed barbarous acts on other races at some point in their history. And organized religion has many times been twisted into getting it's followers to commit most ungodly acts, whatever god you believe in. See how the Muslims murder children and target innocents daily.

No, I believe in individuals. You want to be Gay? Fine, none of my business. That's between you, partners, family, friends, and any god you choose. You want to be Conservative/ Liberal/ Religious/ Agnostic/ Communist/ or Fruit Bat Worshiper, go right ahead.

But when you wish to use the power of the state, and the rule of law to compel my behavior or participation in something I may or may not believe in, we have a problem.

Therefore, I have a problem with our enemies. I choose not to become a muslim. I find it's practice to be brutal and barbarous, cruel and callous. I will therefore live and die an infidel. I answered no to all of the questions I posed earlier.

And no, I will not change my mind, no matter how many innocent of whatever religion they choose to slaughter.

If we ever finally decide the question of religious Darwinism in favor of the individual, we might have time to finish the first question of political Darwinism, the one that consumes domestic politics.

We currently argue a form of Darwinism, does he mean the fittest individuals or the fittest groups?

To debate this, I'm going to talk about Republicans and Democrats.

I can't talk about the true champions of individuality, the Libertarians. They believe so strongly in individuals that it's hard to get a consensus view from them on anything. It's kind of like trying to hold a convention for us Agnostics. Ask where to hold it or when, or how much to spend, you always get the same answer - "I don't know." Try mentioning the entertainment and it'll get worse.

Republicans believe much more in the individual. Democrats believe in groups.

Look at the republican constituency. Only a few groups there. Religious groups. Second Amendment supporters. And maybe business types. But notice that these are all groups that anyone can join. Republicans are very inclusive.

Now lets look at the democrats. Hispanic rights groups. Immigrant rights groups. Black groups. Hell, they even have congressional caucuses with purely racial agendas. Sexual orientation groups. All of these groups are based on qualifications over which individuals have no choice.

The democrats only major constituency group to which qualification may be voluntary are the unions. And they fight tooth and nail to eliminate a workers right to choose to join, and give them no say in how all their political dollars are spent.

I choose to go where my rights to choose as an individual are respected.

One day, I'd love to debate with the opposition over individual rights versus group rights (aka mob rule).

But right now, we just don't have the time.

The democrats want to fight this fight right now.

If we don't win the fight for the individual in religious Darwinism, al of their arguments become mute.

The muslims believe in stoning to death for homosexuals. If we lose the religious Darwinism fight, there will be no more gay/ lesbians, and no need to discuss the rights of the dead.

The same goes for black rights. Just look at Darfur. Muslims win, no blacks to have rights to argue for.

Jewish rights? Oops, sorry, you're all under a death sentence. Hispanic rights? Given the way they feel about Jews and the way they treat Blacks, how confident are you in a long life as a hispanic muslim?

Unfortunately, the democrats choose to pander to their different groups for political advantage rather than try to win the defining struggle of our times.

If, and only if we win, will the question of individual versus group domestically be important. In that case, those who sought to distract us from the fight for religious freedom will be remembered quite poorly by history.

Arnold. Quisling. Reid?

until later,