Crazy? Or just a shameless publicity hound?

 

Last year, Uriel Landeros went into the Menil Collection of art in Houston and spray painted graffiti on a Pablo Picasso painting. He supposedly fled the country and is in hiding somewhere in Mexico.

 

Instead of being censured by James Perez who owns a gallery in Houston, Perez is hosting a showing of Landeros' "art." Perez says he supports what Uriel did in the case of the Picasso. He says, "It's just taking something and making it your own. I like what Uriel did. That it makes it yours." Hmmmm - I always thought that was called stealing.

 

Since Perez feels that way, perhaps we should all get up a painting party and go graffiti his house and car and gallery. I may be wrong, but I don't think he would like us making those things ours. If he truly would approve of it, the man needs to be committed to a mental institution.

 

"Gallery defends showing works of man who vandalized a Picasso." The Dallas Morning News; October 26, 2012; p. 4A.

Pots and kettles, Thomas.

 

Ah, the wisdom of youth! I sometimes can't help but be amused at teenagers' misconception that they are far more enlightened and far more wise to the ways of the world than their elders.

 

Thomas Hair and a friend were texting on the school bus about a boy they didn't like. Thomas was enjoying himself until his friend called the boy an ape. Thomas was horrified -- the boy they don't like is black. Thomas jumps to the conclusion that his friend is equating the boy's skin color with gorillas and Africa. That could be the case -- I was not privy to the conversation. However, I have heard white people, particularly very large men referred to as "big apes." Watch any of the old romantic comedies from the 1930's and 1940's, and you'll often find the cute young lady referring to her suitor as a "big ape." Rather than having something to do with skin color or geography, the reference is to their actions. Perhaps Thomas is the one who harbors some racist tendencies by automatically imagining the black victim of their gossip as an ape.

 

So with the wisdom born of an inflated sense of self, Thomas proceeds to tell us how racist we all are. He says that it is practically impossible not to be racist in this society no matter how principled we are. He says that calling that boy an ape was the worst form of bigotry he has experienced. Well, Thomas, why don't you tell that to those four little black girls who were killed by a KKK bomb at 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham? Why don't you tell that to their families? Do you think, given a choice of the form of bigotry they were exposed to, they would have said, "We'll take the bomb instead of the name-calling"?

 

Thomas is glad that he's not like his parents and the generations preceding theirs. "My generation knows full well that skin color has absolutely no impact on someone's personality, intelligence or behavior." Yes, Thomas, I thank God that he has opened our eyes through your vast wisdom and understanding.

 

By the way, Thomas never did say he was sorry for engaging in gossip about this boy. I guess a loose tongue and condescending attitude is OK as long as you don't call a black person an ape. I wonder if Thomas has ever heard the expression "that's the pot calling the kettle black"? And before you get all bent out of shape, Thomas, that is NOT a racist expression.

 

"Do your part to end bigotry." The Dallas Morning News; October 20, 2012; p. 19A.

 



Can he afford a $25 fine?

 

Don Matyja is homeless. He says the City of Costa Mesa is targeting homeless people. He got a $25 ticket for smoking in a public park. He didn't take care of it, and with court fees and other charges accruing, he now owes $600. My question is this: if he couldn't afford a $25 fine, how can he afford cigarettes? The average cost of a pack of cigarettes in California is $5.19. I'll just bet that Don smokes at least a pack a day -- maybe more.

 

In Newport Beach, library staff can evict people for having poor hygiene or a strong aroma. Homeless advocates are incensed. "It's an attempt to keep people out of where the neighborhood and community folks feel uncomfortable," said Scott Mather. I look at it another way -- it's a way to allow those whose taxes keep the library open to be able to enjoy it without feeling nauseated and intimidated.

 

"Homeless residents say they're the targets of cities' bans." The Dallas Morning News; October 9, 2012; p. 6A."

It's already Essie Award time again!

 

Seems like we've awarded more Essies than usual lately. Could the world be getting dumber?

 

Stupidity is often fatal, so this Essie is another posthumous award. And the winner is Edward Archbold, 32, of West Palm Beach, Florida. Edward went out a winner, though -- he vied against 29 other contestants in a live roach and worm eating contest, and he won. He died shortly thereafter.

 

And what was he willing to eat those disgusting things for? His grand prize was a python. No word yet on the official cause of death, but it really doesn't matter -- Edward still deserves this Essie!

 

"Winner of roach-eating contest dies." The Dallas Morning News; October 9, 2012; p. 6A.

To Be Continued

 

 

First it was mammograms. Then PSA tests and pap smears. Now the government has come up with another medical test we don't really need -- The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, a government-appointed body, says women don't need to be screened for ovarian cancer. They say the tests do more harm than good. The tests are simple blood tests and sonograms. We can thank Obamacare for this  -- the goal is to reduce medical costs, and medical costs can certainly be reduced when we get no diagnostics and no treatment.

 

The next test we don't need is . . . . .

 

To be continued.

 

"Ovarian cancer screenings aren't effective, panel says." The Dallas Morning News; September 11, 2012; p. 7A.

Is it just a matter of semantics?

 

Maybe it's just a matter of semantics, but this seems awfully backward to me. The state police and federal agents recently conducted an initiative called Sex Offender Alien Removal in Texas. It identifies aliens who have committed sex offenses and other crimes that make them "eligible" for deportation. Eligible for deportation? These people are here illegally! Staying in the U.S. is not an entitlement -- it is a privilege. There shouldn't be any question as to "eligibility" for deportation. They should be assumed to be ineligible to stay until they prove their eligibility -- that they came here legally and haven't broken our laws since arriving. Otherwise, adios, Amigo!

 

What I really can't figure out is why they had to round these folks up. Shouldn't they have been deported while they still had them in custody?

 

"24 immigrant convicts arrested." The Dallas Morning News; September 14, 2012; p. 3B.

 



John Zeigler has the answer.

 

John Zeigler of Denton thinks he has the answer to Social Security and Medicare. He says we simply eliminate the cap on income subject to FICA. That sounds good, John. Do you also agree then, that we should allow those who exceed the cap to draw a benefit commensurate with what they've paid in? I'm sure John realizes that the cap works both ways -- the benefit also hits that ceiling.

 

Then John says we should have the government negotiate for lower drug prices under the Medicare drug program. That sounds good, too, until you need a drug that will never be formulated because the drug companies were forced into such small profits by Medicare that they can no longer afford to dump money into research.

 

John says what we are dealing with is a "lack of political will on the part of those who have been materially blessed to see themselves as part of the whole body politic." I think he's saying that rich people are stingy. But are they? The top 1% of income earners had 16.9% of all the country's taxable income. But that same tiny group also kicked in 37% of all the taxes paid.

So, John, it seems your whole theory is just a tad off.

"Wealthy must pitch in." The Dallas Morning News; September 14, 2012; p. 16A.

 

 http://www.kiplinger.com/features/archives/how-your-income-stacks-up.html#ixzz29n1OIjEm
 



Did you know . . .

 

I'm sure most of you are well aware that illegal aliens get in-state tuition at Texas colleges. But were you aware that they also are eligible for financial aid? In fiscal yar 2010, the most recent figures available from the Texas Higer Education Coordinating Board, 2,500 illegal aliens received $9.5 million in state higher education grants. In all, there were 16,476 illegal aliens attending our schools at in-state rates.

 

Just thought you should know that while you're paying for your children's education, you're also paying for a bunch of lawbreakers, too.

 

"Illegal immigrants who pay in-state rates eligible for aid." The Dallas Morning News; October 16, 2012; p. 1A.

Paris News funny: Krista Goerte writes that, "Hors d'ouevres which included both a vanilla and chocolate fountain in the middle of a variety of sweets precluded a meal catered by Edison's of Dallas. Shoot! Those people must surely have been disappointed to miss the main course! Especially after Edison went to all the trouble of setting it up!

Is it just me?

Is it just me, or does this not make a whole lot of sense? The Pentagon and Congress are moving to establish policies intended to separate service personnel at risk for suicide from their "personal" weapons.

Their plan is to encourage friends and families of potentially suicidal service members to safely store or remove personal firearms from their homes. The goal, according to Dr Jonathan Woodson, is ". . .responsibly separating the individual at risk from the firearm." Congress is also ready to pass legislation that would allow military mental health counselors and commanders to talk to troops about their "private" firearms.

So, we're going to separate military personnel from their own and their family's firearms while they're at home, then we're going to put a military weapon in their hands when they go to work. Am I missing something, or is it that they can't commit suicide with a service weapon? And if they are that much of a danger to themselves, shouldn't they be given a medical discharge or at least hospitalized? I don't know about you, but if I were serving in a war zone (or anywhere else, for that matter), I wouldn't want the guy serving next to me to be so messed up that he would just as soon die as not.

"Plan seeks to keep guns away from suicidal soldiers." The Dallas Morning News; October 8, 2012; p. 4A.

Maybe Rush was right.

Sandra Fluke, the woman who is famous only because Rush Limbaugh called her a slut, recently spoke at SMU. She says that access to contraception is the key to women's futures. I can agree with her on that to some degree. I remember as a young married couple, Mr. Essie May and I decided not to have children until we both finished school and at least he was established in a good job. That's just practical good sense. So I went to the doctor, and he prescribed birth control pills for me. We could have gone any of several other routes, at least some of which require no doctor. The cost was something that even we could afford. We had easy and open access to contraceptives, and all of those options plus more still exist for everyone.

But that's not what Sandra Fluke is talking about. When Sandra Fluke talks about access, she's talking about contraceptives to be given to women at no charge. Notice, I didn't say free contraceptives. Because somebody has to pay for them. It's beyond me why Sandra, who attended Georgetown University Law Center where tuition, fees, room and board combined are higher than the average American’s annual household income, thinks somebody else should pay her bills. 

One other point -- Mr. Essie May and I were married when we discussed contraception. Sandra is talking about providing birth control for women who aren't even married. Women who aren't married should have no reason to be concerned about contraception! Maybe Rush Limbaugh was right.

"Activist stresses equality." The Dallas Morning News; September 25, 2012; p. 1B.

Posthumous Essie Award

WARNING: The content of this post may be offensive to some readers. If you don't want to risk being offended, DON'T LOOK, ETHEL!

It must be a full moon, because it's already time to award another Essie. Kasia Rivera has the entrepreneurial spirit. She came up with the idea for a home business and advertised via fliers in local shops. Justin Street saw one of her fliers and decided she could be of service to him.

So he went to her apartment for a silicone injection -- for penile enlargement. He died the next day of a silicone embolism. Rivera has been charged with reckless manslaughter.

So, alas, this Essie is awarded posthumously to the well-endowed Justin Street. 

"Woman pleads not guilty in silicone death." The Dallas Morning News; September 12, 2012; p. 7A.

Depends on how strong the motivation is.

 

Barbara Johnson of Dallas says that any great society should help the needy. I agree. Where Barbara and I disagree is on who the needy are. I say the needy are those with no family support system who have a physical or mental disability which precludes them from finding gainful employment. I say the needy are elderly widows who, instead of working outside the home, made homes for their families in an era when that's what most women did. Those elderly widows may now find themselves without a reliable income if their husbands did not make provision for it.

 

Barbara says not everyone is capable of "finding within themselves the confidence and drive which is necessary to make a decent life." I guess that depends on the motivation, Barbara. Cut off their food stamps and housing subsidies and Medicaid and let them get hungry enough and cold enough, and they just might get rid of enough laziness to dig down and find that "confidence and drive."

 

"Looking down on the needy." The Dallas Morning News; September 16, 2012; p. 2P.

Does this seem backward somehow?

 

Bourbon Street in New Orleans. Have you ever been there or seen a video of the revelry that goes on there? Bare-breasted women, drunks, profanity, cross-dressing -- anything goes.

 

A few weeks ago, there was a gay pride festival there. Guess who was arrested? Some street preachers. You see, New Orleans has passed an ordinance that you can't "loiter" on Bourbon Street to spread "any social, political or religious message" between sunset and sunrise.

 

So it's OK to expose yourself. It's OK to have a gay pride festival (certainly nothing political or social there). But it's not OK to stand on the street corner and say, "Jesus loves you."

 

Even one gay rights activist sees the irony in this. He says that it's a waste of their time, but "they certainly have a right to say it."

 

"Preachers test Bourbon Street ban." The Dallas Morning News; September 15, 2012; p. 4A.

You may not be more wealthy, but you think you are!

 

The Federal Reserve strategy is to make Americans think they are more wealthy than they are. This, they think, will spur us to buy more and help the economy.

 

This bit of ridiculous reasoning was put forth after Ben Bernanke announced that the Fed would be buying $40 billion a month in bonds for as long as he feels like it. Buying the bonds will drive down the interest rates and cause stock prices and home prices to rise. The "wealth effect" will boost the economy. This will make people more willing to "go out and spend."

 

So if I'm following his logic correctly, if my home, currently valued at $100,000, should rise in value to $110,000, then I have $10,000 I can go blow on something. But wait a minute! Do I actually have $10,000 more in my pocket? What if my home value decreases again before I sell it? Doesn't that mean I've spent $10,000 I don't have to spend? Isn't that kind of spending what sends people into bankruptcy?

 

Not to worry -- if Bernanke and Obama say it's good for the economy, then the last four years bears out that they know what they're talking about. NOT.

 

"Fed hopes 'wealth effect' spurs Americans to spend." The Dallas Morning News; September 15, 2012; p. 1A.

What's wrong with peeing in a cup?

Glenn and Kathy Kiederer are suing the Delaware Valley School District in Pennsylvania. They are upset about the requirement that any student participating in extra-curricular activities be drug tested. "They were asking a 12-year-old to pee in a cup. They're violating her right to privacy," said Kathy. I don't quite agree with her premise. Kathy's daughter asked to participate in a club, and that's one of the requirements for admission. Her privacy is not violated unless the school says she has to get drug-tested whether she participates in extra-curricular activities or not. Even then, I'm not so sure that's a privacy issue. School districts are allowed to set parameters (dress codes, vaccinations, etc).

At any rate, I can't imagine a parent being upset over a non-invasive test. I would want my children tested. By putting the onus on the school district, it gets the parent off the hook of the old "You don't trust me" ploy and prevents what could be a divisive family issue.

According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, approximately 8% of eighth graders will use drugs in any given month. If my daughter were in that 8%, I'd want to know. Approximately 12% of eighth graders will consume alcohol in any given month. If my daughter were in that 12%, I'd want to know.  Approximately 7% of eighth-graders will smoke marijuana. If my daughter were in that 7%, I'd want to know. Do you suppose the Kiederers are afraid of what they might find out?

"Middle school drug tests raise some parents' ire." The Dallas Morning News; September 23, 2012; p. 7A.

Essie Time Again

I know it hasn't been long ago, but it's already time for another Essie Award -- the award presented for incredible stupidity.

This Essie goes to Spc. Patrick Edward Myers of Spartanburg, South Carolina. Myers was stationed at Ft. Hood, Texas. He and Pfc. Isaace Lawrence Young were drinking and watching football. Pfc. Young had the hiccups. In an attempt to scare away the hiccups, Myers pointed a gun to Young's head and pulled the trigger. Young doesn't have the hiccups anymore -- the gun was loaded.

"Man dies in shooting meant to cure his hiccups." The Dallas Morning News; September 26, 2012; p. 4A.

Maybe, maybe not.

Kirby Warnock likes Obamacare. He thinks private health care doesn't work. He compares cost per capita vs. life expectancy for the U.S. and other industrialized nations and finds the U.S. comes up short.

But I read an interesting paper on the fallacy of using life expectancy to gauge whether or not a health care system is effective. The paper contends that most analyses use infant mortality and life expectancy as gauges, and that using those criteria presents a skewed picture.

David Hogberg, Ph.D. and author of the paper, contends that "any statistic that accurately measures health-care systems across nations must satisfy three criteria. First, the statistic must assume actual interaction with the health care system. Second, it must measure a phenomenon that the health care system can actually affect. Finally, the statistic must be collected consistently across nations."

Under the first criteria, the individual must have actual contact with the health care system. Therefore, a death from a diagnosed cancer would count. However, an accident fatality would not.

Second, the health care system must be able to have a meaningful impact on the phenomenon being measured. For example, rates of cancer are not legitimate measures since the health care system can treat cancers, but it cannot affect the rates of its occurrence.

And last, the collection of data must be consistent across countries. This is not the case. Some countries do not count certain segments of the population while other countries do. The results end up as apples and oranges comparisons -- virtually meaningless.

The author of the paper makes the point that there is little, if any, correlation between life expectancy and health care -- the number of physicians, hospitals, hospital beds, etc. Rather life expectancy is more closely tied to sanitation, diet, clean water, income, and literacy.

Dr. Hogberg concludes that "life expectancy and infant mortality are wholly inadequate comparative measures for health care systems. Life expectancy is influenced by a host of factors other than a health care system, while infant mortality is measured inconsistently across nations. Neither of these measures provides the United States with conclusive guidance on health care policy, let alone serve as reliable evidence that a system of universal health care should be implemented in the United States."

So, Mr. Warnock, your contention that we "pay more and get less" just doesn't hold water. According to economist Dr. Thomas Sowell, we get what we pay for. He likens our health care costs to the rising costs of automobiles. They cost a lot less when they didn't have air conditioning, electronic computer systems, seat belts and air bags, cruise-control, intermittent wipers, windshield washers, and a whole host of other things we consider to be standard these days. We pay more, but we get more. He says that the cost of developing a new pharmaceutical drug will run about a billion dollars. Is it worth it if that drug is the one that can cure your disease? In comparison to other nations, we have far more medical access -- for example, the U.S. has four times as many MRI units per capita as Great Britain or Canada. In Canada, 27% of the people who need surgery wait four months or more. In the U.S., that's 5%. Dr. Sowell says that anybody can bring down the cost, but we shouldn't be surprised when we get less when we pay less. So, Mr. Warnock, to answer your question of "If not Obamacare, then what?" I'd say less government intrusion, private insurance, flexible spending accounts, a free market, and a whole lot of personal responsibility.

"If not Obamacare, then what?" The Dallas Morning News; June 28, 2012; p. 14A.
"You get what you pay for in health care." The Dallas Morning News; July 2, 2009; p. 17A.

Judge not . . . unless.

Jamie Anne Richardson of Wylie thinks people waste their money. I agree. Many probably do. But I disagree with Jamie on another point which I'll get to later.

Jamie says that Allen School District taxpayers wasted their money on the $60 million high school stadium they built. Jamie says that presidential candidates waste money on advertising. Jamie says that Texans waste money on the lottery. Jamie says that people waste money donating to their churches, because the churches don't spend the bulk of the money on others. What would happen, she asks, if the churches didn't have buildings but used all that money on people instead.

Jamie says she's not a pot calling the kettle black. She says, "Judge not other's wasteful spending until you look at your own." She says she does that. Since I don't know Jamie, I did a little internet research, and I am not posting anything that anyone else couldn't find. It's surprising what an open book Jamie's life is. I wouldn't be comfortable with that much personal information about me floating around out there in cyberspace. Anyway, here's what I found:

Jamie's 3000 square foot house is on the Collin County Appraisal District roll at a value of $186,167. Does she really need 3000 square feet for her three children? Growing up, my five-member family resided in a house that was less than 1200 square feet. Couldn't Jamie live in a smaller, less expensive home and give the difference to the poor? Or to that food pantry that she's berated others about because they let the shelves get bare? And just think -- the utility bills wouldn't be as much in a house half the size of hers. She could add that savings to her gifts to the poor, too. Jamie has an iPhone. Wouldn't just a regular phone do the trick? I'll just bet she has some sort of "unlimited" phone/data plan for it, and we all know that's not cheap. One day, Jamie had a pumpkin spice latte in the morning and a Coke Zero for lunch and a glass of wine in the evening. Those are pretty high dollar drinks. What's wrong with water? As she suggested to others about the above-mentioned food pantry -- why don't you give up that mocha you hardly even taste and give the money to the food pantry? Jamie's kids have video games and Netflix. More wasteful spending, Jamie! Kids will do just fine without that stuff. Jamie has a treadmill. Wouldn't walking in the neighborhood do the trick? Jamie took a trip to Alaska this summer. Wow! Bet that cost a bit! She's also been to Jamaica. My definition of wasting money? Getting a tattoo like Jamie's. Maybe Jamie should judge her own wasteful habits as harshly as she judges others.

Do I have a right to tell Jamie what to do with her money? No, I certainly don't. Neither does Jamie have the right to tell Allen ISD what to do with its money (unless she's in that district, in which case she had the opportunity to vote on that big stadium -- the "yea's" won). And she doesn't have a right to tell the presidential candidates how to spend their money. And if I want to go buy $1000 worth of lottery scratch-offs, it's none of her business. The only church Jamie has a right to question about its expenditures is her own. Even if Jamie is judging herself first, she doesn't have a right to judge what other people do with their money except for two reasons -- number one: they owe her money -- number two: they're drawing welfare of some sort. If that's not the case, Jamie, you should butt out.

Just a thought -- do you suppose Jamie is trying to rationalize a failure to tithe?

"Beyond the church offering." The Dallas Morning News; September 22, 2012; p. 19A.

Your Tax Dollars at Work

David Silverstein and Lyudmila Shimonova lived in this $1.2 million lakefront home. 

By the way -- you helped them with the rent. They've been collecting $1,200 a month in housing assistance. We'll still be paying their rent, but it will be going to the federal penitentiary system where they have been sentenced to reside for the next 18 months on charges of defrauding the government in this scheme as well as others. In the meantime, they've been ordered to pay back $261,000. Do you think the taxpayers will ever see a dime of that?

"Pair in mansion now to inhabit prison cells." The Dallas Morning News; September 22, 2012; p. 8A.

I wonder how much this study cost us?

You won't believe the results of this "decades-long" study! Researchers have concluded that people who drink large numbers of soft drinks gain more weight than people who don't. And not only that, but they also found that giving children sugar-free alternatives leads to less weight gain. Imagine that! Who would have thought there could be a correlation between consuming sugar and gaining weight? 

The summation of this research: "the results strongly suggest that sugary drinks cause people to pack on the pounds, independent of other unhealthy behavior such as over-eating and getting too little exercise." Wow! I'd say this study ranks right up there with the study that concluded that little children fall off tricycles because they lose their balance or because they run into something.

"Souring news on soft drinks." The Dallas Morning News; September 22, 2012; p. 1A.

Restaurant Review

Remember the old parody of "The Cat's in the Cradle"? It was "The Cat's in the Kettle" at the Peking Moon. If you don't remember it, here's a link to the Youtube video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8zEfYbsrr0

I always thought it was really funny. I don't eat Chinese often, but it never occurred to me that something like that could actually happen. I guess it didn't occur to the diners at the Red Flower Chinese Restaurant in Williamsburg, Kentucky, either. But they'll probably think twice before they eat there again.

It's not the cat in the kettle that's the problem there -- it's the roadkill deer. Diners there were put off their food just a little when they saw restaurant employees wheeling in a barrel that held a deer that had been hit on the highway. 

The health inspector said the owner told him they didn't know they were doing anything wrong. The inspector shut down the Red Flower, so I guess the citizens of Williamsburg will have to get their Garfield on a fork from the Peking Moon until the Red Flower blooms again.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/kentucky-restaurant-shut-down-roadkill-kitchen-160225525.html 

Let's think about this.

Those who deem themselves enlightened bend over backwards to convince the rest of us of their superior status. I am always amused that, while they chastise us for being judgmental, they don't see that that's exactly what they are.

Maggie Dunham of Dallas bemoans the fact that we don't all celebrate "diversity." She says that her neighbor once said, "All my friends think like I do." Maggie regrets that she did not respond, "Oh, I'm so sorry." How condescending is that? Is she not celebrating the fact that her neighbor has a diverse opinion from hers?

Maggie says there are people in this world who look and think "dramatically differently" than we do. "That does not make them wrong any more than it makes us right." I beg to differ. If the Muslim who says the way to eternal glory and 70 virgins is by killing infidels is right, then how can the Christian who says that the way to eternal glory is through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ be right? One of them is definitely wrong! 

Maggie is evidently perturbed that Muslim women have been denied the "right" to wear their head coverings when having their state ID photos taken. She quotes a post on her Facebook page: "If a woman is free to show her body, why should she not be free to cover it?" And therein lies the difference. Muslim women are not free to decide whether or not they cover their bodies. Under sharia law, women are required to cover all of their bodies except hands and face. Women that are caught in violation of these restrictions can be subject to high fees and lashings.

Does Maggie think that's right? If she doesn't, is she failing to celebrate diversity? I somehow don't think those women who receive the beatings feel like celebrating.

"Enjoy the differences around you." The Dallas Morning News; September 23, 2012; p. 2P.

Want to rob a bank? Just don't show your papers and be confident that you can get help.

Illegal aliens are rising up! Carlos Garcia said their strategy is to urge people to not cooperate with immigration enforcement efforts -- whether they're in the country legally or not. I don't quite get that. If I'm in the country legally, why would I want to risk deportation by not cooperating with immigration officials? 

Let's substitute bank robbery for illegal status. We have a coalition of bank robbers who say, "Whether you've robbed a bank or not, we urge you not to cooperate with the authorities." So the local bank is held up by a 5'7" tall man with gray hair and a big mole on his right cheek. He was last seen driving a gray mini-van. By golly! I'm a 5'7" tall man with gray hair and big mole on my right cheek. And I drive a gray mini-van! But I didn't hold up the bank. Naturally, the police see me in the area and they stop me. When they ask to see my ID, I refuse, because I'm going to stand up for those bank robbers! When they ask where I was at 2:00 p.m. when the bank was robbed, I say, "Just try to drag it out of me, coppers." When they ask to search my van, I smugly say, "Get a warrant!" Do you think they might begin to suspect that I have something to hide?

Beatrice Jernigan said her friends who are in the country illegally are scared. Well, duh! Why shouldn't they be? Do you suppose bank robbers are a bit apprehensive that they might get caught?

Leticia Ramirez is here illegally. She advises people not to carry any documents showing where they were born. She says, "We want to teach the community how to defend themselves, how to answer to police, how to be prepared, and to have confidence that they're going to have help." Yes, we certainly want those bank robbers to not have any evidence on them -- get rid of those money wrappers with First National Bank on them and ditch those bills with sequential serial numbers. Yes, we want those bank robbers to know how to lie to the police. "Why, no, officer, I've never even been in the First National Bank." Yes, we want those bank robbers to have confidence that they'll get help. After all, if those banks didn't have all that money, they wouldn't have robbed them -- it's all those greedy old bankers' fault.

This world is completely upside-down!

"Protesters target 'show me your papers.'" The Dallas Morning News; September 20, 2012; p. 4A.