Pasadena: whiners with no priorities

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you my neighbors:

For Stephen Lipira, a citywide police crackdown on gangs going on for the past year has virtually transformed his North Raymond Avenue neighborhood.

"You would think we were in the Bronx," says the Pasadena Neighborhood Coalition vice-chairman.

Things are so bad now, agrees fellow member Lorraine Montgomery, she's thinking of moving out after 20 years.

"It's not only the harsh grating noise but also the vibrations that you can feel over your entire body."

As part of a tripling of police enforcement levels in Northwest Pasadena in response to 10 homicides in the past 19 months, the police's fleet of helicopters - two Enstrom F28F's, a Bell 206 BIII, and two Bell OH-58 Kiowa Warriors - has been busy.

The Foothill Air Support Team (FAST), shared by 10 area cities, has flown out on about 4,482 emergency calls in Pasadena just in the first six months of this year. Taking off from the Arroyo Seco, the helicopters can fly to a crime in 45 seconds, on average, said Pasadena Air Operations OIC, Lt. Robert Mulhall.

"The effectiveness of the helicopter is unparalleled when it comes to speed," said Chief Bernard Melekian. "I think any resident who calls for a police response would appreciate the additional eyes and ears."

But I know that keeping our kids from KILLING EACH OTHER (and the rest of us in the crossfire) is a hell of a lot more important that a little extra noise from the helicopters. Where did these people lose their sense of perspective? And they claim to be NEIGHBORHOOD ACTIVISTS? Give me a freaking break. If one of them was the target of a crime, I suspect they'd demand the helicopter go after the bad guys, post haste, and all the noise be damned.

I'm all in favor of noise ordinances for things like airports and industrial sites, if there's a reasonable way to reduce noise for neighborhood residents. But to cut back on the ability of the police to do their job just because you don't like the noise? Are you kidding me? What's next? No sirens on police cars, ambulances, or fire trucks? And speaking of sirens, why all of a sudden is it the helicopters that bother you? 90% of the time when I hear the chopper, the sirens come right behind. And they are a hell of a lot more annoying, and certainly louder than the helicopter, even when it hovers over my street.

And one other thing, you whiny crybabies. Next time you hear the helicopter coming, go in the house and turn on your fans. I think you'll be surprised to note you can't hear it anymore. Just like I can't.

h/t Centinel at Foothill Cities

Top Ten signs I've gotten into Pasadena Politics...

I get all of these jokes....

Lifted shamelessly 100% from FCBlog.  For all you SoCaler's:

With all the talk about the Rose Parade and the China controversy and our fearless (?) leaders international dealings..it's time for another Top Ten.

From the home office in Beijing, China:

TOP TEN FLOATS THAT WON'T MAKE IT INTO THE ROSE PARADE
10. Chris Hansen's Dateline NBC Decoy Float For Internet Pedophiles
9. The Ad Hoc Committee On Floats Float
8. The Other Guy In Wham! Float
7. The Turkish-Armenian Friendship Float
6. The Float Put Together By PUSD Kids Who Get All F's
5. The Sid Tyler Float Of "Tobaccy & Shoe Polish"
4. Al-Qaeda's "Death To America" Float
3. Sock On Float
2. Anthony Portantino Ate My Float
1. Robin Salzer's Float Of Roses Smothered In Brown Mustard & BBQ Sauce

Southern California Fire Information Roudup

Dozens of wildfires all over the Southern California area.

View Larger Map

Most seem to be natural or accidental in nature (mostly from wind-downed high voltage lines), but the Santiago Canyon fire near Irvine was deliberately set. Bastards.

Fires in LA in October is as natural as Hurricanes in Florida in August. Northeasterly winds, called the Santa Anas bring hot dry air down from the high desert into the valleys and foothills, and well, it doesn't take much to start a big fire.

The LA Times has a good round-up and photo galleries. KCAL 9 is on the air live with updates, as new fires continue to pop up every hour or so in addition to the major fires in Malibu, Castaic, Canyon Country, San Diego, Irvine, Ontario, and Lake Arrowhead......

Here's links to information on School Closures and Evacuation Centers.

Folks with large animals can take them to the Ventura County Fairgrounds, the Orange County Fairgrounds, or Pierce College Equestrian Center. Bring Food, Water, Water Tubs, and Medicine. Many animal shelters and vet offices will care for smaller pets, too. Call around for information. In emergencies, pet owners can call (818) 991-6384 to set up an emergency rescue in the Malibu OR Agua Dulce areas. For more animal info, check here.

It goes without saying, folks, but if you're in the fire area, get out when they tell you to leave, and if you're not in a fire area, stay the hell out. The firefighters need to get in and out without having to drive around your looky-loo ass.

San Diego Fire News

Joanie is almost literally liveblogging the fires from Northern San Diego County.  Lots of pictures, information, and links on her site.

Be sure to scroll down through the posts over the last few days!

Stay safe, Darlin'!

Blogging in the 'Dena

Local blogging is alive and well in Pasadena, and the bloggers are a great crew to hang out with!

Just got home from the reasonably-semi-annually Pasadena bloggers picnic. Ok, it was really Foothill Cities, as the actual group who were there span an area from La Canada to San Dimas, and blog on everything from photography to journalism, to local politics.

Hubby and I decided to take the Princesses, and they were super well behaved. And of course, after running around the park all afternoon they are too pooped to pop! Both of them are napping on the bed at the moment.

Check out the blogs of the folks who were there:
Miss Havisham, who organized the whole shindig (YAY!)
Aaron Proctor
West Coast Grrlie Blather
Altadenablog
Palm Axis
The Real Zajac
Frazgo
KChristieH
Pasadena Daily Photo
Eye Level Pasadena
LA Times Pressmens 20 year club

And I know I missed a couple of people, so if you were there and aren't represented, or you see someone not on the list, let me know in the comments.

Joining the Club

Welcome to the Conservasphere to another Pasadenan, The Pasadena Closet Conservative!

He/She chooses to remain anonymous because,

I dare not "out" myself because I would run the risk of being held hostage by liberals at some Ashram while being brainwashed with MultiCultural/PoliticallyCorrect/GroupThink/Socialist "isms" until I hollered "I'm Nancy Pelosi's bitch", begged for mercy and changed my party affiliation using a pen filled with my own blood.

Dear African American "Community Leaders",

You are all a bunch of fucking hypocrites.  That's right.  I said hypocrites.  I call BS on you and, as they say in South Park, I declare shenanigans!

Some idiot with bad taste and a worse sense of humor hangs a Sarah Palin doll from a noose and you don't respond?  Dare I even suggest that you think it's funny because she's running against your Obamessiah?



Correct me if I'm wrong, but about 10 years ago you all were so mad about a BEAR in a noose that you forced USC to abandon a decades old student tradition of hanging bruins (the UCLA mascot) from tiny nooses.  LITTLE TINY TEDDY BEARS. In UCLA shirts.  You said it was racist.  You said that it was reminiscent of the lynching of black men by the KKK.  You said you were offended.  So we stopped hanging TEDDY BEARS.

I get your point, though.  Hanging people is not a joke.  It's MURDER.  And that's never funny.

And now, these people have NOT A BEAR, but a life-size mannequin of a woman, dressed as Sarah Palin, hanging from a noose in their yard and you say not one word.  Why?

I'll bet my house that if it was Barry Obama swinging from the yardarm you'd have had 3 press conferences already, and called the police out to arrest these homeowners for a hate crime.  Perhaps for racial intimidation.

And yet you say nothing about this.  I'm offended by it, and I'm clearly not black.  Not as a conservative, or because I am a woman, but because I think it's disgusting.  Hanging a bear, or a skeleton, or something clearly not representing a particular person is one thing, demonstrating by your Halloween display that you wish someone a painful death is quite another.

And I still want to hear your outrage.  If you all could muster that kind of vitriol for a few teddy bears, I bet you can come out and preach it about this Sarah Palin mannequin.

I'll be sure to be there to support you when you do.

Regards,
CTG

h/t Flap

You're here, you're queer, GET OVER YOURSELVES

For the record, I voted NO on Prop 8, folks.

Now that THAT's out of the way, let me get to my point.  Last night's protest rallies in West Hollywood and elsewhere did NOTHING to help the No on 8 cause.

The election is OVER.  The ballots have been counted.  The "No on 8" side lost.

Sitting in a busy intersection, holding up traffic and waving signs from an election that's past now doesn't make people want to support you.  It makes people think you are a bunch of whiny crybabies with nothing better to do than to hold them up in traffic.  Which, as we LA folks ALL know, is shitty without protesters blocking up the main intersections.

So get over it.  Wipe your tears.  Get up and fight back. The RIGHT way.  The SMART way.  Don't make your opponents so upset that they resent you.  That's no way to "win friends and influence people."

You looked like a bunch of sissies in front of a big bully last night.  Seriously.  Do you WANT to play to stereotypes?  Do you think that's anyway to bring people to your cause?  Sure it rallies people who agree with you, but the majority of Californians (at least according to the vote) probably thought it was pathetic and predictable from a "bunch of whiny sissies"...

You have plenty of recourse beyond crying in the street: go to court now, although I doubt you'll get far with that (for two reasons*), AND put it back on the ballot as soon as you can.  And in the meantime, conduct yourselves so as to make people feel more favorable toward gay marriage outside of CA's two big urban centers.

I feel your pain. I know, it's really sad.  In some cases, it's devastating, and I know you want to be able to cry and rage together, but YOU CAN NOT DO IT in the middle of the street.  Sure, it's your right to peaceably assemble, and I'm proud that 99% of folks last night WERE peaceful, but it's just not a smart strategy.

Acceptance of gay relationships has always been an uphill battle, so in order to get this changed, the strategy has to be smart and focus on getting the opposition to see gay people as simply PEOPLE.  Not whiny, childish, idiots.  There's a lot of stereotype to get past.  This kind of disruptive public display doesn't help.

From the MOMENT the polls closed on 11/4 and the first announcements showed 8 running behind, it was going to be a long and difficult campaign in the next election.  But the goal, and what will END this endless cycle of "gay marriage propositions," should be acceptance and tolerance in general.  By everyone.  We should be working to help people come together across CA and the world.

Not just for or against one ballot proposal or another.  Which it seems HAS been the strategy.

Wouldn't it be smarter (albeit harder, I admit) to work on people's thoughts and attitudes in a LONG TERM sense, rather than playing on their fears regarding their senses of self (e.g. only bigots vote yes on 8). People will vote their conscience.  Help them understand what they fear.

Welcome Instapundit fans! Thanks for dropping by! Feel fee to click around and come back if you see something you like!

** Two reasons (in my completely non-legal opinion) below the fold:

Like Cheese on Chinese Food

Republican rhetoric coming from The One, that is:

The News from LA LA LAnd...

Most of the time, the news just disgusts me and makes me sad....

But every once in a while it also gives me hope....

Keep your laws off my octuplets!

Unless you've been living under a rock, you've likely already seen the story of the Southern California who woman who gave birth to the world's first known surviving set of octuplets.

What you may not know, is that (no surprise) despite the family's plea for privacy, the vultures have been hard at work and have discovered that she already has (gasp!) six children, these babies were conceived (gasp!) via IVF, and that she's (wait for it........) a single mother living with her bankrupt parents.

"Where are the ethics??" scream the journos and the academics.  "How could you justify fertility treatment for a woman who already has a pack of kids?  Don't you have a MORAL OBLIGATION to keep a poor (reputedly on Medicaid), single woman from populating the planet with her bastards that the rest of us are going to have to support?"

There oughta be a law!  A law I tell ya! (read the comments here)

Well, there is a law.  Just not here.  I'm sure you've heard of China.

The selfsame "voices of the people" who decry this woman's choice to have a large family are the same folks who cry out bitterly about China's One Child policy.

Either fertility is regulated or it is not.  How many children is too many?  Is it a sliding scale based on your ability to pay for them?  If so, I'd wager most of us would have disappeared up the abortionist's vacuum tube.

Somehow they also fail to mention that if it's my choice to have a child or not, that includes BOTH outcomes: having the baby or not having the baby. The faceless critics lamenting this woman's "irresponsible choice" (a phrase uttered by a so-called Bio-Ethics expert during a news report this morning) are also the same crew lobbying so hard to keep abortion legal.

I'm sorry, but I thought "Keep your laws off my body" was an absolute.  Or does that just apply to the popular choices?

I haven't even touched the infertility aspect of this case.  Many of my dear friends struggle with infertility, some have pursued multiple courses of treatment.  Some, ultimately, decided that the pursuit was futile despite the deepest longings of their heart for a biological child.  Having seen the struggle that so many endure, it seems to me that any successful procedure resulting in a healthy baby is a win.  Perhaps those of you who have been down this road would like to chime in.

Certainly, it is a pertinent question, how will this mom support 14 children?  But how does a 14 year old support one baby?  How do two parents with two careers handle two or three small ones?  Raising kids is not easy for anyone at anytime.  14 children, including (reportedly) 2 with special needs and 8 infants presents a huge challenge, but that doesn't mean necessarily that the children will be neglected or hungry.  In fact, it's entirely possible that these 14 kids will be MUCH better off than some kids with only one or two siblings.

You can't have it both ways, either people get to choose the family they want, or they don't.  And if they don't, who makes the rules?  Based on what?

It works so well elsewhere, after all....

Serial Twit

caltechgirl it's not about IDEOLOGY, you fucking turd it's about breaking poor people's backs. Gas goes up $0.14/ gallon INSTANTLY

caltechgirl Sales tax OVER 10%, and then increases in income tax and car fees. Do you want people to MOVE OUT FASTER?

caltechgirl I wish I hated my house and I could afford to sell it. I'd leave CA tomorrow.

caltechgirl I can't afford to stay.

caltechgirl FTR, the fucking turd in question was some stupid ass liberal state senator who evidently only represents RICH PEOPLE

caltechgirl I
think if you find yourself in a hole this deep, the first question you
should be asking is not how do we fill the hole, but rather...

caltechgirl ... how did we get here? What are the bad decisions that led us here. And then don't repeat them.

caltechgirl Because you can only blame "the economy" so much.

caltechgirl I
thought the democrats were the champions of poor people. I guess that's
true only until they need them to bear the brunt of their mistakes.

The above was in response to some opportunist idiot on the TV taking advantage of the camera in his face to make the budget mess all about Democrats vs. Republicans.

That's just ignorant.  What it's about is how much are we going to take and who's listening.  Have you heard the man-on-the street interviews in the media?  NO ONE wants you to solve the problem by choking us to death with taxes.  NO ONE.  Yes, some tax increases are necessary, but how are we spending the money?  Isn't there something that can be done without shoving it, quite literally, on to the backs of your constituents?

I've heard both sides point out that this economy is based on spending.  Great.  Explain to me, then, how people can get the economy going by spending when it costs them more NOT ONLY to buy items, but also TO GET TO THE STORE. And more of their income goes back to the state to begin with.  These people are barely spending, and you're threatening to put a BIGGER hurt on their wallet?

You don't improve this state by taking money from people. You encourage them to give the state more than you would take by giving them incentives to buy.

As much as I hate the sheer size of the "porkulus" package that the President will sign tomorrow, I have to point out that it is based on INCENTIVES.  And maybe that's why people were willing to pass it.  Because the help is obvious.  It's money going to people.  Not coming out of their pockets.  At least not today.

Before I go....

I'm about to do one of my famous "quick, get the F out before anyone sees you leave" exits from the office and I wanted to jump in and post something quickly before I take off (for the record, faculty don't have set schedules, we just have to be here for our responsibilities: teaching, meetings, research, and the schedule is otherwise pretty flexible...)

Over the weekend as I flipped channels I kept seeing this show on the Travel Channel called "101 Chowdowns" or something like that.  It was about the 101 best comfort food/ junk food/ chow down places in the US.  We weren't big fans of their choices per se, so we were discussing our favorite pig out places.

In no particular order here are 10 of mine: Fosselman's Ice Cream (Alhambra), Original Tommy's (Rampart and Beverly), Donut Man in Glendora, Bojangles (any), Roscoe's House of Chicken and Waffles, Foster's Freeze, Bullock's Barbecue in Durham (family style!), Amante's Pizza, Elmo's Diner in Carrboro (not Durham), and Chick Fil A (again, pretty much any one).

What's your favorite "chowdown"?  Where is it?

Look Before You Leap

I'm getting excruciatingly tired of the debate in this country over the new AZ anti-immigration law.  Everywhere you look it's one talking head or another bloviating about how the law is illegal and immoral and racist.

Really?  A piece of paper is racist?

But I distract myself from my point.

The point is this:  most people have never actually read the law, and all ANYONE seems to be interested in doing is screaming "NAZIS!!!" and "RACISTS!!!" rather than looking objectively at the REAL problem and trying to solve it constructively.

Let's lay out some basic facts first. 

1.  Anyone in this country illegally is a criminal.  That's what the word illegal means, folks.  No matter how well-meaning their intentions, if you come into this country without permission, you have committed a crime, whether you are Mexican, Chinese, Canadian, or ET.

2.  Producing documentation is not a burden.  Try to use that argument with TSA next time you fly anywhere.  See how fast you get on a plane without some form of ID.  I am so tired of people comparing this requirement to the nazis.  If this documentation requirement is nazi-esque, then so is the cop who pulls you over for speeding.  In the state of CA, if your license is not PHYSICALLY PRESENT with you in the car, you can be fined and have your car towed, even if the license is valid and you are able to give the cop your license number.  The kinds of documents that the AZ law requires are things like a driver's license, green card, or passport with entry date stamped.  These all fit in your pocket.  As an American traveling abroad, I would be sure to keep these things with me, in fact, if I was arrested in Europe, that would be the FIRST thing a policeman would expect me to give him.

3. Reasonable Suspicion is how police operate.  It's not automatically a racist intention.  If I am a policeman and I see a person running down the street carrying a large TV, I have a reasonable suspicion the TV might be stolen, and I can therefore investigate.  Which means to stop the guy with the TV and ask him some questions.  If it's his tv, he has nothing to worry about.  Without "reasonable suspicion", our justice system doesn't work.  I admit, as words on paper they are open to a lot of different interpretations, but NO ONE would agree that racism as a basis for reasonable suspicion is REASONABLE.  This is why racial profiling was deemed unconstitutional. Racial profiling IS using race together with other characteristics and circumstances as a basis for reasonable suspicion.  There are laws against that which people use every day to punish racist cops that use racial profiling.  Perhaps we should act against the racist people carrying out the laws rather than restrict the laws to the lowest common denominator. There's not much lower than racism.

4. The pot calling the kettle black doesn't strengthen your argument.  Here in Los Angeles we have heard quite a bit about the Mexican government's warning to all of its citizens to steer clear of AZ, yet they persist in some pretty harsh immigration policies of their own.  Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony. Mexico's General Law on Population (Consejo Nacional de Poblacion, last amended in 2000) requires the following: Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets 'the equilibrium of the national demographics,' when foreigners are deemed detrimental to 'economic or national interests,' when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws, and when 'they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy.' (Article 37) (ed. note: does this mean they can prevent you from going to Mexico if you are black???);  and The Secretary of Governance may 'suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest.' (Article 38).  According to the law, Mexican authorities must keep track of every single person in the country: Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request, i.e., to assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants. (Article 73); A National Population Registry keeps track of 'every single individual who comprises the population of the country,' and verifies each individual's identity. (Articles 85 and 86); A national Catalog of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants (Article 87), and assigns each individual with a unique tracking number (Article 91).  The law also imposes harsh penalties: A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of three hundred to five thousand pesos will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally. (Article 123); Foreigners with legal immigration problems may be deported from Mexico instead of being imprisoned. (Article 125);  Foreigners who 'attempt against national sovereignty or security' will be deported. (Article 126); and Mexicans who help illegal aliens enter the country are themselves considered criminals under the law.  Mexico strictly enforces these rules when they choose to, yet they would ask us to limit our own control over illegal immigrants in our country. (analysis borrowed from here, originally here).

5. Hysteria and hype don't help ANYONE.  I am SO DISGUSTED by the parade of people wandering across my TV screen bemoaning this law.  NONE of them have read it, and none of them have any practical solutions.  They just want to get on TV screaming about racism and nazis and whatever else they can say to be sensational and get headlines and sway emotinal people who are either too busy or not intellectual enough to MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION.  It's very easy in this society to be BAD consumers of information.  We get a LOT of information thrown at us.  A lot of people are very good at making baseless, biased, and non-factual arguments to try and sway their audience (and they aren't all lawyers).  When you have so much information in your face, it's harder to sift through and find 1) the facts and 2) the informed arguments both pro and con, especially when most people have so few tools with which to think critically about what is being presented to them (based on US test scores in critical thinking, and our curricular focus elsewhere).  We need to make educated decisions based on good information and reasoned argument, not buzzwords and sound bites.  Have we become so intellectually lazy that we automatically label people and ideas because SOMEONE ELSE calls them a name?

6. Immigration is not important just because "life isn't fun without Mexicans".  Are you kidding me?  Do you know how racist it sounds when you say things like "Yeah, well, just see who looks after your kids without Mexicans around?"  As if that's all Mexican people can do is watch children, mow lawns, pick fruit, and clean toilets?  Can you be any more dismissive or racist?  Immigration is an important issue because this country is a place where anyone who comes legally can make something great.  What ensures that is our society and our system.  In our society, people must contribute both time and money for civic good.  They are accountable for that through our system of law.  People who are here illegally reap benefits without the accountability of those contributions, which drains all legal citizens, directly or indirectly.  Furthermore, there are a hell of a lot of immigrants, both legal and illegal, who are NOT Mexican.  Making the immigration debate about US vs Mexico, or only Mexican illegals, diminishes the real threat posed by illegal border-crossers and visa-overstayers of all nationalities who smuggle drugs and weapons and plot against law-abiding citizens.  Someone who "looks American" isn't necessarily here legally.

7.One last thing: nazis??  Really???  Do you remember what the nazis did?  Do you really, honestly think that the Arizona Legislature intends to round up all the Mexican people in Arizona, put them in camps, and slaughter them?  Every time we compare someone or their ideas to the nazis, we diminish the impact of the horrors they perpetrated on millions of Jews, Blacks, Armenians, homosexuals, communists, dissenters...... Let's not forget what they did, please.  Let's not diminish it.

Getting that out there, my own take on the law is that if it does nothing else, it gives a voice to the rising frustration that Americans feel about the tide of crap coming over our borders.  This DOES NOT mean that everything and everyone who comes into this country is bad.  Nor does it imply only our southern border, though without a doubt the majority of immigrants and immigration (both legal and illegal) in AZ comes via Mexico.  There are obviously many illegal entrants who come to the US because they want to improve their families, contribute to their communities, and have a positive impact. Perhaps even the majority of illegal immigrants could be described this way. However, it is increasingly clear that a large percentage of crime and poverty (and their costs to the rest of society) are tied directly to illegal immigration.  Which is in and of itself a crime. It's not difficult logic: an illegal immigrant commits a crime by crossing the border illegally.  If we punish them for that crime, we can stop them from committing others.  I get it.

PRACTICALLY, however, this is not an easy situation.  How do you accomplish the goal of removing criminals from society without inconveniencing the law-abiding citizenry?  That's difficult enough when you talk about mundane theft or vehicular violations, which are overt acts.  How do you find the people who are committing a crime just by being in the wrong place without asking everyone whether or not they are allowed?  We aren't born with color-coded wristbands. Until we can find an easy solution, the debate continues.  I would just like it to be more focused, reasoned, and objective.  Without objective and reasoned debate, practical, acceptable solutions can not be found.

Think people, don't just form an opinion by osmosis.

A Blast from the Past

Found this on the old computer tonight, and I'm posting this for Ben.