Moderator: Nicole Marie
Haggis@wk wrote:San Diego to tax cats?
I'm envisioning Selma going all "Rambo" and starting a guerilla ("purrilla?") movement that will take to the hills based, of course, somewhere Fat Ivor's.
Any suggestions for the name of said movement? SO.CAL.CATZ? CLA? PLA? CRA?
What actions might they take?
Selma in Sandy Eggo wrote:Seriously, How are they going to collect? I keep my cats indoors. I don't live in the City of San Diego city limits. Waddatheygonnado?
“The real state budget includes an additional $79.2 billion in federal largesse, representing 38% of total state spending. This brings the grand total to $208.7 billion. So the state of California is getting a nearly $209-billion spending program while putting up less than $130 billion itself. . . . All programs are in jeopardy. It’s a good bet much of their federal funding will be trimmed or terminated in the future.”
Way back in 1968, after the riots at the Democratic Convention in Chicago, Mayor Daley declared that his forces were there to “preserve disorder.” I believe that was one of Hizzoner’s famous malapropisms. Forty-three years later Jean Quan, mayor of Oakland, and the Oakland city council have made “preserving disorder” the official municipal policy. On Wednesday, the “Occupy Oakland” occupiers rampaged through the city, shutting down the nation’s fifth-busiest port, forcing stores to close, terrorizing those residents foolish enough to commit the reactionary crime of “shopping,” destroying ATMs, spraying the Christ the Light Cathedral with the insightful observation “F**k,” etc. And how did the Oakland city council react? The following day they considered a resolution to express their support for “Occupy Oakland” and to call on the city administration to “collaborate with protesters.”
That’s “collaborate” in the Nazi-occupied-France sense: The city’s feckless political class are collaborating with anarchists against the taxpayers who maintain them in their sinecures. They’re not the only ones.
“At first glance, an alliance of anarchists and government might appear to be somewhat paradoxical. But the formal convergence in Oakland makes explicit the movement’s aims: They’re anarchists for statism, wild free-spirited youth demanding more and more total government control of every aspect of life — just so long as it respects the fundamental human right to sloth. . . . At heart, Oakland’s occupiers and worthless political class want more of the same fix that has made America the Brokest Nation in History: They expect to live as beneficiaries of a prosperous Western society without making any contribution to the productivity necessary to sustain it. This is the ‘idealism’ that the media are happy to sentimentalize, and that enough poseurs among the corporate executives are happy to indulge — at least until the window-smashing starts.”
“There is such a thing as too many daughters, but not too many sons,” Dr. Sunita Puri was told by the Asian-Indian women she was interviewing.
The physician, who practices in the Bay Area, wanted to find out why so many immigrant Indian women in the United States were so eager to find out the sex of their unborn children, and why so many of them choose abortion when they found out they were carrying a girl.
What she discovered over the course of 65 interviews conducted over several years profoundly shocked her. Fully 89 percent of the women carrying girls opted for an abortion, and nearly half had previously aborted girls.
...Jason Abrevaya of the University of Texas analyzed U.S. birth data and found unusually high boy-birth percentages after 1980 among later children (most notably third and fourth children) born to Chinese and Asian-Indian mothers. Moreover, using maternally linked data from California, he found that Asian-Indian mothers are significantly more likely both to have a terminated pregnancy and to give birth to a son when they have previously only given birth to girls.
“Prop. 31 grants de facto regional super-governments the power to swallow up and control local municipalities, which will lose flexibility and be greatly disadvantaged unless they knuckle under to a whole new layer of government newly interposed between those localities and the state.’
barfle wrote:I keep wondering how a state that elected Ronald Reagan could also elect Barbara Boxer.
How the mighty have fallen!
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]