It seems so simple

and yet our federal government under Presidente Jorge Bush can't seem to grasp it, though neither can the Mayor of Los Angeles, for that matter. DEPORT THE CRIMINALS!

I don't think an abdication of basic government responsibility gets any bigger than this.

(hat tip: Michelle Malkin)

No, Mexico

is not our friend.

Talking with Iran's mullahs (or Why do our capital ships have stupid names?)

is like teaching a pig to sing. It is another example of where George Bush's spinelessness has hurt national security. (In fact, about the only things he's not spineless on are Iraq and this damned amnesty bill, but I digress ...) But I feel better about it after hearing this (via Wizbang):

Watching the pundits discuss our historic meeting with Iran, you would have mostly heard despair at the notion that we have no leverage in these talks, and so therefor why would Iran give on anything? Why would they stop waging war against us in iraq if they have nothing to fear? To all the experts in the media, the whole thing seemed like some grand puzzlement. Was it just an attempt to appease the administration’s domestic critics who have been chiding it for not engaging in diplomacy ( a vaguery if there ever was one ) with the world’s top terrorist? No one you heard from could really quite grasp what was going on.

For some reason, no one told you that just 5 days before Monday’s talks, an entire floating army, with nearly 20,000 men, comprising the world’s largest naval strike force, led by the USS Nimitz and the USS Stennis, and also comprising the largest U.S. Naval armada in the Persian Gulf since 2003, came floating up unnanounced through the Straight of Hormuz, and rested right on Iran’s back doorstep, guns pointed at them. The demonstration of leverage was clear. And it also came on the exact date of the expiration of the 60 day grace period the U.N. had granted Iran.

And it came just a few weeks after Vice President Dick Cheney had swept through the region and delivered a very clear and pointed message to the Saudi King Abdullah and others: George Bush has unequivocally decided to attack Iran’s nuclear, military and economic infrastructure if they do not abandon their drive for military nuclear capability. Plain and simple. Iran heard the message as well, and although a lack of leverage may seem clear to America’s retired military tv talking heads, it is not so clear to the government in Tehran.

The message to both Iran and Syria is that if the talks in Baghdad fail, the military option is ready to go. (emphasis added)

Speak softly, big stick, you know the drill. Except we rarely do it, generally not under this president and almost never under Democratic presidents (an exception being Clinton's sending two carrier groups to Taiwan in 1996).

But this does highlight a sore point for me: the names of our U.S. Navy ships.

I mean, the Nimitz? The Stennis? Don't get me wrong. I love the Nimitz. The first model I ever built was of the Nimitz, and I always feel better seeing the Nimitz or her sisters sitting at NAS North Harbor when I visit my beloved San Diego.

And her namesake is worthy of a ship. Chester Nimitz was the commander of the Pacific Fleet in World War II. His strategic and logistical skills were largely responsible for winning the war against Japan.

But who the hell is John Stennis and what did he do that merited a capital ship? Ditto for Carl Vinson?

In World War II our aircraft carriers had cool names. Revolutionary War battles like Lexington, Yorktown or Saratoga. Or famous ships like Enterprise, Hornet, Wasp, Ranger and Essex. They stood for something we all could appreciate. If you didn't, you were motivated to check out what they meant. What happened at Lexington, Saratoga and Yorktown. There was a certain intimidation factor to all of them.

Not anymore. Based on my research, the only names mentioned above that are even being used by the U.S. Navy are Enterprise (our first nuclear carrier, which is getting a little old) and Wasp (an amphibious assault ship, like a small carrier, but not a superstar like the big ones). Yorktown is now a mothballed cruiser. Supposedly, Senator John Warner had wanted to name the latest Nimitz-class carrier the Lexington, but instead it was named the Gerald Ford.

Geez-o-Pete! Maybe -- maybe -- I could understand the George Washington and the Abraham Lincoln. Ronald Reagan, too. Even though I would not name an aircraft carrier after a person, I can understand that those were great presidents. But Gerald Ford? Dwight Eisenhower?

We used to have a great system -- aircraft carriers got names of battles and famous ships; battleships were named after states, cruisers after cities, destroyers after people, submarines after fish. Now they're all mixed up -- for some unfathomable reason, we have a submarine named after friggin' Jimmy Carter, for cryin' out loud!

But it seems our capital ships are now named according to political patronage, rather than a representation of America. And our history is being lost in the process.

A request to the people of Venezuela (and Iran)

Can't you people stage a revolt and topple the already revolting Hugo Chavez already? Geez! He takes away your freedoms, beats you up with thugs ("Bolivarian Circles," he calls them), you protest and he sends in tanks. My Gawd. Just get rid of the guy, won't you? No good has come of the life of Hugo Chavez. He probably should have been aborted, and it's not too late to do it retroactively. The sooner Venezuela dumps Chavez, the sooner the world will be a much better place.

This goes for you, too, Iran. Nothing good has come from the mullahs and Ahmadinejad, their Geico Caveman of a president. And don't get me started on the Revolutionary Guards, or Pasdaran, who might as well be a latter day SAVAK.

Just dump 'em already. We did it. You can do it, too.

The War on Terror is important

but not as important as the War on Drugs, I guess:

The US is proceeding with plans for a big crop-spraying programme to destroy opium poppies in Afghanistan, in spite of resistance from the government of President Hamid Karzai and objections from some senior US military officers who fear it will fuel the Taliban insurgency.

A US delegation will soon leave for Kabul to persuade Mr Karzai that glycophate, a herbicide that is widely applied by US farmers, is safe to use and that trial ground-spraying should begin for the first time since the US ousted the Taliban regime in 2001.

But controversy over the proposed spraying is causing rifts within the Nato alliance. Some governments, including Germany, want nothing to do with the eradication programme and are threatening to reconsider their posture in Afghanistan, diplomats say. Afghan security forces trained by Dyncorp, a private US defence contractor, are to carry out the spraying.

[...]

Pointing to a map of Afghanistan, he described a broad north-south divide. Poppy cultivation had either fallen sharply or stabilised in the north-central provinces that were more secure, but risen in the west, south and east, where the Taliban insurgency was gaining strength.

[...]

Afghanistan supplies over 90 per cent of the world’s opium, but the crop also accounts for about a third of the country’s entire economic output.

“The US is hell-bent on eradication,” said Robert Rotberg, Harvard University professor. “They claim it worked in Colombia and so will work in Afghanistan. It is not clear to anyone it worked in Colombia,” he added.

Our government is run by idiots.

Speaking of common sense

where the hell is it when it comes to vote fraud? First we have people who actually oppose Voter ID laws. Quin Hillyer has a response to their legal arguments. Meanwhile, Patterico reports on what appears to be sheer incompetence in investigating vote fraud in Washngton state.

Top Ten Rules for a Multi-Cultural American

From Roger Clegg. And they're pretty common sense rules, too.

Eye-Opening Poll

From Rasmussen:

Just 26% Favor Senate Immigration Plan

Wednesday, May 23, 2007

Initial public reaction to the immigration proposal being debated in the Senate is decidedly negative.

A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey conducted Monday and Tuesday night shows that just 26% of American voters favor passage of the legislation. Forty-eight percent (48%) are opposed while 26% are not sure. The bi-partisan agreement among influential Senators and the White House has been met with bi-partisan opposition among the public. The measure is opposed by 47% of Republicans, 51% of Democrats, and 46% of those not affiliated with either major party.

The enforcement side of the debate is clearly where the public passion lies on the issue. Seventy-two percent (72%) of voters say it is Very Important for “the government to improve its enforcement of the borders and reduce illegal immigration.” That view is held by 89% of Republicans, 65% of Democrats, and 63% of unaffiliated voters.

Advocates of “comprehensive” reform have taken to arguing that those who want an enforcement-only policy must explain how they would deal with the 12 million illegal aliens already living in the country. The public reaction to that question appears to be “Why?” Only 29% of voters say it is Very Important for “the government to legalize the status of illegal aliens already in the United States.”

Thirty-eight percent (38%) of Democrats believe that legalization is Very Important. Just 22% of Republicans and 27% of unaffiliated voters share that view.

Still, 65% of voters would be willing to support a compromise including a “very long path to citizenship” provided that “the proposal required the aliens to pay fines and learn English” and that the compromise “would truly reduce the number of illegal aliens entering the country.” The proposal, specifically described as a compromise, was said to include “strict employer penalties for hiring illegal aliens, building a barrier along the Mexican border and other steps to significantly reduce the number of illegal aliens entering the United States.”

Quote of the Day

Andy McCarthy on amnesty:

I hear over and over again that it is important to do something about the status of the 12 - 20+ million illegals who are already in the country. Again I ask: Why? Why is their status — a status they chose with no encouragement from me — my problem?

It's not just illegal immigration

Your federal government is willing to sell out your health and that of your pets, too, for potential Chinese dollars:

Dried apples preserved with a cancer-causing chemical.

Frozen catfish laden with banned antibiotics.

Scallops and sardines coated with putrefying bacteria.

Mushrooms laced with illegal pesticides.

These were among the 107 food imports from China that the Food and Drug Administration detained at U.S. ports just last month, agency documents reveal, along with more than 1,000 shipments of tainted Chinese dietary supplements, toxic Chinese cosmetics and counterfeit Chinese medicines.

For years, U.S. inspection records show, China has flooded the United States with foods unfit for human consumption. And for years, FDA inspectors have simply returned to Chinese importers the small portion of those products they caught -- many of which turned up at U.S. borders again, making a second or third attempt at entry.

Now the confluence of two events -- the highly publicized contamination of U.S. chicken, pork and fish with tainted Chinese pet food ingredients and this week's resumption of high-level economic and trade talks with China -- has activists and members of Congress demanding that the United States tell China it is fed up.

Dead pets and melamine-tainted food notwithstanding, change will prove difficult, policy experts say, in large part because U.S. companies have become so dependent on the Chinese economy that tighter rules on imports stand to harm the U.S. economy, too.

"So many U.S. companies are directly or indirectly involved in China now, the commercial interest of the United States these days has become to allow imports to come in as quickly and smoothly as possible," said Robert B. Cassidy, a former assistant U.S. trade representative for China and now director of international trade and services for Kelley Drye Collier Shannon, a Washington law firm.

As a result, the United States finds itself "kowtowing to China," Cassidy said, even as that country keeps sending American consumers adulterated and mislabeled foods.

Read the whole sickening thing.

(h/t: InstaPundit)

George Valens Bush

It's time for a story.

Once upon a time, there was the leader of a country. The country was a Great Power, and the leader saw himself as a Great Leader.

The country was such a great power that people from all over were clamoring to get in. Many times they would just walk in and settle. Not entirely legal, mind you, but the government of this great country wouldn't or coundn't do anything about it.

There was one particlar group just across the river from the Great Power, a very large group. They were restless and not entirely friendly. They didn't really want to join the Great Power, but they still wanted to come in. They were sneaking in anyway, but they wanted to make it all legal. The Great Leader needed more people, because there were some jobs his people just wouldn't do. So he let them in, and he hoped for the best.

But they revolted. Maybe they had a good reason, maybe they didn't. But they revolted. And they started ravaging the Great Power.

The Great Leader couldn't allow this, so he moved against them with a Great Army. They fought a Great Battle. The Great Leader and his Great Army were defeated. Handily. The Great Leader was killed. The Great Power was never great again.

The end.

Sound familiar? Well, the first part of it should sound familiar to just about everyone right about now. The entire story may only ring a bell for us Victor Davis Hanson-wannabes of the world. Because the whole story is true. It actually happened.

The "Great Leader" was the Emperor Valens. The "great power" was the Roman Empire, whose Great Army consisted of the Roman legions. The people who wanted to cross the river -- the Danube -- but not truly become a part of Rome were the Visigoths.

And the "Great Battle" was Adrianople in 378, which broke the back of the Roman Empire.

Do people ever learn? Not the Senate GOP and not George Bush, because with today's illegal immigration amnesty, the story is being repeated.

Right now, the Visigoths are being allowed to cross the Rio Grande and Tijuana Rivers by George Valens Bush. Not to join us or to become part of us. To do the jobs Americans just won't do. Well, not at those wages, anyway.

And we have the stirrings of a revolt. MEChA, La Raza, Aztlan.

Next stop is Adrianople. Or, as we know it, San Diego.

Un-friggin'-believable

I don't think there has ever in American history been a bigger disconnect between the government and the people than on illegal immigration. Dems want Hispanic votes. W and the GOP want cheap labor. The people want none of it.

Or, to paraphrase something I heard during the last baseball strike -- the Dems get the gold, the GOP gets the mine and the people get the shaft.

Representative government, my ass!

Where in the world

is Iranian General Ali Reza Asgari?

I would ask "Where in the world is Carmen Sandiego?" but it reminds me too much of my beloved San Diego, which I still miss terribly, in spite of the Chargers hideous new white helmets.

For all you Barry Bonds lovers

if he did not use steroids, explain this:

According to Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams, the San Francisco Chronicle reporters who wrote "Game of Shadows: Barry Bonds, BALCO, and the Steroids Scandal That Rocked Professional Sports," Mike Murphy, equipment manager of the San Francisco Giants, testified that since Bonds became a Giant in 1993, the size of his uniform jersey has gone from 42 to 52. His cap size has expanded from 7 1/8 to 7 1/4, even though while it was expanding he shaved his head. (Bonds reportedly shaved his head because his hair was falling out as a result of steroid use.) And Fainaru-Wada and Williams also say Murphy testified that Bonds's baseball shoe size has changed from 10½ to 13.

A jerk. A liar. A cheat.

(h/t -- the Corner)

"Shoot the Thug" Reprise

When faced with a burglary, the victim took my advice to "Shoot the Thug":

A homeowner shot and killed a burglar Sunday inside a Near Northside home, police said.

Wilbur Carson, 61, shot and killed intruder Wilbur Copeland, 42, in a home in the 3100 block of North Park Avenue at 11:27 p.m., Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Sgt. Matthew Mount said.

The intruder entered Carson’s home through an upstairs window, Mount said. Carson confronted the burglar and fired a .22-caliber rifle.

Copeland, 3300 block of North Park, died of a gunshot to the chest, according to the Marion County coroner’s office. Copeland was not armed, Mount said.

Carson has not been arrested.

There may yet be more to this story than we know right now. But as a general rule, killing burglars is a good thing. So is killing murderers, rapists, child molesters, robbers and car thieves. To the extent such is not legal right now, the law should be changed so that it is.

There is no excuse for a civilized society allowing the people to live in fear of the barbarity represented by today's criminals.

Spectre of the Scorpion

I have always been fascinated by mysteries of history -- Atlantis, the Bermuda Triangle, Jack the Ripper, the fall of Troy and Mycenae, Teotihuacan, Vilcabamba, Mohenjo-Daro, the Exodus. Submarines are fertile ground for mystery. By the very nature of their mission they are isolated and often incommunicado, in a medium -- the sea -- which we understand only imperfectly at best. The result is that they can disappear with no warning or apparent reason and in some cases not even a location. Their mysteries can defy solution for decades.

For example, to this day, we don't know what happened to the submarine USS Grampus. Grampus was last seen for certain on February 12, 1943. She may have been seen on the night of March 5-6, 1943 in the Vella Gulf in the Solomon Islands by fellow submarine Grayback, but no one knows for sure. They do know that two Japanese destroyers were in the area, and that a large oil slick was seen on March 6. But Japanese records do not show an anti-submarine attack at that time, possibly because the two destroyers in question were sunk shortly thereafter in the Battle of Kula Gulf, taking their records with them. We know that Grampus was never seen again. Was she sunk by depth charges? Air attack? Gunfire? Possibly a friendly attack? (This happened a lot in World War II -- just as the submarine USS Seawolf.) Was she sunk in Vella Gulf? Nearby Blackett Strait? No one knows.

Maybe this summary of the story of the Grampus helps explain the enduring fascination with the to-date unexplained sinking of the submarine USS Scorpion on May 22, 1968. I have discussed it earlier here and here. Short story long, Scorpion sank after observing Soviet navy exercises of some sort. No one knows why she sank, but the US Navy investigators believed they had narrowed the possible causes to a malfunctioning trash disposal unit or a malfunction of one of the sub's torpedoes, possibly a hot run in the tube that caused a fire or detonated, or a hot run that caused a launch of the torpedo, which proceeded to make a circular run.

The Navy never suggested Soviet involvement and went so far as to deny the Soviets had anything to do with the loss of the Scorpion. They don't know what caused it, but they know the Soviets didn't do it. That sort of logic has been an embarrassment to the Department of Homeland Security on more than one occasion.

In 1998, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer ran a series on the Scorpion that suggested she was indeed sunk by the Soviets, in retaliation for what they believed was the US sinking, either accidentally or intentionally, of the Soviet K-129 off of Hawaii. Turns out she sank on her own accidentally. The series was written by reporter Ed Offley.

Now Offley was written a book on the subject, Scorpion Down. I didn't even know about it until I saw it in a book store today. So I scooped it up. I can't wait to read it.

This will be my fourth book dealing with the Scorpion, the others being Silent Steel, Red Star Rogue, and the recently-acquired Blind Man's Bluff. Of the other three, only Red Star Rogue has even suggested a possible Soviet connection.

"Shoot the Thug"

It seems that carjackings are up in the consolidated city:

Reported carjackings in Indianapolis and Marion County have more than doubled so far this year compared with the same period in 2006, with nearly 100 reported through April.

Police say they took 98 carjacking reports from January through April, compared with 46 cases in the same months of 2006.
In response, a special undercover unit of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department has been assigned to investigate cars taken by force. Local police also are consulting federal authorities on possible solutions.
IMPD Chief Michael Spears said an array of societal problems -- including deficiencies in education, employment and social skills -- are contributing to the spike in carjackings, homicides and other violent crimes.
Although homicides have reached 40 so far this year, the number is slightly behind last year's pace.
"We are as aware of (the increase in carjackings) as anyone," Spears said, "and we are looking for solutions, too."
More than half of this year's carjacking reports were in an area bordered by Washington, Meridian and 38th streets and I-465 on the Eastside. Motorists reported attacks in retailers' parking lots, at intersections while waiting for a traffic light to change, and even by a couple of guys who helped a car stuck in the snow.
So far, no one has been killed as the result of a carjacking in Marion County.

I went and read the reader comments to this story. Most entertaining were the ones who argued against resisting a carjacker. "Things can be repalced, people can't," "A car is not worth a human life" or some crap like that.

Of course, it isn't true. For one thing, they don't make my car anymore. Cars today suck, so I have a few older ones.

For another thing, it depends on which life you're taling about. The life of the car owner? Perhaps it is true, though I would hardly trust a carjacker to not hurt me if he wanted my car. The car jacker? Definitely not. A car jacker, just like a burglar, a rapist, a car thief or a murderer, is not human. Nor are they animals. I would never insult the animal kingdom by comparing them to these thugs. Carjackers are savages, barbarians. And should be treated as such.

The problem here is that people are not conditioned to resist these predators. Law enforcement is of no help. They say things like, "If you just give up and don't resist, you likely won't be harmed." That's garbage. They don't knowthat anymore than I do. And such behavior actually encourages the crime. A liberal media, who would rather see criminals on the streets than prospective victims empowered, agrees.

That is why I would propose a "Shoot the Thug" campaign. For both private citizens and law enforcement. Someone trying to rob you, steal your car (no matter where it's parked), burglarize you, or hurt you, you should not only have the right to shoot them, but should be encouraged to do so. Fortunately, Indiana has been a leader in this regard. "Castle doctrine," "no duty to retreat" and all that. Still can't shoot someone trying to steal your car in a parking lot, unless they are carjacking you, but we can have that changed. It is the barbaric predators who should live in fear, not the public.

But this also extends to law enforcement. They should be encoruaged to use deadly force against these thugs. Forget the officer's life in imminent danger. They should be able to shoot anyone attempting murder, rape, burglary, carjacking or auto theft. Or anyone fleeing police.

Want to clean up crime?

"Shoot the Thug."

Barry Bonds in black and white

ESPN and ABC took a poll of attitudes towards Barry Bonds breaking Hank Aaron's all-time home run record. Gee, guess what angle they took?

More than half of baseball fans are rooting against Barry Bonds as he tries to break Hank Aaron's major league home run record of 755, according to an ESPN/ABC News poll.

The survey found that 52 percent of fans hope Bonds doesn't break the record, while 37 percent of fans want him to surpass Aaron's mark, set in 1974.

In addition, 73 percent of fans think Bonds used steroids, despite Bonds' repeated denials. Bonds has never tested positive for steroids.

However, race plays a unique role. Black fans in the survey are more than twice as likely to want Bonds to break Aaron's record (74 percent to 28 percent), and 37 percent of black fans think Bonds used steroids, compared to 76 percent of white fans.

Blacks are nearly twice as likely to think Bonds has been treated unfairly (46 percent to 25 percent). Why? The survey found that 41 percent of black fans think this is due to the steroids issue, 25 percent think it's because of his race, and 21 percent blame Bonds' personality.

For whites who think Bonds has been treated unfairly, 66 percent blame steroids. Virtually none blame race.

ESPN Columnist Jayson Stark had this reaction:

Look at these numbers. The poll says 74 percent of black fans want Bonds to break this record. And nearly half of all black fans think Bonds has been given a raw deal. And a quarter of those fans think that raw deal is all about race -- not steroids or anything else.

We're not so sure they're right in attributing the alleged mistreatment of this particular historical figure to racially charged motives. But for nearly all white fans who think Bonds has been treated unfairly to say race has nothing to do with it is stunning. We say to those fans: You're kidding yourselves if that's what you truly think.

We hear all the time from African-American readers who are outraged over the coverage of Bonds and his pursuit of history. We don't agree with all of their complaints. But we know, from those e-mails, that their passion is real, and often raw.

And, I might add, often wrong.

I like Jayson Stark. I've liked him ever since he wrote for the Bill Mazeroski's Baseball Preview. One of the funniest writers ever. His work has slipped since he started working for ESPN, but I would attribute that more to his editors than to him.

But Stark is a journalist -- a first rate journalist, but a journalist nonetheless. And journalists tend to see things through a liberal prism, meaning they find racism in everything. At least on the part of whites.

Let's get one thing straight: Barry Bonds is hated for two reasons.

1. He's a jerk.
2. He cheats.

In that order.

A jerk, I say? Yes. Anyone how curses out Bill Virdon, as Bonds once did in spring training for the Pirates, is by definition a jerk. Anyone who treats Pittsburgh the way Bonds treated it is a jerk. Bonds is so arrogant, so sure in his sense of entitlement that he, so unpleasant that he makes Bill Belichick look like Bill Clinton.

And don't give me this crap about how I shouldn't care about Bonds being a jerk. Ty Cobb was a jerk, a racist and a probable murderer, they say. He's in the Hall of Fame. So how can you deny Bonds?

Easy. Just because Ty Cobb is in the Hall of Fame, do we have to let every degenerate in? I say we don't. Liberal judges don't care about stare decisis except to uphold Roe v. Wade. Neither do I.

And yes, Bonds cheated. No reasonable individual can look at a pic of Bonds from his days in Pittsburgh or his early days in San Francisco and compare them to how he looks today and say he wasn't cheating. I don't care that he never tested positive. "The Clear" and "the Cream" were designed to not show up on tests. Bonds took the Clear and the Cream and actually testified that he didn't know what they did. A professional athlete taking supplements without knowing what they were or what they did? Right. Uh-huh.

But his cheating went beyind steroids. How about his wearing more body armor than Richard the Lionhearted? Well, I take that back. Richard the Lionhearted showed more toughness in the clutch than Bonds ever did. Put the game on the line and Bonds couldn't even bat Nicole Richie's weight. Or throw Sid Bream out from short left field, for that matter. But I digress.

Bonds hits home runs not only because of steroids, but because he can crowd the plate. He can crowd the plate because he wears a giant brace on his arm that protects it, because of an "injury" of some sort. So he has no fear of a brushback pitch.

A jerk. A liar. A cheat. That's why we hate Barry Bonds.

Ask his supporters who call us racists for hating him why they support him. My guess is any racism is more likely on their end.

Black racists

I'm sure most people outside of Milwaukee have never heard of Michael McGee. As of right now, he is a black radio talk show host, who last week said some rather nasty things concerning a rival white talk show host:

But last night, the most despicable story was broken by Patrick at Badger Blogger, and followed up by Real Debate Wisconsin. And it involves the McGees.

On Tuesday, I wrote about the death of Charlie Sykes mother. It was a tragic death (she died of smoke inhalation we've recently learned), and she was considered by all who really knew her (I didn't) to be a lovely, wonderful woman who led a full life. She was 87 years old.

Yesterday morning, on his show, McGee Sr. went on a rant that celebrated the death of Mrs. Sykes.

Channel 12 WISN picked up the story this morning, and has quotes from the rant:

"Mother Sykes, she dead. To me it's the vengeance of God. I ain't got no tears. Matter of fact a woman that would have a fool like that deserve whatever is coming her. She raised a sure enough idiot"

...

"My instincts say Charlie Sykes killed his momma, cuz she live out in this big palace in Mequon all isolated. He got tired of waiting for her money."

There's no love loss between Sykes and the McGees, whose show is on at the same time Sykes' is.

McGee's statements here are vile. Michelle Malkin has the latest news on him -- apparently he has been "suspended." Permanently? Yeah, right.

But as vile as his comments were, I have a tough time getting worked up about them. You see, I remember McGee's statemnts from his old job -- as Milwaukee city alderman. Where his business suit was actually Fidel Castro-style army fatigues. Where he said things that are, in my opinion, far worse.

Way back when I was in college -- I'm thinking 1989 or 1990, but don't hold me to it -- McGee demanded more money from the city council for his inner city district. If he didn't get it, he said, he was going to send criminals into "nice, white neighborhoods" to shoot them up.

That wasn't my term -- that was used by WLW talk show host Mike McConnell to describe McGee's statements. McConnell was one of two people I remember discussing them -- the other was an idiot for the Ohio State student newspaper, the Lantern, who actually supported McGee.

Don't ask me for the exact quote from McGee. I Googled it and couldn't find it. But I remember the story. And the lack of outrage -- or even coverage -- that it received.

When the DC sniper story came about a few yers ago, my first thought was of Michael McGee.

Make that Michael McGee, Sr. His son now has his old alderman seat. And is just as bad as his father.

But I guess my question is, how is his celebration of an individual's personal tragedy worse than threatening to send snipers into white neighborhoods?

A perspective on urban sprawl

I don't normally discuss state and local issues here, but I must diverge from that rule to make a larger point.

Indianapolis and Marion COunty are in deep trouble. Romors abound that the city-county government is on the verge of bankruptcy. Crime is skyrocketing -- murders, rapes, burglaries, car thefts -- and the crimes are moving out of the thug community and into the larger community where innocents have been victimized -- a professional woman kidnapped and raped at a downtown parking garage, an elderly woman followed home from the library and raped. Criminals cannot be held for long periods because of an inexcusable court order capping the number of inmates held at the Marion County Jail.

Mayor Bart Peterson had been a pretty decent mayor -- he actually had the streets plowed when it snowed, unlike some of his predecessors -- but his methods for addressing the exploding crime have been ineffective at best. Where I live on the far east side of Indianapolis, we live in constant fear of the neighborhood around 42nd Street and Post Road, only a few miles away. It has been a bad neighborhood for at least 30 years and it is getting worse. Approximately 500,000 apartment complexes clustered around one intersection (as a result of brilliant zoning by the city) infested with gangsters and drug dealers -- a wretched hive of scum and villainy who branch outward to prey on neighborhoods like mine.

As a result, people with the means to do so are fleeing Marion County for the surrounding areas -- Carmel (ewww!), Fishers (much better), Noblesville, McCordsville, Greenfield, Greenwood, Danville, Plainfield, Avon, Lebanon, Zionsville. Places that seem to have a much stronger ability to deal with crime than the consolidated city does. Or maybe it's a much stronger will.

Why do I mention this? Because it helps put the "problem" of urban sprawl into perspective. People generally make the difficult and expensive decision to move outward from the city for two reasons -- crime and schools. All of the school systems in Marion County are in trouble, so keep that factor in mind.

But with schools, one at least has the option of private schools. If you are facing crime and ineffective law enforcement, your only option is to leave. To go someplace where you feel safe. It is why many people sell their homes after they have been burglarized.

People want to feel safe where they live. The only way to do that is to deal with crime effectively -- more police, more criminals either caught or dead, less burglaries, less car thefts.

So if one wants to reduce the urban sprawl, one needs to make people feel safe by cracking down on crime.

Unfortunately, the same people who decry urban sprawl are generally the same ones who oppose measures to crack down on crime.