Embracing cultural differences …

You know, enjoying bits and pieces of different cultures can be a fun thing. The tradition of Las Posadas and La Cena de Nochebuena are family-worthy events that transcend cultures.

The practice of “me la robo” is not worth embracing. Me la robo is an indigenous Mexican tribal practice where the “groom” decides he wants a young woman for his wife (and I do mean young!), so he kidnaps her, has sex with her, then returns to ask permission to marry her. Of course the girl is tainted and no longer a virgin, so more often than not, permission is granted.

The practice has been going on in the small rural armpit town of Greenfield, in the Salinas Valley, for some time. The Triqui “tribe” is from the Oaxaca region of Mexico, and not only do they keep to themselves, they speak a tribal language and very little Spanish (and their children attend public school and of course require bilingual education that is a bit more complex than just teaching in Spanish and English.), they happily practice the act of me la robo. Never mind that it’s illegal in the United States to rape a girl and then “sell” her for beer, meat and cash, which is supposed to be used for the wedding celebration.

Late last year, 36-year old Marcileno Martinez allowed Preciliano Sanchez to act as a broker in the marriage for his 14-year old daughter. His neighbor, Margarito Galindo, 18, asked for the girl in marriage and agreed to pay a “dowry” of $16,000 cash and hundreds of cases of beer, wine, soda and meat for the wedding. Galindo bundled up the girl and took her to nearby Soledad, had sex with her, and then returned to Greenfield.

Martinez called the police when the dowry failed to appear, claiming his daughter had been kidnapped by Galindo. The girl and Galindo were found in an apartment three doors down. Galindo’s family produced the marriage contract and the girl claimed that everything was consensual.

Martinez is charged with providing his daughter for lewd acts, aiding and abetting statutory rape, both felonies, and cruelty to a child. Galindo has been charged with misdemeanor statutory rape.

All are illegal aliens.

It Is my understanding that the schools in Greenfield are broke because of the cost of educating the illegal alien children (and of course anchor babies) of the Triqui tribe. These kids do not speak Spanish, and no doubt their parents do little to nothing to help themselves or their children assimilate into the prevailing culture—which used to speak English and did not encourage sex with underage girls! I’ve been told anecdotally that a popular source of income is selling drugs. When I was a child, Greenfield was a quiet, clean and close-knit little town with Swiss-Italian farmers and dairymen, and the Hispanic families who lived there had deep roots in the community.

It’s a cesspool today. The dairies are gone, and the family farms have been gobbled up by larger agribusiness commercial faming firms. The city has a huge gang problem.

The bigger picture is this: the U.S. government’s failure to secure the southern border has destroyed Greenfield, just like it has destroyed hundreds of small towns all over the nation. The “benefit” of cheap illegal labor in no way can make up for the costs incurred by local and state government by giving taxpayer-subsidized services to the overwhelming illegal alien population that puts little financial resources back into the pot.

I have asked this rhetorical question before and I’ll ask it again: just which political party is dragging its heels the most when it comes to securing the border. The technology of fence building is pretty old and well-established. It’s easy to do. So that’s not the issue here.

Are Republicans the ones dragging their heels because of the cheap labor? Are Democrats pandering for votes and future Democratic voters? Isn’t it about time we really answer that question once and for all?

I’ve done farm work. It’s hard work but no worse than digging a ditch or picking up garbage cans. There are thousands of unemployed young people who reside in the U.S. legally. There is no reason those young men and women couldn’t do farm work for a season or two. It beats unemployment. Or does it?

And with the messiah president closing Gitmo, it’s going to be a simple thing for those prisoners to make the quick hop from Cuba to Mexico, and then north. Ah what the heck, there are probably maps being printed while I type this. Securing the border is for our own security, both physical and economic. Why can’t politicians get that?

You can read the latest news story about the Greenfield me lo robo case here.

Incoherent Sunday ramblings ...

I was going to write about the TyGirlz dolls “controversy” but I’ll save that for another day. (Needless to say I think the whole thing is ridiculous …)

In today’s LA Times, former Congressman Mickey Edwards (or am I supposed to call him a congressperson?) published an opinion piece titled “Reagan wouldn't recognize this GOP.” The article is here if you are interested.

I didn’t recognize Edwards’ name, so being the astute writer I am, I Googled him. He served as Oklahoma’s 5th District congressman from January 1977 to January 1993. His education includes an undergrad degree in journalism and a J.D.

Anyway, it got me to thinking. Would Reagan be shocked at what’s happened to us? Why is it that our political party is thought of as the party of “exclusion, division and nastiness.” The article also describes the GOP as “not a conservative party, it is a party built on the blind and narrow pursuit of power.”

Personally, I think that phrase better describes liberals. When there is a president in office carping “I won” during a working discussion with congressional leaders regarding the president’s proposed economic stimulus plan, you should know we are in trouble.

So who are “we” excluding anyway? Is the problem with the GOP that first and foremost we embrace the concept of personal accountability and that government in any size is not the teat that nourishes us? Why does history seem to forget that the Great Emancipator Abraham Lincoln was a Republican, and that a Democrat, FDR, was the knee-jerk reactive idiot who implemented Executive Order 9066 which locked up Japanese Americans in internment camps after Pearl Harbor? Okay, so maybe Lincoln is “ancient history” in our here and now-oriented society, but there are people who lived through the “War Relocation Camps” who are still with us. We’d like to think that couldn’t happen today, but Democrats of course also believe that government is infallible and wants to take care of us.

I attended a ceremony for the 20th anniversary of Reagan’s Civil Liberties Act of 1988 this past summer. You’d think that many of those Japanese Americans in attendance would be members of the GOP or at least not broadcast their affiliation. Of course when the usual Bay Area political personalities (including the Democratic senator from the area and a certain former Secretary of Transportation) started talking about the opportunity we all had in electing a black president, the room erupted in cheers. Electing a black president was an opportunity? Never mind no one had any idea where this candidate stood on issues of interest to Japanese Americans (or any Americans for that matter)—his “blackness” was just too good to pass up.

Anyway, to a point I agree with Mickey Edwards in that Reagan would not recognize the GOP today. The party has lost its spine. It used to be unafraid to stand up and take a position on issues. Among my biggest pet peeves is the failure to secure the southern border. I honestly believe that most Americans want the border secure, period. But you have each party pointing the finger at the other, those evil rich Republican businesspeople like that nice cheap illegal Mexican labor, and those kumbaya Democrats want more Democrats, so certainly they cannot offend an entire group of people by not letting them pass freely into the U.S.

And why is it that whenever an article regarding crimes by illegal aliens pops up in the SF Chronicle, an overwhelming majority of comments are for securing the borders and in favor of deportation?

Are people ashamed to admit to conservative leanings, because in today’s “we’ve got to include everyone” mentality, it’s unfashionable to think of America first?

And why is it that if a Republican does the right thing by civil rights or looking at the bigger picture (for example, working to keep terrorists out of our country and protecting ourselves from extremists via Bush’s war on terrorism), everyone seems to forget? As I recall, the biggest opponents of civil rights in the 1960s were southern Democrats … how soon they forget! Have we already forgotten Clinton’s laughable response to the bombing of the USS Cole?

I sure hope that the individuals who claim to be members of the GOP are able to remember just what they are supposed to stand for. I’m not against compromise but I sure am against just rolling over and doing nothing just to remain in office …

I am somewhat incoherent today due to sleep deprivation. My back hurts like hell and of course the comp carrier didn’t contact me on Thursday like promised… I was nice and gave State Fund the benefit of a doubt and didn’t get on the phone Friday, but you can bet I will tomorrow. I guess in their eyes it’s okay for me to be locked up at home, eating 8 double-strength vicodin a day, even though I find that taking so much medication is not a good thing to do … I guess it wasn’t such a good idea to stay up late last night to watch the NASCAR race from Irwindale last night. Yes, I admit it. I did watch a NASCAR race. I used to be a much bigger fan until my favorite driver, Bill Elliott, cut back on his racing. My daughter and I watched because she is long-time friends with one of the guys who was in two of last night’s races. His name is Auggie Vidovich, and despite his talent as a driver, he can’t get a full-time ride because he’s not marketable because of his last name … it’s just not American enough. Blech!

So what is the difference between me and my raging dem friends?

Sometimes I just can’t help but talk political beliefs to my co-workers who claim to be hard-line totally loyal Democrats. I want to better understand what it means to be a “democrat.”

I am going to make a hard confession here. I was briefly a Democrat. In 6th grade.

It’s an election-year staple to have mock elections in civics/history class when you are in grade school. It is supposed to help you learn about the electoral process, help you learn to make decisions for yourself regarding where you stand politically (independent of your parent’s beliefs), and build a sense of pride and patriotism in being an American and having the right to choose a president.

So two kids stepped up to the plate, one girl (Deanna) representing the Democrats and Hubert Humphrey, a boy (the smartest person I knew when growing up, his name was Glenn Crow) representing Republicans and Nixon. We had a mock convention and after the class heard each platform, you chose which side best represented your beliefs.

I quickly saw the writing on the wall. All of the popular kids were taking the Humphrey side, even though Glenn had done a much better job of explaining the differences between the candidates. Being that I was not one of the popular kids, I decided to go with the pack and decide I was a Democrat. Even though I knew I wasn’t. Poor Glenn had few kids on his side.

Anyway, I went home and was talking to my dad about what had happened in class, and how I thought I was really a Democrat, even though I disagreed with pretty much everything Deanna had argued. My dad told me that it really wasn’t too bright to ever vote against your conscience just to be part of the prevailing in-crowd.

The next day I went over to Glenn’s side and haven’t looked back (well, except for the Terri Schiavo thing).

So fast-forward to today. When I talk about what I expect from government with my supposed liberal friends, we end up wanting the same things. Don’t raise taxes, curb spending, secure the borders, smaller and less intrusive government is better, etc.

(One could argue that in reality, neither side wants secure borders, but for different reasons. Republicans want that nice cheap undocumented labor, and dems are looking for new Democrats! Why can’t we simply admit that a secure border will allow us to know exactly who is in the U.S., and it’s not about whites versus Hispanics, etc. Besides, I don’t hear about illegal Canadians getting welfare or CalWorks benefits and bankrupting California …)

What I want to know is this: I thought the basic beliefs of Republicans were less government, not overtaxing the citizens, promoting personal responsibility and protecting personal freedoms, and that Democrats believe that government is the teat that feeds us all, and that we need government to keep us safe from ourselves, and that it’s okay to spend irresponsibly as long as it feels good.

Why do so many of my so-called Democrat friends expect the same thing from government than I do? Are they really Republicans who don’t want to do the unpopular thing and admit they are somewhat conservative, or am I a closeted Democrat?

So the coronation is over ...

I am certainly glad I did not visit one of my worksites yesterday. I was going to go in and catch up with a coworker I haven't seen since the end of October, but sort of thought I might be walking into a raging dem celebration with the big screen TV in the main conference room blasting the goings-on in D.C. I did that visit today and learned from another co-worker (who is a Reagan Democrat who has voted Republican ever since) that she just about went nuts with all of the "partaying." Yes, the big screen was going full blast, people were wandering around the office eager for the change to come, and yes, even watched the idiots disrespect Bush.

It was nice to learn that there are two of us in that office. The upper management pair are lifelong democrats who have served in elected office; one was finally termed out of a supervisor's job. The marketing person is a raging dem. My friend I was visiting claims to be dem, but when we talk about politics, we rant and rave about the same things, which makes me wonder is she really a dem or am I really a Republican?

But she swallowed the Obama kool aid and doesn't care if there are all of the unanswered questions about his background and character.

Anyway, I gave my newfound ally the link to Sweetness & Light and told her it might be a good place for her and her Republican husband to hang out the next four years or so, with a community of like-minded people who are asking the questions, waiting for the answers, and *not* drinking the kool aid.

I also learned that a television crew showed up at one of the community colleges and took video of kids sitting around cheering the coronation. Big effin' deal. Dumb kids, I doubt many will ever see the light.

Taking part in history

I'm sitting here thinking about all of the crazy people in Washington, D.C. who are there in the name of "history."

I am as interested in history as anyone (it was one of my best subjects in school, look at all of the good it did me!), but I sure wouldn't put myself out that much just to say "I was there."

But actually I did that once—on September 17, 1987, when Pope John Paul II visited the Monterey Peninsula. I am a "cafeteria Catholic" but like many Catholics, felt there was just something special about this Pope. So when the opportunity to volunteer came up, I stepped up and offered my services as an RN, wherever they were needed. All I'd hoped for was a glance of John Paul II.

The Pope offered mass for 50,000 people at Laguna Seca, a world-famous road racing track. I'd hoped to end up there, working in first aid, but I was assigned to the press room at the Carmel Mission Basilica, where John Paul II was holding an audience with 3000 people following the mass. He was to visit Junipero Serra's grave, have lunch onsite at the mission, and then take an afternoon nap before he departed. I was there to attend to the medical needs of the several hundred media types who'd been following the Pope during his U.S. tour. I handed out tylenol and motrin, but I was there because I'd had advanced life support training, and could start medical treatment in case of catastrophic collapse of a media person.

There would be no opportunity to see the Pope. Or so organizers thought.

Somewhere along the line it was decided the Pope would slightly modify his route out of the Mission, and all volunteers were allowed to stand in a plaza area and watch him get into his car and drive off. He looked back at all of us, raised his hand in that way he did, got into the car, and drove around a roundabout, looking at us all of the way, with his hand raised in blessing.

That image is burned into my mind. When John Paul II died in April 2005, I held that image in my head and whenever the sadness was overwhelming, I'd close my eyes and see him, alive, waiving. He went out of his way just to see those of us who chose to serve him that one day.

I would go out of my way for the Pope, even though I disagree with so much of the Catholic church's doctrine. I would never go out of my way for the cult of personality that is our commander-in-chief, starting today.

Why must certain professions be so strongly linked to liberalism?

Hindsight is of course 20/20. And as you get older, usually you get wiser.

I decided to become a registered nurse when I was 19 years of age. It wasn’t so much a love of mankind but a conscious decision to have a career that for as long as I chose to work, I’d have a job (boy was I wrong about that!). After a couple of false starts at college (dropping out due to knee problems that I thought were fixed—ha!), I began to work toward an associate’s degree in nursing in 1978, starting the actual two-year nursing program in 1979.

As I learned more about the profession, I discovered there were two areas that I was pretty darn good at—labor and delivery and surgical nursing. I caught on real fast in both areas, and was among the few students in my cohort who was invited to scrub into actual surgeries and to fully participate in managing laboring mothers, including internal exams.

I ended up working at a place I had no desire to work at, but I was unable to leave the area, being married and thinking my husband was right in his desire to stay in the area. One of the first things I had to do when I acquired that job was join the California Nurses’ Association—a union.

My experience with unions up until that time had been watching the United Farm Workers use intimidation methods to achieve their goals. I sure hated the idea of giving a union my hard-earned money to do next to nothing for me.

Naturally union membership included subscriptions to newsletters, and it was then I learned that being a nurse meant being a liberal Democrat. Calls for donations for PACs and other liberal special interests came in the mail thanks to my union membership.

In retrospect, would I have sought another career if I’d known that my career choice would have linked me to liberal ways? I admit I am pro-choice, but I am also pro-spaying and neutering of repeat welfare offenders.

I am also against universal healthcare, but I am for the government getting truthful answers as to why health care is so costly (is it really lawsuits and insurance premiums or just greedy doctors?). I am against non-taxpayers with social security receiving care (especially adults). I am against illegals specifically coming to the U.S. to get free health care. I am against the misuse of emergency room services for routine health care, too. I saw plenty of abuse while working at that hospital.

Today I received an e-mail blast from a freebie nursing publication, “inviting” me to click a link to be part of tomorrow’s inauguration celebration.

The e-mail read:
“Nurse.com presents Inauguration 2009: Where will you be on Jan. 20? Go to nurse.com/inauguration to be part of the crowd!”

Our nurse writers and editors will be covering the historic inauguration of Barack Obama. We’ll travel by plane, train, and bus to bring you reports from…

• A Chicago-to-the-Capitol-bound busload of nurses who knew Obama way back when

• A special medical unit stationed smack dab in the middle of the crowd on the Washington Mall

• And from the hottest seat in town, front and center in the media section at the swearing-in ceremony

I deleted the e-mail.

I do keep my nursing license active but sometimes I question my sanity. I will never work as a nurse again because of my job-inflicted back injuries. I do not have the proper degree to do any sort of administrative or research work as a nurse. Yet because of my career choice, I am assumed to be liberal and receive plenty ‘o propaganda in my snail mail and e-mail.

I do not expect any liberal cause to help me get work. Being liberal is all about being “young” and “hip,” and I am neither.

Not that I've done any better with what I ultimately did when I did finish a four-year degree. My BS is in public relations, a profession that is highly linked to journalism. And we all know where most journalists stand politically nowadays ...

More writing for me ...

Not paid writing, mind you, but I've been asked to contribute on a regular basis to the Trials & Tribulations blog. Right now this is the only place you can get decent information on the Phil Spector trial; the blog owner attended most of the first trial and is the only person other than the judge, attorneys, support personnel and the defendant to attend every day of testimony in this second trial. Mainstream media isn't even covering this trial on a daily basis!

My usual "beat" will include Bay Area shenanigans, including noteworthy and unusual crimes (usually involving murders), along with sanctuary city and illegal immigration rantings. It's a very entertaining blog with several contributors who are watching such cases as the Caylee Anthony tragedy and the Haut de la Garenne trial in France.

I should have something up later today about the BART shooting on January 1 and its aftermath (thus far).

http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com