A Look at the Chinese Model of Communism – Market Socialism

You are starting to see a lot of articles in the capitalist press bashing China now, saying their economy is not as good as they say, that it cannot be sustained, and that it is headed for crash. They base this on a comparison to other Communist countries, but those economies fell behind far before China’s did.
China has sustained Communism under various forms, including presently under market socialism, for 70 years now. That’s as long as the Soviet Union, and the Soviets started stagnating a long time before that. China is an example of a smashing success for a Communist country, and the capitalist press is freaking out because that shows that their anti-Communist propaganda has been crap for all of these years.
Incidentally, Deng Xiaoping emphatically stated that he was a Communist. Deng’s idea was to create “a rich Communist country.”. In an interview in 2005, a top party official was asked if China was still committed to spreading Communism all over the world.
“Of course,” the minister beamed. “That is the purpose of the Communist party (CCP).”
Incidentally, China still has 5-year plans and the whole economy is planned. The business sector has to go along with the plan, and if you do not go along with it, they can confiscate your business. A party committee sits on the board of all large corporations. The government owns every inch of land in China. The state invests an incredible amount in the economy and also overseas where it makes vast investments. This is because some Chinese government companies are very profitable. A number of Chinese government companies are on the list of largest companies in the world.
Capitalists in the US openly complain that they cannot compete with Communist Chinese government  corporations, crying that they get subsidies so it’s not fair. So here we have US corporations openly admitting that they can’t compete with Chinese government Communist state-owned companies.
45% of the economy is state owned and it is very profitable. 87% of all investment in the economy is made by the state. This figure includes all Chinese private investment and all foreign investment.
Much of the state sector is owned by small municipalities, and this works very well. Further, cities compete against each other. For instance, City A’s steel mill will compete against City B’s steel mill, and both will compete against a private sector steel mill, if there is one. Successful enterprises bring in a lot of money to the city, which it uses to upgrade the city, which results in more workers moving there, which grows the economy more with more workers and more demand.
There are also still a number of pure Maoist villages in China that are run completely on a Maoist line. Everything is done as it was right out of the Mao era. I understand that they do very well, and there is a huge waiting list to move to those villages.
I did a lot of research on China recently, and the party is literally everywhere you look every time you turn around. The party itself still runs many enterprises all over the country, especially in the rural areas. There are party officials in every village and city, and they take a very active role in developing the municipality in every way, including culturally. They have an ear to the ground and are typically very popular in the villages and cities.
Party officials lobby the state to try to solve any urgent problem in the area. The government is always spending a lot of money all over China on public works, on fixing various environmental problems, or on really any societal problem or issue you can think of. This of course includes economic development, which tends to be state-led. I read synopses of many dissertations coming out of Chinese universities, and most were on how to deal with some particular societal problem or issue. Many others dealt with technology and industry. So a lot of the research on technology and industry that is driving economic development is coming straight out of state universities.
Instead of leaving it up to the private sector to deal with the problems in society, create public works, and even plan the economy, the government does all of that. Incidentally, the way the US leaves the planning of the economy, such as it is, up to the private sector is insane. All sensible economic planning in any nation will always be done by the state with a view towards allowing the country to prosper. Capitalists have no interest in whether the country profits or not, so they engage in no economic planning at all. Leaving economic planning up to the whims of the capitalists is economic malpractice.
There are 1,000 protests every day in China. Yes, there is corruption and there are government abuses, but if protests last long enough, the party usually gets alarmed and tries to do something about the problem because they don’t want serious unrest. This is party that does everything it can to serve the people and try to remain popular with citizens by giving them as much as they can and doing as much for them as possible. The party spends every single day of its rule literally trying to buy off unrest and keep its citizens satisfied.
It’s illegal to be homeless in China. If you end up homeless in China, they will try to put you in a homeless shelter, or if they cannot do that, they will send you back to your village because most homeless are rural migrants who moved to the city. The state is now investing a vast amount of money in the rural areas because these places have been neglected for a long time. The state still wants to own all the land because they want to keep the rural areas as a secure base where rural migrants to the city can always return if they fail in the city.
How can a government in which 45% of the economy is publicly owned, 87% of investment is done by the state, and every inch of land is owned by the state possibly be called as capitalist country? No serious political economist anywhere on Earth considers China to be a capitalist country. The only people who say that are ideologues and liars, which includes almost all political conservatives and most businessmen.
The state spends an unbelievable amount of money on public works all over the country all the time. Many projects that in the US have “conclusively proven” to be too costly to be implemented have been done in China quickly and easily. And China’s per capita income in less than 10% of ours.
Most ethnic minorities are still allowed to support their culture, and in most cases they are allowed to have education in their native language. In these areas, the native language is co-official with Mandarin.
In recent years, the Chinese government has begun to support a lot of the Chinese dialects, of which there are over 2,000 main ones, many of which are actually separate languages. Cantonese is still an official language in Hong Kong, and it is widely used in Guangdong. The other major Chinese languages or macrolanguages still have millions of tens of millions of speakers. Lately the Chinese government is telling people they can preserve their dialect as long as they also speak Mandarin. Many schools now have classes in the local dialect.
Cheap medical insurance is available and it covers 85% of costs. State medical centers are still very good. However, if you have a serious medical condition in China, you will quickly run out of money with no recourse.
This is a serious problem but it is much better than earlier in the Deng Era when millions were dying from lack of health care. However, the state still need to cover everyone. They got away from universal coverage  when they moved away from Maoism early in the Deng era. In addition, tens of thousands of schools, many of which were built during the Cultural Revolution, were closed early in the Deng era.
The introduction of a market had a lot of problems in the early days. The capitalist press was cheering wildly as thousands of schools were closed all over China, medical care was cut off from or reduced for hundreds of millions of people, while millions of Chinese died from lack of medical care. This was all cause for celebration! Isn’t capitalism wonderful? What’s millions of humans dying from lack of health care as long as a few rich people can buy ridiculously expensive, useless items that they don’t even need?
A recent good survey done by a Western polling firm found that 87% of the population supported the Communist Party.  The excesses of the Mao era, especially the Great Leap and the Cultural Revolution, have been widely discussed and the party has admitted that many errors were made and resolved not to do this again. These excesses are being blamed by the party on what they call “ultra-Leftism.”
The economic model of China is called Market Socialism and a lot of modern day Leftists and even Communists support it and agree that this is the way forward for the left and Communist movement. Like all words, the word Communism has no inherent meaning. It means whatever people who use it say it means. So the definition of Communism can clearly change with the times as Communists update their definitions of what the word means.
China cannot be called capitalist in any way. Their model is far more socialist than anything in any European social democracy. It also goes far beyond the US in the New Deal and of course beyond beyond the social liberalism and its more left analogue in Canada, not to mention beyond social democracy in Australia or New Zealand.
Interestingly, Japan is not a capitalist country. They don’t have neoliberalism. That country does not operate on the capitalist mode of development. Instead the resemblance is, I hate to say, to Nazi Germany. Nazi Germany also did not have a capitalist mode of development. I’m not sure what you call it, but it’s not capitalism. For instance, in Japan, the commanding heights of the economy, including almost all of the banks, is owned by the state.
The state still plans the economy. They plan the economy together with the business community and the state allocates a lot of funds and loans to areas of the economy it wishes to develop. There is probably a similar model in South Korea, which also is not capitalist and instead operates on a series of monopolies that are owned currently by large corporations and the government. The South Korean economy is also planned, and the plan is worked out by the government and the business sector working together.

The Dutch Disease, an Economy Depended on Oil Revenues, and Other Problems of the Venezuelan Crisis

Thinking Mouse: What are your thoughts on allegations of mismanagement of resources in Venezuela? Having your government based on a good as volatile in price as oil (and especially when the gringos own and produce most of the oil) seems pretty stupid.

This is called the Dutch Disease and it is the cause of a lot of things including the chronic inflation that country has, which was never as bad as this though.
It’s been going on forever, but the Gulf states are all doing that too. Most oil countries do that. 97% of Venezuela’s income comes from oil. That didn’t change over the Chavez years. On the other hand, the Chavistas talk about it all the time.
There are supposedly efforts underway to develop the economy right now, but I am not sure how successful they are. It is not working to have the business class, aligned with the fascist Right, importing the food and manufactured goods.
NOT working. That’s what is causing the whole economic crisis right there because they started an economic war where they stopped producing a lot of the products that people needed most. However, they kept producing other products just fine.
There was no basis in raw materials to have those shortages in certain products. Those were simply manufactured crises by the business class refusing to import or manufacture various products.
They also hoarded a lot of products too, and they sent many other goods either to Colombia or directly to the black market instead of the real market. 1/3 of all imported goods so straight to Colombia. They do this because they can make more money smuggling to Colombia or selling on the black market.
So the government is saying we need to start making this stuff ourselves or growing and producing it ourselves. The government used to import all this stuff because the business class has been refusing to produce stuff forever, but with the drop in the price of oil (a conspiracy created by the US) the government could not do that anymore, so the crisis developed.
Around when Chavez died, there were two large attacks on the currency which may have exploded the Black market. And the black market is run by a opposition fascist in Louisiana who deliberately monkeys with the black market price of the dollar, jacking it up all the time. So the value of the black market dollar skyrocketed compared to the dollar at its normal exchange rate and this precipitated the whole crisis.
Incidentally, several opposition leaders have openly admitted that they are trying to destroy the economy in order to create a crisis and bring down the government.
The recent US sanctions made things even worse and were designed to make it impossible for Venezuela to get out of the crisis by cutting them off from the international banking system and making it hard for them to get loans and impossible for them to restructure their debt.
The government has needed forever to float the currency to get out of the crisis, but he refused to do that as it is a very difficult political decision to make and it would make a lot of their base mad. So they avoided doing this for years and hence perpetuated the crisis. Recently they created a New Bolivar that is not set on the dollar but is instead set at the price of oil. This is the same thing as floating the currency more or less, so we will see how it works.

How Trump Stole the 2016 Elections: The Blatant Evidence

Zamfir: You say Trump “stole the election with computers”. Really? What are you talking about here? I’ve looked into these bizarre claims and never found any proper evidence of anything.

 
They’re not bizarre. Republicans been doing it since 2000 because the public doesn’t really support them anymore, so like all capitalist, ruling class, and oligarchic political parties, they have to lie, cheat, and steal to stay in power. See the Latin American Right for example. The Republicans been stealing them with computers, especially since 2004. Bush out and out stole the 2004 election.
We can tell they were stolen by how the exit polls went radically off compared to the actual vote. Exit polls are the gold standard of politics for over 50 years now. They always reliably track with results. Out of 50 states, polls will be off in maybe two states, no more. They’ve been going off, often by a lot and almost always in a Republican direction, since 2000. This is when the Republicans started stealing them with the computers. That’s why the Republicans put the computers in in the first place – to steal elections.
In Michigan, all polls for weeks before the election – hundreds of them – were all off, including the exit polls. That can’t possibly happen. So Michigan was stolen. They refused to count 70,000 votes in Detroit for no reason except that they are nigger votes I guess. And many fraudulent votes for Republicans were found even before the recount. A recount was never done because all Michigan politicians opposed it. Why did they oppose a recount?
Wisconsin was also stolen. Exit polls were off but always in Republican districts. There was no real recount in Wisconsin. There was only a fake recount, and some precincts were incredibly shady to where it appeared to witnesses that they were seeing actual fraud taking place.
Also 30,000 fraudulent votes for Republicans were found before the recount even started. The vote in Milwaukee was not possible, and I think they never even recounted it. Write-in’s supported Clinton and those lean rightwing. All exit polls showed Clinton winning. Exit polls were perfect in all precincts that had hand counted ballots but went off in all precincts that had computer counted ballots.
50,000 fraudulent votes were found in Pennsylvania before the recount even started. Write in votes supported Clinton and those tend to lean conservative. There was no recount in Pennsylvania because the DNC governor fought it in court! All exit polls showed Clinton winning.
The vote in Florida was not possible. 70% of votes were write-in’s and they supported Clinton by a decent margin. For Trump to win, a huge number of voters on election day would have had to support Trump. That number was so large as to be statistically impossible. Republican turnout was not elevated on election day anyway. As many Democrats came out as Republicans.
Trump started saying the election was going to be stolen because he was going to steal it himself. He always accuses his opponents of doing what he does or is going to do. This is called projection but it is particularly prominent in this man. It is considered to be a primitive and immature defense that kids use a lot. Yes, adults use it a lot, but people who project all the time are notably unhealthy. It is particularly prominent in personality disorders.
Also Trump, Conaway, and Guiliani became unusually calm about Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania a few days before the election. All polls were pro-Clinton. Manafort said he had just talked to the Russians, and they said not to worry about Michigan. I assume the Russians may have been in on the vote-hacking. Vote-hacking in this last election was never investigated by the FBI or by anyone.
I will add that sleazy Democrats do this too. Hillary had to have stolen a number of primaries. There is no way for the exit polls to go off like that, and the DNC laid down the law that Sanders could not win. Democrats don’t seem to want to fix these machines either I guess because they use them to steal elections themselves.
Republicans are fanatically opposed to all recounts of elections and to fixing the damned voting machines. They must know that the way they are set up now, they are hackable.
Really we need to get rid of them altogether and go back to hand counted ballots. States that hand count ballots never see their exit polls go off.

Anatomy of a Conservative Lie: China is a Capitalist Country

Conservatives and reactionaries keep saying that China has adopted capitalism. What a stupid joke that is. All conservatives lie, no exceptions. There is no such thing as an honest conservative. I have never met one in my life. Conservative ideology is based for the most part on lies, though some Libertarians are quite honest.
For the most part, conservatives lie like they breathe. Conservatives literally need to lie to live.
Let me tell you something.
China is one of the most Communist or socialist states on Earth today. Fully 45% of the Chinese economy is publicly owned, and it does extremely well. Much of the very high economic growth has come from the public sector.
How on Earth can conservatives say that China is capitalist when 45% of the economy is state-owned? How ludicrous. But realize that all public firms in China operate on the profit model. They all compete with each other, so you have a steel mill run by one city competing with a steel mill run by another city. Many of the fastest growing industries are run at the municipality level.
China’s fully state-owned firms also do very well. In fact, they do so well that Republicans say that China’s public firms are “not fair” because American capitalist corporations can’t compete against them! The reason is that China’s firms get subsidies from the state. Poor capitalist corporations! They’re too inefficient to compete against Communist state owned firms. Poor babies!
Do conservatives realize that the state owns every single inch of land in China? How on Earth is that possible in a capitalist country? Capitalism is primarily based on the private ownership of land. No private ownership of land, no capitalism. Real simple.
I would also like to point out that the Chinese state spends an absolutely incredible amount of money on its people. Since 45% of the whole economy goes directly to the state, they have a lot of money to spend. And they spend it very wisely too. As I understand it, US capitalists believe in a minimal state, and there is nothing they hate more than state spending. Huge state spending is seen as wasteful tax and spend policies by all capitalists on Earth. Wherever you have massive state spending, you do not have a capitalist system. But I would like to thank conservative and reactionaries for praising China, the finest example of modern Communism!

Republican Propaganda Analyzed: “After 1995, Welfare Rolls Crashed, and Disability Payments Soared”

From here.

Figures. Whenever you hear these horrific stories from conservatives that make you want to abandon liberalism altogether, it’s almost always some sort of a lie. That’s why I banned a lot of rightwing commenters on here. For one thing, conservatives are bizarre. I can’t imagine a liberal going to a conservative forum just to fight the wingnuts. Most of think think that would be like taking a swim in a sewer, and that’s pretty much what it would in fact be.

However, conservatives are just weird. They love to fight, and they love to fight their liberal enemies. Now why this is I am not sure, but I can guess. I get why they like to fight. Authoritarian types love conflict and hate peace. But why do they fight us? Well, they think they are Good and we are Evil. They actually believe that liberalism is pure 100% Evil. So when they fight us, they are just fighting Evil.

Conservatives also love to proselytize, while most liberals don’t bother as we consider most conservatives too hopeless to convert, and we don’t like fighting anyway. I get the impression that conservatives simply cannot fathom how any sane human being could ever believe in liberalism. Many conservatives have told me that conservatism is rational, logical, and reasonable: it’s just common sense. Many others say that conservative positions are actually empirically proven to be correct.

Never mind that hardly any politics can ever be empirically proven to be correct – how will you do it? Test it out in a lab under controlled double blind conditions and then run multivariate analysis on it?

Anyway, they think conservatism is commonsensical scientifically provable fact, like saying the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. To conservatives, liberals are like folks who are argue that black is white and 2+2 = 5. They simply cannot fathom how any sane person, given the proper facts, would not be a conservative. In other words, we baffle them.

Really there is no such thing as empirical politics.

Rightwinger: After the 1995 changes to welfare (and many of those changes were good, though not all), the number of people on welfare dropped–and the number of people receiving disability payments went up, up, up.

Leftwinger: Welfare rolls plunged, and poverty soared. They plunged because welfare was no longer an entitlement. Since it was no longer an entitlement, one might or might not be able to get any help, regardless of how great that person’s need, and counties put limits on caseloads. If, say, the their caseload limit was 100, and you were the 101th person to apply, you could not get aid. Strict time limits were imposed, regardless of circumstances. Desperately poor people are, indeed, simply dumped off on the streets. Caseloads fell because cases were closed and new cases were denied.

Poverty grew. What we always called welfare is gone. There is no general assistance or AFDC. TANF is a marginally subsidized, time limited work program (only for those with minor children).

Now, on disability: This is fairly complex (much info and links at ssa.gov). When one applies for disability, it takes a minimum of a year, as long as 3 years, between the day you submit your application and the day your case is decided. Before you can even submit your application, you must obtain your medical records dating back many years, and official medical documentation confirming not simply that you have a disability (having a disability in itself does not make you eligible for disability aid), but that the disability is so severe that gainful employment impossible.

Only a doctor (not the SSA) can make that decision. All of this said: Many on welfare were the seriously ill and disabled who were not able to manage the (extremely complex, difficult) disability application process. They survived on GA welfare. (The bottom line was that it was simply cheaper to keep them on GA.) When welfare was ended, county agencies had to scramble to find a way to keep the truly disabled/seriously ill from being dumped out on the streets.

This resulted in a temporary surge of of cases being transferred from welfare offices to the SSA. (Nope. No fraud was involved — just saving lives.) One must have a medical (psychiatric) diagnosis of suffering from legitimate mental illness that is so severe as to make it impossible to maintain gainful employment.

Jeff Bezos is a Vile, Loathsome, Scum

More evidence, as if you needed anymore. Like Walmart, he’s been destroying local economies and Mom and Pop businesses all over America. How? With his sick tax scheme. Local economies and Mom and Pop businesses have to charge retail taxes, but Jeff Bezos, the Godhead, doesn’t! It always nearly made me vomit when Internet capitalist hipsters went on and on about, “No Internet sales tax!” Yeah, every other business in the US has to charge sales tax but you pieces of shit do not? How’s that fair? How’s that fair to other businesses?
Personally, I like Mom and Pops, brick and mortars and local businesses way better than Internet capitalist punks. At brick and mortars, I get real customer service. Every store I walk into, I’m the king because I’m the customer. If there’s ever a problem (with few exceptions) it’s sorted out right on the spot.
We can thank these glorious Internet capitalist hipsters for such things as voice mail robots that go on forever and let you never speak to a human, software patents, abandonware, Hindu 1-B scabs, the total destruction of the White American programmer as a profession to be replaced by incompetents from overseas, forcing you to buy their products, forced upgrades, the complete and total destruction of customer service, false charges, overbilling, lying sales pitches resulting in illegal oral contracts, the inability to return a product, the inability to own a product that you buy yourself, and other insanity and evil.
It always disgusted me when Internet capitalist rags like Wired pitched Internet hipster capitalists as the greatest hipsters on Earth. It was forever a fraud. There was nothing hip about these Net dirtballs at all; they were simply capitalists just as nasty as any other profiteer, except that Internet hipster capitalists were often a lot worse than your ordinary capitalist! Internet hipster capitalists have set a new standard in capitalist evil. These people are not hip or cool or any of that. In fact, there some of the worst capitalists on the face of the Earth.

Another Phony Pro Gun Argument

Big G writes:

Just for reference, NYC has the third highest gun crime and murder rate in the US. They are behind other gunless cities like Detroit and Washington DC. As a matter of fact, the top ten most dangerous cities to live in the U.S. are gunless. Seems to me somebody would get the picture.

This pro gun argument obviously makes no sense at all. Many countries around the world have more or less banned gun ownership. One would think that guns would be smuggled in anyway, but it just doesn’t happen. The more the state restricts guns, the lower the homicide rate. Sure you can use knives and whatnot to kill people, but they do not work very well. Guns work much better.
All of those huge cities that banned guns did so because they had massive gun crime. That’s why they banned them. The gun nut argument makes it out like they banned guns, and then the crime rate went up, but it didn’t work that way. They had horrible gun crime, so they banned guns.
Who knows how well that works though because they just smuggle guns into the city from outside the city? Chicago has a huge problem with guns being smuggled into the city.
Also the US is presently awash with guns so banning them in one location does not really work as they will just keep coming in from other locations where guns have not yet been banned.

On the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution

Also, the 2nd Amendment is now null and void of its original intent since we have a National Guard. Each state has its own state National Guard unit. There’s your well-regulated militia right there. We already have one. As long as we have a National Guard in each state, the 2nd Amendment is fulfilled.
At the time the 2nd Amendment was written, they didn’t have any National Guard. In lieu of the National Guard, they simply had local call-up militias. All of the men in the locality would have to show up to join the militia if a call-up were ordered. The militia itself had no guns, so each man would have to supply his own gun. Uniforms were provided by the militia. That was the reason for the right to bear arms – so men could possess their own guns that would be necessarily in forming the local militia when the call-up went out. Since the militia itself had no arms, the people who had to join the militia needed to have the right to keep their own guns in the case of a call-up.
We don’t do it that way anymore. We do not have call-up militias where every able-bodied man is required to show up and join the local militia, bringing his gun with him, when the call goes out. We don’t do it that way anymore so the 2nd Amendment is useless and null and void in that context.
However, there is a section about the necessity of having a “well-regulated militia.” We have that now in that each state has its own National Guard unit. Those units are the well-regulated militias referred to in the amendment. If, say, a national government came in and dissolved the National Guard in one or more states via decree or law, the states could sue and go to court citing their 2nd Amendment rights to have a militia. The courts would rule that the state had an inherent right to a National Guard unit under the 2nd Amendment that may not be revoked.
If a state dissolved their own National Guard unit, interested parties could sue the state citing the 2nd Amendment which would order that state to recreate their National Guard unit.

"Oil Patch Blues," by Alpha Unit

The Williston Basin lies beneath parts of Montana, North Dakota, and Saskatchewan. A rock unit called the Bakken formation occupies about 200,000 square miles of it. Originally described in 1953, it’s named after Henry Bakken, a farmer in Williston, North Dakota. He owned the land where the first drilling rig revealed the rock layers in 1951. As you may have heard, there are significant oil reserves in the Bakken.
The US Geological Survey has estimated that there are about 3.65 billion barrels of oil in the Bakken. More recent estimates suggest there could be up to 18 billion barrels.
The oil is wrapped in layers of shale, which initially frustrated extraction attempts. But petroleum engineers devised a fracturing method that overcame this problem. What they do is drill down and then horizontally into the rock, then pump water, sand, and chemicals into the hole to crack the shale and allow the oil to flow up. It was first used in 2007, quite successfully.
The result has been a population boom as people from neighboring areas, other parts of the country, and even overseas have rushed into North Dakota and Montana in pursuit of oil field jobs. John McChesney paints a picture of how life has changed for some residents of North Dakota.

Imagine you live in a small rural town worried for years about depopulation, and suddenly, overnight, the population doubles, and the newcomers are thousands of young men without families. Imagine that you live in a tiny town with one main street that doubles as a state highway.
That’s the situation in New Town, N.D., population 1,500 – at least, it was a couple of years ago. Today it’s anybody’s guess how many people live here, and no one knows how many 18-wheelers roll through every day, either. They just know it never stops.

McChesney says that for the people of New Town, it seems that every big tank truck in America is on the road here, making tens of thousands of trips a day hauling water, fracking fluid, wastewater and crude oil – and tearing up the roads.
It’s been described by one county official as the complete industrialization of western North Dakota. And it’s placing an incredible strain on the community there. Dan Kalil, chairman of the Williams County Commission, told McChesney:

They’re consuming all our resources. They’re consuming all our people looking for jobs. All the employee base is used up. Our roads system is being used up. All our water is being used up. All our sewage systems are being used up. They’re overwhelmed. All of our leadership time as local public officials is consumed with this.

And for the newcomers, life in the Bakken isn’t exactly what they had in mind, either. They often arrive with no money and nowhere to live. There’s not enough housing for them. Homeless shelters and churches are taking in some of the job-seekers but the need is overwhelming.
Some of the men are sleeping in their cars. Some have sleeping bags they roll out in the woods or in abandoned buildings. There are camps where people park RV’s they’re living in. But the water pipes and waste tanks on standard RV’s can’t handle the freezing temperatures. Super-insulated campers and trailers are just as hard to find as actual housing.
And let’s not forget: this is North Dakota, after all. One taste of winter in the Bakken sends some job-seekers back to where they came from.
In the meantime, housing prices are higher than they’ve ever been. Some of the local residents can’t afford to pay rent anymore. And crime used to be nearly nonexistent. Now crime rates have spiked across western North Dakota and eastern Montana, with an increase in vagrancy, “drunken and disorderly” charges, burglary, assault, property crimes, and prostitution.
“Men need servicing just as much as their machines,” one oil patch worker told Adam Luebke.
There have even been a couple of violent crimes that have made headlines in the area. A hitchhiker was wounded in a drive-by shooting while on US Highway 2, a major route in and out of the oil patch. A teacher from the oil patch town of Sidney, Montana, was allegedly kidnapped and murdered by two Colorado men on their way to the Bakken.
The oil industry is aware of what locals are going through and is making some PR efforts to keep people on their side, but their efforts aren’t as successful as they’d like. As John McChesney explained:

Back in New Town at a gathering of a few local residents, we met rancher Donnie Nelson, who had just paid $7 for a gallon of milk, one example of a price inflation here. He says patience here is wearing thin.
“Just about anybody I talk to that’s a neighbor – and some of them are getting wealthy – are sick of it. It’s never going to be the same in this country, and they’re starting to realize that we had it kind of good, even though we weren’t No. 1 in oil and we weren’t the No. 1 state economically,” Nelson says. “We had a good life up here.”

"The Golden Gate Bridge: Beautiful Under All Light Conditions," by Alpha Unit

This year is the 75th anniversary of the Golden Gate Bridge, the technical and artistic marvel that is one of this country’s most famous landmarks. It’s been declared one of the modern Wonders of the World by the American Society of Civil Engineers – and seen by some as possibly the most beautiful bridge in the world.
Before the bridge was built, the only practical way to get from San Francisco to Marin County was by ferry. This began in the 1800s. Southern Pacific Railroad came to operate the ferries – a profitable and vital operation for the regional economy.
People had long considered building a bridge to connect San Francisco and Marin County. The first proposal to really take hold was made in 1916. An engineer named Joseph Strauss made a pitch to local authorities, designs and all. A suspension-bridge design was considered most practical.
Strauss actually spent over 10 years trying to gain support for a bridge. The Department of War was afraid it would interfere with ship traffic. Southern Pacific Railroad didn’t want any competition for its ferry fleet and filed a lawsuit. But among allies was the automobile industry, which supported the development of roads and bridges for clear reasons.
The state legislature passed the Golden Gate Bridge and Highway District Act in 1923. Construction began in January of 1933, with Strauss as chief engineer. The contractor was the McClintic-Marshall Construction Company, a subsidiary of Bethlehem Steel. The call went out for workers.
Since the Great Depression was well underway by then, there was no shortage of men seeking work on the bridge. All hiring had to be done through the Ironworkers Union Local 377 in San Francisco. There weren’t enough ironworkers in the city, so men were recruited from all over.
But before any construction could actually begin on the bridge, they needed divers to begin the crucial underwater construction process. This would be especially difficult. As one author described it:

The narrow strait between Marin County and San Francisco is one of the world’s most tumultuous bodies of water. Up to 335 feet deep and only a mile and a quarter wide, the Golden Gate is the largest California coastal opening – a portal into which the Pacific Ocean surges.
Powerful currents also flow in the opposite direction as water from many of Northern California’s freshwater rivers and streams rushes into San Francisco Bay. The freshwater flow collides with the incoming Pacific, creating complex and violent currents.

Workers would have to erect a pier more than 1,000 feet out in the middle of the Gate – the first bridge support ever constructed in the open ocean. Divers had to begin by blasting away rock for the south tower’s supports.
This involved placing blasting tubes into position and securing them while trying not to be swept away in the current. They had to go as deep as 90 feet below the surface to remove detonation debris using underwater hoses that exerted 500 pounds of hydraulic pressure.

The Gate’s changing currents afforded workers only a narrow window of dive time. The men were restricted to submerging for four 20-minute periods per day.
With the construction team’s tight schedule, divers were often forced to surface before having sufficient time to decompress, increasing the likelihood that they would develop caisson disease… also known as “the bends.”

The divers guided beams, panels, and 40-ton steel forms into position, often having to feel their way due to murky water and fast-changing currents, and while wearing bulky diving suits. Yet the danger didn’t deter men from this underwater work. It was a steady, well-paying job – not easy to come by during the Depression.
When construction started on the bridge itself, the first workers excavated three and a quarter million cubic feet of dirt and poured enormous amounts of concrete for the bridge’s two anchorages. The 12-story high anchorages were designed to secure 63 million pounds – twice the pull of the bridge’s main cables, we are told.
In November of 1933 the first tower began to go up. Prefabricated sections were fit into place and riveted together by 4-man rivet gangs. After both towers were complete in June of 1935, workers built catwalks and started spinning the cables for the bridge.
The engineering company John Roebling and Sons oversaw cable construction. This firm had built many of the world’s longest bridges, including the Brooklyn Bridge 52 years earlier. It had developed a technique of spinning cables on site.

To spin the cables, 80,000 miles of steel wire…were bound in 1,600-pound spools and attached to the bridge’s anchorage. A fixture within the anchorage called a strand shoe was used to secure a “dead wire” while a spinning wheel, or sheave, pulled a “live wire” across the bridge.
Once it reached the opposite shore of the Gate, the live wire was secured onto the strand shoe, and the wheel returned with another loop of wire to begin the process again.

Hundreds of wires, each roughly the diameter of a pencil, were bound together into strands. Hydraulic jacks then bundled and compressed 61 strands to make a cable. Each of the main cables is just over 3 feet in diameter. The work was laborious and had to be done to ensure the correct tension and balance in the cables.
As for the deck, or roadway, of the bridge, traveling cranes working from each tower laid down the steel decking that would undergird the roadway. The first concrete was poured for the roadway in January of 1937.
Opening day for the Golden Gate Bridge was May 27, 1937. An estimated 200,000 people came for the celebration. As one of them later recalled:

The weather at the Golden Gate was typical for San Francisco in May: foggy, windy, and cold, but that didn’t bother anyone. They would always remember they had walked across the Golden Gate Bridge on opening day.
You were encouraged to wear a costume or the Official Hat with its tassels. But it was the Depression. If you couldn’t afford the hat, a bandana would do just fine.

The workers who constructed the bridge were executing the design of what The San Francisco Chronicle calls an engineering dream team. Although Joseph Strauss was chief engineer, he had little understanding or experience with cable-suspension designs, so other experts were given responsibility for much of the engineering and architecture.
Charles Alton Ellis was the structural engineer and mathematician responsible for the structural design of the bridge. He did all the mathematical calculations that made the bridge possible.
Leon Moisseiff was a leading suspension bridge engineer in the 1920s and 1930s. He was known for his work on deflection theory, which held that the longer bridges were, the more flexible they could be. Ellis applied Moisseiff’s theories in the design of the bridge.
Othmar Ammann was a structural engineer who had designed the George Washington Bridge in New York City. He served on the board of engineers for the Golden Gate Bridge.
Charles Derleth was the dean of the college of engineering at UC Berkeley. He served on the advisory board with Moisseiff and Ammann.
Andrew Lawson was a professor of geology at UC Berkeley. He was the first person to identify and name the San Andreas Fault. He was a consulting geologist and seismic expert for the construction of the bridge.
Irving Morrow was the consulting architect for the bridge. Morrow graduated from the newly founded UC Berkeley architectural program in 1906. Joseph Strauss hired him to design the architectural treatment of the bridge. He was influenced by Art Deco design, but his most famous contribution to the Golden Gate Bridge is its distinctive burnt red-orange hue called International Orange.
“The tone is beautiful under all light conditions,” one observer admitted.

“The First Woman to Vote in America,” by Alpha Unit

The first woman recorded as legally voting in America did so long before 1920, the year the 19th Amendment was passed. This amendment declared:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

No, this historic vote took place in 1756, in an official New England Open Town Meeting at Uxbridge, Massachusetts. The woman’s name was Lydia Taft.

She was born Lydia Chapin, one of the many children of Seth Chapin. Seth Chapin was a militia captain who owned a lot of property in what became Worcester County, Massachusetts.

In 1731 she married Josiah Taft, a member of the prominent Taft family of Massachusetts, which went on to produce more prominent Tafts (including William Howard Taft, the 27th President of the United States). Like her father, her husband owned a lot of land. He served as a local official and a Massachusetts legislator.

By 1756 Josiah Taft was the largest taxpayer in the town of Uxbridge. But that was the year he died, at the age of 47. It happened to be right before an important vote on the town’s support for the war effort in the French and Indian War (one of the colonial conflicts between France and Britain). According to one account:

The only individuals allowed to vote were freeholders (free male property holders), and Josiah’s estate was valued as one of the largest in the town. Out of respect for his large contribution to the town, the town fathers allowed Lydia to vote as Josiah’s proxy. She cast a vote to increase the town’s contribution, thereby giving herself the distinction of being the first woman to vote in this country.

Actually, it appears that the town fathers gave her that distinction, out of a sense of respect for a departed fellow town father, if this account is accurate.

At least one local writer questions the story of “America’s first woman voter.” He points out that the first account of Lydia Taft’s historic vote was published over a century later, and that there are no actual official records of the town meeting.

He also points out that in 1756 Josiah Taft had a 23-year-old son who would have inherited his father’s place as head of the family with voting rights. No mention is made of this son in published accounts of the vote.

He suggests that the men of Uxbridge might have allowed Lydia Taft to vote as her late husband’s administrator and as a proxy, perhaps, for her adult son.

Whichever way you look at it, Lydia Taft was perfectly primed to make history in the way she did – born to one successful man and married to another. The town fathers of Uxbridge made history by permitting the widow of one of their own to cast a legal ballot, acting as head of the family.

"The First Woman to Vote in America," by Alpha Unit

The first woman recorded as legally voting in America did so long before 1920, the year the 19th Amendment was passed. This amendment declared:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

No, this historic vote took place in 1756, in an official New England Open Town Meeting at Uxbridge, Massachusetts. The woman’s name was Lydia Taft.
She was born Lydia Chapin, one of the many children of Seth Chapin. Seth Chapin was a militia captain who owned a lot of property in what became Worcester County, Massachusetts.
In 1731 she married Josiah Taft, a member of the prominent Taft family of Massachusetts, which went on to produce more prominent Tafts (including William Howard Taft, the 27th President of the United States). Like her father, her husband owned a lot of land. He served as a local official and a Massachusetts legislator.
By 1756 Josiah Taft was the largest taxpayer in the town of Uxbridge. But that was the year he died, at the age of 47. It happened to be right before an important vote on the town’s support for the war effort in the French and Indian War (one of the colonial conflicts between France and Britain). According to one account:

The only individuals allowed to vote were freeholders (free male property holders), and Josiah’s estate was valued as one of the largest in the town. Out of respect for his large contribution to the town, the town fathers allowed Lydia to vote as Josiah’s proxy. She cast a vote to increase the town’s contribution, thereby giving herself the distinction of being the first woman to vote in this country.

Actually, it appears that the town fathers gave her that distinction, out of a sense of respect for a departed fellow town father, if this account is accurate.
At least one local writer questions the story of “America’s first woman voter.” He points out that the first account of Lydia Taft’s historic vote was published over a century later, and that there are no actual official records of the town meeting.
He also points out that in 1756 Josiah Taft had a 23-year-old son who would have inherited his father’s place as head of the family with voting rights. No mention is made of this son in published accounts of the vote.
He suggests that the men of Uxbridge might have allowed Lydia Taft to vote as her late husband’s administrator and as a proxy, perhaps, for her adult son.
Whichever way you look at it, Lydia Taft was perfectly primed to make history in the way she did – born to one successful man and married to another. The town fathers of Uxbridge made history by permitting the widow of one of their own to cast a legal ballot, acting as head of the family.

Bigfoot News August 5, 2011

Justin Smeja’s driver breaks his silence. Justin Smeja is the man who reportedly shot and killed 2 Bigfoots in the Sierra Nevada last year. Details here. We have known from the start that there was another hunter present. We called him the driver. He tried to get Smeja to not shoot the Bigfoots and was hysterical after the killings. To date, he has not spoken about the incident. However, we were recently put in contact with a source who claims to be in contact with the driver. The driver will not reveal his name.

The driver acknowledges that he was furious when Smeja shot the Bigfoots. After the mother was shot, the driver was horrified. And after the baby was shot, the driver was disgusted. The driver’s story differs in some respects from Smeja’s. In our original story, Smeja did not think the Bigfoot was a bear as he says now. Instead, he shot it because he thought it was threatening him.

The driver says simply about Smeja’s rationale for the first shooting, “He shot a monster.” He saw a monster, and he shot it. Smeja has confirmed this on a forum, saying he thought it was a monster, and he shot it because that’s what you do with monsters, you shoot them. Before he shot it, the driver was spotting the animal with his binoculars. Several times and in several ways, the driver said, “That’s not a bear!” This lines up again with our original story in which the driver said, “Don’t shoot! It’s a guy in a monkey suit!” However, Smeja shot anyway.

The driver also disagrees with Smeja about why the juvenile Bigfoot was shot. We said it was shot for an unknown reason. Smeja said the baby Bigfoot was threatening him. Our original source disagreed with that. “No. It wasn’t threatening him,” he said.

The driver agrees with us. He said that Smeja shot the juvenile in order to bring it home as evidence. Evidence for what? Evidence to prove his wild story. Smeja said that the young Bigfoot was shot and immediately left for dead as they cleared out of the area. We said that the young Bigfoot died in Smeja’s arms. The driver confirms our story. He said that the young Bigfoot was shot and killed. They examined it closely and looked in its eyes. They thought the eyes looked “human.”

One wonders why the young Bigfoot was shot for evidence and then left behind, a contradiction. Once again we are vindicated. We said that Smeja was afraid of being arrested. According to the driver, though the juvenile was shot for evidence, they left it behind because Smeja thought that he was going to be arrested by the California Department of Fish and Game. Smeja has all along insisted that he was not afraid of being arrested, but  we have said otherwise.

I think this is what happened. The baby was shot for evidence, to prove his story since they searched for the mother but could not find her. The driver was disgusted and took the gun out of Smeja’s hands and pointed it at him, telling Smeja that if you shoot another one of those things, I will shoot you instead.

Smeja held the dying animal in his arms. They looked into its eyes, saw it was human, and Smeja had an attack of conscience of some sort (I think he does have some sort of a conscience). He realized that he had killed some sort of hominid and not some weird monster and then became frightened of being arrested. This lines up with so many Bigfoot killing accounts, where the killers leave the bodies in the woods or bury them because they think they committed homicide.

Smeja’s attack of conscience may have been due to thinking of himself as a murderer. Whatever else he is, Smeja’s not a murderer, and he doesn’t like to think of himself as one. Therefore, the scene was hastily abandoned. Why were no pictures taken. On forums, Smeja says that they were so upset and freaked out after shooting 2 monsters that they just got out of there as quickly as possible, never even thinking to take a picture.

The entire way home, not a word was said between the two men. They did not speak of the incident at all for another 10 days.

The driver does contradict an earlier rumor we printed in which we said that the driver was so shocked that he did not want to associate with Smeja anymore. The driver agreed with Smeja that they are still friends.

Incredibly, the driver agreed with Smeja that the Bigfoot slice was not cut off on the day of the shooting. It was not cut off because they could not find the mother to cut a piece off of her, which was apparently why they were searching for her – they were looking for the dead mother to obtain proof of the incident – probably by cutting off a body piece.

The driver said that Smeja went back two weeks later with a bloodhound. The dog found the Bigfoot steak somewhere in the snow. At the moment, this incredible version may well be true.

The driver is still traumatized by the incident. He described it as horrible, disgusting and true. He also implied that Smeja is traumatized by the incident, but more that he can’t put it behind him than for any other reason. The driver said that Smeja is just hoping that the story would go away so he could move on. Instead, it’s not going away at all. As a matter of fact, it’s only beginning.

The driver also agreed with Smeja that Smeja reported it to the CA DFG, but he was laughed out of the office.

Finally, the driver said that the whole story would be coming out in about one month.

The friend struck me as intelligent in his correspondences with my source. At the least, he’s a better writer than Smeja. The driver did take exception to the depiction of Smeja as a dumb redneck, saying that he was a bright guy who had not idea that anyone would get mad at him for shooting a Bigfoot. At the moment, the driver has stopped responding to my source, so we may not get any more communications out of him.

Smeja probably a smooth, slick, excellent liar with multiple and sophisticated personality layers. My feeling is that Smeja lies very easily, is an excellent liar who can fool many people, and is not troubled by lying. Nevertheless, I do believe his story. At the moment, he’s lying mostly for damage control. Note that I do not think that being a skillful liar is a bad thing. After all, the most successful Americans have this characteristic.

He has a conscience, mostly buried, but it is active. He doesn’t worry much if at all and lacks introspection. He acts rather than thinks. Experiences little to no anxiety or depression. I honestly doubt that he feels very bad about what he did, but I suppose he would like to take it all back, if only because it was more trouble than it was worth. This is not the sort of person who suffers or beats themselves up over past deeds. Experiences little guilt.

But in this personality type, even when they are upset or even devastated about something, you won’t be able to tell as they will seem as happy go lucky as ever. He is an easy going, happy, optimistic and extroverted type who doesn’t analyze things. He acts, experiences and tries to either enjoy those experiences as best he can them or explain them off if he can’t.

He uses bluff, bluster, denial, “shrugging it off,” and smug, brash, “fast talking” overconfidence to blast through and throw off problems and threatening situations. He also dives into outdoors activities to take his mind off of troubling things. He may experience some anxiety, but if he does, he will just start moving his body or something to incorporate the anxiety and dissipate it. His personality is very highly developed, works on many different levels, and he has very good social skills. He is not a social idiot in any way. This person is a social actor.

Smeja hard to pin down morally. Some folks are clearly angelic, while others are obviously rats. Everyone agrees. Not so with Smeja. I don’t even want to go into whether or not Smeja is a good person or a bad person because my views are tainted with politics. That is, I abhor his politics (he’s an extreme culture warrior), which makes it hard for me to view him objectively.

He is the sort of person in whom it will be difficult to say if he is a good or bad person, and in today’s Social Darwinist America, such binary notions are often laughed at anyway if not devalued and ridiculed outright. Nevertheless, whether someone is good or bad is very important to me personally, so I will discuss it about him and others.

Plenty of folks who know Smeja dislike him intensely and think he is no good. Others seem to like him a lot, and think he is a good guy, if not the greatest guy around. He is capable of presenting himself very well as a “fine upstanding member of the community,” or, better yet, a model citizen who goes above and beyond the moral norms. He plays active roles in making his society a better place. This may go along with the hardcore Christian thing.

This sort of person, to whom right and wrong are often abstractions to be manipulated in various ways and explained away with fast talking bluster and careless laughter as this, that, the other, or whatever one wants them to mean, will do much the same in his own life, playing a variety of seemingly conflicting moral roles. Such a person is hard to pin down in a moral or theological sense, and they even tend to baffle psychologists. Their mores, norms and morals or lack of them are probably better explained by sociologists and political scientists than anyone else.

Justin Smeja recounts version of shooting on the web. Smeja is continuing to describe the shooting on the forums. He said that the mother and juvenile Bigfoots looked nothing alike at all, totally different. The mother was 600 pounds, and described as huge, but not skinny, fat, muscular or wide. The young ones, which appeared to be twins, approached them several times but then split up and took off to go looking for the mother.

He said that they were not aggressive, but instead they were worried and upset about what happened to the mother. They were communicating in an odd speech that sounded like a deaf person trying to talk. This is a very interesting statement and adds excellent weight to the story. In a number of Bigfoot sightings, people have described Bigfoot speech as sounding like a deaf person trying to talk. Smeja described it as “chatter, deaf chatter.” This is excellent once again, and it lines up with Albert Ostman’s description of their speech as “chatter.”

Smeja also stated that the young one had a gigantic head, almost out of proportion to its body. Once again this lines up with other reports and videos including the Pancake Video, where the young Bigfoot grabbing the pancake has a huge head. The young Bigfoot had pads on its black hands, thick and calloused. These would seem to resemble the “Ostman’s pads” that they have on their feet.

The young Bigfoot’s face was described as a combination of a Black person, a gorilla and a boxer dog. Here is a drawing that Smeja says best resembled the face of the young Bigfoot (minus the coned head). Many people have said that Bigfoots’ faces look like Black people. He said that the female ran very fast after she was hit, maybe 40 mph. Their eyes are the same as ours, with whites and an iris. Teeth were described as large, like a gorilla’s. Although Smeja believes “Patty” in the Patterson film to be real, he said that the Bigfoot he shot looked very much like Patty, but at the same time looked completely different.

Smeja buried the young Bigfoot under a tree, hoped to return later and retrieve it. However, before they left, Smeja buried the juvenile Bigfoot at the base of a tree with a lot of manzanita growing nearby. He piled branches and dirt on top of it. This once again contradicts his earlier story about leaving it where it fell. He also says when he moved it, it smelled bad. It smelled like “body odor X 12 plus coyote.” The smell stayed on his hands for days. The smell will also get onto your hands if you handle the flesh sample.

Smeja and the driver continue to hide Bigfoot slices from the shooting. Smeja has now admitted that both he and the driver continue to harbor Bigfoot slices from the shooting, in line with our original account where we said that he had retained parts of the bodies. He has changed his story again. For a long time, he insisted that he had no body parts; now he’s come clean on it. We are also vindicated on the driver having a piece. We mentioned a while back that Smeja may have cut up body parts and distributed them to his friends for hiding.

Smeja claims Bigfoot slice was huge, much larger than claimed originally. Smeja said that he cut the original piece in half and gave half of it to the driver. Then he claimed that he cut off 1/4 of his piece and sent it in to Ketchum. That means that the Ketchum piece, which was 7 inches long by 4 inches wide by 2 inches deep, was only 1/8 the size of the original piece.

The original piece sent in to Ketchum was 56 cubic inches in area – 7*4*2 = 56. But the original piece itself must have been 448 cubic inches. Think of how huge that original piece must have been. It’s getting harder and harder to believe that he found a hunk that huge in the snow when he went back.

Olympic Project sent in Bigfoot slice, not Smeja. This is according to Smeja. He sent a slice to the OP, and they apparently sent it in to the Ketchum Project. This is what we originally reported, and we got into a lot of trouble for reporting this because the OP said they had nothing to do with the slice, never sent it in, and implied that Smeja had done so.

Ketchum’s crazy NDA’s sealing the lips of sample submitters shut. People are asking why sample submitters, including Derek Randles and Justin Smeja, are not allowed to talk much about the circumstances surrounding the samples that they collected. In Randles and Smeja’s case, they can’t talk much about the Sierra Kills.This is the reason why all the photos of Larry Johnson’s Bigfoot toenail are being pulled off the web.

The reason for this is the snarky and scientifically unnecessary NDA’s from Dr. Melba Ketchum, director of the DNA project. According to these NDA’s, you cannot discuss or publish anything about the samples you give her, including the circumstances in which you found them, where you found them, when you found them, photos of the samples, etc. If you won’t sign that agreement, she won’t take your sample.

Such an agreement is ridiculous. Suppose you had a great Bigfoot sample that you wanted to give to the study, the greatest in the world to date. Ketchum will reject your sample unless you sign her sneaky NDA. Therefore, the best sample out there would be rejected from the study. This is not science. It’s business. Ketchum’s DNA study is being run as a profit-maximizing business enterprise first, and as a scientific venture only second.

Imagine if a real scientific study, say run out of Max Plank Institute in Germany, was looking at evidence for Bigfoot. Would they make you sign such an NDA? Of course not. Why not? Because it’s scientifically unnecessary, and the Max Frank folks would not be running the study as a business venture.

The only agreement they make you sign would be one letting them use your sample for their study. What do they care if you talk about it or not? Ketchum’s NDA’s are 100% about making money and 0% about science. A friend of mine noted that the money-making objective of her study tends to taint the study automatically in his eyes. He may be correct. Science ain’t business. The moment went all science becomes a profit-making enterprise, the scientific enterprise is down the toilet.

Everyone signing on with Ketchum’s project will be left hanging out to try by her grossly illegal contracts. According to Ketchum’s NDA, she owns all rights to the DNA sequencing of the samples submitted to her. This is so she can ca$$$h in on them. Now suppose you submit a sample to Ketchum for her study. She uses and gives it back to you.

Now you want to take it to Robert Lindsay’s DNA Lab for them to sequence the DNA, maybe to see if Ketchum was right or not. You pay Lindsay’s lab for the DNA work. Lindsay gives you the results from the testing, and guess who owns the reports Lindsay just gave you? Melba Ketchum! Yes, she owns the rights to even subsequent DNA work done by other labs.

Want to write a book and talk about the DNA results? No can do, better leave that out of the book or you get sued. Want to go on TV and talk about the results from your tooth or whatever. Better not, or you get sued.

In my opinion, this is simply an illegal contract. It’s not enforceable. A source showed the contract to an attorney in Arizona. The attorney said that the agreement is illegal and not enforceable in Arizona.

Hand of unknown origin is only a bear paw. Don Monroe’s “hand of unknown origin” which was found in a dump in Montana or Idaho and turned in to Ketchum’s DNA study, has turned out to be a bear paw after all. There was controversy about the hand. One of my sources was sure that it was a Bigfoot hand. Ketchum and Jeff Meldrum both said that it was a bear paw, a conclusion that each one reached independently. Kudos to Meldrum and Ketchum for getting it right.

Here is the analysis:

After viewing the report and radiographs from Dr. Reese, which you have posted on your website, I can conclusively state that the “hand” Don Monroe submitted to you is actually the forepaw of a bear. If you would look at “Fundamentals of Forensic Anthropology” by Linda L. Klepinger, page 22, you will see a side-by-side comparison of the radiographs of a human hand, and the forepaw of a bear.

As can clearly be seen, the radiograph in the book is nearly identical to the one Dr. Reese produced. I believe Dr. Reese was unable to properly identify the paw, because he misidentified the bear’s 5th digit as a severed first digit. This caused all the confusion. The “hand” is not the right paw, but the left. The carpals in a bear’s paw share no similarities with a humans, but may look similar near the digits, if reversed.

The expert who reviewed the hand is a PhD physicist who teaches Computational Condensed Matter Physics at the University of Chicago.

Plumas County Sheriff’s Office refuses to investigate Sierra Kills. We called the Plumas County Sheriff’s Office. They told us that they had received some calls recently from folks reporting this case. The callers had mentioned Justin Smeja as the perpetrator of the incident. The office decided to turn the case over to Fish and Game.

The office said that callers had mentioned the steak from the Kills testing 100% positive. This could imply crimes such as homicide, or transporting, theft or mutilating a corpse. However, they said that that was 3rd hand information and not worthy of investigation. They acted like the whole matter was ridiculous.

US national security teams looking into the Sierra Kills? We received a tip from a source who is in contact with someone who is big in the Bigfoot world. This person has an extensive background in US military and national security. According to his sources in the government, US national security agencies are aware of the Sierra Kills incident and are investigating it. For some reason, whatever happened has national security consequences. As this is a 4th hand report, we can’t confirm it in any way, but it is interesting.

Bigfoot steak contaminated by human DNA? The Bigfoot slice recovered from the Sierra Kills tested 100% on an initial DNA test. Some are suggesting that it was contaminated by humans in the course of the chain of custody in transporting it to the lab. The problem is that Ketchum took a variety of samples from deep down inside the slice. There is no way that flesh down that deep could have been contaminated in handling or transport.

Latest News from the Bigfoot World August 2, 2011

Long, runs to 33 pages.

Stunning new leaks from the Erickson Project. We can now confirm the existence of a 45 minute video on the Erickson Project (EP). If it is ever released, it will go down in history as one of most stunning documentaries in the history of film. I know that this film exists, because one of my sources watched the whole thing.

First of all, the video consists of a number of interviews. There are interviews with Adrian Erickson, head of the project; Dr. Leila Hadj-Chikh, apparently the lead scientist with the project; Dennis Pfohl, head videographer with the project among other roles; and Dr. Melba Ketchum, who is running her own DNA project in tandem with the Erickson Project. The interview with Ketchum shows her sitting at a chair, working in her lab. The interviews make up about 3/4 of the footage of the film, or about 33 minutes.

The other quarter of the film, or about 12 minutes of footage, is made up of some of the most kick-ass, out of this world, knock your socks off Bigfoot footage that the world has ever seen. The closeup video of the young female Bigfoot in Kentucky we described earlier is part of the footage, but there is much more. There is quite a bit of other footage from the same Kentucky site. In addition, there is excellent footage, possibly on a par with the Kentucky footage, from at least one or possibly more than one other habituation site.

All of the 12 minutes of Bigfoot footage on the tape is excellent. Some of it was shot in the day, and a fair amount of it was shot at night with infrared technology. The night footage is also very good. At least some of the footage is on a par with the Patterson film, and some is even better. Chris Noel said the footage as a whole “will blow the lid off the whole field.”

Kentucky habituation site not the only EP habituation site. Keep in mind that the Kentucky habituation site, which we will now publically reveal as being in Crittenden, Kentucky, only 15 miles south of Cincinnati, was only one of 5 habituation sites that Erickson used for his project.

A photo Erickson's habituation site in Crittenden, Kentucky.

This is reportedly an excellent habituation site, and Bigfoots definitely seem to be using the area.

Erickson's habituation site in Crittenden, Kentucky.

Good DNA evidence in the form of blood and tissue and some outrageous, out of this world film, also came from this site.

A photo of purported Bigfoot blood and tissue evidence from Erickson's habituation site in Crittenden, Kentucky.

The footage was shot by a variety of different people. The EP footage itself, I believe, was shot mostly by Pfohl. Other footage was shot by residents of the sites. I know for a fact that the Kentucky residents shot quite a bit of superb video.

Erickson Project had many opportunities to kill a Bigfoot. We can now report that the EP says they had countless opportunities to kill a Bigfoot in the course of these investigations. Apparently they had high powered weapons that they were ready to use if they had to. But the team was staunchly anti-kill from the very start, and this position never changed. I am pro-kill myself, and it’s too bad they felt this way, as it could have solved this mystery once and for all.

EP wanted badly to tranquilize a Bigfoot. The EP also thought long and hard about tranquilizing a Bigfoot, as they had many opportunities to do that too, but they decided that it would be too difficult and that it might not even work.

First of all, you need to know the exact dose necessary for any given animal. Each animal takes a different dose and maybe even a different drug. There is no way to calculate the proper dose for a Bigfoot since we don’t have any subjects to test it out on. If you get the dose wrong, you could kill the Bigfoot if the dose is too high. Not high enough, and the Bigfoot won’t even drop, but it will probably vacate the habituation site and take all the others with it.

In addition, tranquilizers don’t typically drop animals right away. The animals run for aways until they drop. Surely Bigfoots will be the same. Now you have a Bigfoot that dropped down a few hundred yards away in the woods. How to get it out? And you will have some other very angry Bigfoots in the area to prevent you from taking out the body. What to do? At the moment, the tranquilizing idea seems to have too many problems. Maybe in the future.

Dennis Pfohl describes Bigfoot behavior. Dennis Pfohl seemed to be running the Erickson Project on the ground. I feel that he shot most of the EP video for the project. Hadj-Chikh probably shot few, if any, videos. In addition to shooting video at the Kentucky site, I also feel that Pfohl shot video at the Vermont site. He may have shot video at other habituation sites too, assuming that they exist.

In the course of the project, Pfohl got to know the local Bigfoots very well. He said each one had its own distinct personality, and he got to understand their personalities quite well.

Pfohl also said that the Bigfoots have a strange way of dealing with humans they like. They are playful, and almost seem to be playing little jokes on us a lot of the time. At the same time, they seem to be sending a message that says, “Let’s be friends, but don’t get too close.”

Like other animals, the Bigfoots come to recognize the sounds of various vehicles. If it is someone they like, they will do things like wood knocks when one of their friends’ cars shows up. At one site, a person the Bigfoots liked left the place, and another person took their place. This person drove a pickup truck and had a rather angry personality. The Bigfoots knew the sound of his car and avoided him.

Justin Smeja under investigation by the California Department of Fish and Game. In a previous article, Richard Stubstad describes how he and I undertook an investigation into the Sierra Kills by going to the site of the shooting west of Frenchman Lake, California. We spoke to the local Forest Service law enforcement officer, who had not heard of the case.

Then we spoke to the local Fish and Game game warden in charge of the area. He told us that recently two people had inquired about the Sierra Kills shooting. The first person gave them fuzzy details. The case went to his superior, who decided it was not worth investigating.

However, the second inquiry was more convincing. The officer told us that he had been given Smeja’s name, email and physical address in Sacramento. He said he was going to follow up on the case and try to talk to Smeja, but he didn’t want to waste too much time on the matter, as he thought it was nonsense. He was not sure if any laws had been broken. We confirmed for him that Smeja was the shooter.

Justin Smeja lying about reporting Sierra Kills to the sheriff’s office. We contacted the local Plumas County sheriff’s office and asked them if Smeja had reported the incident to them. Smeja’s name was not in their files, therefore, he had not reported it, as they have to make a report on every call. The part about reporting it to the sheriff’s is also part of Derek Randles’ official version of the story that he is demanding that we adopt. We respectfully refuse to automatically adopt what is essentially the killer’s version of a homicide case, sorry.

Justin Smeja continuing to lie about the site of the Sierra Kills. Smeja, who according to Derek Randles is as wholesome and upright as Mother Theresa, recently came to my site and chided us for not knowing where the Sierra Kills took place. Smeja said that he had never heard of Frenchman Lake or Dixie Mountain before I started writing about it, and neither had Randles.

This is apparently a lie. A source has informed me that Derek Randles and Melba Ketchum both told him that the Sierra Kills took place west of Frenchman Lake. Randles added that it was on the game refuge, then later changed his story to say it was somewhere near the game refuge. He did this in order to protect Smeja. Furthermore, when we revealed Dixie Mountain as the site of the shooting on a forum, Randles got very upset and told me to please keep the site quiet. This seemed to be an admission by Randles that Dixie Mountain was the correct site.

It seems that Smeja is trying to give us the run around regarding where this shooting actually took place. Previously, I was told that the kills took place in northern California on the Nevada/California border near a game refuge. The most sensible description of such a locale is Dixie Mountain.

Derek Randles had never been to the Sierra Kills scene nor met Justin Smeja in person. Derek Randles, who claims to have investigated this story inside and out, has never even been to Sacramento to talk with Smeja. Nor has he ever been to the Sierra Kills scene or talked to anyone in the area. Some investigation. Some investigator. Update: Derek Randles, Justin Smeja, a scientist, a biologist, two trackers and a cadaver dog went back to the scene just recently. The search was uneventful except for some footprints.

Justin Smeja’s driver completely hysterical after Sierra Kills, wants nothing to do with Smeja anymore. The driver of Smeja’s vehicle in the Sierra Kills shooting was horrified by the shootings. He was hysterical  and absolutely beside himself, especially after Smeja killed the juvenile Bigfoot. As we reported, the driver pointed his gun at Smeja and said if you kill another one of those things, I will kill you too. It was mostly due to the driver’s hysteria that the two abandoned the scene, but probably not after Smeja carved off a piece of the female Bigfoot’s thigh.

The driver was previously a good friend of Smeja’s, but now he has abandoned his friend, ended their relationship, and wants absolutely nothing to do with Smeja, so horrified was he by Smeja’s maniacal behavior on that hallowed and doomed fall day in the Eastern Sierras.

Psychic horrified by photo of Justin Smeja, felt he was “malevolent,” demanded that his photo be removed from her home. As part of our investigation, we visited a psychic who Stubstad knew in Truckee, California. We showed her Smeja’s photo. She stared at it for a long time, then said that he was hiding something, but she did not know what. She also felt that he was very protective of his family, and that his family had been threatened over this purported shooting.

She said he generated very intense bad energy, which she described as malevolent. In fact, when we left that day, she demanded that we take the Smeja photos with us because she didn’t want them in her house as they were generating extreme bad vibes around the house and making the house uncomfortable for her to stay in.

Bigfoot steak from the Sierra Kills had non-human hair structure. Unknown persons, possibly Smeja and Randles, are reporting that the hairs on the Bigfoot thigh slice from the Sierra shootings appeared to have a general nonhuman appearance in terms of their structure and characteristics.

Ketchum has an unfulfilled NDA with Tom Biscardi. It is interesting that the Ketchum Project people attempted to trash us as being associated with Tom Biscardi. Biscardi, whatever you think of him, has been an essential element of the Ketchum Project. Many times we needed folks to run samples from wherever to Ketchum’s lab in Texas. All of these illustrious Biscardi-hating investigators could not be bothered to do so. Only Tom Biscardi would step up to the plate, and so he was used.

Ketchum has an agreement with Biscardi to do the work on his own samples and to send him the results. She has never fulfilled her end of the bargain, hence she can be sued by Biscardi. However, Biscardi probably lacks money for a lawsuit.

The Bigfoot toenail in the Ketchum Project is from Larry Jenkins in northwest Arizona. This toenail, submitted to the Ketchum DNA project, was found by Jenkins at his cabin high up in the Arizona mountains near the Grand Canyon.

There do appear to be some Bigfoots in the area.

Jenkins is a Vietnam vet who lives with his family most of time, but also likes to go up to his cabin in this extremely remote area to shoot guns and get away from it all. One of my sources has been to this site and has seen a Bigfoot footprint in a streambed.

The toenail does not appear to be human. It is much too large, too thick, and has a sort of yellowish-black color to it that human nails do not have. Albert Ostman noted long ago that Bigfoots have blackish nails. The badly decomposed dead Bigfoot found by two Indian girls in Happy Camp, California, in 1965, also had black nails. This is why John Green felt it was a real Bigfoot, due to its consistency with Ostman’s tale.

BFRO has a possible Bigfoot skull. The BFRO has come into possession of a possible Bigfoot skull from Walla Walla, Washington. It is a small, ape-like skull, but it does not appear to be of an ape. It was found in the forest near Walla Walla. There is a lot of Bigfoot activity in this part of the Blue Mountains, the site of the famous Freeman film and Freeman footprints. I feel that the Freeman film is 100% genuine. Update: Skull has been shown to be human.

Another possible Bigfoot killing near the possible Sierra Kills site. While Stubstad and I were investigating the Sierra Kills case, we spoke with the Forest Service LE officer for the Beckwourth District of the Plumas National Forest. This is the district where the Sierra Kills may have taken place.

He told us that he had received a report of another Bigfoot being shot dead at Janesville Grade, about 20 miles north of the Sierra Kills site. The killing is said to have occurred about two weeks ago in the middle of July. We could not confirm this story in one way or another so we have no way of knowing if it occurred or not.

If it happened, the surviving juvenile or the surviving father from the Sierra Kills may have been killed. We feel that there was a male Bigfoot mate of the killed female Bigfoot, since Bigfoot single Moms are not common. If there is anything to either of these stories, it is amazing that two Bigfoots were reportedly shot dead within 20 miles of each other in the Eastern Sierra Nevada in California only nine months apart.

Reported Bigfoot sighting in Placerville, California, in mid-July. As part of our investigation, Stubstad and I went to a liquor store in tiny Sierraville, California. The American Indian woman there told us that there had been a Bigfoot sighting in Placerville only two weeks before. Supposedly, an excellent photograph was taken as part of this sighting. Placerville is about 70 miles southwest of Sierraville and 43 miles east of Sacramento.

We were unable to confirm this sighting one way or the other. One thing is for sure though. The northern Sierra Nevada seems to get a lot of Bigfoot sightings, especially in the summertime. Most are apparently not reported to Bigfoot organizations.

Erickson Project flat broke, out of funds. Although Adrian Erickson is a rich man, he has been running into financial trouble lately with his housing development in British Colombia, which is his principal business at the moment. Housing sales have slowed down due to the economic crash created by finance capital in the US (Wall Street).

Erickson had been financing his Bigfoot project, on which so far he has spent $3 million, on a revolving line of credit. For whatever reason, his bank is not willing to loan him any more money for Bigfoot ventures. Therefore, the EP is flat broke, and it is uncertain what major ventures they can do in the future.

Erickson to go down in history among the greatest of the greats. I would like to add that I think the EP’s best work is already behind them. Adrian Erickson and to a lesser extent Dennis Pfohl will go down in history as some of the greatest men to grace the annals of the worldwide investigation of the Bigfoot phenomenon. Erickson’s name will be up there with Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin, and he may even supersede them. Let us bow down before our Bigfootery Gods!

Melba Ketchum has mysterious benefactor who demands to remain anonymous. We made the error early on in our reporting of mixing up the EP with the Ketchum Project (KP). Although the beginnings of the KP are very difficult to describe and involve Ketchum, David Paulides, Erickson and Biscardi in various confusing, conflicting and hard to sort out roles, for a long time now, the KP has been a singular entity.

One wonders about the financing. Actually, Ketchum has a mysterious benefactor, who seems to be a relatively famous and very rich person, who is funding most of her DNA testing. This is necessary because Ketchum charges about $11,500 for full nuclear DNA sequencing. Obviously, submitters do not have this kind of cash, so someone is paying their way. If you heard this man’s name, you might or might not recognize it, because he is relatively famous. However, he wishes to remain anonymous, hence my sources would not reveal his name to me.

Mass confusion reigns about Ketchum’s DNA pricing. Some submitters have said that Ketchum charged them $200 for DNA sequencing of samples. The submitters were able to pay this. However, when I revealed that Erickson paid $70,000 for the sequencing of 6 samples, mass confusion broke out. We can now clear up the confusion.

Ketchum charges $200 for MtDNA sequencing. But for NuDNA testing, which is vastly more complex, she charges ~$11,500. This is why Erickson paid so much for his samples.

Ketchum cruelly fired of her best friends, lied and said she was “too slow.” Ketchum’s insatiable quest for all-encompassing power and glory in the discovery of Bigfoot seems to know no ends. We can now report that she fired a female geneticist, a PhD who did excellent work. Ketchum said she was “too slow.” My sources say that this is nonsense; the woman did excellent work.

The reason for Ketchum firing the woman are completely unknown, but sources said that she felt threatened by the geneticist because she does such great work. Ketchum is insecure and sometimes tries to get rid of highly competent workers who threaten her grandiose self-image and fantasies of unlimited power, glory and money. The geneticist was a close friend of Ketchum’s, and she was utterly devastated after being fired. But the geneticist certainly didn’t lose out on any paychecks. At the time, she was working for Ketchum for free!

Ketchum furiously trying to wiggle out of NDA agreement with Erickson. Sources say that Ketchum dislikes the agreement she has with Erickson and would very much like to get out of it. The reason is because there is supposed to be a press conference upon the publication of  Ketchum’s DNA paper, assuming it ever gets published.

At this press conference, Ketchum will unveil her DNA paper, and she will focus on Erickson’s 6 samples, which all turned out to be from separate Bigfoots. Other samples that tested positive as Bigfoots will be revealed “as an aside.” It will be difficult for Ketchum to do a press conference referring for the most part only to Erickson’s samples; this is not what she wants to do. The EP video will then be released in tandem with the DNA evidence. If Ketchum fails to hold the press conference as it is supposed to be held, she can be sued by Erickson for violating their agreement.

Matt Moneymaker using a fake name. In case you are interested in the details of this most unpleasant person, Matt Moneymaker, head of the BFRO, we can now report that Matt Moneymaker is not even his real name. His real name is Matt Johnson or some ordinary name like that. This profoundly abrasive clown apparently changed his surname to Moneymaker. Now what kind of a person deliberately chooses a name like that?

Moneymaker is a highly unpleasant person – controlling, dishonest, vindictive, mercurial, underhanded, possibly fraudulent, competitive to the point of pathology, and above all, incredibly narcissistic. He is ferociously competitive to the point that his personality exudes sheer poison, and he is determined that his organization be the one and only one that discovers Bigfoot. He’s Melba Ketchum with a sex change on steroids.

Matt often refuses to link to competing groups and often forbids discussion of them at his crazy website. For instance, all threads about the Erickson and Ketchum Projects are immediately shut down and locked with a snide remark about how they have had years of work and have never come up with anything. The forum is run by some of the worst forum Nazis in the field. Threads are constantly being shut down by Matt and his pals, and posters are banned all the time. I lasted a whole 2 hours on the site before I was banned, and I was trying to be good.

Further, Moneymaker is not even a practicing attorney as he implies he is. This is just more narcissistic bluster and chest beating. What he is is some guy who managed to graduate from Law School. Whether or not he passed the Bar is not known.

Since Matt took over the BFRO, there have been repeated mass exoduses of members due to his horrific personality. Although they do some good science, the whole BFRO enterprise is rather shameful due to being poisoned by Moneymaker. Matt Moneymaker is the definition of a toxic individual.

Tom Biscardi – hoaxer or not? After quite a bit of investigation, including an interview with Java Bob Schmaltzbach, I have concluded that Tom Biscardi is not a hoaxer. Java Bob went through a long history with me about the Georgia Boys’ fake Bigfoot body saga. It appears that both Biscardi and Java Bob were hoaxed by the Georgia Boys. Biscardi had no idea it was a fake. He was on the phone having Java Bob run tests on the thing when Bob discovered that it had a rubber foot.

It was then that that Java and Biscardi realized that they had been had. Recall that Biscardi forked over ~$50,000 for the fake dead Bigfoot. Why would he lose all that money if he was in on a hoax?

The truth is that Biscardi is not a hoaxer. Instead, he is a gullible, not particularly bright, narcissistic, showboating sort of guy who works as a Las Vegas showman. He believes anyone, so he gets hoaxed himself all the time. Biscardi also believes very much in Bigfoot, and he has 4 excellent daytime sightings and many more nighttime sightings. He has made some positive contributions to the Bigfoot field. In short, the popular image of Tom Biscardi as a hoaxer seems to be mistaken.

Biscardi does not have a good personality. He is a crass, vulgar, condescending, arrogant, egotistical and highly narcissistic man. Most people who associate with him for a while leave him because he is so hurtful. He hurts his own friends and even his own family with his callous remarks. Like many such types, he hasn’t the slightest clue about his culpability in these interpersonal scenarios. He has contempt for nearly everyone else in the Bigfoot world, who he typically refers to as bottom feeders.

Biscardi is not a Rhodes scholar, but he’s not stupid either. At best he has about average intelligence or so. He has an engaging, extroverted but brash personality.

Tom Biscardi the Wilt Chamberlain of Bigfootery. Biscardi lives in between the California Bay Area and Las Vegas, or, as a source says, “wherever he can find a loose woman.” Biscardi thinks he is God’s gift to women, and he is one of the wildest, most out of control and notorious womanizers in the Bigfoot world. One source compared him to Wilt Chamberlain. “Biscardi has a woman in every port,” the source said.

He typically can’t hang onto a woman for more than a year or two, but then he just goes out and grabs a new one. He has some grown kids from one or more previous marriages.

Tom Biscardi financially ruined Java Bob Schmaltzbach, left him out to dry. For a while, Java Bob hooked up with Biscardi on his round the country Bigfoot road show. Bob was paid around ~$1,000/month salary, but that did not even begin to cover basic expenses. They roamed around the country searching for Bigfoot, either staying in motels or staying with people who had seen Bigfoots and wanted investigations. Java left his wife at home and took off with Biscardi on this wild voyage, but the wife didn’t really mind.

It was wild and fun, but it drained Bob’s finances and eventually ruined his car. He ended up broke, with a wrecked car that would not even run. He was nearly homeless and had to move in with one of his kids for a while. He is now living happily in Happy Camp, California with his wife.

He is still hurt by the way that Biscardi treated him. Seems no one comes out of a relationship with Biscardi without a bit of damage.

Richard Stubstad not financing Tom Biscardi. There is a rumor floating around that Stubstad is Biscardi’s newest investor. It is certainly not true. I can assure you that, as I know Stubstad quite well.

An In-Depth Investigation of the Sierra Kills Incident

As we reported earlier, we broke the Sierra Kills story on the Internet. According to the story, two men, Justin Smeja and another man, were hunting bears on the Plumas National Forest west of Frenchman Lake when Smeja shot and killed two Bigfoots, a mother and a juvenile.

From this shooting, a slice of thigh was carved off the mother Bigfoot and sent in to a DNA lab for testing. The “Bigfoot steak” was very hairy and quite large and thick. It tested 100% human on DNA, but probably only the MtDNA was tested. Two men have recently implied that NuDNA testing showed that the steak was actually from a Bigfoot. Richard Stubstad and I took a trip up to the scene of the Sierra Kills last weekend, July 30-31, 2011. To my knowledge, we were the first on the ground investigators to investigate the story.

Richard’s account follows.

Hi, everyone … I’m back with more on the bigfoot shooting story, in spite of the fact I said I’d bow out of that one maybe a month or so ago.

Why? Well, Robert Lindsay & I finally decided that someone needed to do an on-site investigation of the story — meaning we drove all the way up to the Frenchman Lake area in the California sierras & we both scouted the terrain, flora and fauna, and we interviewed about a dozen folks in the area.

We also talked to my daughter-in-law (who lives in nearby Truckee, CA) and who is a self-described “empath” (I call her a psychic, which she says isn’t accurate).

Starting with her “take” on the incident, she was going to drive with us to the area, but she couldn’t make it due to her regular job. She stared at the pictures of the purported shooter that we had printed from the internet, and she described him as “not a nice person at all” and someone with a lot of “issues”, mainly of the “redneck” or “tough guy” condescending type. She definitely didn’t want these pictures & autobiographical descriptions left in HER house — so we took them with us.

Based on our lengthy visit with her (and my son, Paavo), she felt that “the shooter was definitely hiding something” but couldn’t pinpoint what it was. As far as my bottom-line question, “did he shoot a sasquatch or two?”, she said she didn’t have a strong feeling one way or the other.

The area directly to the west of Frenchman Lake (approx. 5,500 ft elevation) is an incredibly beautiful forested area with mainly non-deciduous tress & plenty of other flora and fauna. It is entirely wooded, with scattered meadows and streams. I really don’t know what “sasquatch habitat” should look like, but this habitat appears to be ideal for just about any wild animal, including the sasquai–with plenty of clean, flowing water and food, both of the plant-based type and wildlife galore.

There is even a herd of pronghorns towards the east, along with the usual Sierra Mountains “game” animals: deer, bear, bobcat, mountain lion, wild turkey, and even the occasional wolverine.

The only issue would be snow depth in the winter — it would be necessary, probably anywhere from 5,000 feet & up in elevation, for most large mammals to migrate down to lower elevations during heavy snowfall periods. Last winter, in nearby Truckee, the accumulated snow depth was maybe 25 feet, and all-in-all some 50 feet of snow fell during the winter season (probably somewhat less at Frenchman Lake — but still !).

The sasquai, to survive in such conditions, would have to learn to make skis or snowshoes to survive the winters in the area; therefore — if they exist in the area of Frenchman Lake — they simply have to migrate to lower elevations.

As a side-note, the fishing wasn’t all that great. The lake reportedly is populated with non-native rainbow trout and with native western slope cutthroat.

Out of the ten or so “tourist” or fishing type folks we spoke to, none of them whatsoever had even heard about the incident. A few believed in sasquatch as an existing hominid, while most just laughed about the idea of it — let alone a dual kill! I found this a bit strange, especially when 3 of the ten worked at the “local” general store, where groceries, hunting and fishing equipment, and God knows what else can be purchased.

We also interviewed three “officials” in the area: one was a forest service employee, one was a fish-and-game officer, and the last one was a deputy sheriff.

The forest service fellow also had not heard of the incident; however he had heard of a recent sasquatch shooting some 20 miles towards the north, closer to Susanville. He said this incident was reported about two weeks prior. He didn’t necessarily believe either of these stories, but he didn’t disbelieve in the possibility that the sasquai exist as a subspecies or “new” hominid.

The second person, from fish and game, had just recently heard about the incident. After he asked his supervisor if he should investigate it, his supervisor told him “not to waste his time”.

The third person, from the sheriff’s office, hadn’t heard about the incident either, and he checked to find out if anyone had reported the incident last year, at the time the shooter himself claims he reported it to the “authorities”. There was no such report, whether from last year or more recently, from the shooter or anyone else.

All in all, my conclusion is: If this incident actually took place, it did not take place where both the shooter, Dr. Ketchum, and Derek Randalls said it took place. Also, while the area to the west of the lake looks to me as ideal habitat, it is also a State Game Refuge where no firearms or even bows and arrows are allowed at any time of the year.

And, while there is a roadway that fits the general description supplied by Randalls and Ketchum, that roadway is entirely within the State Game Refuge and it would have indeed taken some balls (by both the shooter and the pickup truck driver) to drive in there, hunting bear or anything else, and escape without being noticed by anyone at all.

There was only one way in and out — the dead-end road that starts at the lake and goes to Dixie Mountain — and back the same way again.

My conclusion — if there was a shooting of one (or two) sasquai, it didn’t take place near Frenchman’s Lake. The Frenchman’s Lake story is at best a decoy. Duh.

No one to my knowledge, other than Dr. Ketchum herself, has seen any of the purported DNA sequencing on the “bigfoot steak”. I don’t know why she would have lied about this, but who really knows why she does what she does? I doubt that Derek Randalls himself has seen the sequencing; even if he had, how would he know how to interpret it anyway?

If Ketchum really has a bigfoot steak, this story — in my opinion — is a decoy and it never took place, at least not near Frenchman’s Lake. And, the “steak” may or may not have been provided by the purported shooter.

I’m 60-40 against the validity of the story myself; but if it happened, it didn’t happen in the area as described in these blogs, or originally on the Taxidermy.net forum.

"We'll Get You Pie Before You Die," by Alpha Unit

The fruits of their labor built America’s cities and homes, historians say, and made some people very rich. Nowadays we call them loggers.
Once upon a time they were lumberjacks. Or “timber beasts,” if you really didn’t like them.
Life was rough and frequently cut short when you did this kind of work. At the beginning of the twentieth century when serious efforts were made to unionize the logging industry, most workers in the country were virtual slaves, called “wage slaves” by organizers, according to journalists John C. Hughes and Ryan Teague Beckwith. In their book On the Harbor: From Black Friday to Nirvana, they chronicle unionization efforts for loggers in the Pacific Northwest, and go into detail about their working conditions.
Record-keeping wasn’t very good in those days, but a man’s life expectancy as a logger was said to be about seven years, they say.

Seldom a week went by without a buddy killed or maimed by a rolling log, a falling tree, a giant splinter run through him, or a whipping cable slicing him in two.

From the time he got out of bed in the morning, a logger never knew if he’d make it back to the bunkhouse in one piece, as one writer put it. Hughes and Beckwith continue:

Sawmill workers and shingle weavers lost fingers so routinely that it was practically a rite of passage. Hands and arms went flying, too, in geysers of blood, as the saws shrieked.

None of this made much of a difference to the employers. None of what many workers take for granted today existed then in this industry – no safety regulations, no inspections of gear or practices, and certainly no health insurance or rehabilitation programs. According to Hughes and Beckwith:

When a logger was crippled or killed, the bosses often said it was his own damn fault. He was too careless, or a greenhorn. Maybe just unlucky. “Joe’s number was up. We’re burnin’ daylight. Let’s get the lead out!”

These workers were easy to take advantage of. They were typically single young men, often recent immigrants. Many were migrants who followed timber jobs as they became available. But conditions in lumber camps were so bad that, by one estimate, the annual turnover rate was as high as 600 percent.
Employers didn’t seem to care. They weren’t moved in the slightest to do anything to ameliorate the conditions that were creating this astronomical turnover. Conditions like overcrowded, lice-infested bunkhouses. Another author, John E. Haynes, described some of the logging camps in Minnesota.

Bunkhouses were ventilated only by doors at each end and one or two small skylights in the roof. One or perhaps two iron stoves, kept fired all night, provided heat. The poor ventilation compounded sanitary problems.
The men worked 11-hour days in the cold Minnesota winter and generally wore two or three sets of underwear in addition to their outer garments. The combination of wet snow and hard labor soaked the jacks’ clothes every day, but the men were without washing facilities either for themselves or what they wore…layers of sets of wet-from-sweat clothes hung near the stove every night to dry for the next day.
The steam from the clothes joined the stench of tightly-packed, unwashed bodies in the bunkhouses, prompting one Wobbly to comment that “the bunkhouses in which the lumberjacks sleep are enough to gag a skunk.”

Toilet facilities were primitive in the extreme, says Haynes. Privies were simply shallow, open pits with a roof and some poles for seats. The privies were rarely treated with lime or even covered with dirt.
To the men who hired the workers, all of this was perfectly okay. If you were a worker who didn’t think it was okay, your option was to quit. A perfectly fine arrangement, correct?
Not so, said union organizers, specifically the IWW, or Industrial Workers of the World – also known as the Wobblies. It was workers just like these loggers that the Wobblies focused their energies on.
Any wage earner could be a Wobbly, says labor historian Gibbs M. Smith. It didn’t matter what your occupation, race, creed, or sex was. You could be Black or White or Asian, American or foreign-born, skilled or unskilled.
This openness toward unskilled workers is what set the IWW apart from the American Federation of Labor. The AFL adhered to a craft union philosophy and were too conservative for the Wobblies. Consisting mainly of skilled workers, the AFL refused to organize the unskilled.
“Big Bill” Haywood led the IWW. He favored industrial unionism over craft unionism, stating:

We are going to go down into the gutter to get at the mass of workers and bring them up to a decent plane of living.

Machinery and advancing technology were progressively eliminating the need for skilled craftsmen, Smith writes. The IWW believed that since the employers had united into great combinations of capital to maintain supremacy, it was necessary to organize all workers, skilled and unskilled, into industrial unions “to wage effective war on the integrated power of modern industry.”
In their efforts to organize loggers, it wasn’t just conditions in the camps that the IWW protested. They strongly objected to the “job sharks” who supplied laborers to the mills and logging camps. Because working conditions were so awful, employers hired agents to snare fresh bodies, as Hughes and Beckwith put it.
In the winter of 1911-12, the IWW took a stand against the logging companies and their job agents in Aberdeen, Washington.
Off-duty laborers would pass by and congregate near the Sailors’ Union Hall in downtown Aberdeen, where IWW organizers had begun their outreach efforts. The favored spot was near a saloon owned by a city councilman. The City Council didn’t like the IWW, seeing them as subversives, so it passed an ordinance prohibiting street speaking in the locality.
But the City Council chose to look the other way for one group in particular, another group that was interested in the laborers, or at least in their souls – the Salvation Army.
The Wobblies didn’t like this one bit.
Joe Hill, an immigrant from Sweden who had worked his way across the country as a laborer in factories and mines, and on farms and waterfronts, had joined the IWW once he made it to California. He mocked the “Starvation Army” in a song that parodied their hymn “In the Sweet Bye and Bye”:

Long-haired preachers come out every night,
Try to tell you what’s wrong and what’s right;
But when asked how ’bout something to eat
They will answer with voices so sweet:
You will eat, bye and bye,
In that glorious land above the sky;
Work and pray, live on hay,
You’ll get pie in the sky when you die.

The IWW kept up their protests of the Aberdeen ordinance, suffering vigilante violence in the process. In January of 1912, the City Council passed another ordinance – this time outlawing all street speaking. The Salvation Army, too, had to lie low.
But the IWW wasn’t contented. This was about the principle of free speech as well as organizing workers. They staged another protest, complete with singing, soap boxing, a boycott of local merchants, and a lot of bad publicity.
Eager to avoid the kind of destructive conflict that had gripped Spokane a couple of years earlier during IWW-led protests, the city of Aberdeen reached a settlement with the Wobblies. They consented, finally, to street speaking. The Wobblies moved the free-speech fight on to other cities, and organized a massive strike that closed every wood-working plant on Grays Harbor.
The timber industry eventually met many IWW demands, such as clean bedding and the 8-hour workday, during World War I. According to Hughes and Beckwith:

Frightened of paralyzing strikes that could harm logging of spruce for military planes, the U.S. Army created a special Spruce Production Division. With military efficiency the “Spruce Army” improved conditions more than the Wobblies ever had.

The Wobblies didn’t get everything they set out to get as an organization. They wanted all workers united into “One Big Union.” It hasn’t happened. They wanted workers to unite to overthrow capitalism. Capitalism is still here, a hundred years later (and so are the Wobblies).
But the city fathers in Aberdeen became afraid of them. Lumber company owners were afraid of them, and so were Chamber of Commerce managers. The U.S. Army became afraid of them. That’s quite a feat.

References

Haynes, John E. 1971. Revolt of the “Timber Beasts”: IWW Lumber Strike in Minnesota. St Paul: Minnesota Historical Society.
Hughes, John C. and Beckwith, Ryan Teague, eds. 2005. On the Harbor: From Black Friday to Nirvana. Las Vegas: Stephens Press.
Smith, Gibbs M. 1969. Joe Hill. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

“We’ll Get You Pie Before You Die,” by Alpha Unit

The fruits of their labor built America’s cities and homes, historians say, and made some people very rich. Nowadays we call them loggers.

Once upon a time they were lumberjacks. Or “timber beasts,” if you really didn’t like them.

Life was rough and frequently cut short when you did this kind of work. At the beginning of the twentieth century when serious efforts were made to unionize the logging industry, most workers in the country were virtual slaves, called “wage slaves” by organizers, according to journalists John C. Hughes and Ryan Teague Beckwith. In their book On the Harbor: From Black Friday to Nirvana, they chronicle unionization efforts for loggers in the Pacific Northwest, and go into detail about their working conditions.

Record-keeping wasn’t very good in those days, but a man’s life expectancy as a logger was said to be about seven years, they say.

Seldom a week went by without a buddy killed or maimed by a rolling log, a falling tree, a giant splinter run through him, or a whipping cable slicing him in two.

From the time he got out of bed in the morning, a logger never knew if he’d make it back to the bunkhouse in one piece, as one writer put it. Hughes and Beckwith continue:

Sawmill workers and shingle weavers lost fingers so routinely that it was practically a rite of passage. Hands and arms went flying, too, in geysers of blood, as the saws shrieked.

None of this made much of a difference to the employers. None of what many workers take for granted today existed then in this industry – no safety regulations, no inspections of gear or practices, and certainly no health insurance or rehabilitation programs. According to Hughes and Beckwith:

When a logger was crippled or killed, the bosses often said it was his own damn fault. He was too careless, or a greenhorn. Maybe just unlucky. “Joe’s number was up. We’re burnin’ daylight. Let’s get the lead out!”

These workers were easy to take advantage of. They were typically single young men, often recent immigrants. Many were migrants who followed timber jobs as they became available. But conditions in lumber camps were so bad that, by one estimate, the annual turnover rate was as high as 600 percent.

Employers didn’t seem to care. They weren’t moved in the slightest to do anything to ameliorate the conditions that were creating this astronomical turnover. Conditions like overcrowded, lice-infested bunkhouses. Another author, John E. Haynes, described some of the logging camps in Minnesota.

Bunkhouses were ventilated only by doors at each end and one or two small skylights in the roof. One or perhaps two iron stoves, kept fired all night, provided heat. The poor ventilation compounded sanitary problems.

The men worked 11-hour days in the cold Minnesota winter and generally wore two or three sets of underwear in addition to their outer garments. The combination of wet snow and hard labor soaked the jacks’ clothes every day, but the men were without washing facilities either for themselves or what they wore…layers of sets of wet-from-sweat clothes hung near the stove every night to dry for the next day.

The steam from the clothes joined the stench of tightly-packed, unwashed bodies in the bunkhouses, prompting one Wobbly to comment that “the bunkhouses in which the lumberjacks sleep are enough to gag a skunk.”

Toilet facilities were primitive in the extreme, says Haynes. Privies were simply shallow, open pits with a roof and some poles for seats. The privies were rarely treated with lime or even covered with dirt.

To the men who hired the workers, all of this was perfectly okay. If you were a worker who didn’t think it was okay, your option was to quit. A perfectly fine arrangement, correct?

Not so, said union organizers, specifically the IWW, or Industrial Workers of the World – also known as the Wobblies. It was workers just like these loggers that the Wobblies focused their energies on.

Any wage earner could be a Wobbly, says labor historian Gibbs M. Smith. It didn’t matter what your occupation, race, creed, or sex was. You could be Black or White or Asian, American or foreign-born, skilled or unskilled.

This openness toward unskilled workers is what set the IWW apart from the American Federation of Labor. The AFL adhered to a craft union philosophy and were too conservative for the Wobblies. Consisting mainly of skilled workers, the AFL refused to organize the unskilled.

“Big Bill” Haywood led the IWW. He favored industrial unionism over craft unionism, stating:

We are going to go down into the gutter to get at the mass of workers and bring them up to a decent plane of living.

Machinery and advancing technology were progressively eliminating the need for skilled craftsmen, Smith writes. The IWW believed that since the employers had united into great combinations of capital to maintain supremacy, it was necessary to organize all workers, skilled and unskilled, into industrial unions “to wage effective war on the integrated power of modern industry.”

In their efforts to organize loggers, it wasn’t just conditions in the camps that the IWW protested. They strongly objected to the “job sharks” who supplied laborers to the mills and logging camps. Because working conditions were so awful, employers hired agents to snare fresh bodies, as Hughes and Beckwith put it.

In the winter of 1911-12, the IWW took a stand against the logging companies and their job agents in Aberdeen, Washington.

Off-duty laborers would pass by and congregate near the Sailors’ Union Hall in downtown Aberdeen, where IWW organizers had begun their outreach efforts. The favored spot was near a saloon owned by a city councilman. The City Council didn’t like the IWW, seeing them as subversives, so it passed an ordinance prohibiting street speaking in the locality.

But the City Council chose to look the other way for one group in particular, another group that was interested in the laborers, or at least in their souls – the Salvation Army.

The Wobblies didn’t like this one bit.

Joe Hill, an immigrant from Sweden who had worked his way across the country as a laborer in factories and mines, and on farms and waterfronts, had joined the IWW once he made it to California. He mocked the “Starvation Army” in a song that parodied their hymn “In the Sweet Bye and Bye”:

Long-haired preachers come out every night,
Try to tell you what’s wrong and what’s right;
But when asked how ’bout something to eat
They will answer with voices so sweet:

You will eat, bye and bye,
In that glorious land above the sky;
Work and pray, live on hay,
You’ll get pie in the sky when you die.

The IWW kept up their protests of the Aberdeen ordinance, suffering vigilante violence in the process. In January of 1912, the City Council passed another ordinance – this time outlawing all street speaking. The Salvation Army, too, had to lie low.

But the IWW wasn’t contented. This was about the principle of free speech as well as organizing workers. They staged another protest, complete with singing, soap boxing, a boycott of local merchants, and a lot of bad publicity.

Eager to avoid the kind of destructive conflict that had gripped Spokane a couple of years earlier during IWW-led protests, the city of Aberdeen reached a settlement with the Wobblies. They consented, finally, to street speaking. The Wobblies moved the free-speech fight on to other cities, and organized a massive strike that closed every wood-working plant on Grays Harbor.

The timber industry eventually met many IWW demands, such as clean bedding and the 8-hour workday, during World War I. According to Hughes and Beckwith:

Frightened of paralyzing strikes that could harm logging of spruce for military planes, the U.S. Army created a special Spruce Production Division. With military efficiency the “Spruce Army” improved conditions more than the Wobblies ever had.

The Wobblies didn’t get everything they set out to get as an organization. They wanted all workers united into “One Big Union.” It hasn’t happened. They wanted workers to unite to overthrow capitalism. Capitalism is still here, a hundred years later (and so are the Wobblies).

But the city fathers in Aberdeen became afraid of them. Lumber company owners were afraid of them, and so were Chamber of Commerce managers. The U.S. Army became afraid of them. That’s quite a feat.

References

Haynes, John E. 1971. Revolt of the “Timber Beasts”: IWW Lumber Strike in Minnesota. St Paul: Minnesota Historical Society.
Hughes, John C. and Beckwith, Ryan Teague, eds. 2005. On the Harbor: From Black Friday to Nirvana. Las Vegas: Stephens Press.
Smith, Gibbs M. 1969. Joe Hill. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

"Restricting the Sale of Violent Video Games Ruled Unconstitutional," by Alpha Unit

In 2005, the California legislature passed, and the Governor signed into law, Assembly Bill 1179. The new law prohibited selling or renting to minors any video games that depict killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting any image of a human being – particularly if the assault is especially heinous, cruel, or depraved. As in torture.
Retailers who violated the law would have been liable in an amount up to $1,000 for each violation.
On Monday the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that California can’t regulate the sale or rental of violent video games to minors. The Act violates the First Amendment.
According to the ruling, California sought to create a new category of content-based regulation permissible only for speech directed at children. Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, stated:

This country has no tradition of specially restricting children’s access to depictions of violence. And California’s claim that “interactive” video games present special problems, in that the player participates in the violent action on the screen and determines its outcome, is unpersuasive.

He went on to say that California would have had to demonstrate that the law passes strict scrutiny – that is, that the law is justified by a compelling government interest and is narrowly drawn to serve that interest. The court ruled that the law does not pass the test. According to Justice Scalia:

Psychological studies purporting to show a connection between exposure to violent video games and harmful effects on children do not prove that such exposure causes minors to act aggressively. Any demonstrated effects are both small and indistinguishable from effects produced by other media. Since California has declined to restrict those other media, e.g., Saturday morning cartoons, its video game regulation is wildly underinclusive, raising serious doubts about whether the law is pursuing the interest it invokes or is instead disfavoring a particular speaker or viewpoint.

The court declared that the video-game industry’s voluntary rating system already meets the alleged substantial need of parents who wish to restrict access to violent videos.
In addition to being underinclusive, the Act is overinclusive, since not all children who are prohibited from purchasing violent video games have parents who disapprove of their doing so.
The law’s author, Senator Leland Yee (D-San Francisco), lamented the ruling, saying that it put the interests of corporate America before the interests of California’s children.

“Restricting the Sale of Violent Video Games Ruled Unconstitutional,” by Alpha Unit

In 2005, the California legislature passed, and the Governor signed into law, Assembly Bill 1179. The new law prohibited selling or renting to minors any video games that depict killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting any image of a human being – particularly if the assault is especially heinous, cruel, or depraved. As in torture.

Retailers who violated the law would have been liable in an amount up to $1,000 for each violation.

On Monday the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that California can’t regulate the sale or rental of violent video games to minors. The Act violates the First Amendment.

According to the ruling, California sought to create a new category of content-based regulation permissible only for speech directed at children. Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, stated:

This country has no tradition of specially restricting children’s access to depictions of violence. And California’s claim that “interactive” video games present special problems, in that the player participates in the violent action on the screen and determines its outcome, is unpersuasive.

He went on to say that California would have had to demonstrate that the law passes strict scrutiny – that is, that the law is justified by a compelling government interest and is narrowly drawn to serve that interest. The court ruled that the law does not pass the test. According to Justice Scalia:

Psychological studies purporting to show a connection between exposure to violent video games and harmful effects on children do not prove that such exposure causes minors to act aggressively. Any demonstrated effects are both small and indistinguishable from effects produced by other media. Since California has declined to restrict those other media, e.g., Saturday morning cartoons, its video game regulation is wildly underinclusive, raising serious doubts about whether the law is pursuing the interest it invokes or is instead disfavoring a particular speaker or viewpoint.

The court declared that the video-game industry’s voluntary rating system already meets the alleged substantial need of parents who wish to restrict access to violent videos.

In addition to being underinclusive, the Act is overinclusive, since not all children who are prohibited from purchasing violent video games have parents who disapprove of their doing so.

The law’s author, Senator Leland Yee (D-San Francisco), lamented the ruling, saying that it put the interests of corporate America before the interests of California’s children.

Serbian Dogcatcher Chokes a Dog

The video described below can be seen on my video site here.
This is a hot viral video that was sneaked onto the Net about 10 days ago, around November 2. It is quite hard to find, but it is getting a lot of press. It shows a Serbian dog catcher choking a dog that they had captured on the street. Though video quality is poor, you can see a river of blood flowing out of the dog’s neck as the dogcatcher strangles him.
The stray dog and cat population in Serbia is out of control. Since the war ended 10 years ago, the population of dogs and cats on the streets has exploded. Cities and towns don’t know what to do with the armies of strays, and many people are so upset by the huge numbers of stray animals roaming around that they no longer care much about the feelings of the animals.
Cities hire private capitalist firms, called Shinters, which compete with each other to see who can kill the most strays in the fastest and least expensive way. Neoliberal capitalism at work, folks! Hey, killing them humanely is an inefficiency, just as Frederick Hayek.
These teams round up large numbers of animals, store them very inhumanely in tiny cages where they are denied food and water, and then quickly kill by such means as clubbing and crushing them to death, burying them alive and poisoning them.
Municipalities do not have enough shelters to house the animals, the population was never educated about humane treatment of animals, and Serbia never instituted a spay and neuter program. Serbian cities do have laws on the books against animal cruelty, but they are not enforced.
Some organizations have formed to protest society’s cruel treatment of the animals and offer solutions. Serbian Animals Voice wants a trap neuter and release program such as is in effect in many US localities.
Studies in the US have shown that just sending animal catchers out to mass catch strays does not effect their population numbers since they breed so much and are always being replenished. They lead short, nasty and brutish lives full of fights, predator attacks and diseases.
Instead, strays are trapped, neutered, given medical care and then released back to the wild. This program has been good at actually reducing the numbers of strays in the wild.
One problem in the US is that stray populations are continually being replenished by stupid rural White people, who all vote Republican, who continuously dump their unwanted animals in the wild instead of taking them to the pound to be euthanized as is proper. These same idiots also never spay their animals, either because they are too broke or because they think idiotically think it is cruel to deprive a pet of its sex drive.
Another organization in Serbia, the Alliance for Animal Rights,in addition to asking for spay and neuter, recommends closing the present shelters, registering owned animals, educating the public about humane animal treatment and enforcing laws against animal cruelty.
The more I read stuff like this, the more I am convinced that there is something terribly wrong with Serbian people. The Balkans have always been the backwater of the European race, and they are not coming to civilization in a hurry.

Child Molester Mass Hysteria

Repost from the old site.
Due to the fallout from the Groene case, Steve Groene is pushing a One Strike Law in Washington State, where he now resides. I don’t blame him, and a lot of crime victims lash out like this.
As you can see on the page explaining the law, the law is constructed so Joseph Duncan would never have been freed to kill Steve’s ex-wife and two kids and rape his daughter. So the tragic past would never have occurred.
California’s 3 Strikes Law was written by Mike Reynolds in such a way that the 2-bit thugs who killed his daughter (who merely had lengthy records for petty crime) would have been imprisoned and would have been able to kill his daughter.
In this way, surviving crime victims, or usually relatives of crime victims, are able to time travel. They can go back in time, and in their imaginations, wipe out the past.
The problem is that this is all an illusion.
Mike Reynolds’ crazy 3 Strikes Law didn’t bring back his daughter, and the guys who did it are going down bigtime anyway. Steve’s One Strike Law won’t bring back Dylan or Slade, or wipe out what was done to Shasta.
Sure, it might prevent it from happening to others, but to be completely frank, I don’t think that’s the purpose of these laws. The purpose of these laws is to enable their enraged and vengeful authors-relatives of victims to imaginarily go back in time and prevent the past from occurring by passing a new law in the future.
It’s the stuff of science fiction. It’s magical thinking, but magical thinking is not just for kids and crazies. Adults do it all the time too, especially traumatized adults. Like relatives of murder victims.
First of all, I will say that this law is not as nuts as I assumed it would be. Some of my friends know Steve, and they did not think he would write a law as stupid as California’s 3 Strikes Law, especially since his own son has a record as a 2-bit petty criminal. I’m not even sure about Steve’s own history, but my friends say he ran with a rough crowd.
The proposed One-Strike law says that anyone guilty of child molestation (wisely put at under 12) and anyone guilty of forcible rape through the use of violence needs to go away for life. Now, most people would sit back and cheer.
To the authors’ credit, the law seems to exclude the “date rape” bullshit by requiring that the rape be forcible and violent. It also rules out the “statutory rape” bullshit by requiring ruling out sex with minors aged 12 and up.
So where does that leave us? With a bunch of pedos and rapists. So why is this not a good idea?
Because right here in my town, we have 133 people on the sex offender list. Fresno, a city of 440,000, probably has 1,000 people on the list. They’re either all or almost all men.
Nationally, with the ever-expanding definitions of sex offenders, there are now 2 million people on sex offender lists! Surely they are almost all males.
This is starting to look less like a war on “sex offenders” and more like just a war on males.
Here in my town, most of the guys on the list are guilty of rape, child molesting under the age of 14 or even rape of a child under the age of 14. That’s probably 100 out of 133. You’re going to throw all 100 of these guys away for life?
In Fresno, I bet 800 out of the 1000 are on for rape or molesting a child under the age of 14. You’re going to throw 800 guys away for life?
How many of the 2 million on the sex offender lists nationwide would be covered under this One Strike Law? That’s an interesting bit of research.
This law isn’t going to work. Implemented nationally, it will easily result in life sentences for hundreds of thousands, and possibly over 1 million, people, almost all men. Even if it’s a good idea, it’s not doable.

Interesting Comments on Sex Offenders

Repost from the old site.
From the comments section, a commenter writes:

Incest and friends of the family make up approximately 98% of all sex offenses (I think they mean child molestation and not rape, but I’m not sure). There has been estimated that 60 million individuals in this country that has experienced child sexual abuse. 50%, 30 million will go on to abuse a child. This is the crux of the problem, and we are not addressing it.Instead, law makers are creating laws that do more harm than good. For example:
The public registries: 98% of those come from the family and friends of the family. It is a fact, that once caught, 95% of them never repeat another sex crime. And that’s without therapy.
The remaining 5% are hiding in the registries. Those who did not know their victims, the violent rapists and the repeat offender.
And, approximately, 95% of all new sex offenses are committed by individuals NOT on the registries. Is it no wonder, because law makers have totally ignored the fact that Incest and friends of the family are the crux of the problem. There are 30 million abusers out there and lawmakers have done nothing to address prevention through education.
By ignoring incest and friends of the family, law makers have created a greater risk to children and society. If we do not openly discuss it, do not propose any educational models to better inform ourselves and keep ourselves afflicted with guilt and shame which washes over all concerned, perpetrators, victims, and other family members alike, we all help shield and perpetuate the crime.
These sex offender laws are being passed without advice of the experts. They are knee-jerk regulatory reaction which is just another way of saying, additional punishment is justified. Congress and the Legislatures have ignored the experts in the field.
But when it comes to light bulbs, they clamor for expert testimony. There is something very fundamentally wrong with their approach when it comes to sex offender laws.
Randy Lopp, treatment subcommittee chairman of the Oklahoma Sex Offender Management Team said, ”Most people who know anything about this are frustrated. It is just not helpful — the laws as they are now.
“I think if the general public understood the research, they would be willing to back the legislators to change the laws to make more sense and to protect children, because the laws as they are written are not protecting children,” he said. “They are doing more harm than good.”
US Department of Justice, 2003
• Sample size – 9,700 sex offenders
• Length of time – 3 years
• Re-offense trigger – reconviction (Doesn’t mean a new sex crime)
• Results – 5.3% sexual offense. 3.3% child molestation.
Arizona, Department of Corrections, 2006
• Length of time – Ten years
• Sample size – 2,444 sex offenders
• Results – 3.2% returned for a new felony sex offense, 1.4% returned for a new felony case of child molestation
• Reoffense trigger – new conviction (Any conviction)
And there are many more studies and they have the same results. Low recidivism rates for first time sex offenses.
Law makers pass these laws as non-controversial. Without debate and there is nothing I can think of that is more controversial.
Constitutional rights are being side stepped and it has been said that when you deny the constitution to one, you deny it to everyone. Please, look at the real problem. Incest and friends of the family and Prevent through education. Do away with these draconian laws that protect no one but endangers every child.

I don’t really know what to say to any of this stuff. I don’t have much personal interest in it.
I’d be interested to see how these laws are endangering kids and doing more harm than good.
Surely life is often Hell for these sex offenders. And you can see here that these insane laws are being used against all sorts of 18-21 year old guys messing around with 15-17 year old girls. The guys are totally normal, and now their lives are fucked forever.
They’re on Sex Offender Lists, it’s hard to work anywhere, they go to jail and get threatened by other inmates as “pedos” (that’s weird, I figured most prison inmates would gladly fuck a 16 year old girl if they could get away with it). They can hardly live anywhere and often have to move back home.
Their career dreams are shot, and the military won’t take you (I guess fucking a 16 year old girl is evil, but actually killing human beings, albeit towelheads, is cool). Lots of guys are also going down due to lying little girls telling tall tales of fake molestations and teenage bitches screaming rape.
I thank God I’m not on one of those blasted lists! I have enough problems as it is; I couldn’t imagine what Hell my life would be if I was on one of those things.

How Does the Republican Party REALLY Feel About Immigration?

I don’t know…It was the Democrats and Left that passed the 1965 Immigration Act. That’s just the facts. The Right were racist elitists, but it seems they’d rather have lived in a White country than plot to destroy the middle class—back then. But by the time Regan came around the Right picked up illegal immigration, too, and were using it for their machinations. Then years going back and forth, both Left and Right supporting or ignoring it.

The plot to destroy the middle class began in the 1970’s, really got under way with Reagan and dramatically accelerated under Bush. Keep in mind that this is just a theory mine – I can’t prove that such a plot was actually concocted.
The Right was silent about the 1965 Immigration Act.
Immigration, legal and illegal, really ramped up under Reagan. In 1979, it was only 400,000/yr or so.
The Right in the US has never opposed legal immigration as far as I can tell. The Republican Party has always been 100% in back of legal immigration. And I think they’ve always supported the illegals too, because they are the party of business, and business demands the illegals. The Right in general has never done the slightest damned thing to get stop these illegals, except at the state level. In particular, going after the employers simply has not occurred at all.
Obama has deported vastly more illegals than Bush did. Remember, Bush tried to legalize all of them. And illegal immigration exploded under Reagan.
The Right are complete assholes, just like they are about most everything. They want to have it both ways. First of all, they love these illegals for the purposes of smashing down wages, and really that’s all the Right, which is the political arm of Business, cares about. However, the Right’s base screams about the illegals, so the Right, while encouraging the illegals to come and doing nothing to get rid of them while they are here, feeds their base with anti-illegal rhetoric which is just that. Even Proposition 187 in 1994 under Governor Pete Wilson was not intended to stop illegals. We know this because Wilson fought any and all efforts to crack down on businesses hiring illegals. The Right just pushes anti-illegal rhetoric to get votes from non-elite and working class Whites who in their right minds would not be voting them. It’s a double game, like most crap the Right does.
Obama has deported illegals at a higher rate than any administration in history.
The bottom line for the Right is always money, capitalism and business. As long as Capital demands that these illegals be here, the Right won’t get rid of them. End of story.
There have been interesting moves at the state level. In Arizona, a rightwing Republican governor passed a very harsh anti-illegal measure that was surely opposed by her business constituents. Granted, that’s an interesting dynamic.
Bush and McCain tried a very sneaky double game. They tried to legalize the 12 million illegals so they could be used as cheap labor, but at the same time would make it almost impossible for them to become citizens, at which point, they may well vote Democrat. The law would have converted illegals into citizens at the earliest in 17 years, and only after making them jump lots of hurdles.
Only the Buchananite wing of the Republican Party has said anything at all about immigration.
The main wing of the Republican Party, capital, business, money interests, loves immigration. Recall that capitalism needs constant growth in order to function. Capitalists love growing populations because it means more consumers, more houses, more this, more that = growing economy.
The Left has always supported the illegals, true, but at least they are consistent and have a solid ideological position.
Obama plays a bit of a double game on the illegals. He tells the Hispanics he’s going to legalize them in order to get their votes, then he never does it! He never does it because he knows it’s political suicide.
So both sides are sort of feeding the bases phony lines that they are not willing to follow through on.
But back in the 1970’s, super liberal California governor Jerry Brown used to regularly cheer on raids against illegals. It wasn’t a very controversial issue back then – most everyone was against them, but it was seen as kind of a joke, because it was like bailing out the ocean.

California Truth

Repost from the old site.
There is something to be said for deep, hard and cold honesty and realism, like this great article, My Negro Problem – And Ours , from Norman Podhoretz in 1963, back when he was still a liberal and Commentary was still a Jewish liberal magazine, before the Henry Jackson – Patrick Moynihan-fueled transformation into neoconservatives in the 1970’s. Read it!
More along the same lines, from the comments page of American Renaissance, commenting on an article about illegal immigration:

Look at Los Angeles in the 1930’s, 40’s, 50’s, 60’s, 70’s. Blue sky, snow-covered mountains, beaches, orange groves. Streets and highways that were uncrowded. Modest middle-class White Americans with full employment in American industries and whose only direct connection with crime was watching a Hollywood gangster movie with George Raft, or Bogart.
Look at Los Angeles now. A third world jungle. Air filthy, orange groves long gone, graffiti and gang slogans everywhere, infrastructure collapsing. The middle class replaced by super-rich behind gated communities and the teeming hordes of the permanently poor. Jobs gone replaced by minimum wage service industries, schools worse than useless.
Whites replaced by illiterate mestizos. The Golden State destroyed in one generation. That’s quite an achievement.

The “illiterate Mestizos” in the text above are illegal aliens and in many cases, their horrific spawn. I would add I don’t want to get into race reality or any of that, but this is a perfect description of my state and my city, my home. I will never go back to my home as long as I live, or at least I pray I will not. It’s not my home anymore. It’s like it’s been taken over by body snatchers or aliens.
And it’s not necessarily about race either. Growing up in the Los Angeles area in the 1960’s and 70’s, there were Blacks around, but only some, and in the circles I ran in, all college-going and middle-class. There were assimilated Hispanics too, like my best friend since 4th grade, but they were just like everybody else other than having some quirky ancestry, and they were definitely a minority anyway.
There were scattered Asians here and there – Japanese, Chinese, Filipinos, all assimilated Americans. That was the thing – everyone was an American. I didn’t know any immigrants except the Bolivian exchange student at my high school.
There was no such thing as people who didn’t speak English – everyone did. There weren’t any signs in foreign languages, unless you went to Chinatown or Olvera Street.
If you wanted to see Chinese people and eat Chinese food, you went to Chinatown. If you wanted to see Mexicans and listen to mariachis, you went to Olvera Street.
On a recent trip back to Orange County, the nature of this catastrophe really hit home for me. Orange County is now a 3rd World country. There’s a group of very well-off rich and upper middle class people of various races living lavish and ultra-lavish lives, and then another vast, usually darker-skinned group, that looks like the teeming masses of the Third World, and they are often right in proximity to each other. There’s a White working class that looks broken, in debt and exhausted.
I’m sure the rich and upper middle class love it this way, as studies show that they have made out like bandits since 1980 while most everyone else has gotten creamed, and this transformation neatly corresponded with Reaganism and the Republican free market revolution of the past 30 years. It also corresponded with California liberalism. Our very own Jerry Brown liberals from the 1970’s got together with the Reaganites and ruined my city and my state. It doesn’t make sense.
Looking at the 3rd World country that Orange County has become, with it’s Latin American gaps between an opulent, venal and indifferent upper class (At what point will they become an “oligarchy”?) and hordes of teeming 3rd World-like impoverished and overworked masses (At what point will they become revolutionary?), the rich with their gated communities and their security guards and the poor shoveled 30 to a dwelling, how could any progressive person not despair?
What’s next? Biweekly riots by the Right, the Left or just college kids? Violent, striking teachers in the streets, broken up with tear gas and clubs? A military coup? The army in the streets? Armed leftwing revolutionaries? Right-wing death squads? If not, why not?
If there’s a monument to the failure of mass illegal immigration and even mass immigration, it’s Los Angeles and the surrounding area. When you go to downtown LA, you are in shock. Most parts of the world that look like that need a passport to get to them. Yet this is purportedly part of our country.
I’d like to point something out.
How would Japan like it if we flooded 40 million East Indians or Mestizos into their country? How would India like it if we flooded 300 million Chinese into their country? How would fucking Mexico like it if we flooded 35 million Koreans, East Indians or Africans into their country?
No sane, decent or self-respecting country or people puts up with this shit.
Every country has an ethnic group that makes up the majority, and a culture that goes along with it. Along with that, a language or languages. We can sit back and bitch about India or Mexico, but those are their countries and their cultures. If you’re an Indian or a Mexican, you want to speak your native language, be around mostly folks who look like you, and be a part of your national culture.
Mexicans don’t want 35 million Japanese flooding into Mexico, speaking Japanese everywhere, putting up signs in Japanese, playing Japanese music, eating Japanese food and turning Mexico into the Mexipan.
Yet this is what we have done here in California. We, the native peoples of this state (not including the Amerindians, who are nearly extinct), have sat back and allowed a bunch of foreigners to displace us and replace us in our homeland.
Hardly any other decent or self-respecting people on Earth would allow that. Why? Because it’s normal to resist being displaced and replaced in your homeland. It’s not rightwing or conservative or reactionary or racist or Nazi or anything like that. It’s just…normal.
For feeling alienated by this, we are not skinheads or KKK members. We are normal human beings, reacting the same way any normal human would in the circumstances.
Much as I dislike White nationalists for the blatant racism of the overwhelming majority of them, it seems that it is only they who give voice to these most plaintive feelings that any rational native Californian must harbor. Almost no one in the media can tell our story. The media is full of the glories of diversity – the diversity that is our de facto displacement and replacement.
Anyone giving voice to these feelings, which so many of us must feel, is accused of racism. But how can merely being normal and human be conflated with racism?

“You Can’t Be a Maoist and a Clintonite Democrat!”

I keep hearing this over and over from some of my friends. I just had a talk with a friend of mine about this. He’s like me. Basically a liberal Democrat on the left wing of the Democratic Party. However, he has long called himself a Communist. He now calls himself a democratic socialist. He has long supported Communism overseas, especially in the USSR. According to my critics, this guy can’t possibly exist. Neither can I.

And yet we do.

My critics are badly mistaken. My friend says they don’t understand politics in the US. For instance, in many countries, it makes sense to join a small Left party and vote for them. In a parliamentary system, you might just elect a deputy or two, and you won’t hurt the rest of the Left at all. In the UK, you can reliably vote Green and elect some folks here or there. In Abiezer Coppe’s town, nearly 50% of the City Council are Greens.

That’s not possible in the US. The Green Party never goes anywhere and can barely elect a soul to any office in the land. There’s no point voting Green.

Here in the US, voting Left third party is just throwing your vote away. At worst, you’re helping to elect Republicans. At best, you’re masturbating in a voting booth. There’s no point even getting involved in Left Third Party politics here in the US. Why bother? I could go join some kooky Commie sect, but why bother? I would spend the remaining 30 years of my life whacking off politically and not accomplishing a damn thing.

The truth is that in the US, the only action on the Left is in the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party is truly a big tent party. It has everyone from rightwing unreconstructed racist Southern Democrats all the way to out and out socialists and Communists. I’ve known many socialists and Communists in the US who typically vote Democrat. Some were even active in Democratic Party politics.

So, our rightwing critics are right in a sense. A fair number of liberals are anywhere from soft on Communism to out and out Com symps and fellow travelers.

My father was an anti-Communist liberal Democrat all his life. He was furious at my politics and nearly regarded me as a deadly enemy politically. That’s because I was just too “Village Voice Left,” as he put it, for his tastes. Nevertheless, towards the end of his life, he was sympathetic towards the late USSR, East Bloc and Cuba. He was still an anti-Commie liberal, but he got more socialist in his old age.

My mother was similar. An anti-Communist Republican, she once told me philosophically that in many 3rd World countries they were probably better off Communist, as capitalism had largely failed there anyway. She’s lately moved to the Democratic Party. Comments like hers are fairly common among fairly liberal middle class Whites.

My point is, I am simply on the Left. Sure I support the Democratic Party. They aren’t exactly peaches and cream, but the US is a deeply reactionary country, and Democrats are the only vehicle for progressive change.

I also support socialists of all types, including social democrats. I have a soft spot for Communists and Chavez types, though I’ve never lived under a Communist regime, so I don’t know if I would actually like it or not. Perhaps given that experience, I might take a different stand on Communism.

People question how I can support Maoists in Nepal, India and other places.

Easy. All of the rest of Left politics in these places has failed. The Indian Congress Party is a socialist party. So is it’s evil twin in Nepal, the Nepalese Congress Party. Worse, revisionist Communism has even failed in India, looking at the experience of the CPI-M in West Bengal. Revisionist Communism has badly failed in Nepal, with a Marxist-Leninist party in bed with the worst of the Right in the present government.

There’s never been an effective Left party of any type in the Philippines. There probably never will be.

What’s the alternative in Colombia? The Left can’t even organize without getting massacred. Obviously, the Left needs to take up guns to defend themselves.

While I’m not a Maoist, it’s clear that rest of Left politics in the places above has failed, so it’s time to give the Maoists a chance. Let’s see what they can do. What the heck, nothing else has worked.

The Sierra Nevada Red Fox

Repost from the old site.

The Sierra Nevada red fox (Vulves vulpes necator) has been rediscovered around Sonora Pass on August 11, 2010.

It was spotted by a camera that had been set up to monitor other wildlife in an area where Yosemite National Park, the Stanislaus National Forest and the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest all come together. The sighting was actually on the Humboldt-Toiyabe, not on the Stanislaus as many news reports had it.

Part of the confusion may have been that the sighting was near the border between the Humboldt-Toiyabe and Stanislaus Forests. I know that the fox was not seen right at Sonora Pass. Instead, I believe it was spotted in the area to the south of the pass. I am guessing that it was seen near the Leavitt Creek area.

Saliva analysis on a sock filled with chicken parts at the bait station confirmed that it was a Sierra Nevada red fox, and that it had a rare genetic signature previously only seen in museum specimens from the 1920’s.

This is the first proof of the Sierra Nevada red fox outside the Lassen area in a very long time. It’s great news!

The only confirmed population is a tiny population of only 20 foxes in and around Lassen National Park where the Northern Sierra meets the Southern Cascades.

This area has historically seen more sightings around Lassen than any other part of California (sighting map for Northern California). This concentration is focused in Lassen, Tehama and Shasta Counties in and around Lassen Park. There have also been a few sightings in Modoc, Siskiyou and Trinity Counties.

The existence of the Sierra Nevada red fox has recently been confirmed by a team led by John Perrine of UC Berkeley. The team has located a small population of 20 Sierra Nevada red foxes existing in and around Lassen National Park in the Cascades Range. A later study proved that these were Sierra Nevada red foxes and not Eastern Red Foxes, which are abundant at the lower elevations in California.

A good description of the Lassen study, along with several rare photos of the foxes, can be found here. In the Sierras, the Sierra Nevada red fox was typically found at about 9,000 feet, with one record at 4,000, another at 5,500 and another at 7,000 feet. In the Cascades, they are usually found at around 6,000 feet, dropping down to 4,000 feet in the winter and moving up to 8,000 feet in the summer.

A report by the DFG in 1987 said the Sierra Nevada red fox was endangered, but noted that sightings continue in the rest of the Sierra Nevada outside the Cascades within the traditional range of the species.

I am aware of some recent sightings on the East side near Mammoth Mountain at high elevations.

They reportedly still exist in Mineral King south of Sequoia National Park.

In the same region, there have been a number of sightings in the Sagehen Road area near Olancha on the Inyo National Forest in the past 12 years. The sightings were at the 4-6,000 foot elevation. This is near the South Sierra Wilderness Area. Map here.

There was a reliable sighting in 1993 at Sequoia National Park.

There have been sightings of the Sierra Nevada red fox in the past 30 years on the Sierra National Forest. In 1971, a Sierra Nevada red fox was sighted at Florence Lake at about 9,000 feet. In 1973, there was a sighting at Soda Springs near Mammoth Pool Reservoir at 4,500 feet. In 1987, there was a sighting along Highway 168 between Auberry and Shaver Lake at about 4,300 feet, a very low elevation. In 1991, there was a sighting at Papoose Lake north of Lake Edison at about 10,390 feet.

There have also been a few sightings in Yosemite Valley in the past decade or so.

The last documented sighting of a Sierra Nevada red fox as near Tioga Pass in Yosemite National Park in 1990. This sighting was verified via photograph. The fox was photographed in the middle of winter at about 9,000 feet.

On the Stanislaus, there have been a number of sightings around the Emigrant Wilderness, in particular something called the Waterhouse Wilderness Study Area on the northwest edge of the Emigrant Wilderness.

In Mono County, Sierra Nevada red foxes have been reported from Bridgeport Valley.

In Nevada County near Lake Tahoe, there is a sighting from 1994 along Highway 89 north of Truckee.

In addition to the Lassen area, there is also a recent sighting around Antelope Lake and around Lake Almanor and Jonesville on the Plumas National Forest.

There are recent sightings around Little Lake on the northern edge of the Lassen National Forest.

There are recent sightings around Mount Shasta and around Glass Mountain on the Klamath National Forest.

There are also recent sightings around the Trinity River near Mount Eddy on the northern edge of the Shasta-Trinity National Forest.

There is also a recent sighting near Canby on the Modoc National Forest.

Between 1940 and 1959, 135 Sierra Nevada red fox pelts were taken by trappers, an average of 7 per year. That number dropped to 2 per year from 1970-1974. The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) banned all Sierra Nevada red fox trapping in 1974.

The Sierra Nevada red fox has declined drastically and desperately needs Endangered Species listing.

This cool paper by C. Hart Merriam shows that Sierra Nevada red foxes were formerly common at high elevations in the Mount Shasta area, that tracks were seen almost every day (!), but the foxes were very wary and never entered the traps the researchers had set. It is interesting that fishers were also present in this area at the time.

This report makes one wonder just what it is that has driven V. v. necator to near-extinction. I strongly suspect grazing.

One of the best historical sources on the Sierra Nevada red fox is this chapter from Joseph Grinnell’s hard-to-find Furbearers of California from 1937. One thing it makes clear is that the Sierra Nevada red fox was much more common in the first four decades of the century than it is now. You can view it here.

At the time of Grinnell’s writing, this fox was preying heavily on Sierra Nevada snowshoe hares and White-tailed hares, both of which are now pretty rare in the Sierras. I wonder if that is related to their decline? The decline of the White-tailed hare in the Sierra, formerly common on the East Side, is related exclusively to grazing.

All high-elevation grazing needs to be banned from the Sierra, as it is a catastrophe. Cows do not belong in high elevation meadows. We can start by getting rid of grazing in wilderness areas (Allowing grazing in wilderness areas was the only way that the Wilderness Act of 1964 could be passed).

I am not impressed with the ability of the US Forest Service to preserve wildlife in general, not to mention sensitive or endangered species. I spent years monitoring the Sierra National Forest, and the workers I met with were some of the most corrupt and dishonest people I have ever dealt with.

The mentality was devoted to resource extraction, and even wildlife biologists, botanists and fisheries specialists routinely issued “no significant harm” findings on virtually every single Environmental Assessment Report I saw.

Even less impressive is the CDFG, though at least their heads were in the right place. Individuals working with the DFG are good people, but the Commission is run by political clowns.

There are all sorts of species that need to be listed as threatened or endangered, but the DFG has hardly made even one such listing in the last decade. The DFG has been routinely denying petitions to list any species as threatened or endangered for a decade or so now.

Further, there are questions about how much a CA T& E designation even helps a species, as the DFG seldom intervenes to help even the species they have listed as T & E.

In the early 1990’s, the CA DFG produced some excellent volumes – Reptiles and Amphibians of Special Concern in California by Mark Jennings, Fish of Special Concern in California by Peter Moyne and Threatened and Endangered Species of California.

The reports by Jennings and Moyne listed numerous species that should be listed as species of special concern, threatened or endangered. To my knowledge, 15 years later, not a single one has been listed. A prime example is that the Sierra Nevada red fox, which the DFG even admitted in 2004 was critically endangered, is still listed as “threatened” instead of “endangered”.

Even a petition to uplist it will surely be denied. The game here has been to devastate the DFG with budget cuts, even during times when the state is flush with cash. Then the DFG gets to say that they don’t have any money to list any new species. Cool game, huh?

It seems every year, the DFG gets hammered with new budget cuts, and in lush years, the money never gets reinstated. Any environmentalist who is a fiscal conservative needs to have their head examined.

The FS complains of budget cuts too, but in contrast they are actively hostile to the environment. When I was monitoring them, their whole agenda was to let grazing and logging go on to the greatest extent possible and to deny all negative impacts on the environment of such.

Go into a local FS office and the whole place, even the wildlife biologists, is avidly listening to Rush Limbaugh! Most of them, including once again wildlife biologists who supposedly believe in evolution, are members of fundamentalist churches! Go figure.

Such is the state of things in the supposedly pro-environment US. Large majorities support the environmentalist agenda, but of course the Republicans and incredibly even the Clintonista triangulating Democrats are both very hostile to the environment. There is no logical reason for either party, especially the Democrats, to take this stance.

The only explanation is that both parties are dedicated to the corporate and pro-business agenda, and the entire rest of the population, even if that means 55-98% of the population depending on the issue, can just go to Hell.

References

CDFG. 1987. Sierra Nevada Red Fox: Five-year Status Report. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California, USA.

Grinnell, Joseph. 1924. Animal Life in the Yosemite. Berkeley: University of California Press, Museum of Vertebrate Zoology.

Kucera, T. E. 1995. Recent Photograph of a Sierra Nevada Red Fox. California Fish and Game 81:43-44.

Merriam, Clinton Hart. 1899. Results of a Biological Survey of Mount Shasta, California. Washington D.C.: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Division of Biological Survey.

Perrine, J. D., J. P. Pollinger, B. N. Sacks, R. H. Barrett, and R. K. Wayne. 2007. Genetic Evidence for the Persistence of the Critically Endangered Sierra Nevada Red Fox in Northern California. Conservation Genetics 8:1083-1095.

Southern California Edison Company. 2001. Final Technical Study Plan Package (FTSPP) for the Big Creek Hydroelectric Projects (FERC Project Nos. 67, 120, 2085, and 2175). Terrestrial Resources – Chapter 13 – Mesocarnivores. Rosemead, CA.

Wildlife Conservation Board. 2002. Report to the Legislature on the Wildlife Protection Act of 1990. Annual Report – Fiscal Year 2002-2003. Sacramento: State of California.

Treason Lobby Does Damage Control On Birthright Citizenship

This article was originally posted on VDARE. I am reposting it here for your edification. I don’t agree with everything here. For instance, I support the education of illegal alien kids, and I support treatment of illegal aliens in emergency rooms.

By Washington Watcher

The Treason Lobby is getting very nervous about the issue of birthright citizenship—the current interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment that gives U.S. citizenship to everyone born in the U.S., including the children of illegal aliens.

Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce, who introduced the anti-illegal alien SB 1070, indicated he would like to introduce a bill to deny birthright citizenship on the state level. Legislation is already pending in Texas and Oklahoma plans on following suit as well. A number of U.S. Senate Candidates, including Rand Paul, are making birthright citizenship an issue during the campaign. A June 3 Rasmussen poll found that 58% of US voters opposed giving birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens while only 33% supported it.

In the past, the usual suspects just dismissed birthright citizenship as a fringe issue. But now they are getting worried there appears to be a concerted attempt to push back.

Recently, both the Washington Post and Chicago Tribune ran simultaneous Op Eds defending birthright citizenship—by Harvard Professor Edward Schumacher-Matos, an immigrant (formerly illegal) from Colombia; and libertarian Steve Chapman, respectively.

Both appear to be getting their misinformation from the same talking points, as their columns were nearly identical. [Denying citizenship for illegal immigrants’ children is a bad idea, by Edward Schumacher-Matos, Washington Post, June 27, 2010. Citizenship Should Remain a Birthright, by Steve Chapman, Chicago Tribune, June 27, 2010.]

As Americans wake up to the problem of birthright citizenship, we can expect to see these same falsehoods repeated over and over—just like the mindless mantras that infest the immigration enforcement debate, such as you can’t deport 12 million people and “illegal immigrants are doing the jobs Americans won’t do.


Myth 1: The term “Anchor Baby” is improper, because you cannot sponsor your parents until you are 21.

Chapman [Email him] writes:

“True, an undocumented adult can be sponsored for a resident visa by a citizen child—but not till the kid reaches age 21. To imagine that Mexicans are risking their lives crossing the border in 2010 to gain legal status in 2031 assumes they put an excessive weight on the distant future.”

WW refutation: Given U.S. failure to enforce immigration law, it is not unreasonable for an illegal alien to assume that they can live here illegally for 21 years and then receive sponsorship from their US Citizen children.

Indeed, I could accuse Chapman of racism for assuming that Mexicans have short time horizons—Seattle Public Schools list having long time horizons as a form of “cultural racism”.

However, it is not family sponsorship that makes the children of illegal aliens “anchor babies”—it’s the fact that it then becomes incredibly difficult to remove their parents.

You need only look at the Treason lobby’s own rhetoric about how enforcing our immigration laws is tearing families apart to see how birthright citizenship is used as a way to prevent enforcement against the illegal alien parents. President Obama was at it again in his recent immigration speech—he specifically said we cannot deport illegal aliens because

“it would tear at the very fabric of this nation—because immigrants who are here illegally are now intricately woven into that fabric. Many have children who are American citizens.”

Of course family reunification can occur on both sides of the border. But the anchor baby provision is an enormous incentive for illegal aliens to stay here.

In fact, of course, propaganda aside, American immigration law specifically allows for exceptions in the case of “extreme hardship” caused by deportations.

Indeed, immigration lawyer Bruce Hake [Email him] has created the “The Hake Hardship Scale: A Quantitative System For Assessment Of Hardship In Immigration Cases Based On A Statistical Analysis Of AAO [USCIS Administrative Appeals Office] Decisions” for the American Immigration Lawyers Association. Hake assigned points to various “hardships” that an illegal alien could appeal on.

In general, a score of 10 would be successful. Hake gave five points for the first US citizen child, and another for each child thereafter. [The Hake Hardship Scale: A Quantitative System For Assessment Of Hardship In Immigration Cases Based On A Statistical Analysis Of AAO Decisions, by Bruce A. Hake and David L. Banks, Immigration & Nationality Law Handbook, 2004]

With enough creativity and a few dollars, an immigration lawyer can try to make even one anchor baby reason enough. To get an idea of how this works, the Forensic Psychology Group’s website gives examples of different types of “expert testimony” they can provide at immigration hearings.

“In extreme and exceptional hardship cases, if one parent has to leave the United States, it can produce a separation anxiety disorder on the part of the child left behind. Some children, especially those who are very young and lack the emotional maturity to understand why a parent might have to leave the United States, might also develop a depressive disorder.” [Immigration Law, Forensic Psychology Group.]

And if that child is also a US citizen, it becomes a pretty substantial anchor to prevent deportation.

Moreover, the same supporters of birthright citizenship are trying to make it even more difficult to deport illegal alien parents of anchor babies. Solomon Ortiz’s (D-TX) Comprehensive Immigration Reform ASAP Act of 2009, which has over 100 co-sponsors, moves from “extreme hardship” exceptions to prohibiting the detention of illegal aliens who have children(any children, not just American citizen children)except in “exceptional circumstances.” [H.R. 4321. Title I, Sec. 162]


Myth 2: Birthright citizenship does not encourage illegal immigration

Chapman argues:

“One study cited in Peter Brimelow’s 1996 anti-immigration screed, Alien Nation, found that 15 percent of new Hispanic mothers whose babies were born in Southern California hospitals said they came over the border to give birth, with 25 percent of that group saying they did so to gain citizenship for the child. But this evidence actually contradicts the claim.

It means that 96 percent of these women were not lured by the desire to have an ‘anchor baby.’”

WW refutation: Once again, I could accuse Chapman of being “racist” for falsely assuming that every single Hispanic woman in Southern California is an illegal alien. Of illegal aliens, the number is necessarily much greater than 4%.

Schumacher-Matos writes:

“Pregnant Mexican women from border towns do commonly cross just to have a baby in the United States. But their extended families have often straddled the border for a century or more. The women tend to be middle class, pre-pay the hospitals in cash and go home, though their children can someday return.”

I do not see how Mexican citizens choosing to have their child born in the US, just so it will have to option to immigrate here in the future, is any less of reason to oppose birthright citizenship.

Schumacher-Matos [Email him] acknowledges that a “A handful of tourists do the same, but the total of all these is minuscule.” As usual, there are no good statistics on just how many people come to the country to give birth, but we do know it’s far from “miniscule”. There is an entire birth tourism industry complete with hotels specifically for pregnant women to have US citizen children.

Schumacher-Matos continues:

“Significant are the 4 million children in 2008 with one or more unauthorized immigrant parents spread throughout the country, according to the Pew Hispanic Center. Repeated studies, however, show that their parents came for jobs or to join family. The children were normal byproducts of life, and not an immigration strategy.”

But no one is arguing that birthright citizenship is the only reason why illegal aliens come here, or even why they stay. Nevertheless, when we have somewhere between 12 and 20 million illegal aliens living in our country, a few percentage points has a lot of consequences.


Myth 3: Birthright citizenship has repeatedly been upheld by the courts, and was the intention of the drafters of the 14th Amendment.

Chapman claims that ending birthright citizenship “overthrows two centuries of legislative intent and court rulings” Both he and Schumacher-Matos mention the Plyler vs. Doe case, forcing school districts to accept illegal alien children, as an example.

WW refutation: In fact, the Fourteenth Amendment is Reconstruction legislation and therefore less than 150 years old.

Plyler was a terrible decision. But it did not rule on the issue of birthright citizenship—merely on public education for illegal aliens. It did, as Chapman and Schumacher-Matos note, state that the illegal aliens fit under the Jurisdiction Clause of the 14th Amendment. But it is up to future Supreme Court justices to decide exactly how far they wish to take it.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court was much more liberal when it ruled in 5-4 in Plyler than it is today. Even Sandra Day O’Connor voted against the illegal aliens in that case.

Chapman also alludes to the 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark. But this dealt with a legal permanent Chinese immigrant, not an illegal alien.

Schumacher-Matos goes back further to the actual debates over the Citizenship Clause:

“Go back… and read the transcripts of the 1866 debate in the Senate and you find that both those for and against the amendment readily acknowledged its application to illegal immigrants. A Pennsylvania senator [Edgar Cowan], for example, objected to granting citizenship to the children of aliens who regularly commit ‘trespass’ within the United States. The concern then was with babies of gypsy or Chinese parents.

“But Congress and the ratifying states opted instead to uphold a founding principle of the republic that was fundamental to the peaceful building of a multiethnic immigrant nation, however imperfectly. In a world plagued by bloody ethnic conflicts, that concern remains valid.”

Here, Schumacher-Matos falsely implies that the Amendment passed over these objections. But in fact Cowan’s objections were satisfied by Lyman Trumbull, of Illinois who was chairman of the Judiciary Committee at the time. He explained that the Citizenship Clause

“will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”

(WW emphasis).

Trumbull continued:

“The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ … What do we mean by ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”

Keep in mind that Schumacher-Matos argues in the same column that it is perfectly unobjectionable for Mexicans who plan on staying in Mexico themselves to go across the border so that their children can have US Citizenship.

Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan who wrote the Citizenship Clause was even clearer stating the Amendment

“will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.” [Amicus Brief No. 03-6696, Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld, Center for American Unity]


Myth 4: Anchor Babies do not receive any additional welfare

Chapman writes: “Some of the main benefits available to undocumented foreigners, such as emergency room care and public education for children, don’t require them to have a U.S. citizen child. Illegal immigrant parents are ineligible for welfare, Medicaid, food stamps and the like. They can be deported.”

WW refutation: Chapman here debunks his own argument (as well as the libertarian cliché “Don’t end immigration, end the welfare state!”).

Of course, he is correct that the biggest fiscal drain caused by illegal aliens is education and hospital Emergency Rooms, which the courts have unfortunately made off limits. But this is an argument against further illegal immigration—because it overcrowds our schools and shuts down our hospitals—not an argument against birthright citizenship.

Nevertheless, although illegal aliens drain our economy through jails, hospitals and education, anchor babies can still further break our budgets in ways that illegal aliens cannot.

As Chapman notes, illegal aliens are barred from most federal means tested benefits under the 1996 Welfare Reforms.

However, their US citizen children are still eligible for these programs. And our welfare system is especially tilted to benefit those who are young and poor. Anchor babies ipso facto fit the former. According to the Pew Hispanic Center over 1/3 are living at or below the poverty level.

Additionally, the massive Obamacare overhaul specifically benefits anchor babies and their families. While illegal aliens are ostensibly ineligible for the “Affordability Credits”, insurance is based on families. According to Pew Hispanic, there are 8.8 million people in “mixed families” with US citizen children and illegal alien parents. According to the Congressional Research Service,

“it appears that the Health Choices Commissioner would be responsible for determining how the credits would be administered in the case of mixed-status families.” [Is the Congressional Research Service Making ‘False Claims’ Too? by Mark Kirkorian, Center for Immigration Studies, August 26, 2009]


Myth 5: Ending birthright citizenship would be difficult to implement.

According to Schumacher-Matos, “Abrogating birthright citizenship additionally would create practical chaos. All Americans would have to prove their citizenship. Birth certificates would no longer do. Yet we lack a national registry of who is a citizen.”

WW refutation: This is perhaps the silliest objection of all. No one is calling for retroactively stripping anyone’s citizenship, so birth certificates issued prior to the law would suffice as proof of citizenship.

And it does not take much of an imagination to come up with a simple non-chaotic way for birth certificates to be issued after birthright citizenship is abolished. There could be a separate birth certificate issued to children of US citizens and Legal Permanent Residents; or there could just be a box that says “US Citizen” that could be checked on the Birth Certificate.

There is a danger that, if Obama is serious about pursuing comprehensive immigration reformas Peter Brimelow has suggested, the birthright citizenship debate might end up getting put on the backburner by the Patriotic Immigration Reform movement. It has succeeded in defeating two amnesties and it will want to defeat this one.

But the hard truth is that the Patriotic Immigration Reform movement has made little progress getting any proactive changes in policy.

Arizona’s SB 1070 put the Treason Lobby in the corner. They are trying to fight back by throwing an amnesty back at us.

Instead of being content with stopping the amnesty again, we need to keep pushing forward with

  • more state laws;
  • a moratorium on immigration, and
  • abolition of birthright citizenship.

If we want to stop amnesty, and the destruction of the historic American nation, the best defense is a strong offense.

“Washington Watcher” [email him] is an anonymous source Inside The Beltway.

Source: VDARE.com.

Setting The Record Straight On California's Proposition 13

Proposition 13 was passed by California’s White, mostly homeowning voters in 1978. Since then, property taxes have been frozen at 1978 levels. It’s been a complete disaster for schools and local governments all over California, but California’s White homeowners are so selfish that the initiative is still popular. One silver lining in the decline of White California is that we can probably finally get rid of this monstrous albatross on the neck of our state.
I was born in California in 1957. I lived here for 21 years before Prop 13 and I’ve lived here for 30 years afterward. The difference is night and day. Local government has been screwed all over the state, worse and worse every year, for 30 years now. The situation is dealt with in truly wealthy areas like Beverly Hills, where I taught school for a while (Beverly Hills High School) by the rich parents simply pouring cash into a fund and giving it to the school.
Tom, a commenter, has it all wrong in this comment:

In part Prop 13 was basically white California saying we don’t want to pay public services (public schooling) for all these poor Mexicans and their big families. This was the late 70s when the amount of Mexicans in CA wasn’t even that high.

Not true, that had nothing to do with it whatsoever. There weren’t even all that many Mexicans in California back then, and there were not that many illegals. We had a very liberal government back then headed up by Jerry Brown, and they raided places for illegals all the time, and no one cared. Everyone supported it, even liberals.
Property taxes only pay for local schools. This is the part the Toms of the world just don’t get. So White people, in gutting their property taxes, just fucked their own kids’ schools, that’s all. I think they also pay for local services. Every White person in California knows that local governments all over California have been wrecked ever since Prop 13. So the dumbshit Whites who voted for that, all they did was ruin public services in the cities where they lived, which were mostly White.
California Whites don’t care. They don’t care that the public services their White areas are shot. Fuck it, they say, ask me if I care. They just don’t want to pay taxes.
What happened was that property values were rising rapidly here in California at the time of Prop 13. The state was still about 72% White at the time, and in 1978 where I lived, almost everyone around me was White or at least part-White. Property taxes kept going up and up with the values and wages and salaries were flat. Homeowners were just getting pounded on their property taxes.
People kept screaming for the state to do something about it, but no one would. The Right wanted extreme solutions, and Jerry Brown would not budge and ease the burden.
Howard Jarvis, author of Prop 13, represented the renters’ association! He was a Goddamn landlord! The landlord lying scum went around telling all their dumbshit tenants that they were going to lower their rents after Prop 13 passed. I personally know a bunch of White tenants who told me that they voted for Prop 13 for that very reason!
Also, business interests were behind Prop 13 in a huge way. Businesses can obviously pay their property taxes; it’s no problem, they do it everywhere. But property taxes on landlord rental properties and businesses have been flat since 1978! The people who really cleaned up in California after Prop 13 were the landlord-scum and the business capitalists. Inequality has been skyrocketing in the state ever since.
I have no problem easing the burden on homeowners, but no way do landlords and business owners get a break.
Landlords are the biggest crybabies on Earth.
Most small landlords here in CA are just out and out slumlords. They’re always crying poverty and raising rents, but they never fix a damned thing, and they make tons of money anyway. I have a lot more respect for apartment complexes owned by corporations, because at least they fix stuff a lot more often than your 2-bit Joe White Suburban Slumlord.
The landlords own most of the county officials in the state, and they’ve always owned the legislature. Landlords have big bucks, so they buy their own power in our capitalist “democracy” here. Renters have no power, so no one listens to them, and they have no power in our capitalist “democracy” in California.
Oh, by the way, I’m not aware of one tenant who got his rent lowered after Prop 13.
There’s one born every minute.