Language

I always thought English was a Latin based language.



Then one day I was watching some video that said "English, a germanic language..." What the hell? I was pissed. Don't you krauts be takin away mah English!



Well. Fuck if I didn't know the Angles and Saxons were Germans!



English are considered Anglo-Saxon, which were the two primary invaders from Germany, some 1,000 years ago.



It amazed the hell out of me, learning about their invasion. As they completely succeeded and destroyed the old British (Even the name England come from the Angles "Angleland").





Britain, pre Anglo-Saxon invasion, was Roman. They spoke Latin. Except of course for the roudy Celtic bastards who had been there for maybe 1000 years before that, and still didn't like their new neighbors. When the Roman Empire receded from Britain, it created a power vaccuum. And so the King of Britain, called in for mercinary forces to help against the invaders. The British king gave the Anglo-Saxon mercs some land in the south-east of England. Well, some payments were missed, and before the old Roman Brits knew it, the Saxons invaded their lands, and drove them out, taking over England.



As soon as word spread of this to the German tribes in the east, hordes came over, and populated the island.


Even more interesting, even though most of the Roman Britains were wiped out, England became highly Latinized again when the Normans invaded. Which actually invalidates the claim that modern English is a Germanic language. Linguistically, English is as Germanic, as it is Latin, as it is Celtic, as it is Norse, as it is French tribal, as it is Polish, as it is, etc. etc. etc.

Latino in America

HERE IT IS!

I am a lover of the world. I am a lover of individual enterprise, personal accountability and success. I'm going to tackle a bit of what I think about immigration in America.

Past: America is notorious for its history of immigrant hating. It's pretty much the reason the colonies formed so far from each other. Many later immigration spurts were tightly controlled, delineated, or completely cut off.

Apology: Every nation worth its salt has some form of immigration control. Even the nations that bitch about American immigration laws, have immigration restrictions themselves. This isn't an America-centric issue, and in many cases, America is nowhere as restrictive as other nations. In fact, that's really the big argument. The people who want no law, vs. the people who want the current laws enforced.

Present: You can walk into America. You can drive into America. You can fly into America. You can work, and vacation, and learn in America. Legally. No matter where you are from.

Becoming a citizen is a bit more complicated.

My opinion: I think there should be a logical and fairly rapid process to become a citizen.

Anyone that the military accepts into their ranks should immediately become a citizen.

Anyone who has no criminal record, should be able to become a citizen.

Anyone who has a job in-line, or a critical skill, should be able to become a citizen.

Anyone born in America should be able to become a citizen.

And many more...

On the other side, I think a criminal, with no job, and no skills, should have some way of becoming a citizen.

Problems:

As America becomes progressively more like a welfare state, the issue of nationality is critical.

You want some more of my opinions?

There should be no welfare, social security, or free health care. Period. It's ruining this nation.

Back on track.

Mexico is the primary source of immigrants. And millions come over illegally. And Mexico, being in the sad socialist way it is, does not have a wealthy or educated populace.

This wouldn't be a problem, but combined with America's welfare state, and basically American workers, are paying to support people who came here illegally and don't make enough to live on their own.

So you get angry people, who take out their frustrations on the immigrants.

Once again America's bullshit mixed economy is to blame.

Welfare State, with open borders = poverty for everyone.

Notice in truly socialist nations, borders are tightly controlled, both ways.

Even Mexico has serious border control, just not on the American border.

ohhh

When I was a kid, I used to make weapons. I made a lot of bows and arrows, I made spears, etc. I always wondered how the hell people made blow dart guns out of bamboo. Bamboo grows in cells, although it is mostly hollow, there are walls on the inside. I thought, even if you stuck a tool down the bamboo shaft, it would never make a clean straight barrel. Also, bamboo is really too wide. I learned from shooting spit balls out of straws that you need a tight fit. Darts from dart guns are always small. How do you shoot a small dart out of a big barrel with any force?

Well, like a million other questions in life, I just forgot about it and went about my business.

Today, decades later, I finally have the answer.

To make a blow dart gun from bamboo, you cut the bamboo in half, then meticulously cut a small straight grove into both sides of the bamboo halves. Then you tie the two halves together again. In this way you should have a straight, small barrel, running through the center of the bamboo shaft. Perfect for tiny darts.

Schwarzenegger finally disappoints me :(

I have been an outspoken supporter of Arnold since he threw in his hat for the governorship of California. When everyone else turned on him, I supported him. He has been a champion for Californians against the stranglehold of special interest groups and this bumbling idiotic assembly.

So it was a great disappointment for me that while Arnold nears the end of his heroic governorship, he is caving. Arnold recently passed a slew of bills in a midnight tussle with the assembly.

I could agree with much of what he past, but one thing in particular is really depressing me.

Now he has signed into law a requirement that any person who buys handgun bullets in this state must provide all their personal information for a document, signed by them, certified through identification, and fingerprints, so it can be put on file with the state government.

If you don't live in California, and/or you don't own a gun, you probably don't know California is one of the strictest gun law states in the U.S. Whether you agree or not with the laws is somewhat irrelevant to my current gripe.

Whether you like it or not, the Second Amendment gives the people the right to bear arms. I understand that this new law is not eliminating that right, but it is putting a great hindrance on it.

If they can so thoroughly trash one right, what legal ground does anyone have to defend any others? If they make it mandatory for anyone who wants to speak in public to provide their ID, fingerprints, and submit their information to the government, would that make sense to you?

You may argue that words can't hurt people. And you'd be a moron do so. One of the easiest ways of controlling free speech would be right here on the internet. Imagine having to submit all your personal information to the government every time you wanted to make a blog post; just in case terrorists get the idea they can exchange their information and ideas freely, they put a lock down on internet communication. Would that make sense? It's perfectly winable, if rights aren't really rights as soon as someone might hurt someone else.

Criminals don't even obtain their guns legally. Do you really think this law has a damn thing to do with stopping criminals? You could ID the bullet all you want, you'll find the guy who bought the bullets legally and was robbed. Or you'll find homemade shells, or shell decoys, or "clean" shells.

But even if this did solve a crime, or at least point to another crime (as a criminal would probably at the least pay someone else who legally obtains bullets) it is at such a cost, that I can not see an overall benefit.

Certainly, if we were all forced to live in cages, the murder rate would disappear. This is not how humanity is supposed to work.

This is the disarming of law abiding citizens. It is the same back door technique employed by Mexico. Make the bullets unatainably expensive through regulations.

Some people think that's a good idea. The new adage "If a bullet cost (insert a lot of money here) people would think twice before they shot someone." True. And if bullets were that expensive, no one would have any practice, except the criminals who would just make their own, or smuggle them in, so that would be one more point against any law abiding citizen ever able to defend themselves.


The California prison population has increased over 73% since 1990. That is 3 times faster than the population of adults has grown.

Are Californians becoming worse people, in dire need of authoritarian rule?
Or is the system broken, and in a perpetual cycle of imprisonment and punishment?

Is the solution to crime, disarming noncriminals?

Is the solution to social issues, imprisoning minorities disproportionately, and coming up with new ways of doing it?

Even if you are for strong gun control, don't you see the terrifying issue at hand, California is throwing people away! And there's no sign it's getting better. More ways to put people away is going to further this prison system that the state can not even afford now.

Obama's gay rights efforts

I really hope Obama does end the "don't ask, don't tell policy". I hope he doesn't replace it with some other 2 class system. I know the ill effects of this policy. I've watched how it affected great American servicemembers.

But even if Obama does pull off this wonderful promise, it wouldn't be the end.

Without recognizing gay marriage, homosexual service members will never be equal. A gay friend of mine who I served with had a husband, legal in his state, not a "union", but a marriage. The state acknowledges the marriage, but the military is a federal entity, and the federal government only acknowledges heterosexual marriage. So when my friend's legal husband got sick, and was dying, he could not go visit him. No, instead he was discharged, because he "told".

Even if being openly gay isn't grounds for immediate removal from the military, gay marriages still won't be recognized. So while heterosexual marriages will enjoy higher pay, family separation pay, better insurance, better housing, homosexual marriages won't mean anything, even if your loved one is dying half a planet away. At least you won't get fired.

Now you might wonder, if Obama can get the "don't ask don't tell" policy repealed, couldn't he help promote gay marriage? Perhaps. But gay marriage is a whole other issue, a much tougher issue. And one he does not support.

Most Obama lovers created this fantasy version of the man in their minds, a man who wanted exactly whatever they wanted for this country. That's because those people are tools. I can't understand how you people consider issue dodging as being akin to "agreeing wholeheartedly" with you. Obama's entire presidential campaign was about using generic words like "hope" and "change" without any real specifics. But he was cornered and forced to answer a few times, mostly in debates. One of these issues was whether Obama supported gay marriage. He absolutely does not. Period.

I do hope he repeals "don't ask, don't tell". It would be a morally right thing, and I would be very happy. But I wouldn't have illusions about full individual rights for all humans from this president.