California Latino Students Protest ‘Lack of Respect’
By John Semmens: Semi-News — A Satirical Look at Recent News
A group of 200 mostly Latino students from Live Oak High School skipped class in Morgan Hill, California over an incident they alleged showed a “lack of respect for us and our heritage.” The protestors marched through neighborhoods shouting slogans and carrying signs.
The “incident” that provoked the outburst occurred when five other students had the effrontery to wear American flag tee shirts to school on May 5th. Even though school administrators sent these students home to change their shirts “to show the proper respect for our Latino student body members,” the protestors insisted “this wasn’t enough of a punishment for their mocking our sacred day.”
“It is bad enough that Cinco de Mayo isn’t a recognized holiday,” complained one of the protestors. “But to be taunted by the Anglo oppressors of the Mexican people is too much to bear. They should be expelled.”
“Immature students may think their ‘American-flag-waving’ stunt is patriotic,” said Live Oak High School Assistant Principal Walter Wussman. “But patriotism doesn’t give a person the right to inflict emotional pain on others. As for the claim that the First Amendment protects the right to express opinions that are offensive to others, well that doesn’t apply on school grounds. The Administration has the authority to impose whatever restrictions it deems warranted in order to promote what we consider an appropriate learning environment.”
In related news, New York’s Governor David Paterson (D) announced the creation of a program to assist criminal immigrants to avoid deportation. “Immigrant felons make up an important segment of our state’s criminal class,” Paterson observed. “If we deport them the need for police, prosecutors, prison guards and the like will be diminished. These public employees have families to feed. We can’t let them suffer because of some knee-jerk notion that we should rid ourselves of so-called undesirable foreigners.”
Times Square Bomber Denounces Efforts to Psychoanalyze His Motives
Faisal Shahzad, the prime suspect in the unsuccessful attempt to set off a bomb in Times Square, New York, says he objects to speculation that possible stress over his financial difficulties is what drove him to action.
“The foreclosure on a house is as nothing compared to the foreclosure on my soul should I neglect to obey the Quran’s command to fight for Islam,” Shahzad explained. “Until the world is ruled by Islam, it is every Muslim’s duty to wage war on the unbelievers.”
The Times Square location for the intended bombing was selected, Shahzad said, “because where else can one find such a heavy concentration of decadence. There you are surrounded by pornographic entertainment, bare-faced women, Jews—it is a target-rich environment. Striking a blow against these agents of Satan would greatly please Allah.”
In related news, MSNBC host Contessa Brewer expressed her disappointment that the bombing suspect turned out to be a Muslim. “Muslims crashing planes into buildings. Muslims bombing embassies. Muslims shooting soldiers. The repetition is so boring. Worse, it tends to vindicate the arguments of people on the right who are trying to tear down President Obama. Why couldn’t it have been an ex-GI like McVeigh who set the bomb?”
NHS Rules Cancer Drug “Not Cost-Effective”
The United Kingdom’s National Health Service (NHS) has ruled that a so-called “miracle drug” called Avastin will not be provided to the nation’s cancer patients because it is “not cost-effective.” Avastin is widely used in other countries and in the UK for patients who can afford to pay or who have supplemental private insurance. It is said to prolong the lives of persons suffering from advanced stages of bowel cancer by up to two years.
Spokesman for the NHS, Mortimer Sepelible, defended the decision as “simple economics. Look, the government is hemorrhaging red ink. We’ve got to make cuts somewhere. So, it’s hard to justify laying out scarce public resources just to extend a few people’s lives by a year or two.”
Sepelible suggested that “people should try to be more philosophic about this. I mean, everybody dies sooner or later. Most of those with this type of cancer are near the end of their lives anyway. They’re usually pretty broken down by the time they need this drug. They don’t have that much left to offer for the benefit of society at that point. The best they can do for their country is to stop whining and go peacefully rather than demand expenditures the government can’t afford right now.”
“The fact that those who can afford to pay their own way for Avastin are treated differently is a sore spot,” Sepelible conceded. “They are wasting resources that could be put to better use by the government. If we are to have true social justice we must put an end to private expenditures for medical care.”
Administration Insists that BP’s Exemption from Environmental Requirement Warranted
In the aftermath of one of the worst off-shore oil spills, the revelation that British Petroleum (BP) was granted a waiver of the requirement that an environmental impact study be performed prior to drilling by the Obama Administration has raised questions.
Jon Carson, Chief of Staff at the White House Council on Environmental Quality, argued that “given BP’s prior support for the most environmentally-conscious President this nation has ever had, the waiver seemed warranted. We want to establish incentives for firms that cooperate with Administration policy. Excusing BP from having to undertake a costly and time-consuming study looked like a ‘no brainer’ to us.”
Whether an environmental impact study would’ve uncovered information that could’ve averted the spill is unknown. BP’s “prior support” appears to have consisted of donations to Obama’s campaign for president.
Democrats Assail 401ks
Top members of the Obama Administration have launched a campaign to federalize 401k accounts. The 401k accounts are tax-deferred retirement plans that individuals may set up in cooperation with their employers. Under the plans, employees may elect to have up to 15% of their pay placed in qualified investments. No taxes are due on this money and any gains earned by the investments until it is withdrawn during retirement.
Labor Secretary Hilda Solis and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner jointly voiced their concern that “as currently structured, the 401k program places an enormous sum of money outside the control of the government. Individuals have too wide of a latitude to determine how the funds are invested. Government has too little say in the matter. Likewise, other than requiring withdrawals to begin when the account holder reaches the age of 70, government has too little control over the ultimate disbursement of the funds.”
Solis and Geithner urged that “we consider restructuring the program to provide a better balance between individual prerogatives and social need.” Vice-President Joe Biden seconded this recommendation saying that “anyone who can afford to put 15% of his salary away is probably overpaid. To allow that guy to freely dispose of this excess income isn’t fair to those who can’t afford to put aside money for retirement.”
A framework for restructuring the 401k program that is being considered would make the 15% contributions mandatory while increasing the regulations applied to distributions. “With a mandatory contribution we would be able to build up a substantial fund to pay retirement benefits,” Solis argued. “By adding a consideration of need to determining the distributions we could assure that more equality is attained.”
Geithner focused his separate comments on the issue of how the funds would be invested. “Currently, people are forced to make difficult choices between stocks, bonds and other forms of investment,” Geithner pointed out. “Most people are ill-qualified to make these choices. Those who choose unwisely will fare worse than others. If we put all of the contributions into one fund managed by the government we can guarantee uniformity of outcome and eliminate the risks inherent in the current program.”
Obama Panel to Propose “Pro-Growth” Tax Hikes
President Obama’s National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform is working on a plan for what it is calling “pro-growth” tax increases. The Commission is comprised of 18 members. Most are aged political hacks or washed-up bureaucrats.
“Critics of government insist that taxes hurt growth,” said Alice Rivlin, a former White House budget director for President Jimmy Carter. “But we’re not convinced this is necessarily true. For example, every family has routine bills it must pay—groceries, rent, transportation. These costs don’t go down just because increased taxes have lowered a person’s take-home pay. It could be that a carefully constructed tax hike would force wage earners to work longer hours or take a second job in order to be able to pay unavoidable expenses. Inducing the workforce to labor longer would make the economy grow.”
Erskine Bowles, former White House chief of staff to President Clinton, suggested that “imposing a ‘value-added tax’ could have a similar impact from the other side. By making the things people have to buy more costly, this type of tax will encourage them to work harder just to make ends meet. This will also grow the economy.”
See the New Arizona Conservative Website