Farmers Branch council adopts 3rd ban on renting by undocumented residents

Peter Stawicki, says:

See more stories in: Immigration > Farmers Branch Xenophobia Politics and Government > City Government > Farmers Branch

Who exactly decided to file Farmers Branch City Government files under the heading of Xenophobia??

Xenophobia: Pronunciation –noun an unreasonable fear or hatred of foreigners or strangers or of that which is foreign or strange.

What is unreasonable about wanting to preserve your cities economy? What is unreasonable about wanting to avoid health risks related to people who have illegally entered your country without the standard testing and inoculation's to protect the legal home owners and their children from infectious diseases like TB, something that was almost unseen in the US and that is now on the rise because lack of treatment? What is unreasonable about wanting to avoid legal risks related to people who didn't go through a background check when illegally entering this country. People like sexual offenders who currently number nearly 240,000 per the Violent Crimes Institute in Atlanta, Georgia.

I take a great deal of offense to this classification.

Peter Stawicki, says:

Mike - while I copied both tags - I did realize that there were two different headings there. I did follow each to see what popped up. My issue is obviously just with the Xenophobic tag.

Since you have mentioned that this stems from certain people on staff who seem to feel that FB policy would be at best questionable I guess I need to ask about Pegasus News in general.

I ask this with all sincerity. What do you consider yourself? Is this an online blog for giggles, is this an online newspaper for information, or would you say that pegasus news falls outside either realm.

In Journalism school we were taught about things like media bias and quite honestly as a political reporter for about five years I surely had to fight again injecting my own opionions except obviously within the op ed sections.

What I have seen since finding Pegasus News on or about New Years Eve are that the stories are generally very short, without a great deal of detail, and in many cases are almost op ed's themselves with the writer injecting their own feel, spin, and generally opinion.

Most assuredly the Latina section must be considered Op Ed because of its total lack of facts and strictly opinion, most often racial.

Anyway, I would be interested in how the News defines itself.

Michael McCullough, says:

Undocumented residents? They're illegal aliens, for goodness sakes. They've broken the law. I don't agree with the way that Farmers Branch is solving the problem, but there is a problem and you need to quit burying your head in the politically correct sand.

It's a huge tax burden on any city to support illegals who refuse to learn English, refuse to adopt American ways, and hence have low-paying jobs and no insurance. I live in a reasonably nice house and pay about $2,500 a year to support Parkland hospital. I'm tired of sending my hard-earned money to people who could better their lives by adopting our culture instead of forcing us to adopt theirs.

This is not xenophobia. It is not racist. It is not Nazism (as one commenter said in another thread). Quit being so politically correct and quit asssigning absurd labels like xenophobia to people who disagree with you.

Equal opportunity offender? Tell me, exactly how many conservatives write for Pegasus news? I'm serious about this question. I would really like to know.

Opinion is fine -- and I commend you highly for admitting it, unlike the rest of the mainstream media -- but have you ever considered encouraging a little more political diversity in your office?

-Mike

Michael McCullough, says:

Mike Orren,

I read your founders' blog link and have a much higher opinion of Pegasus News because of it. It was great and you should provide a permanent link to it on the front page. I especially like the following two quotes:

The problem is that the concept of objective reporting as we know it is, in itself, flawed. Outdated. Outmoded. Dead.

...

*By closeting journalists, we're actually being deceitful. We're also insulting the intelligence of our customers -- they know that our reporters have their own biases, but by hiding them in the institution, we provide fuel for the stereotype of media bias.*

There is a documented heavy liberal bias in the mainstream media. They aren't losing readership and viewership because of the internet or whatever they decide to blame their woes on today. They are losing customers because they are ultra-left and don't even hide their biases any longer, though they still deny that they're not biased.

Check out the political talk shows on Sunday morning. In the roundtable, they typically have about 4 liberals and 1 lone semi-conservative. I say it's because they want the combined IQs to equal out, but that's my opinion (heh). We're tired of their deceit, we're tired of them only reporting news that fits their agenda, and we're tired of them literally lying to us.

Many people believe that Fox News is biased. Yes, they do feature conservatives like Sean Hannity but they frequently have liberal commentators and they balance Hannity with Colmes. Liberals like Susan Estrich are regular guests. How often does ABCBSNBCNNPR feature a real conservative as a commentator? Very rarely.

As for Rush Limbaugh, he bills himself as a conservative commentator, not as an unbiased journalist. He's entertaining and he knows his stuff. When he's wrong, he apoligizes. He's popular because he offers an alternative to the lockstep-leftist mainstream media.

Compare Rush with the Scott Beauchamp scandal at the New Republic. Then there's the idiot Dan Rather who claims that the phony Bush memos were "fake but accurate." By the way, the phony memo story started with Wayne Slater at the Dallas Morning News. I would be happy to share my heavy involvement with that story that began 6 months before Dan Rather even learned about it.

Thank you for being open about journalistic bias and thank you for not trying to hide it. On the other hand, please aim for a little more political diversity on your staff. I don't read every article so you may have a conservative that I don't know about. If you do, I haven't found them yet.

-Mike

Michael McCullough, says:

Mike Orren,

Thanks for your kind reply. Like I said above, I really, truly respect you for allowing your reporters to freely admit their biases. I have no problems with that. What I do have problems with are media, like the Dallas Morning News, who incorporate editorials into their supposedly objective news stories. Not only do they lie in their news stories, but they've lied about their circulation. Their circulation is dropping rapidly. My guess is that the DMN will last about another 5 years, but I don't know what will take its place.

*Mike, I've never done an office poll as to liberal-conservative affiliation (as if it's that black and white). 99% of what we do isn't all that partisan, as local issues tend to be less so than national.*

Yep, I'm with you there. Still, just out of curiousity, I would be interested in knowing the general political affiliations of your writers. I don't have a problem with it -- I'm just wondering how your organization matches up with the general political affiliations of journalists in general. I won't stop reading Pegasus if 97% of the writers are liberal. I regularly read the writings of people who disagree with me own issues -- I'm a huge fan of Camille Paglia.

*It may surprise you to hear that I personally favor immigration control (but centered around getting a job and learning the primary language). However I can't see a futile measure like this, one that is like-it-or-not, unconstitutional, having any purpose other than to ostracize a race of people regardless of legal status.*

Actually, after reading your work, I'm not surprised. I, too, suspect that some in Farmers Branch have ulterior motives. However, the law http://www.ci.farmers-branch.tx.us/Ci... is applied to all people and the burden is on the government -- not landlords or apartment owners -- to determine legal status.

After reading the statute prima facie, I believe that it will stand up constitutionally -- it bears little resemblance to the Pennsylvania law that was struck down. I disagree with you that it's targeting a single race, even if they're legal. The law is applied equally to everyone. If we find out 6 months down the road that the city is not verifying every single person, then that would be cause for a case and I would be first in line to protest (my wife, who is of Hispanic descent, grew up in Farmers Branch and has many relatives there). On the four corners of the law though, I see nothing that is unconstituional.

I dropped out of law school with only 3 hours of coursework left to go because I was de facto running a company fulltime that was paying me much more than I would have made as a fledgling attorney. However, I received the highest grade in both semesters of constitutional law. I'm not a lawyer and don't even play one on TV, but I do have more knowledge and work experience interpreting regulations (limited mainly to environmental regs) than the average Joe.

-Mike

Scott Doyle, says:

tl;dr until last paragraph.

What kind of person invests time and money into law school only to quit 3 hours from a degree? Could you not pass the bar? Even still, methinks a law degree would be a good thing to have around if/when other opportunities go belly-up. I'm not exactly swooning over your reasoning skills...

Michael McCullough, says:

Scott Doyle:

What kind of person invests time and money into law school only to quit 3 hours from a degree?

Someone who was making a lot more money working while going to law school than I would have as a freshly-graduated attorney. Many of my friends who graduated and managed to find jobs were making less than $30,000. Despite the public perception, a large percentage of attorneys are not wealthy. Those that are generally spend 7 years working 14-hour days making no more than I was making at the time so that can make partnership. That's not my idea of a fun life.

Besides, I attended law school as a learning experience to augment my work. Many of my clients were attorneys and I didn't want them to fear me as competition. Taking the bar was unnecessary except as an ego boost. Contrary to Dr. Phil's absurd posts, I'm not a narcissist.

*I'm not exactly swooning over your reasoning skills...*

Examples, please.

-Mike

Michael McCullough, says:

Ed:

*I seem to remember research some years ago that the "average" attorney earned about 96K per year*

Interesting. That's really not a huge salary, and if all attorneys are included, you've got some at the top end of the spectrum packing in several million a year and a whole bunch of folks making 40k. I would be curious to find out the median salary -- that's generally a better statistic than the average.

You're absolutely right -- the US is way too litigious. The prices of our goods and services would be much lower if we instituted tort reform.

-Mike

Scott Doyle, says:

What example do you need? Simply doesn't make sense to stop one class short of any degree, regardless of what kinda job you're in.

I never said being an attorney is fun. I worked for some when I was getting my undergrad and that turned me off to the idea altogether. I certainly wouldn't consider family law, anyhow. But if provided the opportunity, I'd definitely take a license to practice law just to have it.

Michael McCullough, says:

Dr Freud:

I have no anger at being "pegged," as you call it. Your "diagnosis" is laughable. You refuse to discuss issues but instead claim, only because we have differences of opinion, that I have some sort of personality disorder. The Soviets used to put people who disagreed with communism in mental hospitals because they believed that anyone who did not support communism had to be insane.

Read this: http://files.osa.ceu.hu/holdings/300/... . Do you see yourself here? I certainly do.

I've run into some weird people on the internet but you have now taken the grand prize as the scariest dude I've debated, if you can call your "diagnosis" a debate.

Please go away.

-Mike

Michael McCullough, says:

Scott Doyle:

*Simply doesn't make sense to stop one class short of any degree, regardless of what kinda job you're in.*

I already have two other degrees and simply didn't need to have another piece of paper stashed away in the closet. I had more work than I could handle and didn't have time to finish up. It wasn't like I needed an extra degree to improve my livelihood.

I really don't care about collecting degrees to prove my worthiness. I got the education, which was all that I wanted. It hasn't hurt me for the worse to not have one more fancy piece of paper. Besides, as I said, being a practicing attorney would have made me a threat to my clients who were attorneys. It would have damaged my career.

I think that I made the right decision.

-Mike

Chad Jones, says:

What a great website for delusional racists.

Rawlins Gilliland, says:

Gee, wise-beyond-your-ears Chad: You're too young to remember the good old days when reputedly house-trained white supremists thought the 'Dallas Morning News sucks' because their cross burnings were no longer in the sports section. Or because Kennedy was shot in Dealey Plaza rather than actually AT the (then Dealey family owned) DMN.

Scott Doyle, says:

DC, I realize this - I presume once you're degreed you can take the bar at will, be it immediately or years later. Obviously I would take it immediately so I could actually use it if/when the need arises.

Seems you could just buy textbooks and learn yourself if you truly were just after the information. You managed your time to include classes up to that point, one more wouldn't kill you. Guess I'm just all about maximizing resources if available.