One Reason Why California Needs a Part-Time Legislature

Erika Johnsen has this at the Townhall.com Tipsheet: "Guess Which State Leads the Way in the Number of New Laws Taking Effect in the New Year?"

Ideally, our laws would all boil down to:

1. Do not assault or murder.
2. Do not do not steal.
3. Do not damage what someone else owns against their will.
4. Do not be negligent in guardianship over dependents.
5. Do the time if you do the crime.

What am I forgetting?

California not only has an ever-growing and highly complex set of laws, but the state government backs a patchwork of special districts that, in addition to state laws and county and city ordinances, micromanage our business and personal lives... the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the Air Quality Managment District, the California Coastal Commission... on and on it goes. The California Air Resources Board is especially problematic.

Our state legislature should be officially part-time.

Also, why do we have a bicameral state legislature? Congress is bicameral because Senators were originally supposed to represent state interests (thich was changed by the 17th Amendment, which I'd like to see repealed), and the Representatives are supposed to directly represent the people. The Union is comprised of fifty individual states. California is not a union of semi-autonomous states, as Counties are essentially contructs of the state government. We should not only make the legislature officially part-time, but we should make it unicameral and and reduce the overall number of state legislators.

Don't Badmouth the First Lady's Body

Regardless of the party affiliation of the President, I've never approved of making fun of the body or general appearance of the First Lady. Currently, Michelle Obama's figure has been criticized in high-profile media. Really? We can't find more constructive things to discuss?

By all means, analyze what the First Lady says or does, but stop with the snipes about her body. Please. She's actually an attractive woman, but even if she wasn't, why lower the public discourse? If the First Lady were to do something extreme with her appearance, then of course we should expect discussion about that. But that is not the case currently.

Yes, we have the freedom of speech. But just because we can say something doesn't mean we should.

This also goes to the wife of Vice-President and the children of the President and Vice-President. I remember when some were calling the hairstyle of Marilyn Quayle a throwback. Whether or not it was, I thought it looked great on her.

As far as I know, Michelle Obama has not applied to do modeling work. So please find more constructive things to do with your platforms than mouth off about her body.

Please?

Larry King's Murderer Sentenced

Brandon McInerney murdered Larry King, and there's no excuse for that. There's nothing Larry King could have done, short of posing and immediate threat to the life of McInerney or someone else, that could justify McInerney's actions. Don't tell me it wasn't premeditated or calculated – if it wasn't why had McInerney broken the laws and rules by bringing a gun to school? Still, McInerney was allowed to plead to a lesser charge than first-degree murder, along with other charges. Unlike some on the jury, I would have had no problem convicting him of first-degree murder.

Unfortunately, murders in schools are not rare. But this murder received more attention than so many others because King was identifying as homosexual and/or showing gender confusion by dressing inappropriately for his sex. That King had these problems does not make him any more or less important than any other murder victim. He was a human being with inherent worth and a right to life. Nobody should have so much as bullied him.

Under California law and with the ferocious backing of homosexuality and gender confusion advocates, King did have a "right" to express himself and dress inappropriately. He did not have a right to sexually harass anyone (and I'll say it again – even if he was sexually harassing McInerney, McInerney was not justified in so much as hitting him, let alone shooting him). I do have to wonder, though, if King had been behaving the same way towards girls at the school who didn't want the flirting from him, if he would have been disciplined by the school? Was he allowed to do things others wouldn't because of his claimed identity and the target of his attention being male rather than female? Furthemore, while he had the "right" to dress and act certain ways, I also have the right to leave my car running with the the door open in a rough part of the town. Is it my fault if someone steals that car? No, but if people really cared about me, they would advise against me being so unreserved in my actions.

School officials couldn't do much, I don’t think, given the laws, courtrooms, and activist groups that have pushed California through the looking glass. Perhaps if school officials could have done more, King would still be alive today. This isn't to say we should cater to the emotional triggers of murderers. But maybe we should go back to treating schools as places of imparting academic skills and knowledge to our students rather than forums for sexual expression, and recognizing that those students are volatile youth in need of more structure and guidance.

I can't imagine what King's parents have gone through and will continue to endure. I have known people who have lost a child, even an adult child, and the pain never goes away. To have their child taken away by a murderer makes it that much more painful. Brandon McInerney will have health care, nutritional meals, housing, and security at the expense of California taxpayers, visits from his family, and will probably emerge from pison in his late thirties, still havlng a long life ahead of him. He can live a full, well-rounded life after he's out of prison. King’s family didn't even get to see him graduate from high school.

We have to take life more seriously than this. We must press for the fullest semblance of justice when someone is murdered, whether that person was heterosexual or homosexual, dark-skinned or light-skinned, male or female.

From Catherine Saillant's report in the Los Angeles Times (the newspaper that encouraged a gender-confused staffer along his suicidal way)…

The father, though, reserved his harshest words for the Hueneme Elementary School District, which operates the junior high school where his 15-year-old son was shot twice in the back of the head on Feb. 12, 2008, by McInerney in front of stunned classmates.

Educators knew that his son had a history of acting provocatively for attention, yet they did nothing to stop King after he started going to E.O. Green Junior High School in women's high-heeled boots and makeup and began aggressively flirting with boys, the father said. The middle school student had been removed from his home for unspecified reasons and was in foster care.

Instead of protecting him from his "poor impulse control," King's father said, "they enabled and encouraged him to become more and more provocative," putting him in an unsafe position.

Though he holds McInerney responsible for shooting his son, King said the school's response since the shooting has been despicable.

District leaders have made no changes in policy or procedures, saying they are unnecessary because the school's staff followed the law in allowing Larry to augment his school uniform with women's accessories.

I'm not sure what the school could have done without running afoul of federal and California law and court precedents. The homosexuality advocates and gender confusion crowd foam at the mouth when anyone so much as suggests that minors, in school, should hold back from dressing like drag queen at a Cher concert or talking about how much they want to engage in homosexual sodomy.

The Greg Risling's Associated Press report...

Greg King blamed the school district for not heeding requests by his wife to help tone down their son's flamboyant behavior, despite having a plan that called for preventing the boy from drawing attention to himself.

"The school could have and should have prevented Larry from engaging in the provocative behavior he was involved in," he said.

I already addressed that.

Outside court, Dawn Boldrin, a teacher who gave King her daughter's homecoming dress, had kind words for both of the teens.

"I probably would just hug him," Boldrin said when asked what she would do if she could meet McInerney. "I know he's a good kid."

This woman does not appear to have enough decision-making sense to have any level of responsibility for other human beings. Giving King the dress was bad enough. Calling a murderer a "good kid" should infuriate any reasonable person. Good kids do not commit premeditated murder, especially against someone who was obviously having a tough adolescence.

There were people I felt like killing when I was that age (not for gender confusion or sexual orientation issues... I didn't care about that). But I recognized my hatred was a problem with me, not something on which to act. Good kids don't murder.

A Glaring Omission in Patronizing Marriage Neutering Graphic

Have you seen "How to Explain Marriage Equality to an Idiot"? Check it out and read my thoughts over at The Opine Editorials.

Church Allowed to Fire Someone Living in Sin

An Orange County, California church wins this time. Vik Jolly reports in the Orange County Register.

An appeals court has upheld the decision of a Tustin church to fire its preschool director for continuing to live while unmarried with her boyfriend with whom she had a child.

So... it really is about the church following a Biblical model of human sexuality - sex is for marriage – and not about hating people with homosexual feelings. Imagine that.

Sara Henry, who also taught preschoolers at the Red Hill Lutheran Church in Tustin, filed a wrongful termination lawsuit against the church following her dismissal in May 2009 for her living arrangements contrary to the religious beliefs of the church and its school.

An Orange County Superior Court judge in 2010 ruled in favor of the church finding it terminated Henry's employment because she violated a church precept. Henry appealed.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal in Santa Ana last week agreed with Judge Derek Hunt's ruling.

"According to the church, Henry's employment was terminated not because she had a baby out of wedlock, and not because she remained unmarried, but because she continued to live with her boyfriend in a sexual relationship while unmarried," the appeals court's three judges wrote in their opinion.

The church teaches that sex is for marriage. How can it be expected to keep someone in a teaching position who is choosing to live in a situation that indicates ongoing fornication? Note that she was warned and they would have accepted either her living apart from her boyfriend or marrying her boyfriend. Shacking up is correlated with many negative indicators, including for their child.

In the past, most women would have been mortified for people to know they were shacking up. They certainly wouldn't have sued their employer and called attention to it.

Will we see the kind of response we would see if she had been living in a sexual relationship with another woman?

Surprise! Not Everyone Agrees With Rick Perry

The MSM continues to give an unwarranted amount attention to homosexuality and gender confusion advocacy. See this article by Paul West in the Los Angeles Times.

Rick Perry took another shot at Mitt Romney's offer of a $10,000 bet, but the Texas governor found himself under fire himself Sunday, heckled at a campaign stop over anti-gay bias, including by a man identifying himself as a Marine veteran from the Iraq war.

Anti-gay? Not celebrating homosexual behavior is now considered being anti-gay. How much longer before refusing to engage in homosexual behavior is labeled as such?

"Why are you demonizing gay and lesbian people?" shouted one heckler.

Demonizing? How has he done that? Why are they asking questions that are irrelevant to the issues at hand? And if I show up and rudely yell out questions, will they make it into the MSM?

"Why can't gays compete in the military?" chimed in Jason Arment, 24, an English major at nearby Iowa State University.

They can, but isn't is a distraction to have to share close quarters with someone who makes a point of telling everyone they are attracted to your sex?

Perry is airing a campaign ad, aimed at evangelical Christians in Iowa, in which he says that "there's something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can't openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school."

I don't see how that is demonizing homosexual people, nor being anti-gay.

Arment, in a brief interview, said that he found the Perry ad "extremely offensive" and "insulting" to service members.

I see... Arment speaks for all service members? How about Arment speaks for himself. So what if he is offended? I mean really... so what? "I'm offended!" coming from certain people is supposed to the magic phrase that gets everyone to drop everything and do things their way instead. Well guess what? There is no right to not be offended, and nobody ever died from being offended. (Plenty of men have died from having anal sex with other men, though.) You'd think someone in the military wouldn't be so disfunctionally sensitive to free speech.

Over at The Opine Editorials, we can see that gay can "compete" in the military:

Romney Asks About a Veteran's Service, Gets Marriage Neutering Plea

U.S. Bishops Urge Congress to Extend Unemployment Benefits

That's the headline for this article in the Los Angeles Times by Kathleen Hennessey. I'm sure all of those Lefists... the Democrats, the comedians, the columnists, and "freedom from religion" groups - I'm sure they'll denounce this as an attemped violation of church and state, right?

Right?

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is weighing in on one of the remaining items on Congress' to-do list. In a letter that quotes Pope John Paul II, the bishops urged Congress to extend unemployment benefits for the jobless.

Do you know where you contributions to your church are going?

Say, I thought it was the job of the church to help the poor, rather than urging the government to take money by force from others, unbelievers included, and give it still other people.

Have the Debates Have Outlasted Their Purpose?

Have the Presidential candidate debates outlived their purpose?

I like meaningful rituals and ceremony. I enjoy various forms of theater, from cinema to theme parks, and even, on rare occasion, well-done pro wrestling. And wile I enjoy parody and satire, I don't suffer theater seriously pretending to be reality. I haven't been watching the GOP debates, because I think from what I've seen they are closer to theater than a meaningful exercise. Then the reaction spin cycle adds to the circus. The problem is, this mess has an effect on our lives, and the whole world.

What is the purpose of these debates? Of what benefit are they to the electorate in helping to decide who would be the best President from pack of candidates?

That brings up the question, "What are the duties of a President?"

-Serve as Commander-in-Chief. This includes protecting our national security, directing the military, controlling our nukes, and securing our borders.

-Sign or Veto Legislation. Could the legislation have been written much better? Will there be a veto-proof voting block in Congress?

-Make Appointments/Nominations. This is especially important with judicial nominations, including to the Supreme Court of the United States.

-Execute/Enforce Federal Law. Will the President aggressively crack down on crime and corruption?

-Issue Executive Orders, Pardons, Commutations.

Who do you want as Commander-in-Chief?
Who do you want nominating judges?
Who do you want wielding the veto pen?
Who do you want giving executive orders?
Who do you want issuing pardons?

In addition to these duties, a President can offer moral leadership and use the bully pulpit to encourage some things and discourage others; and be the international face of the union. The President acts as a national cheerleader (and, in the case of Leftists like Obama, a national apologizer).

As Republicans, conservatives, and advocates of limited government, we would tend to also want a President who will contribute to limiting government, advancing our American principles in the public mind and around the world, and strengthen the Republican Party by getting Republicans elected and raising funds.

It is NOT the duty of a President to:

-Ensure you get the education you want at the cost to you that you want.
-Ensure you have a job you enjoy with the compensation you want.
-Ensure you have the kind of house you want at the cost to you that you want.
-Ensure you have the health insurance coverage you want at a cost to you that you want.
-Ensure that everyone else likes you and supports your goals and needs, or that you like you.
-Control the climate of the world.

So how to these debates show voters who would be best at fulfilling the duties of President? They can show if someone has poise and an attractive personality under pressure, and if they can give a persuasive argument in a short amount of time. That’s about it. The negatives about these debates outweigh the positives.

"Town hall" meetings may lack some of the more important questions, with people stuck in 1968 who want to know how the President is going to take care of them and supply their weed, or teens who want to know what style of underwear the candidate is wearing.

There's a better way to show has poise and an attractive personality under pressure, and if they can give a persuasive argument in a short amount of time. Rather than debates, we should have interviews. Yes, we already have interviews on Sunday morning news shows, or other news magazine. But we need more formalized, live interviews of all of the major candidates. Ideally, there would be multiple interviewers – let's say three – balanced by bias or ideology, who are serious people who would have researched the candidates' backgrounds, records, and policy positions relevant to the duties of President, and prepared questions of substance rather than question that are part of a silly game of "let's try to trip you on on TV and see if you can remember things that you'll easily be able to look up or ask an advisor about". There should be no mob audibly, booing, cheering, or shouting things out.

It would be up to each candidate to answer the questions, including follow-up questions, asked by the interview panel, who could show video clips, play audio, put up articles, etc. and use those as reference. There would be nobody interrupting the candidate, except perhaps one of the panelists if the candidate goes off on an extended, irrelevant tangent.

It would very much be an on-camera job interview.

Would it be perfect? Of course not. But it would be more effective, I have to think, than the debates and town halls we have now.

Fort Hood Shooting Was "Workplace Violence"

Ted Bundy was a "Bad Date".

The Challenger and Columbia had "Industrial Accidents".

2008 saw an "Economic Correction".

Occupy Wall Street was a "Tailgate Party".

Katrina was "A Little Wind and Rain".

Jesse Ventura has "Thinning Hair".

Seventy years ago, Pear Harbor was "Treated to a Pyrotechnics Show by Japan", and a few years later, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were each "Treated to a High Energy Event" by the USA.

UC Davis Pepper Spray - What Really Happened

It would have been nice to see this happen to more people doing unlawful occupations of property that does not belong to them.

Adam Carolla Tells It Like It Is Re: Occupy

Next They'll Want Dry Water in Their Canteens

The Los Angeles Times had some coverage a small number of atheists who want atheist military "chaplains". The paper printed a couple of letters about this. This raises the question of what exactly such a chaplain would do?

Jack Kaczorowski of Los Angeles wrote:

Imagine the atheist chaplain ministering to his flock to make sure that in a moment of weakness they do not "backslide" into believing in God, and when the shrapnel starts flying, moving from foxhole to foxhole reassuring the men that there is nothing out there and that they are quite alone.

Yes, I can see it now, counseling a dying solidier, one could say, "Well, tough break, kid. This is it. You have nothing to look forward to. Literally. Thank you for sacrificing for the rest of us, even though we're nothing but molecules interacting per natural forces, existing without ultimate purpose."

Proposition 8 Backers Win a Round

They can defend the state constitutional amendment in federal court, or at least that the unanimous opinion of the California Supreme Court. Read about it over at The Opine Edtorials.

UPDATE: Much analysis.

A False Promise of a Cheap-But-Valuable University Education

California is deeply in debt and the state university systems are looking to get more from students. (Perhaps, counting on Obama to have more money printed and given to students.) Of course, it doesn’t help that illegal aliens not only get in-state rates, but are set to start getting taxpayer grants for higher education. Lou Ponsi and Fermin Leal report for the Orange County Register.

Cal State University Fullerton students – angered by the possibility of yet another tuition hike and by university trustees they say don't serve students' best interests – demonstrated Tuesday in the campus quad. Protests aren’t going to make any more money.

What is the point of these theatrics? Oh, that's right. Media attention. Why does the media cover it? To show us the results of false promises and spoiling children? It isn't news if students aren't happy about the possibility of paying more. It would be news if they supported raising tuition/fees.

Cal State University trustees will meet Wednesday in Long Beach to consider another fee hike, this time for 9 percent, for the system's 23 campuses. That would mean an additional $498 for undergraduate students, bringing the annual tuition to $5,970 starting next fall.

"Make no mistake ... this is an attack on education," said graduate student John Belleci, a member of the Student California Teachers Association, the group that helped organize the demonstration.

So raising revenue for the university system in attacking education? How does that follow? Perhasps Belleci needs a good class about logic.

Belleci led chants: "Students united, we can't be divided."

Sure you can. It is done all of the time, often by "ethnicity".

At one point, the group, which at times swelled to 100-plus, marched around the quad. Many held signs: "Stop raising our tuition," and "Stop the hikes."

More than 100?!? WOW!

Across the state, other CSU and University of California campus had similar protests. The largest was at UC Berkeley, where hundreds of students and anti-Wall Street activists converged on the campus for a day of protests and another attempt to establish an Occupy Cal camp after a failed effort last week led to dozens of arrests.

And the Los Angeles Times had coverage as well, from Maria L. La Ganga and Carla Rivera.

At Cal State Fullerton, student Karley White held a sign that read "We are living proof that the system is broken."

No argument from me on that one.

White, a women's studies major, said that budget cuts make it hard to get the classes she needs to graduate and that she fears another tuition hike will sink her further in debt.

Who cares? What kind of job are you going to get in that joke of a program anyway? Who needs to go to school for that? I’ve been involved in studying women most of my life.

The leaders of California announced long ago that just about anyone in California, including illegal aliens, who wants to get a university degree, should have relatively easy (in terms of availability and tuition/fees) access to a university education. Thus, a two-tiered state university system was built - University of California, and California State University, the landscape was flooded with community colleges, and the word went out that a quality "affordable" university education was being promised to the people of California (and Mexico, and...).

So now we've created a situation where a heckuva lot of people assume they have a "right" to this, without having to pay the full costs of it. Whenever there is mere talk of raising the amount that the students have to pay, there are protests.

Listening to some of the protesting students in news coverage, it is quite clear that a lot of them have already been thoroughly indoctrinated into Leftist victricrat mentality... I heard one say, for example, "This is a bunch of rich white men trying to kick minorities and the the poor out of the education system!" Never mind that everyone in California is a "minority". Many of these protesters believe they have a right to a university education without paying more for it.

I do have some sympathy for most of the students impacted by this. It was foolish of the state to make promises to them we couldn't keep. If these students were raised in California, then their parents (at least the ones who actually pay taxes, instead of having it all refunded) have been paying for the university system in their taxes. They planned on their education costing a certain amount of money, and now it is going to directly cost them significantly more.

This is the problem when governments promise things they can't deliver. California is facing billions of dollars in deficis - again. Either the students are going to pay more or taxpayers, many of whom do not use the state university system, are going to have to pay all of the cost increases.

Perhaps the UC system should institute a policy that freezes rates for continuous students. I'm not talking about the kind of student who stays in college forever (yes, I have seen that). But especially for students who make it through in four or five years, how can they possibly plan and budget when they have no idea if the increase is going to be five percent or thirty percent? Of course, this would force the university system to either get more tax money or charge incoming students more, and I would opt for charging incoming students more. That might mean that students have to put off going into the university system another year as they work to save up the money, but it simply isn't moral or in the spirit of our Constitution to force me to pay even more in taxes so that people I don't know can get a UC degree.

Ultimately, we should adopt a policy, starting with higher education, of “separation of state and school”. Let's change that law. Privatize the schools. Let private institutions, nonprofits, businesses or anyone else who is interested take them over, or shut them down and sell the property.

The academy has largely been taken over by the Left, and so Leftists want as many people as possible to spend as much time as possible in higher education. And they’ve unionized so many of the jobs on campus, so the Left wants more of those jobs so that the unions will have more dues money to spend on Leftist politicans and causes.

Previously:

"We Spend More on Prisons Than on Schools!"


We Need Separation of State and School


Instructors and Students Should Learn Reality

California Supreme Court to Issue Proposition 8 Opinion

Read all about it over at The Opine Editorials.

As always, please see my Handy Dandy Marriage Neutering Plea Repellant.

The Right to Crap in Open Spaces

No, this audio isn't a real Occupy LA guy, but he could be...

Derailed

I like trains and the idea of high-speed rail as much as the next guy who's not a train buff. I also hate traffic. I am, however, realistic.

The vaguely proposed California high-speed rail project is simply a way-too-expensive toy, a vehicle for doling out political rewards, for a state that is out of money. There's been much news lately about the wildly rising cost projections of this incompleted concept.

The Los Angeles Times printed a some letters responding to their editorial on the matter.

E.G. Rice of Marina del Rey wrote:

The only high-speed thing about the so-called bullet train is the rate at which its projected costs are rising. Earth to The Times: Air travel is faster, cheaper and more convenient than the proposed train, so why would anyone choose it over flying? The dining car?

You're proposing that a nearly bankrupt state spend huge amounts of money so we can watch half-empty passenger trains shuttle between Bakersfield and Chowchilla really fast. Apart from repealing "Obamacare," I cannot think of a higher priority for voters than killing this mother of all boondoggles.

Well said.

California taxpayers yet unborn can’t afford this project.

Pro-Abortion Newspaper Prints Bad Pro-Abortion Letters

The Los Angeles Times printed a couple of letters responding to the paper's piece on Mississippi's "antiabortion" bill. They didn't get letters better than this?

One need not read the Bible to understand that life begins at conception, and thus a "fertilized egg" is a human being in the zygote stage of development. The same human being, allowed to live, will go on to go through the embryonic, fetal, newborn, infant, toddler, child, adolescent, adult, etc. stages. Still, Sandy Smith of Los Angeles brought up this tired old line of reasoning.

I don't know what Bible the folks in Mississippi are reading, but it's not one I'm familiar with.

The New Testament has no references at all to a fetus, but the Old Testament is very specific. If a man kills another man, he must pay with his life; if he kills an animal, he must offer restitution. But, according to Exodus 21:22: "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows." A fetus was considered potential property.

I could pick this all apart, but this has already been covered many places, including here and here. I'm always bemused by these Leftist types who read Leftist materials about the Bible and think people who take the Bible seriously have never considered these things.

S.G. Mann of Huntington Beach writes:

Perhaps the voters in Mississippi should Google Sherri Finkbine.

In 1962, Finkbine discovered that the drug she had been taking for her morning sickness was thalidomide, which causes severe fetal deformities. No hospital would perform the abortion she sought. The Arizona Supreme Court denied her petition.

Finkbine flew to Sweden to receive a therapeutic abortion. The fetus would have been born with no legs and only one arm.

Oh my gosh! NO LEGS AND ONLY ONE ARM! Well, I guess being murdered is preferable to a life without legs and with only one arm? Just ask the millions of living people who are in that exact situation, most of whom have been living lives of significance with many moments of happiness and joy. I'm sure if Mann approached them and offered to hack them into bits and vacuum them into a sink, they’d say, "Yes, please!"

The same faction that claims it wants government "off their backs" wants to intrude on other people's most sensitive decisions.

Those of us who believe in liberty, limited government, and the inherent rights of individual human beings recognize that innocent human beings who are not posing a threat to anyone else should have their lives protected, by government, from those who would murder them. Where is the inconsistency?

One Problem With Emotion-Based Governance

Logical contradictions.

See what I mean in my latest positing over at The Opine Editorials, about the ongoing Proposition 8 case.

What's Next Out of Hollywood?

Given that the Kardashian wedding/marriage/divorce is looking like a planned stunt for TV ratings and lucrative sponsorships, I wonder how much long longer before we see one of these "famous for having a sex tape and rich parents" types having a (fake?) pregnancy and (fake) miscarriage or very real abortion, all for TV and magazine spreads? I wouldn't put anything past these people. Are you on it E!? How about you, MTV?

Ban Bogus Hollywood Marriages

So was the latest Kardashian wedding just for a TV show? After, what, 72 days, and minutes after the wedding episodes finished airing on TV, the marriage is over. Did the marriage really exist in the first place?

I'm so thoroughly disgusted. What is it with Ryan Seacrest and the shows he puts on the air? Shows on which people who are famous for no other reason than having a sex tape that "somehow" got leaked go to clubs and act like idiots? Or because they are the siblings of said person?

Marriage neutering advocates are the most organized marriage attackers, to be sure, but there are so many other serious threats to marriage, not the least of which are these ill-advised fiascoes.

Fornicating, shacking up, pushing out and "raising" babies out of wedlock used to be shamed, now people run to the nearest camera to tell the world about it, with no shame. Yes, fornication is nothing new, but people used to be discreet about it.

The divorces and affairs and shack-ups and stunt weddings of some of the Hollywood bunch is just so nauseating.

What happened to taking sex and marriage seriously? What happened to being careful and wise about getting married, and honoring vows?

Now it is all about some narcissistic series of parties and a white (give me a break!!!) dress. Disgusting.

Throw yourselves parties. Just please stop calling what you're doing a "wedding" and "marriage". You are making a mockery of something so very important to the thriving of humanity.

I should say that no, I don't really want to use the force of law to stop people in Hollywood from getting married, and yes, I know there are some legitimate, lasting, and model marriages from some people in Hollywood. They are the ones who tend to stay out of the magazines and don't have shows on basic cable.

Worldwide Ancient Institution Supposed to Change For the Jollies of a Few

It's an article that really another call for the Roman Catholic church to change on the issue of homosexual behabvior. These kinds of articles always start with a focus on a person whose feelings have been hurt, and are meant to tug at our heartstrings and forget about critical thinking, history, and the larger world. Mitchell Landsberg of Los Angeles Times reported. I am not a Roman Catholic, by the way.

Twenty-five years ago, John Schaefer was a young gay man who led the singing on a momentous night at Blessed Sacrament Church in Hollywood.

Speaking of Cardinal Mahony’s words about reaching out to care for those with HIV/AIDS:

"It was bold," Schaefer recalled Saturday night after singing at a Mass celebrating the 25th anniversary of the gay and lesbian ministry that Mahony established on Feb. 2, 1986. "I'm very grateful to Cardinal Mahony for doing that."

Much has changed in the intervening quarter century — and some things not at all.

Yes, some things haven't changed. God, His Word, the Biblical and traditional sexual morality.

Mahony is retired as archbishop. HIV infection is no longer an automatic death sentence. Society is far more tolerant of homosexuality. Same-sex marriage is legal in some states, a development that was scarcely imaginable in the mid-'80s.

Neutered "marriage" licenses are issued to brideless or groomless couples, who had long been free to have ceremonies and share their lives together.

Some Christian denominations ordain clergy who live openly in same-sex relationships.

Some "Christian" denominations don't really believe in Christ, too.

And the Catholic Church? Its position on homosexuality was clarified in October 1986 by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI. Homosexuality, he wrote in a letter to bishops, is an "objective disorder," and "a person engaging in homosexual behavior … acts immorally."

That is still official church policy.

"Still". Like the Pope is supposed to stick his finger in the air and make decisions based on what homosexuality advocacy organizations say.

At the same time, he said, there is little theological difference between gay sex and heterosexual sex outside marriage.

Who is clamoring for an official policy that heterosexuals openly fornicating be ordained?

Talk at the Mass wasn't so much of living up to church doctrine as changing it.

Oh, of course. The Bible and the Church need to be changed to suit the feelings of a tiny minority.

Look, we have freedom of religion in this country. You don't have to be a Roman Catholic. So, either you believe this is the best church for you, or you don't.

If you don't, you should find the best. Or start one.

If you believe it is the best church for you, you should accept the church's claims to authority and truth.

Why should everyone else in the church, the Scriptures, and the traditions all have to change for you? Do you really believe in a God and that this is His Church, and that the Church is following His will in just about every area except that stuff about men not sticking their genitals into each other?

You may want to check out these articles:

The Bible and Homosexuality

Answering the Gay Christian Position

Dozens of Animals Killed, Thousands of Human Beings Killed

Like many other people, I was upset by what happened to the exotic and wild animals in Ohio – the ones that were being kept by that guy who killed himself after letting dozens of them out to roam free in the middle of Ohio. I understand why they were shot. I was upset at the guy who put those animals into that situation to begin with, and put people at risk.

The Los Angeles Times ran a couple of letters on the issue.

Penelope Burley of Camarillo wrote:

That so many rare and innocent creatures had to be slaughtered is a travesty. The global extinction of so many of these species is rapid enough without tragedies like this adding to their alarming demise.

This country is among the worst of developed nations regarding animal protection. We are either too arrogant or too naive to see the need for change.

Karen Dawn of Pacific Palisades wrote:

People distressed by the photos of animal carcasses in Ohio might take at least slight comfort in knowing that the animals are surely better off now than they were for the last few years living pathetic lives locked in cages.

Those headed for the zoo may or may not have half-decent existences, but hundreds of gentle herbivores will live and die in the horror of the factory farming system in order to become their food.

Now, I'm not in favor of someone torturing animals for pleasure, or inflicting pain on them for no good reason, if for no other reason than that is an indicator of being a sociopath who may be a threat to human beings. I enjoy petting, scratching, and playing with animals for their own pleasure, and if that benefits me (lower blood pressure, etc.), then so be it.

But I do not believe animals have rights anywhere close to the rights human beings have, and I generally oppose pretending otherwise in the law. If extinction is the worry, private ownership of animals and the ability to use them or sell them for profit would be the surest way to boost their numbers.

I do not know Ms. Dawn or Ms. Burley, but like with so many others who take the time to express concern for protecting the lives of animals, I have to wonder if they've put even as much effort into protecting the lives of human beings? I can't marshal stronger emotions over the mistreatment and killing of animals while someone is legally protected and even paid by taxpayers to slaughter innocent human beings, often in painful ways (abortion). My prevailing priority is human life. If Ms. Dawn and Ms. Burley do have more concern for human beings than these animals, then I applaud them. But I urge everyone to have sensible priorities. Would you put as much effort into encouraging a woman to put her child up for adoption rather than having it ripped apart and sucked out of her womb as you would trying to get your legislator to pass new legal protections for animals?

Marriage Neutering Advocates Don't Have Their Tapes Yet

Such is the latest news about the tapes made of the trial over the California Marriage Amendment.

Don't Snatch Defeat From the Jaws of Victory

I'm going through some of my past postings about why we lost the Presidential election in 2008, and what I thought should be done to win in 2012. What should we have learned from McCain's 2008 loss?

Well, first we need to remember why McCain was the nominee.

McCain was the GOP nominee because he was the most unlike Bush, and Bush, rightly or wrongly, has been effectively trashed in the populace. We knew Bush wasn’t a consistent conservative before he got the nomination in 2000. He’s proved it in his Presidency, and although there has been much he has done right, there have been things that he’s done wrong, or ineffectively, including public relations.

So why did he lose?

Unfortunately, McCain had a hard time winning over the GOP base. His campaign finance reform, which has obviously been ineffective in removing the influence of money from campaigns, had left conservatives with a bad taste in their mouths. Many conservatives and others were also upset with his work on the shamnesty bill for illegal aliens. Instead of having a nominee who offered a clear difference from Obama in that regard, we had McCain. And did it help him or anyone else in the GOP with Latino voters? No! So he lost some of the base and independents, and didn’t gain Latinos.

While McCain touted federalism in some areas that weren’t a major focus in this election, he failed to articulate truly conservative or libertarian positions clearly enough or early enough in the general campaign. That’s because in many areas, he couldn’t without disavowing his own votes and previous positions. Instead, he tried to play Santa Claus. But a Republican can never outpromise the Democrats. The Democrats will always promise more goodies. So to a lot of people, McCain appeared to be doing the same thing Obama was doing – only halfway. And they thought – why go halfway when we can get the genuine (new) deal? Why go for someone who is always "reaching across the aisle" when we can pick someone who is already across the aisle?

We need someone who articulates and has demonstrated clear differences in policy positions from President Obama. Obama is vulnerable.

McCain also lost because he wanted to run a nice, respectful campaign that would be applauded by the MSM once it was over, instead of running a campaign that would win. For far too long, he was busy disavowing comments from his own supporters instead of focusing on the weaknesses of Obama.

The GOP contenders need to keep that in mind.

What we need now is for Republicans to be Republicans. We need them to fight for limited government, federalism, and sticking to the Constitution. We need them to fight for fiscal responsibility.

We need Republican candidates and leaders to do those things in a way that lets the voters see why it is the best way to go.

Replacing Obama

Many people naively voted for Obama because they believed the hype and that what they didn’t like about how things were was primarily Bush’s fault. Obama was oversold. They thought Obama is going to wave a magic wand and make their lives better. They thought he was going to create cushy, high-paying new jobs for them, or hand them a prestigious diploma for free, or that he'd bring about world peace and no American soldiers would be wounded or killed, that he'd end pollution and global warming, make the dolphins and polar bears happy, end racism and homophobia, make abortions a pleasant and painless experience with no negative consequences ever, and give them a big new house for cheap, punish the unfairly rich, cure cancer and AIDS and provide top-notch medical care for free, and that everything was going to be just one huge party and lovefest across America and around the world. He was going to cure lepers and turn water into wine.

The Occupy movement is largely resulting from that.

Don't antagonize these people. Don't call them stupid. Don't badmouth Obama in front of them.

There are better ways to turn them into the conservative voters of the future.

Feel free to let them vent about Obama.

Show interest in their hopes, their dreams, their expectations, and their thoughts (if they have any).

If you followed the advice I gave on November 6, 2008, you would have documented and kept their exact expectations that they expressed to you back then.

If you didn't do that, you should be able to dig up stuff online listing Obama's promises.

We knew Obama wouldn't be able to do a lot of the things he promised. We also knew he was going to make some things worse.

So, our jobs from now until Election Day in November 2012 is this. We're going to check in on those 2008-was-their-first-time-voting Obama supporters – talking about current events and what is going on – specifically, asking them questions and making sure they've been paying attention. This is very easy on some of the social networking sites.

Don't let them forget their expectations or the promises of Obama and the Democrats.

Remember – be gentle and respectful, but firm. Don't be nasty and drive them away, but don't let them wiggle out of the logical conclusions.

Often, you are going to have to link them to info from sources that favor limited government, federalism, conservatism, libertarianism, and so forth – sources that actually take the Constitution seriously and might even mention now and again that this is the greatest country in the world. There are plenty of such sources that are clear, calm, and reasonable and avoid taking a tone that turns off those who might not automatically agree at first glance or hearing – sources with a lot of credibility. If the person has indicated that they voted for Obama, at least partially, because of his parentage/skin color, be sure to use Larry Elder, Walter E. Williams, and Thomas Sowell as sources, among others.

Don't accept a dismissal such as "Oh, that’s just an Obama hater." Ask them exactly where and how the source is wrong. Appeal to them to be open-minded and fair.

If you can’t get them to vote for the Republican, perhaps you can get them to vote for a third party candidate or not vote, rather than voting for Obama.

Obama deserves to lose the support of many of the people who voted from him in 2008. If he does lose that support, he will be replaced.

Someone Voted on Their Marriages

Some marriages were ruled to be shams. How is that possible? Read about it over at The Opine Editorials.

Blaming the Rich When the Solution is Limited Government

John Wallin of Tustin got it right when he wrote a letter to the Orange County Register.

The problem with the latest batch of misinformed activists' primary assumption that corporations "control the government," is that they have it backward – corporations cannot force anyone, let alone all-powerful politicians and their bureaucratic minions, to do anything. Forcing people into compliance is the exclusive domain of gangsters and our grossly mismanaged governments and the corrupt politicians and public employees who incessantly practice cronyism, which distorts the "free" markets they then attack as unfair.

Why are corporations operating in the highly regulated "free" markets that benefit from legislation considered greedy and corrupt but not politicians who hand out that legislation along with money to their cronies that they coerced from us?

Big Government shifts tax funds or creates tax breaks that benefit some businesses over others. Big Government intrudes into the marketplace in ways that prevent the free market from providing more opportunities to smaller businesses and upstarts.

If our government is properly limited, it won't unjustly shift taxpayer money to businesses, nor give one business an advantage over another.

Michael Brown Looks at the Slippery Slope

As I have said before, it is ridiculous to compare "same-sex marriage" to polygamy or incestuous marriage. After all, the latter two have precedents throughout history in various cultures, being recognized as valid marriages and perpetuating society, uniting both of the sexes that comprise all of society.

A Sincere Mormon Can Be a Better President Than a Lukewarm Protestant

I'm a follower of Christ – a Christian that some would identify as an evangelical Protestant. I believe the core essentials of the historic Christian faith – the authority of the Bible, the Triune God, the divinity and humanity of Jesus Christ, the reality of sin and what it has done to our relationship with God, and that Jesus Christ lived the perfect life and was crucified in my place, and was resurrected to everlasting life as Lord and Savior, and that He will return at the end of the world as we know it.

It is my understanding that the Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints ("Mormonism") teaches things counter to the historic Christian faith. As such, I can't recommend that church to anyone, because their theological philosophy is entirely different, including believing in the existence of many gods, believing that Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Ghost are three separate Gods, believing that men can become gods, that Jesus' sacrifice on the cross wasn't enough to make us right with God, and that the Bible is one of four books of holy scripture, the Book of Mormon being the "most correct".

All of that being said, I could support a sincere Mormon for President. Why? Because it is the office of President, not my church pastor. While I think the LDS church leadership is dead wrong about Jesus Christ and the nature of God, it promotes conservative values, clean living, thinking about eternal consequences, being prepared for the future, and American exceptionalism. For those reasons, I would prefer a sincere Mormon who believes in limiting government to a liberal Protestant churchgoer (or someone steeped in "Black Liberation" theology) who either doesn't "get it" when it comes to a personal relationship with Jesus or simply refuses to commit to Jesus as Lord and Savior. What good is sitting in church every week if you refuse to sincerely seek God's guidance and holiness, or if you see the government as a better way to solve social ills than churches?

I want a President who truly believes he or she is accountable to God for their actions, and can't really ever "get away" with anything. I want a President who understands that personal morality matters, and more moral we all are, the better off we'll be. I want a President who sees the U.S.A. as special and seeks to keep the country special through excellence. I want a President who knows what the role of government should and should not be in our lives.

If Romney is the GOP nominee, I will support him. Will I support Romney in the primary? Depends on my choices when California votes.

Republicans, especially those who are evangelical Christians, need to ask what they want to accomplish with this next election cycle. Would we rather have a candidate for President who shares our theology, religious practices, and every major political viewpoint at the expense of losing? Or do we want to replace Obama with someone who is more capable, more conservative, and who believes more in American ideals and the American people, at the expense of ideological or theological purity or agreement?

Jesus did not call perfect men who would always agree with Him to be His close disciples, and He was building a church. We should not expect a perfect person to take the political position of Presidential candidate. And make no mistake - someone needs to be a great Presidential candidate before they can be a good President, and a great candidate attracts and inspires more than just conservative Republicans. They get the votes of others, too.

LA Times Attempts to Help the Occupy Whiners

It should come as no surprise that Big Labor is getting involved in the Whine and Do Nothing Productive Sessions... otherwise known as Occupy Wall Street or Occupy ____. Here's E. Scott Reckard's report in the Los Angeles Times.

Protesters spent their fourth night camping outside Los Angeles City Hall, disrupted a bankers conference at a Newport Beach yacht club and demonstrated outside a financial executive's Bel Air home.

And what does that accomplish? Imagine the howls and shrieks of "inciting violence" and "violation of privacy" if TEA Partiers showed up outside of someone’s house. Where's the New Tone of Civility?

Protests on the West Coast have drawn an assortment of activists, from college students

= grown people dependent on their parents and taxpayers

to anarchists

= potheads, essentially.

to ordinary Americans worried about the economy. They have no single organizer, and instead are made up of individual groups focused on what they see as the banking industry's role in the growing divide between America's rich and poor.

"The banks engineered the country's financial collapse and then profited from it," said Joe Briones, 29, a film major at L.A. City College who is helping to run the Occupy LA social media feed from the City Hall protests.

Let's assume the banks profited from it. If they did, it was only by the aid of a government that should have been more limited. There's the real problem – government needs to be limited and run per the instructions provided by the Constitution.

The bankers listened as protesters accused them of causing the economic meltdown by peddling bad loans,

Per federal government pressure. And what about the people who took out those loans?

accepting government bailouts and then doing little to compensate for the damage inflicted.

Evidence, please?

Robert Hawkes at 9:34 PM October 4, 2011:

"Corporate greed" brought us the light bulb, hybrid cars, the proliferation of the Internet, renewable energy sources, the decentralization of journalism as exemplified in this blog, and whatever device you're reading this on. American businesses are also the greatest benefactors to worldwide relief and other charitable organizations.

Of course, there have been abuses as well, such as the recent bailouts, and what is generally referred to as "corporate welfare."

Though I respect their right to peaceful protest, I find Occupy Wallstreet's blanket labeling of all corporations as "evil" and "greedy" to be disingenuous and misleading.

Thank you, Robert Hawkes.

Here's Michael Muskal's article.

Those who think that the ongoing Occupy Wall Street movement is just a traffic annoyance with nowhere to go should remember that the same was said at one time about protest movements around the world throughout history, including the tea party movement in the United States.

Yes, but these are just whiners. And with the SEUI providing the only semblance of organization, it just becomes another tool for protecting the entrenched government workers at the expense of others.

Here's Kate Linthicum's article about City of Los Angeles councilmembers going to get face time after their meeting.

Before leaving Tuesday, Garcetti told the protesters: "Stay as long as you need, we're here to support you." A spokeswoman for Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said he plans to visit the encampment Wednesday.

He may be looking for a date.

maineman1 at 7:18 AM October 5, 2011:

Our "free market system" is bankrupt.

Our redistributionist government schemes are bankrupt.

We need to address the predatory capitalism that preys on the middle class and the poor.

What does that mean? Don't like what a company does? Don't buy their products or services, don't invest in them, and don't work for them.

Financial reform is vital to combat the effects of consolidation, conglomeration, "too big to fail," unfair labor practices and environmental predators.

So you are against efficiency and cooperation? Which unfair labor practices are you talking about – the ones where union members agree to compensation, and then claim they need more, taken by force through the government? What environmental predators?

US banks, investment firms, hedge funds and others must be regulated and conform to new US standards and ethics of market behavior.

They are regulated, and some of that regulation has done a lot to make the mess.

Income and profits above certain thresholds would be taxed heavily.

Why? Who decides what the right amount is?

Banks should act less like a casino; taking in the money from the rubes, and placing bets on bets.

So, do you protest casinos? The lottery?

They have taken federal money generated by US taxpayers and have invested in schemes that have stolen billions from those same taxpayers.

How did they get "federal money"? Through Big Government.

Here's the paper's editorial, pretending this is just like the TEA Party, only with ideology the Left supports.

We too find it hard to get especially worked up over a series of small demonstrations in a handful of cities, including Los Angeles, involving mostly disaffected people who have trouble expressing what it is they're against. But isn't that how the "tea party" started out?

No, it isn't. The TEA Party started to say we've been Taxed Enough Already and that the federal government shouldn't be throwing around money we don't have.

The political left has been searching for the last couple of years to find an answer to the tea party.

Impossible, because they support enlarging and centralizing government.

Limiting government and being productive citizens is the way to go. Nobody owes you a job with all of the benefits and pay level you want. What are you doing for your neighbor? What good or service are you providing in enough abundance to meet the needs of others in exchange for them providing goods and services that meet your needs?

Occupy Reality For a Change

I went to the website of the Los Angeles faction of these “stuck in 1968” wanna-be Occupy Wall Street protesters, and there wasn’t even a clear, prominent statement of what it is they want. Here's a Los Angeles Times article from a few days ago by Tina Susman, much of it about how they are unorganized and haven’t listed clear demands.

How about some specific demands, a long-term strategy, maybe even … office space?

So far the group, which generally defines itself as anti-greed, has none of those.

So, it's really a bunch of whiny crybabies and potheads who, surprise, have a tough time dealing with reality, isn't it?

The protest, which evolved from a network of individuals and groups galvanized by the demonstrations in Egypt last winter, has moved far beyond what it was on Sept. 17, when police barricaded the streets outside the Stock Exchange to prevent a march there to protest corporate greed.

The Egyptians were not protesting corporate greed. These people have a life so good and they don't even know it.

Harried commuters seem to barely notice the mishmash of humanity a few feet away as they rush down the sidewalks skirting the park.

Those are the people who are being productive.

Protest numbers vary as people drift in and out of the park. Some live in the area and come by for a few hours each day or week. Others stay there around the clock, their sleeping bags, guitars and clothing bundles spread on the ground. On Wednesday, they included a sleepy-eyed young man in a rumpled T-shirt cuddling a pet rat, and a woman who pranced about in her underwear.

Not enough circuses.

There are committees, including one for finance, food and comfort, which ensures that anyone who needs blankets, dry clothing or perhaps a hug gets it.

Did they make the clothing and blankets themselves? Or did someone get paid to make them? If someone got paid to make them, do these protesters realize the irony?

There are twice-daily meetings called general assemblies, where anyone can make a brief announcement. The assemblies draw everyone together in a tight huddle. To avoid violating a ban on bullhorns, the crowd obediently repeats in unison every phrase uttered by the main speaker, to ensure everyone hears.

Yes... to ensure that everyone... hears.

On its website, Occupy Wall Street describes itself as a "leaderless resistance movement" drawn from people of all backgrounds and political persuasions.

Resistance to what?

"The one thing we all have in common is that we are the 99 percent that will no longer tolerate the greed and corruption of the 1 percent," the website says.

What does that mean? Examples???

Signs cited in the story include:

"End financial aid to Israel"

Fine by me, as long as all taxpayer financial aid to foreign countries is ended. In fact, I don't want the federal government giving anyone money unless they are performing a Constitutionally assigned task.

"End greed, end poverty, end war"

You can't end greed. You can’t even do it if you fascists get in control. Poverty is best alleviated through free markets. Want to end war? Go to the terrorists and tell them.

"No death penalty"

I agree on the condition that people first stop murdering.

"Tired of racism."

So am I. Should the NAACP be disbanded? Let's end race-based preferences and race-segregated dorms in higher education.

Don't like the way a corporation is run? You are free to not work for it, free not to invest in it, and free not to buy its goods or services. Don't like corporate influence in politics? Keeping government at a Constitutionally-instructed scope would mean corporations would not be able to get taxpayer funds unduly nor stifle competition. The more we cede power to government and centralize that power in D.C., the easier it is for the wealthy to manipulate the system to their advantage.

Are "Retired" Public Employees Screwing Taxpayers by Double-Dipping?

"Double dipping" by California public employees is getting attention again, this time in the Los Angeles Times. Shane Goldmacher and Patrick McGreevy report.

Every month, Ann Ravel gets a paycheck from her salary as chairwoman of California's ethics watchdog agency and a second, bigger check from her public pension as a retiree.

The double payments, which total more than $305,000 a year, represent the kind of costly pension perk that Gov. Jerry Brown has vowed to rein in.

But since he assumed office nine months ago, Brown has appointed numerous officials like Ravel to state jobs in which they can simultaneously collect a full salary and a public pension.

I'm assuming she's the best example the paper could find, meaning she has the highest combined income.

Ravel, for her part, said she rightfully earned her pension after working as an attorney for Santa Clara County, whose retirement benefits come from CalPERS, from 1976 until her retirement in 2009.

"I could be sitting at my home in Los Gatos and taking my PERs check and working for a private corporation and making a ton of money," Ravel said. "But I am committed to public service."

"I feel like the taxpayers are getting their money's worth from me," she said.

I'm a fiscal conservative.

But when there is criticism about public employees double dipping - getting paid well to work while also collecting a generous pension - the ire is usually misdirected.

The problem isn't that they are working in their new position.

The problem was with the promises made long ago and the system put into place that reward and thus encourage public employees to "retire" while at the prime of their careers and still able to put in a full work week, month after month.

They were promised their retirement payments after being allowed to retired so you. They're goin to collect those payments whether they sit at home, volunteer somewhere, pick up a private sector job or state their own business, or, as these people are doing, accept a public position. This happens at the county level, too – employees will "retire" and then come back as "temporary" employees, often involved in the same work.

Like I said, they are going to get their retirement payament. In addition, someone is going to be hired to fill these positions. It isn't going to save any money to fill those positions with public employees who haven't retired (since someone will need to take that employee's old position) or someone from the private sector. The retired public employee will still get their pension, and someone is still going to get paid for working the other position.

At least when the "retired" public employee, that person usually is already familiar with the issues, programs, projects, processes, policies, and people involved.

So I don't get worked up over retired public employees taking these positions. The real concern is making sure the retirement conditions are, or have been, changed so as to stop encouraging experienced, knowledgeable employees who are still in their prime from retiring.

It would also be good to stop raising salaries for these positions to such heights.

Back to the 1990s on Taxes?

Robert Grebner of Brea is another one of those Orange County Register letter writers who makes reading the paper's letters a pleasure. He provided this gem:

President Barack Obama has recommended that taxes should be raised to the levels of the 1990s, a time of great prosperity under President Bill Clinton. I find this proposal highly interesting, and it should be implemented with just one slight addition. As taxes are raised to 1990s levels, spending should be mandated to drop to the same 1990s levels. Problem solved.

9th Circuit Does Right, Census Rights a Wrong

I put two stories of interest up at The Opine Editorials.

Even the 9th Circuit Put a Hold on Release of Prop 8 Tapes

Census Info on Same-Sex Couples Corrected

A Different Marriage Pledge

I think marriage neutering advocates, especially politicians, should be asked to sign a pledge about marriage law. Read about it over at The Opine Editorials.

It Isn't the Same Thing

Over at The Opine Editorials, I answer a letter to the Los Angeles Times supporting the neutering of marriage.

Letters on So-Called Poverty

The Los Angeles Times ran a story on "poverty" levels for the union as a whole, and in California. They printed some of the responding letters.

Lucia Dzwonczyk of San Pedro wrote:

Poverty in the United States hits a 50-year high, children are homeless, our educational system is deteriorating and our healthcare is expensive. All this has become possible because power and greed are now the norm.

The problem here may indeed power and greed - that desire for power and greed that has gotten the federal government to wage a failed "war on poverty" and meddle in education.

Would it be too much to ask for a CEO to take home a little less pay so he would not have to lay off workers?

I believe that some CEOs may be paid too much, but that is a matter for the owners of the company to decide. Businesses should not, generally, keep jobs for the sake of keeping jobs. Absent a contract, nobody owes anyone a job.

Would it be too much to ask wealthy individuals and corporations to pay more in taxes?

The "wealthy" already pay most of the tax burden. How about asking more people to pay, given that those people are being served?

Would it be asking too much to help those who have suffered natural disasters?

We do.

Would it be too much for Congress to use a little common sense?

There's more common send in the House of Representatives now than there has been in a long time.

Would it be too much to create jobs now?

A job is created by demand. Someone can provide a good or service more efficiently than someone can do it themselves. That is what makes a job.

A country that does not care for its citizens, especially its children, cannot survive.

Is there a country with more charities than ours?

Annie Caroline Schuler of West Hollywood has too much sense to be living in West Hollywood:

If you now find yourself poor, before you blame the government, ask yourself these questions:

Did I have children that I cannot afford without taxpayer-financed handouts? Did I buy a house for which I knew I could not pay? Did I max out my credit cards, then sign up for more? Instead of buying a modest vehicle that will meet my needs, did I treat myself to a top-of-the-line one? Does my family own all of the "must have" electronic gadgets? Do I feel entitled to all of these things and demand that those doing better contribute their "fair share"?

Very good questions.

We who have been responsible can no longer be punished by being forced to pay for the safety net for those who choose to be irresponsible. What happens when the government gravy train of entitlements gets derailed because there's nobody left who can pay for it?

Perfect.

Craig P. Fagan of San Diego pointed out one of the obvious things a about California:

More than 16% of people in California live below the poverty line. Unemployment is near 13%. Democrats have dominated the Legislature for more than a decade, and California continues to reelect them.

Which is one reason why we need to split California.

How can anyone be considered poor when they are fat, have a wardrobe, have code-strong housing, utilities, have Internet and pay television, medical care, transportation, parks, libraries, and education?

A Reconquistador's Dream

Despite being deep in the hole, California is still finding new ways to transfer taxpayer money to illegal aliens. Not only can illegal aliens get in-state tuition rates at the taxpayer-subsidized state universities, but now it looks like they're going to get taxpayer-funded grants to attend... as though there is too much money for it all to go to legal residents and citizens. This is part of the Orwellian-named DREAM Act. At least the Los Angeles Times, despite support illegal aliens' lawbreaking, printed some letters against this.

Marlene K. Mariani of Encinitas:

Why do we as taxpayers have an obligation to help pay for educating illegal immigrants at our public universities? Let them become legal or get their education in their own countries.

Ann Doty-Mitchell of Los Angeles:

It is especially upsetting when, as this piece notes, you consider that "these undocumented immigrants would be allowed to earn a degree but still would not have the right to work here." Why are we financing degrees that won't be used at the expense of a deserving legal resident?

We need to move away from taxpayer-supported education in general, starting with higher education. This is just one more reason why.

Marriage Neutering Advocates Get Special Treatment Again

It is no surprise to anyone paying attention that Judge Ware has decided to treat the trial over the California Marriage Amendment differently than so many other trials, and is releasing the video of trial. Read my analysis of the LATimes.com coverage over at The Opine Editorials.

Someone Claiming to Be Glen Starkey Can't Argue

On July 15, 2010, I wrote on the previous version of this blog this post:

I Believe Glen Starkey Libeled Dr. Laura

Point by point, I carefully pointed out how Starkey was wrong.

Now, this comment, which demonstrates a common Leftist inability to argue, showed up over there, from "Glen":

I believe you're a idiot!
In what way have I libeled Dr. Laura? Your blog is a bunch of uninformed, mean-spirited nonsense, and I believe you're a big fat idiot.

Reading comprehension not your strong suit, Glen?

You... called... her... a... gay... basher. She... isn't.

Go ahead, Glen, you can let your lips move when you read that. Sound it out if you have to.

Oh, and Glen - How much charity for troops have you done lately, hmmm?

The Latest on Marriage Neutering in California and North Carolina

My analysis is over at The Opine Editorials.

Greg Koukl Effectively Defends Marriage

For a while now, I've been meaning to call attention to the podcast of the July 3, 2011 "Stand to Reason" program, hosted by Greg Koukl. The podcast is nearly three hours long. Towards the end of the first hour, the issue of neutering marriage comes up, and much of the rest of the program deals with that, per the callers.

Koukl's commentaries are:
Are Christianity and Patriotic Expressions Compatible?
Is America a Christian Nation?
Atheists: Freedom from Religion

The caller topics are:

What is the difference between objective and situational ethics?
How can we move the public debate on same-sex marriage to the merits of the argument instead of slogans?
Same-sex marriage is fair.
Does the Bible teach relativism?
In favor of same-sex marriage
The definition of marriage has changed and should continue to change.
Why do Christians not observe the Sabbath on Saturday?
Americans shouldn't be forced to accept same-sex marriage.
Will same-sex marriage lead to polygamy?
How can we know what the Holy Spirit is teaching us?

Here's the MP3.

Here is a larger file version, the Enhanced Podcast (AAC format - chapters and higher-res audio).

Here is the M3U format.

Koukl is fond of using sound reasoning and logic, and does so effectively in the defense of marriage.

Democracy is Great If It Goes His Way

Over at The Opine Editorials, I look at a letter published in the Los Angeles Times about who has standing to defend an adopted ballot measure.

Filtering Online Access at Tax-Funded School Terminals

Homosexuality advocates often try to have it both ways.

Uhm… maybe I should rephrase that because it sounds like the "B" in "LGBTQQUAAII?!?"

Homosexuality advocates often try to have their (beef)cake and eat it, too.

That's better.

Case in point is this editorial from the gay niche media publication, the Los Angeles Times.

This is the headline and subheadline:

ACLU's 'Don't Filter Me' Campaign Makes Sense
The campaign targets censorship of gay-themed, non-sexually explicit websites at schools.

A "gay-themed" website is inherently sexual. How do we know? Because the homosexual advocates tell us that homosexual people are just like heterosexuals - there is no "homosexual lifestyle" there is no "homosexual agenda" – homosexual people are just like heterosexual people. The only difference, we're told, is to whom the homosexual person is sexually attracted. Thus, in order to be “gay-themed”, it must be inherently sexual.

It doesn't matter if the website doesn't actually have videos of one man shoving himself into the anus of another man. Our kids are sexualized enough. They think about sex enough already. They should be accessing websites at schools, especially schools funded by taxpayer money, for academic purposes only, not for political activism, socializing, or to get their jollies. And no, at that age, their academics shouldn't include sexual topics, unless we're talking about the biology of natural reproduction, which is inherently a heterosexual topic.

Likewise, there shouldn't be sex-themed clubs, like Gay-Straight Alliances, especially where the students are too young to legally consent to sex. Again, of course a GSA is a sex-themed club, because it is based on the sexual attractions people have.

I do fully support the idea of having a club that promotes standing up to bullies and is aimed at reducing assaults, harassment, vandalism, and suicides.

Anyway, on to the editorial…

The Trevor Project is an organization devoted to preventing suicides among gay and lesbian teenagers.

Everyone else can just go off and kill themselves, apparently.

This censorship of gay-themed, non-sexually explicit sites has resulted in an American Civil Liberties Union campaign called "Don't Filter Me!" It's good advice, and not just because it might spare a school district a lawsuit.

The school district can be spared a lawsuit if the ACLU simply didn't file them over something like this. I mean really. This is just another example of why we need separation of state and school.

Some schools may have consciously banned sites such as the Trevor Project on the erroneous assumption that students can (and should) be shielded from discussions of homosexuality.

"Discussions". Hmm. Does the editorial board support discussions, or only some discussions?

Others genuinely thought they were blocking only pornography. Either way, the result has been censorship.

Uh, no. Those websites still exist, and the kids can access them other ways. Most of the kids have mobile devices that can. It isn't censorship.

It's Been Over a Year, Is Everyone OK?

The One Year Anniversary of Dr. Laura Schlessinger Using the "N" Word On the Air has come and gone, with not a little fanfare. And, of course, that prompted another round of sniping, including ever so much ignorance about who Schlessinger is and what she says on her show and in her writings. So many of her critics don't have a clue - not the slightest clue - and they take the vomit puked out by others. put it into their own mouths, and in turn spit it out all over again.

I respect honest, principled disagreements.

I don't respect libelous character assassination, especially when it is mindless parroting of something some other ignorant person said.

So with that, I bring you something I originally published on January 19 of this year...

Where's the civility For Dr. Laura?

So much for toning down the rhetoric and refraining from spewing vitriol. Dr. Laura Schlessinger has a new book out, which means she's promoting that book. And that means shrill, shrieking, and demonstrably false attacks on Dr. Laura by the logically-impaired couch potatoes, neglectful "mothers", and feminized guys out there who are upset that she's appearing on their usually Lefty-feminist televisions.


Dr. Laura does fifteen hours of radio a week. She's written many books. She blogs. She's written many columns. What she actually has said isn't hard to find or document. And yet so many people get it so wrong. Some are misrepresenting Dr. Laura's teachings and statements deliberately, usually for their own fundraising or ideological purposes. Others are relying on these dubious sources.

Update on Proposition 8

We won't know for sure for months, but it is looking like the case is going to continue. Read about it at The Opine Editorials.

California Marriage Amendment Back in Court

The California Supreme Court is taking up the issue of whether not the sponsors of the California Marriage Amendment, voted in as Proposition 8, should be allowed to defend the duly adopted amendment in federal court. Considering the California Supreme Court previously allowed them to defend the amendment, I don't see how they can deny them this time. But marriage neutering advocates will sacrifice just about anything, including their own judicial precedents, in their fanatical pursuit of replacing marriage in our laws with a counterfeit. Read my analysis of the situation and the Los Angeles Times coverage over at The Opine Editorials.

Dennis Prager's Top 10 Ways Liberalism Makes America Worse

You don't have to watch - listening is enough. If you can listen for 40 minutes, do so.

Can Pedophile Pride Parades Be Far Behind?

The people who want to rape or molest your minor children without legal or social consequences are at it again. Read about it over at The Opine Editorials.

What's the Associated Press' Plan For Supporting the Constitution?

Sometimes, just the headlines are enough to get me sighing like Al Gore. Take this one from the Associated Press:

Perry Says No to "Obamacare," But What's His Plan?

Maybe the person who picked that headline for the AP missed a day or two of school, but they can still look up the Constitution for themselves and read Article II.

It... is... not... the... role... of... the... President of the United States... to... offer... a... health care insurance plan.

But since the AP wants one, how about this one:

My National Health Care Plan

1. The federal government stays out of health care as much as possible. See Amendments 9 and 10 of the Constitution. The federal government can get involved in breaking up monopolies, and prosecuting interstate crime such as fraud.

2. The state government stays out of health care as much as possible.

3. No government medical facilities for anyone other than military (including veterans) and perhaps prisoners.

4. Every person is free to pursue a career in medicine, subject to the same laws as anyone else.

5. Property owners have broad freedom to host medical facilities on their property.

6. People are free to develop medical procedures, medicines, and medical equipment.

7. People are allowed to support #3-6 with donations and investments of time, money, their body, etc.

8. Every person is free to seek medical care (or not) from anyone anywhere in the world. They can demand to see licensing, such a medical license or nursing license, or certification of medical treatments from any number of organizations and watchdogs.

9. Every person is free to treat (or not) another person, and what to accept, if anything, as compensation, and when it will be due. Granted, anyone who wants a government license needs to stick the government rules. Any medical professional who wants to keep an association with an employer or insurance company will have to abide by their rules as well.

10. Each individual is free to either negotiate how he will compensate those who treat him or to make arrangements to that effect. They can negotiate directly with their doctor or the doctor's representative, or delegate negotiations to an insurance company, charity, their union, their employer, their religious congregation, or some other voluntary association. Their friends, family, and strangers who believe they have a right to subsidized health care are free to pay for it, too.

All of this involves personal liberty and voluntary associations. Strictly speaking, nobody is forced to do anything - and that includes paying for anything.

Playful Walrus Update

Priority matters have kept me away from blogging much, though there is much I have wanted to blog. I hope to get back to blogging regularly soon.

Take a look at what is over there in the column on the right. You can find my archives and other blogs with much good readin'.

Also, you can follow me on Twitter to get quick comments more often than what I've been able to blog as of late.

As always, thanks for reading. Bookmark, follow, and share!

APA Needs Head Examined

The American Psychological Association, or at least a group within it, has come out in support of neutering marriage. The excuse they give for their political move is essentially their support for a placebo effect. You can find out how I feel about that and how my childhood is to blame over at The Opine Editorials.

And the Mocking of Perry's Faith Begins

Philip Brimble of Los Angeles thought he was being so clever when he wrote in to the Los Angeles Times in reaction to Rick Perry's public prayer:

For Texas Gov. Rick Perry and his very public political pray-in: "But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." (Matthew 6:6)

The problem for Brimble is that Jesus, the source of those words, prayed in public. Jesus was making a statement of those who loudly made personal prayers in public as a show; he clearly wasn't prohibiting all public prayer, such as corporate prayer. Context, context, context.

From GotQuestions.org:

In Matthew 6:5-7, Jesus gives two ways to ensure that our prayers are righteous. First, prayers should not be for the purpose of being seen by others as righteous or “spiritual.” Secondly, prayers should be authentic, as from the heart, and not just vain repetition or “empty phrases.” However, when compared with other Scriptures that show people praying in public, we know that this is not an exhortation to always pray alone. The issue is to avoid sin. Those who struggle with the desire to be seen as righteous and who notice that temptation creeping in during public prayer would do well to heed Jesus’ prescription to get alone and pray just to the Father who will reward in secret. Jesus knew that the Pharisees’ desire was to be seen by men as righteous, not really to talk to God. This statement about prayer was meant to convict, and is instructive for all Christians, but it does not mean that all prayer must be secret.

See the rest of what's at the link for some context.

Previously: Hit and Run Bible Mockers

From Stand to Reason: "Never Read a Bible Verse"

Based on recent history, it isn't the evangelical Christian politicians that should frighten people. It is the atheists. Atheistic rulers killed hundreds of millions of people in the previous century alone.