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.