Bagging on the City of LA

The highly disfunctional City of Los Angeles government, not to be confused with the somewhat less disfunctional Los Angeles County government, took up important issues facing the city, such as crumbling infrastructure. Oh, excuse me... I mean like... plastic shopping bags. Whiny loudmouth Hollywood types joined in the envirofascist call for further intruding into business and voluntary transactions, and now it looks lik the L.A. will be banning the use of plastic shopping bags.

Thank God I don't live in that city. It really is astounding how absurd the city government is, especially the city council.

I've already written about the banning of plastic bags:

http://playfulwalrus.blogspot.com/2011/08/i-love-plastic-shopping-bags.html
I Love Plastic Shopping Bags

http://walrus.blogtownhall.com/2010/06/03/bagging_california.thtml
Bagging California

http://walrus.blogtownhall.com/2010/06/24/its_my_bag,_baby.thtml
It's My Bag, Baby

http://walrus.blogtownhall.com/2010/06/29/defending_the_plastic_bag.thtml
Defending the Plastic Bag


And here's a good write up at Everything Must Go!
http://tunasafedolphin.blogspot.com/2008/01/heal-bag.html
Heal the Bag

Conservatives, Lefists, and Libertarians on Marriage

I take a look at Mike Adams' latest column over at The Opine Editorials.

NAACP Supports Segregation

The National Association for the Advancement of (Leftist) Colored People got much attention announcing that they are for segregation. The organization, which in the past, fought against segregation now supports segregation, this time on the basis of sex. They support government endorsement and support of associations that segregate rather than integrate the sexes.

It should not be such big news that a Leftist organization supports a Leftist cause (neutering marriage). And yet it was.

I’m glad it was big news, because this brings to mind a few things:

1) Colored people must be advanced as far as they need to be. After all, if the NAACP has made the time and effort to announce it considers the neutering of marriage to be the great civil rights issue of our time, then everything must be great for colored people. Surely, the NAACP wouldn’t take time away from its core mission of advancing colored people if there was still serious a need to advance colored people, right?

2) As others have said and the NAACP seems to agree, since neutering marriage is the "last great civil right issue", organizations like the NAACP can disband, or at leas do with a lot less money, if marriage gets neutered nationwide. I'd like to see that promised in writing.

3) How can we trust an organization that claims to be a civil rights organization that for 103 years completely ignored such a vital and important "civil right"? Where has the NAACP been all of these decades? How did Thurgood Marshall miss this one? Come to think of it, why didn't Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. ever say a word about this? Was MLK a hateful homophobe?

4) Is it possible that this isn't the last great civil rights issue? What other "rights" might possibly be discovered in the future? Maybe we can speed up "inevitable" "progress" if more of us are aware of these rights we're ignorantly trampling.

Speaking of "inevitable" – why are marriage neutering advocates so despondent when a vote or ruling doesn't go their way, since they keep insisting that the neutering of marriage is inevitable? If it is inevitable, why the toddler-like reactions to votes like the one in North Carolina? Why not just be happy knowing that they are going to ultimately win? Or do they not really believe it is inevitable?

"Colored" people are not helped by this push to neuter marriage. It hurts people when you equate sexual behavior choices with skin color. Most people of African ancestry are easily identifiable as such at first glance. Not so with homosexual people, unless you walk in on them buggering each other because they have called you to set up a court case.

If a brideless or groomless pairing is marriage, then marriage can't be about children. If marriage is not about children, no man should feel the least bit of obligation to marry, marry earlier, or stay married to a woman with whom he has or is expecting children. This means that with the neutering of marriage, we would expect more children will grow up without a father married to their mother, living in the home with them, and we can expect correlating negative factors to increase as well. It does not advance "colored" people to further diminish marriage by watering down what we distinguish, endorse, and support as marriage.

The NAACP and other organizations like it are Leftist above all else, including their supposed missions. It would be great to see an organization that fights for the advancement of all people by actually fighting racism. I'm thinking such an organization would oppose race-based discrimination in legislation, government programs, hiring, academia, etc. With government programs, it would oppose them with lawsuits. With private concerns, it would try persuasion and shaming (for example, the KKK should be allowed their views, but counterdemonstrations would be appropriate). It could track REAL hate groups (not label Christian ministries as hate groups because they correctly note that marriage unites a bride and groom and homosexual behavior, like any unmarried sex, goes against Biblical teaching). Such an organization could seek to find and mitigate the REAL causes of troublesome disparities between "racial" groups – such as the negative indicators correlated to fatherless homes.

Hmmm, I wonder what the NAACP has to say about the STD rates among "colored" people who engage in homosexual behavior? I am saddened by the rates, and I would think they would be, too. But of course, neutering marriage is a more important cause.

Some recent opinions of others that might be of interest:

http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbrown/2012/05/22/why_gay_is_not_the_new_black
Why Gay Is Not the New Black - Michael Brown

http://townhall.com/columnists/demetriusminor/2012/05/22/is_the_naacp_a_fair_representation_of_the_africanamerican_community
Is the NAACP A Fair Representation of the African-American Community? - Demetrius Minor

http://townhall.com/columnists/starparker/2012/05/21/blacks_and_same_sex_marriage
Blacks and Same Sex Marriage - Star Parker

http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2012/05/should-homosexuals-be-allowed-to-marry-whom-they-love.html
Should Homosexuals Be Allowed to Marry Whom They Love? - Alan Shlemon

http://walrus.blogtownhall.com/2008/10/28/the_race_card_and_prop_8.thtml
The Race Card and Prop 8 - Playful Walrus

 

Chasing Bigger Government

What am I missing?

JPMorgan Chase blew about $2 billion, or what California calls "chump change" when it comes to paying for long-retired state employees or in planning a "high speed" rail project nobody but union leaders and consultants will benefit from.

Unless some fraud or embezzlement is going on, nobody at JPMorgan wanted to blow that money. They wanted to grow the money.

At least two federal investigations are underway to make sure it wasn't some sort of criminal activity.

But that doesn't stop the Leftist politicians from calling for more power to be ceded to government and centralized in the federal government; more laws, more regulations, more programs, more staff... in some lame attempt to prevent this from happening again, even though losses are a normal part of business and nobody at the company wanted this to happen to begin with. Never mind that JPMorgan is full of financial and business experts who know more than legislators and government bureaucrats will ever know about banking and investing. Never mind that the federal government blows much more money all of the time – money that, unlike the money JPMorgan was handling, is taken from people by force.

The customers, employees, and investors in JPMorgan can decide whether or not they want to continue in those capacities with the company. We have don't have a choice about whether or not we pay taxes.

A new federal law, program, or bureaucracy will do more harm than good, and is likely to ends up costing much more money than it ever "saves".

Marriage Neutering is the Topic of Day

There's much activity over at The Opine Editorials. Here is my latest contribution.

Epic Stupidity From Being Liberal

This is the kind of crap that "Being Liberal" (which is really Being Leftist) spreads on Facebook. And I have to ask... "Really?" If this was true, then you could spend your own money on your own health. You don't need to ship your money off to Washington, D.C., to someone who doesn't know you, to make your decisions and spend your money for you. You... can... do... it... yourself. Also, if you want to spend your money on someone else's health, you can still do that without involving the government.

No, what these people really want is to force people who have been high earners (and really, the high earners of the future) to pay for the health insurance of strangers today, including those who loaf around all day and abuse their bodies. Or worse, they want the strangers to spend the money on them. But "Hey, I want to be generous with someone else's money" or "I'm selfish, entitled brat" doesn't sound so good. So they spout this ridiculous statement.

Well guess what? Want to do that? Pass a Constitutional Amendment that makes it Constitutional.

Otherwise, see my national health care plan.

Substitute other things to see just how ridiculous Being Liberal is in spreading this crap. "Who asked for free dinner? I want MY gov't to spend MY taxes on MY food." Some Leftists are asking, "Yeah, what's your point?" Sad.

Bias Yet Again Can't Hide the Truth

The truth is, the supermajority of US states have recently reaffirmed the bride+groom requirement in their marriage licensing, many by direct vote of the people. You can see for yourself even though the people who have presented the data are biased in favor of neutering marriage.