The Playful Walrus

HBO We Can't Believe In

2012-03-01T14:37:00.000-08:00

The Leftist Democrats have the machinery of almost all of the major news outlets and most of the television media in general to get their messages out, true or not. HBO is part of that.

Poll Dancing to Claim Fauxmentum for Neutering Marriage

2012-02-29T11:02:00.000-08:00

It is quite laughable (or perhaps sad) just how desperate marriage neutering advocates, including the ones presenting themselves as objective journalists, have gotten in trying to convince everyone else that there is some massive shift to support for replacing marriage in state law with a counterfeit.

Read all about it over at The Opine Editorials.

Men and Women Are Different

2012-02-28T10:31:00.000-08:00

Yes, men and women are different. "Duh!" most people say, but you, too, can learn to be offended by such a statement if you read and listen to certain sources enough. Just about any sentient being, including two-year-old human beings, knows that men and women, girls and boys, are different. Yet, there are people who deny this, even as their actions go against their ideology.

Human beings are male or female. People who can't handle reality angrily refer to this as "gender binary". They point to three groups of people: men who think they are women; women who think they are men; and people born with deformed or mixed up organs. The first two groups of people could have mental illnesses or physical problems. People in the third group definitely have physical problems. All three groups combined amount to a tiny percentage of the overall human population and do not negate that fact that for all practical purposes, human beings are male or female, any more than the fact that some people are missing a leg or two negates the fact that human beings are bipedal mammals.

Other relevant facts:
1) words mean things
2) "most" does not mean "all"
3) "chances are" does not mean "all always"
4) “men tend to” does not mean “all men always”
5) that men and women are different does not mean all men are the same in every way and all women are the same in every way

I know some Leftists have a hard time with this, but holding an opinion and addressing general realities does not necessarily mean the person holding it thinks that everyone must feel, think, and live the same way. That is their projection at work. They get offended if you don’t agree with them, and refer to it as a personal attack or an attack on an entire group of people.

Some Leftists also have a habit of taking quotes out of context and mischaracterizing what others communicated. An example is some of the reaction to my posting of "Valentine's Day is Not Enjoyable to Most Men".

Notice I wrote "most" and "chances are" and "men tend to" and I clearly state that a man can enjoy Valentine's Day. However, either problems with reading comprehension or a deliberate mischaracterization were demonstrated in a couple of responses.

One response includes among the absurdities…

1) She doesn't celebrate Valentine's Day, so I must mean she is a man instead of a woman
2) A statement that I (TPW) don't like Valentine's Day.
3) A false claim that I said all men or all real men don't like it, and that all women, or all real women do.
4) Then, ironically, a statement that I can't conceive that another person might feel differently
5) Her husband doesn't fit the description I wrote. Yeah, no kidding. That's no surprise.
6) Completely oblivious to conditions in most of the world, she also apparently wants foreign kids to starve rather than have jobs.
7) She incorrectly assumes I must be describing the dynamics of my marriage, when I wasn't. I have a happy marriage, with a wife who will tell anyone who will listen she has the life she's always wanted, and is very happy as a result.

Leftist feminists often express their disapproval that a woman would use her education, power, choice, and professional experience to freely choose to marry a man on whom she can rely financially, keep their home, care for their children, and seek to meet the various simple needs of her husband, including keeping herself as healthy and attractive as reasonably possible.
On to another one….

1) She claims I maintain one size fits all. When speaks or write, they must sometimes deal in generalities that do not apply to everyone. Most people are intelligent enough to get that, instead of getting upset.
2) She then sidetracks, bringing in the kitchen sink by falsely accusing me of being "anti" a bunch of things I'm not.
3) Despite the fact that I clearly stated that married lovemaking is a mutual thing, not something bought by a man, she writes as though I state the latter rather than the former.
4) Community property laws apparently mean money is only a wife's to decide what to do with, and if a man doesn't want the community money spend on store-bought gifts for him, there's something wrong with him.

I do agree with her that Valentine's Day marketing can be banal. However, much of that banal marketing is based on extensive research into what works.

Given how they reacted from my honest, candid opinion based on my observations and experiences, would a man in their lives be encouraged or discouraged to tell them if they disagreed with their opinions? Do a man's feelings, desires, or experiences matter, or are they something to be ridiculed unless they are in agreement with their opinions? Rather than saying, "That's not my experience" or "I'm one of the women that doesn't care much for Valentine's Day", they did what I cite above.

The Republican Party is For White Protestant Christian Men

2012-02-26T19:09:00.000-08:00

Can't you see that???

Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman

Best Selling Author Ann Coulter
(Photo by Alex Erde)

Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice

Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings

Governor Christine Todd Whitman

Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton

Governor Jan Brewer
(Photo by Gage Skidmore)

Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao

Governor Marry Fallin

Bestselling Author Michelle Malkin
(Photo by David All)

Governor Nikki Haley

Representative Michelle Bachmann

Governor and Vice-Presidential Candidate Sarah Palin
(Photo by Gage Skidmore)

Senator Susan Collins

Senator Elizabeth Dole

Senator Kay Baily Hutchison

Senator Kelly Ayotte

Senator Lisa Murkowski

Senator Olympia Snowe

Author and syndicated columnist Star Parker
(Photo by Gage Skidmore)

Governor Susana Martinez

Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales

Governor Bobby Jindal
(Photo by Gage Skidmore)

Governor Brian Sandoval

Secretary of State Colin Powell

Writer David Horowitz
(Photo by Gage Skidmore)

Author, syndicated columnist, and radio talk show host Dennis Prager
(Photo by Nate Mandos)

Businessman and candidate for the Republican nomination for President Herman Cain
(Photo by Gage Skidmore)

Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Alphonso Jackson

Columnist, Mayor, and Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell

Author, columnist, and radio talk show host Larry Elder

Author, media critic, and radio talk show host Michael Medved

Representative Allen West

Representative J.C. Watts

Senator Marco Rubio

Senator Mel Martinez

Professor, author, and syndicated columnist Walter E. Williams

This is just a sample of people recently appointed by Republicans, recently elected to office as Republicans, or outspoken as Republicans. Not one of them is a white Protestant Christian man, although most of them are constantly attacked with racist, religious, or sexist slurs from the Left.

You can find many columnists (not necessary all of them Republicans), including many women, with a diversity of ethnic backgrounds, and a diversity of political viewpoints (but all either "conservative" or for limited government) at Townhall.com.

Where the Sidewalk Ends

2012-02-23T14:59:00.001-08:00

It's been an ongoing, well-documented problem that the Big Labor/Illegal Alien Democrat City of Los Angeles has crumbling infrastructure. A good example? The city has been unable to get the residential street sidewalks into shape. This is especially shameful in a city that takes money from drivers and uses that money to cajole people into not driving their automobiles, but rather take taxpayer-subsidized transit (which means walking), bicycling, and walking.

Not only do the crumbling sidewalks degrade neighborhoods, they open the city to personal injury claims and lawsuits by people taking full advantage of the Americans With Disabilities Act.

The solution, according to some? Abandon the public-property sidewalks to the nearby property owners, or at least "tax" the sale of property in order to fix the nearby sidewalk. After all of these years of neglecting the sidewalks despite taking money from taxpayers, property owners, and developer supposedly for the purpose of maintaining the sidewalks (along with the roads), the city leaders want to throw up their hands.

I support private roads maintained with private funds, with the understanding that there will either be some public roads or at least easements over private roads for the sake of defense, law enforcement, and emergency services. But if a street and its sidewalk is going to be government-owned, it should be maintained by that government.

But this is the dysfunction you get with a Democrat-controlled city in a Democrat-contolled county in a Democrat-controlled state.

So Predicatable - Licenses for Illegals

2012-02-23T09:15:00.000-08:00

LAPD's honcho, Chief Charlie Beck, is now saying illegal aliens should have driver's licenses from the states. I saw this coming a mile away.

One obsessed state legislator has been pushing a bill to do just that for years now.

As for Beck, he's been feeling the heat from the public because of a proposal to change the policy of impounding the vehicles of unliscensed drivers for 30 days. The change would mean that a driver, pulled over by the police who is, during that process, determined to be unlicensed, would be able to keep his car as long as he could call someone with a license to drive it away. This change, of course, means the unlicensed driver would be back to driving that car ten minutes later.

Since illegal aliens can't legally get valid California driver's licenses, illegal alien advocates have been calling for this change.

The problem with changing the policy is that unlicensed drivers kill a disproporionate number of people, so the existing 30-day impound saves lives.

The logical solution? Keep in the impound policy as it is and tell the illegal aliens we're not going to do yet another thing to accommodate lawbreakers.

But... I just knew the response was not going to be that, but rather "This is why we need to give driver's licenses to illegal aliens." Grrrr. Yes, let's deal with a problem by heading further down the path that created that problem. Call me crazy (and many people do, especially people who claim there's no difference between men and women), but I don't think this is going to make illegal aliens safer drivers. If they don't pass the driving test, they will simply drive anyway. After all, they obviously don't care about breaking the law. And should they cause a serious accident, they can simply go home to avoid justice.

Say, how difficult would be it be for illegal aliens to take advantage of "motor voter" laws to fraudently vote? Hmmm.

Beck says the illegal alien driver's licenses should be different, so it is clear they are illegal aliens. But Beck doesn't get to make those decisions, and as we all know from our marriage neutering friends, you can't have different government documents for different behaviors. But if we can go through all of the trouble of licensing these people, why can't we, oh, deport them?!? Yes, I know one is a state matter and the other is a federal matter, but the state handles things for the federal government all of the time.

STOP with accommodating the lawbreakers at the expense of legal immigrants, citizens, and our guests.

She Just Might Change Your Mind

2012-02-23T09:02:00.000-08:00

The Republican War on Women

2012-02-22T11:19:00.000-08:00

Only in the world of the deceptive propogandists of the Left and their useful idiots is saying that the federal government should not force religious organizations to pay, contrary to long-held and stated religious beliefs, for birth control for people who are voluntarily associated with those organization... a "war on women."

Here's a couple of ideas:

Pay for your own birth control.

Work for someone else.

Fantasyland and Fires

2012-02-22T08:49:00.000-08:00

Ah... Anaheim, California. Home to the MLB "Los Angeles" Angels, the NHL Ducks, and the original Disneyland. Recently the Orange County Register had an article with the headline, "Is Anaheim Fire Department Too White?" Eric Carpenter reported.

The city's Fire Department is envisioning a staff of firefighters more reflective of the cultures and ethnicities found in the city.

What does that mean? Hiring illegal aliens? Gangbangers? Taggers? (Anaheim definitely "benefitted" from the post-amnesty tsunami of illegal aliens.)

That means recruiting more women, Latinos, Asian Americans and Arab Americans, among others, to mirror Anaheim's changing demographics, fire Chief Randy Bruegman said.

I see.

Anaheim's fire force overall is 73 percent white, 18 percent Latino and 6 percent Asian, while the city's population is 52 percent Latino, 30 percent white and 14 percent Asian.

I wonder what the ethnic make-up of the city's fiscal staff is? And I don't see enough color on the Ducks team.

It's not just Anaheim:

Anaheim's department is one of six in California that participated this month in a workshop aimed at better meeting the needs of a diverse community.

Perhaps we can change the name of the city to Casa Ana?

Later this year, Anaheim will participate in a national workshop to continue leadership training and education on diversity. The city is working under the guidance of a nonprofit group, Fire 20/20.

National. So this could be happening anywhere.

A Muslim family may have religious issues with modesty. A first responder should be aware that a woman wearing a hijab who is in need of medical attention may be uncomfortable being touched by a male paramedic. A female paramedic might not be available, but the firefighter could at least be aware of the hurdle.

Great. So let the woman die, then? It's okay. There are other wives to take her place, right?

Anaheim has a large, growing Vietnamese population. Bruegman said firefighters should be aware that with many Asian cultures it would be best, when practical, to talk with the eldest family member out of respect.

So what if grandma can't hear nor understand English?

Within the article is a Q & A with the chief.

Q. How about gender equality?

A. We need to work on that more as well (Anaheim has two sworn female firefighters).

We go out into the community and we still hear people talk about "the firemen." I tell them, "We are firefighters, we haven't been firemen in at least 30 years." That's another perception we need to change early.

If they are male firefighters, they are firemen.

Q. Would you institute quotas based on gender and ethnicity?

A. We would not head down that path. But we would look at changing the recruitment pool. Right now, you go to an academy and you still see predominantly white males; that's what needs to change.

Why? As long as access is provided to all, there isn't a problem.

This is what I wrote after the article that got a lot of "likes":

Regarding Fire Department staffing. It should not matter what their last name, skin color, sex, sexual orentation, religion, or anything else is... I want THE BEST people at saving lives and protecting property. PERIOD. I don't care if the entire staff is Arabian Muslim lesbians, or if it is all white, Jewish males. Regarding how the Fire Department ACTs... we are in America. We have AMERICAN culture. People who COME HERE do so voluntarily and should recognize that they live in AMERICA and we're not going to cater to all of their cultural sensitivities. If they liked that other culture so much, they can always go back to it.

The last thing we want to do is bring down the standard to meet a quota. When a firefighter is on the back of a fire truck, they need to be equally trained and capable. Firefighters wouldn't stand for anything less. Nor would the public.

Glad to see the chief said that. But as far as recruitment - if someone doesn't have the guts to apply despite the fact that they'd be in the skin color or sex minority in the department, they don't have the guts to be firefighters. Firefighters should be people who WANTED to be firefighters, who don't let barriers stand in their way. I understand wanting to better deal with "cultural sensitivities", but only in so far as it aids in saving lives and protecting property, goals which should never be compromised for the sake of feel-good political correctness. For years, the police department spokseman was Rick Martinez. I didn't even think about his ethnic background until just now. Why? It didn't matter. He was darn good at what he did. That's what mattered.

California's Taxes

2012-02-15T17:16:00.000-08:00

Ron Mossler of Northridge wrote in to The Pink Transgendered Lady (a.k.a. The Los Angeles Times) responsing to the article "Dueling Tax Hike Measures Occupy Democrats":

Pat Hurley, a delegate to the state Democratic Party convention, remarked, "Voters might think the governor's [sales tax] plan is too broad" and that only millionaires should be targeted for increased taxes. Hurley's remark highlights the problem.

As long as there are only a wealthy few who contribute to the supply side of tax revenue, those on the demand side can remain less involved about how politicians spend a limited pool of revenue. If everyone were asked to contribute more, as in a sales tax increase, perhaps more Californians would demand more accountability and responsibility from our politicians.

As long as we pick on the super wealthy, the rest of the populace lacks an incentive to rein in spending.

Thank you, Mr. Mossler. One problem with getting a large minority or even majority of voters on the receiving end of redistribution is that the taxpayers have the resources to relocate. As Mossler noted, people become disinterested at best. At worst, they become active in order to keep up their plundering of someone else's earnings.

The Democrats control Los Angeles, San Fransisco, and California. They are doing a fine job of messing the state up. They can't blame Republicans. The Democrats have control.

I'm Shocked! Shocked!

2012-02-14T17:16:00.000-08:00

Who knew that we shouldn't trust everything that comes out of a university, nor everything reported by The Crossdressing Pink Lady? See what I'm talking about over at The Opine Editorials.

Corporations Aren't There to Make You Feel Good

2012-02-13T14:59:00.000-08:00

When a conservative these days talks about "evil", Leftists freak out. So I wonder why Lefists share this via online social networking?

What did Roosevelt mean by "evil" and "misconduct"? What do today's Leftists mean by those terms when it comes to business?

Corporations "shall be so handled"... by whom? It is not an elected politician's role to handle corporations. Funny how this quote talks about corporations as though they are persons. Hmmm.

All forms of theft should be criminalized and prosecutable. Making profit through VOLUNTARY purchases of corporation-provided goods, services, and assets, and drawing investment, is not misconduct. Businesses exist to provide goods and services for a profit, per demands for those goods and services. That serves the public. So does being able to make a return on investing in corporations, or being employed by a corporation. Corporations can often make innovations through consolidation and access to capital. That is how they may serve the public good. They do not exist for the sake of providing someone with jobs and benefits, governments with tax revenues, and the public with warm fuzzies, but those are likely effects.

Scary Monster!

2012-02-13T11:56:00.000-08:00

I found this list of objections someone had to Rick Santorum, who is a candidate for the GOP nomination for President.

Let's take a look.

1. Opposing birth control
Quote: "One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country.... Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that's okay, contraception is okay. It's not okay. It's a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be." (Speaking with CaffeinatedThoughts.com, Oct. 18, 2011)

Reaction: This is "pretty basic: Rick Santorum is coming for your contraception," says Irin Carmon at Salon. "Any and all of it." Threatening to "send the condom police into America's bedrooms" is pretty bad politics: More than 99 percent of sexually active women have used some form of birth control, and "helping people get access to birth control is actually a popular issue," supported by 82 percent of Americans. But a national contraception ban is "clearly the world Santorum wants."

First of all, notice the switching of terms "contraception" and "birth control". Not all birth control is contraception. Contraception prevents the conception of a human being. Some other forms of birth control kills a human being. Secondly, Santorum is talking to Christians about morality. Nowhere does he state or imply that he's going to prevent anyone who wants to obtain contraception from getting it. This appears to be a case of Leftists thinking that unless the federal goverment (really meaning taxpayers) provides something, it doesn't exist.

2. Keeping moms at home
Quote: "In far too many families with young children, both parents are working, when, if they really took an honest look at the budget, they might find they don't both need to. ... What happened in America so that mothers and fathers who leave their children in the care of someone else — or worse yet, home alone after school between three and six in the afternoon — find themselves more affirmed by society? Here, we can thank the influence of radical feminism." (Santorum's 2005 book, It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good)

Hmmmm, I don't see anywhere in that where he said "moms" should be forced to stay home. It was some sexist thinking on the part of the Scaredy Cat that equated the idea of both parents not needing to earn income with it automatically being the mom who "stays home". Santorum was stating the truth - that it is possible for families to make it on one income so that strangers or hired help aren't the ones raising the kids.

3. Re-spinning the Crusades
Quote: "The idea that the Crusades and the fight of Christendom against Islam is somehow an aggression on our part is absolutely anti-historical. And that is what the perception is by the American Left who hates Christendom. ... What I'm talking about is onward American soldiers. What we're talking about are core American values." (South Carolina campaign stop, Feb. 22, 2011)

The fact is, the Crusades were a response to some Muslims attacking pilgrims, and as was common with war efforts in those times (and often our times) some people going along for the war did things they shouldn't have. Today, so many people say, "Ah ha! The Crusades!!!" without having any real idea of what happened and in what historical context. I highly doubt Scaredy Cat would want the kind of Islam that was being fought to spread to where he or she lives.

4. Rejecting the very idea of "Palestinians"
Quote: "All the people who live in the West Bank are Israelis, they're not Palestinians. There is no 'Palestinian.' This is Israeli land." (Campaign stop in Iowa, Nov. 18, 2011)

That is factually true. Isn't someone born and raised in Israel an Israeli? I wonder what this person would call someone born in the USA?

5. Reminding America that some view Mormonism as "a dangerous cult"
Quote: "Would the potential attraction to Mormonism by simply having a Mormon in the White House threaten traditional Christianity by leading more Americans to a church that some Christians believe misleadingly calls itself Christian, is an active missionary church, and a dangerous cult?"

He asked a question, stating a fact about what some Christians believe. So Leftists don't call Santorum's beliefs dangerous? Some certainly appear to. And what have Leftists being saying about the LDS church... hmmmmm?

6. Dissing welfare programs that "make black people's lives better"
Quote: "I don't want to make black people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money; I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money." (Campaign stop in Iowa, Jan. 2, 2012)

What in the world is wrong with someone pointing out that jobs are better than welfare?

7. Bringing race into Obama's abortion views
Quote: "The question is — and this is what Barack Obama didn't want to answer — is that human life a person under the Constitution? And Barack Obama says no. Well if that person — human life is not a person, then — I find it almost remarkable for a black man to say, 'We're going to decide who are people and who are not people.'" (CNS News interview, Jan. 19, 2011)

Apparently the person concerned about this is unfamiliar with the fact that enslaved African Americans were classified as nonpersons under certain laws. They are so busy trying to equate any disagreement with Obama with racism. Because we all know that none of these Republican ever opposed white Bill Clinton's positions, right?

8. Equating gay marriage to loving your mother-in-law
Quote: "Is anyone saying same-sex couples can't love each other? I love my children. I love my friends, my brother. Heck, I even love my mother-in-law. Should we call these relationships marriage, too?" (Santorum's Philadelphia Inquirer column, May 22, 2008)

He did not equate those two things. He pointing to the fact that "love" is not a basis for our laws.

9. Comparing homosexuality to "man-on-dog" sex
Quote: "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. ... That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing." (AP interview, April 7, 2003)

Nope, comparison not made. Sorry.

So let's review. Rick Santorum...
1. Doesn't believe contraception is morally compatible with his faith. How does this impact anybody other than his wife? It doesn't.
2. Notes the fact that not every set of parents with young children that uses hired help to raise the children rather than doing it themelves needs to do this.
3. Correctly notes that Muslism agressively took over the Holy Land and attacked pilgrims.
4. Believes that people born in Isreal are Israeli.
5. Asked if having a Mormon for a President would mean more Americans joining the LDS church instead of other churches.
6. Said it is better that people work jobs than receive welfare.
7. Doesn't think it is good that some human beings are classified as nonpersons.
8. Notes that "love" is not a basis for making legal determinations.
9. Notes that marriage means one thing and not another thing.

Ooooh..... scary! Run for the hills!!!

Valentine's Day Is Not Enjoyable For Most Men

2012-02-13T07:40:00.001-08:00

I'm time for my annual reminder.

Ladies, if you have a man in your life with whom you will be celebrating Valentine's Day, he will probably never admit this to you, but chances are he hates Valentine's Day. He will never admit it to you because you seem to enjoy it and he doesn't want to rain on your parade.

There are many reasons why most men do not enjoy Valentine's Day.

Men tend to be practical when it comes to money. You expect him to blow money on overpriced chocolates, flowers, jewelry, gifts, dinners in crowded restaurants, hotel rooms, etc. Chocolates? They'll be gone soon, and frankly, most American women don't need the extra calories. That's a fact, since 2/3rds are overweight and half of those are obese. Flowers? They'll be dried and withered soon.

Men stress out looking for the right cards, the right gifts (you know how men are about Christmas shopping, right?), making the right reservations, because some of you punish your man if he doesn't magically read your mind and do exactly the right thing.

Sure, some women buy their man a gift, too. But if he is the breadwinner, isn't that really spending his money anyway? And let's be honest – Valentine's Day is really about women, and there's no equivalent for men. Maybe Superbowl Sunday, but unless you make your man killer munchies that day, you're not doing a lot of planning and buying gifts and cards for him, are you?

Now, shouldn't your man enjoy bringing you the pleasure of being fussed over and reminding you that he loves you? Yes. But do you reciprocate? If you point to sex as the reciprocation, this implies that you don't also enjoy sex. In which case something is very wrong. Otherwise, sex is a mutual exchange. (If you're not married, you shouldn't be fornicating anyway.)

Men show they love their woman year-round by paying the bills, by protecting her, and by doing many other things, often including lifting heavy objects, opening things, reaching for things, removing scary things, doing fix-its on the home and vehicles. Do you show your love for him by respecting him, keeping yourself together, keeping his stomach full, making love to him as often as he wants it without dropping things he enjoys off of the menu, being a smart shopper, and doing domestic chores (if he is the breadwinner)? These things may not be important to you, but they are likely important to him.

A happily married man can enjoy Valentine's Day because his wife shows genuine appreciation for his efforts to celebrate their love, and he likes to see her happy. However, statistics show that such men are outnumbered by either unmarried men (who don't have a girlfriend, or have one pressuring him for marriage when he isn't ready or doesn't want to even marry) or married men who are unhappy, and those men are lot less likely to enjoy Valentine's Day, and even happily married men might not like the obligation to do this on February 14, when your love should be celebrated each and every day.

(As a side note - there are some single men who enjoy the day because they can find desperate women who are easy scores in the bars. )

So if he makes a big deal about Valentine's Day, don't make him regret it. He's doing it for you.

(There are unfeminine women reading this scoffing that anyone still believes in gender roles. I guarantee you they are not making any man's Valentine's Day enjoyable.)

UPDATE

Inconsistencies in the Law? You Don't Say

2012-02-12T18:39:00.000-08:00

A Leftist who supports the neutering of marriage posted this one. Interesting that the Leftist is apparently comparing two men kissing to a man sticking it in a horse. Perhaps some bully should put up a website to smear that Leftist's name in the Google results?

The thought process on this one is convoluted in more than one way.

Brideless "marriage" isn't really marriage, but there are some states that will issue what used to be marriage licenses to bridless couples. With or without those licenses, people (and that includes homosexual people, of course) are free to have ceremonies and share their lives together. Nobody will stop them. This is legal throughout the USA.

I'm not sure where pot fits in to all of this, but perhaps it is a clue as to why the people who created and shared this are so fuzzy in their thinking. There are all kinds of restictions on medications and other products, and sometimes the restrictions vary from state to state. Unlike marriage licenses, medicines are often made and distributed through nongovernmental organizations.

Sticking it in a horse... well, a man sticking it in a man is legal in all 50 states. So, the comparison is faulty for the intended purpose. In 27 states, if the facts cited are accurate, someone can and will be arrested and prosecuted for sticking it in a horse. In ZERO states will this happen for sticking it in another man, or having a "wedding" ceremony with that other man.

A larger-picture issue here is the fact that different states are allowed to have some different laws, so long as those laws do not violate the federal Constitution.

But yes, there are some contradictions, or at least inconsistencies, in the laws of some states. This shouldn't be surprising as laws and court decisions are made by different people over the years, and even individual Leftists have inconsistencies in their personal philosophy, such as favoring government-run ponzi schemes while also favoring limits on new births and insisting on "sustainability".

Bias in the Media, Bias in the Courts

2012-02-08T14:21:00.000-08:00

I look at how the print edition of the Los Angeles Times covered the 9th Circus Court of Appeals decision on the California Marriage Amenmdent, a ruling that contains shocking errors... over at The Opine Editorials.

Good News, Bad News From Federal Court

2012-02-07T12:55:00.000-08:00

The good news is that the people of California are allowed to defend ballot measures they approve.

The bad news is that at least two judges sitting in the 9th Circus Court apparently think marriage laws and customs existing all over the world all throughout thousands of years were nothing more than some massive conspiracy to stick to to homosexual people.

Read all about it at The Opine Editorials.

Marriage Malpractice Does Not Require Replacing Marriage

2012-02-06T10:40:00.000-08:00

We don't need to replace marriage with a counterfeit because some people misuse marriage. Read my response to a political cartoon over at The Opine Editorial.

Funding Planned Parenthood Supports the Slaughter of Innocent Human Beings

2012-02-05T20:11:00.000-08:00

This graph, found at washingtonpost.com, is supposed to get us to think Planned Parenhood is a great organization. Hey, look, "Abortion Services" is only 3%.
You know, if you did a pie chart of what the KKK does (including cleaning up highways) or ever has done, "lynching African-Americans" would no doubt be less than 1%. Furthermore, you'd find that the KKK and any "Neo-Nazi" groups' combined totals of African-American murdered wouldn't even amount to a slow month for Planned Parenhood. Not even close. Planned Parenthood has slaughtered many, many more African-American babies than the KKK, and has done much, much more than the KKK to keep the percentage of the African-American population in the United States of America small relative to the rest of the population.

Most murderers don't spend more than 3% of their time killing people. It doesn't make it a good idea to pay for their overhead, or associate with them.

One laughable, but depressing thing about the title of the chart are the words "Patient Care". More than half of the patientts involved in abortion are killed as a result of that "care".

I also wonder if "Contraception" is really just about true contraception, or if some of that is something that kills the human being post-conception. That stuff should be added to the "abortion" category.

Exactly how many pregnant women Planned Parenthood has referred to an adoption agency, organization, or lawyer? And how do we know this data is accurate, anyway?
About 80 percent of Planned Parenthood’s users are over age 20, and 75 percent have incomes below 150 percent of the poverty line.
So, 20 percent of PP's users (one in five) are "under 19". I wonder how many are 17? 16? 15? 14? 13? I wonder how many rapes of underage girls PP has helped cover up, and thereby helped facilitate the ongoing abuse of those girls? Interesting that the statistic isn't what percentage actually fall under the poverty line, especially if we don't include minors and students who are being supported by others.
It’s also worth noting that federal law already forbids Planned Parenthood from using the funds it receives from the government for abortions.
And how exactly is that enforced? And if the funding covers their overhead or outreach, it is going to abortion.
The services Planned Parenthood provides save the federal government a lot of money.
Yes, well, if we simply killed all of the convicts and the people asking for welfare we'd be saving all sorts of money, now wouldn't we?
It has been interesting to see this defense of "but abortions are such a small part of what Planned Parenthood does" used by people who condemn anyone even smiling at organizations like Focus on the Family because they spend a small amount of their time responding to homosexuality advocacy in addition to all of the other help they provide for families.

"thejames1225" 4/11/2011 5:30 AM PDT:

Thanks Klein, it's good to know that PP only kills 3% of the time. Interesting that this is PP's biggest financial gain, killing 3% of the time

Criminals have businesses to laundry money
PP has business to able to kill babies..

BTW, 3% is not a number. PP should buy a chain of McDonalds too, That would knock that 3% down to maybe 1%. Same amount of babies killed by it would look better, according to Klein that is....

"pvilso24" 4/11/2011 6:31 AM PDT:

Concern13... repeats the liberal myth... "If you really want to lower the abortion rate, provide comprehensive sex education and birth control services to the whole popuation."

The New York Times reported last year… in liberal free-condoms, early sex education-friendly New York City... 41% of pregnancies end in abortion - 60% for minorities. Convenience killing while a million couples eagerly await to adopt a child.

Planned Parenthood in 2008 reported high-profit abortions up over 300,000+, low-margin adoption referrals down to less than 3000. A high 100 to 1 kill ratio !!

Does the Christian Left Bear False Witness?

2012-02-05T09:44:00.000-08:00

The Christian Left, eh?

Oh, yes, how could I have missed it all of these years?!?

The Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ According to St. Karl, Chapter 5 Verse 1:

And Jesus said, "Go convince the Romans to take a percentage, whether 15 or 35 percent, from the more wealthy half of the people, from the faithful and unfaithful alike, and have the Romans keep a portion for themselves, then have them distribute the rest to other people for their foor purchases, both those who honor their bodies and those who abuse their bodies alike, those who have saved and those who have not, those who have worked and those who have chosen not to." - (NLV - New Leftist Version)

Hey, doesn't the Bible say something about bearing false witness? Of course, that is assuming the "Christian Left" actually cares what the Bible says.

There are no children starving in the United States of America as a result of Congress refusing to raise taxes on "the rich", who are being taxed plenty.

The fact is, most of the "poor" children in this union are fat. Plenty are obese.

If there are any starving children here, it is entirely because their parents or guardians are neglectful. That is not the responsibility of Congress. We have various taxpayer programs already, including school meals (breakfast in addition to lunch) and many private charities that provide food.

It is not Congress' responsibility, either Constitutionally or morally, to make sure every kid is getting fed (and the kids are getting fed.) But Jesus did tell His followers to care for the poor directly. He didn't tell them to go strip other people of their money.

The Christian Left is spending spending money on all sorts of things, like getting this image out, that they could be giving to starving children. I happen to know that the person who reposted this picture for me to see spends a lot of money on booze and entertainment. Every dollar they have spent on those things, and the computer, etc. they use could have gone to feeding a starving kid.

When "the rich" can invest and donate their money, rather than sending it down the federal government drain, they help more of the poor eat well, and rise up from being poor so that they, in turn, can help others.

Lester Doesn't Understand Money or Economics

2012-02-04T16:47:00.000-08:00

Have you seen this making the social networking rounds?
"B. Lester" apparently has no clue about money or economics, or is deliberately playing on the envy of others.

There probably are people out there who literally hoard cash and keep in in their home, or wherever. Some of them are "black market" operators. (Some ignorant people think I'm talking about the slave trade.) However, these aren't the people who end up on the cover of Forbes.

The people who make the cover of Forbes as role models do not hoard cash. If they did, they wouldn't be such successful people. No, these people have built up wealth by helping to provide goods and services that people want. Even if they had stashed all of their money in a bank, they would still be helping others because the bank would be using that money.

Rich people have not impoverished this union. On the contrary, as they build wealth, they help others to build wealth as well. It is up to others, rich, middle-class, or poor, to decide whether or not they want to buy what the wealthy person is selling, or whether or not they want to work for the wealthy person, or invest in the wealthy person's business. That is all voluntary. The poor person's dollar is not taken away against his will. The expection is when a government goes beyond Constitutional mandate and spends taxpayer money on something it is't supposed to. Even then, since the poor do not pay federal income taxes, the poor person's dollar is not taken away. On the contrary, the "poor" in this union are provided with housing, food, health care, education, military/fire/police protection, recreation, transportation, sanitation and so many other things, largely or entirely paid for by others.

Almost all of the people who circulate this picture would be considered as "hoarding cash" when compared to most of the word, yet they whine and moan about other people doing even better than they have. Being angry at others is a lot easier than working hard, making good choices, and being a success. The problem is, electing legislators who keep forcibly redistributing a wealthy person's earnings or keep borrowing to provide us with goodies is not sustainable. That is impoverishing this union. Free your mind from hate-filled Leftist dung and think, indeed.

The State of the City

2012-02-01T15:23:00.000-08:00

Here's what we're dealing with the greater Los Angeles area, being part of the People's Republic of Alta California:

We're going to make it easier for people to commit fraud to get taxpayer-subsidized housing.

Some want to make it easier for unlicensed drivers who have been pulled over for traffic violations to keep driving. People who have been issued tickets and haven't paid a dime are going to be given amnesty, while people who have made some effort to pay won't.

Those of us who follow the law are being faced with being strongly limited in the automobiles we will be able to purchases due to an inherently flawed attempt to control climate.

Our utility bills are rising in a flawed attempt to control climate.

The largest port complex in the union wants to accommodate more traffic, but environmentalist whackos are just fine letting some other location in another country or state get those great jobs.

Crazy people are shouting at elected leaders to try to stop them from building new jails to replace overcrowded, aging jails, apparently preferring to let criminals and suspects run free.

Over 700 vicious first-degree murderers are being given shelter, health care, food, security, recreation, and other comforts of life on the taxpayer dime, with no execution date in sight, despite being sentenced to death.

The unemployment and underemployment rate is even worse than the national average.

The state and localities have many and high taxes, and there's a serious push for more.

We're running huge state budget deficits, but a 100,000,000,000-dollar boondoggle Unneeded Train-to-Nowhere that will be an ongoing drain on taxpayers is still being pushed.

Taxpayer-funded school teachers can tie up and blindfold elementary school kids and literally spoon-feed them Clinton-White-House-Intern-Blue-Dress-Staining Fluid, document their crime with pictures, and then resign and keep their pensions!

While all of this is going on, legislators are spending their time writing, discussing, and passing laws to make "adult video" performers wear condoms. Never mind everyone else, and the fact that the disease transmission rate through such performances has been close to zero.

You can't make this stuff up. This is what happens when Leftist Democrats are in control.

Fighting the Republican Party Establishment

2012-02-01T13:31:00.000-08:00

If you are a registered Republican or usually vote Republican and you're not happy with "the Party Establishment" and their candidate for President...

DO SOMETHING PRODUCTIVE ABOUT IT.

That means PARTICIPATING in the GOP.

Volunteer your time and your skills to the local or state branch of the party, especially if you can do it for candidates you like.

Go to Party events.

TALK and network.

Run for local office yourself if you think you can do a good job.

The future of the Party belongs to members who get active NOW.

Don't like "the establishment"? Then replace those in establishment. Whining instead of acting does not help.

Free Enterprise is Good, Big Business Managers Aren't Always

2012-02-01T10:15:00.000-08:00

According to Reuters, "Six prominent Pacific Northwest companies, including Microsoft and Nike, have endorsed Washington's [marriage neutering] legislation."

Where's the outcry from the Left about corporate involvement in politics? Where are the Occupy people? Read more over at The Opine Editorials.

Charity is Saintly

2012-01-31T16:13:00.000-08:00

I would never call anyone a Communist for asking why the poor have no food.

Interetingly enough, though, many people have starved because of Communism.

The poor in this union do not lack food. It's more likely that most of the poor in our fifty (fifty-seven?) states are overweight.

Giving your own food to those who need it is saintly behavior. Collecting donations of food and giving it to those who need it saintly behavior.

Taking food by force from one person and giving it to another is immoral, and is just one thing that happens under forced Communism.

It is dismaying that so many on the Left do not see a dffirence between voluntary interactions and forced interactions. No wonder some Leftists think all sex is rape.

So a Politician Walks Into a Bar...

2012-01-31T15:59:00.000-08:00

Actually, a restaurant. Should a restaurant be able to refuse service to someone based on their beliefs or their politics? Read more over at The Opine Editorials.

They're Making Our Point For Us

2012-01-29T16:57:00.000-08:00

There are a bunch of cartoons like this one that are used an attempt to ridicule or silence people concerned about illegal aliens (and the murders they commit and all of the other problems associated with hoardes of unskilled, uneducated criminals, especially if they don't understand or communicate well in English and have stronger loyalties to a country bordering ours).

The thing is, they unwittingly make our point: Those who do not successfully defend the land from invaders will lose it.

Were there people here already before the Europeans came here? Yes.

Were those people always peaceful to each other and living in harmony with each other? Nope.

Were all of those people always peaceful, kind, and welcoming to the Europeans? No.

Did the Europeans carry diseases for which the tribal groups did not have immunities? Yes.

Did the Europeans intentionally spread those diseases to the native people? There's no evidence of that. We know a lot more about how diseases are and are not spread now.

The technologically superior Europeans established, built up, and defended colonies. Along with the technology, the Western concept of property ownership & political borders, and battles, treaties, purchases, in addition to any broken promises & outright land grabs, secured this nation. The borders of this nation have been well established and recognized internationally for well over a hundred years now. For example, California's anniversary is based on the year 1850. (To say that the Europeans were technologically superior is not to say they were genetically superior.)

Invasion and conquest was not invented by the Europeans coming to the Americas. The native tribes did it to each other as well. If not the Europeans, the Asians would have eventually came to conquer the New World, just as their cousins apparently populated it originally.

What you don't see a lot in history is allowing protected lands with their own governments, as the Native Americans have. I'm not saying life on reservations is all peachy, but at least living there is voluntary, and the reservations do exist. What has usually happened in human history is obliteration and/or forced assimilation.

So what is the ultimate point of the cartoon? That we should all pack up and go back wherever we or our immigrant ancestors came from? Why us and not the Native Americans, too? I can tell you why we shouldn't but present-day illegal aliens should. We now have a formal immigration system and internationally recognized borders.

Unlike the past, we also have taxpayer-provided infrastructure and social safety net. With people illegally crossing the borders or staying past their legal visit, especially if they are living a criminal lifestyle or not paying at least as much in taxes as they are costing, we have a drain on the system. [Addition: Notice that the child in the cartoon born to the European newcomers did not gain automatic citizenship in the native community, did not get comminunications from the natives printed in English, did not have education (included higher education) funded by the natives, did not have food, housing, health care, and police, fire, and military protection provided by the natives, nor libraries, roads, parks, running water, etc., etc.]

We should welcome people here, from every part of the world, as long as they want to become Americans and contribute. Our immigration policy must benefit the union. We should not reward illegal aliens, regardless of what language they speak or their country of origin - it is a slap in the face to legal immigrants.

The next time you see a cartoon like this one, a good response is "Thanks for the reminder about how important it is to defend our national borders."

Previously: Truly Comprehensive Immigration Reform

Update on State Battles Over Neutering Marriage

2012-01-28T16:43:00.001-08:00

Read the latest over at The Opine Editorials.

Letters to LAT

2012-01-28T12:09:00.000-08:00

The letters printed in the Los Angeles Times can sometimes be insightful, sometimes an indicator of societal decay.

Rosemary Hagerott of Sierra Madre had a great letter:

I agree with your subheadline's characterization of what the president said in his State of the Union address: "Obama says all must pay 'fair share' of taxes."

I'd like him to start by collecting taxes from the nearly half of Americans who pay no federal income tax.

Right on!

And how about all those Americans who don't file tax reports? And how about all those who earn most of their money "under the table" and report very low income?

Such is a problem with income taxes.

Once he addresses this issue, I might listen to him about the "rich" paying their fair share. Right now, the "rich" are the only group of taxpayers paying their "fair share."

And when did it become anathema in this country to achieve the American dream by becoming rich?

When too many people decided it was better to slack off, make poor choices, and let Big Brother take care of them. And then link to blogs like this and complain about it rather than learning from the simple steps to avoid poverty.

Eugene Sison of San Dimas may have Bush Derangement Syndrome:

It has been said that men such as Obama must be "twice as good" as the George W. Bushes of the world to succeed at the same job.

Huh? It this a racial reference? If so, Obama only has to be 50% better.

So, as president, Obama listed his administration's accomplishments: preventing a second Great Depression while saving the auto industry, ending the Iraq war while getting Osama bin Laden, passing healthcare reform while reining in Wall Street. Two words came to mind: Mission accomplished.

Obama's stimulus effort made things worse.

He didn't save the auto industry - he bailed out American Big Labor.
Pulling troops out of Iraq was made possible by the decisions of the Bush administration in addition to all of the hard work of the military and contractors.
Yes, it is good that he kept up the pursuit of OBL, and didn't wimp out when it came time to kill OBL.

Healthcare reform? He inserted the federal government into private health insurance matters and is creating an new dependency program.

What exactly has he done to "Wall Street"? Wall Street PAID FOR OBAMA'S CAMPAIGN.

What a bunch of hooey.

In response to an item in the Business section, "How the wealthy get tax breaks," Business, Jan. 24, Anthony Maenza of Oceanside wrote:

If a criminal stole 35% of my money last week and 15% this week, would The Times write that the criminal's actions this week helped to increase my wealth? If not, then how does The Times justify writing that "wealthy people grow even wealthier with the help of the tax code"?

Because the article wasn't about subsidies given to the rich but instead about the wealthy keeping a larger share of their own money, one must conclude that The Times believes the money belongs to the government, which then favors the wealthy by letting them have a disproportionate amount of said government's money.

How about mentioning the earned income tax credit, which "refunds" unpaid taxes to the poor — taxes paid by others (likely the wealthy)? That would be honest journalism.

Perfect.

Al Barrett of Santa Monica is clueless, and so must be right at home in the People's Republic of Monica ("Santa" should be banned for being religious.):

Keeping Mit Romney's income tax rate no higher than 15% is necessary to help him create jobs, according to some economics experts.

Hey genius, that the personal tax rate on capital gains, which is investment income. The money used to invest has already been taxed, and the profits are taxed again before they are paid to Romney (and elderly widows), who then have to pay taxes on the money AGAIN.

It doesn't seem to be working.

Actually, Romney's efforts have created a heckuva lot of jobs. Jobs NOT dependent on taxes, unlike so many "green" jobs.

Apparently, high school economics courses need to be required and improved.

My State of the Union Wish List

2012-01-24T12:01:00.000-08:00

I know most of these positions will be completely avoided by President Obama, never mind that they wouldn't have a chance of being implemented with the current Senate, even with a Republic POTUS. But permit me to dream. Also notice that with most of these, I'm calling on the President to encourage action by the people, not to use the force of law.

Equal Access to Capitalism. Explain some of the major benefits of capitalism, and that the best thing the federal government can do to foster a good business climate that provides jobs is to provide protection from interstate crime and foreign terrorists, and to be involved as little as possibly in voluntary employment and business transactions, not picking winners or losers in business, subsidizing some and restricting upstarts while protecing established businesses.

Strong Marital Unions Are Good For the Union. It brings together both sexes to raise the next generation of citizens. Men and women are different, and unifying them in the marital union forms a strong, inclusive building block for society, benefiting the individuals and society. Call on the Federal government to help by continuing to affirm, as Presidents Clinton and Bush did, that marriage unites a man and a woman, and pledge that the federal government will not force states to recognize counterfeit marriages. Encourage people to voluntarily take marriage seriously, thinking for the long term, getting good pre-marital counseling - and counseling during marriage as necessary. Encourage individuals, families, congregations, businesses, and the media to respect and value marriage, and support marriages instead of undermining them. Encourage individuals to save sex and childrearing for marriage, because doing so is good for them and good for the country.

Education Is a Private Responsibility. With so many educators complaining about No Child Left Behind, and given the state of American public education since the Carter administration, call for the dismantling of federal involvement in education.

Don't be Santa Claus. Don't propose new federal programs and expansions of existing federal social programs. Enough already. There are 50 states in the union and a few territories that are supposed to be handling their own matters – that is, the matters that are not supposed to be left up to "the people".

Explain That the Federal Government Is Not the Answer to Every Challenge, Problem, or Choice - Rather, it is the Last Resort Answer to Very Few. That is what freedom and liberty are all about. Challenge individuals, businesses, congregations, nonprofits, and local and state governments (where appropriate) to take action instead of relying on the federal government. The federal government is there to protect the union from foreign threats and to and resolve some disputes between states.

Stop Using the Tax Code For Social Engineering. Tell the Congress that instead of taking the carrots (taxes) from the people and then dangling some of them back in front of the people, that the people should keep their carrots in the first place and do with them what they will. Call for tax simplification and a move away from income/payroll taxes. If someone pays taxes, everyone should pay taxes.

Individuals Should Plan for the Future. Talk about the numerous options individuals and families have for saving for the future. Encourage them to save and invest for the future and not rely on the federal government to take care of them in their senior years. Point out that a reduction in federal spending will allow people to keep more of their own money to aid in saving for retirement.

Explain that Planning for Your Health Care is Part of Planning for the Future. Call for more freedom, competition, and private decision-making in health care.

Encourage Proven Conservation Techniques. Quote the scientists and activists who, in the 1970s, warned that we were heading for a new ice age, and quote those who said that by 2000, the rainforests and the oceans would be destroyed. Go on to say that we must not hastily and uncritically accept alarmist warnings and use federal government force to impose destructive restrictions on the people and business that may not result in significant environmental benefit.

Encourage private innovation and solutions to reducing reliance on terrorist oil.

Border Control Is a Matter of National Security. Announce that, effective immediately, the National Guard will secure our borders to prevent terrorists, disease-carriers, and smugglers from entering the U.S. They will stay there until suitable barriers and checkpoints are constructed – however long that takes. We will NOT encourage further invasion by offering amnesty, health insurance, and other tax-funded benefits for citizens of other countries who illegally enter/stay in the U.S. Speed up the process for legal immigration for those who want to come to the U.S. legally to become citizens and can find sponsors who will ensure they will stay off of public assistance. As for illegal aliens currently living in the United States – do not offer amnesty; they can go through the same channels of those who are trying to immigrate legally. If the border is secure, this problem will eventually take care of itself because their children born here are citizens and the illegals can continue to function as they have until they die off, if they don't want to go the legal route. Any illegal alien who serves honorably in the U.S. armed forces should be granted citizenship. If a true shortage of labor occurs (meaning American unemployment is low and employers need more temporary labor), a true guest worker program can be developed.

Property Rights and Personal Freedom. Most Americans understand that people should be considered as individuals and based on their behavior and abilities, not as members of a non-ideological group (ethnicity, etc.). Therefore, the federal government should no longer be involved in preventing people from renting, selling - or not - to whomever they choose for whatever reason, and should no longer be involved with who an employer hires and fires and why. Airlines, for example, should not be forced to carry anyone who makes the majority of their employees and passengers uncomfortable.

Tout the Successes of the War on Terror. Laud those military, intelligence, and law enforcement personnel who have uncovered and prevented terrorist plans and actions, pointing out that is has been over ten years since terrorists have carried out a major attack in the U.S.

Break the Street Gangs. Pledge federal agencies to assist state and local law enforcement "sweep and hold" gang-infested urban areas.

Civility. Call on partisans to vigorously debate the issues, but refrain from threats of violence an character assassination, as they renew their vow to defend the Constitution.

A Status Update

2012-01-24T07:01:00.000-08:00

Recognizing that marriage always unites a bride and a groom does not make someone ignorant, bigoted, hateful, prejudiced, or anti-gay. None of these people were ever quoted as saying marriage could exist without a bride or without groom: Moses, Jesus, Mother Teresa, Gandhi, Chief Joseph, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Susan B. Anthony, Gautama Buddha, JFK, FDR, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and the other signers of the Constitution of the United State of America. Not one world religion has traditionally called anything without both a bride and a groom "marriage". No country, including officially atheist countries, in thousands of years of history, did until the Netherlands in 2001. Were they all hateful? Having a word that has always distinguished a relationship uniting both sexes into a social and legal unit obligated to each other and the newborn citizens they may naturally produce together, as only both sexes together can, is not hateful. Repost if you agree.

Two Leftist, Libertarian Issues at the Back of the Line

2012-01-23T09:02:00.000-08:00

Libertarians and many Leftists want legalization of all drugs and elimination or almost complete opening of national borders.

The most compelling argument against drug legalization is that more people will use currently illegal drugs if they are legalized. That is based on alcohol consumption per capita before, during, and since Prohibition. Is that enough of a reason to refuse legalization? I'm not sure.

What I am sure about is that I will not be motivated to support legalization until AFTER:

1) Taxpayer money ceases to be spent on health care

2) I am allowed to control and defend my property and myself, meaning I do NOT have to rent to a druggie and I can carry a loaded firearm and shoot a druggie who is a threat to me or my family

3) Employers are allowed to not hire, hire, promote, demote, and fire people for any reason, including being a druggie.

Make THOSE parts of the libertarian dream happen first. Good luck getting the Left to go along with that.

As far as border control/immigration issues... we're always going to need some defense of our borders for national defense purposes, but see what I wrote before about "comprehensive immigration reform". I'll care a lot less if someone wants to hire an illegal aliens if society is otherwise mostly libertarian. Again, good luck getting the Left to go along with that.

So drug legalization and letting illegal aliens come and go as they please, work here, etc., are things that have to go to "the back of the line". They do not make sense unless our society is more libertarian already.

We'll Need Congress

2012-01-23T07:21:00.000-08:00

It's primary season, so Republicans are in dispute about who will be the best nomimee for President, including who can beat Obama, who is more solidly conservative, and who will be a good leader for the GOP.

But whether we end up with Gingrich, Romney, Santorum, Obama, or someone else (if something unusual happens) as President a year from now, I think it is clear that we'll need a Congress that will be strongly focused on conservative, limited government. It will be critical if Obama is re-elected. It will be important even with a Republican President.

You may not be enthusiastic about any of the possible GOP candidates. Get excited about electing Senators and Representatives who will value the Constitution, fiscal responsibility, and American exceptionalism.

Cracking the Republican Code

2012-01-19T12:36:00.000-08:00

It’s time to come clean. People like Chris Matthews and critics of this blog are on to us, so there’s no point trying to disguise our true intentions. I’m ‘fessing up.

We Republicans have been talking in code.

Here is your guide to our nefarious secret code, which some bloggers have apparently figured out already.

Coded statement: "Well, [insert first name of question-asker here]…"
Real meaning: I completely dismiss you and everyone of your race, you subhumans

"14-year-olds should be able to earn money cleaning their schools for an hour or two"
I want six-year-olds to be forced to work for 16 hours per day, 365 days per year in coal mines without safety equipment or standards, for pennies a day.

"welfare", "food stamps", "felons"
All black people are lazy criminals

"It is better for people to have the opportunity to get jobs rather than be handed food stamps."
I need slaves for my plantation.

"Obama"
All black people

"I'm less than completely satisfied with President Obama."
I hate him because he's black. I also believe he's a commie Muslim Kenyan.

"free enterprise"
A return to race-based slavery

"Tenth Amendment"
A return to race-based slavery

"property rights"
I want to own black people and women.

"Second Amendment"
I want to be able to shoot at my will anyone who isn’t a healthy, American, rich, white, heterosexual, Republican, Christian man of a certain age group, but especially black people.

"Constitutional"
Only what property-owning, healthy, American, rich, white, heterosexual, Republican, Christian men of a certain age group want.

"voter fraud"
When anyone votes who isn't a healthy, rich, white, heterosexual, Republican, Christian man of a certain age.

"Obamacare"
I want everyone to die who isn't a heathy, American, rich, white, heterosexual, Republican, Christian man of a certain age… painfully, after going bankrupt.

"Social Security is unsustainable without some changes."
I really, really want old people to be poor, starving, miserable, sick, and then die early.

"values”
Hating everyone who isn't a virgin-or-married, healthy, American, rich, white, heterosexual, Republican, Christian man of a certain age group.

"morality"
Hating everyone who isn't a virgin-or-married, healthy, American, rich, white, heterosexual, Republican, Christian man of a certain age group.

"American exceptionalism"
There is nothing good in the world that hasn't been provided by a healthy, American, rich, white, heterosexual, Republican, Christian man of a certain age group.

"restoring American greatness"
Stealing from, torturing, and killing everyone who isn't a healthy, American, rich, white, heterosexual, Republican, Christian man of a certain age group.

"I love this country!"
I only love healthy, American, rich, white, heterosexual, Republican, Christian men of a certain age group, and I want everyone else to die… painfully.

"God Bless America!"
I'm a dominionist Christianist theocrat who wants all people who aren't healthy, American, rich, white, heterosexual, Republican, Christian men of a certain age group to die… painfully, so that everyone remaining can be forced to live under a Christian equivalent to Sharia law.

"I want everyone to succeed."
I want everyone who is a healthy, American, white, heterosexual, Republican, Christian man of a certain age group to own slaves.

"We shouldn't raise taxes on anyone."
I want all people who aren't healthy, American, rich, white, heterosexual, Republican, Christian men of a certain age group to be poor, starving, homeless, living in a toxic waste dump, without fire protection, health care, or education, only to die… painfully.

"Burdensome regulations"
I want total anarchy so I can steal from, torture, and kill everyone who isn't a healthy, American, rich, white, heterosexual, Republican, Christian man of a certain age group.

"I'm not convinced that man-made global warming is a serious enough threat that can be effectively alleviated if we simply cripple the progress of human civilization with confiscation and redistribution of private earnings and totalitarian intrusion into private life."
I don't believe in proven, settled, scientific fact and I want everyone who isn't a healthy, American, rich, white, heterosexual, Republican, Christian man of a certain age group to be poor, starving, homeless, living in a toxic waste dump, without fire protection, health care, or education, only to die… painfully.

"I'm not convinced that all of the biological diversity and symbiosis, beautiful nature, human capabilities, and vast universe we see are the result of nothing more than purposeless, undirected, random physical forces that emerged from nothing, caused by nothing."
I don't believe in proven, settled, scientific fact and will use a Ouija board to make my decisions.

"I don't believe federal tax dollars should fund art, especially art that is highly offensive to a large number of taxpayers."
I want to ban all art.

"school vouchers"
I want to funnel any money anyone spends on education to flat-Earth religious groups who want to kill anyone who isn't a healthy, American, rich, white, heterosexual, Republican, Christian man of a certain age group.

"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman."
The day I get into office, we're going to literally roast all gays and lesbians over open fires, and then we're going to nullify any interracial marriages that have ever existed.

"All other things being equal, I believe a married man and woman should get preference in adoptions."
The day I get into office, we’re going to literally roast all gays and lesbians over open fires, and then we're going to nullify any interracial marriages that have ever existed. And THEN all single parents are going to be hanged.

"I'm not convinced homosexual behavior is healthy."
I'm gay and in the closet.

"I wouldn't want to receive anal sex from ten men in one session."
I'm gay and in the closet AND I want to literally roast all gays and lesbians over open fires.

"I don't think taxpayers should be paying for a woman's fifth late-term partial-birth abortion."
I want all women to be raped by their father, uncle, or brother until they experience a life-threatening pregnancy, and the I want them forced to raise the resulting children themsleves, and then I want the women tortured and killed in a back alley.

"I support the death penalty."
I want all people who aren't healthy, American, rich, white, heterosexual, Republican, Christian men of a certain age group to die… painfully.

"Foreign terrorists should be punished as enemies of the state, rather than treating them like domestic citizen criminals."
I'm Islamophobic and I want all people who aren't healthy American, rich, white, heterosexual, Republican, Christian men of a certain age group to die… painfully.

"We have to defend our borders and have a good immigration policy and enforce that policy."
I want to round up everyone who isn't a healthy, American, rich, white, heterosexual, Republican, Christian men of a certain age group and kill them, first in America and then everywhere else in the world.

"I'm against race-based quotas"
I want to round up everyone who isn't a healthy, American, rich, white, heterosexual, Republican, Christian men of a certain age group and kill them.

"Activist judges"
Any judge who isn't a healthy, American, rich, white, heterosexual, Republican, Christian man of a certain age group.

Now some of my fellow Republicans will claim to sincerely believe that every human being has inherent worth and certain rights and that limiting government helps to protect those rights, but isn't it better to ignore any argument they might offer by calling them bigots?

At least one of my critics is bound to miss that this is a sarcastic post.

News Flash! Rich People Know How to Make Money!

2012-01-18T09:36:00.000-08:00

Capitalism is Unavoidable

Capitalism is a system in which people use the resources they have to create more resources. As long as the Sun is shining, this will continue to be possible. There is nothing wrong with this. It is a good thing.

The more freedom people have to make voluntary transactions, the more ambition, perseverance, innovation, thrift, and accomplishment will be rewarded.

Rich People Know How to Make Money, and That's Good

Free market capitalism often means that rich people continue to make more than poor people. What's the alternative, really? The alternative is that the rich people stop making money. That would be disastrous, including for the poor. Yes, if a person has one dollar and another has ten, the person with ten dollars is going to have eleven dollars and the other is going to have $1.10 if they both make a 10% return on their investment. What is the problem with that???

Of course the rich are getting richer. That is because, first of all, they are still doing the things that made them rich in the first place. If they got rich in high-paying jobs, and they are still in those jobs – SURPRISE! – they are still getting paid. Secondly, almost all of them invest their money in ways that will earn even more money. That is good, because it means they are investing in companies and ventures in ways that allow other people to earn a living and perhaps get rich, too, and it is paying off. Thirdly, they tend to have good financial habits, such as not spending more money than they make.

Some want us believe that there is a growing gap between the "rich" and "poor". Don't believe it. There is growing SPECTRUM. As there should be. The rich are not taking more of the pie, they are making the pie bigger. Why should the rich stop getting richer? Should they stop working and sit on their money? That won't be good for anyone.

Most rich people are rich because they have provided something other people highly value, or a high number of people value enough to pay for it. With free markets, this is all voluntary on the part of all participants.

You Can Be (or Could Have Been) Rich Too

We all have something to offer others. Most of us can take steps to increase what we have to offer others. In a free market, we exchange what we have in abundance for something we need or want that someone else has in abundance. It is best when we can do this directly, without the interference of anyone else. Either party to the trade may choose to delegate for the sake of efficiency (for example, they are better at making something and not so good at actually closing a sale).

The poor of today don't have to be the poor of tomorrow. With free markets, they can be middle-class or even rich by being wise with what they have to offer. We have countless examples of people who have come to this country with nothing and have become middle-class or even rich, and even more examples of their children doing so.

Ever notice that many of the richest Americans came from modest beginnings, and many of those dropped out of school before getting a college degree? How many of them are immigrants or the children of immigrants? When you consider how many of these people started out poor or in the middle class, and you add in the people on the list whose parents started out poor or in the middle class but left behind considerable wealth, it becomes very clear that our nation has been one of unparalleled opportunity for those who are willing to work hard, sacrifice, and innovate.

We are not a nation of the permanent classes of the "haves" vs. the "have-nots". If you are born into a low-income family, you are not destined to be poor all of your life, especially if you are ambitious and take responsibility for your life. Students currently counted as poor will likely not be poor a few years down the road. A child currently listed as poor will almost certainly not be poor very long into his or her life as an adult as long as he or she follows a few rules:

1) Avoid crime
2) Avoid substance abuse
3) Get regular exercise, eat right
4) Complete high school, and go as far in education/training as personally possible without delaying employment
5) Take the best honest job offered, and do not do anything to get fired or quit until a better job is secured; seek promotions
6) Spend less than you make, avoiding financing/loans; use the surplus to save, invest, and insure
7) Don't raise babies out of wedlock; don't marry until finished with education (undergrad level) - and marry someone who also follows these rules; don't divorce.
8) Join a community - whether a religious congregation or some service or fraternal organization, where people cooperate to help each other and network.

Leftist polices make #5 more difficult, because the policies make it less likely employers are going to take the risk of hiring or the risk of investing.

The poor in this country have access to "free" or "inexpensive" (in quotes because these are usually subsidized by others) housing, clothing, transportation, food, medical care, communications, education (including community colleges and state universities), libraries, fire protection, police protection, legal representation, recreation and entertainment, and many other things, making them part of the global One Percent. Using government force to make the "rich" give even more money to the "poor" (especially without a direct connection between the "giver" and the receiver) takes away incentive for the poor to become less dependent on the government, and also prevents them from getting direct counseling, mentoring, or other forms of aid from someone who knows how to make money.

The Role of Government

Now, it is true that the more power we cede to government and concentrate in federal government, the more the rich can unjustly manipulate the system to their benefit - to do things like get tax money for their business, which is taken by force from others, or get restrictive laws in place that make it harder for competitors to succeed and grow. But such "crony capitalism" is a good reason for limiting government and for federalism, and against socialism and centralizing government.

The Left wants us to think that someone else making more money than us is stealing it - unless, of course, they are a unionized government employee or a Hollywood celebrity or George Soros. The Left also wants us to think the solution to this problem is giving federal government more power. Don't believe it. That does hurt the middle class and the poor.

Government should only be involved to prevent/correct fraud and certain other forms of theft, and some monopolies.

The more restriction on free trade, the smaller the percentage of law abiding people that will be able to make the most of their resources. The less freedom in the marketplace, the more the fruits of capitalism are reserved for the elite and establishment few. The more that power and money are usurped and centralized in government, the more the politically connected/wealthy will be able to manipulate the system to their advantage.

The easiest way for the powerful to manipulate the system to their advantage is to centralize government power and increase government power. Conversely, the more power individuals retain, the more opportunities there will be for someone of modest origins to better their financial situation.

The freer the marketplace, the better, and the more opportunity for upward mobility.

Rather than providing something useful to other people and honestly competing, and thus enjoying the benefits of capitalism, too many people set their sights on using government force to take from others to provide for themselves. They are not parties to a voluntary trade, but often insist on a say in the terms and conditions of that trade.

The Leftists would have you believe that the rich are just lucky – that they’ve "won life's lottery" and are living it up at your expense, unfairly enjoying the high life while you struggle and suffer. The Leftist Democrats want you believe that the only way you'll ever be successful is with their help, so you'd better vote for them and support them.

Don't believe it. We need polices, especially the limiting of government, that will keep our nation a beacon of liberty that fosters free market capitalism. We should be encouraging growth through encouraging investment, efficiency, innovation, voluntary cooperation, and hard work, and letting people enjoy the fruits of their investment and labor, instead of finding new ways to confiscate or them or restrict the voluntary transactions.

They'll Always Want Government to Get Bigger

2012-01-17T11:55:00.000-08:00

Neutering marriage would inevitably mean increasing the size of government. Read why over at The Opine Editorials.

Remembering Reverend King

2012-01-16T07:44:00.000-08:00

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Christian Reverend who constantly appealed to Christian principles in calling for this nation to follow Christ in treating every person as a worthwhile human being, regardless of skin color. He did a lot of good for this country.

May character matter more than skin color, and racists repent.

What's With the Hate Over Moral Convictions?

2012-01-09T22:56:00.000-08:00

It seems like a day doesn't go by that I don't see someone, whether in the MSM or one of my Facebook contacts, lashing out at pastors like Joel Osteen... with whom I have my own issues) or the Pope (I'm not a Roman Catholic myself), or someone running for President.

They are lashing out specifically because, given the Biblical teachings that sex is for marriage and that marriage unites a bride and a groom, these pastors and religious leaders and believers, when asked by people like Oprah about homosexual behavior, note that homosexual behavior, like all sex or sex-like behavior that isn't between spouses (spouses meaning bride with groom), is a sin. These people are being asked for what they believe, and they are being honest in their responses.

These pastors and religious leaders and believers are not advocating violence. They are stating what is found in the Bible and church tradition. If their conviction that sex outside of marriage is wrong is "hate speech" that somehow is a threat to you, how isn't your apparent conviction that their stating their convictions is wrong a threat to them?

None of these people are saying everyone has to find someone of the opposite sex and marry them. They aren't saying you don't feel what you feel.

So please... if you are such a person who hates or is angry at or disgusted by these pastors and religious leaders because they believe what they do about human sexuality (that 1. it is for marriage and 2. marriage unites a bride and groom), please, please, please enlighten me and anyone else like me:

1. Are there any moral restrictions when it comes to sex? If so, please explain what those restrictions are.

2. How did you discover or determine or learn what those morals are?

3. Why should Osteen, the Pope, me, or anyone else replace the morals we are convinced are right with the morals you hold?

I'd really like to know. You know, in case Oprah or some pageant judge with a bogus copycat name asks me.

Simply spewing hate at me or anyone else is not an argument. So don't even try it.

Keep in mind that if everyone were to adhere to the morals I list above, along with the principle that children have a natural right to a mother and a father (so no using donations or reproductive technologies to intentionally bring children into a home without a mother or without a father) we would...

1. Have no children born out of wedlock (except in the rare cases of when a pregnant woman is widowed). Illegitimacy is correlated to many negative indicators.

2. Slash the rate of STD infections to almost nothing. Can we agree that STDs are bad?

3. Hack into small bits (there's a deliberate choice of words) the number of children slaughtered in the womb, or with their bodies out in the open but their head still in the canal. Come on, even you "pro-choicers" usually say that abortion isn't good in most cases.

4. Significantly reduce the heartache, depression, embarrassment, shame, and other negative feelings that come after someone has been fornicating with someone and the relationship ends.

5. Make it less likely that people who aren't compatible with or loving or respectful towards each other will drag their relationship on, possibly into marriage, only to split. Or do you think it is a good thing for people to stay with someone who makes them miserable just because they're having sex?

6. Continue the human race, with most children having had a parent of each of the two sexes to bond with, observe, and learn from, which is good considering every one of those children will have to interact with both men and women.

So... whatever alternate set of morals you offer should be at least as good in terms of results.

You've Fired and Laid People Off, Too

2012-01-09T17:25:00.000-08:00

I don't think all layoffs are a good idea or good for a business in the long-term, but sometimes they are. They are part of a free market system that maximizes liberty, generally rewards merit, encourages innovation, and grows wealth.

Those who fault Romney for his responsibility in layoffs, or for saying that he likes being able to fire people need to realize that they have likely laid someone off or fired someone, too.

When you change service or product providers (or decided to do something yourself), whether we're talking about an accountant, lawyer, tutor, bank, insurance company, therapist, doctor, personal trainer, hair stylist, phone/Internet/television provider, magazine subscription, plumber, gardener, mechanic, auto dealer, dry cleaner, clothing store, restautant - anything for which you have paid in the past - you are laying someone off, if even on a small or fractional scale. You are firing them.

Let's take the example of a mechanic that you weren't happy about. Maybe you found a better or less expensive mechanic and you switched. What happens if enough people do likewise, no longer taking their vehicles to that frist mechanic? The mechanic either has to find a new line of business, move his or her business, or retire. Or, maybe there was nothing wrong with the mechanic, but you decided you needed to save money and do your oil changes yourself, or payed your nephew less money to do it. That's a layoff or firing. What would you think if the mechanic were to picked your house and say that you earn enough that you should have kept going to him or her for your oil changes? What if your mechanic cited the model of car you drive as proof that you have enough to keep paying him or her for those oil changes?

Should you be prevented from laying those people off? Are you obligated to keep using the same person/provider for the rest of your life, just because you've used them before? Not if you don't have a binding contract with them.

If you have stopped buying paper books an adopted, as so many have, the use of electronic books, you have laid off paper and ink providers and those who transport paper, ink, and finished books. If you ever bought movies on VHS buy now buy them on DVD or Blu-ray, you laid off the people making VHS tapes.

When business managers lay people off, is usually out of a reponsibility to business owners, which often means shareholders, which often includes many people on Main Street. The company must slim down or die, and even more people will lose their jobs and people will lost their investments. Business managers usually are not laying people off to be mean. But when we lay people off by changing our service or product providers, it is sometimes for petty or arbitrary reasons, sometimes for nepotism. Sometimes, we do it for the same reasons as managers like Romney - for the sake of efficiency.

Ideally, more jobs are created through new businesses, new companies, and growing companies, than lost through layoffs, but layoffs are a necessary part of how the market functions.

So those who point fingers are people like Romney need to take a look in the mirror first.

Previously:

Nobody Owes You a Job

Turning Washington, D.C. Into a State?

2012-01-09T15:01:00.000-08:00

So some people in D.C., the seat of our federal government and the place that elects crackheads as mayor (mere coincidence?), want the District to become our union's 51st state.

That would ensure two more Democrats in the Senate, so we can expect support for this to come from the Left. (Interesting how their ideas for gaining/retaining control always involve changing the rules... making voter fraud easier, making new states out of Democrat areas, getting more felons to vote, lowering the voting age, giving current illegal aliens the vote).

How about an old-fashioned compromise that allows Orange County, California (and perhaps a larger center-right area) to become the 52nd state simultaneously? If not The OC, how about some other conservative area in the western area? I'd like Orange County to escape the control of San Francisco and Los Angeles for personal reasons, and California Senators are likely going to be Democrats for the forseeable future. I'm open to other ideas, though.

Bullies and Hypocrites

2012-01-09T07:29:00.000-08:00

What would you say if I picked one fellow American, whose statements and actions I disagreed with, and I engaged in a deliberate campaign (and had the power) to assign a definition to their name describing something most people would find disgusting and inappropriate to talk about in public, so much so that when you searched that person's name, a description of that disgusting thing would be the first to list?

Would you consider that bullying... to turn someone's name into a euphemism for something most people would find disgusting?

What if the person I did that too was a homosexual person?

What if I then started an anti-bullying campaign while continuing to bully? Wouldn't that make me a hypocrite?

This situation is not hypothetical, except that the person this is happening to is not homosexual; rather, the bully and subsequent coattail riders (to use a polite term) are homosexuality advocates.

I was disappointed when I learned this, because I support the message that bullying is wrong, and had some respect for someone taking the initiative to spread that message. But now I see that person has deliberately smeared the name of another human being. If that isn't bullying, what is it? I think if you asked most people if they'd rather take a punch to the gut and be called names while a teenager, or have their lifelong name made synonymous with something disgusting, they'd chose the former with no hesitation. If you asked them which was a more hateful form of bullying, they'd choose latter.

Bullying is being done by those who claim to be fighting bullying. And that's the most disgusting thing about all of this. But what should we expect from a savage?

(This is a repost)

How 'Bout Dem Apples?

2012-01-07T18:58:00.000-08:00

I know you'll be shocked by this, but Reuters continues to be biased in reporting about marriage neutering, and the Los Angeles Times is still obsessed. Read my analysis of their coverage of things in the State of Washington over at The Opine Editorials.

Two Opinion Pieces in the Los Angeles Times

2012-01-05T13:19:00.000-08:00

The paper headlined Dimitri B. Papadimitriou’s piece "Need Jobs? Call on Government".

The subheadline is:

International experience shows that direct job creation by governments is one of the very few options that has succeeded at raising employment levels more than just marginally during a crisis.

Here's how the text starts:

Is high unemployment as certain as death and taxes? Of course not. But if we depend on the private sector to bring rates down, joblessness could join those two certainties.

Huh.

It's unreasonable to expect private enterprises to solve these problems.

That's like saying it is unreasonable to expect food to feed people. You're right - it is unreasonable when you have oversized and overly intrusive government inefficiently handling the food and impeding farmers.

Full employment isn't an objective of businesses.

It's not an "objective of business" to innovate, either, but that's what businesses to do to make profits.

In contrast, direct public-service job creation programs by governments have a history of long-term positive results.

Yeah, it's worked out so well in Greece, hasn't it, Papadimitriou?

At the theoretical heart of job-creation programs is this fact: Only government, because it is not seeking profitability when it is hiring, can create a demand for labor that is elastic enough to keep a nation near full employment.

But who is the government? It is the people. Specifically, in the sense he's writing, the government is People in Group A forcing people in Group B (some of whom are not in Group A) to pay for the things Group A deems worthy.

Government jobs that are funded through taxes depend on the private sector for funding. The more people employed in such government jobs instead of in the private sector, the greater the burden on the private sector. In theory, it would be better for someone who is unemployed and collecting redistributed (tax) funds to perform some work for that money, but the problem is government jobs tend to persist beyond their need, or when a private sector job could do the same work more efficiently. Perhaps government shouldn't be involved in charity in the first place?

Alexander Edmonds wrote a piece the paper titled "Is It Time to Ban Cosmetic Surgery?"

Go head. Conservative women are naturally hot. It's the Left that will suffer. And would such a ban include addadictomies, like the one Castity Bono is seeking?

The faulty breast implants made by the French company Poly Implants Protheses, or PIP, have grabbed headlines around the world in recent weeks, and it's no wonder. The prostheses are more prone to rupture than other models, and they contain an industrial grade of silicone never intended for use in a medical device.

Is this going to turn out like the Dow Corning thing, in which hysteria and fraudulent opportunism destroyed a legitimate enterprise?

Taxing the Kardashians

2012-01-05T08:48:00.000-08:00

Sounds like a Ryan Seacrest-backed reality show.

Yes, Kim Kardashian can pay more in taxes and still live a good life. And I'm assuming that she's being targeted because people make the assumption that she doesn't deserve all of the money she has. Her talent seems to be... keeping people interested enough in her for long enough for her to make money doing things like talking on taped, edited video.

But are most of "the rich" anything like Kim Kardashian? Most of them have put in long hours and extra days of hard work on a consistent basis for years and years. Most of them have undertaken significant risks - not for the sake of being risky, but on the chance that it would pay off by providing goods or services for which people would be willing to pay. Most of them have created great jobs, great investments, and/or useful goods or services for many people. Their hard work and creativity have paid off, and they are rich.

But since so many of the loudest people in Hollywood either directly call for higher taxes or verbally and financially support politicians who do, how about we put a surcharge on wedding sponsorships (like from Kardashian's "wedding"), and earnings from acting in, directing, or producing feature films and television shows? That would mean Kim Kardashian would pay more, right? I'm sure the unions, such as the Screen Actors Guild, would be ever so helpful in making this happen.

Who Will be the GOP Nominee for VP?

2012-01-04T16:27:00.000-08:00

I'm disliking this Presidential Primary season. In dabates, in ads, in social media, Republicans are attacking the very person for whom they'll have to vote unless they want President Obama to have a second term to appoint more judicial activists who look to the laws of other countries to the bench, issue more executive orders, veto or threat to veto more legislation, serve as our Commander-in-Chief, and raise funds for Leftists.

Mitt Romney is not my ideal candidate, but I do believe 1) he is most likely to be the GOP nominee; 2) he can beat Obama, and 3) he will be a better President than Obama. Reading #1 may have upset some of you. You have some other candidate in whom you have emotionally (and perhaps financially) invested. Maybe you dislike Romney. I'm not writing this to argue with you or change your mind.

Instead, I want to mull over who would be a good (or likely) Vice-President nominee on a Romney ticket. Because of the results in Iowa, some people are talking Santorum. But Santorum has not built up enough of an operation. Maybe over the next few weeks, that will change and it will make sense for Romney and Santorum to merge forces.

What I'd rather see is Romney and Santorum (and any other GOP candidate) continue along for a while, taking advantage of the MSM attention to promote limitied government principles and policies and pointing out the failures and failed promises of Obama. Instead of trying to tear each other down, they should explain why the GOP has something better to offer. As long as there are two candidates, they will keep MSM attention that would otherwise revert to Obama.

What is needed in a VP candidate?

In addition to what I wrote about what I wanted in a Presidential candidate, from a political science consideration, a VP candidate should:

1) Round out the ticket as far as experience and appeal to the electorate. Does the person experience the Presidential candidate doesn't? Does the person appeal to a voting demographic the Presidential candidate isn't reaching, or reaching strongly enough? Will that person help carry states the Presidential candidate might not otherwise carry? Romney was Governor of Massachussetts but has otherwise been a businessman.

2) Be a good prospect to run for President in 8 years and likely to build, rather than shrink, the GOP and its influence. Will the candidate help unite the GOP and motivate the GOP donors and voters? Will he or she help recruit new voters to the GOP?

3) Not leave vacant a critical office that will likely be filled with a Democrat.

4) Make the Presidential candidate look good, rather than overshadowing or embarrassing them. (Of course, Obama still got elected with Biden.)

Call me cynical, but I think it will help if "white, male, Mormon" Romney is also "balanced out" with someone who is "ethnic" and/or female. Sex or ethnic background matters not to me, but apparently it matters to enough voters, and it certainly matters to the media.

Senator Marco Rubio of Florida has been mentioned a lot. Advantages: experience in the Senate, ability to carry Florida, Cuban/Latino, Roman Catholic and attends a large Evangelical church, young

Governor Susana Martinez of New Mexico. Advantages: former District Attorney, ability to carry New Mexico, female, Latina, Roman Catholic.

Governor Nikki Haley of South Carolina. Advantages: former legislator, female, daughter of immigrants from India, Methodist with a Sikh background, young, was endorsed by Romney

Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana. Advantages: fomer legislator, entrepreneurial experience, ability to carry Louisiana, son of immigrants from India, Roman Catholic, young

All of them are decidedly conservative, which should motivate conservative GOP voters who think Romney isn’t a solid conservative. It looks to me like any of them would be a great President, and thus would be a great pick to the VP candidate.

What do you think? Am I missing someone?

When Government Gets Really Hands-On

2012-01-03T15:43:00.000-08:00

Will Californians really vote to require condomns in "adult movies" filmed in California? What about "mainstream" movies that push that boundary?

What will the ads for this campaign be like?

Mind you, this is a state where 14-year-old girl can have her baby sucked into a sink without her parents ever been notified.

How will this be enforced? Will state government workers have to be on-set, or just view videos after they are produced and try to determine if they were produced in California or not? How will all of this work, given strict sexual harassment laws and policies?

The adult video industry in California has already suffered due to foreign competitors and the ubiquity of amateur porn. Will the industy move out of California? And will the tax loss be worth it?

Speaking of amateurs, what if a couple films themselves for their own viewing, then later that couple sells the video, or, as with certain celebrities, the video get's "stolen" and distributed. Will anyone be fined for not wearing condoms?
Prostitution, in which a man (it is almost always a man) pays someone else for sex will still be illegal, but if instead a third person pays that man and woman and films them, it will all be legal as long as the man being filmed wears a condom, right?
Does workplace oversight by the state really allow the state to do this, without allow the state to mandate it when no camera is around?

Do hear fiddling? Do I hear deck chairs being rearranged?

One Reason Why California Needs a Part-Time Legislature

2011-12-28T09:05:00.000-08:00

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

2011-12-27T14:37:00.000-08:00

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?

The Most Amazing Event in History

2011-12-23T08:34:00.000-08:00

I am a Theist. I believe Theism is a more compelling explanation for the universe than Deism, Atheism, or Pantheism. Yeah, I know there's a brilliant physicist who thinks the universe created itself but he's out of his area of expertise (physics) when making that conclusion. If things can create themselves, then we can't rely on any scientific experiments, because we can't rule out that at least some of the data is a result of something creating itself without a cause.

I also think that a being powerful enough to create the universe is certainly powerful enough to interact with that creation.

The Incarnation of Jesus Christ involved God condescending to live a human life. Jesus Christ, eternally having a divine nature, took on a human nature.

His birth to a Jewish woman two thousand years ago is the most amazing event in history. His death on the cross is the focal point of human history, and without His death we would not have the resurrection to celebrate Easter Sunday, but without His birth we would not have His death, His resurrection, or the examples and teachings of His life.

We have a Lord who knows what it is to be human, to experience pain, and to die.

December 25th is located on the calender conveniently near pagan celebrations, thus allowing for opportunities to reach out to pagans. We aren't sure of what the actual birth date of Jesus was. Like some other things about Christianity, including having many manuscript copies of the various New Testament writings but not the original writings themselves, I think that is part of God's plan. If we had those original writings they would be erroneously worshipped by some, and if we knew the actual birth date of Jesus astrology would be consulted in that regard.

We don't need Jesus' actual birth date. We know He was born, we know He was killed, and we have good reason to believe He was resurrected and still lives today. His teachings, His miracles, and many of His resurrection appearances were public, witnessed by many people, convinced and unconvinced. Contrast that with founding of various other beliefs systems, where the claim is one person had a private vision, dream, or other experience.

Jesus, our Lord, came into the world He created as a baby. That is the core of Christmas. Whether you believe it or not, I pray that you have a merry Christmas as a happy New Year.

Larry King's Murderer Sentenced

2011-12-21T11:08:00.000-08:00

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

2011-12-14T12:40:00.000-08:00

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

2011-12-13T11:44:00.000-08:00

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

2011-12-12T19:18:00.000-08:00

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

2011-12-12T16:45:00.000-08:00

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?

2011-12-12T10:21:00.000-08:00

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"

2011-12-07T20:04:00.000-08:00

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

2011-12-06T07:03:00.000-08:00

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

2011-12-02T16:46:00.000-08:00

Happy Thanksgiving

2011-11-23T13:30:00.000-08:00

Times have been better. But let's not forget that things could be much, much worse here in the U.S.A. Let's pray we don't find out just how bad things can get.

There is so much for which we should be thankful.

Personally, I have so many things for which to be thankful it would take me all day to list them. I thank Jesus Christ for what He did and what He continues to do – He’s my Lord and Savior. I thank the saints for persevering in handing down the faith. I thank those brave souls who established this nation. I thank our military men and women for preserving this nation. I thank my ancestors for making the difficult journeys to American soil. I thank my parents for birthing and raising and supporting me. I thank my wife for marring me and birthing and mothering my children. I could go on and on, but I won't.

Some Leftists go into their theatrics this time of year, braying about how horrible it was for Europeans to bring western civilization to the Americas.

This idea that the native peoples living here (who, by the way, were also newcomers at one time) were all peaceful and noble and that the Europeans who settled here were horrible, evil people who always mistreated the natives is ridiculous. All over the world, people have been overtaken and either killed off or integrated. Yet only in certain parts of the English-speaking world is the integration portrayed as evil and celebrating anything remotely connected to it is stopped.

But notice that the Normans didn’t give the Anglo-Saxons any sovereign territory, nor casino operation exemptions. Such concessions are not typical of victorious peoples.

Don’t let the Leftists take away Thanksgiving. Celebrate proudly.

It is time for us to pause and consider that there is much for which we should be thankful, and we should thank Him. If you're not inclined to do that, then consider all of the people in your life who have been there along the way, providing emotional support, friendship, guidance, and goods and services.

The modern American Thanksgiving meal is an overly bountiful one, a testament to how capitalism has produced plenty. From the farmer to the importer to the grocer, participants in the market have allowed us to splurge.

I bid you a safe, pleasant, and reflective Thanksgiving Day.

Next They'll Want Dry Water in Their Canteens

2011-11-21T15:46:00.000-08:00

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

2011-11-17T10:50:00.000-08:00

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

2011-11-16T15:17:00.000-08:00

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

2011-11-16T13:51:00.000-08:00

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

2011-11-16T08:19:00.000-08:00

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

Derailed

2011-11-15T16:59:00.000-08:00

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.

Never Forget

2011-11-11T10:37:00.001-08:00

Never, never forget that freedom isn't free.

Blessings and praise to all veterans who have stood up for liberty.

Pro-Abortion Newspaper Prints Bad Pro-Abortion Letters

2011-11-08T13:02:00.000-08:00

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

2011-11-04T15:22:00.000-07:00

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?

2011-11-01T08:52:00.000-07:00

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

2011-10-31T13:26:00.000-07:00

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

2011-10-26T15:15:00.000-07:00

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

2011-10-25T16:37:00.000-07:00

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

2011-10-24T16:27:00.000-07:00

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

2011-10-19T09:15:00.000-07:00

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

2011-10-18T16:47:00.000-07:00

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

2011-10-18T15:28:00.000-07:00

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

2011-10-15T17:55:00.000-07:00

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

2011-10-12T09:52:00.000-07:00

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

2011-10-11T15:32:00.000-07:00

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.

Nobody Owes You a Job

2011-10-11T14:44:00.000-07:00

Believe it or not, the purpose of a job isn't to be some scheme where a business charitably provides you with money, insurance, and other benefits.

A job exists because someone needs something accomplished, and you can do it for them either better, more efficiently, or less expensively than they could it themselves.

Your job is to make your boss' job easier. If your boss is spending too much time managing you or fixing your mistakes or otherwise reworking your work, or you are becoming more expensive than the value of what you provide, your boss is either going to replace you, do the work himself/herself, or not get that work done any more. Your boss hires you to free himself or herself up to do other things.

That's the way things work naturally. Regulations, laws, and union contracts may interfere with this, but do so to the detriment of progress and growth.

We all have something to offer others. They have something to offer us. Agreeing to voluntary exchange goods or services for other goods, services, or money need not require any involvement by anyone else, and most of the time outside interference shouldn't happen.

Nobody owes you a job unless they have voluntarily submitted to a contract obligating them to employ you for that length of time and you are upholding your end of the contract. You can offer something you have for something you want, and if you find someone willing to make that exchange, you can both get what you want.

When the need to do that work no longer exists for whatever reason, the job should cease. Sure, it would be nice to never have to worry about cash flow, to never have to look for another job, to never have to deal with an interruption of benefits, etc. But if your services no longer meet an existing need at the right price, the natural thing is for the job to end – at least for you.

Very rarely is that the fault of a President of the United States of America, Congress, or a business. It is just the way things are.

The solution? Make sure what you are offering makes your boss want to keep you around, or makes you valuable to some other boss.

LA Times Attempts to Help the Occupy Whiners

2011-10-05T17:02:00.000-07:00

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

2011-10-04T09:13:00.000-07:00

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?

2011-10-01T13:09:00.000-07:00

"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?

2011-09-28T08:13:00.000-07:00

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

2011-09-27T16:32:00.000-07:00

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

Elizabeth Warren Can’t See the Forest Through the Trees Planted by Capitalists

2011-09-27T09:23:00.000-07:00

Elizabeth Warren certainly is popular with my Leftist connections on Facebook. They proudly copy and paste her recent comments:

I hear all this, you know, 'Well, this is class warfare, this is whatever. No.

Yes, it is class warfare to target the "rich" – by definition.

There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own -- nobody.

Well, no, there isn't, because someone else has to buy the good and services provided by the rich. The fact is, nobody really does ANYTHING on their own, but we still need to have boundaries. There still needs to be some level of personal autonomy, private property and ownership, and personal responsibility. Should Warren be elected to Senate, she will not have done it on her own, yet she will not be forced to let more than a third of her votes be cast by someone else.

You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for.

The rich paid for those roads, too. All of us - who buy gas, anyway - paid for those roads, all of us can use them. Even the people who don't buy gas.

You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate.

Property owners, a group which definitely includes the rich, paid to educate them. But I'm for separation of state and school anyway.

You were safe in your factory because of police-forces and fire-forces that the rest of us paid for.

Again, the rich pay for them, too – more so than other people.

You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory -- and hire someone to protect against this -- because of the work the rest of us did.

Uh, is there a factory that doesn't have private security?

Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea. God bless -- keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is, you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.

And why does that have to be through the hands of D.C. politicians? Who is it that is funding charities, anyway?

No doubt unwittingly, Elizabeth Warren actually makes our point for us – that by letting free markets work, people who build wealth employ other people to mutual benefit. The wealthy got wealthy, in part, through providing jobs.

The people the wealthy hired were compensated as agreed. The customers who bought the goods or services provided by the wealthy were given that for which they paid. Now, people like Warren want to ignore the fact that the mutual, voluntary transactions were completed and use government force to make the wealthy pay more not only to those already compensated for their work, but to uninvolved people who refuse to work at all.

Are we to believe that someone who studied hard and stayed clean and involved through high school, college, and medical school to become a doctor and works long and odd hours saving lives and then practices good financial habits has less right to enjoy the fruits of her labors and risks than someone who goofed off, dropped out, abused substances, caused trouble, watches the clock at his entry-level job to make sure that he never appears to be working a minute more than 40 hours per week (minus breaks), and blows his money?

All of the things Warren lists have been available to all. It is the wealthy that used them in ways valued most by society.

You can find some good responses to Warren here, here, and here.

A Different Marriage Pledge

2011-09-26T11:21:00.000-07:00

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

2011-09-22T15:53:00.000-07:00

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

Letters on So-Called Poverty

2011-09-22T15:31:00.000-07:00

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

2011-09-21T12:37:00.000-07:00

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

2011-09-19T23:03:00.000-07:00

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

2011-09-19T22:15:00.000-07:00

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 Moral High Ground

2011-09-18T13:05:00.000-07:00

It is immoral and counterproductive for the government to take money by force from one person or group of people and give it another unless the recipient is performing a Constitutionally assigned function or the function is otherwise a Constitutional mandate. - Personal Declaration of The Playful Walrus

Leftists want everyone to believe that people like me want poor people to die painful deaths in the streets, because people like me oppose unconstitutionally expanding federal government powers, higher income and capital gains tax rates, and paying for new programs with either increased debt or printing more money (which devalues the dollar).

Charity can't do it all, our Leftists friends say. But the fact is, this side of eternity, nobody can do it all.

Private, voluntary efforts could certainly do a lot more if the government eased up on micromanaging and let people keep more of their own earnings. With just about anything, private, voluntary efforts are more efficient than federal government. This is why the Constitution gives the federal government limited powers, and tells the federal government what it can do, not only what it can't do. Want a huge new federal program to fight "poverty", despite the spectacular failure of those that came before? Pass a Constitutional Amendment. The Constitution isn't there just to make sure you can pee all over The Bible and call it art.

Our Leftist friends what to confiscate, with guns draw if it comes to that, that for which people have worked, and give it to people who choose not to work, or to make unwise decisions about finances. That is immoral.

I want to help the needy. That is why I give to voluntary efforts. More of my Leftist friends could do the same if they worked harder and were better with what they earned. Leftist Billionaires can already give their money away, to charity or the U.S. Treasury, if they want to.

The Latest on Marriage Neutering in California and North Carolina

2011-09-12T17:32:00.001-07:00

My analysis is over at The Opine Editorials.

Greg Koukl Effectively Defends Marriage

2011-09-10T14:53:00.000-07:00

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

2011-09-08T15:04:00.000-07:00

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

2011-09-08T13:55:00.000-07:00

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?

2011-09-07T10:07:00.000-07:00

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.

It is quite sad, really, as some of the people who would benefit most from her advice won't even consider it. These people, who refuse to check out what Dr. Laura actually says, when asked why, will almost invariably say it is because she is "intolerant, judgmental, hateful, or prejudiced". The irony of their declarations of hating someone they won't even listen to, supposedly for her being judgmental, fails to dawn on them.

So much of what Dr. Laura says is exactly right. My life is better because of her. Overall, I'd say she's done much, much, more good for the world than just about any of her critics.

One of the most common attacks is calling Dr. Laura a hypocrite. This is supposed to be the "get out of jail free card" for the morally guilty, right up there with claiming to be offended when other people notice their misdeeds.

There's a lot of confusion over the word "hypocrisy". What it really is: saying one thing while believing another. While we can't really know what someone else believes in their heart for sure, we can guess based on what they do.

Let's look at an example of hypocrisy. Let's say someone says "I believe it is wrong to make adult movies", but they are, at that very time, involved in ongoing production of adult movies. That person would be a hypocrite. They would NOT be a hypocrite if they were making "regular" movies. They would not be a hypocrite if they had previously made adult movies and had since repented. They wouldn't be a hypocrite if they had previously made adult movies, repented, and now criticize, say, smoking. Furthermore, if someone added to the original statement to say "I believe it is wrong to make adult movies for public distribution", all the while making private videos alone with her spouse for viewing by herself and her spouse only – that would not be hypocrisy. (Dr. Laura does not have a sex tape circulating out there. I'm just making a point.)

We look for evidence of a hypocritical statement in someone's actions. But even so, PAST action does not indicate CURRENT belief. Even more so, the problem is the past or current wrong action, not speaking out against what is wrong.

The immoral will use charges of hypocrisy - implying that hypocrisy is wrong - to try to get other people to stop saying that something they like to do is wrong. Whether or not someone is a hypocrite does not make wrong actions good or okay or honorable.

For the fun of it, though, I'm waiting for a legitimate example of how Dr. Laura is a hypocrite. She gets viciously attacked over and over again by angry, bitter people. A textbook could be written about misrepresentation and logical fallacies involved in this. But for all of their spewing of the word, they have failed to show her to be a hypocrite.

The "hypocrite" attacks have mostly amounted to claiming that things she did while a "liberal brainwashed feminista" (her words) that she has since repented of somehow disqualify her from giving an opinion to people who seek it on the radio and print. Some attacks have also tried to blame her for the supposed actions of her mother and her adult son; have centered on the fact that she's not a physician (which is strange because she readily states she's not – she has a Doctorate); that she worked while her son was a minor even though she tells women not to work if they have minor children (a strawman, because Dr. Laura's position is that parents should raise their own kids instead of dumping them on relatives or daycare, and she made sure that either her son was with her while she was on the radio, or that she worked while he was asleep, etc.); that she told military wives to shut up (she told them not to burden their deployed husbands with complaints about which the husbands could do nothing while deployed); and that she blames wives for their husbands cheating (she blames cheaters for cheating, but does point out that a well-picked husband is not going to cheat if his wife is giving him the simple things he needs). There are also complaints about how she handles callers, but her objective (aside from getting people to listen of course) is to make the caller (and listener) do better, not necessarily feel better immediately. There's a short amount of time to accomplish this on a call-in radio talk show, so she often has to be blunt and curt and cut through the word games and denial.

Really, though, most of these "charges" against her are things people wouldn't bother with, except that people hate it when someone points out that a behavior they are engaged in is immoral, destructive, or somehow depriving someone else of something due them.

She's being attacked because she says that people should save sex and cohabitation for marriage; that women should not sexually reject their husbands; that a woman or girl who isn't in a healthy marriage should give her baby up for adoption rather than keeping the baby or having the baby "sucked into a sink"; that if someone does choose to raise a child alone or ends up divorced or widowed that they should not get a new honey until the youngest child is grown; and that children should be raised by a married mom and dad, and not by "day orphanages", shack-up couples, unmarried individuals, or same-sex couples.

It is that last one that really sets people off – the idea that children need a mom and a dad. So people refer back to a quote from her show in which she said that a homosexual orientation is a biological error. I'll grant that the quote is accurate for the sake of this discussion. Repeatedly, the spin put on that quote is that she called people (gays and lesbians) biological errors – and that is not what the quote says. But notice she did say that homosexuality is inborn. Regardless, homofascists have treated her like Lou Sheldon or even Fred Phelps, despite her stating that homosexuality is not a choice. Despite the fact that she repeatedly takes calls from gays and lesbians and treats them with dignity and respect, she repeatedly tells others to be loving, friendly, and accepting towards gays and lesbians, and she repeatedly tells concerned callers that the gays and lesbians they know are not going to stop being gay and lesbian and their partners should be treated with respect and kindness. She has even said same-sex couples should avail themselves of the ability to get marriage licenses in the states that will issue them to brideless or groomless couples. But because she notes that children need a mom and a dad and that, because of that (and to avoid creating "extra" embryos destined to be killed), same-sex couples should not make babies through third party reproduction or adopt infants - she gets severely disparaged continually.

There are the extensive whiny webpages. And hardly a day goes by that someone doesn't blog a "letter to Dr. Laura" that was also adapted by lazy West Wing scribes in which she and the Bible are mocked over the issue of homosexual behavior. The letter emerged when Dr. Laura was practicing as an Orthodox Jew (she no longer identifies as Orthodox). There's an excellent response to that letter here, by the way. No matter – people will still keep putting it on their blogs and pretend like they really know what the Bible teaches, and what Dr, Laura said all those years ago.

You can read things I previously wrote about these matters here and here.

Read Dr. Laura's full recent statement yourself.

Meanwhile, the poof is in the pudding. You can read letters to Dr. Laura, listen to her callers, and read blogs from everyday people that reveal that her advice has led to happier and better behaved children, happier and better behaved spouses, and happier and more self-respecting people in general – including people who are gay or lesbian. There are gays and lesbians who benefit from her advice, and I can only hope that as a result, they see how some of the venomous haters and advocacy groups do not represent their best interests.

The same could be said about race and Dr. Laura's use of "the n word". Dr. Laura didn't use that word against someone or to describe someone. She used it to make a point to a caller, and she realized she didn't handle the call in the best way, and apologized for it. But the haters used it to distract from real issues. They attacked as "racist" a woman who has vehemently supported interracial married couples on her program. Dr. Laura was fed up with how the activist groups attack terrestrial radio broadcasters, and so now her show's home is satellite radio. Hey, things are even better now, so what those haters meant for ill has been used for good, including Dr. Laura clearing up some of the lies about her. On her last terrestrial radio broadcast, she took calls and explained some of what really happened when it came to her walking away from association with Orthodox Judaism. On her new show, in response to an erroneous statement by a caller, she explained that her mother abandoned her and refused contact with her. Really, what was Dr. Laura supposed to do about that? In her new book and through the book promotion, she has talked about the situation with the late Bill Balance.

The haters, I expect, will continue to trade and circulate lies.

I have my own minor disagreements with some of her opinions. But I base those on things she actually says, not a misunderstanding of what she says. Isn't it time people stop slandering and libeling her, especially in this supposed new age of civility?

Previously:

I Believe Glen Starkey Libeled Dr. Laura

Hit-and-Run Dr. Laura Critics

See also "Libel is Fun" over at Everything Must Go!

Update on Proposition 8

2011-09-06T15:47:00.000-07:00

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

2011-09-05T11:49:00.000-07:00

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.