About Me

Name: Playful Walrus
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

How To Get a Leftist to Support Gun Ownership

Posted by Playful Walrus on Thursday, December 03, 2009 7:23:01 PM
1. Come up with an abortion procedure that involves guns.

2. Come up with sex play that involves guns. Phil Spector seemed to be into something like that.

The Left would be clamoring to get guns into the hands of public school students and to teach them about using guns - all the different ways they could be used, and how to use them safely, and where the students could go to get medical treatment should they have an accident, without their parents knowing.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

It's Mourning in the Hood

Posted by Playful Walrus on Wednesday, February 04, 2009 12:58:08 PM
Are mourners of killed gang members sitting ducks?  Ruben Vives and Richard Winton of the Los Angeles Times have a story about mourners getting shot at makeshift shrines for gang warfare casualties.
The flowers and candles began piling up Friday at the corner of 104th Street and Budlong Avenue, after a suspected gang member was fatally shot there.

To residents in this rough section of unincorporated South [Central] L.A., that killing was bad enough. Then Monday night, a group of mourners were gathered there when a gunman walked by and opened fire, killing two men -- both suspected gang members -- and gravely wounding a third.
Hey, I have an idea!  Let's ply this area with more taxpayer-funded handouts, housing projects, and other goodies.  Those tactics seem to be working so well.  Or maybe we can lock up violent criminals and deport any that are not American citizens while also encouraging law-abiding residents to carry and practice using firearms to protect the innocent?
Violence at shrines and memorials for suspected or known gang members is far from widespread, but it's enough of a problem that a growing number of cities including Oakland, Berkeley, Boston and Hartford, Conn., are trying to regulate them.
Yet another unintended consequence of property ownership being public.
Despite the concerns, there does not appear to be support for restricting the shrines in Los Angeles County. Some officials who represent South [Central] L.A. argue that the street-side memorials are an important tool for healing, not just for gang members but family and friends.
An important healing tool is not getting shot in the first place by not being a gang member.  Yes, others get shot, too.  But the odds are worse if you're a thug.

I am so tired of this murderous subculture.  We need to clear and hold, like we started doing in Iraq.

(Note – Someone decided a few years back that calling South Central L.A. South L.A. instead would make a difference in improving things in that area.  More symbolism over substance.  The area is not bad because "South Central" is tainted.  It is the other way around.  You could call the place Shangri-La, and all it would do it taint "Shangri-La".)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

LA Mayor Avoids Using Starter Pistol

Posted by Playful Walrus on Tuesday, July 08, 2008 2:37:53 PM
Los Angeles Mayor Tony Villar apparently didn't want to be photographed holding a starter pistol at a swimming pool publicity event.  You know, because someone might mistake him for a law enforcement officer, or something, and who would want that?

He has no problem being photographed speaking encouraging words to crowds of illegal aliens exercising protest rights we would not enjoy in their country, or making a mockery of marriage.  Ah, but being photographed with a useful and legal tool - can't have that!

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Congrats to Joe Horn of Texas

Posted by Playful Walrus on Tuesday, July 01, 2008 11:17:00
Congrats are in order for Joe Horn and the people of Texas for doing the right thing.  Let all home-invaders be warned.  Property rights are worthless if you can't defend your property, or have your neighbor do it in your stead.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Guns, SWAT, and Feminism

Posted by Playful Walrus on Tuesday, March 18, 2008 8:16:41 PM
There’s nothing like reading through the Los Angeles Times, sometimes because of the wacky stuff that goes on in California, sometimes because of how the paper covers something, and sometimes because of opinions carried inside.

City of Los Angeles Councilmen Ed Reyes and Jack Weiss have proposed stricter sentencing for those caught with illegal firearms in a school zone.  Really?  So it isn’t as bad to have illegal firearms elsewhere?  Will this change any behavior?  The guns are already illegal - the person doesn't care about the law.

Speaking of guns, there’s this from Joel Rubin:
A panel of law enforcement experts convened by Los Angeles Police Chief William J. Bratton to examine the department's elite SWAT unit concluded in an undisclosed report that the rigorous testing to get into the unit should be changed to make it more open to women, called for tighter supervision and criticized officers for relying too heavily on force over negotiations.
Uh, no.  The SWAT unit exists for a reason.  It doesn’t need to be easier to get into.  It has been functioning very well for many years.  In fact, they only recently had their first fatality.  How about this… how about creating several units of women prone to bad PMS.  Each unit will bond enough to synchronize menstral cycles, but each unit will stay away from the other units so there will always be a unit at menstruation.  When there is a problem such as a standoff, send the unit in with the women who are PMS-ing at that time, with bullhorns.  Let them nag, berate, demean, and belittle the suspect, describing their symptoms, until he gives up.

Speaking of sexism, Elizabeth Wurtzel chimes in with some cheese and whine in this opinion piece.
Am I the only one who feels that last week's news events prove that the women's movement has failed?
Some women make bad choices.  But they do have choices.  That’s the difference.
Even worse, because Silda Wall Spitzer is accomplished and beautiful, the whole scene serves as a grim reminder that even amazing women become sexually disposable after a certain age.
You can’t make a jerk appreciate even the best woman.  If what he cares about is youth and variety, he will stray.  Lesson: Don’t hitch yourself to a jerk.  Not all men are jerks.
Is this the world that feminism hath wrought?
Yup.
Walk onto the trading floor of any of the hedge funds that crowd the Lever House building in Manhattan and hardly a female face will be seen who is not a secretary or an assistant. Enter the software shops of Silicon Valley, go to the rows of terminals where geeky computer programmers design cleverly crafted new media. They are mostly smart boys, playing with their toys. Everything that keeps our economy running is run by men.
This is not true, but even if it was, everything that keeps our lives running is run by women.  Women have the primarily role in making new citizens.  Which is more important?
For all the dynamic, visible women who are chief executives -- like the CEOs of Xerox and Kraft -- only 16% of corporate officers and 17% of large law firm partners are female.
Much if this is due to the choices women have made.  Shouldn’t women be able to make choices?
Meanwhile, women still make 80 cents on the man's dollar. And, for whatever reason, women who do the exact same work but are also mothers make 10 cents less, according to Anne Alstott of Yale Law School.
Ugh. It is a lie that a woman makes less than a man for doing the same kind, level, quality, and quantity of work.  If you take time off, if you call in sick, if you come in late or leave early, you’re not going to climb as high or make as much as someone who is present and applying himself.
It seems that the only industries in which women earn more than their male counterparts are pornography and prostitution.
Don’t forget modeling.
My Sunday night summer viewing, which once consisted of the slumber-party gab of "Sex and the City," is now the lad-happy cool of "Entourage." I really do love that show, but most of the women -- girls -- in it cannot even kindly be called sex objects: They are simply sockets.
Some women choose to allow males to treat them that way.
I appeared topless on the cover of one of my books, a decision I stand by still. I am proud that Naomi Wolf published a book called "Promiscuities" and that Katie Roiphe wrote a book called "The Morning After." I am really proud that Susan Faludi came out with the brilliant "Backlash." But I don't think the idea that you could own your own orgasm was ever intended to teach college coeds that it is a good idea to spend spring break in a shower with your roommate in a motel room in Daytona Beach having a lesbian encounter for the cameras of "Girls Gone Wild." That's not feminism!
So women shouldn’t be allowed to choose?  What’s really ticking her off is that now males can get their jollies without any obligation to women.  Remember when your type mocked the conservative women who warned how radical feminism was going to end up changing things for the worse?
But there's a countervailing tendency: the much-discussed opt-out revolution, which many upper-echelon women have chosen as a way of ruining their lives all by themselves, no assistance from men at all. This phenomenon has been both well chronicled and thoroughly debunked. But whether or not you believe it exists, professional women are having babies and deciding not to go back to work because motherhood is a cult, or homemaking is meaningful, or the hearth has heat -- or, really and truly, because being in an office 40-plus hours a week kind of sucks. A lot of men don't like their jobs either. But it's only women who have decided the hell with it -- and, truly, the hell with feminism.
That’s because raising children is much more rewarding than earning a paycheck, but men are still expected to be the providers.  Most women, even if they don’t want children, still expect to find a man who earns more than they do.  And if they marry a high earner, they expect to have the choice to work or not.
Somewhere between childbirth and a no-fault divorce, a lot of smart women have chosen to engage in some risky behavior. Opting out is not a feminist choice. It's mostly just a bad idea.
Not if you CHOOSE WISELY and TREAT KINDLY.  It is a smart investment to have time and energy to spend on your husband, your kids, and your home.  There’s also- oh, pre-nups, saving and investing, insurance, alimony, and child support – all there in case something goes wrong (death, disability, divorce).
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (1) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Religious Right on Defense, Law Enforcement, and More

Posted by Playful Walrus on Monday, May 14, 2007 9:47:03
I’m presenting a series here called Exposing the Religious Right.

The introduction/first installment is here.

The second installment, discussing the motivations/starting points of the RR is here.

The Religious Right on Defense, Law Enforcement, Capital Punishment, & Gun Ownership

The RR believes that we are obligated to defend ourselves from attack, with force if necessary.  A husband is obligated to defend his wife and kids (and to defend himself so that he can continue to protect them).  Collectively, we are obligated to protect ourselves through law enforcement and militarily force.  Therefore, the RR tends to respect and support a strong military (including most military actions/war efforts) and law enforcement personnel.

Some in the RR have expressed disagreements with some approved actions by Federal law enforcement agencies, however.  Examples of this include the “Waco” and “Ruby Ridge” incidents.  The RR is not united in these opinions.

Indeed, many in the RR are wary of the Federal government having too much power and becoming oppressive, and so promote gun ownership, perceiving that an armed populace is less likely to be oppressed.

Mostly, however, the RR support for gun ownership has to do with the Second Amendment, self-defense, and family defense from criminals.  Most people in the RR do not have a moral problem with hunting, either, even if they do not do it themselves.

Perhaps one of the areas where the RR is least unified is capital punishment.  Churches such as the Roman Catholic Church are officially against it, others join in on “pro-life” grounds, and others in the RR may agree with capital punishment in principle, but think our government may be too flawed or corrupted to be trusted with properly implementing capital punishment.  Capital punishment supporters in the RR do not see it as being in conflict with their pro-life convictions, because they maintain the criminal’s actions warrant the punishment and that executing those criminals protects innocents from further threat from those criminals.

The underlying principles the RR employs in this area is that it is okay to use force to defend your life, the lives of other innocents, your country, and law & order.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (1) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »