About Me

Name: Playful Walrus
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

More Evidence That Criminals, Not Poverty, Cause Crime

Posted by Playful Walrus on Tuesday, December 29, 2009 6:07:23 PM
How often has the Left blamed crime on poverty? In reality, the connection is more often the other away around - crime causes poverty. However, like several other recent reports over the last several years, this article by Joel Rubin and Richard Winton in the left-leaning Los Angeles Times reports…
Crime in Los Angeles County dropped again in 2009 despite rising unemployment and the bad economy, continuing a slide that has pushed homicides to levels not seen since the 1960s.
There's a lot of good news.
The number of property-related crimes, such as burglary and theft, also declined generally this year, including a surprisingly large drop in the number of stolen automobiles.

The trend extended into other parts of Southern California and several major cities around the country.
This isn't just a brief anomaly.
For the LAPD, the statistics marked the seventh consecutive year in which the rate of serious crimes has declined.
So what does this mean?
The overall progress made this year around the country further refuted a once widely accepted belief that crime rates rise amid economic downturns.

Criminologists have long puzzled over the effect the economy and society's ills have on crime rates.
Here's comes the beard-scratching...
One explanation suggests that layoffs have resulted in an increase in the number of people remaining at home and serving as "guardians" against crime in their neighborhoods, Kelling said.
And this is definitely a Lefty explanation…
Richard B. Rosenfeld, president of the American Society of Criminology, added that the federal government's decision to extend unemployment benefits may have staved off some crime.
But they do give some credit where it is really due.
Kelling and Rosenfeld emphasized that much of the credit for the extended decline in Los Angeles belongs to the LAPD, which has continued to refine crime-fighting strategies and strengthen ties with community groups in neighborhoods where it was once viewed with distrust and hostility.
The article never gets to one of the biggest reasons crime rates have declined: Three Strikes and similar sentencing. Being poor doesn't turn someone into a criminal. As it turns out, there is a small percentage of the population - and some of them are rich - who commit most of the violent crime and serious property crime. When you lock these people up, crime rates go down. Yes, good policing makes a difference. Yes, it is good for people to voluntary reach out and help others who are desperate. But let's not ignore the correlation between sentencing and crime rates.

While we're all sinners, very few of us lead a life of ongoing serious crime. It is a basic function of government to remove serious criminals from the rest of us. When we do lock career criminals up, we have significantly less crime. This is not magic.

One of the best things we can do for the people living in the more blighted areas is to attack the gangs in a "sweep and hold" situaton where the National Guard and ICE assist local law enforcement in disrupting the grip gangs have in these places.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Getting Government Out of the Bedroom?

Posted by Playful Walrus on Wednesday, August 19, 2009 3:00:00 PM
I'm generally in favor of that.  I'm also in favor of people keeping private consensual behavior... private.  I don't need to see it on parade.

J. Kelly Strader, a professor of law at Southwestern Law School in Los Angeles, has a commentary in today's Los Angeles Times discussing the impact – or the alleged lack thereof – of the Lawrence vs. Texas decision on laws and court rulings about sexual behavior. The piece starts out mentioning the effort to repeal the California Marriage Amendment, then quickly moves on to Lawrence, maintaining that that there is a "constant threat to our privacy rights."

My analysis is over at The Opine Editorials.


(Blogging note: I will likely not be blogging again for the rest of the day, or at least not until very late in the day.)



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

Handy Dandy Marriage Neutering Plea Repellant

Posted by Playful Walrus on Tuesday, May 26, 2009 6:00:00 PM
I have noticed that in responding to items about marriage neutering (“same-sex marriage”, “gay marriage”) on news/commentary websites, blogs, and columns, there is a lot of repetition of the same talking points. That is why I have compiled this. Feel free to repost this in its entirely (or an entire, unabridged section (I, II, or III) as long as you link back to this post on The Playful Walrus – use it in comment areas and in e-mail, if you find it helpful.  Print it out and hand it to your neighbors, friends, family members, coworkers - as long as you include the URL.


Handy Dandy Marriage Neutering Plea Repellant

We are not obligated to change our laws just because someone has asked us to(1). We are not obligated to issue marriage licenses to brideless or groomless couples. If "equality" such as "equal access" compels us to issue marriage licenses to any two people, then it also compels us to issue marriage licenses to siblings, people who are already married to others, roommates, and platonic strangers(2). Business or crime partners may find marriage licenses convenient, for example. (No, I'm not equating incest to homosexuality, but neither should a brideless or groomless couple be equated to marriage. All of these couplings are different kinds of relationships.)

The burden of proof is on those who want to change something that has served society well throughout history to show why the change is necessary. Please note that one need not be religious, nor believe there is anything wrong with homosexual behavior, to oppose marriage neutering. One can even support marriage neutering, but reject the notion that it is a court’s authority to impose marriage neutering on state licensing.

I. Neutering state marriage licensing should be up to the people of a state.

    A. The people retain all power not granted to a branch of government. Courts are not obligated to intervene on constitutional grounds unless an actual right is being violated by a law.
 
    B. No right is being violated under bride-groom marriage licensing.
        1. True rights do not obligate others without their consent(3). There is a right to free speech, for example, because each of us has been born with the ability to communicate. But that doesn’t mean anyone has to listen to me, nor does Clear Channel have to provide me with billboard space free of charge.
        2. State licenses are granted by the people of a state per their consent.
        3. Therefore, voluntary associations without a bride or a groom do not have a right to a state-issued marriage license without a vote of (or on behalf) of the people to neuter marriage licensing. Under the principle of equal access/protection, state or federal law may prohibit discrimination against individuals on the basis of certain traits, such as race, sex, and sexual orientation, so that a driver’s license can’t be denied to someone with darker skin if that person meets the same criteria as a person with lighter skin. However, bride-groom marriage licenses are available to all individuals, regardless of race, sex, or sexual orientation. It is not unconstitutional for the state to treat different kinds of voluntary associations differently, as evidenced by numerous laws and regulations; monosexual couples are inherently a different kind of association than a couple uniting both sexes, because men and women are different (hence “male” and “female” designations on birth certificates)(4),(5).

            If men and women were not different, then the phrase "sexual orientation" would cease to have meaning, so it is impossible for anyone to argue that that there is no difference between men and women, and therefore same-sex and both-sex couplings, without removing their original argument. In other words, a homosexual man knows there is a difference – which is why he doesn’t want to be married to a woman and instead wants to be "married" to a man.

            That a homosexual man or woman does not want to obtain a marriage license under bride-groom marriage licensing does not mean that the licensing access is not equally provided or is flawed, nor does it necessitate change, any more than how we issue driver's licenses need be changed to accommodate a lifelong bicyclist, nor should public transit busses have their wheels removed to accommodate those prone to motion sickness. Since when does a segment of the population NOT wanting to use something other people are using obligate a universal change in that thing? Don’t want to marry someone of the opposite sex? You don’t have to. Marriage is optional.

            There is no natural right to a state-issued license – not a business license, not a professional license, not a driver's license. State-issued licenses are issued on behalf of the people, because the people have chosen to issue them. States even have restrictions on gun licenses, even though we have the Second Amendment.

    C. Loving vs. Virginia, the case knocking down bans on "interracial" marriage, does not compel neutering of state marriage licensing, any more than a court ruling that a baseball team was wrongfully denied entry into a baseball league based on the “racial” composition of the team would compel that baseball league to also admit a chess team, debate team, or drama club into the league. Those clubs do different things than baseball clubs.
        1. Nowhere does the decision say that a brideless or groomless couple is entitled to a state marriage license.
        2. "Interracial" marriages were recognized as marriage throughout history and around the world, and in every major religion. Some religious denominations and some states and localities (note – never all) thought them wrong or banned them, but this was not a denial that they were marriage.
        3. Bans at the time prevented freedom of association, as couples could be prevented by force of law from cohabitation; in contrast, brideless or groomless couples have freedom of association under current law(6).
        4. "Race" is incidental to marriage, while sex (gender) is inherent to it. Bans on "interracial" marriage prevented societal integration, while marriage neutering would codify gender apartheid. In the past, progressive activists have sued to ensure that both sexes participate in voluntary associations, and a males were disallowed from forming gender-exclusive associations(7).

    D. If the state has direct voting, it should up to a direct vote. Otherwise, it should be up to the legislature/governor, which should not do it if the people of the state are against it(8).

    E. It should not be up to a court, and a court should especially not rule to neuter state marriage licensing if the people of the state have voted to preserve or restore bride-groom marriage licensing(9).

    F. The law doesn't deal with feelings or love. It deals with facts, like whether someone is male or female.

II. Voters should not vote to neuter state marriage licensing, or should vote to restore licensing to uniting the sexes if their state licensing was neutered by a court or legislature(10).

    A. Without a bride or a groom, it isn't marriage(11). Calling a same-sex pairing "marriage" is a recent phenomenon that rides the coattails of thousands of years of universal marriage history in which, despite different customs and restrictions, the core lasting common element remained - marriage always united the sexes(12).

    B. The state does not have an interest in promoting, nor a moral obligation to promote – homosexual behavior. Unlike heterosexual behavior, homosexual behavior does nothing to contribute to the larger society or perpetuate society(13).

    C. It sets a bad precedent in creating new rights that infringe upon existing rights and allowing the court or legislature to redefine the English language. Since all of our laws, including our Constitution, use English, if a court or legislature can change the definition of the words, the Constitution becomes meaningless. Our federal and state constitutions were written with the understanding that marriage unites the sexes.

    D. Even if we assume that no harm can be demonstrated to come from marriage neutering, that still doesn’t make it okay to force the unwilling populace to give something (marriage licenses) to someone else (couples excluding one of the two sexes) without the consent of the populace.

    E. "Marriage Equality" is a an impossibly elusive goal(14).

III. I can't in good conscience vote to neuter marriage licensing, or otherwise support it. Rather, I am compelled to support bride-groom marriage licensing.

    A. I can't support making it the official state policy that is that there is no difference between a couple that unites the sexes and one that excludes one of the sexes(15).
        1. Such a policy would reduce the credibility of law, just as if the law stated that the sun rises in the west.
        2. It would indicate that children are not the primary concern of the state involvement in marriage, and remove an incentive for children to be born and raised within wedlock. After all, if marriage isn’t about children, why bother to get married to raise them?
        3. How could adoption and foster agencies give preference to placing a child in a home with both a mother and a father so that they could have an in-home role model from each sex?
        4. Since laws apply to all, changing marriage licensing law does have an effect on me and my marriage. Do not ask "How does this hurt your marriage?" unless you are willing to support me forging your signature (how does that hurt your other signatures?) or are willing to allow a law that permits spousal abuse unless both parties have waived that permission (again, how would that hurt you?)
        5. Public education will be compelled to present brideless or groomless couples as no different than a couple uniting the sexes, and punish those who disagree or fail to emphasize groomless and brideless coupling as often as bride-groom coupling is depicted or discussed(16).

    B. The main reason for the state to even be involved in voluntary personal relationships is because someone else can be brought into the situation without their own consent: children.
        1. Since it takes both a man and a woman to naturally produce children, that is where the state's interest is greatest. No same-sex pairings have ever produced children by themselves. The state has an interest in licensing and promoting bride-groom pairings that it does not have with other voluntary relationships. Yes, I’m well aware that not all man-woman pairings can or intend to produce children, but they are the only kind that can – and whether they want to or intend to are private matters, while your sex is on your birth certificate.
        2. Neutering marriage licensing invites undue intrusion of the state into personal relationships. Should friendships be licensed? What makes them less worthy of recognition?

    C. The state did not create marriage, but rather it recognized it. Marriage made society, not the other way around. By neutering marriage, the state is harming its very foundation.

    D. The Constitution does not prohibit me from voting according to my convictions, even if they are religiously-based(17).

    E. If you claim you are sexually attracted to someone of the same sex, and can’t be fulfilled unless you are able to get a state marriage license with that person, then I claim that I am sexually attracted to marriage uniting the sexes, can't be fulfilled without supporting bride-groom marriage licensing, and enjoy politically supporting and promoting traditional marriage. If homosexuality advocates are correct in saying that someone's sexual orientation must be expressed, protected, and even publicly celebrated and supported, and that criticizing someone's sexual orientation amounts to a mental disorder (homophobia) and bigotry, then I am compelled to support traditional marriage and I am immune from criticism for doing so. Thus, anyone who criticizes me is a bigot, a closeted marriage supporter, or a phobic in need of therapy(18),(19).


Now, before you respond to me (and keep in mind that the comments of bigots, matrimoniphobes, and closet cases are automatically to be dismissed, based on the rules of the game as set by homosexuality advocates), please see below.

1. If you have some issue that you perceive to be a problem (such as the person you are in love with can't gain legal immigration status by getting a marriage license with you), there are other ways of addressing these issues without neutering marriage – just like the are other ways of dealing with household problems than tearing down the house.

2. I've already dealt with many common arguments used by marriage neutering advocates:
Divorce Does Not Justify Neutering Marriage

"We Are Your Family and Neighbors"

"Our Right Was Taken Away"

"Shall We Vote On Your Marriage Now?"

"Love is Love"

It Doesn't Matter That People Don't Know What Civil Unions Are

Other arguments addressed HERE, HERE, and HERE.

Notes:

(1)Legislating For Feelings
http://walrus.blogtownhall.com/2008/07/02/legislating_for_feelings.thtml

(2)Bride-Groom Marriage Licensing Does Not Violate Equal Protection
http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2009/05/equal-protection.html

(3)Rights Are Not Hand-Outs, and Hand-Outs Are Not Rights
http://walrus.blogtownhall.com/2007/07/12/rights_are_not_hand-outs,_and_hand-outs_are_not_rights.thtml

(4)The Paradox of Marriage Neutering and Gender Distinctions
http://walrus.blogtownhall.com/2008/10/19/paradox_now_%E2%80%93_marriage_neutering_and_gender_distinctions.thtml

(5)The Domestic Partnership Law Proves Our Point
http://walrus.blogtownhall.com/2008/11/06/domestic_partnership_law_proves_our_point.thtml

(6)It Is Not a "Ban on Gay Marriage"
http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2009/03/its-not-ban-on-gay-marriage.html

(7)The Race Card and the California Marriage Amendment
http://walrus.blogtownhall.com/2008/10/28/the_race_card_and_prop_8.thtml

(8)No Means No
http://walrus.blogtownhall.com/2008/11/12/no_means_no.thtml

(9)Imaginary Rights
http://walrus.blogtownhall.com/2008/10/09/imaginary_rights.thtml

(10)The Right to Vote
http://walrus.blogtownhall.com/2009/02/04/the_right_to_vote.thtml

(11)It Takes a Bride and a Groom
http://walrus.blogtownhall.com/2007/09/26/it_takes_a_bride_and_a_groom_to_make_a_marriage.thtml

(12)More on the Definition of Marriage
http://walrus.blogtownhall.com/2007/10/15/more_on_the_definition_of_marriage.thtml

(13)Why Marriage Matters
http://walrus.blogtownhall.com/2008/05/17/why_marriage_matters.thtml

(14)"Marriage Equality" is a False Promise
http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2009/03/is-it-possible-to-truly-achieve.html

(15)Neutering Marriage Devalues and Discourages Marriage
http://walrus.blogtownhall.com/2008/07/23/neutering_marriage_devalues_and_discourages_marriage.thtml

(16)"Schools Aren't Required to Teach Marriage"
http://walrus.blogtownhall.com/2008/11/04/schools_arent_required_to_teach_marriage.thtml

(17)The Constitution Doesn't Prohibit Voting According Religious Beliefs
http://walrus.blogtownhall.com/2009/03/14/does_the_constitution_disqualify_voting_according_to_religion.thtml

(18)Defending Your Support of Marriage Amendments
http://walrus.blogtownhall.com/2008/12/02/defending_your_support_of_prop_8.thtml

(19)Affirming Marriage Is Not Hateful
http://walrus.blogtownhall.com/2008/07/21/affirming_marriage_does_not_mean_hating.thtml
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Voters Are Tired of Tax Increases

Posted by Playful Walrus on Thursday, May 21, 2009 6:33:18 PM
And since we reject them when we can vote on them, does California need a new constitution?  The Los Angeles Times editorial board seems to think so.  I'm sure the passage of the California Marriage Amendment has nothing to do with their position on the matter (yeah, right).
Schools are about to lay off teachers.
Good.  We could stand to lay off some teachers.  Too bad it will be done by seniority instead of effectiveness.  The state should get out of education entirely.
Prisons are about to release inmates.
Stupid.  You know, there is more to the state than schools and prisons.  Other workers could be let go.
Historic assets are on the block.
Maybe the state shouldn't own them in the first place.
Initiatives confuse.
Not this time.  Ballot explanations lied.  We saw through it.  We weren't confused.  We didn't like the initiatives.
Revolts fail.
Sometimes they do.  That means sometimes the succeed.
No amount of electing and reelecting people who promise to fix things seems able to move us forward.
Because they are beholden to the government employee unions.
It's time to reboot.
Perhaps.  As I've said a before, I'd rather split the state, first.  Make a new state and/or annex some California counties to Oregon, Nevada, and/or Arizona.  It is ridiculous to have San Francisco in the same state as Orange County.
There have been calls for months now to convene a state constitutional convention and, in essence, start over. It's a good idea.
Not without a split taking place first.  Then let the state(s) come up with a constitution that more of the resulting population can support.
The Times has made no secret of its position against the two-thirds legislative threshold for tax increases and budgets, and we will keep pushing to overturn it.
Yes, it takes a supermajority to raise taxes, but it still happens too often.  So I don't see a need to drop the requirement.

"DPJ" seems to be thinking along my lines:
The state is simply too large and diverse to function effectively. Northern, southern, coastal and inland counties will never agree on common government because they all reflect specific, localized political cultures. State government needs to localize itself in order to have cohesive groups of citizens reach consensus on how to govern themselves. The only way to go about that is to split the state up into 5 or 6 new states.
"Tom" wrote:
Why does the Times keep pushing to overturn the 2/3 law? As if taxes haven't been raised with the rule? Do you want even higher taxes? Higher income taxes, higher gas taxes, higher sales tax, higher car tax? When is enough enough?
Previously:
The Missed Potential of Governor Schwarzenegger
Kalifornia's Fiscal Mess
California Doesn't Need to Raise Taxes
Does California Need a New Constitution?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Libertarian Dreams Are Nice

Posted by Playful Walrus on Thursday, March 27, 2008 3:36:31 PM
...but we need to deal with reality.

We don’t live in a libertarian country.  Any move towards a libertarian policy needs to be weighed against what will remain "non-libertarian", at least until it gets addressed, too.

For example, I think people should be free to offer their services on a daily basis unencumbered, and anyone who wants to hire them should be able to do so, unencumbered.  And it really doesn’t matter to me at all if that person who is being hired is here legally or not.  But I also think that 1) there should be a lot less public property – places where day laborers tend to congregate; 2) there should be stronger private property laws, so that if someone wants to host day laborers, they can (AND they can set the conditions, such as “no littering”), and if others want them off of their property, they can remove them; 3) government should not regulate the workplace (aside from actual crimes like fraud), nor collect payroll taxes; 4) there shouldn’t be tax-funded public assistance programs and thus no illegal aliens getting my tax money; 5) there should be separation of state and school, so that I can choose whether or not to pay for the education of the children of illegal aliens; 6) the federal government should control of the national borders so that terrorists, criminals, and their tools don’t make it here.

Under those conditions, the complaints that many people have about day laborers would be addressed.

Libertarians often argue that even illegal aliens greatly contribute to our society, because of their inexpensive labor.  I heard this once from a libertarian guest on KFI’s John & Ken Show.  The hosts couldn’t believe it; they kept describing how illegal aliens were ruining neighborhoods, schools, and other things.  The hosts and the guest were kind of talking past each other.  Although I understood what was going on, the conversation never got to the point where the guest explained that in “his” world, the negatives of illegal aliens would be largely eliminated – in his world, the schools and roads and such are private property and not funded by taxes or controlled by government bureaucrats, and illegal aliens don’t get public assistance.  That’s something the hosts didn’t seem to catch, and something the guest never explicitly explained.

In a libertarian world, there are no tax-funded schools, so it doesn’t matter how many illegal aliens are in our schools.  In a libertarian world, infrastructure is paid for by users, not by taxpayers.  In a libertarian world, there are no social welfare programs paid for by taxes.

Take another example - “drugs”.  I would find legalizing them more tolerable if I have the right to freely fire (or not hire in the first place) someone who does them, and to protect myself and my property from someone who is high, and if I had other libertarian freedoms, such as not paying for the health care of druggies.

Legalizing prostitution is more tolerable if I can own the sidewalk in front of my business and bar streetwalkers from standing there.

Get the picture?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »