About Me

Name: Playful Walrus
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Happy Thanksgiving

Times have been better. But in reality, 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'm thankful for knowing my Lord and Savior. I'm thankful for my family. I'm thankful to be an American. Those are three blessings that overflow my life.

The modern American Thanksgiving meal is a 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 pleasant and reflective Thanksgiving Day.

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

Not Learning Economics

Michael Berliner of Los Angeles got it right when writing in to the Los Angeles Times about increased fees for University of California students:
Fees are being raised because the state is in debt. And why is it in debt? Because it spends more than it takes in. And why does it spend more than it takes in? Because it refuses to cut spending. And why does it refuse to cut spending? Because of entitlements -- i.e., the belief that people have a right to the wealth of others in the form of education, healthcare, etc.

And what's the source of the altruist morality of entitlements? The university classrooms.
It's a cycle, too be sure. Public education in general, staffed with Big Labor union members, churns out students who expect to rely as much as possible on the government. This helps swell the ranks and compensation of government employees, who are... ta-da... unionized!

Previously: A False Promise of a Cheap University Education
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Big Labor Infighting

According to California Democratic Party Chairman John Burton, the leadership of Big Labor behemoth SEIU has "threatened" him.  Why? Well, there's a splinter group called the National Union of Healthcare Workers, and...
He hailed the breakaway union's leader, Sal Rosselli, as a lifelong friend and "one of the strongest labor leaders in this state."
So is Burton merely doing a favor for a friend, or is Rosselli offering better representation to union members than SEIU? If it is the latter, then shouldn’t the SEIU step it up, instead of trying to quash someone else? Or is it all really about SEIU management power, and not the union member?

Shane Goldmacher reported this in a blog entry at LATimes.com.

There were some interesting comments.

"thomas Nelson" wrote November 24, 2009 at 11:50 AM:
One Socialist threatening another Socialist for supporting another Socialist...sounds like the Soviet Union all over again.
"gerrrg" wrote November 24, 2009 at 12:08 PM:
I'd put a $50 wager that the SEIU has it backwards...it is the SEIU that requires Democratic Party support in order for it to survive.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Envy Expressed in Letter

This reminds me of a poll I heard about where people said they'd rather neither economy grew than to have the Japanese economy grow at a slightly faster rate than the U.S. economy. David Eggenschwiler of Los Angeles wrote in to the Los Angeles Times:
GOP congressmen have insisted that allowing people to buy across state lines should take care of the high cost of insurance: People could "shop around."
It wouldn’t necessarily "take care" of the "high cost" of insurance, as there are many factors contributing to that. It would provide more competition, which could lower prices.
These congressmen never point out that it's the insurance industry that would benefit most from this change.
Assuming that’s true - so what? Is that a problem, as long as it increases your options? Or do you hate the employees and investors in the insurance companies so much, you would opt to keep artificial limits on your options just to keep them from getting something they want?
Delaware became the credit card corporate center of the U.S. because it allowed high interest rate charges.
So don't use credit cards if it bothers you so much, and boycott Delaware. I don't even know what my credit card interest rates are, because I pay my credit cards off.

What is it with people who apply to use the services of a company, and then decry the terms and conditions of the services?
Let the buyer -- and voter -- beware. The GOP does not put your interests first any more than corporations do.
Let's grant this. This is why having as small of a federal government as possible is a good idea. It is much easier for one party (or two parties) and corporations to limit your options the more power is centralized in D.C. The fact is, the Democrat Party and the GOP both exist to get their members elected and appointed to office. That's their main purpose. That's not good or bad in an of itself. But we, the people, need to hold any elected official accountable.

See My National Health Care Plan.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

CORE Lutherans Moving Forward

It's been a few months since we’ve had an update on ELCA Lutherans. Patrick Condon of the Associated Press reports the latest in respect to Lutherans who accept Biblical authority splitting off from the ELCA.
Leaders of Lutheran CORE said Wednesday that a working group would immediately begin drafting a constitution and taking other steps to form the denomination, with hopes to have it off the ground by next August.
What was the tipping point? Here's a reminder...
At its annual convention in Minneapolis in August, ELCA delegates voted to lift a ban that had prohibited sexually active gay and lesbian pastors from serving as clergy. The new policy, expected to take effect in April, will allow such individuals to lead ELCA churches as long as they can show that they are in committed, lifelong relationships.
And how is that to be determined, anyway? They live together? So what?
At a September convention, Lutheran CORE members voted to spend a year considering whether to form a new Lutheran denomination. However, its leaders said Wednesday that a heavy volume of requests for an alternative from disenfranchised congregations and churchgoers prompted them to hasten the process.
They can't get away fast enough. Some people will try to portray this as homophobia, but I doubt that most of these people are afraid of homosexual people. Instead, they submit to the teachings of the Bible.
John Brooks, spokesman at the ELCA's Chicago-based headquarters, said Lutheran CORE's move was not unexpected. He expressed hope that church members would ultimately opt to stay in the denomination as it strives to be "a place for all people despite any differences we might have on any issues."
Really? Any issues? How about authority of Jesus Christ? You’re supposed to be a church, not a social club. Churches have doctrines and standards.

I've already said plenty in previous blog entries on this issue.

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

Shocking Hate Crimes Crisis!

And it's all the fault of the California Marriage Amendment! Just check out this LATimes.com blog entry by Raja Abdulrahim.
Los Angeles County saw an overall 4% drop in hate crimes last year, while crimes against gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered people increased, prompted in part by last November’s highly charged Proposition 8 initiative, the voter-approved [California Marriage Amendment], according to a new report released today.
Crimes against "transgendered" people based on their transgenderism should be lumped in with other crimes against the mentally ill.

How do they know the California Marriage Amendment is the cause? Sounds like they could be making some assumptions.
There were 134 sexual-orientation hate crimes reported last year, up from 111 in 2007, and were more likely to be violent than hate crimes motivated by race or religion, according to the annual Hate Crime Report by the Los Angeles County Commission on Human Relations.
134.

Look, I’m against violence and property destruction except in self-defense or in defense of an innocent. As such, if someone is beating up an innocent bystander, for whatever reason, that person needs to be thrown into prison. But let's have a little perspective. There are over ten million residents in Los Angeles county, and at any given time there are probably several more million people in the county for business, as tourists or for other recreation, for education, etc. So, slightly more often than once every two days, someone is supposedly attacked for being LGBTQQUAI???, and reports it. This is a tiny number given the millions of people we're talking about.

Most murders in the county don't make the front page of the Los Angeles Times anymore, and haven't for a long time, because there are so many. And yet we're talking about 134 reported "hate crimes", which can be things like pushing, slapping, kicking, spitting, or spraypainting.

Furthermore, if I were a betting man, I’d bet that violence within "the community", including domestic violence, when compared to rates in male-female relations as a control, is higher to the point where you're more likely to get beaten up for being LGBT by another LGBT person than you are by someone who "hates teh gays".

I'd like to know if these stats take into account physical altercations at demonstrations, where both sides traded insults?
"I am very sad to be here today because my presence means that my community – lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people – were horribly impacted by hate crimes in 2008," Lorri Jean, chief executive of the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center, said at a news conference.
Looks to me like you are taking advantage of the MSM's disproportionate and sympathetic coverage of your activist agenda. I doubt you were all that sad to have that platform.
"Anti-gay and anti-transgender hate crimes do not happen in a vacuum," she said, "they happen in the context of a society that still tolerates and even promotes discrimination against us."
What discrimination are we talking about? It is right, rational, and necessary to discriminate between one behavior and another. She (I’m assuming Lorri is a she) cleverly uses that word in a way where it can evoke all kinds of unrelated issues. American slavery and involved discrimination against someone based on ancestry/skin color. But that's a far cry from, "No groom, no marriage license".
Robin Toma, executive director of the Human Relations Commission, said the data underscored the importance of the recent passage of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which extends federal hate crimes protection to victims of sexual orientation crimes.
And I'm sure the data is important to keep tax money flowing to the Human Relations Commission and to justify its continuing existence in the first place.

As this blog entry notes, part of the story that tends to get buried in articles on hate crime statistics is the increase in ones based on religion.
Although religious hate crimes rose 14%, that increase is attributed to 15 crimes targeting the Church of Scientology, Toma said. Two thirds of those crimes were similar threatening letters sent to various church branches that were likely from the same individual, he said.
And was that related to the California Marriage Amendment, or not? Is it okay because it was directed at the Co$, and not, say, All Saints? Were the letters signed "Xenu"?

Is it possible that religion-based hate crimes, such as against conservative Catholics, Protestants, and Mormons, are less likely to be reported as such? After all, all three of those religious groups promote forgiveness, and some people mistake letting criminals get away with things on a societal level as the kind of forgiveness advocated by the Bible.


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

Humans a Virus?

In response to an article touting the discovery of water on the Moon, Russell Blinick of Encino wrote in to the Los Angeles Times:
Alas, we are taking another step in our attempt to infect all of the cosmos with the human virus. Isn't it enough that we are on the verge of destroying the Earth?
That's the way too many people on the Left look at humanity, folks. We're not just mere accidents of nature - we're a virus. We're destructive. The implication is that the universe is better off without us. This is a good reason to keep the Left from having too much power.
If there were an intergalactic police force, it would be well advised to put yellow crime tape around our planet, much like Michael Moore's action around Wall Street.
This makes the assumption that if intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe, it would be less of a "virus" than we are. On what basis, I wonder, does Mr. Blinick make that assumption?

Everything I've heard about the universe from science indicates that eventually, the universe is going to die. Now, that doesn't make it okay to be irresponsible with natural resources. However, I worry much less about our environmental stewardship than I worry about our behavior in other areas. As some theologians claim, we are fallen creatures.

Thank God we have a Redeemer who makes all things new. I believe He will renew us, and renew the universe.

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

Barash on Biology and Monogamy

Evolutionary biologist David P. Barash, professor of psychology at the University of Washington, has a commentary in the Los Angeles Times in which he claims nobody is cut out for monogamy, but we can be monogamous anyway.

He points to our biology as the threat to our monogamy.

My analysis is over at The Opine Editorials.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Meddling Begets More Meddling

Now the MSM is reporting that certain experts and authorities are calling for limiting the size of financial institutions. As long as a monopoly isn't being formed, I have no problem with financial institutions getting bigger and bigger. It can be convenient for someone to be able to handle most of their banking, credit, lending, investing, and insurance needs in the same place.

Of course, the reason some people are calling for limits is 1) bailouts and 2) propping up parts of the economy with a house of cards. Let's do neither. Let the market work.

I'm a member of more than one credit union, myself. Through merging with other credit unions and growing larger, they have been able to better serve me.

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

My National Health Care Plan

Despite alternatives being offered, those clamoring for ObamaCare Health Control claim that nobody else is offering alternative plans. Well here's my National Health Care Plan. Never ever say again that an alternative hasn't been offered.

1. The federal government stays out of health care as much as possible. See Amendments 9 and 10 of the Constitution. The federal government can get involved in breaking up monopolies, and prosecuting interstate crime such as fraud.

2. The state government stays out of health care as much as possible.

3. No government medical facilities for anyone other than military (including veterans) and perhaps prisoners.

4. Every person is free to pursue a career in medicine, subject to the same laws as anyone else.

5. Property owners have broad freedom to host medical facilities on their property.

6. People are free to develop medical procedures, medicines, and medical equipment.

7. People are allowed to support #3-6 with donations and investments of time, money, their body, etc.

8. Every person is free to seek medical care (or not) from anyone anywhere in the world. They can demand to see licensing, such a medical license or nursing license, or certification of medical treatments from any number of organizations and watchdogs.

9. Every person is free to treat (or not) another person, and what to accept, if anything, as compensation, and when it will be due. Granted, anyone who wants a government license needs to stick the government rules.  Any medical professional who wants to keep an association with an employer or insurance company will have to abide by their rules as well.

10. Each individual is free to either negotiate how he will compensate those who treat him or to make arrangements to that effect. They can negotiate directly with their doctor or the doctor's representative, or delegate negotiations to an insurance company, charity, their union, their employer, their religious congregation, or some other voluntary association. Their friends, family, and strangers who believe they have a right to subsidized health care are free to pay for it, too.

All of this involves personal liberty and voluntary associations. Strictly speaking, nobody is forced to do anything - and that includes paying for anything.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Judge Dismisses Racism Lawsuit Against Cyrus

It may not be the end of the case, but a judge has dismissed a lawsuit against Miley Cyrus for posing in a picture with other teens, apparently making fun of people of Asian ancestry (mostly). It seems the plaintiffs thought people have a right not to be offended. I wonder where they got that notion?

I'm not going to defend the actions of the people in the photo from criticism. Actually, I criticize their actions. Making fun of entire groups of people for aspects of their appearance that they were born with is stupid and can be downright cruel.  Plus, I happen to think "Asian" eyes are beautiful. But this is a freedom of speech issue. Check out the blog entry and the comments that follow.

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

Kalifornia Comes After Your TV

The Nanny State marches on. Now the controllers are coming after your big screen televisions in the name of saving the planet.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A False Promise of a Cheap University Education

The leaders of California decided 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. So when the University of California Regents took a vote yesterday to raise the amount by close to a third per year, there were very angry and noisy 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 going to directly cost them significantly more.

This is the problem when government promise things they can't deliver. California is facing something like a 20+ billion dollar deficit. 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 UC 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.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

DOMA Subverted?

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Stephen Reinhardt ordered compensation for a same-sex couple to correct what the court considered an injustice. One of the two men works for the federal government; he and his partner got a neutered marriage license during California's five month window before the California Marriage Amendment was adopted. Benefits were not extended by the employer (the federal government) to the partner. They sued. I discuss this and the LATimes.com blog entry reporting it - over at The Opine Editorials.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Praise for The Los Angeles Times

I frequently criticize The Los Angeles Times in my blog postings, and often disagree strongly with the editorial board. But I do have some praise for them in this specific case. They have a blog called Top of the Ticket, billed as "Politics and commentary, coast to coast, from the Los Angeles Times". One of the two bloggers is Andrew Malcolm. In addition to informative, I find his entries to be entertaining.  Adding to the fun are some of the comments by readers after certain entries. Most of the comments indicate that the people commenting have completely missed the tone of Mr. Malcom's blog entry. Conservative who do so blast his entries as Leftist and typical of the MSM, though the entries are anything but typical for site like LATimes.com. Leftists who don't get it call him "dumb" and try to enlighten him. It's great stuff, and you should check it out, especially if you like satire, parody, irony, and sarcasm.

Of course, now that I've posted this, the blog will probably fold.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12345678910108109Next »