About Me

Name: Playful Walrus
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Prince William Cares

He really, really cares! How do we know? Well, as Associated Press writer Jennifer Quinn reports, he spent a night on London streets to "highlight the plight of homeless British teenagers". Symbolism over substance you say? You're such a cynic!
He spent a chilly night near Blackfriars Bridge last week with Seyi Obakin, the chief executive of British homeless charity Centrepoint. William has been the charity's patron since 2005.
That is what matters. Giving, and encouraging others to do so - as long as the charity makes good use of the funds.
"I cannot, after one night, even begin to imagine what it must be like to sleep rough on London's streets night after night," William said Tuesday.
No, you can't, which is why it is ridiculous. Hanging out overnight for one with a friend and the news media and all of the lights and security, knowing full well that the next night you can party in exclusive Paris venues and sleep in a palace, does not compare to spending night after night on the streets, not seeing a way to get out of it.
Obakin said they found a secluded spot - tucked away behind some garbage bins - and settled in for a restless night.

"But there was no shielding from the bitter cold, or the hard concrete floor, or the fear of being accosted by drug dealers, pimps or those out to give homeless people a 'good' kicking," Obakin said.
Get real. Look, I'm assuming the guy means well. But like I said, there are more productive ways to contribute, such as fundraising.

Homeless teens are a different category from people who become homeless as mature adults. Unfortunately, in some places, even as teens they can't be compelled to get the right help, and if they have public property where they can hang out without being arrested, they are unlikely to seek it  on their own.

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

Phony Pacifists

Dave Swoish of Orange asks a good question in his letter to the Orange County Register.
Has anybody else noticed the disappearance in the past year of the "anti-war protesters" who flocked to the Circle in "Old Orange" and other street corners in Southern California?

Even though our soldiers are still fighting in Iraq and the current president announced an increase of 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, these self-righteous humanitarians have slunk back into their corners until the next time the Democratic Party summons them out to do their political bidding. Next election, just bring out your political candidate signs and spare us the sanctimonious hand-wringing.
Yes, Mr. Swoish has discovered the fine print on the signs that say "Say No to War!" – which is, "Unless a Democrat is President."

It is the height of double-standard partisanship when you speak out in support of something "your guy" does, but criticize others for doing the exact same thing, or when you stay silent when your guy does it but actively protest against it when others do the exact same thing.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

My National Health Care Plan

Is there an alternative to more federal intrusion into our lives, our employment, our wallets, and insurance? Yes, yes there is. And this alternative doesn't violate the Constitution, unlike the bills Congress has thrown together.

(Yes, this is essentially a repost, but I think it is warranted.)

Here is My National Health Care Plan. Spread the word!

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 personnel (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 to 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. People who are afraid of a system like this 1) believe too little in the abilities of others; 2) want to force someone else to pay their way through life; 3) want to overstep their authority to spend the money of other people, gained by force, they way they see fit; 4) are more than one or all of the above.

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

Fascists Pelting Palin

It is quite disturbing to see the "inclusive" and "nonviolent" and "feminist" Lefties out there who cheer on those pelting, or attempting to pelt, Ovarian-American Sarah Palin with fruit. These people are nothing more than fascists.

Ask them, "So you condone violence against women?" Pin them down on their "joking".

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

House Financial Reform Bill

This sort of thing will end up doing little to help the average citizen, and much to hurt business and taxpayers. It is a classic example of how meddling "requires" more meddling. The federal government should let companies fail without throwing any money into them. The feds should aggressively prosecute interstate fraud and other like crimes. Other than that, they should mostly stay out of the way of business.

The more limitations, regulations, incentives, and disincentives that we have, the move convoluted the system, the more discouraging things are to the average small investor or businessperson. Lawyers and accountants and lobbyists benefit. But what about innovators and producers?


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

The Prince Has No Clothes

Prince Charles thinks we have short memories and no archives. That's my reaction to his overly dramatic comments on the environment. Here's the AFP story.
Human exploitation of the Earth's resources has pushed it "to the brink" and the planet has reached a point of crisis that can only be resolved with global action, Prince Charles warned Tuesday.

In a speech to the UN climate conference in Copenhagen, Britain's heir to the throne -- a committed environmentalist -- warned world leaders gathering here that they must agree a "comprehensive" deal on climate change.

"The grim reality is that our planet has reached a point of crisis," he said, according to an advance copy of his speech released by his office.

Interesting. More than 18 months ago, the very same Prince Charles said we only had 18 months. Guess we're too late. Or should we not believe what he said then, yet believe what he is saying now?

He goes on to say a bunch of things that will do nothing to dispel the belief by some that the Royal Family is part of some conspiracy towards totalitarian worldwide government.

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

Draw Crucifixion of Jesus, Get Kicked Out of School

In case you haven't heard yet, an eight-year-old boy was sent from school and ordered to undergo re-education - er, uh, a psychological evaluation - because he understands that Christmas is about Christ. He drew a stick figure of Jesus on a cross. Associated Press writer Eric Tucker has the story.
Chester Johnson told WBZ-TV that his son made the drawing on Dec. 2 after his second-grade teacher asked children to sketch something that reminded them of the holiday.
The crucifixion and the resurrection of Jesus Christ are central to Christianity, and why many Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus. God came to this world as a boy, taking on a human nature, and ultimately, dying for our sins, offering us a gift beyond comparison.
Johnson said the teacher became upset when his son said he drew himself on the cross.
In a sense, we were all crucified with Jesus.
Johnson, who is black, told WBZ he suspects racism is involved.
I wonder why he suspects that? Sounds to me like Christophobia.
He said he thinks the school overreacted and wants an apology.
They did overreact.
An educational consultant working with the Johnson family said the teacher was also alarmed when the boy drew Xs for Jesus' eyes.
Was the teacher unaware that Jesus died on the cross?
The boy was cleared to return to school on Dec. 7 after the evaluation found nothing to indicate that he posed a threat to himself or others.
He may pose a threat to the sensitivities of the historically and religiously ignorant.
In June 2008, a Taunton fifth-grade student was suspended for a day for a stick figure drawing that appeared to depict him shooting his teacher and a classmate.
That is apples to oranges. The Christian boy was not implying a threat against against anyone.

I'm sure it is a mere coincidence that this happened in Massachusetts. I wonder if the great classical artists who depicted violence against Jesus would have been sent home as well?

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

Playful Walrus Update

Like everyone else this time of year, I'm busy with more important things than blogging here. I'm still around, and still have a lot to say, but my blogging has slowed down and may remain slow for the next few weeks.

Check out some of the links in the column on the right. Read through some of my classic postings. Drop me a line and tell me how you are doing and what you do like and don't like about my blogging. Invite me to check out your blog.

Thanks for reading and pointing others to The Playful Walrus!


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

Will California Ban Divorce?

Not a chance. The lawyer lobby would never allow it. However, the social satire stunt meant to mock marriage defenders is getting loads of MSM attention. I take a look at Los Angeles Times column on the matter and the comments on the column over at The Opine Editorials.



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

Euphemism Synergy

One of the most curious confluences of euphemisms by opponents of "traditional values" is between the phrases "Marriage Equality" and "Reproductive Rights". These euphemisms are so effective that they, and the ideas they really represent, have become fashionable even among many self-described conservatives.

"Marriage equality", when used as a call to make brideless or groomless unions legally indistinguishable to marriage, is a ridiculous term and people who use it should be called on it every single time. Read my latest entry at The Opine Editorials.

I can't wait for conscientious objectors to campaign for Veteran Equality.

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

No Pride Parades in Uganda

Uganda may be the latest African country to demonstrate the true meaning of intolerance. Katherine Houreld and Godfrey Olukya, Associate Press writers, have the story.
"It's a question of visibility," said David Cato, who became an activist after he was beaten up four times, arrested twice, fired from his teaching job and outed in the press because he is gay.
Happy Kwanzaa, everybody!

Seriously, this is a real example of a rights issue. People who are not posing a threat to others should not be beaten up.
The measure was proposed in Uganda following a visit by leaders of U.S. conservative Christian ministries that promote therapy for gays to become heterosexual.
It also came after the election of Obama and the release of several Michael Moore films. Hmmm.
However, at least one of those leaders has denounced the bill, as have some other conservative and liberal Christians in the United States.
Well, duh. That someone promotes the fact that some people who have identified as homosexual have gone on to live happy heterosexual lives does not mean that the person also believes in depriving homosexual people of rights – despite what some activists groups say.
The Ugandan legislation in its current form would mandate a death sentence for active homosexuals living with HIV or in cases of same-sex rape.
I've heard people in the U.S. call for the death penalty for rapists. As for the HIV thing – why?!? By "active" do they mean spreading HIV?
Anyone convicted of a homosexual act faces life imprisonment.
How they prove such a thing, anyway? Medical records? Witnesses? Shouldn't the witnesses be imprisoned, too, for being voyeurs of such behavior?

I don't know the Ugandan court system, but my guess is that it isn't a lot like ours.
Anyone who "aids, abets, counsels or procures another to engage of acts of homosexuality" faces seven years in prison if convicted.
See, this is intolerance. There's a difference between this stuff and asking to remove your kindergartner from a discussion of Heather Has Four Mommies and No Daddies Because Her First Two Mommies Divorced and Remarried New Mommies.
Landlords who rent rooms or homes to homosexuals also could get seven years and anyone with "religious, political, economic or social authority" who fails to report anyone violating the act faces three years.
This is a clear violation of freedom of religion and property rights. But this is Uganda.
A protest against the bill is planned for Thursday in London; protests were held last month in New York and Washington.
Now that should be a big help. I know New Mexico, for example, decides whether or not to pass a law based on reaction in Cairo.
Uganda's ethics minister, James Nsaba Buturo, said the death sentence clause would probably be reviewed but maintained the law was necessary to counter foreign influence.
If that is true, they are overreacting, like nuking an island to remove a fly.
"I feel that the bill is good and necessary, but I don't think gays should be killed. They should be imprisoned for about a year and warned never to do it again. The family is in danger in Uganda because the rate at which vice is spreading is appalling," said shopkeeper John Muwanguzi.
Yeah, sticking them in a prison cell together will be sure to cut down on homosexual behavior.
In South Africa, the only African nation to recognize [brideless or groomless] marriage, gangs carry out so-called "corrective" rapes on lesbians.
What a pathetic attempt at excusing rape. Does anyone really believe that would turn someone heterosexual? Probably not. They just want to rape.

Living in the U.S.A., it is easy for people to forget that the default state of the word is oppression, corruption, genocide, rape, and war. I certainly hope that none of the folks who insist we shouldn't "impose" our culture on other countries and should not otherwise interfere are content to shut up about what Uganda chooses to do in this matter. As for the rest of us, we know the best way for these other countries to stop impeding on the rights of people is for them to adopt the better aspects of American culture, including our Constitutional principles in governance and true Christianity in the people, which is not spread by the sword.

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

Get Off of the Bus

The Associated Press reports about another proposed expansion of federal government.
The Obama administration asked Congress today to give the federal government power to oversee the safety of subways, light rail and other urban train systems.
This might be okay in instances where the system is interstate, but I don't see a desperate need for it.
Currently there are no nationwide minimum standards for rail transit safety, only voluntary standards produced by industry groups.
States and municipalities can set standards.
LaHood also announced the formation of an advisory committee to help develop new safety regulations. The bill would allow states to receive federal transit assistance to staff and train safety inspectors to enforce regulations.
Great - so people who live in states without these systems will be paying taxes to 1) sustain a new federal bureaucracy, and 2) maintain as system they'll never use.
State agencies conducting oversight would be required to be fully financially independent from the transit systems they oversee. At some transit agencies, safety inspectors rely on the systems they oversee for their salaries.
So you'll be paying in your taxes for the oversight, instead of just the people who actually use the system.
The bill would also give the secretary of transportation the option to establish a safety program for public bus systems.
Safety for local buses? How about keeping illegal alien gangsters off of them?
Transit systems carry 14 million passengers daily. That's more than airlines or long-distance passenger railroads, which both get federal safety oversight.
Yes, because those are interstate systems.
Nine people were killed and 70 injured in a subway accident in Washington in June. There have also been recent high-profile accidents on rail transit systems in San Francisco, Boston and Chicago.
There are accidents under federal oversight, too.
One concern is the more than $50-billion maintenance and repair backlog at the nation's seven largest systems, which carry over 80% of rail transit passengers.
So again, let's pay for it by taking it from our neighbors and grandchildren.
Rogoff held up a fist-sized, 65-year-old screw that he said was common in Chicago's transit system, forcing trains to travel no more than 6 mph in some locations or risk an accident.
Hmmm, who do we know from Chicago, that beacon of municipal integrity? Yes, I'm sure this is the result of the sales tax being too low in Chicago.
Rep. James Oberstar (D-Minn.) warned against “a tombstone mentality.” He said that if the government doesn't act until “people die, then it's too late.”
I think we need federal oversight of ACORN. Sure, it hasn't killed anyone (that we know of), but if we wait until people die, then it is too late.

Babies die in abortion clinics every day. Where is the federal oversight?

People die in gang-infested areas every day. There's a better case for federal oversight to deal with that than to regulate buses what should be a private enterprise in the first place.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

More Monogamy Musings

The Los Angeles Times ran a blowback piece by Sharon M. Scott, responding to David P. Barash's take on monogamy. My analysis is over at The Opine Editorials.
But I agree that children are better off being raised by a mother and father who are monogamous with each other. (By the way - if they aren't haven't sex with each other, that's not monogamy.) Monogamy reduces the possibilities of conflicts of interests between the parents and between parent and child, keeps loyalties and resources within the family, avoids paternity fraud and "illegitimate" half-siblings causing situational instability, and avoids STIs. It promotes bonding between the parents and keeps the parents focused on each other and in-tune with each other.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Note to New Jersey: Marriage Matters

There is no need to neuter marriage. New Jersey civil unions are more than enough for the kinds of associations that will never naturally produce new citizens, nor furnish them with both a male and female role model to raise them, nor even unite both basic components of society into a basic building block of society.

Join with the people of California, the people of Maine, and a majority of states and say, "No!" to neutering your marriage licensing.

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

Los Angeles Episcopalians Turn Corner

The Los Angeles Times had a lot of coverage over the last several days about the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles selecting an unrepentant, openly practicing sinner to a bishop position.

The church I attend welcomes everyone. However, someone will not be placed (or allowed to remain) in a position of power or leadership if he or she continues to openly engage in the same sin, refusing to repent. This is about more than sexual behavior with someone other than your partner in holy matrimony. It is about Biblical authority. The church is not a social club. It is there to make disciples, draw them closer to the Lord, and to serve those in need.

How can a pastor counsel someone to turn from their sin when they are openly sinning themselves?

Duke Helfand had this blog entry.

"Dee" hit the nail on the head December 04, 2009 at 09:39 AM:
I'm confused...an organization whose purpose is to shepherd its followers in the way of the lord as revealed in the bible is choosing to elect "shepherds" who openly defy those teachings? Wouldn't that be like the democracy of the United States electing communists and fascists as its leaders? I have nothing against gays or even, in some cases, communists or fascists, but they should not seek to infiltrate and, eventually, pervert, the meaning of organizations whose beliefs are opposed to theirs. They could start their own religions, governments, etc. based on what they believe. That is, of course, what they would do if they were honest in their desire to worship God in their own way and not just activists trying to mess with the system. But what can you expect from a religion formed on a king's wish to divorce his wife?
Some people say that the Anglican Church’s split from the Roman Catholic Church was more complicated than that, but no doubt that simplistic perception assists all sorts of departures from tradition.

"Elizabeth" wrote December 04, 2009 at 10:47 AM:
I have nothing against intolerant so-called christians who prostrate themselves in idolatry before a BOOK written by men for men (Christ's message can be found therein but mostly in spite, rather than because, of its many writers and later-to-come manipulators/translators), but they should not have perverted the teachings of the original teacher: love one another.
Since the Bible is a "book written by men for men", I wonder how Elizabeth knows exactly what Christ's message is or isn't? Is she simply picking what she likes and calling that Christ's message?

"pasadena jag" wrote December 04, 2009 at 11:23 AM:
It amazes me how the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles can get so much media attention. They barely have 70,000 members - with probably close to 20,000 attending each Sunday.
Good point. I think we know why the Los Angeles Times gives them so much attention. Meanwhile, churches that teach the whole Bible, including the parts about sex being for marriage and the reality of Hell, are growing.

"Jack", referring to condemnations of nonmarital sexual or pseudosexual behavior, wrote December 04, 2009 at 12:59 PM:
I am so sick of this "pick and choose" christianity.
It's called systematic theology based on a study of the whole Bible. Elizabeth is the one who is "picking and choosing".

Duke Helfand and Larry B. Stammer had this article.

Larry Stammer had this blog entry.
The Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles today elected the first openly gay bishop since the national church lifted a ban that sought to bar gays and lesbians from the church's highest ordained ministry.
This is not accurate. The problem isn't that someone has a certain "orientation". It is the practice of certain behaviors that is the issue. I dare say that many of the "conservative" congregants would be supportive of having a leader who refrains from acting on certain feelings. Who better to preach to us how to defeat temptation?

"Thomas Leavitt" wrote December 05, 2009 at 04:35 PM:
It appears that the Episcopal Church is capable of evaluating a person based on their qualifications, not their gender or sexual orientation.
Ah, yes, qualifications...

1 Timothy 3:1-7: "This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil."

1 Timothy 3:8-13: "Likewise deacons must be reverent, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy for money, holding the mystery of the faith with a pure conscience. But let these also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons, being found blameless. Likewise, their wives must be reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things. Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a good standing and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus."

Titus 1:5-9: "For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you—if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination. For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but hospitable, a lover of what is good, sober-minded, just, holy, self-controlled, holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict."

Let me know when you find the clear Biblical teachings that rescind those passages or the parts of the Bible that teach that sex is for marriage and that marriage unites a bride and a groom.

Larry Stammer had this blog entry.

Larry B. Stammer and Paul Pringle had this article.

Duke Helfand had this blog entry, noting that the Archbishop of Canterbury wasn't supportive.

Duke Helfand and Carla Rivera have this article in today's edition, examining the Archbishop's statement.

It is good to see the paper is keeping those vast numbers of homosexual Episcopalians informed, and letting the rest of us know where not to attend church.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12345678910109110Next »