I'm always happy to see some good thinking in a letter to the editor.  Diane Fallon of Irvine wrote in to the Orange County Register about another letter writer:

He says health care, food, water, clothing and a roof over our heads are all rights. They are not; they are products or goods which we all need and have the right to pursue, but we do not have a right to any of them. "A right is a natural or God-given permit received at birth, to act in one's own self-interest with total control over one's own life and property as long as others are not injured nor their property taken or damaged."

It is too bad more people don't understand that this is how the founders thought of rights.

We all have freedom of speech and religion but we cannot demand that anyone build us a stage or a church. There is no right to food, water, health care, clothing and housing, because it creates a burden on others. We can't demand that our neighbors buy our groceries or clothes, so why do so many Americans think our neighbors should pay for us to go see a doctor?

One reason is that we have not followed this principle in some areas, such as with education.  How many times have you heard, "we have public schools!" - as if that was a good justification for socializing and nationalizing health insurance.

Despite popular belief that every need or want should be paid for by others, there is no such right to health care, child care, a free college education or abortion, etc. What we do have are the same basic human rights – the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

A very good letter.

Previously:

Rights Are Not Hand-Outs, and Hand-Outs Are Not Rights

Imaginary Rights

Homosexuality advocates are out with a report on representation on TV.  Associated Press television writer Frazier Moore has the story.

In its third annual Network Responsibility Index, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation found that of HBO's 14 original prime-time series, 10 included content reflecting the lives of gay, bisexual and transgender people.

Remember, there is a reason "transgender" is included.

Transgender basically means dressing like the opposite sex, or even going so far as to have surgery, hormone treatments, a name change, etc. to pretend to be the opposite sex.

Homosexuality is about being attracted to people of the same sex.  Bisexuality is about being attracted to people of both sexes.  Transgendered people can, so we are told, be heterosexuals, homosexuals, or bisexuals.  We are also told that these people really are changing from male to female and female to male, and not simply males becoming mutilated, deluded males and females becoming mutilated, deluded females.  So why is sex (gender) lumped together with sexual orientation?  Well, because if "the community" activists are to be believed, a lesbian who has an addadictomy and becomes a "man", would, by definition, no longer be a homosexual, which means fewer homosexuals.  We can't have that, right?  That means a loss of power, doesn't it?  So "transgender" is a way to keep counting the person as part of the team.

That totaled 42 percent of the network's programming hours, in series such as "True Blood," "Entourage" and "The No. 1 Ladies' Detective Agency."

By contrast, on NBC and CBS only 8 percent and 5 percent, respectively, of prime-time hours included them, the report said.

Considering only three percent or less of the population is homosexual, then, if programming was truly going to be representative, only 3 out of 100 characters would be homosexual.

Yet, the percentage seems to be higher, probably a for a mix reasons: 1) To suck up to homosexuality advocates and get awards; 2) to push the personal political and social  agendas of the writers, directors, and producers; 3) because they think it provides interesting story material as it is yet another way to get sex onto the tube.

I stand by the right of broadcasters to do what they want with their own resources.  If they want to have nothing but flamboyant drag queens on their shows, that is up to them.  I also stand by the right of GLAAD to issue reports and bestow awards.

My only point is that homosexuality is overrepresented on television.

How many characters in the programming monitored are devout Christians who are not portrayed any more negatively, on average, than others?

(This entry guaranteed to be linked on that website that sounds like a cotton swab brand.)

Matt Dooley of Long Beach wrote a "Dear John" letter to California, and it was printed in the Orange County Register:

Dear California,

It's over. I just can't let you take advantage of me like this anymore. You have wasted so much of my money, and I can no longer afford to support your irresponsible behaviors. Now I've found a new home far away, where I feel others share my sense of responsibility. I'm leaving you, California, and I'm taking my hard-earned tax dollars with me.

You just don't get it, do you? The more you take away from people, the more those who actually pay taxes (like me) will leave you. The more you give away, the more people will expect a handout. Well, it's still a free country, and I'm outta here.

A lot of people have mentally written that letter and left already.  A lot of people still in California are thinking about doing the same.

If I'm sure the Left in California is doing what they can to get the worst in California policy spread nationally, so that there will be nowhere to run and still stay in the U.S.A.

There's an update to the case of Larry Lopez, small-time socialist illegal alien advocate accused of vote fraud.  Martin Wisckol has the story in the Orange County Register.

Los Angeles prosecutors allege that Lopez registered to vote at the Boyle Heights office of Hermandad Mexicana Latinoamericana - and voted in Boyle Heights - while living in Santa Ana last year. Lopez heads both HML and the Mexican American Political Association.

And as if that doesn’t give you enough of a picture...

Lopez left the Democratic Party to join the Green Party in 2004.

Yeah, that was a smart move.

Lopez faces charges alleging fraudulent voter registration, fraudulent document filing, perjury and fraudulent voting. If convicted on all charges, Lopez could be sentenced to a maximum of 3 years and 8 months in state prison.

Please, please, please!

Munoz said that a rift within the Green Party sent a vengeful party member to Secretary of State Debra Bowen with the voter fraud allegations.

Hmmmm, wasn't it supposed to be because of racism?

The City of Santa Monica is trying to stop pigeons from defecating into the Pacific Ocean.  No, I'm not kidding.  Melody Hanatani has the story on he Santa Monica Daily Press.

The City Council tonight is expected to approve a $107,758 contract with Bird Busters to install a net directly beneath the Santa Monica Pier where pigeons roost and frequently defecate, creating challenges for City Hall to meet bacterial levels set forth by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board.

But who is going to stop the fish, shellfish, and aquatic mammals from defecating in the ocean?

Long before Europeans made it to the Left Coast, birds were... blessing the ocean with their biological processings.  And while clean water laws and regulations are prompting municipalities and the state to frantically implore people to pick up after their pets (as well they should anyway), my guess is that plenty of excrement from land-based wildlife made to the Santa Monica and Long Beach areas in the past without the aid of the human-engineered flood control system.

(H/T: LATimes.com)

In all of this talk about health care costs and reforming health insurance, I'm hearing a lot of complaining about how much it costs to take care of the elderly and those with terminal illnesses, usually with the implication that it is a waste of resources.

Really?  A waste?  Just what better use for money is there than comforting our loved ones or giving them another day of life?  Is it really grandma's duty to die so that we can get a better room on our next cruise, or the next generation home entertainment center, or a new car?

I happen to have an elderly person in my family right now who is receiving around-the-clock care at home.  As a beneficiary of her estate, I would stand to gain more financially if she died sooner rather than later.  Almost a year ago, she was in terrible shape.  Doctors told us the hospital bed she was on was her death bed.  They wanted to give her a tracheotomy.  She was never going to speak again, let alone walk.  She was't even able to eat.  "No quality of life", right?

Well guess what?  They held off on the tracheotomy.  She was taken home, presumably to die.  When I visited with her, she was back to mumbling, with only some of the words discernable.  She was mentioning that she'd been talking with this person or that person (people who have long ago passed on a -near-death indicator). I figured it was going to be the last time I was going to see her in this life.  Still, we shared some laughs.  I held her hand.

Almost a year later, she is still alive.  Not only is she still alive, but she is eating, she is walking with the aid of a walker, and she is talking and going places to see people.  I don’t care if she spends every penny of her net worth.  I'd rather have her around for a few more years than have her money.

She's priceless.

I realize that there are people who are not simply facing a smaller inheritance, but are spending their own money to care for the ill elders.  But the point is the same.  And if you find it to be a burden, the plan on not burdening your descendants by making plans.  We save (invest) - or should - for college, for retirement, and other things.  We should do the same when it comes to our end-of-life care.

Yet another study indicates that divorce is harmful to those divorcing - never mind what it does to children and the larger fabric of society.  For sure, though, if someone is abusive, divorce can be the best thing to do.  But not marrying an abusive person would be even better!  My advocacy of marriage does not include a belief that all individuals should marry.  My analysis of the article on the study is over at The Opine Editorials.

Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams has said that recent moves by the Episcopalians towards celebrating unrepentant sin might necessitate changes the role of the Episcopalians.  Duke Helfand of the Los Angeles Times has the story.

Williams, spiritual leader of the communion, spoke of a "two-tier" or "two-track" model -- one path for those who remain part of the communion's "covenantal structure," and another with "fewer formal expectations" for those who value autonomy.

Uh, I know I'm probably oversimplifying here, but aware Roman Catholics are probably getting a chuckle out of all of this, seeing as how the Anglican Church got to be a separate deal from the RCC.

Episcopalians greeted Williams' letter with a range of emotions. Some criticized him, saying his proposals would relegate their church to second-class status.

Maybe they’re right.  Maybe he should try to get the Episcopalians kicked out entirely.

If the Anglican Church is going to be serious about making Christian disciples, it can't have entire branches celebrating what is clearly sinful behavior (according to the Bible) as a matter of policy.

Some folks out there can't stand the idea of free markets as touted by columnists like Thomas Sowell and Walter E. Williams.  Although I don't personally know each and every one of these people, I think it is safe to say that most of the most vocal critics of Sowell's and Williams' writings on free markets fall into one of the two following categories:

1) People who don't want to reap what they have sown. These people don't value what they have to offer others, and they may very well be right in that respect, but wrong when blaming others for how their lives are going.

2) People who are doing well in life but think other people can't possibly do well without being treated like children and handed everything by someone else.

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

The more we place restrictions on free markets via government, the more we are interfering.

You mean gangsta chic might no go over well in court?  Click on over to this Hector Bacerra article in the Los Angeles Times to see what Richard Rodriguez's attorney is trying to do to his appearance.  Gang membership tattoos may be covered up.

I wrote about Rodriguez earlier - he (allegedly) led cops on a dangerous high speed chase, and at the end of it, got what some cops are calling a "distraction kick" to his head while he was apparently prone - and it was caught on video.

The attorney for a gang member kicked in the head by an El Monte police officer at the end of a televised car chase thinks his client has a great case. On Thursday, Nick Pacheco filed a $5-million legal claim against the city on behalf of the 23-year-old.

Even if the El Monte officer's actions had been completely unwarranted, along the lines of stranger coming up and assaulting Rodriguez, it's not worth $5 million.  A wrongful death case for Rodriguez wouldn't be worth $1 million.

In the booking photo, Rodriguez's head is shaved, and the name of his gang hangs over his lip. Tattoos climb his neck. In the "after" rendition, he's wearing a black suit with a metallic gray tie, neatly combed hair and a lush mustache.

Too bad for him he can’t cover up the video of him driving like he did.

Pacheco, a former L.A. councilman, said his client suffers from headaches and blurred vision, among other symptoms.

Conveniently, they all seem to be entirely impossible to objectively document.  The City of El Monte already has high sales tax rates.  It would be a shame if they had to go higher to pay a gangster who ran from the cops and endangered others.

Patt Morrison of the Los Angeles Times had an interview with attorney Ted Olson, who, along with David Boies, is leading a challenge of the California Marriage Amendment in federal court.  My analysis of some of his quotes is over at The Opine Editorials.  I will be waiting to see how many prominent marriage defenders are featured in Los Angeles Times interviews.

Rather, it unconstitutionally gives the federal government the power to ration health care though a complicated health "insurance" scheme.

We need to come up with a good name for the proposal.  How about...

The Democrat-Proposed Federal Government Takeover, Freedom-Restricting, Wealth-Redistributing, Abortion-Funding,
Logan's Run Tribute, and Illegal Alien Health Insurance Act of 2009?

They could also call it the Gavin Newsom Health Insurance Act, because tries to get you into an insurance program "whether you like it or not."

California has formally apologized to those of Chinese ancestry or origin, as the laws, government policies, and actions (or inactions) used to discriminate against them simply for being Chinese. Corina Knoll of the Los Angeles Times has the article.

The documents Chan Share clutched as he left China were forged. It was 1939 and Asians were not allowed to immigrate to the United States. So, like many others, Share claimed he was a "paper son" and had a California-born relative whose records were lost in the 1906 San Francisco earthquake.

After two months of interrogation at Angel Island in San Francisco Bay, Share was allowed into a country where Chinese laborers decades before him had toiled in the merciless sun to lay miles of railroad track that would connect the dots of America. Despite their hard work, he was told he could not vote, own property or even marry the person of his choice.

That last phrase is a bone to the marriage neutering advocates and doesn't quite accurately describe the situation.  We'll probably see a letter printed in the paper about it, equating the struggles of two guys today who want a marriage license together with the Chinese of the past.  Not even all straight, white, natural-born Christian American guys get to marry the "person of his choice".  The other person has to consent.  For example, if my wife didn't exist, Mary Katharine Ham might be the person of my choice.  But I probably wouldn't be her choice, so I wouldn't get to marry the person of my choice.  There are also a number of other restrictions.

The bill does not seek any financial compensation for Chinese who were mistreated or denied basic civil liberties, but its authors said they intend to ask Congress to adopt the same resolution.

Hey, why not?  Let's have the people who mostly were not involved apologize to other people who were mostly not involved, if it makes people feel better.

The legislation was co-sponsored by Assemblymen Paul Fong (D-Cupertino) and Kevin De Leon (D-Los Angeles). For Fong it was personal; Chan Share was his grandfather.

And now look at where Fong is.

The article goes on and one about the prevalence and continuation of racism, and yes, there was a lot wrong about how the Chinese were treated in the past.  But let's be realistic here – how would, say, folks of German descent who settled in California have fared if they moved to China back in those days?  How would they have been treated? I personally know naturalized Americans from China who are a bit racist when it comes to the associations their children have.  If racism is bad, it is bad no matter who is doing it.

The apology is part of a wave of formal regret offered by the government in recent years. In 1988, Congress apologized to Japanese Americans who during World War II were thrown into prison camps such as Manzanar. In 2008 the House passed a resolution apologizing for slavery, and the Senate followed suit last month.

Hey, you left out Obama's foreign apology tour, including apologizing for leaving tall buildings in the flight path of some Islamofascist terrorists who merely took a couple of jetliners on a joyride.

The Chinese were historically discriminated against in California.  But as a group, they are doing well.  In fact, Leftists complain that they are overrepresented in the better universities in California.  For some reason, the Chinese were able to overcome racism and succeed. So why do these same Leftists think Latinos need help?  Are they saying that the Latinos can't do things as well as the Chinese?

As for me, I think we're dealing with differences in culture and family dynamics.  I do not believe that any one of the "racial" groups is genetically superior to the others.  However, even though there are people of Asian descent who are not doing so well and Latinos who are doing very well, the successes of the former and the struggles of the latter as general groups on which the left fixates should show that the problem can't be racism, because whitey was just as racist, if not more so, against the Chinese than the Latinos.

Meghan Daum of the Los Angeles Times has commentary on "older" people using "reproductive" technologies.

On July 11, Maria del Camen Bousada de Lara, a Spanish woman who 2 1/2 years ago briefly became the "world's oldest mom" when she gave birth to twin boys at age 67, died of cancer. A recipient of donor eggs and sperm at a Los Angeles fertility clinic, she had told doctors she was 55, the maximum age for partnerless in-vitro fertilization patients at that clinic.

This was a selfish move on her part.  Neither men nor women should be making babies when they will likely be too old to raise them.

It is also immoral for reproductive specialists to aid anyone but a husband and wife in a healthy marriage who seem fit to be parents.  Of course, these people are usually involved in creating "extra" human beings who are condemned to be killed.  So morality isn't their specialty.

Since 1994, there have been 12 documented cases of women over 60 having babies (including a 62-year-old California woman who already had 11 other children). The reigning "world's oldest mom" is likely Omkari Panwar, an Indian woman who was believed to be 70 (her exact age was unknown) when she gave birth to boy-and-girl twins last summer. Never mind that she already had two grown daughters and five grandchildren. Her 77-year-old husband spent his life savings and sold his buffaloes to pay for in-vitro fertilization -- and donor eggs -- because they wanted a son.

A lot of people want a lot of things that they should learn to live without.

Dr. Laura had some good stuff to say about this subject in her blog.

There is plenty of moaning and groaning about California's latest budget agreement, and there are some legit gripes.  One of them is NOT that we should have raised taxes more.  We already have enough taxes and high enough tax rates – in fact, some were just raised a couple of months ago.  State government needs to be more responsible with the money it gets.  Here are some letters to the Los Angeles Times from people who clearly think the "rich" should be taxes even more.

Newell Gragg of Ventura wrote:

Instead, it's our elected leaders who have chosen to balance the budget on the backs of our state workers, the young, the elderly and the poor.

Uh, who receives the most of the budget?  Sorry, but healthy rich people in the private sector don't rely so much on the state budget, so of course it isn't balanced on their backs - except that is kind of is.  They are paying a heckuva lot in taxes.

Maryanne Rose of Laguna Niguel wrote:

We will not tax oil companies for oil extraction like other states do.

That would essentially be a tax on everyone, because the costs would be passed along to everyone.

We will not tax the likes of Warren Buffett, who are willing and able to pay more to a society that has lent to their prosperity.

Mr. Buffett is free to donate to private charities that help the sick, disabled, and elderly.  The "rich" are, actually, taxed disproportionately.  You are upset that they aren't being taxed even more.

Bud Wiser (really?) of Studio City wrote:

Inspired by the courageous actions of our governor and our legislators, my wife and I decided that we too had to make the same kind of "tough choices" to balance our budget. We've decided not to feed the children.

Har har.  It's not the state's responsibility to feed adults or feed children in the first place.  Adults are not the children of state legislators.  Well, a few of them may be.  But as adults, we should be taking care of ourselves and each other, and taking care of our kids.