Are there criminals because there is crime, or is there crime because there are criminals?

Advocates for “drug” legalization claim that one of the benefits of such a move would be that mobsters, gang bangers, smugglers, and other criminals would no longer thrive on that black market business.

Let’s assume that the claim would come true.

Then what?

Do all of those criminals who are suddenly no longer criminals under the law simply become lawful providers of those drugs, or settle down with other legitimate jobs?

Somehow, I doubt that.  That would involve completely changing their lifestyles and their relationships to authority and society.  More likely, smugglers would continue to smuggle.  Instead of cocaine, they’d smuggle people (like terrorists and slaves), banned or controlled weapons, exotic animals, counterfeit money, and counterfeit goods.  Gang bangers would still be ruining lives and neighborhoods committing plenty of crime.  Mobsters have done a great job making money off of legal businesses through extortion, racketeering, etc.

As far as the current providers going legit in their trade – operating on the black market is far different from having your business subjected to restrictions and regulations and taxes from all levels of government, especially if you’re going to be making less of a profit.  Those who thrive on the thrill or freedom of being an outlaw or operating on the black market aren’t just going to settle down and become upstanding citizens.

Then there are the addicts.  They’d stop committing other crimes if only they could legally buy drugs, we’re told.  Really?  If drugs would be regulated by prescription, addicts would still have to commit crimes to get more than prescribed.

What about liability issues for the prescribing doctors, the pharmacists, the insurance companies, and the manufacturing companies?  Would they be eager to follow in the footsteps of Big Tobacco?  Would the FDA be exposed to lawsuits?  Would the ACLU harass employers for firing a cocaine snorter?  Would the employer have to wait for the snorter to kill someone and bring wrongful death lawsuits upon the employer before firing them?

One of the things I like about drug laws is that they help to reveal some poor decision makers.  All other things being equal, I’m going to have more respect, trust, and admiration for someone who doesn’t try drugs to begin with than someone who does.  If you’re foolish enough to abuse yourself that way and you are either so far gone into it or careless enough to get caught, prosecuted, and convicted of it, that says something about you.

Another good thing about drug laws is that they can be used as a tool by the loved ones of addicts to get that addict some help.

While prisons might be less crowded if drugs were legalized, I’d rather have druggies behind bars than driving next to me.

Finally, if drugs were legalized and thus became cheaper and less stigmatized, would more people do drugs?  Our history with alcohol says yes.  While alcohol consumption continued under prohibition, it was at a reduced rate and didn’t return to pre-prohibition levels until decades after the prohibition was lifted.

Having said all of that, I’m not definitively and firmly opposed to legalization.  I simply have the concerns cited above.  Perhaps we would be better off if the drugs had never been criminalized in the first place.  Maybe.  But the reality is - they were.  American society has developed for generations with that reality in place.  Changing it now may have negative consequences that outweigh the possible positive results.

While I’m not an active advocate on either side of this issue, I will continue to avoid using illegal drugs and discourage the people in my life from using them, even if they do become legal someday.

I’m a capitalist.  I think the markets work better with more freedom.  Of course businesses are going to try to get as much money for their goods and services as possible, while seeking to save money on the costs of providing those goods and services.

But at some point, a sense of responsibility to your customers has to influence what you do,

I don’t expect a corporate executive to care all that much about my child.  Just enough not to poison my child with lead.  Companies like Mattel should be making sure that lead paint isn’t used in their products in the first place.  Even from a purely business point of view, what does a massive recall do for their reputation?  Recalls cost money.

Wherever their products are manufactured, it behooves companies to make sure their products are not harmful to their customers - unless their customers are informed of the risks ahead of time and willingly decide to take those risks (think tobacco).

Avoid having to conduct massive recalls by being more careful about your product in the first place.

The County of Los Angeles owns and operates hospitals and other health facilities.  Doctors, nurses, administrators, and others working at the hospitals are often county employees or county-hired consultants, and much of the staff is unionized.

Located in an unincorporated area neat the City of Los Angeles’ Watts area, the hospital currently known as Martin Luther King, Jr. - Harbor Hospital opened in the early 1970s in what was seen as a way to "address the causes" of the Watts Riots of the mind-1960s.  (Yes, in California we reward neighborhoods for rioting.)

It was seen as a “black” hospital that served the “black community”.  And therein was a problem that would lead to its current crisis, in which it is being shut down.

In addition to being staffed with unionized county employees, notoriously hard to fire, truly addressing problems at the hospital was hard to do because of charges of racism against critics.  “Defenders” were quick to play the race card, and critics were all too willing to back off for fear of being called racists.  So, ironically, the hospital was treated differently because of black activist-backed racism.  This meant that the “black community” that the hospital was serving was not getting the quality of care for which they, their insurance companies, and taxpayers were paying.  Plenty of competent staffers, including “black” staffers, recognized this frustrating reality, as they saw incompetent, indifferent, or downright fraudulent coworkers get a pass.

Not helping matters was that most people who had a choice preferred not to work at a hospital in an area between Watts and Compton.  Gangs and other criminals were the main reason.  This meant that great medical professionals from outside the area wouldn’t take jobs there, and those who grew up in the area sought to escape to work elsewhere.  This made it even more difficult to remove problem employees, as it wasn’t so easy to find replacements.

Meanwhile, the taxpayers of Los Angeles County endured lawsuit after lawsuit due to mistakes made at the hospital.  Many of those lawsuits involved wrongful death, because members of the “black community” were being killed by the sloppy service.  Government officials tried again and again to do something, but didn’t do enough due a combination of political correctness and civil service rules.  Recently, a woman writhed on the floor of the emergency room as hospital staffers refused to help her, a janitor even working around her.  Other people visiting the ER called 9-1-1 to try to get help, but the operator understandably declined to send help, reasoning that she was in an ER already.  She died.

And thus, we have another example of how true racism kills, and fear of being called a racist has resulted in much more harm that the alleged racism ever would.  There’s one less emergency room in the area.

Maxine Waters has blamed the messenger – the Los Angeles Times.  I guess she can’t handle the truth.

Why is it okay for public facilities, agencies, and programs to cater to the religious celebrations, rituals, practices, and sensitivities of Muslims but not Christians?

According to the Constitution, the Federal government is supposed to have a limited role.

The President is Commander in Chief of the armed forces.  He can draw up or propose to enter treaties.  He can pardon crimes and commute sentences, make appointments (judges, Secretaries, etc.), and sign or veto laws.

Congress may regulate commerce with other countries and between states, make changes to the naturalization and bankruptcy processes.  It may coin money and establish standards of weights and measures.  It may establish post offices and an accompanying transportation system.  It may establish intellectual property protections.  It may punish international crime.  It may declare war.  It may regulate the military.  It approves treaties.  It confirms Presidential appointees.

Nowhere does the Constitution require (or give permission to, for that matter) the Federal government to be responsible for our general public works infrastructure, such as bridges.  The Federal government may build bridges to facilitate national defense and law enforcement.  But it isn’t the President’s job to make sure that your commute to work is a safe and easy one.

Federal and state governments’ highest priorities should be national defense and law enforcement.  Weights and measures standards are a way to prevent fraud and facilitate international trade, which is the next priority after protecting us from those who would harm us or our property.

We’ve allowed our Federal and state governments to take on all sorts of responsibilities beyond what the Constitution permitted.  Some of us have begged our elected officials to do this.  I’m not blind to the reality that our governments will continue to be involved in a lot more that it should.

If a government is going to overstep its bounds, though, it should at least have priorities.  For us to survive, thrive, and prosper, we need some basic needs fulfilled (beyond the protection of our persons and property).  We need energy, transportation, water systems (flood control, waterworks, sewer systems), and we need communications.  Like so many other things in life, the free market can fulfill our needs in these areas, but if the state is going to be involved in extra areas, it should provide for these areas first and foremost after law enforcement and protection.  If there is a single bridge that needs to be repaired or replaced, if there is a single road that needs to be extended, widened, or resurfaced, that should take priority over sports stadiums, health care, school lunch programs, public services announcements, diversity promotion, etc.

Why is a bridge more important?  If you can’t get to a doctor in the first place, if the paramedics can’t reach you – what good is “free” health care?  If you can’t get to the sports stadium, what good is it?  If you can’t get your child to school, who cares if there is a lunch waiting for her there?

Our infrastructure is not suffering because our states aren’t collecting enough taxes, fees, fines, and assessments or because we’re in Iraq.  It is suffering because our state governments are spending too much money on other programs that are either unnecessary or could be handled through private funding.

Our states should not have enough money to run public service announcements trying to get us to be less bigoted unless there isn’t pothole or traffic jam to be found on a state highway.

Kimberly Edds of the Orange County Register brings us this gem of a story.


Oooh!  More than a dozen!  Wow.  What a crowd!

Santa Ana is already a de facto sanctuary for illegal aliens.  Just visit the place.

If these activists-for-foreign-criminals want to use the “terror” word, let’s talk to all of the AMERICANS who have been terrorized by illegal alien gang members and other violent criminals, whose property gets defaced by their graffiti, whose neighborhoods are turning into Tijuana, whose emergency rooms are packed with illegal aliens, whose schools are full of children who are illegal aliens and can’t speak the language and are truant for so much of the school years because they are back in Mexico, who are suffering from an infrastructure that is overtaxed by people who are here illegally.

As far as separating families – well, yes, that happens when someone in the family commits criminal acts.  If someone in the family is deported, it is easy to reunite – go back home.


"Press one for English!  Just kidding!  We don't set these up for illegal aliens from English-speaking countries!"

Great.  A hotline to subvert law enforcement and national security.  How about legal immigrants and American citizens getting together to start hotlines of our own?  We can have hotlines to report businesses that hire illegal aliens so those businesses can be boycotted.  We can have hotlines to report and publicize identity thieves.  We can have hotlines to report when we see forged documents being sold to illegal aliens.  We can have hotlines to report code violations in neighborhoods.  We can take pictures at traffic accidents in case the person at fault is an illegal alien who tries to disappear.


They were all suspected criminals.  Some were suspected of committing additional crimes.


What do you say we call that number to complain about what illegal aliens are doing to our communities?

The more illegal aliens that pour into our nation and remain, the less space we have for legal immigrants.

It is high time the housing bubble burst.

I wish no ill on those who are in the housing development and real estate business, or for people who may have to move, but things have gotten out of hand, especially in places like Los Angeles and Orange County.  My wife and I have been biding our time and are looking for the right moment to upgrade our housing.

While the MSM forecasts doom and gloom because some people might have to move to more modest housing, I think it is a good thing.

The economy is supposed to go in cycles, with a long-term trend towards growth.  As housing prices increase and people can make more money developing, selling, and renovating housing, you see more of that activity.  Then, at some point, the prices get too high and there’s a weeding process that takes place, including a reduction in pricing or at least a slowdown of price increases.  That's natural market activity.

Prices in the Los Angeles/Orange County area (the area I’m familiar with) have gotten out of hand.  Why? Some of it is supply and demand.  There are over ten million people living in Los Angeles County, and the influx of illegal aliens only adds to the crowd.  There are fewer and fewer places to build housing, as “open space” is “preserved” from development.  Getting new housing developments in the area approved is a very complicated process.

Regulations also increase housing prices by requiring the housing developers to pass along the costs of “affordable” housing subsidies to the other buyers (and rent control for renters), and the costs of other capital investments they were required to fund as a condition of getting their development approved.

Prices have been further inflated because the people selling the housing to the end consumer know that the consumers can do things like get government assistance or loans.  Never mind that the loans are ones that are becoming unaffordable to these people later on.  Dozens of illegal aliens can pool their meager resources to get home loans.  Finally, so many couples are willing to increase their income to cover the high housing prices by working extra jobs, having both spouses work at least one job, sometimes more.  Unfortunately, that doesn’t leave a lot of time for parenting.

The price of any particular housing is usually going to be the result of several factors:

--The size of the home.  The bigger the home, the more expensive.
--The features of the home.  Things like pools costs more.
--The materials used in the construction of the home.
--The condition of the home.
--The demand for that location.  Is the location desired for its proximities, views, low crime, etc.?
--Any other costs (like overhead) the previous owner must diffuse.
--What other buyers are willing to pay.  If everything else means a house can be sold at $400,000 and make the seller a profit, but there are people willing to pay $600,000 for that home, guess what the price is going to be?

When I see someone demanding “affordable”, high-quality, spacious housing close to where they work, they are usually demanding other people to subsidize them or take losses or sell something to them at less than market value – whether they know it or not.

I own a home, but since I would like to buy a home that is better for my family (better location, larger, etc.) I won’t be shedding tears over anyone who has bought housing they can’t afford and will be forced to move into a rental, or anyone who fails to get more “affordable” housing imposed on a community by legislative force.  The more houses that are vacated, the better for me and my family as we look for a better home.  The fewer taxpayer-subsidized housing projects, the less tax money that will be taken from my family for such projects, and the more money I should have to buy a better home.

Heaven forbid studying the Qur'an in public schools be interrupted by studying the Bible.

Seema Mehta of the Los Angeles Times brings us an article with the headline...

Does the Bible Have a Place in Public Schools?

Somehow – and call me crazy – but I highly doubt that the paper would ever have a headline questioning whether or not tax-funded schools have a place in our society, or a story where one of their researchers points me to the clause in the Constitution that mandated that Congress get involved in education, or that the President have a Secretary of Education.

There is broad agreement across the social, political and religious spectrum, and most important the Supreme Court, that the Bible can be taught in public schools and that knowledge of the Bible is vital to students' understanding of literature and art, including "Moby-Dick," Michelangelo and "The Matrix."

But battles are raging in statehouses, schools and courtrooms over how to teach but not to preach.

As the number of these classes increases across the nation, civil libertarians, religious minorities and others fear that Bible lessons cloaked in the guise of academia may provide cover for proselytizing in public schools.

You know, there is never any kind of “proselytizing” in public schools without the Bible.  Nobody ever pushing a philosophical, religious, political, or moral agenda of any sort.

In 1963, a landmark Supreme Court decision declared school-led Bible readings and prayer unconstitutional.

I’m sure “school-led” readings of Muslim, New Age, Hindu, Buddhist, etc. holy books are also unconstitutional, but are happing anyway under the guise of “diversity”.

But don’t think that the 1963 ruling was merely an exercise.  The Bible was prominently and widely used in public education for all of our nation’s history up until that point.  Just check out this clause in the Northwest Ordinance, written by the same people who - the Biblephobes would have us believe – wanted to exclude the Bible and anything Christian from public schools: ART. 3. Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.

Oh well.  We all know that public education got so much better after 1963 and that students were far better off and better behaved after that decision, right?  Thank God.  Oops.  I mean – well, uh, on with the quotes.

A 2004 Gallup poll found just 8% of public school teens said their schools offered an elective Bible course.

High school English teachers and university professors say this lack of exposure to Bible tales has led to an education gap. A 2005 report by the Bible Literacy Project, which created a well-regarded Bible study course, found that although virtually all the teachers it surveyed said biblical knowledge was important to students' education, most thought few students had a command of the subject.

So much of our civilization has been influenced by the Bible that we are shortchanging students by not having it studied in the schools.  You can’t have a good understanding of the influences that have shaped history, politics, law, the arts, science, and so much more without some understanding of the Bible and how it has been interpreted over the years.  Most of the American public has been influenced by and has some level of respect for the Bible.  Since these are public schools funded by public money, then perhaps it is only fitting that they pass along this public heritage.

The larger question here is why public education at all?  Why take money by force from everyone, including people who have never had kids and never will, send it to the state and Federal governments, and have what remains filter back to the states and schools?  It is naïve to think that public education can be unbiased philosophically, religiously, or morally.

I agree with something the Biblephobes say – that our society us much more diverse now.  Well, there’s no way to address that with public education.  You can’t set things up to be inoffensive to every viewpoint, every culture.

If the public schools exist, they should propagate American culture, and not worry about offending Muslims, or Hindus, or Communists, or whatever.  This is, mostly, a Judeo-Christian nation.  If you want Islamic culture, stay in an Islamic nation.  Coming to America implies you can accept American culture.

But we don’t need public schools to pass down American culture.  We can do it with “private” schools – schools that instill good morals, good priorities, and an informed, consistent worldview to the next generation.  Schools that teach our common language: English - proper English.  Schools that promote the American way.  Schools that teach personal responsibility and discipline.  Will there be schools that fail students by teaching in a balkanizing way (Sharia, Reconquista, White Supremacist) or in a way that won’t help them deal with reality (Christian Science, Word of Faith, environmentalist whacko, no discipline)?  Yes.  Some parents will do that to their kids.  But that’s okay – we’ll need people to do the menial jobs, be the cheap labor, and staff the sideshows.  We’ll have a better idea of who to look out for in terms of criminal and terrorist suspects, too.

Support freedom.  Support choice.  Support separation of state and school.

Here’s the latest from the Orange County Register on the zoning fight in Anaheim.

Background: In the 1990s, Disney planned to make significant capital investments (new hotels, new theme parks, new parking structures) in Anaheim, but wanted the surrounding area, known for run-down motels and streetwalkers, cleaned up and more friendly to tourists.  Thus, the Anaheim Resort District was born.  Not only was the area cleaned up, but it became easier for tourists to get around and enjoy the offerings.  Many businesses benefited, not just Disney – and the City of Anaheim is benefiting from the tax revenues.

A mobile home location was included in the zoning.  It could remain as-is, since it was grandfathered in.  However, any new development on the site would have to be tourism-related, such as hotel, entertainment, or shopping - not residential.  Recently, a housing developer, SunCal, proposed permanent housing for the property.  A majority of the Anaheim City Council granted the zoning change.

Disney has several reasons to oppose permanent housing on this land

First, Disney is on the hook for certain tax revenue goals for the Resort.

Second, when Disney proposed its expansion back in the 1990s, there was some opposition from nearby residents, almost all of whom moved to the area after Disneyland opened, claiming that the expansion would diminish their quality of life.  This parcel is very close to where Disney is likely to build a third theme park and/or some form of entertainment complex.  I’m sure Disney doesn’t want MORE residents in the area opposing such development.

Third, any Resort District land turned into housing therefore can’t be an amenity that will draw and serve more tourists to the area.

Fourth, the more locals living adjacent to the tourism area, the more potential for criminals to live nearby and prey on the tourists.


Translation: SunCal has more time to get blackmail money from Disney.


You can probably imagine the mailers and the local cable ads and the signature gatherers that the SunCal-led group and the Disney-led group have put out among the residents of Anaheim. SunCal has co-opted illegal aliens and Anaheim Resort area employees to do their bidding, with the rubes apparently being too stupid to realize they are being played by a for-profit business whose development is unlikely to benefit them in any way.  In fact, with more housing comes the need for things like more schools.  Who is going to pay for that?


You can see the ridiculous pictures at the newspaper website.  It’s always nice to use children to advance a socialist political agenda that won't benefit them.  The irony is that the project will actually reduce the number of “affordable” units when you consider the loss of the mobile homes.


Well now, a skit!  How could I not be convinced now!

You have to love those resort workers who APPLIED for jobs, and then once they got them, turned right around and bit the hands that feed them.  Nice.


That’s right- we’re supposed to be forced to subsidize housing for illegal aliens.  Maybe if these folks learned English, they could get better jobs and support themselves in a better lifestyle, instead of begging for the government to forcibly take from others?


Way to show gratitude, Eddie.  You didn't know what the pay was before you took the job, or that housing wasn't part of your compensation?

Here’s the reporting from the Los Angeles Times.

I just don’t get people who expect someone else to be forced to provide them with a nice housing wherever they want it.  We’re not assigned our jobs by the government.  We choose our jobs.  Orange County can be expensive.  If you want a better home, a bigger home, and better-located home, find a way to pay for it on your own!  We have freedom in this country, including the freedom to choose which employment offers to accept.  Our compensation is whatever we negotiate - nothing more, nothing less.  Our choices provide us with our housing options.

Every once in a while, someone gripes about coming across graphic images of burned and/or mangled human beings who were in the fetal stage when slaughtered.  These images depict abortions and what they do to human babies.  These people aren’t complaining about the fact that these human beings were slaughtered and tossed aside like trash.  They’re complaining about being confronted with the images.

On television, I see all kinds of surgeries in somewhat graphic depictions.  Yet I don’t see or hear the same complaints about those depictions.

If abortion was really just another surgical procedure, people would not be making these complaints.  They make these complaints because their consciences are bothered by what is going on in our country with full encouragement and protection by the authorities.  But rather than doing something about it, they instead attack the messengers.

Abortion is a horrific, usually intensely violent act.  Unless it is done as a last resort as truly lifesaving act to literally save the life of the pregnant woman, it ought not to be supported, encouraged, or protected by our laws and law enforcement.  Even granting the assertion that it would be impossible to effectively recriminalize abortion, that doesn’t excuse policies that encourage or support them, or government funding for them, or special legal protections for people who perform them.

Wasn’t education and contraception supposed to make abortion obsolete, even in the age of hook-ups?  It hasn’t worked out that way, has it?

No, I'm not a woman.  I'm a proud father because I married someone who doesn't kill babies, and I would never encourage her to do so.  Oh, and I was once a fetus myself.

The Leftists that control the Democrat Party can hardly pass up the opportunity to nominate a woman or a "person of [partial] color" as their nominee, just for the sake of "history" or making a statement.  They want to prove how open-minded and un-bigoted they are... by giving extra points to someone based on their sex or racial background.  That'll show they are better people than the GOP, which has only nominated white males in the past.

Edwards' only chance?  He can come out of the closet.

Of course, if he did that, Hillary could simply come out of the  closet, thus clinching the nomination.  I mean, how do you trump a lesbian as your candidate to show how "open" you are?

Teri Sforza of the Orange County Register reports on some of the consequences of our “brave new world” of “reproductive technologies”, which is another way of saying “making babies for profit.”


Too bad we can’t be sure.  But hey, we’re only talking human lives, here.


Isn’t that nice?


And none of them would ever lie to say, protect their success rate, or make some money on the side, or feed their ego by experimenting, or by getting personally involved, now would they?


596 people unaccounted for – that we know about.


Which can have all sorts of implications, including this one below.


Here we are, dealing with a situation where “extra” human beings are created and then experimented on as embryos, where you can’t really be sure you’re getting your own genetic children unless you have someone else run a DNA test, where someone else may get your children, where close relatives may be ending up in the sack or in marriages together.

If only there was some natural source of newborns for couples unable to have children naturally to adopt.  Oops- they’re getting sucked into sinks at Planned Parenthood.

Oh- and what happens if the sperm or egg or an actual human being as an embryo were given to someone else, someone who is no longer able to financially support the resulting child?  Guess who can get hit up for child support?  That’s right- the donor who might not even know about the situation in the first place.

This story says...

Tupac Shakur's mother is seeking to prevent his former label, Death Row Records Inc., from selling the late rapper's unreleased recordings as part of a bankruptcy settlement.

I can't believe there is anything unreleased at this point.  He had more albums released after his death than before.  He's like L. Ron Hubbard, who was still writing books long after his death (only Tupac didn't run a fascist cult).  Are we talking about answering machine messages?

Donald Trump is writing a book about life.


So, he’s going to tell us how to get divorced twice after pursuing a woman, blowing a lot of money on jewelry and a party (engagement ring, wedding ceremony/reception), having kids with her, and repeating the cycle?  Sounds great.

Lindsay Lohan busted again.


Can we please take Lohan, Nicole Ritchie, Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, Gore, and all of the other drugged-out-hazardous-driver rich kids and place them in a demolition derby in the L.A. Coliseum and charge admission and for television broadcast rights?  It could raise a lot of money for charity.

Something tells me L.A. County Sheriff Lee Baca will keep her in jail for a longer portion of whatever sentence she gets than he initially did Hilton.

City Councils calling for impeachment.  Members of Congress calling for censure.  It’s more symbolism over substance.  These whiny partisan politicians simply can’t get over the fact that George W. Bush is President.  They claim that Bush has lied.  Hey, didn’t we learn from the last Presidency that nothing matters as long as the economy is doing well?  Lying is especially okay.

Well - the economy IS doing well.  And so their buddies write articles about how the economy isn’t really doing well - it is all just an illusion!  Yeah, the dot-com speculative investing was real, but the current economic growth is all just a figment of our imaginations.  Sure.  Those help wanted signs must be fake.

The President is Commander-in-Chief.  He orders the military.  That should be the end of the story.  We needed to act, and we did.  I guarantee you that if Saddam was still in control of Iraq, we’d be hearing these same gum-flappers wailing about how Bush should “do something” to “finish the job his father didn’t finish.”  Instead of trying to tear down Bush, why don't they focus on backing our troops?

And they can’t seem to get it through their heads that U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President.

At least their griping and playing to the cameras has a silver lining – although much of it gives aid and comfort to the enemies of our nation, it means they have less time to pass destructive laws. 

I check advice columns to see if I can learn anything knew.  Every so often, the columnist disappoints me.  Here’s what someone wrote in a recently published letter to “Dear Abby”:


Here is Dear Abby’s response:


I’m glad Dear Abby recognizes that people come before animals, and that two-year-olds should not be shut away in a room.  The first and last lines of the response are very right, but I’m afraid that the advice falls short.  The divorced mother could have benefited from a call to Dr. Laura.

Dr. Laura advises divorced, widowed, or never married parents to focus on raising their kid, who has lost the benefit of having both a mother and a father married to each other and living with him, and not spend time, money, and energy on a “love” life until the child is 18.  Besides the child needing the attention, there are other reasons Dr. Laura gives for this stance.  It can be chaotic and heartbreaking for a child to have new parental figures come and go.  A child who becomes accustomed to having one parent and no siblings or a set number of siblings might have resentment and jealousy if the parent takes on a new spouse (especially one with their own child(ren) already) and/or has more children that will be half-siblings.  Furthermore, when the parent is single because of divorce or never having been married (and in some cases of having been widowed), the parent has a bad track record of picking partners.  Finally, bringing a stepparent into the picture increases the chances of the child being abused, and that is even more likely to be the case if the partner is just a “shack-up honey”.

I know most women might find it hard to believe, but all other things being equal, most normal men who can biologically father children would rather land a woman who doesn’t have any children (at home).  There are many reasons why – some more superficial than others.  Unless a man lives in the boonies, he has his choices.  The big exception?  Pedophiles.  Now, I’m not accusing most men who choose women with children of being pedophiles.  I’m saying a woman with a child has a better chance of attracting pedophiles than one who doesn’t.

The mother in this case is nuts to expose her kid to a violent dog and confinement.

As for this guy - he has his home the way he likes it – complete with dog.  She has no right to order him to change anything.  If he really wants to keep her, than he will make the changes on his own.  But she shouldn’t be dating him – or anyone else – in the first place.

Before you unmarried parents write complaints about this stance, consider what Dear Abby wrote:


You do not have a right to a love life.  You made the choice to have children, and you need to raise that child and protect that child.  That should be your priority.