Let’s check in on the Opinion section of the Los Angeles Times, shall we?

First, letters from people attempting to support “hate crime” legislation.

Michael Witmer from Pomona chimed in, trying to link 9/11 to hate crimes, but not in the way you might think.


Ooookay.


We already have laws that protect the groups.  Property owners are protected against property crimes.  Members of the human species are protected against crimes against their persons.


Ooooh, I see.  You think “gays and lesbians” are more worthy of protection than everyone else.  I wonder if you’d support hate crime prosecution against gays and lesbians who commit domestic violence against other gays and lesbians?

Dean Buckley of Los Angeles offered his thoughts.


Uh, isn’t that already illegal?

Finally, Wendy Averill of Culver City wrote in.


They already ARE protected - by existing laws against property and persons.  Hate crime laws are superfluous, punish thoughts, and provide unequal protection.

Moving on to a commentary, Scott Darrell, executive director of a “housing advocacy group,” writes about the fight between Disney and other owners of tourism-related businesses in Anaheim against a zone change that would favor a housing developer over tourism.


“Mixed income” housing?  Hardly.  Mobile homes are there currently.  The development would only have a small percentage of its units designated as “affordable”.


Democracy is heavy-handed?


All housing is affordable to someone.  If it wasn’t it could never have been built in the first place.


Uh, these people choose to work in the jobs that they do.  It is up to them to negotiate their wages.  Many of them have unions who are paid to do that.  Nobody is entitled to anything at someone else’s expense, unless it is by consent.  We’re supposed to have a system of voluntary exchanges of goods, services, money, and property.


Why don’t YOU buy some land and build some housing for these people using your own money?  95% of the land in Anaheim is NOT in the Resort District.


I see.  Did the property owners or previous property owners grab these people at gunpoint and force them to move in to these places?  You know, Anaheim would be a lot less crowded if all of the illegal aliens went back home.


And so comes the requisite attack on Proposition 13, a voter-approved law that kept the retired, widowed and disabled from being kicked out of their homes due to rising property taxes.  You never see these people saying “Hmm, maybe income and property taxes are a bad idea, and we should reduce the size of government and pay for the remaining government services with user fees and value-added taxes.”


Yes, and that’s a problem.  Did you ever stop to think that such government involvement raises housing prices?


Yes, the answer is always MORE government involvement, MORE regulations, MORE restrictions on property owners, isn’t it?  How about something more simple?  Let people find and pay for housing without any government involvement.  Groups like yours can assist, family can assist, friends can assist, businesses can assist, churches can assist – but all on a VOLUNTARY basis.  Frankly, I don’t want to live next to someone who I’m subsidizing against my will.  Let employers and employees negotiate compensation between themselves.  If housing isn’t part of the employment agreement, the employer doesn’t owe the employee any help with housing.  Why not let property owners do what they want?  That way, the housing developer can build permanent housing across the street from Disney property, and people can buy it, but then Disney can build another theme park on that property across the street and those people will not be able to block it.  How about that?

I’m presenting a series here called Exposing the Religious Right.

The introduction/first installment is here.

The second installment, discussing the motivations/starting points of the RR is here.

The Religious Right & Public Schools

Many in the RR are pulling out of public schools, especially in blue-ish states.  However, as long as people in the RR are paying taxes and especially if they do have children or jobs in the public school system, they are going to speak up about various public school issues.

My belief is that there should be a separation of state and school.  There should be no Department of Education at the Federal level - as there wasn’t for most of our history.  People should make their own educational arrangements for their children, whether the schools have a religious affiliation or not, or home school.  This would eliminate these disputes as well as many, many others as public policy concerns.

However, this is never going to happen because too many people are invested in the status quo, including the politically powerful teachers unions (who have a self-interest in churning out government-dependent citizens).  As such, the RR, like any other segment of society, will continue to be involved in the public schools.  They have every right to be - just like anyone else.  So, let me briefly touch on a few of the hot-button issues the RR has with public schools.

Vouchers – Vouchers would encourage competition and competition encourages excellence and innovation.   It is a basic law of human nature.  Some object on the grounds it would give tax money to religious institutions in the instances where parents choose to send their children to those schools.  Somehow, it’s okay to these people to take the money from religious people to spend on public schools. Of course, this objection pretends that the public schools are religiously neutral, which is a fallacy.

Evolution in Science Curricula - The assertion that humans, life in general, and everything else in the universe and the universe itself came about without any supernatural involvement is a philosophical assertion, not something that is actually scientifically demonstrable.  The RR believes that God was involved, somehow, in at least some of it.  Some think God’s involvement can be determined from a straightforward reading of Genesis.  Others see Genesis as a poetic abstraction of what happened.  Still others look primarily to solid scientific knowledge rather than Genesis, and still conclude that even if evolution provides some of the details of the “how”, it still would have needed supernatural involvement.  All agree that God was involved.  Hence naturalism as a philosophy goes against their philosophy.  Evolution may go against their religion.

As such, when evolution is taught in science classes in a way that promotes naturalism, the RR usually wants some of the challenges to macroevolution to be presented and also wants some form of supernaturalism presented as an alternative to naturalism.  A common objection to this is “which brand of creationism should we teach?”  That objection is really a hoot, because it implies that there is only one unified universally accepted brand of macroevolutionary theory among naturalists, which is false.  Another objection that doesn’t stand up is that “intelligent design” is the same thing as Biblical creationism.  While some specific models of intelligent design may line up with Biblical creationism, it is possible to hold to intelligent design and still believe that evolution played a major role.  What intelligent design of any variation is incompatible with is complete philosophical naturalism.

So, especially in high school biology courses and earlier courses, why not stick mostly with what can be observed, tested, measured, and repeated today in living organisms and natural systems, instead of making dogmatic assertions about past events, especially since the details and the timelines keep changing?

The RR believes that promoting naturalism will encourage students to conclude that, if they are really nothing more than cosmic accidents, then there is really no such thing as right and wrong and that the future doesn’t matter, and what the RR sees as harmful behavior could result.

Sex Ed, “Health” Clinics, Condoms - As I discussed earlier, the RR believes that sex is for marriage and holds sex in the highest esteem, it believes that killing a human being through abortion at any point after conception is wrong, and that teens are already being overly stimulated, enticed, and sexualized.  Distributing birth control and contraception in school legitimizes the activity and creates an expectation.  Therefore, they oppose instruction and programs that will do anything less than promote abstinence until and fidelity in marriage as the ideal.

“GLBT” Issues - As I discussed earlier, the RR believes that homosexual behavior is wrong and that sex is for marriage, so they’re not going to support anything that insists same-sex couplings are equivalant to both-sex couplings and that homosexual behavior is normal, acceptable, and to be glorified.  “Transgendered” means refers to someone who either dresses inappropriately or is undergoing chemical treatments and surgery to change healthy, functional body parts and systems in order to pretend to be of the opposite sex.  These are things with which underage people should not be involved, according to the RR, and thus do not belong in public schools.

History - The RR is generally patriotic, considers the U.S. to be unique (in a positive way) in the world, believes in objective truth and right and wrong, and that Christianity and Judeo-Christian values haved played an important role in shaping the West and the U.S.  Therefore, they do not support multiculturalism, revisionism, postmodernism, relativism, nihilism, or minimizing the role of Christianity in Western culture and the rise of America in teaching history.

Prayer and Religious Freedom - I understand that objection to teacher-led communal sectarian prayer in the classroom, though for many years in the U.S., this was commonplace. For the RR, though, their faith is inseperably a part of every area of their life, and so they want the freedom to pray, read the Bible, meet, discuss religious matters, wear religious symbols and clothing with religious statements, use Biblical content in schoolwork where the student gets to choose a subject, and so forth.  Strangely, many people who would tell a student they can’t speak about Jesus in a class presentation would never, ever prevent someone from talking about Mohammed.  The RR students also don’t want to be exposed or pressured to participate in certain practices or symbolism that run counter to their faith - for example, things they consider pagan celebrations or traditions.

The Bible in Curricula - For many years, the Bible and Biblical themes, stories, and personalities were used in teaching.  While it is understandable that a government school shouldn’t officially present the Bible as the Word of God, removing the Bible from - and avoiding the Bible in - curricula does a disservice to students.  Even today, much of our society and culture (arts, history, morality, politics, laws, etc.) is influenced by the Bible.

There are a few of the issues that the RR engages in regarding public schools.  Again, I note that these disputes and many, many others could be avoided entirely with a separation of state and school.  The RR, and anyone else, should be able to keep their own money and send their kids to schools of their own choosing, without having to pay twice (once through taxes, again through tuition).  You shouldn’t be forced to fund schools that have policies with which you disagree and push philosophies contrary to your own, and you shouldn’t send your kids to them, either.

Quentin Gee, a graduate student at UC Santa Barbara, writes in the taxpayer-aided school’s newspaper that he doesn’t quite buy what John Stossel said on campus about capitalism vs. socialism.  Big shock.


If GE cheats and NBC doesn’t expose it, then Fox News (News Corp), CBS, ABC, and CNN (Time Warner)  will expose it, and that’s just network/cable television news.  That doesn’t include television stations owned by companies that don’t own networks, radio networks and stations, magazines, newspapers, and online news sources.  If it is Disney cheating, substitute ABC with NBC.


Incentives and loopholes, if legal, aren’t cheating.  Don’t like it?  Overhaul the tax system instead of using it as a way to punish legal behaviors and reward other behaviors.


What about intimidation by unions and corruption within unions?


How about we get rid of all government welfare of all kinds?


There are plenty of other examples.  Nowhere, though, do you cite where socialism has been better than capitalism.


You mean history classes taught by commies?  The U.S. never faced challenges?


Wait- the U.S. went through WWII as well.  How did the U.S. become more economically powerful?  Could it be… capitalism?


Okay, we’ll take you at your word.  But making excuses for the failures of socialism in a society that is supposed to be capitalist is silly.  I mean, by virtue of you being here, isn’t it clear that capitalism is better?  Just exactly which country in the world has long been a favorite of immigrants and illegal aliens?


So what?  You still have to explain why we should now believe people who were wrongly predicting the exact opposite outcome a mere 30 years ago.  They were certain that the world was going to cool into an ice age.  Now they are certain it will warm up and have horrible consequences as a result.  Why should we believe them now?

If the Federal government doesn’t handle something, it doesn’t mean that it won’t be done.  Supply & demand, and competition/choices for consumer dollars, aided by modern communications, rounded out with charity and social awareness, will keep a free capitalist society functioning well.  Socialism rewards underachievement and doesn't provide enough motivation for innovation.  If we were to agree that global warming is a man made threat to the world, capitalism would still be better at finding solutions than socialism.

Although I do support Bush's fight against terrorism, I am stumped as to why it has been all of this time since Sept. 11, 2001 and our borders are still wide open.

Judging from his actions/inaction, Bush must believe one or more of the following:

1. Current border security, along with other Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security operations are providing enough security against terrorist attacks in the U.S.

2. The cost of effectively “sealing” the border will not be a high enough return on investment in terms of the measure of prevention it will provide against terrorist attacks.  For example, it wouldn’t be much help if enough of the terrorists are already here or will be able to make it here anyway even with “sealed” borders.

3. The effectiveness of sealing the border in preventing terrorist attacks, crimes, and other negative results for Americans is outweighed by the harm it will do (to support for Republicans, to relations with the Mexican government, to the environment, to things the President likes about the status quo such as cheap labor for businesses who choose to remain operating in the U.S., etc.)

He must know something we don’t.  Otherwise, the border situation almost makes me question his dedication to really fighting foreign terrorists.

Here in the Los Angeles area, we continue to see these signposts of a metropolis gone crazy in the wake of the police reaction to the May Day Parade of Criminals:

1. Absurdly Disproportionate Reactions

2. Symbolism Over Substance

3. Impossible Perfection Demanded of Authority, Lawlessness Encouraged For Everyone Else

That’s right – the focus continues to be on the LAPD’s reaction to the assaulting participants in the Parade of Criminals, a reaction that was minimal and long delayed, and yet is being portrayed as though it was a Nazi blitzkrieg.  Mayor Antonio “Reconquista” Rodham Villaraigosa cut short his “Getting My Marching Orders” trip south of the border in “response” to the incident, as if his return to Los Angeles matters one bit.  Nothing is going on now except multiple witch hunts - I mean investigations, and Reconquista can do nothing proper to assist those investigations.  It is out of his hands for now.  Yet, he rushed back to jump in front of the cameras and microphones to give his bilingual message encouraging illegal aliens to come forward and accuse cops of wrongdoing.

Even Chief Bratton, up for review, has catered to the nonsense, making premature apologies, judgments, and promises in the media.

Meanwhile, nobody is going after the criminals who started the trouble at this event that was set up to glorify illegal aliens in the first place.

We’ve seen this script before.  We know what is going to happen.

The criminals will continue to wreak havoc.  The victicrat activists will continue to beat this horse long after it is dead.  Taxpayers will have to pay out millions of dollars to criminal agitators.  Great police officers will be fired.  The LAPD will be unfairly bashed.

Law-abiding citizens are sick of this.  This is the kind of thing that breeds vigilantism, because it gets to the point where there is no other option other than to accept slavery to the criminals, who get to live off your wages and control your life.

Villaraigosa – You’re supposed to represent American citizens.  Stop this pandering to illegal aliens!

Who would want to work in the LAPD?

They can’t do anything right in the eyes of so many people.

“They’re overreacting.”

“They’re not doing enough.”

“They are profiling people who are driving around in stolen cars, flashing gang signs, and brandishing assault rifles.”

The members of the Los Angeles Police Department are constantly second- and triple-guessed.  If something they do doesn’t look pretty, especially if it is caught on tape, than it is wrong – even if it falls into policy.  Heart surgery doesn't look good either, but sometimes it is needed.

Everything they do gets “investigated” by countless panels and agencies.  Everything they do gets them sued.  It’s one of the few jobs where you aren’t allowed to make any mistakes.  Any mistake can get you fired, sued, and prosecuted.

Defend yourself against a car thief who is trying to run you over with a stolen car?  NOT ALLOWED!  It is YOUR fault that 13-year old demon-spawn is stealing cars at 3am, not his parents’ fault!  No, his parents deserve millions of dollars for their neglectful “parenting”!

Drug-crazed idiot using his daughter as a human shield as he shoots at you?  That is YOUR fault!

Clear a street and a public park of illegal aliens who are throwing rocks are you?  Better not bump into news reporters in the process!

Some moron can lead the LAPD on a dangerous high-speed chase in a stolen car, then run across freeway lanes with no apparent regard for his own safety, but if a police dog sniffs his behind wrong, it’s grounds for a lawsuit.

I’m sick of the phony activists who represent  GROUPS OF ILLEGAL ALIEN CRIMINALS filing lawsuits against the LAPD for actually taking action and getting money.

Unfortunately, the officers of the LAPD are not backed up.  Their actions are judged and dissected with knee-jerk conclusions. Politicians sell them out, bowing to the criminals and low-lifes of Los Angeles.

Really, the latest flap over the end of the Parade of Criminals is completely overblown.

Enough already!

Don't run from the cops!  Don't throw things at them!  Don't try to run over them with a car!  You won't have a problem.  Really.  No cop has ever hit me with anything.  You know why?  I FOLLOW THE LAW!  I DON'T GET IN THEIR WAY!  I DON'T RESIST ARREST!

Illegal aliens hanging out here are usually from countries where the cops are REALLY corrupt and truly abusive.  They should kiss the boots of our cops.  I know I couldn't sneak into their country and behave in such a stupid way and expect decent treatment.

I’m presenting a series here called Exposing the Religious Right.

The introduction/first installment is here.

The second installment, discussing the motivations/starting points of the RR is here.

The Religious Right: Hate Crime Legislation is Wrong

The RR is against “hate crime” legislation that adds additional penalties when the victims are apparently targeted because of some class, such as their race, sexual orientation, or affiliation with Islam, or that assigns legal culpability to “hate speech” for subsequent “hate crimes”.  They, like many others, maintain that it is wrong to single out certain crime victims for some sort of privileged class, or to legally judge someone’s thoughts or feelings.  Unwelcome violence against others or their property, unless in self defense, should not receive less punishment just because the perpetrator isn’t a bigot or the victim isn’t a member of a specially protected class.

Especially troubling to the RR is legislation that would go against the First Amendment (religious and speech freedoms) by attempting to suppress speech against homosexual behavior, pretending to be the other sex,  and Islam, especially since the RR bases some of their criticisms on teachings from the Bible.

When “hate crime” legislation is used to try to suppress conscientious opposition, the RR will not sit by silently.

Two recent columns on Tonwhall.com by LaShawn Barber and Chuck Colson illustrate some of the thinking of the RR on this issue.

However, Tammy Bruce, a proud lesbian, who is certainly not a member of the RR, has also written extensively against the “thought police” who push for this kind of legislation.

The RR’s solution to “hate crime” attacks is not to restrict speech, but rather prosecute vigorously those to physically attack a person or his or her property, regardless of who the perpetrator is or who the victim is.  That is truly equal protection under the law.

I was disappointed by the lack of illegal alien participation in yesterday's events.  Last year, it was so nice to be able to drive around without traffic and to take care of things without the hassle of overcrowding caused by them.

Last night, I celebrated by eating at a Mexican restaurant, which was fully staffed.

It's also nice to see Cardinal Roger Mahoney supporting their cause.  I guess that means his corner of the Roman Catholic Church will be providing all of the illegal aliens in the area with moral guidance, charity, welfare, and education so they can not be a burden on taxpayers.  After all, it is the Church's role to take care of the poor.  Surely Mahoney can't mean that all of the taxpayers of America, many of them non-Catholic, should be forced to take care of people who invade our country?  That would be as absurd as, oh, protecting child molesters by not cooperating with the police.

I changed some of the words in this AP story from Peter Prengaman.  I think I preserved the gist of the story - I just clarified what is going on today.  What do you think?  It sure feels different, even though it really isn't.

I’m presenting a series here called Exposing the Religious Right.

The introduction/first installment is here.

The second installment, discussing the motivations/starting points of the RR is here.

I’m hoping that, through this series on the Religious Right (RR), I can shed some light on the RR, especially to other conservatives and Republicans who are wary of the RR.  This is not necessarily to defend the RR and every typical policy position of the RR, but to explain that there IS a logic and practicality to the positions and activism of the RR, as opposed to mere animus and ignorance, as critics allege.

Euthanasia/Doctor-Assisted Suicide is Wrong and Should Be Illegal

According to what the RR believes, life is sacred.  Death is not.  Death is the absence of life, just as dark is the absence of light.  Living human beings should be protected from harm by others from conception until natural death.  I already wrote about the RR’s position on abortion.

Some people assert that someone who is sick or disabled should be euthanized for their dignity and to ease their pain.  Why do some think death is more dignified?  How do you know the dead are not in pain?  We’d all like to think that someone we care for who is dies goes to “a better place” but how do we know that they do?  In the case of the RR, the redeemed or righteous are believed to be in a better place, but that’s because the Bible says so, and you won’t find euthanasia prescribed in the Bible.  Death is not dignified, no matter what the circumstances, so there is no virtue in suicide or euthanasia to “end suffering.”  "Death with dignity" is an empty promise.

There is a difference between letting someone die and killing them.  There is a difference between giving them medication to ease their pain and giving them something with the intention of killing them.  There is a difference between letting someone die from their organ/system failures and denying someone nutrition if they are bedridden.

Euthanasia has become a slippery slope in some parts of the world, in which the elderly are being killed because they are inconvenient and infants are being killed because they aren’t the Gerber Baby.

Some ask “What’s the difference?  This person doesn’t even know they are alive or who they are.”  Yes, but if YOU know who that person is, and that the person is a human being, and that is what matters.

If someone wants to kill themselves, it is hard to stop them, but doctors should not be in the business of helping them do it.  If they want to kill themselves and are unable to, that still should not allow someone else to commit homicide, certainly not a medical doctor.

Euthanasia has been facilitated by Darwinism and socialism.  Darwinism lets “enlightened” people believe that some human life is not worthy of life or is somehow less than human.  Socialism prompts the productive - and therefore the taxed - in society to seek to end the burdens caused by the old, sick, and disabled who require more health care and other assistance.  When you are told you are a burden on society, you are being pressured to die.  When you see that your family is struggling to take care of you, you may feel pressured to take the “legal, so it must be okay” remedy of having a doctor kill you.  It’s a nefarious slippery slope.

The Bible tells us to care for the sick, not to kill them, and to value life.  Many in the RR do just that.

A Human Being in the Embryonic Phase is Still a Human Being

The sanctity of life is also why the RR is against certain reproductive technologies, cloning, and embryonic stem cell research.  They either kill human beings or produce human beings who will be killed because they are “unwanted”, “extra”, or have a deformity.  They are also turning human beings and their body parts into commodities.  Yes, they are small human beings, but they are human beings.

Contrary to all-too popular ridicule, the RR’s opposition is not because they are against progress or are scientifically ignorant.  Rather, they are well aware of the scientific facts involved.  They just do not want “progress” at the expense of innocent human beings, citing that science should serve humanity, not the other way around.

Fortunately, in the case of stem cells, there are promising treatments being developed by using “adult” stem cells, which do not result in the killing of a human being.

A genuine conviction in the sanctity of human life motivates the RR to oppose killing the young, the old, and the sick – no matter how young, how old, or how sick.  It is scary enough when individuals are allowed to kill other human beings for reasons other than legitimate personal protection.  It is much more scary when the government protects such actions, then supports or even mandates such actions.  Do we really want our government to be in the business of killing innocent human beings?

History matters.  Action have consequences.

Bush bashers roll their eyes and huff dismissively when someone brings up their past support of Bill Clinton, who did something akin to, or worse than, that which they are accusing President Bush.

They don't have an answer, though.  They just expect that everyone will have forgotten.  Or they think and behave as though nothing in the past matters unless they want it to.

The chickens are coming home to roost, and it frustrates them.  All of the scandals and poor decisions and priorities of President Clinton are coming back to haunt those who supported him through it all, but now bash Bush.

Republicans can be a forgiving sort, though.  So, if you are one of those frustrated people who supported Bill Clinton through all of those scandals and want us to consider your dissatisfaction with Bush's actions without bringing up Clinton, my advice to you is this:

1. Admit that Clinton was wrong.
2. Admit that you were wrong to defend Clinton when he was wrong.
3. Pledge that you will consider something wrong no matter what politician does it in the future.

Then, we can take you seriously.

And you have to listen to us when we say "It's the Economy, Stupid" to defend Bush's shortcomings.  After all, Wall Street is in record territory, so that means Bush is a good President, according to your logic... right?

I’m presenting a series here called Exposing the Religious Right.

The introduction/first installment is here.

The second installment, discussing the motivations/starting points of the RR is here.

I’m hoping that, through this series on the Religious Right (RR), I can shed some light on the RR, especially to other conservatives and Republicans who are wary of the RR.  This is not necessarily to defend the RR and every typical policy position of the RR, but to explain that there IS a logic and practicality to the positions and activism of the RR, as opposed to mere animus and ignorance, as critics allege.

I want to wrap up the sex-related issues that the RR addresses – teen sexuality, gay-straight alliances at school, prostitution, and “transgenderism.”  Again, the foundation for all but the last of these is that the RR maintains that Sex is For Marriage.

Teen Sexuality

This is about unmarried teens.  I don’t recall seeing literature from the RR discouraging teen marriages.  I would be interested in seeing statistics regarding teens who personally identify with the RR (especially ones that save sex for marriage) and whether or not they tend to get married younger than the population as a whole.

The RR rejects the resignation of many that “teens are going to have sex anyway.”  Their position is that if parents, the religious community, the local community, the schools, and the media all impress upon teens that saving sex for marriage is the right - and best - way to go, supervise them, and equip them with coping skills, most teens will avoid sex.  The RR sees authority figures such as schools teaching sex ed without traditional morality, surveying teens about their sex experiences, distributing contraception, and facilitating abortions as encouraging teens - who are already dealing with peer pressures, media influences, and raging hormones - to engage in sexual activity.  The RR sees these things as creating titillation and an expectation of sexual activity.  Sexual activity brings distractions, broken hearts, disease, pregnancies, and other issues the RR believes underage persons should not be facing.

Gay-Straight Alliances at School

Along these lines, many in the RR also believe that a school has no business officially hosting a club for students that is focused on their sexual attractions, such as “gay-straight alliances.”  Since the RR also believes that homosexual behavior is wrong, such clubs, in the view of the RR, promote harmful behaviors.

The RR has a big problem with much that goes on in the tax funded school system, and as long as their taxes are supporting those schools, they will have a reason to speak up about their objections, whether or not they have children of their own in such schools.  However, I’ll discuss that more in depth in a subsequent posting.

Prostitution

Prostitution is one of those areas where libertarian Republicans would disagree with the RR, but in a truly libertarian world, a prostitute could not walk a street without the permission of the private party that would own the street.  The RR’s opposition to prostitution and support for legally banning it goes back to the belief that sex is for marriage, and that the practice treats the body and sex as something to be bought and sold, degrades women, facilitates the abuse of women, and in the case to streetwalkers, is a blight on a neighborhood.  Some libertarian minded people ask if a line can really be drawn between prostitution and much of modern dating (a man pays for x, a woman sleeps with him), but the RR position reverts back to “sex is for marriage,” paid or not, and prosecuting prostitution that can be proven (such as when money is exchanged) should continue.

“Transgenderism”

As for “transgenderism,” the RR believes men and boys should identify as males, and women and girls should identity as females.  The Bible states that God purposely created the two different sexes.  The RR does not support anyone dressing as the opposite sex any more than it would support someone dressing as a police officer who isn’t a police officer.  It doesn’t support someone having surgery on their genitals and getting hormone treatments to pretend to be someone of the opposite sex.  People who want do such things, the people in the RR tend to believe, need psychiatric help just like the people who want to amputate perfectly healthy limbs or believe they were born a tree trapped in a human body.

Two stories in yesterday’s Los Angeles Times show why we’re so messed up.

The first is about this May Day March of the Criminals.


It’s actually a demand that Americans be forced to take care of Mexico’s citizens, providing them with money, health care, education, housing, etc.


Actually, last year, traffic in most of the greater Los Angeles area was GREAT, because illegal aliens were not using our roads.  Mostly, it was businesses in their own neighborhoods that were closed for the day.  The economy didn’t take a hit.  I loved it.


Yes, look at what your union is doing with your dues – bringing in cheap replacement labor!  That’s why your union newsletter is printed in Spanish.


Sounds like a great place to round up some criminals.


Hey why don’t you really boycott and go back to your own countries.  Teach us a real lesson.


Yeah, that’s smart.  Pull those kids out of school.  It’ll probably be one of the safest days ever on campus as a result.  Class can be conducted in English.  Meanwhile, hundred of millions of people will be working, attending school, and spending as a show of solidarity with American citizens and LEGAL immigrants.


I hope some naturalized kids stand up and denounce lawbreaking and biting the hand that feeds you.


Larry Lopez, thrown off of a school district board and apparently not busy enough anymore promoting cockfighting, is continuing to fail miserably trying to be the Latino Jesse Jackson.


Lovely.  The March of the Criminals.

And then there’s the anniversary of the riots.


And they will continue to be “racked by poverty” as long as women keep having babies out of wedlock, as long as men don’t step up and be good husbands and fathers, as long as crime and gang life is glorified, as long achievement and education are ridiculed, as long as churches fail to impose moral standards, and as long as people rely on “someone else” to take care of them.


Awwwwww, isn’t that a shame.  People burned down businesses in their own neighborhoods, and they wonder why the place is so bad off.  I remember the millions of dollars people threw at the area to assuage their misplaced guilt.  What good did it do?  All it did was encourage irresponsibility.


Translation: Give us more money and freebies, or we’ll throw a tantrum again.


Who wants to invest there?  Who wants to work there?  Why would someone set up shop in a neighborhood where people burn down buildings, loot, rob, vandalize, and shoot each other?


STOP USING THE BUSINESSES AND THEY WILL GO AWAY.  Then, you can have more boarded-up buildings.  But you know what?  Liquor is legal.

Hey, I remember how, in the previous Congress, there were all of that noise about rising gas prices, and how the oil companies and the Republicans were conspiring to stick it to the public by making obscene profits at the pump.  Weren't the Democrats going to do something about all of that?

Well, they're in power now, but the gas prices are going up.  What gives?

Just what have the Dems done, anyway, other than proclaim defeat in Iraq and raise the minimum wage yet again, as if people shouldn't be left to negotiate their pay on their own?

 I saw a poll that a Los Angeles television station did that said, in the wake of pet food contamination, 91% of the respondents said that the FDA should "do more" to protect the human and pet food supply.

How many of those people have a good idea what the FDA does and does not do, and how it does it?  It is so easy to say that "someone else" should "do more" when something happens that we don't like.  The police should do more about crime.  The schools should more about kids not learning.  Sanjaya Malakar should do more to help malaria-stricken kids in Africa.  Celine Dion should take a kayak to rescue orphans drowing in Angelina Jolie's pool.

But what do these polls really mean?  I know we live in a democratic republic, but how many of those respondents will actually vote or will vote in a way that is relevant to their opinion on that issue?

A NBC/Universal/WallStreetJournal says that a majority of Americans think that it will be "impossible to win the war in Iraq," or something along those lines.  Really?  How informed are these people?  Most of them do