Isn't it just a hoot when the Leftists do everything they can to destroy the bedrock institutions and traditions of our society, and then when we respond to their radical activism and their use of judicial imperialism, they say "Don’t you have more important things on which to focus?"  Well, apparently they don't, because they spend a lot of time, money, and energy pushing their misanthropic, gender-confusing, sex-degrading, wealth-redistrisbution, government-growing messages through the media, in academia, in the courts, in various organizations (including "churches"), and in the streets.

Other great time-tested Leftist tactics are:

The Bogus Compromise – Making an outrageous, extreme false demand or claim in order to reach the real goal, which won't seem as extreme in comparison.  Example: I felt uncomfortable, so I'm demanding $5 million from you.  Okay, okay, I'll settle for $2.5 million.

The Hate Card – "You’re a bigot who is filled with hate"...if you don't enthusiastically cheer every bizarre thing we do and if you stand up to protect your own family, convictions, and interests.

The Closet Card – "You must secretly be one of us..." because self-hate is the only explanation there could possibly be for hesitating to enthusiastically cheer every bizarre thing we do.  This is applied mostly by people confused about the proper use of genitals and/or the proper clothing to wear who may or may not have surgery to remove perfectly healthy body parts to aid in pretending to be someone they're not.  It has also been used, in modified form, in the "immigration" debate, as in "How can you be against [invasion by illegal aliens who commit identity theft and depend on taxpayer subsidy] when your ancestors were [legal, sponsored, independent] immigrants?"

We Are Your Family and Neighbors – "You can't possibly object to this request or this behavior and you have to enthusiastically cheer on everything we want and do, because you have a family member that is one of us or you use products and services made possible by contributions from one of us."  Never mind that they have family members they don't care one bit about offending or harming, and they benefit from societal contributions made by conservatives, even Bible-thumping Christians.

You're a Hypocrite! - That you, like every other human being, have sinned, is supposed to keep you from voting for what you think is best, or from making a distinction between what is right or wrong. Even if you've done something in the past that you're now speaking out against, it isn't wrong to call sin sin or call ineffective policies ineffective.

We Can't Judge! - Sure we can. In many cases, we can make reasonable judgments based on what we know. We all judge when we vote. We all judge when we choose one thing over another, as we do all day long.

We Need to Tone Down the Discourse - Everyone else should shut up and just let us say whatever we want without challenging it.

You Want to Starve the Elderly, Children, Poor, and Puppies - Pretending that the federal government is the only way to accomplish anything, any opposition to federal spending or regulation of something is presented as wanting to deprive people. Hey Leftists - there's a thing called PRIVATE CHARITY that conservatives are more likely to support than Leftists.

When Leftists are Defeated at the Polls, it Must Have Been Fraud - Unlike others, the Left rarely steps back after a defeat and says, "Maybe people preferred our opponent's message, and that message was legitimate." No, in their minds or at least their statements, it is always the other side "stealing the election", or lying, or some other rigging of the system.

Invoking AND Rejecting the Constitution - The Constitution is extremely important when used to protect a convict from being inconvenienced. But when conservatives or limited government proponents successfully invoke the Constitution, suddenly it is something that is outdated and shouldn't be heeded because it was written by bigoted slaveowners.

Don't fall for these ploys.  If you're an American citizen, you have just as much right to vote your convictions and opinions as anyone else.  Vote how YOU think is best. Support and defend what YOU think is worthwhile. That's how democratic representative republics work.  They don't work so well when everyone caters to a fringe minority that distinguishes itself through destructive behaviors and reliance on the Nanny State.

When we last left the California Marriage Amendment, voted in as Proposition 8, a federal court had asked the California Supreme Court to decide whether or not Prop 8 proponents have standing to defend the state constitutional amendment. Now, Ted Olson is asking the state Supreme Court to stay out of this. Funny how the court was so important before, but is now being asked to stay out of it. My analysis is over at The Opine Editorials.

1. Voluntary interactions.  We should not be using taxpayer money to employ anyone (except government employees), pay anyone for their non-government job, to prop up companies, to back up loans, or to give people housing beyond their own means. The risks and rewards of taking a job, employing someone, buying a home, taking out a loan, or making an investment should be suffered and enjoyed by people who have entered into those agreement voluntarily. Only when there has been coercion or some form of theft of fraud or true monopolization should the government get involved.

2. Decentralized Power.  This means that individuals and voluntarily associations (such a companies, where people voluntarily work and voluntarily invest) should engage in voluntarily exchanges of goods and services, including capital and loans. They should make decisions for themselves, enduring the risks and rewards. It should not be up to the President (or anyone in his cabinet) or Congress to tell people what to do with their resources, as long as those resources aren't being used for fraud or some other coercive crime.

An economy may thrive temporarily in a house of cards, but an economy that grows based on actual value and productivity will be more sound in the long run.

It's "State of the Union" time again, when we'll hear all sorts of promises and goals that may make a lot of us feel good. But ask yourself, when you hear each proposal, "Should the federal government be doing that?"

Too many people want "the government" to do too much for them. They want "the government" to educate them all the way through college, to feed them, to house them, to ensure their access to and pay their way through medical care, to ensure they have a job, and to make sure they have money when they retire. Most of those people do not understand the ramifications of this kind of thinking.

There are many other ways to meet your needs than having "the government" take care of you.

You can take care of your own needs - self reliance. As long as there have been people, people have provided for themselves by growing their own food and maintaining their own shelter. They traded resources with others. For instance, if person "A" had more of one crop than he needed and person "B" had more of another crop than he needed, they could trade the surplus with each other.

You can mutually agree with others on a voluntary basis to provide services/resources that may not be needed regularly - insurance.

You can rely on the kindness of friends and family to meet a need you haven't been able to meet on your own, and hopefully help them in return when they are in the same situation.

You can join a congregation where you can have your needs met and you can meet the needs of others.

You can seek help from charitable/service organizations, where people have volunteered to share their resources.

You can negotiate with a business (such as your employer or a supermarket) to get what you need in return for supplying something the business needs.

You can even voluntarily join a local commune.

As you can see, there are many ways to meet your needs without getting "the government" involved.  And you should seek to get your needs met that way, instead of by "the government" because the government really isn't some separate, magical entity that can conjure up resources out of thin air. The government gets resources by taking them from YOU, and people just like you, because you ARE the government. We all are.  We've elected fellow citizens who then hire more people to be our public servants and govern day to day.  But we pay them. We fund their work. All of their resources come from us.

So, in order for the government to do something for you, it has to take resources from you and other people like you in the first place.  In this case, let's say the resource is money - which represents goods and services and thus can be traded for goods and services. In order for you to receive a service from the government, you are taxed. The money is then filtered though your local, state or federal government, where overhead costs (staffing and the like) take a chunk out of it. Sometimes the state will not directly meet your need. It will send the money to your county or city government, who will then try to determine how to meet your needs. Likewise, sometimes the federal government will not directly meet your need, but will send the money to the state or local governments. In each case, someone has to be paid to administer all of this, so less money is coming back to you.

Now, for sure, I'm discussing the average person who is paying an average amount of taxes and getting an average amount of government services. Yes, if you are paying less money in taxes than the average person and/or getting more government assistance than the average person, you could be coming out ahead, because you are using the force of government to take money from people who have more than you and to give it to you, even though you may not ever meet those people or have anything to do with them.

Is that fair?
Is that efficient?
For most people, it is a loss.

You may look around at people who have more wealth than you and say "I want that, too". Guess what? You can get it without using force to take it away from someone who already has it. How? You can generate your own wealth by using the resources you have, and you'd have more resources immediately if you were to keep more of what you pay in taxes.

Now, to be sure, the rich people would be keeping more of their own money with lower taxes, too. After all, if someone is paying $10 million in taxes and you are paying $10,000 in taxes, and you each get to keep ten percent of that because of a tax cut, the rich person will be keeping $1 million and you will be keeping $1,000. Just imagine if you took that $1,000 and invested in a new idea, and you worked hard to make that idea successful, and you ended up turning that $1,000 into $500,000 (it has happened before). Would you like it if someone else came along and took that money away from you by force and gave it to someone else? Would you be likely to repeat what you did before, given that your reward would be taken away?

When people keep more of their own money instead of having to pay higher taxes, that money doesn't just disappear under a mattress.  Rich people often donate much of their wealth to charitable causes, or put their money to work by buying new things, hiring people and starting up businesses, stimulating the economy. That means you will have more opportunities to acquire more, too, because someone needs to ready these goods and provide these services. But the more that is used up in government overhead or given to people who have proven they don't put it to good yse, the less money there is that can be used to develop new business, or be donated to people who are in need of help.

Will every need be met under such a system? No, but is every need met under the "government does something" system? No! My point is that more needs will be met if people have more freedom with more of their own resources instead of having the government take their resources and try to figure out how to redistribute them, using up some of the resources in the process, and creating a class of people who just sit around waiting for the government to take care of them.

Government's role is set forth in the Constitution. It is supposed to be limited to what is in there. Each branch is supposed to stick to what is written in there for that branch. Everything else is supposed to be up to the states, municipalities, and the people.  The "people" is YOU.

So the next time you catch yourself or someone else saying that "the government" should do something about a perceived problem, check to see if the government is specifically told to do something about it in the Constitution, and if it isn't, then it isn't up to the government unless the Constitution is amended to change that. It is up to YOU and other citizens to "do something", and maybe the state you live in or the municipality you live in.

I maintain that it is better that YOU decide what to do with your own resources. I prefer liberty, freedom, and personal choice over forced wealth redistribution and more government involvement in our daily lives.

Ask yourself and others: Should our government be doing this?  Can’t this be handled some other way?

I know most of these positions will be completely avoided by President Obama, never mind that they wouldn't have a chance of being implemented with the current Senate, even with a Republic POTUS.  But permit me to dream.  Also notice that with most of these, I'm calling on the President to encourage action by the people, not to use the force of law.

Strong Marital Unions Are Good For the Union.  It brings together both sexes to raise the next generation of citizens.  Men and women are different, and unifying them in the marital union forms a strong, inclusive building block for society, benefiting the individuals and society. Call on the Federal government to help by continuing to affirm, as Presidents Clinton and Bush did, that marriage unites a man and a woman, and pledge that the Federal government will not force states to recognize counterfeit marriages. Encourage people to voluntarily take marriage seriously, thinking for the long term, getting good pre-marital counseling - and counseling during marriage as necessary.  Encourage individuals, families, congregations, businesses, and the media to respect and value marriage, and support marriages instead of undermining them.  Encourage individuals to save sex and childrearing for marriage, because doing so is good for them and good for the country.

Education Is a Private Responsibility. With so many educators complaining about No Child Left Behind, and given the state of American public education since the Carter administration, call for the dismantling of Federal involvement in education.

Don't be Santa Claus.  Don't propose new Federal programs and expansions of existing Federal social programs. Enough already.  There are 50 states in the union and a few territories that are supposed to be handling their own matters – that is, the matters that are not supposed to be left up to "the people".

Explain That the Federal Government Is Not the Answer to Every Challenge, Problem, or Choice - Rather, it is the Last Resort Answer to Very Few.  That is what freedom and liberty are all about.  Challenge individuals, businesses, congregations, nonprofits, and local and state governments (where appropriate) to take action instead of relying on the Federal government. The Federal government is there to protect the union from foreign threats and to and resolve some disputes between states.

Stop Using the Tax Code For Social Engineering. Tell the Congress that instead of taking the carrots (taxes) from the people and then dangling some of them back in front of the people, that the people should keep their carrots in the first place and do with them what they will. Call for tax simplification and a move away from income/payroll taxes. If someone pays taxes, everyone should pay taxes.

Individuals Should Plan for the Future. Talk about the numerous options individuals and families have for saving for the future.  Encourage them to save and invest for the future and not rely on the Federal government to take care of them in their senior years. Point out that a reduction in Federal spending will allow people to keep more of their own money to aid in saving for retirement.

Explain that Planning for Your Health Care is Part of Planning for the Future.  Call for more freedom, competition, and private decision-making in health care.

Explain That There Are Other Ways to Get Stem Cells Other Than Killing Human Beings. Explain that ESCR means killing human beings, and the other ways to get stem cells.  Explain the reality of what we currently know and don’t know about stem cells.  Explain that promising research can easily find funding sources other than tax money.  "Science must serve human life – it should not be the other way around."

Encourage Proven Conservation Techniques. Quote the scientists and activists who, in the 1970s, warned that we were heading for a new ice age, and quote those who said that by 2000, the rainforests and the oceans would be destroyed. Go on to say that we must not hastily and uncritically accept alarmist warnings and use Federal government force to impose destructive restrictions on the people and business that may not result in significant environmental benefit.

Encourage private innovation and solutions to reducing reliance on terrorist oil.

Border Control Is a Matter of National Security. Announce that, effective immediately, the National Guard will secure our borders to prevent terrorists, disease-carriers, and smugglers from entering the U.S. They will stay there until suitable barriers and checkpoints are constructed – however long that takes. We will NOT encourage further invasion by offering amnesty, health insurance, and other tax-funded benefits for citizens of other countries who illegally enter/stay in the U.S. Speed up the process for legal immigration for those who want to come to the U.S. legally to become citizens and can find sponsors who will ensure they will stay off of public assistance. As for illegal aliens currently living in the United States – do not offer amnesty; they can go through the same channels of those who are trying to immigrate legally. If the border is secure, this problem will eventually take care of itself because their children born here are citizens and the illegals can continue to function as they have until they die off, if they don't want to go the legal route. Any illegal alien who serves honorably in the U.S. armed forces should be granted citizenship. If a true shortage of labor occurs (meaning American unemployment is low and employers need more temporary labor), a true guest worker program can be developed.

Property Rights and Personal Freedom. Most Americans understand that people should be considered as individuals and based on their behavior and abilities, not as members of a non-ideological group (ethnicity, etc.). Therefore, the Federal government should no longer be involved in preventing people from renting, selling - or not - to whomever they choose for whatever reason, and should no longer be involved with who an employer hires and fires and why. Airlines, for example, should not be forced to carry anyone who makes the majority of their employees and passengers uncomfortable.

Tout the Successes of the War on Terror. Laud those military, intelligence, and law enforcement personnel who have uncovered and prevented terrorist plans and actions, pointing out that is has been over nine years since terrorists have carried out a major attack in the U.S.

Break the Street Gangs. Pledge federal agencies to assist state and local law enforcement "sweep and hold" gang-infested urban areas.

Civility. Call on partisans to vigorously debate the issues, but refrain from threats of violence an character assassination, as they renew their vow to defend the Constitution.

Many years ago, the voters of California, through a Proposition 209, voted to prevent state government from discriminating against people on the basis of race/ethnicity/skin color in most programs. The University of California honchos are trying to get around that, so that they can continue to engage in racism. This is how the Los Angeles Times article by Larry Gordon starts:

The University of California regents on Wednesday moved to expand the use of an undergraduate admissions practice in which applicants' grades and test scores are considered in the context of their educational opportunities and life experiences.

Translation: Are they black or brown?

UCLA and UC Berkeley already use the admissions process, known as holistic review, in which an applicant's entire file, including essays, are read and scored as a whole, rather than in pieces.

"Holistic", in this case, is like using "comprehensive" when it come to immigration reform. It means "doing what we want, not what our bosses, the voters, want". This is a process that invites students to see themselves as victims so that they can present a sob story.

As the university's governing board met at UC San Diego, a regents' committee approved the resolution that urges, but does not require, all nine undergraduate UC campuses to use holistic review in admissions decisions.

I'm sure the requirement will come down if they find there are still "too many" students of Asian ancestry on campus and "not enough" of African or Latino ancestry.

Some regents said they feared broader use of holistic review might introduce too much subjectivity to the process of choosing students and could be seen as an attempt to get around the state's ban on affirmative action.

What? No, that couldn't be it.

But admissions officials said the method, in use at UC Berkeley since 2001 and UCLA since 2007, is the best and fairest way to pick a freshman class from a competitive applicant pool.

Fairest. Right. You know, because basing admission to school on how well someone does at school is unfair.

Under holistic review, admissions readers come up with a single score for an applicant's file, including information about high school courses, SAT or ACT exams, extracurricular activities, special talents and any difficulties the student overcame.

"Difficulties" like, say, being an illegal alien. I can't believe my money is subsidizing this nonsense. The article went to discuss budget concerns.

"Malby 1" at 10:26 PM January 19, 2011:

Here are some courses that UCLA can save money by dropping:

Chicano Studies 129. Field Research Methods in Labor and Workplace Studies. (5)

Discussion of roles of union and nonunion worker organizations in society and in improvement of quality of life for Latina/Latino communities.

130. Worker Center Movement: Next Wave Organizing for Justice for Immigrant Workers. (4)

Development of theoretical and practical understanding of worker center movement, with focus on historical factors that have led to emergence and growth of worker centers. Role of worker centers in promoting multiethnic and multiracial campaigns for workplace and economic justice. Transnational cross-border solidarity issues and rights of undocumented workers.

131. Barrio Popular Culture. (4)

Construction of model by which to organize study of Chicana/Chicano popular culture by focusing on barrio as metaphor for community. Examination of beliefs, myths, and values of Chicana/Chicano culture and representations in icons, heroes, legends, stereotypes, and popular art forms through literature, film, video, music, mass media, and oral history. Letter grading.

132. Border Consciousness. (4)

Investigation through history, popular culture, and mass media of bilingual and bicultural identities produced by geographical and cultural space between Mexico and U.S. Special attention to border consciousness as site of conflict and resistance.

"rexhmailtmp" at 5:53 AM January 20, 2011:

I wonder if the professors will be required to use a "holistic" approach to grading papers.

Good question, because admitting people who should be going to Cal State or community college or a trade school, who will later drop out, hurts them and everybody else.

Los Angeles Times columnist David Lazarus, who writes about consumer and business issues, took California health insurers to task for "basing health insurance rates on gender" despite a law that went into effect at the turn of the year.

As of Jan. 1, California requires all individual health insurance policies to be sold on a "gender-neutral" basis — that is, without any consideration for whether you're a man or woman.

This is a stupid law, as explained by others below. But the law is the law, isn't it?

Some are meeting that requirement. Others, including Anthem Blue Cross, the state's largest provider of individual coverage, appear to be playing fast and loose with ending what regulators call a discriminatory practice.

All rules, policies, and laws are discriminatory. Lazarus is discriminating between Anthem Blue Cross and other companies.

At the heart of the matter is what used to be an industry standard: Factoring in a person's gender when determining monthly premiums. The practice was based on statistical evidence that showed women in their 20s and 30s on average submitted more healthcare claims than older women.

Similarly, men in their 40s and 50s were seen as more costly than younger men.

This isn't an unreasonable conclusion, just as it could be argued that people who live in certain neighborhoods on average get into more accidents and thus should pay higher rates for car insurance.

Or that the cars are more likely to be stolen or vandalized than in other neighborhoods.

But this doesn't account for individual behavior. A driver might live in an accident-prone area but still have a sterling record behind the wheel.

Well, yes, the individual's personal record should be taken into account, also.

That's why California now requires insurers not to use ZIP Codes as a main factor in setting rates.

No, California banned the use of ZIP codes because voters have voted that way, because they think by voting that way their own rates will go down, rather than realizing and caring that the average rate for all will go up.

In 2009, state lawmakers passed legislation, which was subsequently signed into law, prohibiting insurers from basing rates for individual health insurance policies on a person's gender. The thinking was that it's unfair to lump all men or women into a single category.

Of course you don’t lump all into a single category. Earlier in this column he noted that they weren't lumping all men and all women together. They were also divided by age and other factors.

The legislation was introduced after I wrote a column about a 22-year-old Blue Shield customer whose rate went up 20% in part because she was a woman.

The legislation was also introduced after the death of Nixon. There must be some connection, right?

Hers and other women's rates went up simply because, as a Blue Shield spokesman told me at the time, the company's "egghead actuaries" had determined that women are more expensive to insure than men.

One reason for this may be that younger women are more likely to seek preventive care, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. In other words, they tend to take steps to stay healthy.

But if they are costing more due to hypochondria than they are saving through catching things earlier, than they are more expensive, aren't they?

Blue Shield introduced gender-neutral rates for all its 330,000 individual policyholders statewide at the beginning of the month. This resulted in rate increases of as much as 15% for younger men and rate cuts of up to 16% for younger women.

So the men are now paying more than they were before to subsidize the women.

But Anthem says it's introducing gender-neutral rates for its more than 700,000 individual policyholders only on an annual basis. If a policyholder signed up for coverage last December, say, the new rates might not kick in until this December.

If the letter of the law allows that, then why shouldn't they do it what way?

Under the terms of the law, insurers are correct in saying that existing policies need to comply with gender neutrality when they come up for renewal. But it appears most insurers have overlooked the portion of the law that also requires compliance when a policy is amended.

Wasn't paying more to have a statewide Insurance Commissioner supposed to fix all of these problems?

Virtually all insurers have cited the federal healthcare reform law as a key reason for recent rate hikes. That change would seem to represent an amendment of previous terms and thus require immediate compliance with gender neutrality.

Thanks for that, Obama. Here come the comments…

"JoeSexPack" at 11:20 PM January 13, 2011:

This 'gender-neutral' law is wrong & needs to be erased.

If women on average have lower pain thresholds than men, & visit doctors more than men, they can pay for this themselves.

Is anyone crying because insurers charge teenage male drivers more than their teenage female sisters? Of course not, since teenage males are more prone to risky behavior like speeding. We all know this, & PC rules allow discrimination against men, especially the pale skin variety.

Man up, ladies. Equality means you pay your own way, no more parasiting off men.

But how do you really feel?

"GregMaragos" at 12:10 AM January 14, 2011:

As a father of two daughters, I can honestly tell you that insurance companies do not charge you more if you are female in order to be cruel or to make women feel like second-class citizens.  It is done because women are more vulnerable to serious health expenses as relates directly to the fact that they are women, to wit, pregnancy and various gender-related issues.   This is really no different than taking other factors, such as age, height, weight, smoking, and motor cycle riding into consideration when determining risk.

Nah, they must be doing it just because they are a bunch of sexist jerks.

"Computer Forensics Expert" at 2:42 AM January 14, 2011:

Women, for the most part, have a higher risk rating for obvious reasons.  More things that can go wrong, than for a guy.  Generally, there is a higher frequency of doctor visits.

Guys don't need:

1.  OB/GYN services

2.  Mammograms

3.  Pap smears

4.  Rx for menses

and the list goes on.

Simply stated, why should a guy pay for things that he isn't going to use?  The problem with the 'equality arguments is that now everybody will pay the higher rate.

"Art Vandelay1" at 11:00 AM January 14, 2011 rips into the piece:
 
The Times should be embarassed to publish a columnist in the business section who apparently doesn't know anything about economics, and doesn't care.

He writes that older men "were seen as" more costly to insure than younger men, like it was some primitive superstitition, rather than based on statistical evidence.

And that women in their 20s and 30s are more expensive to insure because they tend to take steps to stay healthy - like eating blueberries and taking Pilates outweigh the prime child-bearing years.

And the categories used by insurance companies don't take account of individual differences - so the answer is to treat everyone as though they are exactly the same, rather than take into account those differences that can be observed.

How do you really feel?

You probably know Leftists and a lot of centrists and even some Republicans or professing conservatives who act like your views are strange and don't make sense. I know I do. I strive for consistency in my political philosophy and to deal with reality, not things as I wish they were. I am developing a personal declaration to give to people I know who question the basis for my views. If you do the same, feel free to lift text from what I have so far. I think it is also a good idea to include some introduction, such as...

Since you ASKED me...

First and foremost, I usually do not let political differences come between me and my friends or associations. I am open to respectful discussions. Hopefully, you are like me in that regard. If you can't tolerate someone having different political views, approaches, or affiliations than you and still be a friend, coworker, or whatever, then please don't read any further.

And with that, here is what I have so far...

I believe...

• The best system of government possible in today's world is one described in our Constitution and Declaration of Independence - a sovereign democratic representative republic uniting individual states in a system of limited government comprised of three branches that have a separation of powers with checks and balances over each other; a union of laws, not of men.
• The Constitution, as amended, tells the federal government what it can do rather than listing all of the things it can't do; absent a Constitutional mandate, the federal government should not act.
• Courts, including the Supreme Court, should be directed by law. When a law conflicts with the Constitution, the Constitution overrides the law.
• Rights are something with which we are born, not granted by government. These rights do not obligate others without their consent unless a crime has been committed. The government exists to protect rights from being trampled upon by others (fraud/theft, assault, etc.), but when government isn't limited, it becomes an entity that violates rights.
• Each human being has these rights, has inherent worth, and has something to offer other human beings.
• As much as possible, government should treat people equally, including treating people who do the same things in the same way. Not everyone will exercise their rights in the same way, to the same result; it isn't the function of government to correct this.
• Whenever possible and rights are not violated, voluntary use of personal property/resources, expressions, efforts, and transactions should be allowed without any government restriction. It is these things, including private charity, that will meet the needs and desires of the most people in the most efficient way possible. This also rewards and encourages innovation, ambition, calculated risk, and merit. Whenever this is not possible, limited local government involvement, such as county, city, or special district, is preferable to state involvement; in turn, limited state involvement is preferable to federal involvement.
• It is immoral and counterproductive for the government to take money by force from one person or group of people and give it another unless the recipient is performing a Constitutionally assigned function or the function is otherwise a Constitutional mandate.
• It is unkind in immoral to encourage individuals to be financially dependent on government.
• It is preferable that laws and government procedures be changed through the legislative process, including amending the Constitution, rather than through a court decision.
• As individuals, we have a moral obligation to: 1) Be good stewards of what we own/have.[1] 2) Engage in prudent charity.[1] 3) Respect the rights of others.[2]
• The default state of the world is selfishness, despotism, nepotism, and corruption, resulting in poverty, war, crime, oppression, and double standards. The USA only avoids or minimizes these things by vigilant adherence to our principles, though there will still be problems. Societal perfection is not possible through mere enlightenment or technological advancement.
  

I do NOT:

• Forget nor minimize the accomplishments and contributions of government employees, even in instances where I maintain that private efforts could have achieved the same or better results.
• Dislike anyone, nor presume to know anything about them based on their sex, age, disability, race, skin color, ethnicity, national origin, language, socioeconomic status, creed, religion, sexual orientation, citizenship status, marital status, parental status , or weight – except for the inherently obvious (example: I know someone who was born in Egypt was born in Egypt). I think people who dismiss or attack or exclude anyone based on these criteria, aside from the practical[3] are being evil.[4]
• Deny that the rich will have more for themselves and more influence, but that will be true in any system; free markets, which are only possible under limited government, are the best system for allowing the most people to improve their own economic status. There are many examples of minorities who have come to our country with nothing and have obtained a middle class or wealthy lifestyle, or have provided a foundation for their children to do so. Many of today's poor will not be poor in the future, especially if they avoid crime, substance abuse, and raising children out of wedlock. The more we centralize power in the federal government, the easier it will be for the rich to manipulate the system to their advantage at the expense of others.[5]
  

Where do we disagree?

Notes:

[1]We may form partnerships or groups to accomplish these things, but, we should not FORCE others to participate or do what we think is best.

[2]In some cases, when people do not abide by this third obligation (usually by theft or assault), it is appropriate for some level of government to be used to deal with the crime.

[3] Examples: If a man claims to be gay, I would not try to set him up with a woman as a date; I would not set up a child on a date with an adult.

[4]I do recognize that there are real differences between men and women and that they are not entirely interchangeable. As such, the pairing of a man and woman is inherently different than the pairing of two men or two women. But to the fullest extent possible in a sensible context, government should treat men and women equally.

[5] Example: If you think a CEO of a company is getting too much pay relative to his employees, you and others who agree with you are free to do any number of things to encourage the CEO to change this, including but not limited to: 1) appealing to the CEO; 2) appealing to the company's investors and business partners; 3) engaging in a media campaign; 4) refusing to buy the company's products or services; 5) starting a competing company; 6) rejecting job offers from the company, etc.

HOWEVER, if the federal government goes beyond Constitutional direction, it may subsidize the company with taxpayer money, or pass laws that discourage competition for that company, and you have a lot less control over this because, provided you are a voter, you are just one of many (perhaps millions of) voters who elects two out of fifty senators to six year terms, you are just one of thousands of voters who chooses one of the 435 Representatives in the House of Representatives for a two year term, and you are just one of many (perhaps millions) of people who vote to tell your state (one of fifty) representatives which Presidential candidate to elect for a four year term.

(This is a repost.)

So much for toning down the rhetoric and refraining from spewing vitriol. Dr. Laura Schlessinger has a new book out, which means she's promoting that book. And that means shrill, shrieking, and demonstrably false attacks on Dr. Laura by the logically-impaired couch potatoes, neglectful "mothers", and feminized guys out there who are upset that she's appearing on their usually Lefty-feminist televisions.

Dr. Laura does fifteen hours of radio a week. She's written many books. She blogs. She's written many columns. What she actually has said isn't hard to find or document. And yet so many people get it so wrong. Some are misrepresenting Dr. Laura's teachings and statements deliberately, usually for their own fundraising or ideological purposes. Others are relying on these dubious sources.

It is quite sad, really, as some of the people who would benefit most from her advice won't even consider it. These people, who refuse to check out what Dr. Laura actually says, when asked why, will almost invariably say it is because she is "intolerant, judgmental, hateful, or prejudiced". The irony of their declarations of hating someone they won't even listen to, supposedly for her being judgmental, fails to dawn on them.

So much of what Dr. Laura says is exactly right. My life is better because of her. Overall, I'd say she's done much, much, more good for the world than just about any of her critics.

One of the most common attacks is calling Dr. Laura a hypocrite. This is supposed to be the "get out of jail free card" for the morally guilty, right up there with claiming to be offended when other people notice their misdeeds.

There's a lot of confusion over the word "hypocrisy". What it really is: saying one thing while believing another. While we can't really know what someone else believes in their heart for sure, we can guess based on what they do.

Let's look at an example of hypocrisy. Let's say someone says "I believe it is wrong to make adult movies", but they are, at that very time, involved in ongoing production of adult movies. That person would be a hypocrite. They would NOT be a hypocrite if they were making "regular" movies. They would not be a hypocrite if they had previously made adult movies and had since repented. They wouldn't be a hypocrite if they had previously made adult movies, repented, and now criticize, say, smoking. Furthermore, if someone added to the original statement to say "I believe it is wrong to make adult movies for public distribution", all the while making private videos alone with her spouse for viewing by herself and her spouse only – that would not be hypocrisy. (Dr. Laura does not have a sex tape circulating out there. I'm just making a point.)

We look for evidence of a hypocritical statement in someone's actions. But even so, PAST action does not indicate CURRENT belief. Even more so, the problem is the past or current wrong action, not speaking out against what is wrong.

The immoral will use charges of hypocrisy - implying that hypocrisy is wrong - to try to get other people to stop saying that something they like to do is wrong. Whether or not someone is a hypocrite does not make wrong actions good or okay or honorable.

For the fun of it, though, I'm waiting for a legitimate example of how Dr. Laura is a hypocrite. She gets viciously attacked over and over again by angry, bitter people. A textbook could be written about misrepresentation and logical fallacies involved in this. But for all of their spewing of the word, they have failed to show her to be a hypocrite.

The "hypocrite" attacks have mostly amounted to claiming that things she did while a "liberal brainwashed feminista" (her words) that she has since repented of somehow disqualify her from giving an opinion to people who seek it on the radio and print. Some attacks have also tried to blame her for the supposed actions of her mother and her adult son; have centered on the fact that she's not a physician (which is strange because she readily states she's not – she has a Doctorate); that she worked while her son was a minor even though she tells women not to work if they have minor children (a strawman, because Dr. Laura's position is that parents should raise their own kids instead of dumping them on relatives or daycare, and she made sure that either her son was with her while she was on the radio, or that she worked while he was asleep, etc.); that she told military wives to shut up (she told them not to burden their deployed husbands with complaints about which the husbands could do nothing while deployed); and that she blames wives for their husbands cheating (she blames cheaters for cheating, but does point out that a well-picked husband is not going to cheat if his wife is giving him the simple things he needs). There are also complaints about how she handles callers, but her objective (aside from getting people to listen of course) is to make the caller (and listener) do better, not necessarily feel better immediately. There's a short amount of time to accomplish this on a call-in radio talk show, so she often has to be blunt and curt and cut through the word games and denial.

Really, though, most of these "charges" against her are things people wouldn't bother with, except that people hate it when someone points out that a behavior they are engaged in is immoral, destructive, or somehow depriving someone else of something due them.

She's being attacked because she says that people should save sex and cohabitation for marriage; that women should not sexually reject their husbands; that a woman or girl who isn't in a healthy marriage should give her baby up for adoption rather than keeping the baby or having the baby "sucked into a sink"; that if someone does choose to raise a child alone or ends up divorced or widowed that they should not get a new honey until the youngest child is grown; and that children should be raised by a married mom and dad, and not by "day orphanages", shack-up couples, unmarried individuals, or same-sex couples.

It is that last one that really sets people off – the idea that children need a mom and a dad. So people refer back to a quote from her show in which she said that a homosexual orientation is a biological error. I'll grant that the quote is accurate for the sake of this discussion. Repeatedly, the spin put on that quote is that she called people (gays and lesbians) biological errors – and that is not what the quote says. But notice she did say that homosexuality is inborn. Regardless, homofascists have treated her like Lou Sheldon or even Fred Phelps, despite her stating that homosexuality is not a choice. Despite the fact that she repeatedly takes calls from gays and lesbians and treats them with dignity and respect, she repeatedly tells others to be loving, friendly, and accepting towards gays and lesbians, and she repeatedly tells concerned callers that the gays and lesbians they know are not going to stop being gay and lesbian and their partners should be treated with respect and kindness. She has even said same-sex couples should avail themselves of the ability to get marriage licenses in the states that will issue them to brideless or groomless couples. But because she notes that children need a mom and a dad and that, because of that (and to avoid creating "extra" embryos destined to be killed), same-sex couples should not make babies through third party reproduction or adopt infants - she gets severely disparaged continually.

There are the extensive whiny webpages. And hardly a day goes by that someone doesn't blog a "letter to Dr. Laura" that was also adapted by lazy West Wing scribes in which she and the Bible are mocked over the issue of homosexual behavior. The letter emerged when Dr. Laura was practicing as an Orthodox Jew (she no longer identifies as Orthodox). There's an excellent response to that letter here, by the way. No matter – people will still keep putting it on their blogs and pretend like they really know what the Bible teaches, and what Dr, Laura said all those years ago.

You can read things I previously wrote about these matters here and here.

Read Dr. Laura's full recent statement yourself.

Meanwhile, the poof is in the pudding. You can read letters to Dr. Laura, listen to her callers, and read blogs from everyday people that reveal that her advice has led to happier and better behaved children, happier and better behaved spouses, and happier and more self-respecting people in general – including people who are gay or lesbian. There are gays and lesbians who benefit from her advice, and I can only hope that as a result, they see how some of the venomous haters and advocacy groups do not represent their best interests.

The same could be said about race and Dr. Laura's use of "the n word". Dr. Laura didn't use that word against someone or to describe someone. She used it to make a point to a caller, and she realized she didn't handle the call in the best way, and apologized for it. But the haters used it to distract from real issues. They attacked as "racist" a woman who has vehemently supported interracial married couples on her program. Dr. Laura was fed up with how the activist groups attack terrestrial radio broadcasters, and so now her show's home is satellite radio. Hey, things are even better now, so what those haters meant for ill has been used for good, including Dr. Laura clearing up some of the lies about her. On her last terrestrial radio broadcast, she took calls and explained some of what really happened when it came to her walking away from association with Orthodox Judaism. On her new show, in response to an erroneous statement by a caller, she explained that her mother abandoned her and refused contact with her. Really, what was Dr. Laura supposed to do about that? In her new book and through the book promotion, she has talked about the situation with the late Bill Balance.

The haters, I expect, will continue to trade and circulate lies.

I have my own minor disagreements with some of her opinions. But I base those on things she actually says, not a misunderstanding of what she says. Isn't it time people stop slandering and libeling her, especially in this supposed new age of civility?

Previously:

I Believe Glen Starkey Libeled Dr. Laura

Hit-and-Run Dr. Laura Critics

See also "Libel is Fun" over at Everything Must Go!

In reacting to the allegedly Occultist nutcase murder, my Leftist friends are either forgetting or ignoring some things as they rush to blame TEA Partiers, Palin, Republicans, talk radio hosts, and advocates of limited government.

1) This is horrible, but it is not new. Crime is not new. Murder is now new. Shooting sprees are not new. Political assassinations and attempts are not new in America or the rest of the world. There has been no escalation.

2) Right-wingers, TEA Partiers, Republicans, Palin, and limited government types have been targeted for assassinations, threats, hanging/burning in effigy, in hate speech, and in vitriolic comments. In 2004, there was a website with targets on a map meant to note where they were going to try to remove Republicans from office. This was years before Palin placed targets on a map. See here for more.

3) Nothing Sarah Palin or any prominent Republican said could have prompted this shooting. After all, nothing in the media, such as pop music or television, causes anyone of any age to engage in risky sexual behavior, substance abuse, violence, or crime in general, (unless an LGBT person is the victim). Right?

4) There is no evidence, other than assertions by Democrats, that the shooter was influenced by talk radio or any other comments Leftists don’t like.

5) Even if this guy had attended a Palin rally or TEA Party event, it would not show that he was influenced by such events. All kinds of people attend such events. Any movement or public event/meeting attracts nutcases.

6) The shooter attended community college. Leftists have assured us that education reduces crime. So what happened here? Perhaps he was influenced by his Leftist instructors?

7) If we couldn’t tell what the Fort Hood shooter’s motivations/influences were, how can we know what they were with this guy?

It is disgusting how some on the Left are using the murderous actions of an apparent nutcase as an excuse to try to silence Republicans, TEA Partiers, and advocates of limited government.

We have consistently supported the orderly transition of power and respect for authority, consistently condemned assault and murder or any kind of force that is used unjustly.

The actions of this nutcase in Arizona can in no way be blamed on any prominent Republican.

Most of us, in fact, would call for the execution of anyone who commits such evil, unless the person was so mentally ill that that had no understanding that what they were doing was wrong. We consistently support law, order, and cracking down on criminals. I believe in an objective right and wrong. Can the Leftists say the same?

How do governments get revenue with which to operate?  No, contrary to what some would have you believe, it doesn't magically appear out of nothing.  There are some basic ways governments are funded:

Conquest, thereby gaining resources previously outside of that government’s domain
Owning businesses, thereby selling goods and services.
Collecting rent
Selling land or mining rights, etc.
Gifts
Customs duties and tariffs on imported or exported goods
Taxes
Fees
Assessments
Fines and forfeitures

Some sources would list loans, bonds, tributes, and subventions, but each of these eventually necessitate one of the other funding means previously listed.

Let's take a closer look at these funding methods.

Despite what the America-bashers say, we haven't engaged in conquest in a long time.  Very few people would advocate conquest in the historic sense.  I do think a valid argument could be made for seizing the assets of nongovernmental terrorist groups and using such conquest to fund out anti-terrorism efforts and to compensate American victims of terrorism.

The government should own very few, if any businesses.  Free markets can take care of the needs there.

Collecting rent, for any land the government owns, is certainly valid.  That rent should go first and foremost to the maintenance of that property.

Selling land and mineral rights.  Some have advocated selling vast amounts of government land.  This could be a good idea.  The government needs a certain amount of land for essential Constitutional functions, but otherwise should consider getting out of being a landowner.

People sometimes give gifts to local government, such as donating their land to be a municipal park upon their death.  Gifts, such as statues, may come from other places.  Gifts to governments should be under certain narrow circumstances to avoid the appearance of undue influence.

The "buy American" crowd loves the idea of duties and tariffs on imports.  However, these keep prices high for American consumers and reduce the incentive to Americans to provide goods and services that will be desired around the world.

Now we're getting to the nitty-gritty.

Taxes are forced and supposedly for a common benefit.  We have income taxes, capital gains taxes, property taxes, estate taxes, sales taxes, luxury taxes, sin taxes, gas taxes, so on and so forth.  Although I highly doubt it will ever happen, most of these should be done away with.  Sales taxes may work, provided it doesn't lose too much through underground markets.  Sales taxes will still mean "the rich" will be likely to pay most of the tax burden, because they tend to buy more expensive items.  We should not allow taxes to be called "fees" for the sake of political comfort.

Fees are for a special benefit, collected upon a transaction.  For example, not everyone owns a motorized vehicle.  Some people own many.  If we're going to have government regulation of motorized vehicles and government programs and projects centering on them, it makes sense to charge fees for registering those vehicles in a way that covers enough of the costs so that someone who does not own such a vehicle does not have to pay a tax to support them.  Retailers pay fees in order to have their scales and registers certified as accurate.  Fees should not be used like income taxes.  They should fund a specific, related purpose.

Assessments are charged on a property, usually for an extraordinary expense, such as public works or utility infrastructure construction.  Assessments make more sense than most taxes, though in some cases, the same results can be achieved through private property and private infrastructure.  For example, property owners in a certain area may pay an assessment to build and maintain a nearby bridge.

Provided they do not violate property rights, fines and forfeitures are another excellent way to fund government functions, and they do so widely now.  When someone violates laws, necessitating a response from government, it would be ideal if they could pay for the costs of enforcement, investigation, conviction, and maybe even incarceration.  If someone can make money by violating the law and a fine will only amount to a small percentage of their illicit gain, that is hardly a deterrent.  But it makes sense to "tax" crime with fines and forfeitures.

So, taxes are not fees, fees are not taxes, and we should not try to hide taxes as fees nor treat fees like taxes.  There are many ways for the government to fund its necessary functions without raising or even having income taxes or estate taxes.

(This is essentially a repost.)

Nature-worshipping freaks, environmental alarmists, and commie mass transit advocates knock the personal  automobile.  I love automobiles.  There are many reasons to love automobiles.

1. It’s there on demand.  No looking up schedules, no walking several blocks to a station or a stop, no scrambling to conform to a schedule, no dealing with late buses or trains.

2. It gets you exactly where you want to go, in using the route that is of your choosing, as direct or as scenic as you choose.  You don’t have to go way out of your way and wait for a transfer.  If you want to slow down and pull off of the road - maybe to dump some toxic chemicals into an endangered species habitat, or eat an artery-clogging burger made from a dead cow, or hunt a defenseless little furry animal - you can.  Just try dragging a game carcass onto a public bus.  Ain’t gonna happen.

3. You can have some level of privacy.  This allows you to call in to Dr. Laura without anyone around you hearing.  It also allows for you to have you kids sit in the back and earn their keep doing child labor while you go over their homeschooling lessons.

4. You can listen to what you want without disturbing others or having to wear earphones.  The Bible on tape,  Atlas Shrugged on tape, Rush Limbaugh - you can listen to it all and still hear that siren.

5. Any passengers are of your choosing.  Do I need to draw you a picture?  No holding on to your wallet or enduring paranoid mumblings.  You can hide “passengers” in the trunk, too.

6. The aroma is of your choosing.  See #5.

7. The climate is of your choosing.  I like running the air conditioner full-blast and having all of the windows down.

8. Automobiles allow a wide-range of self-expression, from that little fish symbol, to an NRA bumper sticker, to that red-white-and-blue paint job, to that horn that plays “Battle Hymn of the Republic”.

9. Automobiles allow for self-determination.  On a commuter train, you are often delayed when someone jumps in front of it to kill themselves, but in an automobile, you can run right over them, back up over them, and run over them again, then take off, go home, and have an adult beverage as you wait for the police to arrive to hear your explanation involving assisted suicide.

10. People used to use horses for transportation, but now horses can be sold to Europe to be turned into meat.

Of course, this all depends on the men and women who design, engineer, build, and maintain our roads, highways, bridges, and traffic systems.  Without those, automobiles would just be another place to make love to your spouse.

Automobiles may change over the years, getting safer, more efficient, and more “environmentally-friendly”, but is hard to beat the basic premise of a passenger-controlled vehicle that can be navigated to exactly where the passenger wants to go, exactly when the passenger wants to get there.  Long live the personal automobile!

(This is a repost.)

How often have you heard that, or some variation of that? We hear that in California. The implication is that we should be spending more money on schools than prisons, and if we did, we'd have less need for prison.

This brings up many different points.

1. Is it true? No. According to this, about 52 to 55 percent of the State General Fund Budget is spent on K–12 and Higher Education. It is mathematically impossible that more of the general fund could be spent on prisons. Also, we have a mandated minimum to spend on education.

Still, we are spending a lot on prisons and related things. We spend more per prisoner than most, if not all, other states. If anything, we should be spending less on prisons instead of more on schools.

2. Prisons tend to be occupied 24/7/365, though it would be interesting if they shut down and everyone went home for weekends, holidays, and session breaks like happens in the schools.

3. More security is needed in prisons, as the people there tend to be more violent than in public schools. At least by a little.

4. Prisoners get health care. For the most part, schools don't provide health care for students, at least not yet. Universities tend to be an exception.

5. The prison guard unions are even better at manipulating the system than the teachers unions.

6. It has long been a basic function of government, and is reflected in our federal Constitution, to remove criminals from the general society and/or punish them. There is more legitimate reason for the state to be involved in prisons than in schools.

7. I can educate myself, as can many other people. How many criminals self-imprison? It is possible to homeschool your kid, and people learn things outside of formal education all of the time. It isn't as practical for violent prisoners to be "home prisoned".

8. There's a lot of private funding in education, too, as well as additional local funds.

9. While time served on any given sentence in prison may be a lot less than the years we sentence our kids to schooling, prisoners tend to return.

10. Unlike schools, people don't want prisons in their neighborhood, so prisons are built in remote areas and it costs more to operate them as a result.

11. What SHOULD we be spending on schools, anyway? How much is enough?

12. Plenty of educated people commit crimes. When you educate a criminal, you don't stop them from being a criminal. You make them a smarter criminal.

13. Still don't like how much we’re spending on prisons? Tell people to stop committing crimes.

(This is a repost.)