...you may have been right.

A community college professor has plead guilty in a case where she has been accused of stalking Fritz Coleman. Coleman is a weatherman for the NBC "owned & operated" station in Los Angeles. (His position was previously held by none other than Pat Sajak.) Coleman is a comedian who has long been the weatherman on that station. He even goes to do stand-up nearby between the evening and late-night newscasts.

Anyway, these are the people teaching students on our dime.

Forecast: Scary.

Maybe the situation with Scotland releaseing the Libyan terrorist mass murderer is apples and this is oranges. Regardless, I give kudos to the panel that decided to keep murderer Susan Atkins in prison. This story appeared in the Los Angeles Times back on September 3, and was written by Richard Winton and Hector Becerra.

For the second time in as many years, a state parole board voted unanimously Wednesday to deny one of Charles Manson's fiercest followers her request for a "compassionate release" so that she can die at home.

She should have been executed many years ago. It would not be compassionate, on the whole, to release her to die at home.

Convicted murderer Susan Atkins, 61, is terminally ill with cancer and has only months to live, doctors say.

Cancer is awful - it is a horrible way to die. But if anyone is going to get it, why not a murderer?

The issue of mercy has long haunted Atkins. Nearly 40 years ago, actress Sharon Tate begged the knife-wielding Atkins to spare her life and that of her unborn child.

"She asked me to let her baby live," Atkins told parole officials in 1993. "I told her I didn't have mercy for her."

I pray that Atkins has repented and thrown herself on the mercy of the Lord.

Atkins is serving a life sentence for the 1969 slaying of Tate, 26, who was 8 1/2 months pregnant, and musician Gary Hinman.

She has served 38 years in prison, longer than any other female in the state.

Fitting.

After fatally stabbing Tate, prosecutors said, Atkins tasted the actress' blood and used it to write "PIG" on the front door of the home.

During her trial, which took more than nine months, Atkins seemed to show no remorse and maintained utter devotion to Manson, whom she called "Jesus Christ," "the devil" and "the soul."

Cults can be extremely dangerous, and you don’t have to be stupid or gullible to get into one. But you have to be responsible for your own actions.

Atkins is now considered a model prisoner known for helping others.

You mean she hasn't killed any other pregnant actresses while in prison? You don’t say.

She has been married to an Orange County attorney for the last 21 years.

Some people will marry anyone.

In recent years, she was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer. One of her legs has been amputated and the other is paralyzed, authorities said.

Some of her supporters have argued that releasing Atkins would save the state substantial amounts of money in medical and prison expenses.

Well, yeah, releasing any prisoner would save the state incarceration costs.

These people were trying to incite mass mayhem via murder. Just because one of them gets a terminal illness is no reason to grant parole.

Some of the letter writers to the Orange County Register continue to do a good job explaining the immorality and unconstitutionality of universal, government-mandated health "insurance".

Steve Dufau of Fountain Valley wrote:

Once again I read in letters to the editor, the statement that "health care is a right." Exactly where in the U.S. Constitution is this "right"? I am unable to find, in the Constitution, where a citizen of the United States is entitled to the labor of a medical professional, on the governments dime. First of all, the only money the government has is what it confiscates from the citizenry as taxes.

While not all rights are enumerated in the Constitution, the document does tell the federal government what it is to do. Health care is not one of those things. Under the 9th and 10th Amendments, it is clearly not for the federal government to offer.

I doubt that Jane Freij [Sept 10]would go to her neighbor and demand that he or she pony up $500 or $600 so she could go to the doctor, yet she has no problem asking the government to do it for her. Taking what belongs to someone else, against their will, money or services, is stealing. It doesn't matter if is by government or an individuals, it is stealing.

Agreed. We should be very cautious what we leave to government to handle, even more so when we're talking the federal government as opposed to a local or state government.

According to the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, I have the right to own a fire arm, However I do not have the right or the expectation that the government would pay for that fire arm.

So very true. For some reason, the Leftists don't read the Second Amendment that way, yet they read things into the Constitution that are not there.

Dr. James Baker of Laguna Hills also chimes in:

Suppose you force a physician at gunpoint to provide you with medical care and pay him some amount of money. If one's opposition to this focused on economic compensation rather than the force, one concludes that it is acceptable to force your doctor to do as you want as long as you pay him well. Likewise, if force were acceptable then a doctor could to force you to be his patient as long as his fees were reasonable. In both situations force is immoral.

Keep up the good work, letter writers!

I support the President of the United States of America. Currently, the person in that office is Obama. I generally believe in the smooth transition of power as provided for in our Constitution.

As I am not an employee of the federal government, I do not serve the President. As a citizen, he serves me. As I am not a federal employee, I do not need to obey the President, except where he is enforcing the law.

When the President is protecting us from foreign enemies, when he is prosecuting criminals, when he is doing what the Constitution tells him to do, I support him - except when he is signing legislation I believe to be harmful to the union or my rights, and when he vetoes legislation I support.

I believe in supporting candidates, including Presidential, who will have the guts to defend our nation, and the restraint to work for limited government. I will do that with my votes, my time, my money, and my efforts. I will use the ballot to remove a President from office - I condemn any effort to do it with violence or coercion or deception. We are a nation of laws.

Have you noticed people using the examples of police departments, fires departments, and public schools to explain their support for federal health "insurance" for all?

These are not valid comparisons.

Let's look at public schools first. I think public schools are more problematic than they are worth, and we should have separation of state and school. But let's ignore that for the sake of argument. Schools are run mostly by local school districts, which are usually distinct from city and county governments. They do receive funding from federal programs, but mostly fall under local authority and the laws of the state. Many people would leave the public school system if they could find the means to do so. Those who do must still pay for a system that they do not use.

Police departments are generally city or county based. States do have highway patrols or state troopers in addition to the local authorities. Then there are federal law enforcement agencies like the FBI. But most law enforcement that people encounter is local, and laws differ from state to state, city to city. So again, this is mostly a local matter.

Fire departments are also local, with some state reinforcement for wildfires and some federal involvement. But most fire protection is completely local.

So these things are bad examples for nationally socializing health "insurance".

The Constitution does not give the this task to the federal government. Amend the Constitution or give up on Obamacare.

Here is a simple set of questions you can ask people who tell you we need Obamacare, or more federal funding/control of health care and health insurance.

Do you personally...
1. Expect to pay for the care of other people you don't know in addition to your own (net financial/service loss on your part, gain on their part);
2. Expect other people who don't know you to pay for your care in addition to their own (net financial/service gain on your part, loss on their part);
3. Expect that by pooling money with other people, you will come out about even with them in the long run;
4. Expect medical professionals and those involved in constructing/operating/maintaining medical facilities and equipment to work for free (net financial/service loss on their part, gain on your part)?  

Few of them will honestly say #1. If they do, ask them what is stopping them from doing this right now, by donating to/volunteering for medical charities? Obamacare is not needed for this.

Most are secretly hoping for #2, but might be embarrassed to admit it, and they should be.

Most will claim option #3. Again, there's nothing stopping them from doing this now. They can go to their neighbor right now and come up with an agreement to share medical costs.

They will point to other countries when you bring up #4, saying that these people get paid in other countries. Yes, but have you noticed how many of these people in other countries come to the USA? Why is that?

The fact of the matter is, due to administration, any insurance means that the average person will have somewhat of a loss, no matter how minor. That is the cost of administration of insurance. Why would the federal government be any better at administrating than a voluntarily-joined insurance company/cooperative/nonprofit?

Unfortunately, people are quick to turn to the federal government to solve what they perceive to be problems. They want Obama to make their lives better. But there are other options. There are state governments, local governments, special districts... better yet there are individual choices and initiatives, businesses, nonprofits, and cooperatives.

Why should I be forced, under threat of imprisonment, to pay for someone else's health care?

Pledging to serve the President shows how ignorant some people are when it comes to what our nation is all about. Unless you are in the military, or in the Executive Branch, you don't serve the President. HE SERVES US! He is a PUBLIC SERVANT. This is something other Presidents have understood. Why does Obama not see this?

If Florida isn't careful, it will become the next California, with people fleeing the state for lower taxes and less government. This is especially true because many people in Florida are refugees from California.

Take it from a Californian - don't become us!

Levi Johnston really, really needs to get a life. Really. Enough already. Okay, you knocked up a teen girl. Wow. Good job, buddy. That doesn't make you an expert in anything, and certainly not Sarah Palin.

Someday, if you grow up, you will look back at your repeated stupidity with shame an embarrassment, realizing what a tool you were.

Be sure to pay your child support, Levi.  $$$. Fork it over, buddy.

I can keep responding to them as long as they keep trying to tell us neutered marriage licenses against the consent of a governed are a "right". My analysis of their latest editorial is over at The Opine Editorials.

Thanks for reading and thanks for all of your comments and e-mails.

I tend not to post often Friday, Saturday, or Sunday, but I only made one entry today, a day of the week I normally make three or more. My other duties are taking more time up right now, and while I hope to keep blogging regularly, I may be relatively quiet over the next month or so.

I was the first "user blogger" to post here when Townhall.com made this feature available, so I have a lot of material you can check out. You can find some of it by going through the links in the column on the right. You can also Google "Playful Walrus" plus whatever topic you like to read about, and you maybe you’ll find something I wrote on it.

You can also find me on Facebook.

Thanks again for reading. Keep checking back.

Drop me a note: PlayfulWalrus at Yahoo. I can handle criticism and arguments, and I certainly don't mind agreement and cheers!

Three pieces in the Los Angeles Times show why California is in trouble. Shane Goldmacher has an article on the latest tax increases.

While Californians are still feeling the sting of income and sales tax hikes signed into law earlier this year, now comes news that state tax authorities plan to take a little more from their pockets.

For only the second time in 30 years, the tax board is lowering the point where each tax bracket begins, bumping many people into a higher category. At the same time, officials are cutting back some deductions. Everyone will pay more, even people whose bracket or income doesn't change.

Great.

Meanwhile, columnist George Skelton enthuses about yet another group that claims to have the answers.

The bipartisan reform group California Forward has proposed a modest, reasonable and doable set of significant changes in how state and local governments operate.

We'll see.

There's no denying the problems: gridlock, perpetually late budgets, chronic deficits, IOUs, Sacramento raids on local coffers...

Don't forget high taxes and an environment hostile to business.

But these are some steps recommended unanimously by the California Forward's Leadership Council after 18 months of mulling:

Lower the Herculean hurdle for legislative passage of a state budget from a two-thirds majority to a simple majority. But retain the two-thirds requirement for tax increases.

Not sure how that would work. Sound like it would mean more borrowing, which necessitates more taxes.

For fiscal conservatives and anyone with common sense, require that unexpected spikes in tax revenue be spent only for one-time purposes, not to enhance programs in perpetuity.

This is toothless. The "one time" purpose every year could be "budget deficit", right?

Require the sponsor of any new spending proposal, whether in the Legislature or at the ballot box, to identify the funding source.

Good.

Budget for two years, rather than one, and regularly monitor the spending plan to watch for red ink.

Good.

Set clear goals for each program. If they're not met, change or chuck the program.

Good.

Prohibit the Legislature from raising taxes on a majority vote and calling them "fees."

Good.

Provide local governments with more control over their own fates by barring the state from raiding property taxes and other revenue.

Good.

Permit cities, counties and school districts to unite in some common endeavor, such as gang suppression, and pay for it with a tax increase passed by a simple majority of voters. Now it would require a two-thirds vote.

Keep the two-thirds requirement. Otherwise, we're screwed.

Relax term limits while reducing the overall time a person could spend in the Legislature.

Get rid of term limits.

Well, I’m not too impressed. I’ll say it again: 1) Split the state. 2) Make the legislature unicameral; reduce the number of legislators if possible. 3) Make the legislature a part-time "citizen" legislature.

Finally, there's this commentary from Ethan Rarick, director of the Robert T. Matsui Center for Politics and Public Service at UC Berkeley. He knocks Nevada's ads calling on California businesses to come to Nevada to escape taxation and regulations.

Relatively few businesses, once they're formed, pick up and move across state lines. Over the last several years, the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California has done exhaustive research trying to measure precisely how many jobs California has lost because of such moves, while also measuring the offsetting number we have gained from businesses moving into the state. The conclusion? The impact is tiny. The researchers found that the average annual job loss was only .06% of California's total employment. Just to be clear, that's not 6%; it's six one-hundredths of 1%.

The fact is, businesses are moving out, and how many are moving here from other states?. Others are choosing to expand or start up elsewhere instead of California. That study doesn't deal with business that would have added jobs in California, but didn't because of the business climate in California. Also, individuals who are good workers and citizens and entrepreneurs - people who produce more revenue for the system than they take - are leaving and being replaced by welfare/subsidy-dependent people.

Is there much doubt that Ted Kennedy would have been elected President at some point (1976, or 1992) had it not been for his role in the death of Mary Jo Kopechne? This fantasy that some people, especially the news media, have about "Camelot", the good feelings many people had about the JFK Presidency, and sympathy over the evil assassinations of JFK and RFK would have propelled him into the office.

Of course, that would have taken him out of the Senate, and after a term or two as President, then what?

The best thing we can do to honor his memory is to stay sober.

The editorial board of the Los Angeles Times has published their opinion on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce asking for a judge to hear evidence on whether or not global warming is a health threat.

Yet the trouble with the chamber's petition, which it filed Tuesday with the EPA, is that it has little basis in precedent or law.

Neither did many court decisions this editorial board would consider to be great, even heroic, decisions.

Here's the meat of their argument:

It's true that the EPA sometimes holds hearings before administrative law judges when the legality of its regulations is challenged, but the chamber wants it to hold such a hearing before any regulation has been approved, and the judge to rule not on a law but on the scientific basis for making a law. This has a whiff of a political stunt designed to fail -- and when it does, to give the chamber a pretext for accusing the Obama administration of not giving a fair hearing to scientific arguments that challenge mainstream climate-change theory.

Or, maybe the conclusion would be that there is nothing the federal government can, or should, do.

Desperate times call for desperate measures. Businesses and individuals are facing increasing encroachment into our choices and our finances by the government in the name of global warming, or "climate change" as you folks are calling it now, because of the cooling taking place.

Environmentalists can be dismayingly smug about climate change, sometimes claiming that the science is "settled" and there's nothing left to argue about.

Wow, thank you for admitting this.

The weight of scientific evidence suggests very strongly that the globe is getting warmer, that greenhouse gases emitted by humans are the cause and that the health and welfare of future generations are under serious threat.

We'll have to disagree. But even if we did agree, we have to ask if it is actually possible to make a difference.

Of course, bringing more nuclear power plants online would make us less dependent on energy that releases "greenhouse gases". Shouldn't we be more like France?

The Associated Press wants you to know, in case you didn't know, that the Leftists are going to be noisy in hopes of getting Obamacare passed.

Supporters of President Barack Obama's health care agenda are ramping up their efforts with rallies and bus tours starting this week, aiming to counter increasing public skepticism leading up to Congress' post-Labor Day return to Washington.

Be on the look out for the Obamazombies.

"We want to send members of Congress back to D.C. with the real message, which is that the majority of the public want comprehensive health care reform and we want it now," said Jacki Schechner, spokeswoman for Health Care for America Now, an umbrella organization of groups pushing for a comprehensive health care overhaul.

The majority of Americans are happy with their health care, and a many who aren't don’t think anything should ever cost them money. Why should we listen to them? They have no grasp of reality.

Health Care for America Now is coordinating its efforts with Organizing for America, the Obama campaign organization now melded into the national Democratic Party, which reputedly has an e-mail list of up to 13 million names.

Be on the lookout for the National Socialists!

Organizing for America plans a bus tour beginning Wednesday in cities including Phoenix, Albuquerque, N.M., Denver, Des Moines, Iowa, Pittsburgh, Raleigh, N.C., and Milwaukee. The bus will make 11 stops between Wednesday and Sept. 3.

Let's get some counterdemonstrators out there.

Some 2,000 events are planned around the country through Labor Day, according to Democratic National Committee spokeswoman Brandi Hoffine. The wide range of events include phone bank calling and rallies.

Keep them on the phone as long as possible to keep them from harassing someone else.

Hey, I have an idea. Don’t like any of the services offered by insurance companies? Don’t use them. But if Obamacare is instituted, you will not be able to opt out - at least not legally.

Let's keep up our efforts to prevent the expansion of national socialism. Keep sharing good information with people in your sphere of influence. Keep contacting your Senators and Representative. Write letters to newspapers, post comments online.

Ask Obamacare supporters these questions:

1. How much of your personal time or money have you donated to provide health care to someone who needs it?

2. Is it possible that if every person who supports "universal 'free' health care" for the whole country donated some of their own time or money to meeting health care needs, government force compelling others wouldn't be necessary?

3. Should someone who takes risks with their own health and has unhealthy habits be entitled be federal government enforcement, to the same level and quality of health care - at no cost - as someone who is willing to pay and has made healthy choices? Whether yes or no, how is this going to accomplished under federal law?