A Strange Alliance

I wouldn't normally find myself agreeing with a Muslim wanting to practice her religion in a public school however...

In Germany, a Muslim family sued to keep their daughter out of swim lessons because of Islamic indecency rules. If this happened in the U.S. I wouldn't have much sympathy for the family at all because they'd have the option of just pulling the girl out of school and educating her the way they want to. From the article: "The court sided with the school, saying that the state’s responsibility to educate the girl outweighed an infringement on her religious freedom."

Another way to say that is: "Too bad mom and dad, we really own your children and we will do as we please with them no matter what you want."

Why do I care? I have no interest in this particular family. However, we need to keep watch because we're headed that direction here. A California court ruling that is now under review would have basically made criminals of all parents homeschooling their children. It will probably get overturned.

As a nation, we're increasingly coming under the impression that we, and our children are the property of the government. We let the government assert authority over us it has not historically had nor should it ever have. How long will it be before bringing your kids up as Believer's and rejecting government indoctrination will be seen as a crime? Based on what's going on in Texas, I say it won't be long.

A Danger To The Children

For those of you still under the false notion that the Texas government acted rightly by taking over 400 children from the FDLS people, I want you to read what Ilana Mercer has to say on the subject.

These kids have been brought up on a pretty healthy diet. They'll get stuffed full of all kinds of processed crap, they'll react badly and it will be blamed on abuse they suffered on the compound. They'll be drugged and we'll be told they're just not adjusting to normal society. Well DUH! That was the whole point of their being where the were. They didn't want to be part of our "normal society" but that's not a mental illness.

You can't possibly tell me that the kids are worse off all living together on a farm, eating healthy and not exposed to the media, the sexual imagery, the violence etc. than they will be in a foster home with people that (mostly) don't care about them and are just getting paid to warehouse them.

All of the judges involved in this debacle should promptly be sent to jail.

SCOTUS SCROTUM Is At It Again

The Supreme Court of The United States which I refer to as SCROTUM: "Stupid Court Repeatedly Orders Treacherous Unconstitutional Mandates" will begin deliberations this week on what is considered indecent broadcasting. Apparently, there are a lot of people out there who go running to the FCC every time someone says a cuss word on live television.

If the viewers would contact the networks and voice their displeasure I could accept that. If they contacted the advertisers, I could accept that. But the default position for far too many people is to seek a government solution to the problem.

Why do we need an FCC? We don't! Existing property laws could govern signal stealing, etc. We don't need the government to regulate the content. Viewers and potential viewers are capable of doing that on their own.

But, but, but, DIFSTER! If there is no regulation, the airwaves will be filled with nothing but pornography! I disagree. Sure, there will be some. However, not as much as you would imagine. There has to be a market for it. Yes, I'm quite a aware there is a market for porn. However, many companies would not be willing to spend their advertising dollars on those shows. Parents will block the naughty channels so their children cannot watch them. Parents will complain bitterly to the broadcasters. Other broadcasters will market themselves as "smut free" and brag about higher standards, etc.

The free flow of information is far more important than using government to protect the eyes and ears of our young ones. That job is up to the parents. Instill the values you want your children to have. For the most part, they WILL listen. We do need to control the media content that enters our homes, but it's up to us to do it.

The additional problem I'm having here is that once again SCROTUM is trying to make laws for us rather than simply interpreting it. Let Congress define decency if they think they can but stop treating us like children who can't protect ourselves and our families.

The Fossil Fuel Myth

This may be a startling new revelation for some of you. What I'm about to tell you isn't a new theory, I've heard bits and pieces of it for years and I've never really dug in to it too deeply.

The oil we've been sucking out of the ground for the past 100 years* is not the result of millions of millions of years of compressing dinosaurs and plants. I've always been suspicious of that theory anyway, even as a kid. How could there possibly have been enough biological (organic) material gathered in one place to produce the vast oil fields we have today? It's simple, there isn't.

While it's certainly possible that some fraction of the oil we pull out of the earth was generated this way, almost all of our oil is produced abiotically; meaning without a biological component.

The implications of this are quite staggering. First of all, it means that oil truly is a renewable resource if the earth is producing it of its own accord without regard to massive input of organic compounds.

Secondly, it means the doom-sayers should (but won't) shut up about running out of oil. It's been predicted for many years that we'd run out of oil in 10 years. That's ludicrous. There are vast reserves of oil right here in the US that remain untapped because of the ecofreaks.

We are NOT running out of oil, not even close. Granted some of it may be more expensive to access than previous reserves have been but it's not impossible or even impractical to do so. If it would truly end our dependence on foreign oil, I'd actually tolerate higher gas prices than we have now if we were in control of our own production, refining and distribution of oil and gas products.

If you'd like to do more research on this subject, start with this Google search.

Next time someone refers to petroleum as a fossil fuel, please take that opportunity to disabuse them of that fallacy.

*I understand that the use of oil has been around FAR longer but it wasn't until the rise of the industrial revolution that we began our efforts in earnest.

Family Friendly Education

...but only if you're a homosexual family.

In May of last year, I wrote about a bill introduced in to the California Senate which was ultimately defeated. Not only is it back with a vengeance, it's the law of the land.

Our Not-So-Beloved Governor Schwarzenegger signed SB 777 in to law. He should be recalled as governor immediately. This bill was authored by Representative Sheila Kuehel, an activist lesbian.

This law is nothing short of forced homosexual indoctrination of our children. Please have a vomit bag handy before continuing.

Here is the full text of the bill under question.

There are two major things that this law accomplishes:

1. It removes the definition of "sex" (biological sexual trait) and replaces it with "gender" which is one's own perception of sexual identity regardless of actual biological sexual assignment.
2. It defines atheism and agnosticism as religions in the educational code.

From the bill:

SECTION 1.  Section 200 of the Education Code is amended to read:
  200.  It is the policy of the State of California to afford all
persons in public schools, regardless of their  sex, ethnic
group identification, race, national origin, religion, mental or
physical disability, or regardless of any actual or perceived
  disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity,
religion, sexual orientation, or any other  characteristic that
is contained in the definition of hate crimes set forth in Section
422.55 of the Penal Code, equal rights and opportunities in the
educational institutions of the state. The purpose of this chapter is
to prohibit acts which are contrary to that policy and to provide
remedies therefor.

Notice what was changed. 'Sex' was replaced with 'gender'. 'Mental or physical disability' was replaced with the nebulous 'disability', and 'national origin' was replaced with 'nationality'.

• Gender For Sex - 'Sex' is a biological definition. There are two sexes; male and female. Yes, there are some people born with both traits but it's very rare. Replacing sex with gender opens us up to how any individual perceives his/her/its sexual identity. The law now says that we have to accommodate that persons perceptions.
• Disability - This is a suspicious change. Why take out "mental or physical" from that list? Section 210.1 was added to the code to define disability as mental or physical but the change still concerns me. If some of you have ideas on how this can be manipulated, I'm open to suggestions.
• Nationality - 'National origin' indicated where some one has come from. Having that term replaced with 'nationality' tells me that it's ok to come here, use our public resources, supported by taxpayers without any regard for integrating oneself in to American culture and society. It's a minor change I realize but it was changed for a reason. Again, it makes me wonder what it leaves open for legal manipulation.

Back to the sex vs gender deal. Look at this:

210.7.  "Gender" means sex, and includes a person's gender
identity and gender related appearance and behavior whether or not
stereotypically associated with the person's assigned sex at birth.
 SEC. 5.  Section 212 of the Education Code is repealed. 
  212.  "Sex" means the biological condition or quality of being a
male or female human being. 

Why the change? What mischief does this open us up to? The term 'sex' was completely stricken from the code. Biology is no longer legally relevant. Boys can wear dresses to school and use the girls bathrooms and locker rooms because they want to act female. Brianna can force her teachers to call her Bob and dress like a boy. Girls can run for homecoming king, boys for queen, etc. Does this also mean that a boy who's perceived gender identity is female can join the girls soccer team? You can bet it will happen. And what happens when other students, who have moral and values that view cross-dressing and homosexuality as wrong speak up and refuse to accept the new gender definitions foisted upon them? If Andrew starts wearing dresses and makeup to school and the other kids tease him, will they be forced in to "sensitivity" classes? You can bet that various districts will be proactive and start forcing children in to these classes anyway without parental consent.

Given the non-discrimination clause, this means that homosexuals, transsexuals and bisexuals must be positively portrayed in textbooks etc. There is wide speculation that the terms "mom" and "dad" will be eliminated from the text books because those terms are seen as discriminatory toward same sex couples with children by the homosexual activists. There are way more implications to all of this than I can even begin to explore here. Please add your own thoughts in the comments.

One of the more troubling aspects of this law isn't even being mentioned by anyone else.

SEC. 25.  Section 66262 is added to the Education Code, to read:
  66262.  "Religion" includes all aspects of religious belief,
observance, and practice and includes agnosticism and atheism.

Make no mistake here. The Republik of Kalifornia has just codified atheisim and agnosticism in to law as religions. Non-belief is now a religion according to the law. This will be used as the final push to get any religious references out of the schools (particularly Christianity). Now, people who don't believe God exists can sue because they simply have to say that atheism is their religion and they're being discriminated against.

This should be, but sadly won't be the the death knell of the public school system, or, as I like to call it, the Collectivist Education Camps. Please go read my post from two years ago about shutting down the public school system completely.

This also has national implications, so don't think that because you don't live in California that this won't affect you and your children eventually.

Out Of Control Prosecuters

A man has been charged with murder for shooting a rookie cop more than 40 years ago. No, they didn't just catch the guy, it's just that the man finally died of his injuries so they ruled it a homicide.

Just so you're clear, let's go over it again. William Barnes shot officer Walter Barclay on November 27, 1966. Barclay died on August 19, 2007 from an infection stemming from the gunshot wound 40 years earlier.

Yes, Barnes deserved the time he spent in jail for attempted murder. Yes, Barclay suffered for the rest of his life because of what Barnes did. However dying 40 years later from complications does not, in any twisted sense of reason constitute murder.

This prosecutor should have better things to do in a city like Philadelphia where there's plenty of crime to go around.

Of course all of this begs the question, what should be the limit on how quickly someone would have to die after an attempted murder in order for a murder charge to stick? And the question probably isn't that simple, what are the other mitigating factors that should be considered? It seems reasonable to me that 1 to 5 years depending on the circumstances would seem appropriate.

But I thought...

...the poor were getting poorer.

They're not, at least for now.

"The Census Bureau reported Tuesday that 36.5 million Americans, or 12.3 percent -- were living in poverty last year. That's down from 12.6 percent in 2005."

Poverty is defined by FedGov as income of $20,650 for a household of four. See their website for more info.

HHS is very ambiguous about how it calculates income for this guideline. It says the agencies using the guideline to determine services can use net or gross income. Let's be generous and say it's net income. Even a net income calculation wouldn't take in to consideration under the table income, Federal, state and local subsidies for food, housing, school lunches, disability payments, etc.

Despite the low levels of income, most of those families have televisions, computers, cell phones, cars and other items that would be considered luxuries in countries where poor is REALLY poor. While it's true that we do have SOME poverty in this country, poverty is not a permanent condition for most of the truly poor. Most poor people do not stay poor. With very few exceptions, people tend to progress upward in income. I'm not a mathematician but I'd be willing to bet that incomes rise significantly as people get older then drop off sharply after age 65. This is what happens in the normal course of life. What this means is that the people who were poor in 1997 are not likely to be the same group of people that are poor in 2007. The welfare proponents do NOT want you to understand this concept because it damages their credibility. If "the poor" are generally going to stop being poor on their own anyway, why do they need government assistance? The truth is, they don't. Oh sure, it's easy to make the case that lots of people need short term assistance but that's what private charity is supposed to be for. These permanent government programs create a class of dependent people that have a harder time breaking the poverty cycle than the poor that do not get on these programs.

I've been saying for years that I want the President to call a press conference and announce an end to all Federal assistance programs one year from the date of the announcement. Along with cutting those programs, we'll get a reduction in taxes equal to the amount (if that's possible) of the budgets these programs operated from. Furthermore, it would be declared that the income tax deduction limit on charitable giving would be raised by 100%.

What a boost to our entire economy this would be. Not just because of the reduction in costs from the services that were eliminated but it would essentially force most of the dependent class to go be more productive. Higher productivity generates a higher living standard for everyone. Many of these people, when forced out in to the work world will become entrepreneurs and employ other people. Others will fill jobs that cannot be filled right now. Some of those people will always have low paying jobs and remain poor. But there will be more charity available to assist them.

Charity does a much better job of figuring out what people need than government because they tend to specialize. A local charity is flexible and far more efficient than government programs because they have to answer to their benefactors for more funds so they tend to do their jobs. When a particular need changes, a charity can change with it. Not only that, private charity can and should be more restrictive with who they help which results in better allocation of resources. It's all to easy to scam the government and many believe they have the right to.

As for the rich getting richer... Have you seen the sub prime lending mess? Lots of rich people have become less rich. The last time I saw the list of Forbes most wealthy people a bunch of them dropped off the previous list and if I'm not mistaken, the net worth of the top people had all fallen. Doesn't mean they're headed for the bread line, but it doesn't mean that the rich always get richer and the poor always get poorer. The people these groups represent are in constant flux.

Very Uncomfortable

MikeT over at Codemonkey Ramblings raises an interesting question but still is not quite direct enough about it for my liking.

He asks this question:

If homosexual desires are the result of biology and not social conditioning and trauma that suppresses heterosexual desires, then what proof is there that truly deviant expressions of human sexuality are not equally inborn?

I don't think his question is addressed in clear enough terms. I would ask this question:

If homosexual desires are the result of biology, perhaps pedophilic desires are too. If you excuse homosexual desires on the basis of nature, then how can you condemn those that wish to have sex with children? If it's biological it must be ok right? Aren't we evolving?

Mike is right, it's intellectually dishonest to play both sides of the fence. You can give homosexuality a pass based on nature unless you consider the possibility that other behaviors that are repugnant are biological as well. There are some people that clearly have violent personalities. If it's biological, we should just let it be right? Don't they have the right to express their natural desires as well?

I am willing to consider the possibility that homosexual and pedophilic desires are biological but I don't they they are natural. Deviations in biology will certainly effect behavior. Also, having a biological predilection toward a certain behavior still does not excuse it. Homosexuality is no more excusable than pedophilia or murder or theft or adultery.