I like him more and more . . .

I love the way he doesn't take the bait from the newscasters.  "Sarah Palin called you the flavor of the week - how do you respond to that?"  So simple, "Well, she's wrong . . ." and then lays out his message about himself and his campaign.  Smart, smart, smart . . .

Unlike other people. 

Da-yum, now Travolta's a vampire, y'all!

Friggin' Scientologists, they're like those wire hangars from the dry cleaners, you can't get rid of them.  If Whack Job Cruise shows up in a 19th century photograph on eBay, it's time to deliver a stake dinner with a side of roasted garlic.

You are like a Herman Cain . . .

Okay, play on lyrics to Neil Young's song, Hurricane."

But . . . I am beginning to like Herman Cain, the more I read about him.  Not a formal endorsement yet, but he seems to have that quiet reserve that places him above the prima donnas.

L'Shana Tova!

To my Jewish friends, as the sun sets tonight and Rosh Hashana begins, may you and your loved ones be written in the Book of Life for a year ahead of sweetness, health, and peace!

Now . . . let's party like it's 5771!

Did Obama wear a tuxedo to address the Congressional Black Caucus?

'Cause if he's gonna be impotent, he might as well look im'potent!

Ha ha!  Because his speech is a laughing matter.

On MSNBC, the African-American author Karen Hunter complained the news service transcribed Obama's speech without cleaning it up as other outlets did--specifically including the "dropped g's."

 Via the AP version:

 "Take off your bedroom slippers. Put on your marching shoes," he said, his voice rising as applause and cheers mounted. "Shake it off. Stop complainin'. Stop grumblin'. Stop cryin'. We are going to press on. We have work to do."

No, I do not think the AP is racist for keeping true to what was said.  In fact, I would admire them for not cleaning it up.  After all, wouldn't it be racist to suggest that a Black president's speech needed cleaning up, that his own words could not be taken "as is?"

But wait - was it racist of Obama to presume that members of the Congressional Black Caucus could only grasp the meaning of what he was saying if it is delivered to them in folksy "ethnotalk?"


And I am still wondering about the term "bedroom slippers."  If MSNBC can hear the derogatory use of the word "boy" in "You lie!," am I okay to presume "bedroom slippers" is code for "welfare recipient?"

I be confused!

Or is it all just shuck and jive?

It' a Family Affair . . .

Soul music legend Sly Stone, best known as the frontman of Sly and the Family Stone, has squandered his fortune and is living homeless on the streets of Los Angeles.

"I like my small camper," Stone told the New York Post in an article co-written by William Alkema, director of a documentary about the band. "I just do not want to return to a fixed home. I cannot stand being in one place. I must keep moving."

Stone once lived in a Beverly Hills mansion and a Napa Valley compound. But the Post reported that his fortune was stolen "by a lethal combination of excess, substance abuse and financial mismanagement."

He lives now in a white camper that he parks in Crenshaw. A retired couple feeds him daily and allows him to shower in their home, the paper reported.

The moral of the story?  Never IUI - Invest Under the Influence.

You know what?  Good for him.  He's not bitter and has a at least two friends who makes sure he gets three hots and a shower.  Better than some missions.

Where are all his friends from his glory days?

"Let's face it--Christianity is an extremely intolerant religion . . ."

A Facebook friend recently posted about the folks trying to lead a Bible study in San Juan Capistrano, CA, saying:

Now I know my good "far right" friends would fully support this fine if it were a Muslim group meeting right!? Come on--we can't have it both ways. We either have freedom of religion or we don't. I think this story shows we don't have as much as we think.

I put a comment to say I was insulted as someone who is on the Right side, a Tea Party member, and a Conservative, saying that I did not see this story as a religion being discriminated against, so much as it is another cash-poor California municipality looking for any place they can make a buck.  That prompted the following response:

Steph, I guess I have to say I am glad you were offended by my comment--as that means you personally do have a spirit of tolerance. I see a lot of comments on FB and in the media by the "far right" contingencies (mind you I have a HUGE group of far right friends as that is my upbringing) that seem to have no tolerance for any religious and political beliefs but their own. Let's face it--Christianity is an extrememly intolerant religion. And after hearing all the bashing of Muslims, democrats, Obama it gets to a point where I have come to expect that if the story I posted would have said, "A neighborhood family hosting a Muslim Koran study group in their home has been fined by the city "; There would have been comments of support of stopping them from meeting. But since it was a Christian Bible study there would be an uproar of unfairness. But alas you were the only one that commented and you happened to agree with me that this was about the freedom of assembly and yes, the freedom of religion--both gauranteed by our First Amendment. So no need to be offended--we are both on the same page. [sic]

Well . . . no, I don't think we are.  Not until we understand some definitions.

I will use Merriam-Webster's definition:

1 : to endure or resist the action of (as a drug or food) without serious side effects or discomfort : exhibit physiological tolerance for

2 a: to allow to be or to be done without prohibition, hindrance, or contradiction

2 b: to put up with

Note that the definition of toleration here does not include "to accept" or "to embrace."  I think that is where a liberal mindset redefines "to tolerate," to wit, I am the soul of tolerance if, and only if, I place equal values on all religions.  And so off I go, with my "Coexist" bumper sticker on, not realizing that by doing so, I am make them all meaningless.

Now, I happen to know this person was the only child of Baptist (if not, some sort of evangelical Christian denomination) missionaries, which is perhaps why she can make the statement, " Let's face it--Christianity is an extrememly intolerant religion," and not expect Christians to be insulted.  If you are raised with being told "Only [fill in the religion of your choice] are going to make it to Heaven," that is not intolerance.  It is dogma, or creed, or tenet of faith, but it is not intolerance - unless that particular group was acting to dispatch others to Hell as soon as possible by killing them.

Because if you define tolerance to equal acceptance . . . then all religions are intolerant.  Because, after all, isn't the religion to which you adhere the "one true faith?"  It isn't?  Then why are you a member?  In this same exchange of comments on Facebook, I know one woman was a Christian but rejected the faith of her family when she married, converting to Judaism.  I would hope she converted because she felt Judaism had better answers to life, the universe, and everything and would lead her to Heaven, nirvana, whatever than the Christian denomination in which she was raised - in short, having more value than Christianity.  Does that make her intolerant of Christianity?  Of course not; however, if she converted just for the sake of her marriage, it does make her a hypocrite to Judaism.

I am a Roman Catholic.  I do believe that I am a member of the one true faith.  We Catholics believe we will not be the only folks in Heaven, since the desire to lead a life of Christ may well be enacted by those not of the Catholic Church - indeed, not of the Catholic faith - and thus earn them salvation.  But in being a Catholic, I do not accept other religions.  I have looked at other faiths.  I tend to be wary of those that proselytize - thus, I ask Jehovah Witnesses to leave after asking them to convert to Catholicism for the sake of their souls because I think their beliefs are silly, especially placing a finite number of souls that will achieve salvation and yet recruiting more than that number to their faith (because the more recruited, the more the recruiter is convinced they are one of the elect, which actually makes for a very mean-spirited faith, leading the innocent to damnation).  I don't like Mormons targeting the youth of other faiths, figuring they will do a end run around the adults; and yes, while I believe miracles do happen, the whole story of Moroni giving Joseph Smith gold tablets with the Book of Mormon written in some obscure language, and then giving him magic "peep stones" to translate it, and then asking for the tablets back such that there is no corroborating documents or tradition against which to weigh the veracity and accuracy of what Smith transcribed is suspect and suggests chicanery.  Does that make me intolerant?  Look at our definition - I am not advocating for the closure of Mormon temples and meeting houses - although any homosexuals did with Prop 8, which seems to indicate they are being intolerant - nor do I wish to remove Witnesses from a public sidewalk outside a courthouse, as the ACLU would like to see.  I just do not accept their creed.  And nor do I expect them to accept mine, unless they choose to do so.

As for Muslims meeting to study the Koran, I have no issue with that.  In fact, I would not want to deny them that because, frankly I want them out in the open where I can see them.  I have no issue with Koran study; I have great issue if they adhere to a program according to scriptural interpretation by some imam who advocates the establishment of Islam worldwide, by the point of a sword.  Me, I want to see everyone become Catholic - again,  if I didn't, why should I adhere to that faith?  And I understand that a Muslim would like the same, that we all become Muslim and adhere to their religious law of shar'ia.  I am fine with that - so long as that Muslim is not intent upon forcing conversion.  Would anyone be for that for any religion?  I don't think so - and so far the empirical data suggests that rather than proselytize, Muslims recruit.  So, I tend to distrust the adherents of that faith.  But am I calling for the outlaw of their existence?  No.  And that makes me tolerant.

The moment any person of a religion acts in such a way to intrude and compromise my rights - whether it is  as benign as trespassing on my private property after I ask them to leave, or enforcing a tax on me for not being of their faith (jizya) - I am no longer tolerant.  I want that person restrained from doing what he is doing and if that were to mean restraining all members of his faith from like conduct, so be it.

Just as with freedom of speech, freedom of religion is a right that is not absolute.  We do not tolerate practices such as allowing Native American convicts to use peyote in prison, nor do we tolerate the honor killings of females, regardless of how essential such conduct is to a particular faith.  But to say a Christian is intolerant because they refuse to accept as valid another faith - because the converse would have to be true, that, say, Islam is intolerant because it does not accept Judaism to have any value - makes all religions worthless, even atheism (which is, after all, still a belief system).

Words have meaning.  We need to stop redefining them to meet our own biases.

Updated:  It occurs to me that someone will start yelling, "But what about those evil Christians who are trying to make abortion illegal and prevent gay marriage?!"  What about them?  They are trying to do so by supporting and electing officials that will sponsor, and hopefully pass, such legislation.  And if they succeed, perhaps such laws upon challenge will be found to be unconstitutional, if a sitting President doesn't veto them.  That's how it works in a democracy - sometimes, people lose their battles. 

Say hello to Samson . . .

Puppy_13, originally uploaded by Stephanie A. Richer.

The DigiFamily has been expanded - this is Samson, our new 10-week-old blue Weimaraner. No, he's not silver - he's a darker colored Weim, hence the "blue." Did you know blue is actually the dominant color for Weims?

See more pictures here.

A Broken Window is Fixed

The six-man, six-woman jury found the students guilty on all counts of misdemeanor disturbing a public meeting and conspiracy in connection with the Feb. 8, 2010, talk by Michael Oren, the Israeli ambassador to the United States.

The "intent of the conspiracy was to rob the speaker of his free speech rights," Wagner told jurors, adding that a planned Q&A would have given students ample opportunity to have their say, not yelling out "something non-responsive that violates the rules we all live with."

A number of commentators on this case, including the UCI Law school's own dean, thought that the case against these Muslim students was a waste of time.  It's only a misdemeanor!  Why bother?

I am reminded of a time in court when I heard an attorney that something missing from his pleadings was not a big deal, because it is "just procedural."  The judge as not impressed.  "Well, counsel, why did the legislature bother, then, to draft these rules if they can be abrogated by saying that they are 'just procedural?'"

I am also reminded of the Broken Window theroy in criminology.  Supported by empirical data, it was proposed by two sociologists in a 1982 article.  The theory posits that once vandals break one window in an abandoned building nd it remains unfixed . . . so too do other vandals now continue to break the rest of the windows.  And then taggers get a hold of it.  And then the building is occupied by squatters.  And then fires are set purposely.  And the vandalism escalates.

The crime of these young Muslims is not great - but why let it blossom?  The University of California provided a forum outside the venue just before the lecture to allow dissent to be heard.  The Muslim Student Union did not want that.  Instead they conspired and shut down the speaker through a "heckler's veto."

Why bother?  Because all of us are required to live by rules.  The rights afforded by the Constitution are not absolute.  Conduct can be regulated.  And if regulations are codifed, they are there for a reason.  If you don't like it, your recourse lies in the ballot box, not at your whim during the lecture of soemone with whom you are at an ideological difference.

The Muslim students broke a window.  And today a jury fixed it.  Bravo.

All the Jong Dudes . . .

Ain't no party,

Like a Pyonyang party,

'Cause a Pyongyang party,

IS MANDATORY!

I Am a Pro Death Penalty Catholic

When I was a member of St. Iranaeus parish in Cypress, CA, I remember one sermon by then Fr. John McAndrew (I say then because he has since left the priesthood) in which he vehemently stated, "Thou shall not kill . . . anything!"  This sticks in my mind because my first reaction was, to think, that's a false statement.

The recent news about the execution of Troy Davis compels me to ask myself, can a Catholic be in favor of the death penalty?  My own answer is yes.  It is not per se forbidden by the teachings of the Church.  And not to enforce it may well be a greater evil.

I look to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.  Part 3, Section 2, Chapter 2, Article 5.  Let's go.

Thou shalt not kill.

"Kill" is a large and general word.  A police officer may have to use his weapon in self-defense.   That is a killing.  My steak came to me via a killing.  What was never explained to me during my years i Catholic school, however, was that the Hebrew verb used in Exodus is ratsah, which is more properly translated as to murder in a criminal sense; the verb harag, meaning to kill in a general sense, is not used.  This makes sense, since if it were a far-reaching prohibition of killing, a sort of omnipacificism, we would not see God lending His assistance, say, to Joshua to defeat Israel's armies.  There is a time and place when blood will be shed.

But did not Christ come to undo the law of the Old Testament?  Did he not say there is a new law, to love one another? 

You have heard that it was said to the men of old, "You shall not kill: and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment." But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment.

2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."

So, there is no outright prohibition in Church teachings, just the contingency that if there are other means  available to protect "people's safety from the aggressor," it must be used before taking the aggressor's life.

While I admire Blessed Pope John Paul II, who stated that cases where the death penalty is needed "are very rare, if practically nonexistent," I cannot agree with him on the infrequency of such occasions. 

First, let us agree - the death penalty is to be applied to the most heinous of crimes, the taking of a life.  Does that mean I advocate the death penalty for all homicides?  Not at all.  There are degrees of homicide in the law and so too are there degrees of punishment.  Keep in mind the words of the Catechism, defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. 

Using this as a guide, I would not advocate the death penalty for a man who stalked and killed his daughter's rapist.  Certainly, his acts are premeditated and vengeful, but his murder is personal and such a person is not a threat to the people's safety.  But let's take the gang leader who has eliminated his competition on the streets with an execution.  I note that the language of the Catechism says defending human lives.  It does not qualify which human lives.  I contend that such a man poses a very serious threat to the lives of those who would share his prison; certainly, there is real probability for crimes against their human dignity, if not their very lives.  Would the Church exclude the protection of convicts from rape, beatings, forced membership in a gang, or murder?  Of course not. 

Let us be clear under what circumstances the death penalty applies.  I would say that it is justified when the likelihood is significant of the person continuing to pose of a threat grave injury or death to any human, where such likelihood is determined by the nature of their crime and previous conduct.  Thus, when we see someone who engages in a heinous killing, lacks remorse, and has chosen to behave prior to the crime in such a way as to demonstrate their disregard for civilized society - and no, I'm not talking about petty theft or spitting on sidewalks, but gang membership, assault, drug trafficking, and the like - then the death penalty should apply.

On the streets of Orange County and in the prisons and jails of California, Peter Ojeda is called "The Señor" or "The Big Homie."

Law-enforcement authorities call him something else.

They say the 63-year-old former Santa Ana street-gang member is the Orange County "shot caller" of the Mexican Mafia prison gang.

Ojeda, according to Santa Ana police detectives, is the man who demands taxes from gang drug dealers, who gives the green light for assaults on gang members who refuse to pay up and who controls drug trafficking inside Orange County jails.

Ojeda was law-enforcement's star catch in June, when hundreds of local police and FBI and federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives agents conducted simultaneous raids on more than 40 homes.

Santa Ana Police Chief Paul Walters said officers arrested 29 street-gang members and dealt a crippling blow to what he called "the Ojeda Organization."

The gang members are in custody without bail under a federal grand-jury indictment accusing them of violating racketeering laws.

Ojeda, who has served at least four terms in state and federal prisons, could get 20 years if convicted.

He was arrested numerous times for possession of narcotics and served the first of his four known prison sentences in 1965 when he was convicted of smuggling heroin.

When Ojeda was discharged from his third prison term, served for attempted murder and assault with a deadly weapon, in l987, he had risen through the ranks to become one of the top bosses of the Mexican Mafia, according to police.

During his last prison sentence, Ojeda stabbed a rival gang member in his prison cell, police said.

I am not saying Ojeda should have been killed a long time ago.  But if he were to murder someone - or order the murder of someone - I have no qualms about seeing him executed.  I think it is likely that his conduct would not change with life imprisonment.  And the death penalty would be necessary for defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

Well, keep them in solitary confinement for life, some would say.  There is no such thing.  Although the prisoner is confined to his cell for some 23 hours at a time, they do have contact with prison staff, they are given an hour of exercise in a yard also used by other prisoners (although not at the same time), and they are allowed to receive mail and telephone calls, and can communicate with other prisoners through doors and across corridors. 

A number of people call solitary confinement to be a form of torture.  There are issues with mental illness and psychosis can develop.  Where is the mercy in that? 

And the problem still exists - for those who are intent upon furthering evil and jeopardizing people's safety, ways exist to do so, even in solitary confinement.  There are corrupt prison guards who can be bribed and communication with accomplices can be had.  Illnesses can be faked, thus allowing access to medical staff.  Yes, it would be hard for such a person to further evil in such circumstances, and yet it is done.  Or at least planned for when he is released.  Because he will be.  I cannot imagine how a life sentence would be found to be constitutional under the 8th Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.  How long is too long?  I don't know.  But if a person is of such danger after committing a capital crime, then I would argue he has fit my criteria above to receive the death penalty.

I know people say, well, it doesn't get closure for the family, it doesn't bring their loved one back.  That is obvious, but an illogical argument as no punishment will bring back the loved one from death, so why bother?  The purpose of the death penalty is to prevent another loved one from dying.  I do not think enforcing the death penalty is a failure to forgive.  We should not rejoice when a criminal is put to death, and any vengeance harbored in one's heart is worthy of a trip to the Confessional.  Again, as the Catechism states, it is for defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.  Pray for the convicted that their soul might enter Heaven.  A Jewish woman once said to me, "No thinking Jew would imagine Hitler in Heaven."  I replied to her, "No, but a religious one might."

But what if an innocent man is put to death?  That is difficult.  I am not saying that it can't happen, but I think from this point forward, it is rare, given the technology present to determine guilt.  As a lawyer, let me explain - the State has the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  That is a high standard.  And let me also explain what is circumstantial evidence, which many people in the public seem to define as evidence with minimal probative value.  Direct evidence is the testimony of an eye witness to a crime - all else is circumstantial evidence.  Thus DNA, fingerprints, blood splatter, tire marks, gun powder residue, all of those things that we see on episodes of CSI are circumstantial evidence.  Since there is very few times when there is an eye witness to a murder, most convictions are obtained through circumstantial evidence. 

There are cases - most recently in Missouri - where newly obtained DNA evidence found that there were innocent men on death row.  That is wonderful!  At the time of their trials, however, such evidence did not exist as it does now.  Yes, it may happen that an innocent man "slips through" the cracks, even after the State exhausts all means to determine whether the death penalty is warranted (please remember my criteria - we are talking about extraordinary cases, not every homicide).  But we cannot jeopardize society for the sake of one man; as un-Christian as that may sound, to think otherwise is impractical.  Rather than spend the resources for umpteen appeals in death row cases, let's focus on ensuring justice is served. 

And if you think the technology is not there to prevent an innocent man from the death penalty, then why would you also think the technology is there to keep him confined for life safely?

How can a Catholic be pro-life and pro-death penalty?  Please, you are creating a moral equivalence between a unborn child and someone who has volitionally done evil to an innocent.  These are two different issues.  If you would show like mercy to both, then so too would you spare the life of the armed stranger that you encounter in your home at 3:00 am, intent upon hurting you and your family.

I think sometimes the Catholic faith works too hard at promoting self-debasement than self-preservation.  To turn the other cheek is to forgive, not to acquiesce to evil.  I welcome an inmate who sees the errors of his ways and truly repents while awaiting his execution.  But as Catholics know, repenting of your sins is not the whole picture - there is a penance to be done.  Why do we accept that for our own selves but not for anyone else?

Ice Cream

Ice Cream, originally uploaded by Stephanie A. Richer.

I like to take pictures that alow you to add your own story.

What are they saying?

Adam and Eve, Muslim Edition

Rocket Man once more, buzzing with excitement . . .

81-year-old former astronaut and Dancing with the Stars geezer Buzz Aldrin is having a sex scandal. After 23 years of marriage, he left third wife Lois Driggs Cannon to be with 51-year-old marketer Michelle Sucillon, whom he met while signing books. Though not yet divorced, Buzz and Michelle have reportedly been "making out like teenagers" in public.

Houston, we have lift off . . .

(Science geeks will recognize the 62.137 reference - the ladies, Buzz ain't gona harm 'em/When he takes them up past Karman . . .)

Indeed, very few . . . okay, maybe The Crescat would . . .

If they ever took "Cats" and combined it with "Jesus Christ, Superstar" . . . I'd gouge my eyes out.

BTW, The Crescat has her silly-ass contest going again and some Ritalin-addled person nominated me for "Most Bat Shit Crazy Blog."  So go and vote for me - remmeber, you can vote at least once within a 24-hour period and from as many ISPs you can find.  Make it the office joke where entire call centers vote for me and I'll buy donuts!

Really, LA Times?

I got this screen shot from this morning's online edition of the Los Angeles Times.  Really?  The story is about all the gays in the military that came out yesterday with the repeal of DADT.  The story does not mention anything about handicapped gay servicemen. 

Now, a layout editor may protest, "It was a mistake, I just grabbed a picture from our stock military photo files!"  To which I say, dude, the guy isn't even in uniform. 

What is this, some sort of outing?  Because if I were that guy - "Ericxx" is the photo name from the Times' file - I might be perturbed at being associated with the story.

At least the Gimp can still shop in West Hollywood . . .

The [West Hollywood] City Council voted 5-0 after a seven hour meeting that ended early Tuesday to proceed with an ordinance prohibiting the sale of clothing or personal attire made of animal hair, wool or fur. The sale of leather isn’t considered a violation.

Ban the sale of leather in West Hollywood?!  The sales tax revenue would tank.

BTW, the fellow above is "Sir" Joe Ricci, aka Sal Bruno, a middle-aged leather queen and fetish model, with whom I went to Cardinal Spellman HS back in the 70's.  He and I got into a pissing match on Facebook because he did not like my stance on gay marriage (against it) and told me not to expect a wedding invitation when the day came when he could marry his partner.  Really?  I was embarrassed - Cardinal Spellman is an outstanding high school (USSC Justice Sonia Sotomayor is an alumna) and that's the best come back he could muster?

Easy to pass when it's not your corner getting pissed on . . .

In a decision that could have a wide-ranging effect on other cities with similar laws, a federal appeals court ruled that a Redondo Beach ordinance aimed at cracking down on day laborers is an unconstitutional restriction on free speech.

The ordinance, which Redondo Beach officials said was needed to regulate traffic safety at two major intersections, barred standing on a street or highway and soliciting "employment, business or contributions from an occupant of any motor vehicle."

If you don't live in a border state, you may not know about the congregation of day laborers.  Permit me to explain.  Day laborers are largely, if not exclusively, Mexican males who congregate on street corners or in the entrance to parking lots of stores such as Home Depot and Lowes, looking to be hired for the day.  Let's say you've got a project and you need just brute labor to finish it, say a demo job.  Drive up in your pickup, hold up the number of fingers for the number of guys you need, or point to those you want (after all, if there is some young guy available, who wants the older veterano). 

While it is an easy way for the DIYer to hire Serfs For a Day, it comes with problems.  The guys are there all day - so that means they will block passage on the sidewalk or entrance, urinate and defecate in the area, and leave food waste and garbage, since facilities are rarely available (some communities in California, like Laguna Beach, have a designated day laborer hiring site, with a Port-a-Potty and trashcans maintained by the city with tax dollars).  I know from experience, driving into the parking lot of Home Depot on Edinger Avenue in Santa Ana, or the U-Haul place on El Camino Real in Tustin, I've had to wave away workers who immediately rush my car as I turn into the parking lot.  When I have my kids in the car, I get nervous and pissed when this happens.  To be fair, I don't like over-eager-to-serve saleswomen when I go clothes shopping, either.  The complaints in Redondo Beach also include comments and harassment by the men of any women walking by. 

Chief Judge Alex Kozinski mentions all this is his dissent:

But in a strongly worded dissent, Chief Judge Alex Kozinski called the decision "folly."

"The majority," Kozinski wrote, "is demonstrably, egregiously, recklessly wrong. If I could dissent twice, I would." He was joined in his dissent by Judge Carlos T. Bea.

Kozinski said the city appropriately tried to control a real problem that he said includes groups of men who "litter, vandalize, urinate, block the sidewalk, harass females and damage property."

"Nothing in the First Amendment prevents government from ensuring that sidewalks are reserved for walking rather than loitering; streets are used as thoroughfares rather than open air hiring halls; and bushes serve as adornment rather than latrines," he wrote.

Indeed.  Consider this:  when a group or individual wants to have a parade, demonstration, or march, oftentimes they are required by law to go and obtain a permit from City Hall.  Sometimes they are even required to pay a bond for city services, since it may require extra security, trash removal, etc.  This is constitutional.  Then how is it that the day laborers - and it is not unreasonable to presume that among them there will be those in the country illegally - have free rein with the First Amendment?

Assuming this is activity that is protected by the First Amendment.  Does it fall under business speech?  Because Los Angeles (Redondo Beach is a suburb of Los Angeles, fyi) is also trying to restrict giant billboards on the sides of buildings, calling them distractions and eyesores.  Really?  A pissing migrant is much more than that - it is a health risk.

Of course, Redondo Beach has codes against things like public urination (which is protected by the 1st Amendment if it's in a jar containing a Crucifix, it seems), or harassment of a sexual nature, but the problem is enforcing them - unless a cp sees it happen live and in living color, there is little that can be done.

So, what to do?  I agree with Andrew Breitbart - this is the age of the citizen-journalist.  Chances are your phone has a camera that shoots video or stills - use it.  Blogs like mine and all over the Internet are forums for information that the mainstream media does not report, whether intentionally or simply because they cannot be everywhere.  Report it, file complaints, be proactive.  And I offer this:  if you are uncomfortable having a public face, send them to me and I will post them here, or via my YouTube account, with your anonymity secure.

Hey, Sailor!

Navy Lt. Gary Ross, right, and Dan Swezy are interviewed before exchanging wedding vows in Duxbury, Vt. The two men  wanted to recite their vows at the first possible moment after the formal repeal of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. (Toby Talbot / Associated Press / September 19, 2011)

 

I am sorry to say this, but of all the military services, I predict a rise in seamen in the Navy after the repeal of DADT . . .

Well, Isn't THAT Special!

And in religious news today . . .

“I related it more to my upbringing,” Pitt said. “I grew up in a very Christian environment, a healthy environment, a loving family. But there were just parameters and things I didn’t understand. I always questioned it and it took me to my adult years or leaving home where I could really try on something different for myself. That was Satanism. It’s working out really well. I made a pact. That’s why the movie came out so well.”

Al Gore should condemn the Jehovah's Witnesses

Because they are just contributing to Global Warning with their big-ass carbon footprint.

A couple of months ago, a woman - accompanied by other devout'uns - came to my front door and range the bell.  She introduced herself as the daughter of the folks across the street and she wanted to stop by and say, "hi" and "welcome to the  neighborhood."

Sure . . . along with three others, all holding stacks of Watchtower.

I thanked her and, pointing to her cohorts, said, "I am feeling that the real reason you're here is to tell me about Jehovah's Witnesses.  Okay, let me not waste your time.  This is a Catholic home.  We are not interested."

"Can I leave you a copy of this?"

"No.  Have a nice day."

And off she and her fellow Witnesses went.

Now this morning I hear the dogs going bat shit crazy and I go to the side door.  Different woman, Hispanic, with a Black girl standing next to her, both holding - aw yeah, Watchtower.  And sitting in the car behind them was the guy from across the street.

Senora started in and I politely stopped her.  "Please, y'all have already been here, and I told you then, I was not interested."

She asked, "When was that?"  Now, unless the Witnesses have separate cadres and there is some membership drive going on, where the top-selling cadre gets an all-expenses paid vacation to Branson, MO, I thought, you know damn well when they were here.

"About two months ago."

She cut in, quickly.  "Oh, but I'm here to tell you what we believe in the Bible!"

Time to turn the tables.  "And I'm here to tell you -  come home.  Come home.  Come home to the one, true faith, the holy Roman Catholic Church."  I noticed the young Black girl was watching me, warily.  So I stared at her directly.  "Come home.  You are breaking your Mother's heart.  Come home."

La Senora got all smug.  "Well, my Heavenly Father tells me to bring this word to you, not a Heavenly Mother."

I looked at her, "Who was Jesus' mother?"

She started telling me something else about her organization, and I interrupted her.  "You're not answering the question - who was Jesus' mother?"

"Well, it was Mary."

"Okay," I said.  "Mary is not a deity, of course, but would your Heavenly Father allowed His Son to be born to a sinful person?"

She grinned.  "Jesus wasn't born, He was transferred by the power of . . ."

"Alrighty, let's say He was 'transferred', as you said.  Would God allow His Son to be 'transferred' to anything less than a pure receptacle?"

"Mary was a sinful person."

I smiled.  "Again, not answering the question - would God allow His Son to be 'transferred' to anything less than a pure receptacle?"

She bristled and I said, "Alright, let's end this.  You have a nice day."  As I moved to turn to go back into my kitchen, she came and put a foot on my bottom step, and said, "Wait, I have to tell you about what we believe . . ."

Wrong move, chica.  "Okay, let me say this more clearly.  Get.  Off.  My.  Property."

"Can I leave some literature with you?"

"No.  You leave.  And don't come back  I have told you we are not interested and there's no sale here."

"Sale?!  I'm not selling anything!"

"Yes, you are.  You are proselytizing.  You want new members for your church."

"No, I just want to explain what we believe in the Bible so you can make up your own mind!"

"Ma'am, I know what you believe in the Bible.  I have read your literature before, and found it wanting.  So go away and do not come back."

As she turned, the young Black girl stil stood there, still staring at me.  So I said, one last time, to her:

"Come home.  Come home.  St. Albert the Great, right over there on Brickey Lane.  Come home, where you'll be safe."

She turned and got into the car.

And they drove away, and then I saw them drive up the next driveway.  Now, the man driving the car lives across the street.  He knows my neighbor is a life-long Methodist, whose church is less than a quarter-mile down the road.  And then I saw them drive away from my neighbor's house, and turn into the next driveway to the little house that my neighbor built for his elderly mother, who still lives there.

And I bet they'll do with every damn driveway, despite the driver knowing these people and knowing if they had any interest, they'd have signed up a long time ago.

I am not going to rant against the Jehovah's Witnesses who stand outside of courthouses with their copies of Watchtower, wishing everyone who passes a good morning, and no more.  But when you damn well know your neighbors are not interested, and you're going to spend your day, driving up and down each driveway with a pushy sales pitch . . . my hospitality and Christian charity wears thin.

It's time to start making $5 donations in my neighbor's name to The Catholic League.

Happy Monday

My weekend was good.  Got some stuff done around the house.  You know, the usual . . .

It is a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury . . .

Hey, kids, let's start with some classics!

[A] a poor playerThat struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
     -- Macbeth, Scene V

President Obama on Monday will put forward a plan to slash more than $3 trillion from the nation’s deficits by winding down the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, raising taxes on wealthier Americans, closing tax loopholes, and cutting the cost of Medicare and other government health programs, senior White House officials said.

Obama, who is to lay out his proposal in a Rose Garden speech at 10:30 a.m., will also issue a specific warning to congressional Republicans: If they pass a bill that cuts programs for poor and elderly Americans without asking profitable corporations and others to sacrifice, he will veto it.

Here's the good news:  this bill will not see the light of day, at least not before the elections.  The Preisdent can propose a bill - hell, he can propose that we make hism Dick Tater for Life, but it requires someone in both the House and Senate to propose it formally, thus starting its way - maybe - to law.  If I learned anything from Schoolhouse Rock on my many wasted Saturday mornings during the 70's, munching on Pop Tarts, it's that.

And the President's "American Jobs Act?"  Where is that?  It isn't a bill - no one has sponsored it in Congress.  It remains with his speech back on that night we were more excited about the pro football season starting . . . and in future campaign speeches.

As will be this one.  It's an occasion for yet another speech for which he has already had an anaonymous White House source tell us what Obama will say "in his remarks," which begs the question, why say it again? 

And it's got a stern, stern, very stern warning - "You Republican guys better not try anything funny with , like, the poor and elderly, I'm gonna veto it, yah."  Except - no one on the GOP side has said anything about doing so.  It's like saying, "And if the Republicans propose legislation to beat puppies, with kittens, I will veto it."  Why bring it up?  To further build his campaign of "Democrats/Poor = Good; Republicans/Rich = Bad."

But Democrats/Rich = Donors.

At least let us be grateful that this latest tale told by an idiot will not be interrupting the season premieres tonight of the networks' new fall lineups.  Simon Cowell's new face is difficult to take anyway, mush less with an appetizer of bullshit.

What, did Benny flip them the bird . . .?!

Headline seen:  Jewish groups worried by Vatican gesture

I thought it may be because the Pope said something about a Palestinian state.  Nope.

Some Jewish groups voiced concern Friday that the Vatican might be calling into question more than 40 years of progress in Catholic-Jewish relations by reaching out to a group of breakaway traditionalist Catholics that includes a Holocaust-denying bishop.

It seems some Jews are worried that the Vatican would let the Society of St. Pius X back into the fold (the group was excommunicated) without their acceptance of Nostra Aetate, a document that clearly stated the Jews were not to be blamed for Christ's death (although, to be technical, it can, just as His death can be blamed on Christians, Muslims, Hindus, and Stephen Hawking, since He died for all of our sins).

Okay, let me tell you now - that ain't gonna happen.  And if the Society balks at it, screw them.  With all due respect, the Jews have more to worry about with the UN wanting to declare Palestinian statehood than an issue that really is internal to the Church. 

Guys, you can't fault the Pope for trying to bring back stray members of the flock, okay?  No, I don't know why he lifted the excommunication of Bishop Williamson, but in doing so the Holy Father did not give him faculties as a priest and hand him a parish, right?  So stop worrying about what the Catholic Church is doing with its members, because us and the evangelical Christians will be the first to come to your defense when the Muslims attack.

Best. Commercial. Evah! Featuring Dead Animals.

I want to meet Chuck.  He's just a little too excitable, though.

So Why is Planned Parenthood There?

I thought it was a medical group . . .

At 8:30 a.m. Saturday, in an event hall filled with women, one stranger turned to another and asked: "What made you get out of bed to be here?"

Vallerie Wagner took a deep breath.

"Well," she said. "I've often toyed around with the idea of running for office."

Many of the women around her had done the same. The purpose of Saturday's seminar was to persuade them to take the next step.
For years, women's groups have hosted boot camps across the country to instruct women in the art of campaigning and the realities of public office. Such efforts have increased in Los Angeles recently, partly because of the dearth of elected female officials in city government.

I saw this article in the Los Angeles Times (on the front page => slow news day) and noticed that the director of public affairs for Planned Parenthood is there at a "boot camp" to encourage women to run for office.  So, I'm guessing if I was there and said that I was Republican and "often toyed around with the idea of running for office," no one would take me seriously.  Seemingly, these are women who would support municipal contracts with Planned Parenthood, once they are in office.  Conservative, pro-life need not register.

Which is why I found it ironic to read this statement.

And both said that while campaigning for office, they faced naysayers who told them they would never win.

But women are resilient, Greuel said: "We give birth."

Rest in Peace, Judy Gaspar

I just learned that I lost my friend Judy today.  She was a great lady and I will miss her.  Judy was a secular Franciscan and an amazing woman of faith; we all need people like this in our lives.

Godspeed, good friend!  May God send His grace on Nick and the boys to console them in their loss.

Is anybody unafraid to grow old anymore?

The sad thing, is that this guy has the scratch to pay for top-notch plastic surgeons . . .

Simon Cowell has now joined the ranks of the Perpetually Surprised.

Homage to Bresson - Family at the Fair

Homage to Bresson - Family at the Fair, originally uploaded by Stephanie A. Richer.

When I saw this family, I was reminded of Henri Cartier Bresson's photograph of a family having a picnic along the River Marne. I wish I had a wide angle t capture it better, but you take what you can.

September 13, 2011 at the Tennessee Valley Fair in Knoxville, TN.

Freak

Freak, originally uploaded by Stephanie A. Richer.

Hide your head in shame.

Taken September 17, 2011 at the Tennessee Valley Fair in Knoxville, Tennessee.

Like Sheep to the Slaughter With a Double Coupon

Notwithstanding the economy, the grocery workers union in Southern California are threatening to strike.  Which I think will prove disasterous for the workers, and the California economy as a whole.  But I doubt the union leaders care.

The strike effects three southland grocery chains:  Ralphs, Vons, and Albertsons.  The issue is health benefits:  healthcare costs have risen and so the groceries are expecting the workers to contribute more:

From the Orange County Register:

Under the modified proposal from the chains, there will be no changes in prescription drug co-pays, no changes in the PPO plan's total annual deductible amounts, no changes in the PPO plan's total annual out-of-pocket maximums. Other benefits that were in the supermarkets' initial proposal that remained in the latest offer included: continuing to offer an HMO option to eligible employees, continuing to pay 100 percent of the cost of most preventative care procedures, no change to the cost for maintenance drug medications co-pays, no change to the total Health Reimbursement Account amounts available, continuing to offer health benefits to those employees who work as few as 16 hours a week. The grocery chains also continue to ask for employee contributions of $9 a week for single coverage and $23 a week for full family coverage. Currently, the grocery employees hired after March 2004 pay $7 a week for single healthcare coverage and $15 a week for full family coverage. About half of the grocery chains' employees, those who were hired before March 2004, pay no weekly contributions for healthcare, according to the grocery chains.

"...The companies' proposals would place most of the burdens of higher medical costs onto them (workers) in the form of reduced benefits and higher premiums, deductibles and co-pays," according to a statement issued by the union. "... contrary to company claims, the proposals would devastate workers' healthcare benefits within 18 to 20 months."

(An aside:  Blogger has the worst thing with blockquotes, sorry)

I assume that last comment, in quotes, is from the union.

Now Ralphs and Albertsons are saying that if a strike happens, they will close most of the stores effected.  Citing that it is not profitable to keep them open during a strike, I think the unions need to look long and hard at this statemet, where a spokeswoman for Ralphs said, "Any decision to reopen closed stores will be based on the business conditions at that end of a strike."

Meaning . . . you can't go home again.  I expect Ralphs to pull out of California, based on that statement.  It just has become too expensive to operate a grocery store and meet union demands. 

But more can be found in the readers' comments to the store from which that quote was taken.  As expected, most readers are unsympathetic to the unions: it is, after all, practically impossible to find jobs where none to minimal amounts of contribution by workers towards health care is part of the package, for even full-time employees, much less part-time employees.  But I wish to hare one reader's analysis that supports the notion that while we see Ralphs leave, its parent company, Kroger, will remain in California:

Both the Unions and Ralphs are playing a game with the futures of the employees and their families.

The Unions do not want to lose what they have fought so hard to achieve, and yet in the reality of these difficult times, some compromise will be necessary for their survival.

Ralphs on the other hand will use the threat of closures each and every time there is a labor dispute.
If the Unions call Ralphs on the threat, what the massive grocery retailer will do is to shut down for six months and sell their stores, to another company owned by the parent company Kroger, most likely a Spanish named company, like El Mercardo, or La Tienda Grande.

It would be a good marketing move for Kroger as the Hispanic stores have been aggressively moving into those areas which used to be a great market for the Ralphs chain, areas which are now predominantly Hispanic.

These stores would of course be populated by Non-Union Hispanic workers, working for about 60% of the wages and benefits currently being paid. (many would be Illegals, because our Obama Justice Department will not go after large employers of illegal aliens)

This strike, if it happens would actually be a boon for Ralphs, don’t forget they also have a (tax free) strike contingency fund which will cover most of any losses they suffer, for about a year.

The other Chains do not have the Kroger system behind them, and cannot afford to dilute their market share, by closing stores.

These large chains have been closing stores in market areas where the population is majority Hispanic, and the stores have been purchased by large retailers from Mexico and South America.

It is time we as Californians face reality, our state is changing, a large percentage of our legislators are Hispanic and will vote to support the influx of illegal immigrants, whom they count on to vote to reelect them.

Look at all of the legislation aimed at the Hispanic population over the past five years. Hispanics are 40% of the states population, including the illegals. By 2025 it will be 60% with the remaining “White Anglo” population being reduced to around 25-27%.

Because of the influx of Hispanic illegal aliens and the flight of White Anglos to neighboring states, the average NON-Government income will drop to a rate nearing that of the early sixties.

The reduction in average income throughout the state will reduce the revenue from taxes the state receives, much as the drop in property values have knocked the property taxes down by 30%.

The state will face even larger and growing deficits, and higher tax rates to make up for the decline in State Income Taxes.

By 2050, there won’t be much difference between Mexico’s economy and that of California.

Education will decline further to that of one of the more affluent states of Mexico, but will trail other U.S. states. We already trail most of the industrialized nations in education.

Compromise is what is needed, though it is a matter of time, when the reality of world economics overtakes the California Unions.

California’s Legislature is attempting suicide by Marxist/Socialism, so far they are doing a great job.
Record numbers of businesses have fled the high taxes and regulations as of June first, 4700 plus businesses have fled the state since the first of the year. We are on track to lose almost 10,000 businesses this year.

I did not say jobs, it is businesses, which employe several hundred thousand people.

The growth in State Jobs, with their lavish medical plans and pensions has grown over the past fifteen years on a par with the Federal explosion, which Obama has created.

Keep in mind when you vote in 2012, that right now nearly 40% of all jobs are Union Government jobs (excluding the military), once the number of Government Union jobs exceeds the 50% mark, the Unions will effectively control our government.

The Unions will control every aspect of your life, your income, your education, your medicine and what little savings you have not taken by taxes.

Obama and the Democrat Marxist/Socialists and the old guard Republicans want the U.S. to be a reflection of the NEW Europe,

Bankrupt, financially and morally.

This is not a racist rant, it is just the way thing are.

Indeed,  Mr. Edwards, that is just the way things are, but I expect the unions to move into the Hispanic grocers as well, regardless of the legal status of the workers.  Because if the unions can swing the US government to provide amnesty to members, it will do so to ensure its voting block.  Not to get higher wages or more benefits for the workers, mind you - that is NOT the unions' goal.

I note also the complaints of some readers that the salaries of the grocery store CEOs should be slashed (why?) and the workers paid a "decent wage."  What is a decent wage?  When I buy my groceries at Walmart, the person scans the items - with the exception of produce - and the machine does all of the calculations for him or her, including how much change I am to receive.  Behind the workers is a revolvinf device holding grocery bags, and as they are filled, the worker twirls it and I place them in my cart.  Help getting groceries to the car is optional and reserved for the exception - the elderly, the infirm. 

So what is a "decent" wage for that type of work?  I disagree with the concept of a "living wage" - paying more than the value of something - and labor does have a value - is a recipe for economic disaster.  It's part of what has gotten us into this mess.  And the idea of "slashing" a CEO's salary to give to a bagger is not only lacking foundation, it's theft.

Your thoughts?  If I lived in Southern California still, I might not cross a picket line, not because of sympathy to the union, but because I would rather give my economic support to non-union shops, which do exist.  Do you value yourself and the money you've earned?  Then don't give it to support these unions.

Have at it.