Why Not Polygamy?

Recently I was having, for the umpteenth time, a conversation about gay marriage. Every aspect of my position was scrutinized and I of course returned the favor. And then a question occurred to me. Why are we having this discussion about gay marriage and not polygamy? Why is there legislation and litigation on gay marriage but not polygamy? Why has one become a national issue but the other seldom if ever discussed? Why?

It is a simple question but the answer I suspect is not so simple. I especially would like an answer from a left leaning individual. That said, I do not discriminate on the basis of political ideology and I appreciate diversity.

Driven By Hatred

I have a confession to make. Yesterday I had a Chick-fil-A sandwich for the first time in my life. And perhaps it is unsafe to admit, but I was motivated by pure hatred.

Try a thought experiment please. Imagine if it was announced that Chick-fil-A was filing for bankruptcy because of successful boycotting campaign. Investors lose millions, thousands lose their jobs, hardships ensue etc....  Do you think that just maybe some segment of our population would rejoice with this news? Only hatred can explain rejoicing for the suffering of others.

It was that hatred which motivated me to join the opposition, to take a (until now) silent stand against the bullying and the intolerance of the leftist extremists.

Goodbye Buddy

Yesterday we said goodbye to Buddy, our yellow lab. Buddy wasn't much for politics. So long as you were willing to give him attention, a treat, or a butt scratch, you had a friend. Despite his transparently selfish agenda, he managed to give far more than he took. May Buddy's daily lessons in patience, love, loyalty and forgiveness live on. Thank you Bud. Rest in peace.

Illegal People

"People are not illegal" read the t-shirt.

Clever. Of course nobody thinks people are illegal so the shirt wearer is technically correct. Is anyone claiming that illegal aliens are themselves illegal? No. Rather, it is understood by everyone not inclined to wear a "people are not illegal" t-shirt that said folks are somewhere - in the USA - that they are not legally allowed to enter.

So the clever set are insinuating that, because people are not illegal, that they are then somehow entitled to enter into the US. Just stupid. But they are part of a club that thinks they are clever and passionate and humane and oh so caring while those who disagree are racists etc... I bet that feels good.

What Democracy Looks Like

Can we govern now?

funny

I saw this headline at Breitbart and was amused: Will.i.am attends global warming conference in hel.i.copter.

Fun with Guns

I heard on the news this morning about a brazen robbery wherein three perps broke in to a retail store and stole a bunch of guns. The news reader then stated that it was unknown whether the three would use the guns to commit other crimes. I was thinking they might be pacifists intent on destroying the guns. Or perhaps they were environmentalists who would return the raw materials back into the earth. Maybe they were ATF gun runners.

Attitude Adjusted, I Hope

I was talking to a lady the other day who held a job at a local prison. Because of her seniority, her job is to process visitors into the prison. Visitors, not prisoners. We got into a bit of a discussion about the effect of Governor Walker's Act 10. It seems that many of the folks at the prison are not happy. I understand this as nobody likes to lose something that is important to them. I pointed out that such unhappy adjustments to reality have been ongoing in the private sector for some time. I even added - tongue in cheek - that I was unable to offer health insurance or pensions to my part time retail employees. To my amazement, she appeared to be genuinely surprised that my employees did not get health insurance or a pension. To her credit she stated that her mother worked for the government, her father for a big 3 auto company, and that perhaps she has taken for granted the benefits that she does receive. On that point, if you think you're getting screwed at your job, but people would line up to take it at half the pay, perhaps you have no legitimate grievance.

Attacking Main Street

I was talking to my banker the other day. He mentioned that I would be required to have my commercial property reappraised in a few years, per the requirements of the Dodd-Frank bill that passed a few years back. A bit if background. I have been paying towards my mortgage for several years now without missing a payment. Also, we borrowed a substantial amount from the bank to build two new apartments above my retail store. Everything is going just fine with respect to us meeting our financial obligations with our building. We are even paying an additional amount every month towards our mortgage. The relationship with our bank is just fine. And yet.... we will soon be forced to pay about $2500 for a reappraisal, unless the DF bill is amended. The reason I assume is that the DF bill apparently seeks to have a more accurate assessment of a banks loan portfolio, presumably to head off excessive risk taking by banks. Fine, I get that but... why not just let stupid banks fail instead? Bank deposits up to a certain point are already insured. A successful bank would come on in and buy up the assets of the failed bank. Perhaps it is not so easy as all that. But there are some that think government regulations are all good with no adverse side effects. Baloney. There is a trade-off always. In this case, property appraisers hit the jack pot while property owners have to pay, essentially, a Dodd-Frank tax of $2,500, for a reappraisal not in my interest or my banks. I suppose there are those that applaud DF as a slap at the big Wall Street power brokers. But the pain will be inflicted on me, a small business owner at 416 Main Street.

Nuisance Government

Apparently there was a large fight recently at the MLK Center, requiring a huge police response. I am guessing the new nuisance ordinance (fines, closings etc...) does not apply to buildings run by the city.

The Poop Scoop

So I am walking my dog this morning, without a leash per usual, in my semi-wooded neighborhood. He heads for a wooded area to perform #2, as trained. He is about 10 feet into the woods where nobody would ever venture. A fellow walker passes, notices the act, keeps walking another 20 feet or so, stops, turns around and watches, I suppose, to see if I will pick up the droppings. As I see it, I have three options. 1) pick up the turd. 2) get out the plastic bag and pretend a pickup or 3) let stinking turds lie.

I went with #3 because the droppings were in an area where humans simply would not venture. I don't think the lady liked my choice but she did not pursue the matter. Was I wrong?

Race Talk

Since the death of Trayvon Martin, I have been hearing about the "race talk." Apparently many black parents at some point have a talk with their young boys about the risks of certain types of behaviors around authority figures. Don't run, don't stick your hands in your pockets, don't get sassy with the police etc....

Recently a writer for National Review was fired for a kind of parody of that talk, wherein the white parent would warn their kids about the dangers of being among large crowds of black people among other things.

The talk or talks beg some questions. What kind of talk about race is appropriate with your children, if any? Is it common sense to note the disparities in violent crime rates, for example, or is that racist? Is their a line that crosses from good sense to racism that is easily grasped, or is there a gray area?

The job of a parent is to educate their children about all sorts of dangers that they might face. Let us focus on race and violent crime as an example. Certainly there are correlations between race and violent crime rates. I believe the rate is highest in this country among black people. Should parents pretend that this is untrue for some reason? Not in my view. But the dangers for children are many. Males commit a much higher percentage of violent crimes than do women. Young people commit violent crimes at a higher rate that old people. Is the job of a parent to ensure that their children are afraid of everyone?

Parents should want their children to possess the skills and knowledge to accurately assess risks, political correctness be damned. At the same time they need to ensure that their children do not develop irrational or excessive fears about risks, be they young people, bugs, dogs, Germans, germs, gerbils, etc... Moreover, when assessing other people, it is very important to emphasize that statistics, however accurate, are meaningless when it comes to individuals. As such, it is critical to never to treat any individual differently because of the statistical category to which they belong.

Phantom Constitutional Rights Collide

Could a non-existent constitutional "right" to regulate anything that affects interstate commerce be used to end a similarly non-existant constitutional "right" to privacy? After all, dead children can't subsidize their parents health care costs and are therefore affecting interstate commerce. Could upholding Obamacare pave the way to overturn Roe vs Wade?

The Anything Goes Clause

The Commerce Clause can do anything! A challenge for Free Racine readers: propose any law; ridiculous, cruel, humorous, whatever, and I will justify it with the Commerce Clause, which, we all know can be used to regulate any activity or non activity that might affect interstate commerce.

Voter ID? Constitutional? Are you serious? Voters without ID's could, in the aggregate, alter the outcome of an election. Elections impact the choices made by representatives. One choice greatly impacted by the 2008 presidential election was the decision to regulate the decisions people make with respect to purchasing health insurance. Thus, voters without ID's can impact interstate commerce. Not only could we require voter ID, we could mandate its purchase and require insurance policies for lost or damaged ID's. Why are liberals complaining about a law that obviously passes constitutional muster? Are they serious?

How about Act 10? Collective bargaining by government employees raises the costs of government. As such, it reduces profitability of private sector businesses. Those businesses must compete across state lines with businesses from states without collective bargaining. Thus, collective bargaining affects interstate commerce and can be regulated.

Ban Skittles! Skittles are dangerous. A recent high profile execution occurred because a child was carrying Skittles while black. We can't change his blackness of course, but we could ensure that others carrying Skittles are not targeted for murder. Dead people don't engage in commerce. Nuff said.

Tragic Exploitation

Witness, to dispatcher: Hello, I just witnessed a shooting.

Dispatcher: Did you get a good look at the shooter?

Witness: Yes, he looked like.... well, imagine if President Obama had a teenage son....

Dispatcher: Got it, and the victim?

Witness: Ummm, yah, imagine if the president had a second son....oh no, there is a large crowd approaching!

Dispatcher: Can you describe the scene please?

Witness: Sure, its a large, mixed race crowd carrying signs....

Dispatcher: Let me guess, they look like the president?

Witness: No, he's black. Imagine an Obama/Robinson family reunion at a journalists convention.

Dispatcher: Understood, now what are they doing?

Witness: They are demanding justice and racial harmony.

Dispatcher: OK, I'll send the Reverends Sharpton and Jackson right away.

Witness: No, that never works.

Dispatcher: Then what?

Witness: Well there is an injured black youth remember? How about an ambulance?

Parenting Blue

The following is my comment, awaiting moderation, to Steven over at Blogging Blue who wonders about his now three year old black son's safety in light of the Trayvon Martin death:

Steven, you worry about your son as all decent parents do. And his race may well contribute to different treatment from others, sometimes good treatment, sometimes not. My suggestion is that, over time, educate your son – explain to him that, unfortunately, people sometimes make assumptions about others based on what should be irrelevant characteristics. And that there is nothing whatsoever he can do about other people’s irrationality. As such, he should not dwell or obsess about others real or perceived attitudes towards him, as this will lead to a dead end of bitterness and excuse making. Rather, he should focus on his own development and decency. He may win over some who are obsessed with his blackness, some he may not. But again, its their problem, not his. It is true and unfortunate that he may be treated poorly by some, but then, who is always treated perfectly? People discriminate all the time. As a shorter man, I, now happily married, sometimes jokingly note that nearly all women are heightists, ie, they won’t date someone shorter. It would be foolhardy for me to claim victim status and set out to end this discrimination. Now I am not equating racism with heightism except to suggest that one should not dwell on something that you have no control over. And lastly, I would suggest that you not react hysterically to the Trayvon story any more that you should swear off flying after a plane accident. You cited statistics stating that a black boy is more likely to be shot by a white person that a white boy is. Perhaps true but as a parent I trust you don’t have a preference about who is to shoot your son, rather, you just don’t want him shot, period. As such, you might want to look into just who it is that is shooting the most black boys. Hint, it isn’t white people. And some day, your son will need to try to understand why violence is more of a problem, statistically speaking, among black people here in America. And here, unfortunately, I suspect you will fail your child.

Racism or Elitism?

RUSD Superintendent Ann Laing stepped in it a bit by making racially insensitive remarks about black families. Since she is a card carrying liberal, she will get through this episode unscathed. And she has apologized. Read the story here.

Basically, Laing insulted black families by pointing out that many were the ones most "prone to enroll their kids in the fly-by-night schools that cropped up after vouchers existed." She went on to add that black families "don't know how to make good choices for their children. They really don't. They didn't have parents who made good choices for them or helped them learn how to make good choices, so they don't know how to do that."

I have some sympathy for Sup Laing because I suspect she is right in many cases. Her mistake is to lump all black people together and assume, or at least incorrectly state, that all black families are basically dysfunctional. That is certainly not true or fair.

Of course much of the case against vouchers and for a monopolistic public school system rests on claims like Sup Laing's. Yes, the public is too stupid to make good choices on education. Therefore we need to limit or hopefully one day eliminate other educational options for children. And this will dramatically improve the funding and the educational outcomes for all our darlings.

I don't agree with the liberal line on public education, but what do I know, I'm just a white guy without an education degree.

Conditional Freedom

Racine's Becker era conditional-use law has been used to club another would-be business out of town. This time the victim is a funeral home that would have occupied the former Women's Club in downtown Racine. Opponents of the funeral home most often cited parking and traffic concerns as their reasons for opposition.

The conditional-use requirement essentially allows the city to circumvent their own zoning laws and make any potential business subject to a political process before opening.

The problem with the politicization of entrepreneurship is that the real reasons for opposition may not be so innocent. I am making no claims about the hearts and minds of the particular opponents in this case, but it is not a stretch to suggest that in some cases opponents won't want a particular type of person to open a business. That is, there might be discrimination on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, political persuasion etc... or to block a potential business competitor. There will always be ample "legitimate" concerns to mask the real reason for the opposition.

It is disheartening that the city has a law that invites and empowers discriminatory opposition. Prior to the conditional-use requirement, a persons race, gender, religion, sexual orientation etc... was not a factor in whether they could open a business in Racine. Is this progress?

Nuisance Schools

The City of Racine is looking to crack down on nuisance properties, namely those that require frequent and costly services from the police department.

My guess is that the three biggest offenders, though not all in Racine, are Park, Horlick, and Case high schools. Somehow I doubt the new ordinance will apply to those offenders.

We Don't Need...

"We don't need another WallMart."

The problem with this point of view is the assumption that one has or should have the power to prevent another from pursuing an opportunity, that the process of opening a business should be entirely politicized.

"We don't need another black family in the neighborhood."

Can we see the potential problem with empowering people to frustrate or deny opportunities or freedoms to others?