Monday, July 30, 2007


Everyone knows the tale about the emperor who was sold a bill of goods by a clever huckster because the king and his subjects wouldn’t admit that they didn’t see things the way “enlightened” folks do. At last a lad who trusted his lying eyes blurted out the truth about the king’s attire—an epiphany that gave other subjects permission to believe the obvious.

Today, political correctness forces politicians and businesses to pretend that kids raised by same-sex couples are just as well off as kids raised by married male-female couples. This proposition requires honest observers to admit that either mothers or fathers are optional and that step-parents generally do as well at child-rearing as bio-moms and dads.

In keeping with this point of secular faith, San Diego’s TV-journalists happily presented, without contradiction, a pair of females at the recent Gay Pride Parade who declared that their “marriage” would be no different from any other. This same message is encountered dozens of times every week in the mainstream media—so frequently, in fact, that it qualifies as the prime modern example of a proposition’s “truth” being established by sheer repetition.

Anyone who asks if the evidence for dismissing five thousand years of recorded history is compelling, will instantly be vilified by “human rights” advocates. No wonder the Padres go along meekly with the political left and blend Gay Pride promotions with family-centered events. After all, isn’t it clear that moms and dads don’t matter—that all kids need are two adults?

For anyone who can handle the truth, kids with step-moms and step-dads don’t do as well as kids with bio-moms and dads—a fact shown even by those manipulable “studies” that often turn common sense on its head.

Another clear fact is that kids don’t do nearly as well in single-parent homes—homes that usually have only a mom. The idea that two moms or two dads will overcome these deficiencies isn’t an argument supported by the data at hand. At least that’s the conclusion of the American College of Pediatricians.

Such studies as have been done on the topic of same-sex parents are few—and their reportage pitifully politicized, a point gingerly implied by USC sociologists Stacey and Biblarz in 2001. First the public is told that the sexuality of parents doesn’t affect kids. And when that deception is digested, we are told that it doesn’t matter if parental sexuality does affect kids.

Recently a local columnist put forward the popular dogma that sexuality is purely genetic—adjacent an observation about homosexuality’s prominence in ancient Greece. The fact that most folks don’t even notice this obvious contradiction shows how brainwashed they are—willing also to swallow the ruse that AIDS is an equal opportunity disease and not a malady transmitted overwhelmingly in the U.S. by sodomy and drug needles.

Nor will media lemmings see the Vancouver study that showed an 8- to 20-year reduction in lifespan among male homosexuals. Media indoctrination and political intimidation keep mouths closed and eyes shut.

Friday, July 20, 2007


The idiot promos for a new network game show, this one hosted by Drew Carey, at least contain one thought-provoking question: “What percentage of Americans said they would notify the police if they saw a Mexican citizen sneaking into the U.S.?”

As it happens, I suspect that a family near my residence, one sporting a Mexican flag in their window and exhibiting no proficiency in English, may be “undocumented.” But the truth of the matter is, I don’t know.

Moreover, I’d be reluctant to ring up the ICE hotline—even if such a number existed and I were confident that the adults lacked papers. After all, several young kids run around in the yard behind the wire fence that’s often employed as a clothesline.

Furthermore, it’s not like anyone is hiding in the bushes, fouling the water, or accosting unsuspecting travelers. Indeed, the vehicle that graces the driveway is a late-model SUV.
In short, even if these folks are “unauthorized,” they aren’t exactly skulking “in the shadows.” So one would think the authorities, if they were interested, could enforce the law. And if police are forbidden from enforcing immigration laws, why notify them?

A more revealing question for Carey’s show might be this one: “How many Americans said they would hire an illegal immigrant to do work for them?” The problem with this question, however, is that one usually doesn’t know who is and who isn’t illegal. The default policy for many householders (not business owners) thus becomes “Don’t ask, don’t tell”—or tacit amnesty.

One effect of this attitude is apparent when I’m walking around Oceanside’s Buddy Todd Park. On weekends the place is packed, and the sights are overwhelmingly those of young families or of groups of kids at birthday parties—pure Americana, but with piñatas and lots of Spanish voices and Mexican music.

This vision of happy domesticity prompted my recollection of a dour statement that William Bennett once made in defense of immigrants generally—namely, that he was more afraid of what America (via its pop-culture) might do to immigrants than what immigrants would do to America.

As is true of most true statements, Bennett’s comment addresses only half the story. The other half is that America has never had millions and millions of immigrants come to this country, illegally, from a neighboring country—a country with a different language that also harbors profound historical grievances against the U.S.

Moreover, this migration comes when many Americans (and most “rights” groups) are apt to view this country, with historian Howard Zinn, as a perpetrator of injustice and not as a beacon of liberty.

In such a setting, these assimilation questions posed by Pat Buchanan seem more urgent than Drew Carey’s law enforcement query: “How many Americans, forced to work in Mexico, would become loyal Mexicans in a decade rather than remain Americans in exile? Why do we think Mexicans are any less attached to the land of their birth?”

The key phrase here is “forced to work.”

Wednesday, July 11, 2007


Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens think this question, typical of college or high school freshmen, is an unanswerable retort to all arguments from design. Michael Behe disposes of this purile, philosophically naive objection in short order.


Penn and Teller ruse. Ban water now! An example of environmental conscientiousness--not!


You've heard of the laughing-Buddha and the contemplative Buddha. Behold! The global warming Buddha!

Thursday, July 05, 2007


“My right to swing my fist ends at your nose.” That’s the level of ethical reflection typical of folks who’ve replaced inherited moral wisdom with vacuous clichés promulgated by TV airheads and political gurus.

Such an argument is regularly used to justify, quite selectively, smoking bans in public parks and, in a few cases, even on city sidewalks. I point to the recent anti-smoking ordinance passed in Belmont, California, and to the debates on less severe bans in Escondido and Oceanside.

The truth of the matter is that swinging my fist within two inches of your nose would constitute, under any reasonable-person criterion, sufficient grounds for holding me liable for schnoz-endangerment. I raise this pedantic point because it emphasizes the oft-ignored fact that no clear dividing line separates the private from the public sphere.

Indeed, it only takes a little mental effort to show how most practices have public ramifications. Three activities that currently appear on the do-gooder hit list include smoking (due to health care costs and the presumed effects of second hand smoke), driving SUVs (due to their mpg ratios and environmental impact), and selling trans fat foods (due to the medical impact of obesity).

Thanks to the global warming frenzy promulgated by Al Gore’s media lackeys, almost any product with a “carbon footprint” or possible climate link (from light bulbs to cow toots) has become subject to public regulation.

Significantly, other activities with clearer public implications are treated as if they take place in an imaginary Las Vegas—and stay there. These “private” acts are behaviors whose effects media elites and other political do-gooders have little desire to scrutinize. They include alcohol consumption (whose costs in terms of traffic accidents and abuse dwarf the impact of second hand smoke), recreational drug use, recreational sex, and a specific sex act that is overwhelmingly the means for spreading HIV.

If anyone seriously wants to consider how out-of-wedlock sex, for example, has damaged the lives of children, I’d be glad to do a calculation. We can start with parental neglect, move on to education deficits, and close the books (somewhat arbitrarily) with prison costs. But, of course, we all know that people’s sex lives are “private.” Just as we’ve been told that bong use among Hollywood dimwits hurts no one.

In short, what is considered “private behavior” is largely a social construct that depends on the winds of political fashion. The size of one’s family was once considered a personal matter. Then, under the influence of ZPG fanatics, large families became a subject of public concern—if not government regulation.

On the other hand, concern about public morals has almost disappeared over the last forty years—under the absurd media-spawned assumption that “private” immoral behavior and commercial images of the same affect no one beyond the “consenting adults” involved.

Today folks panic over a whiff of second hand smoke but yawn when corporate goons prostitute the souls of ten-year-olds. The latter, we’re told, is a family affair.