In this instance, the business that previously occupied this building was Planned Parenthood. Every time I drive past and see that “AVAILABLE” sign, I feel a bit of pleasant satisfaction.

They will definitely not be missed in the neighborhood.

Possibly Related Posts:

1. Make Everybody Happy
2. This Is A Muslim Community Center
3. Let’s Make It A Coffee Date

He should learn that sometimes simple is better, as Congressman Jeff Flake showed us with this statement:

On the one-year anniversary of the Tucson shooting, we mourn those who were lost, continue to pray for those who were wounded, and take solace in the fact that out of tragedy, our spirit as a community, a state, and a nation has been made stronger.

Montini might have learned not to condemn as complicit individuals who had no connection to the event what-so-ever. He chooses instead to refocus the blame on political ads, which is exactly the muddy thinking that lead to Sarah Palin being demonized as making Gabriel Giffords a target. Instead, despite the preponderance of evidence that has come forward to show Jared Loughner was neither politically motivated nor aware of Palin’s “target map”, Montini chooses to stick with the meme that fits his political agenda. An agenda that finds any words of disagreement from the Right to be “inflamatory”, and the most vile and threatening words & images from the Left to simply represent “impassioned speech”

He might have learned that in the name of civil rights, we have failed the mentally disturbed and those who may eventually fall victim to them. Instead he dismisses Loughner’s illness and points instead to the “ugly discourse over immigration”, something that had no bearing on the shooter or his life.

He might have learned that public officials, particularly those who try to have an open communion with their constituency, would be well served by some sort of personal protection*.

He might have learned that when law enforcement is tasked with being the only line of defense, a Sheriff who fails to act despite repeated warnings & inquiries needs to be removed from his post. Particularly when the sherrif then proceeds to also blame rhetoric and newly minted laws, despite knowing that his office had willfully dropped the ball on stopping Loughner BEFORE he took 6 lives and altered so many more.

He might have learned that, when a person has shown an undue & uncomfortable fascination with another human (whether ‘famous’ or not), we do them no favors by brushing it off. Better Gifford’s staff had reacted to his letters & videos rather than believe him to be harmless.

Gabriel Giffords was shot for the same reason Rebecca Schaeffer was shot, some screwed up kid from Tucson got fixated on her.

In Giffords’ case, though the fixation was not romantic, the trigger was the same. He reacted violently when she did not respond as he hoped to his perceived relationship with her. He felt she disrespected him and made her pay.

* There was a mention after this shooting that Pamela Gorman, at that time a Phoenix area politician who made national news with a volunteer produced YouTube video showing her firing a plethora of firearms, would not likely have been the victim of such an act. Though there is no doubt a working knowledge of firearms goes a long way to protecting life in the event of threat, sometimes there is no time to act.

From the accounts I heard at the time, Lougher approached Giffords with the gun under his coat. When he was in very close proximity, he pulled it out and fired, first at her head, then at the rest of the crowd. When he ran out of bullets and attempted to reload, he was tackled and subdued. Had that exact scenario played out at a Gorman event, neither she not her constituents would have had time to act prior to that first shot.

What would surely have been different is what happened next, as her crowd would more likely be armed – and more likely practiced with their weapons. No one is suggesting a bunch of folks would have, or should have, started firing at Loughner immediately. That sort of reaction might have made an already chaotic situation even worse. However, responsible gun owners who carry for self-defense practice scenarios that require an intelligent assessment of the environment – for instance, in the midst of a crowd.

What likely would have been different is the ability of an armed man to get through the crowd and close to the candidate. A group of 2nd Amendment enthusiasts would also be more likely to be aware of their surroundings, more likely to be alert for threats, more likely to notice a gun, and more likely to be willing to act to stop someone before the day turns deadly.

{Still need to find some links for the facts in this post, if you have ‘em handy, drop them in the comments}

UPDATE: Warner Todd Huston takes NPR to task for the same offense: Falsely Blaming Giffords’ Shooting on Uncivil Political Rhetoric

Possibly Related Posts:

1. Seven Falls, Tucson

Taken into Custody: The War Against Fatherhood, Marriage, and the Family is a book I have not yet read, but I have heard the author speak in interviews and I know his story well.

By allowing the “State” to determine the rules of marriage, you also grant them control of divorce. By allowing the “State” to determine the rules of divorce, you are guaranteeing that profit, power & control will take precedence over common sense and expediency…and decency.

So called Family Courts have become instead anti-Family courts. A divorce proceeding can be brought by anyone (in a majority of cases, the wife) for any reason (or no reason at all). Divorces are always granted, there is no chance of contesting the action anymore. “No Fault” has increased the incidence of divorce exponentially. The unwitting victim, who may have been blindsided by the action, is then at the mercy of a court system with very few checks OR balances.

Many a man has had his children ripped away from him, had his income garnished, thrown out of his home, even been thrown in jail. Is there any other court system in the U.S. where a person can have everything taken from them without ever even having a wrong alleged?

Should a woman desire to inflict even greater pain and hardship on her former mate, she need only claim abuse; of her children, of herself, of the most heinous kind. Should the father have the resources to fight such allegations, he may eventually clear his name – but there is NO penalty to the woman for making such claims. The big winner is a court system that has collected outrageous fees requiring an innocent man to prove his innocence against unsupported charges brought by a woman with literally nothing to lose by smearing her husband. Too often anger and greed lead these women to ignore the pain they inflict on their children and a man they once at least claimed to love, and the anti-family court system rewards them for it.

We are at a point where the reasons for matrimony and procreation being sponsored by the state have evaporated. Women no longer need to be protected by the corrupt and bloated bureaucracy, men are no longer the sole bread-winners, both parents should be given equal consideration in custody arrangements.

I have written extensively in the past about the scourge of paternity fraud, a problem exacerbated by the circus that we refer to as “Family Court”. No support agreement should ever be entered into without a paternity test – or an informed decision by the father to waive such proof. The court should not be bankrupting men to pay for children that aren’t theirs, born to women they may not have even met.

I have written about the need for any couple considering marriage to execute a pre-nuptial agreement. Other than enforcing that or a standard nuptial contract, the government should NOT be involved when a couple decides to enter Holy matrimony.

We don’t need a Constitutional amendment to “protect” traditional marriage, we need only to remove the government and their profit motive from the equation altogether. If churches want to marry a couple of consenting adults, let them – but don’t expect or require consent from the state. If a couple of consenting adults want to enter into a civil contract of commitment, let them – but don’t expect or require consent from the state.

In short, the state should no longer participate in the forming or dissolution of any marital union in any of its forms. I’m sure the divorce lawyers can find some other specialty that will require their special skill-set.

Possibly Related Posts:

1. Love & Marriage…and Your Wallet

It does, however, seem to be getting quite popular on the left

Possibly Related Posts:

1. Another Reason To Hate Apple

It is an archaic program that was poorly conceived and ineptly administered. It should be ended as soon as is reasonably possible.

Those who have been paying in may be counting on that pittance to support them in their golden years and, since that is what they were promised, they should be allowed to collect if they so choose.

No one else should be entering the system. If you have not yet started working, and are therefore not yet paying FICA, when you start working that is not ever going to be part of your working life. Ever. You will be responsible for planning your own retirement, but you will have additional funds to do so (and frankly, you could hardly do a worse job than the federal government) Never entering the system relieves your employer of their portion of the FICA payments, as well, leaving more money in their budgets for actual hiring.

If you are already in the system, having paid in for 1 year or 40, you have a choice to make. You can stay in, and continue paying with the hope of someday getting pocket change back, or you can withdraw, but forfeiting all funds you have already paid. Depending on how well you have done in your private sector employment & investments, giving up that money may be painless – and you will have no need for the payouts in your retirement. Opting out relieves your employer of their portion of the FICA payments, as well, leaving more money in their budgets for actual hiring.

That may or may not lead to a temporary shortness of funds for retirees, but I have no doubt the bureaucrats in D.C. can find it in the general budget – since they’ve been so quick to raid the Social Security account in the past, it is time for payback.

However, by making it simple for the wealthy, or just comfortable, to opt out, we will save a great deal of money that would otherwise have been paid out. And, within a generation, the Ponzi Scheme that we call Social Security will be dead & gone.

This man is running for the highest office in the land, he has a long resume of production & success, he is spelling out a specific plan to fix the economy*, he is consistently polling at or near the top of a crowded field…

And the only thing the “news” anchors care to ask him about is the color of his skin, or whether he is a traitor to others who share his skin tone.**

I said before that Obama was the antithesis of Martin Luther King Jr’s dream; he was judged only by the color of his skin, any attempt to suss out the content of his character was soundly rejected. (Which Obama and his supporters encouraged, screaming racism at any question of his experience or competence)

Herman Cain is withstanding a great deal of actual racism in his bid for the presidency, other than taking the bait re: Perry’s lodge, he has done a good job of bringing the subject back to what really makes him tick – and it isn’t his skin tone.

How about we treat skin color as we would hair color or height; a distinguishing feature, sure, but one which has no bearing whatsoever on how a person thinks or feels. Lets judge the individual on his merits, not his melanin.

This is something true Conservatives already know.

* Whether Cain’s 9-9-9 plan is the right plan is not germane to my point.

** Don’t even get me started on the “celebrities” who say he is not really black because of his success & beliefs, or that any Republican who supports him does so because they are racist

Possibly Related Posts:

1. On Hope, Change & “Uppity Negroes”
2. Losers Law in #AZsen Race
3. White Lie

I asked previously about what government programs you were afraid to lose in the ongoing budget battles I got a bit of feedback elsewhere (the downside of social media, fewer blog comments) but no real discussion.

I’ll start with one of my pet grievances:
Why do we have a National Endowment for the Arts?

I have nothing against art (some of my best friends are artists), but I cannot fathom why it was decided that the government should be in the art business. Not only in the financing of art, but in deciding what, in fact, passes for art – and what is worth “buying”

The human desire for beauty is undeniable and well documented. As is the practice of wealthy patrons supporting the work of artists they believed in. Private citizens making a personal decision about what they felt worthy of production.

Government has no business collecting tax dollars in order to distribute them to artists. No more than they would be right in distributing those dollars to dog groomers or window washers. There is zero Constitutional justification and no ‘public need’.

The annual NEA budget has been hovering around the $150 million mark (their request for 2012 is a mere $146,255,000) I realize that $150 million is a drop in the bucket when we are facing deficits in the trillions, but (to paraphrase) “A hundred million here, a hundred million there, pretty soon you’re talking about real money”

The beauty of a sub $200 million program like this, though, is how easy it would be to transition it to the private sector. You artsy-farsty types think public art is so important, put your money where your mouth is. Let’s put the NEA on a deadline; six months from now, the funding will no longer come from the federal government. In that time, superstars & supermodels should be able to pony up enough cash to ensure it’s continued existence – and find someone trustworthy and good with money to oversee it.

Heck, if they still want it to be a collective effort, why not set aside a percentage of their union dues and box office receipts? That way they could feel good about the work they are doing now paving the way for those still trying to get their break.

Warren Buffett thinks his contribution to the federal budget is too low, this is his chance. He could write a check tomorrow that would keep roadways and parks dripping with art installations for decades.

And we would be a baby step closer to reigning in the unnecessary spending by our government.

Are we really at a point that we allow the government to drive people out of their homes because they aren’t consuming power generated by the state? Are we really to believe that a man who has lived in the middle of nowhere, a full 10 miles from his closest neighbor, has generated nuisance complaints? Perhaps Quentin Tarantino, who used the man’s church in his Kill Bill movies, could step up and get these people some help.

All they want to do is continue to live on the property they own.

Possibly Related Posts:

1. More Federal Funds Going To California

No, I don’t believe the taking of an innocent life by an individual who finds that life “inconvenient” to be on a level field with a society choosing to enact the most severe punishment on an adult who has been found guilty of committing a crime so heinous it requires the harshest sentence.

You want to equate children to criminals, lets make it more fitting.

“How can those pro-abortion folks not be in favor of lethal injection for every person arrested for a criminal offense that might result in a prison term? What with over-crowding & budget cuts, any additional prisoners would be terribly inconvenient for us”

I find criminals very unwanted. Sure, being arrested doesn’t mean they are guilty; but they certainly aren’t as innocent as those babies are.

UPDATE: How about this – you have to wait to perform an abortion just as long as it generally takes to carry out a typical death sentence, with appeals & such. After 20 or so years, if you still feel that child deserves to die, you get him or her to accompany you to a clinic where a ‘doctor’ will perform one of these so-called “humane” procedures.

Complete regurgitation of inaccurate MSM talking points.

The democrats have given in over and over again to the Republicans, arguably placing the country in the situation it is today, and it’s come to a point that one more concession to the Republicans is enough to destroy the middle class, and redefine the lower class.

I find it appalling that the people, GOP especially, that were elected to represent the people of your country, that were elected to do what was best for your country, and were elected to make your country the great place that it is so often claimed to be are willing to viciously screw 99% of the citizens over for a chance to be in a better position come 2012.

Concessions need to be made on both sides, and a middle ground needs to be established that benefits the most possible people, not just the top 1%.

Hope his answer doesn’t count for too much of his grade – cause it is a big FAIL.