Kerry and Catholicism

If we look on dictionary.com, we find the following definition of religion:

"A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader."

Now, since the religion which calls itself Catholicism includes in its beleifs, values, and practices the idea that abortion is wrong, and Kerry is pro-abortion, can he be a Catholic? Obviously not.

I am not totally anti-abortion, nor pro-Catholic. But this man wants to lead this country, and is essentially using the image of the Catholic church to gain the goodwill of Catholics (including, interestingly enough, 90+% of the Latino vote), and is doing it under false pretences.

Chicago Crime Reduced

I recently heard a report that crime in Chicago has been reduced significgantly this year. That's the good news.

The bad news is that this was accomplished through the use of saturation patrols and cameras (!) on street corners.

My previous blog.


On Making Laws:

It seems to me more or less self-evident that to be good law, a law must accomplish three things:

A) It must accomplish its purpose.
B) It must accomplish its goal.
C) It must be worth it.

Now pay attention to the distinctions I make here. Let's use the war on (some) drugs as an example.
- Its Purpose, as I use the term, is to stop people from using, for example, marijuana.
- Its Goal is, by stopping people from using marijuana, ostensibly to significantly reduce the cost to society created by marijuana users. (I don't know what this alleged cost is, especially since the war on (some) drugs causes more crime than it prevents, but let's assume for the sake of argument that there is a cost to society, and that reducing said cost is a worthy goal.)
- To be Worth It, the benefit must outweigh the cost. To use an extreme example, if we outlawed cars and everyone walked everywhere, there would be no more traffic fatalities of any kind and we'd have less obesity, lower medical costs.... But the restriction on our freedom would be intolerable.

So obviously, each requirement is dependent on the previous. To the extent that the outlawing of marijuana does not stop people from using it, it cannot reduce the societal costs of marijuana. And if neither the Purpose or the Goal are accomplished, then it's not worth any cost.

So let's put some laws through this test, shall we?

War on Drugs: Purpose - stop people from using (some) drugs. Failed on Step One.
Gun Control: Purpose - remove guns from the hands of those who would use them to do harm. Failed on Step One.
"Decency standards": Purpose - to avoid exposing children to foul language. Failed on Step One.

More to come....

On Timing:

I currently have exactly zero regular readers. However, I will continue to write these missives as if I had hordes of fans hanging on my every word.


Illegal immigrant sweeps in SoKal

Wow - didn't take long for the cries of racism to start, did it? We (by "we" I mean those of us in Southern Kalifornia who want to protect Americans from the scourge that is ilegal immigration) refer to "Mexicans" because here in SoKal 80% of illegal immigrants are Mexican. That doesn't mean their nationality is what we have against them.

Stop all the racism BS, and all the accusations of "anti-immigrants" too. My wife, who is Brazilian, and about one-quarter black, would be surprised to hear that I am racist and anti-immigrant. The problem is with the drain they (the ILLEGAL immigrants) create on our economy.

If we could just eliminate the welfare state the problem would pretty much cease to exist. In the meantime, let's at least eliminate that part of it.

"Papers, please." So which is it? Do we want to live in a police state where the authorities can demand your papers to make sure you are "legal." Or not?

As I understand it, all the (undercover) agents do is strike up conversations with the illegals and lead them to admit that they are illegal immigrants. Then it's cuff 'em and stuff 'em time.

If that is not the case, and they are actually demanding ID, then I suppose I don't even need to point out the implications of that, do I?