Knowing that this sort of post, if read by liberals, will incite a bunch of idiotic comments from people who think with their stomachs and other body parts that are not their brains, I will set forth, again, the reasons why state sanction of marriages should be restricted to those between an adult man and an adult woman.

The state has an interest in fostering the birth of children and providing an environment in which they will survive into adulthood and be able to work until May of each year in order to pay their taxes.  This thesis used to be assumed as kind of inevitable, but one look at the coming Eurabia shows you that it doesn't always happen.  But I digress.

It takes a man and a woman to make a baby.  It takes an adult man and an adult woman to provide a happy healthy home for the most part.  That's why the state gives privileges and responsibilities and other stuff to adult males and females who marry each other.

There is no fundamental right to marry the object of your undying love.  There is no state in which a man can marry his daughter, a brother can marry his sister or either one of them marry a dog.  Two twelve year olds who realio trulio love each other are also forbidden to marry in all states.

An  adult male who has already married an adult female can't marry another one in any state without first getting rid of the first/

All of these rules apply to state recognized marriages.  Same sex marriage ceremonies can be performed in every state without interference from the state.  The state just doesn't recognize them and confer any benefits or responsibilities.

One of the really big problems with the two court decisions which seem to recognize a fundamental right to marry the object of your love is that it leaves no room for prohibiting minors from marrying or polygamy or incestuous relationships.  The real distinction being proposed is that homosexuals are entitled to special rights that no one else is entitled to.

Being a lawyer and all-- not that I do criminal law-- I don't-- I always think I should keep up with really significant developments in the law, so when I heard approximately 2 dozen seminar callers on my favorite radio programs announce that Bush had done away with habeas corpus I thought I better look into that. 

Of course, I went to my favorite free federal law website provided by the law school at Cornell University ( and I do send in a contribution to them now and then so it isn't completely free to me) and looked up good old 28 U. S. C. §2241.  Guess what?  It's still there.

Here is part of it-- click the link to read the whole thing:


So-- it appears that habeas corpus is still in the statutes and that prisoners in state and federal prisons can still while away the dreary hours of incarceration by sitting in the prison law library writing pro per (filed by themselves without a lawyer)habeas corpus petitions and sending them off to whatever court strikes their fancies as they have been wont to do lo these many years.  All the law clerks and all the staff of all the federal courts can heave a sigh of relief-- they can still get paid for reading through all those petitions and denying them, as they have been wont to do lo these many years.  That's how we practice criminal law in this country.

No, indeed, habeas is alive and well for U. S. Citizens, foreign visitors who have not been labeled unlawful combatants by a military tribunal and illegal aliens who were not accused of plotting to blow up the United States.

Just in case you think that Cornell has not been keeping up with this dastardly secret plot to deprive all of us of our liberties ( a secret plot known only to the people foolish enough to watch the Keith Olberman show), when you visit the Cornell website, click on the is this up  to date button and you will be informed that they updated that particular section as of 10/17/2006.  Yes, indeed, habeas corpus has survived the vast right wing conspiracy.  

If Keith Olberman had anything that was true and damaging to say about President Bush, why would he lie?

Being a lawyer and all-- not that I do criminal law-- I don't-- I always think I should keep up with really significant developments in the law, so when I heard approximately 2 dozen seminar callers on my favorite radio programs announce that Bush had done away with habeas corpus I thought I better look into that. 

Of course, I went to my favorite free federal law website provided by the law school at Cornell University ( and I do send in a contribution to them now and then so it isn't completely free to me) and looked up good old 28 U. S. C. §2241.  Guess what?  It's still there.

Here is part of it-- click the link to read the whole thing:


So-- it appears that habeas corpus is still in the statutes and that prisoners in state and federal prisons can still while away the dreary hours of incarceration by sitting in the prison law library writing pro per (filed by themselves without a lawyer)habeas corpus petitions and sending them off to whatever court strikes their fancies as they have been wont to do lo these many years.  All the law clerks and all the staff of all the federal courts can heave a sigh of relief-- they can still get paid for reading through all those petitions and denying them, as they have been wont to do lo these many years.  That's how we practice criminal law in this country.

No, indeed, habeas is alive and well for U. S. Citizens, foreign visitors who have not been labeled unlawful combatants by a military tribunal and illegal aliens who were not accused of plotting to blow up the United States.

Just in case you think that Cornell has not been keeping up with this dastardly secret plot to deprive all of us of our liberties ( a secret plot known only to the people foolish enough to watch the Keith Olberman show), when you visit the Cornell website, click on the is this up  to date button and you will be informed that they updated that particular section as of 10/17/2006.  Yes, indeed, habeas corpus has survived the vast right wing conspiracy.  

If Keith Olberman had anything that was true and damaging to say about President Bush, why would he lie?

30 years ago, when I attended a screening of "The Hiding Place ", a movie about the Ten Booms, a Dutch family sent to concentration camps by the Nazis after they had helped hide Jews escaping the Holocaust, I hoped that I would have the moral integrity to do what the Ten Booms had done.  But I never thought it would be necessary.  Not here.  Not in the United States of America.  This story about an anit-semitic high school physics teacher in Andover, Massachusetts is frightening.  Like the Germans in the 30's the townspeople of Andover apparently have no problem with a high school teacher who uses his classroom to spew hatred towards Jews and Israel. In fact, they seem to see him as a kind of hero.

How could this be happening in the most liberal state in the country?  Hey folks.  Nazi was short for National Socialist party.  The Nazi's weren't right wing.  They were left wing.  The idea that they were conservative is just another left wing propaganda victory.

The new, Rosemead, California, Walmart is sort of small example of the culture war going on in America.  On the one side-- the people who pretend to care about working people, I call them the labor union thugs in private-- on the other side -- the working people. 

This is what Walmart calls a superstore, meaning they sell groceries too-- pretty common in Walmart stores in other parts of the country but not in Southern California.  Walmart had apparently been looking for land near the city of Los Angeles-- how they found this particular piece I don't know-- but I do know they had looked at other sites.  The particular piece they settled on was owned by Southern California Edison and had been sitting fallow for about 20 years.   

It is located in a neighborhood that is quite unremarkable-- like many in Southern California it seems to have grown up unplanned with a lot developed here and another subdivided there with no particular idea in mind.  But what it does have that some Southern California neighborhoods do not-- is people who have lived here for -- well, like my mom-- over 75 years. 

There were the professionally prepared signs that said stop Walmart now-- and there was the committee helped out by a professor from Cal State L. A.   There was talk of maintaining the integrity of the neighborhood.   All that stuff.  A lot of people who have lived here awhile-- count me as one-- responded by saying that the reason they liked this neighborhood, inter alia, was that people didn't impose their views on others.  No one in this neighborhood is going to sue you for painting your house purple. 

There were the lies-- my breathless neighbor, I'll refer to her as Darla,  who considers herself a long time resident because she has been here for 15 or 20 years told me that the land hadn't been used because it was polluted.  "By what", I asked her. She said she didn't know.  But she knew whatever it was, was very dangerous.  "It was a strawberry farm before Edison bought it", I informed her.  She looked at me strangely.

 "Darla", I told her, I grew up in this neighborhood-- I attended Potrero Heights Elementary School.  And when I was attending Potrero Heights-- it was a strawberry farm."  "Well, something else must have been there", she said defensively.

"No, Darla", I responded, "then Edison bought it, put a fence around it and let it sit."

I informed Darla that a) I was not going to sign her petition because b) I think people should have the right to do what they want with their land and c) I like Walmart and d) it would be nice to have a spiffy new grocery store in the neighborhood. 

So Walmart opened and a recall election was held to get rid of the City Council people who had granted them the building permit-- they retained their seats and  Darla finally took down her no on Walmart sign.

So I thought it was all over -- and that sometime soon we would see Darla sheepishly shopping at Walmart. 

Sunday night I was making a Walmart run -- I really love their grocery store and their low prices-- and the convenience of being so close, when an announcement was made that there was a power failure-- since the lights didn't dim and there wasn't even a flicker, I was taking my time to get out--I  thought they must have one heck of a generator to keep going  full power.  Then the announcement got more urgent and Walmart employees were asked to escort customers out of the store.  When I got to the front, I saw that the checkers weren't checking any more. so my half hour of shopping was for nought.  Employees were telling people to leave their carts and leave the store.  I went out front with all the other shoppers thinking we could return shortly and finish our shopping,  when another announcement came-- please move away from the building-- farther,  no farther yet. 

At this point some of us guessed this wasn't a power failure.  After the store was completely cleared and most of the customers had left another customer and I invited ourselves to the employee meeting in the parking lot.  The manager gave a rousing attaboy speech to the employees and told them it was a code blue-- meaning bomb threat. 

He congratulated them on the orderly departure of the customers and the employees from the store.  At this point some of us noticed that it had been at least 15 minutes since we had been asked to leave and Temple City Sherriff's were still not there.  If Walmart can't get them to come right away, who can?

Anyway, my immediate idea was Darla.  But that's mean. The reason for the bomb threat?  The manager announced that they had grossed in excess of $290,000 dollars that day, alone, before the bomb threat.  In other words-- the public that is allowed to vote with their dollars loves Walmart. 

And it is easy to see why-- just as an example-- a 12 oz can of generic dogfood ( they call it Old Roy) at Walmart 48 ¢ at Ralph's 4 for $3.00.  Now lest you think that Ralphs is a small local store-- it is the Los Angeles manifestation of Kroger's.    The store is well laid out and they have a greater variety than the other stores in the neighborhood-- For example they sell fresh ginger root by the bin-- we live in a heavily Asian neighborhood-- and they sell beef chorizo for a dollar-- we are also heavily Latino.  I noticed that they had Orville Redenbacher's gourmet popping corn-- two six pack boxes for $5.00 while Ralph's had the same brand one 3 pack box for $3.69. 

This is why people like to shop at Walmart--low prices, good selection, efficiency-- I can buy a new shelf and my groceries all in the same trip. 

Many of the customers at this new Walmart drive 10 or 15 miles to get here because it is  the closest Walmart for them.  And the employees?  They seem to be a pretty happy bunch and glad to be working at Walmart.  They have been told about the controversy that preceded the opening and they seem to go out of their way to be friendly and helpful. 

So that may be the other reason behind the bomb threat-- we all know that one of the supermarkets around here,  and maybe more, is going to close.  It's the down side of competition.  Because I am buying my groceries at Walmart, I'm not buying them at Ralph's or Von's (the local manifestation of Safeway).  And, yes, change will happen.  The store that used to be a Montgomery Wards 12 years ago is now a Target. 

That is what capitalism is really about-- figuring out how to give people what they want  and still make a profit.    The truth is that the Walmart hating elites, who would never deign to shop at either Target or Walmart-- seem to hate the idea that we plebes  can find happiness without buying designer food or shopping at gourmet holes in the wall.  We are not condemned to shop at Walmart-- we like it. 

So, if you can't win by political means-- call in a bomb threat. 

Ever since the whole Ward Churchill thing, a really important question has been plaguing me.  It is -- why can't I have one of those jobs?  I mean, really, why not?  I have a doctorate degree-- okay a juris doctor-- which makes me more qualified than Ward Churchill to talk about law and history and stuff.  And you know, the pay is pretty good for, so far as I can tell-- not much work.  I have to say after 30 plus years as a litigator that Ward Churchill gig is looking pretty good to me.  Spout off a bunch of punk talk and get paid $100,000 plus a year. 

When I talk, which is mostly to a jury and a judge, the judges are, well, somewhat harsh on occasion and certainly demand more from me in terms of facts and accuracy and research than is apparently ever demanded from Ward Churchill. 

So I have adopted a plan that will combine both of my interests-- law and getting a sweet sinecure like Churchill apparently has ( I mean, he's still employed so far as I can tell).  I am going to put together a resume showing my qualifications to teach hmmmm== I think I'll pick agesim and sexism === and then I am going to apply to a bunch of universities for a job, and when I don't get it, I am going to sue them.  I think this is a very good way to spend my golden years.  Unless, of course, some University is willing to buy me off with a job like Churchill has  where I can just show up and spout off to a bunch of intimidated students.  Any suggestions as to where I should apply would be welcom.