Reassessment After Leiby Kletzky Murder

I'm upset by the murder of Leiby Kletzky.

We've had an empty nest all week. Our boys have been visiting relatives in Fresno. They'll be back today, but we've missed them. Sure, the downtime from the kids has been nice. The house is clean as a whistle. We had an open house on Sunday. My wife and I detailed everything. Here's the kitchen yesterday afternoon. A few items on the counter, but there's no usual mess from a full day of family cooking and hanging out, with clothes and toys strewn all about:

My wife hadn't heard of Leiby's death. I mentioned it to her when we went out last night to Yogurt Land. She reminded me of the report over the 4th of July weekend of the 6-year-old boy who was allegedly raped after his mother let him use the restroom alone at Rio Hondo Park in Pico Rivera. It looks like a nice park. No doubt the mom felt safe. In Brooklyn, families have to be asking questions, so many questions. As the New York Times reported earlier:

Suddenly, an Orthodox Jewish community that had blanketed streets and subway stations with missing-child posters, that had promised a six-figure reward, had to face the devastating reality: Leiby was dead, and the suspect was also Jewish, living not far away. His death also forced parents, not just in Borough Park but across the city, to wonder, to speculate, to second-guess themselves: Was it one of those headline-grabbing tragedies that could have been avoided? When is a child ready to go it alone, anyway?

My wife and I agree that our youngest son, who's almost 10, is nowhere near ready to "go it alone," so to speak. And my wife worries about our high-schooler, who walks by himself to and from school. We live in the Irvine Unified School District, and it's safe here. But no need to get a false sense of security. No one can predict when a crime might take place, and when one does people ask, "How could this have happened"? Well, yeah. How? But it's too late by then. The Wall Street Journal had something on this yesterday, "After Leiby Kletzky Murder, Urging Parents to Keep Calm." It's an interview with Hara Estroff Marano of Psychology Today. I can't imagine how this is reassuring:

The Wall Street Journal: Most parents’ first reaction to a story like this is to reassess–and in many cases, ratchet back–the independence they give their kids. What should be guiding their thinking right now?

Hara Estroff Marano: The very fact that this is such a rare event should get some consideration in their mind. One reason people are talking about it is because it’s so strikingly unusual. It’s within a particular community… this is a very insolated incident. I don’t know there are really lessons for outsiders here at all, because we don’t yet know all the details. So any reassessment should focus on the rarity of the event. This is just not something that’s likely to happen very often.

The first reaction is ‘oh my god I can’t let my kid walk down the street.’ No, look at the situation. Instead of saying ‘no you can’t cross the street,’ you say, ‘here, I’ll watch you cross the street’ and watch them a few times, then let them do it alone.

Keep reading.

It's sounds so logical and reasonable. Whereas fears and love aren't. I think parents need to go with their instincts, especially if they've got young kids. A couple more yours of hovering ain't gonna harm a child. Frankly, in this day and age, I think families let kids off the leash a bit too early anyway.

Libertarians on Abortion

I'm going to having more on libertarianism in an upcoming essay. I don't see it as a governing ideology, although certainly we could improve a lot of public life, especially economic life, by adopting a way more libertarian programmatic agenda. That said, I've always disliked the rejection of a lot of social morality in libertarianism, and Matt Welch and Nick Gillespie capture some of the moral spinelessness at the clip:

It's enough to say, as Matt Welch does, that one supports the freedom element of the right to an abortion. That part is fine. I've never argued we should have 100 percent criminalization of abortion. The squishy ground is where Nick Gillespie treads, and I don't think he acquits himself well. In fact, he's so squishy he harms even the liberty case for the pro-choice position. Libertarianism becomes a license for perverse libertinism. It's sick to think about what happens to the baby when a woman exercises that sliding scale for the termination of pregnancy. But again, that's why I'm neoconservative on domestic issues.

Ed Morrissey, who prompted the clip, has more: "Video: What is the libertarian position on abortion?"

Palin Plots Her Next Move

It's this week's cover story at Newsweek (via Memeorandum):

It's a fluffy, upbeat piece, and the photos will be splashed at airports and supermarket checkout stands nationwide, just as "The Undefeated" documentary premieres. This will drive progressives crazy. I can see Steve Benen now, incredulous that a "half-term governor" should get so much attention. And well, that's the basis if her appeal right there. Finally we have a national figure who's just one of us, unpretentious and willing to fight. I'd say it's providence, although we heard enough of that "Lightworker" stuff from the Obama cult in 2008. Palin's down to earth, and just what America needs. I hope she makes up her mind soon.

Reaffirming Our Independence

An editorial, at Orange County Register:

The Fourth of July, Independence Day, is a good time not only for hot dogs and fireworks, but to reflect for a moment on what makes this country unique, the qualities that enabled it to become in some ways the most successful country in history, and to contemplate the extent to which those qualities still animate Americans.

It has been said that the United States is the only country founded on an idea, or a set of ideas, rather than on ethnic or racial similarities, kinship, conquest or the simple fact of a relatively homogeneous group of people living in the same geographic region for centuries. Those ideas are summed up in the Declaration of Independence, the document whose signing and promulgation we celebrate. In some ways it can lay claim to being the most revolutionary public document in human history.

Aspects of the idea that people are not just vassals of the powers that be, interchangeable cogs in the great machinery of society presided over by leaders who had by and large established themselves through conquest and pillage, had been growing for centuries before 1776. But the circumstances surrounding the decision of the Colonists to separate from Great Britain offered the opportunity to summarize emerging principles in a uniquely eloquent manner.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident," the Declaration proclaims, "that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." By "created equal," of course, the founders were not so naïve as to believe that we were all equally tall, intelligent, beautiful or worthy, but that we have equal value in the sight of God or Natural Law and should receive equal treatment rather than preferences or punishment based on our status from government. Every human being has a certain inherent dignity, and decent people respect that.

Check that link above for the rest.

Also, from Jennifer Braceras, at Boston Herald, "The lasting lessons of independence."

BONUS: At American Digest, "How Beautiful We Were."

Gay Sexual Abandon and the Perverse Inversion of Values by Same-Sex Extremists

That's the takeaway for me, from this long piece at the New York Times, "Married, With Infidelities."

Gay sexual abandon. Meaning the gay rights movement is expanding the boundaries of what's morally acceptable to accommodate a model of openly aggressive sexual abandon. Gays want sex when they want it, with whomever they want it, wherever they want it. And they're not afraid of saying it, at all. The Times interviews Dan Savage, the author of the homosexual advice column "Savage Love." Yeah. Savage. And open. Savage is all about openness in marriage. For example, if you're not sexually satisfied, tell your spouse. Say you need more. Get approval and go get laid somewhere else. Savage's mantra is "good, giving, and game," GGG for short. Be good, giving, and game for sexual freelancing. It's a different kind of morality, you might say. Here's this from the article:

Savage’s honesty ethic gives couples permission to find happiness in unusual places; he believes that pretty much anything can be used to spice up a marriage, although he excludes feces, pets and incest, as well as minors, the nonconsenting, the duped and the dead. In “The Commitment,” Savage’s book about his and Miller’s decision to marry, he describes how a college student approached him after a campus talk and said, as Savage tells it, that “he got off on having birthday cakes smashed in his face.” But no one had ever obliged him. “My heart broke when he told me that the one and only time he told a girlfriend about his fetish, she promptly dumped him. Since then he had been too afraid to tell anyone else.” Savage took the young man up to his hotel room and smashed a cake in his face.

The point is: priests and rabbis don’t tell couples they might need to involve cake play in their marriages; moms and dads don’t; even best friends can be shy about saying what they like. Savage wants to make sure that no strong marriage ever fails because an ashamed husband or wife is desperately seeking cake play — or bondage, urine play or any of the other unspeakable activities that Savage has helped make speakable. If cake play is what a man needs, his G.G.G. wife should give it to him; if she can’t bring herself to, then maybe she should allow him a chocolate-frosted excursion with another woman. But for God’s sake, keep it together for the kids.

Okay. Right. What else did Savage do up in his hotel room with the young cake boy? Pattycakes? Folks should read the whole thing when they have a few minutes. And I'll tell you: Savage Love won't work in my house. My wife and I are traditional. We love each other exclusively. And we do so because that's how we conceive marriage. When you marry you're committing to that one person you want to share your life with, exclusively, "forsaking all others." There are lots of reasons for this. But most of all is the integrity of the institution itself, and what it means for the sanctity of vows, honesty, and the regeneration of families. Dan Savage and his husband Terry Miller have a child by adoption. How's that going to look as the child get older and sees his parents f**king around with whoever they want? And back to the article, Savage talks about how a man would feel giving his wife permission to have extramarital affairs, but then he realizes he can't abide by the thought of someone else vaginally penetrating his wife. You think?!!

I don't look at the gay marriage issue from a religious perspective primarily, because the argument against gay marriage is at base socio-biological, about preservation of families and society, and the regeneration of cultures. It's about preserving that which is eternally right and good. There is nothing natural about same sex marriage in terms of creating life and living in commitment for strength and safety in family. Same sex couples cannot naturally reproduce, and marriage is most basically about binding one man and one woman for the purpose of natural regeneration. For the gay movement to abandon that to uncontrollable desires is obscene. But there's the morally religious argument as well, seen today at the Wall Street Journal, "Evangelicals and the Gay Moral Revolution."

The Christian church has faced no shortage of challenges in its 2,000-year history. But now it's facing a challenge that is shaking its foundations: homosexuality.

To many onlookers, this seems strange or even tragic. Why can't Christians just join the revolution?

And make no mistake, it is a moral revolution. As philosopher Kwame Anthony Appiah of Princeton University demonstrated in his recent book, "The Honor Code," moral revolutions generally happen over a long period of time. But this is hardly the case with the shift we've witnessed on the question of homosexuality.

In less than a single generation, homosexuality has gone from something almost universally understood to be sinful, to something now declared to be the moral equivalent of heterosexuality—and deserving of both legal protection and public encouragement. Theo Hobson, a British theologian, has argued that this is not just the waning of a taboo. Instead, it is a moral inversion that has left those holding the old morality now accused of nothing less than "moral deficiency."

The liberal churches and denominations have an easy way out of this predicament. They simply accommodate themselves to the new moral reality. By now the pattern is clear: These churches debate the issue, with conservatives arguing to retain the older morality and liberals arguing that the church must adapt to the new one. Eventually, the liberals win and the conservatives lose. Next, the denomination ordains openly gay candidates or decides to bless same-sex unions.

This is a route that evangelical Christians committed to the full authority of the Bible cannot take. Since we believe that the Bible is God's revealed word, we cannot accommodate ourselves to this new morality. We cannot pretend as if we do not know that the Bible clearly teaches that all homosexual acts are sinful, as is all human sexual behavior outside the covenant of marriage. We believe that God has revealed a pattern for human sexuality that not only points the way to holiness, but to true happiness.

There's more at the link, and see also Maggie Gallagher, "New York's GOP Lets Down the Base."

The media may portray the New York victory as the decisive turning point that makes gay marriage inevitable across the country—as they almost always do. Yet every victory for our marriage tradition that I have personally helped make happen was heralded as impossible: from Prop 8 in California, which overturned a state supreme court decision imposing same-sex marriage; to overturning gay marriage in Maine in 2009 through the referendum process; to blocking gay-marriage bills in New Jersey, Maryland and Rhode Island; to passing a marriage amendment through the Minnesota legislature that will go to the people in 2012.

Our string of unheralded victories is possible only because the American people, though they have few visible champions, continue to stubbornly believe that gay marriage is not a civil right and that marriage is different for a reason: These unions make new life and connect children to a mom and dad.

Gallagher's group, the National Organization for Marriage, has pledged $2 million to defeat New York legislators who voted for the bill, and they're gleefully targeting freshman Republican Senator Mark Grisanti, one of the lawmakers who flip-flopped on the issue.

Anyway, at Keith Olbermann interviews Savage at the clip. The political and religious discussion, with sex talk, is at the second half. Savage is super articulate. He makes sexual abandon and immorality sound cool. He jokes about people who "butt f**k" and then offers himself up to Tony Perkins. Savage also goes off on people with strong values as being religiously abused. The most interesting argument is that Savage claims that you can't hold traditional values and also be friendly with gays or have good friends who are gay. Savage perfectly embodies gay bigotry. He says if you are traditional on marriage you must instinctively react violently to gay people. That'a lie that makes people of values primitive. It's also fundamentally dishonest. But this is how gay activists win. They paint conservatives as potentially violent anti-gay extremists, and people of values, because they have values not to offend, capitulate. That's how the gay thuggery of sexual abandon wins. It's evil.

Pechanga Getaway

I'm with my family at Pechanga Resort.

Here's the view from my room, Northeast, earlier today, about 6:00pm. Beautiful:

And speaking of rooms with a view, have you been reading Andrew Sullivan? I haven't, but since E.D. Kain's been featured here recently, my web surfing's taken over me over to RAWMUSCLEGLUTES' page, at The Daily Beast. (And his latest "View From Your Window.")

Aliyah

A timely follow-up to yesterday's Allison Benedikt blogging.

At Jeruslalem Post, "Talking seriously about aliya."

Let’s be honest: English-speaking Jews will not make aliya because you showed them a brochure extolling the financial benefits of immigration.

That’s not because they are waiting for more money, but because it’s not about money.

Young Diaspora Jews in the West are not seeking comfort, but challenge. They don’t want to blindly follow in the footsteps of their parents, but are nevertheless willing to explore Jewish life and tradition as a source of authentic identity. More than anything else, they want to feel that their lives are a product of their own initiative.

(I should know. In 1999, at the age of 18, I left a beloved community in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and a red 9- seater Chevrolet Suburban, bought for me by my parents when I learned to drive at 16, in order to join the IDF.)

The real challenge of aliya, therefore, is not bureaucratic. It’s not about reducing the paperwork or improving the benefits package. Indeed, it’s hard to imagine anything that could change the mind of an American Jew, especially a young one, on the question of whether or not to remain American. Hard, but not impossible.

Faced with these facts, we must ask ourselves if we actually know how to bring American Jews on aliya. For the first time, we find ourselves competing for their attention in a completely open marketplace, without the pressure of parents or tradition. Are we up to that challenge?

Go read the rest at that link.

I guess there's a crisis in Israel over the issue of aliyah. Check the article above, but the reference is to the essay by Isi Leibler of Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, "The collapse of Zionist leadership."

New York Legalizes Gay Marriage

Well, six down and 42 to go.

At Los Angeles Times, "New York Legislature passes gay marriage bill."

With the forceful backing of a newly elected Democratic governor, the New York State Legislature gave final approval late Friday to a bill permitting same-sex marriage, enabling gay couples to head for the altar in late July.

After a sometimes emotional hourlong debate, the 62-member, Republican-controlled Senate approved the measure, 33 to 29. Earlier in the evening, the Democratic-led Assembly had amended its version of the bill to match the Senate's, which carried additional exemptions for religious organizations that do not want to acknowledge or extend benefits to gays who marry.

Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who made the issue a centerpiece of his election campaign last year, signed the bill just before midnight. It will take effect in 30 days, making New York the sixth state, and the most populous by far, to permit same-sex marriage.

"What this state did today brings marriage equality to a new plane," Cuomo told reporters. "We reached a new level of social justice." Outside the Senate chamber, many opponents sat on the floor and prayed aloud for the state.

The amazing thing is how anti-climactic this is.

Gay marriage is coming to America, but it's not coming through a wave of popular, down-home demand. It's coming through the ram-it-down-your-throats progressive politics on the coasts, and the Berkeley-esque enclaves in the major urban areas across the heartland. If there was ever a case for letting federalism prevail, this is it. States should be free to decide their own policies on same-sex marriage. The Blankenhorn and Rauch manifesto is workable, and vital in preventing a progressive tyranny at the federal level from crushing the states. See: "A Reconciliation on Gay Marriage." And the progressive sensationalism on this is deeply offensive, for example, "The arc of history bends towards justice in N.Y." Actually, gay marriage is not a civil right. Gay Americans are not an oppressed minority, but one of the most affluent and powerful interest groups in American politics. That's why a federal solution to the gay marriage issue remains vital. The gay radical lobby will browbeat kind and reasonable Americans, folks who don't want to put up with the fuss of being hammered over the head or dragged before Stalinist show trials. It's pretty bad, but it's the way things are going around here.

Image Credit: Good as You, "Photo: Stonewall. Right now. 42 years later" (via Memeorandum).

RELATED: Rim-station radicals celebrate in New York.

Orange County Continues to Hold Conservative Values

And not in the 1950s sense.

The county's demographics are more diverse than ever. Traditional family values are thriving as newer groups, with strong cultural and religious traditions, increase in population.

At Los Angeles Times, "Orange County remains a bastion of conservative family values."

Orange County, home to 3 million people, has the lowest percentage of single-parent households of any county in Southern California, according to a Times analysis of U.S. Census Bureau figures, as well as the lowest percentage of households occupied by opposite-sex unmarried couples.

It also has one of the lowest percentages of same-sex households and has retained one of the highest percentages in the region of nuclear-family households — those with a married man and woman who are raising children under age 18.

Orange County has not sidestepped entirely the modernization of the California family. Its percentage of nuclear-family households, for instance, while relatively high, fell between 2000 and 2010 from 29.1% of households to 26.1%. Overall, however, the county is a bastion of tradition, relatively speaking.

"Change is happening, just at a slower pace," said Edward Flores, the project manager with the population dynamics research group at USC.

Ah, change at a slower pace. That's a conservative principle. Nice.

CONTRAST: At The Other McCain, "Viva, Californication?"

Should Evolution Be Taught in School?

Ann Althouse has a lengthy response:

These women don't seem to realize how well-established the theory of evolution is and how central it is to the study of science. Of course, it should be taught in school. The more lively present-day issue is whether intelligent design may also be taught alongside evolution, but that isn't what the women were asked. The question prompts them to think of evolution as something that perhaps ought not to be taught in schools. From the bizarre similarity of the answers, I would extrapolate standard beauty-contest advice: Look for the prompt in the question and echo it back with some embellishment that makes you sound thoughtful, caring, and respectful of diversity.

There's a lot of silly responses, yet I'm noticing some regional variation. The Southern girls appear more likely not to accept evolution as science, and thus is something that perhaps shouldn't be taught in schools, as if that would threaten belief systems. That said, these aren't ignorant responses to the one. Maybe someone's quantified this with a content analysis, but listen to Brittany Thelemann at about 7:20 minutes and I think that's an example of some very well-rounded beliefs. Althouse takes issue with Miss New Jersey in particular, and note that it's the demonic progressive outrage that prompted her post in the first place (notice how the clip is titled "Miss Ignorance USA"). Faith and religion is not science, and the existence of God isn't falsifiable, despite all the claims of militant atheists. (Certitude!) So possibilities will always remain and stir questioning and wonderment. Interestingly, some scientists suggest that the notion of an "In the beginning" type moment isn't incompatible with what we know --- or, especially, what we don't know --- about the universe and human evolution.

Pew Research Center: Fathers and the Modern American Family

See: "A Tale of Two Fathers: More Are Active, but More Are Absent."

If readers can remember back to 2008, one of things I'd hoped about Barack Obama, if he were elected, is that he'd help restore stable family values to the black community. He has not. While President Obama is a model family man, he's rarely spoken out in any direct, sustained way that would bring his moral authority to bear on the cultural pathologies of the race. He needs to be out speaking like this, often, and sincerely, like Father's Day comes more than once a year.

According to Pew, "... more than one-in-four fathers with children 18 or younger now live apart from their children ..."

And especially:

Fathers’ living arrangements are strongly correlated with race, ethnicity and socioeconomic status as measured by educational attainment. Black fathers are more than twice as likely as white fathers to live apart from their children (44% vs. 21%), while Hispanic fathers fall in the middle (35%). Among fathers who never completed high school, 40% live apart from their children. This compares with only 7% of fathers who graduated from college.

This is not to dismiss other ethnic groupings, for example, the Hispanic population, but I once taught Black Politics, and I continue to see the poorest academic and social performance of young black men than any other other demographic. I used to be sympathetic, if not a little sad about it. Now I just get mad, and if I can, I'll get in your face if you're not performing up to standards. Of course, I'm only a professor, so my role is limited, but if I can model some achievement or direction, that will count for a bit. It's not just a problem on television or in the movies. I see it up close. I personally grieve. Perhaps I can do more later, when I have some changes in my own family. Time. Time to give back.

Now, closer to home, I'm not teaching this summer, and so I'll have the next two months to spend with my family, for some quality time and recreation. No big trips are planned. My youngest son will be the challenge while school's out, though. He needs to be active and needs a lot of direction. Just last week I was taking him skateboarding two times a day, but we'll need to read and study as well. My older son is going on 10th grade and he's very independent. He's got a young lady friend (kinda girlfriend) who he spends most of his time with, and he doesn't like me tagging along too much. But I need to get on him to do more chores around the house, and hopefully I can get him to do some reading instead of downloading music all the time.

At the Pew study it notes that 63 percent of dad's today say that being a father is harder now than it was a generation ago. And, "Only about one-in-four adults say fathers today are doing a better job as parents than their own fathers did." Yeah. Okay. But what's the measurement? If it's economically, things have been pretty spotty these last few years, and we'd have to go back two or three generations to find a time when there was less economic dynamism (and dislocation). But culturally, the dads of today are way more hands-on than when I was a kid, and that's good. My dad was perhaps more involved than some other fathers in my neighborhood growing up, but he was just as emotionally distant as any I can think of. I never wanted to be a father like that, and thank goodness. Sure, there's more we can do, as men and fathers, and no one measures up perfectly to their own expectations and those of their children. But keeping it all together is the primary responsibility, and giving equal support to the spouse so everyone can grow and be happy. In that way men have a greater responsibility as parents than in earlier generations. I think when we have a booming economy again, some of the load will ease, and successful fatherhood might increase (increased togetherness, less family breakdown).

Anyway, at top, I'm taking a break from cleaning house yesterday morning. We have a realtor. He showed the house at 10:00am and my wife and I were both up detailing everything. My youngest boy slept until about 9:00am, and my oldest is out of town until later today. I might shave. I've just been chillin' since school got out at the end of May.

More later.

Have a good Father's Day everyone.

More Parents Buying Apartments for Their Children

This is an amazing story, a testament to Americans' financial resilience amid the Obama Depression.

At New York Times, "The Gift Apartment From Mom and Dad":

FOR some parents, an engraved pen set just won’t cut it as a graduation present. It seems so insubstantial, so unoriginal. Anyway, the kid will just lose it. So how about a New York apartment?

Real estate brokers say that in the last year, they have seen more parents shopping for apartments for their grown children, hoping to take advantage of low mortgage rates and apartment prices that are still about 20 percent down from the market’s peak.

“I got a digital watch for graduation,” said Barry Silverman, an executive vice president of Halstead Property, “but I’ve worked with families where the children are getting an apartment.”

These congratulatory apartments are often studios or small one-bedrooms, but on occasion they are bigger-ticket items, he said, because “the parents see it as a long-term investment and a good place to park their money.”

In many cases, brokers say, the parents do not live in the New York area and view the apartment as a potential pied-à-terre for themselves when the child decides to move on. Some buy it as a straight-out gift, a gesture of profound affection sweetened by the current generous tax exclusion. Others buy it as an investment and retain ownership, and still others acquire it through a family trust for joint ownership.

These purchases raise a number of financial and estate planning questions, and lawyers and building managers advise parents to structure the arrangement carefully.

That's for sure. Check that link at top for the rest.

Dakota Thunder

See Rapid City Journal, "Air show brings out young and old alike."

L.A. Times: California GOP Must Reinvent Itself to Survive

See, "To Survive, State GOP Must Reinvent Itself":

With the unveiling of the state's new political boundaries last week, California Republicans are contemplating their very survival: Without a course correction, they could be headed for the wilderness.

Drawn for the first time by an independent commission instead of Sacramento insiders, the proposed new voting maps suggest the GOP could lose as many as five seats in Congress. Moreover, Democrats may be positioned to win two-thirds of the state Legislature, potentially robbing the minority party of its ability to block tax increases, the last vestige of its governing power in the state Capitol.

Between now and next year's elections, Republicans must scramble to reinvent themselves, recruit more moderate candidates and find common ground with more Californians if they are to be at all relevant in Golden State politics, according to independent experts and partisan analysts alike. Then voters in the considerable number of new swing districts that the maps show could opt to elect moderate Republicans just as easily as centrist Democrats.

There's more, but you get the drift.

It's almost comical. Here's the Los Angeles Times, still a respectable paper, but hopelessly left-wing, arguing that the state's GOP should be moving left, becoming more moderate than it already is. And that's after 7 years of Arnold Schwarzenegger, who did virtually nothing to repair the state's battered fiscal existence. And for decades we've had surging immigration, especially illegal immigration from Mexico and Latin America, that has formed a steady supply of future Democratic Party voters. And for what? Much of California is run down and governed like a Third World kleptocracy. Recall that I was briefly in a funk after last November's election. I spoke semi-seriously about relocating out of state. And I might be dropping the "semi" over the next few years as I approach retirement. Communists are everywhere. Moral bankruptcy and rampant corruption fill the schools, and unions are fiscally bankrupting that state. That's not to say there aren't lots of conservatives, but as the Times points out, they won't have much of a voice in government if trends continue. I'll have more on this. My sense is that right-wing activists have to keep doing what they're doing, and work on mobilizing newcomers to the state, and young people, to conservative values. And then encourage these people to hold the state's GOP accountable to limited government principles. There's no other way, really, short of pulling up the drawbridge to stem the tide of illegal immigration's revolving door and the permanent radical voting block that's consolidating. It's ridiculous.

RELATED: At New York Times, "Redistricting Offers Republicans Few Gains in 2012."

Oh, Pretty Baby...

I know this is a romantic song, but when it comes on the radio it reminds me of my whole family. Love your loved ones. My wife and children are miracles to me. I can't take my eyes off of them. They're too good to be true ...