california boy

Yeah I think it is more the heavy Catholic influence in the country. But I am just guessing. Don't really know. I do know the Moors were only in southern Spain, never got anywhere near the Catalan area. As Webbles mentioned. It is us that lost the meaning to the 12 days of Christmas and just randomly placed those 12 days happening before Christmas because it fits the narrative we are used to. Never really made sense to me why those 12 days were special. Now I understand where it came from and why.

I was living in Barcelona one Christmas season. There was a mall not far from the port where my boat was that had a large grocery store where I did my food shopping. When Christmas came, Santa Claus was there, but not that many people paid any attention to him and there wasn't this mob of people filing the mall with Christmas shoppers. I thought how cool that this country didn't commercialize Christmas like the U.S. does. Then one day, this young man shows up in a renaissance outfit complete with tights and decorative jacket. All the sudden the children are lined up to have a chance to talk to this fellow. I asked someone who that guy was. They told me that he is the messenger for the three wisemen. It is his job to bring the list of presents the children will receive on the day of Epiphany, January 6th. Their big gift giving day is on that day. The mall ended up filling up with shoppers, but after Christmas and stayed busy until the day of Epiphany. Wise me that brought gifts to Christ giving gifts to children does make a whole lot more sense than some fat guy living in the north pole with flying reindeer.

I was at a party last night. My partner and I carpooled with a friend to get there. He brought a couple of bottles of non-alcoholic wine. My partner asked about the wines and just how good they were. Our friend said they are better than most alcoholic wines, but still not really that good. I don't like or drink wine. But I suggested the Welch label as maybe being the best non-alcoholic wine on the market today. No, it didn't work. So maybe if someone could develop good non-alcoholic like drinks it would move the needle more. Don't know if that is even possible since I know very little about alcoholic drinks. But maybe a warning label would help move people in that direction.

Where I saw the biggest shift away from tobacco in California was when smoking was outlawed in all buildings open to the public including bars and a distance of 20 feet from doorways of those buildings.

This point to me seems to loose all credibility when the other half of the WoW is included. Coffee and tea don't seem to be harmful to the body when used in moderation. If I was picking other things that are harmful to the body, I would pick excess sugar and saturated fats way over coffee and tea.

This is a huge problem for me when SMAC replies to my comments. When you take things out of context, including slicing and dicing individual sentences, then it becomes obvious that the person responding is not interested in what you have to say or what you actually said, but rather is more interested in arguing about things you never even really implied let alone stated outright. I get that this is a common practice in the courtroom to discredit what a witness has to say, but on a discussion board, I feel that is inappropriate. We aren't here to be discredited, we are here to share ideas and different points of view.

When comparing homeless populations, to be fair, you have to base it against the population of the state. You can't just report on total numbers. California has a total population of about 39 million people. Oregon has a total population of about 4.2 million. And you can't just eliminate the homeless population of Portland just because it is high. It is still part of the state, just like you can't eliminate the homeless population of Los Angeles just because it is high. Once again, the state of California spent $3.3 BILLION dollars on the homeless population. That came from tax dollars that came from most of the population of California. So yeah, pretty much everyone in California is contributing to try and solve the homeless population. It still increased last year. Like I have said in previous posts, the homeless issue is a very complicated issue and caused by numerous factors many of which can not be solved by just giving more money. I am way more of an advocate of soup kitchens and opening up warming centers than I am just throwing more money at the problem. I also believe that there has been a strong resistance against the government providing more subsidies for housing of people who can't make rent even when having a job. This is what Europe has been doing for decades and I believe it is the single biggest safety net that keeps homelessness from being such a huge problem. There is a cycle where a family or individual is living successfully, but rent goes up or they loose their job which throws them into being homeless. Once they are homeless, it is much more difficult to climb out of that hole. So homeless population grows. Drug addiction and mental issues need to be taken care of by professionals like they were before Ronald Regan threw all the mentally ill out on the streets of California by shutting down the mental hospitals because they were too expensive. All the sudden their care in a proper facility seems like a pretty cheap solution.

Got it. You are totally ok with rich people not paying the same rate as the working class because they can take advantage of the countless loopholes in the tax laws that have been put there by politicians that have received generous contributions to their campaign chest to enact those loopholes. Contributions like Elon Musk donating $277 million to our current incoming president who has promised to once again cut taxes on the wealthy. Since the presidential election Musk's wealth has increased by $64 billion dollars. A lot of the $64 billion dollar increase in his wealth has come from the anticipation of further government subsidies and tax breaks given to his companies by investors of his companies. Not a bad return of investment on the $277 million given in political contributions. If you think there is a level playing field when it comes to income taxes in the United States, you are delusional. The golden rule applies. Those that have the gold, make the rules.

A couple of things. California does not have the highest homeless population in comparison to it's total population. New York, Vermont, Oregon are higher. That still does not mean that California does not have a homeless population. What I am more interested in is how would the amount of money I could afford to give homeless people solve the homeless problem in California? What would I spend the money on that would solve the homeless problem? Last year, California spent 3.3 billion dollars trying to solve the homeless problem. The results? California's homeless population grew 8% last year.

You really don't see any difference between taxing the rich people and taxing the working class? Given my example, you really think rich people should be able to higher the best tax lawyers and accountants to find all the loopholes in the tax laws, many of which they have gotten by donating millions of dollars to the right candidates, to protect their income from paying zero income tax as in the cases that I mentioned above, but the working class who can't afford to hide their income end up paying more? You are ok with Jeff Bezos, who just spent a half of billion dollars on a yacht and paid zero in income tax should be able to not have any of his money taxed because that would be unfairly "confiscating" his money? Can you tell us all how the homelessness in the USA could be resolved rather quickly if wet just had the will?

A couple of things. You might want to read this article to understand what is going on. When you can afford to pay the very best tax lawyers, and accountants that can shift your money around to prevent you from paying taxes, then you understand that it is not a level playing field. There are a huge number of special tax benefits that really only favor the rich. Also, how much money wealthy people make is not at all the same as the regular working stiff. I remember having lunch with a very wealthy client that I was doing some marketing for at a restaurant that was part of a very upscale shopping center he owned. He looked out the window at a vacant hillside across the street from where we were having lunch. He tells me he bought that property earlier in the month for 8 million dollars and last week sold it for 11 million dollars. He made 3 million dollars from literally paper transactions. Yes he was very smart and maybe a little lucky. But. think about how much blood, sweat and tears it would take an average worker to make that kind of money. Should one man be taxed often at a much cheaper rate because of loopholes and exploring the tax system than the guy that shows up every day to work even when he is sick in order to feed his family? Should the working stiff pay a higher percentage of his income because he can't afford a high priced tax attorney just because the ones with the gold make the rules? I also want to add this. The guy didn't add any value to the property to sell it for 3 million more than he bought it for less than a month ago. He only added value to his bank account. In doing so, the developer that bought the property has to add 3 million dollars as an added expense when he finally developes the land, which means higher cost in housing. Ultimately that filters down to the very subject of this thread. How to deal with the homeless.

When we always point to others to solve the problem, then that is when the problem is never really solved. Powerful people are constantly demanding less taxes for event the rich. The mantra is, they earned the money, they should be able to keep it for themselves.

I sailed in the Mediterranean every summer for 14 years from Turkey to Gibraltar and just about every country in between. I can tell you that border security varies significantly from country to country. Some like Italy, don't care at all. When I entered Italy from France the first summer I sailed, I thought I had to make sure I registered with the authorities that I was entering the country. I went to the port authorities at the marina, they didn't care. I went to. immigration, they didn't care. I went to the port police, they didn't care. I finely gave up. Was never boarded by any authorities the multiple times I sailed in Italy. In Greece it was the opposite. They controlled things so tightly, it was laughable. When you enter the country, you have to go through a very long immigration process. They spent over an hour pulling out dusty logs, filling out the same information over and over again, with a special stamp for each book. There must have been over 10 different stamps on a carousel for the process that had to be done with a second officer present, watching the process at all times. Then they give you a log book. Every single port you go to requires going to the harbor master and getting stamped in. When you leave you also have to be stamped out and tell them the next port you will be entering, each time showing vessel registration papers from the US, proof of insurance and the ships log. It was crazy the amount of bureaucracy they demanded. I might add that the last time I was in Greece, was less than 10 years ago. None of this was computerized. So all these logs including the one that I had been keeping the whole summer while sailing is sitting somewhere just stacking up. Most countries are somewhere in-between. But at any time, the port police can and have boarded my boat to spot check my papers. My boat was a U.S registered boat, which like a U.S. passport, generally lets you be waved through with little scrutiny in most cases. Ever country on the Mediterranean deals with illegal immigrants, mostly from Africa, yet the amount of security to enter the country didn't seem to make much difference that I could tell in the amount of immigrants illegally selling knock-off designer stuff, beach blankets, etc on the streets daily trying to make enough money to live.

Exactly. This is not a black and white issue. Using the terms closed border or open borders can mean a lot of things. I think everyone believes there should be a way for people to enter the country legally. How that is done seems to be something that no politician has been able to do. I can guarantee that future administrations, despite campaign rhetoric will not be able to illuminate illegals from entering the country.

Obviously data doesn't mean anything to you. Only hysterical articles and click bate. Guess it works on you. But for me, I actually want facts. If you base your beliefs on sensational newspaper articles rather than facts, then I can't really help you. I am not saying that California doesn't have crime. I am saying that the people in Los Angeles tried a different approach to the mass incarceration by electing Gascon as the DA. It didn't work. They voted him out with a recall. But that doesn't seem to be your position. You want to gin up everyone with sensational stories rather than look at the real data. Is that really how to convince people of your position?

Would you project that states that have the highest number of illegal immigrants also have the highest crime?

Your tirade against California as being some kind of dumpster dive all caused by George Soros isn't supported by actual data. Here are the most violent crime rates in the country. New Mexico Louisiana Colorado Arkansas Washington Tennessee Alaska Oregon California Missouri So specifically, what states is George Soros actually controlling now that have the highest crime rates in the country? New Mexico? Louisiana? Colorado? Arkansas?Washington? Tennesssee? Alaska? Oregon? California? Missouri? Why aren't all of those states liberal states if that is what is causing the crime? How did Alaska get in there at #7? Do you think they have a huge surge of immigrants moving there to cause their crime rate to go up? Do you realize that George Gascon, LA's district attorney got recalled in the last election by voters? Sorry, your argument just doesn't stand up with the real data.

This article seemed a bit off. Unlike Smac, I felt like there must be more to the story because it didn't really make any sense. Would parents really send their underaged daughters into a dressing room with a 51 year old trans woman? Would those parents even let their underaged daughters swim in an event with any grown 51 year old adult? So I did a little digging. Turns out, Melody Wiseheart is transgender. She holds a PhD from University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and a Psychology and a BS degree from Vanderbilt University in Psychology. She is a professor at York University in Canada In fact she heads the Cognitive Flexibility Lab at York University. She is also an avid swimmer. You can see her performance records here. Click on the All Seasons button and you can see that she has swam in literally hundreds of events starting since 2018. So why has this one meet been sweeping right ring media stirring up outrage and viral repeating of this one event like Smac has posted here? Why would someone who is obviously very successful in her field willing to risk her career by insisting on 1) competing with underaged girls claiming that she identifies as an underaged girl. 2) Why would she insist in changing in locker rooms with underaged girls. The answer is simple. It never really happened. At least how the story was told in the right wing media. As it turns out, this meet was a private swimming club and the event referred to was a swimming event where any sex or age could compete in the same event. (hence the video coverage of the event). That event had nothing to do with whether the person was trans and any sex could compete. There is no evidence that she was changing in the locker room with underaged girls. You might want to read this article on how this report went from one paper to the next, each time with more outrageous and salacious language used to invitee pitch fork type outrage for simple minded people who thrive on this stuff. From the article Here is another article that explains what was really going on. I am not some activist campaigning for Trans rights. Honestly, I don't have any skin in that game. But what I do have skin in, is people distorting facts to the point where they become outright lies to slander and hurt others for their own ideological advancement. I can't even imagine how this professor's life has been catastrophically ruined by this kind of nonsense. I know full well what it is like when the agenda driven media wants to gin up outrage among its avid followers against a minority population, those that don't question the accuracy of their lies and are quick to repost and pass on the outrage against the causes that bring them the click bait they want. This is really a tragic story of a ruined life for the sake of stirring up outrage agains trans people.

Compelled speech? When was the last time you were thrown in jail for not attending gay pride, or saluting the gay flag, or insisting in not calling a person by the name they wish to be called, or or or anything. Your stance is ridiculous. When was the last time you introduced your wife to someone.or told someone about your children, or put a photo of your family on your desk, or talked about how happily married you were???? Quit shoving your sexual identity down our throats. You too have chosen to make your sexual behaviors a matter of public concern and discussion. Should I start opening up endless threads about the decisions you have made to have sexual relationships with your wife? Will you quit making your identity solely about who you have sex with?

If President Nelson asked that everyone address him as "our beloved Prophet," "the Lord's Presiding High Priest," etc, then I would respect his wishes. It is how I show respect for others. Ironically, he has never asked to be addressed that way. That is all coming from you, not him. Kinda like those who are not trans want to control how they want trans people referred to. If the Church changed its name to the Church as "the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which [] the Lord [is] well pleased", then I would call the Church by the name that they wished. I actually find this a bit hilarious. You came up with an even longer name than the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Didn't think that was possible. It would probably be shortened to "The Only Church" by both members and the public. You can choose how you want to refer to anyone the way you want. It is a choice we all make for ourselves. It is kinda like calling a black person the N word. When someone does that, I don't think of any shame that brings to the black community. I only think of the shame that person has brought upon himself.

I spent the first half of my life trying to please people like you. I hated being gay. I so wanted to just be "normal" like everyone else. I did all that I could to keep anyone from finding out that I was gay. I even got married with the promise that if I did, I would somehow magically become straight. It was hell going through life trying to pretend to be someone I wasn't. I was living a lie every day of my life. I realized that this was no way to live. Being deceitful to everyone and especially those closest to me was no way to live. At some point I no longer cared what people like you thought of me. When I came out my whole world exploded. And I didn't care. It felt like this burden that I had so struggled with, that I had prayed and pleaded to God to lift from me, that I had fasted to overcome, that I had deceived people for all those years had to end. This horrific way of life that I had carried so long all by myself all the sudden just vanished. My prayers had been answered, it was just not the answer I expected. And the consequences of that were worth all the sadness and disappointment from people like you no longer mattered. Coming out was a pivotal point of my life. I started to breath again. I started to find friends that loved me, the real me. Not this fake person I had been hiding behind all those years. Those friends embraced me and welcomed me into their lives the way I was. They took me to my first pride parade, something I had always been afraid to attend before for fear that people like you would find out my darkest secret I had held for so long. And it was a life changing event. I no longer was alone. Thousands of people had lived similar lies all their lives. There was no longer any shame in being gay. Everything was going to be alright. And it has been. It was like I was reborn. I could live my life guided by me and God rather than people like you who were still telling me I should be ashamed and liked life better when every gay person was kept in the shadows. It was a pivotal moment in my life where I no longer cared one bit, not one ounce, of what people like you thought of who I am. So sorry to tell you, your attitudes towards the LGBT community really don't matter to me any longer. I don't care any longer. You can plead all you want for those that are LGBT to somehow disappear, but we are not going anywhere. We are going to live our lives finding people who love us honestly. We are going to find people to marry despite all the efforts your Church made trying to stop us from having those equal rights and marry the people we love. And we are going to have sex with them just like you do with your spouse. It is not evil. I don't feel God's judgement against me. And the judgement like you and others like you really doesn't matter. God's judgement is really the only judgement that does matter. Treat us however you want. Rant about how you feel about gay people celebrating their lives all you want. Refuse to honor the titles they wish to be addressed as. I don't care. Neither do they. Just like you probably don't really care if someone calls you a Mormon. We all have choices of how we respect and address others. Our lives are made up of the choices we make. It says more about you than it ever does about them.

Do you see that attitude as Christ-like behavior? Is this how we should treat others that are different than ourselves?

Sexual behavior is a personal decision as you said. So why are you trying to insert yourself into that decision? You actually don't have any responsibility to insert your opinion into that decision any more than you have to insert yourself into other peoples sins they may have. If you base your relationships on whether another person has what you consider are sins, then exactly how many people could you have in your life? None? You act as if the Law of Chastity hasn't changed multiple times in the history of the Church. There was a time where most people in the world considered Mormons as that sect that allows men to sleep with other women that they weren't even legally married to. So most of the leaders of the Church should be treated as shacking up with multiple women they weren't legally married to. And yes, sleeping with underaged girls were also not a problem. Then the Church changed the Law of Chastity to mean only having sexual relationships with someone you were legally married to, a complete departure from previous teachings. Now the Law of Chastity evidently is only sexual relationships with someone you are legally married to that the Church approves of. Without any revelation, Church leaders have decided that same sex marriages don't count as a marriage in the view of the Church without any input from God. Why are you so sure that God condemns legally married gay couples? If it is just an opinion, then it seems really weak to be condemning someone simply because you have a different point of view. And then there is this thought. Just something to think about. I don't expect for you to change your point of view, but maybe you can see that you are condemning others simply because they have a different perspective about what you think God wants them to do.

There is plenty in both of these post for people to understand exactly what the issues are that causes someone to transition. But you have to want to understand what is going on. I personally can not even begin to understand the pain and suffering one inflicts on themselves to go through a transition. The family and social rejection would be overwhelming to me. It took me decades to have the courage to finally quit this charade I was living so that no one would find out I was gay. But honestly, being gay is a cake walk compared to the courage it would take for someone to come out as transexual. I may not understand what they are going through to put themselves through that kind of social and family toucher, but I do think I can understand the incredible amount of courage it would take. The very least I can do is to acknowledge that courage and have a Christ like attitude towards them to help ease their burden and show them love and kindness. I never expected to say this when I was growing up. But I will now. Thank God I am only gay. I don't think I could handle being transgender. Being gay was a big enough challenge and had plenty of family and social rejection that came with it. Not all that pain has disappeared. Yesterday was the second anniversary of my father passing. My siblings were sending texts about how much they miss him and what a loss he is in their lives. I couldn't write any of that. He left me while I was still living. That scar is very deep. But seriously, when I see a transgender person, I realize I got off very easy.

I have never found you willing to actually read what I say as I wrote it. You seem to love to slice and dice what I write to the point of taking things totally out of context rather than responding to anything I was actually saying. I have told you over and over again not to take my comments out of context. Yet here we are, unable to keep what I write in context and actually comment on what I wrote as a whole, rather than pulling one sentence out and then Googling countless articles that have little to do with my point. Your response to what I actually wrote about bishops is a perfect example of how you slice and dice things then give an answer completely unrelated to what I wrote. I NEVER said that you haven't written or commented on bishops that have been criminal, so your answer had nothing to do with what I actually wrote. This was actually my comment. The problem I have with your stance is judging all transgenders as a group in deciding which bathroom they should use or where they should be placed in a prison by pulling out the few that have actually committed a crime., and then because of those criminals, making judgements against all transgenders. Just like all bishops who should not be assumed of being guilty of preying on minors because of a few criminals, neither should all transgenders be assumed guilty because of a few criminals. One should not assume any guilt just because a person is trans. I have never suggested that any man who just says they identify as women should be allowed in womens bathrooms. I also have never suggested allowing any criminals to use women's bathrooms. And yes, I have address ways to determine if someone is actually transitioning or just using gender identification to commit crimes several times in this thread. You just ignored what I wrote and responded to things I didn't actually say. What I proposed is allowing transgender women use the bathroom that their gender matches IF and WHEN they are prescribed and taking the drugs that block testosterone production and increases estrogen. There are real physical changes that occur when those drugs are prescribed and being used. I have listed those changes in previous posts. Taking things out of context and ignoring the substance of what I actually wrote makes me think you really don't want to hear my thoughts on your questions. Tell me, what is the point of responding to your posts when you really don't try to actually understand and respond to what I do write? (see bishop comment above for example)