DFMoore hosts this week’s Carnival of the Capitalists.

Don’t miss the latest Bear Flag Review at Slings and Arrows. It begins here and continues here.

Here is today’s story from the Dog Trainer on the funeral for murdered LAPD Officer Ricardo Lizarraga. I attended the funeral yesterday, and posted about it in the post just below this one.

The Dog Trainer mentioned Cardinal Mahony’s forceful statements about providing funding for law enforcement:

But it was Cardinal Roger M. Mahony who spoke most forcefully, taking up a cause the mayor and the police chief have clearly sought to keep in public view.

“There is no question we need more police on the streets,” Mahony said. “We can count more murders here than soldiers who have died in an active war in Iraq. Something is terribly wrong.”

Then Mahony homed in on the city’s spending priorities as several members of the City Council listened. “Public safety should be carved out and given special priority” in budget negotiations, Mahony said.

Interestingly, the paper doesn’t quote Mahony’s hypocritical statements (discussed here yesterday) about citizens’ duty to come forward with evidence of crimes.

But this oversight does not appear to be attributable to any desire on the part of the Dog Trainer editors to protect Mahony. After all, the paper published a story today which reports:

A national independent panel investigating sexual abuse by priests in the Roman Catholic Church criticized Los Angeles’ Cardinal Roger M. Mahony on Friday for refusing to turn over documents to a grand jury probe.

I can only conclude that the irony of Mahony’s comment was lost on Jill Leovy, the reporter who wrote the story about the LAPD officer’s funeral.

I attended the funeral of murdered LAPD Officer Ricardo Lizarraga today. It was very moving, and difficult to sit through. I felt I owed it to the men and women on the Los Angeles Police Department to show my respect.

I was a little amazed, however, to hear Cardinal Roger Mahony pontificating about how we need to work to fight crime in the city. He’s right, of course, but I couldn’t help but notice a large flashing sign over his head that said “HYPOCRITE!” when he urged citizens to help the police fight crime, by coming forward as witnesses — and by providing all relevant information that might help court cases against criminals.

Hey, Roger! Wouldn’t such information include the church records on pedophile priests? You know — the records that the District Attorney’s Office has subpoenaed from you, but which you have resisted turning over?

Yeah, that’s what I thought.

I am honored to have received a Blogopoly piece.

The design is perfect:
(more…)

The winners have been announced. Congratulations (again) to “dog pornographer” Xrlq for the winning Council entry, Doggie Weddings in Frisco, and to Fried Man for the winning non-Council entry, Haiti, a slow motion catastrophe.

The guy who allegedly murdered Los Angeles Police Department Officer Ricardo Lizarraga has killed himself, saving the taxpayers of Los Angeles County the cost of accomplishing his death through legal means.

Now we can all conveniently forget about the fact that he should have been been behind bars to begin with.

For those who care to remember Officer Lizarraga, his funeral will be at the cathedral downtown at 10 a.m. tomorrow morning. I plan to be there.

Eugene Volokh discusses yesterday’s Supreme Court decision in Davey v. Locke here. Volokh says that the case “held that states may discriminate against religious programs in distributing generally available benefits.”

In Volokh’s opinion, Justice Scalia’s dissent is more persuasive than the majority opinion. This observation could be applied to many landmark decisions issued by the Court in recent times. I believe that one day, Scalia will take his place next to Oliver Wendell Holmes as one of the great dissenters in Court history.

I haven’t had time to read the decision yet. However, if government has the power to discriminate against religious organizations, I wonder if the “logic” of the decision allows government to discriminate against only certain religious organizations. For example: “Here’s some money for you, and you — but nothing for the Jews.” When I read the decision, I will read it with an eye to answering that question.

Volokh describes the decision as resulting in

a regime where the government may discriminate against private religious institutions and programs, but may not discriminate in their favor. Now this is a wrong that is indeed worth amending the Constitution over.

Amen I certainly agree, brother.

According to the Onion,

Justices of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled 5-2 Monday in favor of full, equal, and mandatory gay marriages for all citizens. The order nullifies all pre-existing heterosexual marriages and lays the groundwork for the 2.4 million compulsory same-sex marriages that will take place in the state by May 15.

. . . .

“Instead of spending months or even years volleying this thing back and forth, we thought we might as well just cut to the eventual outcome of our decision to allow gay marriages,” [Chief Justice Margaret H.] Marshall said. “Clearly, this is where this all was headed anyway.”

And it goes on from there. Read the Whole Thing, and don’t miss the slogans of the protestors. Great stuff.

For once, an article that sounds like it came from the Onion — that really did.

(Via How Appealing.)

What lesson does the Los Angeles Dog Trainer draw from the recent murder of LAPD Officer Ricardo Lizarraga? You can find out in an editorial titled Echo of Domestic Violence, which says:

Police describe suspect Kenrick Johnson, 32 — arrested within hours after a massive manhunt — as an active gang member on parole after a robbery conviction. Lizarraga’s slaying puts a spotlight on the horrifying availability of guns on the street, the shortage of supervision of parolees and the unacceptable restrictions all of this places on everyday life in South L.A. It also highlights a link between domestic and other acts of violence.

What about the need to sentence violent repeat offenders to lengthy prison sentences, so they won’t prey on innocent people? Doesn’t that seem like an obvious lesson — especially in light of the likelihood (discussed here the other day) that the suspected killer received relatively light prison sentences on more than one third-strike case in the past?