Unfair Suspensions?

I read an article in the USA Today this morning that seriously got my attention.

The headline read: Black students nearly 4x as likely to be suspended.

The article (or the author thereof) went on to discuss the inequality that resulted due to students missing out on education, by being absent from school at a disproportionately higher percentage of days than white students.

Really?!?

I can not be the only person who read that and wondered why? Don't get me wrong, I'm not surprised at the number, I just don't know why no one seemed concerned as to the cause of the suspensions.  Could it possibly be that the black students were committing 4x as many school offenses as white students?  That the black students were missing 4x as many days at their own doing?

Maybe instead of insinuating white privilege (as usual), someone should be looking at why 4x the number of black students just can't seem to follow the rules.

Should we ignore violation of school policies just so we can get that ratio down?  Give me a break.

Image Control

I heard portions of a speech made by Secretary of State John Kerry where he felt it necessary to defend President Obama's failure to reassure Americans on the aftermath of two terrorist atrocities, in Belgium and in Pakistan.  He continued to express how America needs to change our image of being a bully.  We apparently need to work on the way in which we're viewed by the other countries of the world.  Consequently, the president continued his diplomatic visit with an historically hostile regime, while Americans were shaken.

I have a simple question:  WHY?

Why do we need to concern ourselves with the way we are viewed by other nations?  What do we care about the way in which they perceive us, real or imagined?

Our government needs to be concerned about keeping us safe, and if they're unable to do that, at least make us feel like we are.

Political correctness has soared to ridiculous heights when we're more concerned about our image than our well-being.

Let's be sure we don't offend those who are out to do us, our way of life, and our allies, harm.

Knee Jerk Gun Control, or Eliminating a Threat?

Even though mass shootings have shifted from being committed by lone, disgruntled, unhinged persons taking out their sense of vengeance on their so-called oppressors, to more idealistic disgruntled, unhinged persons, in groups of two or more, the left wingers continue to blame guns for the offenses.

The solution to people shooting each other is simply to outlaw guns, at least certain guns.  When guns are no longer available, problem solved, no one gets shot.  Simple.

Are they seriously that stupid? (Rhetorical question).

Marijuana, and numerous other drugs, have been illegal for years.  We have even declared a "war on drugs".  Thank goodness we got that stuff off the streets, huh?

Driving impaired has been illegal for years.  Sure am glad no one's getting killed, or killing, doing that anymore.

How about something as simple, and seemingly enforceable, as driving while using an electronic device (texting)?  Nice not having to worry about that any longer.

Yeah, but these things don't kill people!  Really?  I think statistics prove otherwise.

It's obvious that the problem isn't the gun - it's the shooter.  Like anything that's deemed illegal, there are those that will disregard the law to carry out their intent.  Openly or covertly, they will do as they please.

I contend that the solution to these mass shootings is to have more people armed and able to defend themselves.  Most criminals, whatever their crime of choice, do not want to be caught, and usually fear the consequences of doing so.  Someone's not going to light up a joint in front of a policeman, or text while driving with a cop behind him.  I don't think these shootings will occur if there's the slightest chance someone might return fire.  No one did in Paris, nor did anyone in San Bernardino. This goes for the local crazy, or the terroristic crazy.

The argument might be made that if we're all armed, there'll be shootouts all over the place.  It could happen, I guess.  But ask yourself:  would you rather be part of a shootout, or be part of an execution?  Sheep don't fight back, but simply line up for the slaughter.  You never hear of a sheep putting up much of a struggle, do you?

These shootings have increased with our current administration.  I believe it's because of the civil unrest that is being perpetuated by the administration.  Disarming the populace would further that civil unrest, maybe to the point of an uprising.

I'm pretty sure we will all want to be armed should it come to that.  After all, that's why our 2nd Amendment rights exist to begin with: to protect ourselves from the government.

Whoever we're protecting ourselves from, the nut-job or those in power, it will be hard to do if they're the only ones carrying weapons.

I, for one, don't want to be a sheep.

Atheist Church? Gimme a break

I heard on the news today where there is a new movement in America.  Apparently it is a spill-over from something already occurring in Europe - atheist churches.  Or more specifically, atheist mega-churches.

For real?

What a contradiction!

Definition of "atheist": 
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Definition of "church": 
a building designed for public forms of worship, esp Christian church.

Given these two definitions, what you have is a gathering of people who don't believe in anything, gathering in a building reserved for worship.  What's the point?  What are they worshipping?

Sounds to me like they just need a clubhouse.

The "n" Word

Paula Deen has been all over the news lately for her admitted use of the "n" word as a racial slur, and righfully so.  It has cost her work, sponsors, and money.

Let's face it, the "n" word is just as offensive today as it's been for the last 150 years or so.  It was always intended to be an offensive word, and Ms. Deen is paying dearly for her use of it.

But let's also be fair.  If all of the record labels would drop the artists that fling the "n" word around, much more freely and openly than Paula did, we would probably have about 50% fewer recording artists.  The same goes for comedians and actors.  Why isn't the entertainment industry as a whole dropping people like flies for their use of the "n" word?

Because the majority of people that so casually use that word are black.  Is the word any less offensive because a black person uses it?  And what about the slurs used by this same group of people toward caucasions, aren't they also offensive?

I just don't understand why you're allowed to say whatever you want, about whoever you want, but only if you're black.

Make everyone suffer the same career and monetary punishment, regardless of who utters, or shouts, or sings, the offensive word(s).

Classroom Socialism

I "borrowed" from a post I saw on FaceBook and thought it too interesting not to pass on here.  Just when you thought there was no hope for liberal academia.

I have no idea who the source of this item is, so no copyright infringement in intended.

CLASSROOM SOCIALISM


Is this man truly a genius?
An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan". All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an “A”.... (substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by all).

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a “B”. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.

As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride
too so they studied little. The second test average was a “D”! No one was happy.

When the 3rd test rolled around, the new average was an “F”.

As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.

Human nature will always cause socialism's style of government to fail because the world has producers and non-producers (makers and takers).

It could not be any simpler than that.

Another Reason to Dislike NPR

On Monday, October 8, 2012 I heard an interesting (disturbing) interview on NPR news (yes, I was bored, and that was the only radio station I could pick up).

The interviewer was talking to Professor Daniel Harlow, a religion professor at Calvin College, and others.  The gist of the interview concerned the Old Testament account of Adam and Eve, and the fall of man into sin.  Professor Harlow maintained that the story of Adam and Eve was not important to Christianity, and probably not accurate.  One of his statements to back up his position was this:

Again, I want to emphasize, if Adam and Eve and the serpent were so central to biblical teaching, why did Jesus and the apostles not teach about it?

Are you serious?!?  That's your argument?  It amazes me how liberal thinkers go from A to Z, making up their own alphabet in between.

Look at it this way: when you take your car to a mechanic for repairs, is it necessary for him to give you the history of how the car was invented?  Is that background needed for him to fix your car?

Jesus came to Earth to fix a problem (started by Adam and Eve). Did He really need to teach the Jewish people a story that they all knew all too well?  Doesn't it make sense that He and the apostles taught how to fix the problem, not how it all started?

The whole interview was a reminder of why I don't like listening to the 'free thinkers' that NPR seems to attract.