So, I'm in the car listening to NPR (I know, I know, but I can't look away from car wrecks either), specifically the 1A Live program hosted by Joshua Johnson.
As expected, all the liberals are already foaming at the mouth about President Trump's 1st pick for the Supreme Court Justice. The segment was focusing on his stance on abortion, and the question of whether Roe v Wade might be reversed. One particular phone-in guest really got my attention, and apparently the sympathy of the panel on the program.
The caller was talking about how women shouldn't have their lives ruined by unwanted babies as they're pursuing college educations, careers, etc.
Now, I'm know I'm not the sharpest axe in the tool shed, but how are these idiots missing the fundamental point of this? Know how to not have your life "ruined" by a baby? STOP HAVING SEX THAT MIGHT RESULT IN PREGNANCY. Why, why, why is this so hard to understand? No unprotected sex = no baby. And if that formula is too difficult, then don't have sex at all. Problem solved, no baby, no ruined life, no need for an abortion.
And why is it that none of these highly educated people ever stop to consider how they're "ruining" the life of that precious, innocent child? I'm sure if you asked him/her, they'd agree that their lives have been ruined as well.
Tuesday, July 10, 2018
Tuesday, February 27, 2018
West Virginia Teacher's Strike - 2018
 |
| (Photo taken from public domain) |
The public school teachers in the state of West Virginia are currently striking over low pay, and reduced insurance benefits. This act of protest is occurring in all 55 counties, affecting the entire state. So not only are teachers not working, but our children are not being educated - something that we, the taxpayers, are funding, regardless of whether or not the teachers decide to work. Does anyone like paying for something they're not getting? I don't.
The majority of teachers probably deserve a raise, and insurance is expensive. We all want more money and more benefits. But this situation is different.
When these people chose this career path, I can't imagine they didn't understand the rate of pay. I also can't imagine that they don't understand where that money comes from - me, and every other taxpaying citizen in WV (um, this includes the teachers also).
So it isn't like you can just expect the state to pony up some extra money. That has to come from somewhere. Remember, the state doesn't make money - it can only spend what we pay it.
So in order to increase teacher's pay and benefits, that means that taxes have to go up. Which translates to I/we must pay more taxes. Even the teachers that are fighting for increases will be paying for that out of their own pockets.
Does no one besides me see this as a problem?
Now, let's talk about public employees striking, or strong arming, to get their way.
For those of us in the private sector (translated not paid by taxpayer monies), we want raises and increased benefits too. And I have a couple of options to get it. I can: work harder/longer, find another job, change careers). What I can't do is tell my employer that until he pays me more, I'm just not going to do anything. He will simply send me on my way, wish me luck, and hire the next guy who'd love to have my job and get on with business.
These teachers would do well to remember that striking and holding companies hostage for increased benefits is exactly what killed the coal mining industry in the very state that they live and work in.
Wednesday, January 17, 2018
What's Missing From This Picture?
So, I took a walk through the neighborhood last night - the same neighborhood that I grew up in. It was cold and snowing. School had already been canceled for the following day. I truly love walking on nights just like this one, and make it a point to do so every time I get the chance.
As I was walking, watching it snow, listening to the silence, no cars or people moving, it struck me that something was missing.
When I was a kid - you know, a couple of years ago - my brothers and I, along with just about everyone we knew, would be out in full force. Dragging or carrying whatever we had to sled with: Flexible Flyers, inner tubes, discs, anything that would slide. And no matter what street you were on, or what neighborhood you veered into, it was the same. Kids, especially teens, would all be out playing in the snow.
Now, I know that times are different, and it's difficult to just turn your kids loose on the streets, but seriously? Not a single person was out while I was walking. No one sledding, no one walking, no one shoveling. No one. Not even any footprints in the snow, and very few tire tracks in the street.
I couldn't help but think how sad this was. Such a simple pleasure, to go and enjoy an evening outside in the snow. The quiet and solitude of being out on a night like that is almost magical. Yet as far as I know, I was the only person enjoying it. At least in the one mile loop I traveled.
To me it's a shame that the only person out enjoying, and appreciating, a cold snowy walk at night, was a guy in his 50s, who would have been as happy pulling a sled around the neighborhood as he was 40 years ago. Makes you wonder a little if anyone looking out their window when I went by was thinking "what's that nut doing out there?".
I hope I never lose the desire, or ability, to do just what I did last night; experience the feel, the sound, even the smell, of walking or being outside on a snowy night.
As I was walking, watching it snow, listening to the silence, no cars or people moving, it struck me that something was missing.
When I was a kid - you know, a couple of years ago - my brothers and I, along with just about everyone we knew, would be out in full force. Dragging or carrying whatever we had to sled with: Flexible Flyers, inner tubes, discs, anything that would slide. And no matter what street you were on, or what neighborhood you veered into, it was the same. Kids, especially teens, would all be out playing in the snow.
Now, I know that times are different, and it's difficult to just turn your kids loose on the streets, but seriously? Not a single person was out while I was walking. No one sledding, no one walking, no one shoveling. No one. Not even any footprints in the snow, and very few tire tracks in the street.
I couldn't help but think how sad this was. Such a simple pleasure, to go and enjoy an evening outside in the snow. The quiet and solitude of being out on a night like that is almost magical. Yet as far as I know, I was the only person enjoying it. At least in the one mile loop I traveled.
To me it's a shame that the only person out enjoying, and appreciating, a cold snowy walk at night, was a guy in his 50s, who would have been as happy pulling a sled around the neighborhood as he was 40 years ago. Makes you wonder a little if anyone looking out their window when I went by was thinking "what's that nut doing out there?".
I hope I never lose the desire, or ability, to do just what I did last night; experience the feel, the sound, even the smell, of walking or being outside on a snowy night.
Tuesday, June 7, 2016
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.
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.
Tuesday, March 29, 2016
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.
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.
Friday, December 4, 2015
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.
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.
Monday, November 11, 2013
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
