Gotcha, didn't I? No, not that "March madness." I really couldn't care much less about the NCAA basketball tournament, even if Michigan is in the Final Four. I don't plan to watch the game(s), although I might have had MSU still been in it. I did follow some of the high school tournament games, but not many. And, the Amherst women's basketball team (I'll bet they really appreciate being called, "The Mammoths!") repeated as the Division III champions--and I'll bet they actually have to go to class and do the work.
In the debate over guns and gun violence, who knows what to believe? We are told there have been more guns sales over the past two years than before. We are told gun sales have increased, but does that mean we have more or fewer guns than the past? I'd assume more, but how many of the sales were replacements? Yet, the number of families with guns in their households has decreased. So, are individuals stocking up? Plus, didn't Remington file for bankruptcy in the last week or so? A Money magazine article cited "a plunge in demand that has dragged down the [gun] industry." So, then, why the Remington bankruptcy? How can we have a serious dialogue when we have such seemingly contradictory "facts" or, at least, trends?
I see Walter Williams, for whom I have a great deal of respect, wrote a column with his views on the spike in gun violence. His ideas, which include a loss of respect for authority, are likely to attract as much attention has those I wrote a week or two ago. I think he has a point worth discussing. It's not just police and other law enforcement officers. What about teachers, parents, etc.? And that certainly ties in to what I wrote before.
This one always gets me, always. I just finished our taxes last weekend. Once again, we feel as if we had been assaulted. Yet, there are ads on the radio and I'd assume television, too, that tell people who owe a lot of taxes to come to this company or that company and their tax liability will be reduced. Wait a minute! Why do some people, who owe a lot, get to pay fewer taxes just because some company is working on their behalf? Why do I have to pay all of my taxes?
For that matter, why don't other people who owe more than $1000 (after withholding!) get the demands from the IRS to pay quarterly? I know a good number of folks who don't have the slightest idea what I am talking about and, from what they've told me, they owe a lot more in April than we ever did. In fact, we received our annual IRS envelopes today, the ones in which our quarterly payments are expected. Again, why were we singled out and, the first year when we didn't pay despite the envelopes, then fined, with interest, for failure to do so, even though we paid every last cent we owed by April 15?
While I'm at it, why are our taxes going to the Palestinian Liberation Authority (to the tune of $600,000,000 in last week's omnibus bill) and Planned Parenthood ($500,000,000), among others? I know, I know...... "Those are just 'drops in the bucket.'" As the late Senator Everett Dirksen once adroitly said of government spending 50 or more years ago, "A few million here and a few million there and pretty soon you're talking real money."
And aren't there other companies claiming to help people to avoid completely paying off their debts? How does that happen? Don't you and I have to pay our bills? To again cite in the past, Herbert Hoover, in a little different context, asked of debtors who sought not to repay their debts incurred n the First World War, "They hired the money, didn't they?" Make them pay.
I find this humorous, but not ha ha. It seems that many of the same people who are very concerned that the Russians meddle(d) in our election(s), also favor voting by illegal aliens from Nicaragua, Honduras, Mexico, etc. So it's bad that some foreigners might influence American voters, but it's not bad that other foreigners are OK to actually vote. Huh??????
What's so bad about requiring affirmation of US citizenship on census forms? I see lots of problems with not asking for proof of citizenship. For instance, are Congressional and other legislative districts apportioned on the basis of number of citizens or total population, including non-citizens? Likewise, is federal money allocated on the basis of number of citizens or total population, including non-citizens? Why do federal programs follow not just citizens or even legal aliens, but illegal aliens as well?
I just finished reviewing a soon-to-be-published college textbook. Among other things, I was struck by this. Very short shrift was given to the Renaissance, particularly the Italian Renaissance. If I recall, the names Michelangelo, Da Vinci, and Raphael were mentioned once each, with only Raphael's "School of Athens" depicted. Yet more pages and attention were given to art in other cultures, in other parts of the world at different times. More depictions of that art were provided, art which was in essence not much more than stick people. I exaggerate, but only slightly. This is what has grown out of the diversity movement, that "all people and all cultures are deserving of respect and acceptance." Well, this might be so, although I think human sacrifice and slavery, among other things are not going to get my respect. Not all people and not all people and cultures deserve respect and acceptance. I'm not saying we shouldn't study them. But when a preponderance of a textbook is devoted to non-western civilizations (13 of 17 chapters), I think we are skewing history and distorting it and its relevance to how we arrived to today.
Friday, March 30, 2018
Saturday, March 24, 2018
Time Flies!
Can it be late March already? I made my last post about two weeks ago. Where did St. Patrick's Day go? It has all become so fleeting.
"Stabbed in the back." That's what I heard it called. "It" is the Congressional budget bill, the 2173 page monstrosity. I understand one opponent of it in the House piled a copy of the bill on his desk and it was almost a foot high! The President, who should have shown some leadership and vetoed the bill, kept defending it by saying, "record" amounts of money for the military and for this and that...... That's not good! That's not something of which to be proud. What does this bill include--$1.2 or $1.3 trillion dollars of spending. ($1.2 trillion or $1.3 trillion? What's $100 billion among friends? Esp when it's not their money they are spending.) Not counting unfunded liabilities, the federal gov't's debt is approaching $22 trillion!
Doesn't logic tell us that sooner or later this has to end? We--no Congress and the Presidents--can't keep spending money we don't have. I don't see any courage to stop the ravenous appetites to spend, spend, spend. After all, as I've noted many times, Nobelist Milton Friedman once wrote, "It's easy to spend other people's money." (I think he should have received a second Nobel for that single sentence!) If they don't stop, won't things just collapse? Who knows for sure? Will, eventually, the federal government default on its debt? Look at Venezuela and Greece. Closer to home, how about Puerto Rico? They were all "bailed out," but who will "bail out" the United States? My guess is nobody.
I will raise this point again. Can't these politicians be prosecuted for fraud? If not, why not? The definition of "fraud" is "wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain." Can it be any clearer? How many members of Congress, even the President, campaigned on the lies, er, promises of more fiscal responsibility? "Oh, that's different......" Yep, it always is, isn't it?
Seeing and hearing the glee from Pelosi and Schumer (and the newsletters) from my Michigan Senators and Congressman should have been a warning, should have been a clear sign to the President to veto this thing. But he didn't.
I know a lot of folks will disagree with me, but I think Trump is part of "The Swamp." He has and had no intention of "draining it." It was just a sound-bite, one that caught on with many people. And I understand. I, too, want to get rid of the clown show. But Trump is and has been part of the Establishment for years and years.
And we are trusting, at least the executive and administrative parts, our federal spending/budget to a guy who made a lot of money off of six bankruptcies? I know, I know. It was all "legal." But in the US, abortion is also "legal." It doesn't make it right.
So, what are we to do? We have little recourse. The system is rigged. Lying (fraud?) is rewarded. Sometimes I feel like Diogenes, looking for an honest man. Maybe there's nothing to do except enjoy the "bread and circuses" we are provided, enjoy them to the collapse.
When is "15" not "15?" It's when it is "21." A recent school district program was sold to teachers and parents alike with, among other things, a class-size of 15. "15?" Yes, but consider that those students are 4-year olds, with no aides in the classroom. But the number crept upward, now to 21 because "that's the contract." Gee, a school administrator (or administrators) who were deceptive ad deceitful? I can't believe it! BTW, imagine giving standardized tests to these 4-year olds?????? I don't think I need to write any more. And people think I am too harsh on those who run the schools.
I listened to a California teacher who was suspended, er, "placed on administrative leave" for asking if her school/school district, which supported and encouraged the student walkout over the Florida shooting, would also be supportive and encouraging of, say, a walkout over abortions. She didn't, at least according to her, advocate such a walkout. She wasn't planning one for students. She just asked the question, a legitimate one. What "issues" are OK for walkouts and which aren't? In condoning the walkout over the Florida shooting (and I'm not arguing there should or shouldn't have been one, not here), haven't school districts and administrators opened a can of worms? What if some students want to walk out to support, say, transgender rights or the fate of illegal immigrants? Would a school district/administrators allow that? OK, then, what about, as this teacher asked, students who wanted to walk out over abortions? Different issues/circumstances? Maybe, maybe not.
OK, it's early and I'm not going to proofread this. Forgive any typos, etc.
"Stabbed in the back." That's what I heard it called. "It" is the Congressional budget bill, the 2173 page monstrosity. I understand one opponent of it in the House piled a copy of the bill on his desk and it was almost a foot high! The President, who should have shown some leadership and vetoed the bill, kept defending it by saying, "record" amounts of money for the military and for this and that...... That's not good! That's not something of which to be proud. What does this bill include--$1.2 or $1.3 trillion dollars of spending. ($1.2 trillion or $1.3 trillion? What's $100 billion among friends? Esp when it's not their money they are spending.) Not counting unfunded liabilities, the federal gov't's debt is approaching $22 trillion!
Doesn't logic tell us that sooner or later this has to end? We--no Congress and the Presidents--can't keep spending money we don't have. I don't see any courage to stop the ravenous appetites to spend, spend, spend. After all, as I've noted many times, Nobelist Milton Friedman once wrote, "It's easy to spend other people's money." (I think he should have received a second Nobel for that single sentence!) If they don't stop, won't things just collapse? Who knows for sure? Will, eventually, the federal government default on its debt? Look at Venezuela and Greece. Closer to home, how about Puerto Rico? They were all "bailed out," but who will "bail out" the United States? My guess is nobody.
I will raise this point again. Can't these politicians be prosecuted for fraud? If not, why not? The definition of "fraud" is "wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain." Can it be any clearer? How many members of Congress, even the President, campaigned on the lies, er, promises of more fiscal responsibility? "Oh, that's different......" Yep, it always is, isn't it?
Seeing and hearing the glee from Pelosi and Schumer (and the newsletters) from my Michigan Senators and Congressman should have been a warning, should have been a clear sign to the President to veto this thing. But he didn't.
I know a lot of folks will disagree with me, but I think Trump is part of "The Swamp." He has and had no intention of "draining it." It was just a sound-bite, one that caught on with many people. And I understand. I, too, want to get rid of the clown show. But Trump is and has been part of the Establishment for years and years.
And we are trusting, at least the executive and administrative parts, our federal spending/budget to a guy who made a lot of money off of six bankruptcies? I know, I know. It was all "legal." But in the US, abortion is also "legal." It doesn't make it right.
So, what are we to do? We have little recourse. The system is rigged. Lying (fraud?) is rewarded. Sometimes I feel like Diogenes, looking for an honest man. Maybe there's nothing to do except enjoy the "bread and circuses" we are provided, enjoy them to the collapse.
When is "15" not "15?" It's when it is "21." A recent school district program was sold to teachers and parents alike with, among other things, a class-size of 15. "15?" Yes, but consider that those students are 4-year olds, with no aides in the classroom. But the number crept upward, now to 21 because "that's the contract." Gee, a school administrator (or administrators) who were deceptive ad deceitful? I can't believe it! BTW, imagine giving standardized tests to these 4-year olds?????? I don't think I need to write any more. And people think I am too harsh on those who run the schools.
I listened to a California teacher who was suspended, er, "placed on administrative leave" for asking if her school/school district, which supported and encouraged the student walkout over the Florida shooting, would also be supportive and encouraging of, say, a walkout over abortions. She didn't, at least according to her, advocate such a walkout. She wasn't planning one for students. She just asked the question, a legitimate one. What "issues" are OK for walkouts and which aren't? In condoning the walkout over the Florida shooting (and I'm not arguing there should or shouldn't have been one, not here), haven't school districts and administrators opened a can of worms? What if some students want to walk out to support, say, transgender rights or the fate of illegal immigrants? Would a school district/administrators allow that? OK, then, what about, as this teacher asked, students who wanted to walk out over abortions? Different issues/circumstances? Maybe, maybe not.
OK, it's early and I'm not going to proofread this. Forgive any typos, etc.
Thursday, March 8, 2018
"Please....."
There was an interesting discussion on the radio today about parents disciplining, er asking, their kids by using the word "Please." One example from a caller was listening to a mom at a restaurant telling, er asking, her five-year old, "Please don't bite me again." Wait! The kid bit his mother and the mom asked him not to do it again?????? Other callers phoned in with similar stories.
I was reminded of an episode last summer when Karen and I were out. There were some little kids in attendance and, generally, I love the little ones. But I can't stand when they play with other people's, kids or other otherwise, hats. Playing with hats--knocking them off, playing keep-away, etc.--is an invitation to trouble. It has always been one. Besides, it's rude behavior. When my hat became the object of attention, I drew the line, stopped playing, and told the kid to knock it off. With her parent and grandparent sitting right there, saying nothing, not a word, she continued. More forcefully, I ordered her to quit. That not only did no good--eliciting still not a peep from those who should have been disciplining her--but led her to try to take my glasses. I could just see those frames being bent out of shape. So, I grabbed her, stiffly, looked right at the do-nothing parent and grandparent and asked, "Can I smack her?" I meant it, but they just laughed and told her to stand by them, which she did, for about 10 seconds. When she started lurking again, I went and got Karen and said, "I'm going." Of course, the comments were mostly, "What's wrong with Ron?"
I suppose there's something to be said about, perhaps, asking politely, "Please stop that." After once, maybe, that's enough; then it's time to demand (not smile demurely like the kid's behavior is "Oh so cute!") behavior. Imagine, as the radio host did, the Ten Commandments reading, "Please don't steal" or "Please don't kill." Perhaps a "Pretty please" might be more effective.
Related is the current trend, even in schools, of asking kids, "Was that a good choice?" The kid has to be thinking, "Let's see...... I got what I wanted and I haven't been disciplined for doing it other than being asked this question. Of course it was a good choice--and I'm going to make it again."
Why is there such a loathing to discipline? Are parents afraid of their kids? Do they fear risking the dislike of them? What about the old adage, "Your kids aren't going to like you anyway, so just do what's right.?" Is this about egalitarianism, that we (parents and children) are all equals among equals? I suppose I was never an equal as a kid, esp not after my dad's belt came off! "Belt?" How Neanderthal! Maybe that's why I turned out so rotten. Sure, for a few minutes, my dad wasn't my favorite person. It didn't take long before I figured out that I deserved what I got and my dislike soon dissipated; that is, I forgot how "mean" my dad was. I don't at all feel scarred, psychologically or in any ways, by getting the strap every once in a while. Note, I wrote, "every once in a while." It didn't happen often; I may be stupid, but I'm not dumb!
I don't (or at least try not to) tell others how to raise their kids. I'm not so sure I did a bang-up job with that (or am doing one now). More, it's not my business to tell parents what to do; they aren't my kids. But, with others' kids, I can pack up and go home.
An article in today's newspaper stressed the increased importance of reading, namely in the lives of our children. It's so important the article calls the lack of literacy "life-threatening." Two subsequent op-eds are related to this one. One cites the dismal record of Michigan in reaching acceptable reading levels; if not at the very bottom, the state is very close to it. The other, from an education-type, offers "solutions." I didn't read the whole op-ed, but I did note "more assessment" as one step. Right, just what we need--more tests. When are we going to realize we have to get rid of the education-types to see any improvement? Of course, I don't want the corporate-types or the politicians each with their own greedy tentacles reaching for what they want making reforms, either. I do have some ideas and have thrown them out there--and in the schools--but, as usual, they fall upon mostly deaf ears. In the end, though, I'm not sure I have an answer.
BTW, if reading is so important, indeed crucial, can we expect a huge cultural shift--from kids watching television and playing video games to reading books?????? Yep, that's probably just round the corner. Maybe a smart financial move would be to start buying stock in children's book publishers??????
I was reminded of an episode last summer when Karen and I were out. There were some little kids in attendance and, generally, I love the little ones. But I can't stand when they play with other people's, kids or other otherwise, hats. Playing with hats--knocking them off, playing keep-away, etc.--is an invitation to trouble. It has always been one. Besides, it's rude behavior. When my hat became the object of attention, I drew the line, stopped playing, and told the kid to knock it off. With her parent and grandparent sitting right there, saying nothing, not a word, she continued. More forcefully, I ordered her to quit. That not only did no good--eliciting still not a peep from those who should have been disciplining her--but led her to try to take my glasses. I could just see those frames being bent out of shape. So, I grabbed her, stiffly, looked right at the do-nothing parent and grandparent and asked, "Can I smack her?" I meant it, but they just laughed and told her to stand by them, which she did, for about 10 seconds. When she started lurking again, I went and got Karen and said, "I'm going." Of course, the comments were mostly, "What's wrong with Ron?"
I suppose there's something to be said about, perhaps, asking politely, "Please stop that." After once, maybe, that's enough; then it's time to demand (not smile demurely like the kid's behavior is "Oh so cute!") behavior. Imagine, as the radio host did, the Ten Commandments reading, "Please don't steal" or "Please don't kill." Perhaps a "Pretty please" might be more effective.
Related is the current trend, even in schools, of asking kids, "Was that a good choice?" The kid has to be thinking, "Let's see...... I got what I wanted and I haven't been disciplined for doing it other than being asked this question. Of course it was a good choice--and I'm going to make it again."
Why is there such a loathing to discipline? Are parents afraid of their kids? Do they fear risking the dislike of them? What about the old adage, "Your kids aren't going to like you anyway, so just do what's right.?" Is this about egalitarianism, that we (parents and children) are all equals among equals? I suppose I was never an equal as a kid, esp not after my dad's belt came off! "Belt?" How Neanderthal! Maybe that's why I turned out so rotten. Sure, for a few minutes, my dad wasn't my favorite person. It didn't take long before I figured out that I deserved what I got and my dislike soon dissipated; that is, I forgot how "mean" my dad was. I don't at all feel scarred, psychologically or in any ways, by getting the strap every once in a while. Note, I wrote, "every once in a while." It didn't happen often; I may be stupid, but I'm not dumb!
I don't (or at least try not to) tell others how to raise their kids. I'm not so sure I did a bang-up job with that (or am doing one now). More, it's not my business to tell parents what to do; they aren't my kids. But, with others' kids, I can pack up and go home.
An article in today's newspaper stressed the increased importance of reading, namely in the lives of our children. It's so important the article calls the lack of literacy "life-threatening." Two subsequent op-eds are related to this one. One cites the dismal record of Michigan in reaching acceptable reading levels; if not at the very bottom, the state is very close to it. The other, from an education-type, offers "solutions." I didn't read the whole op-ed, but I did note "more assessment" as one step. Right, just what we need--more tests. When are we going to realize we have to get rid of the education-types to see any improvement? Of course, I don't want the corporate-types or the politicians each with their own greedy tentacles reaching for what they want making reforms, either. I do have some ideas and have thrown them out there--and in the schools--but, as usual, they fall upon mostly deaf ears. In the end, though, I'm not sure I have an answer.
BTW, if reading is so important, indeed crucial, can we expect a huge cultural shift--from kids watching television and playing video games to reading books?????? Yep, that's probably just round the corner. Maybe a smart financial move would be to start buying stock in children's book publishers??????
Tuesday, March 6, 2018
Newspaper Thoughts
This AM's newspaper included a front-page story, "Tempers boil over at white nationalist's speech." Richard Spencer, the white nationalist, was speaking at Michigan State. The venue, on a remote part of the campus, was the scene of a protest. I immediately wondered if a similar protest would be evoked by the appearance of, say, Louis Farrakhan. I somehow doubt it and don't even vaguely recall any such protests by the leader of the National of Islam despite his blatant anti-Semitism, his fundamentally anti-white theology, etc. I know, I know...... "But that's different." Of course it is. Some racism is objectionable and some racism is acceptable.
BTW, at the protest, a Michigan State trooper was whacked across the face by "a baseball bat or some other blunt object," according to an MSP statesman. The trooper will be fine, but I guess for some folks, violence is OK in those circumstances. I would assume someone somewhere has a phone video of that. It would be great to turn it over the to MSP so the attacker can be arrested, tried, and prosecuted.
I enjoy listening to Dennis Prager on the radio. I like him better than any other radio talk show host since Bill Bennett retired several years ago. (Yeah, that takes a lot for me to say. Bennett was a Purple Cow!) Prager is thoughtful and articulate, well-rounded and reasoned. Yet, he reminded me today that we still disagree on some things. One of them is character among public figures, namely politicians. Today he said he gained nothing from knowing of Bill Clinton's indiscretions. "I didn't benefit at all from a blue dress." He added that he was glad he knew nothing of JFK's escapades. I disagree. I still think character matters. If one can't be trusted to be faithful, loyal to a spouse, how can I trust that person either. (I understand the dynamics of marriages. Still......) A Biblical scholar, Prager then talked about the Seventh Commandment, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." I think he caught himself because he said, "Of course, adultery is a sin, but this is different." Yep, there it is again, "But that's different."
Before I listen to any arguments that include getting rid of guns in the wake of the Florida school shooting, some questions need to be answered with a high degree of satisfaction. One of them centers around this federal program of the previous administration known as "PROMISE." The idea is to avoid suspending, expelling, or even arresting students who engage in behaviors such as "assault," "battery," and other "disorderly conduct." The original intent was to address the disproportionate rate of suspensions, expulsions, etc. among black youths, but since has been expanded to include all. Instead, despite the number of chances (I don't know if that's in the law, but it is in practice according to critics among some teachers and school administrators.), counseling and mentoring are prescribed for these crimes. They are punished or disciplined by being forced to participate in "healing circles, obstacle courses, and other esteem-building exercises." I'll bet those hurt! "Healing circles??????" In fact, as was the case in Florida with the murderer there, the criminals don't even warrant a police report.
This monster in Florida, had he been arrested or at least have had criminal reports filed in the numerous instances of his "disorderly conduct," likely wouldn't have passed the criminal check to purchase the rifle he did last year. And according to a number of teachers and administrators in districts who have participated in the program, assaults against them by students have increased since students know no charges--no expulsions, no arrests--can be brought against them. I don't know how many school districts have bought in to this program, but Broward County was one of them.
According to several newspaper reports, the Broward County "reward" for signing on to this federal program was some of the millions of dollars of federal grant money. Some of the grant money would go to pay bonuses to administrators who kept suspension/expulsion and criminal rates low. A great way to do that is to ignore offenses that deserve suspensions, expulsions, and criminal reports. How many of these offenses were ignored in Parkland?
I also want a real answer to this question. If people's guns are taken away, how are many of them to protect their families, themselves, their businesses, and their property? Are we to trust the government to protect us, esp our kids at school? From my perch, the government hasn't done such a hot job of that. In fact, it's failed miserably.
I'd like to see some sort of study on the effect of virtual violence in people's, esp kids', lives. From television, movies, rap music, and particularly video games, I'd guess kids encounter deaths thousands and thousands of times. Granted, they are virtual deaths, but there are so many of them. It would seem this would have at least some sort of desensitizing effect on the value of human life. How else do we explain the shooting in Detroit last week over a gas pump? Shoot someone because he is using the gas pump you want?????? I suppose there are doubters, but aren't these video games the same as advertising on television? Advertising works and works well, inducing people to behave in certain ways, such as buying a product or service. Millions and billions of dollars are spent; that's how effective they are. If such a message is so easily and effectively conveyed in the medium of television, why not violence in video games, etc.? I wonder if the military has studies about this, video game training for soldiers to prepare them for combat. Hmmm......
The other day I read an op-ed calling for an end to public sector unions, including teacher unions. It may have been in response to the now eight-day old West Virginia teachers' strike. I fully understand the downsides and abuses of unions--the protection of the worst and laziest members, contributing members' dues to political causes that may be popular among the elitist leadership, but not so among the rank-and-file, etc. (I've seen such abuses in person.) But such a view of unions ignores the history and even current status of American workers, esp teachers. Do cursory research on blue collar workers in US factories of 100 years ago, no, even 80 years ago. If a foreman wanted a job for his brother-in-law, a 20-year employee could find himself unemployed just like that. If the assembly line went down for two hours, workers had to stay and work an extra two hours, gratis--for free. It must be nice for an employee, apparently like the author of this op-ed, to work for an employer who doesn't routinely or at least frequently lie and deceive, making sure the bosses are taken care of while the staff is short-changed yet again. (Again, I've see such abuses in person.) Yep, it would have been nice to work for people like that.
BTW, at the protest, a Michigan State trooper was whacked across the face by "a baseball bat or some other blunt object," according to an MSP statesman. The trooper will be fine, but I guess for some folks, violence is OK in those circumstances. I would assume someone somewhere has a phone video of that. It would be great to turn it over the to MSP so the attacker can be arrested, tried, and prosecuted.
I enjoy listening to Dennis Prager on the radio. I like him better than any other radio talk show host since Bill Bennett retired several years ago. (Yeah, that takes a lot for me to say. Bennett was a Purple Cow!) Prager is thoughtful and articulate, well-rounded and reasoned. Yet, he reminded me today that we still disagree on some things. One of them is character among public figures, namely politicians. Today he said he gained nothing from knowing of Bill Clinton's indiscretions. "I didn't benefit at all from a blue dress." He added that he was glad he knew nothing of JFK's escapades. I disagree. I still think character matters. If one can't be trusted to be faithful, loyal to a spouse, how can I trust that person either. (I understand the dynamics of marriages. Still......) A Biblical scholar, Prager then talked about the Seventh Commandment, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." I think he caught himself because he said, "Of course, adultery is a sin, but this is different." Yep, there it is again, "But that's different."
Before I listen to any arguments that include getting rid of guns in the wake of the Florida school shooting, some questions need to be answered with a high degree of satisfaction. One of them centers around this federal program of the previous administration known as "PROMISE." The idea is to avoid suspending, expelling, or even arresting students who engage in behaviors such as "assault," "battery," and other "disorderly conduct." The original intent was to address the disproportionate rate of suspensions, expulsions, etc. among black youths, but since has been expanded to include all. Instead, despite the number of chances (I don't know if that's in the law, but it is in practice according to critics among some teachers and school administrators.), counseling and mentoring are prescribed for these crimes. They are punished or disciplined by being forced to participate in "healing circles, obstacle courses, and other esteem-building exercises." I'll bet those hurt! "Healing circles??????" In fact, as was the case in Florida with the murderer there, the criminals don't even warrant a police report.
This monster in Florida, had he been arrested or at least have had criminal reports filed in the numerous instances of his "disorderly conduct," likely wouldn't have passed the criminal check to purchase the rifle he did last year. And according to a number of teachers and administrators in districts who have participated in the program, assaults against them by students have increased since students know no charges--no expulsions, no arrests--can be brought against them. I don't know how many school districts have bought in to this program, but Broward County was one of them.
According to several newspaper reports, the Broward County "reward" for signing on to this federal program was some of the millions of dollars of federal grant money. Some of the grant money would go to pay bonuses to administrators who kept suspension/expulsion and criminal rates low. A great way to do that is to ignore offenses that deserve suspensions, expulsions, and criminal reports. How many of these offenses were ignored in Parkland?
I also want a real answer to this question. If people's guns are taken away, how are many of them to protect their families, themselves, their businesses, and their property? Are we to trust the government to protect us, esp our kids at school? From my perch, the government hasn't done such a hot job of that. In fact, it's failed miserably.
I'd like to see some sort of study on the effect of virtual violence in people's, esp kids', lives. From television, movies, rap music, and particularly video games, I'd guess kids encounter deaths thousands and thousands of times. Granted, they are virtual deaths, but there are so many of them. It would seem this would have at least some sort of desensitizing effect on the value of human life. How else do we explain the shooting in Detroit last week over a gas pump? Shoot someone because he is using the gas pump you want?????? I suppose there are doubters, but aren't these video games the same as advertising on television? Advertising works and works well, inducing people to behave in certain ways, such as buying a product or service. Millions and billions of dollars are spent; that's how effective they are. If such a message is so easily and effectively conveyed in the medium of television, why not violence in video games, etc.? I wonder if the military has studies about this, video game training for soldiers to prepare them for combat. Hmmm......
The other day I read an op-ed calling for an end to public sector unions, including teacher unions. It may have been in response to the now eight-day old West Virginia teachers' strike. I fully understand the downsides and abuses of unions--the protection of the worst and laziest members, contributing members' dues to political causes that may be popular among the elitist leadership, but not so among the rank-and-file, etc. (I've seen such abuses in person.) But such a view of unions ignores the history and even current status of American workers, esp teachers. Do cursory research on blue collar workers in US factories of 100 years ago, no, even 80 years ago. If a foreman wanted a job for his brother-in-law, a 20-year employee could find himself unemployed just like that. If the assembly line went down for two hours, workers had to stay and work an extra two hours, gratis--for free. It must be nice for an employee, apparently like the author of this op-ed, to work for an employer who doesn't routinely or at least frequently lie and deceive, making sure the bosses are taken care of while the staff is short-changed yet again. (Again, I've see such abuses in person.) Yep, it would have been nice to work for people like that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
