This will probably be my most controversal posting ever, so be warned.
As I was browsing through newspaper articles online, I noticed an article asking if the fact that Obama is black will mean that his opponents will need to watch what they say, moreso than if he was white.
I'm sorry, but I am so sick and tired of hearing about blacks, or asians, or latinos, or native americans, or whatever. We are all americans. Let's move beyond color, and quite worrying about being so PC (politically correct) all the time. The only reason there is still racisim in this country is because of a supposed minority claiming special rights. For crying out loud, we have a black history month. What happened to white history month? I'm sorry, but what is so much better about black history than white history? I'm not saying don't teach about contributions brought on by black people, that would be completely stupid and ignorant of me. I'm saying quit separating it, and mingle it all together. When I was in highschool, there was no emphasis on this scientist being white, or that scientist being black, they were simply scientists we learned about, all together.
I honestly think the only racism left is black vs white. Black people will tell you that isn't true, and point out all the various ways in which white people are racist. Yet, you look at the same white people, and they treat everyone that way, white or black. The fact that we still have to focus on watching what we say, and being careful not to offend a black person, tells me that some groups of black people want racisms to continue, so they can continue getting special treatment.
A man gets arrested for beating up another man. The officer is white, the man arrested is black, the man gets off easy because "the officer only arrested me because I'm black." If a man happens to kill another man in self defense, and the man who died happened to be black, it's a hate crime, and the first man goes to jail for life, all because he protected himself against another man. Let's get rid of the race card, and call people as they are. People. It doesn't matter what color you are, we are ALL created equally in God's eyes. In Genesis 5:1, we see that God created man in HIS image. If that's the case, then we are ALL made in the image of God and therfore there is no reason to be looking at anyone's color, only their actions.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Obama's plan, part 2
I just read in the Los Angeles Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-bush29feb29,0,2240873.story), that Barrak Obama has stated that he would be willing to sit down with leaders of countries we are not allies with. In a sense, he wants to sit down with our enemies. I'm sorry, but am I the only one seeing this as just a little bit nutty?
"Oh, hey bin Laden! Hey Sadam! How's it going? Hey, we're sorry for retaliating against your attacks on us and on your own people. You should be able to run your country and kill whoever you like! Oh, and you're right. Kill the infedels! Down with America!"
I mean really people, just what does Barrak intend to do at these so-called sit-downs? I realize that he is not necessarily talking about Osama bin Laden, and Sadam Hussein, but he is talking about leaders just as bad as Hussein, leaders who would just as soon shoot their followers as look at them. This is not the kind of person we want leading our country. Bush is right. It send completely the wrong signal. If we sit down with our enemies at a friendly discussion, we are lending credibility to the horrible things they do within their own countries.
"Oh, hey bin Laden! Hey Sadam! How's it going? Hey, we're sorry for retaliating against your attacks on us and on your own people. You should be able to run your country and kill whoever you like! Oh, and you're right. Kill the infedels! Down with America!"
I mean really people, just what does Barrak intend to do at these so-called sit-downs? I realize that he is not necessarily talking about Osama bin Laden, and Sadam Hussein, but he is talking about leaders just as bad as Hussein, leaders who would just as soon shoot their followers as look at them. This is not the kind of person we want leading our country. Bush is right. It send completely the wrong signal. If we sit down with our enemies at a friendly discussion, we are lending credibility to the horrible things they do within their own countries.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
The Democrats Are Trying to Ruin our Economy
I have a few links for everyone to read
http://www.againsthillary.com/2008/01/31/hillarys-plan-for-economic-ruin/ This link just shows one more way in which democrats (and Hillary in particular) do not really understand the economy, and promise big spending without any way to get the money, except from other countries. In my last blog I pointed out that by borrowing money from other countries, we are losing the value of our dollar, while those we borrow from gain value for their currency. Our economy is going to rapidly bottom out if we let the democrats have their way. Instead of finding ways to cut down on the absolutely rediculous amount of money we are currently spending, we are simply finding ways to get more money, namely by "borrowing" from other countries. Rediculous? Absolutely.
http://www.againsthillary.com/2008/01/31/hillarys-plan-for-economic-ruin/ This link just shows one more way in which democrats (and Hillary in particular) do not really understand the economy, and promise big spending without any way to get the money, except from other countries. In my last blog I pointed out that by borrowing money from other countries, we are losing the value of our dollar, while those we borrow from gain value for their currency. Our economy is going to rapidly bottom out if we let the democrats have their way. Instead of finding ways to cut down on the absolutely rediculous amount of money we are currently spending, we are simply finding ways to get more money, namely by "borrowing" from other countries. Rediculous? Absolutely.
http://www.newsmax.com/john_leboutillier/hillary_socialistic_plan/2007/09/30/36966.html Here again, we see to just what lengths Hillary is willing to go to get the results she wants. She wants to spend (in her figuring) at least $130 billion a year on things that we don't really need. I mean honestly, $5000 dollars to every baby born? Does she have ANY idea of how much that would cost?
How about this: the government needs to take a step back and take their hands out of places they don't belong, such as deciding what our kids need to know. Let's leave that up to the people who actually need to be responsible for it. Not taxpayers in general, but specifically parents. Ultimately, parents should be deciding what our kids should be learning in school, and what should be left up to the parents out of school. This way, we can have kids graduating from highschool knowing exactly what they should know in order to immediately turn around and get a good paying job doing something useful, and I'm not talking fast food, I'm talking nursing, pharmacology, dental hygenists, etc. Fix the way education is presented, and kids won't be needing thousands of dollars to go to college.
And let's be realistic about this whole "government pays for everyone's healthcare" issue. They are already paying out billions of dollars a year to lazy people on welfare who misuse the system - and before you try to tell me how much healthcare costs, and the benefits of welfare for those who need it, I can stop you right now. For those that need welfare, it's great, and it should be there, but only as a last resort. I have seen first hand, though, those who are lazy, do the absolute minimum required to stay on welfare, and completely misuse the healthcare option - going to the ER for a cold or mild flu, going to the doctor's office for every little thing, etc. It DOES get misused, and making it so that EVERYONE is government-covered will simply increase the abuse, and ultimately cost taxpayers deeply.
What would be beneficial, so that healthcare is available to those with a smaller income, (for example: the self imployed or single mothers working extremely hard just to support themselves and their children), is to put a cap on how much insurance companies are allowed to charge. The rates are astronomical. It's semi affordable for one person to insure themselves and their one child, but add another child, and suddenly it is in the realm of impossibility. Sliding scales would also be very helpful. Both of these things would end up saving taxpayers money, instead of spending another measly 110 billion dollars a year so that everyone can be covered. Come on people, this is just simply irresponsible spending and an unrealistic idea. And let's face it, an "idea" is all this will ever be.
I realize at this point that Hillary most likely will NOT be the 2008 presidential candidate, but it really doesn't matter. Hillary and Obama are both democrats, and by definition, will be trying to make money off of the backs of others.
I really have to laugh at both Hillary and Obama complaining about tax cuts for the wealthy, and planning to not only roll back the tax cuts put in place by Bush, but going back and counting up everything they would have had to pay had the cuts not been there, and collecting those too! Talk about a HUGE disaster! Who do you think owns businesses, which employs the middle and lower classes, and is responsible for quite a large amount of tax income? Rich people! It's the whole trickle down effect. If you start making rich people pay an exorbitant amount of money, they will not be able to afford having a business, and paying their employees, and suddenly you have 100's of people out of jobs because of businesses going out of business due to the fact that the owners suddenly are being taxed like crazy! Apparently, though, we're all too stupid to figure that out. One more eronneous assumption from the democratic party.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Obama's plan, part 1
I read in the Sunday paper yesterday that US presence in Iraq is costing an estimated $9 billion a month. Barack Obama plans to decrese the military presence there, and divert those funds elsewhere. Here's the thing. That $9 billion? We're currently getting that money from outside sources, such as China. So if that money gets diverted, it won't be saving us any money, we will still be borrowing it from China as well as other sources, and our economy will still be going down, and China's will still be going up.
This isn't going to make people happy. I'm not really sure how Barack Obama thought he'd get away with doing that. I suppose he thinks we're all too stupid to really realize things as important as where money is coming from. Both Obama and Clinton think they have the answers to make the american peope happy, but neither of them have any idea where they're going to get the money to give us all the add-ons they are promising. If the only answer is that we will continue to borrow 9 million a month from China, then these plans need to be rethought out. The American people need to decide what is really in their best interests, and move away from trying to ruin our economy by allowing our dollars to decrease in value, so that China's economy can completely overrun ours.
This isn't going to make people happy. I'm not really sure how Barack Obama thought he'd get away with doing that. I suppose he thinks we're all too stupid to really realize things as important as where money is coming from. Both Obama and Clinton think they have the answers to make the american peope happy, but neither of them have any idea where they're going to get the money to give us all the add-ons they are promising. If the only answer is that we will continue to borrow 9 million a month from China, then these plans need to be rethought out. The American people need to decide what is really in their best interests, and move away from trying to ruin our economy by allowing our dollars to decrease in value, so that China's economy can completely overrun ours.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Today's musings: The Public School System
So, I have sat by and watched a friend of mine struggle with the hassles created by the public school, and their inefficiency with her son. J. is suspected to have Asperger's Syndrome, and this gives him several added issues "normal" children do not have. As long as the teacher is in good communication with his mother, she was able to stay on top of J.'s behavior in and out of school, as well as the work he was expected to complete on a daily basis.
She did not have that for the last two school years, and as a result, he failed the 3rd and 4th grade. Here is the first problem with the public school system. Even though J. failed his grade, he was still put through to the next grade. Why is this? Is it so important that kids move through school at everyone else's pace, that it matters not whether they actually complete the work and understand it?
This school year was much better. J.'s teacher was in almost constant communication with his mother. Whenever there was a behavior problem in school, the teacher addressed it immediately, getting both sides of the story (something that had not been done in the 2 previous school years), and then e-mailing J.'s mom during a period of downtime in class. S., J.'s mom, would then be there at the classroom at the end of the day, to talk to both J. and the teacher in order to address whatever issue had happened. J. began to realize that his teacher and mom were in total contact, and it affected his behavior. He began to straighten up, and act appropriately. He began getting his homework in on time.
Then, S. moved. Because she was no longer in the same school district, they told her she would need to transfer her kids to the closer school, with 4 months of the school year to go.
She did this. However, the new school tried to let her kids start school without ever having met their teachers, and at this she put her foot down. J. would not begin classes at the new school until they had met his new teacher. It was arranged, and they all 4 (S., J., the teacher and the principle) sat down and discussed J.'s future at the school. S. expressed the need to have good communication with the teacher, so that she could stay on top of J.'s actions and behavior in school, and all were in agreement.
It became apparent, however, that the teacher did not see the need to give J. and S. anything more than she gave any other student. J. was singled out in class, and S. was not notified that anything was wrong until the end of the week when a note was sent home, almost as an afterthought, that something had occurred at some point during the week. At this S. threw her hands up, because how was she supposed to address something that had happened three days ago? J.'s behavior began to deteriorate noticably at home, and at this S. became concerned. Once again, she repeated the need for good communication with the teacher. The teacher informed her that the end of the week notes were the only form of communication she was willing to participate in.
Shortly after, J. came home and announced that he had been singled out in class for having something that did not belong to him. It had been borrowed, but forgotten to be returned. He originally realized he still had the item, and commented to another student that he needed to return it. The teacher, seeing it, became agitated, and took it from J. asking loudly wether or not he wanted to pay the $90 for the stolen item (it was school property from his previous school, loaned by a teacher)? J. told her he planned to return it, but she refused to give it back to him, stating that she would return it herself.
At this, S. decided enough was enough. Communication was almost non-existent, J. was falling behind yet again in the school work, and his behavior at home was drastically worse than it had been in the previous months. Here was yet another problem of the public school system. Rather than thinking about a child's success after 2 years of failure, the school system was only thinking about numbers. Because J. was not in the proper school district, he would have needed an out-of-district transfer. S. was willing to get this, but the school informed her that he would not be accepted because as soon as they moved, another student would be put in that spot, and they would be too full. So instead of adding one extra student so that he would have a chance to succeed for the final 4 months of school, they forced him to fail, yet again. Would one extra student really have caused that big of a difference? I seriously doubt it, especially for such a short amount of time, and isn't our students' education supposed to come first?
S. made the only choice left to her. She took J. out of school. She found an online course funded publically - basically an online public school, but with a completely different curriculum. J. would still be in contact with teachers, and he would still go on outings with other students enrolled in the course, but he would be doing the bulk of his work at home. Since J. has been enrolled, he has completed the required work for the day, and is doing well. Because he is at home all day, S. is able to keep a handle on his behavior in public. She is able to explain to him how his actions affect others. What the school should have been teaching him in addition to his home teaching, she now has to do it all on her own. What a waste of tax dollars the public school system is becoming.
Before I go, there is one more problem of the school system I am seeing that I'd like to share. I am taking an online nutrition course, and we are currently discussing the role of the schools in our children's nutritional intake. This is almost a joke. The schools are given the important taske of educating our students, turning them into fully functioning adults. Well first off, they aren't doing that, since no students going through the regular high school graduates with any kind of marketable skills whatsosever, and they have to spend thousands of dollars to "further their education" just to make anything over minimum wage. Personal experience - graduating from highschool, the only thing I was eligible for was secretarial work, or fast food. Fast food paid minimum wage, secretarial stuff barely more. I then spent $6000 to go to Bryman, which by the way is also a total joke, just to make $10-12 bucks an hour. Nowadays, minimum wage is close to 9 bucks an hour. Is that reasonable? "Here, let's spend several thousand dollars to make a dollar or two more an hour." NOT!!
To further the disbelief, the tuition at Bryman when I attended 4 years ago was $10,000, and I receieved a $4000 pell grant. I was able to find a job okay, but only for 2 days a week at $10/hr. I finally left to work at a temp agency, because even with the inconsistency of work, I was still bringing home more per month. Medical Assisting is a COMPLETE joke, and I do not recommend it to ANYONE!!! The only place you can find a job as an MA is at a small doctor's office, and good luck getting hired, because small businesses usually have all the employees they can handle. AND those that are still hiring MA's are quickly changing over to RN's.
Okay, sorry about my tangent. Back on topic of the school's role in nutrition. Currently, nutrtion courses are being offered, but not until middle school or, in some places, not until highschool. I don't know about every state, but in Washington, I have noticed a definite change in the age puberty begins. First off, we have meat that is given growth hormones, and that is what our kids are eating. In the age of fast food, what kid doesn't have at least one hamburger every week, and many times more? So our kids are maturing more rapidly than they did ten years ago. The aforementioned J. is 11 years old, in 5th grade, and he is already wearing deoderant. My sweat glands didn't mature until I was 13 and in 8th grade (skipped a grade there). So with kids maturing faster, it means their metabolisms are beginning to change earlier as well, and so nutrition and good eating choices should be getting taught at a much earlier age. Not middle school, after they've already begun changing, inside and out. Just as health and sex ed are being taught in 5th grade, so should nutrition.
Here's the funny thing. While the USDA is busy formulating new food pyramids, and emphasis being put on eating healthy, and exercising, the public school is having a fit because they are losing revenue due to the loss of their junk food vending machines! Isn't that a hoot? Revenue is being placed above our kid's health?! When childhood obesity is rapidly becoming an epidemic? It's a complete JOKE, people! Please tell me how this is, in any way shape or form, any kind of right. It is not even logical.
Dont' even get me started on the whole "lack of revenue" balogna people keep trying to shove down our throats. In just the last decade, the schools in San Francisco misused $30 million in bond money, between the years of 1994 and 2001. I'm sorry, but when I hear schools are being given $90 million only to have at least a third of that misused, I absolutely do not feel sorry for the school's supposed lack of funds. They have plenty of money, they just aren't using it properly. When they start using it efficiently, and find they still don't have enough, then I'll start worrying. Until then, I will worry about the quality of education our kids are getting when the schools care more about them, and less about offering extra-curricular activities on the backs of unhealthy, obese children.
She did not have that for the last two school years, and as a result, he failed the 3rd and 4th grade. Here is the first problem with the public school system. Even though J. failed his grade, he was still put through to the next grade. Why is this? Is it so important that kids move through school at everyone else's pace, that it matters not whether they actually complete the work and understand it?
This school year was much better. J.'s teacher was in almost constant communication with his mother. Whenever there was a behavior problem in school, the teacher addressed it immediately, getting both sides of the story (something that had not been done in the 2 previous school years), and then e-mailing J.'s mom during a period of downtime in class. S., J.'s mom, would then be there at the classroom at the end of the day, to talk to both J. and the teacher in order to address whatever issue had happened. J. began to realize that his teacher and mom were in total contact, and it affected his behavior. He began to straighten up, and act appropriately. He began getting his homework in on time.
Then, S. moved. Because she was no longer in the same school district, they told her she would need to transfer her kids to the closer school, with 4 months of the school year to go.
She did this. However, the new school tried to let her kids start school without ever having met their teachers, and at this she put her foot down. J. would not begin classes at the new school until they had met his new teacher. It was arranged, and they all 4 (S., J., the teacher and the principle) sat down and discussed J.'s future at the school. S. expressed the need to have good communication with the teacher, so that she could stay on top of J.'s actions and behavior in school, and all were in agreement.
It became apparent, however, that the teacher did not see the need to give J. and S. anything more than she gave any other student. J. was singled out in class, and S. was not notified that anything was wrong until the end of the week when a note was sent home, almost as an afterthought, that something had occurred at some point during the week. At this S. threw her hands up, because how was she supposed to address something that had happened three days ago? J.'s behavior began to deteriorate noticably at home, and at this S. became concerned. Once again, she repeated the need for good communication with the teacher. The teacher informed her that the end of the week notes were the only form of communication she was willing to participate in.
Shortly after, J. came home and announced that he had been singled out in class for having something that did not belong to him. It had been borrowed, but forgotten to be returned. He originally realized he still had the item, and commented to another student that he needed to return it. The teacher, seeing it, became agitated, and took it from J. asking loudly wether or not he wanted to pay the $90 for the stolen item (it was school property from his previous school, loaned by a teacher)? J. told her he planned to return it, but she refused to give it back to him, stating that she would return it herself.
At this, S. decided enough was enough. Communication was almost non-existent, J. was falling behind yet again in the school work, and his behavior at home was drastically worse than it had been in the previous months. Here was yet another problem of the public school system. Rather than thinking about a child's success after 2 years of failure, the school system was only thinking about numbers. Because J. was not in the proper school district, he would have needed an out-of-district transfer. S. was willing to get this, but the school informed her that he would not be accepted because as soon as they moved, another student would be put in that spot, and they would be too full. So instead of adding one extra student so that he would have a chance to succeed for the final 4 months of school, they forced him to fail, yet again. Would one extra student really have caused that big of a difference? I seriously doubt it, especially for such a short amount of time, and isn't our students' education supposed to come first?
S. made the only choice left to her. She took J. out of school. She found an online course funded publically - basically an online public school, but with a completely different curriculum. J. would still be in contact with teachers, and he would still go on outings with other students enrolled in the course, but he would be doing the bulk of his work at home. Since J. has been enrolled, he has completed the required work for the day, and is doing well. Because he is at home all day, S. is able to keep a handle on his behavior in public. She is able to explain to him how his actions affect others. What the school should have been teaching him in addition to his home teaching, she now has to do it all on her own. What a waste of tax dollars the public school system is becoming.
Before I go, there is one more problem of the school system I am seeing that I'd like to share. I am taking an online nutrition course, and we are currently discussing the role of the schools in our children's nutritional intake. This is almost a joke. The schools are given the important taske of educating our students, turning them into fully functioning adults. Well first off, they aren't doing that, since no students going through the regular high school graduates with any kind of marketable skills whatsosever, and they have to spend thousands of dollars to "further their education" just to make anything over minimum wage. Personal experience - graduating from highschool, the only thing I was eligible for was secretarial work, or fast food. Fast food paid minimum wage, secretarial stuff barely more. I then spent $6000 to go to Bryman, which by the way is also a total joke, just to make $10-12 bucks an hour. Nowadays, minimum wage is close to 9 bucks an hour. Is that reasonable? "Here, let's spend several thousand dollars to make a dollar or two more an hour." NOT!!
To further the disbelief, the tuition at Bryman when I attended 4 years ago was $10,000, and I receieved a $4000 pell grant. I was able to find a job okay, but only for 2 days a week at $10/hr. I finally left to work at a temp agency, because even with the inconsistency of work, I was still bringing home more per month. Medical Assisting is a COMPLETE joke, and I do not recommend it to ANYONE!!! The only place you can find a job as an MA is at a small doctor's office, and good luck getting hired, because small businesses usually have all the employees they can handle. AND those that are still hiring MA's are quickly changing over to RN's.
Okay, sorry about my tangent. Back on topic of the school's role in nutrition. Currently, nutrtion courses are being offered, but not until middle school or, in some places, not until highschool. I don't know about every state, but in Washington, I have noticed a definite change in the age puberty begins. First off, we have meat that is given growth hormones, and that is what our kids are eating. In the age of fast food, what kid doesn't have at least one hamburger every week, and many times more? So our kids are maturing more rapidly than they did ten years ago. The aforementioned J. is 11 years old, in 5th grade, and he is already wearing deoderant. My sweat glands didn't mature until I was 13 and in 8th grade (skipped a grade there). So with kids maturing faster, it means their metabolisms are beginning to change earlier as well, and so nutrition and good eating choices should be getting taught at a much earlier age. Not middle school, after they've already begun changing, inside and out. Just as health and sex ed are being taught in 5th grade, so should nutrition.
Here's the funny thing. While the USDA is busy formulating new food pyramids, and emphasis being put on eating healthy, and exercising, the public school is having a fit because they are losing revenue due to the loss of their junk food vending machines! Isn't that a hoot? Revenue is being placed above our kid's health?! When childhood obesity is rapidly becoming an epidemic? It's a complete JOKE, people! Please tell me how this is, in any way shape or form, any kind of right. It is not even logical.
Dont' even get me started on the whole "lack of revenue" balogna people keep trying to shove down our throats. In just the last decade, the schools in San Francisco misused $30 million in bond money, between the years of 1994 and 2001. I'm sorry, but when I hear schools are being given $90 million only to have at least a third of that misused, I absolutely do not feel sorry for the school's supposed lack of funds. They have plenty of money, they just aren't using it properly. When they start using it efficiently, and find they still don't have enough, then I'll start worrying. Until then, I will worry about the quality of education our kids are getting when the schools care more about them, and less about offering extra-curricular activities on the backs of unhealthy, obese children.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)