Results:
- I think it is mostly true and its facts should be investigated.
- 0 votes (0%)
- 1 vote (11.1%)
- 1 vote (11.1%)
- 0 votes (0%)
- 7 votes (77.8%)
- 0 votes (0%)
- 0 votes (0%)
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
May "Just Your Opinion" results
Question: What do you think of "The DaVinci Code?"
Results:
Results:
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
Yup, not in your name.
Another of America's bastions of open dialog for multiple viewpoints showed it's true colors yesterday. Some from this place of higher education, where professors hope to expose their students to various paradigms, attempted to disgrace their commencement speaker. In reality all they did was show their own hypocrisy.
Boston College, a catholic university, had the good fortune of having Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, present their commencement speech. The college even bestowed upon her an honorary doctorate.
The issue at hand is that there were 200 students and faculty that attempted to silence the Secretary of State. They petitioned the college encouraging it to not allow her to speak! These people who are all for "alternative viewpoints" tried to stop someone from sharing hers because it differed from there own. Can't get much more "tolerant" than that!
Once they learned that their hypocrisy was not going to be supported by institution, they decided to protest at the commencement exercises. They wore signs on their arms, backs, and mortar boards that said, "Not in my name." Signifying that they didn't agree with the presentation of an honorary degree. Of course, this is no more than a statement of the obvious. What good is an honorary degree from the students of Boston College? That would look good on a resume. "Why yes, the undergrads of Boston College gave me a Doctorate." What arrogance to think it is in their name! I'll be sure to list that right next to the "Nicest Smile" award I received from my high school senior class.
One of the reasons the protesters gave for not allowing her to speak was that the felt "Doing so contradicts the universityÂ’s Catholic, Jesuit, and humanistic identity." (From the letter sent to the administration, see comments for the whole letter.) Margery Eagan, a columnist from the Boston Globe asked a very interesting question: "Where were those students and faculty when, literally across the street, Bernard Cardinal Law was covering up the biggest child sex scandal in America?" Anyone? Anyone? Beuller?
The irony of this is that while these 200 people booed and turned their backs on the Secretary as she received her degree, they ended up facing the 30,000 people who were standing and cheering this modern day hero. (That's 0.6% of the attendees, in case you were wondering.) (I found this interesting: One of the protesters was Former Boston College professor Mary Daly, a feminist theologian who clashed with the college over her refusal to admit men to her classes. There's a "tolerant" person!)
Let's put this in perspective. I find the best way to do this is to alter a few details. Let's say this were a conservative university. (Do those really exist?) And they were protesting a democratic African American female secretary of state. What would the reaction be? Outrage. The labels used would include "Racists," "Bigots," Chauvinists," "Radicals," and "Fanatics." Why are these protesters not seen in the same light? Is it because it's fashionable to be a left wing nutcase, but not a right winger?
Ms. Rice had a few words of advice for the protesters (And, one hopes, for her administration): "The next time you absolutely sure that you are correct, find someone who disagrees with you."
I think that it is very appropriate to honor this African American woman who has worked very hard to get where she is, who is an independent thinker (as proven by the fact that she is has not been bullied into being part of the left by the people like "Rev." Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton), and who is one of the few upstanding people in politics. Good for you BC for not caving and for honoring this woman who truly deserves it.
All in all, though, it's just my opinion.
Boston College, a catholic university, had the good fortune of having Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, present their commencement speech. The college even bestowed upon her an honorary doctorate.
The issue at hand is that there were 200 students and faculty that attempted to silence the Secretary of State. They petitioned the college encouraging it to not allow her to speak! These people who are all for "alternative viewpoints" tried to stop someone from sharing hers because it differed from there own. Can't get much more "tolerant" than that!
Once they learned that their hypocrisy was not going to be supported by institution, they decided to protest at the commencement exercises. They wore signs on their arms, backs, and mortar boards that said, "Not in my name." Signifying that they didn't agree with the presentation of an honorary degree. Of course, this is no more than a statement of the obvious. What good is an honorary degree from the students of Boston College? That would look good on a resume. "Why yes, the undergrads of Boston College gave me a Doctorate." What arrogance to think it is in their name! I'll be sure to list that right next to the "Nicest Smile" award I received from my high school senior class.
One of the reasons the protesters gave for not allowing her to speak was that the felt "Doing so contradicts the universityÂ’s Catholic, Jesuit, and humanistic identity." (From the letter sent to the administration, see comments for the whole letter.) Margery Eagan, a columnist from the Boston Globe asked a very interesting question: "Where were those students and faculty when, literally across the street, Bernard Cardinal Law was covering up the biggest child sex scandal in America?" Anyone? Anyone? Beuller?
The irony of this is that while these 200 people booed and turned their backs on the Secretary as she received her degree, they ended up facing the 30,000 people who were standing and cheering this modern day hero. (That's 0.6% of the attendees, in case you were wondering.) (I found this interesting: One of the protesters was Former Boston College professor Mary Daly, a feminist theologian who clashed with the college over her refusal to admit men to her classes. There's a "tolerant" person!)
Let's put this in perspective. I find the best way to do this is to alter a few details. Let's say this were a conservative university. (Do those really exist?) And they were protesting a democratic African American female secretary of state. What would the reaction be? Outrage. The labels used would include "Racists," "Bigots," Chauvinists," "Radicals," and "Fanatics." Why are these protesters not seen in the same light? Is it because it's fashionable to be a left wing nutcase, but not a right winger?
Ms. Rice had a few words of advice for the protesters (And, one hopes, for her administration): "The next time you absolutely sure that you are correct, find someone who disagrees with you."
I think that it is very appropriate to honor this African American woman who has worked very hard to get where she is, who is an independent thinker (as proven by the fact that she is has not been bullied into being part of the left by the people like "Rev." Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton), and who is one of the few upstanding people in politics. Good for you BC for not caving and for honoring this woman who truly deserves it.
All in all, though, it's just my opinion.
Monday, May 22, 2006
Anything for a story
So, FOX25 is bugging me again. They have an exclusive story about registered sex offenders. What are these perverts doing now? Delivering your mail!
Look, I understand the desire to protect citizens, but isn't this going a little far? Bear in mind that a registered sex offender is not only someone who victimizes children. Also, if these people are registering, they are obeying the terms of their parole. How much of a debt to society do these people owe? They already do jail time, and then have to register where they are living for the rest of their life. Now we aren't going to let them deliver mail? Yes, no day care, no physical education teachers, no clowns who make balloon animals for kids' parties. No police officers or others who carry weapons. But what else are we going to prevent these people from doing?
Delivering Mail: They know where you live! (Does anyone's mailman show up when their kids are home?)
Public Bus Driver: There may be potential victims who ride that bus.
Reporter: Sometimes, new reporters interview people one on one.
Supermarket Bagger: Occasionally, they carry the bags to your car!
Remodeler: They actually enter your home.
Cable Guy: see above.
What will we allow them to do?
IRS: Nobody likes them anyway.
411 Operator: Never actually interact with customers.
Radio Shack Guy: See above.
President of the United States: Oh, wait, that one was consensual.
Professional Athlete: Or do you have to be an Athlete first...
I digress. My real purpose for this post is that I am so sick of FOX25 selling fear to get people to watch their newscast! "Is there a common household item that could kill your children? Tune at 10 to find out." "The unknown danger in your back yard: tonight at 10." "Who is the scary woman living in your attic? We'll tell you, at 10 o'clock."
Just once I want them to sell the fear factor and then deny it. Example: "Is there a hidden threat in your child's school? Find out, tonight at 10." Then, when they get to that segment: "Now, an issue we've been advertising for the past three weeks: Is there a hidden threat in your child's school? No. Now let's go to Buck with sports."
I swear the FOX25 people sit around brainstorming their worst fears, then try to find a way to report and exploit them. "What if there was a sex offender coming to your home every day?" "Ohh, that's good. What could we look for? Jim, you take paper boys. Sally: garbage men. Milton: Mailmen. I want your findings by 3!"
Again, my aim is not to "defend" the registered sex offenders. FOX needs to knock it off, or I'm afraid I'm going to have to stop watching! They don't really care, though, because it's just my opinion.
Look, I understand the desire to protect citizens, but isn't this going a little far? Bear in mind that a registered sex offender is not only someone who victimizes children. Also, if these people are registering, they are obeying the terms of their parole. How much of a debt to society do these people owe? They already do jail time, and then have to register where they are living for the rest of their life. Now we aren't going to let them deliver mail? Yes, no day care, no physical education teachers, no clowns who make balloon animals for kids' parties. No police officers or others who carry weapons. But what else are we going to prevent these people from doing?
Delivering Mail: They know where you live! (Does anyone's mailman show up when their kids are home?)
Public Bus Driver: There may be potential victims who ride that bus.
Reporter: Sometimes, new reporters interview people one on one.
Supermarket Bagger: Occasionally, they carry the bags to your car!
Remodeler: They actually enter your home.
Cable Guy: see above.
What will we allow them to do?
IRS: Nobody likes them anyway.
411 Operator: Never actually interact with customers.
Radio Shack Guy: See above.
President of the United States: Oh, wait, that one was consensual.
Professional Athlete: Or do you have to be an Athlete first...
I digress. My real purpose for this post is that I am so sick of FOX25 selling fear to get people to watch their newscast! "Is there a common household item that could kill your children? Tune at 10 to find out." "The unknown danger in your back yard: tonight at 10." "Who is the scary woman living in your attic? We'll tell you, at 10 o'clock."
Just once I want them to sell the fear factor and then deny it. Example: "Is there a hidden threat in your child's school? Find out, tonight at 10." Then, when they get to that segment: "Now, an issue we've been advertising for the past three weeks: Is there a hidden threat in your child's school? No. Now let's go to Buck with sports."
I swear the FOX25 people sit around brainstorming their worst fears, then try to find a way to report and exploit them. "What if there was a sex offender coming to your home every day?" "Ohh, that's good. What could we look for? Jim, you take paper boys. Sally: garbage men. Milton: Mailmen. I want your findings by 3!"
Again, my aim is not to "defend" the registered sex offenders. FOX needs to knock it off, or I'm afraid I'm going to have to stop watching! They don't really care, though, because it's just my opinion.
Friday, May 19, 2006
I can't believe they said that!
Peter Gammons is a Hall of Fame reporter for ESPN. Recently, on WEEI, he said the following, "I'm ok with Russ Springer getting a 25 day suspension, because what he did was an embarrassment to baseball."
Pardon?
A pitcher throwing at an admitted cheater is enough of an embarrassment to warrant a 25 day suspension. But the same admitted cheater chasing one of the most coveted records in baseball history is not? It's not an embarrassment that the Player's Union protects disgraceful players like Bonds?
Hay, Gammons: get your lips off of Barry's bum! If there is an embarrassment to baseball it is the fact that the commissioner is too much of a coward to kick Bonds out of the game for good.
Some of you may not know that ESPN is currently airing a show called "Bonds on Bonds." It's Barry Bonds' way of attempting to garner some sympathy from the foolish people who watch this show. Basically, it's a Bonds love fest! Gammons is clearly unable to separate himself from the opinion of his employer. What kind of reporting is this?
Hey Gammons: stop taking marching orders from the Bonds worshippers at ESPN and talk about the real travesty in baseball: That Bonds isn't being thrown at every time he steps to the plate.
Paul McCartney (is he the real Paul McCartney?) and his wife of three years are getting divorced. What a surprise! And have you heard the reason for their break up?
According to Paul, it's the media! That's right. They blamed it on the media.
Look, I don't like the paparazzi just as much as the next guy, and I still blame them for Di's death (I'm not ready to throw that on the British Government just yet.). But give me a break! "We were unable to work out our differences because we're incredibly famous. Don't get me wrong, one of the reasons that we are so wealthy is because we are so famous. And if people didn't want to see our mugs everywhere we probably couldn't live in this multimillion dollar house and drive a different car per day, and I might actually have to get a job, but this is all why we are splitting up."
Just call it irreconcilable differences. (Here's the kicker: She's been with him for three year and she'll probably get half of what he earned as a Beatle! I think she should get half of what he's earned during these three years but that probably won't happen.)
I'm completely disgusted with both of them, but we all know, that it's just my opinion.
Pardon?
A pitcher throwing at an admitted cheater is enough of an embarrassment to warrant a 25 day suspension. But the same admitted cheater chasing one of the most coveted records in baseball history is not? It's not an embarrassment that the Player's Union protects disgraceful players like Bonds?
Hay, Gammons: get your lips off of Barry's bum! If there is an embarrassment to baseball it is the fact that the commissioner is too much of a coward to kick Bonds out of the game for good.
Some of you may not know that ESPN is currently airing a show called "Bonds on Bonds." It's Barry Bonds' way of attempting to garner some sympathy from the foolish people who watch this show. Basically, it's a Bonds love fest! Gammons is clearly unable to separate himself from the opinion of his employer. What kind of reporting is this?
Hey Gammons: stop taking marching orders from the Bonds worshippers at ESPN and talk about the real travesty in baseball: That Bonds isn't being thrown at every time he steps to the plate.
Paul McCartney (is he the real Paul McCartney?) and his wife of three years are getting divorced. What a surprise! And have you heard the reason for their break up?
According to Paul, it's the media! That's right. They blamed it on the media.
Look, I don't like the paparazzi just as much as the next guy, and I still blame them for Di's death (I'm not ready to throw that on the British Government just yet.). But give me a break! "We were unable to work out our differences because we're incredibly famous. Don't get me wrong, one of the reasons that we are so wealthy is because we are so famous. And if people didn't want to see our mugs everywhere we probably couldn't live in this multimillion dollar house and drive a different car per day, and I might actually have to get a job, but this is all why we are splitting up."
Just call it irreconcilable differences. (Here's the kicker: She's been with him for three year and she'll probably get half of what he earned as a Beatle! I think she should get half of what he's earned during these three years but that probably won't happen.)
I'm completely disgusted with both of them, but we all know, that it's just my opinion.
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
Beaning Barry
Finally! Finally a pitcher had the stones to do what needs to be done. Barry Bonds has been plunked. It was wonderful! ~And this was no accident!
You see, Russ Springer is my new hero. The Houston pitcher threw five pitches at Barry Bonds. The first was behind him, then at his knee, then at his shoulder (which hit his bat as Bonds attempted to get out of the way), then high and inside again, then he finally hit him high on the shoulder. Yeah! That's some stones. I love it! The pitcher was tossed without a warning, I can't imagine why!
(Wanna see it? You can get the video of the best play in baseball yesterday from this article!)
Barry Bonds (as you can see by the side bar) needs only 2 more *enhanced home runs to pass Babe Ruth in regards to career home runs. This is something that should not be allowed. For quite some time I've been a proponent of walking Bonds every time he's at bat. But why waste four pitches on this cheater? Just nail him: Same result, fewer pitches. Russ Springer has seen the wisdom of this idea. Granted it took him five pitches, but he eventually clocked the admitted cheater. The best part about it: the plunking drew a thunderous ovation from the 35,286 fans in attendance.
A side note: This "Future Hall of Famer" has been batting .143 since his last home run, with 3 hits. One of which was an extra base hit. He has managed 3 RBI in that time frame. He's "resting" and won't be playing in today's game. Probably won't be playing till he returns to the blinded San Francisco stadium.
Hey Barry, how do you like your just desserts?
Keep it up opposing pitchers. And a message for you umps: pretend you didn't see it. If the Commissioner is to weak to oust this guy from baseball, the players and umpires need to do it for him! Anyway, it's just my opinion.
You see, Russ Springer is my new hero. The Houston pitcher threw five pitches at Barry Bonds. The first was behind him, then at his knee, then at his shoulder (which hit his bat as Bonds attempted to get out of the way), then high and inside again, then he finally hit him high on the shoulder. Yeah! That's some stones. I love it! The pitcher was tossed without a warning, I can't imagine why!
(Wanna see it? You can get the video of the best play in baseball yesterday from this article!)
Barry Bonds (as you can see by the side bar) needs only 2 more *enhanced home runs to pass Babe Ruth in regards to career home runs. This is something that should not be allowed. For quite some time I've been a proponent of walking Bonds every time he's at bat. But why waste four pitches on this cheater? Just nail him: Same result, fewer pitches. Russ Springer has seen the wisdom of this idea. Granted it took him five pitches, but he eventually clocked the admitted cheater. The best part about it: the plunking drew a thunderous ovation from the 35,286 fans in attendance.
A side note: This "Future Hall of Famer" has been batting .143 since his last home run, with 3 hits. One of which was an extra base hit. He has managed 3 RBI in that time frame. He's "resting" and won't be playing in today's game. Probably won't be playing till he returns to the blinded San Francisco stadium.
Hey Barry, how do you like your just desserts?
Keep it up opposing pitchers. And a message for you umps: pretend you didn't see it. If the Commissioner is to weak to oust this guy from baseball, the players and umpires need to do it for him! Anyway, it's just my opinion.
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
The United States: "Built on immigration"
As requested, and expected, I have an opinion on the President's speech last night. Below are some of the thoughts I had (and many I said) while listening to our Commander in Chief:
"We are also a nation of immigrants, and we must uphold that tradition, which has strengthened our country in so many ways." The President is correct in this. We are a nation of immigrants. My issue with this is that the term "immigrant" suggests that the people are here legally, that they jumped through all of the necessary hoops and respected this nation enough to obey our laws. Illegals are not immigrants, they are trespassers.
"At the same time, we are launching the most technologically advanced border security initiative in American history." Yeah, it's called a fence.
"Mexico is our neighbor and our friend." Just not one we want to have over for dinner, hence the fence.
"Master Gunnery Sergeant Denogean came to the United States from Mexico when he was a boy. He spent his summers picking crops with his family, and then he volunteered for the United States Marine Corps as soon as he was able. During the liberation of Iraq, Master Gunnery Sergeant Denogean was seriously injured. When asked if he had any requests, he made two a promotion for the corporal who helped rescue him and the chance to become an American citizen." Um, how good were his papers that this non-citizen was able to volunteer for the Marines? If this isn't an advertisement to terrorists on how to infiltrate our defenses, I don't know what is! "Ok, here's the plan. We sneak in from Mexico, become Marines, then they give us weapons, and we can do what we like. Let's see if we can get a tank or two for good measure!"
"That middle ground recognizes that there are differences between an illegal immigrant who crossed the border recently and someone who has worked here for many years, and has a home, a family, and an otherwise clean record. I believe that illegal immigrants who have roots in our country and want to stay should have to pay a meaningful penalty for breaking the law to pay their taxes to learn English and to work in a job for a number of years. People who meet these conditions should be able to apply for citizenship but approval would not be automatic, and they will have to wait in line behind those who played by the rules and followed the law." So what does this mean? You've been breaking our laws longer than others so you get special treatment? And while you are waiting in line behind those who followed the law, please feel free to continue living in our nation illegally. Not really thinkin', were ya, George?
This was a Democrat responding to the President's speech: "This issue must not be used for political gain. If the President is going to send troops to the Southern Border, is that going to become yet another military action with no clear exit strategy? Will that become another quagmire?" These statements were made in sequence. This Democratic responder to the Presidents speech said that the issue must not be used for political gain and then proceeded to attempt to use it for political gain. Apparently, this Democrat (forgive me for not getting his name) missed this line of the President's speech: "The Guard will assist the Border Patrol by operating surveillance systems analyzing intelligence installing fences and vehicle barriers building patrol roads and providing training. Guard units will not be involved in direct law enforcement activities that duty will be done by the Border Patrol." And he thinks we are dumb enough to believe that because he said that it must not be used for political gain, that the sentence that immediately followed that assertion was not designed to gain him any political stature, at all, in the slightest... honest.
There's only one problem with the Temporary Guest Worker program. The people that the President wants to offer this to do not consider themselves temporary. They haven't been invited which removes the whole "guest" premise, and they shouldn't be working if they are illegals.
Bottom line: We have too long allowed this debate to be about "Immigration." This is not about "immigration," it is about laws. Immigrants have papers, documents, and approval. The people we are discussing have none of these least they have been forged. This issue is about people breaking our laws to get into the country and companies breaking our laws to pay these people lower wages. Both need to stop. If the TGW program is as the President made it seem last night: paperwork to allow non-Americans to work in our nation for a temporary period of time, great, I'm all for it. If it is to justify illegals already in the nation to stay here, I'm not behind it.
If you desire to be in America so much that you're first act is to break one of her laws, then your respect for the nation you want to be in must not be very high. I'm Marc from Just my opinion, and I approve this message.
"We are also a nation of immigrants, and we must uphold that tradition, which has strengthened our country in so many ways." The President is correct in this. We are a nation of immigrants. My issue with this is that the term "immigrant" suggests that the people are here legally, that they jumped through all of the necessary hoops and respected this nation enough to obey our laws. Illegals are not immigrants, they are trespassers.
"At the same time, we are launching the most technologically advanced border security initiative in American history." Yeah, it's called a fence.
"Mexico is our neighbor and our friend." Just not one we want to have over for dinner, hence the fence.
"Master Gunnery Sergeant Denogean came to the United States from Mexico when he was a boy. He spent his summers picking crops with his family, and then he volunteered for the United States Marine Corps as soon as he was able. During the liberation of Iraq, Master Gunnery Sergeant Denogean was seriously injured. When asked if he had any requests, he made two a promotion for the corporal who helped rescue him and the chance to become an American citizen." Um, how good were his papers that this non-citizen was able to volunteer for the Marines? If this isn't an advertisement to terrorists on how to infiltrate our defenses, I don't know what is! "Ok, here's the plan. We sneak in from Mexico, become Marines, then they give us weapons, and we can do what we like. Let's see if we can get a tank or two for good measure!"
"That middle ground recognizes that there are differences between an illegal immigrant who crossed the border recently and someone who has worked here for many years, and has a home, a family, and an otherwise clean record. I believe that illegal immigrants who have roots in our country and want to stay should have to pay a meaningful penalty for breaking the law to pay their taxes to learn English and to work in a job for a number of years. People who meet these conditions should be able to apply for citizenship but approval would not be automatic, and they will have to wait in line behind those who played by the rules and followed the law." So what does this mean? You've been breaking our laws longer than others so you get special treatment? And while you are waiting in line behind those who followed the law, please feel free to continue living in our nation illegally. Not really thinkin', were ya, George?
This was a Democrat responding to the President's speech: "This issue must not be used for political gain. If the President is going to send troops to the Southern Border, is that going to become yet another military action with no clear exit strategy? Will that become another quagmire?" These statements were made in sequence. This Democratic responder to the Presidents speech said that the issue must not be used for political gain and then proceeded to attempt to use it for political gain. Apparently, this Democrat (forgive me for not getting his name) missed this line of the President's speech: "The Guard will assist the Border Patrol by operating surveillance systems analyzing intelligence installing fences and vehicle barriers building patrol roads and providing training. Guard units will not be involved in direct law enforcement activities that duty will be done by the Border Patrol." And he thinks we are dumb enough to believe that because he said that it must not be used for political gain, that the sentence that immediately followed that assertion was not designed to gain him any political stature, at all, in the slightest... honest.
There's only one problem with the Temporary Guest Worker program. The people that the President wants to offer this to do not consider themselves temporary. They haven't been invited which removes the whole "guest" premise, and they shouldn't be working if they are illegals.
Bottom line: We have too long allowed this debate to be about "Immigration." This is not about "immigration," it is about laws. Immigrants have papers, documents, and approval. The people we are discussing have none of these least they have been forged. This issue is about people breaking our laws to get into the country and companies breaking our laws to pay these people lower wages. Both need to stop. If the TGW program is as the President made it seem last night: paperwork to allow non-Americans to work in our nation for a temporary period of time, great, I'm all for it. If it is to justify illegals already in the nation to stay here, I'm not behind it.
If you desire to be in America so much that you're first act is to break one of her laws, then your respect for the nation you want to be in must not be very high. I'm Marc from Just my opinion, and I approve this message.
Thursday, May 11, 2006
It's my right!
There have been two stories in the news that have recently ignited my ire as I view Americans and their understanding of their "inalienable rights." Few things anger me more than people who feel they are entitled to something that is clearly a privilege or reward.
It's my prom!
Two girls from Dennis MA were told that their prom dates were not allowed to attend the prom because the men had criminal records. The school discovered this by doing background checks on all non-students who were planning on attending this school sponsored event. (Students are required to request permission from school authorities for any non-pupils they are planning on bringing to this event.)
Of all the non-students that were planning to attend, two were denied access. The girls (and their mothers) were indignant that the school would dare deny these two boyfriends (19 and 20 year olds) from attending the big dance. Did I mention that their criminal records contained drug and alcohol charges?! That's what I want at my kid's prom. Two adults (what non-high schooler actually wants to go to a prom anyway?) with drug and alcohol problems!
The two students (a 17 year old who is dating the 20 year old, and an 18 year old with the 19 year old) have recently won a victory in this issue. The school board agreed to review the situation and suspend the ban until the issue has been resolved. As they will not be able conclude this investigation before the prom, the druggies, I mean dates, will be allowed to attend.
Investigation? What is there to investigate? It is a school function. The school has the right to deny anyone they choose. Why make the students ask permission if there isn't the possibility of denial? What reason would there be to deny someone other than a criminal record for controlled substances?
Let's say the school allows these kids in and some students get busted with drugs or alcohol and it turns out the "dates" brought it in? Is there not outrage? Are parents calling the school asking why these people were allowed to attend? You better believe they are because some "investigative reporter" would uncover their records.
So the school has to keep such substances out of the prom, they can't decline the entrance of people who'd be likely to bring it in, so they have to search people as they come in! Of course, This is a relatively wealthy area and parents wouldn't stand for their teens being searched before attending the prom! (One of the articles I read said that the 18 year old may hire a lawyer. the 18 year old, not her family, or mother; the student!)
And speaking of parents: Why are the mothers of these students trying to get the criminals into the prom? Shouldn't they be a bit concerned that their teenage daughters are dating men with records?! I guess not. They really only seem to be concerned about the $500 dollars they spent on their daughters dress, limos, and tickets. Great message you're sending, mom!
One of the local State Representatives said, "This is still the United States and everyone should be given an opportunity to participate." Well, not really, sir (Atsalis, D-Barnstable). See, the school is running the event and they can deny anyone they like. And even if you were right, these men lost the opportunity when they decided to break the law.
And the correct "right" falls to: The School.
It's my lunch!
A middle school has recently sent out a list of things that parents can and cannot include in their children's bagged lunches. Many parents (of course) are livid saying they have the right to send what ever they like. Well, I agree, to a point. The reason for the parameters is the high number of peanut allergic pupils the school has. (Any resonance, Apu?)
People who have peanut allergies could die from exposure to peanuts. Perhaps the parents could keep their allergic children out of public school. But they have a right to an education, don't they?
So let's weigh these rights: The right to live and get an education vs the right to send homemade cookies with peanut butter chips in my kids lunch. Do I need to say it?
The correct "right" falls to: The School.
Just because you want something, or don't like a situation, doesn't mean you have a right to it. America loves individuality, but there comes a point where we all have a responsibility to the community that over shadows our own desires.
(Hey Nathaniel, this blog is part of my responsibility to the community!) But it's all just my opinion.
It's my prom!
Two girls from Dennis MA were told that their prom dates were not allowed to attend the prom because the men had criminal records. The school discovered this by doing background checks on all non-students who were planning on attending this school sponsored event. (Students are required to request permission from school authorities for any non-pupils they are planning on bringing to this event.)
Of all the non-students that were planning to attend, two were denied access. The girls (and their mothers) were indignant that the school would dare deny these two boyfriends (19 and 20 year olds) from attending the big dance. Did I mention that their criminal records contained drug and alcohol charges?! That's what I want at my kid's prom. Two adults (what non-high schooler actually wants to go to a prom anyway?) with drug and alcohol problems!
The two students (a 17 year old who is dating the 20 year old, and an 18 year old with the 19 year old) have recently won a victory in this issue. The school board agreed to review the situation and suspend the ban until the issue has been resolved. As they will not be able conclude this investigation before the prom, the druggies, I mean dates, will be allowed to attend.
Investigation? What is there to investigate? It is a school function. The school has the right to deny anyone they choose. Why make the students ask permission if there isn't the possibility of denial? What reason would there be to deny someone other than a criminal record for controlled substances?
Let's say the school allows these kids in and some students get busted with drugs or alcohol and it turns out the "dates" brought it in? Is there not outrage? Are parents calling the school asking why these people were allowed to attend? You better believe they are because some "investigative reporter" would uncover their records.
So the school has to keep such substances out of the prom, they can't decline the entrance of people who'd be likely to bring it in, so they have to search people as they come in! Of course, This is a relatively wealthy area and parents wouldn't stand for their teens being searched before attending the prom! (One of the articles I read said that the 18 year old may hire a lawyer. the 18 year old, not her family, or mother; the student!)
And speaking of parents: Why are the mothers of these students trying to get the criminals into the prom? Shouldn't they be a bit concerned that their teenage daughters are dating men with records?! I guess not. They really only seem to be concerned about the $500 dollars they spent on their daughters dress, limos, and tickets. Great message you're sending, mom!
One of the local State Representatives said, "This is still the United States and everyone should be given an opportunity to participate." Well, not really, sir (Atsalis, D-Barnstable). See, the school is running the event and they can deny anyone they like. And even if you were right, these men lost the opportunity when they decided to break the law.
And the correct "right" falls to: The School.
It's my lunch!
A middle school has recently sent out a list of things that parents can and cannot include in their children's bagged lunches. Many parents (of course) are livid saying they have the right to send what ever they like. Well, I agree, to a point. The reason for the parameters is the high number of peanut allergic pupils the school has. (Any resonance, Apu?)
People who have peanut allergies could die from exposure to peanuts. Perhaps the parents could keep their allergic children out of public school. But they have a right to an education, don't they?
So let's weigh these rights: The right to live and get an education vs the right to send homemade cookies with peanut butter chips in my kids lunch. Do I need to say it?
The correct "right" falls to: The School.
Just because you want something, or don't like a situation, doesn't mean you have a right to it. America loves individuality, but there comes a point where we all have a responsibility to the community that over shadows our own desires.
(Hey Nathaniel, this blog is part of my responsibility to the community!) But it's all just my opinion.
Monday, May 08, 2006
Congrats WEEI!
You heard it hear first!
At 2:30 am Entercom (WEEI AM 850/WRKO AM 680) and the Boston Red Sox have signed a long term contract. WBOS is no longer in the running and who knows what WEEI had to give up to get the Sox as WBOS was offering some control in the station.
For those of you who knocked my Friday Night Baseball boycott because "it wouldn't make a difference," listen to this: Larry Luchinno said that the fans had a lot to do with this decision. It was very clear that the fans wanted the Sox to stay on WEEI. Hmm, seems to me that if he gave up control over the radio station that carries the Sox because it's what the fans wanted, if others join me in this boycott of Friday Night Baseball on NESN, he might listen to the fans yet again!
Here are the details: It is a 10 year contract. Friday games and other big matchups (Yankees, other contending teams) will be on WEEI AM 850. The other games will be on WRKO AM 680. "This is so that the fans don't have to wait for the games to finish before they start talking about them. We're giving the fans double coverage."
The above is the official word from Entercom and the Red Sox. However, some of my other sources suggest that WBOS pulled out of the negotiations, thus forcing the Red Sox back to Entercom (and allowing Entercom to pay a bit less). Also, it appears that Entercom offered the Red Sox some ownership in WRKO, but not WEEI. So, while the Sox own NESN, and they own 17% of the "leaky" Boston Globe, and it's possible that they have some control of WRKO, there is still some Red Sox on Radio that can be found on an independent entity. And it will remain the only independent venue for our beloved ball team until we, as the fans, get Friday Night Baseball back on free TV!
Regarding the previous post: I learned recently, regarding my previous post, that it is against the law to arrest a congressman if he is on his way to a vote! This is why, when Patrick Kennedy rammed his car into a barrier, it was his "official statement." Because he said this, by law, the officers had to let him go. Now clearly he was lying, and what should have happened (as his car was in no condition to be driven) was that they should have escorted him to Capitol. When there was clearly no vote occurring they should have administered the breathilizer test, etc, etc. Their superior officer should not have driven him to his home. After all, wasn't there a vote he needed to be at?
This new information in no way alters the fact that it is ludicrous to have the Capitol PD funded by the Congress. It does display the complete disregard for the law by Mr. Kennedy. It is obvious that the law is to prevent police tampering with the republican process (Contrary to popular belief, we do not live in a Democracy), not to get a drunken congressman out of trouble! So in reality, he wasn't being an idiot, like I once assumed; he was being conniving and devious and continued to prove that he believes he is above the law!
Thrilled about the Red Sox deal, further angered regarding Mr. Kennedy's actions, this is all just my opinion.
At 2:30 am Entercom (WEEI AM 850/WRKO AM 680) and the Boston Red Sox have signed a long term contract. WBOS is no longer in the running and who knows what WEEI had to give up to get the Sox as WBOS was offering some control in the station.
For those of you who knocked my Friday Night Baseball boycott because "it wouldn't make a difference," listen to this: Larry Luchinno said that the fans had a lot to do with this decision. It was very clear that the fans wanted the Sox to stay on WEEI. Hmm, seems to me that if he gave up control over the radio station that carries the Sox because it's what the fans wanted, if others join me in this boycott of Friday Night Baseball on NESN, he might listen to the fans yet again!
Here are the details: It is a 10 year contract. Friday games and other big matchups (Yankees, other contending teams) will be on WEEI AM 850. The other games will be on WRKO AM 680. "This is so that the fans don't have to wait for the games to finish before they start talking about them. We're giving the fans double coverage."
The above is the official word from Entercom and the Red Sox. However, some of my other sources suggest that WBOS pulled out of the negotiations, thus forcing the Red Sox back to Entercom (and allowing Entercom to pay a bit less). Also, it appears that Entercom offered the Red Sox some ownership in WRKO, but not WEEI. So, while the Sox own NESN, and they own 17% of the "leaky" Boston Globe, and it's possible that they have some control of WRKO, there is still some Red Sox on Radio that can be found on an independent entity. And it will remain the only independent venue for our beloved ball team until we, as the fans, get Friday Night Baseball back on free TV!
Regarding the previous post: I learned recently, regarding my previous post, that it is against the law to arrest a congressman if he is on his way to a vote! This is why, when Patrick Kennedy rammed his car into a barrier, it was his "official statement." Because he said this, by law, the officers had to let him go. Now clearly he was lying, and what should have happened (as his car was in no condition to be driven) was that they should have escorted him to Capitol. When there was clearly no vote occurring they should have administered the breathilizer test, etc, etc. Their superior officer should not have driven him to his home. After all, wasn't there a vote he needed to be at?
This new information in no way alters the fact that it is ludicrous to have the Capitol PD funded by the Congress. It does display the complete disregard for the law by Mr. Kennedy. It is obvious that the law is to prevent police tampering with the republican process (Contrary to popular belief, we do not live in a Democracy), not to get a drunken congressman out of trouble! So in reality, he wasn't being an idiot, like I once assumed; he was being conniving and devious and continued to prove that he believes he is above the law!
Thrilled about the Red Sox deal, further angered regarding Mr. Kennedy's actions, this is all just my opinion.
Friday, May 05, 2006
Kennedy + Car = Controversy
Here is something I never knew that I was educated regarding thanks to a Kennedy: Capitol Hill in Washington DC has it's own police force. Not only that: They are the only police force that receives it's funding directly from Congress!
"So what?" you ask? Well, let's take this hypothetical situation:
Let's say a Congressman appears to be driving drunk and has an accident. Let's say the first officer on the scene thinks that this man's breath smells of alcohol. What happens when the police force that this officer serves on receives it's funding directly from the man being investigated? The officers supervisor tells the officer not to do an on scene breathilizer test. He tells him not to bring the offending driver to the station for further questioning. In fact, this supervisor arrives at the scene and drives the offending motorist home!
Whoops, my fault, the above wasn't hypothetical. In fact there are police reports that the Congressman (Let's just call him "Patrick Kennedy (D-RI)") was "staggering and appeared intoxicated after he nearly hit a Capitol Police cruiser and then struck the barrier." And it has been discovered that the Capitol Police superior officers "prevented rank-and-file cops from properly investigating the crash."
When asked where he was going, Congressman Kennedy answered that he was "late to a vote." Did I mention it was 2:45am? He claimed that he was disoriented by the prescription drugs he had taken. One of which was a sleeping pill.
So, at 2:45am smelling of alcohol and claiming he'd taken prescription drugs (which are never to be taken with alcohol and most say not to operate heavy machinery when taken (Is a car heavy machinery?)), a Congressman with his headlights off nearly hits a police car and then slams into a cement barrier. He staggers out of his car smelling of alcohol and claims he is late to a vote. Is there not enough evidence to investigate this?
Many who know my political leanings may think that I'm railing on this due to this Congressman's last name. You would be only partially correct. Substitute this man with any Republican or Independent and the major problem remains: The police department that has jurisdiction over this incident is funded by the very man they are investigating! Can you say "Conflict of interest?"
How are the people in this area expected to feel safe if the police are not allowed to treat everyone equally because of who sends them their paychecks?! Can I try that? Next time I'm pulled over (which would be the first time), can I announce that I pay for the officer's salary and demand that they let me go?
Apparently the motto of Congress is: "We not only write the laws, we're above them!" (Please refrain from commenting regarding your beliefs of the President's stance on this motto. Thank you for your self restraint). Seriously, why isn't Capitol Hill under the DCPD? Or Maryland? Or Virginia? Does it make any sense to fund these people directly from Congress?
As a wise man once said, "I just think government ought to be run better than that!"
My final pondering is: Do you think Kennedy had to say "Do you know who I am?" Or was the calvary on the way as soon as they ran his plates?
Do you know who I am? I'm the one offering you just my opinion.
"So what?" you ask? Well, let's take this hypothetical situation:
Let's say a Congressman appears to be driving drunk and has an accident. Let's say the first officer on the scene thinks that this man's breath smells of alcohol. What happens when the police force that this officer serves on receives it's funding directly from the man being investigated? The officers supervisor tells the officer not to do an on scene breathilizer test. He tells him not to bring the offending driver to the station for further questioning. In fact, this supervisor arrives at the scene and drives the offending motorist home!
Whoops, my fault, the above wasn't hypothetical. In fact there are police reports that the Congressman (Let's just call him "Patrick Kennedy (D-RI)") was "staggering and appeared intoxicated after he nearly hit a Capitol Police cruiser and then struck the barrier." And it has been discovered that the Capitol Police superior officers "prevented rank-and-file cops from properly investigating the crash."
When asked where he was going, Congressman Kennedy answered that he was "late to a vote." Did I mention it was 2:45am? He claimed that he was disoriented by the prescription drugs he had taken. One of which was a sleeping pill.
So, at 2:45am smelling of alcohol and claiming he'd taken prescription drugs (which are never to be taken with alcohol and most say not to operate heavy machinery when taken (Is a car heavy machinery?)), a Congressman with his headlights off nearly hits a police car and then slams into a cement barrier. He staggers out of his car smelling of alcohol and claims he is late to a vote. Is there not enough evidence to investigate this?
Many who know my political leanings may think that I'm railing on this due to this Congressman's last name. You would be only partially correct. Substitute this man with any Republican or Independent and the major problem remains: The police department that has jurisdiction over this incident is funded by the very man they are investigating! Can you say "Conflict of interest?"
How are the people in this area expected to feel safe if the police are not allowed to treat everyone equally because of who sends them their paychecks?! Can I try that? Next time I'm pulled over (which would be the first time), can I announce that I pay for the officer's salary and demand that they let me go?
Apparently the motto of Congress is: "We not only write the laws, we're above them!" (Please refrain from commenting regarding your beliefs of the President's stance on this motto. Thank you for your self restraint). Seriously, why isn't Capitol Hill under the DCPD? Or Maryland? Or Virginia? Does it make any sense to fund these people directly from Congress?
As a wise man once said, "I just think government ought to be run better than that!"
My final pondering is: Do you think Kennedy had to say "Do you know who I am?" Or was the calvary on the way as soon as they ran his plates?
Do you know who I am? I'm the one offering you just my opinion.
Thursday, May 04, 2006
Patient vs Customer
Attention all medical staff: You provide a service! And a very expensive one at that!
I truly am fed up with the medical profession acting as though they are doing us some kind of favor! You know, if we had socialized medicine and I, as the patient, did not pay a dime to them (save in my much higher taxes) perhaps I wouldn't be as indignant. However, Every week I pay someone who pays them when I need attention. And I pay more when I go in. It's funny that they call it a "co-pay." As though someone else were paying with me. No, no! My insurance company is using my money to pay the doctor. So really, it's a double-pay, not a co-pay. But I digress.
Bear with me as I recount, briefly, what has ignited my ire:
1) The Queen of Hearts and I are currently doing foster care. I needed to have my doctor sign a sheet saying that he had seen me and I was healthy so that we could move forward with this process. I called my medical service provider and was told that they could schedule me in for May... of 2007. When I informed them that was unacceptable, and politely explained my situation and what was needed, they did nothing to assist me further. After circumventing the "scheduling department" of my doctor's office, I had to leave 7 messages for my doctor's personal nurse before I could garner a 5 minute meeting with my primary care physician that took place several weeks after my calls. Even then, they seemed put out.
2) As we expect our new baby, the Queen of Hearts and I were going to her regular OB/GYN. Several times while we were there, the doctor did his thing and then would speed out of the room like he couldn't ask us to leave quickly enough. More than once, the Queen did not even have time to ask the questions that had been on her mind for the previous month. On top of that, pregnancy visits are not subject to a co-pay, unless the doctor actually has to do something. Now we have a bill from our insurance company for a few of our regularly scheduled appointments because the doctor suggested certain tests to ensure the health of the baby. Heaven forbid the doctor should actually provide the service for which he is being paid.
3) A coworker brought her mother to the ER. The triage nurse asked her 89 year old mother what was wrong. When her daughter (my coworker) began to answer the nurse spat at her, "I will hear it from the patient." Well, her mother didn't understand the question and gave what the daughter knew to be an incorrect answer. The daughter attempted to respond again and was told to "shut up."
Excuse me? Our being there allows them to earn a living. Emergency or not, we are their livelihood.
Here's a phrase that the medical profession would do well to learn:
Customer Service. That's right, we are their customers. It's not as though you have to lure us in, or give us a "good deal." Doctor's offices never have a "President's Day Sale." This is because people are always in need of doctors. However, we do have a choice of doctors. The Queen of Hearts and I just exercised that choice. We didn't care much for the "customer service" of the doctor mentioned above. So we have chosen to have "Full House" [If you have a better nickname for the little one, feel free to suggest it] delivered elsewhere.
Consider how you'd react if a non-"essential" service (For example a restaurant, or travel agent, or contractor) treated you the way your doctor's office treats you. With the same contempt, disregard, and "you are nothing but trouble" attitude.
I called my favorite restaurant to make a reservation. They told me that I could eat with them in about a year. "But I'm hungry now." "Well, if you are hungry now you can come in and sit in our waiting room and we'll see if we can get to you in the next several hours. That'll be extra. If you can live with your hunger for a few more weeks, we can call you at a very inconvenient time for you and let you know that there's been a cancellation and we could squeeze you in at an equally inconvenient time."
Why do people hate going to the doctor? Because the doctor doesn't like seeing you just as much. Until we socialize, we deserve to be treated the same as we'd expect any other business to treat us. Hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and other medically related businesses all make a hefty profit on us, yet we don't demand proper treatment. Well, not anymore. The next time a medical practitioner treats me like a hassle, I'll treat them like a business.
But that's all just my opinion.
I truly am fed up with the medical profession acting as though they are doing us some kind of favor! You know, if we had socialized medicine and I, as the patient, did not pay a dime to them (save in my much higher taxes) perhaps I wouldn't be as indignant. However, Every week I pay someone who pays them when I need attention. And I pay more when I go in. It's funny that they call it a "co-pay." As though someone else were paying with me. No, no! My insurance company is using my money to pay the doctor. So really, it's a double-pay, not a co-pay. But I digress.
Bear with me as I recount, briefly, what has ignited my ire:
1) The Queen of Hearts and I are currently doing foster care. I needed to have my doctor sign a sheet saying that he had seen me and I was healthy so that we could move forward with this process. I called my medical service provider and was told that they could schedule me in for May... of 2007. When I informed them that was unacceptable, and politely explained my situation and what was needed, they did nothing to assist me further. After circumventing the "scheduling department" of my doctor's office, I had to leave 7 messages for my doctor's personal nurse before I could garner a 5 minute meeting with my primary care physician that took place several weeks after my calls. Even then, they seemed put out.
2) As we expect our new baby, the Queen of Hearts and I were going to her regular OB/GYN. Several times while we were there, the doctor did his thing and then would speed out of the room like he couldn't ask us to leave quickly enough. More than once, the Queen did not even have time to ask the questions that had been on her mind for the previous month. On top of that, pregnancy visits are not subject to a co-pay, unless the doctor actually has to do something. Now we have a bill from our insurance company for a few of our regularly scheduled appointments because the doctor suggested certain tests to ensure the health of the baby. Heaven forbid the doctor should actually provide the service for which he is being paid.
3) A coworker brought her mother to the ER. The triage nurse asked her 89 year old mother what was wrong. When her daughter (my coworker) began to answer the nurse spat at her, "I will hear it from the patient." Well, her mother didn't understand the question and gave what the daughter knew to be an incorrect answer. The daughter attempted to respond again and was told to "shut up."
Excuse me? Our being there allows them to earn a living. Emergency or not, we are their livelihood.
Here's a phrase that the medical profession would do well to learn:
Customer Service. That's right, we are their customers. It's not as though you have to lure us in, or give us a "good deal." Doctor's offices never have a "President's Day Sale." This is because people are always in need of doctors. However, we do have a choice of doctors. The Queen of Hearts and I just exercised that choice. We didn't care much for the "customer service" of the doctor mentioned above. So we have chosen to have "Full House" [If you have a better nickname for the little one, feel free to suggest it] delivered elsewhere.
Consider how you'd react if a non-"essential" service (For example a restaurant, or travel agent, or contractor) treated you the way your doctor's office treats you. With the same contempt, disregard, and "you are nothing but trouble" attitude.
I called my favorite restaurant to make a reservation. They told me that I could eat with them in about a year. "But I'm hungry now." "Well, if you are hungry now you can come in and sit in our waiting room and we'll see if we can get to you in the next several hours. That'll be extra. If you can live with your hunger for a few more weeks, we can call you at a very inconvenient time for you and let you know that there's been a cancellation and we could squeeze you in at an equally inconvenient time."
Why do people hate going to the doctor? Because the doctor doesn't like seeing you just as much. Until we socialize, we deserve to be treated the same as we'd expect any other business to treat us. Hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and other medically related businesses all make a hefty profit on us, yet we don't demand proper treatment. Well, not anymore. The next time a medical practitioner treats me like a hassle, I'll treat them like a business.
But that's all just my opinion.
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
Pressing my luck: Another immigration post
Yesterday, I was highly irked when I heard the following "newscast" on the radio: "Many illegal immigrants will be protesting today by not going to work and not purchasing anything. They are doing this to raise awareness of their plight." Thier plight. Plight! I feel so bad for them that they are here where they are making more money than they would have in their country, not paying taxes on it, using our social services, and yet protesting against the nation that gave it all to them. If it is so bad here, I have an idea, go home.
Many illegal immigrants have said that all they want is a chance to experience and live out the American Dream. Well, it appears that they are on their way to that goal as many already have the American mindset. One protester yesterday was quoted as saying, "We are entitled to everything every American citizen is!" You read that correctly: "entitled."
We wonder why other nations don't like us? Our pompous selfishness is so great that it is spreading to people who weren't even born here! Even American citizens aren't "entitled" to everything that we think we are! However, I think I agree with the protester: You are entitled to what every American citizen is entitled to if they broke the law, too; the consequences.
My current solution to the "illegal issue" is not to go after the illegals themselves, but rather the traitors that hire them. If we crack down on the hiring of illegals, then they would have no income and they would have to head back home on their own.
There's been a bit of secondary conflict regarding this divisive discussion that involves the National Anthem. Should it be sung in Spanish or English? Can anyone guess what Senator Kennedy's answer was to this? He said, "I think that the National Anthem should be sung in English." I think I agree. The one time that I was honored to hear the National Anthem sung in a different tongue while on US soil was when a group of Native Americans sang it in their language. That was an undeserved honor.
A retired US General, and current legal immigrant Alberto Rodriguez shared his opinion regarding these protests. He shared that he was offended as one who had struggled to go through the proper venues to enter this nation. He said to the protesters, "You do not speak for me." Good for him!
I was very pleased to see a large group of marchers carrying a gigantic American flag. That is the way to gain my favor. Not by writing on it, carrying it upside down, or waving the flag of you home nation. If you respect your flag so much, perhaps it would be wise of you to return to where it is continuously flown.
On an ironic note: I find it interesting that so many people are so eager to get into this nation that they are willing to have their first action here be a crime. While I, and my family, are awaiting the time that we will be leaving it, for the sake of the Gospel and the sake of our children. We would rather our children not grow up in the egocentric, ethnocentric, consumerist culture of the USA. I am very thankful that I was born here with the advantages that are inherent with that. And I intend to use those advantages. Not simply to the benefit of myself and my family, but to attempt to further the Kingdom.
Afterall, this is all just my opinion.
Many illegal immigrants have said that all they want is a chance to experience and live out the American Dream. Well, it appears that they are on their way to that goal as many already have the American mindset. One protester yesterday was quoted as saying, "We are entitled to everything every American citizen is!" You read that correctly: "entitled."
We wonder why other nations don't like us? Our pompous selfishness is so great that it is spreading to people who weren't even born here! Even American citizens aren't "entitled" to everything that we think we are! However, I think I agree with the protester: You are entitled to what every American citizen is entitled to if they broke the law, too; the consequences.
My current solution to the "illegal issue" is not to go after the illegals themselves, but rather the traitors that hire them. If we crack down on the hiring of illegals, then they would have no income and they would have to head back home on their own.
There's been a bit of secondary conflict regarding this divisive discussion that involves the National Anthem. Should it be sung in Spanish or English? Can anyone guess what Senator Kennedy's answer was to this? He said, "I think that the National Anthem should be sung in English." I think I agree. The one time that I was honored to hear the National Anthem sung in a different tongue while on US soil was when a group of Native Americans sang it in their language. That was an undeserved honor.
A retired US General, and current legal immigrant Alberto Rodriguez shared his opinion regarding these protests. He shared that he was offended as one who had struggled to go through the proper venues to enter this nation. He said to the protesters, "You do not speak for me." Good for him!
I was very pleased to see a large group of marchers carrying a gigantic American flag. That is the way to gain my favor. Not by writing on it, carrying it upside down, or waving the flag of you home nation. If you respect your flag so much, perhaps it would be wise of you to return to where it is continuously flown.
On an ironic note: I find it interesting that so many people are so eager to get into this nation that they are willing to have their first action here be a crime. While I, and my family, are awaiting the time that we will be leaving it, for the sake of the Gospel and the sake of our children. We would rather our children not grow up in the egocentric, ethnocentric, consumerist culture of the USA. I am very thankful that I was born here with the advantages that are inherent with that. And I intend to use those advantages. Not simply to the benefit of myself and my family, but to attempt to further the Kingdom.
Afterall, this is all just my opinion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)