I'm so mad I could spit.
The Republicans seem to be willing to let this country go into a tailspin so they can save some tax breaks for corporate jets!
Never mind the millions of people unemployed and/or unable to afford the healthcare we are footing for free for them and their entire families.
Corporations need to start paying their fair share in taxes instead of being given free passes by the Republicans in exchange for a little somethin' somethin' under the table.
The average American pays more in taxes than any of the top executives of large corporations despite the fact that the execs earn more money in one year than the average American would see in several lifetimes.
And there seems to be a call to put the Republicans back in charge? Really America? Well then if we are all that near sighted, amnesiac and just plain dumb then we will most certainly get what we deserve. And the top execs will continue to slash entry level jobs to free up money to give themselves more multimillion dollar raises while the unemployment and welfare lines grow and fewer and fewer people will have health care or jobs.
Way to go Republicans. Just as long as we are paying for your health care I guess what do you care what happens to the people who voted you in to office. You have to protect all your kick backs I guess.
And that's My 25 cents...
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
the pledge, the military and respect
I got into a discussion today about 'under God' being taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance. I pointed out that it was not originally in the pledge, it was added in 1954. The response I got back was, our country and troops needed God right now and that they loved our country and were proud of it, the military and God; and were not ashamed to admit it. I stated that I did also but did not see how that had anything to do with the pledge issue. Someone else then chimed in stating that respect was lacking today too. I didn't quite know what to make of that so I stated that I thought today's children lacked the discipline and boundaries we had growing up but again didn't see what that had to do with the pledge issue. I also pointed out that when God was invoked re the military, mass destruction and slaughter tends to follow (Crusades or 9/11 anyone?). And when invoked re governments, well then you get mass destruction, slaughter and 2nd class citizens with little or no rights and even persecution if not of the dominant religion. Mass suppression/imprisonment of people who don't agree with the reigning doctrine. Wow, I kinda like the whole division of church and state thing we've got going on.
It's amazing to me how little people know about debate anymore. All of the return comments were off topic and had little or nothing to do with the original subject. They completely ignored my own points and (now this is just my feeling) seemed to feel that any questioning of the use of God's name in the pledge was a questioning of the military and our country. I did point out that the division of church and state as stipulated in our constitution actually made it illegal to have it in the pledge in our public schools. I kind of felt that the respect comment was directed at me as I had the gall to actually point out facts rather than just following blind emotion and agreeing with it.
This is why I believe the founding fathers were visionaries. There were so many other things I could have brought up, like what religious name of the creator should we use? As I believe they would have felt the christian one I would have to point out that freedom of religion means there are many followers of other religions in this country that, because of our constitution, should have the right to say the name of their creator. And if someone does not believe in a creator? Why should they have to say something they don't believe in? See, this is why it was not originally in the constitution.
Now, if churches really want to make the laws of the country and make everyone follow their rules, then they should immediately give up the tax exempt status and start paying taxes on all those donations they get. If you want to run the country you have to pay for the running of it.
Bet that will not go over well. Want your cake and eat it too, huh.
And that's My 25 cents...
It's amazing to me how little people know about debate anymore. All of the return comments were off topic and had little or nothing to do with the original subject. They completely ignored my own points and (now this is just my feeling) seemed to feel that any questioning of the use of God's name in the pledge was a questioning of the military and our country. I did point out that the division of church and state as stipulated in our constitution actually made it illegal to have it in the pledge in our public schools. I kind of felt that the respect comment was directed at me as I had the gall to actually point out facts rather than just following blind emotion and agreeing with it.
This is why I believe the founding fathers were visionaries. There were so many other things I could have brought up, like what religious name of the creator should we use? As I believe they would have felt the christian one I would have to point out that freedom of religion means there are many followers of other religions in this country that, because of our constitution, should have the right to say the name of their creator. And if someone does not believe in a creator? Why should they have to say something they don't believe in? See, this is why it was not originally in the constitution.
Now, if churches really want to make the laws of the country and make everyone follow their rules, then they should immediately give up the tax exempt status and start paying taxes on all those donations they get. If you want to run the country you have to pay for the running of it.
Bet that will not go over well. Want your cake and eat it too, huh.
And that's My 25 cents...
Saturday, June 25, 2011
Executives
Just a quick thought.
I think that the reason so many top executives are so greedy and seem to feel their positions entitle them to multi-million dollar salaries at the expense of 100's or even 1000's of entry-level positions that would help the economy and allow so many people to have jobs and not rely on welfare is that they had nothing to do with building the company they work for. There is no pride in the company, there is just a feeling of how much they can get out of it before moving on to something else. Just a thought...
Update: We should all keep an eye on this http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/paywatch/ceou/database.cfm#WX
It shows how much the CEO's are reeling in at our expense.
And that's My 25 cents...
I think that the reason so many top executives are so greedy and seem to feel their positions entitle them to multi-million dollar salaries at the expense of 100's or even 1000's of entry-level positions that would help the economy and allow so many people to have jobs and not rely on welfare is that they had nothing to do with building the company they work for. There is no pride in the company, there is just a feeling of how much they can get out of it before moving on to something else. Just a thought...
Update: We should all keep an eye on this http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/paywatch/ceou/database.cfm#WX
It shows how much the CEO's are reeling in at our expense.
And that's My 25 cents...
Learning
I think we need to start moving from parrot-rote learning to teaching how to think for oneself and solve things for oneself. Discussions about how one sees things, what one thinks is a possibility. Oh, not in math as those have very concrete answers, but how to get to those answers and go beyond. Curiosity, investigation, puzzling things out, thinking outside the box to find the solution or solutions. Make learning fun, a game; not to be won or lost but be solved. To stretch the mind, explore the boundaries of what's possible...
What could we achieve if there were no multiple choice, this is 'right' this is 'wrong'; thinking beyond what we 'know' is possible...
And that's My 25 cents...
What could we achieve if there were no multiple choice, this is 'right' this is 'wrong'; thinking beyond what we 'know' is possible...
And that's My 25 cents...
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Dear Mr President
It disturbs me greatly to hear all of these arguments on the legislative floors of so many states and even the federal government regarding same-sex marriage that are almost solely based on religion. It truly shocks me how many times I have heard our governments representatives argue their personal faith and feelings as a reason to ban same-sex marriage. To have someone in a position of secular authority try to force their personal belief on the populace or even the personal faith of the people in their district on the rest of the citizens and not have someone else raise the question of division of church and state is terrifying. I understand that many faiths have issue with gay marriage, that does not however make a good argument to ban it. There are also religions that insist women wear hair coverings, are we going to make that into law next?
I have as yet to hear a valid, legal, secular argument for banning gay marriage.
I fail to see any legal, secular reason to ban people from doing anything in their own personal lives that does not directly affect another person negatively.
I understand that this is a highly emotional issue for many people. However, I fail to see how that is any reason for this to become a law or even seriously debated when there are so many more important issues (like the economy) to worry about.
And that's My 25 cents...
I have as yet to hear a valid, legal, secular argument for banning gay marriage.
I fail to see any legal, secular reason to ban people from doing anything in their own personal lives that does not directly affect another person negatively.
I understand that this is a highly emotional issue for many people. However, I fail to see how that is any reason for this to become a law or even seriously debated when there are so many more important issues (like the economy) to worry about.
And that's My 25 cents...
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Fix the Economy
So I just saw that Jon Huntsman is throwing his hat in the ring for GOP candidate for president.
One of the things he says is that he's going to 'make the hard decisions' on the economy.
Does this include legislation getting many of the top echelon to take huge pay cuts rather than firing a bunch of end line workers to 'save money' thus saving jobs and helping the economy? No more multi-million dollar salaries for the top brass while 1000's of jobs are cut to meet budget cuts? No more golden parachutes worth several million dollars to people who essentially failed at their jobs and are being let go. No more free health care and added benefits while the front line workers have to pay half their wages to cover just the monthly fees and having to meet enormous deductibles before they even kick in?
Somehow I really doubt that these are some of the hard decisions this essentially top echelon executive is going to introduce. So there really is no reason to pick this one either.
Another story I saw is about a brand new school in southern California that they can't use because after the expense of building it they can't afford to operate it. Again, I have the same fix for this. These are public officials. Why are the administrative exec's who don't have anything to do with the children making several thousand to probably lower seven digits and the one's who are there in the front lines with the children making low 5 figures? And in many cases having to spend their own money on supplies? Where are all the millions of dollars going? Into the pockets of people who do not now and probably never have had anything to do with children. Cut their salaries, give the money to the kids, hello, duh.
And that's My 25 cents...
One of the things he says is that he's going to 'make the hard decisions' on the economy.
Does this include legislation getting many of the top echelon to take huge pay cuts rather than firing a bunch of end line workers to 'save money' thus saving jobs and helping the economy? No more multi-million dollar salaries for the top brass while 1000's of jobs are cut to meet budget cuts? No more golden parachutes worth several million dollars to people who essentially failed at their jobs and are being let go. No more free health care and added benefits while the front line workers have to pay half their wages to cover just the monthly fees and having to meet enormous deductibles before they even kick in?
Somehow I really doubt that these are some of the hard decisions this essentially top echelon executive is going to introduce. So there really is no reason to pick this one either.
Another story I saw is about a brand new school in southern California that they can't use because after the expense of building it they can't afford to operate it. Again, I have the same fix for this. These are public officials. Why are the administrative exec's who don't have anything to do with the children making several thousand to probably lower seven digits and the one's who are there in the front lines with the children making low 5 figures? And in many cases having to spend their own money on supplies? Where are all the millions of dollars going? Into the pockets of people who do not now and probably never have had anything to do with children. Cut their salaries, give the money to the kids, hello, duh.
And that's My 25 cents...
Friday, June 17, 2011
Men and Women
I am so tired of this.
Men and women are different. In most cases they excel in different areas of life. There are those exceptions, however, where someone is born with an affinity for what is generally considered a role for the other sex. There is nothing wrong with that and I feel the true evil is trying to force that individual into a role they were not born to.
I don't understand where this need came from that men have to 'blame' everything on women. Women have to hide themselves from men so as not to incite lust, why don't men just learn to control themselves? That sounds more like a failing of men than of women, at the very least a laziness. Women are not intelligent or can't 'handle' things as well as men? Really? Try to give birth, and even in these times there are many women who lose their babies. Men, deal with that trauma over and over again. Women have had many roles through the years that have required intelligence as well: midwives/medicine women, running households, cooks, etc. Until men realized there was money to be made from these professions, and suddenly women could not handle them? Wow.
The one I never understood is what is now called OB/GYN, in today's medicine I can see how men can be in this branch of medicine but in the past how could men possibly understand this area better than women? That is real ego, 'I know your body better than you do even though mine is nothing like yours'?
Women not being allowed on the front lines in combat? For all of history women have been on the front lines of combat but unable to defend themselves. How does that make sense? You're in the middle of a war but you can't handle defending yourself so you'll have to be able to handle the consequences of not being able to defend yourself; oh, and by the way, that will be your fault and you will be shamed for not being able to stop it and might as well kill yourself because you didn't have the decency to just die at the time. That makes so much more sense.
And that's My 25 cents...
Men and women are different. In most cases they excel in different areas of life. There are those exceptions, however, where someone is born with an affinity for what is generally considered a role for the other sex. There is nothing wrong with that and I feel the true evil is trying to force that individual into a role they were not born to.
I don't understand where this need came from that men have to 'blame' everything on women. Women have to hide themselves from men so as not to incite lust, why don't men just learn to control themselves? That sounds more like a failing of men than of women, at the very least a laziness. Women are not intelligent or can't 'handle' things as well as men? Really? Try to give birth, and even in these times there are many women who lose their babies. Men, deal with that trauma over and over again. Women have had many roles through the years that have required intelligence as well: midwives/medicine women, running households, cooks, etc. Until men realized there was money to be made from these professions, and suddenly women could not handle them? Wow.
The one I never understood is what is now called OB/GYN, in today's medicine I can see how men can be in this branch of medicine but in the past how could men possibly understand this area better than women? That is real ego, 'I know your body better than you do even though mine is nothing like yours'?
Women not being allowed on the front lines in combat? For all of history women have been on the front lines of combat but unable to defend themselves. How does that make sense? You're in the middle of a war but you can't handle defending yourself so you'll have to be able to handle the consequences of not being able to defend yourself; oh, and by the way, that will be your fault and you will be shamed for not being able to stop it and might as well kill yourself because you didn't have the decency to just die at the time. That makes so much more sense.
And that's My 25 cents...
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)