Saturday, March 08, 2008
Now, the question that was asked was this: Is there a constitutional right to homeschool? And it got the wheels turning a bit in my head, albeit slowly after sleeping in and waking up late this morning.
The more I thought about that question, the more I'm convinced that it's the wrong question to ask. The right question is this: What gives the state the power to tell you how your children will be schooled?
Not everything is a constitutional right. But it does not have to be a constitutional right. Remember that the Constitution of the United States of America never places limits on The People. It limits what the Government can do, but places no such limits on the general population. The question of how that family schools it's kids should never come up, because there's nothing in the Constitution that gives the State the power to dictate how the kids are schooled. The State should not have any say in that matter at all.
In short, what has happened in California is that the State has flipped roles. Instead of being limited by the Constitution, it is using laws to limit what the people can do. Instead of The People smacking the State on the nose with a newspaper and saying "NO!", the State has now, in essence, turned The People into subjects instead of citizens.
It's time for the actual citizens of that state to leave.
In denying the Royal High School student delayed entry into the Marine Corps, Children's Court Commissioner Marilyn Mackel reportedly told Sage and a recruiter that she didn't approve of the Iraq war, didn't trust recruiters and didn't support the military.
"The judge said she didn't support the Iraq war for any reason why we're over there," said Marine recruiter Sgt. Guillermo Medrano of the Simi Valley USMC recruiting office.
"She just said all recruiters were the same - that they `all tap dance and tell me what I want to hear.' She said she didn't want him to fight in it."
Things like this are why the government needs to have as little power as possible.
Friday, March 07, 2008
Also from Malkin, the good guys get a word in.
Still, it's going to get worse. When the attacks against recruiting stations, ROTC buildings and other military areas happened, nary a peep was heard from the mainstream DNC. And more importantly, no one on the Left side of politics did anything to prevent another attack. Nobody spoke out against the attacks. No Leftist did a damn thing to support the military under attack.
And then they wonder why the attacks continued?
Thursday, March 06, 2008
Trust me, they can use it a lot more than I can.
Curmudgeonly and Skeptical: Treason at the State Department. In better days, we would be warming up barrels of tar and plucking chickens.
Random Nuclear Strikes: They Did What? Lemmee ask you a question here - since the Leftist traitors in this country have decided to start blowing up military recruiting stations, can I now shoot them on sight and get a reward?
Personal Effects: Start Packing. The state of Kalifornia has just decided that parent's can't homeschool their children. In short, parents have no rights to their kids what so ever. The STATE just told the PARENTS that the parents have no choice, no say, no right to determine how their kids are schooled. Folks, if that doesn't scare the shit out of you, I don't know what will. The STATE has determined that the children are to be bundled off to their local
It's time to start shooting people in Kalifornia. Maybe that's why Kalifornia doesn't allow it's subjects to carry guns?
Drumwaster;s Rants: ReadysetGO! If you're a math person, try his challenge. It'll keep you up for a while.
Rachel Lucas: I bet your mom's super-glad she squirted you out. I know the type of person Ms. Lucas is writing about. I've dealt with them. And I can't say I understand them one bit.
Daily Mail: Britain's first "safe text" street. Um.... wow. Just wow. I'm trying to find the words to express just how revolting I'm finding the people who A) advocate for this kind of crap, and B) think it's just fine and dandy. Oh, I know!
brainless, dazed, deficient, dense, dim, dodo, doltish, dopy, dotterel, dull, dumb, dummy*, foolish, futile, gullible, half-baked*, half-witted*, idiotic, ill-advised, imbecilic, inane, indiscreet, insensate, irrelevant, irresponsible, laughable, loser*, ludicrous, meaningless, mindless, moronic, naive, nonsensical, obtuse, pointless, puerile, rash, senseless, short-sighted, simple, simple-minded, slow, sluggish, stolid, stupefied, thick, thickheaded, trivial, unintelligent, unthinking, witless
Ayup, that might just begin to cover it. Seriously folks, if you are so damn (pick a word from above) that you need padding on street posts in order to protect yourself while you text, then you have no right to breed and pollute the world with your equally mentally-deficient spawn. Some people in Britain have just admitted that they are incapable of doing ANYTHING to deal with day-to-day life, and they are now nothing more than burdens on society, retards that have to be kept away from hot stoves and open second-story windows, dolts and dimwits that cause more problems for everyone else with an IQ over 30 or so. Break out the straitjackets and padded romper-rooms, because we're going to need them.
Or better yet, remove the damn protection and let these mind-numbingly stupid people kill themselves! Let's make stupidity painful again! A friend of the Mrs. and I had a plan to kill off the stupid people who do nothing but make life difficult for everyone else. Remove all the safety tags off of everything. That sign at the gas station that says not to drink gasoline? Take it off. Put up a sign that reads "TASTES GREAT ON CORNFLAKES". And once that wave of idiots dies off, we'll remove another safety sign to kill off the next wave. If you're too stupid to realize that blow-drying your hair in the bathtub is a bad idea, then maybe you need to die off and let the intelligent people take over, m'kay?
Or we'll just take the padding off of the street posts in London, and watch the mouth-breaking morons break themselves. At least it'll be good for a laugh or two, until you realize that without the benefit of medical castration, these poltroons and parasites are breeding.
Lord, that's a scary thought.
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
Anyone else seen this video, of a Marine purportedly throwing a puppy off a cliff? People still can't agree - was it a real dog or a fake dog? If it was real, was it dead or alive? Who the hell knows? Yet ABC is already rolling out the "War-tortured troops suffering from Bush-imposed illegal war on innocent terrorists!" meme.
The motivation for such an act, if it did indeed occur, may be as complex and deep as the U.S. war that has dragged on for more than four years, experts told ABCNEWS.com. Chief among them: Having to live with the constant fear of being injured or killed might have led this Marine to take his aggression out on a defenseless animal, several psychologists said.
If it did occur? IF IT DID OCCUR???? THESE FUCKING BASTARDS DON'T EVEN KNOW IF THE EVENT ACTUALLY FUCKING HAPPENED AND YET THEY TROT OUT THIS FUCKING BULLSHIT HIT PIECE ON THE MILITARY, PRESIDENT BUSH, AND THE WAR ON TERROR!
YOU FUCKING COMMUNIST COCK-BITING, AGENDA PUSHING, BIASED PIECES OF SHIT!
How about this: Some people are sick fucks! And if that was a real, live dog then the Marine who did it needs to have the book thrown at him! But I would still rather trust any group of US Marines over the kool-aid guzzling propaganda whores of ANY Has-Been Media outlet. Other than one or two quick links, how many stories have been put out by the MSM on military members bring dogs home from Iraq? Did they trot out the psychologists for those troops?
Hell no. It didn't fit the narrative, did it?
The best thing that could happen to the MSM in America is for it to die quickly. I never trust any news from any major news outlet. They've proven that they can't be trusted. They've proven that they would rather lie, skew the facts, and twist the story in order to push their agenda. They've proven that they cannot be objective for fair.
They've proven that they have no real reason to exist other than to push totalitarian bias.
The West has no use for sanctimonious homilies from societies that cannot provide clean drinking water or sewage systems, that make no provisions for the handicapped, and that leave 40 to 50 percent of their citizens illiterate.
As Bill Whittle once wrote(in his essay Tribes) it's NURTURE, and not NATURE that makes us who we are. Well, our culture is one of the main things that nurture who we become.
Anyways, go read it if you haven't already done so.
ABRAHAM KATSMAN : Obama-mania and cult of self-esteem
Obama has tapped into is the first generation educated in schools focused on "self-esteem." Now, the products of self-esteem education have come of political age in substantial numbers, perhaps with profound implications for this and future elections.
For the past two decades, America's educational establishment has stressed the inculcation of self-esteem as the supreme educational goal. Self-respect - the product of struggle and achievement - is out; self-esteem - the entitlement tofeel great self-worth regardless of actual accomplishment - is in.
Strict correction of misspelling or of wrong answers to math problems is discouraged. Competition is a big no-no: many youth sports leagues forbid keeping score, lest any child's self-esteem suffer from the indignity of losing. Posting honor rolls is discouraged, as it might injure the self-esteem of those who did not make the grade.
Grade inflation is rampant in schools: according to one recent study, about half of today's college freshman had an "A" average in high school compared to under 20% in the late 1960s, even though SAT scores have tanked over the same period. The focus on self-esteem has, in a sense, been a huge success.
For example, American students have very high scores when asked to assess how good they are at math. Unfortunately, they have low/mediocre scores in actual math performance, routinely being outscored by students in most other developed countries.
Inevitably, however, such over-indulgence of students leads to increased narcissism, self-absorption, and sense of entitlement. Those with self-esteem disproportionate to their achievement tend to be less willing to take responsibility for their own failures, shortcomings, or bad behavior.
Coddled children raised to believe that any dream is not only attainable, but an entitlement granted regardless of actual effort and accomplishment are increasingly growing into depressed and stressed young adults as they rudely discover that the post-school world is not so cooperative and doesn't really care about their dreams or their feelings. In the real world, they keep score.
The more money we pour into education the worse the results. Shouldn't it bother everyone that public schools spend twice the money per pupil, that private schools charge in tuition, yet those public schools turn in far worse results?
Well... unless your political campaign is funded by the NEA.
Cross Posted at DANEgerus
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
Let's look at the whole concept of "fair," shall we?
Say, for example, your second grade teacher decides to reward students with cookies for good work. Her plan is simple - equal pay for equal work. If everyone achieves to the required level, everyone gets a cookie. Sounds great, right? Totally fair. Everybody gets the same thing. Now, what if she started giving two cookies to her "favorite" students, the teacher's pets who play her game, while she still only gives one to the others. As a matter of fact, what if she starting NOT giving cookies to the students she didn't like, so she could have more to give to her favorites. That wouldn't be FAIR, would it? Most would agree -- no.
So, now, we return to the original system, where everyone is rewarded with a cookie for a good days schoolwork. But, the way the system is set up, you can only get one cookie per day. Period. So, no matter how much MORE work you do, your reward is…one cookie. Ah, but now let's throw in a little more modern socialism for spice. Because the teacher is so worried about the students' self esteem, and she doesn't want anyone to feel exluded or "disenfranchised," in the noble idea of being "fair" to everyone, she decides to give everyone a cookie NO MATTER WHAT. Every day, every student gets a cookie, all in the interest of fairness.
Pretty soon, Johnny Snotlocker figures out that he's going to get a cookie regardless of whether he does all the homework or not. He can act up in class, pull Sally's pigtails, steal Freddy's pencil...he still get's his cookie.
Soon thereafter, Billy Squaredaway realizes that no matter how well he behaves, no matter how much extra credit he does, how neatly he writes his papers or how helpful he is to the teacher or other students, he also only ever gets one cookie.
What is Johnny's motivation to behave or achieve if he knows that a cookie awaits him at the end of the day, regardless? And what is Billy's motivation to excel if he is going to get the same grade as Johnny, or get the same number of cookies as Johnny?
Let's make this even MORE applicable to modern times. Say Billy does a little tutoring on the side, helps some of the slower students, and they, in turn, give him one of their cookies in thanks. Billy realizes that this is a great deal, and starts building up a pretty good collection of cookies for himself. Soon, however, Johnny Snotlocker finds out about it, and decides he wants more cookies, too. Now, Johnny, not being smart enough or dedicated enough to earn his OWN cookies, figures out a better plan. He complains to the teacher that Billy Squaredaway having so many more cookies than everybody else JUST. ISN'T. FAIR! Billy's got eight or ten cookies, but Johnny and Sally and Suzy all only have one or two. The teacher thinks things over, and realizes that little Johnny has a point. Her goal is to treat everyone equally, to ensure that no one feels either superior or inferior to anyone else. So she marches over and tells Billy that he's got to hand his extra cookies out to the other students who have less. To. Be. Fair.
The light bulb goes on in little Billy's head, and he realizes that, no matter what he does, he's really only ever going to be allowed to keep one cookie. So, he finally knuckles under, waits patiently for the day to end so that he can get his next cookie, and leaves his textbooks to gather dust. Oh but wait, there's more.
For the final blast of realism, the teacher tells Billy that, in order to make sure that ALL the students are getting an extra cookie, Billy has to continue to tutor other students, but give the teacher all the extra cookies he earns so that she can redistribute them more equitably. As a matter of fact, any students who earn extra cookies all have to hand anything in excess of the basic one-cookie amount to the teacher, who, of course, is the only who can determine what is a "fair" distribution.
So, I ask you, gentle reader, which scenario is more fair? Let's try this from a slightly different perspective.
Billy Squaredaway goes to school, gets good grades, gets into a decent college and graduates. Maybe he joins the military or heads straight for corporate America. Perhaps, based on his education, drive, and experience, he develops an innovative distribution system that streamlines a company's processes. He gets a hefty raise, and is soon making $125,000 a year.
Johnny Snotlocker drops out of high school, gets a series of dead end jobs, moves in with his pregnant girlfriend, who also dropped out of school, and they end up living on welfare and food stamps. Most of which are used to buy cigarettes and poptarts. All told, they bring in maybe $27,000 a year.
The socialists will scream that it is Billy's obligation, his duty, to calve off huge chunks of his hard earned money to help out Johnny, who is "poor." After all, since Johnny is a victim of the capitalist process, it only makes sense to penalize the capitalists to help him. It's UNFAIR of Billy to have all that money while Johnny languishes on food stamps, "unable" to earn a living.
I think that it's UNFAIR to expect Billy to be forced to pay his EARNED income to Johnny, just because. I think that it's UNFAIR for Billy to face scorn and derision for having the audacity to actually be successful. I think it's unfair to penalize Billy for being more successful by taking more in taxes to support Johnny each time Billy's wages increase.
I think it's UNFAIR of Johnny to expect, even demand that he be supported, as if it was some right. He had many of the same opportunities as Billy. He made different choices.
What the socialists always seem to miss is that the more disincentives we give the Billys of the world to be prosperous, the less money they will have to pour back into the economy. The more we penalize our highest wage earners and the more we demand they pay into government social programs, the less they will spend on consumer goods, the production of which keeps so many people emplolyed. Make it too expensive for a business to operate due to heavy taxes to support things like welfare and unemployment, the more jobs are lost as the company moves offshore.
You actually create more unemployment be insisting on this bastardized forms of "fairness." We are the strongest, healthiest, most advanced country on the planet. We got that way by encouraging innovation, achievement, excellence and rewards for good performance. Not by the levying of crushing taxes which make rich people into poor people, and the poor people into slaves of the state.
I guess my sense of decency is in a struggle with my notion of allowing people to do what they want.
On the other hand, when I was thirteen, I would have been so into that it's not even funny. But that was... um... mumblemumble years ago.
You want jackbooted thugs? Look no father than the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Think of all the money we could save if they were shut down. Millions! Billions, even!
Monday, March 03, 2008
Second, a post on gated communities in Great Britain. And the reason I find this post interesting is due to the number of gated communities here in Puerto Rico.
Hell, gated communities, gated houses, bars over every window and opening, permanently locked doors on shops, you name it, the crime rate here has made people live like prisoners in their own houses, which have more iron over the windows than most prisons I've ever seen. To get into the leather shop we frequent here, you have to go through a wrought iron door, and stand in front of another door which is locked, whereupon the shop owner and see you and identify if you're carrying anything naughty, and whether or not he should let you into the shop. Other than the big chain stores, this is the norm. All doors are always locked, and the shopkeeper lets you into the store when you ring a doorbell or a buzzer. MacPhearson's Leather in Seattle was in what we considered a high crime area, and all they had was a little alarm on the door to let them know when someone walked in.
The houses have bars everywhere. Most places don't have a single opening that's not covered by bars or concrete. One house I went to had three different locks on three different doors just to get into the kitchen. We have friends who own a house a little ways from post, and every entrance into that house is made from solid steel, with security locks, with different keys for each door. And they live inside a gated community! This is how they have to deal with the crime INSIDE A GATED COMMUNITY! Their dog has bitten at least two people who tried to crawl over their back fence. In a gated community.
Now, I've told you all that so I can ask you this: What is the big common denominator between Great Britain and Puerto Rico?
Both countries have severely restrictive gun laws. As in, the ordinary Joe can't get a gun, which means that the criminals, many of whom DO have guns, can have the run of the place and do whatever the hell they want without fear of being ventilated.
Hmmmmmmmm...... Anyways, go. Read. Vote.
Sunday, March 02, 2008
Here's a question for my readers: Can you identify the Palestinian Army uniform?
Of course you can't. They use Hamas and Fatah "militants" as their army. They have no uniformed military service. They're freaking TERRORISTS, for cryin' out loud. So that fact ties in with THIS fact:
Every time you read about Palestinian "civilians" being killed, you cannot think of that as a western civilizations. Because all of the militants being killed are technically "civilians". They don't wear a uniform. They don't follow the Geneva Conventions. They don't target other military forces.
They wear civilian garb. They target other civilians. They use hospitals, schools, and other bases of population as attack points.
What does this all mean? Well, because we have a biased, worthless, kool-aid guzzling media, what this means is that if the IDF kills some shithead who's attacking a disco or pizza joint, then they've killed a "civilian".
Think about that. According to the MSM, some terrorist asshat firing an AK-47 at a group of Jews waiting for a bus is technically a "civilian".
According to the MSM, some carpet-munching fuckstick who's assaulting an IDF checkpoint is a "civilian".
According to the MSM, some turbaned tumblefuck who's firing rockets into an Israeli town is a "civilian".
So when you hear about "60 civilians" being killed..... well, you can bet good money that 59 of them were carrying rifles or RPGs and attacking Israel. So, to anyone who had a brain and who lives in the real world, they're not "civilians". They are "enemy combatants", and they are perfectly legitimate targets.