06 May 2009

Abortions: Should the father have some say?

People love to go on about how abortion is a women’s issue and it’s solely her choice because it’s her body. There are two fundamental facts that destroy that argument. First, abortion is a HUMAN RIGHTS issue, not a women’s issue. One sperm and egg meet, a human life is formed. That’s a fact of science, not a fact of religion. Second, excluding rape or incest, a woman made her choice once she decided to have sex with a man.

The consequence of the choice is that future decisions, including abortion, need to include the father. After all, it’s his sperm that helped make the baby she’s looking to abort. The law needs to acknowledge abortion as a human rights issue and grant fathers a legal standing in the decision making process. An unborn human child should be afforded the same rights as a born human child.

Many women in today’s society believe that abortion is merely another birth control option. Why? Because sex ed in public schools teaches them that. They give girls condoms and if they end up pregnant anyway, abortion is always discussed as an option. Planned parenthoods, for example, will help a girl get an abortion without her family or the father knowing anything about it. They’re taking advantage of a scared child who doesn’t want to get in trouble. Planned Parenthood workers have been caught on tape telling girls to lie about their age and to say they don’t know who the father is. This isn’t in one area of the country. It’s all over.

There is a double standard in play. A woman has an unconditional right to have an abortion, whether she’s being vain, wants to get even with the father or is trying to hide the fact that she is irresponsible. So, off she goes to the clinic and the poor father has zero say in the matter. It’s her body and she can do with it what she wants. No, sorry. I don’t agree with that. Whether you see it as a baby or a sack of cells, it is not hers exclusively. It took two people to create that life, it should take two people to destroy it. If a father is willing to take complete control of the child and raise it on his own, he should have the legal recourse to take her to court and stop her from getting an abortion. There of course needs to be the legal binding contract that he will pay for the child and after it’s born assume all responsibility for it.

I have seen time and time again the following scenario. A woman gets pregnant and decides she wants to have the baby. The father decides otherwise and makes his feelings known. She has the child, sues him for child support AND WINS. Where is HIS right not to be a parent? Why can the woman number one get an abortion over the father’s objections yet the woman in number two can force the father to pay support for a child he never wanted?

The system needs to change to accommodate BOTH parents. Procedures need be implemented to protect the rights of men who want to be fathers as well as protecting women from men who merely are trying to make their lives miserable by taking advantage of the situation. Legal procedures can establish the future of the child, and make sure that the fathers keep their words. The current system can not go on unchecked. It might be a woman’s body, but when she willingly has sex with a man, she already made her choice.

05 May 2009

Are you concerned that governments may use climate change policy to limit your lifestyle choices?

For years there has been a movement spear headed by Al Gore and his following urging the government to pass all sorts of “environmental” laws. They are pushing the government to draft and pass laws that control the behaviour of and limit the choices of Americans. The best part, as was demonstrated on the night the world went dark for an hour, is that Al Gore does NOT practice what he preaches. His Tennessee home was brightly lit with excessive lighting while the rest of the state went dark.

There is a movement to rid the country of incandescent bulbs in favour of the new “green bulb”. That might not be so bad if we replaced them with the green bulbs that are being produced in KY. Instead, we are to use the mercury filled bulbs that are being imported from China. If you think these bulbs are so much better, look at this government drafted guide to handling these bulbs if they break and when they blow. No more tossing the bulb in the trash!!

http://www.energystar.gov/ia/products/lighting/cfls/downloads/CFL_Cleanup_and_Disposal.pdf

Parts of the nation have bans on dish detergent. How sad is it when you have to smuggle detergent in from another state. There’s a movement to ban plastic bags from the grocery. For people like me who have secondary uses for the bags after bringing them home, that’s going to be a burden trying to find a substitute.

It seems that the government is encroaching in our lives more and more every day. They uses taxes and laws to control what we can and can’t do. You want to smoke? You have to pay taxes on tobacco. You want to send a letter or a card? The cost of postage stamps keeps going up. Energy costs are rising while simultaneous “cost saving tips” are drummed into our heads to get us to only set our heating and cooling between certain levels. I’m tired of paying through the nose to make the choices I have a right to make.

The thing that angers me the most is how Al Gore, the schools, and the media are scaring the hell out of our children over “Global Warming”. Children are TERRIFIED that they either won’t grow up or if they do they will be alone because their families will be dead. British, Canadian, and even American scientists are among the outspoken who have been saying for some time that Global Warming is a farce and that we are in fact moving into another ice age. ANY changes to the climate will not be apparent for thousands of years. Yet starting at a young age, our children are being brainwashed by the Government that it knows best how they should live in order to protect the earth.

I support recycling and cutting down on unnecessary waste. conserving electricity, not wasting paper to save trees. But the government needs to stop taking advantage of the alleged “Global Climate Crisis” to make money and brainwash the people.

04 May 2009

Is the death penalty just or unjust?

The death penalty is not only just, but practical. Since the bleeding heart do-gooders have been getting their way, the crime rate in America has skyrocketed. The perception that human life is valuable has fallen by the wayside as pro choice activists brainwash the youth of America into thinking that Abortion is a women’s issue when it is in fact a human rights issue.

It seems that there are a lot more people in the media, in Hollywood, and in our school systems who are making more and more excuses for bad behaviour rather then punishing it. More and more criminals are being made to look like victims themselves rather then the monsters they are. As a result, countless groups have popped up all over that are anti capital punishment. It doesn’t matter what these monsters do because it’s not their fault. It was their upbringing, their childhood experiences, the company they keep, the victim’s fault. Everyone else is to blame but them.

The death penalty used to serve two main purposes. It was used as a deterrent and it brought a sense of justice and closure to the victim’s families. Now it seems to be another political tool in the tool box, to be used when they think it will help their chances of winning.

Let’s take a practical look at the prison systems today. For starters, the punishments rarely seem to fit the crime. In the case of murderers, they are often far to lenient. Someone who takes the life of another is sentenced to prison where he gets three nutritious meals a day, can exercise and do weight training, often has telly and internet, can have visitors come to see them, has the best healthcare around at no cost to them (because they’re not paying taxes while they’re in jail not working), has free education (high school and college/vocational) and (because he’s a murderer) is typically left alone. Do you know the cost of all these “benefits”? Gone are the days of people losing their rights while they were serving their sentences. Now they practically have more rights then the people who behave.

The shift from “Prisons” and “Penitentiaries” to “Correctional Facilities” has cost the tax payers a ton of money. Sadly, most of the offenders soon become repeat offenders, often evolving into more violent and dangerous individuals. A good many of the more “minor” offenders are often given early release due to over crowding. If the death sentences were carried out a little quicker and the states that didn’t have the death penalty adopted it, it would certainly help to clear out the prisons some.

It sounds absolutely harsh but it’s the logical conclusion. Why pay to support a vile, violent criminal who isn’t the least bit remorseful for the lives (s)he’s destroyed be supported by the tax payers for the rest of his/her natural born days? The only life these people see as valuable is their own. If there is overwhelming forensic evidence that says without a doubt that this person committed first degree murder, they should be sentenced to death and that sentence should be carried out in a more reasonable time. Twenty years on death row is unacceptable.

It’s utterly disgusting to see these people fighting so hard to preserve their own lives when they often didn’t just murder, but raped and or tortured their victims. Ted Bundy did unspeakable things to his victims, as did the Green River Killer. yet when it came to them, all of a sudden life had value.

I think we need to start bringing back the old forms of punishment a bit. Prison shouldn’t be a vacation. When you’re in prison, you lose your rights. You cannot vote, you do not get cable or the internet, you do not get free higher education, you do not get rushed to the hospital over a splinter. (True story as told to me by my cousin, a prison guard. They’d rather risk the expense of an ambulance trip to the emergency room then be sued in a frivolous lawsuit that the criminal will probably win.)

People who callously take the lives of others should pay with their own lives. They should not be allowed to live while their victims are dead and their victim’s families are broken. More over, I don’t think the tax payers should be supporting these criminals indefinitely! That money can go toward something useful like education and children’s programmes. Perhaps the money saved by executing 1st degree murders can be used to prevent another youth from ending up in the criminal justice system.

Should DNA paternity testing be mandatory?

This is like a tricky essay question. There is ample information to sustain either argument but you have to be able to look at the big picture and see the potential disaster that lies ahead. The short answer is I feel It would be counter productive and costly, not to mention a violation of privacy. Who you have sex with is your business unless your a child (making it your parents and the DAs business) or married (making it your spouses and probably they’re divorce solicitor’s business).

Imagine the cost to test multiple suspects if the woman is “unsure who the father is but has a pretty good idea”. We’ve all heard of those women who find themselves in the unlucky position of having two or more viable candidates and having to figure out how to handle the situation tactfully. And what if the woman was a victim of rape and didn’t know her attacker? Believe it or not there are women who become pregnant after a rape and keep the baby.

I am against mandatory testing because I see the bigger picture of where this will inevitably lead. Aside from it being a privacy issue, once the government has that DNA sample, they’re never going to let it go. There are multitudes of different ways that information can be misused. Supposing there is a very good reason a woman does not want the father of her child to know he has a child? A survivor of domestic abuse who got away before she found out she was pregnant is probably not going to want her abuser to be able to use that child to control and hurt her.

I am against the government having anymore control over my life then they already have. If they have your DNA on file, they will know if you’re predisposed to have any health conditions and can use that information to control the health care industry. The government is already looking to socialize health care. With DNA testing, they can charge or tax certain people more because their genes say they may have a predisposition to heart disease or diabetes.

How would we like it if in the future the government use the DNA information to limit who can have children and who can’t? How would we like it if they started doing the sorts of experiments Hitler’s people once did to come up with a supreme race of human? It sounds far fetched but Hitler already did such experiments once. Another Hitler type who comes along will have all this DNA information that the former didn’t have access too? History has show that under the right conditions, people can be duped into doing all sorts of things they wouldn’t normally do.

The government already tells us where we can and can’t smoke and then taxes the hell out of smokers to get them to quit because THEY want them to. They tell us what kind of light bulbs we should buy and what kinds of cars we should drive. They preach at us to be tolerant of the views they approve of and criticize anything that conflicts with their agenda. They don’t want to represent us, they want to dominate us.

Mandatory paternity testing sounds great on the surface, but we need to look at the long term precedent that will be set. We cannot willingly hand over our rights because we are too focused on the small picture. Paternity is an issue that needs to be dealt with by the concerned parties and if need be their solicitors. The government needs to mind their own business.

01 May 2009

Is the US government responding appropriately to the swine flu outbreak?

The government is in no way responding appropriately to the swine flu outbreak. Between Joe Biden saying that he wouldn't be in any crowded places and Janet Naploitano REFUSING to allow Border Control Officers to wear masks because they may "look intimidating" it's pretty clear that the administration is not on the same page, or even in the same book. They need to get their act together and send out a strong, consistant, honest message about what's really going on. They also need to put the politics and image management aside and put the citizens of out country first. After all, isn't that what they take an oath to do?

This out break has brought to mind the immigration problems that have been, for all intents and purposes, swept under the rug. The bottom line is simple—Immigration laws exist to protect the citizens of America. Part of the immigration process is a health screening. If an immigrant has a disease, such as swine flu, they would be quarantined and treated. This helps to prevents the disease from being brought into our country and spread to our citizens. In the late 1800s and early 1900s when immigrants flocked to the US, they were required to apply for citizenship, have a health screening, learn English, and pass a citizenship test.

Those who were found to be unhealthy were quarantined, or in extreme cases, refused entry and sent back to where ever they came from. That was back in the days when the government was still more concerned with the welfare of its citizens then its image in the eyes of foreign leaders.

While I don’t want to see people, especially children, get sick and possibly die, I do hope this opens the eyes of the extreme leftists who think we should have completely open borders with no restrictions whatsoever. Maybe they will now see the potential, unintended danger of letting illegal aliens from ANY country run unchecked in America.

France has limited entry to their country, especially air planes that are coming from countries with infected people. Our government won't even close the border down to keep unnecessary traffic from passing through. Why? Because the MEXICAN government relies on our commerce. Last time I checked, Mexico wasn't one of the 50 United States or it's possessions. So why are we putting their welfare before our own?

Janet Napolitano has gone as far as to prohibit border agents from wearing protective masks because it makes them look intimidating. Intimidating to WHO?? The Mexican Army is wearing masks and are managing not to intimidate the people. So they should get sick and bring it home to their families and friends because the masks don't coordinate with their uniforms? That would be akin to firefighters not wearing oxygen masks because they might scare any little children who might be in a burning building. It defies common sense and shows us how little the government cares about the safety and welfare of it's citizens.

It seems that this administration has been more concerned with what the world thinks of them then what the people of their own country thinks of them. They've changed the name from "Swine Flu" to "H1N1 Flu". Like we're a better class of people because we have "H1N1" instead of "Swine Flu".

The government hasn't done anything constructive to remedy the situation. The media, especially Fox News, has done a far better job of keeping people informed on the state of the illness then the administration. Kudos to the local governments for taking the needed actions such as closing schools and setting up special healthcare facilities as not to create new cases.

I hope this outbreak is a real wake up call for the powers that be. Someone in Obama's cabinet is suspected of having the flu. Maybe after they see first hand, up close how bad the illness is, they’ll stop being so superficial. Maybe after all these “sanctuary cities get flooded with new cases that are spread by the undocumented, illegal immigrants and the still-open borders, they’ll wise up and appreciate the laws a little more. It’s terrible that things are in the state they’re in because personal politics, appearance, and superficial decisions are prevailing.

Many thoughts and prayers go out to those affected by the flu, wherever they may be.

Should those who have committed crimes be allowed to benefit from their publications?

For years, people have been producing movies and writing books about some of the most heinous crimes in history. It’s standard practice that if someone writes a book about your story, you get compensated. Seems fair, right?

But what if you’re the one who COMMITTED the crime? Should you be compensated? Most people say no. Absolutely not. I say, if they are leaving behind a family who has nothing to do with their criminal activities, the proceeds should be given to them. It’s a tricky call as there are so many factors to consider. Sometimes it’s easy to rule out the family knowing. Sometimes not so much. It’s usually a safe bet that children don’t take part in their parents crimes, but when it comes to spouses, people constantly ask “how could (s)he NOT know (s)he was doing ______? They’re married/living together!!” Like that somehow means you know your spouse’s every move. If that was the case there would be fewer affairs going on because they’d be caught as soon as the thought entered their head.

As an example, let’s it’s many years ago and Bill Clinton murdered Jennifer Flowers and Monica Luinski and Hillary was a home maker who had no idea he did it until he was arrested a few years after the fact. If a book is written about Clinton’s life leading up to the murders and he is the central focus, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for the proceeds go to support his wife and child he is no longer supporting. To be fair, a percentage can go to the victim’s families, but we should remember that Hillary and Chelsea would be victims too, not just Jennifer and Monica.

It should be stipulated that none of the proceeds can go directly to Bill at anytime or indirectly via a “gift” from his wife. As another example, had Scott Peterson’s son had lived, any proceeds from books or movies should go in trust toward his care and education.

If the book focuses on the crime itself, then the victims should be the recipients of the larger portion of revenues from the book or film. Divy it up among them and, if applicable, leave a small percentage to go toward the care of uninvolved spouses and children of the criminal. There are so many cases where a parent and/or spouse commits a crime and the children’s support is gone.

I don’t think the actual criminal should get anything other then jail time and/or the death penalty if it’s warranted. Their families that are left behind have already suffered because of what their spouse/parent did and shouldn’t be continually punished. The damage that is done often scars them for life. They shouldn’t have to shoulder a financial burden along with the stigma of being the spouse/child of THAT ONE who killed….raped….robbed….etc.

Often these crimes leave far more victims then the ones who were attacked directly and people tend to forget that.

30 April 2009

The Swine Flu Pandemic and a Low Flying Jet

First and foremost, I want to offer my prayers for those who have been affected by the disease. Mexico has been hit pretty hard and there are a lot of devastated families who are mourning their loved ones.

That being said, this out break has brought to mind the immigration problems that have been, for all intents and purposes, swept under the rug. The bottom line is simple—Immigration laws exist to protect the citizens of America. Part of the immigration process is a health screening. If an immigrant has a disease, such as swine flu, they would be quarantined and treated. This helps to prevents the disease from being brought into our country and spread to our citizens. In the late 1800s and early 1900s when immigrants flocked to the US, they were required to apply for citizenship, have a health screening, learn English, and pass a citizenship test which, incidentally, I believe the majority of America’s youth could not pass.

Those who were found to be unhealthy were quarantined, or in extreme cases, refused entry and sent back to where ever they came from. That was back in the days when the government was still more concerned with the welfare of its citizens then its image in the eyes of foreign leaders.

While I don’t want to see people, especially children, get sick and possibly die, I do hope this opens the eyes of the extreme leftists who think we should have completely open borders with no restrictions whatsoever. Maybe they will now see the potential, unintended danger of letting illegal aliens from ANY country run unchecked in America.

One a similar note, I love how the media is using this “pandemic” do divert attention away from the wrong doings of the Administration and their idiotic underlings. The person who authorized the “photo op” fly over Manhattan should be fired. As a native New Yorker, I can tell you that if I was there that day and saw that I would have panicked as well. To see what looked liked a 747 being escorted by military jets immediately evokes thoughts of another terror attack.

It’s not bad enough they authorized it, but they didn’t bother to TELL anyone. People were streaming out of the office buildings and flooding the streets. Calls were lighting up the 911 switchboards as people called for help. Even the MAYOR wasn’t told anything. I’m glad to see that Bloomburg forgot for a minute that he was a Democrat and lit into whomever he got in Washington about the damage they did to the citizens of NY and NJ.

I hope the swine flu doesn’t spread though the US and I hope they can contain it in Mexico. My grandmother lost her mother and youngest sibling to the Influenza outbreak in 1918. She always spoke about how horrible it was and how there were people sick and dying everywhere. She lived in Manhattan and clearly remembered people laying in the streets and the hospitals being full. She remembered people burying their dead daily. She was only 5 years old, but it stuck with her vividly. Hopefully in these modern times we can avoid a repeat of that epidemic.

Many thoughts and prayers to those affected by the flu wherever they may be.

02 April 2009

5. If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.

Lately on the news and in blogs I’ve been seeing a lot of crime and punishment talk that can be split into three categories:

(1) People who commit crimes and get a sentence that is too lenient for the crime .

(2) People who commit crimes and get  a harsher sentence then someone else who committed a similar crime would.

(3) People CREATING rules against activity that no normal person would forbid.

(1) The biggest debates on this topic is revolve around children. Just last week I heard on the O’Reilly Factor about a judge in Hillsborough, FL who released a CONVICTED sex offender to remain free on bail while he appeals his conviction. That process could take months or even years. While the judge is TECHNICALLY with in his discretion, he has completely ignored the pleas of the prosecutors and the public at large. Richard M. Chotiner was convicted of sexual molesting a 23 year old man who functions at the mental level of a 10-year old boy. Aside from the victim, there are countless other potential victims in close vicinity of the offender’s house.The full story was printed in the St. Petersburg Times.

One of O’Reilly’s pet projects has been the promoting of “The Jessica Lundsford Act” more commonly known as “Jessica’s Law” The law is named after Jessica Lunsford, a young Florida girl who was raped and murdered in February 2005 by John Couey, a previously convicted sex offender. Public outrage over this case spurred Florida officials to introduce this legislation. Among the key provisions of the law are a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years in prison and lifetime electronic monitoring of adults convicted of lewd or lascivious acts against a victim less than 12 years old. In Florida, sexual battery or rape of a child less than twelve years old is punishable only by life imprisonment with no chance of parole. 

Bill says it best on his WEBSITE:

“If you've been watching The Factor, you know we are engaged in a battle to protect young children from sexual predators. Many states don't protect children from sexual predators and allow these criminals back on the street to commit these crimes again. There have been despicable cases all across America in which girls and boys have been raped, abused, and even murdered - often by serial sex offenders who had been released by authorities after serving short prison sentences.
Here are just a few of the more egregious examples:

  • In Rhode Island, 18-year-old Josh Maciorski was convicted of having sex with a 13-year-old girl, but sentenced to probation. Two years later he molested a 14-year-old girl and served just one year. Then, when he got out, Maciorski raped a 16-year-old girl. His sentence after this third strike - an unbelievable three years in prison.
  • In Missouri, 19-year old Darrell Jackson pleaded guilty to repeatedly sexually abusing a little girl, beginning when she was just eight. But when Jackson came up for sentencing, a soft judge gave him four months in prison and five years probation.
  • In Minnesota, Joseph Duncan stood in front of a judge, accused of molesting a young boy. Despite the fact that Duncan had previously served 16 years for raping another young boy at gunpoint, the judge released him on just $15,000 bail. Duncan promptly skipped bail and headed for Idaho, where he allegedly kidnapped, raped, and killed a 9-year old boy, molested his sister, and killed their family.”

Need I say more?

(2) Everybody has heard about the Manson murders. Everyone knows how members of the family murdered the eight month pregnant actress Sharon Tate and her house guests, then killed the LaBiancas the next night. It has been argued that the primary reason that the culprits are still in prison is because Sharon Tate was a celebrity. The case was high profile, much like the Scott Peterson case. It seems that for every Tate or Peterson case where the offenders are condemned to death twice as many get off with 10 – 15 years or less.(Manson and his crew had their death penalties commuted to life when CA repealed the death penalty and it was not reinstated when CA reinstated the death penalty)

But is this really the case? I’m thinking not so much. Sure, there are a small percentage of judges or juries who convict based on who the victim is rather then the weight of the evidence that proves the defendant really did it. Most of the time it’s combination of other factors that go into sentencing, such as motive, the amount of evidence gathered and plea bargaining. Then of course it depends on whether or not the judge wants to make an example of you or use the case to make a political statement.

Here’s some food for thought… Scott Peterson was charged with the death of his unborn son because it was deemed that the baby would have viable outside of the womb. Peterson isn’t the only one to be convicted of the murder of unborn children. So why is Dr. George Tiller “the baby killer” only being charged with 19 misdemeanors for committing late term abortions. For $5000, any woman can walk into Tiller’s clinic and he will murder the baby citing “mental anguish” on the part of the mother. Even worse then that is partial birth abortion. Why is it ok for those murders to walk free while the Scott Peterson’s of the world are in the slammer for life or on death row? Is it because it’s at the mother’s request? Then why did Susan Smith and Andrea Yates go to jail for murdering THEIR children? After all, they were murdering THEIR children.

The point isn’t that Scott Peterson or the murdering mothers should be free. What they did was reprehensible. Why is it ok for some babies to be murdered and never see justice while others do? Not only are these children viable outside the womb, in the case of partial birth abortion, they’re already half way out! Why would you kill a child that way?

(3) I was watching Fox News a couple of days ago and saw the most ridiculous story I’ve seen in a while. I don’t know WHAT is wrong with some of the people in Connecticut but they’re blooming idiots. Apparently there is a least one school in Connecticut that has banned any students from touching another student. Period. This means no good morning hugs, no high fives, no holding hands, none of that light punching that guys often do (especially athletes), NOTHING. Why you ask? Because apparently THREE boys reported being kicked in the crotch. They didn’t ever say WHY they were kicked in the crotch. It’s been my experience that if a boy gets kicked in the crotch it’s either by accident (because he’s horsing around with someone) or self defense (because he’s bothering some girl). There could be someone mean enough to just do it for funnsies, but…

So the schools solution is to try to change human nature rather then deal with each individual case and punish the perp, be it the racker or the rackee. So here we have an example of yet another ridiculous law created by the powers that be because they’re too damn lazy to deal with a small problem and somehow think a blanket ban is going to eliminate all their problems. One boy showed up to school with his arms duct taped to his sides in protest. Good for him!

So while the world isn’t perfect, the system works pretty well. Especially when liberals and the ACLU aren’t interfering on behalf of criminals instead of taking up for American citizens and the VICTIMS of the crimes. The founding fathers knew what they were doing. As usual. We need to remember that. If we haven’t already, (there are after all still some responsible parents out there) we need to teach out kids that if you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and the country at large needs to start making sure that the Paris Hiltons and Lindsay Lohens of the world are not above the law and will get punished just as harshly as the fool down the street would.

29 March 2009

Peter Sallis Gets Married, 1957

Sallis Marries Usher

English television actor Peter Sallis with his wife Elaine Usher after their wedding at St. John's Wood Church, London, 9th February 1957. (Photo by Evening Standard/Hulton Archive/Getty Images)

23 March 2009

4. The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government.

This principle really hits on one of my personal pet peeves. The government has interfered in every aspect of the family life from raising the kids to what temperature we should set our thermostats to. Enough is enough!

I don’t want anybody telling me how to run my household and most American’s feel the same way. Al Gore and his band of merry idiots are screaming about about global warming. The fact that reputed scientists have debunked the global warming myth and proved we’re moving into an ice age has completely escaped them. Based on this misinformation, the government has set about “suggesting” to us how to  heat and cool our homes, what types of automobiles to purchase, and what types of bulbs we should use to light our houses. If we don’t conform, we’re crucified for destroying the earth. Some of those are ideas worth considering to save money, but again, that’s MY decision to make. I don’t want to be guilted or bribed into it.

Then we have the touchy subject of parenting. Back in the dark ages (circa 1950 something), schools were a surrogate parent while students were there. In other words, they could discipline you child at school much the way you would when you were home. If you did something wrong, you got it from the teacher at school, then you got it again from you parents when you got home. Now a days, teachers by and large don’t say BOO to students and the ones that do are often the targets of lawsuits or discipline. The result? Modern schools crank out class after class of intellectual and social idiots. The standard of learning has dropped considerably in ten years, so the valedictorians of today are only about as smart as the B students ten years ago. Naturally there are exceptions and I’m sure there are students who are SMARTER then the valedictorians ten or more years ago. But for the most part they are not.

While years ago schools and the parents worked together to prepare the children for life, now you will find the schools working AGAINST parents. There are no longer harsh punishments for acting out in class. Parents are no longer notified about what goes on in their children’s lives outside of grades. Students can get condoms, birth control, and information on abortion clinics that will perform procedures, all without the parents ever knowing. While years ago there was usually one parent at home, now usually both parents are working. It’s hard enough for parents to juggle running the house, working outside the house, raising children, and working on their relationship with each other without schools interfering and making it that much harder to keep on top of the kids.

A lot of public schools, especially in the south, are deciding to go with “uniforms”. Either an actual uniform or set outfit that is to be worn daily (ie red polo top and tan pants). They would rather incur more expense on the parents then enforce their own dress code rules. Parents who may have relied on hand-me-downs from other relatives or siblings now have to go out and buy special clothes from school.

Most of these problems stem from the government interfering. Corporal punishment should never had been taken out of school. The Dr. Spocks of the world think they can solve all the behavioural problems with words and time outs. That is not true. Every once in a while a problem student just needs a good slap in the mouth when they curse out a teacher or a smack with the ruler or paddle when start a fight in the hallway. That’s not going to kill them. The killings started when punishment went out the window and bullying ran rampant because THERE ARE NO CONSEQUENCES. Detention and suspension do not work. Ignoring the problem doesn’t work. Telling the victims to get a tougher skin doesn’t work.

What works is when the school disciplines the students there and then informs the parents so THEY can make the ultimate decision on how to correct the behaviour. Got a problem with a student constantly breaking dress code? Send them home until the parents make sure they dress right. In cases where the parents refuse to or are unable to handle the child, THEN a school or government agency can step in. Schools need to give the power back to the parents by keeping them informed. Don’t be lazy and change the policy to punish the students who do obey the rules. Don’t send home or mail a note and never follow up on it. Too many parents have gotten lazy because they either assume everything is ok because they haven’t heard anything or they assume if it gets too bad somebody else will handle it.

I’m also tired of all the politically correct nonsense and attempts at censoring what gets shown on the telly or played on the radio. Again, it’s up to the parents to be responsible parents. There are plenty of single parents who work long hours or multiple jobs who manage to keep their kids in check, are aware of what’s going on and control what they watching on telly or doing on the internet. If they can manage, then 98% of households should be able to manage. (Again, 2% for legitimate exceptions.)

I don’t need the government taking stuff off the air because a child might see it. If children see it, too bad. That’s their parent’s problem, not mine. There are warnings and ratings on the shows. that’s enough. When you have 11 year olds having sex in the alcoves of classrooms, that sounds more like a lack of supervision and bad parenting then the influence of a bare boobie or bottom on some sitcom. Like it or not, we still have freedom of speech and the arts. You have the freedom to turn the channel or station.

There are boucous of parents who complain about how marketing campaigns target their children with their free sex, unrealistic appearances, and trampy outfits. Last time I checked, you were still the parent(s). Try exercising that right instead of caving into your kids or doing nothing but complain. There are a LOT of parents who stand their ground and forbid their kids to do, watch, or wear what the media is peddling. And you know what? It WORKS. If more parents tried it, the campaigns would fade out because they would no longer be effective.

American families for the most part are self sufficient and responsible. Unfortunately in recent years there has been an increase of irresponsibility and government dependence. It’s easier to let someone else handle your problem then to have your kids be mad at you. You know, the age old being a parent vs. being a friend argument.

Hillary Clinton once made the infamous statement, “it take a village to raise a child.” That statement is an absolute perversion of tradition. In the old days, even in NYC which is notorious for people keeping to themselves, people in the neighbourhood knew what was going on. If you did something stupid or wrong, your parents often knew about it before you got home. If there was a death or illness in the family, the neighbours often brought over casseroles and offered to help with chores or to watch the kids. That’s normal. What Hillary meant but would probably never admit to is a welfare system of sorts. Unfortunately there are very few people who do it right—get on while their down then get off again. More often then not, once they get on, they stay on. And that suits the government fine because they can use that to manipulate politics to their favour.

The bottom line is clear. Parents need to be parents. I don’t want to raise your kids and I don’t want you raising mine. What goes on between the spouses is nobodies business.

Barring instances of child or domestic abuse, THE FAMILY IS SACRED. THE SPOUSES ARE THE ULTIMATE ATHORITY, NOT THE GOVERNMENT.

REMEMBER that before you sign any more of your rights away.

20 March 2009

A Few Words From Thomas Paine…

 

Thomas Paine is STILL right on the money when it comes to the role of Government.... sort of. Meet Bob Basso, the modern day personification of Thomas Paine. And remember, only WE have the power to change the path our country is on.

The Second American Revolution

 

We The People Stimulus Package

Wendy Richard dies at age 65

Wendy Richard, who died on February 26 aged 65, became one of the best-known faces on British television during more than 20 years as the long-suffering matriarch Pauline Fowler in the BBC soap EastEnders; as a younger woman she had been cast in more glamorous roles, notably as the buxom Miss Brahms in the 1970s situation comedy Are You Being Served?

Last Updated: 5:16PM GMT 26 Feb 2009

Former Eastenders actress Wendy Richard, who played Pauline Fowler, has died of cancer age 65. ; http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1488655367/bctid14168476001 http://www.brightcove.com/channel.jsp?channel=1139053637

For years she endured a bumpy relationship with the tabloid press, which constantly feasted on EastEnders and regarded her as a soap diva; when an ex-boyfriend sold lurid stories about her to the News of the World, Wendy Richard was forced to take out a court injunction against the paper.

In 1994 her third husband, Paul Glorney, sold further information to the same newspaper for a reported £15,000, generating the front page headline “Wendy’s Boozing Sank Our Marriage”. On the studio set, too, life was seldom straightforward for her, and she survived more than one attempt to have Pauline written out.

Wendy Richard’s character had been in EastEnders since the opening episode was broadcast early in 1985; she rejected criticism that Pauline Fowler, manageress of the Albert Square launderette, was miserable, never smiled and dressed like a drab.

A convivial trouper who hugely enjoyed the trappings of soap stardom, Wendy Richard also believed that she was entitled to the same privacy as non-celebrities: in 1995, when she appeared on BBC Radio’s Desert Island Discs, she stopped an inquisitive Sue Lawley four times in the course of the recording after the presenter strayed from the pre-agreed, anodyne agenda; she was annoyed still further when she was not allowed to take her pet Cairn terrier to the mythical island as a luxury.

In February the following year she discovered a lump in her left breast and was diagnosed with cancer. After surgery and a course of radiotherapy, she was given the all-clear. But in July 2006 she announced that she would be leaving EastEnders at Christmas after nearly 22 years in the show.

Although she was to make her name as an actress, Wendy Richard first came to national attention, in 1962, on a novelty pop song, Come Outside, in which she had an attenuated speaking part (“Get lost... Give over”) duetting with the singer Mike Sarne in the role of an importunate young man on pleasure bent. To everyone’s amazement, including her own, the record shot to the top of the charts, where it remained for 19 weeks, selling well over half a million copies. It was her first real brush with fame, if not with fortune — she was paid a flat fee of just £15, and received not a penny in royalties.

Her first television break came in 1965 in The Newcomers, one of the BBC’s earliest soaps, designed to rival ITV’s Coronation Street for social realism. Wendy Richard played Joyce Harker, the teenage daughter of a London family relocated to a fictitious dormitory town in Suffolk.

After several cameo spots in Dad’s Army, Wendy Richard finally achieved stardom in 1973 when she was cast as the Cockney shop assistant Shirley Brahms in Are You Being Served?, set in an antiquated department store, and initially launched as a 30-minute pilot in the BBC’s Comedy Playhouse series. She soon made her mark as the love interest for the infatuated Mr Lucas (played by Trevor Bannister) and the daughter figure for the monstrous pussy-fancier Mrs Slocombe (Mollie Sugden).

Wendy Richard reappeared as Shirley Brahms in a follow-up series to Are You Being Served?, called Grace and Favour, which ran for two series in 1992 and 1993. The original Are You Being Served? episodes are still shown on television in America, where they have become cult viewing; her Shirley Brahms character is recognised as a gay icon worldwide.

Wendy Richard was born Wendy Emerton on July 20 1943 at Middlesbrough, where her parents were publicans and kept the Corporation Hotel. She was still an infant when they moved from the north-east, first to Bournemouth and then the Isle of Wight, before settling in the West End of London at the Shepherds Tavern in Shepherd Market, then a notorious resort of prostitutes. Among the raffish clientèle were Elizabeth Taylor and her husband Michael Wilding, and the photographer Anthony Armstrong-Jones (now the Earl of Snowdon) .

With her parents preoccupied with the business, Wendy was raised by nannies and attended St George’s primary school in Mount Street. But her education was interrupted when the family moved again, to the Valentine Hotel at Gants Hill in Essex. Behind the hotel was a large restaurant where a local drama group staged amateur plays, and it was there that Wendy was bitten by the acting bug. Within a matter of months, however, her parents moved yet again, this time to the Streatham Park Hotel, south London, where, in December 1954, her father committed suicide: it was Wendy, then aged 11, who found him dead on the floor in front of a gas fire.

Because her father had been a Freemason, Wendy was enrolled at the Royal Masonic School for Girls at Rickmansworth, all fees paid, while her mother took a series of jobs as housekeeper to various bachelor publicans. When Wendy left school at 16 in 1959 she took a job as a junior in the fashion department at Fortnum & Mason, where the fashion buyer, a Miss Whiteside, later became the inspiration for the brassy, rainbow-coiffed Mrs Slocombe in Are You Being Served?

After only a few months her retail career was sidetracked when her mother bought a small bed-and-breakfast business opposite St Pancras station, and she went to help run it. The enterprise thrived to the extent that her mother was able to scrape together the money to send her to the Italia Conti stage school, where Wendy learned to act, dance and sing; she supplemented her mother’s income by returning to work part-time at various London department stores, including Selfridges, DH Evans, Dickins & Jones and Fenwick (whence she was fired on her second day after telling a woman customer that a coat she was trying on did not suit her).

She was not yet 17 when, on the strength of a glamour portfolio shot by the fashion photographer Michael Barrington-Martin, she landed her first modelling jobs for women’s magazines.

Her first television engagement dates from 1960, when she appeared with Sammy Davis Jr in Sammy Meets The Girls for ATV; speaking parts quickly followed in Dixon of Dock Green and No Hiding Place, the two top police dramas of the time.

A change of agent led to Wendy Richard’s first television series, Harpers West One (1961-63) for ATV, in which she played the receptionist at a department store — “God, I was dreadful,” she recalled; this was followed by spots in various comedy shows. After a chance meeting in the ATV canteen with the scriptwriter Johnny Speight and the actor Michael Caine, she was cast in The Arthur Haynes Show as Haynes’s daughter; when Haynes himself died not long into the run, Speight shelved the scripts, resurrecting them later (and morphing the socialist father into a Right-wing bigot) as Till Death Us Do Part for the BBC.

A turning point for Wendy Richard came when she appeared in a long-running BBC suburban sitcom, Hugh And I, starring Hugh Lloyd and Terry Scott: a few years later, in 1970, the producer, David Croft, would cast her in Dad’s Army, which he co-created with Jimmy Perry, and, three years later, in Are You Being Served? It was Croft who urged her to change her name from Emerton to Richard “because it was short and neat”.

Her film credits included On The Buses and Gumshoe, the latter starring Albert Finney (both 1971); Bless This House and Carry On Matron (both 1972); and Carry On Girls (1973). Her scene with Frankie Howerd in the Beatles’ film Help! (1965) was omitted from the final cut.

She was appointed MBE in the Millennium honours list of 2000. Among the few revelations contained in her memoirs, published in the same year, were her Conservative political sympathies and her daily habit of relaxing with The Daily Telegraph crossword.

Wendy Richard’s marriage, in 1972, to Len Black, a music publisher, ended in divorce; in 1980 she married Will Thorpe, an advertising director, but that marriage also failed. Her third marriage, in 1990, to Paul Glorney, a carpet fitter, ended in 1994.

Since 1996 she had lived with John Burns, a painter and decorator 20 years her junior. They married last October after her cancer had been diagnosed as terminal.

19 March 2009

3. I must always try to be a more honest person than I was yesterday.

Now this is one that the powers that be would choke on if they ever had to prove that they lived by it. Being honest isn’t just telling the truth. It’s all about your actions too. At my last job, I often found myself faced with situations where I had to decide whether or not to be honest. I did customer service, scheduling, and was a driver liaison.  There were many times when drivers were only a half hour or forty five minutes out from the warehouse when they chirped my Nextel to ask if I’d gone for the day. Especially on pay day Fridays. They often needed to get their checks, retrieve an item that was in the building, or sometimes empty returns/trash from their trucks because they had to load quickly in the morning to get an early start on a long trip the next day. I could have said, no, that I had already left and then been gone before they got back, but unless I had something I needed to do, I waited for them.

It seems really simple, but it’s not as easy as it sounds. It would be easy to “forget” to sign out for lunch or to “forget” to sign out then add an extra hour on to the time card the next day. After all, nobody’s gonna know, right? Wrong. YOU’LL know. That’s what matters. You shouldn’t strive to be an honest person because you want to look good for others. You should do it because it makes YOU feel good.

How easy would it be to start telling people the truth instead of white lies that “won’t hurt their feelings”. You don’t have to be vicious to be honest. If you don’t want to talk to your friend that is ringing you up for the fourth time today and it’s only 10 in the morning, be honest and tell that you can’t/won’t/don’t want to talk to them right now and you’ll call them at a set time later. Then make sure you do it.

Have you ever been in a store and checked out only to get away from the line or to your car and find you didn’t pay for something because it was under your coat? What did you do? Or did you ever order something at a restaurant and find that they didn’t charge your for a drink or dessert? Did you bring it to the wait person’s attention? What about if you saw someone drop a five dollar note out of their purse or pocket and walk away. Do you keep it or call to them and give it back? You’re probably thinking that a lot of these things are good deeds and you’re right. They are good deeds. Often doing good deeds goes hand and hand with being an honest person.

I know a lot of states have passed “good Samaritan laws” which REQUIRE you to report a crime if you see one being committed. A lot of religions call for it’s believers to be their brother’s keeper or make sure that other followers of the faith are doing what they’re supposed to be doing. That too is part of being honest. West Point Military Academy is FAMOUS for it’s honour code. It’s sometimes HARD to be honest about yourself or someone who’s close to you. Sometimes you’re faced between being loyal to your loved one or being honest about what they’re doing or not doing.

I strive to be more honest today then I was the day before. This forces me to be aware of what’s going on around me. I was brought up to be aware of what was going on around me as far as watching for shadows coming up behind me or listening for signs that I was somehow in danger. Now I try to be aware of the conditions around me. If I see a shoplifter, I’m going to report him/her. If I find a toy or watch in the parking lot or entry ways, I’ll turn it into the store. I recycle regularly. Sometimes it’s tempting to just toss that half used tub of icing in the trash because I don’t want to be bothered emptying it out. I have to work to make sure I do the things I don’t want to do if I know it’s something I gave my word I would do.

If we set small goals for ourselves daily or weekly, we’ll soon see how much we’ve improved as individuals. On the plus side, we’re also bound to be honest about our politicians. If we see them doing something that’s dangerous to our country, or just a plain stupid bad idea, we need to speak out against it. We need to write letters and if need be, stage peaceful protests to get their attention. If we set our minds to it, we can all be more honest today then we were yesterday.