I picked up a Gregg's Shorthand book at the public library in the free books section a few weeks ago. I leafed through it and tried to figure it out by reading some of it. It was quite interesting... almost like a completely different language. It looks like a different language. Does anybody still use shorthand anymore? From what I have researched, it is not completely dead... yet. It isn't necessarily required for a secretarial position anymore though like it was in the past. But nobody I know uses it. Well, that's fine though because it wasn't widely used anyway except mostly as a temporary dictation language. Now, there are some older documents that people had primarily written in shorthand, for whatever reason. Basically, we have lost this level of literacy, but it matters very little because it wasn't used widely for common communication anyway. We have books about shorthand that we can learn from if we need to decode some old obscure documents.
I am not going to talk about shorthand. What I want to address are are common forms of communication that are trying to be obsoleted: namely longhand, or what is best known as cursive writing.
I've seen several arguments as to whether it should or should not be taught in elementary school. Many people now (including educators) believe that cursive writing is a waste of time and that it is obsolete - we should focus our efforts on keyboarding now, since that is where most of our communication takes place anyway. I also see a decline in the emphasis on handwriting in block letters as well... only to be kept at a minimal level. This is a disturbing trend.
We shouldn't let handwriting die. Why? Many people consider handwriting (especially cursive) as something that was used in the past and no longer necessary. We all have computers, smart phones and other handheld devices. Why should we bother learning handwriting? The answer is blatantly clear: we still need to learn handwriting because many people currently use it. It's really a no-brainer, yet surprisingly many people still insist that learning it is a waste of time. Since many people (who have learned the art and use it frequently) write in cursive, wouldn't it make sense to be able to read their writing?
I discovered that some teachers or schools were no longer requiring pupils to learn handwriting when my wife wrote a note and one of my children (who was in middle school at the time) could not read it. This is a serious breakdown in communication. I learned that many teachers were no longer teaching it - the reasoning being that it was obsolete. How could an element of our language that is still in use be considered obsolete? This is quite bothersome, especially to someone (me) who believes so strongly in the value of effective communication.
Many proponents of keeping handwriting alive have stated that the reason for learning cursive is that we need to know how to write our signature. This is a pretty lame reason to keep an entire art from dying, so I can see the reasoning behind the push to move on to other methods and leave this art form in the past. Let me leave with some perfectly valid reasons why handwriting should be preserved and still taught in our elementary schools:
1) Consider all the letters, journals, official documents (like wills) and important notes that have been written - not only by those in past years but by those who currently write in cursive. A form of communication that is currently in use (on a large scale) is not obsolete. I guarantee that everyone will encounter cursive handwriting at some time in his or her lifetime. Some people (like secretaries and receptionists) will encounter it on a daily basis.
2) When we lose a level of literacy, we lose a link to our culture and our past. We lose a link to our forebears and ones that we love. It creates gaps in our society and severs ties that cannot be rebuilt. It prevents us from decoding past historical documents and forces the ignorant to rely on the "translation" skills of those more educated in the art. Those of us who have learned cursive handwriting take for granted how easy it is to read this, but to one who has not learned it, this is like a different language altogether... just like trying to learn shorthand.
3) I know this kinda sounds lame, but many other have expressed it and I also agree - cursive handwriting is a beautiful art and helps define your personality... on paper. It's more than a mere signature, but your writing itself. It personifies your writing style. Typewritten messages are so impersonal in that way and can be manipulated and edited, whereas handwriting is very difficult to alter.
So, for the sake of maintaining a level of our literacy and as a means of keeping connected with the many people in the past as well as those who still currently use handwriting, let's keep this important art alive!
Wednesday, May 8, 2013
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
The Three Keys to Good Health
Some of you reading this may wonder why I wouldn't post this on Facebook. Well, believe it or not, some people get offended when you try to share with them things that would help them be healthy because they would rather believe that they could take some kind of pill or have some medical procedure done that would fix their health than to follow ALL THREE of these three elements of healthy living. You may not believe just how many people believe they were born with certain ailments - they were hereditary - or developed them because of environmental factors (being exposed to substances, abusive people or whatever). Now, there are a few people that may not be able to fully follow a plan of healthy living to where these things would benefit them... but those are VERY few and the exception, rather than the rule. Here's a little hint: you're likely not one of them. Most people who have these excuses believe they are this exception. I can't tell you how many people I've talked to who were skeptical about these things but later (after they tried them) went on to boast about how much better they felt. I was one of these skeptics. So without further ado, here they are:
1) Proper diet. This includes eating a nutritious and balanced diet. You consume what your body needs... not excessively nor to any extreme. You eat balanced meals. Fiber is important as well (for proper digestion). Part of this proper diet is also exclusion - excluding harmful substances such as tobacco, alcohol, drugs (to include caffeine) - with the exception of occasional mild pain relievers or antibiotics (only when absolutely necessary) used judiciously. There are other prescription drugs that may need to be taken to save your life or bring you comfort, but then again most often the cure is in the prevention in the first place. There are many medications - even ones prescribed by your doctor - that cause more health problems than they cure. Let me single out one type of medication that is particularly bad and has a bad track record for ruining people's lives: antidepressants. They are poison for your body and mind. Many people can run a course of antidepressants and emerge relatively unscathed, but there are also many of us that have had our lives permanently altered (I mean in a negative way) by these mind-altering drugs. Stay away from them! Believe me, you don't want to take that gamble. Besides, their true effectiveness is marginal, at best. Any positive effects are temporary and only an illusion to the user anyway... just like taking cocaine, speed or LSD. You feel "great" or "different" for awhile, but eventually the effects are devastating. Many people don't even realize just how much their lives have been altered and how their personalities have become much worse on these drugs but their friends and family notice.
2) Exercise. I'm talking about sustained, vigorous cardio-vascular activity at least 5 times a week. Sustained means 30-minutes or more. There are numerous physical benefits (too many to list here) that are derived from exercise, but there are also mental, spiritual and emotional benefits as well. Why? Exercise relieves stress by having an "outlet" for your physical activity. Also, your body chemistry is better regulated and you will naturally get a boost of the chemicals (hormones) that your body needs and craves to combat pain and depression. I refer to exercise as my daily "dose of medicine" because there is nothing more effective than a good workout... no drug, no psychiatric therapy - nothing. I've found that people who don't exercise always have some kind of excuse not to or they think they are getting more exercise than what they are realistically getting. Trust me, I know. I understand. I used to be one of those that made excuses and thought I was getting a proper amount of exercise, when in actuality I wasn't. You have to make a conscious effort to get that exercise. Walking to and from your car - no matter where you park in the parking lot - is not enough. It doesn't count.
3) Sleep/rest. Your body and mind need proper rest and on a regular schedule. The general rule is to have 8-hours of uninterrupted sleep every night. This may not be possible when caring for small children or when your sleep is interrupted by noises or flashing lights. Do your best to ensure you get the proper amount of uninterrupted sleep. Your bedroom should be conducive to rest - meaning that you should have a comfortable bed and surroundings that are free from the lights and sounds that would interrupt your sleep. This may sound like a no-brainer, but some people sleep with cell phones or think that falling to sleep with the television on is a good idea. Those are bad habits that keep you from having a good night's sleep. Occasionally, one may be afflicted by insomnia. If that is the case, get out of bed and do something that would calm you in order to get to sleep. What I find helpful is to have a cup of hot cocoa (this may not be advisable for many people, but it works for me) and pick up a book and read about something that won't stimulate your mind too much. I find that history books tend to bore me to tiredness.
I purposely haven't gone into too great detail about these three things. It's up to you to figure out. What I can tell you is that doctors know these things. They know that proper nutrition, exercise and rest are the best things you can do to improve your health. Here's how you can tell a good doctor from a quack: the good doctors will first want to help you get started on a plan that includes these three elements of a healthy lifestyle, rather than shoving some kind of prescription in your face. If your doctor isn't one who will be willing to promote health using these methods, RUN... don't walk away from this quack! Fire that clown! Find a doctor that will help you become healthy, not one that uses the cop-out of writing a prescription for everything.
I just wanted to emphasize - or reemphasize that actively pursuing a healthy lifestyle by taking only healthful substances into your body, getting adequate physical exercise and the proper amount of restful sleep are the keys to improving and maintaining your physical, mental and emotional health. So there you have it. I know this works. It works for me and I've seen it work for numerous people. So stop making excuses.
Disclaimer: I realize that there are people with genuine health problems - even debilitating conditions. I do not want to be insensitive to those who may be thus affected. So, take what applies to you.. what you CAN do and take the rest as academic, good-to-know information. In other words, don't take it personally.
1) Proper diet. This includes eating a nutritious and balanced diet. You consume what your body needs... not excessively nor to any extreme. You eat balanced meals. Fiber is important as well (for proper digestion). Part of this proper diet is also exclusion - excluding harmful substances such as tobacco, alcohol, drugs (to include caffeine) - with the exception of occasional mild pain relievers or antibiotics (only when absolutely necessary) used judiciously. There are other prescription drugs that may need to be taken to save your life or bring you comfort, but then again most often the cure is in the prevention in the first place. There are many medications - even ones prescribed by your doctor - that cause more health problems than they cure. Let me single out one type of medication that is particularly bad and has a bad track record for ruining people's lives: antidepressants. They are poison for your body and mind. Many people can run a course of antidepressants and emerge relatively unscathed, but there are also many of us that have had our lives permanently altered (I mean in a negative way) by these mind-altering drugs. Stay away from them! Believe me, you don't want to take that gamble. Besides, their true effectiveness is marginal, at best. Any positive effects are temporary and only an illusion to the user anyway... just like taking cocaine, speed or LSD. You feel "great" or "different" for awhile, but eventually the effects are devastating. Many people don't even realize just how much their lives have been altered and how their personalities have become much worse on these drugs but their friends and family notice.
2) Exercise. I'm talking about sustained, vigorous cardio-vascular activity at least 5 times a week. Sustained means 30-minutes or more. There are numerous physical benefits (too many to list here) that are derived from exercise, but there are also mental, spiritual and emotional benefits as well. Why? Exercise relieves stress by having an "outlet" for your physical activity. Also, your body chemistry is better regulated and you will naturally get a boost of the chemicals (hormones) that your body needs and craves to combat pain and depression. I refer to exercise as my daily "dose of medicine" because there is nothing more effective than a good workout... no drug, no psychiatric therapy - nothing. I've found that people who don't exercise always have some kind of excuse not to or they think they are getting more exercise than what they are realistically getting. Trust me, I know. I understand. I used to be one of those that made excuses and thought I was getting a proper amount of exercise, when in actuality I wasn't. You have to make a conscious effort to get that exercise. Walking to and from your car - no matter where you park in the parking lot - is not enough. It doesn't count.
3) Sleep/rest. Your body and mind need proper rest and on a regular schedule. The general rule is to have 8-hours of uninterrupted sleep every night. This may not be possible when caring for small children or when your sleep is interrupted by noises or flashing lights. Do your best to ensure you get the proper amount of uninterrupted sleep. Your bedroom should be conducive to rest - meaning that you should have a comfortable bed and surroundings that are free from the lights and sounds that would interrupt your sleep. This may sound like a no-brainer, but some people sleep with cell phones or think that falling to sleep with the television on is a good idea. Those are bad habits that keep you from having a good night's sleep. Occasionally, one may be afflicted by insomnia. If that is the case, get out of bed and do something that would calm you in order to get to sleep. What I find helpful is to have a cup of hot cocoa (this may not be advisable for many people, but it works for me) and pick up a book and read about something that won't stimulate your mind too much. I find that history books tend to bore me to tiredness.
I purposely haven't gone into too great detail about these three things. It's up to you to figure out. What I can tell you is that doctors know these things. They know that proper nutrition, exercise and rest are the best things you can do to improve your health. Here's how you can tell a good doctor from a quack: the good doctors will first want to help you get started on a plan that includes these three elements of a healthy lifestyle, rather than shoving some kind of prescription in your face. If your doctor isn't one who will be willing to promote health using these methods, RUN... don't walk away from this quack! Fire that clown! Find a doctor that will help you become healthy, not one that uses the cop-out of writing a prescription for everything.
I just wanted to emphasize - or reemphasize that actively pursuing a healthy lifestyle by taking only healthful substances into your body, getting adequate physical exercise and the proper amount of restful sleep are the keys to improving and maintaining your physical, mental and emotional health. So there you have it. I know this works. It works for me and I've seen it work for numerous people. So stop making excuses.
Disclaimer: I realize that there are people with genuine health problems - even debilitating conditions. I do not want to be insensitive to those who may be thus affected. So, take what applies to you.. what you CAN do and take the rest as academic, good-to-know information. In other words, don't take it personally.
Monday, May 6, 2013
The Media, DHS And The Obamites Are Gonna Love This One!
http://news.yahoo.com/alleged-minnesota-terror-plot-know-far-170000908.html
I call shenanigans.
Am I the only one who notices things like this? What I mean is an imbalance in reporting and an imbalance in investigation and law enforcement.
If you haven't read the story or gone to the above address for the story, basically what has happened is that the FBI and other law enforcement officers have found a "weapons cache," (ok, he had "several" guns) some Maltov cocktails and what appear to be pipe bombs in some guy's mobile home in a rural Minnesota town. They have built a case that he (Buford Rogers) is a "white supremacist" and had formed a militia group. He apparently believed in conspiracy theories and posted incoherent rants on social media. He is a former felon who now has allegedly has violated the law by possession of weapons. Even though no attack is imminent and no specific targets have been named, he has already been labeled as a terrorist.
That's the guy the media has been looking for! This is going to be their GOP, NRA, Tea Party, Right Wing extremist that they were hoping to find in the Boston Marathon bombing, but never did. So now they have him... and they will crucify him.
This is going to be great for the media, DHS, the Obama Administration and liberals in general on several accounts - why?
1) This man is a white U.S. born American - as opposed to a typical run-of-the-mill terrorist (who would fit the profile as a Middle Easterner either "legally" on a foreign visa, illegally, or a naturalized person of Middle Eastern descent or a Muslim convert). That way they can prove that it's not just the brown-skinned, Arabic or African Muslims that are terrorists - so this can justify DHS and TSA policies and preclude "racial profiling" as a way to single out potential terrorists.
2) Rogers is a "Right-Wing" extremist - or so they say. It was very easy for the media to jump to this conclusion because of his paranoia and conspiracy theory rants. If he doesn't trust the government and has gained followers, then he must be part of a Right-Wing militia that wants to exercise his Second Amendment rights and take on the government.
3) This case can give credence to gun control advocates who want us to believe that "gun violence" is not just an inner-city problem, a Rural America epidemic as well.
4) It was important to throw in the "white supremacist" allegation because it further builds the case against this loony... and that his type can be lumped together with gun-toting, Right-Wing, GOP, NRA, conspiracy-theorist, Tea Party crazies.
5) Making this into national news will further marginalize those who believe in the Constitution - particularly the Second Amendment. Notice how rather than stating such a suspect's intentions or interpreting the barely coherent ramblings, the media source directly quotes (including misspellings and poor grammar) in order to further categorize "his type" as uneducated, illiterate and basically just plain stupid. This is a tactic used by the Leftist Elites who try to propagate the myth that gun owners and those that support the Second Amendment are ignorant or stupid.
Let's take a look at the imbalances in this case vs. Boston by comparing and contrasting to other stories involving Islamic extremists:
Buford Rogers is a terrorist even though no violent attack or apparent threats or imminent plans have been mentioned. The Boston Marathon bombers were not considered terrorists until after the attacks were confirmed, even though there was reliable intel and prior records on at least one of the brothers and other family members and associates. The attack at Benghazi was not even acknowledged to be a terrorist act until many days after the event - and that only when they were pressured for an inquiry. The mass-shooting at Fort Hood is still not considered a terror attack... just a workplace shooting, even though the shooter had become activated or radicalized in Islam.
They are actively looking at other conspirators in the Rogers case. In the Boston Bombing, assertions that there were other conspirators involved were quickly dismissed by DHS, files were altered (or destroyed), persons of interest were shuffled around and/or deported and even found sympathy from the First Lady and the Obama Administration. In Benghazi, it was suggested by the secretary of state and the Obama Administration that the attack was a mob riot... "protesters getting out of hand" and no other motives or conspirators were sought. The Fort Hood shooter "acted alone" and even though contacts have been made with a radicalized imam and these connections have been discounted simply because this anti-American imam has said so... so we believe him.
We know SO much about this guy already... and he hasn't even committed a violent crime yet. On the other hand when bombs went off and suspects were named in Boston, we knew very little about them and those who did know them (or should I say the accounts of those portrayed widely in the media) told about two pleasant and upstanding citizens who nobody could believe committed such atrocities... well, until further investigation and certain parts of the accounts could no longer be suppressed.
Rogers had a "cache" of weapons - including a Romanian AKM (a semi-automatic AK-style rifle - or modified AK-47). He also allegedly had what appeared to be pipe bombs and Maltov cocktails in his mobile home - AND combine this with his anti-government or anti-law enforcement rants AND had been a convicted felon. Wow! This sounds pretty major, right? Now take your average gang member in a violent city, say Chicago, and compare/contrast, if you will. Compare or contrast this to MANY Motown rappers... does anything sound familiar? Well, besides the alleged pipe bombs (which, for all we know are typical plumbing fittings found in many homes and garages... I know I've got a bin full of iron pipes and fittings in my workshop) and the alleged Maltov Cocktails, which could very well be a composite of a six-pack of vintage coke bottles + a nearby can of lawnmower gasoline. Who knows? So why is it that anytime a "gangsta" rapper gets busted for the same charges, he is not labeled a terrorist? All the same elements are there. Oh, but wait... his cop-killing diatribes simply constitute an expression of the First Amendment and are thus protected... it's only entertainment and not a call to action by other gang members - or is it? Why is it that when a white person is busted for these crimes and has racist tendencies, but when a so-called African American or other than caucasian race uses racial and anti-law enforcement rhetoric, they are not racist nor are they terrorists. Let me bring you back to an incident that America may have conveniently forgotten. It was the 1992 Los Angeles riots. Dozens of people were killed, thousands were wounded and billions of dollars of private and public property was destroyed. These riots were incited by such violent rhetoric. This was an act of terrorism. Why was it not labeled as such? It had all the elements of terrorism - a motive, violent acts designed to punish those who disagreed with them in a way that we would be fearful of reprisal in subsequent rulings (acquittals of those whom the mob believed were guilty) and future threats through gang-related culture and angry diatribes targeting law-enforcement, disguised as "music." This may seem like a one-sided racial statement, but let me ask this question: Why was there no similar rioting when O. J. Simpson was acquitted? Why was he acquitted? May it have been something to do with the fear of reprisal that was obviously present - as there were literally armies of police officers in riot gear ready for if the trial had gone the other way? This is just something to think about.
There are so many other unanswered questions and so many imbalances that I have not covered. Suffice it to say that this man has been targeted by the media as a terrorist when no terrorist act has been committed. I will assert very strongly that there are MANY terrorist acts which are thwarted but go unnoticed or unreported because the instigators are considered to be Islamic extremists. Could it be that the government intentionally suppresses or downplays these incidents because they are protecting us from being terrorized by terrorists? That would make sense, but when a story like this breaks where this WHITE U.S. BORN AMERICAN is labeled as a terrorist and credit is given to the FBI and local law enforcement for thwarting an alleged attack, then I may tend to think otherwise.
I call shenanigans.
Am I the only one who notices things like this? What I mean is an imbalance in reporting and an imbalance in investigation and law enforcement.
If you haven't read the story or gone to the above address for the story, basically what has happened is that the FBI and other law enforcement officers have found a "weapons cache," (ok, he had "several" guns) some Maltov cocktails and what appear to be pipe bombs in some guy's mobile home in a rural Minnesota town. They have built a case that he (Buford Rogers) is a "white supremacist" and had formed a militia group. He apparently believed in conspiracy theories and posted incoherent rants on social media. He is a former felon who now has allegedly has violated the law by possession of weapons. Even though no attack is imminent and no specific targets have been named, he has already been labeled as a terrorist.
That's the guy the media has been looking for! This is going to be their GOP, NRA, Tea Party, Right Wing extremist that they were hoping to find in the Boston Marathon bombing, but never did. So now they have him... and they will crucify him.
This is going to be great for the media, DHS, the Obama Administration and liberals in general on several accounts - why?
1) This man is a white U.S. born American - as opposed to a typical run-of-the-mill terrorist (who would fit the profile as a Middle Easterner either "legally" on a foreign visa, illegally, or a naturalized person of Middle Eastern descent or a Muslim convert). That way they can prove that it's not just the brown-skinned, Arabic or African Muslims that are terrorists - so this can justify DHS and TSA policies and preclude "racial profiling" as a way to single out potential terrorists.
2) Rogers is a "Right-Wing" extremist - or so they say. It was very easy for the media to jump to this conclusion because of his paranoia and conspiracy theory rants. If he doesn't trust the government and has gained followers, then he must be part of a Right-Wing militia that wants to exercise his Second Amendment rights and take on the government.
3) This case can give credence to gun control advocates who want us to believe that "gun violence" is not just an inner-city problem, a Rural America epidemic as well.
4) It was important to throw in the "white supremacist" allegation because it further builds the case against this loony... and that his type can be lumped together with gun-toting, Right-Wing, GOP, NRA, conspiracy-theorist, Tea Party crazies.
5) Making this into national news will further marginalize those who believe in the Constitution - particularly the Second Amendment. Notice how rather than stating such a suspect's intentions or interpreting the barely coherent ramblings, the media source directly quotes (including misspellings and poor grammar) in order to further categorize "his type" as uneducated, illiterate and basically just plain stupid. This is a tactic used by the Leftist Elites who try to propagate the myth that gun owners and those that support the Second Amendment are ignorant or stupid.
Let's take a look at the imbalances in this case vs. Boston by comparing and contrasting to other stories involving Islamic extremists:
Buford Rogers is a terrorist even though no violent attack or apparent threats or imminent plans have been mentioned. The Boston Marathon bombers were not considered terrorists until after the attacks were confirmed, even though there was reliable intel and prior records on at least one of the brothers and other family members and associates. The attack at Benghazi was not even acknowledged to be a terrorist act until many days after the event - and that only when they were pressured for an inquiry. The mass-shooting at Fort Hood is still not considered a terror attack... just a workplace shooting, even though the shooter had become activated or radicalized in Islam.
They are actively looking at other conspirators in the Rogers case. In the Boston Bombing, assertions that there were other conspirators involved were quickly dismissed by DHS, files were altered (or destroyed), persons of interest were shuffled around and/or deported and even found sympathy from the First Lady and the Obama Administration. In Benghazi, it was suggested by the secretary of state and the Obama Administration that the attack was a mob riot... "protesters getting out of hand" and no other motives or conspirators were sought. The Fort Hood shooter "acted alone" and even though contacts have been made with a radicalized imam and these connections have been discounted simply because this anti-American imam has said so... so we believe him.
We know SO much about this guy already... and he hasn't even committed a violent crime yet. On the other hand when bombs went off and suspects were named in Boston, we knew very little about them and those who did know them (or should I say the accounts of those portrayed widely in the media) told about two pleasant and upstanding citizens who nobody could believe committed such atrocities... well, until further investigation and certain parts of the accounts could no longer be suppressed.
Rogers had a "cache" of weapons - including a Romanian AKM (a semi-automatic AK-style rifle - or modified AK-47). He also allegedly had what appeared to be pipe bombs and Maltov cocktails in his mobile home - AND combine this with his anti-government or anti-law enforcement rants AND had been a convicted felon. Wow! This sounds pretty major, right? Now take your average gang member in a violent city, say Chicago, and compare/contrast, if you will. Compare or contrast this to MANY Motown rappers... does anything sound familiar? Well, besides the alleged pipe bombs (which, for all we know are typical plumbing fittings found in many homes and garages... I know I've got a bin full of iron pipes and fittings in my workshop) and the alleged Maltov Cocktails, which could very well be a composite of a six-pack of vintage coke bottles + a nearby can of lawnmower gasoline. Who knows? So why is it that anytime a "gangsta" rapper gets busted for the same charges, he is not labeled a terrorist? All the same elements are there. Oh, but wait... his cop-killing diatribes simply constitute an expression of the First Amendment and are thus protected... it's only entertainment and not a call to action by other gang members - or is it? Why is it that when a white person is busted for these crimes and has racist tendencies, but when a so-called African American or other than caucasian race uses racial and anti-law enforcement rhetoric, they are not racist nor are they terrorists. Let me bring you back to an incident that America may have conveniently forgotten. It was the 1992 Los Angeles riots. Dozens of people were killed, thousands were wounded and billions of dollars of private and public property was destroyed. These riots were incited by such violent rhetoric. This was an act of terrorism. Why was it not labeled as such? It had all the elements of terrorism - a motive, violent acts designed to punish those who disagreed with them in a way that we would be fearful of reprisal in subsequent rulings (acquittals of those whom the mob believed were guilty) and future threats through gang-related culture and angry diatribes targeting law-enforcement, disguised as "music." This may seem like a one-sided racial statement, but let me ask this question: Why was there no similar rioting when O. J. Simpson was acquitted? Why was he acquitted? May it have been something to do with the fear of reprisal that was obviously present - as there were literally armies of police officers in riot gear ready for if the trial had gone the other way? This is just something to think about.
There are so many other unanswered questions and so many imbalances that I have not covered. Suffice it to say that this man has been targeted by the media as a terrorist when no terrorist act has been committed. I will assert very strongly that there are MANY terrorist acts which are thwarted but go unnoticed or unreported because the instigators are considered to be Islamic extremists. Could it be that the government intentionally suppresses or downplays these incidents because they are protecting us from being terrorized by terrorists? That would make sense, but when a story like this breaks where this WHITE U.S. BORN AMERICAN is labeled as a terrorist and credit is given to the FBI and local law enforcement for thwarting an alleged attack, then I may tend to think otherwise.
Boycotting... I wonder if people realize it can go either way?
I'm a big fan of collective bargaining... when it is necessary and not exploitive. Now, I would say that most of the union striking that happens now is exploitive - to the point of extortion. Unions were a good idea to start off with because they acted in defense of workers who didn't have a voice, yet were forced to work in conditions that were not safe or fair. In many ways though, the pendulum has swung in the opposite direction and it ends up being the unions that have been not only taking advantage of the companies, but employees as well... in other words, something akin to organized crime.
I'm not here to talk about unions, since currently they disgust me. I am here to talk about a different form of collective bargaining that often isn't publicized as such: boycotting. It's the power of the masses... and everybody can participate!
I read in the news today about how some advertising companies are boycotting certain conservative commentators because they believe that advertising on their shows was bad for their image. The one commentator named was Rush Limbaugh and the incident in question was when he called an openly sexually active Georgetown University student who was protesting because she wasn't getting a break on contraceptives a "slut." Now, personally I believe the language was harsh and strong and I wouldn't have used it - HOWEVER... I wonder if advertisers will dare boycott in droves, the likes of David Letterman, Bill Maher and John Stewart? Certainly they are guilty of some blatantly rude and unsavory comments that are equal, if not worse, to those used by the outspoken Rush Limbaugh. I'm sure Limbaugh has insulted his fair share of people using what Libbies like to refer to as "protected free speech" - or our First Amendment rights. We can say anything or express ourselves in any way we like, no matter how offensive it is to anyone else, as long as what we have done cannot be proven to harm anybody else... right? I mean, this is why even the most depraved of media can be portrayed as expressing our constitutional rights, am I not correct? So why single out Rush Limbaugh then? The other person of interest whom the media have targeted is Glenn Beck. Nobody can even give a straight answer as to why he is being boycotted or where the breakdown is, but I suppose that just because he is an outspoken Conservative commentator, he must have said something along the line that is offensive to someone.
So let the advertisers boycott. It's their right. On the other hand, it is our right to boycott the advertisers who have taken it upon themselves to take an other than neutral stand. If we don't agree with a company's political stance, let's boycott them. If we agree with them, then by all means let's patronize them. It worked for Chick-fil-a... or it did for awhile anyway. I don't know if that little boost they had because of their political stance supporting "traditional families" has built the stamina that they need to keep their business afloat or not, but at least it likely got them through until the next major media debacle targeting some other business or individual the Leftists and the politically persuasive disagree with. This is why the masses that follow media trends have such a short memory for these things. But we can use these trends to work towards our advantage as well. Why should it be so one-sided? Why should we be at the mercy of those we don't even agree with... or worse, why should we be the ones paying their paychecks through our patronage?
So, here's what we can do: we find out which companies boycotted the Conservative commentators and boycott them. But don't stop there. If there are businesses that have openly demonstrated family values (especially those that have done so with their donations), patronize them instead! Do a little (okay maybe a lot) more research and find those businesses or organizations that do not promote wholesome family values and trying to build a safe, moral, ethical and/or God-centered society and boycott them. I do it personally (whenever possible). Imagine how much we could clean up the trash in our society by not patronizing their businesses? In this highly competitive world of business, the consumers can have more power over big business than what they realize... much more power than illegally camping out in a park and chanting annoying mindless slogans while waving signs and banners.
I'm not here to talk about unions, since currently they disgust me. I am here to talk about a different form of collective bargaining that often isn't publicized as such: boycotting. It's the power of the masses... and everybody can participate!
I read in the news today about how some advertising companies are boycotting certain conservative commentators because they believe that advertising on their shows was bad for their image. The one commentator named was Rush Limbaugh and the incident in question was when he called an openly sexually active Georgetown University student who was protesting because she wasn't getting a break on contraceptives a "slut." Now, personally I believe the language was harsh and strong and I wouldn't have used it - HOWEVER... I wonder if advertisers will dare boycott in droves, the likes of David Letterman, Bill Maher and John Stewart? Certainly they are guilty of some blatantly rude and unsavory comments that are equal, if not worse, to those used by the outspoken Rush Limbaugh. I'm sure Limbaugh has insulted his fair share of people using what Libbies like to refer to as "protected free speech" - or our First Amendment rights. We can say anything or express ourselves in any way we like, no matter how offensive it is to anyone else, as long as what we have done cannot be proven to harm anybody else... right? I mean, this is why even the most depraved of media can be portrayed as expressing our constitutional rights, am I not correct? So why single out Rush Limbaugh then? The other person of interest whom the media have targeted is Glenn Beck. Nobody can even give a straight answer as to why he is being boycotted or where the breakdown is, but I suppose that just because he is an outspoken Conservative commentator, he must have said something along the line that is offensive to someone.
So let the advertisers boycott. It's their right. On the other hand, it is our right to boycott the advertisers who have taken it upon themselves to take an other than neutral stand. If we don't agree with a company's political stance, let's boycott them. If we agree with them, then by all means let's patronize them. It worked for Chick-fil-a... or it did for awhile anyway. I don't know if that little boost they had because of their political stance supporting "traditional families" has built the stamina that they need to keep their business afloat or not, but at least it likely got them through until the next major media debacle targeting some other business or individual the Leftists and the politically persuasive disagree with. This is why the masses that follow media trends have such a short memory for these things. But we can use these trends to work towards our advantage as well. Why should it be so one-sided? Why should we be at the mercy of those we don't even agree with... or worse, why should we be the ones paying their paychecks through our patronage?
So, here's what we can do: we find out which companies boycotted the Conservative commentators and boycott them. But don't stop there. If there are businesses that have openly demonstrated family values (especially those that have done so with their donations), patronize them instead! Do a little (okay maybe a lot) more research and find those businesses or organizations that do not promote wholesome family values and trying to build a safe, moral, ethical and/or God-centered society and boycott them. I do it personally (whenever possible). Imagine how much we could clean up the trash in our society by not patronizing their businesses? In this highly competitive world of business, the consumers can have more power over big business than what they realize... much more power than illegally camping out in a park and chanting annoying mindless slogans while waving signs and banners.
Good Guys and Bad Guys
Among the most powerful weapons an adversary can use is one of your own strengths that has been found to have a loophole or a flaw. So it isn't surprising that liberals and atheists like to use our own passages of scripture in order to win arguments or advance their agendas. One such passage of scripture goes something like this: "Judge not, that ye be not judged" or different variations of such. There are also numerous other passages of scripture that tell us not to judge others - because by so doing, we become hypocrites.
Guess what? I could safely say we're ALL hypocrites in one way or other.
But that's not the point. I think it is important to judge... not for the sake of condemning another individual, but as an awareness of good and evil and as a protection against the evils of the world and against bad people.
The crowd that has espoused so-called "moral relativism" would have us believe that there aren't good people or bad people, just people that make good decisions or poor decisions. Well, I have some news to tell you: There are good people and there are bad people.
It's as simple as this: good people have good intentions and bad people have malicious intentions.
We all have things we struggle with. Many of us struggle with some very bad things. That does not make us necessarily bad people. But there are people who want to harm or exploit others or take advantage of other people - murderers, rapists, abusers, pimps, thieves, illicit drug pushers, arsonists, warmongers, dictators, con-artists, pirates and so forth... these are some examples of bad people. It's not a judgement. People who do these things are bad.
Most everybody else I would consider good people... or should I say not necessarily bad. I think most people are inherently good people. Most people have good intentions and would make good decisions and would want to help others if a situation arose where help was needed.
We need to know the difference between good and bad. We need to know who the good guys are and who the bad guys are. We need to recognize and acknowledge who the good guys are and who the bad guys are. We need to recognize which behaviors are good and which are bad as well. In our society where the lines are increasingly becoming blurred or where the fine line between good and bad has become a wider gray area, maybe it's tim to look at what is good and what is bad and delineate absolutely what is good (or what would bring us in a direction closer to God) and what is bad (that which is influenced by Satan).
It's as simple as this: good people have good intentions and bad people have malicious intentions.
We all have things we struggle with. Many of us struggle with some very bad things. That does not make us necessarily bad people. But there are people who want to harm or exploit others or take advantage of other people - murderers, rapists, abusers, pimps, thieves, illicit drug pushers, arsonists, warmongers, dictators, con-artists, pirates and so forth... these are some examples of bad people. It's not a judgement. People who do these things are bad.
Most everybody else I would consider good people... or should I say not necessarily bad. I think most people are inherently good people. Most people have good intentions and would make good decisions and would want to help others if a situation arose where help was needed.
We need to know the difference between good and bad. We need to know who the good guys are and who the bad guys are. We need to recognize and acknowledge who the good guys are and who the bad guys are. We need to recognize which behaviors are good and which are bad as well. In our society where the lines are increasingly becoming blurred or where the fine line between good and bad has become a wider gray area, maybe it's tim to look at what is good and what is bad and delineate absolutely what is good (or what would bring us in a direction closer to God) and what is bad (that which is influenced by Satan).
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)