This is getting a bit nuts. What are kids supposed during recess, read? What makes me sad is this part:
Another Willett parent, Celeste D’Elia, said her son feels safer because of the rule. "I’ve witnessed enough near collisions," she said.
Her kid is screwed for life.
Yeah, dodgeball and tag are potentially dangerous, but so is this:
If these parents and teachers are so damned worried about kids doing dangerous things, WHY DO THEY STILL NOT DEMAND SEATBELTS ON SCHOOL BUSES?
These people are idiots. Put seatbelts on school buses and let them play like kids. Sure, it’s scary how they play, but that’s what kids do. That’s how kids learn. If they don’t learn the physical limits of how to play with each other as kids, they won’t know what those limits are when they are older and the consequences are much more severe. It really never ceases to amaze me how many teachers truly think the only learning that occurs is in the classroom. I’m here to tell them, those kids learn just as much on the playground at that age as they do in any classroom. And, at that age, what they learn on the playground is probably more important. It’s called interactive skills. If you don’t have that, it doesn’t matter if you can spell right or not.
So, let the kids play. Let them knock a tooth out and occasionally break an arm. Let them be exclusionary. Some lessons you just can’t teach in the classroom. If I were a teacher at Willett, I’d report there was no tag or dodgeball ever occurring, and look the other way at recess. I HOPE that’s what they are doing there.
Sheez.
Powerline points to a book by Douglas Murray called:
Now, the premise here is that the country NEEDS Neoconservatism. I don’t particularly think that’s true. That’s about like saying the country NEEDS to grow older. Sounds kinda harsh I know, but this is why I think this is true. It’s pretty simple really: In 1990, 54% of the voting age public was over the age of 40, which by nature is more conservative than those under the age of 40. In 2000, that figure had risen to 59% of the voting age public. In terms of voting, that’s a very substantial jump. All the elections of the 21st century have done is verify that the US is aging rapidly. As people age, they tend to become more conservative in their social philosophy and politics. They are no longer taking chances, but making efforts to secure what they have. As such, changing things becomes less desirable. Making their environment safer becomes more desirable. These are the roots of neoconservatism. A young deeply religious element that otherwise be a solid block in the more liberal voting block has simply joined the aging voting block and this just pushes the conservative voting element even more. So, I don’t think the US "needs" neoconservatism so much as the US is reflecting an aging voting population. That in itself is not necessarily a bad thing. We don’t "need" it so much as we "are" it right now. The normal political trend has been a swinging pendulum that moves from liberal to conservative values over time. However, what we’re seeing now is instead of a return to liberal values in the US, the "opposition" to neoconservatism is actually adapting neoconservative values ( the Democrats are fielding conservative to moderate candidates all over the country ). Now, IMO, that’s when neoconservatism can get a little scary. I was hoping the Democrats would take a more moderate approach, which I think would work with the aging voter population. However, that doesn’t seem to be what’s happening. There are several races where the candidates are fighting over who’s the most conservative. The Foley issue is purely one of the Democrats trying to debunk the Republican grip on neoconservative values. Hopefully, over the next ten years or so, when EVERYONE is neoconservative, the alternative will be the moderates. That’s where my vote is now, and hopefully others will chill out over time as well. We don’t "need" neoconservatism if it’s unchecked. And, we don’t "need" radical liberalism unchecked either. What we "need" is to get back to what political parties represented pre-1980, purely a government philosophy based primarily on the economics of running the government.
No sooner had I posted this than I read David Ingatius’ post citing a book by Mark Halperin and John F. Harris called "The Way to Win":
The idea Ignatius is stating is that there appears to be a move to the center based on several candidates basically disavowing their connections to Bush and strutting their independence. This ain’t a move to the center, this is a reaction to the perceived dislike of Bush accompanied with the fact that there is a much larger Democrat voter registration in the US than Republican. Most Republican candidates have a hard enough time getting elected as a minority candidate without the shining glare of a perceived unpopular party figurehead that is attached to a fairly unpopular issue ( Iraq ). I really don’t see this as a voluntary move to the center. I wouldn’t mind being wrong, but to me it would be more meaningful if that "move to the center" occurred without strings attached.
17
Oct
On a long list of issues, including Iraq and “ethics/corruption,” 23 percent cited the economy as their top concern, up from 17 percent in May.
I have been the firm believer that all politics is local. it’s not my idea, but I sure do believe it. I have said so repeatedly.
I listed those posts for a reason. The MSNBC article does exactly the same thing many other people have done in the past. They dismiss the poll numbers by justifying things that don’t matter. “Burning scandal in Washington” being a perfect example. When Bilbray took Cunningham’s seat, it was in the midst of a scandal. When I posted “It’s the economy”, anti-war sentiment was all over the media. Now, they’re attributing other things to equivocate this poll’s numbers.
I’ll try to make this simple. All politics is local. I don’t mean that in the sense that people don’t care about the War in Iraq or pedophiles in DC. I mean that the overwhelming issue is how each individual voter perceives their situation. Sure, they may totally disagree with the War in Iraq, but if their representative is bringing in jobs that affect them, and their economic situation is satisfactory, their situation will trump a war IN Iraq every single time. The only district that will be affected by the sex scandal is the district he represented. People love good gossip, but it’s meaningless in their individual world. And, I don’t know how often I’ve heard people talk about how crooked everyone in DC is, but my Congressman’s an honest man.
So, as wishful as MSNBC may be that the Republicans will go down in flames because for the first time ever people will look at world events and consider it more important than the well-being of their own family, I just don’t see it happening. What I do see happening is in the seats totally up for grabs, people will follow the age-old tradition of voting for the minority party in an off-year. But, that’s not enough to swing the power any significant amount.
I really think the MSNBC’s are going to be greatly disappointed in a couple of weeks when once again people look at their individual situations and come to the conclusion things aren’t so bad.
"The resolution cannot be construed otherwise than a declaration of a war" against the North, also known as the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the statement said.
Now, North Korea might just get what it’s asking for. RARELY has Japan, South Korea, China, AND the United States ever agreed totally on one issue. The Russians have pretty much stepped back. Probably the only person North Korea could count on to help them would be Hugo Chavez, who’s pretty much screwed Venezuela out of a UN Security Council seat.
However, I’m not too terribly concerned about this. China REALLY gets serious, North Korea exists no more. North Korea is sandwiched between two of the fastest growing economies on the planet right now. To assume the North Korean people don’t see that and want some of it is a tad bit hard for me to buy. My guess has always been the leaders of North Korea are seeing that and trying to figure some way to bring prosperity to their people without allowing unfettered capitolism which generally tends to lead to democracy. Basically, they’re in a lose-lose situation right now and they know it. Hence, the bullying tactics and desperate attempts to level the political playing field by telling the planet they have a nuke and more than willing to use it.
All this will do in my opinion is send a clear signal to China that refugees pouring accross the border is inevitable and they may as well take some action now to cool Kim’s heels. Because, the United States has already said that if North Korea has nukes, there is no reason on this planet Japan should not be allowed to as well. And, I agree. And, the very last thing I think China wants to see is Japan, South Korea, and North Korea staring each other down with an arsenal of nukes and China in the middle.
China has got to take the responsibility that they are the super-power of the far east and need to be bringing stability to their region. Reigning in North Korea will be the perfect chance to make that statement to the world.
Oh, yeah, did I forget to mention the United Nations doing anything about this?
I guess I did. It wouldn’t make any difference anyway whether they did or not.
"The War on drugs" has taken a lot of flack from the liberal left of late. While most of them are more than happy to prosecute the hell out of anyone that smokes tobacco, the efforts to combat the hardest drugs has been met with a lot of resistance of late. A lot of people seem to feel that doing drugs is a priviledge afforded by our right to pursue happiness. While making that argument, those same liberals will tell you we need to ban guns. That’s just fubar.
Allowing that liberal mantra to take hold is the rather blase attitude the conservatives have taken toward drugs while they focus on other issues such as same sex marriage and intelligent design. This is really starting to get on my nerves. Day after day it seems there is more and more evidence that drugs are destroying the fabric of this country while the people who should be leading the charge are playing Nero with distracting issues that really mean nothing to the average person. Drug addictions don’t limit their impact to same sex marriages. Drug addictions totally undermine the entire concept that our existance has anything to do with any intelligent design whatsoever. It’s crazy what’s going on, and people worrying about intelligent design in the midst of the craziness just makes it seem that much crazier.
Shawn Bentler took a gun and killed his mother, his father, and three sisters. He was arrested on an outstanding drug warrants. Now, the logic here is quite simple. If society had taken Shawn’s drug warrants more seriously and made sure he was in prison or forced rehab, five people, including three young girls, would not be dead in Iowa.
And, there’s no telling how many more people would not be dead at this time if the problem of drugs were taken more seriously. There are two other high-profile murders going on right now, anyone want to take a bet on whether drugs were involved in either of those? I’ll be following them here I’m sure.
You’d think SOMEONE would have missed those people. This is truly sad.
The party that offered two porn stars in the last tow elections, has now brought in this season’s partying babe: Sandy Sullivan. Now, Sandy wasn’t a porn star per se, she was a Green Bay Packer groupie who apparently did fellas like Paul Hornung.
What do the Dems offer?
Impossible to single one person out on this one. The entire commission belongs there. In case you don’t know what I’m referring to, watch THIS. Once you do, you’ll understand why I consider these people Idiots of the day and worse for turning a memorial into a half-assed political statement:
- Crystal Allman
- Benito Almanza
- Joe Anderson
- Marcos Andrade
- Johnny Basha
- Viana Bruce
- Cassidy Campana
- Lynne Christian
- Shelley Cohn
- Kathy Copeland
- Rich Dozer
- Susan Ehrlich
- Paul Eppinger
- Jennifer Glazar
- Dan Hoffman
- Jake Jacobsen
- Donna Killoughey Bird
- Ronnie Lopez
- Paul Luna
- Ken Magoch
- Cindy Petrovich
- Penny Pfaelzer
- Bob Ramsey
- Diane Saunders
- Billy Shields
- Sonia Singh
- Steve Speisman
- Joe Tucker
- Daniel Valenzuela
- George Weisz
10
Oct
Democrats chided Bush the first few years he was in office as a reckless spender. Then the economy took off and they sorta dropped it in favor of "taxing the poor and giving big tax breaks to the rich". The never really got much traction either. So, Ted Kennedy is pulling out the mother of all promises, free health care for all US citizens to the same level as they get in Congress. I am not joking here. He really did:
The program under this title–
- ensures that all Americans have high quality, affordable health care;
- ensures that all Americans have access to health care as good as their Member of Congress receives; and
- reduces the cost of health care and enhances American economic competitiveness in the global marketplace.
Now, he’s going to keep all the middle men in the picture, so everyone’s happy, including private insurers, health care clinics, mental health facilities, everyone. Nothing is being cut out, and everyone gets thehighest quality coverage available. Of course, it’s not free either.
SEC. 3. FINANCING THROUGH EMPLOYMENT TAX.
- (a) TAX ON EMPLOYEES- Section 3101 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d) and by inserting after subsection (b) the following new subsection:
- (c) MEDICARE FOR ALL- In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on the income of every individual a tax equal to 1.7 percent of the wages (as defined in section 3121(a)) received by him with respect to employment (as defined in section 3121(b)).
- (b) TAX ON EMPLOYERS- Section 3111 of such Code is amended by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d) and by inserting after subsection (b) the following new subsection:
- (c) MEDICARE FOR ALL- In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on every employer an excise tax, with respect to having individuals in his employ, equal to 7 percent of the wages (as defined in section 3121(a)) paid by him with respect to employment (as defined in section 3121(b)).’
- (c) TAX ON SELF-EMPLOYMENT- Section 1401 of such Code is amended by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d) and by inserting after subsection (b) the following new subsection:
- (c) MEDICARE FOR ALL- In addition to other taxes, there shall be imposed for each taxable year, on the self-employment income of every individual, a tax equal to the applicable percent of the self-employment income for such taxable year.
Look at small businesses of the US, November’s not even here and Ted Kennedy and Charles Rangel are already salivating at the chance to raise everyone’s taxes and spend it.
Updating this post just a little to bounce back to a poll I had going about social programs in general:
Here’s the New York Post’s take on Barbara Streisand’s “comeback”:
Liberal diva Barbra Streisand gave fans an earful of Bush-bashing last night at Madison Square Garden – then told a man in the audience to “shut the f- – - up” after he heckled her for poking fun at the president.
After serenading fans with some of her greatest hits, Streisand mocked President Bush.
A few dozen people began to heckle her with one man shouting, “What is this, a fund-raiser?”
An incensed Streisand shot back, “Why don’t you shut the f- – - up. If you can’t take a joke, why don’t you leave and get your money back.”
The man got up and left.
Stunned fans – many of whom did not hear what started the obscenity-laced outburst – got an apology from Streisand.
“I’m sorry. I shouldn’t have lost it,” the Brooklyn-born singer told the crowd.
The show continued, but Streisand’s tirade dominated talk among fans afterwards
“I was surprised,” said Nancy Heller, 58, of Westchester. “She yelled at the guy. She actually said the f-word.”
The Post’s not alone in their assessment of the performance. Why do performers feel the constant urge to drag politics into music? The night was absolutely ruined for on fan which I’m sure she’s lost forever. And, I’m sure she lost a few more for being so vulgar. When people go to a show, they want to be entertained, to escape from the everyday routine of life. When performers drag that everyday stuff into their show, they become just another Al Martinez. If Babs can’t figure out what it is that made her famous, which is what people pay money to see, then she just needs to stay retired.
