Someone is most unclear on the concept:
see more pwn and owned pictures
flabbergasted
The free exchange of ideas
…. so long as we approve. (h/t to SayUncle).
…but that the school was unwilling to allow any pro gun rights speaker to come speak to her class, out of concern for how the parents would react.
Did you ever think parents might react negatively to presenting lop-sided arguments? to providing anything less than an actual education to their children? This of course assumes the parents spending their money to send the children to this school care about such things.
One promising thing is the exchange with the teacher… the teacher seems to understand the value of things, and it sounds like the students might actually be thinking — more than can be said for the school administrators. Hopefully the kids will learn a little extra from the whole experience… a “teachable moment” if you will.
Intolerance and Obama.
Wow. (h/t to Rob)
But this level of massive intolerance doesn’t really surprise me. I’ve found those that scream about tolerance to be some of the most intolerant. Their definition of “tolerance” means that you tolerate what they want you to tolerate. Their definition of “open-mindedness” means you agree with what they agree with. Their definition of “good” is what they deem to be good. If you’re not with them, you are against them.
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again.
Freedom is something we must give to others if we wish it for ourselves.
If you want tolerance, you must first be tolerant. If you want people to be open-minded to your opinions and ideas, you must first be open-minded to theirs. If you want good in the world, you must first accept what others consider good.
Another tip? Try to not be so hateful, especially towards those you feel “deserve” some scorn or hate. A little love, a little forgiveness, a little true understanding, a little humility… they go a long way.
Weird ending to the Apple Shareholders Meeting
I’ve been using Apple computers since I was a kid, so I’ve a bit of a soft spot for the company. I just read about their shareholder meeting and the interesting ending to the meeting.
Ah, the Parent’s Television Council. Y’know, I don’t necessarily have fault with what they do because they’ve got every right to do so — they’re welcome to speak their mind, they’re welcome to busy themselves however they see fit. What gets me about them is if they’re all about helping parents well… why aren’t they helping the parents actually be parents? And can we trust their information is objective?
If you don’t like what you’re kids are watching on TV, be the parent and turn the TV off.
If you don’t know what you’re kids are watching, you should sit down and preview it before you allow them to watch it or at least watch it with them. Discuss it with your kids. If it doesn’t mesh, it’s off limits. If it does mesh, still revisit the program now and again because 1 episode may not be enough to get a proper picture and/or the show can evolve over time.
If you don’t know what your kids are watching, why don’t you get a little more involved in their lives and find out? If it’s because they’ve got a TV in their room, why do they have the TV in their room? Take it out.
Who is in control here? the parents? or the kids? Far too often problems are because the kids are in control and the parent gives up their control. Parents, you are not your child’s friend, you are their parent. Act like it.
Always turning to someone else for opinion about what you should do. Can you not think for yourself? Is your moral compass in lock step with these others? What else can they start to feed you that you’ll blindly accept?
Look… the world is filled with people of all ages, mostly adults. Do I think television (and the world) needs to be sanitized for children? Nope. All the things we’re supposed to be doing for our children is preparing them for “the real world”, for being an adult, for learning how to deal and cope and survive and thrive on their own. To sanitize everything to “keep them safe” does them no long-term good. Better to give them the skills to cope, the morals to know right from wrong, the ability and courage to say “hey, this isn’t the sort of show I should be watching… I’ll change the channel or turn the TV off”. The world is full of ugly things, and while there’s something to be said for trying to rid ugly things from the world, you still need to give your children the skills and ability to deal with those ugly things. I’d say that’s even better, since it not only let’s them deal with the ugly, but is putting some beauty into the world as well because a well-adjusted kid is a beautiful thing.
Obama’s speech
Anthony G. Martin said it well enough about the interesting reasoning within Obama’s speech last night. So, I’ll just let him say it. Click and read.
Updated: Ok, I changed my mind. I’m going through my morning webroll and read this article. It kinda set me off.
He says the economic crisis is one he inherited from Bush. Now I’m no fan of Bush, but last I checked the Presidency had no control over economic matters. That’s the job for Congress, which of course Obama was a part of during the Bush administration. And Obama is on record as voting for all those damn bailouts. So uh…. who helped to create the mess, Mr. Obama? You helped to create that inherited mess. But maybe this is just showing Obama’s ignorance for the Constitution he’s supposed to be sworn to upholding. I mean, he also believes that government has a role in solving our problems… don’t know where that is in the Constitution, but I guess since he apparently believes it to be the case, then it must be Fact and Truth, right?
Y’know, for all the American families that are having to tighten their belts, most of them are not only reducing their spending but many are also reducing their income. So why is it that the folks in Washington give lip service to reducing their spending, but at the same time just voted to jack up their “income” at the taxpayer expense? If you really want to eliminate all those problems, Mr. Obama, you probably shouldn’t have signed that trillion dollar “stimulus” (go read Anthony Martin’s article above).
Now he’s saying the bank bailout is going to cost more (surprise surprise). So we have to cut spending, but now if Congress has to “do whatever proves necessary”, which just means increase more spending (huh?? which is it?? reduce spending or increase spending?)… which means more borrowing against our grandchildren’s future… which means further tanking the US’s standing in global markets, which means further dollar weakening…. yeah, do whatever’s necessary. Keep flushing the country down the toilet, and continue to use the Constitution as your toilet paper.
*sigh*
Pissed off snark
Where’s the change?
I have to agree. Where is the change? There are lots of broken promises sure, but that’s not change… that’s pretty par for the course.
Robbie seems to be starting a nice tally of the broken promises.
Quantifying trillion
JR helps us quantify just how much a trillion is. Gah.
Update: Via Tam, another quantification of trillions.
Name me one success
I find it fascinating that people turn to government (local, city, state, federal especially) thinking it will solve their problems. Number 3 on Anthony G. Martin’s list of 10 Conservative Principles notes that usually government is the problem.
So I’ve been curious. Can someone name for me something the government (and for purposes here I’m talking US Federal Government) has done that has been good? That has been run efficiently, has been properly accountable, has done a better job than the private sector, has left the majority of people as “satisified customers”. I’m honestly looking to find something the Feds have done that one could say was great. If you know of something, please add a comment and some evidence to support it.
They say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. So, when you have failed government program after failed government program (e.g. FEMA), why do folks keep turning back to government expecting success?
Funny sense of compassion
Buda is a small town immediately south of Austin (almost an Austin suburb these days). Apparently a couple weeks ago there was a bomb threat phoned in to a high school. After the threat was received, 1850 students were evacuated… but apparently there are 1858 students at the school, since 8 special-ed students were left inside.
Principal Shirley Reich said one reason the children were kept inside was the chilly day, 47 degrees outside, and that “if anything I erred on the side of compassion for them.”
Now, maybe Ms. Reich did have honestly good intentions, and maybe it’s just an honest mistake. But I still can’t help but feel some sense of confusion over her sense of compassion.
So, it’s chilly outside, and it’s compassionate to keep 8 special-ed kids inside and send 1850 other kids outside into the cold.
Or, it’s compassionate to send 1850 kids away from the potential for an explosion, and keep 8 kids at ground zero.
This must be some of that “new compassion” I keep hearing about these days.
Stuff From Hsoi 