Unanswered Question: Why don’t we think for a change?

Yes, I am angry.
I am also disgusted.
I’d mind my own business but there’s a concerted effort to ‘infect’ our children with bad ideas. My granddaughters are going to be exposed to them too. They simply can’t go unchallenged any longer.
If I hear about “equity” anymore, I may explode. LOL
Below is a picture meant to express the ‘marvelous nature’ of “equity”. Let’s examine the messages.

Well, there are three children of different races and sexes in this diagram and an imaginary dotted line. What’s the line mean? I would guess it has something to do with reaching ‘success’. Everything presented in this diagram has a purpose. The white male child is the tallest, the female child is shorter, and the black child is too short to reach the ‘success’ line in the first picture. Oh, I see diplomas in the hands of the “successful”. Could it be the getting of a diploma is a perfect goal?
Seems odd that the taller boy can more easily reach the goal when more women are graduating with college degrees these days.
Seems repulsively racist that the diagram depicts the black child as needing help to achieve the same goal. I hope they aren’t suggesting black children are not as smart as white kids! Somebody ought to tell Dr. Ben Carson or Barrack Obama about that a.s.a.p.
The black child not only seems to need ‘help’, but he’s also depicted as needing the most help. That’s a sorry message, I hope it was not intentional. [wink]
So, when it comes to “equality” it seems giving everyone a fair “equal” chance isn’t enough but giving ‘selected people’ according to their ‘appearance’ better unequaled advantages is shown as a ‘good’ thing. Don’t forget…that ‘good’ thing is a diploma. They don’t regard (in this diagram) success as being achievable any other way. That’s okay. They can’t cram all the possible ways we achieve in only one diagram because we know they are endless, right?



Now, let’s look at the heading. “Apply Equity to Women’s Advancement”. I’ve established many reasons that “equity” is condescending and unfair. How might the application of it advance women?
What possible measurement does the artist use for “advancement”? I already said more women are getting degrees than men. I can tell you, the women I know without degrees are advancing in there “life goals” nicely too. All motivated people strive to advance themselves toward goals. I surely hope being a devoted mother and/or caregiver or an excellent free-lance writer meets that undefined (but subliminally suggestive) advancement criteria.

I could go on…
But I’ll just ask, “What in the world is going on?”
WHO are polluting our children’s minds and WHY are they doing this?

Depicting white males as already ‘advanced’ when I’ve seen so many work tirelessly to achieve their goals.
Depicting women and blacks as “less-than”. Wow! That’s a stupid and racist message.
Depicting ‘advancement’ narrowly as the “buying of a degree” (That’s all it amounts to in most cases.)
Depicting that our needs for assistance should be measured by our immutable traits not by our individual situations.

Why don’t we think for a change? Let’s consider who benefits from such messages.
Not white males… they’re ‘privileged’, so “you’re on your own guys”. We’ll even let people cut in line before you for jobs.
Not females…if they embrace the nonsense in the diagram, they may resent men especially ‘white men’ for having some made-up advantages. Oh yes, and ‘educated’ women resoundingly consider black people as so disadvantaged without them, that they are empowered to “tell them just what they need” because they know better. How condescendingly ‘kind’ are those ‘educated women?
Not black children… they’re harmed the most. They can’t (and told they shouldn’t) believe in their own potential when it’s clear they’re going to need a lot of help. Some may not even try with those ‘oppressive’ odds.

The only people who benefit are those who want to expand government and control outcomes. They don’t even use their own money but thinking up ‘equity’ programs while using taxpayer funds (and hiring family members) is their favorite pastime. It makes people appreciate the NEED for them, you know.
They (government bureaucrats and Marxist activists) purposefully disrupt our constitutional order of an “equal chance” to “pursue happiness” and sell a divisive message ending with “You need our help. We’re here to help.” because we’re the ‘nice’ guys.

That’s the best description of “authoritarian” control I’ve ever heard. Please “wake-up”. We’re not each other’s adversaries but those suggesting we are, aren’t looking out for you. Beware of the term “equity”, it’s a trick.








Fines aren’t about Safety


I want to discuss the use of laws and fines as Public Safety measures.

In a free society, the public service arm of government agencies keeps the public informed. Once upon a time when these agencies were trusted, the public was offered enough information to act responsibly and protect themselves accordingly. The safety of each individual was where it belonged- in their own hands according to their own perception of risk.

Once the government started instituting laws to ensure ‘public safety’, the citizens’ ability to judge ‘what’s good for us’ was interfered with and slid toward the idea that ‘government knows better’ attitudes. “One size fits all” became more palatable to the public and government intrusion into personal freedoms got a lot of traction. We all deep down know ‘one size’ never fits all but who wants to argue with something called “safety”? Now, whether you know it or not, the government has taken the role of a ‘parent’. “For your own good” is their excuse to impose their will. Then the government started agencies monitoring all things (it deemed) ‘for our own good’. Keep in mind, these agencies were not elected. The public was now cut off from any direct say on the implementation of regulations. Regulation is another word for control. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but the government has unimpeded control of everything you do. We’ve given “them” the muscle to do it too.

You may be one (of many) who say, “Well, I think ‘safety’ is a good thing, so I don’t mind.”. I want to examine if ‘safety’ is the real impetus for most of regulation. I also want to ask you, “Who knows better about your individual situation, you or the government?”. Are you a good person? I think most people are good and wouldn’t intentionally harm a fly. (Have you noticed ‘bad’ selfish people don’t follow laws?) Why then are you comfortable with government telling you that freedom is too dangerous for you use?

If the government were actually serious about every single person’s safety, why are safety infractions mostly subject to fines? I don’t know about you but a ‘fine’ tells me that I can go against ‘safety laws’ for a price. There’s an uneven, ineffective, process going on that ultimately enriches the government more than it causes total safety. (Total safety isn’t a thing I hope you know.)
If you’re wealthy enough, you can be as irresponsible (in the eyes of the law) as you wish. Guess what? Good people like yourselves already operate with an ‘eye’ on keeping us safe with or without laws. 😉

Personally, during my childcare years many other providers imposed a fine for frequent tardy ‘pick-ups’. I did not do that. I understood reasonable delays, BUT, if being late became a pattern, I told those parents that we needed to renegotiate our contract to allow for more overall time or for termination of my service if they no longer fit into MY schedule. To have instituted a ‘late fee’ meant that “you can be late for a price”. Being late interfered with my family’s routine and wasn’t going to be ‘for sale’!

BTW-If imposing safety on everyone were Constitutional, it would have been mentioned. It’s not. But being free to protect yourself from danger and also to be protected from unelected governmental intervention is clearly there. Even though the Constitution is being overwhelmingly ignored at our peril these days, it still is the ultimate “law of the land”.

I believe it is the only thing standing between us and our chaotic demise as we slip into totalitarianism. I’ve never cared to tell others how to live but I am not going to ignorantly give up my own freedoms to a group of people who don’t know (or care) about my family as much as I, without objecting to it.

Have a nice day!

Six Sentence Story- Control- The Talk

PROMPT WORD:  CONTROL

I’m about to lose control!

What’s wrong?

Roe V Wade may be rescinded, and then all of the people in each State will get to vote on whatever abortion restrictions they want causing women to have difficulty getting abortion on demand!

Shouldn’t everyone get to vote on such a serious topic in the way the Constitution prescribes rather than allowing nine people to decide for the whole population?

Men shouldn’t have ANY control over women’s reproductive choices!

Um, you can’t be serious… It was men who wrote and confirmed Roe V Wade in the first place and, last I checked, men play a role in reproduction too although judging by the tragically high number of abortions, self-control and birth control ought to be the more urgent focuses of both sexes.

Sunday Poser-# 78… 5-1-22

This week my question is;

What is a cause you’re passionate about and why?

I’m a bit late on this. Yesterday offered rejuvenating time for outdoor activities. 🙂

My passion is seeking ‘truth’ in our politics. It’s annoying to some and informative to others.
I feel that my granddaughters’ futures depend on our U.S. political decisions and policies. For that reason, I have an insatiable appetite for “goings on”.

Since I’m retired, I have the time to watch events on C-Span as they transpire. I also have time to research topics from multiple points of view. Our media has failed us on matters of ‘truth’, so to stay well informed, watching events as they happen in unedited fashion is my mission.
For those family and friends, who trust my fairness and instincts, it has been valuable to them. Much of our population is just too busy to absorb news beyond headlines. We all know that headlines are often misleading and sensationalized so knowing someone, whom they can trust to report the numerous elements on topics, is essential to staying informed. I often phrase my reporting as factual developments rather than opinion but readily offer opinion when asked. Everyone should know as much as possible especially for voting purposes.

Unfortunately, hopeful news in this arena is hard to uncover but the media’s hype on a new ‘crisis’ everyday requires me to offer temperance with gathered facts as well.
It’s an exhausting and “soul sapping” task so I take time to be outdoors and relax in-between.
Consider the ‘passions’ mentioned in this thread. Are the people in Communist China allowed to pursue them? Our freedoms are what make all our humane pursuits possible.
To me, if our political system stops working on our country’s behalf (primarily in failing to defend our Constitution), ALL other things people hold dear will be at risk. It is the bedrock for our future survival.

Fandango’s Provocative Question 3/24/21

Do you think that there is any chance that the U.S. Congress will ever take decisivebipartisan action to pass and enact nationwide common sense gun laws to try and stem the tide of mass shootings, or is the best that the American Congress will ever do is to send thoughts and prayers to the families of loved ones killed in mass shooting incidents?
********************
As leadingly biased (and overly simplified) as this question is, it brings up quite a good inquiry!

The question whether the vague concept of ‘common sense gun laws’ can be passed in Congress doesn’t tell us what the heck a ‘common sense’ law actually is and it assumes a federal law can be the most effective way of curbing any unwanted behavior. I ask you to refer to the laws against entering our country illegally, the laws about human trafficking, and the laws against many types of drugs. Not to mention the actual laws against murder, especially mass murder?
There are many, so many, layers to what the public ( and this question) has reduced to another either/or scenario of gun laws or gun violence. Pick one.
I could write all day and never express all the dynamics in play on the topic of guns in the U.S., so, I’ll just pick a few. Feel free to continue the discussion in my comments.

One size fits all and binary choices are hopelessly inefficient and unfair. In a country of over 330 million people, there are 330 million different situations. Oh, even when you place people in artificial ‘groups’ they always seep out where those groups overlap in all individual cases.
Nationwide gun laws won’t/can’t ‘stem the tide’ of mass shootings. We have gun laws already. Many aren’t even enforced and most are the first charges dropped in plea bargaining.
Imagine trying to stop speeding on the highways by lowering the speed limit every time there’s an uptick in that criminal act of speeding. Will that reduce the number of people who ignored the first limit or will it make more criminals out of already law abiding drivers who eventually get squeezed to a crawl?
Trying to stop gun violence by imposing new laws is the same useless method. The speeders obviously don’t follow laws in the first place and good luck snatching their licenses and fining them too. Those rules are up for grabs on the enforcement end in the courts. Tightening already existing laws with stiffer penalties and more thorough enforcement is the only reasonable way to proceed. ( Incidentally, speeding will NEVER stop happening altogether.)
So, NO, more gun laws is not a good idea especially because the ‘right’ to own a gun isn’t at all comparable to the ‘privilege’ of driving. Our Constitution guarantees it.
I could go on and on about the positives of an armed society of law abiding citizens but I don’t want to appear like I’m pleading a case, asking for permission, when infringing on our right to bear arms, under the pretense of helping anything in a common sense fashion, is already going too far.
As for the inept Congress, that problem can be solved with term limits. {period}
The entrenched and compromised have to go.
Finally, praying isn’t interfering with anything. To condescend about those of us who do, says more about the person who believes it’s at all a concern than those who hope it could help.
Yes, I think that prayers for stiffer local enforcement of gun laws IS the best Congress has to offer unless they want to turn their attention to efforts on dealing with mental illness, domestic terrorism, and gangs, instead of gun legislation. Those are the clearer culprits in mass murder and why I haven’t time to go in those directions.
Peace!

Fandango’s Provocative Question #114 – This, That, and The Other (fivedotoh.com)