Yeah, it’s an old story, but I need to rant.

We’ve seen countless examples of pure selfishness in recent years, but this one to me, is one of the best examples of why we MUST act to reverse the trend.

Story Link

This is from September of 2014, where a woman takes a ball specifically thrown to a child, while smiling. In Houston, Juan Miranda threw a ball to a child in the stands, but this woman grabbed it and felt nothing wrong with that. I could ALMOST see acting like this were it a foul or a homerun hit into the stands, but this was specifically tossed to the child.

Fast forward and the outrage didn’t stop at the game. Yes, those in the booth held nothing back when discussing the sheer crapiness of this woman, but it’s her reaction that’s just perfect. She harps on how she is the victim. But get this, SHE IS A CHILD PSYCHOLOGIST! Yes, this woman went to school to study how to help children with mental issues, only to traumatize a child in public! Next, she complains that “her life was ruined” by people vilifying her for nothing. She claims that the child will have many opportunities while she won’t have as many, she expresses outrage that her belt was called ugly, as she “spent a lot of money so how could it be ugly,” then goes on to be shocked that the people who worked with her have left, and her “career has been ruined” by her simply catching a baseball.

This is just another symptom of society as it’s been for the last 20 years. Children are taught that they have a “right” to pass their classes with good grades, as teachers cannot use red ink or use the word fail. They’re taught they have a “right” to win when those who study and work to win contests are barred from competition for “winning too often,” and they’re taught that they needn’t work to be a better athlete, as coaches are told they can’t cut anyone from the team, and everyone trying out must make the team.

So, how do we fix this? Simply, reverse the trends! Make people who are able to work do just that, rather than living on welfare for decades. Let teachers actually teach, which includes marking those who do not study as having failed. Let those who are hired to coach a team select only those who will be best suited to play, and cut those who later prove they won’t or can’t. But, are we willing to make the hard call? Are we willing to tell people that hurt feelings are a part of life, and stand by that? I know I am, but how many others are?

This one is just too stupid to be fake

It seems now that waiting in an office to meet someone who works there is “harassment,” and thus, reason to have police called. An adviser at Kennesaw State University was accused of harassment by an adviser simply for waiting for them to be free. From the story, the student wasn’t waiting for the person who made the accusation, but she still called campus security.

I’m sorry, I thought Advisers were there to HELP STUDENTS! This story also notes that the student had tried to make an appointment, but was not able to. Having gone to three different colleges, I wonder if this Adviser was unaware that students rarely are able to know an exact time they will be able to (1) get to the Adviser’s office, and (2) have time to have a meeting? Personally, I was rarely able to schedule a time after my third year started, but none of my Advisors had an issue with me waiting for them to be free. In fact, most times there were several students waiting to see them, and no one complained. You see, for the most part, students are going to class, in the library, taking 2 or 3 minutes to grab something at the S.U.B. then eating it as they walk to their next class, and thus, can’t stop in the middle of their day when the Adviser is free, but rather, the Adviser is there to help them when the student can get in. In fact, all but one of my Advisers over the course of my college education were teachers as well, the one other being part time, and working early morning then coming back roughly when the last class of the day was out.

The issue I have here is simple, this is about attitude, that being that the Adviser is “above” those she is to advise, and thus, should not have to see them waiting to see someone. Add to this, that the student in question wasn’t there for her, yet she still complains. Personally, I don’t have any trouble believing the very low graduation numbers from Kennesaw, and I see their enrollment dropping, which means their income in the form of grants, loans, and scholarships dropping. So, I have to wonder, will this “Adviser” have anything done to her? Or will Kennesaw spew platitudes and rhetoric, then be “confused and saddened that students have chosen to leave, or not attend there at all” later down the road?

It seems that this dead horse is going to be beaten into goo

I’ve held off on this one simply because every time I pull up the link to think about how to address this, I either get angry at the hypocrisy shown, or break down into hysterical laughter, although the latter is far more common.

We’ve all seen the Age Of Ultron trailer where the Avengers try to life Mjolnir, with Captain America getting a minor reaction, and Black Widow declining to even attempt it. A side-note here, Cap. and Widow have both wielded Mjolnir in the comic books, indicating that they are, in fact, worthy. As for that bit, in the first Thor movie we see Odin banish Thor from Asgard, saying “Whosoever holds this hammer, be he worthy, he shall possess the power of Thor.” OK, geekiness aside, back to the real topic at hand, that being “feminists” attacking Joss Whedon over one line in the movie.

Now, the trailer above doesn’t have the line, but in this scene in the movie, Tony says he will be reinstating Prima Noctis, that being the right of a king to have sex with a new bride on her wedding night (used by King of England in an attempt to breed Scots out of Scotland) and they began screeching that he supported rape, or the like. Story Link

Here’s the deal, Whedon didn’t write or have any control over the script, he was the Director! But, his name was on it, so naturally, he should have had the male Avengers bowing to the women, doing what they said, and made Ultron an oppressed woman who just wants to be treated equally.

One thing that is conveniently avoided or ignored, is that later in the movie, when Natasha asks Clint’s wife how “little Natasha” is, and is told the baby is a boy, she calls the unborn child a traitor, in the same joking tone of voice Tony uses in the scene with Mjolnir. Both of these lines are jokes, and were it not for this idiocy about Tony’s joke, I’d never have even considered Tasha’s joke for more than a movie line!

Tony Stark, the character, while he’s grown since his time as a prisoner of war in the middle east, is still a playboy, and an emotional teenager, so these jokes are his mainstay, and that’s the biggest part of his character. Even when fighting as Iron Man, he quips and puns the same, so my question is why a character that’s been this type of person for decades should be changed because people who have never read any of the comics the movie is bringing to life don’t like it? Simple, because these idiots have grown up never being told no, never being told they can’t have everything they want, and now it’s what they firmly believe. It’s yet another symptom of a society where coaches are told everyone trying out must make the team, where teachers are told they can’t use the word fail or use red ink on assignments, and where people are not allowed to compete in a competition because they win too often and others deserve a chance to win. Heaven forbid people actually let others think differently, or study for their tests, or work to be better than others, no, we live in a world where it’s now a “right” to win or get an A, and we’re reaping the whirlwind of a generation who scream that they be given what they have a right to, and when you aren’t willing to pay for their new phone or purse, you are the villain.

Well, I’m tired of it, and sadly I don’t see much hope of changing it any time soon. These people, now adults, need the spankings I got as a child when I was a brat, they need to be grounded for not doing their work, and need to be made to work for money to buy the new thing they want so badly, but no one is willing to do this any more.

Smokey Out

I’m going to go all geek for a bit

Since Thor first appeared on the big screen, the debate about Mjolnir, his hammer, has raged. Most recently, we’ve seen running jokes about Age of Ultron, Thor: The Dark World, The Avengers, and so much more. But there’s a key part people are missing or ignoring, sentience. In Thor: The Dark World, he hangs Mjolnir (M-yol-near – as two syllables) on a coat rack, and the debate begins.

You see, in Thor, Odin says (and I’m paraphrasing here) “Whosoever holds this hammer, be he worthy, he shall possess the power of Thor.” Basically, Mjolnir can evaluate people, and decide if they should be able to wield a weapon as powerful as one forged in the heart of a dying star and imbued with Odinforce. This brings in the biggest question, how much does the hammer actually weigh? You see, if it was just weight, Thor would have to work out to be physically stronger, but strength doesn’t mean worthiness. We saw that in Captain America: The First Avenger, where the bigger guys were not worthy, as they’d abuse the power if given that boost, while Steve, a scrawny kid was given the power, which gave him strength to use in conjunction with his other powers (morals, mind, etc).

So, in essence, Mjolnir weighs nothing to someone who is worthy, and more than the Earth to one who isn’t. We saw the Ultron trailer where Captain America gets the hammer to wiggle, and Thor doesn’t know how, but only Thor (I won’t spoil Ultron for you, so I’m going with everything up to Thor 2 and Guardians, if you’ve seen Ultron, just respect others and don’t spoil it) can hold the hammer, and only after learning that there are things more important than his own life.

So, Thor could hang Mjolnir on a thumb-tack, and it would stay, but even Halfthor Bjornson (The Mountain from Game of Thrones) couldn’t move it with help from all the tech on Earth.

OK, my geek out is over, anyone else wanna weigh in on this?

Interesting, isn’t it?

It seems that while businesses run by Christians who stand by their faith are being run into the ground, those run by homosexuals are protected from the same laws. This story appears to be one where a Christian wanted a cake showing a Bible that had “God hates gays” on it. The customer claims that isn’t true, and points to two scriptures they requested. Nevermind that the verses were not what the baker said, the judge ruled that a bakery can discriminate against Christians. The verses?

Psalm 45:7 – You love righteousness, and hate wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you, more than your companions, with the oil of joy.

Leviticus 18:22 – You are not to sleep with a man as with a woman; it is detestable.

Now, what I find interesting is that the customer claims that they did not request “God hates gays” but say that the first scripture is “God hates sin.” Yes, you could interpret that verse to say that, but it’s a stretch. They go on to claim the second is “God loves sinners,” a stretch many wouldn’t go for.

This looks like a setup to me, either with a group trying to make one side or the other look good or bad, but it’s clear the customer has not read their Bible. I took less than 5 minutes to find, read, then type both verses here. My Bible is not an online version, but a printed copy I’ve had for many years.

I do not believe God truly “hates” anything, and I do believe he loves sinners, as we all are sinners. I believe God is saddened when anyone chooses a life of sin over a life of righteousness, or the attempt. We can never be truly righteous, but we can try to live as He wants us to.

Now, before anyone decides to point to anything in the Old Testament as my need to not eat pork or shelfish, or to bury adulterers up to their neck and stone them to death, remember that I follow Christ. He that stood in the temple and proclaimed that the prophecy and scriptures were fulfilled in Him. Christ that stood against a crowd trying to stone an accused prostitute and said “Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.” Christ, a Jew, who was kind to Gentiles, while others were not. Who befriended tax collectors and healed lepers.

This is what I believe. I am to feed the hungry, help the sick, and I try every day to do this. Why then, when I uphold what Christ did, in this case that homosexuality is a sin and therefore something I must not promote, as in the case of a baker making a cake, am I to be forced by law to do this or go out of business, while a baker who is homosexual can tell me they won’t serve me because I’m Christian?

I don’t want a nation where people are forced to violate their beliefs, nor a country where the government can force much of anything, if anything at all. If you are a business owner and choose to turn away a segment of the population, and your business fails, obviously you are in an area where the majority disagree with you, and the market will decide your fate. But that isn’t the country we have today. Rather, we now live in a country where a single customer can force a business to close, when if the market decided they would flourish, simply because that one customer was “offended” or their “rights” were violated, ignoring the rights of others, or that their winning a court case offends many others.

So, do you want a country where a miniscule portion of the populous can force their views on the rest? Or do you want a country where people are free to decide for themselves? If that decision is such that they fail in their business, it’s only their fault, but if they flourish, it’s obvious the majority agree with them, and you leave it at that? The first sees the majority as needing to be FORCED TO CHANGE, the second, well, it’s the one where every individual is free to decide for themselves.

Smokey out

It’s Friday, time for a rant

I’ve posted about little more than society and the hypocrisy coming from so called “disenfranchised” groups, for a good while now. Each time I comment or post about this, I generally get little more than what I would expect from a toddler when you tell them candy isn’t good for lunch, or a tantrum to be more precise. Basically, the go to argument is “oh yeah, well you’re an intolerant bigot, so you don’t count” or something similar. If they don’t go to that, they instantly go to challenging everything you said in a way that can’t be done to prove yourself right, or comparing your points to other points so idiotic that they have “proven you to be crazy.” If you don’t believe me, look at my post where I link to a story about an athiest’s response to an article about someone simply suggesting Christ may have lived in a newly discovered home in Nazareth. Their main points are “well, there’s no proof that Mark Twain hired a hooker in the home I now own, but there’s no proof against it,” or “there’s no proof aliens live in my closet at night, but there’s no proof against it.” Basically, they counter anything that they don’t agree with using the most idiotic points, so as to “prove the Christians idiots for even believing in a higher power, when it’s obvious that we atheists are smarter and better.”

So, the point of the rant. If you want to debate, learn how to do it first. You don’t just challenge a point made, you bring logic, researched proof, and stay respectful. I recently commented on a thread about gay marriage. I first asserted that marriage is not a right for anyone, as well as believing that, even if only at a subconscious level, homosexuality is a choice. The only response? “Marriage is a right when the government gives you benefits, and try being gay if it’s a choice.” No logic, just a “you’re stupid so I’m going to reply in a way to make you look stupid” response.

Marriage is not a “right” even if it automatically “grants” anything. Yes, a spouse is assumed to be next of kin, given power of attorney if not otherwise assigned, and so on. Guess what, you can grant those to anyone you choose, and no, it’s not “different because marriage does it.” When you get married, you still have to assign those things to your spouse, you still have to put them on your insurance, and so on. Civil Unions were created not too long ago, but they weren’t accepted because “it wasn’t marriage.” So, to me, this suggests that it’s not the power of attorney or other benefits that the gay marriage lobby wants, they want the WORD marriage.

Consider this, until roughly 500 to 600 years ago, marriage was largely (if not purely) a religious affair. It was only when the government saw they could use it either to control the population or make money, that they got involved. We know that during the Scottish fight for independence which killed William Wallace, the English would use Prima Nocte, in an effort to breed English blood into Scot lines. Others used it as a way to control families or clans. Eventually, it just became a cash machine, in that you had to pay for a license, then you had to get a blood test to “make sure your fiance knew if you had any disease, and to ensure you’re not already related” which you had to pay for. So, it’s not just being able to say that they have a spouse, or life partner, in the sense of insurance and such, it’s the actual word marriage that they want.

I’ve been ridiculed before, and likely will again, for suggesting this is only the first step, and before long a Church will be sued for refusing to marry a gay couple. We’ve already seen a bakery forced to close because the owner, acting on his faith, refused a customer, yet when a bakery owned by a gay man or lesbian turns down a straight customer, or worse, becomes verbally abusive, nothing happens. So, how long will it be before a Church is sued, or worse, a Pastor arrested for “denying the right to marry” to a gay couple? It will happen, it’s just a matter of when.

Finally, my point about choice. Notice my comment had “even at a subconscious level” but that was ignored. So answer me this. You grow up in a small town, surrounded by family who never eat pork, root for only one pro and one college team, and everyone drives only Chevy vehicles. You go to that college, driving a Chevy, have never eaten pork in 18 years, and still watch that pro team every game. Did you “choose” to do any of that? Or, did you grow up having those teams, the dislike of pork, and the preference for Chevy just be all you saw. Well, that’s my point. Kids are growing up today being shown homosexuality in a very different way than even 10 or 20 years ago (where it just wasn’t there on TV or in Movies). Schools are teaching that it’s “natural” for two men or two women to be lovers (and it’s not, as two members of the same sex cannot reproduce, and thus, it’s not natural) and parents who complain are ridiculed and threatened with having CPS called on them. My point is this, we all “choose” things every day that we aren’t even aware of. The natural order of any living being is to stay alive and reproduce. Reproduction requires something from a male and something from a female, so that is “natural.”

So, I’ve ranted, what do you think?

Smokey Out

Thursday thoughts

Those who have read my blog for any amount of time will know that, while I am personally rather conservative, when it comes to government involvement in the lives of Americans, I want as little as possible. The Constitution lists not only the rights protected (not given) and also the process to change that, yet people call for new “rights” almost daily. The very first amendment to the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, speech, the press and assembly, yet we see calls to silence this group or that, to restrict this church or that one, or to deny someone or some group a permit to hold a rally, because they are “hateful” or “bigots,” while others that actually advocate hatred or worse, violence, are allowed to do anything they want.

Phil Robertson (Duck Dynasty) was asked his personal opinion on homosexuality, and gave it, only to have people who likely never watched the show all but sue A&E to remove him. Only finding that the show wouldn’t go on without him, that it would be A&E who breached contract, and thus, they’d lose a lot of money, caused A&E to change their minds. When Dan Cathy was asked the same thing, there were calls for all but the firebombing of Chic Fil A restaurants. Yet, let a homosexual group demand a pastor be jailed, someone be fired, simply because they donated money to the GOP or another group that they don’t like, even 20+ years ago, and it’s “free expression” or “just voicing an opinion.” Why the difference? Why the hypocrisy?

Simply put? The government and the media want the country divided, as it allows them to play groups against each other, hoping that group a won’t watch speeches given to group b, so they can promise both groups everything, then blame each group for failing to deliver. The media wants higher ratings, so they jump on racism, sexism, or other issues that whip people into a frenzy, and damn the consequences. Had the media not gone gaga over the Ferguson, MO situation, it’s possible that the white police officers who have been targeted and murdered would still be alive. But, rather than be responsible, we were given constant coverage of weeping relatives, crowds “disgusted” by the “miscarriage of justice,” and the fact that a grand jury, which was called and assembled LONG before Brown robbed that store and attacked a cop, found the evidence said the officer was justified in his actions. Now, however, a man’s life has been ruined, his family has been threatened, and he has had to leave the state he lived and worked in, all because the media portrayed a thug who was shot while trying to take an officer’s side-arm as a “misunderstood teen gunned down by a racist cop.”

So, how do we fix this? The answer is the same as it’s been every time I’ve asked it. Stand up, demand accountability in the media, demand those who sensationalize things to the point of what we saw in Ferguson be fired, demand our elected officials actually represent us, and when they don’t, vote them out! But, that requires that people stay informed and actually accept that they can’t just demand something and get it, or call someone a bigot because that person wouldn’t bow to them, so I’m not holding out much hope.

Smokey out