I’d say I’m surprised, but that would be a lie

It seems that, rather than simply being a bastion for liberal thought, colleges are now a bastion for students to get their way now, professors be damned. Yes, there are now professors who are SCARED to upset their students.

Students are getting professors fired, or just not brought back, for “offensive” texts on syllabi by authors such as Mark Twain. I’m sorry, but I read Tom Sawyer in JUNIOR HIGH, and it’s now gotten to where that author is not acceptable in college? Moving on, don’t forget that students actually had the nerve to suggest their finals be put off or cancelled due to their “emotional distress” over the Ferguson, MO situation. Yes, kids at IVY LEAGUE schools were so traumatized at watching a city tear it’s self apart over a criminal that they wrote a letter saying they believed they had a right to this, and were “shocked” when it didn’t happen.

The crux of the matter is simple, although I doubt many colleges will see it, or if they do, act on it. TREAT THESE STUDENTS LIKE THE ADULTS THEY ARE! When they scream about Twain being on the syllabus, tell them to grow up and read what is assigned. When they scream that being assigned something that doesn’t 100% mesh with their political leanings or other beliefs is “oppressing them,” and they ignore that only being assigned what they agree with is doing what they accuse to those who don’t agree with them, they need to be KICKED OUT! A college education is not a right, it’s a privilege! That’s why it’s not free!

We’ve moved from the era of students working their butts off to afford college, to the era of students studying “the social and political affects of renaissance French poetry” being shocked that their degree doesn’t automatically get them a six figure job, to the era of students getting professors fired for teaching the subject matter.

So, the question is simple and simple to answer, for me at least. The answer is to stop coddling these ADULTS who want to whine like toddlers denied a third cookie when they’re assigned something they don’t like, and to stand behind the professor. Sure, verify if an assignment is reported, and if it’s not relevant to the class, that’s different, but trust me, those will be rare items on this list. As for those who won’t give up the “fight to make sure they aren’t offended” OFFEND THEM BY KICKING THEM OUT OF COLLEGE, then when they sue, LAUGH THEM OUT OF COURT! Only when FORCED to work for what they want will any of them have any chance of actually growing a brain. Many won’t, and they’ll live on the dole and get high every day, but some will grow up and become useful adults, isn’t that worth it?

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?

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

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

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

Freedom for those who do what we like

Indiana and Arkansas have been in the spotlight recently, having passed laws stating a private business owner can deny service to anyone they choose to. This is, in the simplest terms, saying they have a right to TURN AWAY MONEY. Nowhere is sexual orientation, race, gender or religion mentioned. What it does is protect a baker who, due to religious conviction, decides he won’t bake a cake for a gay wedding, or a restaurant owner who refuses service to vegetarians because he uses all kinds of meat in his cooking, or a lawn care professional when they tell someone who happens to be gay, or a different race, or a different religion, they can’t mow their yard because their booked.

We used to be a society where, if you were denied service and felt it was wrong, you told your friends, they told theirs, and so on. If enough people believed your version, the business just began to lose money, and either changed their practices, or went out of business. You affected them simply by convincing others, without whining on TV or suing, to avoid that business. It’s the same as a restaurant that serves bad food, people find out and just don’t go there. Today, however, we live in a society where, despite the First Amendment, and now two states passing additional laws, people who feel “discriminated against” sue to “punish the bigot.” I’m sorry, if I went to a bakery owned by a gay or lesbian couple, and asked for a cake honoring traditional marriage, and they said they won’t do it, I WOULDN’T WANT THEM TO at that point, for fear they’d not do as good a job as they do on other items. Second, I wouldn’t sue them for turning away customers, I’d simply let it be known that they turned me away due to my faith and my request, and let people decide if they want to do business there, leaving it to the market who succeeded and who didn’t.

To show how this is not the case any more, and how one group has decided to force another to not only tolerate, but to accept them, I give you two cases. First, a court ruled that a baker had “illegally discriminated” against a gay couple. Keep in mind that this is a private citizen who decided to turn away a paying customer. Rather than simply letting their friends and family know, and instead of simply encouraging anyone they could to do business elsewhere (free market economics) they sued, and a judge ruled that a private citizen could not act on their beliefs. This case however, is the opposite, and not about only one baker. No, in this case, thirteen bakeries turned away a request to make a cake with a message that stated gay marriage is wrong. Nothing was vulgar or profane about the message, it was simply a message that a majority of people, based on their religious affiliation, agree with. None of these bakeries were sued, some of them were very insulting, one even saying they’d made the large cookie, but they would “put a phallus on it.” How is it that the first instance of a private business turning away a customer is “illegal” or “wrong,” but not the other thirteen cases?

Simply put, the media and too many in government have decided that only one group is protected. This isn’t the only situation either. We have seen instances where people state only whites can be racist, only men can be sexist, and believe it. This is the problem today. If you claim to want equality, then you cannot do anything the other guy can’t, and then expect him not to react as you would. If you can call someone evil, ignorant, a bigot, or worse, then they can call your “lifestyle choice” wrong, or immoral. If you can turn away a customer wanting a cake supporting traditional marriage, then he can turn your request for a cake for a gay wedding away. Simply put, no one can have a “right” that others do not have. That is called privilege, rights are for everyone, and too many today have either forgotten that, or chosen to remain ignorant in their demand for “rights” that only they enjoy.

Smokey out

Two for today

It seems that I am not commenting as much on actual news and politics any more, as I am on people who fully expect the world to do as they demand, while they do as they please, and no one is allowed to question them on it.

The first for today, is once again something from DC, in this case, Harry Reid responding to someone pointing out that he blatantly lied about Mitt Romney during the 2012 elections. During a speech in the summer of 2012 Reid said “Let him prove that he has paid taxes, because he hasn’t.” referring to Romney, accusing him of never paying taxes. Romney, of course, responded, and I believe, made his returns available. Now, having been proven to have lied, and never responded when Romney called him on his statement, his only responses is “Well, they can call it whatever they want. Romney didn’t win, did he?” after being called a “McCartheyite” (referring to Senator McCarthey from the 1950’s). I’m sorry, had a Republican accused Obama of never paying taxes, only to have Obama prove he had, there would have been calls for all but public hanging, yet Reid jokes about ruining a man’s election run, and nothing is done?

I believe there are good people in the House and Senate, but they are in an extreme minority, their voices silenced. Sadly, there is little to be done, as to impose term limits, or have any legal action when our “illustrious leaders” break the very laws they pass, must be put in place by those same people. We are left with but one option, vote someone else into their office. I personally worked on a campaign in Tyler, TX in the 2004 election, where an incumbent Democrat was defeated. For those who don’t know, that area is a largely Democrat part of Texas, and Mr. Sandlin was the incumbent, which in a national election means you normally need to work very little to be re-elected, but he was defeated. So, the question here is simple, is it worth enough to you to work to oust those simply working to keep a cushy job and power, or not?


Next, we move to more of a societal issue, that being the attitude of (most) atheists today. Like any group, it’s not 100% of them believe or act as this next bit demonstrates, but sadly, those who simply want to live their lives are lumped in with the bad apples, and most of the “not bad apples” do little to nothing to correct the view of their group. In a great display of irony, these are the very people who trumpet the “not all XXX are bad” line regarding groups where horrible things are done in group XXX’s name. They say nothing about those members of the group who do those things, just “they’re not all bad, so stop complaining,” but when it comes to a lone Christian making a comment, or a lone wacko doing something terrible who might have been Christian, they jump all over “Christianity did this” completely ignoring their previous mantra of “it was a small percentage of the group” and so on.

In this case, it was an article postulating the possible discovery of the childhood home of Jesus of Nazareth. Note, from the author’s words, no claim that “this is Jesus’ house” was ever made. The question was asked, the evidence presented, and theories presented, that’s it. From there, the “Friendly Atheist” begins to liken this article’s theory to pure lunacy. Yes, I can say that while there is no proof that X happened in my home 100 years ago, there’s no proof it didn’t, so it may have, about anything, and as you can’t prove the negative, well, that’s the point. However, this “friendly” post about the article ridicules Christians and the entire article, all but saying “Jesus is a myth, so to find his home is impossible,” while comments simply spiral out of control attacking the mere fact that there are people who are Christians.

I have personally been called stupid, ignorant, and worse, simply because I am a Christian (also for being a Republican, a Conservative, and simply for being from the American south, but those are topics for a different day) as if this ends all discussion. So, my question is this, why is this even tolerated? The very people screaming that I, as a Christian, must “tolerate” people who believe differently than I do, or who’s “lifestyle choice” (and it’s not a choice either) is not in accordance with my beliefs, but for me to point out the childishness of their words is “attacking them on a personal level.”

Yes, I am a Christian, and no, I am not a scientist, so I can’t, and thus, won’t speak on the science behind the origins of life on this planet, or how humans have gotten to the place we are today, based on historical evidence of physical and mental changes. I don’t argue for or against the “big bang” for two reasons, there will never be fool proof evidence without time travel, and as I point out regularly, the physical act of creation could very well have been exactly what is called the big bang, simply caused by God commanding it to happen. I don’t question that humans have changed, or evolved, over time, because we are now on average taller, less hairy, smarter, and so much more, but I do question abiogenisis and the “we just evolved, there is no God” argument. When I do, I often get the “no one alive today was there? Great argument idiot” response, no reasoned discourse, but animosity and hateful attacks.

In a nutshell, you want respect, you earn it, you don’t demand it. I respect the Office of President of the U.S., just not the man in it right now. Second, to claim that “life just appeared and evolved to where we are today,” in my mind, is to boil human life, and all life on the planet, down to a “cosmic accident,” which to me, is just wrong, and often leaves me wanting to slap the living daylights out of the person refusing to act like an adult, then simply say “you’re an accident of the cosmos, so I choose to slap accidents of the cosmos” to simply get them away from me, but I then choose to remain an adult, and let them show themselves for the intellectual infants they are.

I am an educated and, I like to think, intelligent man, and I welcome civil and reasoned debate. However, when you stoop to name calling and emotional attacks on someone, you not only prove to be that same intellectual infant, you take all credibility away from your argument. Research, bring facts, use logic, and remain respectful. You’ll find more often than not, while you and the person you’re arguing with, or debating, but you will be able to part amicably, and continue your debates. Who knows, you both may just learn something, even if neither of you ever convinces the other.

Smokey out