Once again, it’s about ignoring what was said, by those you don’t like

The Republican National Convention is over, and while the dust settles, we’re getting endless commentaries on how “horrible” and “ignorant” the voters were to pick Trump, then how “amazingly wonderful” the DNC voters were to pick Hillary, just nothing on the fact that she’s abused power, would be in jail were she not Hillary Clinton, and so much more. Well, just as we saw with Piers Morgan not long ago, John Oliver has decided to educate America as to why we’re all idiots.

Now, I couldn’t finish the video as I could tell I was getting angry, and I don’t like stress like that, so every point isn’t covered, nor are these in any specific order. To start off, just as has happened since she gave the speech, Melania’s “plagiarism” is hot news. Never mind that Michelle took much of her speech from Saul Alinski, or that the “plagiarized” bits were things many people might say (talk about their childhood, their parents, their ethics, etc) but when Melania even sounds like something she said might be close to something Michelle said, she’s “stealing the speech.” Not long after that hype started though, a photo started making the rounds pointing out that her dress was about $135 while Hillary’s jacket was over $10,000, with Melania speaking about prosperity and Hillary about poverty. Well, just as always, as soon as their queen is shown to be a hypocrite, the claws come out. Rather than simply ignore a story they don’t like, it became about how Melania likely didn’t pay for that, someone gave it to her, and so much more. Never mind that Hillary showed she doesn’t care if she’s seen as a hypocrite, Melania shouldn’t plagiarize and we shouldn’t point out that she didn’t show up to speak to people who work hard for their money, wearing a jacket that would pay for a very nice vacation, we are to bow to Hillary, and never question her.

Next, Oliver’s bit and how he just goes on and on, telling us that if we vote for Trump, we’re idiots. He points out that someone from an MMA organization is there to talk about Trump’s business acumen. Naturally, he can’t just point out the topic and speech, but has to make fun of who was chosen to speak. That not being enough, he then insults Antonio Sabato Jr. for saying he doesn’t believe Obama is a Christian. Sabato also said it’s what he believes, and he is not going to force others to believe that, but no, Sabato is a horrible facist who wants to force you to parrot him, just ignore how he said that’s not what he thinks. Well, since he couldn’t ramble on about a less than 20 second sound bite, he goes off on Trump’s evilness. He talks about how he wants a “wall, to keep Mexicans out” after playing a bit from Trump where he talks about convicted violent criminals who’s deportation was ordered, but they’re still here. To the left, that’s the same, anyone who wants to enforce the law wants to stop “poor families who just want a better life” from coming to the US. They must ignore that Mexico has a border barrier on their southern border, that entering Mexico illegally is a guaranteed one way trip to jail, and how no one in the Mexican government cares about speaking English to you, nor will you ever get benefits. So, ignoring all of that, and ignoring that Trump’s comment was about finding CRIMINALS who have been sentenced and deportation ordered, and simply carrying that out, Trump is now a racist.

Moving on, and this will be the end for me since I’m tired of pointing out hypocrisy. Ted Cruz, a 2016 hopeful, gave a speech that was well written and delivered, the only thing he didn’t say was that he implicitly supports and endorses Trump. Now, for a party who has pointed out any time the DNC orders people to ignore what a candidate is doing, or orders them to support one candidate, you’d think a speech about listening to the candidates and voting your conscience wouldn’t be horrible, but no, apparently, the RNC delegates want Cruz tarred and feathered for not bowing to them and doing what they tell him. Trump knew about the speech and didn’t try to stop it, meaning it didn’t bother him. While Oliver apparently equates Trump knowing Cruz wouldn’t completely endorse him is tantamount to the Titanic’s captain knowing about the iceberg in time to turn and saying no, it’s not a big deal! Why must everyone fall lock step into place and verbally say “I support Trump?” Who you vote for is your business, period. I have never nor will I ever tell anyone doing an exit poll who I voted for, you can if you want, but that’s the key, it’s YOUR CHOICE. Why then is it so horrible for Cruz to MAKE UP HIS OWN MIND? Simply put, the RNC is more worried about looking united than actually uniting the party under a banner of common sense, and doing what they say, that being NOT TRYING TO CONTROL PEOPLE.

Finally, there was a lot about how feelings aren’t fact, and how, apparently, nothing said means anything because it had the word feelings in it. I’d say I’m sorry, but I’m not, but when you “feel the economy is suffering” that’s not an emotional feeling, it’s a real feeling. I feel it in the fact that costs have risen on so many things that even with a good job, I’m living paycheck to paycheck. I don’t feel safe, because out government is trying to import people who have trashed Europe, raped countless women and children, and chant death to America while demanding we give them free crap. You see, you can “feel” something without it being just emotions, well, until you have a man who feels he’s really a woman, then it’s fact, we can’t argue, we must use the gender pronoun he wants, even before he tells us, and he can go into the ladies’ room and we can’t complain. Never mind that he is biologically male, he feels like he’s really a female, so he is, and we can’t argue. Do you see the circular logic and hypocrisy?

Well, I’ve ranted enough, and as I said at the start, I don’t like what stress does to me, so I’m going to turn on an audio book and just work today, as for the rest, it will work out, I just hope it’s before it’s too late.

We are at a fork in the road, which way we go determines our fate

More and more of late, I’ve seen countless examples of the best and worst of society and humanity. We’ve had Police Officers murdered by cowards who claim to be part of the BLM movement, while we’ve seen members of the black community stand up and denounce the violence. We’ve seen people come together in support of those being targeted, while others just sit and wait for a chance to pull the trigger. More recently, we’ve seen the attacks on the Trump campaign escalate, now claiming that Melania should have told about how Donald proposed, then claiming she used Michelle Obama’s speech, all while ignoring that, to my knowledge, no First Lady, before or after an election, has told about the proposal, or that Michelle used many direct quotes from people she did not cite, as that would show that the media is desperate to get Trump.

More remotely, we’ve seen people demanding that they have a right to not be offended, while offending others right and left. A college student attending an assembly designed to offend hurling insults and screaming profanities at the professor leading it, them demanding that they “get the hate speech off our campus.” It has to stop. We need to not only go back and teach that the rights you have are in the Bill Of Rights, and aside from adding Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, that’s it. You do not have a right to force a private business to serve you, nor is it a “hate crime” for said business to turn away a customer. If you’re in a discussion and someone will not just stop and say “you’re right, you’re wonderful” but rather makes counter points, you don’t get to just stop it, and then claim that the other person was hateful or the like. I have had an experience on a college campus where in a debate about supply side vs classical vs Dickensian economics, I was called a racist, then shouted over any time I tried to speak. I simply wrote out “If you refuse to let me speak, you forfeit the debate and I win.” then walked away. I was grabbed by the idiot, and only when (I am a former detention officer) I broke the hold and put my (now) attacker in a bent arm bar against a wall, did the person begin screaming that I’d broken their arm and should be jailed for assault. Thankfully, there was a campus PD officer there, who saw it all, and actually arrested the idiot for assaulting me first, and ensured me the video would be attached to the report. But this shows the attitude. This person was losing a debate, so first tried to be the only one to speak, and when I just walked away, assaulted me, only to claim assault when I defended myself. I’ve also had a woman yell at me that she “doesn’t need a man to open a door” only to then continue shouting about how rude I am when I said “OK” and went in, not holding the door. She then became very upset that I had the “gall” to stand up and quote her words, explaining that if she didn’t want me to do that, I would respect that wish. The attitude for her is “I’m always right, you’re always wrong, I get to berate you and you can’t say boo” and they are horribly offended when that doesn’t happen.

So, the question is this, and it’s fairly simple. How can we pick the correct path so that we don’t end up with a country full of idiots who will sue when they aren’t given free stuff, or when a private business owner (who has the right to refuse service) doesn’t take their money? We need to start in public schools, by ending the “show up and write your name and you pass” crap that so many schools have begun. We need to stop teaching the test so that kids pass and schools aren’t defunded. We need to teach the subject matter, and if we do, they’ll pass a test. But beyond that, we need to stand up and tell those demanding that they’re special and the rest of the world doesn’t matter to shut up, get a job, and just live their lives. Amazingly, those who are in those demographics (gay, black, etc) but who just live their lives, well, they aren’t told they can’t buy a cake, or what have you. Naturally, they also won’t go to a small bakery owned and run by people who have made public their strong faith, they’d go to a bakery with ideals like their own. But then again, those screaming and suing don’t really want equality, they want to be elevated, told their special and given the world on a silver platter, all of this paid for by the very people they hurl insults at. I guess our money is fine, they just don’t want to have to see us, or hear us, or realize that we have the same actual rights as them.

Humpday facepalm material

I tend to post about current events, politics and such, more often than other topics. I’ve ranted about general topics, but that’s rare, and it’s what I’m going to address today. For the last 20 to 30 years, the world has fostered a mindset which has at it’s core, the attitude of “I deserve everything, you can’t offend me, you can’t tell me I’m wrong, give me give me give me.” We see it when school sports teams aren’t allowed to cut players and/or are forced to put everyone trying out onto the team, although thankfully this didn’t happen for long. What has stuck around is the idea of “not hurting students’ feelings” so some schools (one very near me) have a policy that if a student shows up and puts their name on an assignment, they pass. Yes, you read that right, just showing up and putting down your name means you pass without needing to even know what class it’s for, and some students won’t even do that. So, is it any wonder we’ve now got a world where people believe assault is an OK response to a comment, property destruction is OK, and that they know what it’s like to be a soldier because they get called names?

I sincerely hope this is fake, but having seen stories about men found to be innocent after years in jail, just because the girl finally got caught admitting she lied, I won’t be shocked if it’s not fake. This girl thought her boyfriend was cheating, so she smashed his computer. This is destruction of property, and if it’s a nice computer, could be a felony based on the value. He points out it was his cousin, so she then says he deserved to be cheated on for not buying her stuff, before finally saying she’s going to tell the cops he raped her. What’s even worse is that it’s all online, and therefore evidence, with or without the “lol u go gurl” comment from a friend. She firmly believes she can destroy something she doesn’t own, and when proven to be wrong as to why she did it, she says she’ll falsely accuse someone, and will bitch, whine, cry and be just ever so horrified that he would dare show her planned false accusation as evidence. This is, simply put, due to the attitudes in the media. We’ve seen the joke on the Simpsons, but it’s no longer just a joke.
The worst of this is that judges are now thinking like this. The rule used to be if you lied to accuse someone, you were the one in the wrong, now, girls are told that even if they consented at the time, even if they instigated the encounter, they can change their minds and it was rape, which means they can do whatever they want. We won’t even bring up the women who claim it is completely impossible for a man to not rape a woman, as “all forms of sexual intercourse are rape,” and how fast they should run off the cliff with the other lemmings.

So the question is a simple one, and sadly, unlikely to be answered or even addressed any time soon. What should be done to people who blatantly admit they’re going to falsely accuse someone of something, people who lie and don’t care that you knew it in advance, they firmly believe they have the right to do what they want with no consequences. Just 30 years ago this would be cause to arrest the liar and charge them with every crime they commit, but today, were the liar arrested the media would be harping on about how they’re being attacked after being victimized. I could perfectly recreate the scenario and they’d not care. Yes, I could get their agreement to recreate it, then destroy their computer and accuse them of cheating. When they point out and prove they weren’t, I then would accuse them of never buying me anything, then tell them flat out I’m going to falsely accuse them of rape. After all that, they’d still not get it, they’d not understand that when someone does this to anyone, it’s wrong, and they can’t decide who the victim is by who is going to cry on TV better, and thus, boost ratings.

All that said, who’s up for colonizing Mars with everyone who proves to be a useless idiot? We’d solve the over population problem, likely world hunger since we’d still be able to produce food, and we’d be a lot less stressed with the journalists, idiot lawyers, useless judges/politicians/etc, and so on just gone. I really don’t even care if we fix Mars up first, just send’em up there.

Hump day news

I’ve not watched TV news or listened to it on the radio (save the blurbs on whatever station I’ve got going in the car) for quite a few years now. All sides in the “main stream” media are now so biased, I won’t be shocked when it literally becomes a cheer leading session with “you’re side stinks” as the tag line. The left has been screaming about Fox News being nothing but a GOP front for years, and for a while, I defended them as they seemed to show the failings of both parties, even if they were a bit happier to do so when the DNC fell or stumbled. Today however, they almost are just a GOP cheer squad, and we’ve seen how “fair” CNN has been in helping Hillary with her bid for the White House. Well, today is no different in how “fair” things are today, despite the screams from some that their “rights” are being denied, the world seems happy to do that very thing to others, as long as they’re the ones who are currently “evil racist and sexist bigots,” which of course is something the vast unwashed minority tells them about people, and thus, who to attack. Today’s stories prove that the inmates are running the asylum, and are now armed and unwilling to go back to their rooms.

First, The NY Times needs to learn what hypocrisy is, and how to spot it in their stories. When reporting about a pool policy in Toronto, wherein only muslim women and girls are allowed to swim, due to the requirement they dress very modestly around men they are not related or married to, it’s all sunshine and daisies. The pool and city are “inclusive” for helping a group that otherwise could not enjoy the public pool do just that. In New York, when a public pool does the very same thing for orthodox Jews, well, let’s just say being compared to concentration camp operators wouldn’t be much further from the story. It’s “unfortunate” and only a step away from the a return to the days of the Sanhedrin and people being forced to worship in a Synagogue. The saddest part is that were you to show these stories, side by side with the faith and location redacted, the Times would likely “stand behind their reporters.” You could even swap the locations and faiths, and they’d attack you for “islamophobia” and “working to let the Jews force people into their religion.” There was a time when the NYT was a viable and respected publication, but today they are little more than a mouthpiece for the ultra-liberals in society, and they not only don’t care, they don’t even see it.

Next, we have the government blatantly acting to force religious institutions to violate their faith. I can guarantee if there were a muslim college, they wouldn’t even be required to offer insurance, as they “object on religious grounds” When it’s a Catholic run college, and thus, run by “evil, bigoted Christians, who just want to subjugate the world and force conversion by saying God Bless, or Merry Christmas, or wearing a cross pendant,” well, they need to respect the law and comply. It’s not only Catholics that object to being forced to fund abortion, Judaism, Islam, and non-Catholic Christians also believe abortion is wrong. So far, it’s only California that’s doing this, but it won’t be long before the Feds begin ordering people to not question them, and we’ve already seen an elected official calmly tell the people she is supposed to represent that in order to find out what’s in a law, it has to be passed first. Sorry Nancy, but you’re completely backward there, and you know it. The left, for years, has demanded to know every little snippet in laws proposed by conservatives, but when their exalted leader decides that he is going to not only force the country to spend more money for less, but also refuses to even consider anything else until that’s done, “we have to pass it to find out what’s in it,” and no one in the media saw anything wrong with someone elected to pass laws saying we aren’t allowed to know what it says until it’s law.

Finally, societal changes are hitting more and more rapidly, and most are in the form of “shut up, you’re offending me” and then cries for all but public flogging and crucifixion for said “crime.” First in this section is this story where protesters, who by all reports, were peaceful, being kicked off the University of Southern Missouri campus, for the horrid act of having the Missouri state flag. This is just the latest in pandering to those who whine loudest, as that flag does have a small version of the Confederate Battle Flag in it’s design. Several colleges have already stated they will not fly their own state flag, including University of Missouri, presumably to avoid cries of “racist” and so on. While this happens, in other states, students swarm flagpoles to take the U.S. flag down and fly a foreign country’s flag, or all but attack students wearing U.S. flag designs, but no, we just ensure no one can claim racism where it doesn’t exist. Naturally, after police forced a group exercising their right to peacefully assemble off of a public university campus, the school stated that the police were mistaken and the flag isn’t banned. Sorry folks, Police aren’t stupid, they wouldn’t have acted unless they had been told to, and would not have told people that the state flag of Missouri was banned on campuses IN MISSOURI. This is the same as saying “we’re sorry, it shouldn’t have happened, now run along and don’t sue, or tell anyone.” The college is backpedaling and trying to save face, but I for one hope it backfires and they see students leaving in droves, or at least story after story about how colleges are banning their own state flag. While this is going on, another form of silencing anyone who disagrees is happening on the White House Facebook page. Now, I’ll be the first to tell you that when I find a post I like, I share it and like it, just as I vote up videos I like on youtube, so they are seen as popular and more likely to be seen by others. This however, is a very extreme form of that, as only about 250 profiles are posting repeatedly, and in doing so, making sure that only positive things are visible on the WH Facebook while their messiah is in office. Were this to happen when GW Bush was in office, it would be “rabid redneck conservatives are silencing people trying to show the evil that is Bush” but when it’s Obama, it’s just short of being part of the choir of angels and only helping others see the great man.

I’ve said it before, and I will continue to do so as long as I’m breathing. We are headed to hell in a rocket powered hand cart, and we lost our brakes long ago. The world is so focused on not offending this group or that, that we offend large groups and tell them it’s in the name of progress. We have schools telling elementary students that simply praying silently is a violation of the Constitution, while a U.S. Judge tells a religious institution they can’t opt out of covering abortion, or a city mayor telling pastors they must submit their sermons or be arrested. While screaming about separation of Church and State (which is not anywhere in the Constitution, Bill of Rights or Declaration of Independence) they interfere with Church matters right and left. While screaming about freedom of speech on Twitter or Facebook, they tell people that the Second Amendment only applies to firearms that existed in 1776, not seeing the idiocy of that statement. I’ve actually told someone who said that, that if that’s true, the First Amendment only applies to hand written letters and newspapers printed the same way as in 1776, only to be called an idiot and told to go back to school. They honestly cannot see that saying “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” only applies to muskets and other firearms available in 1776 is the exact same as saying that freedom of speech and the press is only spoken word, letters or newspapers. If we don’t do something to turn this back to what we were only 30 years ago, when the government was small and functioned, we will see the end of the U.S. in my lifetime.

Friday linkfest rant

Well, it wouldn’t be a normal Friday for me if I didn’t have at least a few stories that are making me consider packing up and moving to an island with SAMs and 50cal chain guns to ensure I’m left alone.

First is this one, where Obama’s Civil Rights Director actually makes the claim that not allowing someone who is biologically male to use the women’s restroom is “against American values.” You read that right, it’s now unpatriotic to not want a man in the same restroom, locker room, shower room, ect as you, or worse, where young girls may be. We’ve already seen, well before Obama’s illegal edict about public schools, men pretending to be women to set up cameras or just otherwise ogle women, now they’re protected as long as they “identify” as a woman. How long until one “identifies as a woman who only feels attracted to other women” so “she” was just admiring women “she” found attractive?

Next, this shocking news from the southern border. It seems a rather liberal reporter was sent to south Texas to ask people what they wanted done about illegal immigration. With the rhetoric and propaganda flowing full force to discredit Trump, I’m sure they expected people to give “feel good” responses about “making it safe for people fleeing horrible lives” or some other BS. Well, I’m not shocked at all when people who live where the drugs and gangs are most active want a wall built. You’ll also notice that it needed it to be “tied to some compassion.” Sorry folks, the laws already are, if you come to the border and surrender to the Border Patrol, telling them your life is in danger, they are NOT going to say “sorry, go back.” Yes, you may spend time in a holding cell, but if you’re truly in fear of dying, I’d think a holding cell guarded by Federal Agents might be rather comforting. Every other country on the planet has a method for preventing illegal immigration, even if it’s as harsh as jailing you with no trial, no representation, and no likelihood of ever going home (Mexico for example,) but we’re being TOLD, almost ORDERED to just let our borders be open to anyone, and WHEN that results in rape, murder, or worse, we’re told that’s no reason to close our borders to illegal crossing. Sorry, I don’t care what someone in another country, who’s economy depends on money sent there by those here, working illegally, says.

It’s not just illegals though, that we need to watch out for. It seems two men were doused in gasoline and set on fire by a black man, and other than a few journals I subscribe to, I’ve heard NOTHING on this. The Police have the suspect and he’s charged with attempted manslaughter and reckless endangerment, so at least the Police aren’t worried about cries of “racist cops arrest poor black man” when some cock and bull story about the “racist whites deserving it” surfaces.

Finally, just more proof that our legal system is broken. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that self defense is not a justifiable reason to carry a weapon. Yes, you heard that right, a Federal Judge has now told America that just because you want to keep breathing, you’re going to need a better reason to get a handgun license. Thankfully, some states are fighting back, but sadly, 9 states have jumped on this bandwagon, and have agreed that their citizens’ lives are worthless. WHEN the murders begin happening that could have been stopped, I can guarantee that this will be “a case of a criminal not heeding the law to not carry a weapon” rather than what it actually is, a situation where the government caused a citizen to die by disarming them.

But enough from me, what are your thoughts?

Three for today, well, one big one and two others

First and foremost is this story Queens, New York. A veteran teacher is suspended after a student threatened her, and she had the audacity to speak up. Yes, her words were “extreme,” but if someone much larger than you was threatening massive harm on your body, would you just sit back as if nothing was happening? To me, the real insult is the non-punishment this student received. The student has, apparently, a long history of being a disruptive influence, but no, let’s let him lie and get a veteran teacher kicked out. We see screams for body cams for cops to “curb the racist violence” so why not put cameras in classrooms? For the same reason cameras will be decried as “bad” or “faulty” when they begin showing the thugs who try to kill cops doing just that, rather than the “poor innocent teen just trying to buy a soda.”

On the tail of that story is a brilliant meme that utterly destroys the “all whites are racist and all non-whites are beaten down all the time” idiocy. Al (not so) Sharpton claims, daily, that racism is horrible, as if he’s not allowed into diners, or is forced to use a separate bathroom. Well, if he was such a target, why isn’t he in jail for his MASSIVE tax bill? Simple, he’s got friends in high places, lawyers to distract those he can’t pay off, and will likely end up pardoned by the apologizer in chief later this year.

Finally, Trump’s 2nd Amendment plan has people up in arms. Naturally, it’s because he’s (a) white, (b) Republican, (c) can’t be bought off, and (d) doesn’t tow the “all guns are evil and possess people to do evil things” party line. Oddly enough, he’s saying most of the things (save the “take away everyone’s guns” bit) that the left wants. He wants to get guns away from criminals (not legal owners,) fix the background checks, and fix the failed (not failing, failed) mental health system. If Hillary or Bernie was saying it, the media would be praising their vast intelligence, but when Trump does, well, we know how “fair and balanced” the “main stream” media is, don’t we?

Yet more evidence that the world is lost, well, almost

First, the good news. Recently, our illustrious emperor issued an executive decree that all schools must allow students to pick which restroom/locker-room they want to use. Well, several states are pushing back. The decree, like the others, does not carry the weight of law, and Obama knows that law will never pass. People who identify as the opposite sex are, from what I’ve found, less than half a percent of the population, and about the same in the LGBT population. So, the big question, why is a fraction of a percent of the population able to push their agenda? The simple answer, it goes against everything America was founded and built on, and it distracts people from the real problem, our elected leaders in DC. Hillary should be in prison for her data skills and her abandoning the Benghazi Embassy, and she’s by no means the only one in DC who should be. A great example of how this is just a distraction and media circus is a security guard having been arrested for removing a male from the women’s restroom. In this story, the guard apparently told the man that there wasn’t a law yet, but the guard was still arrested. Naturally, it’s being called a hate crime, when two questions should have cleared it up quickly. First, was there a law forcing this in place at the time? No, there wasn’t. Second, did the store have a policy to allow this regardless of a law? As a guard took action, the answer is no. This is exactly what is done over and over, people scream that “you can’t do this, it’s my right” and ignore that it is NOT A RIGHT! I honestly don’t care if I offend people any more, if you have the plumbing of a man, use the men’s room and vice versa, that’s it!

While that happens and our leaders ignore us as the country begins to burn, this happens and I’d lay a large bet that nothing will happen to the idiots at the first gym. Anyone who’s been online in the last 2 years will be able to attest that women in gyms generally wear some pretty revealing outfits. The woman in question is apparently vertically challenged, and was in a tank top, which made her breasts appear larger. She was asked to leave because her outfit was making “staff and other guests uncomfortable.” She, however, says no guest she asked said it did, so it was just the staff. So, it’s fine for a man to use the women’s locker room, but not for a woman to wear a tank top if she’s well endowed.

I’m sorry folks but this is precisely the problem in today’s world. People firmly believe they have this right or that right, and that they can act and no one can be upset or counter their actions. We’ve seen a woman who is very overweight tell an expert on fitness that there’s “too much focus put on health” even calling that “healthism” while telling him she’s happy with her body, then getting upset when he tells her that’s not OK. We’ve seen a student screaming vulgarities at a speaker and chanting “get your hate speech off our campus” as if she is the end all/be all in the decisions about what can and can’t be uttered on campus. Never mind free speech, which has already been curtailed on many campuses by “free speech zones” and even those aren’t correct since you must apply to use them and that depends on the person you must apply to.

We live in a world where you’re told not only what you can and can’t do, but also say, and soon, believe. Pastors have been ordered to turn over their sermons so they can be looked at for hate speech, ignoring that is a deliberate breech of the first amendment, since the State was seeking to silence the Church, but if you dare say Christmas on campus, or wear a cross to a school, you’re “violating the separation of Church and State.” Just a note, that last bit in quotation marks isn’t in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, or Bill of Rights. So, how do we fix it? I’ve got a great idea, stop pandering. Tell people to be adults and realize bathrooms/locker-rooms are sex based, not “whatever you want to be today” based. Tell students to sit down, shut up, study and learn, and the government, well, I say we tell every person in DC to get out and not come back.

A question for today

I get calls from telemarketers all the time, and I’ve gotten pretty good at bugging them so much they hang up. If they have an American or Indian accent, I just start saying random words in German, otherwise I just mute my mic and see how long they last before they hang up. But, the question I have is why these still go on today. I got a call today, no voicemail left, so they just got blocked when I tracked down the information. This one is apparently a scam involving the caller telling the person they call that an insurance payment failed, obviously in hopes of getting a credit card number. The last one I received and answered (they just happened to be calling from the same city as someone I was waiting to talk to) told me that my computer had a virus and they needed access to take care of it. In the first situation, one person who reported this said the caller wouldn’t answer questions such as what company they work for, while in my case, they specifically said your Windows PC, and argued with me when I told them I don’t have a PC any more. At the end, I said (verbatim) “take my number off your list or I will sue you. I told you I do not own a Windows PC and you then all but called me a liar. I will not be insulted, and will sue you personally, your company, and anyone else possible if you ever call me again.” I blocked the number after that, as I don’t want to worry about it, since I know they’ll call back later with another scam. But, why are these still happening? Do we truly have people so stupid that they believe these things? What do you think?

A question for you to start the week

In recent months/years, we’ve heard more and more that we must be “tolerant” of the LGBT community. We’ve been told quite harshly that it is not a lifestyle choice, and those who “dare” defy that are vilified or worse. There is NO EVIDENCE that homosexuality or “being the opposite gender to your body” is in any way biological, genetic, or anything more than a choice, even if buried so deep in your subconscious, but we’re told we cannot question that it’s not a choice. The most recent manifestation of this is the restroom question. We have people ORDERING the world to let them choose which restroom they wish to use, and anyone who doesn’t immediately bow to their demand is a bigot or worse.

The biggest opposition to this is from parents of children who will be faced with people that aren’t the same sex as them in the restroom/locker-room, but as is now obvious, a parent’s concern for their child is lesser than someone feeling uncomfortable. There have been instances of men “identifying” as a woman just to plant cameras or just ogle the women they now can. There WILL be rapes and assaults, but we can’t suggest that because to do so is “denying the rights” of those who truly feel trapped in the wrong body. This comes down to the same question that has been at the forefront since homosexuality became a “hot button issue.” Why can’t we even question it? The “right” to demonstrate and parade is only vehemently defended by those who parade or demonstrate almost nude. Men who are grossly overweight want to walk the streets in nightwear no one wants to see, but to suggest that no one wants to see that, nor should children ever see it is “denying rights.”

Personally, I believe that homosexuality is not “normal” as the purpose of a species is reproduction, and you cannot reproduce without someone of the opposite sex. As a Christian, I believe it is a sin, and as it was called in Soddom and Gomorah, an abomination. That said, I am simply one person, I am in no position to hire/fire, nor do I have any influence on public policy or law that my fellow citizens do not have. I am simply a voter, yet I’ve been told, loudly and profanely, that my simply believing this is tantamount to having them burned at the stake, only to be told “I just don’t understand” when I ask how a simple thought that is only in my head has that power. The answer is, IT DOESN’T! Our government is not a democracy, it is a representative republic, and as such, we elect our leaders, then they debate (endlessly in many cases) and pass laws. My one vote is my way of expressing my opinion as to who should represent my state/district, that’s it.

Getting back to the restroom question, we’ve seen many reactions to this. Some companies ignore the situation and just let people do what they wish, some go full negative, enforcing that the restrooms are based on biology. Others went a different way, offering a third option, a unisex restroom, that is single occupant. Naturally, that wasn’t enough, giving an option that isn’t complete capitulation is tantamount to the Scarlet Letter or an armband a la Nazi Germany. Let me tell you a secret, NO ONE CARES WHO USES THE UNISEX RESTROOM! There is no camera taking pictures to post and “out” the trans people who use it. There is no one standing guard and writing down names! In many cases, the unisex restroom, as it’s where parents take children to change diapers and such, is the only one truly clean and people will stand in line for it, ignoring the restrooms based on biology. Much like the parade issue, if you’re gay, but aren’t so flamingly gay that you even offend or worse, sicken, members of your own community, I cannot do anything other than believe as I do. If you feel you can’t use the men’s room because despite having male “plumbing” you’re really a woman, just use the single occupant restroom, without making a fuss. It’s only when you’re loud about “why can’t I go in the women’s room? I’m a woman in a man’s body, you’re oppressing me, you’re all evil.” that you get attention. If you just go in, do your business, and leave, NO ONE CARES!

But, then again, I’m using logic to point out the idiots screaming about rights, disenfranchisement, bigotry and such do more to their own cause by acting like rank idiots, so of course, I’m evil for not emptying my brain of all but autonomic functions and screaming “you’re so brave to stand there and order us around. You’re so wonderful for telling me how to live while demanding no one tell you how to live.” Sorry, not gonna happen. I have a brain, I’ve been well educated in history, sociology, psychology, political science, and more, and I’m NOT going to let anyone order me to do something against my belief, just because it’s against theirs.

Your rights don’t trump anyone else’s rights, and they end where the other person’s nose begins.

Why is the first reaction always to hamstring the helpers?

OK, while it’s technically a spoiler, it’s from the trailer, so I’m not sorry. We know that the main plot of Captain America: Civil War is that the governments of the world want to force the Avengers to accept someone being in control of them, and that causes a split. We also see in the preview, General Ross (although he’s not named beyond his title of Sec. of State) showing clips of NYC (Avengers,) DC (Winter Soldier,) Sokovia (Age of Ultron,) and Lagos (Civil War,) as if to cement his assertion that the Avengers are the problem, when that’s only mildly true in the case of Sokovia, since Tony and Bruce did create Ultron, who then caused the destruction in Sokovia. In the case of NYC and DC, it was “SHIELD” either messing with things they shouldn’t (the Tesseract) or Hydra acting from within SHIELD to kill millions. Now, let’s look at each instance where the Avengers were not responsible for the issue being present, meaning all but Ultron.

Avengers, Fury was trying to make better guns, which caught Loki’s attention, and ultimately led to an alien invasion. The Avengers were only brought in when it was clear Fury’s soldiers weren’t able to find or capture Loki, and he then was silent about their getting involved. Yes, he did try to stop the plane he thought was going to nuke New York, but that’s all he did in regards to the Avengers acting against the Chitauri. In Winter Soldier, it’s Hydra exposed as running SHIELD, and their plan to kill millions “to save Billions.” Fury tried to stop the launch of their plan, and when he was killed, had Steve and the others not acted to stop what they had zero part in starting, well, I don’t think General Ross would be alive to sign those accords, nor would T’Chaka or T’Chala be around to glare at those who didn’t sign them. Finally Lagos, without spoiling the movie, it’s Steve’s team acting to stop someone they know, but that acquaintance is the only connection. It’s the same as if a S.W.A.T. commander had worked with someone in the past, then he and his team had to storm a building to stop a drug ring, and in the firefight, more than just the bad guys went down. Is it S.W.A.T.’s fault that they were fired on, and since they ducked and took cover, the bullets continued flying?

This is the argument we hear today, the “if you hadn’t been reckless” or “if banning guns saves even one life” as if that’s possible. The same people who scream these arguments to any camera they can are those who belittle and demean the police when they don’t act fast enough for their liking. When it’s a police officer in a shooting situation that takes cover, leading to the criminal killing others that they expect to show up in seconds and violently arrest the “evil man who didn’t knock when he wanted to read the meter” or some other plainly idiotic thing. When it’s pointed out that “banning guns” would only remove firearms (a gun is any weapon with a smooth barrel, a pistol/rifle with a rifled barrel is not a “gun” just FYI) from legal owners who aren’t going to use them for criminal reasons, they rant about how you “just don’t get it” or “how naive” you are. They point to some family of a robber who is wailing on TV about their “poor child who just wanted some money to get a meal” while ignoring the pages and pages of criminal history, and while ignoring the victims of illegally owned firearms, since it doesn’t fit the narrative.

So, what do you think?

So, an old question, just in a new way

I recently came across a social media thread that started out with someone yelling about how they hate Minecraft, superhero movies and Beyonce, only to be told to focus on what they like, rather than what they hate. When the person says they like Donald Trump, however, the person saying not to hate, well, we’ve seen what happens when someone says they like Trump, right?

So, in a wider sense, here is my question. Why is it “wrong” for one group to “hate” something, simply by not agreeing with or praising those who do, while the other side is “just standing up for equality” when they go completely off the deep end and all but murder people for “intolerance” or “hate?”

I’ve asked this in several ways in several different places, and only get hate and worse back, but the question is still valid. How does my personal belief system, my being a Christian, “deny rights” to anyone? I am not (nor ever will be) an elected official (I like my hair and health.) I hope to never again be in a position to hire/fire, and thus, I’m not responsible or involved in any way in who works for the company I work for. When I was in management, however, my primary foci were appearance (clothing and grooming) and ability. If you adhered to dress code (if there was one, if not, if you dressed appropriately for the job) and could do the job, that’s all I cared about. Oddly enough, the only two people I’ve ever fired, were white males.

Sadly, every time I’ve asked this question, even being as specific as to say “my person belief, not a manager, not a politician, just me specifically,” all I get in return is hate, and barely coherent rambling hate at that. I’m told loudly that “Christians are holding back equality,” am shouted down about how “Christians want to force women into back alley abortions only,” and when I “dare” try to interrupt (meaning I try to speak in reply to a comment when they pause) I’m simply shouted down.

I’m sorry folks, equality is a good thing in many respects, but not achievable in all. In hiring, it’s great, let qualifications decide who is hired. In other respects, you can’t have a right to free speech and silence others, that’s not equal, that’s simply giving total control to the loudest complainers. While funny in a “we’re going to hell in a handcart” way, the student screaming obscenities at the speaker then chanting “keep your hate speech off our campus,” who has now been dubbed Trigglypuff, is a sign of the times. These people firmly believe that by just calling something “hate speech” they are fully capable of forcing you to leave. This doesn’t just apply to racism or sexism discussions, you could suggest that by lowering income tax, and thus putting more money in the bank accounts of citizens, you’d actually see more money going to government through luxury taxes and the like, and they’ll happily call you names, then when you protest, it’s “hate speech” and “trying to censor their free speech.”

So, the final question here, how, if at all possible, do we turn this around from people who are so convinced that simply calling anything they don’t like or agree with “hate speech” doing anything they want, to what we were only 30 years ago, a country where freedoms were actually what they were laid out as?

One for tonight (and two questions I’ve been asked get answered)

OK, first, the questions. I doubt many (save close friends) know that I blogged from 2004 to about 2006 when school heated up after I returned to college and was done with the basic stuff. Now, I’ve been back blogging again since December of 2014, and I’ve been asked why, since the vast majority of bloggers have moved to Facebook, and just use Twitter to help get their stuff seen. To answer that simply, I like the WordPress interface, as I’m able to use HTML (yes, I actually studied HTML way back in the 1990’s) to make the posts a bit more “professional” in appearance. I have linked the blog to a FB page and to a Twitter feed, and I’m sure that the vast majority of any views are there, not on the actual blog, at least to start.

The other question I get asked the most is, why do this at all? Simply put, I won’t sit idly by and let this country just crash and burn. The topic I’ve picked for tonight is a great example of that, so let’s just roll into it and you’ll get your answer to this question.

In a speech at UMass Amherst, students shouted and cursed at the speaker, at one point chanting “keep your hate speech off our campus.” Sadly, this is not random or new, children are taught very young that if something “offends” them then it should be done away with. Sports teams aren’t allowed to reject any try out, nor are they allowed to cut players, as this would “hurt the young athlete’s feelings.” When this happens, the coach is simultaneously told, at least subtly, that they still must win as much as possible. Teachers aren’t to “hurt feelings” with words like fail or by using red ink (that last one, thankfully appears to have quickly been forgotten) since students need to be built up, not torn down by words like fail, when they fail an assignment. Well, where does this lead to? Here is where it leads. Students who’ve been coddled and made to feel as if they rule the universe for so long, that saying something they don’t agree with is “hate speech,” or where a chalk writing of the name Trump “frightens” them so badly they “feel threatened and unsafe.”

I’m sorry princess, but you aren’t the only person on the planet, and not everyone agrees with every piece of crap drivel that comes out of the hole in your face. It is not hate speech for me to say I feel that a male who “identifies as female” should not be allowed in the women’s restroom, as young children use those too. We’ve seen, before and after cities/businesses/schools allow this officially, people doing this so they can video or otherwise ogle the others in the restroom. At this point, I feel the only way to stop this lunacy is to get rid of multi stall restrooms and go to single person rooms. Of course, this will be decried as “wrong” and as “separating people based on their lifestyle” even WHEN rapes will have happened, as the idiots screaming this, just as the idiot SJW above screams about hate speech. I attended 3 rather large, public, colleges in north TX, so you’d think I’d have been in a rather conservative environment, being Texas, but you’d be wrong.

I won’t name the schools, but I was called a racist bigot while discussing classical vs supply side economics, I’ve been almost punched while debating historical comments, and I’ve been grabbed when I walked away, only to have the idiot who grabbed me claim I assaulted them when I simply got to within an inch of touching them and stared at them until they backed off. In the latter two cases, campus PD was present (we were in the outdoor areas, which were patrolled regularly) so nothing happened. At another time, after only a few seconds, some idiot began shouting whenever I would begin to speak, so I simply wrote out “if you refuse to allow me to speak, you are automatically wrong, and lose this argument.” They of course began shouting that I was wrong, that I needed to be silenced since I was promoting hate (how they got that from the 3 seconds I was able to be heard is amazing,) and how they’d “have be expelled for my obvious racism and hate.” Naturally, nothing came of it, as the Debate sponsor was having lunch with me and the rest of the team, and after silencing the moron, told him that by Robert’s Rules of Order, if you deny your opponent the ability to speak, you are disqualified, at which point he called her a stupid bitch, and stormed off. Comically, he then was surprised to find her as his Speech teacher the next semester, and was eventually expelled for his idiocy in class.

So, here’s the closing bit to all of this, and the ultimate answer to why I keep up with this. When you look around at people who firmly believe they have a right to resort to vulgarity and shouting down anyone who disagrees with them, at a world where if you don’t tow the constantly changing party line, you’re instantly a racist/sexist/bigot/etc, and at a world where people scream racism or sexism for not voting for this candidate simply because of their race/sex, but who then grow angry when you point out that another candidate, who is a woman or minority (or minority woman in the case of Condoleeza Rice) and who was basically run out on a rail, they instantly cry that you’re “stifling them” or “attacking them,” would you sit by and let the world be run by those idiots, or would you do all you can to shine the light of day on them, expose their attempt to impose a draconian standard on the world, and hopefully, push the idiocy back for even a short time?

I can tell you, I won’t sit idle, I can’t say how much I’ll accomplish, but I would rather go out fighting, than on my back in compliance.

More from the “all about me” crowd

I’ve written and commented many times about criminals suing their victims, and about how Presidential hopeful Clinton wants to expand that, allowing victims to sue the maker of whatever firearm was used. Interestingly enough, no one has yet to even respond when that is expanded to allowing victims of DWI accidents to sue the company that made the car. I’m expecting the “but a car isn’t designed to be a weapon” or “cars aren’t all made in the U.S.” arguments, as I will be able to counter with “firearms weren’t designed to be a weapon against man” and “not all firearms are made in the U.S.”

I can hear the question already, and while yes, firearms were quickly picked up after their invention by Military forces all over the world, but they were designed as a means of hunting and self defense. A baseball bat is meant as a sporting tool, a hammer as a construction tool, and a crow-bar as a means of opening things, yet all can just as easily be used as a weapon to kill. While I will maintain that suing whoever manufactured the firearm, or car, is idiotic, I’ll actually agree that the DWI example actually has someone other than the driver who might be at fault, the person who helped the driver get drunk, be it a bartender, or store that sold to someone already drunk, seeing as it actually is a crime to serve to or past the point of intoxication, or to sell to an intoxicated person.

Thankfully, not all cases where the criminal sues their victim end with the criminal winning, and in fact, it’s still a very low number where the crook wins, although I think it should be disallowed to sue the very person/people you attempted to rob/attack/kill, even winning the case isn’t the end. The case linked above is one where a man broke into someone’s home, and was shot in the process of robbing them, late at night. So, very dark, attacker is much larger than the resident, but they shouldn’t have shot him until after he’d killed them. Number four on this list is even crazier, as a burgler who SHOT THE HOMEOWNER is suing since the man fired back. Yes, you read that right. In that case, the burgler basically held the home owner hostage, not letting him leave a certain spot, eventually letting him go to the bathroom, only firing when he spotted that the man was now armed, HITTING HIM IN THE JAW, at which point the victim fired back. The criminal lived, and sued for “negligent” use of a firearm, as if him shooting an older man in the face was responsible.

While I whole heartedly agree that even letting these suits get to a courtroom (or all but a very select few) is stupid, until judges start not only ruling in favor of the victim, but also protecting them from the almost always crippling debt that follows, criminals will continue to sue, just because they can. The coups de grace for this little foray into insanity, is the number one item in the 5 victims story. It seems a man was driving on a foggy night, near homes, at nearly 90mph. As the driver was sober, he at least didn’t get a sixth DWI charge, but he did sue. He alleged that the parents were irresponsible since the child wasn’t wearing a helmet, that the child jumped off a ramp into the road, and that due to fog, he didn’t see the child. One wonders how he saw that the child wasn’t wearing a helmet or that he’d been jumping off a ramp due to the fog. To me, this is the ultimate middle finger to grieving parents. A man not only doesn’t deny that he hit and killed a child, but then has the gall to say it wasn’t his fault, but was either the parents’ or the child’s. This not only should never have seen a courtroom, this man should never again see sunlight.

Enough ranting from me, what do you think?

Why is this OK?

I’ve posted many times about hot button topics, and in general I’ve seen about a 50/50 response, with some agreeing with me and others very much opposed. Thankfully, my audience has, so far, been civil, but it seems the world is just determined to speed toward hell. This story popped up for me today, and while I’ve never really been a fan of Bill Nye, until now, he pretty much seemed to be interested in real research. Now? In my book he’s no better than the mouth breathing trolls I encounter so often in discussion threads.

Simply put, according to this article, Bill Nye is “open” to criminal charges and/or jail time for “climate change dissenters.” Yes, you read that right, by that title, he’s OK with jailing those who don’t agree totally with him, no questions. This isn’t about jailing the Captain of the Exxon Valdez, but any “dissenter” and those doing the jailing will decide who is and isn’t a “dissenter.” I’m sorry folks, but this is exactly what’s wrong with this country, too many are “offended” or “upset” by the “lack of unity on important topics” that no discussion takes place. Rather than actually work together, and by doing so, maybe actually figure something out, the “scientists” on the left are just going to throw you in jail for not agreeing with them. This is the same as the idiocy in Houston, where a lesbian Mayor just declared all restrooms are open to anyone, then cried on TV about the “hateful bigots” when the voters overturned it. She then tried to force the area pastors to turn over all sermons, only to moan and whine when that was struck down by a court.

We no longer live in a world where “shall not be infringed” means DON’T ACT AGAINST, rather we live in a world where if you buck the system you are silenced or worse. For those of you who haven’t seen them, God’s Not Dead and God’s Not Dead 2 are great movies and great examples of this. Spoilers Ahead!!!!!

In the first movie, a college student has to take a class to graduate, but is warned that the professor is not the kindest person when it comes to Christians. The professor (Kevin Sorbo) tells the class to wright “God is dead” on a piece of paper, only to then humiliate the lone student unwilling to do so. With the student unwilling to bend, the professor decides to have a trial, with the student as defense, himself as prosecutor, judge and jury. Eventually, the class is allowed to judge the arguments, and the student gets the professor to admit he hates God, only to ask “how can you hate what doesn’t exist.” I loved that bit, but the movie shows so well just what so many go through, being ordered to deny their faith while others are praised for their “bravery” and “tolerance” for forcing someone to deny or hide their faith.

In the sequel, a teacher is asked about a quote attributed to Christ and how it pertains to the lecture on non-violence. This is a history class and the teacher simply answers the question, only to be later suspended and sued for everything for “pushing religion.” In the court case, a school official also says that quotes from MLK Jr wouldn’t be allowed since he quoted the Bible, indicating clearly that it’s not about education or history, it’s about silencing Christians. Over the course of the trial, it’s obvious that the ACLU lawyer is less and less concerned with the law, but only with punishing a teacher because it will set a precedent. At one point he even says they can’t lose and let a precedent be set.

Why is it OK for an atheist student to loudly proclaim that there is no God, for a Muslim to pray during school, for schools to have students “be a Muslim” for a week, but not for a teacher to answer a question asked when it refers to Jesus. Students have been punished for the smallest infraction, while other students are praised in the media for bravery when they “create” a clock by disassembling a clock and putting it into a case the looks almost identical to a bomb, but only after the school reacts EXACTLY AS THEY SHOULD?

The answer is simple, Christians pose a real threat to the “do what you want and feel good and everything will be fine” crowd. Christians are the ones telling people that lying, stealing, sleeping around, and so on are wrong. When that is said, suddenly someone’s “rights” are being yanked from them. Nevermind that the drugs they have a “right” to use are illegal, or they’re too young, they have a “right” to do that and you aren’t allowed to say anything. Women scream that it’s “their body so their right to an abortion” when any law is discussed, even when it’s not about what they scream. I’ve seen lawmakers attacked for even suggesting that a law be passed calling for harsh punishment when a minor child is transported across state lines for the purposes of any medical procedure, when there is no parental consent. Instantly, that law is “forcing women into back alley abortions” or “forcing rape victims to have their attacker’s child.” Read that again, a girl who wants an abortion, or a boy who wants lipo, same crime, transporting a minor w/o parental consent. WHEN that is brought up, they start screaming about girls who will be abused for getting pregnant by their religious parents. When you then point out that there is a clause allowing a Judge to allow the abortion and remove the child from an abusive home, they just scoff and say you don’t know how hard it is to leave an abusive home, then go on a rant about how you’re offending them, how you want to silence them (while they don’t let you speak) and how you’re “denying their rights” by simply existing.

I have asked, multiple times and in multiple venues how my simply believing what I do affects anyone’s rights. They generally point out this law or that policy, so I tell them I am not a government official, so they go off about voting, and I point out that I am one person and they are one person, so they can vote too, and suddenly I’m “trying to silence them” by responding to their accusations. I have asked the following question, word for word, “I am not involved in government, management, or any decision making process. Remove all of that, ignore voting, how does my simply sitting here, thinking and believing as I do, affect you in any way, at this precise moment?” The response I got was profane and nothing but an attack on my person. That one time, I wrote out “if you are going to act as a foul mouthed child, I’m leaving.” The idiot actually grabbed me and tried to push me down, until I had them against a wall in a lot of discomfort. Do you see what happened? I asked a question, was shouted and cursed at, and when I tried to leave, I was physically assaulted. Why is it OK to shout at and demean Christians, and we aren’t allowed to even get upset. I’m tired of the hypocrisy, and it’s only getting worse.

I am not about to force you to be a Christian, nor will I force you to believe as I do when it comes to various policies and laws. I will not allow you to silence me however, and I will no longer just ignore situations where Christians are silenced. If you want tolerance from me, you need to show it. If you want people to take you seriously, don’t act like a toddler told they can’t have ice cream for breakfast. In the simplest of terms, if you want to be taken seriously, then act in a way so as to deserve it.

A rather apt depiction of society today

With the elections only months away, and the primaries all but taking the form of cage matches, we’re seeing more and more of the PC and “tolerance” cultures. Bernie Sanders is praised as a diety, Trump is the anti-Christ, anyone who doesn’t blindly agree with those statements is an ignorant bigot, and if you don’t like Hillary as well, you’re a sexist just as you’re racist for being white. This one, however, shows an issue that has been around for a bit longer, that being the “rape culture” that the social justice warriors scream about. Men are now told that simply looking at a woman is rape, and are then told they must be taught not to rape, ignoring that rape is seen as abhorrent to a good number of criminals, only topped by child abuse.

What has changed from only 20 years ago? Mid 1990’s we punished criminals, but not those who were just living their lives. While I’ve not heard of any instances of a woman pepper spraying a man for merely speaking to her, but I won’t be surprised if and when we do see that. Yes, we hear the joke about a woman screaming “I will not have sex with you” after a man asks for a book in the library, only to have him then turn the tables on her, and we laugh, but girls are being taught that all men are constantly thinking about violently raping them, and the only time they stop screaming that this is true, is to vilify anyone who suggests that we teach women actual ways to defend themselves, rather than “teaching men to respect women and not to rape.”

So, the million dollar question, how do we change this? Yes, I firmly support the harshest punishment possible for a convicted rapist. No, I do not believe that simply looking at, or speaking to, a woman is in any way raping her. I have personally experienced the idiocy of modern society not only while I was attending University, but also when I was yelled at for holding a door for a woman. Never mind that I held the door for several people, she ranted for almost two minutes about how she didn’t need a man to hold a door. I’ll admit I didn’t handle it correctly, as I just went inside and let the door close, then lost a bit of my cool when she then accosted me for being rude. But this shows the same mentality, she is always right, even when being right is doing contradictory things.

The answer? We teach children as we did when I was a child. Teach them to say please and thank you, use sir and ma’am, hold the door for anyone you can, help others and not assume the worst. Maybe if we do that, we’ll see a better world, and even maybe start to address the other issues we face today. Your thoughts?