An elementary school in California has forbidden kindergarteners from dressing up as pilgrims and Indians this Thanksgiving. According to some parents, wearing headdresses and pilgrim hats is "demeaning" and "a racist stereotype."
I can think of a lot of things that are demeaning, and wearing pilgrim and Indian outfits isn't one of them. Headdresses, beads, and vests are a simplified way of representing typical Native American clothing, just as pilgrim hats and collars are a simplified way of representing what the pilgrims wore. There's nothing bad about wearing a headdress, so how is it insulting to Native Americans for kids to wear headdresses? What is demeaning about acting out a historical event?
Political correctness has gotten way out of hand. Things that should be simple and fun are forced to become bland, meaningless, and pointless.
Have a great Thanksgiving, and don't let the PC police ruin it!
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Defense lawyers deserve the money
An investigation by the Boston Herald shows that Massachusetts defense lawyers make, on average, twice as much as prosecutors. It seems that many people, from reporters and editors at the Herald (the headline is "Scales of injustice") to District Attorneys to victims' family members to the (mostly) brainless and cruel people who leave comments on the Herald's website, are outraged at this. I don't see anything unjust about it, however.
People who bash defense lawyers need a reminder about the Constitution of the United States. According to the Constitution, people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. A founding principle of this country is that it is worse for an innocent person to be convicted than for a guilty person to go free. Defending the constitutional rights of the accused is the most basic part of the Americcan legal system and is one of the noblest jobs I can imagine.
Plus, despite the Herald's use of words such as "whopping" and "megabucks," defense attorneys don't make huge amounts of money. The article cites the sums of money that various lawyers made in 5 years while acting as court-appointed defense attorneys. The amounts are all between $200,000 and $600,000, which is pretty good, but hardly exorbitant for a 5-year period.
The article mentions that the budget of the Committee for Public Counsel Services has gone from $95.5 million in 2003 to $185 million last year. As an ardent opponent of big government spending and taxation, I admit that it's generally not good for any part of the government's budget to increase. However, the Mass. state government spends at least $869 a year for its unjust universal health care program. This, not defense lawyers' salaries, is what people should be complaining about. The government should be spending $0 on health care each year, because people should be responsible for paying for their own health care, just like any other product. I cannot understand why people throw fits over defense lawyers being compensated for the difficult, brave job they do, yet seemingly have no objection to welfare programs that give people free money for doing no work whatsoever.
Defense lawyers' pay should not be decreased. They earn every penny of it. Preserving defendants' constitutional rights is one of the few things I don't mind paying taxes for.
People who bash defense lawyers need a reminder about the Constitution of the United States. According to the Constitution, people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. A founding principle of this country is that it is worse for an innocent person to be convicted than for a guilty person to go free. Defending the constitutional rights of the accused is the most basic part of the Americcan legal system and is one of the noblest jobs I can imagine.
Plus, despite the Herald's use of words such as "whopping" and "megabucks," defense attorneys don't make huge amounts of money. The article cites the sums of money that various lawyers made in 5 years while acting as court-appointed defense attorneys. The amounts are all between $200,000 and $600,000, which is pretty good, but hardly exorbitant for a 5-year period.
The article mentions that the budget of the Committee for Public Counsel Services has gone from $95.5 million in 2003 to $185 million last year. As an ardent opponent of big government spending and taxation, I admit that it's generally not good for any part of the government's budget to increase. However, the Mass. state government spends at least $869 a year for its unjust universal health care program. This, not defense lawyers' salaries, is what people should be complaining about. The government should be spending $0 on health care each year, because people should be responsible for paying for their own health care, just like any other product. I cannot understand why people throw fits over defense lawyers being compensated for the difficult, brave job they do, yet seemingly have no objection to welfare programs that give people free money for doing no work whatsoever.
Defense lawyers' pay should not be decreased. They earn every penny of it. Preserving defendants' constitutional rights is one of the few things I don't mind paying taxes for.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Maybe Obama's not that bad...
I have to admit, Obama has done one good thing as president-elect so far: expressed his support for Joe Lieberman. Lieberman, a Democratic senator who endorsed McCain for president, is chairman of the Department of Homeland Security Committee. The other Democrats are trying not only to get him ousted from the committee but also to stop him from caucusing with them.
This really exemplifies the hypocrisy of many liberals. The Democrats like to profess their tolerance for people of all races, genders, sexual orientations, religions, nationalities, economic classes, et cetera. But as soon as one person has a different opinion from them, they exclude that person. It seems like most liberals strive for a nation diverse in skin color, sexuality, and language but uniform in opinion.
To his credit, Obama stuck up to the bigoted majority of his party by saying he thinks Lieberman should be allowed to stay as chairman. I wonder if there will be any more pleasant surprises from the president-elect.
This really exemplifies the hypocrisy of many liberals. The Democrats like to profess their tolerance for people of all races, genders, sexual orientations, religions, nationalities, economic classes, et cetera. But as soon as one person has a different opinion from them, they exclude that person. It seems like most liberals strive for a nation diverse in skin color, sexuality, and language but uniform in opinion.
To his credit, Obama stuck up to the bigoted majority of his party by saying he thinks Lieberman should be allowed to stay as chairman. I wonder if there will be any more pleasant surprises from the president-elect.
Friday, November 07, 2008
The creepiest website ever
Have you seen Obama's new website? It's called Change.gov and it's probably the creepiest website I have ever seen. From the Obama quote at the top of the layout to the countdown to his inauguration to the additional Obama quotes at the top of each section, it is just unsettling and reminds me a little bit of 1984. Even creepier than the design of his website are Obama's ideas. Change.gov goes into detail about a plethora of his political positions, on a variety of issues. I could never list all of the items I disagree with, but here's a sampling:
First off, he lists "Women" as one of his categories under "Agenda," but he doesn't list "Men." Singling women out for special attention is sexist in itself.
"Barack Obama and Joe Biden will double funding for the main federal support for afterschool programs, the 21st Century Learning Centers program, to serve one million more children."
So he will steal people's money in order to create non-fun things that kids will be forced to do instead of having time to themselves as they desperately need.
"The Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit provides too little relief to families that struggle to afford child care expenses. Barack Obama and Joe Biden will reform the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit by making it refundable and allowing low-income families to receive up to a 50 percent credit for their child care expenses."
Not only will Obama discriminate against economically successful people, but he'll also discriminate against people who don't have babies!
"Obama has introduced a comprehensive "Zero to Five" plan to provide critical supports to young children and their parents by investing $10 billion per year..."
Stealing more money...
"Barack Obama has re-introduced the Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act to remove some of the government penalties on married families, crack down on men avoiding child support payments, ensure that support payments go to families instead of state bureaucracies, fund support services for fathers and their families, and support domestic violence prevention efforts." There are government penalties on married families? I never knew that being given benefits and money was a penalty. Looks like Obama wants to discriminate against bachelors and bachelorettes even more than the government already does. Plus, it is sexist to assume that only men avoid child support payments.
"Barack Obama and Joe Biden will expand programs like the successful Nurse-Family Partnership to all low-income, first-time mothers. The Nurse-Family Partnership provides home visits by trained registered nurses to low-income expectant mothers and their families."
Stealing money from successful, sometimes unmarried and baby-free people to give to poor people who have babies! That's just what America needs when our population is about three times as large as it should be, causing global warming!
"He introduced the Microbicide Development Act, which will accelerate the development of products that empower women in the battle against AIDS. Microbicides are a class of products currently under development that women apply topically to prevent transmission of HIV and other infections."
I have a really revolutionary, hard to understand idea to prevent AIDS: how about not having sex!!! Chastity is dignified, empowering, and free.
"Introduced in January 2007, the Prevention First Act will increase funding for family planning and comprehensive sex education."
More theft...
"Barack Obama introduced legislation to combat domestic violence by providing $25 million a year..."
And even more theft...
"Senator Obama co-sponsored and helped reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. Signed into law in January 2006, the bill funds and helps communities, nonprofit organizations, and police combat domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. The legislation establishes a sexual assault services program and provides education grants to prevent domestic violence."
How sexist! He equates "violence against women" with domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking! Sadly, women can and sometimes do abuse, rape, and stalk men. Sometimes acts of domestic violence are not abuse at all but are acts of self-defense against an abuser. It seems that to Obama, women are weak and need to be protected, while men are abusive brutes. Such an attitude is degrading to both genders.
And finally, the Obama youth corps! Michael Graham pointed out in his awesome blog that Change.gov used to say "Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year" (under "America Serves").
But then he changed it to... "Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by setting a goal that all middle school and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year and by developing a plan so that all college students who conduct 100 hours of community service receive a universal and fully refundable tax credit ensuring that the first $4,000 of their college education is completely free."
Obviously, it's never good when the president thinks people don't have a right to their own money or their own time, but at least he changed it to something less objectionable. Overall, it looks like Obama doesn't really believe in gender equality or individual rights, and his spending will make Bush look fiscally conservative in comparison.
First off, he lists "Women" as one of his categories under "Agenda," but he doesn't list "Men." Singling women out for special attention is sexist in itself.
"Barack Obama and Joe Biden will double funding for the main federal support for afterschool programs, the 21st Century Learning Centers program, to serve one million more children."
So he will steal people's money in order to create non-fun things that kids will be forced to do instead of having time to themselves as they desperately need.
"The Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit provides too little relief to families that struggle to afford child care expenses. Barack Obama and Joe Biden will reform the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit by making it refundable and allowing low-income families to receive up to a 50 percent credit for their child care expenses."
Not only will Obama discriminate against economically successful people, but he'll also discriminate against people who don't have babies!
"Obama has introduced a comprehensive "Zero to Five" plan to provide critical supports to young children and their parents by investing $10 billion per year..."
Stealing more money...
"Barack Obama has re-introduced the Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act to remove some of the government penalties on married families, crack down on men avoiding child support payments, ensure that support payments go to families instead of state bureaucracies, fund support services for fathers and their families, and support domestic violence prevention efforts." There are government penalties on married families? I never knew that being given benefits and money was a penalty. Looks like Obama wants to discriminate against bachelors and bachelorettes even more than the government already does. Plus, it is sexist to assume that only men avoid child support payments.
"Barack Obama and Joe Biden will expand programs like the successful Nurse-Family Partnership to all low-income, first-time mothers. The Nurse-Family Partnership provides home visits by trained registered nurses to low-income expectant mothers and their families."
Stealing money from successful, sometimes unmarried and baby-free people to give to poor people who have babies! That's just what America needs when our population is about three times as large as it should be, causing global warming!
"He introduced the Microbicide Development Act, which will accelerate the development of products that empower women in the battle against AIDS. Microbicides are a class of products currently under development that women apply topically to prevent transmission of HIV and other infections."
I have a really revolutionary, hard to understand idea to prevent AIDS: how about not having sex!!! Chastity is dignified, empowering, and free.
"Introduced in January 2007, the Prevention First Act will increase funding for family planning and comprehensive sex education."
More theft...
"Barack Obama introduced legislation to combat domestic violence by providing $25 million a year..."
And even more theft...
"Senator Obama co-sponsored and helped reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. Signed into law in January 2006, the bill funds and helps communities, nonprofit organizations, and police combat domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. The legislation establishes a sexual assault services program and provides education grants to prevent domestic violence."
How sexist! He equates "violence against women" with domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking! Sadly, women can and sometimes do abuse, rape, and stalk men. Sometimes acts of domestic violence are not abuse at all but are acts of self-defense against an abuser. It seems that to Obama, women are weak and need to be protected, while men are abusive brutes. Such an attitude is degrading to both genders.
And finally, the Obama youth corps! Michael Graham pointed out in his awesome blog that Change.gov used to say "Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year" (under "America Serves").
But then he changed it to... "Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by setting a goal that all middle school and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year and by developing a plan so that all college students who conduct 100 hours of community service receive a universal and fully refundable tax credit ensuring that the first $4,000 of their college education is completely free."
Obviously, it's never good when the president thinks people don't have a right to their own money or their own time, but at least he changed it to something less objectionable. Overall, it looks like Obama doesn't really believe in gender equality or individual rights, and his spending will make Bush look fiscally conservative in comparison.
Buying the election
Left-wing socialists across the country have been opining that Republicans did so badly in the election because conservatism is a dying, obsolete philosophy that Americans are beginning to abandon. Well, they are wrong. I know the real reason why conservatives did so badly on November 4th - because liberals bought the election.
Take Barack Obama, for example. He spent $573 million, while John McCain, who accepted public financing, spent only $293 million. It is simply not right that one candidate can have a half-hour long infomercial on all the major networks and the other candidate cannot.
Another great example of liberals buying the election is Question 1 - the initiative to repeal the Massachusetts income tax. It sickens my heart that Question 1 was defeated 70% to 30%. There would have been no drawbacks to eliminating the state income tax and a huge benefit, namely people getting to keep their money! However, because opponents of Question 1 raised $4.5 million and supporters raised only $431,000, the government theives were able to run deceptive TV ads to brainwash the people of Massachusetts into making the irrational, immoral choice.
It is sad that people are so easily influenced by propaganda instead of thinking for themselves. The amount of money a candidate or group has should not affect their chances of winning an election. I believe that campaign spending limits need to be implemented. I don't believe in public financing because the government shouldn't spend money on anything but the military, the justice system, and roads, but I also don't think campaigns should be able to spend as much as they want. Financial arms races are a waste of money, time, and energy and are collectively self-defeating. To ensure fair elections in which people have a chance to make their own decisions instead of being brainwashed, the government needs to limit the amount of money campaigns are allowed to spend.
Sources for stats:
Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org)
SouthCoastToday.com
Take Barack Obama, for example. He spent $573 million, while John McCain, who accepted public financing, spent only $293 million. It is simply not right that one candidate can have a half-hour long infomercial on all the major networks and the other candidate cannot.
Another great example of liberals buying the election is Question 1 - the initiative to repeal the Massachusetts income tax. It sickens my heart that Question 1 was defeated 70% to 30%. There would have been no drawbacks to eliminating the state income tax and a huge benefit, namely people getting to keep their money! However, because opponents of Question 1 raised $4.5 million and supporters raised only $431,000, the government theives were able to run deceptive TV ads to brainwash the people of Massachusetts into making the irrational, immoral choice.
It is sad that people are so easily influenced by propaganda instead of thinking for themselves. The amount of money a candidate or group has should not affect their chances of winning an election. I believe that campaign spending limits need to be implemented. I don't believe in public financing because the government shouldn't spend money on anything but the military, the justice system, and roads, but I also don't think campaigns should be able to spend as much as they want. Financial arms races are a waste of money, time, and energy and are collectively self-defeating. To ensure fair elections in which people have a chance to make their own decisions instead of being brainwashed, the government needs to limit the amount of money campaigns are allowed to spend.
Sources for stats:
Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org)
SouthCoastToday.com
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Some good news
After my (appropriately) depressing post about the election yesterday, I thought I'd recap the few good decisions voters made. Yes, I said that America did the wrong thing on almost every choice, but "almost" is the key word. Here are the few things voters did right:
- It looks like Proposition 8 is going to pass in California! I'm very pleasantly surprised that a state with such a liberal reputation is actually trying to put an end to gay marriage. Marriage is not a right, and the voters have every right to ban it. I hope the state government doesn't somehow try to overrule the people's decision like Massachusetts did.
- Arizona and Florida approved resolutions to ban gay marriage, too.
- Nebraska voted to end affirmative action. This discriminatory practice is insulting and unfair to people of all races and genders.
- Washington voted to allow doctor-assisted suicide. Committing suicide does not hurt anyone and is not immoral, so there is no reason why people shouldn't be allowed to do it if they choose to.
- Colorado rejected an amendment that would define "person" as "any human being from the moment of fertilization." In philosophy, a person is defined as a rational, autonomous being. Fetuses (and babies, by the way) are therefore not persons, and to define them as such would be contrary to the rules of the English language.
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Four long years
The 2008 election was the worst election in American history. Voters as a whole made the wrong choice on almost every race and ballot initiative in the entire country.
We'll have a socialist-leaning president who will continue to decrease people's liberty and property rights. Massachusetts voters had an opportunity to halt the expansion of government theft and oppression, but, brainwashed by the media and the multi-million dollar ad campaign from government moochers, they let the chance slip by. The magnificent, fun sport of greyhound racing is no more. Kerry and Kennedy are still the Massachusetts senators, depriving all Republicans in this state of representation. New Hampshire, which was supposed to be the only state in New England with a remnant of sense left, elected Jeanne Shaheen the taxing machine to the Senate.
Needless to say, I am extraordinarily disappointed in the people of the United States. All true Americans need to remember that although times are bad now, we must keep fighting and never give up. This will be a terrible four years, but hopefully the majority will realize the mistake they made and will vote differently next time. Every socialist nation so far has deteriorated because there is no incentive for people to work. America is clearly headed in this direction, with Obama as president and a Democratic Congress that will eagerly agree to do anything he asks. Don't lose hope. Eventually America will realize that socialism is not the way to go.
We'll have a socialist-leaning president who will continue to decrease people's liberty and property rights. Massachusetts voters had an opportunity to halt the expansion of government theft and oppression, but, brainwashed by the media and the multi-million dollar ad campaign from government moochers, they let the chance slip by. The magnificent, fun sport of greyhound racing is no more. Kerry and Kennedy are still the Massachusetts senators, depriving all Republicans in this state of representation. New Hampshire, which was supposed to be the only state in New England with a remnant of sense left, elected Jeanne Shaheen the taxing machine to the Senate.
Needless to say, I am extraordinarily disappointed in the people of the United States. All true Americans need to remember that although times are bad now, we must keep fighting and never give up. This will be a terrible four years, but hopefully the majority will realize the mistake they made and will vote differently next time. Every socialist nation so far has deteriorated because there is no incentive for people to work. America is clearly headed in this direction, with Obama as president and a Democratic Congress that will eagerly agree to do anything he asks. Don't lose hope. Eventually America will realize that socialism is not the way to go.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)