And I'm not talking about winter.
I'm speaking of college-age kids thinking they shouldn't be offended, and their perceived self-importance in the world.
Some snowflake goes on a hunger strike at the University of Missouri, based on perceived racial indifference by the then university president. In solidarity, the football team goes on strike. Now as anyone down South knows, you don't mess with college football. Down here, being the captain of the football team is more important than becoming a captain of industry, so when football revenues were affected, the president had no choice but to step down. These snowflakes even demanded a say in choosing the NEXT president of the university!
At Princeton, some snowflakes want to remove pretty much every reference to former Princeton (and U.S.) President Woodrow Wilson, mainly because he was a racist bastard.
At college after college, snowflakes across the country are demanding mandatory sensitivity classes on race and gender; they're protesting speakers whose views they don't agree with and they're demanding "safe-zones" be established where so-called "offensive" speech can be prohibited so that their sensitive ears will not be harmed by something that might hurt their delicate ears.
What kind of generation has this country raised?
OK, props to these snowflakes for being socially aware of equality issues that still exist in this country, but everything after that is a failure and escalation of epic proportions.
Today's college kids have had everything handed to them compared to what was available to past generations; endless scholarships and grants, high tech labs and study materials, and information available to them at the touch of their precious i-Phone or i-Pad. Too bad they're some of the dumbest people to ever walk the face of this earth.
You're living in America, snowflakes! We're not known as the Land of the FREE and Home of the Brave for nothing, you know. It's apparent that none of you have ever read the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (you know, that great document written by 18th century slave holders). Heck, most of you couldn't even articulate what a "right" actually is, BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO DICTATE WHAT SPEECH IS OFFENSIVE AND WHAT IS NOT. But I'll make it easy for you. A right is something you can exercise by yourself, or with the willing participation of others.
These are rights: Freedom of Speech, Assembly, Religion (or lack thereof), the right to own and protect yourself with firearms.
These are NOT rights: Healthcare, Freedom from offensive speech, College education.
How truly sensitive are these snowflakes that they cannot stand up to or acknowledge a difference of opinion? "Freedom of speech for me, but not for thee" is their motto. What's next for these snowflakes? Removing the Jefferson Memorial and the Washington Monument because they both owned slaves? Destroying books that use offensive terms and concepts?
Get this through your heads, snowflakes; you're really not all that important in the great scheme of things, and the vast majority of you never will be. You'll never get ahead denying others that which you think you deserve.
The amount of time wasted by debate moderators and prospective GOP candidates in last night's debate regarding illegal immigration was huge, both because of the number of questions asked and the varied answers given. I can solve the whole problem with one, simple law.
Fine the employers who hire illegal aliens.
Fine 'em big, and put them in jail if they become repeat offenders.
No need to build a wall. No need to deport millions of illegal immigrants now living in America. The only thing keeping them here are jobs, and if the jobs they come here for dry up because they can no longer be hired by employers who ignore our laws, they not only won't come here in the first place, they'll self deport themselves.
Yeah, this is a short blog post, but there is really nothing further that needs to be done. Everything else is a symptom.
This solves the problem. And the only people you have to focus on are the employers.
At a political round table in South Carolina earlier this week, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, the avowed Socialist running for President for the Democrat nomination, once again made the oft-repeated call for wanting to make sure more people come out to vote.
That call remains a bunch of nonsense.
Look, I'd love to see more people voting. That would say to me that there are enough folks paying attention to what is going on, and that those who are paying attention might actually care about what is happening to our country. Unfortunately, that's never been the case since the latter half of the baby-boomer population began to vote.
Politicians keep trying to come up with new ways to increase vote totals, hoping against hope that their ideas draw more of THEIR voters out in hopes of legally rigging elections in their party's favor. Traditional voter fraud was to have the same people vote multiple times in the same election; Mayor James Michael Curley of Boston was once quoted as saying to his supporters, "Vote early, vote often". And he wasn't kidding.
Democrats (largely) in Chicago were famous for registering voters by going through local cemeteries, then getting their supporters to vote under these different aliases. Urban legend has it that if not for the "dead vote" John F. Kennedy would never have won Illinois, and therefore the Presidency. A new twist on this play is to have Democrat (largely) operatives sign up voters in bulk, sometimes with the consent of the voter, and sometimes not. This opens up fraud at the absentee ballot level, where now valid signatures by one person can be used to vote without the need to prove a specific voter actually cast that ballot, as no ID is needed for an absentee ballot to be issued or counted.
Ad of course we've all heard about how people are being "disenfranchised" by requiring them to prove they are who they say they are by producing a valid ID in order to vote in person. Of course, we require everyone who wants to fly on an airline to produce a valid ID. We require anyone wishing to attend a speech by the President of the United States to produce an ID. Same for his Attorney General. Yet both want to eliminate the need to produce an ID to perform the most important duty any citizen can do. An ID that 99.9% Americans either have, or can easily obtain if they would get off their lazy behinds.
And let's not forget early voting efforts. Apparently, voting isn't important enough for many people to get them to slightly modify their daily routine one day every 2-4 years in order to cast their ballot. Or maybe an election isn't important enough for them to keep track of which day is election day. So in some states, voting has been extended as much as month in advance of the actual election day, in some cases even Saturdays and Sundays, in order to make it "easier" for people to vote.
Answer me this: Why should a "duty" be made easy to perform?
I don't want more voters. I want better voters. I'm not saying that GOP voters are better than Democrat voters, but do you recall the video produced back in 2008 showing Obama voters, asking them questions about the candidates on both sides of that race? Those people were morons, and they were responsible for electing one of the worst Presidents in the history of this nation. And don't get me wrong; I've met plenty of conservative voters who vote based on one issue only, no matter how incompetent that candidate was on other important issues.
Look, if you truly want your government to provide more services or benefits to you and others, I may consider you wrong-headed as far as your knowledge of what it means to truly be an American, but make sure your candidate has a viable way to pay for those services (are you reading this Sanders' supporters?). And if you want the government to be smaller, you've got to give up on some things like defense budgets that are unsustainable and overhaul the tax code to get rid of the thousands of exemptions that the wealthy take advantage of.
it's called compromise and common sense, and neither are present in today's voters or elected officials.
There's a lot of blame to go around in this article.
Over the past year, we've had Christian bakers being (successfully) sued by gay couples for refusing to bake their wedding cake; the bakers claiming that "participation" in a gay wedding violates their religious beliefs. We've had a county clerk put in jail for refusing to issue marriage licenses to gay coupes because it offends her Christian religious beliefs.
And then there's this story about two Muslim truck drivers who successfully sued their employer for firing them because they refused to deliver beer, claiming it violated their religious beliefs.
The obvious, and partially correct, conclusion is that Christian beliefs are given short shrift, while accommodations for Muslims is becoming more politically correct. in America. I say partially, because the headlines don't tell the whole story in each of these instances.
Let's take the Muslim truck drivers, for instance. They were actually assisted by the U.S government, in the form of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, who sued on their behalf. The EEOC claimed that the truck company failed to provide alternative jobs or routes to the Muslim drivers, instead using their refusal to deliver as an excuse for firing them without due cause. After five years, the company finally admitted liability, which made the jury verdict easier to render. However, it is unlikely that the two Muslims will ever see a dime of that $240,000 verdict, as the transportation company went out of business shortly after their admission of liability.
Sucks to be them.
So, yeah, I get it. The trucking company could certainly have acted in better faith by trying to find these two religiously sensitive guys alternate routes / cargoes to deliver, instead of coming down with the draconian solution of firing them outright. It is generally bad business to treat your employees with that lack of respect or flexibility. But that being said, what did these two guys think they were getting into, looking for work at a place where anything and everything got shipped each and every day? Do you think these two geniuses asked the question during their job interviews about whether they would be required to haul alcoholic products in the course of their duties?
I think not.
But it certainly didn't strain the EEOC to find fault with the company that fired these Muslims, rather than assigning blame equally to the men who obviously sought work without articulating their own restrictions, knowing those restrictions wouldn't have gotten them their jobs in the first place.
Now to the Christian baker and gay weddings.
Let me start off by saying that I equate people who refuse to treat people equally the same.
Whether you're a Christian baker or a KKK Grand Kleagle, discriminating against two consenting adults due to their sexual preference or against someone for the color of their skin is the same thing. BOTH are morally wrong. Let's simplify this for everyone - there is no difference between opening up a public bakery and saying everybody is welcome to use your services except gay people, as it is for someone to open up a public restaurant and say that anyone can eat there except for black people.
It's that simple.
So the bakers were wrong to refuse service to the gay couple. And their excuse, claiming that by baking a cake for the couple they were "participants" in a gay wedding, was absolutely ludicrous. By the time someone is munching down on your tasty treat, that ship has already sailed. You're really trying to say that you're at the same level as a quarterback on a football team because you brought the nachos to the tailgate party. Sorry - that dog don't hunt.
However, the gay couple was equally in the wrong for making such a big deal about this. After all, it's not as if there aren't other bakers within a reasonable drive from just about anywhere you live. Out the baker for being the narrow-minded bigot they are, but there is no cause to make a Federal case (literally) out of their refusal.
As to the county clerk in Kentucky, I wrote about her back in September. You can read more about her here.
The bottom line with her is that she wants to pick and choose what laws she is willing to uphold, and as an elected official, you may not do that and expect to retain your job. Her feelings and beliefs should end at the entrance to her office.
So how does this all equate to a swift decline for America? We've traded in our common sense and logic for feelings and beliefs. We've elevated ourselves to be the judge and jury on everything that surrounds us, even if it doesn't actually affect us. We've become a country of whiny, self-centered and needy people who feel the need to impose our will on others, rather than let others live their lives in peace. If you're not with us, you're against us. Everything is black and white - gray is no longer an accepted color. It's the me generation writ large. And it has to stop.
Hi! I'm Dave Richard, your host. I hope you enjoy your visit. We'll be talking about current events, politics, the occasional sports (I'm a HUGE New England Patriots fan, so get over it), and some "Get off my lawn!" issues.