Yesterday a nurse who had come home from treating Ebola patients decided that she shouldn't have t adhere to a voluntary quarantine. She state that she was not symptomatic and tested negative for the virus. Here is the problem Ebola can take up to 21 days to manifest or test positive for the disease. Her 21 day period is not over until November 10th. It is this attitude that will allow Ebola to spread to the general population.
None of the people diagnosed with Ebola in the US thought that they would get it. They thought that they were safe and yet they traveled on a plane, took a cruise etc and then were diagnosed with the virus.
This nurse should know better. Yes having to stay in quarantine for 3 weeks is inconvenient, but for the safety of the public this quarantine should be enforced. Its the health care workers most at risk for infection. \
The military feels strongly enough about the safety of the US public and its service members not deployed to infected areas that all those deployed to infected areas have a mandatory 3 week quarantine when they come back.
If the US refuses to bar entrance to those traveling from infected areas then the only rational course is a mandatory 3 week quarantine. Several of those infected have slipped through the screening process that was meant to protect us. That tells us the screening process is ineffective.
True Ebola is one of those diseases that you have to have bodily fluid contact. But it requires minimal bodily fluid contact such as a sneeze otherwise it would not spread so easily.
Ebola is a deadly virus that kills 90% of those infected. We must inconvenience the few to protect the many. By restricting those who as health workers in the us have come into contact with the virus and those who have been traveling in and around affected areas in Africa we can ensure that no other person in the US is exposed to a virus that is more likely to kill them than not.
Shame on the nurse in Maine who can not see the big picture and only sees how a quarantine would affect her. If she ultimately proves to not have the virus it is better safe than sorry. We don't need a deadly worldwide pandemic and quarantines can do their part in preventing it.
Thursday, October 30, 2014
Thursday, October 16, 2014
30 days after closing and we are still dealing with issues that should have been addressed at closing.
It is the great American dream to own your own home. We dutifully applied for a loan looked for a house met all the lenders conditions and brought money to a closing that we shouldn't have had to bring. Our house closes, we move in, we clean out our former living arrangement. We are homeowners now we should be done.
Wrong again. Because of where we live our lender requires Flood Insurance. We went to our insurance company and got a quote. It was a little high so I negotiated with them by lowering how much personal property was covered and got a great quote. That was about 6 weeks before closing. 1 week before closing our mortgage processor verified the flood quote and coverage and then arranged for the entire year of flood insurance to be paid in full at closing.
Fast forward 29 days. We get a call from our flood insurer. We are sorry to inform you that our computer made an error in rating your property and we require and additional $250.00 to grant you the promised coverage. Wait a minute this company accepted payment and issued a flood insurance policy. Now you are going to come back to us almost a month later and say you made a mistake and we owe you. First of all the new price is $135 higher than the former owners were paying and that was without negotiating the personal property coverage down. Second the company had 6 weeks to discover the mistake. Third as a consumer we paid the premium quoted to us in good faith expecting to receive the coverage that was promised to us for that price. 4th the company accepted that payment as paid in full at the time of the effective insurance date.
As a consumer protected by consumer protection laws, is this not a bait and switch situation. Now that we have the policy we are being required to pay additional funds for the promised coverage. Even if there was a mistake shouldn't the quote and payment stand? Not only that but how can insurance that is federally regulated jump so much when there are laws to prevent this on the books? We are investigating the legality of this before we pay anymore money to anyone.
We have been happy with Progressive Insurance prior to this, but now they will find us shopping for a new insurance company for three different insurance policies. Buyer beware think hard before yu use this company.
Wrong again. Because of where we live our lender requires Flood Insurance. We went to our insurance company and got a quote. It was a little high so I negotiated with them by lowering how much personal property was covered and got a great quote. That was about 6 weeks before closing. 1 week before closing our mortgage processor verified the flood quote and coverage and then arranged for the entire year of flood insurance to be paid in full at closing.
Fast forward 29 days. We get a call from our flood insurer. We are sorry to inform you that our computer made an error in rating your property and we require and additional $250.00 to grant you the promised coverage. Wait a minute this company accepted payment and issued a flood insurance policy. Now you are going to come back to us almost a month later and say you made a mistake and we owe you. First of all the new price is $135 higher than the former owners were paying and that was without negotiating the personal property coverage down. Second the company had 6 weeks to discover the mistake. Third as a consumer we paid the premium quoted to us in good faith expecting to receive the coverage that was promised to us for that price. 4th the company accepted that payment as paid in full at the time of the effective insurance date.
As a consumer protected by consumer protection laws, is this not a bait and switch situation. Now that we have the policy we are being required to pay additional funds for the promised coverage. Even if there was a mistake shouldn't the quote and payment stand? Not only that but how can insurance that is federally regulated jump so much when there are laws to prevent this on the books? We are investigating the legality of this before we pay anymore money to anyone.
We have been happy with Progressive Insurance prior to this, but now they will find us shopping for a new insurance company for three different insurance policies. Buyer beware think hard before yu use this company.
Monday, October 13, 2014
Parents in the state of Tennessee sue to choose childs last name?
This is a first for me. A couple have children. Most people see children as the legacy one leaves behind. In most states the law requires parents to give their children their name. I'm not sure what state these parents had their first two children, but that state let them create a last name for their children. Yes you read correctly, create a last name for their children.
These parents then move to Tennessee and have a third child together. That state requires that their child either have the father or mother's last name or a hyphenated version of the two together. Of course this makes perfect sense to me. The problem with this was that the third child's last name won't match the first two children's last name because the last name was created.
Why would any parent not want their child to carry the family name? Are they ashamed of their names? If they were then why not change their name to something they do like and then give that name to their children? The parents have kept their last names so they can't be too ashamed of them. Most parents that I know of are concerned if their children's names don't match theirs if they get divorced and return to their maiden name or even remarry but these parents wanted their children to have a completely different last name than either of them, I'm not a supporter of hyphenated names but if they wanted the children to carry both of their names then that is the only option that makes sense, not to create a new name out of letters from each parents last name.
I can imagine what it will be like to enroll these children in school. I'm sorry but to enroll your child in school we need a copy of the custody agreement. There is no custody agreement. There has to be a custody agreement since you don't share the same last name. Please get us a copy of the custody agreement. I repeat there is no custody agreement or guardianship agreement we are the biological parents of this child. But, you don't share the same last name so something isn't right we need to see the court document please....
Well to each their own I guess. Have fun with that.
These parents then move to Tennessee and have a third child together. That state requires that their child either have the father or mother's last name or a hyphenated version of the two together. Of course this makes perfect sense to me. The problem with this was that the third child's last name won't match the first two children's last name because the last name was created.
Why would any parent not want their child to carry the family name? Are they ashamed of their names? If they were then why not change their name to something they do like and then give that name to their children? The parents have kept their last names so they can't be too ashamed of them. Most parents that I know of are concerned if their children's names don't match theirs if they get divorced and return to their maiden name or even remarry but these parents wanted their children to have a completely different last name than either of them, I'm not a supporter of hyphenated names but if they wanted the children to carry both of their names then that is the only option that makes sense, not to create a new name out of letters from each parents last name.
I can imagine what it will be like to enroll these children in school. I'm sorry but to enroll your child in school we need a copy of the custody agreement. There is no custody agreement. There has to be a custody agreement since you don't share the same last name. Please get us a copy of the custody agreement. I repeat there is no custody agreement or guardianship agreement we are the biological parents of this child. But, you don't share the same last name so something isn't right we need to see the court document please....
Well to each their own I guess. Have fun with that.
Thursday, October 9, 2014
You can't fight emotion with facts.
Have you never tried to debate an issue with anyone who has an argument solely based on emotion?
You can't do it.
Here is what will happen when you try to bring facts into a debate fueled by pure emotion. You will be called all kinds of names, racist, bigot, traitor etc. Or you will be ignored. I have had both things happen. Many of the debates I have had have been about hot or controversial subjects. When I go into a debate I try to leave religion or other emotional basis for opinion out of it. If you bring in religion then you are not speaking on the same plane since the understanding of religion is individual in nature.
When I get into a debate I like to bring in all kinds of inconvenient facts. People who are on the other side of the issue hate having facts brought out that show their opinion to be based on something other than fact. They can not argue with those facts. Since they can't argue with facts and they refuse to back down from their position then they will do what they can to deflect away from the facts. This is where the name calling comes in. This is where you get people going off topic to prove a point already unproven.
We live in a society where laws are based on someone's emotional opinion instead of proven fact. If we fear something we outlaw it. If enough people want something even if its proven bad for society we legalize it. If enough people believe that something bad is good then policy is based on faulty information and if enough people believe that something good is bad then we cut off our noses to spite our feet. Slavery was bad, but a small group of moneyed landowners thought it was good so the practice continued until enough people said enough. Men enjoyed power and thought women feebleminded until enough women made noise to the contrary.
Likewise our society bases good and bad on the loudest or best funded group. Until we base things on logic and fact instead of emotion we will get things backwards.
You can't do it.
Here is what will happen when you try to bring facts into a debate fueled by pure emotion. You will be called all kinds of names, racist, bigot, traitor etc. Or you will be ignored. I have had both things happen. Many of the debates I have had have been about hot or controversial subjects. When I go into a debate I try to leave religion or other emotional basis for opinion out of it. If you bring in religion then you are not speaking on the same plane since the understanding of religion is individual in nature.
When I get into a debate I like to bring in all kinds of inconvenient facts. People who are on the other side of the issue hate having facts brought out that show their opinion to be based on something other than fact. They can not argue with those facts. Since they can't argue with facts and they refuse to back down from their position then they will do what they can to deflect away from the facts. This is where the name calling comes in. This is where you get people going off topic to prove a point already unproven.
We live in a society where laws are based on someone's emotional opinion instead of proven fact. If we fear something we outlaw it. If enough people want something even if its proven bad for society we legalize it. If enough people believe that something bad is good then policy is based on faulty information and if enough people believe that something good is bad then we cut off our noses to spite our feet. Slavery was bad, but a small group of moneyed landowners thought it was good so the practice continued until enough people said enough. Men enjoyed power and thought women feebleminded until enough women made noise to the contrary.
Likewise our society bases good and bad on the loudest or best funded group. Until we base things on logic and fact instead of emotion we will get things backwards.
Wednesday, October 8, 2014
Why isn't minimum wage always minimum wage?
I am not a supporter of raising the minimum wage. I do feel that jobs requiring no high school diploma or training should be minimum wage and nothing more. Those jobs are meant to be jobs while you are in school or experience to get a better job and move into a better work situation. They are not meant to be careers. There are those who aren't capable of doing anything more and those jobs are a Godsend to them regardless of the pay.
That being said I am very disturbed that there are some jobs that don't have to pay minimum wage. First of all waitstaff. Your waiters and waitresses are not paid minimum wage. They are expected to make up the difference through their tips. Only if you don't make enough in tips to bring your wage up to minimum wage does the company have to make up the difference. This is ridiculous. A tip is supposed to be given as an indication of excellent service. It is not supposed to be part of the regular wage. If service is bad I won't leave a tip but if service is excellent we will leave a large tip.
Waitstaff should receive minimum wage period and their tips should be a reward for doing their job well. Tip sharing should be outlawed because the waiter or waitress is the one who serves the customer and receives any customer complaints.
Home health workers and aids. Not only are they not required to be paid minimum wage they do not have to be paid overtime. Home health workers are required to take ongoing classes and certify and recertify every couple of years. Yet they are not required to be paid at least minimum wage. Because of the training, continuing education and certification requirements I believe that these workers should be paid more than minimum wage and paid overtime at the rate all other workers are paid. If you want quality people in the field caring for our elderly and infirm then we need to pay them well.
Developmentally disabled. Just because an adult is developmentally disabled doesn't mean that they shouldn't be paid the same minimum wage as everyone else. That is discriminatory no ifs ands or buts about it. They work doing the same jobs as others who are not disabled and should be paid accordingly. There is no excuse that justifies paying them less. None.
Lets make minimum wage be the standard for all jobs and no one should be allowed to pay less period. As for higher wages. Wages should be based on the training, education, job requirements and experience. So jobs with minimum requirements should receive minimum wage with slightly higher wages being given to those with experience. If you want a higher wage get training, find a better job or go to school. If your choice in education can't get you a job in the field you studied you made a poor choice and need to go back to the drawing board and get more training and education. Period.
That being said I am very disturbed that there are some jobs that don't have to pay minimum wage. First of all waitstaff. Your waiters and waitresses are not paid minimum wage. They are expected to make up the difference through their tips. Only if you don't make enough in tips to bring your wage up to minimum wage does the company have to make up the difference. This is ridiculous. A tip is supposed to be given as an indication of excellent service. It is not supposed to be part of the regular wage. If service is bad I won't leave a tip but if service is excellent we will leave a large tip.
Waitstaff should receive minimum wage period and their tips should be a reward for doing their job well. Tip sharing should be outlawed because the waiter or waitress is the one who serves the customer and receives any customer complaints.
Home health workers and aids. Not only are they not required to be paid minimum wage they do not have to be paid overtime. Home health workers are required to take ongoing classes and certify and recertify every couple of years. Yet they are not required to be paid at least minimum wage. Because of the training, continuing education and certification requirements I believe that these workers should be paid more than minimum wage and paid overtime at the rate all other workers are paid. If you want quality people in the field caring for our elderly and infirm then we need to pay them well.
Developmentally disabled. Just because an adult is developmentally disabled doesn't mean that they shouldn't be paid the same minimum wage as everyone else. That is discriminatory no ifs ands or buts about it. They work doing the same jobs as others who are not disabled and should be paid accordingly. There is no excuse that justifies paying them less. None.
Lets make minimum wage be the standard for all jobs and no one should be allowed to pay less period. As for higher wages. Wages should be based on the training, education, job requirements and experience. So jobs with minimum requirements should receive minimum wage with slightly higher wages being given to those with experience. If you want a higher wage get training, find a better job or go to school. If your choice in education can't get you a job in the field you studied you made a poor choice and need to go back to the drawing board and get more training and education. Period.
Monday, October 6, 2014
Good thing I blog for myself and not to get followers.
Many of the subjects I blog about are controversial. Even worse my opinions are neither politically correct or common. As a result I have no followers and my all time high of 7 readers has been reduced to 2.
Today I rant about two issues. Ebola. Our government refuses to take the necessary precautions in order to prevent Ebola from entering this country. They have not refused entry to those who have traveled through infected areas and have no plans to do so claiming that it would prevent the infected areas from controlling and containing it.(huh?) The President insists that current screening measures were sufficient. The Dallas Ebola patient lied about his contact with the disease on his travel papers. Imagine that. Another case was found today as well.
Here is what I want to see. If you are not going to restrict entry into this country from infected areas those who come into this country and everyone they come into contact on the plane need to be quarantined for 21 days(the length of time it takes for symptoms to show.) That's the least we should do. What I would really like to see is no one who has traveled through infected area should be allowed into the country for 21 days after being around infected areas without showing symptoms period. It's already spread to Spain where they don't know where the infection came from.
Gay marriage. Marriage is the foundation to create and rear children. Marriage was about ensuring that women who couldn't work and children were provided for and that men could not abandon their families without repercussions. It was not about love or there never would have been arranged marriage. It was about giving children a name and ensuring their inheritance. It was also about family alliances through the children. Gay marriage is about getting benefits and requiring those who do not approve of their lifestyle to accept their choice as acceptable. Nothing else. If it were solely about love then they wouldn't need a piece of paper to validate it.
What people do in their bedroom behind closed doors is no business of mine, but when you start unraveling the very fabric of civilization by undermining the foundation of that civilization(families) then we have a problem. When societies stop having their foundation be families they quickly decline and then disappear. This has happened over and over again throughout history. Since we have not learned our history we are doomed to repeat it.
Even though I do not participate in gay marriage, it does affect me as the decline of my civilization eliminates the rights and freedoms I hold dear. No one should be prevented from having a job or getting a loan or home based on their lifestyle choices, but marriage and the family should be held sacred above all things.
Today I rant about two issues. Ebola. Our government refuses to take the necessary precautions in order to prevent Ebola from entering this country. They have not refused entry to those who have traveled through infected areas and have no plans to do so claiming that it would prevent the infected areas from controlling and containing it.(huh?) The President insists that current screening measures were sufficient. The Dallas Ebola patient lied about his contact with the disease on his travel papers. Imagine that. Another case was found today as well.
Here is what I want to see. If you are not going to restrict entry into this country from infected areas those who come into this country and everyone they come into contact on the plane need to be quarantined for 21 days(the length of time it takes for symptoms to show.) That's the least we should do. What I would really like to see is no one who has traveled through infected area should be allowed into the country for 21 days after being around infected areas without showing symptoms period. It's already spread to Spain where they don't know where the infection came from.
Gay marriage. Marriage is the foundation to create and rear children. Marriage was about ensuring that women who couldn't work and children were provided for and that men could not abandon their families without repercussions. It was not about love or there never would have been arranged marriage. It was about giving children a name and ensuring their inheritance. It was also about family alliances through the children. Gay marriage is about getting benefits and requiring those who do not approve of their lifestyle to accept their choice as acceptable. Nothing else. If it were solely about love then they wouldn't need a piece of paper to validate it.
What people do in their bedroom behind closed doors is no business of mine, but when you start unraveling the very fabric of civilization by undermining the foundation of that civilization(families) then we have a problem. When societies stop having their foundation be families they quickly decline and then disappear. This has happened over and over again throughout history. Since we have not learned our history we are doomed to repeat it.
Even though I do not participate in gay marriage, it does affect me as the decline of my civilization eliminates the rights and freedoms I hold dear. No one should be prevented from having a job or getting a loan or home based on their lifestyle choices, but marriage and the family should be held sacred above all things.
Sunday, October 5, 2014
Columbus Day in America is disappearing
I am a homeschooler. I have a 3 year old turning 4 in December who is not eligible to start Kindergarten for another 2 years. She is so intelligent that I have to do something to keep her mind occupied so her curiosity doesn't get her into trouble. As a result the decision to homeschool her was made and we started Kindergarten curriculum this year. My other kids all went to public schools.
Part of the Kindergarten curriculum is to introduce all the holidays and the motivation behind them. As I was getting prepared to talk about Columbus Day and Christopher Columbus I went looking for possible events to take her to in order to make Christopher Columbus come alive rather than just doing stories and coloring pages. To my dismay there was absolutely nothing planned in my area. If you lived in Boston or New York you could find plenty but here in Virginia where I have Williamsburg, Yorktown and Jamestown less than an hour away and two maritime museums as well, I found nothing. Not even a speaker at a library.
Without Christopher Columbus we would not live where we do and yet more pomp and circumstance is given to St. Patrick's day and Cinco de Mayo and they aren't even federal holidays. The only things that happen around Columbus Day in this area are state and federal closures, bank closures and Columbus Day sales.
I get that for the native population, a small minority, Christopher Columbus's accidental stumble upon the America's was the beginning of their people being conquered, but even they now benefit from all that has transpired since then. Yes there are many things in our history that we look back and find shameful from slavery to the trail of tears and Asian internment camps in World War II, but the fact remains we wouldn't have the United States of America the great melting pot of the world without Christopher Columbus. Even if it wasn't him it would have been someone else and the results would have been the same.
Columbus Day is not a day that should be ignored or swept under the rug in order to not offend a small population in our country. Honor should be paid where honor is due. We have a lot to be thankful for and the discovery of the New World by Christopher Columbus is one of them.
Part of the Kindergarten curriculum is to introduce all the holidays and the motivation behind them. As I was getting prepared to talk about Columbus Day and Christopher Columbus I went looking for possible events to take her to in order to make Christopher Columbus come alive rather than just doing stories and coloring pages. To my dismay there was absolutely nothing planned in my area. If you lived in Boston or New York you could find plenty but here in Virginia where I have Williamsburg, Yorktown and Jamestown less than an hour away and two maritime museums as well, I found nothing. Not even a speaker at a library.
Without Christopher Columbus we would not live where we do and yet more pomp and circumstance is given to St. Patrick's day and Cinco de Mayo and they aren't even federal holidays. The only things that happen around Columbus Day in this area are state and federal closures, bank closures and Columbus Day sales.
I get that for the native population, a small minority, Christopher Columbus's accidental stumble upon the America's was the beginning of their people being conquered, but even they now benefit from all that has transpired since then. Yes there are many things in our history that we look back and find shameful from slavery to the trail of tears and Asian internment camps in World War II, but the fact remains we wouldn't have the United States of America the great melting pot of the world without Christopher Columbus. Even if it wasn't him it would have been someone else and the results would have been the same.
Columbus Day is not a day that should be ignored or swept under the rug in order to not offend a small population in our country. Honor should be paid where honor is due. We have a lot to be thankful for and the discovery of the New World by Christopher Columbus is one of them.
Saturday, October 4, 2014
Wasn't abortion legalized in part so it would be safe?
In Texas some very stringent laws have been passed and women are upset. Yes it means that there are only 7 soon to be 8 legally operating abortion clinics in Texas, but the laws put in place have made it safer for all involved. The Texas law states that all abortion clinics must meet that same regulations as ambulatory surgery sites and at least one doctor on staff have hospital admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic.
First of all the fact is abortion is a medical procedure. There can be complications from this procedure. These complications can result in sterility, loss of the uterus and or death if not properly treated. Second Most of these abortion clinics are not equipped to handle these complications. Third if there isn't the ability to immediately admit a patient to a nearby hospital suffering from a complication the complication will most likely end up on the severe side.
Part of the reason that Roe v. Wade passed was the argument that women were becoming more sexually active with the sexual revolution and that unwanted pregnancies were already being ended through abortion. Without regulation the procedure was often done in unsafe and unsterile environments leading to a large number of women being harmed by the procedure.
In this age where we basically have drive through abortion clinics the procedure may be done in a sterile environment but the safety is still questionable when there is no backup available in the event of a complication. Routine procedures can go wrong through no fault of the doctor involved. Years ago we used to have drive through labor and delivery because of insurance companies. When doctors and patients argued with the government that birth may be routine but still needed hospital follow-up care in order to ensure the safety of both mother and child. Laws were put in place making it illegal for insurance companies to require discharge less than 48 hours after birth for a normal birth.
Abortion is the end of a pregnancy with all the same concerns for the woman's health as a birth would be. The big difference is there is no concern over the health of the infant since it is a life ending procedure.
Women should be jumping for joy that Texas legislators are in fact standing up for women's health by requiring the same caution as any other medical procedure. Yes for now it may inhibit the availability of abortion in the short term, but if clinics do what they need to in order to comply with the new law then the procedure would be far safer than before.
Friday, October 3, 2014
The Pledge of Allegiance and freedom of speech
It happens a couple of times a year at least. It's time for the Pledge of Allegiance and some high school teenager has decided to not participate and sit in their chair. In a country where any child that attends a public school is told that they have no right to privacy or freedom of speech we find that this is not true. A child may have freedom of speech if it fits the liberal agenda.
I was taught that anytime the flag passed before you that standing up was a sign of respect for our country. Too many men and women have died to give us the freedoms we have now not to. I can understand an atheist not reciting the part of the pledge that states under God. I can even understand someone who doesn't recite it for religious reasons. What I don't understand is why they feel its necessary to show such utter disregard for the country that allows them the luxury of not saying a pledge of allegiance to the country they live in.
The very reason these same people have the right to refuse to say this pledge is the same reason they should at least show respect for what the flag stands for. Here is what I have to say to any American who refuses to acknowledge that men and women died to give them the freedom that they enjoy and that they deserve an acknowledgement for that through showing respect to the symbol of our country and their sacrifice. Standing up during the Pledge of Allegiance is not paying homage to any God anymore than standing when a woman walks in the room was in days gone past. It is simply an acknowledgement that you have respect for what the symbol represents which is our country and the constitution. If you hold no respect for this country or the freedoms that you enjoy then leave. Go live in a country that you do respect. My ancestors, my husband and my sons have served this country and to show such disrespect to the flag is to sow utter disdain for the service they did for this country.
Yes the constitution allows everyone the right t freedom of speech and the right to be completely disrespectful for any reason. If you hold this country in such low regard then why are you here?
I was taught that anytime the flag passed before you that standing up was a sign of respect for our country. Too many men and women have died to give us the freedoms we have now not to. I can understand an atheist not reciting the part of the pledge that states under God. I can even understand someone who doesn't recite it for religious reasons. What I don't understand is why they feel its necessary to show such utter disregard for the country that allows them the luxury of not saying a pledge of allegiance to the country they live in.
The very reason these same people have the right to refuse to say this pledge is the same reason they should at least show respect for what the flag stands for. Here is what I have to say to any American who refuses to acknowledge that men and women died to give them the freedom that they enjoy and that they deserve an acknowledgement for that through showing respect to the symbol of our country and their sacrifice. Standing up during the Pledge of Allegiance is not paying homage to any God anymore than standing when a woman walks in the room was in days gone past. It is simply an acknowledgement that you have respect for what the symbol represents which is our country and the constitution. If you hold no respect for this country or the freedoms that you enjoy then leave. Go live in a country that you do respect. My ancestors, my husband and my sons have served this country and to show such disrespect to the flag is to sow utter disdain for the service they did for this country.
Yes the constitution allows everyone the right t freedom of speech and the right to be completely disrespectful for any reason. If you hold this country in such low regard then why are you here?
Thursday, October 2, 2014
A non-religious evolutionary argument against homosexuality
According to Darwin's theory of evolution the male and female were brought into being in order to perpetuate the species. The organisms with the strongest traits are the ones to find mates and procreate allowing only the strongest organisms to pass on their genetic material.
How does this relate to the human animal? Human females were created with an inbred need to procreate, rear and nurture young while the male of the species were created with an inbred need to procreate, protect and provide for the mate and the offspring allowing for the best environment to raise offspring to adulthood. Those who do not have that innate instinct do not procreate and do not pass on that trait limiting the amount of new births of humans with that trait.
The purpose of the female and the male is best served when a permanent bond between the parent organisms is created. This permanent bond allows for each parent organism to do their part in ensuring their offspring have the best possible environment into which they will be able to survive to adulthood.
Those with predispositions to same sex attraction do not align with this purpose of perpetuating the species. Those with these predispositions claim that they were born this way and that there is nothing wrong with that. Since this is in direct opposition to the purpose of perpetuating the species and there is evidence that there is some kind of brain or chemical imbalance causing this phenomenon the theory of evolution will argue against that. In any other brain or chemical imbalance you will find treatment with medication and or therapy. Unfortunately those with this particular imbalance refuse to even acknowledge that their instincts are a genetic anomaly which by definition is abnormal. Many schizophrenics also believe that and are institutionalized for their own safety.
Here is where the theory of evolution proves itself. Those with the inclination to same sex attraction make physical alliances with those of the same sex they are attracted to hindering their ability to procreate and once again limiting the instance of this undesirable genetic trait. Since there are no offspring to raise and protect from these alliances then there is no need to create a permanent bond evolutionarily speaking of course.
How does this relate to the human animal? Human females were created with an inbred need to procreate, rear and nurture young while the male of the species were created with an inbred need to procreate, protect and provide for the mate and the offspring allowing for the best environment to raise offspring to adulthood. Those who do not have that innate instinct do not procreate and do not pass on that trait limiting the amount of new births of humans with that trait.
The purpose of the female and the male is best served when a permanent bond between the parent organisms is created. This permanent bond allows for each parent organism to do their part in ensuring their offspring have the best possible environment into which they will be able to survive to adulthood.
Those with predispositions to same sex attraction do not align with this purpose of perpetuating the species. Those with these predispositions claim that they were born this way and that there is nothing wrong with that. Since this is in direct opposition to the purpose of perpetuating the species and there is evidence that there is some kind of brain or chemical imbalance causing this phenomenon the theory of evolution will argue against that. In any other brain or chemical imbalance you will find treatment with medication and or therapy. Unfortunately those with this particular imbalance refuse to even acknowledge that their instincts are a genetic anomaly which by definition is abnormal. Many schizophrenics also believe that and are institutionalized for their own safety.
Here is where the theory of evolution proves itself. Those with the inclination to same sex attraction make physical alliances with those of the same sex they are attracted to hindering their ability to procreate and once again limiting the instance of this undesirable genetic trait. Since there are no offspring to raise and protect from these alliances then there is no need to create a permanent bond evolutionarily speaking of course.
Wednesday, October 1, 2014
Judge blocks parts of North Carolina voting law that all other states already ban?
So today a judge blocked parts of the New North Carolina voting laws. These laws were already in place in the primary elections. This judge cited the possibility of disenfranchising minority voters as the reason.
First of all the statistics are already in on the primary elections and here is what they found. There were more minority voters in the last primary election then there were in the primary election 4 years ago. They have proof that there was no disenfranchising of minority voters.
Second the parts of the law that were blocked were already in effect in the majority of other states. What parts were blocked. The law outlawed same day registration in early voting. In most of the other 49 states you are required to vote at least 30 days prior to the election. This part of the North Carolina law was blocked for the current November election. The North Carolina law also disallowed people from voting in a district they were not registered in. I do not know of any other state that allows people to vote any place other than their precinct with the exception of absentee ballots. This was also blocked.
I'm not sure exactly why this judge felt that North Carolina needed voting laws more lax than any other state of the union. The parts of the law that are under debate (the part that required a valid government issued picture ID)were allowed to continue, but the parts where most of the other states agree with were blocked. Does this make any sense to anyone?
It just goes to show just how far activist judges will go to get their agenda across.
First of all the statistics are already in on the primary elections and here is what they found. There were more minority voters in the last primary election then there were in the primary election 4 years ago. They have proof that there was no disenfranchising of minority voters.
Second the parts of the law that were blocked were already in effect in the majority of other states. What parts were blocked. The law outlawed same day registration in early voting. In most of the other 49 states you are required to vote at least 30 days prior to the election. This part of the North Carolina law was blocked for the current November election. The North Carolina law also disallowed people from voting in a district they were not registered in. I do not know of any other state that allows people to vote any place other than their precinct with the exception of absentee ballots. This was also blocked.
I'm not sure exactly why this judge felt that North Carolina needed voting laws more lax than any other state of the union. The parts of the law that are under debate (the part that required a valid government issued picture ID)were allowed to continue, but the parts where most of the other states agree with were blocked. Does this make any sense to anyone?
It just goes to show just how far activist judges will go to get their agenda across.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)