Sarah Palin

I don’t care what anyone says. I like Sarah Palin. True, we’re quite different and have nothing in common but gender. She’s White. I’m Black. She’s conservative. I’m liberal. She has five children. I have none. She’s riding above the economic crisis. I’m being crushed underneath. So, why do I like Sarah Palin? Well, she’s able to reduce progressives (formerly known as liberals) to apoplectic fits by just the sound of her voice. Now, why would I hold such a grudge against progressives, indeed the “Democrat” party, that I should take pleasure in their distress? The Democratic primary of 2008 is a start.

I supported Hillary Clinton over Barak Obama because I believed we needed a leader with more experience and less corrupt than Obama. (Considering the past year under an Obama administration, I’d say my concerns were justified.) Those who opposed Clinton's nomination cited her Iraq War vote, close ties to the “establishment” and corporations, her centrism and even their revulsion at Bill Clinton returning to the White House as First Gentlemen. These reasons are legitimate enough I suppose, even though Obama has never been a leftist, let alone a socialist as he's often accused of by Republicans. Obama supported the Iraq War with his Senate votes to fund it. Obama also received support from the same corporations and banks that are currently fleecing our savings…with Obama’s blessing. Nevertheless, I could accept opposition to Clinton’s nomination based on the reasons listed.

No, what bothered me – besides the ignorance of neophyte voters, enthralled Blacks not voting their interests yet again and Whites looking for absolution – was the sexism and misogyny that came from the Democrat party, the current home of liberalism. Liberals aren’t supposed to base arguments on sexism or racism. These “–isms” are an anathema to our ideology. Yet there was MSNBC guest host David Schuster presenting a cackling Hillary Jabber Jaw pen and MSNBC Countdown' commentator Keith Olbermann’s suggestion to “beat” Hillary Clinton out of the primaries. There was the 527 organization, Citizens United Not Timid (note the uppercase letters), created to tell us all about what Hillary Clinton really was. There were also the Hillary nutcracker dolls, her sexual orientation was questioned and “B**ch” became her pet name on blogs. From Huffington Post to Daily Kos, sexism and misogyny was exploited and encouraged by none other than progressives. I’d expected Republicans to take this tactic. John McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, had already begun when he chuckled at this question at a townhall. But liberals?

After a contentious primary battle, Obama was eventually selected as the Democratic nominee but before there was time to heal, John McCain selected Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate. If you recall, hell broke loose. I thought Hillary Clinton had it bad, but I felt downright sorry for Gov. Palin. Within hours after her nomination, progressive blogs attacked her children, labeled her a bimbo, trailer trash, and replaced the epithet "b**ch" with “whore”. Progressives, who still consider themselves gender equality advocates, donned t-shirts emblazoned with “Sarah is A C**t”. For Halloween, her effigy was lynched on a reveler’s front porch. Amazingly enough, progressives even argued that Palin was a bad mother for having a career.

Even though the McCain/Palin ticket lost, in part due to the sudden economic downturn which acted as an assist to the Obama/Biden ticket which had been lagging in the polls, progressives still can’t let go of Palin. Their constant harping about a losing vice-presidential candidate has extended Palin's 15 minutes into years. There’s a name for progressives’ reaction to Sarah Palin. It’s called PDS or Palin Derangement Syndrome. It’s similar to CDS, Clinton Derangement Syndrome, except its victims are more unhinged, nasty and self-destructive.

The latest and lamest attack to date is “PalmGate”. Sarah Palin, best-selling author and a recent contributor to Fox news, made an appearance at the first National Tea Party convention this weekend. The National Tea Party is a grass-roots movement comprised of conservatives, libertarians and independents who rose in opposition to the stimulus package and bailouts to banks. Palin was paid $100,000 to speak which infuriated progressives since, according to them, she’s an idiot. During the Q & A portion of the convention, she referred to crib notes written in the palm of her hand. Criticizing her on this is fair. It’s petty, but at least it’s not sexist. Although, the criticism is rather hypocritical considering Obama can’t make a speech without the TOTUS (Teleprompter of the United States). He stutters, which isn’t a transgression, but I believe he’s ignorant on policy which is a sin. Nevertheless, Palin's “cribbing” is fair game. Some may even argue that Palin's a hypocrite since she's criticized Obama for his frequent use of the teleprompter. However, it doesn’t end there. It never does with progressives and Sarah Palin.

The sexism returned as well as the attacks on Sarah Palin’s children. There are some new insults such as references to hand-jobs and “Sharpie Barbie” although “whore” and “trailer trash” made a comeback. With far more pressing concerns such as the economy, healthcare, wars and the environment, it is incomprehensible why progressives would spend so much time and ink sniffing for "scandals" against a woman who holds no political office and therefore can effect no change in policy and law. Even ratings anemic MSNBC brought this insipid non-story to consciousness. Is it not clear that these attacks work for Palin? Is not clear yet that the attention, even negative attention, increases Palin’s book sales, her speaking fees and her base?

The Democratic primary and the presidential general election were surreal. Liberals, adherents to an inclusive ideology, turned to sexism and misogyny to beat out female candidates who stood against Barack Obama. That he stabbed them in the back provides some measure of vindictive satisfaction although I can’t be too pleased since I’m screwed, too. Sarah Palin’s success eases that pain a bit, though. A success she can credit in part to progressives. Yes, she got the last laugh and she’s still laughing - all the way to the bank. It’s rather nice to see the progressives so vexed and consumed.

A cheap and petty thrill, I confess.

EDITORIAL

Lobbyists and Students

NEw York Times

Published: February 7, 2010

The private lending companies that earn billions of dollars in undeserved profits from the federal student loan program are working overtime to kill a bill that would stop their gravy train once and for all — and should have been enacted long ago. The House stood up to the powerful lending lobby last fall and passed a student loan reform bill. The White House has been pushing the Senate, but it is having trouble finding its spine and has yet to introduce a bill.

The House version phases out the wasteful part of the federal college lending program that pays private lenders a rich subsidy to make risk-free loans that are guaranteed by the government. The bill also expands another, more reliable and less expensive federal loan program that permits students to borrow directly from the government through their colleges.

The arguments for moving in this direction are irrefutable. The subsidized program, for example, was supposed to keep loans flowing during recessions. But the loans dried up in the last credit crunch, forcing the government to rescue the program. The direct program, by contrast, suffered no such disruption. In addition to being more reliable, the direct program costs less. The Congressional Budget Office estimated last year that the country could save about $80 billion over the next decade by ending the private system and moving to the direct one.

Outmaneuvered on the merits, the lending industry has resorted to scare tactics and distortions. The claim that the direct system would amount to a government takeover of the system is absurd. The direct loans would not be handled by the government, but through colleges and universities, just as Pell grants are now. The loans would be collected and administered by private companies, which are actively competing for the business.

Some lenders say the new system would lead to more student defaults, but contracts between the government and loan-servicing companies clearly state that the companies will be evaluated partly on how successful they are at preventing defaults.

The claim by lenders that the direct system would bring huge job losses is also implausible. The work force that would be required to service, say, $500 billion in outstanding loans would be nearly as large as the work force required to lend that amount.

The new system would, of course, cut into lenders’ profits. But by redirecting the savings into a variety of federal programs aimed at needy students — including the Pell grant scholarship program — Congress would be putting the money to good use.

Street Smart

Just the other day I was informed that the city of Memphis is finally making a bike path that will enable cyclists to get from downtown to out east. It seems as if this has taken a lifetime to do. See, I have been riding a bicycle for the past 8 years as my lone source of transportation. I ride from my home in Cooper-Young, to downtown, to school, to work, and out to my dentist in Germantown. I ride everywhere. I love the ride. I love to ride. There is nothing more humbling to me than being out in the fresh air, taking in the beauty of this place I have learned to call home. What saddens me is when almost everyday someone is driving dangerously close to me. (In case anyone was wondering, I have every right to ride on the road. Hints the term, "roadbike." In fact, it is illegal to ride on the sidewalks.) Most of the streets in this city of ours have two lanes. Since I have the right to ride in the street, I ride directly in the middle of my lane. I ride at a respectable average of 23 miles per hour, which means that I am not just taking my time coasting down the street. I don't understand why some people have the nerve to pass so close to me, or even get right up on me and start honking their horn or yelling. It is uncalled for. It is so easy to just go around, and then after passing me, get back into the lane. There are many bikers who ride as their transportation, and not just for leisure or exercise. People need to learn the laws and accept the fact that my bike is my ride, and these streets are mine too. Do me a favor and welcome bikers to the streets, keep an eye out for us, and please drive safely. Oh yeah, did I mention that this bike path is extremely long overdue?

Oh No...Not again

I can remember being a student a Shannon Elementary here in Memphis and having a National Honor Society induction ceremony of which I was beaming to be an inductee. We had a very special guest speaker that day who our teachers tried to convey to us his importance and how glad we should be to have him attend our program. I had no idea who this man was. All I knew was that he was the Memphis City School's superintendant, Dr. W.W. Herenton. I can't say that I remember anything he said that day. All I do recall is his presence. He was tall and statuesque and he seemed just as proud to be speaking in front of a crowd of adoring fans as they were to have him there. Then jump to my sophmore year of high school, when I guess I was just an uninvolved, could-care-less type of youngster who began to hear rumblings of that name again. A black man just might be mayor. The Blacks in this city could definitely relate to the plight and struggle he constantly reminded them of. This did it. Willie Herenton defeated Mayor Hackett! People all over the city were shocked. The black population had gotten out to cast their ballots and Herenton won by a mere 146 votes! Blacks, for the most part were in sheer bliss and stormed the streets and their workplaces with catchy phrases like, "We can't Hackett, no mo!" There was such hope for the city, such hope for Blacks in Memphis. After eight years in office, the pride we had once felt just to be in his presence was fading for some of us in the community. I can recollect grumblings of "nothing has really changed all that much" from some, while others tried to smooth things over by saying, "it takes time to change all the stuff that has been going on in this city for years." That seemed to quiet the masses for a while, but after another four year term, many were starting up again with prior sentiments of disapproval. But was it too late? Had we created this character known as Willie Herenton and were now turning against him unfairly? The fact of the matter was that we were growing tired of the antics and showiness that for so long had masked the fact that real and lasting change had not and would not be taking place under his leadership. But who could run for Mayor and beat the incumbent? No one could. Herenton even won a fourth consecutive term. I had to ask myself if we were getting more sophistocated as a race. Could we vote on the issues and not on color alone? Could we not see through the meaningless jargon of "shake the haters off" and "don't bring me no stuff, won't be no stuff" that he was spewing in order to somehow relate to the younger, black voter? Was anybody else embarrassed and frustrated? The adoration Blacks had a few short years earlier had turned sour. It was as if Herenton was a magician, distracting us with a fancy wave of one hand while we had no idea how he was actually doing the trick of getting elected again and again with the other hand. Let's face the facts, this city had money problems, rising property taxes, one of the highest crime rates in the nation and a mayor who seemed to be employing his own version of the "good-ole boy" system by assigning his unqualified friends to many of the city's top jobs. Despite an FBI investigation, an illegitimate child scandal and no reasonable explanation for the state of our city, Herenton cannot be dissuaded from seeking public office repeatedly. He's up to it again, this time not for the Mayor's seat, but for congress. Herenton officially declared yesterday that he intends to run for the 9th District seat against Steve Cohen. His declaration proved my point all too clearly. Nothing about his arrogance has changed over the last sixteen years. He stands just as proud to be speaking in front of a crowd as he did when I was a child. His only platform is that he is black and the incumbent is white. There is no substance to speak of and he seems to fully believe that just because the 9th District is mostly Black that he is going to automatically be the victor in this fight. But this time his fan base is few and we are not as impressed by his mere presence alone as we once were. Wake up! This community wants results, not just expressive slang and empty banter. And I fear that that is exactly what we will get if we fall for the "slide of hand" yet again.

Bank Bailouts

Saturday, January 30, 2010 So much has been going on throughout this last decade and even the decade before. Many executives running these major financial institutions are just downright unscrupulous. The days of the neighborhood banks where you could walk in and everyone knew your name, such as The Bailey's Building & Loan in "It's a Wonderful Life," are gone. I think we are living in "Pottersville" now. The people that run the banks don't care about you as a person. All they care about is making money off of you. Financial institutions are charging astronomical percentage rates on credit cards to keep people in debt. They extend more credit to lower income families, knowing that they will not be able to pay that debt which in turn causes more foreclosures -- just like Mr. Potter did in the movie. Then, what happens to the banks when they have all of these foreclosures? They go to the government to ask for a bailout. The way our government was originally set up, if a company could not pay their bills, they went out of business -- simple as that. Do you think if I had a business and I couldn't pay my bills anyone would care? No. If Mr. Ford was not able to sell his Model T's in the early 1900's then he would have gone out of business. But instead, these banks go and ask for help and the government gives it to them. Not long after they were bailed out, we heard many stories where top executives were taking extravagant corporate retreats or "needed" to have their offices remodeled to the tune of millions of dollars. I'm sure that office was in a total state of disrepair and really needed millions of dollars of remodeling -- don't you? There was even talk about many of the executives getting raises in order to keep them there. I really don't think raises are necessary to keep them there -- they should have just been happy to have a job. I mean, seriously, just a few months before they were in "bailout" mode and were at risk of having NO job at all. It makes me sad to see how twisted everything has become. Why can't life be simple again as in bygone days? I'd like to go into a bank that was run by the type of people that "George Bailey" hired. Wouldn't it be nice to go "where everybody knows your name?"

The Homo-Acceptance Movement?

You could almost hear the tear down the seams of America during the State of the Union -- one on side, there was thunderous applause as President Obama announced, once again, his intention to see "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) repealed from federal law. On the other side, tumultuous outrage and incredulity and the mere mention of the concept. Over the past years, the debate over homosexuality in America has become an increasingly visible (and controversial) one. While the issue has almost always existed in one form or another, in our society never has it been as vivid and front-stage as it is now. The Supreme Court has accepted a challenge to the Proposition 8 law passed in 2008 banning gay marriage. Numerous states are passing laws to allow it, while many others side with California. And now, the Commander-in-Chief has declared in what is considered to be his most important speech of the year that he will relentlessly persue the abolishment of DADT.

So the lines are being drawn for what is quickly becoming one of the most expensive political wars in recent history. The "anti-gay" team wages battle with edicts describing the endangerment of family, morals, free speech, and children in allowing homosexuals the rights to same-sex marriage, the right to serve openly in the military, and the protection from discrimination and hate crimes. The "pro-gay" team demands the freedoms of this country extend to all, including minority groups such as them, and that they have the same rights as any other groups or individuals in the United States.

Is the message really that free expression is allowed, so long as it is within a certain, strict set of parameters? Is the right to serve (and possibly die) for your country one that is reserved only for a few in a time when we need all of the talented individuals we can get to help us? Is the capability to raise a child really only for a man and a woman, either together or separate? In the name of family, morals, and the American way, the movement was led to push down a culture group that was different than the majority. Millions upon millions were spent to legally define what love was, and what it couldn't possibly be. One man, one woman -- that is what made a child, that is what made a family. That is what made an American soldier. That is what could be legally protected by the law.

Of course, one argument for things such as DADT is for the protection of the gays who currently serve in the military -- if they were discovered, then there might be a greater risk for harm from others in the unit who might not look favorably on such an orientation. And I will admit, to a degree this is a valid point. A friend of mine in the Navy described a situation on one submarine where a sailor was tortured to death by his shipmates because they discovered his secret. But instead of fighting this mindset, instead of discouraging such acts and hatred, the mantra has become "shut up or go home." The willingness to put oneself on the line for country and comrades simply wasn't good enough. Being one of the best soldiers in the military wasn't good enough.

Part of this comes from two dangerous perceptions in society -- first, is the religious perception that all homosexuality is an abomination, unnatural, and evil. While I am not intending to challenge any religious views in this particular post, I do simply point out how out of an entire laundry list of other items in the same chapters of religious texts of what is evil, this has been singled out and magnified in proportion. The second dangerous perception is that homosexuality is based completley upon lust and physical action. The assumption is automatically one of "oh, you're a gay guy, so you want to sleep with every man you see." Such a perception is (generally) not taken with most of the heterosexual community. A woman certainly does not want to sleep with every male she sees, works with, is friends with, etc. The challenge is then brought up of "Oh, but military personnel are put into a close situation to where a gay man might be tempted, would see fellow personnel in exposed circumstances, etc." and to that, the counter question is --Why is a gay man less capable of being a professional than any other person? In today's military, the above mentioned situation is one that occurs across the gender barriers, so why is it a homosexual is any less professional than a heterosexual?

In terms of the idea of gay marriage, and how the arguement stands that only love can create and raise a child, and love can only exist between a male and a female because of "compatible parts", I offer this challenge -- sex makes a child. This happens sometimes (unfortunately) with the absence of love or relationship. Sex makes the child. Love makes a family. If two individuals are capable of love, true honest-to-goodness love, why does it matter if they happen to be of the same gender? A family is about the love, the dedication, the commitment, the responsible decisions. It’s about the community. It transcends the restrictions of simple blood relations. But according to these groups, all a family consists of is a man and a woman, they are the only one capable of providing what is necessary for a family.

Does anyone else see the irony of this? In the 1500s and 1600s, this land was settled by people who sought to escape the oppression of an unyielding, unforgiving religious dominance, simply because they dared to believe that what might be the Truth was different than what a few men in power said it was. They wanted to escape that tyrannical dictatorship and oppression in the name of “Faith,” and here we are 500 years later doing the exact same thing to ourselves. We have become the very thing our ancestors struggled to avoid.

And it’s taking its toll on the homosexual community. More and more, cases such as the one of Mathew Sheppard are appearing across the country, when innocent gays are being beaten and killed. They are being denied the right to information and visitation of partners at hospitals. They are being denied benefits on insurance, joint accounts, adoption, marriages. Protection from discrimination, hate crimes. Who is the real victim here? It's family and moral values, but not because of homosexuality. It's because of the bigotry opposing it.

These are issues and arguments that are now coming to national, front-and-center attention as the question of "homo-acceptance" is now in all three branches of the Federal Government for consideration. The stakes are high for both sides, and the repercussions of any outcomes will certain affect society in big ways.

So as a society, we are at a point where we must stop trying to find a group of people to hate, to treat unjustly. Especially in this country, where freedom is so proudly and easily talked about. Because right now, it seems that everyone is for freedom, unless it means freedom for someone who’s different than they are. The only question, what will the ultimate answer be -- to do what is "comfortable" for many, or what is truly right for all?

Obama's Healthcare Reform - Yes or No?

The debate over the proposed healthcare reform has been all the buzz for the news media recently and I found myself very unclear of the facts and figures. So, I set out on a mission to try to enlighten myself a bit on the President's proposals. I suppose I was in search of a clear cut plan of action. However, what I found proved to hold true to the nature of legislation - very general and lacking in detail. My primary interest was in the points that will effect me. I fall into the category of those who have health insurance as my husband and I are both employed by our county's local government. One of the points in the President's proposal for those who are insured is to limit the amount of out of pocket expense when the insured becomes ill. The insurance program our employer provides is excellent for the big-ticket medical conditions like major surgery. However, the policy carries a $1500 deductible and a $2000 out of pocket maximum. Because my husband and I both have the same employer, we each have individual coverage so that each of us have to meet these limits. We don't qualify for the maximum family expenditures. We each made a visit to the emergency room last year and incurred an out of pocket expense of more than $1000 each. Therefore, I do find this point of the proposal attractive. The second item of interest, which I found in his plan, was in cutting out extra charges for preventive care screenings and exams such as mammograms, diabetes tests and colon cancer screenings. My physician has recommended such for the past two years, however, the one exam will assess me with a charge of $1500. So I have elected not to pursue those services. Thus, a second point of the proposal I find attractive. The president makes it clear that anyone who has health inurance with which they are pleased may keep it. So, how do I know if what he offers will actually be more beneficial than my present coverage? As a provision for those who are uninsured, the proposed plan will provide a means for them to be able to afford health care choices. The increase in the number of Americans seeking health care will also increase the need for healthcare providers. In the July/August 2009 Health Affairs publication, authorities predict a shortage of registerd nurses in the US to rise to 260,000 by 2025. As reported by http://www.reuters.com President Obama expressed alarm over the idea that the US may need to import trained foreign nurses because so many US nursing jobs are vacant. So is the solution to outsource our healthcare providers?? I am very sceptical of Mr. Obama's claim that his proposal will not add to the deficit and will be paid for up front. He claims the plan will be paid for by health system savings and revenue generated by imposing fees on insurance companies for selling expensive plans. I question how many of the current insurance agencies will be able to survive under his proposed plans. Will this not add to the number of companies already going down in this bad economy?? I find my quest for answers in regards to the healthcare reform proposal only left me with more questions!!

Reforming School System?

In reading about the new educational reform for public schools, I am deeply concerned for our children. I believe the federal government gives the reform requirements a new name, but the same problems exist. You can call it “No Child Left Behind”, “American Recovery and Reinvestment”, or “Race to the Top”, but you haven’t really changed the system or the method in which we teach our children that would be a positive impact on them and the teacher at the same time. The government keeps changing the name of their requirements and solutions to our children’s lack of an education that is competitive with other countries in math, science, history, and reading with comprehension, at the same time they haven’t acknowledged the true problem and a method that would solve it in a positive way.

The problem is first they must understand what “learning” means. Learning is gaining knowledge and understanding of something. If you don’t retain something for future use then you haven’t really learned it. It was only memorized. So the beginning problem is we need teachers who can guide and encourage a student to learn (gain knowledge and understanding while retaining it for future use, hopefully for a lifetime).

The real problem is they haven’t figured out the right solution. The government (federal, state, or local) is too concerned with numbers and statistics instead of a child’s long term achievements. In turn they are placing undue stress on teachers. Stress only makes teachers make more mistakes and be less productive. However, there is a real and positive solution but it doesn’t appear that the public administration within the government or Department of Education at any level has discovered it.

Public Administration at all levels wants to blame it on the teachers, but it is not them, it is the system. Who created such a system? Why doesn’t the administration see that it is how the children and teachers are divided and placed together in a class room is the problem?

The real solution that would solve the biggest majority of the teaching problems would also eliminate low teacher statistics is to first divide the childrens ability to learn in three divisions. Placing a child in a classroom with either all fast learners, all average learners and then all slow learners would allow each class room higher productivity and accomplishment as a whole because the children would all be on the same level (speed) of learning.

Today and for many decades, children have been placed in a class room thru drawings, lotteries, or some other method but none of these methods takes inconsideration the speed at which a child learns. Most teachers teach at a speed of the fastest learners in the class, thereby leaving the average and slow learners behind. This is very frustrating to a child and can cause several/ many problems to the child and teacher. Some teachers cannot and do not have the tolerance nor patience with slower learning students. They don’t have the extra skills it takes for the slower learner. This doesn’t mean the teacher isn’t as good as the next one it just means their method of teaching is not as clear to a slower learner. Most slow learning students have a learning disability of some kind. All teachers have their own techniques, some are better for each group of learners than others. A teacher’s personality can also be a clue as to the group of children he or she can teach. Some teachers can teach all three groups while others cannot. Children learn with different types of techniques just as teachers have their own individual methods of teaching.

The Board of Education, and Principals should have enough knowledge, skill, and fore sight to know where and how to match the children with the teacher. Parents too have a great responsibility to the child and the school; all must cooperate and work together for the good of teacher and student

Let’s look at a couple of true life examples: Example 1: There were two sisters, we will call them Sally and Hope. Hope was the oldest but because of her learning disability she had difficulty keeping up with the faster and average student. The school system however put such pressure on the teachers that Hope was passed on to the next grade each year. The parents took the initiative to talk to the principal and have Hope placed back a grade after her fourth grade seem to be such a failure according to their understanding. So Hope and Sally were placed in the same grade and with the same fourth grade teacher. The principal discovered that the two girls were in the same classroom, which was not against policy, however, the principal knew that there was a teacher in the school who could teach Hope with a technique that would encourage and help her gain her own self esteem and now feel humiliated from her sister nor her other peers. Teacher A is a very good teacher but Teacher B had a better technique and personality that Hope would relate and learn. If Hope had stayed in Teacher A’s class room she would have fallen back even more, to have new frustrations and humiliations from her peers. However, because of the Principal’s insight Hope went on to learn everything required of a fourth grades and passed just as Sally did. She also learned some tools for her own use from Teacher B that help her excel in later years of school. By the time she reached junior and high school she was in the top 5% of her class and graduated as a member of the Honor Society.

If the parents and principal had not worked together, Hope would have probably failed once again and been a statistic of failure to the Teacher A, the school system and most importantly to herself.

Example 2: There was a teacher and a little boy who for no known reason did not like each other and therefore much friction was in the classroom. The teacher wanted to classify the boy as a problem child and call him a trouble maker. The problem was personality. The principal knew that the boy had never been a problem before so he set up a conference with the parents, teacher, and student, though their cooperation and working together the problem was solved. If all three adults had not had the common sense and foresight to work together this too would have been another statistic of failure for a teacher.

Example 3: When students hear “gossip” about a teacher and decide they don’t like the teacher, that also presents behavior problems; but at the same time when teachers judge a student solely by another teacher’s opinion it also causes problems in the class room and between the teacher and students: There was an 8^th grade girl who had heard nothing but bad things about a teacher. The student was fearful of getting that particular teacher for which she did. She was afraid of the teacher and afraid she was going to grade unfairly. But both of the parents and principal told the girl to give the teacher a chance and judge the teacher on how she was treated in the class room and on homework by the teacher. She was told to be fair and give the teacher the benefit of the doubt. She did. She ended up liking the teacher and learned much from her. In the same fairness, teachers should give students fairness by not prejudging them and give them the benefit of the doubt.

Yes, I agree that there are children with behavior problems, but if there are no teachers in the regular class rooms to handle this problem and the parents are not going to take their responsibility then the school system, (Board of Education, and the principal) should see that the child is sent to a special school for such children, some public school systems have these types of schools, while others don’t; but there are non-profit organizations that help children with these problems so if you look far enough and your real goal is to have each child reach his/her potential then you will find the help through special schools, tutors, or special counseling. There is always hope for every child.

Memphis Politics

When I read the news about Memphis and its politics it becomes quite clear to me all is not well in Memphis TN. Not being a native of Memphis make the politics of this city very difficult for me to understand. The city has the appearance of wanting to grow and prosper yet it is politically delayed. There is a serious impediment in the politics of the City of Memphis. The many excuses as to why the city is not politically astute range from “haters” to “racists” to “he used to be the best…” My question to Memphians is what will it take to have a campaign that is not focused entirely on color, but what is best for the people? Why is one district better off being represented by someone who is about themselves and their well-being and not the people? Why is it acceptable to run a campaign on a negative agenda such as “race” and nothing else? What makes it ok for a leader to have embarrassing temper tantrums week after week and then be rewarded for the behavior? What has to happen in Memphis for the people to say enough of the nonsense, let’s move on – and then – move on? Let's be real, every person of color is not the answer and every person of non-color is not the enemy. I have lived in Memphis more than 14 years and have followed Memphis politics. Why does Memphis have a mayor and cabinet and then duplicate it in Shelby County? Most cities will have a local mayor and a County of Board of Supervisors that is responsible for the cities they encompass. I’ve never understood the thinking behind this concept. Would it not be more economically feasible to have a County Board of Supervisors and then various city mayors’? This would save the county and the cities money in the long run. The lines of responsibility would be clear and the infighting would cease because the people would know who is in charge of the various departments. It would be detrimental to the 9th District and the city as a whole to make a change in this upcoming election. There are times we must look beyond color and beyond what someone “used to do.” It is time the residents of this city come together and look to the future, not behind. You can not go forward looking behind you, it is impossible. Taking a chance on someone who changes as the seasons, (who can’t make up his mind from day to day and then blame others as “haters” when he is quoted), is dangerous. Memphis must become politically astute and do her homework to ensure the vote is about the issues, not about a particular name or color. It will take all of us to get this city to the point of greatness, not just in Tennessee but in the nation. Being outstanding on the national scheme of things will not happen if the ego of the politicians is greater than the needs of the people they represent. Please do not misunderstand, it is commendable to honor those who have opened doors and have championed the causes of many. However, there are times leaders lose sight of the original vision and can no longer lead in excellence. What is more honorable a ship that moves steady with a purpose towards the safety of the shore or a ship that keeps changing course with no motive other than to be seen? http://www.wreg.com/news/memphis-herenton-diversity,0,6380203.story

How Old is Too Old to Work?

How old is too old to have to work? I met Deloris On December 1st 2009. I am with a recycling company and we were the successful bid for a new scrap contract. Deloris was the head security guard, and was in charge of the front gate. She controlled the traffic in and out of this large company. My company went in and out several times with trucks and trailers during the course of the day. Deloris was a small frail lady. Her back was bent from years of sitting behind a desk. I remember her going out in the cold and the rain to check the contents of trailers leaving the facility. Being the head security guard, it was also her duty to train new persons on job duties. She also made a check of the grounds with her personal vehicle to check on the other guards at various posts. She always had a smile, and was very sharp to be 82 years old. I often wondered why she was still working. We had talked about Christmas and how she was excited about her kids coming to visit. She did not mention a husband. Deloris had also mentioned having a stint surgery. Is this why she was still working to pay for this procedure? I never asked but I felt compassion for this senior citizen who never missed a day of work. On Monday of this week, I noticed her car was not at her parking spot. Before I could get to the guard house, another lady stopped me and asked, “Did you hear about Deloris?” She was killed yesterday while making her rounds in her car. She pulled out in front of a maintenance vehicle and was hit in the passenger side door; however, the impact broke her neck. I could well imagine how this frail little lady’s neck could have snapped by such an impact. She died while performing her job. How old is too old to work? I suspect that society in general had let this 82 year old fall through the cracks. Did social security not pay enough for her to live on? Did she have medical bills she could not pay? Why did her family allow her to work? We have a growing senior citizen population who cannot live out their golden years in comfort and dignity. I don’t relish the thought of working to 82. Do you?

Why are we discussing our sexual preference at work?

Am I the only person wondering why the government is even discussing sexual preference? Most jobs you could get fired for discussing anything sexual. Why is it a big deal for soldiers to keep their sexual preferences to themselves? Lets dig deeper into what could occur if Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy is repealed. A solider that openly admits they are gay will not be discharged for one. Are we loosing some valuable people because of this, probably? However, would a fellow soldier agree with me, probably not? I spoke with a long time friend of mine who is in the National Guard he equates gayness to being weak. How would this affect the gay soldiers benefits? A gay solider is killed would their “Life Partner” receive death benefits? I guess what it boils down to is repealing “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” will pave the way for gay rights in the military policy then in civilian policy. I don’t see how the military can say its okay to be yourself, but we will not give you any benefits.

Some high-ranking politicians such as John McCain state that the policy of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell “ is not perfect but effective. What really is the policy effectively doing? There is not a question on the enlistment form for the military that ask if applicant is gay. So this policy does not screen for gays. It is more of a deterrent for gay when it comes to enlisting. Only someone hard up for the money would enlist knowing they are gay, and the cards are stack against them in the military. I guess the biggest thing that puzzles me is all the out of the closet politicians. They have never thought about making an issue about sexual preferences in the military until a black president was elected. I guess gays compare their treatment to slavery in some form or fashion but those are not the same. Wait, I guess they are kind of because bring up slavery on your job is a taboo also. There isn’t a law that says discussion of slavery will cost you your job and benefits. So is Obama really wanting to talk about sexual preferences at work or just please the few people that help put him in office that can’t help but sang its raining men while at work? That answer to that question is easy. He promise to do way with it to get votes and now it time to pay up. Every gay and lesbian politician that has a microphone in his or her face will be putting this issue on the forefront.

The phrase don’t ask don’t tell, to me implies someone will ask you if your gay or someone will tell they are gay. In either case it is a mood point because if the person is flaming gay there is no need to ask or for them to tell it. Of course you have that few like some of my coworker that act as sweet as mom’s apple pie, but are “married” to the opposite sex for decades with no kids. Professionally you would not ask your co-worker if they are gay, because you sure act like it. In most work places that would be the end of you job. The military is an employer with rules and regulations. If a soldier is engaging activities that offend the next person that are against the rules they should get court marshaled for it. What does that mean? It means that don’t ask don’t tell is not needed. If a gay soldier makes an unwanted pass at the same sex, they should get the same treatment if it was with the opposite sex. The equal punishment is not enough for gays in the military. The want the same employment benefits as common married service men and women. That will never happen even if the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy is repealed. The lawmakers will find away to level the playing field. So at the end of the day talking about your sexual preference on the job will not gain you health coverage for you “Life Partner”. It is not only inappropriate to discuss your sexual preference, but crazy to use the military as a medium to push gay rights.

By Julian Nesbit

Tennesee Dog Restrictions

Being an animal owner I am drawn to conversations dealing with people complaining about certain dog breeds that are dangerous and that should not be around children or in fact other adults. I am recently pregnant and everyone keeps telling me to get rid of my German Shepherd before I have the baby. Everyone says German Shepherds are not safe around children and are very agressive. Yet, if you met my 1yr old German Shepherd how could he be claimed as aggressive he couldnt hurt anyone. He is pretty much a big baby and when we take him out he seems to be drawn to children. He loves laying down and letting the children pet him. So how could someone tell me he is dangerous and I will be a terrible parent if I do not get rid of him? After doing some research here is the same list that always pops up for the top 5 most dangerous animals. 1. Pit Bulls 2. Rottweilers 3. German Shepherds 4. Huskies 5.Alaskan Malamutes Who gets to decide for every dog in the breed that they are dangerous? I have owned 3 out of 5 of these dogs and not one was agressive, yet apartments and some neighborhoods restrict these animals. Before my German Shepherd in my first year of college I was apartment shopping. I would say most of these apartments right away asked if I had dogs, if so what breed? They would go down the list and tell me I could not have a pit bull, german shepherd , rottweiler, or boxer in their apartments. Which I do not agree with them having breed restrictions on these dogs I do have to agree because it is their apartment. Yet, in a neighborhood where you purchase your OWN home you are told what dog you can and can not have? This seems crazy! I am not saying every dog in these breeds are nice and safe, but is that not in every breed? Are we really saying only these breeds are dangerous? Dogs are trained by their owners. Dogs turn out the way they do because of their owners. Yes, alot of pit bulls are agressive but did we ask who their previous owner's were and what lifestyle they had? No, we just assume that all pit bulls are terrible. Same with every breed that is restricted, we just assume they are bad because the news only portrays bad situations. Hearing the law that was trying to have pit bulls banned altogether was terrible. How can we just go around killing this entire breed and not think twice about it? This to me was a stupid thing to even try to pass and still in some areas they do remove pit bulls out of their owner's homes. I just do not think that these breeds should be banned right away. If you are going to live in an apartment or neighborhood that does restrict these breeds why can there not be someone who test the dog first. Meet with the pet with the owner and without and see how the dog reacts. If the dog passes why should he not be able to live there.

Gun enforcement

It was during the election of this year that I noticed that alot of people were concerned about guns. Many people thought that when President Obama got into office that he would ban guns from the United States. I saw alot of people rushing to the shops and buying every gun that they could buy. Even though it was a time of money difficulty the sales for guns went up! It was not at all hard to figure out who the people where that were against tougher enforcement of gun laws. It was crazy to think that they were fighting against tougher gun enforcement just so that they could have the right to buy an AK 47. I whole heartly believe in the second amendment. I believe in the right to bear arms. What many people failed to realize is that the restrictions would not affect the average law abiding citizen. President Obama was tough of gun laws in Illinois because of the homicide rate there. He believed that if tougher restrictions were on repeat offenders then it would stop the violence that was occuring and guess what? He was right about it. There is a need for tougher gun laws to help police put away Felons. The best thing that happen was when congress passed the Project EXILE Act, which provided $100 milion over five years that sentenced criminals who use or carry a firearm during a violent crime or serious drug trafficking offenses to at lease five years in prison without parole. Even Felons know that this is serious. Many have stayed away from fireams. The Felons that decided to pick up a weapon was sentenced to Federal time in a prison. The streets were alot safer to be around. Strict gun enforcement is nothing to fear. It will not take away from the second amendment unless you are a felon. If you are a felon then chances are that you probably don't need a gun in your possesion. The fear of strict gun laws after all is nothing to fear. The average American that is a law abiding citizen was not affected by the strict gun laws. It is a great tool for law enforcement! What many people don't understand is that when law enforcement don't have enough evidence to charge a felon with a crime that they committed then they could always charge them with being in possession of a firearm when they are close to a weapon or near a gun. After talking to the U.S District Attorney I found out that if a felon is in possession of bullets even without a gun they could still get five years prision. Posted by I. Thompson at 2:57 PM 0 comments Subscribe to: Posts (Atom) Followers if (!window.google !google.friendconnect) { document.write('' + ''); } if (!window.registeredBloggerCallbacks) { window.registeredBloggerCallbacks = true; gadgets.rpc.register('requestReload', function() { document.location.reload(); }); gadgets.rpc.register('requestSignOut', function(siteId) { google.friendconnect.container.openSocialSiteId = siteId; google.friendconnect.requestSignOut(); }); } function registerGetBlogUrls() { gadgets.rpc.register('getBlogUrls', function() { var holder = {}; holder.postFeed = "http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7058601771344471232/posts/default"; holder.commentFeed = "http://www.blogger.com/feeds/7058601771344471232/comments/default"; return holder; }); } if (!window.registeredCommonBloggerCallbacks) { window.registeredCommonBloggerCallbacks = true; gadgets.rpc.register('resize_iframe', function(height) { var el = document.getElementById(this['f']); if (el) { el.style.height = height + 'px'; } }); // We don't do anything w/ this, but don't let it bubble up and cause an // exception // TODO(henrywong): Don't just one-off this, fix at a more comprehensive // level. gadgets.rpc.register('set_pref', function() {}); gadgets.rpc.register('registerGadgetForRpcs', function(gadgetDomain, iframeName) { // TODO(sauravshah): We don't need this. Remove it from the google.Blog api }); registerGetBlogUrls(); } var skin = {}; skin['FACE_SIZE'] = '32'; skin['HEIGHT'] = "260"; skin['TITLE'] = "Followers"; skin['BORDER_COLOR'] = "transparent"; skin['ENDCAP_BG_COLOR'] = "transparent"; skin['ENDCAP_TEXT_COLOR'] = "#666666"; skin['ENDCAP_LINK_COLOR'] = "#5588aa"; skin['ALTERNATE_BG_COLOR'] = "transparent"; skin['CONTENT_BG_COLOR'] = "transparent"; skin['CONTENT_LINK_COLOR'] = "#5588aa"; skin['CONTENT_TEXT_COLOR'] = "#666666"; skin['CONTENT_SECONDARY_LINK_COLOR'] = "#5588aa"; skin['CONTENT_SECONDARY_TEXT_COLOR'] = "#999999"; skin['CONTENT_HEADLINE_COLOR'] = "#cc6600"; skin['FONT_FACE'] = "normal normal 100% Georgia, Serif"; google.friendconnect.container.setParentUrl("/"); google.friendconnect.container["renderMembersGadget"]( {id: "div-1h9a52lhsd0gn", height: 260, site: "07202430484952780057", locale: 'en' }, skin); Blog Archive ▼ 2010 (1) ▼ January (1) Gun enforcement About Me I. Thompson View my complete profile