Chicago Teacher Strike
Performance reviews and longer days, oh my! Not performance reviews and 7 or 7 1/2 hour school day, run for your lives, take to the street. Worse yet, performance reviews? We went into this job for tenure, not performance reviews, and seeing as how we are so distraught over these two things and would rather take a two week break to strike than do a job proves it is not the students who are coming first.
Teachers in Chicago happen to be up in arms over the fact that their work day is to be lengthened and they might have performance reviews which may cause job loses. Granted, being a teacher is not easy and anyone who says it is has never had to develop unit plans, teach to a test, deal with parents and students, and much more. Even so, teachers go into this profession knowing it is not easy and it takes work, compassion, and is a career that is suppose to be focused on learning and on the students. However, like all careers, it is not always what it is cracked up to be.
Teachers have to keep in mind, they are going into a thankless career at times. Parents do expect their kids to be taught everything at school, because they are to busy or in some cases lazy (it's true) to teach the kids themselves. Teachers get frustrated because learning does not stop once the child leaves the class and if communities are not supportive than students will not be committed, which creates more tension and stress for the teacher who can only do so much. However, that does not mean teacher's should give up on the students and it does not mean that Unions (who are control hounds) should encourage these strikes (mainly because if there are school closings they loose due money to give to their political parties). Also, as unfortunate as it may be for some teachers, it might better serve the community to close some schools and get rid of incompetent staff.
Unfortunately, school is more of a business than a service in many ways, and that is what Unions continuously encourage it to be. Of course, one area that is understandable in this strike is, health insurance compensation. In this economy, health insurance is crucial and that is probably one of the only areas that it is understandable to strike against.
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Governor Romney Does Not Apologize For Comments
Four months ago, Romney made a comment about the 47% who were still planning to vote for Obama. He said those 47% "were dependent on Government." Of course, the liberal media (and media in general) has jumped on this opportunity to make Romney seem like he does not care about Americans. When in all honesty, Romney wants to turn the country around to make it a place where people do not need to rely on Government funds and will be more secure in themselves.
In a way, Romney is right. There are people who will vote for Obama because they do not want to give up what they are getting, and they do not want to stop getting what is being given. On top of that, many of these people believe "spreading the wealth" will benefit them greatly, but even William Bradford wrote that this leads to greater poverty (morally and monetarily). If this group of voters vote for Romney, they know these things will end or become harder to receive. Therefore, Romney is correct in the fact that there is a group like this that will not vote for him.
On the other hand, it is probably not fair to say all 47% are dependent on Government. There is sure to be a percentage that can do well without Government help, but then again, if some of those are paying into social security or other Government programs, maybe they could be considered dependent (as many could in that case).
Overall, the media is going to continue to make this a bigger deal than it is, much like trying to make a big deal that some You Tube video starting the protests in Libya and Egypt (which is beyond ridiculous and such a load of ....). This was a golden opportunity for the Obama loving media to try to paint Romney as uncaring, when in all rights he does care and at least he is true to who he is.
Four months ago, Romney made a comment about the 47% who were still planning to vote for Obama. He said those 47% "were dependent on Government." Of course, the liberal media (and media in general) has jumped on this opportunity to make Romney seem like he does not care about Americans. When in all honesty, Romney wants to turn the country around to make it a place where people do not need to rely on Government funds and will be more secure in themselves.
In a way, Romney is right. There are people who will vote for Obama because they do not want to give up what they are getting, and they do not want to stop getting what is being given. On top of that, many of these people believe "spreading the wealth" will benefit them greatly, but even William Bradford wrote that this leads to greater poverty (morally and monetarily). If this group of voters vote for Romney, they know these things will end or become harder to receive. Therefore, Romney is correct in the fact that there is a group like this that will not vote for him.
On the other hand, it is probably not fair to say all 47% are dependent on Government. There is sure to be a percentage that can do well without Government help, but then again, if some of those are paying into social security or other Government programs, maybe they could be considered dependent (as many could in that case).
Overall, the media is going to continue to make this a bigger deal than it is, much like trying to make a big deal that some You Tube video starting the protests in Libya and Egypt (which is beyond ridiculous and such a load of ....). This was a golden opportunity for the Obama loving media to try to paint Romney as uncaring, when in all rights he does care and at least he is true to who he is.
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Attacks and Protest "Arab Spring" In Libya and Egypt
While Americans remembered the fallen and those who survived the September 11, 2001 attacks, Islamic radicals in the Middle East were preparing an attack against the west on home soil. An American Ambassador and three other Americans were brutally killed by the so called peaceful Muslim Brotherhood in Libya. Meanwhile, attacks on the embassy in Egypt were rapid and the American flag was torn down, and put one up that read, "No God but God and his prophet Mohammad," and spray painted "U.S. of Muslim." As the attacks occurred and heightened, people in the street were chanting, "I am a terrorist."
While all this occurred and surfaced, the media responded by saying it was over a YouTube video poking fun at Muslims. Did it ever occur to them that it may be more that? Did the media think the fact that it was 9/11 had anything to do with it? To top it all, the response from the White House was about as shallow as could be when it came to what happened, and said the Embassy did not condone what happened "to hurt the religious freedoms of Muslims." First off, nothing about this attack was about hurting a Muslims religious freedom, and the glorification of the Islam YouTube video by the media, that no one really knew of to start with until this happened, along with the fact that these countries have not moved into the 21st century gracefully and have a vast amount of people that are illiterate and hold to tradition rather than fact, have been ignored along with may other facts) in an attempt by the media to promote the thought that some stupid video caused this.
While talking about stupid video's, I just want to mention how these radical Islamists almost seem to get a slap on the hand by our administration for what they have done. Meanwhile, there is another video out there of an American hostage who has been ignored by the administration and nothing has been mentioned about his religious or citizen rights. Yet, the administration's comment on the the attacks were swift and apologetic to Islam ad really did nothing to condemn what happened. In fact, one of the best statements was actually given by the Conservative Islamists who did condemn the attacks, asks for the U.S. Government to stop being so apologetic, and is asking for Muslims in the Middle East to be more educated on America and their own freedoms.
To say this attack was solely based on a YouTube video is wrong. Any American with a brain can connect the dots and realize it was not coincident that this happened on 9/11. Just to note, Obama and the Administration were warned of a possible attack but Obama was too busy to deal with public affairs and decided to keep his appointments with the media, but not make time for things that really matter.
Sometimes I think every American wonders when the next attack on American soil will be, and many wonder if it will happen on 9/11. This attack was not on home soil, but it did take place on American citizens for no other reason than the fact they were Americans, and to get the Muslim populatin to join forces against the West. While America's Government tries to make these people seem "peaceful," citizens need to realize they are anything but and that they are religious radicals who want anyone to die that does not agree with them. There hearts are hard and due to lack of wanting to understand other religious or even being taught other ways of thinking, they choose to kill or destroy what they do not understand or want to hear.
While Americans remembered the fallen and those who survived the September 11, 2001 attacks, Islamic radicals in the Middle East were preparing an attack against the west on home soil. An American Ambassador and three other Americans were brutally killed by the so called peaceful Muslim Brotherhood in Libya. Meanwhile, attacks on the embassy in Egypt were rapid and the American flag was torn down, and put one up that read, "No God but God and his prophet Mohammad," and spray painted "U.S. of Muslim." As the attacks occurred and heightened, people in the street were chanting, "I am a terrorist."
While all this occurred and surfaced, the media responded by saying it was over a YouTube video poking fun at Muslims. Did it ever occur to them that it may be more that? Did the media think the fact that it was 9/11 had anything to do with it? To top it all, the response from the White House was about as shallow as could be when it came to what happened, and said the Embassy did not condone what happened "to hurt the religious freedoms of Muslims." First off, nothing about this attack was about hurting a Muslims religious freedom, and the glorification of the Islam YouTube video by the media, that no one really knew of to start with until this happened, along with the fact that these countries have not moved into the 21st century gracefully and have a vast amount of people that are illiterate and hold to tradition rather than fact, have been ignored along with may other facts) in an attempt by the media to promote the thought that some stupid video caused this.
While talking about stupid video's, I just want to mention how these radical Islamists almost seem to get a slap on the hand by our administration for what they have done. Meanwhile, there is another video out there of an American hostage who has been ignored by the administration and nothing has been mentioned about his religious or citizen rights. Yet, the administration's comment on the the attacks were swift and apologetic to Islam ad really did nothing to condemn what happened. In fact, one of the best statements was actually given by the Conservative Islamists who did condemn the attacks, asks for the U.S. Government to stop being so apologetic, and is asking for Muslims in the Middle East to be more educated on America and their own freedoms.
To say this attack was solely based on a YouTube video is wrong. Any American with a brain can connect the dots and realize it was not coincident that this happened on 9/11. Just to note, Obama and the Administration were warned of a possible attack but Obama was too busy to deal with public affairs and decided to keep his appointments with the media, but not make time for things that really matter.
Sometimes I think every American wonders when the next attack on American soil will be, and many wonder if it will happen on 9/11. This attack was not on home soil, but it did take place on American citizens for no other reason than the fact they were Americans, and to get the Muslim populatin to join forces against the West. While America's Government tries to make these people seem "peaceful," citizens need to realize they are anything but and that they are religious radicals who want anyone to die that does not agree with them. There hearts are hard and due to lack of wanting to understand other religious or even being taught other ways of thinking, they choose to kill or destroy what they do not understand or want to hear.
Friday, September 7, 2012
Democratic National Convention: "God and Values"
Was anyone else confused with the fact that the Democrats had to vote God and Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel back in to their platform? First of all, who votes God in or out of something? Second of all, I thought it is just a fact that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel? Of course, that wasn't the weirdest thing about the convention. One of the strangest things was how the party tried to emphasis values, American values.
Out of no where, after speeches promoting abortions, the Democrats started ranting about "God and Country," and how their faith has kept them going. When did this happen? Where did all this God talk come from for the Democrats? Perhaps they realized they might actually need God's help?
Even so, the party does have values, just not the conservative American values they tried to play out at the convention. They claim to be, the "party of inclusion," and one that wants to coexist with everyone, but when the truth comes out (such as on the Jon Stewart show), it is obvious there is still a divide as to who is welcome in the party and who is not and what kind of values they really have.
It was just strange to see that a party is so nuts and desperate, that they tried to make it seem like they have Godly values. After all the abortion speeches by the celebrities, makes since.
Was anyone else confused with the fact that the Democrats had to vote God and Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel back in to their platform? First of all, who votes God in or out of something? Second of all, I thought it is just a fact that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel? Of course, that wasn't the weirdest thing about the convention. One of the strangest things was how the party tried to emphasis values, American values.
Out of no where, after speeches promoting abortions, the Democrats started ranting about "God and Country," and how their faith has kept them going. When did this happen? Where did all this God talk come from for the Democrats? Perhaps they realized they might actually need God's help?
Even so, the party does have values, just not the conservative American values they tried to play out at the convention. They claim to be, the "party of inclusion," and one that wants to coexist with everyone, but when the truth comes out (such as on the Jon Stewart show), it is obvious there is still a divide as to who is welcome in the party and who is not and what kind of values they really have.
It was just strange to see that a party is so nuts and desperate, that they tried to make it seem like they have Godly values. After all the abortion speeches by the celebrities, makes since.
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Atheist Billboards Attack GOP Faith
Atheist Billboards have been placed around Charlotte in time for the Democratic National Convention. The billboards are being used to criticize and mock the Christian faith, as well as encourage people not to vote for Mitt Romney, who is a Mormon. The boards are extremely critical of God, with sentences such as, "Sadistic God, Useless Savior," and "Baptizes Dead People." If this isn't a flat out public attack on Jesus and the God of the Bible and hateful speech towards Christians and one's belief, then what is?
Instead of keeping the convention about politics, it has now become a fight against religion and personal conviction. This billbard is really meant to criticize Mormons, but it has been funded and put up by groups who obviously want to abolish all religion and believes, except their own (and yes, atheism can be considered a type of religion, even by an atheists definition of religion, althouh they would argue different). What's more telling of how driven the city of Charlotte is to allow such critic on a candidates personal beliefs is, the atheist group tried to put these up in Tampa for the RNC but was denied.
Of course, anyone who does know Christ will understand, this is not an all out attack on the "nonexistance of God, but on religion."At no point do these billboards say there is no God, they just say that the God of Mormonism is "an alien" and a few other things. So, they are not denying God's existence but showing, as they usually do, that they just want to get rid of specific religions and promote their own.
Atheist Billboards have been placed around Charlotte in time for the Democratic National Convention. The billboards are being used to criticize and mock the Christian faith, as well as encourage people not to vote for Mitt Romney, who is a Mormon. The boards are extremely critical of God, with sentences such as, "Sadistic God, Useless Savior," and "Baptizes Dead People." If this isn't a flat out public attack on Jesus and the God of the Bible and hateful speech towards Christians and one's belief, then what is?
Instead of keeping the convention about politics, it has now become a fight against religion and personal conviction. This billbard is really meant to criticize Mormons, but it has been funded and put up by groups who obviously want to abolish all religion and believes, except their own (and yes, atheism can be considered a type of religion, even by an atheists definition of religion, althouh they would argue different). What's more telling of how driven the city of Charlotte is to allow such critic on a candidates personal beliefs is, the atheist group tried to put these up in Tampa for the RNC but was denied.
Of course, anyone who does know Christ will understand, this is not an all out attack on the "nonexistance of God, but on religion."At no point do these billboards say there is no God, they just say that the God of Mormonism is "an alien" and a few other things. So, they are not denying God's existence but showing, as they usually do, that they just want to get rid of specific religions and promote their own.
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
The "Dream University"
There is a new University that may be affordable, and offers students a chance to get a college education. Students could take online courses for as low as $2400 for up to 18 courses online! This is all happening at UCLA, and it is only for those that qualify under the "Dream Act" leaving those that do not truly dreaming.
Apparently, California is up to punishing those who are in the state's legally, by offering an opportunity to those who are illegal ($65 per credit hour, which would be awesome) while charging over $6000 for these online courses for Americans and legal immigrants. It is almost as if being legal in this country is some sort of crime and that those of us who are legal should feel bad, as we dish out over $9000 (now, probably $10,000), work to no end to get a degree, and hope that their is a job in the degree field once graduated just to pay off the ridiculous loans. However, on the plus side, there are grants and scholarships to those who qualify and those things are definitely something to be taken advantage of in this age of rising college tuition and lost opportunities for those who cannot afford it.
It could be said that situations such as this continue to drive a wedge between legals and illegals in America. Legal citizens feel like their being taken advantage of while they play by the college rules, while some illegals feel like their receiving a service that is beneficial to them (because it is) because it gives them a chance to further their hopes to achieve the American Dream. Even so, remember, there are many illegal immigrants who come into the country and follow the rules and there may be some who feel like this is another spot on how Americans view illegal immigrants. However, it's hard to get wholly upset at them, when it is schools and government that are giving them this opportunity.
In the long run, citizens should be more upset at the fact that the government continues to allow this, and most understand why politicians allow it. People also get upset because the citizens are the ones paying the extra expense, and how can one blame somebody for taking advantage of this program to get ahead? If it's offered at a much lower cost, why would one not take advantage of it if it is considered okay by a University?
Overall, it's just another thing to make citizens feel like they are unappreciated and matter less. It is also unfair to those who have become legal residents, but then again, when has any government or school really been into fairness? It sounds good when spoken, but the truth is, nothing is truly fair.
There is a new University that may be affordable, and offers students a chance to get a college education. Students could take online courses for as low as $2400 for up to 18 courses online! This is all happening at UCLA, and it is only for those that qualify under the "Dream Act" leaving those that do not truly dreaming.
Apparently, California is up to punishing those who are in the state's legally, by offering an opportunity to those who are illegal ($65 per credit hour, which would be awesome) while charging over $6000 for these online courses for Americans and legal immigrants. It is almost as if being legal in this country is some sort of crime and that those of us who are legal should feel bad, as we dish out over $9000 (now, probably $10,000), work to no end to get a degree, and hope that their is a job in the degree field once graduated just to pay off the ridiculous loans. However, on the plus side, there are grants and scholarships to those who qualify and those things are definitely something to be taken advantage of in this age of rising college tuition and lost opportunities for those who cannot afford it.
It could be said that situations such as this continue to drive a wedge between legals and illegals in America. Legal citizens feel like their being taken advantage of while they play by the college rules, while some illegals feel like their receiving a service that is beneficial to them (because it is) because it gives them a chance to further their hopes to achieve the American Dream. Even so, remember, there are many illegal immigrants who come into the country and follow the rules and there may be some who feel like this is another spot on how Americans view illegal immigrants. However, it's hard to get wholly upset at them, when it is schools and government that are giving them this opportunity.
In the long run, citizens should be more upset at the fact that the government continues to allow this, and most understand why politicians allow it. People also get upset because the citizens are the ones paying the extra expense, and how can one blame somebody for taking advantage of this program to get ahead? If it's offered at a much lower cost, why would one not take advantage of it if it is considered okay by a University?
Overall, it's just another thing to make citizens feel like they are unappreciated and matter less. It is also unfair to those who have become legal residents, but then again, when has any government or school really been into fairness? It sounds good when spoken, but the truth is, nothing is truly fair.
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Fashion: Michelle's $6800 Top Gets Cheers, Ann Romneys $990 Top Gets Jeers
The liberal media was basically drooling on themselves when describing how wonderful Mrs. Obama looked in her $6800 jacket. They said she out shined the queen and Kate Middleton, and that her "toned arms" looked fabulous as always. The praise was never ending, and neither was the hypocrisy.
In May, the liberal media willing to condemn Ann Romney for her $990 blouse. The media just couldn't help but point out how out of touch the Romney's were, so much so that she could afford a $990 blouse to wear on National television. However, how can the media describe the Obama's as being in touch with the American people? After all, they spend money (or someones money) on lavish vacations for themselves and their children, have $40,000 a plate fundraisers, buy ridiculously expensive clothes that makes one wonder how they can even afford, and much more.
Of course, one also wonders how much some of the liberal media pays for their clothes and could ask why it's okay for them to shop at stores like Neiman Marcus (where a plain white shirt can run over $100, easily) and other fashion retailers and figures, and yet, target a specific group to criticize if they do the same thing. It's all hypocrisy.
The liberal media was basically drooling on themselves when describing how wonderful Mrs. Obama looked in her $6800 jacket. They said she out shined the queen and Kate Middleton, and that her "toned arms" looked fabulous as always. The praise was never ending, and neither was the hypocrisy.
In May, the liberal media willing to condemn Ann Romney for her $990 blouse. The media just couldn't help but point out how out of touch the Romney's were, so much so that she could afford a $990 blouse to wear on National television. However, how can the media describe the Obama's as being in touch with the American people? After all, they spend money (or someones money) on lavish vacations for themselves and their children, have $40,000 a plate fundraisers, buy ridiculously expensive clothes that makes one wonder how they can even afford, and much more.
Of course, one also wonders how much some of the liberal media pays for their clothes and could ask why it's okay for them to shop at stores like Neiman Marcus (where a plain white shirt can run over $100, easily) and other fashion retailers and figures, and yet, target a specific group to criticize if they do the same thing. It's all hypocrisy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)