High school kids

[Timebuilder]

Obviously their sense of morality and ethics are completely f'd up. Trying to paint this as a political failing is not going to work.

I have only this to say: your entire post is based on what is very likely a false pretense, to wit: that this community was in any way conservative.

Affluent? Probably. Trendy? No doubt. A typical suburban area where there is a soccer mom behind the wheel of the average mini van? I'll stipulate all of these appraisals. None of these things mean that this was a conservative community. In fact, if I were to guess about the political leanings that lead to an attitude of permissiveness and "gender equality", I think you'd find far more deomcrats than republicans, which in year 2003 terms means more liberals than conservatives. Since these political ideas are representative of social beliefs, then this is indeed a "political failing".

I find it interesting that ever since schools were forced to equally fund girls' (they are not women if they are under 18) sports, girls athletics and the girls that participate in them are becoming more like boys and less like ladies. This was a big piece of the liberal agenda. These girls who have never learned to be ladies will be the next generation of women to attack coaches on the sidelines and commit murder to get their daughter on a team, as was the case with the cheerlearder murdering mom.

"Mom, if abortion is okay, then why was it so bad to dump smelly stuff on the new girls?"

 

[njcapt]

njcapt,
A very intelligent and well put together post...
I think I need to reemphasize something which I wrote though. I was in no way blaming the demise of the moral and ethical foundation this country was founded upon on liberal doctrine. He!!, I'm NOT a Republican (or a Democrat for that matter). I'm merely laying some blame on the Ultra-liberal, crazy-a$$, political correct police out there who have stripped many of the discipline based activities from our school systems. I agree with you completely as far as your argument is concerned...but I feel that we're compairing apples and oranges. Bad parenting knows no socio-economic boundries. But children spend more time in school than they do with their parents and this is, unfortunately, where many of the kids' values are established. The breakdown is a result of taking discipline out of schools...and this I blame the Ultra-liberal, political correct-nazis for...again, just my $.02.

Cheers

Thanks. I think we might be singing from the same sheet of music, but I get so used to polarized politicos fanatically advancing their own lockstep version of the party line that I start to assume that's where people are coming from.

Here's to substantial, deep, free thought.

 

[Timebuilder]

Personally, several of the most egregiously mean spirited acts every directed at me or my family were performed by people who considered themselves devoutly religious. Blaming the weak moral situation in this country on political beliefs is selfish masturbation.

I'm sorry I did not read this post thoroughly until a few minutes ago. My bad. I want to ammend my post above about conservatism, the Left, and "religion".

First, a "religious" belief, as Christ defined it, is a bad thing. In this case, one places one's faith in the instructions of Men, instead of the instructions of God, through His Word, the Bible. The Saducees and the Pharisees are a good example of "religious" people. This "religious" kind of belief is how people get the erroneous impression that you can do whatever you like on Saturday night, as long as you confess it on Sunday morning and say a few repetitions of a specific prayer. According to Jesus, it just isn't so.



Lets talk about the political beliefs you reference in the quote that I copied at the top of this post. What political beliefs might be attached to a weakening of the moral fiber in America? For one thing, a belief that God has no place in public or governemnt discourse. According to the founders, this was not their intent. This idea has, however, become a hallmark of the Left, and as a former member of the Left, I know that its home is indeed the democrat party. Other hallmarks of the Left are that we should trust only our own human "good intentions" as the basis of trying to "live a good life", and that there is no authority over us as humans in the making of those decisions.

Another good example is the feminist agenda, which managed to make itself irrelevant when it failed to side with the woman that Bill Clinton had allegedly raped, Kathleen Willey. Just as Arnold's fondling accusers, she waited beyond the statue of limitations to come forward. The previous feminist wisdom is that a statute of limitations is not an impediment to publically declaring the man who is involved as a rapist, since "women never lie" about this activity. No matter, they decided to remain almost silent in the case of Clinton, referring to his "clumsy passes" at women, and his activities with a woman the age of his daughter as "consensual", even though this activity meets the defined standards of sexual harassment in any US state, since she, as an intern, fell into the class of "employee" and he, as Presiident, fell into the class of "employer", and the White House was the "workplace".

I'm sure that you can come up with several more examples of the impact of a "religious, but not righteous" system of beliefs on a political party and its agenda, just as I can. As you have seen, Clinton's attendance of church has nothing to do with the heart of a faithfull believer. Indeed, it is a good example of the secular humanist approach to "religion" which is the only tolerable position for the titular head of the modern democrat party, which I supported and voted with beginning with George McGovern and which ended with my vote for Bill Clinton for his first term.

While we can't blame the Left for the entire decline of morality in America, we can agree without doubt that the Left has consistently worked to undermine morality and promote their favorite anthem of the Sixties, "do your own thing". When you adhere to this idea, you are constructing your own "morality" as you go, which is really no morality at all.

Here's to substantial, deep, free thought.

I always support substantial, deep thought, but I fear that many leave their thinking to CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC. Katie Couric as the perky arbiter of morality? No thanks.

"Free" thought suggests to me the kind of thought that is unimpeded by morality, and that's our subject. Freewill, on the other hand, allows us to choose our path, so it is incumbent upon us to choose wisely.

 

[Naunga]

think the biggest problem with kids today is that a lot of people are having kids, without really wanting kids.

I'll give you a quick example. We (my wife and I) know a couple who at the time had one kid (same mother different father). Mom, amazingly, didn't want the little one (who was cutier than cute and well behaved to boot), but step-dad did. Later on step-dad decides he wants his own little rugrat. Mom doesn't want another one, but in order to keep the hubby happy she produces one (and yes, produce is the right word in this case...she might as well had bought a goldfish). Baby's born, mom gets her tubes tied, and expects dad will be happy and help out a lot with jr. WRONG. Dad brags to about how his boys can swim and leaves Jr. at home with Mom. Mom doesn't give two s**t's about Jr. and in the end Jr. along with 1/2 sister is shipped off to grandma's house to be raised.

People who have kids without wanting them look at kids as pets. The sad fact of the matter is that I've seen people treat their dogs better than their kids. It suprises me sometimes that people like that don't "train" their kids the same way they train their dogs...or maybe they do and I just haven't had the "pleasure" of seeing it.

Perfect example of having and not wanting. IMHO you need to WANT a kid in order to sucessfully raise a kid. There are exceptions, but my guess is that the people who are exceptions really wanted kids, but may have gotten the timing messed up.

Or how about this one...

I know a woman who goes on and on about wanting a kid, but everytime she has an opportunity to interact with kids, sees kids out in public, etc. she either makes some smart remark about how poorly behaved they are or acts like a deer in the headlights. She doesn't talk to kids. She doesn't even really like to hold kids. Yet she goes on and on about how she wants a kid. She also wants a dog. You put a dog in front of her and she'll play with it for hours. Walk it, clean up after it, she'll babysit the dog for nothing. Do you see a problem with this. What kind of life is a kid going to have should she have one? She's got it all mapped out though. She'll have the kid, stay with it for 6 months, and then into daycare. Day care? After 6 months? Why? Because she, in the end, really doesn't want a kid. She doesn't want to give up her career for a child. What happens if she has a kid and it's downs? 6 months and then to day care? In what universe?

People today are having kids for a lot of reasons, but I feel that only a small majority of them are having them for the right reasons.

Some examples of the wrong reason...

My husband/wife and I are drifting apart. A baby will bring us together Riiiiight. Together to the same divorce court.

My wife/husband really wants a kid, and I need to make him happy. Great plan. Make your life misserable so your spouse can be happy. That ought to make the kid feel wanted.

My parents/in-laws really want grandchildren. If mom and dad want another kid then why don't they have it for you?

Having kids is the point of life. I can't really argue with that one, except that you'd being having kids for the same reason that Bob Barker tells you to get you cat fixed.

My body is telling me that I need to have a child or I'll be completely empty for the rest of my life Look I've never been woman (that I know of), but my body is telling me that same thing about that Twinkie in the checkout line at the groccery store, but I think it'll be okay without it.

We'll get a great tax break if we have a kid (or 12). Okay if you're having a kid for this reason...do us all a favor and never, ever leave the trailer park. None of you. Ever. For anything.

I don't know that I really want a kid, but if they get to be too much of a pain I can beat/drug them senseless. See the above comment.

Some good reasons...

I want to completely devote my life to a child. In order to teach them how to love, not make the mistakes I did, and contribute something to society...and so does my spouse.

My husband/wife and I just adore children, and the neighbors kids are getting too old to babysit...and their starting to forget who they're real parents are.

If I don't have a child my life will be completely and utterly empty, and so will my husband/wife's and I know because they've told me, and they told me because I asked.

Notice the trend here in the good reasons. Two willing parents who adore children. Strong marriage (without kids).

It doesn't work with just one willing parent. Someone will end up feeling resentful, neglected, or jealous.

So there you have it. The world according to me (Eagle eat your heart out), and why IMHO kids are becoming more and more unruley everday.

Take it or leave it.

Naunga

 

[Floyd94]

kids today... they need to get jobs! Back when I was their age I was working! ..

 

[treetop flyer]

Teacher Lifestyle

Greetings:

Not to get too far off topic here, but I feel compelled to comment on the suppossed "easy" lifestyle of a teacher. i.e. weekends off, summers off, full years pay for nine months work, etc.

As the pilot husband of a dedicated elementary school teacher, I can assure you that my wife's level of compensation is lacking in proportion to the amount of work performed. She regularly leaves the house (M-F) at 0745 (school starts at 0900) and returns home on average between 1845 and 2000 (keep in mind, school ends at 1515). Also, it is very common for her to spend 4-5 hours at school on Sunday afternoons preparing for the following week. I obviously can't speak for all teachers, but I suspect most educators spend MUCH of their personal time working on school related projects (grading papers, prep., creating homework, etc.). I think most people would be suprised how much effort goes into managing a classroom, esp. at a public school...I know I was!

I certainly am aware that there are MANY places that teachers do NOT exert this kind of effort, but I contend that for the most part, teachers work extremely hard for very little monetary return. As for teachers earning six figure incomes...perhaps in some VERY affulent districts. In my midwestern college town, in order for a teacher to earn HALF that amount (50K), he/she would need 16 years seniority and close to a PhD! Also keep in mind that many (if not most) teachers spend over $1,000 of their OWN money each year on essential classroom materials!

At any rate...I'm glad we have dedicated individuals who are willing to make sacrifices and do the job out of love for it and not for money!

Just my .02

Take care and fly safe!
TF

 

[bobbysamd]

Lawyers: Virus or treatment?

lawyers are the epitome of a virus on society. They're a parasitic, destructive group that does not fit into free enterprise. If (plaintiffs) lawyers are so helpful, then why is it you almost cannot get solo student pilot insurance for a tailwheel plane that worked just fine for tens of thousands of pilot trainees over the last 60-70 yrs? why did the light GA market get "taxed"/sued into near oblivion in the 80's? Why do lawyers alwats win? What (free enterprise) business sector *always* wins.

Please reread my comments on this issue, above.

Then, I would suggest that the next time some moron rearends you and you can't work and your insurance company refuses to pay you the wage-loss benefits to which you are entitled under your policy and the other guy's insurance will only offer you $500 to settle that you handle matters yourself.

For that matter, while we are generalizing about lawyers being such a virus, next time some fed demands to see your certificates and logbook, conjures up some "violation," and uses some bogus intimidation tactics to force you to admit something you did not do, handle that yourself and see how far you get.

People are wronged every day but their situations may not rise to the level of legal action. I interview plenty of potential new clients, but very few have cases worth taking.

Finally, with regard to your comment about high insurance for heretofore "safe" aircraft, I believe that Congress enacted a so-called "Statute of Repose" for these aircraft. The Statute bars product liability claims against aircraft that are more than X number of years old. The Statute was intended primarily to stimulate aircraft manufacture but also in part as an attempt to cap insurance rates.

Once more, these things are easy for you to say if you're on the outside looking in.

 

[Timebuilder]

While lawyers do perform valuable services (this is where I'm supposed to say that "some of my best friends are lawyers....") their status has come down in recent years. I think this is mainly due to the need for tort reform in the area of frivolous lawsuits, where the average consumer eventually absorbs ALL of the costs of the action and damages, and a luckly plaintiff hits the "lawsuit lottery".

Add to this the unseemly slip-and-fall ads on TV and the previously unknown plea negotiations and barely ethical activities that we see played out on TV dramas. Dare we even bring up the damage done to the reputation of lawyers by the staff barristers of the ACLU?

There is a lot to be done to improve the image of lawyers in particular and the fairness and efficiency of the legal profession in general. Unfortunately, the Trial Lawyers are a powerful and influential group in Washington, and these reforms would mean less $$$ for their members. So, don't expect reform any time soon. DO expect more regualtions and bigger government that will help to maintain the three mansion lifestyle that these people don't want to lose.
Freedom has a price, and it's usually $200 to $500 per hour.

 

[flywithastick]

Re: Lawyers: Virus or treatment?

Please reread my comments on this issue, above.

Then, I would suggest that the next time some moron rearends you and you can't work and your insurance company refuses to pay you the wage-loss benefits to which you are entitled under your policy and the other guy's insurance will only offer you $500 to settle that you handle matters yourself.

I protect *myself* with a job that pays sick leave, and I pay my own short and long term disability insurance for this eventuality. I'd much rather be on my own than have them available in dealing with those who've "wronged" me and having to worry about getting slammed by some worm lawyer when I get caught in the crosshairs.

Lawyers are only needed because they've manipulated the system to such a degree that they've created demand for their services. Why are there so many cliches about legalese, and havign to be a lawyer to real a legal document!?

For that matter, while we are generalizing about lawyers bei
ng such a virus, next time some fed demands to see your certificates and logbook, conjures up some "violation," and uses some bogus intimidation tactics to force you to admit something you did not do, handle that yourself and see how far you get.

Since when does a lawyer do much good in adminstrative process. If they want to get you, there's not a d@mn thing any lawyer can do about it. And I still stand by my broad characterization.

People are wronged every day but their situations may not rise to the level of legal action. I interview plenty of potential new clients, but very few have cases worth taking.

No money in it, eh?!

Finally, with regard to your comment about high insurance for heretofore "safe" aircraft, I believe that Congress enacted a so-called "Statute of Repose" for these aircraft. The Statute bars product liability claims against aircraft that are more than X number of years old. The Statute was intended primarily to stimulate aircraft manufacture but also in part as an attempt to cap insurance rates.

Funny thing - the products are still the same. Nothing more safe about them, but it took the govermnet lawyers to call off the private lawyers. Still - small private planes are just the same (the older ones) as they were 10-15 yrs ago.

Once more, these things are easy for you to say if you're on the outside looking in.

I've given enough interviews, testimony, etc. for lawsuits in the coporate environment to know how the game is played. "Show me the money!" Plain and simple. Essentially nothing to do with wronging rights or making the world a safer place.

 

[Bai B Nai]

Lord have mercy, what a thread. I'm not a parent so I'm opening myself up to criticism. But how about those of you with kids start saying "NO" to you're precious ones once in a while, and/or disciplining them for egregious acts of disrespect? It would help society in the long run and produce better citizens. Does anybody spank anymore?

Having said that, I get the feeling every generation says the same about the one following it. Good luck to you parents, you have my utmost respect (teachers too.)