Values, are they overrated?


One of the headlines in today’s Sarasota Herald-Tribune was about

English: 14th Amendment of the United States C...
English: 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution, page 1. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Gay marriage..  Their here, or at least the licenses are.

So what is it about Homosexuals that upsets so many people?

In most places and times the family was headed by a father and a mother not by a father and father, or mother and mother.  Regardless of what people thought about this on a religious level, is it a sin or an abomination, society had decided long ago that the family needed a father and mother to teach the values that were acceptable  to that society….  This was an imposition of Values.

Years ago I had a class, called “Religions of the World” which actually addressed the development of Societal Values..   As time passed, and individual gathered into clans and tribe, before towns and cities, they had a religious/medicine man who would give out the values/rules of their particular god/deity.  The most famous of these, though not the first, would be Mosses and the 10 Commandment.

These people understood that for large groups to live together there had to be rules of conduct that helped people understand what they could and could not do.  These idea would help keep order, hopefully, in that group and prevent it from falling into mob rule.  That was the idea, in later years, of government.  The being a group that would impose further codification of rules that would do about the same thing as the medicine man/priest.

People had to be able to produce, food for example, and know that what was theirs was theirs.  Others had to understand that it was wrong to take from others what that person had produced..  Murder was wrong.

I know I am being simplistic.  I just want to point out that as society has progressed the rules have done so as well..  A good example is that we no longer accept slavery as being normal.  With the Geneva Convention we have even set rules for the conduct of troops in war time.

So how does this really matter?  Theoretic lay the idea of a man and woman being married had a number of reasons beside reproduction, which was what probably started the whole concept.  There was the fact that a woman and man would be able to relate to the problems their sons/daughters were having as they grew.   Both parents would be able to tech the children about family values, and how they were expected to interact with those outside the home..

Over the past number of years the concept of Family Values seems to have eroded to the point that it is not very hard, or unusual, to find a mother, with a number of children, who is struggling to make ends meet and influence the children because the fathers are in the wind, and have no responsibilities towards their children, sometime even to the point of refusing to help support them.  The helps contribute to the children having limited values, if any, as to their conduct.

So if the Family Values are going the way of the Dodo bird what do we care?  Parents are supposed to be role models to their children.  Can a same sex marriage instill the correct sexual role pattern?  It used to be that young girls had certain pathways that were open to them, and certain pathways that were closed..  The same could have been said about males..    As they grew in their development the parents would teach them the ideas they needed to grow into their path.

At some point the gender roles got confused..  Probably about the time that women wanted to get into combat positions..  This was not because they really wanted to go into combat with the men but, those combat positions were often time the way for progression in rank..  A woman officer in the Air Force might find that she would not be able to be a commander in bomber or fighter, or provably even missile unit as they were combat positions..  Real command grades required the progression through combat related jobs.

So the gender roles get murky..  The genders themselves are get even murkier..  There is a joke about a guy who tells his shrink that he is “a lesbian in a male body”..    Then there is the strangest of them, where a 5 or 6 year old decide, even though the don’t know about thing sexual, they are in the wrong body?

So, does any of this related to gay marriage..  Not directly.  Marriage, and the purpose of marriage, is one of those values that most societies had agreed on.  A man and a women.

The MIBBs (Men in  Black Bathrobes) had decided that the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution guaranties  the right of “equal protection under the law”.   What this means is that the MIBBs have decided that homosexuals, under the 14th Amendment, have an equal right to marriage that the heterosexual couple have, even though there is no such right listed in the Constitution, and even though, the last time I looked, Federal Law only recognized marriage as being between and man and a woman..

We have seen how the MIBBs have twisted constitutional law to carry out their agendas, just look at the twisted logic they used to uphold the Affordable Care Act. by giving the Federal Government the right to force people to join get health insurance..  Which is like forcing people who do not drive to get auto insurance because they might one day get a car.

How long before they apply the 14th Amendment right of marriage to family members.  In some states it is still illegal for cousins to marry, and in all states it is against the law for brothers and sister, and other members to marry..  How much longer will that last?

As the MIBBs turn their attentions to destroying the very values that make this country great we have to ask : how much longer can we, as a nation, last.

 

Thank,

That Joe Guy.

 

 

 

Is this a candidate for human nuetering?


According to the Sarasota Herald-Tribune an Osprey woman, Shelley Bezanson,

Which is the Vicious animal?
Which is the Vicious animal?
Mug shot of a Dog Murderer from the Sarasota Herald-Tribune
Mug shot of a Dog Murderer from the Sarasota Herald-Tribune

aged 28, has been charged with strangling her 7 year old pit bull, Diamond, to death with it’s leash.

I am not a fan of pit bulls, though this is not THEIR fault my feelings about them are really about the morons who think that it is a sign of their manhood to have a vicious dog..  like a pit bull…  It seem that the woman in question had been threatened with eviction if she did not get rid of Diamond, her pit bull.

She then went to her vet in order to have him put to sleep..  The Vet, obviously some kind of crazed animal lover, refused citing the fact that Diamond was healthy.  The Vet then refered her to a number of animal rescue groups that would give him a home.  She refused.  She would later turn up the music at home and strangle Diamond with the dog’s leash..  A necropsy revealed the dog likely suffered a prolonged and painful death.

While I have not seen anything about her having children I can only worry about the future of any children that she might ever have.

There are many people out there who would be delighted to have been able to give Diamond a home..  Many people who have pets will treat them like children and some will even spend large amounts of money for their medical care.  This woman took an animal that, if it was like almost any pet, loved her unconditionally, and murdered it in a heinous and cruel fashion just because she did not want anyone else to have him, or her.

Yes, to me, she is a perfect candidate for neutering/spaying or, at the least, she should be permanently barred from having either pets, or children..

Thanks,

That Joe Guy.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Perception : It is what you see.


 

To give you an example..  This Blog, as the title says, is “My View of the World by Joe” and as such it is my view of things based on how I perceive them…  I will admit that I am not a journalist.  I do not go racing out to the news so that I can ask people questions, such as “how did you feel when you saw the man murder your daughter/son/husband/wife/brother/sister/whatever”…  What I will do is read up on it and then give my view, based on my perception, of what is reported, and then try to make sense of it, and maybe ask a few questions…

Maybe I will get you to change your perception of things, and maybe I won’t but, either way I hope to get you thinking about it..

Most of my material, as you may have noticed, comes from the Sarasota Herald-Tribune at HT.com and my favorite source for thought is from Tom Lyons…  both are rather liberal, though he seems to have more common sense that the average liberal..

So, today I want to talk about the two party system that we have, and how they are perceived…

Since this article is about perception I will not try to convince you that these accusation are anything more than SOMEONES PERCEPTION.

First the Democrats….

Democrats are often seen as trying to make themselves more appealing to the criminal element and illegal immigrants by continually trying to give illegal immigrants rights and privileges reserved for legal immigrants and citizens…   making it easier for people who are not supposed to be here in the first place to get social services, vote and go to our schools..  In some states people with out documents can even get special driver’s licenses.  The Democrats continue to tell us that it is wrong to make someone prove they are themselves, by use of a picture I.D. , when they go to vote in an election…  Think about the number of places you have to show an I.D. to do, or get, such as the Pharmacy, travel through an Air Port, getting money from the bank, or to cash a check at the store.

Some people would go so far as to tell you that since we have Law Enforcement agencies to protect us there is really no need for us to own firearms, and that the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

ASPCA Humane Law Enforcement Division
ASPCA Humane Law Enforcement Division (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

means that the right to bear arms is reserved for the government..  The myth of “to serve and protect” started by the Los Angles Police Department has been busted by a number of Police Chiefs who have said tha the purpose of their departments is NOT to protect us from crime but to response to criminal acts…  They advocate the creation of more Police type organization, armed of course,  that will have heavier and heavier firepower than the citizens..  If you don’t believe me just look up how many organizations have police powers..  I was surprised to find out that is some larger cities the Post Office has uniformed police patrols…  The POST OFFICE?  I was watching the Animal Planet on Comcast one day…  There were armed officers getting in cars clearly marked ASPCA…  They have Police powers?

 

Check out the number of Police Departments in New York City where they seem to have a cop for everything..  Sanitation Police anyone..  Do they shoot the people who litter or don’t recycle?

All of this is really a matter of perception but it does some times seem that the left is trying to give more rights to the people who are not supposed to be here by taking them away from those of us who are here legally…

Now for the Republicans…

They talk about people taking responsibility for their actions and how it is up to the individual to make his way in the world…  not the governments job…  This is often seen as an attack on the poor.  The Republicans are more inclined toward free enterprise with the idea that the government is responsible for helping people create their own wealth and by not giving it to them..  When President Obama talked about the man who had his own business, and how he had done it himself,  he put his foot in his mouth, maybe he just did not say it the way he ment to, by saying that man had not done it by himself as the government had made the roads and all those things that helped him build up that business…  If you watched the video of his speech President Obama seemed to be saying that the Federal Government did all the things that allowed him to build his company..  Like what?  The Roads?  Even the Interstates are not build by the Feds..  Sure the Federal agencies put the roads on a map but they give this map to the states who obtains the needed land, purchase the road beds, and then hire private contractors to build the roads that the people pay for with the federal gas tax, which the Feds had out like it was THEIR MONEY.  It would not be the job of the Federal Government to make his company for him but, they should at least be able to help keep a business landscape that enable him to build up that company..  himself.

When it come to business interest the Republicans are seen as caving in to the interest of BIG BUSINESS, sometime to the detriment of people’s interest.  Down here there is a constant fight between people who want to have controlled growth, so that we do not out build the roads, water, or services, and the people who want to just allow builder to put anything anywhere..

If you listen to some Republicans you will hear about how to current government regulations hinder the various corporations in the conduct of their business..  Take the Deep Horizon disaster, or the recent financial collapse..  Both of these were covered by government regulations but both happened, and that includes the great PONZI scheme of Bernie Madoff, while government was supposed to be watching but wasn’t.  So before was talk about cutting back on the regulations, some of which are there to ensure a safe environment, lets make sure the regulators are doing their jobs with the tools they have…

 

So, yes, this is about perceptions..  There are, as the saying goes, three sides to any story..  Mine, yours, and the truth.  It is up to us to discover what that truth really is and the make sure we elect people who are more interested in our interest than they are at getting re-elected.

 

It is afterall a Government “by, of, and for THE PEOPLE“,  not “by, of, and for THE CORPORATIONS”.

 

Thanks for your interest,

That Joe Guy.

 

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Look for guy wearing the Mask..


The next time you go into your bank, look for the guy wearing the mask….

If you have been paying attention to recent news reports about Bank of America, Wells-Fargo, or the others, you get the feeling that when they are issued their Bank certificate they are also given a licence to steal..  and can violate laws at will.

From the Bloomburg View is a nice article about Bank of America, and their tricks.

A good deal of my information comes from the Sarasota Herald-Tribune and, my favorite columnist, Tom Lyons who can usually be counted on to come up with an interesting point.

Over the years, since the financial meltdown, we have hear about bank official who did not bother to verify that potential borrowers could actually afford to repay loans, how the banks sold these loans, to other financial institutions, in bundles.

We know about the effect this had when these loans were proved valueless, and how the collapse spread to other funds that counted on these bundles.

Then we heard about robo-signers who signed off on paperwork they could never have spent the time to verify, in spite of the fact that they had signed a paper saying that was just what they had done.

There were reports, in the various papers, about how lenders, trying to foreclose on properties, had submitted false documentation to the courts, and how instead of dismissing the suite “with prejudice” they allowed the leaders to refill, hopefully with correct document.

In the case where the government has levied fines it has actually be reported that the banks were able to write them off as “expense of doing business”.   Do the banking regulators and the IRS think that violation of the law is “doing business”?

There was even a recent story, I will have to try to find it again, about how some of the banks have foreclosed on something like 700  families of servicemen who were stationed overseas in combat zones.  This is also a violation of FEDERAL LAWS.  If this is true why have the FEDs not stepped in to help the families?

All of this give the banks the idea, if not the reality, that they can do whatever they want.

Thanks

That Joe Guy

Lets hear if for the State of Illinois…


Illinois State Senate
Illinois State Senate (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

First they had Gov. Rod Blagojevich who got into trouble by trying to sell Ex-Senator Barack Obama’s seat in the Senate…  The we have Jesse Jackson Jr., a great credit to his father, having ethics problems…

Now I see, from a small bit in the Sarasota Herald Tribune, that Illinois is thinking about making special drivers licences for Illegal immigrants. Since that state, and the city of Chicago, seem to have trouble with understanding about laws this is not a really big surprise.  The again I could be a clever ploy.  If a driver has a special DL that indicates he is an illegal does that mean a de facto admission of a crime?  Would that give a police officer, say in a normal state, reasonable belief that this person has violated our immigration laws?  I would think so but, the question remains : if a cop in Illinois sees one of these DL at a traffic stop, can her arrest that person for being an illegal immigrant?

Thanks,

That Joe Guy.