Where have all the good men gone?

Today, a friend of mine for whom I have a great deal of respect and also happens to serve in our military, was talking about watching a pirated copy of a movie with a group of military personal. I came unglued. I ranted on his wall post, and then wrote a note ranting on my page. I literally went a little nuts. As my husband and I were driving around doing errands, I began wondering, “Why did this upset me so much?” I questioned my husband, “am I crazy?” (He refused to answer on the grounds of not wanting to sleep on the couch.) I mulled it over in my own head. I could not understand why this particular incident upset me so much. And then it hit me.

American Society is declining at a rapid pace. People are becoming increasingly selfish. Actions that once were considered anti-social and taboo (lying, stealing, adultery, lack of personal responsibility) are now expected. Yes, we are human and no one is perfect, but we felt remorse when we lied, even on our taxes. Politicians and public figures were humiliated when they were caught in a scandal. They resigned from their positions. Leaders of corporations were held to higher standards (okay, most of them). Fire, police, and military personal lived their lives under the ideas of honor, integrity, loyalty, and service. Today, we expect our politicians to lie, cheat on their spouses, and steal from the taxpayer. Corporate leaders that are honest now are the exception rather than the rule. Our police are on the take, and firefighters start fires to ensure their jobs (I know this is not true for the majority, but it IS all over the news). But as a majority, our military personal still held to the higher standards and ideals of honor, integrity, loyalty, and service.

The comment made by my friend today made me realize that our society is truly in a rapid decline. Our heroes are no longer being held to a higher standard. If our heroes can steal and not even think that what they have done is wrong, because everyone is doing it, what have we come to? Why is it that a child stealing a penny piece of candy used to result in the parent dragging them to the store and making them apologize in a rush of tears to the manager and today a kid stealing a $300 iPod results in a parent thinking “well, Wal-Mart makes enough money and who did it hurt?”

Today, the standard of right or wrong is if it helps the individual, not if it hurts someone else. If a lie gets me ahead in life, it is okay, no matter who it hurts. If I really think I need that Cadillac Escalade, then it is okay to take it because the person who had it has more than me and it is my right to have it. If cheating on my spouse makes me feel good, what right does anyone have to judge me? We have entered an era of complete lack of moral and ethical standards, and anyone who tries to enforce a moral code is considered intolerant or judgmental. When did it become wrong to expect honesty? Integrity? Values? Morals? Ethics?

Maybe I am naïve, but I still hold our heroes (anyone who would willingly put their life on the line for others) in highest respect. I look to them to guide the moral compass of this nation, for they are the ones who put others before themselves. I guess this is my plea to our heroes to refuse to follow the rest of us into this cesspool of moral decay. Stick to your ethics and values and expect the rest of us to do the same! And thank you, for being willing to put service before self.

Don't listen to the critics about Atlas Shrugged

It is an excellent movie and NOT just for conservatives. Saw it in Tempe, AZ and there was a good mix of all political beliefs. Some great conversations before and after the movie. This is THE must see movie of the year !

Visit the Official Atlas Shrugged Movie Web Site!

Trickle down taxes?

Whenever it is proposed that tax cuts should be given to those who create jobs, there is an outcry that "trickle down economics don't work!" Fine, let's go with that false premise.

I would propose that in the same mindset, "trickle down taxes" not only do not work, but they are not legal. I am talking about the idea that we pay taxes to the FEDERAL government who, in turn, passes that money back to states, cities, counties, schools, and various pork projects. From reading the constitution myself and listening to the arguments of many people who are much smarter than me, I believe that the states are supposed to collect taxes and pass is UP to the Federal Government to cover our share of military and infrastructure. Nowhere do I see anything that leads me to believe that we are supposed to send our money DIRECTLY to the Feds and then THEY decide what should go back to the states.

This goes along with my belief that any and all social programs should be handled on a LOCAL level. Social Security, medicare, welfare, education, local improvements; these are all things that should be paid for by the states, if they choose to offer them. (Okay, education and improvements SHOULD be done, but shouldn't the states decide this?) The Federal government was never meant to care for all of it's citizens from the cradle to the grave. The job of the Feds is very simple. Make sure we aren't attacked by our enemies, and if we are, have the ability to kick their booties back where they came from. They also need to provide interstate (intrastate?) road systems to ensure the free movement of goods and services among states. They need to make sure that states follow the constitution as far in as they don't TAKE AWAY any of our constitutional rights. But that is about it. The government has no business bailing out companies, getting involved in steroid use in MLB, or arguing over if the current bowl system for college football is fair. Why is any of this THEIR business? In addition, why should they be deciding who gets grant money for research? Are they better able to decide than the local populace what needs to be researched? I think not. And why do we need a bazillion czars and agencies to oversee everything we do?

The Tenth Amendment is about states rights AND individuality. It was designed so that people could live where they chose and have a local government that believed in and embraced the same ideas and policies that they did. Does this mean I believe that a state should be able to exclude blacks, gays, Mexicans, etc.from living and working there? No. That would violate the constitution. But I do believe it means that if a state wants to allow or disallow abortion, that is the choice of the voters in THAT STATE. If a state wants to allow or disallow gay or even heterosexual marriage, that is THEIR right! Heck, if California decided that only gay marriages would be recognized, that is their choice. And anyone disagreeing with it could move. This is a free country. If a state wants to lower their drinking age to 16, they should be allowed to do it without the Feds holding highway funds over their heads. This is nothing more than legalized extortion. "Do it our way, or you get no money". It's not THEIR money in the first place, it is ours!

Today, there is truly no difference between the states because they are all mandated to be identical by the Federal government or they don't get their money. This is true in education, welfare, medicaid/medicare, transportation, mining, manufacturing; you name it, the Feds regulate it and tell the states to bow down or no money. What if Arizona finally recognized AIMS for the money guzzling scam it is (I think I heard it cost something like $16,000,000 to run every year??) and said no more high stakes testing. You guessed it, a big ole' chunk of our education money would be gone. But who is the Federal government to say that we don't get our OWN money back because we don't play by their rules? Shouldn't that money stay in the state to begin with? It was earned here. We should say how our education dollars are spent, not the Feds.

This all comes from my belief that true economic freedom (including from excessive taxes) is the path to true PERSONAL freedom. The US used to be number one in economic freedom, but we lose ground every year. We are currently number nine. Nine? Seriously? There is even a country in AFRICA with more economic freedom than we have. How can that be right? Economic freedom begins with taking our taxes back at the state level and deciding what is the best use of OUR funds in our communities. If we don't the next step will be telling us what companies we have to give our money to. Oh, right, GMC. Never mind.

REAL Education Reform

It has been a while since I have posted. There have been so many thoughts and ideas running through my mind, I would start writing and become frustrated. I have finally come to the point were this particular subject is driving me so crazy that I just have to air my opinion.

I am a high school CTE teacher (computers and business). My job is to teach kids real world work skills that will allow them to get a decent paying job right out of high school. I also teach Personal Finance, because after spending 13 years as a stock broker, I realized that to change the declining economy in this nation, we would have to start educating out kids how to manage money and avoid debt BEFORE the dug themselves into a hole. I have chosen to work in an urban school with at risk kids because these are the kids that REALLY need to learn these things. Again, to change the increasing demand on public assistance, you have to give those who have been been raised in that system REAL tools (and real HOPE) to escape.

Many of these kids are a true pain in the behind. They come to me with behavior issues, completely lacking in social skills, and with a chip on their shoulder against the white woman who doesn't understand what they have been through. And I love each one of them desperately. My heart breaks when I hear a student has violated and is going back to jail, when a 14 year old comes to me and tells me she is pregnant with her second child, or when one of my kiddos just gives up and decides it is easier to make money illegally than to finish school and get a real job. I pray for my students on a regular basis and I try to show them the love of Christ in ever interaction. But still, some of these kiddos REALLY try my patience, but I refuse to give up. They would try any teacher's patience, but that does NOT excuse the lack of caring, compassion, and professionalism that I see in the education field ever day!

When I get a 17 year old student that has gone through every grade and he cannot read at a first grade level, there is something SERIOUSLY broken on the system. Education reform is a buzz word that has been used since early in the twentieth century. Everyone has a new idea to try, a new "way" of teaching, a new "plan" to build the students self esteem. Many of the "reforms" we are seeing now are nothing more than repackaged failures from the past. When you challenge "reform", you are called narrow minded, short sighted, and it is said that you "don't care about the children!" You cannot question the newest teaching methods because we have to implement them to see if they work. If they are a failure, well, how could we know until we tried? And the students that were failed by this change? Well, there are always "challenges" whenever we are trying to improve the system. Besides, there is always public assistance to provide for them. Bull pucky!!!!

Here is my plan to rebuild America as THE top nation in innovation and technology, to return our work force to the number one spot in the world, to reclaim the pride and sense of accomplishment that our students have been robbed of for the last 50 plus years.

Do away with age level grades. It is a "stigma". That is why social promotions are so wide spread and 17 year olds can't read. Why should a student that can read at the fourth grade level be forced to stay in first grade reading because they are six? Why should a student who cannot read at the first grade level be promoted to the fourth grade just because he is nine? And why do ALL ten year olds have to be taught the same fifth grade material in all subjects just because that is the age they are? Ever educator will tell you that students have different "intelligences". This is not about an IQ, this is about the ability to learn TYPES of materials and the way they are learned. That 17 year old that can't read? He may be a GENIUS when it comes to math and science. That 12 year old girl that can't figure our fractions? She could be the next Monet. The eight year old that doesn't understand that the world is round may be the next budding Michael Crichton. Many times a child's true potential is never realized because of our current age related grade system with year end promotions to the next level.

We need an ACHIEVEMENT level system. Students should be allowed to move up twice a year, at the winter break (which should probably look more like a college break of four to six weeks) and after the summer break (shorten it up a bit). Students will have levels in ALL areas of learning; math, reading, writing (no more Language Skills crap. Just because you can read doesn't mean you can write and vice versa), science (START with physics!), technology, visual arts, performance arts, geography, social studies/human studies (yes, geography should be separate), economics/personal finance (again, not lumped with "social studies"), life skills, and work readiness skills. Now, before all the PE teachers get ticked, physical education/health/nutrition should be a constant for students from their first day in school until their last, but would be dealt with based more on interests rather than skill level.

In each of the mentioned areas, students would have to reach an 80 percent (yes, 80, not this bologna 60 percent crap) mastery before moving to the next level. If a student masters the first level of math (normally a 2-3 year process, all with the same teacher) in one semester, then at the next break, he can move up to the next level, while staying in the first level for the courses he has not mastered. If a student takes longer to master a certain subject than normal, than a version of RTI would be implemented to make sure she is getting the type and amount of instruction she needs.

In the normal process, MOST students would be able to reach the final level, which would mean they are actually ready for post-secondary education or the workforce, at the age of 16. The students that do this would be able to graduate and leave the public school system if they choose. If they reach the level BEFORE 16, don't force them to stay in school! But for those who WANT to stay in school, they could continue with career focused training through age 21. This would actually involve bringing the community college and technical training system into the public schools, but it would allow students to excel in areas they are good at, while getting the support they need in the areas they are weak in, all without penalizing them for being too good in one area (getting bored with grade level work) and struggling in another (being promoted to the next grade without a firm grasp of the skills needed for the next level).

Diplomas would be awarded depending on the level attained. Students would HAVE to reach the minimum "work readiness" level to get their first diploma. And it would state the level they reached. For students who choose to stay in school beyond the basic level, they would receive diplomas showing the technical certifications or degrees (only to an associates level) that they reached. Also, students who do NOT reach the minimum level, no more letting them drop out at 16. Make kids who have not learned the basics stay in school until they are 18! If they choose to leave at that time, they will receive a certificate of completion for the level they obtained.

Initially, this plan may sound expensive and like a logistics nightmare. The logistics part, I will give you. But as far as cost, I believe it will save money in the long run. Our current system allows students to stay in school through age 21, so the argument that you will have "older" students is a moot point. An equal number of excelling students would be allowed to leave the system at younger ages, freeing up those resources for struggling students. As for the logistics, other countries already have similar systems that work. No need to recreate the wheel; take what works, modify it to fit out needs and move forward.

In my mind, I see 4 "required" levels, roughly representing a break up of our primary, intermediate, middle, and high school system. But no longer would high school be a process of passing the state mandated high stakes test and earning a certain number of credits. There would be a mastery level to be obtained. I can hear people already complaining that students need the "electives" to broaden their knowledge. That is covered by requiring visual arts, performance arts, and adding in the career training pieces. Many of the "electives" are now a required part of learning (drama, band, choir, public speaking=performance arts; drawing, ceramics, graphic design=visual arts; psychology, sociology, child development, criminal justice, law, religious studies=social/human; foods, basic auto, ag, horticulture, sewing, drivers ed=life skills; computers, ACAD, web design, video production=technology; budgeting, economics, managing debt, taxes=personal finance).

My argument with adding these "electives" into required courses is this. EVERY person needs to know how to plan and cook basic meals. EVERY person needs to know how to speak in front of people. EVERY person needs to understand the basics of how their car runs and how to maintain it (even if it is just why and when the oil needs to be changed!). EVERY person should know where our food comes and how to grow their own. EVERY person needs to understand the basics of caring for a child. EVERY person needs to know HOW money works. These are BASIC LIFE SKILLS! A student should not be exempted from learning how to speak in front of people just because they don't take drama or public speaking. Yes, parents SHOULD be teaching things like cooking, caring for kids, managing money, but they DON'T! Even well-adjusted, traditional, middle class students do not have most of these basic skills! If they don't know these things, how are the at risk students ever going to stand a chance.

I do not believe it is the governments job to raise our children. But the fact is that public education is a staple in our country. We need to make the most out of it. We are falling behind other countries in the level of education, the quality of education, and the quality of our work force. America is crumbling because we have been too worried about making sure kids "feel good". Kids aren't as stupid as people believe they are. They KNOW when you are blowing smoke up their butt. Give them REAL skills and achievements that they can be proud of. Instead of graduating students who cannot read, write, or do basic math, make sure they DO have these skills. And give them some real accomplishments to go with it. Okay, so Johnny only gets a certificate for the minimal reading, writing, and math skills, but along with is, he has a certification in auto mechanics that prepares him for a REAL job. He may not be able to name the protagonist in Macbeth or write an argumentative paper on the need for immigration reform, but he CAN read, understand, and apply knowledge from a technical manual. He CAN write a service contract. He CAN speak to a customer in an intelligent and respectful manner.

Let's stop wasting our resources. The children are our future, and with the current education system, the outlook is very bleak. Stop forcing kids to move up to the next level before they have the skills they need just because they are the right age. Stop forcing "college prep" down everyones throat. Not everyone NEEDS or WANTS to go to college, so lets give them some REAL skills in areas they are good in and give them a chance to succeed, rather than setting them up for failure. We graduate students from high school and tell them they are ready to be adults. In the current system, that is a LIE. So, lets change it. Lets focus on really educating students. Lets stop force feeding them material just so they can pass a test, but they have no idea how to apply what they have learned, even if they remember it beyond test day. Give students an opportunity to excel in their strong areas and support them where they are weak. And let those who are ready to move beyond school the chance to do it when they are READY! How many truly brilliant students fail to reach their full potential because they are bored and tired of school by the time they graduate high school, so they go no further? It is time to make a REAL, MEANINGFUL change to our education system. It is time to stop lying to our kids and setting them up for failure. It is time to finally let teachers teach and students learn. It is time.

More Information Please....

I listened to President Obama's speech tonight. He made some very good points. He and I even agree on a few things. Things that I totally agree with President Obama on: The current health care system is broken and needs some reform. It is wrong that people can be excluded from insurance or dropped when they become ill. There needs to be more competition when it comes to health insurance companies (and oil companies, utilities, phone, cable, satellite). But I think some of the proposed ways are wrong. We do not need any more laws (excluding people for preexisting conditions would be illegal). What we need is change.

In the states where car insurance is mandatory, the "uninsurable" are divided equally among all of the insurance companies licensed to do business in that state. And there is a cap on the amount they are allowed to charge. But this is regulated LOCALLY by the state department of insurance. Do the same thing with people who have preexisting conditions. You want to do business here, you will share in the risk.

Do not mandate that companies provide insurance for their employees. The number one thing on our families list of required job benefits is insurance. Not offering insurance does not give a company an "unfair advantage over their competitors". It makes them less attractive to qualified candidates. Some companies offset not offering insurance by paying higher wages. Hint, use those increased wages to buy a minimum of catastrophic insurance! But forcing an employer to offer insurance is not an option in my book. It infringes upon the free market. Instead, offer tax incentives to companies that DO offer insurance (above what they can currently take).

It is none of the governments business if I do not have insurance. What are you going to do, have a health police? If I choose not to have insurance, that is my choice. It is also my responsibility. Maybe it should no longer be mandatory for a hospital to offer care if you are uninsured or unable to pay cash. Hate to say it, but that would sure cut down the lines. It would also keep the illegals from swamping our hospitals for things like colds and then leaving the hospital stuck with the bill (I will rant on THAT later!). Health care is a choice you make. If insurance companies are now taking all buyers at fair rates, not having insurance is a personal choice. I have class based on real life. My students choose what insurance they want (if any). I hand out life happens cards. Sometimes, there are medical situations. Their choices affect their class finances. They do the same thing with homeowners/renters, car, liability. Our choices have consequences.

I am concerned about this "temporary" insurance option that will become immediately available for those who are not currently insured. They say it will be replaced in 4 years by the "insurance marketplace" (why does that take 4 years, but the "temporary" option is available now??) Who is handling this "temporary" solution? If it is the government, I have REAL issues with that. The only things that government has ever imposed that they backed down from was prohibition and slavery. It took them 300+ years and several wars to realize that slavery was a bad idea. I am worried that this "temporary" plan might become the long term solution, and gee, since it works so well, we can do away with the private insurance. What better way to ensure that everyone is complying with the mandatory insurance law than to have it all handled by the government. It will save money and do away with the agency required for tracking compliance. Yes, keeping the temporary government ran insurance is a much better idea than the proposed market place.

President Obama never addressed the REAL issue behind the huge increases in insurance cost. (yes, I agree with him, they are out of control) Tort reform is the first thing that is needed to help reduce the cost of health care. But you will not see that come out of Washington. The majority of our members (on BOTH sides) are trial lawyers. They earn their money from other people's misfortune. They are very good at finding someone to blame for every bad thing that happens in your life. Spill hot coffee in your lap? It is McDonald's fault. Smoke your entire life and get lung cancer? It is the tobacco companies fault. Your child is born with drug addiction because you are a crack head? It is your doctors fault for not making you stop doing drugs. The list goes on. Lawyers and frivolous lawsuits have driven the cost of malpractice insurance through the roof. Even if the claim is unfounded, a doctor must pay the legal fees and their reputations are often put in ruins. And they have no recourse. Just try suing a lawyer.

The second issue that would help the out of control cost of insurance is to stop forcing health organizations to treat everyone. If you are here illegally and you get ill, the hospital should stabilize you and ship you off to your country of legal residence. In Mexico, they hold you hostage (even when you are there legally), refusing medical treatment, until your family delivers the ransom, I mean cash deposit. In Canada, they treat you, but then hold you hostage until you pay your bill, even if you have insurance!! (The Canada incident happened to my sister in law, so I know from personal exposure to this!) She had to cough up $12,000 CASH before they would let her leave the country. We are the only nation in the WORLD that offers emergency medical care to EVERYONE, regardless of ability to pay, and then allow them to walk off without paying their bill. Yet 36 other countries have better health care??? Hm, I wonder how those countries treat foreigners who need medical attention?

Yes, we need a change in the health care system. I am sickened by the loss of our Kids Care program here in AZ. That is a real program that actually helps working parents get affordable health care, even if they are not "poor". But I don't want more big government control. Make the reform on the state level. Enforce existing laws (anti trust regulations). The only additional control I want to see is on the LAWYERS. Make them more accountable for bad lawsuits. If it hits them in the pocketbook, frivolous lawsuits would go away. Don't force me to have insurance if I don't want it. Don't make it a crime to exclude preexisting conditions. Don't let the government create a "temporary" fix. Nothing is ever temporary when a politician gets their hands on it (and it is never cheap!).

I want change, but not more laws. I want change, but not more government control. I want change, but on a local level. I want real, meaningful change. Not more political lies and the same old hag in a new dress.

**DISCLAIMER** Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, KTAR, KFYI, Fox News, and any related right wing wackos or their associates did not "brainwash" this poor "idiot" into posting these thoughts. They are mine, and mine alone. I am not a lawyer or a politician, therefore I am capable of independent thought.

Rights in the US

I heard today that one of Obama's appointees has cleared the way for the US to be sued by former occupants of Gitmo for violating their "rights". I have a problem with this is, a BIG problem with this. I am tired of hearing about it!

First, the ONLY people that are supposed to have the full rights in this country are those who are here LEGALLY, and who are LAW ABIDING. I am tired of hearing of the "rights violations" when the Border Patrol catches someone crossing the border illegally and detains them. Or a land owner holds illegals at gun point waiting for the authorities to come and retrieve them for trespassing and destruction of property. Or of the rights of people (I call them that lightly) who were held for plotting acts of terrorism against our country. Or the rights of a criminal who was injured in the process of committing a crime.

If you are not in this country LEGALLY, our Constitution and Bill of Rights does not apply to you!!! That applies to our CITIZENS and those we have invited into our country. If you are in the process of committing a crime and are injured, you do not have the RIGHT to sue your victim. If you attack (or want to attack) our country, do NOT hide behind our Bill of Rights. You wanted to destroy it, quit wrapping yourself in it!

And for those who are protected by our Constitution and Bill of Rights, if YOU have the right, so do I. Just because I believe differently, does not mean your rights supersede mine. Despite what you think, you are not superior to me just because you are more "open minded". You are only open minded to those things that you agree with. I have the right to the Freedom of Religion & the Freedom of Speech. That means that I have the RIGHT to speak about my God ANYWHERE I choose. I also have the RIGHT to disagree with your life style! I do not have the right to try and physically harm you because of your lifestyle, but neither do you have the right to take away my rights to speak what I believe. Saying that I think homosexuality is a sin is no more hate speech than saying that I believe theft, murder, adultery, lying, and lust is a sin as well. But why is it okay for "the enlightened elite" to spew hate and filth about my faith and my Saviour, even saying that we should die, but that is not hate speech?

Why is it that anyone who believes in doing what is right, anyone that wants to hold their faith, morals, and freedoms are considered whack jobs, or extremist when we tell others how we feel/believe? Yet when the other side tries to force us to accept their lifestyle, they are just standing up for their rights? I have yet to understand why if you are anti-Christian, your rights are inviolate, but if you are a Christian exercising your rights, you are a hate monger? To me that seems like a double standard. But then again, I am not one of the "enlightened elite", so I probably just don't understand...

Tempe pastor asks for death of President Barack Obama

Tempe pastor asks for death of President Barack Obama

Shared via AddThis