University Park trustees OK unusual raises for themselves - Southtown Star
We see this spending trait in so many black elected officials. Barack Obama included. It is not inadventent that he has run up the national deficit. What is the solution?
Saturday, November 22, 2014
Friday, November 21, 2014
Thursday, November 20, 2014
Wednesday, November 19, 2014
During the past month, this blog has experienced a problem with a hacker. They were inserting nasty comments and even went so far as to change the blog format.
Certain code changes have been made. I am glad to say that the culprit has been thwarted. I will continue to keep my fingers crossed.
Certain code changes have been made. I am glad to say that the culprit has been thwarted. I will continue to keep my fingers crossed.
I don't care what the rules say, nobody should be getting more than one public pension. It's just plain wrong.
If you want to make a fortune, try your hand in private industry.
It's obvious that Poshard is just another politician that has played the system. So much for public service. I call on Gov. Elect Rauner to clean up his transition team.
Glenn Poshard lost the governor's race in 1998, but these days he's a pension winner – collecting more than $200,000 in taxpayer-subsidized retirement benefits a year, more than the current governor makes in salary.
Arkansas Governor Mike Beebe's son gets drug arrest pardon
When Arkansas Governor Mike Beebe's son Kyle was arrested for possession of a controlled substance - two ounces of marijuana - with the intent to deliver in 2003, the governor said: "If he broke the law, he needs to pay for it. He needs to be treated like everybody else - no better, worse."
The son was sentenced to three years of probation, which he served without incident.
Eleven years later, Mr Beebe says he will pardon his son, expunging his felony record. Some are wondering whether "everybody else" will be pardoned for what the governor calls "stupid stuff" they did in their youth.
The outgoing Democratic governor told KATV News he would have pardoned his son long ago, but Kyle, 34, "took his sweet time about [asking for] it". He also said that the action was unanimously recommended by the state Pardons and Parole Board (whose members are appointed by the governor).
Continue reading the main story
Jacoba Urist, writing for NBC's Today Parents, says the governor risks being seen as a "snowplow" parent, who clears problems out of the lives of troubled children.
"It's a real concern, not just for affluent parents, but for anyone who attempts to make our kids' lives friction-free," Robert Pondiscio, a New York City teacher and father of a 16-year old girl, tells her. "At some point, you run the risk of insulating kids from the consequences of their actions. This seems like a particularly egregious example."
Stephanie McCratic, who runs a PR firm, counters that Mr Beebe is actually setting a good example.
"He has to take care of his family too, and it's a very conflicting place to live in," she tells Urist. "But the truth is, he made his son come ask for the pardon. The governor didn't volunteer it."
But what about all the non-Beebes across the US whose records will never be wiped clean? Kaili Joy Gray writes in Wonkette that they should get a second chance as well.
"Makes Ya Think that the whole Beebe family should be working real hard, every day, to try to reform our criminal justice system and end our dumb, pointless war on drugs so that people just like Kyle Beebe, whose lives have also been forever altered and who have served much harsher sentences for the same so-called crime, can have the same opportunity to be the men, and women, they know they can be too," she says.
Earlier this month Mr Beebe also announced intentions to pardon a family friend who was convicted in 2008 of the internet stalking a child. Within a week, his office put the pardon on hold, having learned of additional allegations in a child custody case.
Mr Beebe has issued more than 700 pardons during his time in office - hundreds fewer than his predecessor, Republican Mike Huckabee, whohas been criticised for approving the requests of more serious felons.
"No way to make a pardon for your son look pure, not when Beebe has been so famously parsimonious with the pardon power," writes Max Brantley for the Arkansas Times.
In January Mr Beebe will be replaced as governor by Republican Congressman Asa Hutchinson, who served as head of the Drug Enforcement Administration under President George W Bush.
Tuesday, November 18, 2014
PARENTS SHOCKED BY SEX ED CURRICULUM IN CHICAGO PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
CHICAGO - Parents of children attending the Andrew Jackson Language Academy in Chicago were surprised and outraged to learn about the things their little kids would be learning in sex ed this coming year. In a presentation given during a parent meeting, the parents were introduced to what Chicago Public School (CPS) officials were saying is the new sex health curriculum for 5th and 6th graders. However, some of the information covered was beyond startling for the parents.
CPS claims the material was "accidentally" included in the presentation and was not actually a part of the curriculum.
“The objectionable material presented at Andrew Jackson Language Academy this week is not and never was part of the student sexual education curriculum. It was mistakenly downloaded and included in the parent presentation, and we agree with parents it is not appropriate for elementary school students,” CPS spokesman Bill McCaffrey said in a statement.
However, parents who attended the event said a CPS representative was in attendance at the meeting and was answering questions about the curriculum, which led the parents to understand the questionable material was indeed part of the planned curriculum.
The presentation can be seen HERE. Video below:
Could it said that President Obama, being the community organizer that he is, is also an agitator of racial strife? When is enough enough?
What does that mean?
This creep is quite full of himself.
Monday, November 17, 2014
SIXTH CIRCUIT JUDGES STOP THE INSANITY
By Laurie Higgins -
Finally, some common sense from appellate court judges. In a 2-1 decision, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decided that state laws in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee that define marriage as the union of one man and one woman do not violate the Constitution.
What is the government’s interest in marriage?
Homosexuals assert that marriage is constituted solely by love and has no inherent connection to sexual differentiation or the children who may result from conjugal coupling. Further, homosexuals believe that it is the presence of love that not only makes a union a marriage but that justifies government involvement in it.
But is that true? Has the government ever been involved in marriage because of marriage’s inconsistent connection to love? Has the government ever had a vested interest in the subjective feelings of those who seek to marry?
Judge Jeffrey Sutton writing for the majority in the Sixth Circuit Court’s decision states that “One starts from the premise that governments got into the business of defining marriage, and remain in the business of defining marriage, not to regulate love but to regulate sex, most especially the intended and unintended effects of male-female intercourse.”
If marriage were constituted solely by love and the government were in the odd business of recognizing and affirming love, then why not recognize and affirm allforms of love by granting marriage licenses even to those in loving non-erotic relationships? What possible relevance to the government is inherently sterile erotic activity? What is the relevance of private, subjective, romantic feelings and inherently sterile erotic activity to any public purposes of marriage and therefore to the government’s involvement with marriage?
When “progressives” argue that marriage is constituted solely by love and commitment and that it has no inherent connection to procreation, then they have to explain why two brothers should not be permitted to marry. Why shouldn’t five people of assorted genders (or no gender) who love each other be permitted to marry? Why shouldn’t the non-erotic relationship between BFF’s be considered a “marriage”?
Dissenting judge liberal Martha Craig Daughtrey argued that in the nineteen states where homoerotic unions are now recognized as marriages “‘it doesn’t look like the sky is falling in.’” So, that’s her legal rationale? As long as legal change doesn’t result in a rapid, dramatic atmospheric calamity, it’s hunky dory? One wonders if Daughtrey thinks the sky would fall in if plural or incestuous unions were to be legalized.
Liberals can’t appeal to history, tradition, or children in their defense of marriage as inherently binary, or non-consanguineous, or related to erotic activity, because they have already shredded the notions that history, tradition, or procreation have any relevance to marriage.
But if reproductive-type sexual activity (i.e., coitus) is irrelevant to government interest in marriage then surely non-reproductive-types of erotic activity are equally irrelevant. And if all sexual/erotic activity is irrelevant to the government’s interest in marriage, then logically those in relationships constituted by any and all forms of love must be permitted to “marry.”
As homosexuals continually and rightly assert, men and women are objectively and substantively different, and those differences are anatomical, biological, emotional, and psychological. A homoerotic union is as different from a heterosexual union as men are from women. A heterosexual union is different from a homoerotic union in objective ways pertaining to the procreation, needs, and rights of any children that may result from the type of sex act in which only men and women can engage. This type of union matters to government.
When conservatives argue that the government is involved in marriage because of the connection between male-female coitus and procreation, the Left says, “Aha, but infertile couples and those who intend to remain childless are allowed to marry.” What they’re saying is that the government neither compels procreation nor attempts to ascertain fertility. This liberals see as a flaw in conservative arguments. They believe that the government’s establishment of general objective marital criteria as opposed to intrusive government involvement in individual relationships is a weakness as opposed to a strength.
But what about the Left’s revisionist view of marriage as being constituted only by love? Are liberals similarly troubled by the fact that the government will never demand proof of the presence of love or attempt to compel couples to love one another? Will the unwillingness of the government to demand proof of love suggest a flaw in liberal arguments for redefining marriage?
Do governments create marriage?
According to the homosexual newspaper the Washington Blade, “When state attorneys made the arguments that bans on same-sex marriage had a rational basis because the purpose of marriage was procreation, Daughtrey took them to task, repeatedly asking them why excluding same-sex couples from the institution was necessary when opposite-sex couples can procreate with or without marriage.”
Daughtrey reveals both her ignorance and her liberal view that government creates reality.
A man and woman who engage in reproductive-type sexual activity (i.e., coitus) and conceive a child are in reality married because the central defining features of marriage are sexual differentiation and coitus. Marriage has a nature that predates the existence of formal legal institutions. Opposite-sex couples aren’t marriedbecause the government issues them a license. The government issues them a license to formalize marriage, which becomes actualized through conjugal unions—not through inherently sterile mutual masturbatory activity. Couples who engage in conjugal activity prior to acquiring a marriage license are in reality married. It isn’t the government that creates marriage. Government merely recognizes and regulates a type of union that in reality exists. We call that type of union marriage.
Since government does not create marriage, it cannot un-create it or recreate it. Thus, legally allowing two people of the same-sex to “marry” does not mean they’re married in anything other than a legal (de jure) sense. They are not married in reality because in reality marriage has a nature central to which is sexual differentiation, and without which a union is not marital.
If some silly government officials decided to issue dog licenses to cats because both dogs and cats have fur and four legs, some citizens—it is hoped—would recognize that dogs are in reality not cats because cats have natures that don’t change because the government issues a license.
Harm to children
The Left claims that children are “harmed” by not having their same-sex parents married. Since the Left worships at the woefully unstable altar of social science research, have liberal judges asked attorneys for homosexual couples to provide conclusive, incontrovertible sociological research demonstrating the ways these children are measurably harmed. Are children being raised by unmarried homosexual parents scoring lower on standardized tests? Are they abusing drugs and alcohol at higher rates than are children whose homosexual parents are married? What are the statistics on mental illness? Are their peer relationships more unstable?
If there is research demonstrating that these children suffer, have researchers controlled for all the factors that may contribute to their suffering? Is it the legal marital status of their parents that causes the harm or might it be the absence of either a mother or a father? Even President Barack Obama has publicly stated that both mothers and fathers are critical to children’s lives, and all children haveboth a mother and a father—even though some children are being deprived of relationships with them through the purchase of their DNA. Does it make sense that the marital status of homosexual parents would cause harm but being denied either a mother or father would not?
Some homosexual couples appeal to the self-consciousness their children feel about their parents not being legally married as evidence that same-sex “marriage” should be legalized. What does it mean then when children being raised by homosexuals feel self-conscious about not having a mother or a father?
Ironically, while the Left has been effective in selling the redefinition of marriage by asserting that marriage has nothing to do with procreation, William Harbison, attorney for the Tennessee same-sex couples in the Sixth Circuit Court case, complained that traditional marriage laws exclude “same-sex couples from anything related to procreation.” So, procreation matters in marriage law but only in so far as it satisfies the procreative desires of those who choose to be in inherently non-procreative relationships. While arguing that marriage is solely constituted by love and has nothing to do with procreation, “progressives” then use children’s needs, desires, and rights as a justification for changing the legal definition of marriage.
Let’s follow the logic of this revised revisionist view of marriage. If it’s love, commitment, and the presence of children (though not the begetting of children) that constitute “marriage,” then plural unions, incestuous unions, or any relational contexts in which children are being raised must logically be recognized as marriages.
Once the public becomes persuaded that love is all there is when it comes to marriage, they will start clamoring for the legalization of plural and incestuous unions. Once the notion that any adults raising children are entitled to have their relationships recognized as “marriages,” then judges will be obliged to find legal rationales to jettison requirements regarding monogamy and consanguinity from the legal definition of marriage—oh, unless doing so would cause the sky to fall in, which we won’t know until decades after platonic, plural, and incestuous marriages are legalized. Once marriages are no longer restricted to erotic/sexual unions, the minimum age requirement too becomes irrelevant.
And at long last, we will arrive at the end game for the far Left: the destruction of marriage. Once society concludes that marriage is wholly a social construct with no objective nature, and once all criteria that define marriage are jettisoned so that any persons or number of persons can “marry,” marriage ceases to exist. Once marriage is anything, it’s nothing, with no relevance to the public good.