Last Commented Society Blogs (899)

So I see the Democrats latest brilliant idea is a rehash of the "reparations" proposal that crops up every now and then when the left feels that they haven't thrown enough bad ideas out there recently (how wrong they are!). One by one like lemmings all their 2020 candidates are jumping on the pandering reparations bandwagon.

I'd like to know who would figure out who receives these reparations and who pays them.

Obama is black. His father was born in Kenya, lived most of his privileged government aristocratic life there and only came to America to go to college and graduate from Harvard (oh and get married and divorced a couple of times). B. Hussein also graduated Harvard of course. Now I'll grant you that I know first hand anyone who attended Harvard is deserving of reparations, but nowhere in Obama's family background does slavery appear except maybe at the hands of his African predecessors (since black Africans invented slavery).

And Obama's mother was a white women from America born in Kansas.

Does Obama get reparations?

How about this Rhodes Scholar Kamala Harris? I saw her on TV today jumping on the reparations bandwagon. She's black. Does she qualify? Well let's see. Her mother is a Tamil Indian and her father is from Jamaica. Her mother immigrated to America in 1960 and her father in 1961, 96 years after the 13th Amendment abolished slavery. Does she get the deal?

And what about the descendants of white Northern abolitionists? Should they be forced to pay reparations?

Who is going to figure this all out?

How about if you are 1/4 descendant of of an abolitionist, 1/4 descendant of a slave owner, 1/4 descendant of a slave and 1/4 descendant of someone who never lived in America while slavery existed.

We are going to create a new department of government filled with actuaries, accountants and genealogists to sort it all out?

And who pays for it? My ancestors didn't live in this country when there was slavery here. They had nothing at all to do with it. They were too busy trying to survive persecution and genocide in the countries that they fled.

There isn't a single person alive today who was a slave nor anyone who owned slaves. To reward those who were never wronged by forcing those who never wronged them to compensate them is the definition of unjust.

To people who claim they would be so happy to pay "reparations" to black people, what's stopping you? Go out and find a black person and hand them a wad of your cash. I'm fine with that. But keep your grubby hands out of MY pocket. You can do whatever you want with your money, but not with mine.

Here’s another good idea. Only Democrats owned slaves. The Democrats were the party of slave owners. Republicans didn’t own slaves, the Republican Party was founded for the purpose of defeating the Democrat slave owners and abolishing slavery.

So if there are going to be reparations, clearly only Democrats should pay. I’d be fine with that too.

I don’t believe in ghosts or spirits of the dead. I don’t believe in the potency of curses made by witches and ancient Egyptians, and I don’t believe in black magic. I don’t believe in the devil or vampires or werewolves. None of these things frighten me in the slightest. No, the only thing that stops me from walking through dark graveyards at midnight is my imagination.

“If I am wrong”, say the preachers of Hell fire, “I will never know, but if you are wrong”, they have more than once said, addressing me, “you most certainly will know.” Fair enough, but that’s my look out.

The situation regarding man made global climate change is rather different. If the prevailing scientific consensus is wrong, those who have tried to do something about it will have made the effort for nothing, and the economic resources put into dealing with the matter could have been spared. That would be a shame, but money and effort have been wasted on far less worthy causes. If the sceptics and deniers are wrong, however, they may still never know about it, but future generations certainly will.

While it makes sense to always choose the option that poses the least risk to one’s self yet promises the biggest personal benefit, it can be a very selfish and irresponsible choice sometimes.

My mom had a small collection of religious ornaments and souvenirs from various trips. She kept them on a mini-shelf unit in her place of business and one at home.
It wasn't until I got into furniture manufacturing where I heard the Jewish equivalent of knickknack that sounded like 'choch-ka' or 'choch-kee'
Designers, especially ones from New York used that work liberally. They told me it was a Yiddish word. Since the word was only spoken to me, I didn't have a clue how it was spelled.

Tonight, I was reading a news article and saw the word tchotchke and I tried to pronounce it with a 'T'
Puzzled about the word, I cut & pasted into dictionary.com to see it's chotch-ke (or alternately chahch-kuh)

Those are the things my parents called knickknacks. Mystery solved.

Yeah, these things:




Thanks for reading my blog!

With people living longer, the health service under pressure, house prices through the roof and Brexit - could you suggest ways we can fix broken Britain? Ideas encompassing pensions, environment, council tax, education, transport, drugs, betting, military security, housing and gambling.

First, as I've written about before and some of you may know, I was an eyewitness to the Muslim terrorist attack on New York City on 9/11/2001, the most deadly attack on American soil by any foreign entity in history since the United States was established. I lost friends, I almost lost family, and I witnessed things on that day and in the months to follow that will live in my memory to my own dying day.

But that isn't what this blog is about. It's about the left's perversion of the concept of charity by commingling it with oppressive totalitarian government authority.

A couple of days ago I had the misfortune to watch Jon Stewart appear before Congress, expressing outrage that Congress has been slow to appropriate taxpayer funding to continue to pay for the costs associated with the health problems that 9/11 first responders suffered as a result of their exposure to carcinogens at the site of the attack. Indeed he was seemingly infuriated that they had to even keep asking for this funding to be renewed every so often over the 18 years since the attack. Apparently he has been a champion of this cause for some time. It sounds noble on its face, but it's not.

My first observation is that like all actors, it's hard to tell how much of his emotional outburst is real and how much is contrived, but that's also a diversion from the point so I won't discuss it here.

Helping the first responders to that attack is a worthy cause. I have sympathy for them and have no problem with it. What I do have a problem with is using the power of the government to force other people to pay for it and just assuming that's okay. That's not charity, it's totalitarianism. Charity is about voluntarily contributing to a cause, not being forced to do so.

Helping first responders is a worthy cause. It has a place on the world's gigantic list of things worthy of charitable help. But it doesn't necessarily make everyone's top priority list of possible donations. Speaking for myself, for example, I have a family member who served in Afghanistan fighting against the Muslim terrorists who brought us 9/11. He was severely wounded and will need tremendous help for the rest of his life. The costs are astronomical. On my list of priorities, helping him with donations comes before the 9/11 first responders as worthy as they are. As much as I want to help them, whatever money I am forced to pay for that cause, I would rather give to my family member. Call me mean and uncompassionate, but that's the reality and I consider it my God given right to determine how I use the limited resources I've earned to donate to help others as I decide, not as someone else decides.

How about this Mr. Stewart. I'd be willing to pay for the government to do a mailing to ask for voluntary contributions from Americans and have a checklist of worthy causes to which they can voluntarily contribute instead of forcing them to pay for someone else's priority cause. What you are proposing is not charity, it's totalitarian government authority and I don't approve regardless of how worthy the cause may be. You aren't asking for donations, you are asking for people to be forced to pay for this cause because you, with your apparently superior sense of morality, have determined that it is of higher moral value than say, contributing to help for my family member. I resent that, and I am not acting when I express MY outrage towards your arrogant, coercive activities.

It's not like I'm surprised though. The left has a passion for using the government to force other people to pay for things they claim are the moral priorities everyone must abide by whether they agree with them or not. They seem to revel in the concept of forcing people to do things against their will, the opposite of the conservative value of individual liberty that this country was founded upon.

It's a well-known fact that people whose names start with A-M are the smartest and I can retrieve dozens of YouTube videos to back my claim--and those whose names start with N-Z are not only stupid, but smell like feet.

Does anyone see the problem here? If you do, you must be one of the stinky retards whose name starts with N-Z.

Feminism is a range of social movements, political movements, and ideologies that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve the political, economic, personal, and social equality of the sexes. Feminism incorporates the position that societies prioritize the male point of view, and that women are treated unfairly within those societies. Efforts to change that include fighting gender stereotypes and seeking to establish educational and professional opportunities for women that are equal to those for men.




Throughout most of Western history, women were confined to the domestic sphere, while public life was reserved for men. In medieval Europe, women were denied the right to own property, to study, or to participate in public life. At the end of the 19th century in France, they were still compelled to cover their heads in public, and, in parts of Germany, a husband still had the right to sell his wife. Even as late as the early 20th century, women could neither vote nor hold elective office in Europe and in most of the United States (where several territories and states granted women’s suffrage long before the federal government did so). Women were prevented from conducting business without a male representative, be it father, brother, husband, legal agent, or even son. Married women could not exercise control over their own children without the permission of their husbands. Moreover, women had little or no access to education and were barred from most professions. In some parts of the world, such restrictions on women continue today.




Why do so many hate the term feminism and the feminist movement?
I believe there are five critical reasons behind this:

1. Feminism has been associated with strong, forceful and angry women, and our society continues to punishes forceful women. (So much recent data and research has proved this.)

2. Many people fear that feminism will mean that men will eventually lose out – of power, influence, impact, authority, and control, and economic opportunities.

3. Many people believe that feminists want to control the world and put men down.

4. Many people fear that feminism will overturn time-honored traditions, religious beliefs and established gender roles, and that feels scary and wrong.

5. Many people fear that feminism will bring about negative shifts in relationships, marriage, society, culture, power and authority dynamics, and in business, job and economic opportunities if and when women are on an equal footing with men.




What are your views on Feminism?

Open discussion welcome!

25 Nuclear detonations in the history of this planet, Have you heard of them? Now what I was thought in school was that back in 1945 their where 2 Nukes used one to test and one for real, now that's what history has thought us, can we agree on that? so how is it that there are places around the world that have evidence of nuclear explosions dated back thousands of years? how come we weren't told this in school? if we were I must have missed that class cause I never heard this in our schooling, have you? and yet the evidence is there for all to see with their own eyes this fused green class in the ground that is caused by nuclear explosions WOW how many wars does it take for us to cop on? before its too late and we fu-k up the garden for good, you know years ago they asked a man called Einstein what sort of weapons do you think they'll use in world war 3? and he said I don't know but if Nuclear Weapons are used the weapons we'll be using in world war 4 will be sticks and stones! ( I think he knew more than he let on) and here we are again and we have learned nothing, we think we're the first civilization to have created nukes? well think again cause there are 25 sites around the world that would disagree with you as the evidence is there for all to see, it's like I said in my last blog history sure does like to repeat itself as we keep sending ourselves back to the stone age, then work our way back up through the ages thinking were the first to do this or that and if the evidence around the world proves otherwise, we're not the first to do anything but we may be the last, now I don't know about you but I see a pattern here 25 nukes detonated around the world the past 28,000 yrs and who knows maybe many more in the past, but the evidence around the world makes me think now what might have caused the great flood and the ice age! Why have we never been told about these wars? these civilizations! we are not the first, who were these people that had nuclear power? why do we know nothing about any of their cultures? and if all this is true, and the evidence is there for all to see, what does that say for evolution? or is it and has it always been just a theory? or is it all just politicly incorrect in today's society! what do you think folks?

Countries with evidence of fused green glass, the reason we know this is the nuclear weapon test in New Mexico back in 1945 left the same fused green class in the ground.

India
Pakistan
Iraq
Mongolia
Israel
Turkey
China
Gobi Desert
Sahara desert
Egypt
Norway
Ireland
Ilse of Man
Canary Islands
Puru
Brazil
USA
Easter Island
Scotland
Seria.

Nuclear Detonations in all these Counties! how is that I Wonder?