Here is a list of Opinionated Blogs ordered by Last Viewed, posted by members. A Blog is a journal you may enter about your life, thoughts, interesting experiences, or lessons you've learned. Post an opinion, impart words of wisdom, or talk about something interesting in your day. Update your blog on a regular basis, or just whenever you have something to say. Creating a blog is a good way to share something of yourself with others. Reading blogs is a good way to learn more about others. Click here to post a blog.
What Happened To Gender Equality?
WALSH: An NFL Player Is Being Condemned For Hitting A Woman. She Hit Him, Too. What Happened To Gender Equality?
Kareem Hunt, star running back for the Kansas City Chiefs, has been cut from the team and suspended by the league after video surfaced of him "brutalizing" a woman. At least, "brutalizing" is the word that media has used. Actual footage of the altercation doesn't seem to support that characterization.
The video shows Hunt and a few guys having an argument with a group of women in the hallway of a Cleveland hotel. There is no audio to go along with the visual, but you can tell that Hunt and the alleged victim are angry at each other. You can also tell that most of the people involved in the dispute are drunk. Hunt's friends claim that the woman hurled a racial slur after being kicked out of Hunt's room when he discovered that they they were 19-years-old, rather than 21. The women say they were kicked out because they refused the s*xual advances of one of the men present. I'm not sure I believe either version of the story, but it doesn't matter.
As Hunt is being restrained by another man, a woman is seen approaching Hunt and saying something to him. Hunt shoves the woman. The woman smacks him in the face. Things devolve from there. Hunt gets angrier and angrier as the woman keeps coming back to yell at him. Eventually the woman ends up on the ground after being accidentally knocked over by a different man. As she is still crouching on the floor, Hunt kicks her. It does not appear to be a very hard kick, but it was a kick nonetheless.
Hunt behaved wrongly and stupidly. He could have walked away at any time. The kick at the end was egregious. He also apparently lied to his employer about the incident, so he deserved to be fired for that reason alone. But the woman is no innocent flower. She appears to repeatedly escalate the confrontation. She kept coming back when she could have left. She smacked Hunt in the face. She is a participant in this drunken dispute, not a victim of it.
Now, I personally hold Hunt more culpable, and I find his actions more reprehensible, because he is a man and she is a woman. Barring cases of legitimate self-defense (I don't think this qualified), I ascribe to the general philosophy that a man shouldn't hit a woman. It's not a big deal when men get into shoving matches with each other, but they shouldn't act that way toward women. Men should treat women differently because women are different. The whole point of chivalry is that a man ought to recognize his physical advantages and use those advantages to serve and protect the members of the fairer sex, not dominate or intimidate them. Hunt's behavior toward the woman might not seem all that awful if we view the two of them simply as human beings having a dispute. But if we view them as man and woman, and expect, based on the principles of chivalry, that a man will treat a woman like a woman and not like a man, then Hunt's behavior can be especially condemned.
The story:
Kareem Hunt, star running back for the Kansas City Chiefs, has been cut from the team and suspended by the league after video surfaced of him "brutalizing" a woman. At least, "brutalizing" is the word that media has used. Actual footage of the altercation doesn't seem to support that characterization.
The video shows Hunt and a few guys having an argument with a group of women in the hallway of a Cleveland hotel. There is no audio to go along with the visual, but you can tell that Hunt and the alleged victim are angry at each other. You can also tell that most of the people involved in the dispute are drunk. Hunt's friends claim that the woman hurled a racial slur after being kicked out of Hunt's room when he discovered that they they were 19-years-old, rather than 21. The women say they were kicked out because they refused the s*xual advances of one of the men present. I'm not sure I believe either version of the story, but it doesn't matter.
As Hunt is being restrained by another man, a woman is seen approaching Hunt and saying something to him. Hunt shoves the woman. The woman smacks him in the face. Things devolve from there. Hunt gets angrier and angrier as the woman keeps coming back to yell at him. Eventually the woman ends up on the ground after being accidentally knocked over by a different man. As she is still crouching on the floor, Hunt kicks her. It does not appear to be a very hard kick, but it was a kick nonetheless.
Hunt behaved wrongly and stupidly. He could have walked away at any time. The kick at the end was egregious. He also apparently lied to his employer about the incident, so he deserved to be fired for that reason alone. But the woman is no innocent flower. She appears to repeatedly escalate the confrontation. She kept coming back when she could have left. She smacked Hunt in the face. She is a participant in this drunken dispute, not a victim of it.
Now, I personally hold Hunt more culpable, and I find his actions more reprehensible, because he is a man and she is a woman. Barring cases of legitimate self-defense (I don't think this qualified), I ascribe to the general philosophy that a man shouldn't hit a woman. It's not a big deal when men get into shoving matches with each other, but they shouldn't act that way toward women. Men should treat women differently because women are different. The whole point of chivalry is that a man ought to recognize his physical advantages and use those advantages to serve and protect the members of the fairer sex, not dominate or intimidate them. Hunt's behavior toward the woman might not seem all that awful if we view the two of them simply as human beings having a dispute. But if we view them as man and woman, and expect, based on the principles of chivalry, that a man will treat a woman like a woman and not like a man, then Hunt's behavior can be especially condemned.
The story:
The pencil, and us
In 1980, Milton Friedman presented his vision of how the free market might bring about world peace in a 10-hour PBS broadcast series called Free to Choose. In a clip from the show (several versions are available on YouTube alone, totaling over 200,000 views, not counting multiple tribute videos), Friedman distills his argument into a two-minute-and-forty-one-second parable about a common household object:
Look at this lead pencil. There’s not a single person in the world who could make this pencil. Remarkable statement? Not at all. The wood from which it is made, for all I know, comes from a tree that was cut down in the state of Washington. To cut down that tree, it took a saw. To make the saw, it took steel. To make steel, it took iron ore. This black center—we call it lead but it’s really graphite, compressed graphite—I’m not sure where it comes from, but I think it comes from some mines in South America. This red top up here, this eraser, a bit of rubber, probably comes from Malaya, where the rubber tree isn’t even native! It was imported from South America by some businessmen with the help of the British government. This brass ferrule? [Self-effacing laughter.] I haven’t the slightest idea where it came from. Or the yellow paint! Or the paint that made the black lines. Or the glue that holds it together. Literally thousands of people co-operated to make this pencil. People who don’t speak the same language, who practice different religions, who might hate one another if they ever met! When you go down to the store and buy this pencil, you are in effect trading a few minutes of your time for a few seconds of the time of all those thousands of people. What brought them together and induced them to cooperate to make this pencil? There was no commissar sending … out orders from some central office. It was the magic of the price system: the impersonal operation of prices that brought them together and got them to cooperate, to make this pencil, so you could have it for a trifling sum.
That is why the operation of the free market is so essential. Not only to promote productive efficiency, but even more to foster harmony and peace among the peoples of the world.
Look at this lead pencil. There’s not a single person in the world who could make this pencil. Remarkable statement? Not at all. The wood from which it is made, for all I know, comes from a tree that was cut down in the state of Washington. To cut down that tree, it took a saw. To make the saw, it took steel. To make steel, it took iron ore. This black center—we call it lead but it’s really graphite, compressed graphite—I’m not sure where it comes from, but I think it comes from some mines in South America. This red top up here, this eraser, a bit of rubber, probably comes from Malaya, where the rubber tree isn’t even native! It was imported from South America by some businessmen with the help of the British government. This brass ferrule? [Self-effacing laughter.] I haven’t the slightest idea where it came from. Or the yellow paint! Or the paint that made the black lines. Or the glue that holds it together. Literally thousands of people co-operated to make this pencil. People who don’t speak the same language, who practice different religions, who might hate one another if they ever met! When you go down to the store and buy this pencil, you are in effect trading a few minutes of your time for a few seconds of the time of all those thousands of people. What brought them together and induced them to cooperate to make this pencil? There was no commissar sending … out orders from some central office. It was the magic of the price system: the impersonal operation of prices that brought them together and got them to cooperate, to make this pencil, so you could have it for a trifling sum.
That is why the operation of the free market is so essential. Not only to promote productive efficiency, but even more to foster harmony and peace among the peoples of the world.
President Trump Understands America's Economic Power in a Way Others Do Not
Who knew MSNBC finally understands Donald Trump's brilliance on the economy?
Leftist Prof Claims ‘Paw Patrol’ Kids’ Cartoon Is ‘Capitalist Propaganda’
A far-left professor in Canada is on a tear against the wildly popular kids’ cartoon, “Paw Patrol,” which he claims is “capitalist propaganda” that leads children away from Marxism, teaching them to critique and distrust government and embrace individualism.
King’s University College professor Liam Kennedy has published an entire treatise on the subject of “Paw Patrol,” entitled “Whenever there’s trouble. Just yelp for help’: Crime, Conservation, and Corporatization in Paw Patrol.”
“Paw Patrol,” created by a Canadian toy maker is “a cartoon, a toy brand, and a merchandising juggernaut, as well as a touring live show. Together, it rakes in hundreds of millions of dollars every year and has been forging a cult-like preschool following for years,” according to Fast Company. The show portrays a band of puppies who provide much-needed emergency services — police, fire, construction, and other public works — to a fictional town where the dogs in charge are largely incompetent.
“In the show, Ryder is the ring-leader of the pups, each of whom has a job to do as part of their team,” according to Post Millennial. ‘There’s Chase, the police dog, Marshall, the fire chief dog who can never quite get control of his hose, Rubble, the builder, Skye, who flies a plane for some reason and is the girl pup, Everest, the extreme outdoor adventuring pup, Rocky, the rescue dog, and Zuma, the pup who drives a boat.”
That’s a huge problem, per Kennedy: “Paw Patrol, as a private corporation, is used to help provide basic social services in the Adventure Bay community. That’s problematic in that the Paw Patrol creators are sending this message that we can’t depend on the state to provide these services.”
Kennedy is so anti-“Paw Patrol” that he won’t let her daughter watch the show, out of fear that she might grow up to love law enforcement, question authority, and approve of profit (Kennedy, Post Millennal reports, came up with his theory after watching hours of the show alone in his office).
In an interview with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Kennedy railed against the evils of “Paw Patrol’s” peppy team of first responder hounds, declaring them the real villains of the show because they don’t respect their local leaders.
“I’ll start with the depiction of the state. Mayor Humdinger and Mayor Goodway—kind of the representatives of the state or the government—are portrayed negatively,” Kennedy railed. “Mayor Humdinger is portrayed as unethical or corrupt. Mayor Goodway as hysterical, bumbling, incompetent.”
And don’t get him started on how the Paw Patrol itself encourages individual achievement through its motto, “no job too big, no pup too small.”
“To me that’s an individualist message,” Kennedy said. “Pull up your bootstraps, you can do it if you just try hard enough. That kind of message ignores structural barriers in our society and not everyone can do it.”
It’s a truly awful show, Kennedy complained. “I just think that as time goes on, children might be less likely to critique the capitalist system that causes environmental harm in the first place and reproduces inequality.”
What nerve.
King’s University College professor Liam Kennedy has published an entire treatise on the subject of “Paw Patrol,” entitled “Whenever there’s trouble. Just yelp for help’: Crime, Conservation, and Corporatization in Paw Patrol.”
“Paw Patrol,” created by a Canadian toy maker is “a cartoon, a toy brand, and a merchandising juggernaut, as well as a touring live show. Together, it rakes in hundreds of millions of dollars every year and has been forging a cult-like preschool following for years,” according to Fast Company. The show portrays a band of puppies who provide much-needed emergency services — police, fire, construction, and other public works — to a fictional town where the dogs in charge are largely incompetent.
“In the show, Ryder is the ring-leader of the pups, each of whom has a job to do as part of their team,” according to Post Millennial. ‘There’s Chase, the police dog, Marshall, the fire chief dog who can never quite get control of his hose, Rubble, the builder, Skye, who flies a plane for some reason and is the girl pup, Everest, the extreme outdoor adventuring pup, Rocky, the rescue dog, and Zuma, the pup who drives a boat.”
That’s a huge problem, per Kennedy: “Paw Patrol, as a private corporation, is used to help provide basic social services in the Adventure Bay community. That’s problematic in that the Paw Patrol creators are sending this message that we can’t depend on the state to provide these services.”
Kennedy is so anti-“Paw Patrol” that he won’t let her daughter watch the show, out of fear that she might grow up to love law enforcement, question authority, and approve of profit (Kennedy, Post Millennal reports, came up with his theory after watching hours of the show alone in his office).
In an interview with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Kennedy railed against the evils of “Paw Patrol’s” peppy team of first responder hounds, declaring them the real villains of the show because they don’t respect their local leaders.
“I’ll start with the depiction of the state. Mayor Humdinger and Mayor Goodway—kind of the representatives of the state or the government—are portrayed negatively,” Kennedy railed. “Mayor Humdinger is portrayed as unethical or corrupt. Mayor Goodway as hysterical, bumbling, incompetent.”
And don’t get him started on how the Paw Patrol itself encourages individual achievement through its motto, “no job too big, no pup too small.”
“To me that’s an individualist message,” Kennedy said. “Pull up your bootstraps, you can do it if you just try hard enough. That kind of message ignores structural barriers in our society and not everyone can do it.”
It’s a truly awful show, Kennedy complained. “I just think that as time goes on, children might be less likely to critique the capitalist system that causes environmental harm in the first place and reproduces inequality.”
What nerve.
Milton Friedman speaks on Socialism
Milton Friedman, recipient of the 1976 Nobel Prize for Economic Science, was one of the most recognizable and influential proponents of liberty and markets in the 20th century, and the leader of the Chicago School of economics.
In this video from the grand opening of the Cato Institutes's headquarters in Washington, D.C. in 1993, Milton Friedman gives a talk about popular political aphorisms, one of his favorites being the one he helped popularize in the title of his 1975 book, "There's no such thing as a free lunch."
In this video from the grand opening of the Cato Institutes's headquarters in Washington, D.C. in 1993, Milton Friedman gives a talk about popular political aphorisms, one of his favorites being the one he helped popularize in the title of his 1975 book, "There's no such thing as a free lunch."
Just a short blog
While Republicans are focused on 2020, Democrats are still trying to win 2016.
Nancy Pelosi often begins her speeches with 'Most Americans agree....'
This American agrees with nothing Nancy Pelosi has to offer.
Remember, conservatism is based on facts, logic, and reality. Liberalism is based on theory, feelings, and fantasy.
Nancy Pelosi often begins her speeches with 'Most Americans agree....'
This American agrees with nothing Nancy Pelosi has to offer.
Remember, conservatism is based on facts, logic, and reality. Liberalism is based on theory, feelings, and fantasy.
online now!
My take on Sockpuppets and Trolls...
Sockpuppets aka Socks, are additional profiles created by the same person. They could be deceptively used to increase views and comments to a blog (or forum thread) by adding agreeable comments or sometimes 'off the wall controversy' where other members join in to defend the OP. Either way, the blog receives much more activity than one without the sock making comments.
Trolls are typically members offering only negative or off topic comments for the sheer purpose of disrupting the OP and their blog. You easily can find trolls on political blogs when the topic doesn't agree with their political position.
There may be a crossover with socks and trolls, but I'll simplify it as the difference in a cold or the flu. You could actually experience both at the same time.
Thanks for reading my blog!
Trolls are typically members offering only negative or off topic comments for the sheer purpose of disrupting the OP and their blog. You easily can find trolls on political blogs when the topic doesn't agree with their political position.
There may be a crossover with socks and trolls, but I'll simplify it as the difference in a cold or the flu. You could actually experience both at the same time.
Thanks for reading my blog!
Can Democrats be trusted to govern this country ????
NO!
The Democrats that would be charged with governing the nation has, for the past three and a half years, marginalized, physically confronted and repeatedly accused 63 million Americans who voted for Donald Trump of being not only racists but fascists and white supremacists, as well as homophobic, xenophobic and among the most vile people on the face of the earth. What will be their intentions for these rightfully incensed citizens? Ignore them and hope they go away (which they will not)? Or succumb to their base in order to stay in power and continue to vilify nearly half of the voters in 2020, thus potentially fomenting serious ongoing confrontations and retaliation.
Over the years 154 million fundamentalist, evangelical or Catholic Christians have been denigrated, mocked and pilloried for their beliefs as religious liberty is under continual assault by the Left and the Democratic Party. What can this segment of society look forward to under a government committed to promoting unfettered abortion and infanticide as well as a determination to purge society of its basic Judeo-Christian foundation? It is almost certain that the hierarchy of the party, in order to placate their base, will continue, by litigation, administrative decrees, and intimidation, to force their secularism on the nation. How will they respond to what will be increasing anger and resentment by 48% of the population?
In a nation of 330 million people there will always be those who will commit mass murder. When and if the current iteration of the Democratic Party takes over, these occurrences will increase. The left has always blamed rhetoric and guns as the primary causation. Thus, when mass murders occur, a Democratic Party in power will have no choice but to appease their left-wing voters (the bulk of their base) and continue to ignore underlying factors such as societal breakdown and mental illness and actively focus on limiting speech and gun control.
Currently 235 million Americans either own or could see themselves owning a gun. How will the Democrats in power go about confiscating guns in a nation of 3.8 million square miles? Utilize a national registry of all gun owners? Outlaw all semi-automatic weapons? Impose onerous taxes and insurance requirements making gun ownership unaffordable? Pass open-ended red flag laws allowing virtually anyone to file a complaint against someone, ostensibly based in their suspicions, thus allowing the police to seize the guns of the accused? As for speech, will certain words, phrases and organizations, as determined by the Left, be considered inciteful and dangerous and thus outlawed? How will the Democrats deal with the inevitable resistance and potential violent pushback from upwards of 72% of the nation’s citizenry?
Once in power, the Democrats are committed to Medicare for all, reparations for African Americans, and new environmental programs amid a myriad of spending programs. The estimated average annual cost of these proposals exceeds $6 Trillion over and above current spending. At present the federal government spends $4.7 Trillion (which includes $1 Trillion of deficit spending). Income taxes account for 50% of all government revenue and Social Security and Medicare withholding account for 36%. Thus, individuals account for 86% of all revenue. In order for the Democrats to pay for these programs, revenue from individual taxpayers would have to be increased by 200%.
Read the full story:
The Democrats that would be charged with governing the nation has, for the past three and a half years, marginalized, physically confronted and repeatedly accused 63 million Americans who voted for Donald Trump of being not only racists but fascists and white supremacists, as well as homophobic, xenophobic and among the most vile people on the face of the earth. What will be their intentions for these rightfully incensed citizens? Ignore them and hope they go away (which they will not)? Or succumb to their base in order to stay in power and continue to vilify nearly half of the voters in 2020, thus potentially fomenting serious ongoing confrontations and retaliation.
Over the years 154 million fundamentalist, evangelical or Catholic Christians have been denigrated, mocked and pilloried for their beliefs as religious liberty is under continual assault by the Left and the Democratic Party. What can this segment of society look forward to under a government committed to promoting unfettered abortion and infanticide as well as a determination to purge society of its basic Judeo-Christian foundation? It is almost certain that the hierarchy of the party, in order to placate their base, will continue, by litigation, administrative decrees, and intimidation, to force their secularism on the nation. How will they respond to what will be increasing anger and resentment by 48% of the population?
In a nation of 330 million people there will always be those who will commit mass murder. When and if the current iteration of the Democratic Party takes over, these occurrences will increase. The left has always blamed rhetoric and guns as the primary causation. Thus, when mass murders occur, a Democratic Party in power will have no choice but to appease their left-wing voters (the bulk of their base) and continue to ignore underlying factors such as societal breakdown and mental illness and actively focus on limiting speech and gun control.
Currently 235 million Americans either own or could see themselves owning a gun. How will the Democrats in power go about confiscating guns in a nation of 3.8 million square miles? Utilize a national registry of all gun owners? Outlaw all semi-automatic weapons? Impose onerous taxes and insurance requirements making gun ownership unaffordable? Pass open-ended red flag laws allowing virtually anyone to file a complaint against someone, ostensibly based in their suspicions, thus allowing the police to seize the guns of the accused? As for speech, will certain words, phrases and organizations, as determined by the Left, be considered inciteful and dangerous and thus outlawed? How will the Democrats deal with the inevitable resistance and potential violent pushback from upwards of 72% of the nation’s citizenry?
Once in power, the Democrats are committed to Medicare for all, reparations for African Americans, and new environmental programs amid a myriad of spending programs. The estimated average annual cost of these proposals exceeds $6 Trillion over and above current spending. At present the federal government spends $4.7 Trillion (which includes $1 Trillion of deficit spending). Income taxes account for 50% of all government revenue and Social Security and Medicare withholding account for 36%. Thus, individuals account for 86% of all revenue. In order for the Democrats to pay for these programs, revenue from individual taxpayers would have to be increased by 200%.
Read the full story:
A Blog is a journal you may enter about your life, your thoughts, interesting experiences, or lessons you have learned. It's your own page on Connecting Singles that you can update on a regular basis, or just whenever you have something to say. You can write about an opinion, impart words of wisdom, or talk about something interesting in your day. Creating a blog is a good way to share something of yourself with Connecting Singles members. Reading blogs is a good way to learn more about members you have met here. Please be sure to read the blog rules before posting.
Would YOU like to post a blog on Connecting Singles? Have you written blogs that you'd like to share with other members? Posting your blogs shows your skill and creativity and helps members get to know you better. Your blog will appear on the Connecting Singles Blogs page and also in a link on your profile page. Click here to post a blog »