I am so sick and tired of hearing people respond to unfair circumstances with the trite line Who said life was fair?
Um, everyone! As you grow up, everybody from teachers, to parents, to television and movies tell children that life is fair and just and that the good guys win and that if you work and study hard, you can get a good job and money, a car, a house and a great life.
It isn’t until it is far too late that you realize they are all full of crap.
I just saw an article on Dateline about the things that children see on television today. They showed clips from various shows that depicted scenes inappropriate for young children. The recurring theme and solution was that the children were to be kept from seeing these shows. The parents agreed that they did not want their children—in some cases up to 12 years old—watching them.
This is ridicuolous the solution is not to prevent the children from watching the shows, the solution is to bloody educate them. Stone asked whether it is the networks or the parents who are responsible for keeping the children from watching inappropriate shows and everybody agreed it was the parents. If these parents have not yet had “the talk” with their children then the parents are certainly responsible!
This brings up another question. Isn’t it actually better to over-expose the kids to these things? If you over-expose the children to these images then they will become jaded and they will no longer respond to them. Is that not what is desired? In some cases yes it is. There are however some children who will react differently; becoming over-exposed to the stimulus, they will think that the behaviors are acceptable and when confronted with the descision, they will do it.
Again it comes back to the parents. They must take their children’s education into their own hands instead of hoping that sex-ed at school will do it for them when they are 14.
I just heard a commercial for a radio talk show where a guy was calling a woman of being a racist because she said something about Irish people in general. He said it in a very accusing way and she backtracked but he did not relent. He said “you made a statement about a whole group of people, isn’t that racism?” No it is not.
Here’s a definition of racism from Merriam Webster:
The first definition contains two parts, first that racism is a scientific observation—whether correct or not—and second that it ascribes a relative measure based on race.
The second definition—the more commonly used definition—requires some sort of negative or derogatory aspect.
Either way, specifically without an insult, racism is not merely making a sweeping statement. Making a general statement about a group or class of people or things is categorization or classification. If that were to be considered racism then the whole taxonomic and nomenclature branch of research, biology, chemistry, medicine, law, computer science, pretty much everything would be racist. Charles Darwin would have to be called a racist. Anyone who groups like objects would have to be called a racist.
People are so sensitive these days with all the politically-correct crap, that you cannot do or say ANYTHING without getting into trouble.
I was in the bathroom yesterday and as usual I got some of my best thinking donethere isn’t a whole lot more you can do in there. For many years I have been disgusted by the propensity of employers to reject better than average people because they are “over-qualified”. I have known from the moment I heard the term that it was a complete load but not until yesterday was I able to put into words that others can understand why it is a load.
First of all lets examine what it is. When an employer says that someone is over-qualified it means that the applicant has more skills/abilities/education/etc. than the job requires that is, the job is basically beneath them. But, why would an employer turn away someone who is obviously able to do the job very well? The short answer is that they are afraid that the applicant would leavesticking them with the duty and expense of finding yet another person for the positiondue to boredom, a better job, or some other reason that they would not have to worry about with a lesser applicant.
So far it makes sense so let’s get to the point. It is nevertheless a load because if that person were inundated with job offers from better places then surely they would not be here applying for a job beneath them. If that person were so easily bored with this job then surely there are other menial jobs that are less boring. Basically my point is that there are two main reasons that someone would apply for a job that they are over-qualified for.
First is that they are having trouble finding a more appropriate job. Perhaps there are none in that town or perhaps the few that there are, are already filled. In any case, if they are unable to find a better job than this, then they are not likely to find one in the near future and the cost-benefit ratio is in the employers favor to hire them because even if they do leave in a year or two, the performance and other advantages they would bring far outweigh having to hire someone else later.
Second, the applicant may be applying to a job that others perceive as beneath them because they themselves do not believe it is. They may be applying because they enjoy that work. For example, a person with a medical license might apply for a job as a line cook because they love cooking and they do not have much experience in that. Others would see it as menial but the doctor sees it as fun. Again, in this case there is ample reason to hire them.
In summary there is no such thing as “over-qualified” it is always in the best interests of the employer to hire the best possible person for the task. I hope you keep that in mind the next time someone smarter than you applies for a job.
In Canada right now there is a bill to ban pitbulls in Ontario. If the bill passes, anyone who owns a pitbulls will be forced to have it neutered, many existing pitbulls will be destroyed (read: murdered), and no pitbulls will be allowed into the province ever again. And of course the term “pitbull” refers to several breeds of dog.
Why are they doing this? Because there have been a few cases where someone was injured by one. You may ask if they are so violent then why is this a bad thing. It’s a bad thing because the dogs are not by themselves a problem but rather a man-made problem.
Pitbulls are naturally no more dangerous than say, a lion and certainly no more dangerous than a shark or grizzly bear. People however breed the dogs to be vicious, they train them to be as aggressive as possible. They do this for a few reasons; one is security—you know—those “beware of dog” signs, if the dog is bred to be vicious then it is good for protection. Well, maybe not protection/defense but rather offense. Another reason people breed them to be violent is for dog fighting; they pit two dogs against each other in a fight to the death and bet on who will survive. This is obviously a sick andespicablele action that should itself be banned and the offenders “destroyed”.
Okay, this issue ifairlyly straight forward. But where do the Jews come in? Instead of focusing on the neutering or the destroying, lets look at the other effect that the law would have. It would prohibit any new pitbulls from ever being brought into the province because they are objectionable to some people. This is rather insane.
First of all, pitbulls are animals, natural, living things, beings who are no less entitled to living anywhere that are capable than any human. Just because some people don’t like them doesn’t mean they should be banned from entry. If they do so, then it would set precedentnt that could snowball. What’s next? Banning mosquitoes? How abouprairieie dogs? any animals that smell? what about people that smell bad? stupid people? people who sing badly? blacks? Jews?
The pitbull law is tantamount to prejudice, pure and simple. They don’t like something so they ban it. That’s fine if the something is a number, color, word, etc. but when it is another creature—no matter how “insignificant”/”inferior”/etc., then they better have a damn good reason to ban it.
I was watching an analysing-the-movies type show this weekend and noticed something. When interviewed, the celebrities would talk about the film, the characters, the story, the metaphores, etc. in a very “deep” way. They would wax philosophical about this and that. Now normally, I would just ignore what they were saying because I really don’t like those kinds of “deep thoughts”. Don’t get me wrong, I’ve been known to ponder the universe myself, but I reserve that activity to when I actually know what I’m talking about and when I have something profound enough to make it worth doing.
However, this time I did not just ignore them. I listend closely. By the time it was over, I could not help but think two thoughts.
First, the celebrities sounded a lot like pot-heads who suddenly get a brilliant idea, “Woah! That was deep!”. You know what I mean, they think they have suddenly hit on something that could change life, but in reality (and in sobriety) is really just a glab.
Second, I realised that a LOT of celebrities talk like this; in fact they are almost exclusive in that right. Why is that? Because actors have a better education than most people? Because that is part of an actors training? Because they really are better, more sophisticated, classier people than everbody else? No. It’s because they are rich. That’s right, celeberities have more money than most people, as a result, they have less stress, less pressure, less work. When I say less work, I mean things that everone else does like cook and take out the trash because they have servants to do those things. Yes, yes, I know not all actors have servants and not all actors are rich, but I am talking in general. I always talk in general. Anyway, because they have less worries, they have more free time. They have time to just sit around and think about stuff where normal people do not. Normal people are busy trying to stay alive so they do not have the chance to think about things like that, otherwise they could do so as well.
Well that’s it for now. I’ve probably offended some people and I try to keep the number of people that I offend per day as low as possible (well at least I say that I try).