Intellectual Odds & Ends

It seems like the anti-military and anti-recruitment zealots aren't against fighting per se. They fight quite vigorously against their fellow citizens and those that ensure their right to protest. It is people that will fight back that seem to escape their unhinged and unpatriotic attacks. If only they could gin up comparable outrage towards those intent on destroying them and their way of life.

I see that California has executed a one-two punch. First they asserted that parents couldn't object to the content being taught to their children under the presumption that the children were put into school voluntarily. Now they are told that they aren't qualified to withhold their children from those same schools to teach them themselves. So are the children's in those schools really there voluntary? Doesn't seem to matter either way, does it? It takes a village to destroy family values.

Most schools don't permit students to participate in extracurricular activities if they are failing in their regular course requirements. Shouldn't we apply the same logic to government? Until they can make the courts work, defend the country, and secure the nation's borders, why should they be given license to dabble in social engineering? I note that most of this extracurricular (and extra-constitutional) activity gets failing grades as well.

I was a capitalist when I had nothing, and although I still have very little, I'm still a capitalist. I don't resent those that have more; I resent those that would try to prevent me from attaining more by demonizing those of greater achievement. I'm grateful to have had the opportunity to steer my own life in whichever direction I wished, something very rare in the history of mankind. What I have is largely the result of my own stewardship of my life.

When you give someone the shirt off your back, that is charity. When someone takes your shirt from you at gunpoint to give it someone they deem more worthy, that is tyranny; or socialism as it's currently called.

Nothing ruins a man more than a life of unearned ease. To have succor at the expense of others without the wit, will and ability to achieve it on one's own breeds nothing but contempt for those that labor and sacrifice from those that do not. Hunger and poverty can be powerful motivators, given the chance to work their magic, when combined with the freedom to seek a cure for them by one's own efforts.

I support the idea that every vote should count; but, I do not support the idea that illegitimate votes should. Those opposed to voter ID requirements are really supporting nothing short of fraud and anarchy by implying that those that are disenfranchised by this trifling inconvenience have a legitimate franchise in the first place.


Why do feminists claim on one hand that men are unnecessary to their happiness while bemoaning the refusal of men to grow up and make commitments on the other? Why did they think that marginalizing men as optional wouldn't be reciprocated? If men are essentially reduced to a source of income and insemination, what incentive do men have to share their income and to produce children with those that consider them as little more than that? The feminist movement has done far more to free men from their traditional responsibilities than it has to free women from theirs. The law of unintended consequences will out.

Scottie