interestedcitizen
Joined Jan. 4, 2007
reviews
comments
favorites
Add to favorites
Comments
-
4 years, 1 month agointerestedcitizen's comment on:
Where are the local journalists?
I get the point. The point is that we, the consuming public, don't value hard news and excellent journalism. Instead, what we truly value is entertainment. Few of us want adult entertainment and titillation, but the fact that there is such a huge, profitable market for that type of entertainment, simply illustrates the hunger in the heart of most of us for some form of entertainment. We consume information, not because it is necessary, but because it provides a means of escape from the mundane.
I'll admit I'm part of a dying breed. I love to read. The who, what, when, where, and why questions are important to me. When I see a 20 or 30 second clip, I want to know more. I want to sit down and read details. Short text messages don't do it.
It really is a question of priorities, though. What do I need to know? Is it more important to know who detonated what bomb where in the Middle East, or what ethnic group attacked what ethnic group in Africa, than it is to know that, right under my nose, government officials are fleecing the taxpayers despite the fact that we have a democratic process that is supposed to peacefully get rid of corrupt leaders?
We have examples of the failure of democracy all over the world, as we see first one group after another seek to seize power by violent means. Yet, here we have peaceful elections and still witness massive failures of democratically elected leaders. What do I really need to know?
I do know this. I don't need to know that Lindsey Lohan is on another binge or was arrested for assault. I don't need to know that Natasha Richardson died from a skiing accident. I don't need to know that a family of three died in an apartment fire. I don't need to know about a three car pileup on I-45 just south of Ferris. I don't need to know that a police officer harassed a man who ran a red light on the way to see his dying mother in law. I don't need to know that a woman left a baby in a car overnight, resulting in the child's death. Yet, the newspaper is full of that kind of stuff.
-
4 years, 2 months agointerestedcitizen's comment on:
Where are the local journalists?
I think it has something to do with information overload. What do we really need to know? I try to read the printed newspaper every day, but still, details escape my memory. Which African country had an uprising? Cameroon, Angola, Uganda, Ghana, the Ivory Coast, or Somalia? Was it in Pakistan, Belorus, the Ukraine, or Uzbekistan where there was a terrorist bombing? Are the Kurds at peace with the Sunnis in Iraq? Have they settled their dispute with Turkey? Which militant group claimed responsibility, the Sikhs, the Hindus, or the Buddhists? Wasn't there something about the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan monks in the news? Somehow I missed the news story that a socialist leader had gained control in El Salvador, and what does that portend for the future, given socialst takeovers in Chile, Bolivia, Brazil, and Venezuela? What can we expect from Peru, Uruguay, Colombia, Paraguay, and Argentina? What will happen when we are surrounded by a socialist Canada, a socialist South and Central America, and when there is a heavy Chinese influence in the Southern Hemisphere and Chinese ownership of American debt? Are we going to answer to the Communist Chinese in the future? If China dumps our dollars on the world market, what's going to happen to us? And I don't know the whole story about the growing chaos in Mexico.
When I have a hard time organizing the facts about world events that dominate the front section of the newspaper, I really have a hard time paying attention to what is happening in Dallas County Schools.
As much as I support democracy, maybe there comes a point where we have too many levels of government. There are so many different government entities that we can't keep them all accountable. Eventually, they learn that the public isn't really paying attention. Year after year, they slide by with less than perfect accountability. They survive on a pragmatic philosophy. As long as they don't intend to harm anybody, what's a little mistake here and there? Of course, letting things slide is the opening door to fraud. What might have been accidental for a previous administration might become outright intentional for a later administration. We put our trust in prosecutors, but now we have a prosecutor who is more focused on exonerating innocent people than cleaning up government.
It's really tough, keeping government accountable. What's really tough is expecting someone with a journalism degree to be smarter than the CPAs and accountants that help cover the governments' mistakes and even become complicit in hiding vital information.
I don't have an answer. I'm just as bewildered as the writer of this article. What is just as bewildering to me, though, is the superficial comments like that of A. Troup that I constantly see below serious articles like this. It is as if people are living in their own little worlds and aren't trying to understand what is really happening in the culture or the world at large. It is as if they have no worldview or framework to evaluate what is happening. It is as if they don't see the relevance of what is happening around them. The only thing worth processing is what is immediately in front of them. Everything, they must think, is a passing fad. Everything is in a state of flux. Change is inevitable. We're like gas molecules, accidentally bumping into one another. Given this contstant change and this lack of certainty, what is the point of processing anything other than what immediately affects us? I think it is the general lack of interest, and the information overload that has led to decline in journalism. We've lost the ability to discern truth, and that has made journalism irrelevent.
-
4 years, 2 months agointerestedcitizen's comment on:
Effects of DART light rail on Plano
I have no stake, one way or the other, except that I don't like to see the public misled. I do want to stop the momentum for an area wide transit tax that is making its way through the legislature. I want money to stay in private hands. I don't want to pay a 9.25% sales tax.
I wasn't involved in a campaign in 1983, but I made sure everyone was fully informed on both sides of the issue. I attended a debate that gave equal time to both sides. I possess a file with the original promises and historical data through the years. I've put together spreadsheets. I know whereof I speak.
I have that map, dated April, 1983, entitled "Final Service Plan." I have a transcript of a debate, in which a DART proponent promised 160 miles of rail at buildout by 2010. DART's own documents now promise only 94 miles at buildout. I have a brochure for a referendum allowing DART to borrow money, in which DART promised 140 miles of rail at buildout. The case is clear. DART oversold itself to area cities. The area cities should have seen it. DART was, from the beginning, a scheme to pull tax revenues out of the suburbs into the failing Dallas Transit System. Its primary purpose was to boost downtown Dallas, and fill its persistent office vacancies.
I have seen one government boondoggle after another, preceded by hype and spin, that ends up costing the taxpayers an arm and a leg. My sole point is to expose the truth, get people to start thinking, and stop swallowing the pie in the sky promises of government solutions that never achieve their promised objectives.
-
4 years, 2 months agointerestedcitizen's comment on:
Lancaster mayor lobbies for UNT Dallas law school
The law school is not proposed to be developed at the South Dallas Campus. It is proposed for Downtown Dallas at the old Dallas police headquarters. If the law school is an economic engine at all(which is questionable), it will be an economic engine for downtown Dallas, not the southern suburbs. The southern tier mayors are just being used for a "southern strategy" that is really intended to boost downtown development.
That "economic engine" language is Chamber of Commerce speak. It is a buzzword that is more myth than fact.
Houston has two public law schools and one private law school. The DFW area has two private law schools. Waco has one private law school. San Antonio has one private law school. Lubbock has one public law school. Austin has one public law school. A public law school was tried and failed in South Texas, yet, if the need of the people is the justification for a law school, South Texas needs a publicly subsidized law school more than North Texas, because South Texas has no law school, period. Neither does El Paso, clearly one of the major metropolitan areas in Texas.
The DFW area has no shortage of lawyers. If there were a shortage of lawyers, lawyers wouldn't be scrambling for business with full page yellow pages ads. Do businesses settle in Houston because it has three law schools? I doubt it. Do they settle in San Antonio, Waco, or Lubbock because they each have a law school? I doubt it.
Businesses settle in Houston because it is an international port city. They settle in San Antonio because of its central location, and its centuries old ties to major trade routes. Though Waco's law school is legendary, Waco and Lubbock export most of their lawyers. Lawyers do not draw business to Waco or Lubbock.
I doubt, if Waco and Lubbock were to lose their law schools, that the economies in either of those towns would suffer one way or the other. We're talking about 400 or 500 students in each town. That number of students does not have a big impact on an economy. They are living at the survival level and they aren't necessarily loyal to the town where they are receiving their education. They will not necessarily pour their time, talent, and resources back into the community where they get their education.
How is a law school an economic engine? Did a law school in Fort Worth boost its economy? Does a public law school in Austin boost its economy? How?
The main function of lawyers in an economy is to rearrange the furniture, not to produce anything new. Lawyers facilitate the transfer of wealth, from generation to generation, from producers to consumers, or from consumers to producers.
Lawyers do facilitate commerce when they help business people and venture capitalists put together plans, but it isn't lawyers who make the deals happen. Arguably, the involvement of a lawyer on the front end of a deal might lead to better decision making and business planning while the deal is underway and it might lead to a smoother transition when the deal falls apart. Lawyers can help prevent messy breakups that undoubtedly harm the economy.
Still, how is a law school an economic engine? How does a law school "jump start" an economy? We need more clarification instead of Chamber of Commerce buzz words.
Lawyers are just there to help, and, at present, there is no shortage of lawyers willing to help.
Do people flock to an area to do business because it has law schools? I sincerely question that.
Investors are attracted to an area because it has research departments, capital, and smart workers with a strong work ethic. Smart people and technological breakthroughs are what build economies.
I think an excessive number of lawyers, crawling all over themselves looking for the next business to sue, would drive away private investment and kill an economy.
-
4 years, 2 months agointerestedcitizen's comment on:
Effects of DART light rail on Plano
Suffice it to say, I have thoroughly digested all of these articles. I attended the 1983 debates. I've waded through the DART Financial Reports. I clearly understand the hype and the false statistics reported by DART in support of its usefulness. I know the DART is a massive fraud on the public. It is built on lies, misinformation, and spin. It is nothing less than a massive government boondoggle, and it is going to come crashing down when it becomes unsustainable. The need to increase fares to recover the operating losses of the green line is just the tip of the iceberg.
-
4 years, 2 months agointerestedcitizen's comment on:
Effects of DART light rail on Plano
Finally, here is a citation to DART's financial statements. Spend some time here, as I have, and you will learn a lot about how much money DART loses every year: http://www.dart.org/debtdocuments/DAR...
-
4 years, 2 months agointerestedcitizen's comment on:
Effects of DART light rail on Plano
here's another cite http://www.texaspolicy.com/pdf/2000-v...
-
4 years, 2 months agointerestedcitizen's comment on:
Effects of DART light rail on Plano
Here's another cite http://www.publicpurpose.com/ut-2000r...
-
4 years, 2 months agointerestedcitizen's comment on:
Effects of DART light rail on Plano
Here's the first citation. It summarizes, with many annotations, why rail energy is less efficient
-
4 years, 2 months agointerestedcitizen's comment on:
Effects of DART light rail on Plano
I fully concur with the sentiment of this article. It is based on truth.
The truth is, so called "clean DART trains" waste energy and pollute the atmosphere. Only 30% of the energy in a raw fuel source (coal, nuclear, natural gas) ever makes it to the wheels of a DART train. The rest is lost in generation and transmission. A lot of the heat energy escapes to the skies of East Texas around the lignite plants, along with the carbon dioxide and particulate pollution.
DART trains are inefficient, because they are heavier on a per seat basis than private automobiles. They use energy inefficiently when they "deadhead" to and from the storage lot to their first and last pickuup point. Between rush hours they run less than full, increasing their energy inefficiency.
The inefficiency of DART is reflected in its massive operating losses. Last year, DART lost over $400 million in operating losses alone, reflecting a steady increase in operating costs each year since 2000. With the opening of the Green Line, DART is projecting even more operating losses. With such huge annual operating losses, where will DART get the capital to replace its aging equipment 20 years hence? Do you think a broke Federal government will have any money left to hand out such a poorly run operation as DART?
DART has broken practically every promise it made to the taxpayers in 1983. It promised it would obtain 55% of its operating revenues from the farebox by 2000. Today, it only gets 13% of its revenues from the farebox. It promised it would recover 50% of its operating expenses athe farebox by 2000. Today it only recovers around 10% of those expenses at the farebox.
DART published a map, in April of 1983, entitled "Final Service Plan", promising DART rail stations all over North, South, East, and West Dallas County. It even had an east-west route between Carrollton-Farmers Branch, and Renner Road in South Collin County by 2000. DART promised 160 miles of rail by buildout. Now it is down to 94 miles. DART is not the system it proimised the citizens back in 1983.
People voted for DART because it was graphically pictured as "pie in the sky" and the people believed the hype and spin.
Call this 21st Century of you want. If the 21st century is about making decisions because it "feels good" or "looks good," whether it is financially sound or not, or whether it reallys saves energy or resources, God help us.
DART loses so much money, because it wastes energy. The efficiencies of mass transit are based on late 1960s assumptions. Back then, people assumed that private automobiles wouldn't become more efficient. In fact, private automobiles have gained efficiency over the years, while buses and trains have lost efficiency.
I know Kay Bailey Hutchison is a "yes-man" for mass transit and Amtrak. That just goes to show she's a socialist. If the 21st century is about socialism, Kay Bailey Hutchison is on for the ride.
The problem with socialism is that there are no disincentives for government waste. DART is an extreme waster of government financial resources and energy resources. It is, on balance, one of our heaviest polluters.
Plano would do well to get out of DART, but please, don't waste the money on an Economic Development Corporation. Instead, leave the sales tax in the hands of private citizens and let it make true economic choices. Economic Development Corporations simply distort local economies, inducing private businesses to make false choices. Economic Development Corporations engage in corporate welfare. Any way you look at it, it's still socialism.
I guess this article points out that the Republican Party is Socialist Party B. Kay Bailey Hutchison is clearly socialist. The writer of this article is a corporate socialist.
-
4 years, 2 months agointerestedcitizen's comment on:
DART's smaller bus leaves some passengers out on the street
A private transit system, with a competitor,concerned about profits and survival, would not have made this mistake. A competitor would have come in and filled the void.
Why no private transit? you ask. Because DART has carved out for itself a monopoly. It operates at an annual $400,000.00 operating loss. It can't build up a capital replacement fund. Contrary to its promise to survive on local funding, it now routinely goes, hat in hand, for federal funding. There are no private competitors because they are priced out of the market by a massively subsidized, money losing operation.
The solution? Return to private transit. Open the floodgates to competition. Some will be excellent. Some will be poor. A lot fewer people will be walking the streets because they will have opportunties to afford private transit service with older cars, after entry barriers for private taxis are lowered.
We create our own problems by looking to the government for solutions that should properly be the domain of the private sector.
And we dare to call government solutions bold and innovative.
-
4 years, 4 months agointerestedcitizen's comment on:
Dallas man files for divorce from his husband
Texas doesn't recognize them as married, so why do they need to divorce? One can just move out, and in the eyes of Texas, they're single again. They can just move out and start living apart. They can start living with someone else if that is their choice and there is no fraud and no bigamy, because as far as Texas is concerned, they were never married because they couldn't marry. Because they aren't married in the eyes of Texas law, one isn't resonsible for the other's household necessities and one isn't responsible for the other's medical debts.
So, why get a divorce? Is it because one wants part of the other's property? Are they asking the court to divide the marital pie? They must want some benefit bestowed on them by Texas community property laws.
It seems to me that if one wants part of the other's property, the one who wants to resist a property division would try to argue that the marriage isn't recognized under Texas law and therefore the court has no power to divide the marital pie. Or the one who doesn't want to pay spousal support could argue the same thing.
If they are both seeking the jurisdiction of a Texas court to divide the marital pie or award spousal support, then they are just playing a foolish game. They don't have a real controversy and the court should just throw the case out.
People who buy real estate with pooled funds are cotenants and can ask for a partition of their real estate. They can do the same thing with money in the bank that they purchased with pooled funds. They don't need a divorce to divide property.
The only reason they must be seeking a divorce is (1) one of them must not have been working or forfeited a career to take care of the house. or (2) one of them got sick during the relationship and wants the other to pay the equivalent of spousal support. One of them is seeking a special benefit that is granted by our marital property laws. Our martial property laws reward heterosexual marriage, which has been the keystone of our civilization for hundreds of years. It is the way we reward men and women for entering into committed relationships and bearing and supporting children during those committed relationships.
Community property laws go back to the Visigoths and recognize that women contribute equally to the civilization when they bear and raise children, even when they forfeit careers and earnings to do so.
Gay marriages contribute to a death culture. They cannot biolgically reproduce. The only way they can reproduce is to take a child away from its biological mother and father. They can't give a child a father and a mother. Our laws have never rewarded such an odd relationship, and we should not start doing so.
-
4 years, 4 months agointerestedcitizen's comment on:
Dallas man files for divorce from his husband
There's nothing different about their situation than a man living with a woman out of wedlock. You move to Texas and live together. You can't expect to earn a community interest in the other spouse's property through his earnings. In Texas, you can't get palimony. If an unmarried man or woman can't act as a housewife or househusband and gain a community property interest in the spouse's property, then neither should a same sex partner expect what an unmarried partner can't get. To give special status to same sex couples that is denied opposite sex unmarried couples would clearly be a form of sex based discrimination.
The lesson is clear. In Texas, if you want the benefit of community property laws, you enter into a marriage between a man and a woman. And, may I add this? Say, you're a gay man and the woman is lesbian. Say, she doesn't want to have sex with a man and you don't want to have sex with a woman. You can still marry and enjoy the benefits of community property. You just have a sexless marriage. If you think sex is fundamental to your mental health, you can have gay sex with your own sex and she can have sex with her own sex. You just can't link sexual intercourse with community property benefits, but you are not denied the right to marry, even though you are gay.
There's no discrimination based on sex, because marriage between a man and a woman is equally open to men and women. It doesn't favor men over women or women over men. By the same token, living together out of wedlock is equally open to men and women. Take your choice. You want the benefit of community property laws, then marry a woman if you're a man or marry a man if you're a woman. If you don't, then enter into some kind of partnership agreement, but make sure that it isn't an exchange of property for sex, because that would be prostitution and that would be a void agreement at its inception, because our laws will not enforce a contract to perform a criminal act. Maybe the stay at home partner could exchange household services for part of the other spouse's earnings. Any sex should be completely gratuitous and not required or expected in exchange for a property interest However, if it is an exchange of property for housecleaning and cooking services, then there should also be some Internal Revenue documents that also reflect the transaction. Wage and hour laws might also come into play. Unemployment insurance might also be required.
We've got laws and our laws are based on sound policies. People who want to flaunt the rules and live contrary to the law and according to their own rules need to accept the rules we already have or move to a place that has rules more compatible with their lifestyle choices.
-
4 years, 6 months agointerestedcitizen's comment on:
Lancaster ISD, Superintendent Lewis twist in the wind
If it were really about "the children," Lewis would leave without filing a lawsuit, given the financial mess into which the district has fallen under his oversight. By digging in his heels, we clearly see this is about Lewis and his career. If he files a lawsuit, his career is over, whether he wins or loses. Who would want to hire a superintendent with a dictatorial leadership style, a penchant for spending lavishly on travel and entertainment, who made extremely modest gains in academic achievement in contrast to his promises, and who managed the district's finances so poorly as to draw in a TEA conservator?
He's gambling. If he can hang on just two more years, he obviously thinks he can count on the preachers of this community to persuade the voters to elect a pro-Lewis board. He's hanging on for dear life.
His only purpose in filing a lawsuit would be to get enough money to retire. It would clearly not be about the best interests of the children.
He knows that if he leaves voluntarily, he will have essentially admitted to the findings of the investigative team, even though he would likely negotiate confidentiality provisions. He's promised he will be "validated," although surely he meant "vindicated." So, unless he comes out of this deal squeaky clean, he will lose whether he voluntarily leaves or not. So, the best he can do is dig in his heels and fight for his career.
He's backed into a corner. All he can do at this point is fight and hope he can claw his way out. I can't believe, even if he does make it out with his job in place, that he could be an effective leader. He has lost too much credibility.
His rhetoric and that of his lawyer indicate they are spoiling for a fight if he should be involuntarily terminated for cause. We had better hope that if he is terminated for cause, the evidence will be so clear that his lawsuit will not make it past the summary judgment stage. The vote of the board will indicate whether they have been advised by the district's lawyers that the case against Lewis is that strong.
Lewis could negotiate his way out of this deal and salvage part of his career with confidentiality provisions. Based on the comments we've read in the press, it appears he is making an all or nothing gamble. The press makes it sound like he refuses to negotiate a voluntary exodus.
We'll never know what he's been offered, but obviously, he has not been offered a complete buyout. My guess is that he's been confronted with the evidence and offered a token amount, plus confidentiality, to leave quietly, with mutual covenants not to sue. My guess is he refused the token severance package, and dug in his heels, similar to the game Hinojosa is playing in Dallas.
I think Lewis' attitude as revealed by his comments to the press show a basic character flaw that has been consistent over the last five years of his tenure. He doesn't walk circumspectly. He is a law unto himself. He refuses to second guess himself. He has a lust for power. We see it in the way he shifts the blame. Nothing is ever his fault. First, he says he inherited a financial problem which, he says wrongly, he fixed. Second, he says LISD made a mistake when it failed to annex the defunct Wilmer Hutchins. Third, he failed to complete all of the 2004 bond projects because the price of concrete and steel rose, Fourth, he initially said that it was OK to purchase vehicles and equipment with bond money, and when it was pointed out by the TEA that it was illegal to purchase $500,000 worth of vehicles and equipment with bond money, he stated, wrongly, that the the construction fund had been repaid by the operations and maintenance fund. Then, he blamed a million dollar oversight on his the now convicted financial officer Eugene Smith, whom he hired.
The blame shifting has to stop. He built the culture. The people who serve directly under him and report to him reflect his values. If they didn't share his values, they would long ago have blown the whistle. To the extent they protect him and are loyal to him, they are part of the culture he created. He needs to get over his power trip.
I think, though, since the stakes are so high and his career is on the line, it is no longer about "the children." It is about Larry Lewis. I think there are a lot of people in Texas who could do just as good a job as he or perhaps a better job, and they wouldn't be as expensive as he is. He isn't indispensible. He is replaceable. I'm certain there are people out there who are better at managing money, hiring, motivating, and training teachers, and complying with government regulations.
Also, I'm sure there are people out there who are less flashy, less prone to impulse spending, and more frugal in the area of travel and entertainment. We need a different type of superintendent. We need a superintendent who is strictly business and not one who is so flamboyant and boastful.
If it were really about the children, he would not even think about suing the school district. He'd realize it would be best to leave quietly and let the new school board and the conservator get this district back in running order.
-
4 years, 6 months agointerestedcitizen's comment on:
2008 elections in Dallas-Fort Worth ruled by same-old incumbents and Republicans
It just goes to show that the socialists gravitate toward the urban centers, while the people with the character that built this nation, the people who know that we have a responsibility to provide for ourselves and not allow the government to force us to provide for others through coercive taxation, escape to the suburbs and rural areas where governments are weaker and coercion is less a part of the government ethic.
-
4 years, 6 months agointerestedcitizen's comment on:
SW Baptist Theological Seminary prof says use of birth control pills = murder
cho
If you are not more valuable than a plant or a fungus, when is the last time you used the toxin from a killed fungus (penicillin, amoxcyllin, tetracycline, etc) to kill a bacterial infection in your body? I take it that you do consider it worthwhile to sacrifice a fungus to harvest the toxin necessary to kill a bacterial infection in your body.
I take it that you do consider yourelf more valuable than viruses or bacteria, because you do take inoculations against viruses consisting of dead viruses, and you do use topical ointments designed to kill bacteria such as staphylococcus.
Further, I'm sure you drink either chlorinated or distilled water, the purpose of which is to kill potentially deadly bacteria. Suffice it to say that you do consider yourself a higher and more important form of life than streptococcus, staphylococcus, shigella, and fecal coliform bacteria.
As for fungus, I'm sure you have used a fungicide to kill mildew growing on the surface on the north side of your house. I'm sure that someone used fungicide to kill or prevent ringworms ( fungus). Also, you probably used a product like Tinactin to kill jock itch or Dessenex to kill athlete's foot (also a fungus)
When you use a device or a substance to kill anything (fungus, bacteria, grass, weeds, tree, diatom, worm, bee, or a human zygote), you demonstrate that you consider your life more valuable and important than the thing you kill.
-
4 years, 6 months agointerestedcitizen's comment on:
SW Baptist Theological Seminary prof says use of birth control pills = murder
The death of nonviable embryos is not murder because they die naturally,not as the result of the use of a device or substance to prevent them from living as there is in the case of the pill or the IUD. The science article is a propaganda piece, not a serious, objective science article. It is poorly argued logically. I have established clearly that spontaneous abortion is not murder, although it is a sad event, just as the death of any human is a sad event. No one is culpable in the case of spontaneous abortion. Even God is not culpable, because God is the creator and sustainer of life. If God chooses to cut life short, that is God's choice, not ours. Every breath we take is an act of God's mercy, and we should be thankful that we have the time that we do have to live. Induced abortion, however, is murder because it is the intentional destruction of human life. Human life is a genetically complete zygote.
A married man and woman have an equal voice in the type of birth control they each use. Family size is usally a topic of discussion prior to marriage. A woman who makes it clear before she marries that she wants five children has a right to feel betrayed when her husband, without her consent, gets a vasectomy after two children. Similarly, a woman betrays her husband when she uses a pill, an IUD, or abortion, to limit the family to two after agreeing before marriage to have five children.
Marriage involves covenants. Though people deny that they are legally bound to promises they make before marriage, they are certainly morally bound. The vows they make in church are sacred vows. People do give up individual autonomy when they recite those vows before the general public.
Lisa's comments appear to be those of an unmaried woman who seeks random, unplanned, spontaneous sexual pairings. Aside from being the pretext to commit murder of innocent human beings, those random sexual pairings present other health and social problems.
-
4 years, 7 months agointerestedcitizen's comment on:
Lancaster ISD superintendent to give State of our Schools report to chamber
Let the record show that this talk was just a "pep" talk by the Supt. It only covered gains on the TAKS. He neglected to say that while there have been gains on the TAKS, LISD remains below all other Best Southwest Cities, the region, and the state as a whole. The Supt. did not mention to the business community about the looming financial crisis facing the district.
-
4 years, 7 months agointerestedcitizen's comment on:
SW Baptist Theological Seminary prof says use of birth control pills = murder
Here's a link to a website that testifies to the reliability and scientific validity of the Billings Ovulation Method as an effective form of birth control. I think this should shut down any thought that I am an "idiot."
http://www.billings-centre.ab.ca/gene...
The only thing required for this method to be effective is a change in the way we think. We are consumers. We have become accustomed to getting what we want instantaneously instead of waiting and planning for it. There are clear, reasonable alternatives to birth control pills, once we get out of our self centered mindset.
-
4 years, 7 months agointerestedcitizen's comment on:
SW Baptist Theological Seminary prof says use of birth control pills = murder
cho.
Accidentally crushing snails on a dewy morning is not murder because (1) it is not an intentional form of killing and (2) the victim is not a human being.
Also, since when does labeling a person "idiot" constitute part of a reasonable debate? How is that rational? Usually, in formal debate, when people start resorting to "ad hominem" attacks and hurtful labels, it is an admission that he is losing the debate.
Todd: Observation of a woman's vaginal secretions is more than simply watching the caledar. I observed artificial insemination of cattle when I was young. Because it was expensive, the cows had to be inseminated at just the right time. There was a vaginal discharge that told us they were ovulating. If they weren't discharging the clear mucous, they weren't fertile and it would have been a waste of money to attempt to inseminate them. Human females discharge a similar mucous when they are fertile. Also there are temperature variations that accompany ovulation. Smart people, not idiots, can observe these things and plan families without the use a birth control pills that alter a woman's natural metabolism. For extra assurance, they can use condoms and contraceptive gels.
If we really stop to think about it, the birth control pill is really for the purpose of satisfying men's selfish demands to be satisfied at their whim.
-
4 years, 7 months agointerestedcitizen's comment on:
SW Baptist Theological Seminary prof says use of birth control pills = murder
Follow the argument
A spontaneous abortion is not murder because it does not involve the intentional use of a device or a substance to intentionally destroy human life. Also, many families who experience spontaneous abortion grieve because the spontaneously aborted child was a live human being at one point, abeit dependent upon the protective uterine environment. Dependence on a mother's body does not make it less human, given that a born child best survives on its own mother's milk for life.
Unless there is fertilization there is no human life. There is no such thing as a murdered sperm or a murdered egg.
There are alternatives to the birth control pill, none of which involve murder of a human life. I agree with Lisa that the side effects of the pill aren't desirable, although, as some people have pointed out, pregnancy poses its own health risks. Vasectomy is an option. The condom and vaginal gels are another option. Another option is self discipline combined with observation of a woman's bodily secretions. Family planning is best undertaken in a united family context with long term objectives. The emphasis on spontaneity as a feature of a birth control plan presumes that men and women are seeking random sexual encounters. Random and spontaneous sexual encounters lead to health and social problems far beyond the problem of unwanted pregnancy and murder of tiny, defenseless human beings.
-
4 years, 7 months agointerestedcitizen's comment on:
Lancaster ISD superintendent's performance to be evaluated
Remone
You wrote: Why was a meeting held with two board members missing from said meeting, as you claim?
My comment: I have no reason to know why Kirkland and Elliot were absent. The impression was that they boycotted the meeting, given their comments leading up to the meeting and their previous failed attempt to sanction Morris for telling the press that a conservator was coming. Actually, Ron Rowell's introduction of Damm to the community made Elliot and Kirkland look like ignorant fools, because they were saying a conservator wasn't necessary. It appeared that they boycotted the meeting because they didn't want to look like fools in front of the community after their failed attempt to sanction Morris. It appeared their action in not attending the meeting was an effort to make the statement that they didn't approve of the presence of a conservator in Lancaster.
YOu wrote: First, before I dispute that let me ask this: Why was a meeting held with two board members missing from said meeting, as you claim?
My comment: There is no evidence that Morris delayed the meeting because Mejia couldn't attend. That is not on the record.
You wrote: It's also no secret, to anyone who's visited a board meeting, that he'as also extremely intelligent and well versed on the issues presented before the board,
My comment: I have attended board meetings, and it is not my impression that Ed Kirkland is very intelligent or well versed on the issues. He was part of the old "yes man" majority, and they very seldom asked an intelligent question in public. They rubber stamped financial reports, and even when questions were publicly raised about the financial reports, Kirkland particularly used an illegal parliamentaray procedure on at least two occasions to prevent taking financial reports off the consent agenda. I observed him use that illegal procedure. By "illegal," I mean "contrary to local policy and Roberts Rules of Order." Kirkland did a poor job of running the meetings and showed very little knowledge of Roberts Rules of Order. He postures himself as an intelligent man, but I'm not convinced he's as intelligent as you claim.
You wrote: She has stood outside the polls and platformed under, "vote me as the next president and i'll get rid of Dr. Lewis".... and up to date have suspended him for what exactly?
My comment: I didn't hear Carolyn Morris campaigning, but if she said what you said she said, wouldn't that make it clear she didn't have a hidden agenda, and wouldn't it indicate that a majority of the voters in her district agreed with her? Also, when Carolyn ran for re election, she could only have become a member of the minority faction and could not have campaigned on become president. She was on the board for a year before a majority was elected that would elect her as president. The board chooses its own president each year after the election of candidates. A president of a school board is not the equivalent of a mayor elected at large.
-
4 years, 7 months agointerestedcitizen's comment on:
SW Baptist Theological Seminary prof says use of birth control pills = murder
I didn't hear the professor's sermon, but I presume what he meant was that, if birth control pills kill a fertilized ovum, that is murder. If, instead, they prevent fertilization by preventing semen from coming into contact with an ovum, that is not murder. The condom keeps semen from fertilizing eggs, so use of the condom wouldn't be murder. It isn't the death of sperm cells that is murder, nor is the expulsion of an unfertilized ovum murder. Neither birth control pills nor condoms kill sperm or eggs. Vaginal jellies and suppositories containing nonoxynol 9 do kill sperm and do not have the same ethical implications. It is the intentional use of a substance or a device with the intent to kill a human being that is murder. A fertilized ovum, with a full complement of genetic information from each parent, is a human being. If that human being is spontaneously aborted or dies, it is a sad event, and many families grieve after miscarriages, because miscarriage is more than simply death of potential life. It is the death of a human being, and that is always sad. For that reason, an IUD, which prevents the implantation of a fertilized ovum into the uterine wall, is murder.
My recollection is that birth control pills work by mimicking pregnancy. That is, during pregnancy, the endometrial lining is maintained. Because birth control pills mimic pregnancy, and because pregnancy makes women want to eat more, that is one reason women on the pill tend to crave food and gain weight. There is a feedback mechanism that tells the ovaries not to release eggs as long as the endometrial lining is maintained. So, I have always thought, birth control pills don't generally work by killing fertilized ova.
It is my understanding that the Morning After pill does work by causing an early abortion of a fertilized ovum. If it merely prevents fertilization, it is not murder, but if it causes the death of the embryo by causing the endometrial lining to be sloughed off or otherwise prevents implantation, it would be murder.
If the preacher knows something I don't know about how birth control pills work, maybe I have something to learn.
-
4 years, 7 months agointerestedcitizen's comment on:
Lancaster ISD Board of Trustees expand inquiry of superintendent
Remoned:
The conservator's latest report to the TEA shows several areas of concern that are marked "continuing concern." It identifies other "new areas of concern." Not one area of concern is marked "resolved."
If the issues were as minor as Remoned would have us believe, one would think that at least one of the most insignificant areas of concern would have been resolved by now. But, the longer the conservator stays, the more issues of concern he seems to identify.
-
4 years, 7 months agointerestedcitizen's comment on:
Lancaster ISD superintendent placed on admin leave
If Remone is so well informed and accurately reports the facts, why is he still trying to make the community believe it is not true that the TEA sent a conservator here primarily because of the results of the TEA audit, and not under pressure from the community? Why is he credible when he cites a newspaper as a source of information.
Following is a link to a newspaper article that covered the meeting where Ron Rowell announced that the conservator is here for financial reasons http://www.pegasusnews.com/news/2008/...
Previous
| 1 of 5 |
Album review: Cas Haley runs with rhythm and soul on La Si Dah
And as we all know, Germans love David Hasselhof.