The media is in a frenzy over the massacre in Connecticut where 26 people, 20 of which were children, were killed by a gunman on December 14, 2012.
But at issue is the families of the 26 victims, specifically the parents of the 20 children. I can't begin to imagine the pain these people are feeling right now. Losing anyone loved is tough. Losing a child has to be much tougher as you assume you will die first, as this is the proper progression of life. Losing a child a few days before Christmas would be the worst. As I saw noted on a friend's Facebook page, these parents have Christmas trees with presents under them, for their children that will never have the chance to open them. What could be worse than this?
I don't understand the ability to take someone's life without cause. I certainly don't see how you could kill defenseless children in cold blood. A person who does this is a truly sick person. What drives a person to do this?
There are people quick to call for the banning of guns when something like this happens. These people are opportunistic. Maybe some of these folks truly believes this will prevent these kind of tragedies in the future. But I ask them how would that work? Maybe you could get law-abiding people to give up their weapons. Do you think the criminals will hand theirs over? (I mean, they are criminals... not too concerned with the rule of law in the first place...) Even assuming you could take every gun off the street tomorrow, what would prevent more guns from being smuggled in? (We can't control drugs or illegal aliens from coming across the border. What would be the difference.)
Over the next few days and weeks, we'll find out what drove this individual to commit this horrendous act. Odds are there will have been some telling signs, and had they been acted on, this attack could have been prevented. As a nation, PREVENTION is what we need to focus on. When we see signs of odd behaviour or obvious mental health issues, we HAVE TO DO SOMETHING.
I'm not a 'god fearing' man. But most religions offers several important benefits, one being the raising of strong families with good morals. While we don't need religion to instill these values, we have to bring our nation's focus back to this goal. While I'm a firm believer in 'looking out for number 1', I don't believe this means you can't also look out for others, and this absolutely doesn't mean you can infringe (or harm) others in your pursuit of betterment.
Let me close by offering my deepest sympathies for all involved, especially the mothers, fathers and siblings of the 20 children. My thoughts are with you now and always.
Saturday, December 15, 2012
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Officials Ramp Up Hunt for Illegal Immigrants - A Good Thing!
The Obama Administration has sent mixed messages regarding illegal immigration. Truth be told, they are soft on it. This is clear when you note they are suing Arizona for basically trying to enforce Federal policy at the state level.
Recently, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has upped their efforts to deport illegals with criminal (more than that pesky illegal entry crime) records. Task force teams have been increased from 104 to 129, and each team has a goal of arresting 50 suspects a month. Ths is GOOD!
The Administration is playing a game, but the results are in the favor of the American public. It's no secret they don't care about mostly law-abiding illegals being in the country. The perception, likely true, is that it helps them with the Hispanic vote. (Let's hope we are only talking legal Hispanic votes. I'd like to believe the illegals aren't voting... although I'm not so sure.) But from what I've read, deportations are up over the Bush Administration. And while I support deporting ALL illegals, who can really argue with a priority of deporting the worst criminals?
So, while I want to see all illegals acknowledged and dealt with appropriately, I will give props to the current administration for increasing deportations, regardless of the motivation.
Recently, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has upped their efforts to deport illegals with criminal (more than that pesky illegal entry crime) records. Task force teams have been increased from 104 to 129, and each team has a goal of arresting 50 suspects a month. Ths is GOOD!
The Administration is playing a game, but the results are in the favor of the American public. It's no secret they don't care about mostly law-abiding illegals being in the country. The perception, likely true, is that it helps them with the Hispanic vote. (Let's hope we are only talking legal Hispanic votes. I'd like to believe the illegals aren't voting... although I'm not so sure.) But from what I've read, deportations are up over the Bush Administration. And while I support deporting ALL illegals, who can really argue with a priority of deporting the worst criminals?
So, while I want to see all illegals acknowledged and dealt with appropriately, I will give props to the current administration for increasing deportations, regardless of the motivation.
Liquor Prices Up 35% with Privitization - Hmm...
This was basically the headline in Sunday's Yakima Herald-Republic.
I'm not sure what the real point of the article was. Was it really a news piece and is it true prices are going to skyrocket? Or is it a case of sour grapes by those that were against the initiative? Hmm, I sound a bit like a conspiracy theorist, don't I? It really doesn't matter; it's not the point of my post.
My point is if prices are up, so be it! The issue here is who should... or shouldn't be... selling liquor. It should never have been the state! Ever! The function of government is never to run a business. They don't do it well. Government employees don't have the same drive to succeed in a business. (Consequences aren't the same.) And then there is the issue of monopolies and how these types of things affect legitimate business owners. (Government shouldn't be standing in the way of the private sector.)
Government needs to know its place. We, the people of Washington State, have earned a great victory in turning liquor sales over to the local businesses. Now, what is the next area we need to tackle?!
P.S. While liquor prices might spike initially, I suspect they will drop. Competition is good and has a way of working these things out.
I'm not sure what the real point of the article was. Was it really a news piece and is it true prices are going to skyrocket? Or is it a case of sour grapes by those that were against the initiative? Hmm, I sound a bit like a conspiracy theorist, don't I? It really doesn't matter; it's not the point of my post.
My point is if prices are up, so be it! The issue here is who should... or shouldn't be... selling liquor. It should never have been the state! Ever! The function of government is never to run a business. They don't do it well. Government employees don't have the same drive to succeed in a business. (Consequences aren't the same.) And then there is the issue of monopolies and how these types of things affect legitimate business owners. (Government shouldn't be standing in the way of the private sector.)
Government needs to know its place. We, the people of Washington State, have earned a great victory in turning liquor sales over to the local businesses. Now, what is the next area we need to tackle?!
P.S. While liquor prices might spike initially, I suspect they will drop. Competition is good and has a way of working these things out.
Shane Backlund - Right Choice for Selah Schools
Wow, I've been a bit remiss! My plan was to post daily, or nearly so... Too many irons in the fire I guess...
I don't really know Shane Backlund. He was principle at John Campbell part of the time my daughter attended and we've exchanged greetings. Seems like a nice guy. But that is not why I support him as the new Superintendent.
Why do I support him? Mostly because he is 'home grown'. I'm a big fan of promoting from the inside whenever possible. I've never a been a fan of hiring outside people... you truly don't know them or the baggage they may be dragging along. Just look to the last Yakima Police Chief for an example of this... (although much of his baggage wasn't really a secret for those of us paying attention)...
Shane has been with he district for many years, and while we don't know for sure what direction he wants to take the District, we have a pretty good idea of who he is and what shortcomings he may have. (I don't mean to say he has shortcomings... I'm not close enough to him to know. I'm just saying those who have worked with him would know.)
The outgoing superintendent, Steve Chestnut, is an accomplished man. He has the awards to prove it. He was a fine choice as an interim superintendent, a position which he was initially hired to fill. But this man never had any intentions of staying, and has used his wife's health as his reason for seeking greener pastures. He should never have been offered the position for the long-haul... which he obviously wasn't committed to anyway. My daughter is in 5th grade and we're going on the 4th superintendent in her short time in school. This is too much turnover and not good for the District.
Shane probably isn't here long-term either. I'd guess he will be here longer than the past two, and I'd hope he is here at least five years for the District's stability. But I won't hold this against him as he is young and will be looking for greater challenges.
From my seat, it looks like the Selah School District is in good hands for the next several years. And I'm glad to see it.
I don't really know Shane Backlund. He was principle at John Campbell part of the time my daughter attended and we've exchanged greetings. Seems like a nice guy. But that is not why I support him as the new Superintendent.
Why do I support him? Mostly because he is 'home grown'. I'm a big fan of promoting from the inside whenever possible. I've never a been a fan of hiring outside people... you truly don't know them or the baggage they may be dragging along. Just look to the last Yakima Police Chief for an example of this... (although much of his baggage wasn't really a secret for those of us paying attention)...
Shane has been with he district for many years, and while we don't know for sure what direction he wants to take the District, we have a pretty good idea of who he is and what shortcomings he may have. (I don't mean to say he has shortcomings... I'm not close enough to him to know. I'm just saying those who have worked with him would know.)
The outgoing superintendent, Steve Chestnut, is an accomplished man. He has the awards to prove it. He was a fine choice as an interim superintendent, a position which he was initially hired to fill. But this man never had any intentions of staying, and has used his wife's health as his reason for seeking greener pastures. He should never have been offered the position for the long-haul... which he obviously wasn't committed to anyway. My daughter is in 5th grade and we're going on the 4th superintendent in her short time in school. This is too much turnover and not good for the District.
Shane probably isn't here long-term either. I'd guess he will be here longer than the past two, and I'd hope he is here at least five years for the District's stability. But I won't hold this against him as he is young and will be looking for greater challenges.
From my seat, it looks like the Selah School District is in good hands for the next several years. And I'm glad to see it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)