I have a friend who is temporarily without a computer, so I've been texting him.' I've found myself using the letter "u" for "you," and "r" for "are," but other than that, I try to use the English language the way it was meant to be spoken and written.I've complained quite often about how this text messaging thing is completely out of hand, and how your children should not be able to use such technology as it occupies way too much of their time without depth and without development of language skills.' Quite the contrary - spelling and syntax and content are out the window when it comes to these mindless exchanges.' Additionally, people of all ages are so focused on that little gadget that they ignore their responsibilities as well as their environment.Numerous states have had to implement bans on texting while driving - that's how utterly stupid people can get.' Text-related injuries and deaths are not limited to the vehicular variety.' In 2008, the state of Illinois proposed legislation that would make texting and walking (with or without gum) illegal!' Pedestrians who ridiculed the idea might now need to reconsider their stance.A 15 year old girl on Staten Island was obliviously thumbing away when she disappeared into an open manhole, falling five feet, scraping her back and arms, and landing in a pile of mush.' The workers were off getting cones and markers to barricade the opening, so it was a potential hazard.' However, if this teen were actually looking where she was going, not a thing would have happened to her.' Of course, her parents are going to sue.' Well, why not?' Your daughter behaves stupidly, so naturally you're going to look around for someone to sue.' Money versus common sense.' Oh well.If I were a purse snatcher or predator, I'd keep my eyes open for texting women who are moving through life without any awareness of their surroundings:' whether people, entities, or holes in the ground.' They make easy prey.I keep wondering...what if we looked at everyone's text messages over a 24 hour period of their life?' Would we find anything important being discussed?' I doubt it.' More likely, we'd just find them attempting to create a mini-universe to live in, where meaningless discourse makes them feel important or connected - or provides an activity where they avoid dealing with real life issues.What if this teen had stepped on a baby?' What if she had tripped over an elderly person who had then fallen?' What if she walked right into the hands of a kidnapper?' What if she didn't see a person doing harm to another (so she couldn't provide witness testimony to help the police)?' I could go on and on....but you get the idea.Yes, the manhole should not have been left unattended - those guys should all be fired.' Yes, she should have been looking where she was going.' That's just plain common sense.' This would have been a preventable accident if the men had done their jobs properly, and if this girl had shown better judgment. More >>

More >>

More >>

The most important part of having "rights" is taking "responsibility" for those rights.' This is a concept many activist groups don't "get," as evidenced by their angry utterances and actions.' For these people (feminists, for example), their actions are irrelevant - they believe they should be able to say and do whatever they please.' It's the other people who have to toe the line.Here's an example:' colleges in the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh said that female students would be banned from wearing jeans and other "western" clothes in order to halt sexual harassment by male classmates. "Girls who choose to wear jeans will be expelled from the college," Meeta Jamal, principal of the Dayanand girls' college in Kanpur city told Agence France-Presse (AFP). "This will be the only way to stop crime against women." Okay - so, jeans, shorts, tight blouses and mini-skirts on campus are being banned in a growing number of their colleges in an attempt to crack down on "EVE-teasing" (as sexual harassment is known in India).' But, of course, these "oh so mature" and wise girls between the ages of 17 and 20 say that these rules punish innocent females rather than tackling the men who talk "smack" to them..Let's look at this in a very pragmatic way.' Two girls are walking down the street, passing a group of young men.' Each girl is on the opposite side of the street.' One girl has on a tight-cropped top and low-cut jeans.' The girl on the other side of the street is wearing a pretty, but modest, dress.' Which side of the street are the guys going to pay attention to?' Which girl are they going to approach?' Which girl are they going to "tease" to see if they can "hook up?"' The answer is easy.Which girl is showing off her "wares?"' Which girl is acting in a provocative manner?' Which girl is using clothing and body language to possibly advertise her, ahem, "social" availability?' Which girl looks as though sex is on her mind?' The answer is easy.It is completely unreasonable for a provocatively-dressed woman to get any when guys hoot and whistle.' If clothing is just another form of "self-expression," well, we all know what sexy clothes are expressing.' Modest clothes are expressing nothing close to a "come-hither" attitude.A female at work has her boobs popping out of her top and a fellow worker says "nice boobs."' He's considered "bad," but she isn't?' Isn't foisting your sexuality on someone else harassment?' Women can provoke men, but men can't react?' That is the silly thinking of most feminists.Young men in a classroom can't pay attention to the blackboard and the teacher's words when he has in front of him the sight of a girl's lower back and upper butt, because she's wearing very low cut jeans.' Young men on a campus can't even remember which building to go into when a young woman walks by with her soft belly jutting out beneath her short top over her low-cut jeans.This is where responsibility comes in.' If you don't want that kind of attention, don't invite it! When I read the many of the comments posted in response to this story on Breitbart.com , I was not surprised at the naive and utterly stupid remarks about women having their rights to dress and behave any way they want (i.e., no responsibility), and men should control their verbal and emotional reactions (i.e., responsibility all on the men).And then I got to this comment...a nugget of gold in the compost heap: When I entered high school, it was the first year when girls were allowed to wear pants.' Since then, of course, clothing standards have dropped to the point where girls are wearing next to nothing on top of low-cut, tight jeans, or short-shorts. In high school, I would have screamed my head off that it was unfair to tell us what to wear.' Now that we've had 30 years of half-dressed high fashion, and I've become older and wiser, I understand why modesty makes sense.' Our schools, especially here in California, are a complete disaster.' There are many reasons for it, but requiring that girls dress modestly and that boys dress respectfully is a good start.' Considering that hormones are bubbling like volcanoes, particularly in teenage boys, simple steps like this would make a difference.' I remember the days when people dressed up nicely just to go to the movies!' I'm not advocating this, but I would even be for school kids wearing uniforms.' It puts them in a different frame of mind.' Trying to get kids to sit still, pay attention and get an education is not only difficult, but as we see from our dismal failure in the last 20 to 30 years, is imperative for the future of this country.' Looking back, it does amaze me how much my opinion has changed.' It is said that the devil is in the details, and I must concur.' The small things that I thought didn't matter at all turn out to be very important, not only in and of themselves, but they are the blocks on which other decisions/behavior are built.' It's really hard to see this when you're 15 or even 25, but as have accumulated experience in life, it has become very clear. More >>

More >>

More >>

More >>

More >>

I am just sickened.' It seems the "male" who impregnated Sarah Palin's teenage daughter outside of wedlock (and now, with no wedlock to be had) is going on television shows to give "his side" of the story.' What "sides" are there to be had when two teens breach basic moral good sense and have sex when they are in no position emotionally, psychologically or financially to raise a family?' Now there is yet another poor child in the world without an intact, covenantly committed, grown-up and secure two-parent, mom and dad family.' Sad.In the old days, the man "did the right thing," and marriage was the solution.' These days, men just walk away, or women declare that they "don't need" a guy - they can do it all themselves.' Well, the abandonment by a dad is devastating to a child in many painful ways, and no woman, no matter how nurturing, can offer any child what they lose in not having that paternal influence.So, instead of tarring and feathering this young man for daring to "kiss and tell," he's being treated like something special, with polite interviews on television!' I find this utterly disgusting, but typical for TV, which goes looking for situations like this to exploit for ratings, e.g., "We have an exclusive interview with the boy who knocked up Sarah Palin's daughter!"During the election, Mrs. Palin paraded her pregnant daughter and the sperm donor around to display family values, saying they were "engaged."' That, too, was a disgusting display, especially with John McCain embracing this shameful young man on international television."Normalizing" children born without the protective womb of family is an assault on the well-being of children everywhere, and a bad influence on young men and women who too often follow that old adage:' "Monkey see, monkey do."Children should be our first concern and responsibility - not our incidental playthings. More >>

More >>