Are we archaic in our gender-specific bathrooms and need to change over to gender neutral ones?
Such is the belief of a minority of gender confused people who are getting their way when it comes to public restrooms. Not that I don’t see that this is definitely an issue for transgender people. They would like a place to go to the bathroom that makes them feel safe and okay. But is opening up the bathrooms for anyone and everyone really the best solution? Shouldn’t we also ensure that women and children feel safe and okay, too?
Can’t we just keep adding gender neutral/family bathrooms to stores along with the traditional ones? I don’t want to sound unkind toward those who are gender confused (I do understand the problem.) However, I personally would feel extremely unsafe, very uncomfortable, and somewhat violated to have to do my business right next to some strange man. We could have some heterosexual men take advantage of this law and do much damage. It’s a very vulnerable position to be in. How about my children who could not defend themselves against some sicko wanted to take advantage from the stall right next to them? After all, he is there legally.
I know Boise already has in effect this law of no discrimination of public accommodations. Now it’s up for vote in Pocatello, ID. Of course, we’re way behind public universities when it comes to freedom for all in the bathrooms.
This is just the tip of the iceberg.
How about changing rooms and locker rooms? Is it really unjust and prejudice to have guys use guy bathrooms and girls use girl bathrooms unless you’ve had a sex change, until all stores have a third option, the family/gender neutral bathroom? How can we make laws that help one group of people but possibly endanger another group? We need to be very careful what laws we put into effect that can be taken to a very bad extreme if an individual decides to.
I’m just appalled at what is going on with the Obama administration and the German family who are here on political asylum to homeschool their children. Here are the details in a nutshell:
Uwe and Hannelore Romeike fled from Germany to the United States after their family was vigorously prosecuted (fines, forcible removal of their children, threats of jail and more) for homeschooling. Initially, the Romeikes were granted political asylum, but the U.S. government appealed that decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals. That Board sided with the government. HSLDA then appealed to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals—the federal court just below the Supreme Court.
Now, the U.S. Justice Department is arguing that the freedom to choose to educate one’s own children is not a fundamental right.
My initial response is why in the name of all that is good are we trying to send back a family that is here legally under political asylum, when we have millions of undocumented immigrants here that get the full benefit of all of our freedoms and taxes? What idiocy can really be driving our government?
Also, if you read the case that is laid out be their attorney Michael Farris, the government is saying that the Romeikes aren’t a ‘particular social group’ as they can stop homeschooling. So, following this logic we would conclude that someone who is homosexual isn’t a ‘particular social group’ since they can just choose to be straight? Mmm, I don’t think that one would fly. But for some reason, people’s deep religious and personal beliefs don’t matter. The government says that the children are only in public schools 22-26 hours a week. After that the parents may teach what they want.
Does anyone think that our government would say to Orthodox Jewish parents, we can force your children to eat pork products for 22-26 hours per week because the rest of the time you can feed them kosher food?
Freedom for the mind and spirit is as important as freedom for the body and spirit.
I see our rights being eroded away right before our eyes, as we have a government that wants to control what they see fit to control. Why else would they single out one family from Germany and try to overturn their granted political asylum? Why not single out an undocumented immigrant?
Let’s be honest, and admit that would cost them too many votes. Why is our government fighting so hard to send this family back to a certain loss of their children and maybe jail time (if they don’t bow to government school control). Is there an underlying bias towards homeschoolers that our government is showing? Please read the case and you tell me if you see some discrimination in there?
Did we not learn anything from Hilter? He did the same thing with government controlled schooling and look where that got us.
We just want to move on, live life and focus on better things. Yet, our whole way of life (freedom and safety being the main part) hinges on citizens being able to own and carry a gun. If you don’t believe this, let me give a few examples that might wake everyone up. And show the power of a biased media that will print lies!
You’re sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door. Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers. At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way. With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun. You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it. In the darkness, you make out two shadows. One holds something that looks like a crowbar. When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire. The blast knocks both thugs to the floor. One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside. As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you’re in trouble.
In your country, most guns were outlawed years before and the few that are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless. Yours was never registered. Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died.
They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm.
When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry because the authorities will probably plead the case down to manslaughter.
“What kind of sentence will I get?” You ask.
“Only ten-to-twelve years,” he replies, as if that’s nothing. ”Behave yourself, and you’ll be out in seven.”
The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper. Somehow, you’re portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys. Their friends and relatives can’t find an unkind word to say about them. Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both “victims” have been arrested numerous times. But the next day’s headline says it all: ”Lovable Rogue Son Didn’t Deserve to Die.“
The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters.
As the days wear on, the story takes wings.
The national media picks it up, then the international media. The surviving burglar has become a folk hero. Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he’ll probably win. The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you’ve been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects. After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time. The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars. A few months later, you go to trial. The charges haven’t been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted. When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all, works against you.
Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man. It doesn’t take long for the jury to convict you of all charges. The judge sentences you to life in prison.
This case really happened.
On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk , England, killed one burglar and wounded a second. In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term. How did it become a crime to defend one’s own life in the once great Britain?
With the help of media targeting guns and law abiding citizens instead of criminals, many gun laws were passed over a period of time. This is sounding all too familiar.
“…It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds.”
I have wondered for some time why so many people I talk to avoid anything that shows they have any political opinion.
Can a person be involved with politics and still be humble and likable, without distancing themselves from people of a different opinion? Many don’t think this is possible, or have had such a bad experience that they stay far, far away from anything that might be confrontational or perceived as opinionated.
The root of the word politics actually means “affairs of the city and of, for, or relating to citizens.” Now I know that all of us are interested in and care about how we are able to live our lives. I encourage those of you who feel you cannot get involved in politics because it is too dirty, negative, and rude, to reconsider your stance. We can change the negative way politics have become and say, “Enough is enough!” We can have good, intellectual conversations about why we believe what we believe. We can respect each other, even when we completely disagree.
We encourage these conversations on the Civic Arena.
Bring your opinions and beliefs and let’s have honest and open discussions about them, without name calling and derogatory remarks. Wouldn’t it bel nice to have a voice? We want you to have one and we are interested in your view. It can help all of us see things differently and get more of a perspective. If we want to see change, this could be a start of finally being respectfully heard! Let’s see a new era of politics and involvement begin!
Have you ever wondered how media has shaped your views of life, ethics, truth, and political views?
I’ve been marveling at the effectiveness of this for some time now. It’s surprising what people will believe is true because some newspaper or main news station uses statistics or graphs.
It must be true.
Usually it withholds enough information to make it appear in favor of the political or ethical view of that organization, but an expert in that area would see the falsehood in it immediately.
Unfortunately, most of us aren’t experts in everything and we don’t have all the time in the world to search everything out. So, the age old question: Who can you trust to give you all the information? For starters, find out what that organization supports and what it stands for, and see if that really is your core conviction and belief.
Have you noticed that movies tend to have a hidden agenda? Sometimes hidden, sometimes not so hidden. What is the overall leaning of Hollywood?
It tends to be anti-traditional family, for one.
Have you noticed how all sitcoms like to show the Dad as an absolute idiot, as the Mom holds the family together and despises her husband? Of course, the fun, normal people are the ones in an alternative relationship or not in a committed relationship. Adultery is normal, sex is what holding hands use to be, and full nudity is absolutely fine now on R-rated movies. Full nudity used to be reserved for X-rated, adult movies. These shows tend to be fine with abortion but not with murdering a tree. Guns are, of course, the root of all evil, and anyone with faith or conservative values are portrayed as very harsh, evil people.
Have our standards on some of these issues relaxed or even somewhat lined up with Hollywood, although we may not know why or even realize it? Are we watching mainstream news that admits it is liberal and is obvious about it? Wouldn’t it make sense that they would want the “news” to line up with their worldview? Does it not concern us that they are shaping our worldview as well.
I talked to a well-meaning woman who associates with the Christian faith recently, and she was adamant about letting her teen sons watch whatever they wanted on the television. As I told her about a DVD player called Clearplay, that can really help clean up sex, nudity, and cussing in a movie, her response was, “You can’t shelter kids from these things.”
Yes, our children will be exposed to things we wish they wouldn’t be exposed to, but why do we have to bring it into our houses and saturate them with garbage and then expect them to turn out these amazing, non-rebellious, obedient to authority adults?
Is it time for us to say, “That’s enough junk?!”
Send a big message to Hollywood by not taking our kids to every movie that comes to the theaters. Let’s be selective in what we support so that they will feel pressure and change what they produce. Money talks to them.
How about we demand more accurate, neutral news? Journalism, in my opinion, is not journalism anymore. Today if you print or talk about something that might not line up with the views of the organization (though it is backed by evidence,) you stand to lose a job.
How did our generation get stuck with such a raw deal when it comes to Social Security? I’m not bemoaning the fact that my mother and grandmother get it; I’m sick of the way government handles our money! There wasn’t a whole lot of foresight in the creation of SS.
Is it really wise to let our government take our hard earned money and put it into a fund for the use of generations ahead of us to retire, masked as a ‘due’ for our own retirement, no less?! Did anyone ever think that maybe the birth rate would decline immensely? Did anyone think that maybe people would live longer and longer? How about a bad economy and high unemployment on top of that? Let’s think that through.
The Social Security taxes you now pay go into the Social Security Trust Funds and are used to pay benefits to current beneficiaries. The Social Security Board of Trustees now estimates that based on current law… In 2017 (it) will begin paying more benefits than it collects in taxes and… in 2041, the Trust Funds will be depleted. Because people are living longer and the birth rate is low, the ratio of workers to beneficiaries is falling. Therefore, the taxes that are paid by workers will not be enough to pay the full benefit amounts scheduled. So, according to the SS Administration, our generation will pay the tax but won’t be able to collect on it when we retire.
Of course, I have heard the argument that this is a simple math problem to be fixed with increasing taxes. When does that line of thinking ever stop?! And how much do you have to raise the taxes to compensate for all of the changes I just mentioned? Let’s learn from history and our mistakes. Quit having the government take things over that are too important to mess with. Do we really want to give the US Government the opportunity to make us relive the Social Security mess with our healthcare?
Will our children be asking us, “Why did you get us into such a healthcare mess we can’t afford, when you knew how Social Security failed?”
I didn’t realize how emotional I was about the whole gun issue until I had a discussion with someone who was touting how good our President was to at least be doing something.
She admitted that what he was doing would not help (I think we all know it won’t help), but she felt he was to be admired for at least trying.
I beg to differ.
Doing something is not the same as finding a solution. When you do something that promotes your gun control agenda but has nothing to do with the actual problem that needs addressing, I’m leery that your motives are pure. I hadn’t allowed myself the connection of my children in a gun free zone to them being in danger. After my discussion, (maybe more like an emotional outburst that I’m not proud of), I realized the depth of my feelings when it comes to my children’s safety and guns.
Every day, millions of parents drop their kids off in these supposedly “safe” places of learning where not one of the caring, responsible adults in charge have any means of protecting the kids they are so diligently caring for. The emotionally disturbed and mentally deranged know these are the easiest targets. Here’s the solution: have teachers and administrators (those who are willing) go through classes and training so they can carry a firearm for the protection of our children and themselves. I would trust any one of the wonderful teachers and administrators at our school to responsibly carry a weapon for protection.
My children would be much safer for it, and then we can call our schools “Gun Safe Zones.”
I know the thought of a teacher carrying a gun gets some people’s hackles up, but they would soon realize this will cut these school massacres down to nothing newsworthy except that a crazy got stopped by a hero teacher. It is easy to have our peace-loving ideologies until it hits home in the most deplorable and grievous way. When that happens, we want a solution that works and we want it implemented now! There will always be evil and wicked people who will not abide by the law but at least give the good, law-abiding citizens a chance to prevail and win without adding grief to it.
So I ask again: Are guns the problem or the solution?