Dangerous Weapons.....

Anything which weighs thousands (or hundreds) of pounds and is moving at over 10 miles per hour needs to be thought of as being a dangerous weapon. I.E. would YOU want to be hit by a 3-thousand pound car, moving at 10-miles-per hour? Even this low speed can kill, in certain cercumstances! Because of this potential, I believe that all operators of such vehicles need to be Trained in their use And have complete re-certification regularly And be denied a legal certificate (license) when a continueing disregard of operating procedures & rules has been shown.

DUI Driving = Intoxicated, or "High" on a drug. Premise = unless you can prove someone 'slipped' you the drug
... make it now LEGAL that a blood-test is mandatory at any accident.....1) if you have/cause an accident while DUI, you must pay for ALL damages. 2) If you hurt someone while you are driving DUI, you pay all bills and do "community service" for X-Years. 3) If you kill someone while you are driving DUI, you pay all bills and it is PREMEDITATED MURDER.... Death-Row. Thats it. What do YOU think??

Thoughts on "Progress".....

Have you seen the commercial with the young girl saying "If everything is made 'good enough', will anything ever really be good enough?"? After a minute it sank in.....this was actually a DEEP THOUGHT. If you always settle for making it just "work", how long will it take for this machine/idea/view to be improved? How long before this becomes the springboard for a revolutionary new viewpoint? Would it Ever happen; or just take much much longer?

Politics & Ethics.....

I think that its about time for a woman to be elected as President; they deserve an equal chance to shape-up or screw-up!

I saw a review of the last presidential-campaign: specifically the irregularities with contributions and misleading ads. What really struck me was not that both the winners AND the losers had done both of these --to me-- reprehensible things, but that this was presented with a kind of wry 'oh well', boys will be boys! What, by the way, do these practices say concerning the loud rhetoric about renewed "Family Values"? I have the view that these practices reveal severe personality flaws concerning honesty and integrity. Do I want ANY elected official to be such a person who does underhanded deals; who uses mis-leading ads to tear-down his/her opposition? Especially, do I --- or YOU --- want the President to act this way??? Not me. But, only WE can fix this.
..Now, what about any kind of public or newsperson loud-outcry? Not any have I found! No one seems to publish the idea that such deals and/or tactics may be grounds for proceedings to stop the person from attaining public office, or to removing the person from a presently-held post. What do YOU think??

Citizenship.....

I'm not for mens' rights; I'm not for womens' rights. I believe in EVERYones Rights! And everyones Responsibilities, too. Too much sound and print is taken up by crying for "rights", while making no mention of the responsibilities associated with those rights. If a "right" is wanted, an equal "responsibility" exists to use that right with care & consideration.

Don't know about you......but I'm getting REAL tired of all of the people who "bleat" about their 'rights', but never seem to say/do anything concerning their 'responsibilities'!! Note: parents... if you don't want the schools to teach/use some discipline you had BETTER do it, or the kids will end up in trouble.

How about a new concept of "citizen", similar to the voting/non-voting stocks idea? All citizens, upon attaining the legal age to vote get a five-year 'intro-period'. At the end of this period, the voting REGULARITY is checked (NOT who or what was voted for/against, just Whether or not the person voted in each election). If the person did not vote in at least 70% of eligible elections, that person is declared non-interested & non-competent as a voting citizen, and is registered as having non-voting citizenship. They get all of the rights & privileges of citizenship, except for the privilege of voting. Then, five years later .... they can petition for renewal of voting privileges.

The Constitution.....

We've all heard of the "Bill Of Rights"; the Founding Fathers were concerned enough about limiting government powers that they deliberately created a "rights" section of the constitution ... one which spelled out those areas where government had no 'right' to interfere with private citizens. But, maybe those same Fathers who took their responsibilities so seriously did not realize a time might come when citizens would have little (or no) conception of the responsibilities which being a citizen encompassed? Maybe that very serious attention to responsibility which our Founding Fathers had in such great measure Should Have Been also listed, in a section of the Constitution ..... one labeled the "Bill of Responsibility"?? Think about it: how many times have you heard or read of someone claiming that "his/her rights had been violated"?; have you ever heard of Anyone claiming that "his/her 'responsibilities as a citizen' had been violated?? Could it be that NOW is that time when citizens do not know what their 'responsibilities as citizens' are? .....HMM, here's a thought: we have the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) which is a non-profit organization dedicated to the watch for any infringement of a citizens "rights", and this is a good thing; MAYbe we also need an ACRU(American Civil Responsibility Union) to watch for when citizens are having their responsibilities eroded?? THINK about it

Social Issues.....

I've been thinking about the term "Politically Correct" which has been used much these last few years. I have the impression that it means......"do what the majority-voices are yelling about", regardless of whether it is the ethically-right or historically correct. Case in point: Disneyland; the Pirates of the Caribean. It seems that some people object to the part where some 'pirates' are chasing some women; so.....REMOVE IT! Never mind that this action is historically accurate; someone did not like it. And we say that the nasty Communists were always revising history?? Oh, yes: while removing that "bad scene", the news-story said that the scene where women were put up for sale was NOT removed. What is there about this which does not add-up? What does this teach children about truth??

Ever notice how screwed-up the American culture is about SEX? News-Topic Headline: 'S*X vs VIOLENCE' ; which topic is being 'covered up'? Note: parents.....if you don't want the schools to teach about sex you had BETTER do it, or the kids will learn from really wrong or ignorant sources. (Know what they call many at-home sex-educated girls?.....pregnant! Boys?.....date-rapists and/or sexual-harassers.)

Think of 'courtesy' as oil in the "social gears"; notice all the "grindings" you hear/see these days? Hmmm!

Remember when we were in school? (Yes, I mean the old Dinosaur days of the 60's) I remember thinking(then) there were only two kinds of each sex: Not-nice ones to avoid & Nice ones to get to know and date. Seems times have CHANGED. I recently did an informal (and limited, I know) survey among young girls (14-18), and young women (19-25). In general the results were as follows:
------> for this, women=girls/adults; men=boys/adults <------
A. all women expressed distrust of the group "men", with the amount of distrust rising sharply as the age went down.
B. all women expressed behavioral thoughts about men which seemed to indicate catagorizing them as "the enemy". Upon asking of this 'catagorizing' was actually what they intended, the answers varied from "well no, uh some" thru "well, sort of", to "yes!".
C. all women expressed a belief in either marriage later, (older ones) or of no marriage ever (for the younger ones). When asked why this seemingly extreme attitude, the answers summarized to "an ever decreasing group of decent men in my age-group. It is noted that the younger group saw NO eligible (I.E. respectful/honest) among their peers.
------> I have not yet completed any similar survey among men <--
I admit that these (preliminary) conclusions were a shock to me; I was frankly appalled! True, these results applied to only a small statistical sample, but: If these results are true among even 30% of the population, the society which created these attitudes has more to worry about than teenagers engaging in sex ......what about a scenario of these attitudes/ideas becoming the norm? What THEN??

Return to selection-list:... return