Our penchant for fairness is running amuck. This is lately expressed in the form of proposals to draft women. A much better idea would be to abolish the draft completely. If the government can take over the life of a person who has committed no crime, this is akin to slavery. The United States should not enter any war that its citizens are unwilling to fight. If we did not have the draft during the Vietnam War, it would likely have ended much earlier and thousands of American lives would have been spared. Let’s make sure that we have no more unpopular wars and, at the same time, ensure that we do not enslave American citizens, men or women.
Racial justice is just racism. There is no special category of justice based on one’s skin color. No matter how good the “intention” might be, racial justice is just code for reverse discrimination based on race. It is similar in that regard to “social” justice, which is just code for socialism, that is, using guilt to promote outcomes based on one’s social status and not on merit or hard work. The focus is on “equity,” not on equality. Equality is the proper term which has nothing to do with one’s race or social status.
There was a time when our government fought against racism through various laws such as those preventing government entities from using race as a factor in hiring. Now, however, government is promoting racism by requiring every form that government touches to include a person’s race. Instead of a color-blind society, our government promotes a society focused on race.
We should ask the question; what properly describes a person? The only meaningful characteristic is their choices. You are what you choose. A person is not properly described by their skin color any more than they are described by their height or weight or any other physical characteristic
“Critical race theory” is at the opposite extreme. It purports to describe a person, not as an individual, but rather by their skin color. This is a very pernicious trend. We should treat people as individuals not as members of any group, unless that group is one, they CHOOSE to be part of such as a church or civic club or charitable association. That kind of choice legitimately describes a person.
Let’s work toward justice, not racial justice, and not social justice.
My sister-in-law is visiting from my home state of Minnesota, the capitol of Mosquito Land. Prior to landing in Phoenix, she had only one mosquito bite in Minnesota. Since coming here she has had many bites. If Minnesota can control mosquitos, why can’t we?
Whenever needy families are pictured on the news there is something frequently missing in these pictures and that is fathers. You usually see mothers with children or children alone. Where are the fathers? But, even more important, where are the questions from the press about the absence of fathers? I contend that it must be simply politically incorrect to ask these questions. Why? Revealing these inequities, would reveal the failure of our welfare system which incentivizes fathers to leave their families so the family can receive larger welfare benefits. Also, there is insufficient pressure on these fathers to act responsibly. This problem is not new; Senator Moynihan’s study over 40 years ago was clear about this. Why don’t we change our policies?
Hikers and walkers can save the world from litter. Here’s how: Whenever you walk or hike and see a piece of trash, if there is a trash receptacle within a reasonable distance, pick up the trash and deposit it in the receptacle. To be even more effective at this, buy one of those hand litter picker uppers at Target or Walmart. They are only a couple dollars and, if you carry a bag to put the trash in, what you can accomplish will be amazing. What if we all do this……………….a cleaner world awaits.
How many times have you heard someone begin answering a question by saying “Well, to be honest” or “in all candor” or something similar? The only logical interpretation of such a response is that the person is not normally honest but will make an exception for this question. That may not be their intention, but my suggestion would be that we all speak honestly all the time so that none of us ever have to start the answer to a question with qualifying phrases like “to be honest.”
Regarding the much hated and often vilified speed cameras and traffic cameras, the problem exists, as it does with many problems, because the government owns the roads. As a way of deciding whether these cameras make sense I often ask myself what kinds of procedures I would support if I owned the roads. I think we all know that one of the main danger factors in highway accidents is inconsistent speeds, not so much just high speeds. The cheapest and easiest way to monitor traffic behavior is with cameras, not full-time enforcement officers. If there were enough cameras to ensure that almost everyone who drove too fast or violated other traffic laws, would receive a citation, rather than the random system today which makes driving a matter of taking your chances, I think it would very quickly result in consistent driving and a dramatic reduction in accidents. Makes sense to me. I think that, if I owned the roads, that’s what I would do.
I think we should abolish private prisons for these reasons: First, the criminal justice system is one of the very few areas of our society that is clearly a government responsibility. Second, part of the mission of prisons is punishment. Private operators have no incentive to accomplish this objective because they are motivated to keep things as calm as possible. Third, we should not have a prison operator who has an incentive to increase the number of prisoners. Private companies can certainly build prisons and even own them, but government employees should staff them.
While watching the news accounts of the situation in Afghanistan it is hard not to empathize with the Afghan people. The takeover of their country by the Taliban is almost as gut wrenching as the takeover of the United States by progressives.
The restrictions being considered for Phoenix area hiking due to the heat are wrong. Every single person has a different ability and different limitations. Whether to hike in any conditions, heat, rain, thunderstorms, cold, etc., should be an individual decision, not government. There are obviously people who have health conditions that would make it inadvisable to hike at any time. Therefore, the next thing we should expect from our government nannies will be a requirement for a doctor’s authorization for anyone to hike.
A much better change would be a “user pay” approach, that is, charge people for rescues. The word will get around quickly and hotel concierges will start advising their health challenged guests to consider the conditions.
roymilleraz 