The media really doesn’t like the Israeli barrier fence. Never mind that its presence has severely diminished the number of suicide attacks against Israelis. Never mind that Israel is showing signs of being more secure now than they have been in years. Pity the poor Palestinian, they say, who now can’t sell his stuff to Israelis who have worked hard for their prosperity.
Honestly, read the story. I did and I learned all about the poor Palestinian merchants who had Israeli customers galore until they put up the fence and now has none. Businesses are collapsing and economic balance between Israeli and Palestinian is becoming more and more lopsided.
I read it and now I say: cry me a river.
Perhaps the Israelis got tired of responding to coffee shops and marketplaces with emergency crews to try to save people who had been cut down while they minded their own business. Perhaps they counted the costs of their people dying versus buying cheap plastic furniture from a guy named “Ibrahim” and came up with the answer that they didn’t need that furniture after all. Perhaps they actually listened to the voice of the Palestinian people as they went to the polls and elected into office a known terrorist group that’s on record – repeatedly – as wanting nothing more than to kill every Jew there is and remove their nation from the face of the earth.
And, after all of that, they decided that the Palestinians didn’t really want to coexist. The best move is to make sure they can’t get at the Israelis. Since the Palestinians weren’t going to make sure of that, the Israelis decided to do it themselves. Hence, the fence.
So now, after forcing the Israelis into the position they’re in, the Palestinians now have the gall to whine about the lack of business coming in their doors? Here’s a suggestion: toss the terrorists out of your executive offices and show the world you’re really serious about coming down on the terrorists so that your own people aren’t engaged in killing your neighbors and then, just maybe, those neighbors will want something to do with you again.
Until then, enjoy your isolation. Sell your furniture to each other.
Hillary Clinton is a mean, evil person who is too cold and calculating to win the presidency. Why? Because, you buffoon, the abandoned her cat.
I am, of course, being sarcastic. There are people out there who aren’t, however, and the fate of Socks the cat – the official White House pet from the Clinton administration – is actually being looked at with an eye toward gauging whether or not Hillary is fit to lead America.
Of all the things for and against her, some people are going to weigh into the decision whether or not she kept a cat.
In our polarized political environment, these days, there’s no such thing as a neutral non-event. Literally everything candidates do or don’t do is held up as some sort of moral or mental barometer loudly advocating or decrying the person’s worth and fitness for office. In the spectrum of things about Hillary you should be thinking about when deciding which person to grace with your vote next November, then, the concept of a boondoggle of national health care, the stupidity of a $5,000 “baby bond”, and her aptitude with our nation’s military are to be held comparably in your estimation processes with her decision not to keep a bloody cat hanging around.
Ludicrous. Here in Loudoun County some otherwise serious political pundits over at Too Conservative are pointing and jabbering on about whether or not this or that Republican candidate’s supporters have (GASP!!!) put campaign signs in the median of some local roads. You know, like every single candidate for every single public office has had done for every single election that’s been held here since I arrived in Northern Virginia over 2 decades ago.
Never mind that Eugene Delgaudio substitutes invective for political deliberation (such as the comparison of the failure of the Virginia DoT to open an overpass in a timely fashion to the attack at Pearl Harbor), there are signs up along the road with his name on them! This, then, is what some people are focusing on in their effort to paint a man as unworthy to serve in public office. This demonization using trivialities obscures the important issues and, frankly, makes those involved look like whining children rather than the thoughtful adults one supposed them to be.
Whether on the national stage or the local stump, we should be looking at the characteristics a candidate displays, not whether they display signage the same way candidates have done for years and years. Where they stand on the important matters of the day is far more important that where their signs stand or where their former pet now resides.
This story comes to us from the Associated Press and it’s regarding a 7-month investigation by that same body, so let me preface this post with the admonition that you should take this with a grain of salt. Aside from the past indiscretions, however, I’ve got no information that the story is somehow false or inflated.
The investigation went into the issue of teachers in our public school system that have been accused of sexual misconduct.
There are 3 million public school teachers nationwide, most devoted to their work. Yet the number of abusive educators — nearly three for every school day — speaks to a much larger problem in a system that is stacked against victims.
Most of the abuse never gets reported. Those cases reported often end with no action. Cases investigated sometimes can’t be proven, and many abusers have several victims.
And no one — not the schools, not the courts, not the state or federal governments — has found a surefire way to keep molesting teachers out of classrooms.
Those are the findings of an AP investigation in which reporters sought disciplinary records in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The result is an unprecedented national look at the scope of sex offenses by educators — the very definition of breach of trust.
The seven-month investigation found 2,570 educators whose teaching credentials were revoked, denied, surrendered or sanctioned from 2001 through 2005 following allegations of sexual misconduct.
The story goes on to say that about 1,800 of those cases involved young people (which raises the question of who the victims were in the other 700-some cases) and that “more than” 80% of those 1,800 cases were students. (So that’s 1,440 cases where the misconduct involved a young person student, presumably at the education facility where the teach worked. Again, that about the other 370 cases?)
I have nothing to say about the sexual abuse of a minor student by a teacher that I’ve not already said but I do watch this situation with some interest because I want to see if something will happen. I want to know if the same people who were screaming for the heads of Catholic priests and demanding lawsuits against the Church when sexual misconduct was found there will come forward as sternly toward these teachers in the public school system. Will there be demands for public investigations, here, to see what school administration allowed such teachers to retain their licenses and just move to another school district. At least this time the public actually does have some standing to demand these things. So let’s see if the loud voices against the Church are as eager against the State.