Tuesday morning links

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Tuesday, December 16. 2014

Disgusting greedy capitalist pigs: Highest earning musicians of 2014

Office work is dangerous

Highest earning musicians of 2014

Why the Abortion Rate Is the Lowest It’s Been Since 1973

How Much White Privilege Do You Have?

Black newspaper takes on black-on-black violence

The mob is alive and well in the unions

Which Costly Family Most Deserves to Enter the Moocher Hall of Fame?

NYC: Majority of city’s trainee teachers flunked literacy tests

How ignorant jerks are going to treat good cops now; ‘I’m scared for my life . . .he’s trying to Mike Brown me

Social conservatism, marriage, and class:

We may have a culture in which the working class is encouraged to imitate what are sold as key upper-class values — sexual permissiveness and self-fashioning, spirituality and emotivism — when really the upper class is also held together by a kind of secret traditionalism, without whose binding power family life ends up coming apart even faster.

Media swoon: Elizabeth Warren, unlike Ted Cruz, hailed as a principled crusader

The Democrats Double Down - Will Republicans seize the opportunity?

VDH: Epitaph for Hope and Change - Obama has fundamentally transformed America, all right — but not as he intended.

The Rise and Fall of German-American Bund

“If you make jokes about people who are going to kill you, there is a sort of tendency to hold back a little.”

‘He Must Have Loved Ones, Too’ - Pathological altruism in Sydney.

German Leader Denounces Anti-Immigrant Surge

Last week the news arrived that the most popular name given to boys in the UK in 2014 was "Mohammed." The reactions and non-reactions to this story betrayed the deep unease and denial that are now part of the debate around Islam in modern Britain.

How Iraq Became a Proxy of the Islamic Republic of Iran

At its 27th birthday parade, Hamas vows to destroy Israel

Posted by Bird Dog in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 04:42 | Comments (13) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

A quick internet search of white privilege will point to the origins of this idea see here:
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED335262.pdf

But, the most recent and well organized push to get "white privilege" built into the next generation of white students --- that organized push began in Seattle only a couple of years ago. Guess whose kids are doing the push?

#1 faculty wife on 2014-12-16 09:54 (Reply)

"Which costly family most deserves to enter the moocher hall of fame?"

There should be a limit on total individual and family benefits in a welfare state. It is ludicrous to tax people earning $24k a year to give "free stuff" to someone being given $50k a year in cash and benefits. I would suggest that a good limit would be to limit the total benefits to any adult to no more then they could earn under the minimum wage. I would also think that a lifetime cap is necessary to prevent the entitled from taking advantage of taxpayers forever. There is little doubt that welfare encourages crime and a unproductive life both for the adults and their children. Welfare is toxic and the more you give welfare recipients the more they turn to drugs and crime. Which brings me to the last suggestion and that is that every welfare recipient should have to work 8 hours a day 5 days a week to remain eligible for benefits. They could sweep streets, pick up trash in the park, help older people or babysit for others who are working. Something should be given in return for what they get from the taxpayers.

#2 GoneWithTheWind on 2014-12-16 10:16 (Reply)

while sounding nice in general, it unduely punishes people ending up on welfare due to no fault of their own.
Think the chronically ill, the disabled, those who after 20-30 years of working their arses off find themselves unemployed and unable to find a job because they're too old (and try getting a more junior job in another field, you're not getting that either because there are many younger people unemployed to take that job who are cheaper than you are).

#2.1 J.T. Wenting on 2014-12-16 11:09 (Reply)

The chronically ill and disabled would be applying for disability, not welfare. Welfare is not for people who are unable to work...welfare was only supposed to be a short-term helping hand for those going under hard times.

#2.1.1 MissT on 2014-12-16 14:12 (Reply)

If that were true, they'd have a way off of welfare through work. Instead, earn a dollar at honest work, lose $10 of that "free" assistance.

#2.1.1.1 JKB on 2014-12-16 15:22 (Reply)

"unduely punishes people"

Really! I am 71 years old and began working at age 13. In my entire working life I have often held two jobs and have been unemployed exactly one week. I think you are telling me that having worked for 55 years that I have been unduely punished for 55 years. I can't identify with that kind of thinking. I am happy to have worked all my life and proud to have supported myself and four children. "Unduely punished" should really refer to the poor taxpayer who has to pay for the free loaders. Welfare is unsustainable. I would actually prefer to eliminate it period. But I think the ony way to "save" it is to reduce the benefits and take away the incentive for able bodied people to exploit it. If we don't change it in a way that dramatically reduces to costs and incentives then it will collapse along with our economy. What the welfare recipients need is a good dose of the old fashioned work ethic.

One last suggestion for reforming welfare is to make it a state program only. It is unconstitutional for the federal government. If it were handled by the states the citizens would have more control over their law makers bad decisions.

#2.1.2 GoneWithTheWind on 2014-12-16 15:13 (Reply)

I think a good place to start would be for welfare recipients to have to leave their house and go to some designated place and be there for 8 hours a day -whatever 8 continuous hours you choose from 8 am to 11 pm.

At this designated place: there will be no drinking, no smoking, no drugs, no pajamas, and no cursing, and no sleeping. What they do there is their business - but they have to be quiet and courteous. Children will be welcome and activities provided if they are not in school.

In other words, you can's sit at home and watch TV, drink beer, smoke dope, and fornicate for least for 8 hours a day.

At the end of your eight hour shift your EBIT card will be credited for the appropriate amount. If you don't show up or don't have an excuse - you don't get paid.

This can hardly be seen as onerous by the libs - so there is a possibility that it could be enacted. It encourages positive behavior and some may figure, "if I have to get up and go somewhere - I might as well go to work.

It has the added benefit of curtailing "under the table" work while collecting welfare. So people who are double dipping may just do their "under the table" jobs as full time employment

JG

#2.1.2.1 jg on 2014-12-16 16:42 (Reply)

OMG! They should EARN it? That's too much like, (to quote Maynard Krebs) WORK! (a 4-letter word)

#2.2 mary on 2014-12-16 11:10 (Reply)

I assumed the Clintons or Obamas were going to top the list. Have any of them done an honest day's work ever?

#2.3 NJSoldier on 2014-12-16 12:47 (Reply)

Are these the jokes, folks?

#2.3.1 jma on 2014-12-17 04:41 (Reply)

I've checked my White Privilege container; it's empty.

The Mob Is Alive: Link Doe Not Work**********************************

Top Brit Baby Name: Nothing to see here; move along.

#3 Sam L. on 2014-12-16 12:01 (Reply)

Two additional trends which might contribute to lower abortion rates:

1. There are less children from pro-abortion women in the child bearing age group. The abortions these women had means that the children they did not have are not among those choosing.

2. Many women of child bearing age are aware that they themselves survived a 1 in 4 chance of being aborted.

#4 Freddie Sykes on 2014-12-16 12:41 (Reply)

Pro-lifers haven't "made their peace" with out of wedlock pregnancies. They encourage women to keep the baby, but they also encourage them to stop the lifestyle that leads to the unwanted pregnancy in the first place. They don't want these women to continue getting pregnant out of wedlock, they want these women to get married and give the child a stable future.

#5 I think it's unreal on 2014-12-16 13:40 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Tuesday, December 16. 2014

Tuesday morning links