Tuesday, April 30, 2013

Why is the media obsessing on the NBA player's sexuality?

I missed Rush's show today but on the transcription from his site, one of the headlines is Obsession over NBA player's sex life.

And I will say that the thought of the President of the US calling this guy gave him an importance he didn't really deserve --- not to mention annoying a lot of black religious leaders who are homophobic...

If you read the Hannity.com message boards there's the same reaction: "these gays are always forcing us to know their sexuality..."

That's not strictly true. At the recent NFL combine, college players were actually asked if they were gay!

And of course more than one athlete has come out and said they don't want a gay athlete on their team. (Probably projection...they know they'd have sex with any woman who showed an interest...or *didn't* show an interest, either! and they assume a gay football player would be just as randy and just as uncontrolled in their sexual urges.)

The truth is simple - gays are just like straights. There are some who want to marry for love, there are some who want to marry so they can get benefits - just like straights do.

People are people. They just want to be happy.

Sunday, April 28, 2013

Work Experience vs Work Education

Nothing can replace experience...

Rush has some very interesting stuff to say below:

RUSH: Now, this job hunting thing.  I mentioned this a couple days ago and just haven't gotten to it.  It's a website I never heard of called Penelope Trunk blog, and I don't know what it is. I don't know if Penelope Trunk is the name. I don't know if Penelope has a trunk and that's what the blog is, no idea.  I just know that I ran across this.

"New Paths To Get A Great Job," and I read it, and I'm fascinated.  She's obviously a young person.  It's an advice piece.  And I'm reading it, and I'm saying, "It's exactly what I did 40 years ago."  But yet to her it's brand-new.  And she starts -- I think it's a she because of Penelope.  I don't even know if I'm right about that.  But this thing starts this way.

"Of course I have to open this post with something about how stupid college is."  Now, that grabbed me right at the get-go.  "Colleges are finally responding to the problem they charge tons of money and then graduates are unemployable and in debt. Colleges are responding by becoming job preparation centers. And Frank Bruni, opinion editor for the New York Times, says this is a waste of time and resources. Here’s what’s better:

"1. Skipping college.
The real issue we have with admitting that college is not a path to the work world is then we have to ask ourselves why we send our kids to high school. There is plenty of data to show that teens are able to manage their lives without the constraints of school. The book Escaping the Endless Adolescence is chock full of data, and a recent article by my favorite journalist, Jennifer Senior, shows that high school is not just unnecessary, but actually damaging to teens who need much more freedom to grow than high school affords."

Now, you can see how this was attractive to me, because I looked at all this as prison.  I looked at all this as holding me back.  I knew what I wanted to do, and high school and that stuff was an obstacle. It was keeping me from doing what I wanted.  Now, don't misunderstand.  You've got kids listening, I'm not trying to tell people don't go to school.  I'm just telling you how I looked at it.  I'm not advocating not going to high school.  Of course I picked things up and learned, but as a young person I didn't want to be there.  I knew what I wanted to do.  By the way, I didn't do well in formal education, and at the time I remember having conversations with my parents.  They were obsessed with me getting good grades, making the honor roll, of course, parental pride.

I never gave 'em that.  I did get an A in penmanship one time. My mother was thrilled that I got an A in something.  But I talked to them, "You know, this is too formulaic," and my dad said, "They have to do it this way. There are too many kids. They have to come up with a formula that is the best for the most in terms of educating people.  They can't tailor education to each individual," which I understood and I understand that now.  But my problem was I didn't fit the formula, but yet I got plugged into it like everybody did, and I didn't like it.  I found ways around it, by the way.  I found ways to do what I wanted to do, at the expense of doing other things.  Now, this piece here says...
"2. Focus on internships instead of school.

Kids should be working in internships in high school. Because the best path to a good job is a bunch of great internships. But great internships don’t go to people who need money. They are mostly for young people. Yes, this is probably illegal and classist and bad for a fluid society. But we will not debate that here. Instead we will debate why kids need to go to college if the internships are what make them employable?"

The whole point of this is that we've got a factory set up here.  We've got a formula that starts with kindergarten, preschool, whatever it's called, then elementary school, then middle school, then high school, then college, and this is a young person who is starting to say, "Wait a minute, I finish all that and I'm still not employable. I finish all that and I'm still not trained to do anything, and yet I owe somebody anywhere from 25 to $200,000."

So you've got young people starting to ask themselves about the formula that they're being plugged into, and looking at alternatives to actually learning something.  It's fascinating.  Internships, think of apprenticeships, think of things that have been done in the past that this young person doesn't know.  Whoever this is thinks they're onto something brand-new, never happened before.  When in fact everything this person wants or thinks ought to be done has been done before and is now something that's in the past and is supposedly outdated or outmoded, apprenticeships, internships, you figure out what you want to do and you go there.  Instead of going to high school, or you combine the two.  But that's how you end up becoming employable.  You actually get experience doing something.

Now, understandably some careers require a lot of education and a piece of paper saying you have been and then you have to pass certain tests.  Doctors, lawyers, I mean, there's no substitute, you have to know that stuff and you have to be admitted to certain schools.  So there are exceptions.  But the person points out: "You cannot take this route if you’re saddled with huge student loans. You can’t take this route if you’re inundated by homework in required subjects you don’t care about. You can’t take this route if you have no work experience when you graduate college. It’s too late. (Don’t tell me you need to go to school to learn, okay? People just do not believe this anymore.)"

Then the next suggestion here is: start a company instead of writing a resume.  And she talks about the latest phenomena of how startups are happening in Silicon Valley.  And she's right, or whoever wrote this is right. You know what's happening in Silicon Valley?  Entrepreneurs are starting Internet type companies.  A recent one is something called Wavii, it's about 10 or 12 people, I think, and they created a bunch of algorithms that will take AP, New York Times, whatever it is news copy and immediately rewrite it in conversational language, in an app for your phone or your iPad.  Well, Google just snapped these guys up.  It's called an aqua hire.  They essentially acquired the business, but what Google really did was hire these people.

So these guys who started Wavii, and this is one example, and I may not be fully up to speed on it, but rather than these guys having to stick with it and maybe go out of business in the process, they were hired as employees and their company was bought, too, but essentially their business was purchased by them becoming employees of Google to develop the program with Google engineers on tap, and there are countless examples of this type of thing happening in Silicon Valley.  That's just one.  And those type of things are referenced in this piece as young people actually in the workforce rather than in school.  They're just focusing on things they love, they like to do using their talents and expertise, and they're earning a lot of money doing it without any real formal education.
So young people are seeing this happen, and they're asking themselves, "Why am I in school here?"  I don't know if anything will come of it.  To me it is primarily fascinating because all of this is about going against the grain.  Forget the formula. Screw what everybody says you have to do. Find what you're interested in, and find a way to go do it, which is what I did.  They think it's new, which was what made me chuckle.

Tuesday, April 23, 2013

Why's Rush Teeing off on Beckel?

Seems to me he should be praising the guy for having the courage of saying what needed to be said!
RUSH: Investigators are saying that the Boston bombers were motivated by radical websites. They were motivated by religion. But we don't know why they did it. But that's what they were motivated by. Everybody's trying to figure out why and how they were radicalized. Well, yesterday afternoon on Fox, they had this program called The Five, and there are five people on at five o'clock. That's the name of the program. And Bob Beckel, well-known Democrat strategerist, Bob Beckel ran Walter F. Mondull's campaign in 1984. Bob Beckel said this.

BECKEL: In the Muslim communities around the world, they do not like us. I think we really have to consider -- given the fact so many people hate us -- that we're going to have to cut off Muslim students from coming to this country for some period of time so that we can at least absorb what we've got. Look at what we've got, and decide whether some of the people here should be sent back home or sent to prison.

RUSH: Has there been any reaction to this that you have seen or heard? Now, if Pat Buchanan had said this or if I had said this yesterday, or if Senator Jeff Sessions had said it or if Rand Paul had said it or if John Boehner had said it, or if George W. Bush at his library opening had said it, if any Republican had said, "We need to send these Muslims back home. We need to consider the fact we have to cut off Muslim students coming to this country." I'm stunned. I've had cable news on all day. They've had nobody outraged at what Beckel said. CAIR hasn't said anything, Council on Arab-American Islamic Relations. They haven't said anything. I'm stunned by that.

I mean, why, that's Islamophobic, isn't it? It's profiling. It's Islamophobic. It's accusatory. It's defamatory. It's hate speech. It's insulting. It's presumptuous. It's not the way we do things here in America. It's anti-diversity, mean, judgmental, prejudicial, unfair, unjust, immoral, not useful, unhelpful, harmful. And there's no reaction to this. Okay, the Huffing and Puffington Post did. Big whoop. Who heard about it? Just like when FDR said, "You know what, we're gonna put these Japanese in these communes or get rid of 'em," you could hear the crickets. Then Beckel says (imitating Beckel), "I don't know, I think we need to cut off Muslim students coming in the country, at least for some period of time, maybe send 'em back home, or prison." They're just young boys and they didn't like firecrackers when they were in kindergarten in Chechnya. They heard all the wars, and firecrackers, PTSD. I don't know. I don't know. I'm just fascinated by it.

Monday, April 22, 2013

The Sequester

Rush has explained this many time.... the cuts are coming from *new* money allocated every year, not old money that still goes to various places, so these cuts are ridiculous.

From Rush today:
The sequester, by the way, or "seekester," as pronounced by Sheila Jackson Lee from your state, from Houston, the sequester is Obama's idea.  They're trying to blame the Republicans for it, but the sequester as a strategy, as a procedure, the sequester was Barack Obama's idea.  Now, the decision here, the FAA, which is the Obama regime, to reduce air traffic controllers, is to blame Republicans.  This is all political.
This is an effort -- you know it, I know it, everybody in this audience knows it -- it is an effort to have low-information people get ticked off over flight delays and crowded airplanes and all the other things that happen when there are aircraft slowdowns, airline slowdowns, so that they end up blaming Republicans for this, because everything is about 2014.  Everything, folks, is about 2014.  Let me give you a reason why.  Thanks, Bob, for the call.  I appreciate it.
A little story here from Bloomberg News: "The top 1 percent of U.S. taxpayers would pay 67 percent of the higher taxes called for in 2023 under President Barack Obama’s budget proposal, according to an analysis released today by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center in Washington." So in 2023, 10 years from now, according to projections, if the Democrats are not stopped -- this is why 2014 is so important to us, just as it's so important to Obama, the Democrats, 2014 to them is winning the House.  When they win the House, they have one-party government.  There's no stopping them.  Just like they had one party government for the first two years of Obama's regime, 2009 and 2010.
But back then, Obama had to worry about the midterm elections and he had to worry about reelection. So even though they did some radicalized stuff, it still took very long and a lot of effort and a bunch of chicanery to get Obamacare passed.  This time, if they win the House in 2014, there's no stopping 'em, and there's no worries about anything.  They're gonna think the Democrats will hold the White House in 2016, the Republicans woven a chance.  If amnesty has happened, then the Democrats win in 2016 probably by default.  If the Democrats win the House in 2014, legislation will be rubber-stamped.  It won't even have to be debated very long and the votes will be automatic, the Democrats will control everything.
So whatever Obama and the Democrats want to do starting in 2014, nothing to stop them.  And if they aren't stopped in 10 years, the top 1% of the population would be paying 67% of all taxes, on paper.  Now, if it ever really came to that, a lot of the top 1% would chuck it and stop working and wouldn't be paying any taxes, because they're gonna say, "Why the hell am I gonna continue to work if I have to give up 70 cents of every dollar I earn, what is the point?"  But the Democrats don't score any of this stuff dynamically.  They do it in a very static way, and they just assume that every taxpayer's gonna sit there and take it, tax rate goes to 70%, nothing changes, everybody keeps working, stays at their job.  Of course there would be rampant new unemployment because of that, but on paper the top 1% would be paying 67% of all taxes.  So 2014 really is huge.