Is Tanya a victim or a felon?

Tanya McDowell is in trouble. She's homeless. She lives in her van. She's charged with stealing $16,000 from Norwalk, Connecticut, taxpayers for enrolling her son in a school district she doesn't live in by using a false address. She's got lots of people supporting her. They say that the law allows a homeless person to enroll her children in any school district she chooses.

But being the skeptic that I am, I have some questions about that. If that really is the law, then why didn't Tanya just tell them she was homeless and enroll her child? The false address she used belonged to her babysitter. Since Tanya is homeless and jobless, why does she need a babysitter? How does she pay the babysitter? And why is Tanya unemployed? Well, it seems that she has a drug charge pending against her -- that's not counting her prior criminal record.

Tanya's little boy has been removed from the school and returned to the district where she last lived. She still has relatives there, and they are caring for the little boy. The NAACP says all this is because Tanya is black. I suspect it's because Tanya's a crook.

"Connecticut mom charged with lying to get son into wrong school." The Dallas Morning News; April 28, 2011; p. 8A.

It would be funny if it weren't so serious.

There were two letters to the editor recently that would have made me laugh were it not for the fact that they are an indication that people are falling for the Obama class-envy rhetoric.

Paula B. Dardaganian of Richardson says "joy" might be a little strong, but she's going to have to "dig a little deeper to prove I'm thankful for what I have and that my priorities are the needs of people over material choices." She says if we need to raise taxes that support social services for the less fortunate, she and her husband will have checkbook in hand. Paula gives no indication that she is aware that she doesn't have to wait for a tax increase to show her thankfulness. There are all kinds of charities and churches she and her husband can pull that checkbook out for. Perhaps she's not quite as generous as she lets on since she's waiting to be forced to show her gratitude. But wait . . . according to Jo Comerford of Northampton, Massachusetts, she's not being forced.

Jo says, ". . .it's essential that we consider growing the federal fund by asking the wealthiest and our corporations to pay their fair share." Really, Jo? "Asking" them to pay? Gosh, the tax man doesn't "ask" me. He holds it out of my check and tells me I'm paying or going to jail.

But Jo is just parroting the Democratic line. I challenge you to pay attention when the Democrats are talking about raising taxes on "the wealthy." Practically everytime, they use the "asking the wealthy to pay" phrasing. Maybe they got that from Harry "taxes are voluntary" Reid.

"A joyful taxpayer" and "Tax data show disparities." The Dallas Morning News; April 18, 2011; p. 10A.

In English, por favor.

The headline says, "Federal Budget: Cuts threaten poor seniors." None of us wants to see poor old people suffer, so I read the article. And I found an entirely different story than the one suggested by the headline.

Esmeralda Calderon, age 65, has a community service job through a federal program. It is her only source of income, we're told. She lives alone in a public housing project in Hollywood, California. My first question is why Esmeralda doesn't have social security. Could it be that Esmeralda doesn't have a social security card and never paid into the system? But how could that be? Could it be because she's not even supposed to be here? My second question is why Esmeralda hasn't planned for her old age. Sixty-five is relatively young to have already run out of your retirement funds. But I digress.

Esmeralda's job, paid for with tax money, is in a daycare center. The name of the daycare center? Para Los Ninos. The program that funds this job is being slashed by 45%. My questions are these: if Esmeralda's job is essential, won't the private sector have to fill it in some form or fashion? And wouldn't Esmeralda have an advantage in acquiring that job in the private sector since she's already been doing it? And if it's not essential, why are we paying her? And why are we funding a daycare center that doesn't even have an English name?

"Cuts threaten poor seniors." The Dallas Morning News; April 18, 2011; p. 4A.

Here's a novel idea . . . get a job.

Texas has a college grant program for low-income freshmen called the TEXAS grant. Students who fit the income criteria get $7000 a year on a first-come-first-served basis. TEXAS grants won't be as widely available next year because of funding cuts. If the state doesn't have the money, they can't very well dole it out.

What disturbs me is the mentality of the students and parents who are affected by this decision and the news media who are reporting it. For example, this quote: "Students face decisions such as whether to attend a state university hours away or to pick a college closer to home. Whether to enroll at a four-year university or a less expensive community college. Whether to take out big loans and worry about paying them off." Do you notice the obvious omission here? What about the option of getting a job? Or two jobs. If a student worked 18 hours a week at a minimum wage job, he could make $7000. That's not an unreasonable amount of time for a college student to work.

Then, do you notice the attitude that the student should be able to go to the college of his choice no matter what it costs? I never even thought about that. I knew that I was going to have to pony up the money for my education, so I went to colleges close to home. Mr. Essie May and I lived within our means. What's wrong with these students doing the same?

One mother said, "I don't want him [her son] to be focused on a job. I need him to focus on his education." Well then, Mom, don't you think you should take a second job? Why should I pay for your son to focus on his education? She says her son will find a way to attend the University of Houston no matter what. If that's the case, why is he going to the state for money in the first place? If he can make it on his own, why is he taking money from someone who might not be able to?

Joe Pettibon oversees financial aid at Texas A & M. He said, "The impact is huge for students . . . there's not really any way to make it up rather than loans." Sure there is, Joe. It's that grant program called JOB. These students might as well learn now that the world does not owe them a living.

"College plans turn uncertain." The Dallas Morning News; April 20, 2011; p. 1A.

They had to pass a law for this?

The Texas House of Representatives has approved a bill that would require jurors to be able to read and write English. Is it just me, or is it ridiculous that we had to pass a law for this? Shouldn't it just be a given that if you don't understand English, you aren't qualified to serve as a juror?

The vote on the bill was 111-31. Who in the heck are the 31 who voted against it? Does it surprise you to know the 31 included Alonzo, Alvarado, Gutierrez, Hernandez, Luna, Marquez, Martinez, Martinez Fischer, Munoz, Oliveira, Quintanilla, Rodriguez, and Villarreal?

"House OKs English requirement for jurors." The Dallas Morning News, April 20, 2011; p. 5A.

I fear for the next generation.

Students in California are protesting cuts in funding to state colleges. They staged sit-ins at empty offices last week. That was really smart, don't you think? At any rate, some of their signs read "Education is a right," and "No more greed."

No, my dears, education is not a right. It is a privilege. As for the "no more greed," the students are the ones who are being greedy. They want what they have not worked for.

Cecillee Espanol is a 22-year-old psychology major. She said she's going to have to get a job next year to cover the cost of her classes. Well, bless her little pea-pickin' heart! Mr. Essie May and I worked two jobs and occasionally three at a time to pay for our educations. Where did Cecillee get the idea that her education should be free? She says she's "mad at the government for funding more for prison and war than for education." Perhaps she should take a course in history and study the Constitution. Wars and prisons are legitimate government expenses. Paying her way through college is not.

"Students fight California cuts." The Dallas Morning News; April 14, 2011; p. 9A.

Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire!

Obama is still trotting out the liberal spin on taxation. "We cannot afford $1 trillion worth of tax cuts for every millionaire and billionaire in our society," he said. No one, not even the most conservative Republican, is talking about a tax cut. What Obama is talking about is a tax increase.

It would be kind of like going to Wal-Mart and buying a bell pepper for $1.25. Next week, you go to Wal-Mart and they have a big sign on the bell peppers that says "Bell Pepper Price Cut!" But they're still marked $1.25. You tell the produce manager that you paid $1.25 last week, and they're still $1.25, so that's not a price cut. "Oh, but it is," he explains as he looks at you condescendingly. "We were going to raise the price to $1.50 this week, but we decided not to. We cut the price by 25 cents."

As my hero Judge Judy is fond of saying, "Don't piddle on my leg and tell me it's raining."

Read my lips, Barack: "It's not that we aren't paying enough taxes. It's that you're spending too much."

"Lines drawn in debt battle." The Dallas Morning News; April 14, 2011; p. 1A.

It's gone beyond toleration.

Remember the gay lib mantra: "Tolerance"? How's this for tolerance . . .

David Aldridge of Los Angeles had a kidney transplant in 2006. He now needs another. "I feel sorry for him," you might say. But let me tell you the rest of the story. Aldridge is HIV positive. Until recently, those with HIV and/or AIDS didn't qualify for transplants because of their poor prognosis. Now they can get multiple transplants while those who need transplants through no fault of their own must wait due to a shortage of available organs.

Now here's even more to the story. To address this shortage, they are now trying to change the law so that organs from HIV positive donors may be used. "That's great for those who already have HIV," you say. And I can agree with that. But that law change will also make it legal for patients who don't have HIV to receive those compromised organs.

And I can just see it now . . . if you need a kidney or a liver, it will be at least discrimination and at worst a hate crime for you to ask if the donor was HIV positive. Just how tolerant do you think we should be then?

"Organ donor change sought." The Dallas Morning News; April 13, 2011; p. 14A.

A rose is a rose is a rose . . .

Rep. Vicki Truitt of Keller has introduced legislation in the Texas House to ban certain words from state documents. It passed without objection or debate. But I object. Among the words that are out the window are retarded, disabled, developmentally disabled, mentally disabled, mentally ill, mentally retarded, handicapped, cripple, and crippled. Those will be replaced by "persons with a disability," "persons with mental illness," etc. Why do I object? Because it's silly. All these words were once the politically correct terms until somebody said, "Shouldn't we call this abc instead of xyz?" And then everybody was afraid of offending somebody so they all jumped on the bandwagon. We'll have to have legislation two years from now to ban "persons with mental illness" with "persons who aren't mentally well." Then we'll probably have to change it to "persons who don't think like I do." And it will continue to be watered down until nobody can tell that what you are talking about is a mental case. Another objection I have is wordiness. As if government documents aren't hard enough to wade through already, now we'll have additional mumbo jumbo to try to parse. Another objection: what do we do about diabetes, cancer, heart disease, and all the other illnesses? Must we now refer to "persons with diabetes," etc.? And my final objection: Just because you call a man "a person with a mobility challenge" instead of a "cripple" doesn't change the fact that he can't walk. I don't see anything wrong with calling it like it is. "Bill to bar 'retarded,' other phrases passes." The Dallas Morning News; March 31, 2011; p. 5A.

What a plan!

Remember when Nancy Pelosi said we had to pass Obamacare so we could know what was in it? She wasn't just whistling Dixie.

In a recent interview, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius answered some tough questions . . . sort of.

When asked about the long-term care part of the law and talk of reforming it, Ms. Sebelius said that the legislation gave her "flexibility" to look at changes. She said they didn't want a plan supported by taxpayer dollars, so "we are reaching out to . . . the aging community to the financial services industry to come up with a plan." Translation: "There ain't no way on God's green earth we can make this work, so we'll just pass along that responsibility to somebody else, and they can take the blame."

When reminded that they had been warned beforehand that this part of Obamacare was unsustainable, Ms. Sebelius said, "The framework was unsustainable. That is why we are proposing changes." Translation: "They were right, and we're going to act like we thought that all along and hope the average American citizen buys it."

When the interviewer pointed out that her actions indicate the criticisms of Obamacare were justified, she said, ". . .We will learn about best practices." Translation: "We don't know what in the heck we're doing."

"Health care reform, one year later." The Dallas Morning News; March 20, 2011; p. 5P.

I'm offended.

Saima Sheikh of Allen is trying to enlighten the world. She understands all about religions other than her own, and she's going to bring together all those people who are less informed than she in order to educate them. I'll discuss some of what she said later, but I find her general attitude offensive. It's kind of like all these companies that require their employees to go through "diversity training." Have you ever really thought about what that implies? It implies that you are a racist, and you're just too stupid to realize it. So they'll bring in some guy who probably really is a racist to tell you how bigoted you are.

Anyway, Saima is upset with Terry Jones, the Florida nutcase who makes a big production out of burning the Koran. She says, "It's hard to understand how a pastor could burn another religion's scripture. No religion teaches hatred against others. It is the people who have misunderstood or misconstrued its teachings." Uhhhhhh . . . that Koran she's so upset about him burning? It says, “Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war,” and “The Believers fight in Allah’s Cause, they slay and are slain, kill and are killed.” Kind of hard to misunderstand or misconstrue that.

She says that if Jones really wanted to know about Islam, he should have held "interfaith dialogues" in his church. I'm pretty sure Jones already knows quite a bit about Islam. I don't agree with him purposely antagonizing those people, but let's face it. Burning a book isn't quite as bad as flying planes into buildings. And if you think it is, there's definitely something wrong with your religion.

Saima says if Jones had held these "dialogues," he would have learned ". . .it is part of a Muslim's faith to believe in all the revealed books like the Gospels and the Torah and to believe in all the prophets and angels." So, Saima, if you believe in "all the books," what do you do when the Bible tells you there is one mediator between man and God, the man Christ Jesus, and the Koran tells you Mohammed is your link to God? How do you reconcile that? She says Jones would have learned "the exalted status of Mary, mother of Jesus, in the Holy Quran." Sorry, Saima, but that's in direct contradiction to the Bible, and it would only have given Jones more fuel for his fire.

The bottom line is that Saima doesn't appear to be nearly as enlightened as she thinks she is, and her "interfaith dialogues" are offensive.

"We can learn from one another." The Dallas Morning News; April 2, 2011; p. 25A.

Liberals are soooooo compassionate!

Unlike hardhearted uncaring conservatives, liberals are the epitome of compassion and caring. Take this quote about the devastating earthquake and tsunami in Japan: "The human toll here looks to be much worse than the economic toll, and we can be grateful for that." Who said this? It must have been George Bush. Or John Boehner. Or Clarence Thomas. Or Rush Limbaugh. No. . .guess again. It was liberal CNBC anchor Larry Kudlow. Freudian slip? "Talking Points." The Dallas Morning News; March 20, 2011; p. 1P.

Where were mom and dad?

Jon Thomas Carmichael was 13 years old. He was a student in the Joshua school district. Last year, he hanged himself at his family's farm. His family is suing the Joshua school district, the superintendent, and other staff members.

Jon Thomas was the victim of what his family and their attorney call bullying. What the child suffered is unconscionable. On different occasions, he was thrown into a trash bin, stripped, and had his head "flushed" in the school toilets. His family says the school ignored his plight.

My question is where were mom and dad? These were not childish pranks. These were criminal assaults. If it had been my child, and I received no help from the school district, I would have called the police. In fact, why have the boys who perpetrated these assaults not been charged?

We hear far too much about bullying. Verbal taunts and juvenile pranks are one thing. Kids should be taught to stand up to them, because there will always be those in life who don't like you and who will taunt you. Physical assault, however, is not mere bullying -- it's a crime. And if mom and dad were negligent in reporting the assaults against their son, how can they now blame the school district?

"Parents of boy who killed himself sue district." The Dallas Morning News; March 30, 2011; p. 7B.

Que pasa?

Interesting fact. Did you know that the majority of Texas public school students are hispanic? There are currently 2.48 million hispanic public school students. Any guesses as to how many of those are illegal?

"Latinos now a majority in state's public schools." The Dallas Morning News; March 24, 2011; p. 1B.

Rights or Giveaways?

Carl Crain of Richardson is upset with the government attempts to reduce spending. He says the "GOP is reducing our rights through the vast budget cuts they are proposing. . ." I, for one, would like to know what "right" the GOP is reducing by cutting the budget. I can't think of a one. Surely Mr. Crain understands that handouts from the taxpayer via the government are not rights. Surely Mr. Crain understands that a quality education does not have to cost the billions we are spending. No, the only "right" involved here is the one being restored -- the right of the wage-earner to keep that for which he has labored.

"Time's ripe for a recall." The Dallas Morning News; March 29, 2011; p. 10A.

An Honorable Way to Die

There is a trial going on now in Arizona. James Ray is a self-help author. He's one of those guys who tells you how to have a better life while he, himself, rakes in your money.

In 2009, a bunch of people paid him $10,000 to $15,000 each to participate in his spiritual warrior camp. He did things to them like telling them to go out in the desert for long periods of time with no food or water. Meanwhile, he's back at the camp making sure he's hydrated and fed.

One of his activities was a sweat lodge. He bragged to the participants that this one would be hotter than any he had ever done. He didn't lie. Three people died from the heat. The irony is that these people all thought this experience would teach them to be independent thinkers. Yet they literally followed his instruction to the death.

One of the people who was pulled unconscious from the sweat lodge but survived testified in the trial that she surrendered to the possibility of death just before she lost consciousness. She believed it would be an "honorable way to die." I think it was a stupid way to die.

"Nurse recalls blacking out in sweat lodge." The Dallas Morning News; March 26, 2011; p. 5A.

You are wrong, Jimmie

Jimmie Loyd of Tyler doesn't understand the voter ID bill currently in the Texas legislature. When enacted, the bill will require a Texas drivers license or concealed carry license or Texas ID card or military ID or passport to vote. Jimmie says that since her mother is in a nursing home and doesn't have a drivers license, she will be unable to vote. Simply not true. She can take her mother to get a Texas ID card. If her mother is not able to leave the nursing home, she can still vote by mail. Jimmie says the Republicans think her mother is going to commit voter fraud. Again, Jimmie, simply not true. The law is as much to protect your mother from someone stealing her vote as it is to protect the election process. Seeing as your mother is not, as you say, disenfranchised by the bill, I have to wonder, Jimmie, why you are so opposed to it. "Voting for others hypocritical." The Dallas Morning News; March 27, 2011; p. 2P.

The Dirty Truth

When I was a kid, I enjoyed nothing more than playing in the dirt. At my grandmother's house, there was a shady corner in the backyard where grass refused to grow. When I was just a little tyke, we took our little shovels and pails out there and dug a hole big enough for us to lie in. Then to our mother's horror, we got the hose and filled the hole with water to make a "swimming pool." I'm sure we were a sight to behold!

Then there was making mudpies and sand castles and digging for treasure and burying treasures and all sorts of other neat things to do with dirt. Sometimes Grandma helped us plant a dried bean in a little cup of dirt so we could watch it sprout. We "helped" Grandpa every spring when he turned up his garden.

There was sandy dirt which was good for digging in and there was clay which was good for mudpies. There was black dirt and red dirt. The red dirt left stains on us. The black dirt mixed with our sweat and formed little black beads in the crinkles of our necks. We were quite the dirt experts.

Kids now evidently don't know what dirt is, because London has a new museum exhibit . . . "Dirt: The Filthy Reality of Everyday Life." It "explores the good and bad of dirt." It explains to people that "soil" as in "soiled sheets" is bad; but "soil" as in where we plant our seeds is good. I swear this is not an April Fool prank. The dirty truth is that we have sunk to a new low when we have to have a museum exhibit to explain "dirt"!

"Exhibit digs into pros, cons of humanity's ties to dirt." The Dallas Morning News; March 27, 2011; p. 15A.