Adjectives and adverbs are the secret hate speech used by the media to prejudice your thinking on topics. They are the insidious means they use to bias you for or against all sorts of issues. They slip them into their sentences to worm their way into your thought processes without you even noticing its happening.
And both sides do it, it's just that the left controls so many more sources of "news" that they are the fire hose and the right is the garden hose.
You can pick nearly any article or report on any political or social topic from virtually any "news" source and find these little devils riddling the report as they attempt to sway your thinking to the reporters point of view.
Let's take a look at a paragraph from the New York Times this morning:
An executive order gave the right-wing agitator Stephen K. Bannon a full seat on the principals committee of the National Security Council, a startling elevation of a political adviser.
If this were an article written to inform you of the news rather than to turn you against the action they were reporting on it would have been more on the order of this:
An executive order gave Stephen K. Bannon, a political adviser, a full seat on the principals committee of the National Security Council.
Everything else in that paragraph was propaganda intended to sway your opinion to a negative position about this occurrence.
I'm not saying the NYT can't have these opinions or publish them. It's just that they ought to be on the Op-Ed page under opinions. While the kernel of the story was fact, all of the surrounding verbiage, the adjectives and adverbs if you will, were placed there in order to subtly adjust your opinion of what they are telling you to a negative one.
This is NOT reporting, but is instead a subtle form of propaganda.
Once I started paying attention, I've noticed it even down to our local TV news. And now I realize that it's been happening for years. Even venerable old Walter Cronkite regularly did it with the help of Dan Rather, Morley Saffer, et. al. But we weren't sophisticated enough to notice.
The "News" outlet's have been playing us like fiddles for decades. From the way they reported on Vietnam, to Bill Clinton's philandering, to Donald Trump, they've been leading the majority of the undiscerning consumers around by the nose. Influencing them on just what to think about the various topics they chose to report on or not to report on. For example, "The Tea Party is dangerous", while choosing NOT to report on the whole pay to play aspect of the Clinton Foundation and the Hillary Clinton tenure as Sec. of State. If the military were doing this to an enemy, it would be called psy-ops, but since it's the "press" we are supposed to swallow it whole.
Well, I'm sorry, but I'm not related to Linda Lovelace and this is to much for me to swallow. I'm calling for an end to the tyranny of the modifiers being wielded by the press! No more secret adjective based hate speech by the press!
I challenge you to listen for these sneaky attempts to influence you and point them out to your friends and loved ones. Let's shine the light of actual unbiasedness on this insidiousness and try to stamp out this hate speech and banish it back to the opinion pages where it belongs.
Or so it seems to an old farm boy.
Monday, January 30, 2017
Thursday, January 26, 2017
Shia LaBeouf Could Use A Dictionary
I’m so confused! I can’t seem to listen to the Hollywood leftists without getting turned around as I try to follow their logic. For it to make sense I have to take everything I know to be factual and reverse it. Up must become down. Cold must become hot. Increasing must become decreasing.
Lets take the so called actor Shai LaBeouf. Some place called the Museum of Moving Images in New York City (of course its in NYC, no place but liberal bastions like there or La La Land would give him the time of day) has allowed him to create (? not sure that is the proper word here, regurgitate maybe?) what he calls an art project. It is titled “He Will Not Divide Us”. By “He” I can only assume he means President Trump, since he was just arrested for assaulting a Trump supporting passerby.
According to what I’ve read, he has placed a live streaming camera on the side of the Museum of Moving Images and people are to stop in front of the camera and utter something anti Trump, or anti conservative, or just say “He will not divide us” and it will be streamed to the internet. This is supposed to run live until the next inauguration. (I guess he is assuming that President Trump will only be a one term president, because no right thinking person could possibly want the country to have defined and defended borders or be allowed to make their own decisions concerning their health care, or want better jobs, etc. etc.) I can’t think of a bigger waste of band width.
Now Mr. LaBeouf has launched a 4 year project (I’ll bet you money it won’t actually run that long.) to try and stop the lawfully elected President from following through with his stated goals of making America a better place for all Americans to live. Mr. LaBeouf has titled this effort “He Will Not Divide Us”.
Now either Mr. LaBeouf has a different definition of “divide” than I do, or his “us” is not the American people as a whole, as his entire project seems to be aimed at doing just that. Dividing the American people even further than they already are.
But then again, that appears to be the entire strategy of the left. To get the populace to not think of us as “One People” but rather to create as many sub groups as they possibly can and have each sub group obsess on their personal grievances. Blacks, Women, Gays, Latinos, Asian, Jews, Trans, Lesbians, Environmentalists, Pro thisists, Anti thatists, you name it and they can find a group with a grievance for it.
I feel fairly certain that if JFK were alive today and made his “Ask Not What Your Country Can Do For You” speech, he would be summarily drummed out of the Democratic party and vilified as some sort of right wing John Bircher. The left seems to have moved 180 degrees from this position. They want to have themselves viewed as Santa Claus bring gifts to the aggrieved and Shia LaBeouf is one more wack job pushing the leftist agenda. If he hadn’t gained a modicum of fame for acting in a series of movies based on a kid’s toy, nobody would even give this kook the time of day.
Or so it would seem to an old farm boy.
Lets take the so called actor Shai LaBeouf. Some place called the Museum of Moving Images in New York City (of course its in NYC, no place but liberal bastions like there or La La Land would give him the time of day) has allowed him to create (? not sure that is the proper word here, regurgitate maybe?) what he calls an art project. It is titled “He Will Not Divide Us”. By “He” I can only assume he means President Trump, since he was just arrested for assaulting a Trump supporting passerby.
According to what I’ve read, he has placed a live streaming camera on the side of the Museum of Moving Images and people are to stop in front of the camera and utter something anti Trump, or anti conservative, or just say “He will not divide us” and it will be streamed to the internet. This is supposed to run live until the next inauguration. (I guess he is assuming that President Trump will only be a one term president, because no right thinking person could possibly want the country to have defined and defended borders or be allowed to make their own decisions concerning their health care, or want better jobs, etc. etc.) I can’t think of a bigger waste of band width.
Now Mr. LaBeouf has launched a 4 year project (I’ll bet you money it won’t actually run that long.) to try and stop the lawfully elected President from following through with his stated goals of making America a better place for all Americans to live. Mr. LaBeouf has titled this effort “He Will Not Divide Us”.
Now either Mr. LaBeouf has a different definition of “divide” than I do, or his “us” is not the American people as a whole, as his entire project seems to be aimed at doing just that. Dividing the American people even further than they already are.
But then again, that appears to be the entire strategy of the left. To get the populace to not think of us as “One People” but rather to create as many sub groups as they possibly can and have each sub group obsess on their personal grievances. Blacks, Women, Gays, Latinos, Asian, Jews, Trans, Lesbians, Environmentalists, Pro thisists, Anti thatists, you name it and they can find a group with a grievance for it.
I feel fairly certain that if JFK were alive today and made his “Ask Not What Your Country Can Do For You” speech, he would be summarily drummed out of the Democratic party and vilified as some sort of right wing John Bircher. The left seems to have moved 180 degrees from this position. They want to have themselves viewed as Santa Claus bring gifts to the aggrieved and Shia LaBeouf is one more wack job pushing the leftist agenda. If he hadn’t gained a modicum of fame for acting in a series of movies based on a kid’s toy, nobody would even give this kook the time of day.
Or so it would seem to an old farm boy.
Monday, January 23, 2017
Hypocrisy, Thy Name Is Progressive
You would think I'd learn....
Yet again I was taken aback by the level of hypocrisy displayed by the "Progressives" this past weekend.
We are continually told that Progressives are the compassionate ones who are concerned about feelings and caring for everyone. They are the ones who came up with the concepts of micro-aggressions and safe spaces. They say they are for freedom of expression. They preach that "Love Trumps Hate" and loudly decry course and unflattering language.
Yet what are the behaviors they proudly display?
They physically attack those who are willing to espouse an opinion they disagree with. They burn limousines, throw rocks at police and break store windows. I guess I never realized these were compassionate actions that showed how concerned they were about everyone.
They carry signs saying Love Trumps Hate while cheering on speakers who talk about their desire to blow up the White House and carry signs that depict the duly elected POTUS as a poop emoji or as Hitler.
They intrude into other people's property and disrupt other people's lives while chanting "keep your rules off MY body".
They demand "safe spaces" and "trigger warnings" so they won't have to hear or see things that might offend their sensibilities while marching around with hats and signs depicting vaginas and verbally abusing anyone who might hold an opposing opinion. (Friday night in Seattle at a protest against a conservative speaker, one person was shot because another protester mistook his anti NAZI tattoo as a pro fascist symbol. At the same protest, a cameraman for the conservative speaker was assaulted while trying to interact with the protestors.)
Micro-aggressions are loudly and vigorously called out if someone questions man's effect on climate change or holds a door for a woman. But Progressives find it fully acceptable to demean and defame any and all conservatives because they don't hold to their politically correct dogma. It is apparently not a micro aggression of you do it to someone who isn't politically correct. I guess it falls into the same bucket of logic that says only whites can be racists.
It appears to me that the Progressives are guilty of EVERY sin they claim Conservatives are guilty of and are totally (and quite blissfully) unaware of the hypocrisy of their actions. All the while being supported in their hypocrisy by a willfully supportive media.
Or so it would seem to an old farm boy.
Yet again I was taken aback by the level of hypocrisy displayed by the "Progressives" this past weekend.
We are continually told that Progressives are the compassionate ones who are concerned about feelings and caring for everyone. They are the ones who came up with the concepts of micro-aggressions and safe spaces. They say they are for freedom of expression. They preach that "Love Trumps Hate" and loudly decry course and unflattering language.
Yet what are the behaviors they proudly display?
They physically attack those who are willing to espouse an opinion they disagree with. They burn limousines, throw rocks at police and break store windows. I guess I never realized these were compassionate actions that showed how concerned they were about everyone.
They carry signs saying Love Trumps Hate while cheering on speakers who talk about their desire to blow up the White House and carry signs that depict the duly elected POTUS as a poop emoji or as Hitler.
They intrude into other people's property and disrupt other people's lives while chanting "keep your rules off MY body".
They demand "safe spaces" and "trigger warnings" so they won't have to hear or see things that might offend their sensibilities while marching around with hats and signs depicting vaginas and verbally abusing anyone who might hold an opposing opinion. (Friday night in Seattle at a protest against a conservative speaker, one person was shot because another protester mistook his anti NAZI tattoo as a pro fascist symbol. At the same protest, a cameraman for the conservative speaker was assaulted while trying to interact with the protestors.)
Micro-aggressions are loudly and vigorously called out if someone questions man's effect on climate change or holds a door for a woman. But Progressives find it fully acceptable to demean and defame any and all conservatives because they don't hold to their politically correct dogma. It is apparently not a micro aggression of you do it to someone who isn't politically correct. I guess it falls into the same bucket of logic that says only whites can be racists.
It appears to me that the Progressives are guilty of EVERY sin they claim Conservatives are guilty of and are totally (and quite blissfully) unaware of the hypocrisy of their actions. All the while being supported in their hypocrisy by a willfully supportive media.
Or so it would seem to an old farm boy.
Wednesday, January 18, 2017
Don't Start Nothin' Won't Be Nothin'
All right, I'm watching the news and reading articles and all I'm seeing and hearing are liberals freaking out about Pres Elect Trump "attacking" John Lewis, a "hero" of integration.(Though the use of the word 'attack' implies that the person the word is attached to is the initiator.) That Trump has "crossed the rubicon" according to one of them. The main stream outlets are in lock step condemning Trump for this dastardly deed. How could he possibly attack such a man who was beaten during the civil rights movement of the '60s? This is clearly proof of Trump's racist bonafides!
Accept.....didn't Trump attack Rosie O'Donnel? Pretty sure she's not black, oh wait a minute. Using the Sean King definition of black I guess she could be. And didn't he attack Penn Jillette? I'm pretty sure he's not black. As a matter of fact, a quick google search brought up a New York Times article that lists 289 people and groups that Donald Trump has "attacked". In perusing the list, it would appear that Donald Trump is an equal opportunity offender. Whites, blacks, men, women, indeterminate, it doesn't seem to matter.
Although, there does seem to be one common characteristic that all of these folks have in common.
They all seem to have made the first move!
In every case that I looked into, Donald Trump was responding to comments that were made concerning him. To characterize his responses as an attacks is disingenuous. They would be much better characterized as COUNTER attacks, but that doesn't feed the narrative the mainstream media is trying to build in the public perception. They would much prefer to gloss over the attack that precipitated the event and portray Trump as the initiator of hostilities. Because if they fairly report the facts, folks could plainly see that he is merely responding in kind. But it's hard to get folks to hate him if he's seen as defending himself.
Now a case could certainly be made that Trump should not descend into the depths and get in mud fights with every two bit yahoo who insults him. That it is not worthy of him to do so. But then again, GW Bush never responded to his denigrators and it let them totally control the narrative.
So as I hear all the winey leftists acting as if they are SOOOO offended I'm left with two possibilities to consider.
One, they aren't offended at all, but rather, they are following a plan. That plan is, offend Trump because they know he will respond and then play the victim and portray Trump as this evil person who attacks them for no reason (remember, the media is on their side and will downplay the real instigation). Thus continuing to build their psyops case to turn public opinion against him.
Or two, they really are the participation award snowflakes we've thought them to be and thus one can truly see why they would be supporters of the "toxic masculinity" craze that seems to be drowning liberal bastions at the moment. True believers of the post-truth era.
Position one is cynical and position two is depressing. Unfortunately, I believe this whole thing is being led by group one and supported by group two.
Listening to the left rant and rave brings to mind the famous Will Smith line from Men In Black as he is distracting the giant cockroach. "Don't start nothin', won't be nothin'!"
Or so it would seem to an old farm boy.
Accept.....didn't Trump attack Rosie O'Donnel? Pretty sure she's not black, oh wait a minute. Using the Sean King definition of black I guess she could be. And didn't he attack Penn Jillette? I'm pretty sure he's not black. As a matter of fact, a quick google search brought up a New York Times article that lists 289 people and groups that Donald Trump has "attacked". In perusing the list, it would appear that Donald Trump is an equal opportunity offender. Whites, blacks, men, women, indeterminate, it doesn't seem to matter.
Although, there does seem to be one common characteristic that all of these folks have in common.
They all seem to have made the first move!
In every case that I looked into, Donald Trump was responding to comments that were made concerning him. To characterize his responses as an attacks is disingenuous. They would be much better characterized as COUNTER attacks, but that doesn't feed the narrative the mainstream media is trying to build in the public perception. They would much prefer to gloss over the attack that precipitated the event and portray Trump as the initiator of hostilities. Because if they fairly report the facts, folks could plainly see that he is merely responding in kind. But it's hard to get folks to hate him if he's seen as defending himself.
Now a case could certainly be made that Trump should not descend into the depths and get in mud fights with every two bit yahoo who insults him. That it is not worthy of him to do so. But then again, GW Bush never responded to his denigrators and it let them totally control the narrative.
So as I hear all the winey leftists acting as if they are SOOOO offended I'm left with two possibilities to consider.
One, they aren't offended at all, but rather, they are following a plan. That plan is, offend Trump because they know he will respond and then play the victim and portray Trump as this evil person who attacks them for no reason (remember, the media is on their side and will downplay the real instigation). Thus continuing to build their psyops case to turn public opinion against him.
Or two, they really are the participation award snowflakes we've thought them to be and thus one can truly see why they would be supporters of the "toxic masculinity" craze that seems to be drowning liberal bastions at the moment. True believers of the post-truth era.
Position one is cynical and position two is depressing. Unfortunately, I believe this whole thing is being led by group one and supported by group two.
Listening to the left rant and rave brings to mind the famous Will Smith line from Men In Black as he is distracting the giant cockroach. "Don't start nothin', won't be nothin'!"
Or so it would seem to an old farm boy.
Thursday, January 12, 2017
True Confessions Of An Elitist In Remission
As a little background, I grew up on a farm in the Midwest. As a farm kid, my parents taught me it wasn't who you were but what you did that counted. You didn't have to be from a "good" family to be a good person, nor did coming from a "good" family make you a good person.
Needless to say, hard work on a daily basis was the staple of life. There were morning and evening chores before and after school everyday that I can remember and fixing fence was an ongoing activity.
Then I got a chance to go to college on an athletic scholarship. This was in the late '60s and early '70s. While there, I learned that we were going to reach "peak" oil by the '80s and have a dwindling oil supply after that point. I learned that DDT was causing predator birds' egg shells to be soft and they would soon become extinct and 7 types of hell would follow because of it. I learned that the earth was cooling and nuclear winter was just around the corner, and I learned that we were about to reach the worlds max food production level and that food would be able to be used as a weapon of war. Those with the means of production would be able to hold the rest of the world hostage, especially as the population continued to grow unabated.
I came out of college knowing so much and I could see how the majority of the country, to say nothing of the world, just wasn't as smart as I was and that everybody would be so much better off if they would just let us folks with all this knowledge run things.
I was an elitist, and proud of it, because I was one of the cool kids, if only the world would just recognize us and get out of our way. We would get this old world straightened out in no time. There would be no more war, all the countries of the world would cease to exist and we would all be brothers in the world of man.
Then reality smacked me up side the head.
We kept finding more oil, the predator birds didn't die out, we kept finding ways to increase food production, the nuclear winter never arrived, etc. etc. etc.
Not only did all the things I was told were facts turn out to be false, but I realized those spinning the yarns were getting rich off of those of us buying their fairy tales.
Next I noticed how this dream of an egalitarian world was a crock of something coming from the south end of a north bound horse. An egalitarian world would never take place because of many factors, not the least of which is that animal behavior says that there will always be a pecking order. Somebody is always trying to get a better station compared to the next guy. To say nothing of the fact that not all cultures are equal, I don't care what the cultural relativists tell you. As it relates to the human condition, western culture is far superior to that of some other barbaric cultures that want to subjugate various people's for various reasons. Their pigmentation isn't correct, they can't write their name in the snow (my Midwest readers will get that one), they worship differently, or any number of other idiotic reasons.
So you're probably saying, "why is the farm boy telling this tale?"
Well, the answer is, to say that I do understand the elitist mentality in the 20 something crowd. But I am totally baffled by the George Soros, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry's of the world. They have seen the same things I've seen. Can they possibly truly believe in the borderless society, or in the tales being told by the current crop of elitists? Or......and I think this much more likely.....are they the hucksters selling this latest pipe dream or apocalypse to enhance their own power or pocket? You choose your own answer and whether we should listen to them or treat them as the charlatans I believe them to be.
Yes, occasionally I still think "why don't they just listen to me?" Then I look back at some of my beliefs from the '70s and go, yep. I'm probably not the best soothsayer on the block. Age has at least taught me that my delusions of knowing all the answers belong in that crock I mentioned earlier.
Or so it would seem to an old farm boy.
Needless to say, hard work on a daily basis was the staple of life. There were morning and evening chores before and after school everyday that I can remember and fixing fence was an ongoing activity.
Then I got a chance to go to college on an athletic scholarship. This was in the late '60s and early '70s. While there, I learned that we were going to reach "peak" oil by the '80s and have a dwindling oil supply after that point. I learned that DDT was causing predator birds' egg shells to be soft and they would soon become extinct and 7 types of hell would follow because of it. I learned that the earth was cooling and nuclear winter was just around the corner, and I learned that we were about to reach the worlds max food production level and that food would be able to be used as a weapon of war. Those with the means of production would be able to hold the rest of the world hostage, especially as the population continued to grow unabated.
I came out of college knowing so much and I could see how the majority of the country, to say nothing of the world, just wasn't as smart as I was and that everybody would be so much better off if they would just let us folks with all this knowledge run things.
I was an elitist, and proud of it, because I was one of the cool kids, if only the world would just recognize us and get out of our way. We would get this old world straightened out in no time. There would be no more war, all the countries of the world would cease to exist and we would all be brothers in the world of man.
Then reality smacked me up side the head.
We kept finding more oil, the predator birds didn't die out, we kept finding ways to increase food production, the nuclear winter never arrived, etc. etc. etc.
Not only did all the things I was told were facts turn out to be false, but I realized those spinning the yarns were getting rich off of those of us buying their fairy tales.
Next I noticed how this dream of an egalitarian world was a crock of something coming from the south end of a north bound horse. An egalitarian world would never take place because of many factors, not the least of which is that animal behavior says that there will always be a pecking order. Somebody is always trying to get a better station compared to the next guy. To say nothing of the fact that not all cultures are equal, I don't care what the cultural relativists tell you. As it relates to the human condition, western culture is far superior to that of some other barbaric cultures that want to subjugate various people's for various reasons. Their pigmentation isn't correct, they can't write their name in the snow (my Midwest readers will get that one), they worship differently, or any number of other idiotic reasons.
So you're probably saying, "why is the farm boy telling this tale?"
Well, the answer is, to say that I do understand the elitist mentality in the 20 something crowd. But I am totally baffled by the George Soros, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry's of the world. They have seen the same things I've seen. Can they possibly truly believe in the borderless society, or in the tales being told by the current crop of elitists? Or......and I think this much more likely.....are they the hucksters selling this latest pipe dream or apocalypse to enhance their own power or pocket? You choose your own answer and whether we should listen to them or treat them as the charlatans I believe them to be.
Yes, occasionally I still think "why don't they just listen to me?" Then I look back at some of my beliefs from the '70s and go, yep. I'm probably not the best soothsayer on the block. Age has at least taught me that my delusions of knowing all the answers belong in that crock I mentioned earlier.
Or so it would seem to an old farm boy.
Wednesday, January 4, 2017
The Entitlement Generation Demands Free Tampons
Ok, college students demanding "free" this and "free" that has officially jumped the shark! I'm not kidding here. Students (female) are demanding "free" tampons! http://college.usatoday.com/2017/01/04/college-students-are-demanding-free-tampons-on-campus/
That's right, these little snowflakes were able to figure out how to pay tuition and fees for the 2016–2017 school year. According to the College Board, tuition on average was $33,480 at private colleges, $9,650 for state residents at public colleges, and $24,930 for out-of-state residents attending public universities, but these snowflakes are unable to afford tampons!?!
Additionally, they are displaying an appalling lack of understanding about how businesses work. These principals hold for colleges as well as businesses. And that is, for a business to continue to operate, its income must equal or surpass its outgo. Sooo, little snowflakes, if the cost of doing business goes up, it must charge more to cover the increased cost or go out of business.
A quick amazon search told me that tampons can be purchased at a cost of $0.13 to $0.24 per tampon. Now I'm sure the college will be able to recognize a considerable saving due to economy of scale, buttttt, that doesn't cover the cost of the purchasing officer who is paid to make the purchase, or the warehouse personnel who will unload, store and later dispense them to the university employee who will spend a significant portion of their salaried time filling the "free" dispensers. This also doesn't consider the cost of the warehouse space that must be used to store this large cache, nor does it account for the accountants who must keep track of these purchases and insure that finance pays for them, or the people who actually process the payment and send it to the supplier.
All of these hidden costs must be recouped in order for the college to break even and thus continue to provide the valuable service of teaching the snowflakes about gender studies or whatever other useless programs are being offered. All in order to provide employment for the overpaid dweebs teaching them. And these new costs will be recouped by raising tuition (which will be protested by the very snowflakes who demanded the "free" service that forces the increase).
Some one needs to tell the participation trophy generation to stop being disappointed with the results they aren't achieving through the efforts they aren't making! They need to understand that results are the outcome of input/effort. NOTHING is free! And NOBODY is or should have to pay for things they will not benefit from. The "free" tampons will raise the tuition for ALL students; male, post menopausal women, women who have undergone hysterectomies, transgendered former males, etc. etc. None of whom will have a need to avail themselves of this "free" benefit.
I can't help but to believe that these entitled women demanding this free benefit would be appalled if they were forced to pay for free viagra dispensers.
Or so it would appear to an old farm boy.
That's right, these little snowflakes were able to figure out how to pay tuition and fees for the 2016–2017 school year. According to the College Board, tuition on average was $33,480 at private colleges, $9,650 for state residents at public colleges, and $24,930 for out-of-state residents attending public universities, but these snowflakes are unable to afford tampons!?!
Additionally, they are displaying an appalling lack of understanding about how businesses work. These principals hold for colleges as well as businesses. And that is, for a business to continue to operate, its income must equal or surpass its outgo. Sooo, little snowflakes, if the cost of doing business goes up, it must charge more to cover the increased cost or go out of business.
A quick amazon search told me that tampons can be purchased at a cost of $0.13 to $0.24 per tampon. Now I'm sure the college will be able to recognize a considerable saving due to economy of scale, buttttt, that doesn't cover the cost of the purchasing officer who is paid to make the purchase, or the warehouse personnel who will unload, store and later dispense them to the university employee who will spend a significant portion of their salaried time filling the "free" dispensers. This also doesn't consider the cost of the warehouse space that must be used to store this large cache, nor does it account for the accountants who must keep track of these purchases and insure that finance pays for them, or the people who actually process the payment and send it to the supplier.
All of these hidden costs must be recouped in order for the college to break even and thus continue to provide the valuable service of teaching the snowflakes about gender studies or whatever other useless programs are being offered. All in order to provide employment for the overpaid dweebs teaching them. And these new costs will be recouped by raising tuition (which will be protested by the very snowflakes who demanded the "free" service that forces the increase).
Some one needs to tell the participation trophy generation to stop being disappointed with the results they aren't achieving through the efforts they aren't making! They need to understand that results are the outcome of input/effort. NOTHING is free! And NOBODY is or should have to pay for things they will not benefit from. The "free" tampons will raise the tuition for ALL students; male, post menopausal women, women who have undergone hysterectomies, transgendered former males, etc. etc. None of whom will have a need to avail themselves of this "free" benefit.
I can't help but to believe that these entitled women demanding this free benefit would be appalled if they were forced to pay for free viagra dispensers.
Or so it would appear to an old farm boy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)