Here we go again. Another tragic shooting by a suspected radical islamist. This time in a gay club in Florida.
The injured victims aren't even all treated and the gun control loons are already squawking for guns to be outlawed.
Now if these folks making all of the noise were consistent I could have a little respect for them. They would still be wrong, but I would respect their opinion. But of course they are not.
If they were consistent they would ask that all doctors be outlawed because in 2014, in the US approximately 2668 lives per day were ended by a few abortion doctors. They would also want all those of islamic faith to be removed from the country due to the fact that the majority of mass killings recently have been committed by them.
So if these folks truly are interested in saving lives, their purported reason for wanting guns banned, wouldn't they be out there demanding all the abortion clinics be banned? They really would be saving thousands of lives every day if they did that. Wouldn't they be marching in the streets to have ALL muslims be rounded up and something be done with them? Destroyed maybe? That's what they want to be done with all guns when only a limited number of folks actually use guns to maliciously harm others.
But no, we can't blame all muslims for what a few do........Yet they are more than happy to blame all gun owners for what a few do.
So if I'm reading this correctly, liberals/progressives don't really give a shit about who gets killed. Or even how many. They just have issues with a particular means of someone's demise. "Oh, it's a shame that those people were killed by that knife wielding muslim lunatic in Oklahoma and that poor woman was beheaded." Not a word about licensing knives. The young couple who were bludgeoned to death in Tennessee was it? Nobody out looking to make bats illegal. Islamists blow up how many people at the Boston Marathon, nobody wants pressure cookers regulated. But let some folks get shot, their bodies aren't even cool and the gun control crowd is out there demanded action be taken against guns!
Wouldn't it make more sense to look for and eliminate the individuals who use the tools for malicious reasons than trying to ban the tools?
Inconsistency thy name is "progressive"!
Or so it seems to an old farm boy.
Sunday, June 12, 2016
Monday, June 6, 2016
Feminists And Anarchists And Revolutionaries, Oh No!
Let me start out apologizing right up front. Usually I know exactly where I'm heading as I start to write these little screeds, but today, there seems to be several topics wrapped up in my head. By the time you read this there will be a title and that should give you a clue. So let's just see where this goes.
Over the past week I've been watching the protests (riots) against Trump and Milo Yiannopoulos take place. In both cases it appears that the object is to keep them from speaking or those who wish to hear them from hearing. This would seem to be the hallmark of someone who recognizes their position is unable to stand on its own merits in the marketplace of ideas and thus must keep the alternate ideas from receiving a fair hearing.
If these folks truly believed their position was the best for the most and that Milo and Donald were offering only "hate", I would think they would want as many people to hear the hate as possible. Then their ideas could be seen as vile and unworthy of support.
Additionally, they should organize an event of their own so they could detail the merits of their position. Sunlight being the best disinfectant, the more folks who hear both positions should allow for the false one to be overcome by the light.
Secret societies like the KKK didn't become marginalized and irrelevant by staying hidden, but rather by folks learning how repellant their precepts were/are.
Since Milo and Donald seem to be the ones pushing to pull the shades back and let the light in, one on the bullying tactics of the far left and the other on the cesspool of career politics, it would appear it is they who have the faith in their positions. Not those who are seeking to have their ideas locked away so none can hear. Kind of reminds me of the position the church took in regards to Copernicus and others back in the day.
So just who are these folks out there trying to control the thought and speech of others? (Speech which just happens to be protected by our founding documents. Freedom of speech wasn't protected to keep someone's "feelings" from being ruffled. It was protected so all sides could be heard and judged one against the other.)
To look at the crowds and their actions, it would appear to me that they are made up of revolutionaries and anarchists. Folks who do not believe in America.
I believe they tell us that themselves. If they came to America to become Americans, would they wave Mexican flags and hold signs that literally say "make America Mexico"?
While the anarchists are there to cause chaos. Destroying public and private property. Accosting those who support America.
Neither of these groups are interested in what is best for America. And if you went to school like I did, back in the day, you were taught how it was the anarchists who lit the fuse to start World War I by killing Arch Duke Somebody or other in the Balkens. They seem perfectly happy to do that again.
The third group making up these protests are the Social Justice Warrior crowd. Again, a minority of thought police bullies who are out to try and control your thought and speech with the willing compliance of the mainstream media, Hollywood and the self anointed "elite" liberals. They look to do this by trying to publicly shame people for thinking or speaking in non approved ways.
These are the special snowflakes and pearl clutchers who can't abide hearing something that might offend their delicate sensibilities. And thus demand that adults who speak with reason and fact be silenced and that they be offered "safe spaces" where they can receive "counseling" to recover from the trauma of seeing a name chalked on a sidewalk, or hearing about someone with a different idea. (Note they themselves would NEVER go to actually hear what someone else had to say, but only to disrupt the speaker so others could not hear.)
These are the folks who support Hillary and Bernie. They want America to have no borders and want to take from the earners and give to the indolent, because they themselves ARE the indolent, and God forbid they actually become productive members of society instead of propagating their ridiculous 3rd wave feminism or BLM thought.
Or so it would seem to an old farm boy.
Over the past week I've been watching the protests (riots) against Trump and Milo Yiannopoulos take place. In both cases it appears that the object is to keep them from speaking or those who wish to hear them from hearing. This would seem to be the hallmark of someone who recognizes their position is unable to stand on its own merits in the marketplace of ideas and thus must keep the alternate ideas from receiving a fair hearing.
If these folks truly believed their position was the best for the most and that Milo and Donald were offering only "hate", I would think they would want as many people to hear the hate as possible. Then their ideas could be seen as vile and unworthy of support.
Additionally, they should organize an event of their own so they could detail the merits of their position. Sunlight being the best disinfectant, the more folks who hear both positions should allow for the false one to be overcome by the light.
Secret societies like the KKK didn't become marginalized and irrelevant by staying hidden, but rather by folks learning how repellant their precepts were/are.
Since Milo and Donald seem to be the ones pushing to pull the shades back and let the light in, one on the bullying tactics of the far left and the other on the cesspool of career politics, it would appear it is they who have the faith in their positions. Not those who are seeking to have their ideas locked away so none can hear. Kind of reminds me of the position the church took in regards to Copernicus and others back in the day.
So just who are these folks out there trying to control the thought and speech of others? (Speech which just happens to be protected by our founding documents. Freedom of speech wasn't protected to keep someone's "feelings" from being ruffled. It was protected so all sides could be heard and judged one against the other.)
To look at the crowds and their actions, it would appear to me that they are made up of revolutionaries and anarchists. Folks who do not believe in America.
I believe they tell us that themselves. If they came to America to become Americans, would they wave Mexican flags and hold signs that literally say "make America Mexico"?
While the anarchists are there to cause chaos. Destroying public and private property. Accosting those who support America.
Neither of these groups are interested in what is best for America. And if you went to school like I did, back in the day, you were taught how it was the anarchists who lit the fuse to start World War I by killing Arch Duke Somebody or other in the Balkens. They seem perfectly happy to do that again.
The third group making up these protests are the Social Justice Warrior crowd. Again, a minority of thought police bullies who are out to try and control your thought and speech with the willing compliance of the mainstream media, Hollywood and the self anointed "elite" liberals. They look to do this by trying to publicly shame people for thinking or speaking in non approved ways.
These are the special snowflakes and pearl clutchers who can't abide hearing something that might offend their delicate sensibilities. And thus demand that adults who speak with reason and fact be silenced and that they be offered "safe spaces" where they can receive "counseling" to recover from the trauma of seeing a name chalked on a sidewalk, or hearing about someone with a different idea. (Note they themselves would NEVER go to actually hear what someone else had to say, but only to disrupt the speaker so others could not hear.)
These are the folks who support Hillary and Bernie. They want America to have no borders and want to take from the earners and give to the indolent, because they themselves ARE the indolent, and God forbid they actually become productive members of society instead of propagating their ridiculous 3rd wave feminism or BLM thought.
Or so it would seem to an old farm boy.
Wednesday, May 25, 2016
When Liberals Meet Facts
I just finished watching the debacle that took place in Chicago on May the 24th at DePaul University. An institute of "higher learning". A place where students are supposed to be taught about critical thinking and to consider alternate positions.
Well that certainly wasn't the case that night!
The DePaul University Young Republicans brought in Milo Yiannopoulos as a speaker. (For those of you who do not know Milo, he is a flamboyant gay white conservative male who routinely destroys 3rd wave feminism, social justice warriors and liberals in general through humor and fact.) This was a voluntary event so no special snowflakes were forced to endure Milo's unique brand of offensive (to the reality challenged) truths.
So what happened shortly after the event started?
A group of BLM protesters took over the stage, loudly blowing a whistle to interrupt the speakers and make it impossible to continue. They then forcibly took a microphone from the student who was interviewing Milo and ranted at the audience. One of the comments from the disrupters was, and here I paraphrase, 'stop the hate you racist bastard!' Without a hint of the irony in the screed.
Understand that in the last few days before Milo was to appear, DU demanded that the Young Republicans pay several thousand dollars for increased security before they would be allowed to hold their event. brietbart.com (who is Milo's employer) actually kicked in $1000 to help them defray the cost.
So what did security do as this unaffiliated group took over and refused to let the program go forward? ..... Absolutely NOTHING!!!
Neither DU, nor Chicago PD security personnel did one damn thing to protect the rights of several hundred folks who showed up to this event to here ideas that aren't approved by the liberal elites that hold sway at most modern universities. A job that the Young Republicans were forced to pay them thousands of dollars to do because DU expected that special snowflakes would take issue with Milo.
Now isn't that just doubly distressing. The fact that a university, a place that should be totally about experiencing different ideas, would allow a group to take over an event to keep ideas from being heard, coupled with their obstructionist attempts to keep the event from happening by forcing the YRs to pay an exorbitant fee for a non service. I seriously doubt that DU would require BLM to pay extra security if they were to hold an event and bring in an Angela Davis type of speaker. (To say nothing of the fact that if folks tried to disrupt the event, I would bet significant sums of money that they would not be treated with near the civility these folks were. The only violent acts, or threats of such, came from the disrupters.)
Once again, liberal factions turned to the only tactic they can, since fact and logic are against them. They try to stop the message from getting out. Here it was BLM, at Trump events its Bernie and far left activists who try and keep folks from the events or disrupt the events.
If their case were valid, they could hold a counter event and give their side, but they neither have the facts nor the faith in their position to let it stand on its own merits. They are afraid of the facts. It's like sunlight to fungus.
Sunday night I saw Alan Dershowitz, not exactly a conservative ... LoL, say how college campuses are one of the LEAST diverse places in America. It is near impossible to find conservative thought anywhere on a college campus these days.
Isn't it about time for there to be quotas for conservatives in every department on college campuses? The American population is nearly evenly split between liberal and conservative, shouldn't each department be near that also?
(I don't really advocate this but wouldn't it be fun to watch those who fought so hard for quotas turn themselves inside out as they were then forced to advocate against it?)
Well that certainly wasn't the case that night!
The DePaul University Young Republicans brought in Milo Yiannopoulos as a speaker. (For those of you who do not know Milo, he is a flamboyant gay white conservative male who routinely destroys 3rd wave feminism, social justice warriors and liberals in general through humor and fact.) This was a voluntary event so no special snowflakes were forced to endure Milo's unique brand of offensive (to the reality challenged) truths.
So what happened shortly after the event started?
A group of BLM protesters took over the stage, loudly blowing a whistle to interrupt the speakers and make it impossible to continue. They then forcibly took a microphone from the student who was interviewing Milo and ranted at the audience. One of the comments from the disrupters was, and here I paraphrase, 'stop the hate you racist bastard!' Without a hint of the irony in the screed.
Understand that in the last few days before Milo was to appear, DU demanded that the Young Republicans pay several thousand dollars for increased security before they would be allowed to hold their event. brietbart.com (who is Milo's employer) actually kicked in $1000 to help them defray the cost.
So what did security do as this unaffiliated group took over and refused to let the program go forward? ..... Absolutely NOTHING!!!
Neither DU, nor Chicago PD security personnel did one damn thing to protect the rights of several hundred folks who showed up to this event to here ideas that aren't approved by the liberal elites that hold sway at most modern universities. A job that the Young Republicans were forced to pay them thousands of dollars to do because DU expected that special snowflakes would take issue with Milo.
Now isn't that just doubly distressing. The fact that a university, a place that should be totally about experiencing different ideas, would allow a group to take over an event to keep ideas from being heard, coupled with their obstructionist attempts to keep the event from happening by forcing the YRs to pay an exorbitant fee for a non service. I seriously doubt that DU would require BLM to pay extra security if they were to hold an event and bring in an Angela Davis type of speaker. (To say nothing of the fact that if folks tried to disrupt the event, I would bet significant sums of money that they would not be treated with near the civility these folks were. The only violent acts, or threats of such, came from the disrupters.)
Once again, liberal factions turned to the only tactic they can, since fact and logic are against them. They try to stop the message from getting out. Here it was BLM, at Trump events its Bernie and far left activists who try and keep folks from the events or disrupt the events.
If their case were valid, they could hold a counter event and give their side, but they neither have the facts nor the faith in their position to let it stand on its own merits. They are afraid of the facts. It's like sunlight to fungus.
Sunday night I saw Alan Dershowitz, not exactly a conservative ... LoL, say how college campuses are one of the LEAST diverse places in America. It is near impossible to find conservative thought anywhere on a college campus these days.
Isn't it about time for there to be quotas for conservatives in every department on college campuses? The American population is nearly evenly split between liberal and conservative, shouldn't each department be near that also?
(I don't really advocate this but wouldn't it be fun to watch those who fought so hard for quotas turn themselves inside out as they were then forced to advocate against it?)
Monday, May 23, 2016
ISIS Needs A Dictionary
Well, the only thing I can figure is ISIS has a different dictionary than I do!
I just read where they are trying to build a terrorist force in the Sinai so they can 'destroy' Israel and 'liberate' Jerusalem.
Liberate? Really?
What is there about radical islam and radical islamists that would EVER bring someone to put any word relating to freedom in the same paragraph, much less sentence, with it or them? Other than 'liberating' psychotic misogynists and sadists from any semblance of civilized restraints, that is.
I mean really! Compare and contrast life in Israel vs life under ANY strict islamic rule. There is NO objective measure by which anything could be considered to be BETTER under islamic rule compared to life in Israel, or any developed society for that matter.
Under radically strict islamic rule would you:
Be allowed to speak with your opposite sex neighbor on the street unattended - NO
Freely paint/draw/sculpt any object or topic you liked - NO
Dress in any fashion you chose if you are female - NO
Drive a car if you are female - NO
Change your religion - NO
Have no religion - NO
Freely travel with whom ever you wish, where ever you wish - NO
Be homosexual/lesbian - NO
Get an education if you are female - NO
Need I go on?
And the answer to each and every one of these questions if you live in Israel, or ANY advanced society, would be a resounding YES!
So just what are they looking to liberate Jerusalem from? The shackles of 15 centuries of social development so that they can return to the bliss of a near Stone Age misogynistic/sadistic state?
I'm sorry, but that would appear to be the opposite of 'liberation' to me.
Or so it would seem to an old farm boy.
I just read where they are trying to build a terrorist force in the Sinai so they can 'destroy' Israel and 'liberate' Jerusalem.
Liberate? Really?
What is there about radical islam and radical islamists that would EVER bring someone to put any word relating to freedom in the same paragraph, much less sentence, with it or them? Other than 'liberating' psychotic misogynists and sadists from any semblance of civilized restraints, that is.
I mean really! Compare and contrast life in Israel vs life under ANY strict islamic rule. There is NO objective measure by which anything could be considered to be BETTER under islamic rule compared to life in Israel, or any developed society for that matter.
Under radically strict islamic rule would you:
Be allowed to speak with your opposite sex neighbor on the street unattended - NO
Freely paint/draw/sculpt any object or topic you liked - NO
Dress in any fashion you chose if you are female - NO
Drive a car if you are female - NO
Change your religion - NO
Have no religion - NO
Freely travel with whom ever you wish, where ever you wish - NO
Be homosexual/lesbian - NO
Get an education if you are female - NO
Need I go on?
And the answer to each and every one of these questions if you live in Israel, or ANY advanced society, would be a resounding YES!
So just what are they looking to liberate Jerusalem from? The shackles of 15 centuries of social development so that they can return to the bliss of a near Stone Age misogynistic/sadistic state?
I'm sorry, but that would appear to be the opposite of 'liberation' to me.
Or so it would seem to an old farm boy.
Friday, April 22, 2016
Dazed Purple And Confused
Wow! I must be soooo far out of touch I'm going to need a transfer ticket or two in order to reach modernity.
Had I heard of Prince? Of course I had. Could I have told you he was a little androgynous looking popular music personality? Yes, but that about ends my familiarity with him and his resume.
Because of this, I'm a bit bemused by the reaction to his death that I'm witnessing in the news. He seems to be getting as much play as Michael Jackson's passing. (Which affected me only marginally more than Prince's.)
Don't get me wrong. I morn the passing of these individuals. Much as I morn the loss of any good person's life who I did not directly know.
I guess where I'm confused is where people are brought to sobs and tears for someone they never knew or had personal contact with. It's like someone crying when the guy who installed the steering wheel on their car died.
Just because someone is in the news doesn't mean you know them and had a personal relationship with them. They aren't your Aunt Agnes. They didn't come over for your birthday or send you a card for Christmas. Why all the angst?
Is this a sorry outcome of the age we live in? A time where people conflate a virtual life with a real one? Is this the way we react in the new wussified society when "feelings" rule the day and there are damn few real adults left?
I'm starting to fear for the future and wonder if there will be enough real adults to protect and run the country so all these special little snowflakes can be free to "feel" and be sensitive!
Or so it seems to an old farm boy.
Had I heard of Prince? Of course I had. Could I have told you he was a little androgynous looking popular music personality? Yes, but that about ends my familiarity with him and his resume.
Because of this, I'm a bit bemused by the reaction to his death that I'm witnessing in the news. He seems to be getting as much play as Michael Jackson's passing. (Which affected me only marginally more than Prince's.)
Don't get me wrong. I morn the passing of these individuals. Much as I morn the loss of any good person's life who I did not directly know.
I guess where I'm confused is where people are brought to sobs and tears for someone they never knew or had personal contact with. It's like someone crying when the guy who installed the steering wheel on their car died.
Just because someone is in the news doesn't mean you know them and had a personal relationship with them. They aren't your Aunt Agnes. They didn't come over for your birthday or send you a card for Christmas. Why all the angst?
Is this a sorry outcome of the age we live in? A time where people conflate a virtual life with a real one? Is this the way we react in the new wussified society when "feelings" rule the day and there are damn few real adults left?
I'm starting to fear for the future and wonder if there will be enough real adults to protect and run the country so all these special little snowflakes can be free to "feel" and be sensitive!
Or so it seems to an old farm boy.
Thursday, April 21, 2016
The Demise Of The American Two Party System?
So, just what is it that we are observing in the political landscape?
Are we currently seeing the demise of the two party system?
That’s what it would appear to be as neither party seems to be responsive to large portions of their bases. The Democrats have fostered this “government is the answer to all your problems” approach for so long that they have now engendered a whole segment of the population that is Socialist at best and Communist at worst. They now expect the government to provide them with food, shelter, their new iPhone, etc. at no cost to them. They believe this is possible because the left has run our “education” system for so long that few of the younger folks actually understand how economies and finance work
This can be seen in the outpouring of support for Bernie Sanders. Millions of young folks from 18 to 35 are supporting the Bern with the hope that he will take power and make others pay off the debts they have accrued and or the things they desire.
Bernie, who never had a steady job outside of leaching off the general populace, is doing his part by promising to make the “rich” pay for all this. He would fit right in with the Castro brothers, accept he seems to be a bit more of a true believer than they are. He doesn’t seem to be living high off the hog, just modestly above the hoi paloy, but still off the sweat of someone else’s brow.
The Republicans are also paying the price for what they have been telling their base for years. Their difference is, they have told folks that when they go to Washington they will be fiscally responsible and make the government smaller and get out of the way of people, but when they get their, they become Democrats Lite. They grow government just like the Dems, just at a slightly slower pace.
Surprising to both parties’ establishments, their bases are revolting. (It turns out we aren’t quite as dumb as they thought.) The left because they want cradle to grave coddling where others pay for what they feel they are owed. The right because they have been promised they will get to stop supporting the cradle to gravers, but it just continues on apace.
Are we about to see the start of a 3 party system?
I wouldn’t be a bit surprised to see the rise of a viable Communist/Socialist party and the growth of the Libertarian party to where they become viable political options.
If this were to happen, I believe the remnants of the Republican and Democrat establishments would coalesce into the third leg of the stool that would be American politics. If this were to take place, it would then require coalitions between various groups in order to pass legislation.
Having 3 viable parties would also seem to make the parties more responsive to their constituents since there are more alternatives they could choose from. It also would make it harder to draw the old dichotomies. Us good! Them evil!
Hopefully then they would need to actually make their arguments based on their merits rather than demonizing the other side as evil bastards who want to steal my hard earned money or ones who want to poison the air and water.
Or so it would seem to an old farm boy.
Friday, April 15, 2016
Divided We Fall
I'm sitting here thinking about the state of America and I just want to pick up a bottle of Jamison's and say "Fuck'em All"!
I'm soooo disgusted with this whole group identity allegiance above all else I just want to wretch. In America, you should think of yourself as an American above all else. Not a Scottish-American, or Chinese-American or Martian-American!
Once you identify as American, all the other qualifiers need to cease to exist! Your being lesbian, bi-sexual, homosexual, tri-sexual, vegan, liberal, conservative, wicken, whatever is not of consequence to the society as a whole.
Yes, it's of consequence to you as an individual and to those who are like minded, but to America as a whole, it doesn't matter! That's the great thing about America that you won't find most other places. You come here and identify as an American, the rest doesn't matter. Our Constitution insures your right to be what ever you want to be, so long as you allow everyone else the same rights.
It's when you start thinking that your rights superseded those of someone else's that the problems begin.
In this country, no matter your race, religion, country of origin, sexual preference, skin pigmentation, sex or age, you are equal to any other and have the same opportunities. Your limiting factors are your native abilities, desire and willingness to work. The "man", or this group or that is not keeping you down. "Your" choices may be holding you back, but the system is not at fault there.
If you chose to major in gender studies or comic books, excuse me, graphic novels, don't blame the system because nobody is interested in paying you good money.
If you slacked off all the way through high school and aren't willing to take a menial job to get in the door and start the process of learning a trade from the ground up, don't blame it on the "male hierarchy" or "white privilege". It's your fault.
In America the system is rigged in favor of success. You can easily point out individuals of virtually any description who are successes despite humble beginnings or sexual preferences. Virtually all of whom do not limit themselves by identifying in a hyphenated manner, but rather identify as Americans and move on from there.
If you chose to come here or stay here, you need to accept the American culture as the dominant culture. Of course you can continue to observe cultural mores from where your roots are, but don't expect the country as a whole to give a shit or make special efforts in your direction. Be happy you are in a country that doesn't hold you back for it.
You go to other countries, they don't make you "press 1 for Spanish"! If you don't want to learn English and accept the American culture there is a simple solution. Don't come here.
In America you are to be judged by the content of your character, not the political correctness of your hyphenation!
Or so it seems to an old farm boy.
I'm soooo disgusted with this whole group identity allegiance above all else I just want to wretch. In America, you should think of yourself as an American above all else. Not a Scottish-American, or Chinese-American or Martian-American!
Once you identify as American, all the other qualifiers need to cease to exist! Your being lesbian, bi-sexual, homosexual, tri-sexual, vegan, liberal, conservative, wicken, whatever is not of consequence to the society as a whole.
Yes, it's of consequence to you as an individual and to those who are like minded, but to America as a whole, it doesn't matter! That's the great thing about America that you won't find most other places. You come here and identify as an American, the rest doesn't matter. Our Constitution insures your right to be what ever you want to be, so long as you allow everyone else the same rights.
It's when you start thinking that your rights superseded those of someone else's that the problems begin.
In this country, no matter your race, religion, country of origin, sexual preference, skin pigmentation, sex or age, you are equal to any other and have the same opportunities. Your limiting factors are your native abilities, desire and willingness to work. The "man", or this group or that is not keeping you down. "Your" choices may be holding you back, but the system is not at fault there.
If you chose to major in gender studies or comic books, excuse me, graphic novels, don't blame the system because nobody is interested in paying you good money.
If you slacked off all the way through high school and aren't willing to take a menial job to get in the door and start the process of learning a trade from the ground up, don't blame it on the "male hierarchy" or "white privilege". It's your fault.
In America the system is rigged in favor of success. You can easily point out individuals of virtually any description who are successes despite humble beginnings or sexual preferences. Virtually all of whom do not limit themselves by identifying in a hyphenated manner, but rather identify as Americans and move on from there.
If you chose to come here or stay here, you need to accept the American culture as the dominant culture. Of course you can continue to observe cultural mores from where your roots are, but don't expect the country as a whole to give a shit or make special efforts in your direction. Be happy you are in a country that doesn't hold you back for it.
You go to other countries, they don't make you "press 1 for Spanish"! If you don't want to learn English and accept the American culture there is a simple solution. Don't come here.
In America you are to be judged by the content of your character, not the political correctness of your hyphenation!
Or so it seems to an old farm boy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)