OK, so I watched the Tim Robbins' video again and it only reinforced what I already knew about him....he's a left-leaning, condescending elitist. His entire diatribe was based on the premise that we the 'rubes', less-informed idiots have no control over the decisions we make regarding which entertainment to view...if any. Also, his not-so-subtle- innuendo about the current Bush Administration was obvious. Yes, his nonsense sounded similar to Murrow's speech from the movie Good Night and Good Luck. So what? During the Murrow Era, there were only the 'big three' TV networks ABC, NBC & CBS. Today there are a myriad of channels to watch along with a multitude of shows with many different subject matters...not so back then. Also, Murrow was an active member of the TV broadcasters...not Robbins. Which begs the already asked question: Why was he even the keynote speaker? Everybody knows his ridiculous, elitist political views. (If you don't believe me, just listen to the entire rant.) Because of the political climate back in the 50's, and the entertainment industry, Murrow wasn't so obviously condescending. TV was in it's infancy and was just beginning to blossom as an undustry. Also, America was a lot more conservative back then and Murrow was risking his career. Robbins is not. He's doing nothing more than preaching to the choir of media elites who think they should be the arbitors of entertainment. If he were so concerned about junk entertainment, he would have mentioned the epic, enlightening films he's has acted in like: Howard The Duck, Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy, Tenacious D in: The Pick of Destiny. I'm sure they were all made for the betterment of our society, don't you think? Why don't y0u check out his BLAHG on the Huffington Post...a community of liberal idiots who think they know than more we do about ourselves, our families, TV, Music, the environment, politics, etc.
Too often us Conservatives are accused of hate-speech, just look at the Huffington Post so you can see what it really is.
Friday, June 27, 2008
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Water for Elephants
I must say that this was a great book..I had a really difficult time putting it down. (Usually I'm referring to the remote control...not a book.)
Anyways, regarding the social classes as portrayed in the book:
It was obvious to Jacob after he jumped on the train, and realized he had come upon a circus, that there were defined social classes on the tour. The character Camel was very aware of the class structure and tried to inform Jacob of it. What I liked about Camel is that he didn't seem to have a problem with Jacob being educated & deserving of a higher social status in the circus. He was content showing him the ropes and doing doing his own thing...mostly drinking moonshine or 'Jake', the Jamaican extract that made him ill. There were the performers who got the preferred treatment, and the roustabouts who settled for whatever they could get...usually only a meal and sporadic pay, if they were lucky. During the Depression Era, I suppose they might have been content knowing they had food & a place to sleep...no matter how bad ( even with the animals). As Jacob quickly found out, the higher-class circus folks often dined and enjoyed the finer things...while everyone else got whatever was available to them. How does this apply to today's social class structure? I'm not sure since it was a traveling circus during the Depression....but I'll give it a shot. Today's 'roustabout' class is mostly made up of people who gravitate towards being the victim of one thing or another. Just look watch the TV news or read a newspaper and you'll see that finding a way to be the victim is an art form supported by the mostly-liberal media. There are non-stop programs that show people who were victims of everything....hot coffee, pharmaceuticals, McDonald's, oil companies...the list could go on & on. The difference between back then and now? That people who faced various challenges did whatever it took to take care of themselves and their families. Today most 'victims' abdicate their personal responsibility knowing that they will probably qualify for government assistance, or even worse, be able to sue. And, again, the left-wing media has no problem giving these people their fifteen seconds of fame. Just look at any reality TV show, talk show or Judge 'whatever' show to see I'm telling the truth. Back in those days, the people weren't interested in any of that crap...again, they just wanted to do whatever it took to care for their families. I'm a little older than most of my classmates, so I think I might have a little clearer perspective. My grandparents, being immigrants seeking a better life, were much too proud to ask for a hand-out. They just worked hard...period. They knew they were at the bottom of the social-class ladder, but always knew that if they set goals and worked hard to achieve them, they could accomplish those goals. Same for my parents. This is in stark contrast to what is happening today, where there is an entire class of able-bodied people who rely on the government to take responsibility for their decisions. Whatever happened to being appreciative of what you have been given and doing whatever you can to make your children's lives better than yours? I thought that was our jobs as parents? It reminds me of when Jacob met with an attorney (?) after his parents died and was told he didn't have any inheritance. "What the heck?", thought Jacob. Until he realized that his parents mortgaged their entire estate in order to send him to an Ivy League school. Once he discerned that, it resonated deep within him. It also was a value that he held deeply...family (animals included)and sacrifice...the way it's supposed to be. Flash forward to today and you can see how the generations have changed. It was extremely obvious in the book when Jacob's children & family never showed up to see him the Sunday the circus was in town that he had gone 'full-circle' socially, if you will. Even though he never was rich man, he had achieved his dreams (Marlena & caring for animals). Now he was left to feel ignored and insignificant in the nursing home...just like the roustabouts on the circus tour. Surely his eldest son, Simon (who was born while touring with Barnum) would have known how much Jacob's past meant to him. It's where he met & fell in love with their mother for heavens sake! Instead Jacob was forced to become a 'victim' of today's society and values...one in which there is no use for learning from our previous generations. Instead, he was relegated to becoming a needy nuisance who was an inconvenience to his family and the staff at his care home. It kind of reminds me how the lower-class circus folks were 'red-lighted' once they had no value to the circus tour. Also, it really caught me off-guard when Walter & Camel were literally thrown away once they appeared to be nuisances to the circus hierarchy. (I must say, it was very cool to find out that Big Al was found strangled inside a tent later on. Yes, I read the entire book). Back to the modern day...
It really seems that the government (and the media somewhat) have taken on the role of the traditional family...one in which the parents & elders are respected and valued. What does this mean? It seems, that the Gen-Y & Millenials...whatever...care only about themselves, their computers, digital media & their friends. Their ears, eyes & closed-minds are filled with whatever makes them feel good at the time. I have first-hand experience because I have 19 year-old & seven year-old daughters. Instead, it's immediate gratification 24/7. You don't have to work for anything, it's owed to you. Where the heck did that attitude come from? I think it's the hippie-generation parents who have fostered & encouraged these attitudes. Luckily my parents didn't encourage this crap. My dad worked his ass-off to provide us with a better life...same as his father did. Again, I feel the blame for exaggerated 'social classes' lies on the government, media and care-free parents. I say exaggerated because what defines poverty today is WAY DIFFERENT than what defined it during the Depression Era. Heck, today's poverty-stricken youth have cell-phones, wear $200 sneakers, get free school breakfasts & lunches (even during the summer), watch cable TV and have HUGE attitude. For the most part, the teens of today feel like the are 'due' respect and don't have to give any. They also feel like it's cool to 'hook-up', get pregnant and have no worries nor responsibility for what happens next. What about their children? Who's going to take care of them and see their basic needs are met? I guess the answer is you & me! Via taxes and government programs, WE are forced to be the 'financial' parents to these innocent children while their parents run-the-streets doing their own thing. 'It's All Good' is the frequent no-responsibility phrase of today's youth. Keep in mind these are today's & tomorrow's leaders (Barak Obama) who have no clue about what's really going on in the world, just fist-bumps & focus-grouped, researched platitudes.
To summarize again, there were some definite parallels between the book and today's social-class structures...even though the causes for the divisions might be debatable. Jacob was an incredible character who finally re-found his proper place in society, even if it was today's circus. He was back at his real home and valued...isn't that what we all want, to be valued? great book.
Anyways, regarding the social classes as portrayed in the book:
It was obvious to Jacob after he jumped on the train, and realized he had come upon a circus, that there were defined social classes on the tour. The character Camel was very aware of the class structure and tried to inform Jacob of it. What I liked about Camel is that he didn't seem to have a problem with Jacob being educated & deserving of a higher social status in the circus. He was content showing him the ropes and doing doing his own thing...mostly drinking moonshine or 'Jake', the Jamaican extract that made him ill. There were the performers who got the preferred treatment, and the roustabouts who settled for whatever they could get...usually only a meal and sporadic pay, if they were lucky. During the Depression Era, I suppose they might have been content knowing they had food & a place to sleep...no matter how bad ( even with the animals). As Jacob quickly found out, the higher-class circus folks often dined and enjoyed the finer things...while everyone else got whatever was available to them. How does this apply to today's social class structure? I'm not sure since it was a traveling circus during the Depression....but I'll give it a shot. Today's 'roustabout' class is mostly made up of people who gravitate towards being the victim of one thing or another. Just look watch the TV news or read a newspaper and you'll see that finding a way to be the victim is an art form supported by the mostly-liberal media. There are non-stop programs that show people who were victims of everything....hot coffee, pharmaceuticals, McDonald's, oil companies...the list could go on & on. The difference between back then and now? That people who faced various challenges did whatever it took to take care of themselves and their families. Today most 'victims' abdicate their personal responsibility knowing that they will probably qualify for government assistance, or even worse, be able to sue. And, again, the left-wing media has no problem giving these people their fifteen seconds of fame. Just look at any reality TV show, talk show or Judge 'whatever' show to see I'm telling the truth. Back in those days, the people weren't interested in any of that crap...again, they just wanted to do whatever it took to care for their families. I'm a little older than most of my classmates, so I think I might have a little clearer perspective. My grandparents, being immigrants seeking a better life, were much too proud to ask for a hand-out. They just worked hard...period. They knew they were at the bottom of the social-class ladder, but always knew that if they set goals and worked hard to achieve them, they could accomplish those goals. Same for my parents. This is in stark contrast to what is happening today, where there is an entire class of able-bodied people who rely on the government to take responsibility for their decisions. Whatever happened to being appreciative of what you have been given and doing whatever you can to make your children's lives better than yours? I thought that was our jobs as parents? It reminds me of when Jacob met with an attorney (?) after his parents died and was told he didn't have any inheritance. "What the heck?", thought Jacob. Until he realized that his parents mortgaged their entire estate in order to send him to an Ivy League school. Once he discerned that, it resonated deep within him. It also was a value that he held deeply...family (animals included)and sacrifice...the way it's supposed to be. Flash forward to today and you can see how the generations have changed. It was extremely obvious in the book when Jacob's children & family never showed up to see him the Sunday the circus was in town that he had gone 'full-circle' socially, if you will. Even though he never was rich man, he had achieved his dreams (Marlena & caring for animals). Now he was left to feel ignored and insignificant in the nursing home...just like the roustabouts on the circus tour. Surely his eldest son, Simon (who was born while touring with Barnum) would have known how much Jacob's past meant to him. It's where he met & fell in love with their mother for heavens sake! Instead Jacob was forced to become a 'victim' of today's society and values...one in which there is no use for learning from our previous generations. Instead, he was relegated to becoming a needy nuisance who was an inconvenience to his family and the staff at his care home. It kind of reminds me how the lower-class circus folks were 'red-lighted' once they had no value to the circus tour. Also, it really caught me off-guard when Walter & Camel were literally thrown away once they appeared to be nuisances to the circus hierarchy. (I must say, it was very cool to find out that Big Al was found strangled inside a tent later on. Yes, I read the entire book). Back to the modern day...
It really seems that the government (and the media somewhat) have taken on the role of the traditional family...one in which the parents & elders are respected and valued. What does this mean? It seems, that the Gen-Y & Millenials...whatever...care only about themselves, their computers, digital media & their friends. Their ears, eyes & closed-minds are filled with whatever makes them feel good at the time. I have first-hand experience because I have 19 year-old & seven year-old daughters. Instead, it's immediate gratification 24/7. You don't have to work for anything, it's owed to you. Where the heck did that attitude come from? I think it's the hippie-generation parents who have fostered & encouraged these attitudes. Luckily my parents didn't encourage this crap. My dad worked his ass-off to provide us with a better life...same as his father did. Again, I feel the blame for exaggerated 'social classes' lies on the government, media and care-free parents. I say exaggerated because what defines poverty today is WAY DIFFERENT than what defined it during the Depression Era. Heck, today's poverty-stricken youth have cell-phones, wear $200 sneakers, get free school breakfasts & lunches (even during the summer), watch cable TV and have HUGE attitude. For the most part, the teens of today feel like the are 'due' respect and don't have to give any. They also feel like it's cool to 'hook-up', get pregnant and have no worries nor responsibility for what happens next. What about their children? Who's going to take care of them and see their basic needs are met? I guess the answer is you & me! Via taxes and government programs, WE are forced to be the 'financial' parents to these innocent children while their parents run-the-streets doing their own thing. 'It's All Good' is the frequent no-responsibility phrase of today's youth. Keep in mind these are today's & tomorrow's leaders (Barak Obama) who have no clue about what's really going on in the world, just fist-bumps & focus-grouped, researched platitudes.
To summarize again, there were some definite parallels between the book and today's social-class structures...even though the causes for the divisions might be debatable. Jacob was an incredible character who finally re-found his proper place in society, even if it was today's circus. He was back at his real home and valued...isn't that what we all want, to be valued? great book.
Friday, June 20, 2008
The Persuaders...
I thought The Persuaders was very enlightening as to how advertising & marketing is done. As a professional photographer & photojournalist, I am seldom involved in the 'sales' aspect of a job....unless it's a story/feature. What I mean by story/feature is that I always meet with the writer (and editor, if possible) before the story to get the 'vision' of how the story will run. For the most part, it makes no sense for me to shoot photos of someone reading a book when the story will be about how they are missing their feet...make sense? Anyway, I thought Bob Garfield, of Ad Age, was very straightforward in his analysis of the latest techniques of reasoning behind the examples we saw in the video. I understood it to be that much is becoming over-analyzed and that the line between advertising and psychology is being blurred. I'm not sure what the statistics show...and I really don't care...I just thought Garfield made great sense. Also, I loved the (hair)piece on Frank Luntz. He's a frequent contributor regarding politics & polling on FOX news (get over it) and it gave me some background on him. Even though the video portrays him as a right-winger, he never comes across as that in his focus group analysis on FOX. Regarding his influence on current political jargon, i.e. 'War on Terror', 'Death Tax', etc., so what? Come on, like both parties don't have their own talking points & scripted slogans? The best part was the segment with Clotaire Rapaille, He didn't buy into the babble of any of the previous folks. He didn't have to. He just does his research & analysis of what has proven to work for his clients...period. And it works!!! (Side note responding to what the 'person in the back' said about Rapaille's position, techniques(?) in the industry and his extravagant, 'superfluous' surroundings. What works for him, works for him...period. If he has a proven track record, what difference does it make? The clients pay fair-market price for what he offers. Imagine if he showed up on a skatebaord, shouted non-sense and were to be condescending. How long do you think he would be in business?) Anyway, it was very educational...
Ban on Books?
I don't think the government should be in the business of banning books because of certain non-PC language that might 'offend' certain people... like the word niggar. If niggar is such a bad word, than why aren't the rap songs who contain 'niggar' in the lyrics banned? Can only black people can say niggar? If a non-black person says niggar, does that automatically mean they are racist? If you listen to the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, apparently so. Having said that, I don't believe that the government is doing the banning, the ALA is. Who is the ALA? The American Library Association, a group of advocates who supposedly are trying to protect information services. Check out their website and you'll see they are not the government. "Its mission is to promote the highest quality library and information services and public access to information." is the ALA mission statement...or is it? It depends on how one views 'quality' & 'public access to information'. When I was growing up, back in the 1970's, I often went to the library. Many times I actually attended 'advanced' (MGM, AT, AP) classes in the library taught by the librarian. Never did I ever conceive that the librarians were the intellectual police of books and information. They were just folks who loved books and wanted to share their passion with us, the 'brightest' students in the school. Instead they've become nothing more than a left-leaning political advocacy group attempting to monitor what they feel is most politically correct for us...the uninformed 'rubes' (to steal a term from Water for Elephants) ... to consume. How arrogant to think that we aren't able to discern what we think is best for ourselves and families. This is the same group of idiots who fight for pornography to be available in public libraries citing the first amendment! Talk about a misguided, moronic bunch of snobs. They feel we can't handle having certain words or books in schools and libraries, but it's OK for some weirdo to be looking various types of pornography in a public setting. Give me a break! I challenge any of you to read the ALA president's message and make any sort of sense to it. Talk about non-sensical psycho-babble. Regarding the advocacy, “I commit ALA to continue to try to bring common sense to these debates and seek appropriate changes in the future.” is what's stated. How about just making sure the library is open on-time and that it is free of loud conversation & perverts looking at porn? Gotta bounce and hang with my niggaz....Peace.
Friday, June 13, 2008
Good Night and Good Luck
So...it was implied that this movie was made in 2005 for a reason. I gathered it was because of the war on terrorism that we are currently involved in. (That is what I thought I heard Lilly say) I don't see the correlation. What happened during the 1950's and today are totally different things completely. Today's battle is with a group of 'people' who would like to kill all of us in the name of thier god. It doesn't matter what your political leanings are...they want you dead. What happened with the McCarthy hearings was an attempt to weed-out people that were considered to be communists, or sympathetic to the communist party. Looking back at the actual footage it seems surreal. What I wondered was why George Clooney didn't show Bobby Kennedy (,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Kennedy) who was on the investigation committee, in the footage? I think it was on purpose...
George Clooney is an admitted liberal (http://www.clooneystudio.com/proud_liberal_politics.html) ( a mental illness, in my opinion)--- and has an obvious agenda to promote. Other than that, the movie was pretty good. The actor who played Edward R Murrow was excellent. His acting was superb, as well as his his speeches and dialogue...great script. Gosh those people sure smoked a lot back then!!! As far as the timing of the movie? It probably had to do with timing. The actors involved probably had time put aside to do the movie and decided to get it done. I really don't think there's anyhting more than that. Again, because of left-wing Clooney, the writer & director, I could be wrong. It was the first time I saw the movie, so I might have missed a few things. I might watch it again later…when I have more time…maybe.
George Clooney is an admitted liberal (http://www.clooneystudio.com/proud_liberal_politics.html) ( a mental illness, in my opinion)--- and has an obvious agenda to promote. Other than that, the movie was pretty good. The actor who played Edward R Murrow was excellent. His acting was superb, as well as his his speeches and dialogue...great script. Gosh those people sure smoked a lot back then!!! As far as the timing of the movie? It probably had to do with timing. The actors involved probably had time put aside to do the movie and decided to get it done. I really don't think there's anyhting more than that. Again, because of left-wing Clooney, the writer & director, I could be wrong. It was the first time I saw the movie, so I might have missed a few things. I might watch it again later…when I have more time…maybe.
Friday, June 6, 2008
Reality TV
Like it or not, 'reality TV' has become part of our culture. Whether if it's cooks getting yelled at by an asshole chef, people eating bugs on secluded islands or 'seven people chosen to live together' on MTV, or entertainers being critiqued by three judges, reality TV draws the largest audiences and, therefore, commands the highest rate for ad time.
http://www.realitytvworld.com/news/american-idol-2-sets-reality-tv-show-ad-rate-record-699.php
Where did it all begin? It depends on how one defines reality TV. Is it live TV with actors (soap operas)? Unsuspecting man-on-the-street folks in funny predicaments (Candid camera), daytime talk show guests trying to figure out who their 'baby daddy' is, or just seven different people who live together while being taped for showing at a later date? Is it 'Cops'? http://www.essortment.com/all/realitytvsurvi_rnzs.htm
It all depends on your perspective.
To me, I view the Real World on MTV, which originally aired in 1992, as the biggest catalyst for the genre of current shows...and there are way too many. Luckily for me, I have a life and don't have the time nor energy to watch them. I actually quit watching Real World years ago when it became too predictable. You already know the cast: an angry black guy, a gay person, a person of faith (always portrayed as stupid), a couple of hot bodied, attractive people and a few alcoholics trying to survive lving in a beautiful city in a lavish house for free. Not too real, huh?
Anyway, after the San Francisco version of the Real World, it was/is all down hill. Everytime I've wasted a few minutes watching the latest version, it appears that the producers have a template they are trying to emulate...like I stated before.
Today there are a myriad of 'reality' shows that are on at all hours of the day & night. And depending on the part of the season (sweeps week), they usually get some of the highest ratings: http://tv.zap2it.com/tveditorial/tve_main/1,1002,272%7C%7C%7Cweekly,00.html
My opinion is that it taps into our feeling that: if they can do it, so can we. If these fools can have their 15-minutes, then we are all 'famous' to some extent. Watching these people allows us to feel like they are just like us. And since we are alike, aren't we all 'special'.( Just like our Gen-x parents taught us?)
http://www.realitytvworld.com/news/american-idol-2-sets-reality-tv-show-ad-rate-record-699.php
Where did it all begin? It depends on how one defines reality TV. Is it live TV with actors (soap operas)? Unsuspecting man-on-the-street folks in funny predicaments (Candid camera), daytime talk show guests trying to figure out who their 'baby daddy' is, or just seven different people who live together while being taped for showing at a later date? Is it 'Cops'? http://www.essortment.com/all/realitytvsurvi_rnzs.htm
It all depends on your perspective.
To me, I view the Real World on MTV, which originally aired in 1992, as the biggest catalyst for the genre of current shows...and there are way too many. Luckily for me, I have a life and don't have the time nor energy to watch them. I actually quit watching Real World years ago when it became too predictable. You already know the cast: an angry black guy, a gay person, a person of faith (always portrayed as stupid), a couple of hot bodied, attractive people and a few alcoholics trying to survive lving in a beautiful city in a lavish house for free. Not too real, huh?
Anyway, after the San Francisco version of the Real World, it was/is all down hill. Everytime I've wasted a few minutes watching the latest version, it appears that the producers have a template they are trying to emulate...like I stated before.
Today there are a myriad of 'reality' shows that are on at all hours of the day & night. And depending on the part of the season (sweeps week), they usually get some of the highest ratings: http://tv.zap2it.com/tveditorial/tve_main/1,1002,272%7C%7C%7Cweekly,00.html
My opinion is that it taps into our feeling that: if they can do it, so can we. If these fools can have their 15-minutes, then we are all 'famous' to some extent. Watching these people allows us to feel like they are just like us. And since we are alike, aren't we all 'special'.( Just like our Gen-x parents taught us?)
millennials stuff
According to the numerous sources I researched, I am definitely NOT a 'Millennial'. I was born born in 1963 and I am currently 44 years-old. Apparently this means that I am considered a Gen-X person...whatever that means. Millennials were born between the years of 1980 and 2000, well after my birthdate. According to a report on the CBS show 60 Minutes, millennials are considered to be self-centered and have not had to deal with failure : http://http//www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/08/60minutes/main3475200.shtml
And even though they are highly skilled at hi-tech devices and real-time communication, they don't alway deal well with figures of authority. (I know this because I've hired and managed and fired a number of that generation. I also have a 19 year-old daughter.)
Another source states that millennials consider the number problem in the U.S. is selfishness....http://www.generationsatwork.com/articles/millenials.htm
The source also praises them for volunteering... then follows it up noting that it iis a requirement in many schools. Sounds like an oxymoron... 'mandatory volunteering'.
Of course becuase most of the media is admittedly liberal http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics1.asp
they are far less likely to be critical of the millennials...especially because they are millennials themselves. They want to 'strengthen' the political system and don't think the governement is wasteful. To me it sounds as hollow as a Barak Hussein Obama speech touting 'a change we can believe in'... all of it is lacking in validity and is borderline nonsense.
In my opinion, they are the most self-centered generation...ever! And I blame it on their parents for raising them to not experience and grow from failure. They seem to have a sense of entitlement that they were raised with. Whether it's a soccer game where no score is kept, or a teacher not allowed to use a red pen to correct a term paper, they have been conditioned to value their self-esteem above all else. And, while I can see some validity in that perspective, it had only hurt them in the long run. And, since most of these slackers are liberal democrats, it will only hurt the USA in the long run.
And even though they are highly skilled at hi-tech devices and real-time communication, they don't alway deal well with figures of authority. (I know this because I've hired and managed and fired a number of that generation. I also have a 19 year-old daughter.)
Another source states that millennials consider the number problem in the U.S. is selfishness....http://www.generationsatwork.com/articles/millenials.htm
The source also praises them for volunteering... then follows it up noting that it iis a requirement in many schools. Sounds like an oxymoron... 'mandatory volunteering'.
Of course becuase most of the media is admittedly liberal http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics1.asp
they are far less likely to be critical of the millennials...especially because they are millennials themselves. They want to 'strengthen' the political system and don't think the governement is wasteful. To me it sounds as hollow as a Barak Hussein Obama speech touting 'a change we can believe in'... all of it is lacking in validity and is borderline nonsense.
In my opinion, they are the most self-centered generation...ever! And I blame it on their parents for raising them to not experience and grow from failure. They seem to have a sense of entitlement that they were raised with. Whether it's a soccer game where no score is kept, or a teacher not allowed to use a red pen to correct a term paper, they have been conditioned to value their self-esteem above all else. And, while I can see some validity in that perspective, it had only hurt them in the long run. And, since most of these slackers are liberal democrats, it will only hurt the USA in the long run.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)