bullies

SAFE SPACES: Cultural Segregation

Posted on by Helena

Remember bullies? They have existed since the beginning of mankind. They know no race. They know no gender. They can be subtle or they can be malicious.   They exist in schools, businesses, churches, and neighbors.   They have been portrayed in movies for decades. And as the rise in bullying ran amok in schools, prevention became the mantra.  

Until ‘safe spaces’.

When my kids were growing up they frequently were the target of bullies.   Why? Because. Bullies target whoever they can and if their victim does nothing, they become their dodge ball victim for life.   The solution?   Fight back.

Of course, schools were called in to mediate bullies because often it happened on school premises.   But the problem was never erased, eradicated, or even smudged, because the school solution didn’t work. Bullying as a core is an inherent reactive learned from one’s parents.  Teachers applied bandaids and the bullying evolved into –

Safe spaces.

Today, instead of bullying, we call it “a place intended to be free of bias, conflict, criticism, or potentially threatening actions, ideas, or conversations … student volunteers put up posters advertising that a “safe space” would be available for anyone who found the debate too upsetting.”

For a society bent on tolerance and inclusion, a safe space is literally the extreme opposite.  In an article by VOX, a black woman states that she just wants to sometimes be around only other black women because it’s easier and there is no ‘translation’.   That used to be called ‘segregation’.   But integration changed that.   Forced integration of cultures was seen as the State Solution.   Everyone just needs to get along.   Diversity training arose.   While the Liberal mantra continues to assert that demand, voluntary segregation became the reality.

Wealthy people hang out with wealthy people. Military families hang out with other military families. Blacks with blacks, gays with gays, Christians with Christians, etc…   Exclusively?   Not necessarily.   Neighborhoods are the prime example.   Chinatown in San Francisco.   The Polish community in any given city. The Italian neighborhood in Lakewood.   Safe spaces.

And yet, safe spaces is now embraced by most universities, and a spattering of businesses. It has also given rise to a new burgeoning business model whereby evaluation and training are offered – for a price. Workshops are available to teach ‘respectful behavior’.   There are “Codes of Cooperation”.   The pictures portray happy employees of every diversity sitting together in a boardroom, planting a tree, analyzing reports, etc…

California has made it a law that all companies must have at least one female board member.  Diversity.

Starbucks recently came under fire again because a customer stated they felt unsafe when six police officers came in to order coffee. The officers were ejected because of the ‘one’ complaint.  Safe Spaces.

Nike nixed a shoe that they likely spent millions to create because Colin Kaepernick said it offended him.   A shoe offended him and thus Nike’s CEO scrapped the product line to the detriment of their shareholders.   Segregation.

Diversity: by definition means the inclusion of different types of people having differing elements and/or qualities.   But safe spaces means – exclusion.

Within this hypocrisy, a business can’t win.   Lawsuits have become a cost factor that ‘trickles down’ to the product cost. And the ultimate loser is the consumer. So businesses play the racket and hire diversity experts, provide training workshops, and document with fear lest they miss a box on the new 20 page HR requirements manual.

But it isn’t enough because those that demand diversity, also demand workplace segregation in the form of safe places. The absurdity is laughable when one considers that might mean a separate safe place for each group; women, gays, transgenders, liberals, binary, Hispanic, black, Muslim, Asian, etc… , ultimately transforming an office environment into a clone of complete isolation.

As Google and Amazon attempt to build business cities to accommodate their employees, it will be interesting to see how they create safe spaces for all the diverse diversities. Of course, will Google rent these apartments to its IT PhD’s only, or will the menial laborers have equal digs?   Will the laborers live in the basement?   Will executives live in penthouses?   Will there be separate cafeterias to accommodate safe spaces?

But then Google is well known for its anti-diversity politics, liberal only social morays, as well as its Big Government surveillance of anyone and everyone… The Orwellian vision is quite real.   The Boogeyman is Real!

In essence, segregation is culturally preferred.  But it isn’t politically correct.   So we pretend to want diversity inclusion while promoting safe spaces exclusion and hope nobody figures it out.  Shhhh – don’t tell!

The War of The Atheists

Posted on by Helena

The Supreme Court refuses to define what is ‘religion’. If there is no legal definition, then how can Atheists assert they are not a religious organization. And how can an atheist organization obtain charitable foundation status? According to the IRS, “private foundations generally support other public charities or other foundations with grants.” However, there is status within the context of ‘educational’. This would only be available if it is to ‘make the public aware’, the moment the actions become politically motivated then the status has been breeched.

Murky is as murky does: “Rev. Rul. 68–263, 1968–1 C.B. 256, holds that the publication of material which discredits particular institutions and individuals on the basis of unsupported opinions and incomplete information about their affiliations is not educational.”

A foundation’s attempts to discredit Christians, Christian beliefs and churches would seem to be a – breech.

A quick overview of some of the form 990’s filed by these organizations shows some discrepancies or oddities. For example, one organization had one employee whose annual compensation was roughly 40% of donations, their cost for accounting services was exceedingly high, and their ‘consultants’ cost was also worrisome. The statement of time spent per week working for the organization was 105 hours – that would equate to 15 hours per day 7 days per week.

Another foundation whose contributions totalled $3.88million in 2013 holds a “Cash Balance” in their asset section of well over $11million. I’d say they were not spending their charitable contributions very well if they have accumulated such a ‘profit’. Their revenue for 2013 was $3,878,938 and their spending was $2,163,375 leaving an annual profit margin of 44%! That’s a lot of profit for a non-profit!

Could these foundations be construed to be ‘educating’ for the purpose of lobbying for a particular political outcome? “Exemption under IRC 501(c)(3) is precluded for those organizations which are substantially engaged in attempting to influence legislation…”

Is ‘educating’ people to convert to atheism – proselytizing?

Proselytize: to recruit or convert to a new faith, belief or cause… When these foundations use the media to denounce religion and the church and provide the option to convert to atheism, they are now the proselytizer.

At what point does proselytizing become harassment? When is freedom of speech breeched? The legal definition of freedom of speech is: “to express beliefs and ideas without unwarranted government restriction.” So if a person wants to announce their belief, it is an expression. But when does this concern the separation of church and state? It doesn’t because it is superceded by the Constitution which declares, “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.”

Therefore, making a law that abridges this freedom of speech, such as invoking separation of church and state, is unlawful, and the First Amendment shall take priority.

And ad in a newspaper harshly condemns Catholicism. So does ‘expressing or sharing’ your faith qualify as proselytizing? Legally, no. Because then it would make every atheist potentially criminal for even stating they are atheist – which is their ’cause’ or ‘faith’.

This has become such an explosive issue of late that it bears discussion. The legal definition states: atheism is the belief that gods do not or can not exist. The problem is the use of the word ‘belief’. The definition of ‘belief’ is; confidence in the truth or existence of something that is not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof. Given that an atheist can not ‘prove’ the belief that there is no God, their faith is a belief.

For a time atheists were actively seeking status as a religion, however, when the ramifications of this became apparent, they backed off. As a religion, no material in school could refer to the non-existence of God, no theory of evolution could be taught, discrimination cases would be launched, and science would have to be revealed as a ‘theory’ of faith. The concept was dropped immediately.

Why do people become atheists? The resounding answer is because they feel that God is not keeping the world safe and pure, and therefore He must not exist. Of course, this statement defers to ‘free will’. God created Adam and Eve with free will. Within this freedom, they sinned. We still have free will, we are free to sin or not to. Our sins create an unsafe and impure world. God wants us to be pure, but He can’t force us, he cries when we sin, it brings great grief. Grief is born of Love.

When did atheism become so far flung in your face antagonistic, arrogant and smug? Because it didn’t used to be so. I had a friend who said she objected to reciting in school, “…one nation under God…”. Okay, then don’t say it. At issue is the notion that we cater to the one instead of to the eight. At issue is the fact that 12% of the US population identify themselves as ‘atheists’.

Personally, I take no issue in people who desire to identify as Atheist, or Buddhist, or Hindu, or whatever they prefer. I take issue with the constant harassment and unethical attacks perpetrated against Christians so as to make us follow the doctrine of your nothingness. I take issue with the ridiculous idea that suing is the answer to all your problems. I take issue with the notion that you are so self consumed that it is all about you. It is hypocritical and bullying. Every blank, empty wall space that is not covered with religious identity is virtually the identity of Atheism.

At issue is the notion of tolerance and the absolute intolerance of atheists in their pursuit of emptiness for all.

DAYCARE – tears in the rain

Posted on by Helena

According to a report by the NACCRRA, as of 2012 about 12 million children under the age of five were in daycare. The cost depends on the age and local, the quality and the state. Infant care can cost as low as $4600 annually to a high of $20,200, and these number rise annually. In the US, 90% of the cost is born by the parents. Social Services provides an income balanced proportion of the cost at a fixed rate which is generally significantly lower than the public rate.

The advocacy states that more child care facilities and workers are needed to care for children so that the parents can achieve greater economic prosperity and productivity.

Actually, daycare was created to help single mothers get off welfare. Outside of that, daycare has evolved into an institution designed to babysit over 50% of US children, 70% of Canadian children and 92% of Swedish children. I remember when parents raised their children at home. I remember growing up with one car per household.

Stats:

  1. there are approximately 23.4 million children in the US under the age of 6

  2. there are approximately 15 million children under the age of six needing daycare

  3. 67% of new mothers return to work within the first year after giving birth and 44% after the first three months

  4. 8 million children under the age of six live with a single parent

  5. the average childcare worker makes $9.38 and has a high school diploma or GED

Articles abound that support the working mother cause and denounce the idea that daycare has problems.  The advocacy?  If you are working and your child is in daycare you are still completely ‘raising’ your child. So, what is the definition of the word ‘raising’.

What does raising a child entail?

In a nutshell; time and money. Time is the real issue. The reality is that a tremendous portion of women simply don’t want to devote the time. It is too ‘hard’. It detracts from their freedom.  It is inconvenient to their social life.  They feel trapped.  Years ago, a friend of mine who had just one child, a rather rambunctious boy, decided it was just too hard taking care of him any longer. He was three. She put him in daycare, spent $200 a week so she could earn $9 per hour. After taxes, gas, and meals she was slightly in the hole.

She didn’t ‘need’ to put her son in daycare, she ‘wanted’ to because she was bored.

Which brings to question another term that requires defining – ‘need’. How many mothers actually are in ‘need’ of daycare is subject to a qualification. Needing daycare because you want to work. Needing daycare because you want to make more money. Needing daycare because you need to get out of the house. Needing daycare because you want more adult stimulation. There are many qualifications of – need, but most revolve around want – not need.

Friend number two. She and her husband were fresh out of medical school and wanted no part in the idea of staying at home with their child. Making lots of money was the agenda, never mind that the husband was a doctor and fully capable of making a healthy living standard. It was about ‘want’, not ‘need’. She hired a nanny. In their household, a nanny lasted on average 3 months. I believe one actually lasted a year.

The point – it is rotation. Daycares have a huge employee turnover ratio. Daycares, like schools, have their agendas of values and ethics. These people instill their views, values and morays on your child daily during the formative years your child is most open to development. This is not to say that all daycares are bad, it is to say that daycares are in fact raising your children by virtue of time. Because raising is singularly about time and this is not simply a modern day invention. What the pendulum swing has unveiled is the self design of ‘me’. Me has become more important than the child. Me is the emphasis. And the common justification for daycare has morphed into – ‘well I just wanted more than sitting at home with my child’.  And the ever more succinct, ‘I deserve more than being a stay at home mom, I am entitled.’

This is a justification embraced by daycare proponents. Ancient history forward, children were raised by parents, the super wealthy or elite having the nanny or nursemaid. During various eras of poverty, children were sent to work the fields, the mines, the farms in order to stave off famine. However, in the 1600’s, John Locke defined a new attitude toward children in which he saw them as being born a blank slate. Everything that filled that slate would henceforth define that child and ultimately that adult. The greater influence was a product of – time.

Time defines many things; it is presumed that the more time spent on education, the more learned a person becomes. The more time spent at daycare, the more their values, ideas and beliefs are impressed on the blank slate that is your child’s brain. As of age 5, this blank slate is the framework of your child’s heart, emotions, security, bonding ability, behavior, sense of worth, and even weight.

While parents claim that daycare is great for the social development of a child via interacting with other children, more studies are showing a correlation between bullying, negative behavior, aggressive behavior, and conflict problems with children raised in daycare settings.

Sweden can be seen as the best long term example test case. With 92% of 18 month to 5 year olds in state run daycare facilities, there has been growing concern for the decline in education and behavior and a subsequent rise in anxiety and mental health issues over the last decade. Attachment disorder, ill-mannered behavior, entitlement, and slower emotional and intellectual development are common results of this daycare society. It should not be ignored.

It is unfortunate that these issues are not made more public. Partially, the media doesn’t want to make parents feel guilty for putting their children in daycare. They want to fill parents with a false sense of security and positive reinforcement – even if it is distorted. Most of the proponents of daycare will state that the quality is imperative, look for low ratio’s, engaging staff, educated staff, high quality food, etc… But these proponents live in a bubble world. In reality – this picture does not fill the norm for it caters to the wealthy who easily spend upwards of $15,000 per year, the cost of an in-state college!  The median wage in the US is $26,695.

More and more studies are focusing on the long term effects attachment disassociation relate to anger issues, bonding issues, and motivation issues as an adult. Mental health problems have risen disproportionately. This is exemplified by the fact that during the first year of development a babies brain doubles in weight as a result of glucose metabolism that is in direct response to input by the mother. The bonding between a mother and child during the formative years can not be transferred. Take that bonding away, toss in an assembly line of daycare employees that revolve through a child’s stream of development, and there will be consequences.

The bottom line should be that if you have a true need for daycare, single parent, then by all means this is the only viable solution. You need to make a living.  Instead, we have taken it to the extreme and conclude that everyone should focus on prosperity, because this is much more important.  Thus the definition of need is morphed to include anyone who – wants – because their agenda is more important. And of course, who looses? The child.

In the end, I think it is safe to say that no one lies on their deathbed and wishes they had spent less time with their children and more time at work –

If you deny there is a problem, how can you possibly attempt to fix it?