Snow Days

There's been a lot in the news -- and in the minds of parents -- about the 'excessive' number of snow days this prolonged snowy cold winter has been responsible for.

It's crazy. All the time and attention that the media and our lawmakers are giving to this consideration.
It's ridiculous.

The whole concept of education paid by the day is ridiculous. Children learn when they are interested, not between 9 and 3 on weekdays. Requiring so many days in a desk/chair is not, never has, and never will force learning.
Can you think of any other business where this is the model of operations?

I don't know the solution -- maybe not have school during January and extend it through June, before it gets hot.
We spend a lot of time teaching to the test (which isn't even a good test of learning) so maybe reaching year-end goals could be part of when to end the school year. Although that might require more real teaching than modern teachers are allowed to do.

Before modern times, school schedules were made at/for the families' convenience. In the agricultural society, school was scheduled around planting/harvesting times. Weather was also a consideration.

Above all else, the consideration was for our children. Too hot, too cold -- they stayed home. Roads unsafe, whether due to ice or floods or winds -- they stayed home.
Their health and safety was the vital deciding factor.

Not how many days they had been sitting in their assigned seat.

This is how we take care of our children?
This is how we "educate" them about what is important?

Now, some places figure their finances based on having so many seats filled for so many days. Nothing else matters in figuring costs and expenses. As well as the costs of schools being closed, and the costs of additional (unnecessary) day care, we can now add in the cost of legislating giving ourselves permission to keep our children home in inclement weather. There are no more important issues before our government. Death Penalty, Drug Wars, Bigotry, Hate Crimes -- our lawmakers are being paid to decide if we are allowed to use common sense in weather matters.
Why?
Because some bean counter says x seats = x dollars, and that's the way it is.
Because some statistician says "1 in 5" or "2 in 12 "or whatever numbers they can make do the tricks that push their platform?

I say, while they are wasting their time and our money over three to five days, why not take a long hard look at the whole 'requirement' system. And, of course, the way we pay for it.

Is "Snow Emergency" Legally Valid?

We're in the grip of our first snow emergency of the 2013-2014 winter. Winter Storm Cleon. With Dion already following closely.

Now, this isn't about what makes a snow emergency in any specific place. Minnesota and North Dakota would probably laugh at what Cincinnati calls an emergency.Maybe even at what they would call a significant snowfall.

But, the fact is, Cincinnati communities are calling snow emergencies of various levels.

Big whooping deal. It means, for the most part, that communities can write tickets and write off damage to cars parked on the streets.

They say not to go out unless absolutely necessary.
But who decides what is necessary?

I can tell you who does NOT decide.
Service industry workers. They have to go to work or lose their jobs.
The owners of various businesses don't care much if the police say don't go out.
The police don't care much, either. If you are driving slowly and carefully, they aren't likely to chase you down and possibly cause an accident, as well as keeping you both out when you could be getting in somewhere.
But the gas stations HAVE to stay open.
McDonald's MUST stay open.
Facilities such as hospitals and nursing homes, by their very nature, need to stay open. But must they insist on workers coming in in a "snow emergency"?
(I don't know what they could do instead. They should work up snow emergency protocols. Reduced staff, maybe sleep-breaks for people who will remain instead of go out I believe some hospitals do do that.)

Not only do these businesses insist on insisting, they punish those who don't risk life and limb to serve coffee to idiots. (Road personnel excepted from this category.) They write them up(disciplinary action); they brand them as unreliable; they reduce their hours; they even fire them.
They do not pay the fines for tickets received.
They do not pay for damages caused by an accident when their employees should never have been on the road in the first place.
They do not compensate for extra gas burned in longer, slower drives.
They don't pay hospital bills for slip and slide crashes.
They do NOT pay for funerals.

It's not just the service industry. There are factories with this same mindset. Never mind that their product is nonessential -- they have quotas that must be met, come hell or high water. (Hell or high snowdrifts?) The work must be done.

No mere employee can protest any of these disciplinary actions by pleading a snow emergency. The designation has no standing in labor law.

So, a "Snow Emergency" is a money maker for the municipality.
A "Snow Emergency" is an out for insurance companies, who will not pay (easily) for an accident caused when the driver wasn't supposed to be driving.
A "Snow Emergency" is no reason to not go out; thus says American Industry.

So, I ask you, why bother.
Why bother?

Making Marriage and Family

Marriage today is a hot topic, with Supreme Court hearing different issues about marriage. Should same gender couples be allowed to marry? Should mixed race couples be allowed to marry? Should working class be allowed to marry out of their class.

More importantly, at least to me, is the question of whether individual sites or the nation as a whole determine who can marry whom. If your state has decided to accept it, can the Feds refuse?

 The truth is, they can. they made the decision to do so way back in the 1990s when the great US of A decided it no longer needed to recognize common law marriage, no matter what the states said. These marriages -- made in homes, not courts or churches,  made in private, not in public -- these marriages made after the effective date, are simply not recognized by the Federal government.

Also not new is the ability of one state to ignore a marriage legal in another state. Part of the Cultural Revolution was an attempt to consolidate divorce laws. Many people had to go and get their divorce in the state they were married in for the divorce to be legal. To this day, different states have different requirements to become divorced. Waiting period, legal separation, mediation, etc.

As you can see, the marriage question and Federal meddling is not a new issue.

Federal definition of a family is a newer consideration. In the olden days, families, even mixed and adoptive families, were a group of people who resided together in a private residence. 3 sisters could live together, or a sister, a son-in-law and an unrelated widow could be the Smiths or the Jones family. It wasn't a big deal to anyone -- until the government and the money-makers got involved. The insurance companies, who are my version of the Antichrist.
Once upon a time, an insurance company decided it didn't have to pay a survivorship policy to the unrelated widow who had "kept house" for decades.
Grief-stricken, old, possibly alone, and probably poor, she couldn't or didn't fight back.
Other avaricious industries took note, and began following that precedent. By the time someone was willing and able to fight, the precedent had become policy.

"Family" should be decided by proximal society, not by moneymakers.
"Family" should be defined by other family members, not those who don't know sense from cents.

Moving up -- or is it down?

 We are looking for an other home, my husband and I. Age and health are making it difficult to keep up things where we are now, and those same factors have us a little homesick for the 'good old days' that get gooder as we get older.

We would like to go back to Mt. Orab. That's where we lived the longest, and our daughter and her child(ren) are there. We've lost time with the little one, and with the new boy due to arrive any day now -- or April 1) we don't want to lose any more time.
Plus not really knowing how much time Rex has.

After Mt. Orab, we would like to go to Georgetown, Williamsburg, or Bethel. Georgetown because it is close to Mt. Orab, and also closer to Bethel, where we both have family, and Ripley where I do. Williamsburg for the same reasons. Bethel because it's home for us both' before there was an us.
Of course, any surrounding neighborhood will do as well.

What we can pay in rent will depend on what utilities and such we will have to pay for additionally.Neither he nor I can do yardwork, and we are hoping our stay at home daughter will move on and away. We want to be long term tenants.
-
We have looked into government housing, for the simple reason that I won't be evicted when he dies. But, government apartments, that Great Refuge ofWelfare Whores,serial petty criminals, Baby-Makers (for income) find themselves "Unable" to help hard working people who have always paid their rent.

But -- our credit report is bad. None of the bad is rent, utilities, or other (with one exception) housing costs.

Therefore, we must continue to pay our rent and utilities in a place we can no longer afford. We must strive to maintain a yard with equipment we can no longer maintain or replace. Or use, as far as that goes.

This is how the State of Ohio supports their now unemployed and unemployable working class of the last several decades.

Discussing "THE" Debate

from Dictionary.com

de·bate  (d-bt)

v. de·bat·ed, de·bat·ing, de·bates

v.intr.

1. To consider something; deliberate.

2. To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.

3. To engage in a formal discussion or argument. See Synonyms atdiscuss.

4. Obsolete To fight or quarrel.

v.tr.

1. To deliberate on; consider.

2. To dispute or argue about.

3. To discuss or argue (a question, for example) formally.

4. Obsolete To fight or argue for or over.

n.

1. A discussion involving opposing points; an argument.

2. Deliberation; consideration: passed the motion with little debate.

3. A formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition.

4. Obsolete Conflict; strife.

I'm beginning with the formal definition of debate here. Seems like there are many who have no comprehension of what the word means. Sadly,it is supposedly intelligent people who lack this understanding of the definition. Newscasters, reporters, editors.

There was a Presidential Debate the other night.

Not, as the name implies, a debate between presidents. Nor was it a debate about presidents, except tangentially. It is a pre-election debate for presidential candidates. One of the candidates is the current president.

A debate, as you can see from the definition, is basically a discussion -- just like the one we're having here. (Not exactly, since you lack the ability to respond as I'm speaking.)

Discussion of this, of that -- it can even be considered an argument, but that usage has, until now, meant in a formal sense. Not petty kindergarten squabbling.

This is important, at least to me, because there was very little attention paid to or reported on any actual debate topics. The debates had barely started when the media morons began trumpeting "Romney is winning!"


How the Blankety-blank blank does anyone win a discussion?

How do they win a discussion when that discussion has barely begun?


It didn't get any better, folks. I don't know what the debates were about. I don't know what subjects were introduced, what answers either candidate had, or whether either had a solution that was markedly different from the other guys.

As a matter of fact, I don't know if there were any other candidates present or if it was just the two Mr. BigBucks BigMouths running. They were the only two mentioned. There are other candidates, voters. Some of them have great ideas and reasonable policies. Look them up.


I don't know because no one reported on this. No one cared to do straight reporting for those who couldn't/didn't watch the live event.

And if it were a matter of winning -- so what? If winning a discussion means anything at all, I'm pretty sure it does NOT mean winning the election, although Mainstream Media would like you to think it's in the bag now for their guy.

Mitt Romney won the primaries because he could beat Obama -- not on issues, performance, promises, or politics -- just because he breathes higher class air, I suppose. I have yet to figure that logic. See previous blog:http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7971544013891065437#editor/target=post;postID=8130718494167114723

Now he has 'won' a debate -- what does that mean?

It means he talks faster ?

There's the solution to our problems! A slick fast-talker. He must be made to be President! He out-talked the man who was actually working at running the country (possibly badly, but trying) while he was rehearsing his party lines and preening in his mirror.

I'm saving my vote for the election. That's the only WIN that counts.

Tree Aid: Concert in the Park.

I've had a hard time figuring if when and how to write about this, and I hope I haven't left it until too late to reach an audience. Preferably a large audience with deep pockets, but I don't think I know anyone like that.

The biggest drawback to my whole-hearted support is the venue. The Village of Bethel has reacted with prejudice to other events held in Burke Park. They somehow found it appropriate to blame the misconduct of individuals on the the hosts of the events, and closed down the party. So far as I know, they have also NOT refunded any of the money paid by said hosts. Win/Win for Bethel. They get to keep the money and NOT have the event through no fault of the party providers.
Yes, if you have a party at your home, and people get drunk, you are responsible for the damages, and it is your responsibility to ask the offenders to leave.
But you haven't paid out your money to have the party in your own home. When you pay someone else, the problems become somewhat theirs. If they don't want to handle the problems, and cancel the party, they need to refund the money. You see this on The People's Court every few days.

But, when all is said and done, the issues of Saving the Trees and Property Rights is more important than the venue.

The Concert is to help raise funds for the legal team. Now, there's been some talk about the legal team not doing much for "all" the money that's been raised. First of all, litigating against the government is time consuming and finicky, nit-picking work. It is done behind the desks and in the libraries and through paper after paper in the courthouses. Quite simply, it is not visible.

If you want to see visible proof that the legal team is making a difference, I suggest a drive around Bethel. In Burke Park itself stand several trees that were inoculated, not eviscerated, amputated, mutilated, and finally removed. They are still there, standing tall, helping to make today's event a success.
Drive the long lane past the schools and ball parks. See that line of trees? Every year, those trees burst or bloom into color in the autumn, creating a colorful backdrop for the return to school. This year, and for many years to come, the display of Fall Colors will not be as bright nor as varied as it has been, but there will be Fall Color.
It will be there in part because the legal team for the BethelALB group has so far preserved these trees. Had the USDA and ODA had their way, followed the original plan, there would be few of those background trees still standing.

Drive through Bethel itself. Don't you love the cool shady streets? That is, where they still exist. Compare the north side of town with the south side, where the tress have been coming down. And that's only the infested trees!
Again, had there been no legal defense team, there would be NO shaded street left in Bethel.

Look in your own yard. How many of your trees are maple? Box elder? Birch? Willow? If the Asian Longhorn Beetle is on your neighbor's property, are YOU ready to let the government remove your trees because of your neighbor's problem?

That's what it's all about, folks.

So, go to the concert today or not. That's up to you. You don't need to attend the concert to support the defense fund. You can make a donation through the web page www.bethelalb.com . You can buy any of the many products being sold to increase funding and raise awareness. You can approach a member of the ALB group and hand them cash, saying it's for the Defense of Trees.