Tag US

Sexting Latest Trend Amongst Teens.

Allen Frederick 1 Comment

clipped from www.fox6.com
Students are using their cell phones to text crude and pornographic images of each other to their friends.
It’s called “sexting,” sending graphic images, videos and text to friends. It’s such a problem the San Diego Police Department has an entire team dedicated to sexting and internet crimes.
“We carry 60-70 cases ongoing,” said Sgt. Chuck Arnold of the Internet Crimes Against Children task force. Arnold points out that puppy love isn’t what it used to be. What begins as an innocent snapshot can quickly spiral.”The next picture is usually going to be on panties or bras, something like that,” explains Arnold.”They eventually go to a shot of breasts, to a shot of vaginal region, something like that. And then to where we’ve actually had full on videos of a strip tease and masturbation.”He says just about every junior high and high school in San Diego has a problem.

“It’s very big…It’s everywhere.”
Several mobile phones I could never understand why a teenager needed a cell phone to begin with, let alone one with all kinds of bells and whistles. My own personal cell phone does not take pictures nor am I able to send and receive text messages or images. I find there is absolutely no need to do any of that from a PHONE.
Our society is awash in excess. Over kill in many respects. What once was a LUXURY now seems to be a necessity in some peoples minds. I can understand the sense of security one can feel by being able to contact a son or daughter at anytime via the cell phone but WHY ON EARTH do they need one with every available option? I am not even discussing the COST of it all. Wouldn’t a simple cell phone that sends and receives calls be ENOUGH? Do our children really need to be able to send text and pictures on a PHONE?
Take it away from them parents and act like the adults you are supposed to be!
Related articles

Washington Post misrepresents reasons for food cost rising.

Allen Frederick Leave a comment

clipped from article.nationalreview.com

The Post article asserts that corn prices have “been climbing for months on the back of booming government-subsidized ethanol programs.”
Researchers Robert Zubrin and Gal Luft point out that the total U.S. corn crop has increased 45 percent since 2002. The amount of corn available for food and feed has increased 34 percent —- after the part used for ethanol has been taken out.
But haven’t those farmers cut back on other crops
Apparently not. As Zubrin and Luft also note, U.S. soy plantings this year are expected to be up 18 percent, wheat plantings 6 percent, and overall, U.S farm exports are up 23 percent.
American farmers are rational businessmen. When the prices crops command rise, they produce more — both by increasing acreage under cultivation (only about 30 percent of U.S. farmland is currently cultivated), and by cultivating more intensively — producing more bushels per acre.
The Post article also blames higher prices on global warming
But there is no solid evidence to suggest that
Truth be damned! Once again our biased media can not get the facts right concerning a topic as important as the rapid increase in food costs. The Post blames it on everything from global warming to less crop production none of which is proven by the actual facts. In fact the biggest contributor to the rapid increase in world food prices may just be the 40% increase in the fuel costs to produce and transport the food products around the world. All other indicators would seem to indicate that a drop in food prices would be in order. However it is costing the farmers more to produce and ship the product thus adding to the bottom line, (the price charged at the actual consumer).I believe if they were to admit that fact they would also have to admit that the more you tax an operation the MORE it will cost the consumer in the end. I know they do not want to state that.

Related articles

Wisconsin Elementary school’s ‘WACKY WEEK’ stirs controversy.

Allen Frederick Leave a comment

What where they thinking? With all the craziness in this world already must we be playing dress-up during the time when our children are supposed to be learning? It would appear from the participation that a minority of the students actually participated. Could this indicate that the majority thought it was just plain silly? Talk about WACKY WEEK! I think the only thing wacky about this week was the school district‘s idea of a wacky week.
clipped from www.christianpost.com
REEDSBURG, Wis. (AP) – An elementary-school event in which kids were encouraged to dress as members of the opposite gender drew the ire of a Christian radio group, whose angry broadcast prompted outraged calls to the district office.
Students at Pineview Elementary in Reedsburg had been dressing in costume all last week as part of an annual school tradition called Wacky Week. On Friday, students were encouraged to dress either as senior citizens or as members of the opposite sex.
The dress-up day was not an attempt to promote cross-dressing, homosexuality or alternative gender roles, district administrator Tom Benson said.
The theme for Friday’s dress-up day came from students, Hayes said.
About 40 percent of the student body dressed up Friday, Hayes estimated, with half portraying senior citizens and half dressing as the opposite sex.
Related articles

Got a Billion Buy a President

Allen Frederick Leave a comment

Greeting babies - a traditional campaign activityImage from WikipediaWhat can you buy with a billion dollars? How about the presidency of the United States? Would you consider running for president if you had a spare billion dollars lying around? It would appear from a report on NPR that today’s presidential race is slated to topple the billion dollar mark for the first time in U.S. history. They reported that with more states striving for early primaries candidates are forced to be in more places in much of the same time frame. What once took a whole year to accomplish has now been pushed back to a few months. Having to purchase expensive television advertising in more places requires the candidates to raise larger sums of money than ever before. This year, as previously stated, the amount of money raised in the entire presidential campaign may top $1 billion dollars.

Now I do not know about you but I think I can find much better ways to spend a billion dollars than to spend it on political ads. For the most part these ads are attempts to sell us on a person who is more than likely going to not do anything he or she has stated in these said ads. Face time is what they are after in these advertisements. Trying to get their persona in front of as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time to impact the largest percentage of people. This makes it impossible to keep big money out of politics. It just stands to reason then the person with the most money is more than likely to win their appointed elections. Therefore a billion dollars can buy you the presidency of the United States of America.

When the only criteria used to determine fitness for office is one’s ability to raise huge sums of money, the potential for graft and political corruption increases with the ever increasing budgets. The more money being tossed about the more opportunities there are to buy political favors. Mr Joe Rockerfeller and Big Bucks Daddy’o Grady can purchase any special project or any politico they wish to control. These, bought by large donor purchases, political leaders then cater to special interest and not what is in the the public’s best interest.

I do not know about you but I much prefer electing someone to office who can not be bought. How then can we expect this to happen when the budgets to run political campaigns is running into the billions of dollars? What must we do to get back to the common man being able to run for elected office?

This is just a view from the eagle’s nest.