Good news from a soldier in Iraq-Truth!

In case you haven't heard much lately, here's a confirmed (that means it's real) letter from a soldier in Iraq just after the "end to major combat operations"

Additionally, a snapshot from January of this year of good news from Iraq

Similar report of good news, but from today

Latest terrorist plot: Suicide dogs

Animal rights advocates take note: NewsMax.com: Inside Cover Story

Leaving the left / I can no longer abide the simpering voices of self-styled progressives -- people who once championed solidarity

Leaving the left / I can no longer abide the simpering voices of self-styled progressives -- people who once championed solidarity

Walter E. Williams: How not to be poor

Walter E. Williams: How not to be poor

David Limbaugh: False promises of academic freedom

David Limbaugh: False promises of academic freedom

Gwinnett teacher who refused to alter grade is fired | ajc.com

This is outrageous. They have gone too far.

Gwinnett teacher who refused to alter grade is fired | ajc.com

Sleeping grade

Here's a story about a teacher who was banned from school property for refusing to change a student's grade. At first, it might seem like this is unfair, or that this teacher is being harshly punished. I wonder though? Here's a predicament where I honestly don't know which side is more right, because I think they're both right...well, one is right in principle and one is right on technicality. The story is this: A student fell asleep in class, and was marked down on an assignment assigned that day. "Of course," you say, right? Well, not so fast. The student did in fact complete the assignment on time and with a perfect score. The school district has a policy that teachers are not permitted to use grades as disciplinary tools or rewards for non-academic performance. This teacher, "Doc" as he is called, IS in violation of the policy by a strict interpretation of the rule.

My question is, should he have been banned? For that matter, why did it get that serious? I strongly suspect there is more going on here than is reported in this article. Even mean hard-nosed people usually don't go to extreme measures without some cause.

Here's the challenge....What should have happened? I mostly agree with the guy's policy, that if you sleep through class, you are penalized. But I've also been on the other end of that, where I've been in a position to excel in a class mentally and academically, where I was getting 100% on all the tests, but I'd stay up too late and couldn't make it through class all the way. And then there are the lectures that, no matter how interesting the subject, there's no way in creation anyone can stay awake...the ones where you'd learn more by reading a blank phone book.

So there are two camps here, the one that says a person should be objectively evaluated on their performance only, and the one that says people should be subjectively evaluated on their potential or intentions or attitude. So what should it be here? one? the other? some combination of both? If both, who decides what the balance should be? how do you enforce uniform standards for balance?

Offense

The greatest description I've heard about Political correctness, is "just because somebody is offended by something, does not make that thing offensive or wrong" Truer words have not been spoken.

Moral indifference

So twisted is the liberal mind that, in their view, so long as people have
free healthcare and education, it doesn't matter that they starve. You know
the last group of people to recieve free education and health care in this
country? Slaves...that's right...slaves. How about today?
Cuba...nevermind that it's a horrible dictatorship under which the people
are not free to think or act, but at least they have education, right?

Is there a boundary to Political Correctness?

And since when can "Political" even have a "correct"? Ditionary.com defines political correctness as:

Showing an effort to make broad social and political changes to redress injustices caused by prejudice. It often involves changing or avoiding language that might offend anyone, especially with respect to gender, race, or ethnic background.

A question to educated people: Where in the constitution of the United States of America does it say anywhere that protecting people from being offended is a good thing? We have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Notice this does not say we have a "right to happiness" or "right to never be offended". Nobody can give another person happiness, or for that matter, with life and liberty, nobody can take away the happiness of a person who has it.

There are two typs of offense. One is when someone is being offensive. The other is when a person is offended. Both of these can exist without the other, and while it may seem like a good idea to try and protect people from being offended, anything that could ever succeed at doing that would be keeping people from interacting with one another in any way, shape, or form. Liberty: Goodbye

Power gained by silencing opposition is nothing more than smokescreen for weakness... A refuge for a feeble mind. The effect this has on a person's mind and soul is similar to what happens to a person's body if they sit on the couch and have all their food brought to them. Stagnation. Atrophe. Decay. Shielding a person or group from all opposition does several things: One, it displays contempt. The message is clear, "I have decided you are not able to take care of yourself. You are too fragile to be on your own. I will protect you". Not only is this insulting and degrading, but forces that person or group into a state of burden for their fellows. Not only now do people have to worry about their own problems, they have to double time to pick up the scraps of the "victims" of their saviors.

Second, it creates a self-centered, narcissistic class of victims who can think only of how they are deprived, discriminated against, or how they deserve more. More than what? They already get preferential treatment in the sense that everyone rushes to protect them from the "evil" aggressors. Deserve to...do less work? Alright, that's been done, it's called Affirmative Action.

Third, it strips the victims of thier individuality and all concept of personal responsibility or accomplishment. Examples are everywhere with people demanding money from corporations because they are flat out stupid. Or people deciding that because their skin is a certain color that everyone else must be racist. Anything bad that happens cannot be the individual's responsibility, after all, they are oppressed, and therefore not responsible for their actions -- someone made them do it.