E-mail Scott
Scott's Links
About the Author
Opinion Archives
Social Media:
Google Plus
Monthly Archives:

January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010
June 2010
July 2010
August 2010
September 2010
October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011
March 2011
April 2011
May 2011
June 2011
July 2011
August 2011
September 2011
October 2011
November 2011
December 2011
January 2012
February 2012
March 2012
April 2012
May 2012
June 2012
July 2012
August 2012
September 2012
October 2012
November 2012
December 2012
January 2013
February 2013
March 2013
April 2013
May 2013
June 2013
July 2013
August 2013
September 2013
October 2013
November 2013
December 2013
January 2014
February 2014
March 2014
April 2014
May 2014
June 2014
July 2014
August 2014
September 2014
October 2014

Powered by Blogger
Subscribe via RSS

Tuesday, October 21, 2014

Opposing corporate welfare for Planned Parenthood

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:00 AM


Monday, October 20, 2014

Using laptops in class, and common courtesy

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:00 AM

I am pretty sure that whoever wrote this staff editorial for the Indiana Daily Student was being sarcastic with the claim that banning laptops in classrooms could have "potentially catastrophic consequences," but the issue of allowing students to use laptops in class is not as clear-cut as the IDS editorial would suggest.

First, there is evidence that laptops not only hinder learning for the students who are using them, but also interfere with the students around the laptop user. This makes sense - browsing Facebook on a computer screen is going to be more visible to surrounding students than doodling in a notebook or working on a crossword puzzle.

I do not think it is necessarily appropriate to ban laptops all together, but students should be expected to be adults. Expecting students to not check Facebook for fifty minutes is not too much to ask. I took a class for fun a few years ago, and the professor's laptop policy was simple: Students were allowed to use laptops but were expected to use them for class work. If they were caught on Facebook, they would be told to close their laptop. If the privilege was consistently abused, all laptops would be banned.

I am sure that for some students, laptops can be useful. But that usefulness must be combined with respect for fellow students, as well as respect for the professor's authority. A little common courtesy goes a long way.


Saturday, October 18, 2014

Some perspective on Ebola

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:00 AM

It has been said that we are not equipped to deal with Ebola here in these United States.

Yes, the outbreak is out of control is West Africa. It will probably get worse.

There are a lot of reasons why the outbreak is so bad in West Africa.

  • West Africa does not have experience dealing with Ebola or how to combat it.
  • Cultural burial practices have helped spread the disease
  • The governments of the countries affected are corrupt
  • In some cases aid sent to the "hot zone" is not getting in
  • The people in the "hot zone" do not trust their governments (and rightly so)
  • In some cases, the people do not trust aid workers either, accusing them of actually bringing Ebola the "hot zone." Aid workers are being attacked by a distrustful population.

But there have been multiple outbreaks in East Africa that have been controlled, and eventually eliminated.

If they can control and eliminate outbreaks in East Africa, what makes you think it would not be controllable in these United States of America?


Friday, October 17, 2014

Malala Yousafzai wins the Nobel Peace Prize

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 12:30 PM

When Pakistani teenager Malala Yousafzai was honored with the Nobel Peace Prize for her work advocating for the education of women and girls, it was a great moment. It also serves to remind us of what our enemies are.

Miss Yousafzai almost never saw this day. It was two years ago that Muslim terrorists stormed the bus she was riding and shot her in the head at point blank range. Why did they do this? They wanted to silence her and they were angry about her blog advocating for educating women and girls.

Now think about this for a minute. These Muslim terrorists are such a bunch of spineless, pathetic wimps that they were literally terrified of a fifteen year old girl and they needed to violently silence her with a bullet to the head. The threat they needed to eliminate this day was not a Pakistani army unit or the American forces across the border in Afghanistan, but a scary, threatening and intimidating fifteen year old girl.

Oh. Wait. Malala Yousafzai was not going to shoot back. That explains it.

This is who Muslim terrorists are. People who are so pathetic that they are terrified of a fifteen year old girl, but people who are so barbaric that they will not hesitate to violently assassinate that teenage girl for the "crime" of having an opinion that differs from theirs. Muslim terrorists are mindless savages.


Thursday, October 16, 2014

Reaping the whirlwind

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:00 AM

Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. -- 1 Corinthians 6:18

Much has been said about the "affirmative consent" law in California, whether it will be effective in preventing sexual assault and whether such a law is appropriate. What is not being talked about as much (but what needs to be addressed) is the rebellion that got us here in the first place.

The underlying problem is that sex, instead of being special, has been trampled under foot and is ordinary and commonplace. Instead of teaching young men that they are to respect and honor women, we have created a culture of sex on demand without consequences. Our culture gorges on a never-ending stream of pornography. The female body is "available" because the Sexual Revolution has made it so.

Is it any surprise, then, when men go too far? Is it a surprise when fraternities create lists of which women will be drugged with "roofies" so they are vulnerable? Sex is a fundamental human right, after all. Eliminating what used to be an ingrained cultural disapproval of fornication has largely vanished, replaced by an anything-goes mentality. The few remaining cultural restrictions on sexual behavior are being chipped away.

If we are serious about fighting rape culture, then we need to teach our young men to respect and honor women. We teach young men to show these women respect and honor by refraining from having sex with a woman until she is his wife. We teach young men to be sexually pure and that sex is a gift from God that is meant to be shared and enjoyed within the boundaries He has set for that activity.

This is not something we can do by having the state legislature pass a law, or having the state university run educational programs. This is something that must be done family by family, and church by church. This means it must come from the pulpit, from fathers and mothers, and from church youth groups and college ministries. We have spent generations creating this mess, but it can be cleaned up.


Wednesday, October 15, 2014

We should not be celebrating suicide

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:00 AM

Matt Walsh raised some excellent points in his October 9 editorial about the impending suicide of a 29 year old woman with terminal cancer. The fact that this woman is being described as "brave" and that she is being publicly admired and praised for her decision to kill herself is deeply troubling.

It is easy to see this woman's perspective. She can die sooner on her own terms, without pain. Or she can hang on for a few more months and likely die after going through a great deal of pain and suffering. If the battle is indeed not winnable, it is easy to sympathize with her decision, regardless of whether you agree with assisted suicide or not.

However, this is not a decision that should be praised and admired. It is a tragedy, and her death should be mourned regardless of how she dies. As Walsh points out, if she is dying with "dignity," do people who fight cancer until the end not have dignity? If she is "brave," are the people who fight to prolong their lives to the bitter end not brave?

We should also be concerned at how this is corrupting the medical profession. Doctors are supposed to save lives and relieve suffering, not kill their patients. And given the amount of space devoted to discussing the exorbitant cost of end-of-life care, it is easy to see this evolving from a decision individuals make to an obligation to avoid being a burden on one's family or on the health care system. Death panels, anyone?

Life is a precious gift from God, and we are made in God's image. This is why suicide is wrong and should be discouraged. While there is life, there is hope. Who knows what blessings will come in the last days of a terminally ill person's life - both for that person and for that person's family and friends? Perhaps a terminal illness is a chance for someone to repent and be redeemed - or for someone else to be saved upon recognizing their own mortality.

Murder is wrong, and should never be celebrated. That is true whether it is self-murder or the murder of another.


Tuesday, October 14, 2014

The myth of "animal rights"

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:00 AM

Blast from the past:

The myth of "animal rights" - Part I

The myth of "animal rights" - Part II


Monday, October 13, 2014

Monroe County Commissioner: Libertarians vs. Republicans

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:00 AM

Despite being a Republican (or perhaps because I am a Republican) I like the Libertarian Party. Libertarians keep Republicans honest on matters of limited government, low taxes and government regulations. But while Libertarians can be valuable, they can also be counterproductive to the cause of a (small L) libertarian form of government. One such case is the race for Monroe County Commissioner.

In this countywide race, we have a Libertarian and a Republican trying to unseat an incumbent Democrat. The last time an incumbent Democrat was removed from that office was 2002, when Brian O'Neill was sent home by voters. Removing Pat Stoffers will be an uphill battle, and splitting the conservative/libertarian vote will only make that more difficult. This is why (small L) libertarians should be voting for the Republican, Bob LaGarde.

Libertarians argue that they take votes equally from both Republicans and Democrats. That might be true, in national and state elections. In local elections - specifically the race for Monroe County Commissioner - I very much doubt that will be the case. This is because arguably the most important issue facing the commissioners is land use policy, with the vision laid out in the comprehensive plan and implemented by various zoning laws. These laws and regulations have a huge impact on private property rights.

When asked about the comprehensive plan that has caused concern among landowners and business owners, LaGarde offered the following quote from President Taft:

"Next to the right of liberty, the right of property is the most important individual right guaranteed by the Constitution and the one which, united with that of personal liberty, has contributed more to the growth of civilization than any other institution established by the human race."

That is certainly a strong defense of private property rights. Dave Nakarado, as a Libertarian, also is a strong defender of private property rights. So with two candidates who strongly defend private property rights, the question for (small L) libertarians and conservatives is how our vote will be most effective in preserving our private property rights against a county government that always seems to be looking for ways to restrict those rights.

The best way to look at this is to look at the 2012 election. Nakarado got 11% of the vote two years ago, with the incumbent Democrat getting 51% and the Republican candidate getting the rest. Most voters are going to choose one of the two major parties, and it is a rare occasion when a third party or independent candidate has a legitimate shot at winning, especially in a three way race. Realistically, the best Nakarado can hope for is splitting the conservative vote and causing Stoffers to win with a plurality.

Nakarado is a good candidate and would be a great county commissioner. Monroe County could use someone like him in elective office, especially in a legislative capacity. But if we are going to have a realistic chance of replacing Pat Stoffers with someone who respects private property rights and believes in limiting county government's reach into our lives and wallets, we need to support and vote for the Republican candidate, Bob LaGarde.


Sunday, October 12, 2014

The diva cannot allow herself to get wet

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:00 AM

So I get home the other day and let the dogs out... Or one of them anyway. The other one looks at the rain, balks and runs away. She is too much of a diva to get wet. So the diva Beagle gets picked up and physically carried outside, all the way to the far side of the back yard, so she will do what she needs to do.



Saturday, October 11, 2014

A serious question

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:00 AM

When did we get to the point that rape is an appropriate tool for law enforcement?

Are we living in some kind of twisted alternate reality?


Friday, October 10, 2014

Random thoughts of the day

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:00 AM

♣ - With the paranoia about police not being able to do their jobs if they do not have a way past smartphone encryption, I have to ask: How did police do their job ten years ago, before the modern smartphone market existed?

♣ - I said a year ago that if Barack Obama's justice department files charges against George Zimmerman, Obama should be impeached. If we take our liberty, our Constitutional rights and the rule of law seriously, Congress must begin impeachment proceedings in the event such charges are filed.

♣ - Here is an excellent article at Reason.com about "stranger danger." The reality is that crime statistics just do not justify this level of paranoia that produces so many false alarms. We should be careful and take reasonable precautions to protect children, but we should not be living in terror.

♣ - Mandatory minimum sentences are an outgrowth of our paranoia about crime and drugs, and have done more harm than good. It is time for them to be abolished. We should trust judges to judge.

♣ - Is there anyone so deluded as to believe Greg Orman, the "independent" U.S. Senate candidate in Kansas, will not caucus with the Democrats if he is elected? Otherwise, why would the Democratic candidate drop out?

♣ - Yes, internet trolls exist. This is not a surprise. Trolls who actually make a false police report because they are angry about "open carry" should be prosecuted and punished to the fullest extent of the law. But a few internet trolls ranting on Facebook and Twitter is hardly cause for alarm.

♣ - One can support law enforcement while also condemning excessive force, opposing overly intrusive police tactics and defending civil liberties. That is not an either/or proposition.


Thursday, October 9, 2014

Gender insanity in government schools

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 5:30 PM

In the middle of the politically correct gender politics nonsense in Nebraska is one particularly disturbing statement:

  • Furthermore, it instructs teachers to interfere and interrupt if they ever hear a student talking about gender in terms of "boys and girls" so the student can learn that this is wrong.

The so-called "school" has absolutely no business doing this.


No charges for police who maimed Bounkham Phonesavanh

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:00 AM

Some people are upset that the SWAT officers who maimed Bounkham Phonesavanh will not face charges. While I share that frustration at this criminally reckless raid, the real problem is not the police. The real problem is the politicians who set the policy in the failed War on Drugs.

Baby suffers horrific burns thanks to War on Drugs, Part I.

Baby suffers horrific burns thanks to War on Drugs, Part II.

Baby suffers horrific burns thanks to War on Drugs, Part III.


Wednesday, October 8, 2014

School lunches, Seven Oaks and personal responsibility

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:00 AM

At what point do we expect parents to actually take care of their children, instead of shoving that responsibility off on the taxpayers? Should the schools be a secondary (or even primary) parents? At what point does parents' irresponsibility become criminal child neglect?

In a September 30 article in the Herald-Times, a teacher at Edgewood High School (who is also a member of the board that votes on charter applications) expressed concern that students at Seven Oaks Classical School would not be provided lunch by the school. H-T reporter Mary Keck summarized his concern, that "in some cases, the lunch that students get at school is the only nutritious meal they may have that day."

It is safe to assume that such students are from low-income families. What about food stamps? What about WIC? What about AFDC? Are these families not using those programs? Are the parents so helpless, uncaring or incompetent that they cannot provide food for their children before and after school? How are these children eating on the weekends? If this situation is as dire as the teacher claims, then it appears we have a case of criminal child neglect. Maybe the parents need to lose custody of their children or even be criminally prosecuted for neglect.

And really - if anyone actually believes that Seven Oaks teachers and staff are going to be completely unconcerned with children not able to eat lunch, that person is far too cynical.

The complaining about SOCS not providing lunch or transportation is typical of our victim society, and our envious nature. If someone else has something we do not have, or cannot take advantage of, our natural urge is to desire the other person be denied that item or service. There will always be things - yes, even in our government school system - that some people take advantage of while others cannot or do not. That does not mean we should not allow families the choice to have their children educated free of charge by an alternative school that has been chartered by the state.

No, not every family in Monroe County will be able to take advantage of SOCS. Limited enrollment alone guarantees that will be the case - but that is the case with every charter school. Resources are not unlimited. But that does not mean we should not allow this opportunity for parents who want to try an alternative educational method by denying this charter. The charter application should be approved.


Tuesday, October 7, 2014

Yesterday's SCOTUS decision on homosexual marriage

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 5:30 PM

With yesterday's decision by the United States Supreme Court, here are three editorials I wrote about how government recognition of homosexual marriage threatens religious liberty:

Below is a press release from the American Family Association of Indiana. Reprinted with permission.

For Immediate Release 11/6/14 (4:25 pm EST)

The following is a statement from Micah Clark, Executive Director of the American Family Association of Indiana on the news today of the Supreme Court's refusal to consider the future of natural marriage and voter referenda in America. The Supreme Court surprised most observers when they refused the consider an appeal of lower court rulings from Indiana and four other states.

"This is not the final resolution to this issue. The 5th, 6th, 8th, and 11th Circuits can still rule for natural marriage or state's rights. The Supreme Court could, and would likely, take this matter up, if any of these circuits recognized marriage as a gendered institution deserving legal protection from the legislature or the ballot box.

It is worth noting that the Supreme Court did not rule on this issue, they simply took a pass for now. In the end, however, no matter what any court says, the needs of children to both a mother and a father will never change. Marriage is an institution that protects the interests children and society. It predates Indiana law and US law. It is not a tool for applauding the desires of activists attempting to use the courts to rewrite what marriage has always been.

Marriage is not merely the union of any two people, but the special union of a man and a woman that benefits children and society like no other relationship. No court can ever change that truth.

No judge in the world can override the Judge of the Universe. God designed marriage as the special union of both genders. He created men and women as complimentary human beings and scolded against anyone separating them in marriage. We enter uncharted territory as a nation if we allow less than 2% of the population to force a new definition of marriage upon every person, institution, business, and church.

In states impacted by the court's notice today, legislators should consider protecting the freedom of conscience, freedom of speech and freedom of association of those millions of individuals who hold to the traditional view of marriage which has served children and societies well since the beginning of time."