Reporter prone to juvenile behavior
So, when President Donald Trump will not indulge the childish ego-eccentricity of CNN White House reporter Jim Acosta, the reporter resorts to physically blocking the White House female communications aide from taking the microphone from him, at a press briefing with the president. CNN must be proud.
President Trump should treat this bully like the 5 year-old he is, and revoke his access to the White House Press Room. Since this reporter will then cry like a baby that his “rights” are being violated (because it’s all about him, of course) he can stand outside on the West Lawn, while the grown-ups participate in grown-up activities inside. From there, he will be allowed to ask one question. That way, he can participate, but there will be no chance that he will physically assault a member of the White House staff when he doesn’t get his way.
Since Acosta has proven to be prone to juvenile behavior and can’t play nice with the grown-ups, perhaps the White House could provide a small bin of Legos that he could entertain himself with, while he waits to ask his one question.
Not voting is not leading
Shame on Troy Calhoun for not voting. He is supposed to lead the young men and women involved in the football program at our military academy. Not voting is not leading.
How can Calhoun skip taking the time to exercise his right to vote? I am completely disappointed and angry that Calhoun does not vote and that he appears to be OK with not voting. If I were the AFA superintendent, I would have a talk with Calhoun. Either Calhoun does not care about our governing system or he thinks he is too busy. In either case, he is pathetic.
Did our Air Force teach him that it is all right to not vote? We have a mail-in ballot. Is it not possible for him to spend a few minutes each day in the month before the election to learn and decide about the candidates and issues and then vote? He demands more from his players.
Find something better to do
I have the following message for some of the folks who have been complaining about the bike lane restriping on our city roads:
Stop whining and find something better to do with your time. I am simultaneously amused and appalled by the sheer volume of commentary on the bike lanes. Don’t you people have jobs? Or hobbies? Based on number alone, you’d think this was the worst thing that happened to the city since the Great Depression. Yeesh. Find something better to do than complain. Get a job. Take up quilting. Or, I don’t know, maybe go for a nice bike ride.
The roads are not for everyone
A cyclist was recently killed on Weber on a portion of the road that doesn’t have a bike lane. Some have said this tragedy demonstrates the need to narrow more roads and add bike lanes.
I’m unconvinced the answer to dangerous conditions is to put cyclists and motorists next to each other more often. Wouldn’t the safest option be to create dedicated bike trails separate from motorized traffic? Instead, it seems we’re running in the opposite direction. Last Friday’s letter from Jennifer Bell stated the roads are for everyone, including “people with baby carriages and handicapped folks in wheelchairs.” Some of the members of Restore Our Roads (RestoreOurRoads.com) have reported with alarm mothers jogging with baby strollers in the bike lanes.
Since when does anyone think it’s a good idea to have baby strollers and wheelchairs on the roads themselves? In reality, the roads are not for everyone. For example we don’t allow pedestrians, animals, or our renowned “Wagon Man” to meander through the streets. We don’t use such an all-embracing approach because the physics of collisions are unaltered by politics. I’m not willing to sacrifice safety and common sense in the name of inclusivity. We need to find a better way.
Asylum has a set of rules
The sending of soldiers to our southern borders is the correct action for the times. Immigration is a controlled activity under the structures of law. Asylum seeking is another activity with a different set of rules. One of which is that the asylum seeker must accept the first offer proffered.
When those of the incoming caravan refused Mexico’s offer, they then became outlaws. The rules for asylum usually exclude those that are seeking better economic status or just leaving a bad domestic situation. So that those in the caravan that are not true victims have no real claim to asylum, they are in fact a mob of people trying to invade our land in the hopes that we will take care of them better than they could do on their own. Trying to “swarm” our border is an invasion tactic and warrants the use of military force to protect our sovereignty.
That is what the military do, they protect America. To pretend otherwise is to give legitimacy to open borders.
To put it into a personal perspective, imagine a cold winter’s night and the homeless camp down by the creek decides that your house will provide better shelter than their tent camp and show up on your front step in mass demanding entry to get out of the storm and into your warm living area! They rejected the OutReach offers earlier to move to a shelter, but now your place looks pretty good. Would that be OK?
Would it be OK to call the authorities, would you really care who answered the call? The police are responsible for your domestic safety, and the military is responsible for your country’s safety.
Michael S. Welsh