Omaha Archdiocese Is Biased Against South Omaha

It appeared in the Omaha World Herald today that the Omaha Archdiocese office is planning to close 6 of it's 18 schools.

It just so happens that 5 of those 6 schools scheduled to be closed fall into the general area now considered to be South Omaha.  All of these five schools being south of Leavenworth street  and east of 72nd St (with the exception of St Joan of Arc school, on 74th St.)


They have only targeted one school in North-East Omaha,  just one.  They have targeted none of the schools in west Omaha.

Why is the Archdiocese picking on South Omaha parish schools?  Is it about money?  Do they not understand that parish schools are about community as much as they are about education?

Not only that, but it appears that they want to turn their system into a mini- OPS system and take administration away from the parishes and administrate them from a central committee.  Again, this goes against the grain of community oriented schools.

One last insult, they insist on using modern socialist fads in the administration of this new "district" by making everything "fair" in terms of how schools fund raise, how schools get enrollment and what students are enrolled into which schools.

In order to push their agenda, they have limited the number of people who can attend and represent a given school at the meetings.  No, they want to dominate the situation and not let the community as a whole in on what effects the whole community. 


Fellow Omaha residents and fellow residents of South Omaha, please do not take this lightly or quietly.  Even if your children do not attend local parish schools, at least stand up for South Omaha.  The Archdiocese office apparently thinks that we do not care or support our community and can manipulate us in any way they want.

Write the archdiocese office letters, emails, go to the office and express your dis-satisfaction.

Don't let them get away with shutting down primarily the South Omaha parish/community schools.

The Voters are speaking, but who are the politicians listening to?

The anti-SOPA/PIPA activity is going into action today with many major websites joining smaller websites in completely blacking out or bringing attention to the nightmare that is our lawmakers latest concoction.

Many lawmakers say "but, IP theft is a real problem and something must be done."

You know, IP law has gone beyond all credibility in that our lawmakers have allowed corporations to own IP (which I think only "real" people should be allowed to do.  They don't allow corporations to vote do they?  No.) and have extended the lifespan of IP protection well beyond any use or need of the lifetime of a "real" person.

So, they have allowed corporations to dominate IP and keep things from entering the public domain in a reasonable amount of time.  At the same time, they seem to not understand why people are sick and tired of putting up with IP laws that favor corporations and essentially punish "real" people.

Trademarks, copyright and patents were intended to allow real people to gainfully profit from their own works for a reasonable length of time that was tied to the lifespan of a real, living and dying person.  After a certain point, that work then enters the public domain so that all people may benefit freely from it.

But not when corporations get involved.  First of all, the gov't recognizes corporations as "people" to a limited extent.   Corporations can "own" property and IP.  Here's the big difference, corporations don't die and they don't have other people ""inheriting" property.

Corporations like Disney have lobbied the gov't to extend IP protections for way longer than the life span of a real person and they keep pushing to have  it extended further.  Why? Pure profit motive, that's why.

If something finally leaves IP protections and enters the public domain, they can't squeeze another penny out of us for it.  They would rather see something destroyed than to let it enter the public domain.

Now, corporations are in a limited way, seen as a "person" by the gov't.  However, they are not allowed to vote in elections. no, they cannot.

Yet, our elected representatives seem to pay little attention to the real people who vote for them and give far better service and attention to those who line their pockets so that they can run an expensive campaign so that real people will vote for them.

No, there's no reason real people, voting citizens, should be upset that the politicians represent the corporations interests moreso than "real" people's interests is there?

Like the Supreme Court recently said,  corporations are recognized as people with rights too.  They just upheld that corporations have the right to unrestricted free speech.   We all know that corporations speak the language of money.  This means they can dish out as much money to politicians as they want to.

Good to know that the politicians have got the voting person's back on that.

Let's place the blame where it belongs

So many people want to blame the big evil corporations for their efforts to buy out our elected representatives and place everything in the favor of those corporate desires.

It's true that I am no fan of crony capitalism or corporates that exist pretty much as predators in the market.  Having said that, it's not all their fault for the way things are turning out.

It's hard to place all the blame on the shoppers who are just taking advantage of every "for sale" sign that gets put out in front of them.

That's right.  You can only buy off those people willing to be bought.  Many of them not only let themselves be talked into selling out, far too many actively and intentionally go into public service wearing a "for sale" sign around their necks.

So, don't "occupy" Wall St.  Instead, go occupy the senate, the house of representatives and the white house.  As long as they have the blue light special going on, the corporate shoppers will continue to try to buy them off.

Oh yes,  I know, you are jaded and have no real belief that there is such a thing as an honest politician.   I am right there with you.  However, just because something doesn't live up to the expectations set for it doesn't mean you give up on those expectations.  You redouble your efforts and try again.

Our Constitution is a a set of ideals, objectives, goals.  It's what the people who wrote it saw as what we as a country of united and free individuals "can" be.  It's what people believe "should" be.  it is the bar against which we measure ourselves and work to bring ourselves to where it is, not sit back and complain that it's too hard and demand that it be lowered to our convenience.

No my friends, to use what I feel is an apt quote by Dylan Thomas;

And you, my father, there on the sad height,
Curse, bless me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light. 

In short my friends, don't give up the fight for what we believe is right.

Don't let those fakes and phonies who would pretend to represent our best interests get off so easily.

Make them live up to the expectations of our Constitution.

If only there were a... pt 1

If only there were a test people had to pass in order to register to vote.

There are so many people who are un-educated or worse, mis-educated about our government and how it works it's just pitiful.

Every local elections commsions office needs to offer a basic "how our government works" class that people must participate in before they are issued a voter registration card.

No, They should not offer opinion and rhetoric regarding political parties or anything like that.  Simply  the basic principles of the U.S. Constitution, the local state Constitution and the mechanics of our election system.

Of course, the arguments against that will be that it's too expensive, it's too easy to manipulate, someone will incorrectly claim it violates their rights (any right/law can be regulated, just not totally eliminated look at the 2nd amendment for examples of that in action).

Rights That Americans Are NOT Guaranteed

We are NOT guaranteed the right to be rich.  The accumulation of financial wealth is something that happens due to a combination of sound decision-making, good social networking and the effort and determination required to be successful.

We are NOT guaranteed the right to be "Right".  Just because one person makes a choice and carries out an act or expresses an opinion does not mean that everyone else is required to agree and support it.  No one is forced to go along with everything you think or do just because it will make you feel better.

We are NOT guaranteed the right to governmental "care".  The federal government, as spelled out in the U.S. Constitution, is responsible for very specific, spelled out tasks and duties.  If it is not spelled out in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, it's on you and the State you live in to see things get done.  Just because someone wants to sit back and let someone else do the work and pay the bills doesn't mean they have a right to expect it of the government.

We are NOT guaranteed the right to say or do anything we want without repercussion.  Too many ignorant people have not actually read the Constitution and think that "Freedom of Speech" means they can do or say anything to anyone at all and that they will face no repercussions.  WRONG.  The Constitution only spells out that you cannot be punished, imprisoned, etc.. by the government for expressing your thoughts, ideas and opinions.  If you say or do anything to anyone else, you have no protection from being sued, popped in the mouth or other responses as they see fit.  So, think twice before opening your yap.

This will be added to as I see examples of idiots in action expecting rights that they do not actually have.

Defining Ourselves Into A Corner

Just exactly WTH is a "Conservative" or a "Liberal" as we understand it these days?

I mean,  at it's most basic, being conservative used to mean doing something or approaching things "By The Book".  Adhering closely to established rules and methods.

Conversely, to be "liberal" simply meant that one saw said rules, etc  more as "guidelines", flexible and malleable as one wanted to hold to them.

Of course, to confuse things even more, we can toss in "progressive" and "traditional" as well.

Now really, people of either "conservative" or "liberal" bents could also be "progressive" or " traditional" at the same time.

Because again, in simple terms, to be "progressive" means that one is always open to expansion and change going forward.  While "traditionals" tend to hold back and view change as something to be cautious of.

Nowadays, many people simply lump "progressive liberal" and " traditional conservative" as like terms.  That isn't always the case though.   Many people who refer to themselves as "conservative" are also very progressive at the same time.  The modern republican party reps are great examples of that.  Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive conservative way back in his day, so it's nothing new.

Using these very simple definitions of the terms,   I am very "conservative" in regard to the U.S. Constitution.  It is what it is and don't screw with it unless absolutely necessary.

At the same time,  I am somewhat liberal in terms of how it, the Constitution is in regards to how it is enforced.   I believe that while the laws and rights are what they are, it requires a case by case examination to be truly a "just" society.  Taking all things into consideration instead of this nitwitted notion of "zero tolerance".

I am traditional and not progressive at all in terms of  I don't think there needs to be many, if any, new laws made.  Instead, there are many that need to be removed and then new ones brought in only if there is an overwhelming need for them.  Not just this idea of "If only one (fill in the blank) is saved with this law..."  Oh heck no.  Talk to me if we're talking about saving hundreds, better yet, thousands by doing the new thing, not just one or two.

Don't tell me it's not fair, life isn't fair, deal with it.  No one promised that it ever would be fair, no one has the right to expect it to be fair.  Get over it, move on, next case.

The more folks try to manipulate these definitions, make them more complex, the more you can be sure they are just trying to make themselves feel or look  better about their position.