When I was 16, I got my very first part-time job. I was going to school, involved in choir and theater (yes, I’m a nerd – don’t judge), and I was working about 10-15 hours per week as an orthodontal assistant. I hated that job. I had to deal with bratty kids who didn’t brush their teeth, and who came in with weeks’ worth of food lodged in their braces. I’ve been barfed on while doing impressions of their teeth and have had to smell breath that would down a mastodon with its sheer foulness.
But it was a job, and I got paid for it. And I learned how to deal with people, how to deal with supervisors, how to put little kids at ease, who weren’t sure if their new braces would hurt, and how to talk to parents about the procedure we were about to perform. I also learned how to put on new brackets, tighten wires, and put on those annoying little rubber bands that make your jaws barely mobile. I learned how to do photos and x-rays too. Technical skills and life skills are what this horrible job gave me. I was miserable, but I learned.
In my next job, I became a wait staff manager at a camp for senior citizens. Money was better. Environment was better. And I learned how to deal with seniors on a level I never imagined before. And if you think dealing with senior citizens is easy, I would urge you to reconsider that impression. I know more about how seniors’ digestive tracts work and what unclogs their bowels better than most people.
That was high school. I continued to progress through my college years, holding down full time jobs while I studied at Hopkins. Each one taught me something new and allowed me to use past experience to move up to jobs with progressively more responsibility and pay.
Both my kids followed the same path. They both had jobs through high school. Sarah became a Marine after she graduated, and Danny is in college, working a part time job and drilling as an Army Reservist. The kids both started working part-time when they were 15-16 years old. I would pick them up in the evenings after work, and once they got their licenses, they would drive themselves.
I always thought this was standard. I always thought this is what kids are supposed to do. The part-time jobs they work in high school and college are supposed to teach them important life skills, communication, budgeting, dealing with customers, being accountable to their supervisors, and getting along with their co-workers.
That’s why I was so surprised by this article Kyle Reyes wrote recently as an open letter to college kids advising them to get a job.
Your parents are watching you grow up seemingly too fast. Facebook, Snapchat and Instagram – along with the world as a whole – has made you grow up too fast. They want to preserve your childhood and that’s why they’re handing everything to you on a silver platter. But what they don’t realize is that they are setting you up to fail even though they don’t mean to.
You’re going to enter into the workforce one day with lots of “book” smarts…but no real life experience. And it’s going to cost you. Life is going to slap you in the face because while you were out sipping on milkshakes, the other new guy on the job had been working his butt off MAKING you that milkshake. And he’s going to have the experience and work ethic that you have yet to develop.
Maybe I’m sheltered, and maybe because my parents couldn’t afford to carry me through high school and college, and maybe because I was in the same boat with my kids, but in my family it was always an automatic assumption that kids were to find part-time jobs for things they wanted outside the normal room/board/clothing stuff. My kids both wanted cars. They paid for them and their insurance with their salaries. They were both on my phone plan, but paid for their portion of the bill by doing chores around the house. Any cool clothes/toys/trips/etc. were funded by their earnings (yes, sometimes with the help of mom or grandparents with holiday money), but for us, this was always an automatic thing.
In addition to getting the stuff they really wanted, they also got invaluable work experience which allowed them to learn skills they wouldn’t normally obtain by sitting around at the pool all day, doing nothing. This is what allows Danny to work a pretty killer job this summer, in addition to his Reserve duty, to live in a nice rented house, to go out to restaurants and concerts, and to pad his savings account. His previous work experience — first at a gym, and then at Starbucks — allowed him a higher paying, flexible job. He earned it.
I thought this was just how things worked, but apparently I’m in the minority. Reyes points out that according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, only 43 percent of Americans ages 16-19 worked last year.
Apparently parents think their precious punkins ought to be kids while they still can.
Apparently parents have no problem paying the way for their legal adult offspring, whether because they want no other distractions as they focus on their studies, or whether because dog forbid these snowflakes experience stress!
Parents, meet real world. This is what happens when your cuddled cupcake has no experience dealing with people, working, knowledge or technical skills, and has no idea how to function in the real world. His grades might be stellar, and he may look really good on paper, but he is the type that won’t last long in the real world.
For example, every time anyone on our floor prints something he jumps up to retrieve it and then runs around trying to find the person who printed it. He has been asked not to do this because sometimes people are printing more than one document, or they are printing things in a certain order, or they need to drop off whatever they printed at someone else’s desk. He was thanked for trying to be helpful but asked not to do this several times, but he still does it. Another time he was asked to double check a newly typed copy of our updated price list against the handwritten copy. The list was long and we needed a second set of eyes. He made a few minor corrections with a pen and then was asked to check that the corrections had been typed up correctly. He gave the list back to the person in charge with different corrections than the first time. No matter how is was explained to him, he didn’t understand why he had to catch all the errors the first time and eventually the task had to be given to someone else.
He has no concept of basic current news and events. He didn’t know about: any of the issues with the current president, that there is conflict in the middle east or Somalia, or even that America fought in World War 2. He had no idea who Abraham Lincoln is, didn’t know about the existence of software that reads things to visually impaired, or that electric cars exist or that it is illegal to drive without a license. He was surprised to find out Starbucks served more than one beverage. He didn’t know ham comes from pigs or that you can make reservations for a hotel beforehand. These are just some examples but there are more. His knowledge of things is so lacking that he completely alienates everyone he has a conversation with because he doesn’t understand what is happening and interrupts because he needs basic things explained to him. He has a chortling laugh after he says something, whether it is funny or not. He is bright enough to have done well at school with a tough major and made the dean’s list all three years he has attended college, but his lacking of basic knowledge, current events, and common sense things is a constant frustration.
If you think you’re doing your kids a favor by allowing them to rely on you for basic necessities and avoid getting a job because you want to ensure they do really well in college…
…You’re not. You’re going to wind up with this type of hapless derp living in your basement, because he has no idea how to function in the work environment.
I’ll tell you this: grades matter very little in the large scheme of things. Common sense, work experience, ability to deal with stress and be accountable to one’s supervisors, as well as follow basic instructions matter much more than that “A” they received in a 300-level Philosophy class. That I can promise you.
I will take an applicant with a 2.8 and varied work experience over an applicant with a 4.0 and a sheltered lifestyle in which mommy and daddy strove to ensure he or she never faced a shred of adversity and stress and focused solely on academics. No thanks.
Life is stressful. Life is learning how to balance work, school, and family. Life is learning to prioritize. Sometimes life is an 80 percent solution. A legal adult who did little more than study is not appealing as a prospective employee, because it tells me they didn’t learn how to balance, deal with stress, and prioritize.
Most schools aren’t going to prepare your kids for real life. Work will.
Get a job.
I’ve got some stuff going on, so don’t be surprised if I don’t write for a while.
So while I’m taking a hiatus of sorts, please enjoy today’s Dilbert cartoon by Scott Adams.
You know, there are political views, there are social views, there are advocates for social justice, and then there are twisted, noxious, misanthropic cunts who should be relegated to licking toilets clean, rather than be allowed into a classroom to corrupt young minds. Katherine Dettwyler – an anthropology professor at the University of Delaware is one of the latter. Dettwyler is a repulsive hag, who describes herself on her Facebook page (which has now been deleted) as a “Far left wing radical liberal.”
What she really is is a cancer on the prostate of humanity.
Why? Why is she such an oozing colostomy bag? Why did she suddenly delete her Facebook page? Because of this.
This noxious, sub-human cuntasaurus literally took a massive shit on the barely cold corpse of a kid – a kid murdered by a tyrannical, repressive regime for ostensibly stealing a poster, because like many radical prognazis, she fellates tyrannical regimes like their pasty goo is going out of style.
Dettwyler justified her foul remarks about the murder of a young man by claiming some nebulous entity doesn’t pay enough attention to others in North Korea who are suffering under its repressive regime. So Otto Warmbier deserved to die, because we don’t pay enough attention to the suffering of North Koreans? We shouldn’t care about the murder of an American citizen, because others are suffering in North Korea as well? We shouldn’t feel bad for him, dying a slow death on behalf of those North Korean savages, and his family who lost someone they loved, because PRIVILEGE? Is that how that works, you heartless, abhorrent bag of excreted corn kernels?
She claims Otto is “typical of the mindset” of young, white, rich, clueless, blah blah blah… She didn’t know Otto Warmbier. None of us did. But the malignant wart decided that since he was white and male, he was necessarily entitled. And for that, he apparently deserved to be murdered.
People who took her class wouldn’t be surprised at her level of venomous noxiousness. Her RateMyProfessors page is littered with words and phrases such as “rude,” “horrible,” “destructive person,” “belittles students when they ask questions without her preferred terminology,” “Easily the rudest professor I have had at UD,” “unprofessional,” “hates America,” “obnoxious,” “annoying,” “tedious,” “insufferable,” “crazy,” “pompous,” “cites herself in her own textbook,” “Literally avoid her like the plague.” One instructive description says:
Class isn’t too difficult if you just stick you reading the textbook. That being said this woman created the textbook and almost everything in it is ridiculous. As the election between trump went on she became crazier and crazier to the point of asking “are all trump supports against freedom” and only having true as an option on the test.
The vast majority of these ratings, by the way, were prior to this latest outburst of inhuman fuckery, and only five of those ratings occurred today after her name hit the news, so it ought to tell you something – that students aren’t just reacting to her latest public eruption, but rather to her habitual repugnant, racist bigotry.
To be fair, Dettwyler isn’t the only one. A number of leftist swine have taken shit on this young man’s corpse and his family’s grief.
Comedy Central’s Larry Wilmore was one of the chief offenders, launching one of his shows with an eight-minute festival of mockery that accepted the North Korean regime’s version of events, mocked Warmbier’s anguished tears, and even posted a graphic calling him an “ass” — based on the initials of a fictional fraternity. The message? Let’s mock frat bros when they go where Daddy can’t protect them.
They don’t care if the “confession” was coerced.
They don’t care if he was innocent.
They don’t care that he was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor for a crime he likely didn’t even commit, considering how flimsy the “evidence” was against him, which included an alleged video of “him” ripping a propaganda poster off a wall, but in which you couldn’t tell who was actually engaged in this act.
They don’t care about justice.
They don’t care about his family’s grief.
They’re happy… ecstatic… celebratory that an American kid was murdered by a tyrannical regime, because he was male and white, and because his alleged “white privilege” didn’t protect him this time, so he knows how the other side feels.
Well, he doesn’t know. He doesn’t know because he’s dead, you disgusting, racist, oozing rectums!
I’m a mother, and I cannot imagine the loss and agony Warmbier’s family must be feeling!
I’m floored that a mother and grandmother like Dettwyler would be so publicly callous toward the murder of someone’s son. I can’t imagine what kind of foul fuck trophies this noxious bag of fetid dick cheese raised, and I would hope her spawn would be at the very least embarrassed by her behavior, and revolted by it. But given that the sow raised them, you just never know.
On the heels of my “Left Becomes Right” article, Ben Shapiro wrote a piece with which I heartily agree.
But, as it turns out, many of those who mock “muh principles” have no actual principles other than empty tribal victory. Never was that clearer than this week when several of the self-appointed members of the Trump-ardent defense squad went full social justice warrior, invading a Shakespeare in the Park performance of “Julius Caesar” that depicts President Trump as Caesar. Screaming “Liberal hate kills!” they stormed the stage, called audience members Joseph Goebbels and held up the production. Those who objected to this obtuse behavior were simply being hamstrung by “muh principles,” they then proclaimed.
Except that there were no principles at stake here. What was the supposed principle? Perhaps it was that artists shouldn’t make art that invokes images of violence inflicted on a president. Then why weren’t they upset about a rodeo clown dressed up as President Obama in 2013? Perhaps it was that radical rhetoric leads to violence. Then why weren’t they upset when candidate Trump urged his followers to clock protesters? Perhaps it was that shutting down others’ free speech is bad — a sort of ironic lesson for the left. Then why didn’t they say so, rather than claiming that the content of the play justified their activity? And why would this be a good strategy, given that the self-immolating hard left’s free speech shutdowns have backfired so dramatically that even Obama and Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have been forced to condemn them?
Principles aren’t fluid things. They aren’t to be discarded in order for us to defend them. So to mock principled behavior, as many on the right have in recent weeks after two screeching douche crackers rushed the stage during a production of Julius Caesar, is counterproductive, as well as contradictory.
Here’s the thing, folks. Those of you claiming we’re at war are missing a crucial piece of effective warfare – something I’ve discussed previously when I talked about Russia’s information operations. We are not fighting a war with guns and grenades. We’re fighting a war for the very heart of America. We are fighting a war FOR our principles, and we can’t drop kick them in the nuts in order to protect them. We can’t take a dump on the First Amendment – exactly like the left is doing – to protect the First Amendment. If we want to win, we need numbers. We need numbers at the voting booth and on the ground promoting the same principles certain people like Loomer and her pal want to shit on in retaliation for the left doing so, and we’re not going to get numbers using retarded leftist antics, because those to the right of center are just not that dumb.
Yeah, you’re going to make rabid Trumpanzees screech with utter joy when you use the leftists’ antics against them, but those aren’t the people you want to win over. They’re already in your camp.
All that said, I present my friend James Schardt.
Remind me never to follow Col. Kurt Schlichter into combat.
In his latest Townhall column, Schlichter shoots back at Ben Shapiro’s article pointing out that if we don’t keep hold of our principles, we are no better than the Left. Schlichter says points out if you don’t win, your principles don’t matter, because they will be ignored by others.
If he fights like he argues, he’ll get me killed for no good reason.
To quote Sergeant Harper from the book Sharpe’s Rifles, “There are two kinds of officers, sir: killin’ officers and murderin’ officers. Killin’ officers are poor old buggers that get you killed by mistake. Murderin’ officers are mad, bad, old buggers that get you killed on purpose.”
Schlichter falls into the second category. He wants to use the Left’s tactics against them. But he forgot to assess the battlefield. He forgot to determine whether the Left’s tactics are actually effective. Culturally, the left is in a position of dominance, so their tactics have to work, right?
Let’s not forget that the left lost big this last election. Let’s not forget they just lost a special election in Georgia where Pajama Boy lookalike Jon Ossoff just lost to Republican Karen Handel.
So not quite.
Obviously, comedy, mockery, making your opponent look absurd then presenting your own side as an alternative works. Telling a story with an example of your opponent as the villain works. Showing how your ideas will benefit an individual or group and/or showing how your opponent’s ideas have hurt them works.
Making an ass out of yourself in public does not.
What Schlichter is advocating roughly the equivalent of: “after fending off a full frontal assault over half a mile of kill zone causing 75 percent casualties to the enemy, let’s do a suicidal charge for our side.”
I don’t want to follow that guy.
We are in a fight for the hearts and minds of America. Most people don’t pay attention to politics. They don’t care. All they want is for tomorrow to be just a little better than today. They see politics as snippets and sound bites. The Left understood this for the longest time. They worked to win the hearts and minds of the general public, and Democrats were viewed as the ones with hearts, because there were very few alternatives to their information so they did not need to do much to keep people convinced their beliefs were correct.
Then, the Internet came about. The Left couldn’t stop alternative information from getting to the masses. People could share ideas without the Left as a filter, and suddenly the Left needed cheerleaders to keep their own people in line. They needed to show their own people that they were doing something to fight back against the “wrong” ideas of the right. Disrupting speeches, getting conservative or libertarian TV shows canceled, blocking highways.
Were these actions effective?
They only worked for those already convinced and engaged. For the people who wanted to hear what the other side had to say, who just wanted to watch a TV show, to go to work in the morning, they looked like a bunch of braying jackasses.
People don’t listen to braying jackasses.
But Schlichter wants us to behave like jackasses, because he already knows we’re right. The tactics he is advocating are a Pyrrhic victory, if they are any sort of victory at all.
We’ve seen it on our side before with open carry. Guys walking around with rifles because they could. “If you don’t exercise your rights they aren’t rights at all!” The actual effect was to alarm the public, annoy the police who had to investigate and figure out if the armed person was psycho or just stupid, and invigorate gun control advocates who now had an opportunity to paint the gun rights crowd as a bunch of buffoons. They also prompted several establishments that were more than happy to quietly follow state law regarding open carry and simply serve coffee or food to their customers without drama, to publicly ask their customers to leave their guns out of their stores.
Congratulations, jackass! You just delayed removing those Texas State laws you were protesting by two years. WINNING!
If you want to be politically active, remember most people are not. Cheerleading only works on people who already agree with you. Baseball fans generally do not care about the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders. Convince people your ideas are correct. That leads to victory at the voting booth. Disrupting a play or speech only makes you look like a jerk. It makes you look like even you don’t think your ideas are good enough to convince anyone.
Before you adopt a tactic used by the Left, make sure it is productive, that it works. Think before you act. Fighting the Left isn’t enough. What Schlichter is pushing isn’t winning, it’s just fighting, and fighting poorly at that.
I’ll fight all day long, but I want to win. Go ahead and pull ideas from the Left’s playbook, but think before you use them.
I hadn’t seen the dashcam video of the incident in which St. Anthony police officer Jeronimo Yanez shot and killed Philando Castile during a traffic stop until tonight.
After having watched it several times, I can understand why there was reasonable doubt brought on chiefly (I’m guessing) by the lack of credibility of the prosecution’s star witness Diamond Reynolds.
I’m going to note several things here.
1 – Castile did inform the officer that he was armed after he had given the officer his registration. It is possible he was reaching in his pocket for his wallet, where he ostensibly kept his license, but he also knew that his license was suspended. Nonetheless, Yanez seemed pretty calm – even after being told Castile was armed. He casually said “OK, don’t reach for it, then.” There was no tension or panic in his voice.
But then things changed drastically within a couple of seconds.
Yanez casually said “Don’t pull it out.” He said it twice – the second time with more panic in his voice before pulling out his gun and firing several shots into Castile.
2 – No, Castile doesn’t appear to have been complying with Yanez’s instructions to not pull it out (although you cannot see from the video what he was trying to pull out or where he was reaching). But at the same time, this all literally happened within maybe five seconds, and I think Yanez panicked. An expert in the use of force testified the use of deadly force was “objectively unreasonable.” He escalated very quickly and put seven rounds in Castile. At 1:38 Yanez very calmly says “OK, don’t reach for it, then.” At 1:43 he’s fired his second shot into Castile I realize law enforcement officers are under a lot of stress, and Castile apparently resembled a robbery suspect, so the situation was tense. I also understand that I only am seeing the dashcam video, which leaves me with some knowledge gaps about what the officer was actually seeing.
3 – Reynolds was not a credible witness. This one is a biggie. She is facing felony assault charges in an unrelated case after she allegedly attacked someone with a hammer. While lawyers did not appear to mention said charges in court, they’re public and covered in the media. They’re not difficult to look up. She lied when she claimed police didn’t provide first aid to Castile. The video clearly shows two-three officers worked on the man for at least three minutes continuously, giving chest compressions and trying to revive him until the ambulance showed up at the very end of the video. This in and of itself probably was enough to bring reasonable doubt into the picture.
She also admitted she and Castile regularly used marijuana, and she claims she smoked that day, but he did not. That was another lie. An autopsy revealed he had THC in his system, which would explain why he appeared to barely understand Yanez’s instructions and why he was slow to respond to Yanez’s increasingly loud orders to not pull it out. And by the way, what the hell was he doing driving while stoned, and with a small child in the back seat?
4 – Yanez’s partner Joseph Kauser testified he did not see any gun, nor did he smell any burnt marijuana smell in the car, which Yanez claims he had. Kauser looked pretty calm standing there on the other side of the vehicle until his partner escalated quickly. It’s also important to note that at the 9:10 mark, Yanez doesn’t appear to have actually seen a gun either. He tells the female officer interviewing him that despite instructing Castile not to reach for it, he did and “his grip was a lot wider than a wallet.” This tells me that he was basing his assessment of the situation on the grip, rather than actually seeing a firearm.
I’ve seen some guys with wallets literally stuffed so full, they look ridiculous, and much bigger than any pistol grip, so the fact that he was pulling out something fat doesn’t mean it was necessarily a gun. Yanez’s assessment was based on the fact that Castile told him he had a firearm, had already handed him documents (probably registration and insurance), and was reaching for something (ostensibly an ID). I know I keep my registration in my glove box, and my ID in my wallet in my purse, so I would have had to reach into two separate places to get the documents Yanez demanded.
5 – Yanez was visibly shaken, borderline hysterical, and weeping. He was fighting to keep from hyperventilating, and repeatedly cried “No! Please Jesus no!” several times. That doesn’t strike me as someone who targeted Castile because of his race.
6 – Castile did not have a record of violence. His extensive record consisted of traffic violations. Yanez in a transcript of his conversation with the dispatcher was heard saying, “The two occupants just look like people that were involved in a robbery. The driver looks more like one of our suspects, just ‘cause of the wide set nose.” So it sounds like even though it was a case of mistaken identity, the officer honestly believed he may have been pulling over a robbery suspect, which also would explain why he was tense.
And finally, let me preface this by reminding you I’m not a lawyer. But I do believe the prosecution was overcharging in this case by claiming second degree manslaughter. According to Minnesota law, manslaughter in the second degree involves causing the death of another in the following means:
(1) by the person’s culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another; or
(2) by shooting another with a firearm or other dangerous weapon as a result of negligently believing the other to be a deer or other animal; or
(3) by setting a spring gun, pit fall, deadfall, snare, or other like dangerous weapon or device; or
(4) by negligently or intentionally permitting any animal, known by the person to have vicious propensities or to have caused great or substantial bodily harm in the past, to run uncontrolled off the owner’s premises, or negligently failing to keep it properly confined; or
(5) by committing or attempting to commit a violation of section 609.378 (neglect or endangerment of a child), and murder in the first, second, or third degree is not committed thereby.
Based on this statute, I don’t see how Yanez was negligent or created an unreasonable risk, or consciously took chances, causing Castile’s death.
He believed that Castile looked like a robbery suspect.
He observed behavior on the part of his suspect that seemed odd, or “hinky,” as he described it. “He was just staring straight ahead,” he said, and admitted at that point he was getting nervous.
Castile was stoned, so he wasn’t exactly following directions very well, and Yanez’s observations match that possibility.
Now, in my opinion, and judging from the video and its transcript, Yanez overreacted. He escalated from perfectly calm to putting rounds in Castile in the span of five seconds, and he wasn’t certain Castile was pulling out a gun – only that he was gripping whatever he was taking out of his pocket with a wider grip than a wallet, which is a pretty subjective measurement.
Nonetheless, the less than credible witness Diamond Reynolds proved to be, coupled with what was probably an attempt to overcharge second degree manslaughter probably wound up in a “not guilty” verdict.
There are no winners here.
Yanez was clearly traumatized and weeping after having shot Castile.
Philando Castile died, and his loved ones lost someone dear to them. For what? Yeah, he was driving stoned, and yeah, he had a long record of traffic violations. Did he deserve to die for those transgressions?
I don’t think so.
Reynolds’ little daughter is probably more than traumatized, having watched a police officer put seven rounds in someone she cared about.
Castile’s mother lost a son. I cannot begin to imagine what that feels like. I can’t imagine having to bury my child. The mere thought of the loss sends agonizing shocks through me!
I guarantee Yanez will also never live this down either. His anguished cries are ringing in my ears. His shock and horror at having shot another human being were palpable.
I also doubt he will ever work as a police officer again.
Training that could mitigate these types of situations and could possibly reduce incidents of fatal police shootings should be standard, but resource and time constraints generally limit its availability.
Much of the current training focuses on static skills and techniques that may or may not be practiced diligently by the individual officer after the annual, or if they are lucky, quarterly agency training iterations. Most often, it consists of going through the motions of rehearsed techniques without applying that training under stress, with as many variables and judgment calls at real-time speed. If done correctly, the most important outcome of that type of situational training is that the individual officer can see what works (or doesn’t) for the first time in training, and not on the street, where consequences can be severe and often permanent.
Also, “Mat room folly” is a real phenomenon. If you slow any training down enough, it will always work… it just won’t work under stress in real situations! Too often, training teaches solutions and techniques for specific problems (like a specific knife attack, tackle, weapon malfunction, door entry, etc.) and allows officers to practice until they get it “just right.” The goal seems to be to perform up to some predetermined and sometimes almost arbitrary standard. The problem is that in reality, events rarely go as planned, so why are we not applying that truth in training and bringing that concept into practice for our officers in a tangible way?
Realistic training often seems to be lacking in our police forces today. Much like in other classroom environments, the focus is on passing the exam – proficiency and qualification – rather than giving officers instinctual, developed skills to deal with stressful situations.
In this case, Officer Yanez reacted fatally, and Philando Castile lost his life.