This #is #a response to the one-word prompt “Rapid” by “The Daily Post.”
Let me ask you something, and I want you to really think about it before answering. When you work #on a “project’ #or any kind of “choir/job” how long on average do you spend on completing it? Do you finish it in the #time allotted, a “little less than,” or “a little more than?” When we are working on something that tends to take awhile, we tend to try and do our best to complete it as quickly as possible for many of reasons. But time’#s tricky hands can and often do stop us.
Sometimes it is because we are “lazy” and just want to get it over with. Sometimes it is because we seek to save time by #getting it #done before the “projected” time of completion to move on to other important #things or to impress. And of course sometimes it is none of these, we just spend the minimum amount of time required.
The impressive, shocking #thing that I have found from my own experiences and that of others is that in a lot of cases it can be very beneficial to complete something on time or ahead of schedule; which are the most widely held beliefs on the subject. Yet, it can in some rare cases actually be better #not to “rush” or finish on time, but to take our time even if it means “working overtime.” This is usually the case when the “project” we are working on requires delicacy and permission.
A #good example is writing, which can regularly take more time than first thought. It is in cases like these that in allotting or being allotted time for the project, the amount of work/man hours needed to complete the project can be underestimated. Thus it is left to the person who is actually working on it to make a “judgment call.
So, what are your answers to the questions at the top and does this make you really question if you are usually giving the right amount of time on your project? Are you usually spot on in time spent? Or do you tend to be “lazy” sometimes, be honest it happens to all of us from time to time??
So what are your thoughts and viewpoints on the subject? Please do share them, all are welcomed and wanted.
This is a response to #the one-word prompt “Thwart” by “The Daily Post.”
In the wake of the Parkland Florida school shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School which killed 17 people, there has been a considerable nationwide #debate #on how to better protect our schools and children in them. Some of it has been good and productive, but a lot of it has just been “noise” that is really only inflaming passions on all sides of the “political spectrum but having little actual productive results.
There has been new legislation passed by some state legislatures to answer some of the perceived weaknesses in school security. In Florida’#s case, it is a mixed bag with a lot of good things being done but also a lot of “showboating” (as is the case whenever politicians get involved). While the legislation does carry some new rules for dealing with handling mental illness and its treatment it also bans the buying of guns till the age for 21 (it was previously and is in most of country 18).
The call for banning gun sells until 21 years of age ignore the fact that most teenage shooters unlike the one in the Parkland Florida shooting do not own their own guns but take them from home, i.e. parents or relatives who do. Thus, banning the sell of guns until age 21 won’t do anything in #reducing the risks to shooting in our schools.
Those who advocate for tougher/more gun control laws always use the term “sensible” in describing just what they want. A gun control measure can only be called “sensible” if it actually does or makes a considerable effort to the objective it would be put in place to accomplish. How can the measure just mention contribute to our preventing more school #shootings if the majority of teen/school shooters don’t buy the guns they use to shoot up schools?
Unfortunately, this detail largely escapes the ongoing debate of the issue above because of the raw emotions evolved and the very little actual, rational thinking among those partaking in the debate on both sides. Everyone wants to just “do something” to keep our schools and children safe. Yet, that there is the problem, our need to “do something, anything.” Just “doing something” will not help solve this or problem. Solutions need to be concrete and precisely targeted in order to have the best results.
The only way we as a nation and as a people are going to be able to come up with solutions to better protect against school shootings (any mass shootings) is to #remove our emotions #from the actual decision process. They may be good for the initial call to action, beyond that they always only cause more harm than good.
What are your thoughts and viewpoints on this issues? Please do share them; all are welcomed and wanted.