Come on people! Sure Bristol Palin can't dance. Her improvement at dancing can only honestly state that she has come up from total embarrassment to making anyone paying attention wince in pain and embarrassment for her because of her stiffness, her missed steps, and her lack of rhythm. I state this as someone who has bad back, bad knees, and no recognizable sense of rhythm brought up Southern Baptist and not allowed to dance. That means I recognize one of my own, the people who should not be allowed to dance in public as our awfulness could potentially cause the Universe to end.
Just because calling Bristol Palin a “star” is stretching things all out of shape is no reason to hate her. Her mother is no reason to hate her. That her mother shamelessly uses Bristol for her selfish political aspirations is reason to disapprove of Sarah not Bristol. If you really can’t stand the sight of Bristol stumping around on a dance floor don’t watch, and flood ABC’ e-mail and phone lines about never watching their crappy show again and encourage all your friends and family to do the same. The real key is getting people to stop watching the show. I guarantee you that a significant drop in ratings tied to Bristol Palin and she will be voted off next.
Instead people keep watching and complaining, but the key is watching and increasing ABC’s viewing shares. As long as your continued bad behavior keeps making money for them they will continue to promote controversial non-stars and keep them in the running.
The part that bothers me the most are the delusional people who are voting for Bristol and think all of us are “Haters” when if anything we are annoyed at being forced to endure more of Sarah Palin when she should have just dropped off the face of the earth after being the number one reason for John McCain loosing in 2008. (Note, McCain probably would still have lost, Sarah and her words and behavior just turned it into an embarrassing defeat for Republicans in general.)
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Blago mostly gets off...
That is because Fitzgerald wasn't able to indict Blago for being nutty as a fruit cake.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Gay Marriage and other alternate marriages
I heard something absolutely amazing today. I heard that polygamy causes issues. I am assuming emotional issues. Basically we should not have polygamy because it will harm society. If a man has ten wives then there are nine young men who won't be able to find a wife to marry. I think she is unaware of the slightly higher number of marriageable women than men.
Can the arguments against polygamy and bigamy get any more ... "Gay?"
I believe that bigamy, polygamy and gay marriage are wrong. I also believe that it is wrong for our government to deny consenting adults to enter into legal partnerships because people like me are bigoted and morally restrictive.
The Fourteenth amendment grants "Equal Protection" under the law. Unless someone can prove that a particular situation or relationship(s) are inherently harmful to society and individuals then under the Constitution they should not be banned. I can see cigarettes and alcohol banned from women who could potentially get pregnant before determining that every single relationship of a certain type is harmful. That isn't a road any one should desire.
To say that these other relationships that I believe to be immoral are harmful...
I remember hearing that homosexuality was an illness a mental illness that needed to be healed sometimes with barbaric and ultimately futile treatments. I have heard that gay parents are harmful to the children exposed to gay relationships. I have heard that it turns the kids gay.
I have heard lots of stuff that is total crap expressed as an absolute given that any reasonable person would have to accept as the absolute truth. Now that it looks like we will be getting legal marriages between consenting homosexuals I find it absolutely laughable (but not in a good way) that now proponents of Gay Marriage want to use the same half truths and lies that were used against homosexuals to marginalize them being used because they want to refute and refuse marriage to other people who would quite naturally want to get their lifestyles approved and legalized too.
Can the arguments against polygamy and bigamy get any more ... "Gay?"
I believe that bigamy, polygamy and gay marriage are wrong. I also believe that it is wrong for our government to deny consenting adults to enter into legal partnerships because people like me are bigoted and morally restrictive.
The Fourteenth amendment grants "Equal Protection" under the law. Unless someone can prove that a particular situation or relationship(s) are inherently harmful to society and individuals then under the Constitution they should not be banned. I can see cigarettes and alcohol banned from women who could potentially get pregnant before determining that every single relationship of a certain type is harmful. That isn't a road any one should desire.
To say that these other relationships that I believe to be immoral are harmful...
I remember hearing that homosexuality was an illness a mental illness that needed to be healed sometimes with barbaric and ultimately futile treatments. I have heard that gay parents are harmful to the children exposed to gay relationships. I have heard that it turns the kids gay.
I have heard lots of stuff that is total crap expressed as an absolute given that any reasonable person would have to accept as the absolute truth. Now that it looks like we will be getting legal marriages between consenting homosexuals I find it absolutely laughable (but not in a good way) that now proponents of Gay Marriage want to use the same half truths and lies that were used against homosexuals to marginalize them being used because they want to refute and refuse marriage to other people who would quite naturally want to get their lifestyles approved and legalized too.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
gay marriage whats it all about?
George Takai married his long time boyfriend. Heterosexual marriage crumbles...
Or did it?
civil union vs gay marriage
I had been told that civil unions were basically marriage. If the information on the link above is correct that is almost correct which means not really true.
Disclaimer time...
One of my nephews is openly gay, a fact that I was unaware of until I heard that my sister had kicked him out of her home, for that and apparently other reasons. She apparently does not even acknowledge him as her son on Facebook. My brother as an early teen was sexually assaulted multiple times by a man claiming to be gay. My brother currently is an inmate in a Texas prison pretty much because of the same person who attacked my brother perjuring himself to avoid going to prison for another crime. I was brought up very religiously, Southern Baptist, and for several years thought I would be a Youth pastor or maybe a preacher. I spent significant amounts of time over three years working at a Mission Center. To say that I am conflicted about this subject is an understatement.
I believe that it is unfair and uncharitable to deny two people who love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives with each other the legal protections of marriage. It puts undue burden on them financially to get a lawyer to give them the same protections and Civil Unions do not extend past state borders.
It is also STUPID to blindly assert that allowing Gay Marriage would not open the door to other types of marriage currently not allowed. The people who use this argument state it poorly. Let me try to put it in prospective. If we decide that two men can marry each other or two women, why not let bi-sexual people in consensual and knowledgeable relationships with two other people the same "Equal Protection" provided by certain interpretations of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. Why don't we allow marriage between two men and one women or vice versa? If group marriages are allowed there should always be a baby sitter available, and one person losing a job has far less of a financial impact if there are multiple partners working. Any type of relationship has problems, and people will emphasis or deemphasis those problems based on what they want to "prove."
At what point, if we allow gays to marry each other, and then allow bisexuals, then group marriages, who do we say "no" to? Most countries do not accept teen-agers as non-adults. Most less technologically advance nations can't afford to allow potentially productive people to not work. Here in the U.S. except in Mississippi you generally have to be 16 years or older to get married. Mississippi Marriage Laws
In Texas, where I grew up that would be statutory rape if the male was at least 18 years old. So just to put this in perspective, because of the way our laws are written forty-nine states MUST accept as legal a marriage in Mississippi if the couple moves to another state what amounts to a minor being forced into marriage before she would be able to make a mature reasoned decision, but two grown adults can get a Civil Union in one of I believe three states only to be unmarried if they exit the state in which they were joined.
The real problem is that it really isn't about marriage. It is about being forced to accept something that many people do not want to accept. Laws should be made to force people to accept that people can be joined together even when others do not approve, but the laws need to be written in such a way that it is clear that this is only a legal/government decision and that it does not and cannot force people to change their religious beliefs or tolerate immoral behavior within their own religious structure.
Note some religious organizations accept homosexual relationships and that is fine. God and time will determine whether acceptance or failure to accept any one behavior is the correct path to take. I would also like to state that Biblically speaking, homosexuality when it is mentioned specifically largely seems to point to groups of young men in gangs forcing themselves on others and then killing them. Whatever Gay Marriage is really about for those who are gay, I'm pretty sure that rape and murder of strangers is NOT what they are seeking to legalize.
Or did it?
civil union vs gay marriage
I had been told that civil unions were basically marriage. If the information on the link above is correct that is almost correct which means not really true.
Disclaimer time...
One of my nephews is openly gay, a fact that I was unaware of until I heard that my sister had kicked him out of her home, for that and apparently other reasons. She apparently does not even acknowledge him as her son on Facebook. My brother as an early teen was sexually assaulted multiple times by a man claiming to be gay. My brother currently is an inmate in a Texas prison pretty much because of the same person who attacked my brother perjuring himself to avoid going to prison for another crime. I was brought up very religiously, Southern Baptist, and for several years thought I would be a Youth pastor or maybe a preacher. I spent significant amounts of time over three years working at a Mission Center. To say that I am conflicted about this subject is an understatement.
I believe that it is unfair and uncharitable to deny two people who love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives with each other the legal protections of marriage. It puts undue burden on them financially to get a lawyer to give them the same protections and Civil Unions do not extend past state borders.
It is also STUPID to blindly assert that allowing Gay Marriage would not open the door to other types of marriage currently not allowed. The people who use this argument state it poorly. Let me try to put it in prospective. If we decide that two men can marry each other or two women, why not let bi-sexual people in consensual and knowledgeable relationships with two other people the same "Equal Protection" provided by certain interpretations of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. Why don't we allow marriage between two men and one women or vice versa? If group marriages are allowed there should always be a baby sitter available, and one person losing a job has far less of a financial impact if there are multiple partners working. Any type of relationship has problems, and people will emphasis or deemphasis those problems based on what they want to "prove."
At what point, if we allow gays to marry each other, and then allow bisexuals, then group marriages, who do we say "no" to? Most countries do not accept teen-agers as non-adults. Most less technologically advance nations can't afford to allow potentially productive people to not work. Here in the U.S. except in Mississippi you generally have to be 16 years or older to get married. Mississippi Marriage Laws
In Texas, where I grew up that would be statutory rape if the male was at least 18 years old. So just to put this in perspective, because of the way our laws are written forty-nine states MUST accept as legal a marriage in Mississippi if the couple moves to another state what amounts to a minor being forced into marriage before she would be able to make a mature reasoned decision, but two grown adults can get a Civil Union in one of I believe three states only to be unmarried if they exit the state in which they were joined.
The real problem is that it really isn't about marriage. It is about being forced to accept something that many people do not want to accept. Laws should be made to force people to accept that people can be joined together even when others do not approve, but the laws need to be written in such a way that it is clear that this is only a legal/government decision and that it does not and cannot force people to change their religious beliefs or tolerate immoral behavior within their own religious structure.
Note some religious organizations accept homosexual relationships and that is fine. God and time will determine whether acceptance or failure to accept any one behavior is the correct path to take. I would also like to state that Biblically speaking, homosexuality when it is mentioned specifically largely seems to point to groups of young men in gangs forcing themselves on others and then killing them. Whatever Gay Marriage is really about for those who are gay, I'm pretty sure that rape and murder of strangers is NOT what they are seeking to legalize.
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Jesus wasn't advocating pacifism
http://www.communitychristian.org/
It has been said that we humans, all animals have two main responses to conflict, Fight or Flight.
I had always understood the following verses to mean Christians should be pacifists. We should just stand and take it.
Mathew 5
An Eye for an Eye
38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'[g] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.
I had always taken these verses to indicate that we should not fight back. I learned today in a sermon titled "Big Buts of the Bible" Jesus was advocating a third way.
It turns out that Jesus was advocating acting in a way that the person who acted aggressively would be bringing shame on himself if he were to continue the abuse.
Check out this sermon "Big Buts of the Bible" from the church website if you get a chance.
http://www.communitychristian.org/
It has been said that we humans, all animals have two main responses to conflict, Fight or Flight.
I had always understood the following verses to mean Christians should be pacifists. We should just stand and take it.
Mathew 5
An Eye for an Eye
38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'[g] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.
I had always taken these verses to indicate that we should not fight back. I learned today in a sermon titled "Big Buts of the Bible" Jesus was advocating a third way.
It turns out that Jesus was advocating acting in a way that the person who acted aggressively would be bringing shame on himself if he were to continue the abuse.
Check out this sermon "Big Buts of the Bible" from the church website if you get a chance.
http://www.communitychristian.org/
Saturday, July 31, 2010
The Christian Government Part 6
I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
A true Christian Government would still have a need for prisons. Those prisons would probably have two types. A reform prison for people who have committed relatively minor crimes. They would be for people who had slipped through the cracks and needed training of some kind to be able to adjust to the peaceful society in which they lived.
The other type of prison would be one to hold people who had no desire for redemption. It would not be a place of torture. It would not be a death mill. It would be for hold people for the rest of their lives or a change of heart. As long as there is life there is a chance for redemption. Only God has the right to punish. Only God knows for sure who will never turn to HIM.
That being said, those being held to keep them from harming the weak and poor would be unlikely to seek redemption outside of punishment. They would need good examples of why redemption is desirable. They would need to know that people love and forgive them.
Prisons might very well have to carry some kind of punishment. The punishment given in prison would have to be just and not cruel or revenge for the crime. The visiting prisoners in prison is a sign of comforting those who are in need of comfort.
A true Christian Government would still have a need for prisons. Those prisons would probably have two types. A reform prison for people who have committed relatively minor crimes. They would be for people who had slipped through the cracks and needed training of some kind to be able to adjust to the peaceful society in which they lived.
The other type of prison would be one to hold people who had no desire for redemption. It would not be a place of torture. It would not be a death mill. It would be for hold people for the rest of their lives or a change of heart. As long as there is life there is a chance for redemption. Only God has the right to punish. Only God knows for sure who will never turn to HIM.
That being said, those being held to keep them from harming the weak and poor would be unlikely to seek redemption outside of punishment. They would need good examples of why redemption is desirable. They would need to know that people love and forgive them.
Prisons might very well have to carry some kind of punishment. The punishment given in prison would have to be just and not cruel or revenge for the crime. The visiting prisoners in prison is a sign of comforting those who are in need of comfort.
Friday, July 30, 2010
The Christian Government Part 5
I was sick and you looked after me
A Christian Government would have health care as a non-profit program that would provide the best care for every person that was possible. That is not to say that no one would ever die because of illness. Part of the visit would merely be for comforting the ill.
The only way to afford that health care would be to share the cost among everyone. The reason is obviously that everyone could get sick or be hurt. Health care for all would exist because in this messed up world we grow and become more Christlike be helping each other. We would do it out of love.
I am not certain that an actual organization would be able to do this other than by action. The people who were within the government would have to provide the "in Spirit and Truth."
A Christian Government would have health care as a non-profit program that would provide the best care for every person that was possible. That is not to say that no one would ever die because of illness. Part of the visit would merely be for comforting the ill.
The only way to afford that health care would be to share the cost among everyone. The reason is obviously that everyone could get sick or be hurt. Health care for all would exist because in this messed up world we grow and become more Christlike be helping each other. We would do it out of love.
I am not certain that an actual organization would be able to do this other than by action. The people who were within the government would have to provide the "in Spirit and Truth."
Thursday, July 29, 2010
The Christian Government Part 4
I needed clothes and you clothed me
Imagine a government that was so Christlike it provides clothing for those who do not have them. I really don't know what to add to this. Would the government have factories to produce clothing? Would they just buy it? Does that part matter? I'm not sure.
Having met a few homeless people I can say that I have not noticed our government doing anything to clothe people who need clothes. People who do help those in need often work for local volunteer organizations. Many of those are religious and often do not meet Federal guidelines to receive Federal aid. Lets turn the separation of Church and State into something that hurts the poor. I'm sure that was what our Founding Fathers meant to do.
On a side note, I have a solution to the illegal immigrant problem. Fine the people who hire the illegal immigrants. Make the fine twice what it would cost them to hire a legal worker either a citizen or someone with a green card. Offer rewards to the illegals that would make it worth while to them to turn in the people who hire them illegally. Take the rewards from the fines. Limit the number of times one person can receive the reward if you feel you have that need.
That would take care of the illegal alien issue fairly shortly as they are here because people will pay them better than they would be paid where they came from. Use some of the money from the fines to help the countries from which the illegals are coming from to help them create jobs that pay well to help them stay at home.
Imagine a government that was so Christlike it provides clothing for those who do not have them. I really don't know what to add to this. Would the government have factories to produce clothing? Would they just buy it? Does that part matter? I'm not sure.
Having met a few homeless people I can say that I have not noticed our government doing anything to clothe people who need clothes. People who do help those in need often work for local volunteer organizations. Many of those are religious and often do not meet Federal guidelines to receive Federal aid. Lets turn the separation of Church and State into something that hurts the poor. I'm sure that was what our Founding Fathers meant to do.
On a side note, I have a solution to the illegal immigrant problem. Fine the people who hire the illegal immigrants. Make the fine twice what it would cost them to hire a legal worker either a citizen or someone with a green card. Offer rewards to the illegals that would make it worth while to them to turn in the people who hire them illegally. Take the rewards from the fines. Limit the number of times one person can receive the reward if you feel you have that need.
That would take care of the illegal alien issue fairly shortly as they are here because people will pay them better than they would be paid where they came from. Use some of the money from the fines to help the countries from which the illegals are coming from to help them create jobs that pay well to help them stay at home.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
The Christian Government Part 3
I was a stranger and you invited me in
A Christian government would take strangers in...
I see this section of a verse as applied to the world today meaning we would help people who are different from us. Directly it would mean giving them a place to live, a home if you will, shelter if actually taking someone into your own house is beyond what you are presently able to give. Adding this to the feeding and giving the thirsty something to drink sounds like what some might call welfare for illegal aliens.
I believe this goes two steps further than that. It would also mean giving these strangers a chance to earn a living by giving them jobs and paying them enough that they could support themselves without suffering abject poverty. If this were not also part of Jewish law and custom Boaz probably never would have met Ruth. They would not have had Obed who was the father of Jesse,who had King David from whom the Savior sprang.
I'm going to leave you with two more words that show that this country is not in any way shape or form willing to follow this vital example of what Christianity means...
Arizona
Utah
A Christian government would take strangers in...
I see this section of a verse as applied to the world today meaning we would help people who are different from us. Directly it would mean giving them a place to live, a home if you will, shelter if actually taking someone into your own house is beyond what you are presently able to give. Adding this to the feeding and giving the thirsty something to drink sounds like what some might call welfare for illegal aliens.
I believe this goes two steps further than that. It would also mean giving these strangers a chance to earn a living by giving them jobs and paying them enough that they could support themselves without suffering abject poverty. If this were not also part of Jewish law and custom Boaz probably never would have met Ruth. They would not have had Obed who was the father of Jesse,who had King David from whom the Savior sprang.
I'm going to leave you with two more words that show that this country is not in any way shape or form willing to follow this vital example of what Christianity means...
Arizona
Utah
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
The Christian Government Part 2
I missed the thirsty and gave you drink. This can still work.
One thing that really irritates me is not the sudden abundance of Natural gas but the method in which it it retrieved. There are parts of this country where people get their water from water wells. Some parts of the country that water has been polluted by a proprietary process that has made the Corporation Haliburton another fortune. A movie called gas land covers this story.
This was not the movie I wanted but it does point out some of the issues with our dependence on fossil fuels.
The movie I was looking for has a man who goes to some of the areas in this country where Haliburton has polluted local water tables so that water straight from the tap is flammable.
We as God's children were, according to the Bible, given dominion over the Earth to take care of it and the creatures on it, under it, and over it. Wiping out large areas of life, destroying delicate ecosystems, and doing it to enrich a small group of people that own a corporation that then is moved to another country primarily to avoid rendering to Cesar the things that are Cesar's does not exemplify the Christian spirit. A Christian government would no allow the irresponsible destruction for profit that multi-national corporations wreak in the name of what can reasonable be seen as obscene.
Back to more relevant topics for this set of verses next.
One thing that really irritates me is not the sudden abundance of Natural gas but the method in which it it retrieved. There are parts of this country where people get their water from water wells. Some parts of the country that water has been polluted by a proprietary process that has made the Corporation Haliburton another fortune. A movie called gas land covers this story.
This was not the movie I wanted but it does point out some of the issues with our dependence on fossil fuels.
The movie I was looking for has a man who goes to some of the areas in this country where Haliburton has polluted local water tables so that water straight from the tap is flammable.
We as God's children were, according to the Bible, given dominion over the Earth to take care of it and the creatures on it, under it, and over it. Wiping out large areas of life, destroying delicate ecosystems, and doing it to enrich a small group of people that own a corporation that then is moved to another country primarily to avoid rendering to Cesar the things that are Cesar's does not exemplify the Christian spirit. A Christian government would no allow the irresponsible destruction for profit that multi-national corporations wreak in the name of what can reasonable be seen as obscene.
Back to more relevant topics for this set of verses next.
Monday, July 26, 2010
The Christian Government Part 1
Many people claim that the US government was built on "Christian" principles. This is not even close to being true. No government despite claims of Christianity has ever been built on Christian ideals. I am not sure that it is even possible for an entire nation to be truly Christian. There are issues with things like turning the other cheek when attacked that are incompatible with survival of a country against an aggressor nation. At what point do you defend yourself, or is it only allowable to defend the weak and helpless? Those that don't work don't get to eat, but what about people who can't work for some reason. That would have to be reason for not working not excuse. That also applies mainly to those within the church. What do you do with those who live in your nation who are not Christian? There are many issues that would come up that make it difficult if not impossible for an entire nation to be Christian or be built on Christian principles.
I am Choosing Mathew 25 vs 31-46 to base this on. I do this because it is:
A. Jesus speaking
B. Jesus telling his followers who gets into heaven
C. It isn't people who self identify as Christians but people who live in spirit and in truth as God would have us do.
Criteria number 1. Feed the hungry. Any Christian government would have the obligation to feed those who do not have food. They must also do it willingly or it may not count.
If a local area is unable to provide good healthy food for all of the people that live there, the government based on Christian principles, would need to find ways to shift good healthy food around. No one should go hungry when there is enough food for all. Feeding people garbage would not count unless poor quality food was all that was available.
I will continue with other criteria that show that we as a nation are not Christlike at all in later posts.
I am Choosing Mathew 25 vs 31-46 to base this on. I do this because it is:
A. Jesus speaking
B. Jesus telling his followers who gets into heaven
C. It isn't people who self identify as Christians but people who live in spirit and in truth as God would have us do.
Criteria number 1. Feed the hungry. Any Christian government would have the obligation to feed those who do not have food. They must also do it willingly or it may not count.
If a local area is unable to provide good healthy food for all of the people that live there, the government based on Christian principles, would need to find ways to shift good healthy food around. No one should go hungry when there is enough food for all. Feeding people garbage would not count unless poor quality food was all that was available.
I will continue with other criteria that show that we as a nation are not Christlike at all in later posts.
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Global Warming
Why all the anger towards the people, many of them very smart people, many very well educated people some of whom are scientists with Climate science being in there field of study or relevant to their livelihood?
Even if you believe that Global Warming is all a hoax what is wrong with new technologies being studied? Cars buildings and equipment being made more energy efficient is not a bad thing. Cleaner air and water is ALWAYS a good thing.
Conserving fossil fuels is not a bad thing. Making rich people or huge corporations move out of their comfort zones and make things better for everyone is not a bad thing.
Having solar panels on your roof generating electricity is good. Wind mills that generate power means that less ecological damage is done to the environment.
Who wants to look at slag heaps or breathe in polluted air?
Even if you believe Global Warming is Junk science, who does it really harm to act responsibly toward the world God has given us to be caretakers?
Even if you believe that Global Warming is all a hoax what is wrong with new technologies being studied? Cars buildings and equipment being made more energy efficient is not a bad thing. Cleaner air and water is ALWAYS a good thing.
Conserving fossil fuels is not a bad thing. Making rich people or huge corporations move out of their comfort zones and make things better for everyone is not a bad thing.
Having solar panels on your roof generating electricity is good. Wind mills that generate power means that less ecological damage is done to the environment.
Who wants to look at slag heaps or breathe in polluted air?
Even if you believe Global Warming is Junk science, who does it really harm to act responsibly toward the world God has given us to be caretakers?
Gay Marriage
The fight over Gay marriage is not really about over whether or not gays and lesbians can or even should get married. It will have no effect whatsoever on heterosexual marriage for good or ill, with the possible exception that if marriage for homosexuals were legal all over this country possibly some people would not marry members of the opposite sex for the benefits marriage gives. I am making the assumption that people who are homosexual might marry a member of the opposite sex.
The entire fight is over making open homosexuality acceptable in our society or taking away what rights homosexuals have earned, fought for or been given to this point.
If homosexuals truly just wanted to be legally married then Civil Unions would be the way to go. They are marriages in all but the use of the word marriage. It would still be possible to have ceremonies within church buildings where the church members were OK with certain lifestyles if a church ceremony was desired. All benefits of marriage would apply such as hospital visitation, inheritance etc...
On the other side, only cruel and hateful people would deliberately keep people who loved each other from being able to spend their lives together. It takes a special kind of hate, or crazy greed, to deny a person medical care just because they act in a certain way. That is they would be cruel and hateful if they were doing it deliberately to hurt people. Instead I believe that they do it out of fear and ignorance.
Civil Unions should be allowed throughout the US where the people who live in an area decide it is acceptable. Where it is not allowed, those areas should still be made to accept it the same way a state that does not allow marriage between people under say the age of 18 years of age, still would be forced to accept the marriage of a couple where one or more of the people was under the age of 18 but legally able to be married in another state, (for example Alabama allows marriage with parental consent at age 14) in which the marriage was performed.
Why someone would want to live in an area where the majority of the local population hated or feared them would be a separate issue all together.
The entire fight is over making open homosexuality acceptable in our society or taking away what rights homosexuals have earned, fought for or been given to this point.
If homosexuals truly just wanted to be legally married then Civil Unions would be the way to go. They are marriages in all but the use of the word marriage. It would still be possible to have ceremonies within church buildings where the church members were OK with certain lifestyles if a church ceremony was desired. All benefits of marriage would apply such as hospital visitation, inheritance etc...
On the other side, only cruel and hateful people would deliberately keep people who loved each other from being able to spend their lives together. It takes a special kind of hate, or crazy greed, to deny a person medical care just because they act in a certain way. That is they would be cruel and hateful if they were doing it deliberately to hurt people. Instead I believe that they do it out of fear and ignorance.
Civil Unions should be allowed throughout the US where the people who live in an area decide it is acceptable. Where it is not allowed, those areas should still be made to accept it the same way a state that does not allow marriage between people under say the age of 18 years of age, still would be forced to accept the marriage of a couple where one or more of the people was under the age of 18 but legally able to be married in another state, (for example Alabama allows marriage with parental consent at age 14) in which the marriage was performed.
Why someone would want to live in an area where the majority of the local population hated or feared them would be a separate issue all together.
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Amazing Republican crimes vs Democratic crimes
I don't know what Charley Rangel is guilty of, or should I use the word alleged to have done? I find it difficult to believe that what ever he is being accused of doing is worse than Tom Delay who tried to hijack the state of Texas from a representative electorate by gerrymandering the state to skew even more toward Republicans during a non-census year. He did that using funds that were federal elections. Bill Clinton, after Republicans abused their power and spent over $50 million tax-dollars, was found guilty of perjury. George W. Bush, I can't even begin to list all the things he is guilty of, in part because it is difficult to tell if he knowingly broke all the laws he broke, or if he is a world class idiot who didn't realize that practically every other thing he did was at least borderline illegal.
And yet, it was Bill Clinton that was impeached. Oh well, I guess only Democrats are guilty or at least have to pay for their crimes while Republicans, at least in Republican minds are inocent even when proven guilty. After all, according to Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, Breitbart must have been setup with that video which clearly didn't show what he passed it off as saying.
And yet, it was Bill Clinton that was impeached. Oh well, I guess only Democrats are guilty or at least have to pay for their crimes while Republicans, at least in Republican minds are inocent even when proven guilty. After all, according to Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, Breitbart must have been setup with that video which clearly didn't show what he passed it off as saying.
Friday, July 23, 2010
fixing the economy
Here is a semi-simple solution to resolving the current economic crisis.
Have the government buy land and buildings all over the country that banks are just sitting on. Use powers of eminent domain or whatever to get it. Then employ people without jobs using those properties in Green enterperises. Make solar cells, wind turbines, wave energy machines in the buildings. For the undeveloped land use it to grow plants that can make bio-fuels. Grow bamboo and use inplace of 2x4's where appropriate in construction.
Place the wind turbines that the government is having made placed on that land to generate electricity. Place the solar cells along our highway medians. Put the wave energy turbines along parts of our coast that don't have high value and population.
Turn the running of these buildings and farms over to local governments to take care of their local populations. Don't tax them at all or lightly tax them for a period of five years if they end up turning a profit. Let the locals keep the money at work in thier own communities to create more jobs with the limitation that the money must be kept within their own county or city and must be owned and operated by the people working in them.
Create electricity generating plants that burn bio-diesel, and create a car company or three that only make inexpensive reliable electric cars that are geared towards large city driving. Give the younger unemployed people who are working on these farms and in the buildings credits toward a paid education in engineering, farming etc... that is geared towards training these people to become green engineers and farmers if they are interested.
Over time this program will pay for itself. It will have people working instead of collecting unemployment checks which seems to irk Republicans. It will take money away from China and from countries that are sponsoring terrorists. It will create jobs, and energy that does not harm our world. It will keep some money out of the hands of greedy useless fatherless children who believe that we should meekly had over everything to the rich (them) and in circulation locally. It will keep money out of the hands of greedy bankers who would rather the whole world fails than that they have less money with which to play their little games of world domination with real peoples lives.
Where the feces hits the Oscillating Rotor.
Have the government buy land and buildings all over the country that banks are just sitting on. Use powers of eminent domain or whatever to get it. Then employ people without jobs using those properties in Green enterperises. Make solar cells, wind turbines, wave energy machines in the buildings. For the undeveloped land use it to grow plants that can make bio-fuels. Grow bamboo and use inplace of 2x4's where appropriate in construction.
Place the wind turbines that the government is having made placed on that land to generate electricity. Place the solar cells along our highway medians. Put the wave energy turbines along parts of our coast that don't have high value and population.
Turn the running of these buildings and farms over to local governments to take care of their local populations. Don't tax them at all or lightly tax them for a period of five years if they end up turning a profit. Let the locals keep the money at work in thier own communities to create more jobs with the limitation that the money must be kept within their own county or city and must be owned and operated by the people working in them.
Create electricity generating plants that burn bio-diesel, and create a car company or three that only make inexpensive reliable electric cars that are geared towards large city driving. Give the younger unemployed people who are working on these farms and in the buildings credits toward a paid education in engineering, farming etc... that is geared towards training these people to become green engineers and farmers if they are interested.
Over time this program will pay for itself. It will have people working instead of collecting unemployment checks which seems to irk Republicans. It will take money away from China and from countries that are sponsoring terrorists. It will create jobs, and energy that does not harm our world. It will keep some money out of the hands of greedy useless fatherless children who believe that we should meekly had over everything to the rich (them) and in circulation locally. It will keep money out of the hands of greedy bankers who would rather the whole world fails than that they have less money with which to play their little games of world domination with real peoples lives.
Where the feces hits the Oscillating Rotor.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Christian? Right, I don't think so ...
http://www.thirdage.com/news/glenn-beck-discusses-macular-dystrophy-his-potentially-blinding-eye-disorder_7-22-2010
Glenn Beck going blind ...
"Lord, if you need my eyes,"
He also does this Christmas sweater story. Ann Coulter says we should invade all Muslim countries and force all of them to convert to Christianity. Every Christmas you will hear major Right wing commentators decrying the "war on Christmas." A war that exists but has nothing to do with what they are ranting about "happy Holidays" versus "Merry Christmas." It has more to do with the commercialization of Christmas.
Glenn Beck recently said all Liberals and Progressives are enemies of God. That or it might have been the reverse God is their enemy.
I will agree that there is a war on Christians and that many people who are "Liberal" or "Progressive" are going to end up somewhere other than Heaven. That has nothing to do with their political leanings and everything to do with them CHOOSING not to give their lives to God.
Christians are not perfect and never will be. That being said, there are two things that are indispensable to Christianity, the first is love(1 Corinthians 13) for everyone even your worst enemies. The second is forgiveness especially your worst enemies( read Luke 10 especially the Good Samaritan.) There are of course other better verses dealing with forgiveness. Matthew 5:23, 38-48.
Part of the process of BEING Christian is asking for forgiveness. Since we can't truly be perfect we must be willing no matter how much it hurts to ask for forgiveness from those we hurt. We also need to repent of our sin, which basically means STOP doing it!
Why is it that after Fox and Breitbart smeared the reputation of Shirley Sherrod with an edited tape they cannot seem to find the ability to ask her for forgiveness and admit that what they did was not only wrong it was an attack on Christ, Christianity, and from the whole tape it is evident that Shirley is a Christian. In part, they are fortunate, Shirley has to forgive them. Unfortunately for them it speaks strongly against them actually knowing and having a personal relationship with God. It also makes Mr. Beck an enemy of God...
This is where the Feces hits the Oscillating Rotor. :)
Glenn Beck going blind ...
"Lord, if you need my eyes,"
He also does this Christmas sweater story. Ann Coulter says we should invade all Muslim countries and force all of them to convert to Christianity. Every Christmas you will hear major Right wing commentators decrying the "war on Christmas." A war that exists but has nothing to do with what they are ranting about "happy Holidays" versus "Merry Christmas." It has more to do with the commercialization of Christmas.
Glenn Beck recently said all Liberals and Progressives are enemies of God. That or it might have been the reverse God is their enemy.
I will agree that there is a war on Christians and that many people who are "Liberal" or "Progressive" are going to end up somewhere other than Heaven. That has nothing to do with their political leanings and everything to do with them CHOOSING not to give their lives to God.
Christians are not perfect and never will be. That being said, there are two things that are indispensable to Christianity, the first is love(1 Corinthians 13) for everyone even your worst enemies. The second is forgiveness especially your worst enemies( read Luke 10 especially the Good Samaritan.) There are of course other better verses dealing with forgiveness. Matthew 5:23, 38-48.
Part of the process of BEING Christian is asking for forgiveness. Since we can't truly be perfect we must be willing no matter how much it hurts to ask for forgiveness from those we hurt. We also need to repent of our sin, which basically means STOP doing it!
Why is it that after Fox and Breitbart smeared the reputation of Shirley Sherrod with an edited tape they cannot seem to find the ability to ask her for forgiveness and admit that what they did was not only wrong it was an attack on Christ, Christianity, and from the whole tape it is evident that Shirley is a Christian. In part, they are fortunate, Shirley has to forgive them. Unfortunately for them it speaks strongly against them actually knowing and having a personal relationship with God. It also makes Mr. Beck an enemy of God...
This is where the Feces hits the Oscillating Rotor. :)
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Racist activists misusing statistics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_skin_color
If you do a search on the NAACP resolution against racist elements within the Tea-Party movement you will get a mind blowing burst of racism and hatred... from the people making posts. I believe that would prove the NAACP's point about racism.
In the two wikipedia links I placed at the top I did a little informal research on skin color. I was surprised to read about some pseudoscience about a theory called "Melanin Theory" that larger amounts of darker melanin makes you smarter and that "white" people were deliberately developing drugs to target people of darker skin. I also read some really racist and as far as I can tell pretty much completely wrong hate mongering posts.
Other than the pseudoscience "Melanin theory" I saw nothing claiming that the color of your skin makes you smarter or better in any useful way that even tried to be scientific.
One poster trotted out statistics that he or she claimed came from the FBI stating that significantly more African-Americans statistically speaking were in prison than those of other races. You do not have to go to the FBI for statistics like that, those facts are fairly common knowledge.
They have nothing to do with skin color and everything to do with wealth, education, and what your job title is, who you hang out with, etc...
In other words cultural conditions.
Kenneth Lay CEO of Enron died while vacationing after being convicted of 10 counts of security fraud and related charges. sentenced to between 20 and 30 years in prison. I don't believe he served even a single day in prison and after his death his case was vacated by the presiding judge. Lay's family kept most of the fortune he stole as he went about defrauding everyone around him.
Don Blankenship CEO of Massey Energy killed 29 people in one explosion. He has killed other people through greed and negilgence. He did so, not with a gun or a knife but with greed. He could be charged with involuntary manslaughter but will in all likelyhood end up dieing an insanely wealthy man in his own bed never having served a day in prison. Google Coal, Massey Energy
Tony Hayworth CEO of BP wants his life back. He only killed 11 people so far with this current disaster. I don't know how many other deaths can be attributed to him with his preferred weapon of greed. those dead people are just as dead and as premeditated as a convenience store robbery gone bad. When you cut safety corners you are saying I care more for my personal wealth than I do for the health, safety and lives of my employees, my customers, and the poor people who just happen to have the misfortune to be in the wrong place when the feces hits the Oscillating Rotor.
Rolondo Cruz was guilty, of greed. He fabricated a story about evidence regarding the brutal rape and death of a little girl to try to collect a $10,000 reward. Not only was the story not believed, the police decided Rolando and Alejandro Hernandez were guilty of the crime without any evidence. There were lies under oath, some people call that perjury. There was a confession, by Brian Dugan who actually did kill the little girl. There were multiple trials and multiple convictions all without any evidence of Cruz and Hernandez being guilty of anything other than lying to try to get a reward. They were convicted each time and given the death penalty and would have been executed if a Dupage County Judge hadn't finally found some sanity and acquitted the two defendants on the basis of recanted testimony from a police officer who had perjured himself, DNA evidence clearing Cruz and Hernandez and proving Brian Dugan was guilty and the lack of any substantiated evidence against the two defendants.
O. J. Simpson, managed to get off on a poorly run murder trial, lost a civil trial taking every last penny he hadn't managed to hide to a a man crying crocodile tears over a son he had apparently disowned. Now O. J. Simpson, rightly or wrongly, will serve every day of the rest of his life in prison in a travesty of justice over an attempt to collect personal belongings that he claimed had been stolen from him. Simpson may have killed two people. I think he did, but not by himself. He is being punished not for the crimes that can be "proven" but for the earlier murders that the L. A. police force and the prosecution messed up.
The facts are indisputable that if you are African-American, especially if you live in a poor section of town, and you are suspected of committing a crime you are far more likely to go to prison or get executed than a rich white man. If you get caught with enough marijuana on your person to be considered a dealer you will go to jail and the public defender you get to protect your legal rights won't even half try to get you off. If you are wealthy and have a "respectable" job you will have a high priced bunch of lawyers and you will probably never go to prison. The prosecution can have enough evidence to prove your guilt many times over and odds are the rich guy will walk away with a substantial amount of his wealth and little to no jail time. That even is making the assumption that the rich guy is even brought to trial. Rich white women are more likely to get jail time. Remember Martha Stewart?
It infuriates me when I read or hear about people using statistics and then putting their own spin on what those statistics really mean. Yes, I know I have done pretty much the same thing here with my post. I however, am not saying the black men are more likely to be criminals because they have more Melanin than white people. I am saying that our society makes victims of people often on a basis of skin color or lack of wealth while letting people who went to the "right" schools or have lots of commas in their bank statement on the asset side not only don't pay a debt to society for their crimes, they often don't even get official recognition of their lawlessness.
As a Christian, I say that one day all of these people will kneel before Christ. I cannot tell you the names of those who will be taken into Heaven versus the names of those who will choose to spend eternity in Hell.
I can tell you that without repenting of their sins and loving and forgiving EVERYONE it does not matter what their bank account says or where they went to school.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_skin_color
If you do a search on the NAACP resolution against racist elements within the Tea-Party movement you will get a mind blowing burst of racism and hatred... from the people making posts. I believe that would prove the NAACP's point about racism.
In the two wikipedia links I placed at the top I did a little informal research on skin color. I was surprised to read about some pseudoscience about a theory called "Melanin Theory" that larger amounts of darker melanin makes you smarter and that "white" people were deliberately developing drugs to target people of darker skin. I also read some really racist and as far as I can tell pretty much completely wrong hate mongering posts.
Other than the pseudoscience "Melanin theory" I saw nothing claiming that the color of your skin makes you smarter or better in any useful way that even tried to be scientific.
One poster trotted out statistics that he or she claimed came from the FBI stating that significantly more African-Americans statistically speaking were in prison than those of other races. You do not have to go to the FBI for statistics like that, those facts are fairly common knowledge.
They have nothing to do with skin color and everything to do with wealth, education, and what your job title is, who you hang out with, etc...
In other words cultural conditions.
Kenneth Lay CEO of Enron died while vacationing after being convicted of 10 counts of security fraud and related charges. sentenced to between 20 and 30 years in prison. I don't believe he served even a single day in prison and after his death his case was vacated by the presiding judge. Lay's family kept most of the fortune he stole as he went about defrauding everyone around him.
Don Blankenship CEO of Massey Energy killed 29 people in one explosion. He has killed other people through greed and negilgence. He did so, not with a gun or a knife but with greed. He could be charged with involuntary manslaughter but will in all likelyhood end up dieing an insanely wealthy man in his own bed never having served a day in prison. Google Coal, Massey Energy
Tony Hayworth CEO of BP wants his life back. He only killed 11 people so far with this current disaster. I don't know how many other deaths can be attributed to him with his preferred weapon of greed. those dead people are just as dead and as premeditated as a convenience store robbery gone bad. When you cut safety corners you are saying I care more for my personal wealth than I do for the health, safety and lives of my employees, my customers, and the poor people who just happen to have the misfortune to be in the wrong place when the feces hits the Oscillating Rotor.
Rolondo Cruz was guilty, of greed. He fabricated a story about evidence regarding the brutal rape and death of a little girl to try to collect a $10,000 reward. Not only was the story not believed, the police decided Rolando and Alejandro Hernandez were guilty of the crime without any evidence. There were lies under oath, some people call that perjury. There was a confession, by Brian Dugan who actually did kill the little girl. There were multiple trials and multiple convictions all without any evidence of Cruz and Hernandez being guilty of anything other than lying to try to get a reward. They were convicted each time and given the death penalty and would have been executed if a Dupage County Judge hadn't finally found some sanity and acquitted the two defendants on the basis of recanted testimony from a police officer who had perjured himself, DNA evidence clearing Cruz and Hernandez and proving Brian Dugan was guilty and the lack of any substantiated evidence against the two defendants.
O. J. Simpson, managed to get off on a poorly run murder trial, lost a civil trial taking every last penny he hadn't managed to hide to a a man crying crocodile tears over a son he had apparently disowned. Now O. J. Simpson, rightly or wrongly, will serve every day of the rest of his life in prison in a travesty of justice over an attempt to collect personal belongings that he claimed had been stolen from him. Simpson may have killed two people. I think he did, but not by himself. He is being punished not for the crimes that can be "proven" but for the earlier murders that the L. A. police force and the prosecution messed up.
The facts are indisputable that if you are African-American, especially if you live in a poor section of town, and you are suspected of committing a crime you are far more likely to go to prison or get executed than a rich white man. If you get caught with enough marijuana on your person to be considered a dealer you will go to jail and the public defender you get to protect your legal rights won't even half try to get you off. If you are wealthy and have a "respectable" job you will have a high priced bunch of lawyers and you will probably never go to prison. The prosecution can have enough evidence to prove your guilt many times over and odds are the rich guy will walk away with a substantial amount of his wealth and little to no jail time. That even is making the assumption that the rich guy is even brought to trial. Rich white women are more likely to get jail time. Remember Martha Stewart?
It infuriates me when I read or hear about people using statistics and then putting their own spin on what those statistics really mean. Yes, I know I have done pretty much the same thing here with my post. I however, am not saying the black men are more likely to be criminals because they have more Melanin than white people. I am saying that our society makes victims of people often on a basis of skin color or lack of wealth while letting people who went to the "right" schools or have lots of commas in their bank statement on the asset side not only don't pay a debt to society for their crimes, they often don't even get official recognition of their lawlessness.
As a Christian, I say that one day all of these people will kneel before Christ. I cannot tell you the names of those who will be taken into Heaven versus the names of those who will choose to spend eternity in Hell.
I can tell you that without repenting of their sins and loving and forgiving EVERYONE it does not matter what their bank account says or where they went to school.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
NRA alternate acronyms
Not Responsible Adults
Nearly Retarded and Armed
No Reading Allowed
Noxious Ranting A**holes
Remember Guns don't kill people, People kill people ... with GUNS!
Amendment 2 Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Imagine, if you will, a world in which the exact literal interpretation, with no rational thought, of this amendment is honored.
Everyone would have to be part of a well regulated militia. In this time, in this country, that means if you have a gun you would have to be part of the National Guard. You would be encouraged to own a gun and ammunition. This ownership would be for the purpose of protecting the city and the state in which you lived. The obvious correct meaning of this amendment is that the state does not want the expense of or the danger of a standing army. The state does desire that it be protected without a huge onerous burden being placed on the citizens as a whole.
Everyone could have a gun or guns who wanted one of whatever type, the obvious inference being get what you can afford. No provision is being made in this amendment for stopping mentally unstable people from getting guns. It does not stop ex-convicted felons from owning firearms. No exclusion is made for teenage children because at the time they would have been considered at least partially to be adults. The only limiting condition here is that the person has to be able to get a firearm on his or her own. The purpose of this amendment, as clearly stated, is really for the "security of a free State" this is to be done by not infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.
The NRA and other unreasonable people want to ignore the clearly stated purpose of this amendment. Think about some of the wonderful situations we would have with any or even everybody carrying as many weapons as possible, especially concealed weapons any time and any place. Some will claim it is for personal protection, which is not part of the wording of this amendment. I heard on a radio talk show one gun owner irritated that Illinois state law prevents him from shooting someone who in a hypothetical situation did not have a gun and was attempting to steal the gun owner's property outside of the owner's home. This goes beyond self defense and goes straight to the Wild West of a previous era. Has this guy so little concern for Human life that he values his personal possessions which can be protected by the police, insurance, or even recovered more than a person whose life can not really be replaced? I have been robbed before and I understand the sense of violation that being robbed can give. It still is not worth a human life. How about allowing guns into the courtroom. How well would justice be served if both sides in the proceeding were armed and under the fallacious self protection concept able to sway the court with their weapons. In fact why don't we just abolish the courts and have people settle their differences with guns? Does that sound like fun? If adolescents were able to carry weapons in school but not required to register their weapons or be forced to take training classes imagine the fun in a Columbine type situation. Remember the Virginia Tech Shootings? Lets put hundreds of scared armed and in many cases completely untrained people in a dangerous situation. Police would be unable to help with minor situations because they would need all of the firepower and training to take down major criminals. We would be required to police ourselves with our own weapons. The people most likely to have the most weapons would be the people least likely to be someone who should be trusted to have any weapons. Yet according to the wording of the amendment and the deliberate misunderstanding by gun nuts they would allow people many lacking in principals or in valuing human life to carry any type of weapon any where they want.
The gun rights people will tell you that only gun ownership is important with this amendment. They ignore the militia part and claim it is talking about personal protection. It is not! Then some of them infringe on the rights of those who have paid their debts to society (ex-convicted felons) or the mentally unstable who have just as much right as anyone else to protect themselves. Consistency from people who don't comprehend what they read is probably not something that can reasonably be expected. Note I am not FOR arming ex-cons or mentally or emotionally unstable people.
Many years ago, I worked at a Mission Center in Houston. Twice knives were pulled in my presence. We in the center were able to get the young men to leave the center property no guns required. Once, a couple of guys tried to steal a car from the center parking lot. After we called the police a few of the workers whom I was responsible for disobeyed me and went out to find out what was going on. I followed them to get them to come back inside. I told them to leave the broken car that was in the lot alone. As I was trying to get them to get back in I got separated from the rest of the center workers. When I got back to the front of the lot two people were at the car that did not belong. I walked toward them to remind them that I had told them to leave the car alone. It turned out to be the two guys that had been trying to steal a car. One of them had a gun. It was dark and I had extremely poor vision at the time. If I had been in possession of a gun I probably would have missed my target and who knows what or whom I would have hit. If he fired back who knows who he would have hit. I was able to convince the guys to leave the center lot without shooting anyone. As they were pushing their broken car out of the lot all the teen aged boys in the center came out to help me. As one of them said they can't shoot all of us. We were lucky that none of us were shot. Think about how bad it could have been if they had come charging out of the house into the dark with guns blazing to "protect me." How many people would have been hurt by untrained individuals without a clue firing wildly in a situation that had up to that point been handled without any guns being fired.
Some people many of whom are NRA members and spokespeople for that organization want to give guns with no restrictions to any untrained idiot around. Some of the restrictions that these people in the NRA are suing Chicago and or Illinois over are apparently three day waiting periods, permits to carry concealed weapons, and a requirement of a firearms safety training course and weapons training. These are all reasonable requirements similar in effect to the limits put on the first amendment right of free speech such as you are not allowed to yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre when there is no fire. You are not allowed to yell hijack in an airport or on a plane. There are limits to an individual telling lies to harm another person's reputation.
If the NRA can not be trusted to accept reasonable limits for the common good of our society we as a nation need to revise our Amendments to the Constitution to keep them from harming our society by forcing us into an insane and irresponsible interpretation of our second amendment rights to keep and bear arms.
P.S. This goes for the ACLU and their less than intelligent all out defense of Free speech rights in many cases completely in defiance of logical thought.
Nearly Retarded and Armed
No Reading Allowed
Noxious Ranting A**holes
Remember Guns don't kill people, People kill people ... with GUNS!
Amendment 2 Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Imagine, if you will, a world in which the exact literal interpretation, with no rational thought, of this amendment is honored.
Everyone would have to be part of a well regulated militia. In this time, in this country, that means if you have a gun you would have to be part of the National Guard. You would be encouraged to own a gun and ammunition. This ownership would be for the purpose of protecting the city and the state in which you lived. The obvious correct meaning of this amendment is that the state does not want the expense of or the danger of a standing army. The state does desire that it be protected without a huge onerous burden being placed on the citizens as a whole.
Everyone could have a gun or guns who wanted one of whatever type, the obvious inference being get what you can afford. No provision is being made in this amendment for stopping mentally unstable people from getting guns. It does not stop ex-convicted felons from owning firearms. No exclusion is made for teenage children because at the time they would have been considered at least partially to be adults. The only limiting condition here is that the person has to be able to get a firearm on his or her own. The purpose of this amendment, as clearly stated, is really for the "security of a free State" this is to be done by not infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.
The NRA and other unreasonable people want to ignore the clearly stated purpose of this amendment. Think about some of the wonderful situations we would have with any or even everybody carrying as many weapons as possible, especially concealed weapons any time and any place. Some will claim it is for personal protection, which is not part of the wording of this amendment. I heard on a radio talk show one gun owner irritated that Illinois state law prevents him from shooting someone who in a hypothetical situation did not have a gun and was attempting to steal the gun owner's property outside of the owner's home. This goes beyond self defense and goes straight to the Wild West of a previous era. Has this guy so little concern for Human life that he values his personal possessions which can be protected by the police, insurance, or even recovered more than a person whose life can not really be replaced? I have been robbed before and I understand the sense of violation that being robbed can give. It still is not worth a human life. How about allowing guns into the courtroom. How well would justice be served if both sides in the proceeding were armed and under the fallacious self protection concept able to sway the court with their weapons. In fact why don't we just abolish the courts and have people settle their differences with guns? Does that sound like fun? If adolescents were able to carry weapons in school but not required to register their weapons or be forced to take training classes imagine the fun in a Columbine type situation. Remember the Virginia Tech Shootings? Lets put hundreds of scared armed and in many cases completely untrained people in a dangerous situation. Police would be unable to help with minor situations because they would need all of the firepower and training to take down major criminals. We would be required to police ourselves with our own weapons. The people most likely to have the most weapons would be the people least likely to be someone who should be trusted to have any weapons. Yet according to the wording of the amendment and the deliberate misunderstanding by gun nuts they would allow people many lacking in principals or in valuing human life to carry any type of weapon any where they want.
The gun rights people will tell you that only gun ownership is important with this amendment. They ignore the militia part and claim it is talking about personal protection. It is not! Then some of them infringe on the rights of those who have paid their debts to society (ex-convicted felons) or the mentally unstable who have just as much right as anyone else to protect themselves. Consistency from people who don't comprehend what they read is probably not something that can reasonably be expected. Note I am not FOR arming ex-cons or mentally or emotionally unstable people.
Many years ago, I worked at a Mission Center in Houston. Twice knives were pulled in my presence. We in the center were able to get the young men to leave the center property no guns required. Once, a couple of guys tried to steal a car from the center parking lot. After we called the police a few of the workers whom I was responsible for disobeyed me and went out to find out what was going on. I followed them to get them to come back inside. I told them to leave the broken car that was in the lot alone. As I was trying to get them to get back in I got separated from the rest of the center workers. When I got back to the front of the lot two people were at the car that did not belong. I walked toward them to remind them that I had told them to leave the car alone. It turned out to be the two guys that had been trying to steal a car. One of them had a gun. It was dark and I had extremely poor vision at the time. If I had been in possession of a gun I probably would have missed my target and who knows what or whom I would have hit. If he fired back who knows who he would have hit. I was able to convince the guys to leave the center lot without shooting anyone. As they were pushing their broken car out of the lot all the teen aged boys in the center came out to help me. As one of them said they can't shoot all of us. We were lucky that none of us were shot. Think about how bad it could have been if they had come charging out of the house into the dark with guns blazing to "protect me." How many people would have been hurt by untrained individuals without a clue firing wildly in a situation that had up to that point been handled without any guns being fired.
Some people many of whom are NRA members and spokespeople for that organization want to give guns with no restrictions to any untrained idiot around. Some of the restrictions that these people in the NRA are suing Chicago and or Illinois over are apparently three day waiting periods, permits to carry concealed weapons, and a requirement of a firearms safety training course and weapons training. These are all reasonable requirements similar in effect to the limits put on the first amendment right of free speech such as you are not allowed to yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre when there is no fire. You are not allowed to yell hijack in an airport or on a plane. There are limits to an individual telling lies to harm another person's reputation.
If the NRA can not be trusted to accept reasonable limits for the common good of our society we as a nation need to revise our Amendments to the Constitution to keep them from harming our society by forcing us into an insane and irresponsible interpretation of our second amendment rights to keep and bear arms.
P.S. This goes for the ACLU and their less than intelligent all out defense of Free speech rights in many cases completely in defiance of logical thought.
Saturday, July 3, 2010
I am an Anti-Republican. When responding to questions about "personal" values I consistently end up right of center.
At the same time I believe that government should be run by people who want to help everyone or at least help as many as possible of the people that elected them to office. The Republican party does not seem to have a clue about what representative government is about. They, and by they I mean the leadership within that party, will vote in lockstep for whatever the party platform of the moment happens to be. They will do so no matter how many of their constituents they hurt. They make ridiculous analogies (come on now, the current financial crises is an ant, and the watered down legislation being brought to correct the current financial excess is a Nuclear weapon), they tell out right falsehoods (President Obama is a Racist because he hates "White" people this week and "Black" people the next. Pick a color for him to hate and "conservatively" stick to it.)
Many may make the argument that others do so as well. That is true, but I am not aware of those others as a general rule claiming to be on God's side then doing just the opposite of what Jesus would do or say.
This is why when I vote I always look to see if a Republican is running and if they are opposed by any other party. Which usually means the Democratic party. I then vote for whoever is opposing the Republican. If a Republican is not running in a race I skip that office.
At the same time I believe that government should be run by people who want to help everyone or at least help as many as possible of the people that elected them to office. The Republican party does not seem to have a clue about what representative government is about. They, and by they I mean the leadership within that party, will vote in lockstep for whatever the party platform of the moment happens to be. They will do so no matter how many of their constituents they hurt. They make ridiculous analogies (come on now, the current financial crises is an ant, and the watered down legislation being brought to correct the current financial excess is a Nuclear weapon), they tell out right falsehoods (President Obama is a Racist because he hates "White" people this week and "Black" people the next. Pick a color for him to hate and "conservatively" stick to it.)
Many may make the argument that others do so as well. That is true, but I am not aware of those others as a general rule claiming to be on God's side then doing just the opposite of what Jesus would do or say.
This is why when I vote I always look to see if a Republican is running and if they are opposed by any other party. Which usually means the Democratic party. I then vote for whoever is opposing the Republican. If a Republican is not running in a race I skip that office.
I rant all of the time. I can't seem to help it. I have strong feelings about things that I see and hear and I just have to share those feelings.
In hopes of saving my wife's sanity I am giving her a break and trying to share them with anyone out there that just might be interested, Here's hoping that you are inspired, amused, and maybe even educated. If not, then I hope you have a wonderful day anyway...
In hopes of saving my wife's sanity I am giving her a break and trying to share them with anyone out there that just might be interested, Here's hoping that you are inspired, amused, and maybe even educated. If not, then I hope you have a wonderful day anyway...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)