At the risk of having someone bite me in the ass . . .

1) I’m really glad the election stuff is over. While I don’t agree with some of Obama’s politics, I am really excited and proud of the country for what this means for our history. However, I am disgusted and saddened by those who would suggest that anyone who didn’t vote for Obama is racist, stupid and hateful. Apparently, we have forgotten that there were politics involved – we don’t all agree on politics. If we did there wouldn’t be two parties, bickering and fighting. Instead, we would all be holding hands, swaying from side to side and singing “I’d like to teach the world to sing.”

2) I don’t live in California anymore. I lived there the first time the Same-Sex Marriage issue was on the ballot. Of course, we all know what happened. Then a few judges basically made the ban on those marriages null and the assertion was it wouldn’t affect anyone but those who wanted to get married. Now it lands on the ballot again, has the same result and, of course, everyone is pissed. People who don’t support gay marriage are called bigoted and hateful. Is it really that black and white? I don’t think so.

If a person’s reason for being against same sex unions is for no reasons other than homophobia, then yes, it’s bigoted and hateful. If a person has a more well-thought out viewpoint it’s unreasonable and small-minded to consider them hateful and unfeeling. Though, I do admit, putting the fear of being called a bigot into someone can be enough to entice many people to keep their mouths shut, which is sad. One of the great beauties of this country is having the freedom to think and say what you please. Too often we try to silence the so-called haters with hate. It’s hypocritical.

So, that being said, here is where I’m at on the same-sex marriage issue. At first blush, I honestly couldn’t find any problem with it. Who am I to tell someone else what they can and can’t do in their private lives? The line that goes along with this issue is that it doesn’t hurt anyone and only involves those involved in the marriage. If that is true, then, sure, go for it. I have no issues. However, thinking about it further . . . what’s next . . . then I see some potential problems that really haven’t been addressed and will cause contention. As I get older I stop making snap opinions on issues I know little or nothing about until I have time to let that issue percolate and fester in my brain. I pick up things here and there and eventually I have an official opinion. I used to date someone who thought that everyone had to have an opinion about everything at all times or that person was stupid. He is starting to seem a little dumb to me now. Likewise, making opinions simply because it tows the line with a chosen political or social identity is the lazy way out. Does anyone agree wholeheartedly with liberalism or conservatism or Democratic or Republican principals? I seriously hope not, or that person isn’t being honest with himself – these are just titles – words – ideas created artifically to create a collective. We’re too individual for that to happen. In my experience, when that happens it’s a laziness or fear. I’ve been there. Usually when I refuse to listen to a specific politican’s speech or comentator on TV and there is a lot of pent up hate, it’s me manifesting my fear that person might say something I agree with which will disrupt my belief system. Boo!

Anyway, off the preaching stand now and back to my point. The pitfalls I see with same-sex marriage issues come from the promise that it won’t affect anyone else. How is that possible? It’s not. Very few things we do have no actual impact on anyone else. So, to suggest that this shouldn’t matter to anyone else is fairly short-sighted.

I recently read the story of an OBGYN in Los Angeles who was being sued for discrimination for declining to inseminate a newly-wed lesbian couple because it was in serious and direct opposition to his personal religious beliefs. He was willing to refer the couple to a doctor who would perform the procedure and he offered to provide care to them during the pregnancy. Not good enough. Where do we draw the line? If someone’s religious beliefs conflict with what I want them to do for me can I take them to court and force them to do so against their will or suffer the consequences? This is a real situation. It happened. I have read commentary by people on the web who think the lawsuit is ok saying “well, if I ran a business and refused to service Christians, would you think that’s ok.” It’s an interesting point.

If it’s ok to force a doctor to conduct an elective procedure that puts him in conflict with what he believes because it’s not fair to someone? Where do we, as a society, draw the line? Artificial insemination, abortion, euthanasia? Do you think I’m taking this too far? Think it through. You know human nature. We will sue for anything . . . and win. Just Google “frivolous lawsuits” to get an idea. And if the frivolous ones get through, consider that serious issues will make it through too.

Another case in Florida involved a lawsuit against a Catholic adoption agency that wouldn’t give a child to a gay couple. Should the Catholic Church be forced to adopt out children to gay couples? To the Catholic Church, homosexuality is a sin. They don’t consider it a wholesome thing. In the eyes of the Catholic Church, is homosexuality different from other “sinful” lifestyles? Not really. Would we get to the point where precident has been set and they are sued for refusing to give a single male who participates in bestiality a child? I’m not sure. It’s certainly possible. But homosexuality is more mainstream now. It’s normal. The other lifestyles are not normal . . . will they ever be?

How about forcing religious leaders to officiate gay marriages? Is that ok? How about suing because teaching that homosexuality is wrong is hate speech? What about the guy who sued the Bible publishers because the verses that call homosexuality a sin were against his constitutional rights and have caused him emotional pain and mental instability? Do we force the churches to stop teaching about homosexuality? Does it suddenly have to be ok?

I think this is a much more complicated issue than it appears on the surface. Many people are against it, not because they hate gay people, but because they recognize that it could change a lot of things that are important to them. Are they small-minded and hateful? No, they’re considering what they think might be the fallout and determining if they’re willing to accept it or not.

But Christina Aguilera says they’re hateful and small-minded. So it must be true. Another hilarious assertion is that the Mormon Church paid for the fight against the prop. Not really. I think the Church is acutely aware of the value of it’s tax-exempt status. I do think that California members of the church probably forked out a bunch of money, which is their right to do.

You make up your own mind. That’s what you’re supposed to do. Just make up your mind thinking the issue through and, regardless of your subsequent stance on the issue, rest well knowing that you made a thoughtful decision.

Memories of War

I saw my grandfather tonight.  I picked him up and drove him to my neice’s preschool program.  We laughed.  It was cute.  When we got back to his house, I asked if I could talk to him about something.  After many months of obvious blindness it all came together and dawned on me that a friend I care about very much might be suffering through the effects of his recent military service in Iraq.  I have spent the last few days learning as much as I can about PTSD and treatments. 

Because my grandfather served in WWII, Korea and Vietnam, I thought he might be able to give me some insight into how to help my friend.  All he could suggest was to be a good friend and a good listenter.  It’s good advice.  Then, he told me things I don’t think he has ever told anyone in the family before.  He won’t talk about his wartime stories unless they are funny stories – something I’ve noticed in other veterans. 

He told me he still sees their faces vividly.  He recounted being in Vietnam where he shot a man in the leg with a tracer round and could see it smoldeirng in the man’s leg.  The man was in pain and trying to scrape the round out of his flesh.  He told me about seeing the man who they shot with a machine gun – from the dirt on up the man’s body.

He told me about what it was like when his tank crashed through the gates of a concentration camp in Germany and what he saw, what he smelled.  They went to nearby homes and looted food and brought it back to the people in the camp.  He described the ovens and the bodies piled up next to them like cords of wood.

He can’t remember what he ate for lunch or where he went yesterday, but the memories of his combat experience are as vivid as they ever were.  I asked him if the memories of these things strike at random moments and if he is still having nightmares.  He said the frequency of the memories has diminished over time and that he is sleeping well.  Finally.  He is 83.

The grand finale of my neice’s preschool program was a patriotic number.  These innocent little children singing patriotic songs and waiving flags – I was having trouble holding back tears.  What have we become as a country.  Patriotism is not fasionable anymore.  People who put their lives on the line and ended up scarred by their trip through the “meat grinder” are not taken care of as they should be.  The things they have seen and endured most of us will never understand.  It’s heartbreaking.

Interesting Gun Facts: Part 2

“Assault Weapons” aka “Scary Black Guns”

BOO! Are you scared yet? Hahahaha

“Assault Weapon” is a misnomer used by gun control advocates and people who learned everything they know from TV news.  Please, unless you want to demonstrate to your friends that you have no idea what you’re talking about, try not to say assault weapon, assault rifle, assault pistol, etc.  Additionally, try your very hardest not to pontificate about how nobody needs an assault rifle.  That will make you sound even more biased and mis-informed. 

Check out this video by Officer Leroy Pyle of the San Jose, CA Police Department.  He gives a quick overview of the difference between fully automatic vs. semi-automatic and shows how the asthetic of the firearm itself influences news reports, public opinion and legislation.

IN REVIEW:

Semi-Automatic Rifles (not Assault Rifles, though your friendly neigborhood politicians would like you to believe otherwise.)  The first three rifles below are chambered in the same caliber – meaning they shoot the exact same bullets out the business end.  They also shoot only one round per trigger pull.  One of these looks scary.  The other one looks generic.  The third . . . you decide.

AR-15 (scary black gun)

Grandpa’s Rifle (not scary black gun)

Pink AR-15: Same as the “Scary Black Gun,” only pink.  Let this roll around in your mind:  why is the black one the one that’s targeted by lawmakers when it’s really the same as any other .223 rifle?  Also, before you go and get all upset that this deadly object looks like a toy, it was painted by a man for his ADULT wife who keeps it in her safe and shoots it at the range.  Children don’t play with this gun, nor are they manufactured for sale.  Please, try to keep from peeing yourself on this one.  Also, any comments left by people who did not read this post or any other accurate info on guns and just want to spout ignorance will quickly be deleted.  Check out http://www.riflegear.com for more info on this pink rifle.

Fully Automatic AK-47 (more truly identified as an assault rifle).  These are limited to military, police and civilians who have gone through extensive background check process.  Very few reports of this gun used in crime – they are EXPENSIVE to obtain and own.

Semi-Automatic AK-47.  Don’t let looks deceive.  This is NOT the same gun as the one above.  This firearm fires only one round per trigger pull.  It is more similar to the first two firearms than the one above it even though cosmetically, it’s the most similar to the fully auto AK-47.

Got it?  Good!  Now promise never to discuss assault weapons in ignorance again!

Interesting Gun Facts: Part 1

Did you know that in order to purchase a gun from a store (federally licensed firearms dealer) the buyer must submit to a federal background check?  This applies to all federally licensed firearms dealers – at gun shows or at the local gun shop.

What this means: criminals don’t buy guns from firearms dealers – only those with very clean records can purchase firearms from dealers.  The Brady Bill the posession of firearms for any individual who:

• is convicted of a felony
• is under indictment for a felony, but has not gone to court
• is the unlawful user of a controlled substance
• is drug dependant
• is adjudicated mentally defective or been committed to a mental institution
• is an illegal or unlawful alien in the Untied States
• is dishonorably discharged from the military
• has renounced citizenship of the United States
• is subject to court order restraining them from harassing, stalking or threatening another (i.e. spouse, former spouse, cohabitant, former cohabitant or child of such partner)
• cannot prove residency with proper identification
• has any warrant
• any domestic violence conviction
• been convicted as a juvenile for an offense which would have been a felony if committed by an adult (within last 10 years)

It is illegal for anyone who fits any one of the above criteria to own a firearm – any kind of firearm, rifle, shotgun, handgun, machine gun.  They’re all off limits.

I mentioned earlier that any firearms dealer must complete a background check on the purchaser before completing the sell.  The ”gunshow loophole” spoken of by politicians and gun-control advocates refers to the private sell of firearms.  This has little or nothing to do with gunshows, but it sounds really cool.  Soundbites are cool!

Why not restrict private sell of firearms?  Well, because it’s already illegal for one of the people mentioned above to own a firearm.  It’s also illegal to knowingly sell a firearm to one of those people.  Many law-abiding individuals who sell firearms privately are very careful about such sales.  Why does anyone need to sell a gun privately you ask?  I ask why does anyone sell a car.  They’re not using it anymore.  Maybe it’s a model they don’t enjoy shooting, or they want a newer better version.  Luckily, we can sell things we don’t want anymore in this country.  Gun control advocates would like that ability stripped from Joe Hunter down the street or from Sally Target Shooter.  However, like most gun control laws, restrictions on private firearms sales only adds extra steps to the process for law abiding people.  Criminals are criminals and won’t follow that law either.

So, my solution?  I propose that this country actually start enforcing the laws we have.  Punnish criminals and let them serve full and complete sentences.  I recently heard about an early release program to ease crowding in prisons and jails.  I’m not the world’s most brilliant person, but even I can understand that placing more laws and burden on the law abiding while simultaneously enhancing the criminal’s ability to commit crime is not an effective plan.

Next time: The truth about “Assault Weapons” aka “Scary Black Guns”

Why Obama’s Comments Were Offensive

I don’t think anyone is too concerned about the discussion of the downtrodden being bitter.  I heard Obama talk about this in the debate yesterday – he was hung on the “bitter” aspect.

The really offensive thing is the suggestion that poor people “cling” to guns and religion and xenophobia because they are bitter and let down by the government.  That’s the offensive part.  That’s the part he is missing.

Maybe in his church bitterness works to draw people in.  Sermons about how the government craps on you would certainly appeal to the bitter masses.  However, I just don’t think a generalization that poor people are religious because the world has crapped on them is in touch with reality and that’s where Obama’s problem lies.

Wake up people!  This man is a WEENER!  I’ll say it again  – WEENER.

Did I Mention . . .

That Barack Obama is a weener?  Oh, yeah.  I already did – a few times.

This guy is a little lot out of touch with what life is in average, every-day America.  I have so much to say on this topic, but frankly don’t have the energy.  Let me add one other thing, Michelle Obama is a weeneress.

 

Did I Mention That Obama is a Weener?

It’s true. 

 

On a Related Note to Scary Realizations

This was reported yesterday in the Niles Michigan Daily Star.   Creepy.  Things like this is why I was freaking out the other night.  Smart woman for having her shotgun at the ready. 

Suspects caught in April Fool twist reported in the Niles Michigan Daily Star

Thursday, April 3, 2008 10:44 AM EDT

NILES – Three suspects received an April Fool’s Day surprise as they attempted to break into a home on Range Line Road.

At approximately 1:20 p.m. on Tuesday, April 1, a home owner called 911, saying the back door of her residence was kicked in, according to the Michigan State Police Niles Post.

Apparently a female suspect had knocked on the door and when no one answered, two male suspects allegedly attempted a home invasion.

Three suspects from Indiana were arrested and are suspected in several other home invasions in Southeast Berrien County.

The 36-year-old female homeowner had armed herself with a shotgun for protection, when she heard the suspects prepare to enter her residence.

“The tables were turned on these thieves when they were surprised by the armed homeowner,” said Tpr. Mike McCarthy of the Niles Post.

The north Berrien County 911 center broadcast the call and description of the suspects’ vehicle, which was intercepted on Old 31 by deputies and troopers.

Stolen property was found in the vehicle which was linked to previous home invasions.

Arrested for felony home invasion were Daniel L. Sizemore, 28; Phillip J. Chappell, 29 and Andrea L. Bachleda, 27, all of South Bend, Ind.

They were lodged at the Niles City Jail and arraigned in the 5th District Court and their bond was set at $50,000.

The Berrien County Sheriff’s Department assisted with the investigation. Other area home invasions are expected to be cleared with the arrests of these suspects.

Scary Situation, Scarier Realizations

Creepy Creeperton Update

Ok – so I decided to post an update about what happened the other night since my friends are reading and wondering if I’m still alive.    Thanks to those of you who care!

Nobody came back to my place that night.  After talking to some more security minded/police officer types that the new thing in home invasion around here is as follows:  a woman (creepy was a very large Polynesian woman) knocks on a door.  Homeowner answers door and the woman distracts the homeowner or pushes into the home.  Partners in crime, usually one or more men, force their way into the home and rob homeowner at gunpoint.  Nice, eh? 

I also found out that there is a Polynesian female/Black male crime team doing just this in the area.  Scary.  I’m so glad I kept that door shut.  I’m still annoyed with myself for not being armed properly.  That’s changed effective yesterday.

 Anyway – I’m fine just a little shaken.

One final point: Barack Obama is a weener and I have no idea what Hillary is.  But . . . watch this video cuz it’s funny and “snipery.”  There’s another one where they make it look like John McCain is farting (cuz that’s what old farts do) - it was funny, I’ll try to find it. 

Times Square Blast

I was watching CNN this morning doing their report on the bomb that went off in Times Square.  I’m thinking, great, here we go – living a life like people in the UK were living in the 80s and 90s.  Bombs going off everyday somewhere.  They said it was at a military recruiting office and I began to wonder if it was a disgruntled soldier or the loved one of an injured or killed soldier.  Then I started thinking was it someone completely against the war?  You know, people who justify acts of terrorism as free speech – Earth Liberation Front for instance.

They reported that there was a man acting suspiciously on a bike wearing a hoodie.  But that’s the extent of the physical description they gave.  Perplexing.  Generally the physical characteristics are given to assist in finding the person of interest.  Hair, complexion, build, etc.  Makes me wonder if this person was not not the garden variety American description – male, white or black, 5′ 11”, 180 lbs.    Maybe he looked Middle Eastern and the people writing the news story decided to take the politically correct high road and omit that information.  I hope that’s not the case.  I actually hope that nobody saw the face of the man on the bike and they couldn’t give a complete physical description.  I will be very disappointed if there is a physical description and CNN, for one reason or another, did not report it.