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.

Let me start by saying this is not to insult anyone, their beliefs or their profession.  I just need to vent my thoughts and this is my space to do it.  If you don’t like what I have to say, that’s great.  Keep it to yourself or go to your own space in the world and put it there.  Here is the encapsulation of what has me mad in one handy image.  If you want to buy a shirt or something from this person, go ahead it’s on Cafe Press under Community Organizer.  I don’t advocate it for the reasons I’ll outline below, but you’re a thinking individual and can do what you like.

I’m getting fired up watching these political games.  I haven’t officially registered for any political party.  I am listed as “unaffiliated.”  To me, that means that when an election or a referendum comes along I wait, watch, research, and then make a decision on who/what to vote for according to the option that best suits my personal view of the world.  I vote for blind to political party because I’m voting on issues.  That said, I feel obligated to inform any reader of this piece that as I’ve aged I’ve noticed myself adopting a more conservative world view over time.  This is completely opposite to the registered Democrat I was in college. 

Basically, right now, I’m watching this election unfold and I don’t like what I see.  What has me fired up right now is this continuing “community organizer” crap.  The way I saw it unfold was as such:

Early on brief questioning of what a community organizer is. 

Palin was announced as Republican VP candidate.

Barack Obama (I heard it with my own ears) said she was a just a mayor from a small town with just 9,000 people.

People get momentarily annoyed with the seeming marginalization of small town folks.

Palin takes the stage and responds to Obama’s comment saying she guesses a mayor of a small town is like a community organizer, but with responsibilities.

Down rains fire and brimstone.  Jesus was a community organizer, Pilate was a governor.  Blah Blah Blah.  I’ve seen people creating these nifty little avatars with photos of famous “community organizers” such as John Lennon, Mother Teresa, Ghandi, Martin Luther King, George Washington, etc.

People, let it go.  Barack Obama dished it out, let him take it and let it blow over.  None of the people above they’re listing were “community organizers” based on Obama’s own description of the work he did in that job, and to suggest as much is reducing the contribution some of those people made (I’m excluding John Lennon because I don’t know what they’re smoking, but come on!) 

So, I’m annoyed that people seem to miss the fact that Obama started the whole little argument and now everyone is all up in a fury about people being mean to a community organizer.

Then, I see a bumper sticker on CafePress with a picture of Jesus that says “Jesus was a community organizer.”  Guess what people – JESUS WAS NOT A COMMUNITY ORGANIZER.  Community Organizer is a job someone gets paid to do.  Jesus, at least in my view, was the Son of God.  At the moment I saw that bumper sticker it dawned on me just how ridiculous this whole thing is.  Someone thinks “let’s put a picture of Jesus up there with pictures of Obama, Mother Teresa, George Washington, etc, and call them community organizers.”  None of them, no matter how great, can even be compared to Christ.  And Barack Obama doesn’t hold a candle to any one of them.  He is not on their level.  Some day he might be, but he isn’t now, and he certainly isn’t on par with Christ.

I’m offended by this whole thing and what chaps my hide even more is that this whole “Jesus was a community organizer” crap was started by some preacher.  Annoying.

On further reflection in my anger last night I realized that these people are using the term “community organizer” for anyone who led a group of people and caused change.  Let me say it again, community organizer is a job people do.  Many of the people they are calling community organizers were reformers, politicians, religious leaders – not hired community liasons.  Using their criteria, I started thinking about all the other community organizers of this world: David Koresh, Jim Jones, Charles Manson, Adolf Hitler, Edgar Ray, etc. 

Why, they’re community organizers, too.    You know, I was at the dog park and got to know some people there.  My dog is a community organizer – he facilitated community relationships in an open, friendly setting.  People have said community organizers don’t do anything, but I love my dog, so stop being mean to my dog and saying he was worthless.  He was a community organizer just like Jesus.  Stupid, I know.

Ok – I’m done.  I’ve said it.  But for those who are slow – Jesus was not a community organizer, he was a carpenter, rabi, Prophet, Son of God.  Obama is no Jesus.  Please make it stop.

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.

It’s true – I read it on the web.  Try to Google: “Guns Kill People”  I did and what I found was astounding.  Right now I’m staring down my own gun wondering when it’s going to jump up and kill me once and for all.   I wonder if it has some secret plot.  A plot created in the dead of night, deep inside the closet along with the other guns.

Glock: “Pst . . . Remintgon, wake up!  I have a plan.

Walther: “Wha . . . who’s there?”

Glock: “Shhhh you idiot.  I have a plan for  our escape.” 

Remington: “Let’s hear it you gorgeous polymer genius.”

Glock: “We need to prepare ourselves.  Make sure you eat  . . . fill yourselves up good – preferably with Gold Dot and you Remington, load up with slugs.  Then, we wait.  We wait for that woman to open the closet door and when she does . . . we all shoot and run.  Run, run like the wind.  Run for gun freedom out into open where we will liberate other imprisoned guns and start an army that will kill people!”

Bersa: “¡Tranquilidad! Usted ha disturbado mi sueño.”

Yes!  I can see it now.  I’m going to stop their plans to overthrow my rule.  Those jerks!

As you can see, I’m not quite sure what to do.  My guns are plotting to kill me and possibly many others.  I think they’re probably hoarding ammo somewhere. 

I am so glad I did that Google search or I would not know that guns kill people.  I can’t believe that we allow psychopathic, murderous firearms in people’s homes.  Terrifying!  Up until just today I have never been afraid of my own guns turning their awesome power against me.    I live with four murderous psychopaths.  They must be stopped.

During my web searching, I read so much uninformed information about guns, gun laws and gun users that it’s more disturbing to me than the four guns in this house that want me dead.  Here are some fun quotes:

Published in US News, April 14, 2007, “Guns Kill People, Period.”

The Second Amendment, a biblical passage to its followers, may give a right to bear arms. It does not, however, give a license to kill. Try telling it to the NRA.

That is absolutely ridiculous.  I wonder if the writer of this marvelous passage, John W. Mashek, knows that killing people is illegal.  Hmmm . . . killing is not a right protected by the Constitution.  But, because some people kill, we should just white out parts of the Constitution that the founders of this country found so important?  Because some people smoke pot and call it religion or like to marry little girls should we do away with the first ammendment right to freedom of expression?  NO!  We punnish the pot smokers and little girl marriers and leave the good, honest, law-abiding citizens to think, say and do as they please.  Great idea.

Published in http://www.blogsandiego.com/guns_kill.html, October 3, 2006 “Yes NRA, Guns DO Kill People”

Speaking of how his father died “He was helping in an FBI investigation about how weapons were being modified to become fully automatic when one of the firearms did just that. So when I say guns kill people, I know what I’m talking about. Come on folks! Think this through. Don’t believe the hype of the NRA when they tell you that it’s not the guns. It is the guns.”

I feel sad that this person lost a loved one.  However, guns are inanimate things and the don’t just “go off.”  An animate object must be present to activate the mechanism in the inanimate object to make it fire.  Really, it’s not the guns.  I’ve had one sitting here on my coffee table all night and it hasn’t moved one inch.  It’s the people who use the guns for ill that are the problem.  It’s the people who drive drunk that are the problem, not the car. 

Published in http://www.anorak.co.uk/twitterings/172597.html, April 17, 2007 “Guns Kill People – Virginia Tech“

What I would like is for the gun-toting right wing to admit that there is a price we pay, that senseless accidental deaths and traumas are a national cost and that it’s not so clear that it’s worth it, but hey, we pay it anyway because so many guns are in the hands of so many people that there would never be any getting rid of them.

I would like the right wing to admit that guns are not “good” and that the right to bear arms is not an absolute virtue and that the deaths in the US caused by guns are at least as problematic, philosophically, as abortion. But I’m not holding my breath.”

First – this came from the UK.  That’s all I need to say, but I can’t help myself:

1) “gun toting right wing” Guess what?  There’s a gun-toting left wing, too.  Guns are non-partisan and plenty of liberals are in favor of gun rights. (Point of interest: I haven’t asked my murderous psychotic guns which party they belong to . . . yet!)

2) “senseless accidental deaths and traumas are a national cost”  True!  A whopping 789 people die a year from firearms accidents.  Those are tragic deaths, to be sure.  However, we don’t need to spend tens of billions of dollars creating legislation and programs to stop those deaths.  250 or so of those accidental firearms deaths were children.  Again, a tragedy.  But, more children die from burns or in swimming pool accidents in on year.  According to AAA, 7,475 children are treated in hospitals for injuries sustained when run over in their own driveways.  Approximately 230 children die each year from driveway backovers.  Sad and senseless.  Read more about this in my post The New Utopia Vehicle Ban Program – Phase 1 in My Plan to Stop Dying

3) “so many guns are in the hands of so many people that there would never be any getting rid of them”  I agree with the writer here.  Which is exactly why putting restrictions on the law-abiding isn’t going to solve crime.

4) “I would like the right wing to admit that guns are not “good” and that the right to bear arms is not an absolute virtue and that the deaths in the US caused by guns are at least as problematic, philosophically, as abortion. But I’m not holding my breath”  I will not admit that guns are not good.  They are just fine in the right hands.  Many Americans believe strongly in the words of our Constitution.  The inherent human right of self-defense is not granted by virtue of the Constiution, merely upheld by it.  Again, deaths are not caused by guns.  “Problematic, philosophically” . . . the problem is our inability to uphold our own laws and punnish criminals.  It’s kind of a different issue than abortion.  Abortion is something many people feel strongly about, but is not generally related to crime prevention – which is what gun control is about, isn’t it?  Or is it just about the control?

Published in http://www.ihateitall.com/bm/politics/guns-really-do-kill-people.shtml, April 17, 2007, “Guns Really Do Kill People”

This one has a little potential, but is missing the mark just a bit.  I like statistics, but for me, this person put a stump in the road while talking firearms DEATH statistics that show only 1.4% of firearms fatalities during the time period he is working with were self-defense related.  He surmises that:

In fact, someone is four times more likely to be accidently killed by a hand gun than saved from attack by one.

My problem with this is that most self-defense cases involving firearms don’t involve a death.  Sometimes, criminals choose to abort their mission when they see a victim is armed.  According to the Clinton Administration’s own statistics, firearms are used in self-defense situations at least 1,000,000 per year.  Some studies say more, some say less.  Regardless, approximately 1,000,000 is a lot.  When you consider that gun crimes kill about 12,000 people per year . . . oh, I don’t know . . . you do the math.  This leads me to believe that people who use guns for self-defense don’t kill people unless they have to and usually, they don’t.  The writer of this article is against handguns, even though hand guns represent a large percentage of firearms used in self-defense situations.  So, the argument to ban handguns on the premise of the statistics the writer used is not persuasive.  If anything, his statistics coupled with mine, show that guns save lives in the right hands.  Again, read my other post (The New Utopia Vehicle Ban Program – Phase 1 in My Plan to Stop Dying)for more stats.

I’m going to stop now.  One coincidence here is that these articles were all written within a week of each other – right after Virginia Tech.  Tragic situation.  But, getting emotional about the issue doesn’t help us solve the problem of CRIME.  Sure, if there were no guns anywhere on earth, nobody would be killed by one.   But, let’s get real.  The cities with the highest murder rates are those with very strict gun laws.  Clearly, the gun laws are not the solution.  Perhaps better law enforcement and judicial response would be better.

Just my 2 cents.  Now, I’m off to give those murderous psychotic guns a good talking to.

“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!

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”

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.

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.

It’s true. 

Alert! Alert! Alert! Alert! Alert! Alert! Alert! Alert!

Parents be warned.  Your child may be cited for disorderly conduct for reciting the words to any of the five monkey songs.  Please read below so that you can quickly identify if your child is reciting banned phrases to avoid the public humiliation of having your child caught and labeled as a racist.

Remember, a monkey is not a cute, cuddly and mischevious animal — monkey is a racist term.  Please be aware – what you called monkeys as children are now referred to as “primates.”  Repeat after me PRIMATE.  Don’t make the mistake of keeping the word monkey in your vocabulary or you, too could be fined for disorderly conduct.  Please, even if you use this word in a derogatory manner (which you shouldn’t because it’s not nice), understand that the 1st Ammendment does not apply in this case.  If you use the word monkey you will be cited.

Now, it’s perfectly ok to insult white people in any way you choose – that type of speech is still protected under the Bill of Rights.  We will alert you if anything changes. 

We report this information for your protection and benefit and accept full responsibilty for all fines we may incur by using the term monkey so gratuitiously.  Please consider donating to our legal defense fund.

LYRICS TO AVOID!

Version 1

5 little monkeys swinging in the tree
teasing Mr. Alligator can’t catch me….can’t catch me
along came Mr. Alligator quiet as can be
and snapped that monkey out that tree

Version 2

5 little monkeys jumping on the bed
one fell off and cracked his head 
mama called the doctor and the doctor said 
no more monkeys jumping on the bed! 

Recommended new versions:

It is recommended that you teach your child the new versions of these songs. 

Version 1

5 little primates swinging in the tree
teasing Mr. Alligator can’t catch me….can’t catch me
along came Mr. Alligator quiet as can be
and snapped that primate out that tree

Version 2

5 little primates jumping on the bed
one fell off and cracked his head 
mama called the doctor and the doctor said 
no more primates jumping on the bed!