I’m only 59 years old. I feel like an 18 year-old inside the body of a 45 year-old. Old is a relative thing. When I was really 18, Old Age started somewhere between the ages of 50 and 60. Now that I’m between 50 and 60, albeit barely, Old Age doesn’t start until after 70. I’m not there yet but I am getting closer to it even though it is moving away.
This week I was working with a young woman around 30 years old. While discussing sleeping habits I mentioned that I like to wake up early – between 4 and 5 AM. She said that she was a night person and doesn’t go to bed until after midnight. I added that I am also a night person and I, too, stay up late. I said, “I just don’t sleep long now that I’m older”. She asked me if I didn’t sleep long because I’m thinking about dying soon.
What the …! I haven’t even reached Old Age but this young woman thinks that I’m close to the End. I’ve heard people say, “He died of Old Age”, but he wasn’t 59! Maybe 99 or 89 but not 59!
Do I look like I’m about to expire? I have a nice tan on my face from my convertible sports car. That’s not the look of Near Death!
Since my conversation with this young agent of doom I haven’t been sleeping well. I realized that this was not the first time that somebody has thought that I was near the End.
A few years ago I attended a reunion of sailors that had served on the Navy destroyer USS Braine. I'm one of the younger sailors from one of the last crews. Some of the attendees had served on the Braine in WW2. During one story telling session, one of the older sailors learned from one of my shipmates that I have had hepatitis C for several years. The old sailor was shocked. He told me that he’s known two people that contracted hep C and both died after only a few years. One of them had been married to one of his friends. Since USS Braine reunions were held every other year, this old sailor thought we should meet every year for the next couple of years WHILE I WAS STILL ALIVE!
It was funny the first time but now I’m getting concerned. I'm concerned that these suggestions could shorten my life. I’m only 59! Even my wife is contributing. Since January 1st when I tell somebody that I’m only 59, she says “You’re 60 this year.” Yes, I’ll be 60 in October; however, right now I’m only 59 and I just don’t require a lot of sleep.
Saturday, June 17, 2006
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
Believe in Him and Love
Karen’s latest post at The Sword's Still Out addresses the question “If He loves us so much, why is all this bad stuff around…? Why aren't our prayers answered?” I agree with Karen but you’ll have to read her post like I did.
I have no reason to believe that I know what God is doing in this world. As for what I should be doing it seems to me that Jesus is the best if not the only indication of what God expects of me. Believe in Him and Love. If I act out of Love I will also be both good and helpful. I certainly don't know if God is answering my prayers. I really have only two prayers. Help me to Believe. Help me to Love. It's a work in progress.
A lot of people feel that they know in very specific terms what God doesn't approve of. Based on Jesus I know that God disapproves of Not Believing and he disapproves of Not Loving. I don't know anything else.
When anybody says that God wants me to do something other than Believe in Him and Love then I quit listening to that person. When anybody says that God disapproves of something other than Not Believing and Not Loving then I quit listening to that person.
That's it. Believe in Him and Love.
Monday, June 05, 2006
Will America Abandon Goodness?
The Pentagon has omitted a key tenet of the Geneva Convention that bans "humiliating and degrading treatment" in an unpublished revision of the Army Field Manual regarding interrogation. Most of the world is already convinced that the US is torturing detainees. Will this formal change in directive eliminate all doubt? The Pentagon believes that interrogators should be allowed to use harsher methods with detainees than are generally allowed for prisoners of war. If we reduce our standards what treatment can we expect for our soldiers when they are prisoners of war. In the past the US military was required to meet the "spirit and intent" of the Geneva Convention. Now it appears that we are looking for wiggle room within which to expand our definition of acceptable interrogation techniques.
Will America now abandon being Good? Our standard must require absolute Goodness or we are abandoning Goodness altogether. The standards for our conduct should not vary with the application. A detainee is no less human than a prisoner of war. We are no better and can demand no more from others than the worst of our own conduct.
Will America now abandon being Good? Our standard must require absolute Goodness or we are abandoning Goodness altogether. The standards for our conduct should not vary with the application. A detainee is no less human than a prisoner of war. We are no better and can demand no more from others than the worst of our own conduct.
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
It's greed and racism, stupid!
The majority of the Mexican nationals that pour into the U.S. illegally are Amerindians (indigenous people of the Americas) or dark skinned Mestizos (a mix of white European and Ameridian). White Europeans are 9% of Mexico’s population. The Ameridians and Mestizos are 90% of the Mexican population. The wealth in Mexico is held by the whites and light skinned Mestizos. In spite of its ample natural resources Mexico does not provide adequate economic opportunity for the majority of its population because of inadequate tax and labor laws. Forty percent of the population is below the poverty line. Thirty percent of the population is underemployed. Mexico receives economic aid or relief from the U.S. via monetary contributions, NAFTA and employment and social programs provided to millions of its non-white population living in the U.S.
Therefore, the Mexican nationals living and working illegally in the U.S. are really “disregarded non-white” Mexican nationals. Vicente Fox is in the U.S. to generate support for Bush’s non-amnesty plan to legalize the current U.S. population of illegal aliens. Vicente Fox and Bush argue that these people are filling jobs that U.S. workers will not fill. Instead I believe the illegal aliens make it possible for U.S. employers to hire workers for less than minimum wage. But, the U.S. consumer is equally guilty because they are willing to hire contractors that employ illegal aliens because some of the labor cost savings are passed on to the consumer. Bush’s plan to legalize the illegal aliens is supported by these employers and consumers because the plan stipulates that these guest workers will not be protected by our labor laws. So, the plan actually creates a pool of legal workers that can be paid less than minimum wage.
This is not what America was supposed to be about. This is really an opportunity for the privileged to legally take advantage of the under-privileged. Equal opportunity would mean equal protection under all the laws but such is not the case according to Bush’s plan. The illegal aliens obviously welcome the “take it or leave it” offer. “Leave it” having a somewhat different meaning in this case. Of course they will take it and so will many more who will flock to the U.S. in greater numbers to take advantage of the plan since it would be their best alternative.
An ideal solution is to create safe, fair and adequate employment in Mexico; however, Vicente and the Mexican government are advocating for a compassionate response from U.S. citizens and the approval of Bush’s plan, instead.
Racial discrimination, which is the root cause of the economic plight of the non-white in Mexico, is still a factor in their existence in the U.S. However, with legalization the discrimination in the U.S. is likely to worsen as more and better jobs are filled by lower paid guest workers.
Send Vicente home to work on a Mexican solution. Pray that the Democratic Revolution Party candidate, Lopez Obrador, beats the National Action Party (Vincente’s party) candidate in Mexico’s upcoming Presidential election. Obrador was the mayor of Mexico City for 5 years. During that time he created public works jobs, funded social programs and left office with an 84% approval rating. As president he vows to enact tax reform – the greatest fear of the wealthy ruling class who consider Mexico a “tax-free enterprise zone for the rich”.
In the U.S. support the enforcement of laws prohibiting the employment of illegal aliens. Don’t hire contractors that employ illegal aliens. Demand that any plan to legalize illegal aliens already living in the U.S. not include any exceptions to or changes in the current labor laws protecting all U.S. workers.
Therefore, the Mexican nationals living and working illegally in the U.S. are really “disregarded non-white” Mexican nationals. Vicente Fox is in the U.S. to generate support for Bush’s non-amnesty plan to legalize the current U.S. population of illegal aliens. Vicente Fox and Bush argue that these people are filling jobs that U.S. workers will not fill. Instead I believe the illegal aliens make it possible for U.S. employers to hire workers for less than minimum wage. But, the U.S. consumer is equally guilty because they are willing to hire contractors that employ illegal aliens because some of the labor cost savings are passed on to the consumer. Bush’s plan to legalize the illegal aliens is supported by these employers and consumers because the plan stipulates that these guest workers will not be protected by our labor laws. So, the plan actually creates a pool of legal workers that can be paid less than minimum wage.
This is not what America was supposed to be about. This is really an opportunity for the privileged to legally take advantage of the under-privileged. Equal opportunity would mean equal protection under all the laws but such is not the case according to Bush’s plan. The illegal aliens obviously welcome the “take it or leave it” offer. “Leave it” having a somewhat different meaning in this case. Of course they will take it and so will many more who will flock to the U.S. in greater numbers to take advantage of the plan since it would be their best alternative.
An ideal solution is to create safe, fair and adequate employment in Mexico; however, Vicente and the Mexican government are advocating for a compassionate response from U.S. citizens and the approval of Bush’s plan, instead.
Racial discrimination, which is the root cause of the economic plight of the non-white in Mexico, is still a factor in their existence in the U.S. However, with legalization the discrimination in the U.S. is likely to worsen as more and better jobs are filled by lower paid guest workers.
Send Vicente home to work on a Mexican solution. Pray that the Democratic Revolution Party candidate, Lopez Obrador, beats the National Action Party (Vincente’s party) candidate in Mexico’s upcoming Presidential election. Obrador was the mayor of Mexico City for 5 years. During that time he created public works jobs, funded social programs and left office with an 84% approval rating. As president he vows to enact tax reform – the greatest fear of the wealthy ruling class who consider Mexico a “tax-free enterprise zone for the rich”.
In the U.S. support the enforcement of laws prohibiting the employment of illegal aliens. Don’t hire contractors that employ illegal aliens. Demand that any plan to legalize illegal aliens already living in the U.S. not include any exceptions to or changes in the current labor laws protecting all U.S. workers.
Friday, March 24, 2006
Can hot water freeze faster than cold water?
The average person can quote more untruths than truths about our physical world - a fact that disappoints me. My disappointment turns into irritation when I can't convince a misinformed person that their "belief" is only an "old wives’ tale". I’m a physicist and engineer, which means that I know a very little bit more than the non-physicist/engineer about the physical laws of our universe. Just enough to know that what fails the common sense test is often untrue. One such belief is that hot water freezes faster than cold water. You wouldn’t believe the number of times that I’ve been told this yet I have NEVER been able to convince one of the believers that the old wives’ tale is not true.
Today, I was searching the internet and one of the results was a paper titled “Can hot water freeze faster than cold water”? (Just my luck!) The author of the paper states that this tale is true but only if certain conditions are met. I find the paper believable but I still disagree with this tale. I can make an equivalent argument that “man can fly”. Under certain conditions. Let the man buy an airline ticket. Ensure that the man has in his possession all the necessary papers to satisfy the applicable security requirements. Let the man board the plane, take his seat and abide by all of the applicable rules of conduct for a passenger. Let the plane in which the man is seated take off successfully and fly (to move in the air with wings without support from the ground). Yep, hot water freezes faster than cold water and man can fly.
If you have the time and interest, I suggest that you read the paper titled “Can hot water freeze faster than cold water?”
If you are interested in checking out a few more “wives’ tales” for some that you like I may believe, take this link to Wikipedia.
Thursday, March 09, 2006
Hollywood versus Hollywood
I know I’m about a week late with this post but I’ve been busy finishing my projects at work before my early retirement on March 31st. Hollywood’s uproar over the Best Picture Oscar reminds me of the mad man threatening to shoot himself in the head because he doesn’t agree with himself.
Before the nomination of Brokeback Mountain for Best Picture Oscar it appeared that all of Hollywood considered Brokeback Mountain the Best Picture Oscar winner. After the Oscar Committee nominated Brokeback Mountain for Best Picture Oscar, Hollywood was absolutely sure that Brokeback Mountain had the Best Picture Oscar. Hollywood applauded its film makers and the Oscar committee for having the courage to make and recognize a film that defends and normalizes homosexuality - no little matter considering the near-revival strength of conservative Christian ranks.
But, Brokeback Mountain didn't win the Best Picture Oscar – Crash won – and Hollywood is beside itself with disappointment and anger. Is Hollywood upset because Brokeback Mountain was really the Best Picture? Or, is Hollywood upset because members of their own ranks threw away a big opportunity to make a liberal statement about homosexuality? Is Hollywood liberal enough to nominate Brokeback Mountain yet biased enough to give the Best Picture Oscar to the second best movie? Maybe, but it’s at least equally possible that the Oscar voters, a subset of Hollywood, acted apolitically. Producers, directors, screenwriters and actors have every right to express their opinion – any opinion – through the movie medium. If movie makers were strictly interested in the art and technology of movie making, would the general public be entertained? The movie makers have something to say and often it’s something they have to get off their chest. The viewing audience wants to be entertained. They want to laugh; to cry; to get mad; to fall in love. Most of us were very impressed by the technical artistry of the graphics in “Shrek” but the movie makers really, really touched us when Love proved again that beauty is only skin deep.
So, I give kudos to the movie makers for putting their money where their mouths are and I give the benefit of the doubt and kudos as well to the Oscar voters who remained, I hope, true to their charge.
Before the nomination of Brokeback Mountain for Best Picture Oscar it appeared that all of Hollywood considered Brokeback Mountain the Best Picture Oscar winner. After the Oscar Committee nominated Brokeback Mountain for Best Picture Oscar, Hollywood was absolutely sure that Brokeback Mountain had the Best Picture Oscar. Hollywood applauded its film makers and the Oscar committee for having the courage to make and recognize a film that defends and normalizes homosexuality - no little matter considering the near-revival strength of conservative Christian ranks.
But, Brokeback Mountain didn't win the Best Picture Oscar – Crash won – and Hollywood is beside itself with disappointment and anger. Is Hollywood upset because Brokeback Mountain was really the Best Picture? Or, is Hollywood upset because members of their own ranks threw away a big opportunity to make a liberal statement about homosexuality? Is Hollywood liberal enough to nominate Brokeback Mountain yet biased enough to give the Best Picture Oscar to the second best movie? Maybe, but it’s at least equally possible that the Oscar voters, a subset of Hollywood, acted apolitically. Producers, directors, screenwriters and actors have every right to express their opinion – any opinion – through the movie medium. If movie makers were strictly interested in the art and technology of movie making, would the general public be entertained? The movie makers have something to say and often it’s something they have to get off their chest. The viewing audience wants to be entertained. They want to laugh; to cry; to get mad; to fall in love. Most of us were very impressed by the technical artistry of the graphics in “Shrek” but the movie makers really, really touched us when Love proved again that beauty is only skin deep.
So, I give kudos to the movie makers for putting their money where their mouths are and I give the benefit of the doubt and kudos as well to the Oscar voters who remained, I hope, true to their charge.
Thursday, February 23, 2006
R.I.P: Hope for a Free Iraq
Where are the religious leaders of the Muslims sects? Why are they not united and screaming out against the atrocities being committed by their followers? Are they not as incensed by the murder of 47 Muslim protestors as they are by a political cartoon? Do not the acts of the Muslim murders and the inaction of the Muslim leadership justify the accusations made by the cartoons? I believe they do.
I have supported the war to bring political and religious freedom to Iraq since it began. The BS about the missing Weapons of Mass Destruction means nothing to me. I didn’t care whether they every existed as long as the possibility of their existence allowed us to give Iraq to free Iraqis. That is still important to me but a free Iraq can exist only if all Iraqis and all Muslims are free.
In the last two weeks my optimism has completely disappeared. The political and religious fanatics are not interested in freedom for all Iraqis. The religious leaders are totally incapable of controlling their followers except to incite them to more destruction. It appears that we are only wasting the lives of our children-at-arms for a multi-cultural people who will NOT live together.
Saddam is in jail but his megalomaniacal successor waits for the US and its allies to leave Iraq. I do not know who he is but I do know that he will destroy everything that the Free World has done in Iraq. I have no doubt that the weak-willed Iraqi majority will surrender to him their opportunity for freedom. One political party, one political leader, one Muslim sect will rise up with their new leader while the minority parties and sects crouch back down in fear.
May the Hope of a Free Iraq “rest in peace”; it does not reign in Iraq.
I have supported the war to bring political and religious freedom to Iraq since it began. The BS about the missing Weapons of Mass Destruction means nothing to me. I didn’t care whether they every existed as long as the possibility of their existence allowed us to give Iraq to free Iraqis. That is still important to me but a free Iraq can exist only if all Iraqis and all Muslims are free.
In the last two weeks my optimism has completely disappeared. The political and religious fanatics are not interested in freedom for all Iraqis. The religious leaders are totally incapable of controlling their followers except to incite them to more destruction. It appears that we are only wasting the lives of our children-at-arms for a multi-cultural people who will NOT live together.
Saddam is in jail but his megalomaniacal successor waits for the US and its allies to leave Iraq. I do not know who he is but I do know that he will destroy everything that the Free World has done in Iraq. I have no doubt that the weak-willed Iraqi majority will surrender to him their opportunity for freedom. One political party, one political leader, one Muslim sect will rise up with their new leader while the minority parties and sects crouch back down in fear.
May the Hope of a Free Iraq “rest in peace”; it does not reign in Iraq.
Friday, February 10, 2006
Dressing To Save The Male
As often as I am in town and remember to do so, I attend a prayer and discussion session with a few men from my church. I am the only liberal in this group and one of the few who attend our Pentecostal church. We meet for prayer, bible study and fellowship. I believe that prayer is important but I don't always agree with the others about what to pray for. I believe in studying the bible but I don't take it as literally as the others. We all agree that change is needed. They are committed to changing me. I am committed to changing them. I think they are more confident about succeeding than I am.
This week we talked about men, women and their mutual sexual attraction. One of our group stated that the male is "wired" such that he must respond sexually to a woman. "Wired", in this context, means that the male's response is understandable and acceptable, i.e. natural. I certainly agree that men are so wired. I believe that women have their own wiring but if I were to say more I would only be guessing. Our group was divided on the question of who is responsible when the male's sexual response kicks in and takes charge at inappropriate times. I heard that one or more of our male teens can't look up from their feet when the youth worship team is leading the teen group in singing because some of the girls dress provocatively. Specifically, some of the girls wear low waist pants that expose their midriff. Some in my men's group think that girls should dress modestly or they will stimulate an uncontrollable unwanted sexual response from every male.
I suggested that they might instruct all the girls to wear burkas. The burka has proven to be an excellent way to deal with the provocative female body and the natural sexual response of the male. Putting burkas on all women is a lot easier than making all men act maturely and to treat women with respect. To my great surprise they thought I was serious. Luckily, they also thought that my suggestion was going too far. They thought a less agressive dress code would be sufficient to ensure modesty and protect the males from themselves.
I think women and men should show respect for themselves in their dress, speech and conduct. They should also dress, speak and act with respect for others. In my opinion showing respect for others means dressing, speaking and acting appropriately for the situation. Wearing nothing while swimming in a public pool is inappropriate; however, wearing a swimming suit, even one that doesn’t cover your midriff, to a public pool is appropriate. Wearing a swimming suit to a church service would be inappropriate. Wearing a swimming suit, even one that does cover your midriff, in church does not show respect for the other church goers.
If a swimming suit is not immodest dress for a public pool then it is also not immodest dress for church, a classroom or the workplace. Inappropriate – yes. Disrespectful – yes. But, it’s not immodest in my opinion, whether the midriff is covered or not. If exposing one’s midriff while wearing a swimming suit is not immodest then it is never immodest.
If a male is sexually stimulated by the sight of a woman’s belly button, is the male or female responsible for the male’s response? If the male responds by acting inappropriately, that is, if the male responds to the woman as if she is a sex object, is the male or the female responsible? If you think the female is responsible then you probably think that dressing women in burkas is an appropriate way to prevent women from provoking an uncontrollable male sexual response by displaying their belly buttons, midriff, ankles, knees, arms, neck, face and eyes. And, if so, you may also blame rape on the woman. Okay, maybe that’s a bit strong but do you wonder “what she was wearing or how was she acting” when she got herself raped?
Please… let us all be respectful of ourselves and others and assume responsibility, sole responsibility for our thoughts and our conduct.
This week we talked about men, women and their mutual sexual attraction. One of our group stated that the male is "wired" such that he must respond sexually to a woman. "Wired", in this context, means that the male's response is understandable and acceptable, i.e. natural. I certainly agree that men are so wired. I believe that women have their own wiring but if I were to say more I would only be guessing. Our group was divided on the question of who is responsible when the male's sexual response kicks in and takes charge at inappropriate times. I heard that one or more of our male teens can't look up from their feet when the youth worship team is leading the teen group in singing because some of the girls dress provocatively. Specifically, some of the girls wear low waist pants that expose their midriff. Some in my men's group think that girls should dress modestly or they will stimulate an uncontrollable unwanted sexual response from every male.
I suggested that they might instruct all the girls to wear burkas. The burka has proven to be an excellent way to deal with the provocative female body and the natural sexual response of the male. Putting burkas on all women is a lot easier than making all men act maturely and to treat women with respect. To my great surprise they thought I was serious. Luckily, they also thought that my suggestion was going too far. They thought a less agressive dress code would be sufficient to ensure modesty and protect the males from themselves.
I think women and men should show respect for themselves in their dress, speech and conduct. They should also dress, speak and act with respect for others. In my opinion showing respect for others means dressing, speaking and acting appropriately for the situation. Wearing nothing while swimming in a public pool is inappropriate; however, wearing a swimming suit, even one that doesn’t cover your midriff, to a public pool is appropriate. Wearing a swimming suit to a church service would be inappropriate. Wearing a swimming suit, even one that does cover your midriff, in church does not show respect for the other church goers.
If a swimming suit is not immodest dress for a public pool then it is also not immodest dress for church, a classroom or the workplace. Inappropriate – yes. Disrespectful – yes. But, it’s not immodest in my opinion, whether the midriff is covered or not. If exposing one’s midriff while wearing a swimming suit is not immodest then it is never immodest.
If a male is sexually stimulated by the sight of a woman’s belly button, is the male or female responsible for the male’s response? If the male responds by acting inappropriately, that is, if the male responds to the woman as if she is a sex object, is the male or the female responsible? If you think the female is responsible then you probably think that dressing women in burkas is an appropriate way to prevent women from provoking an uncontrollable male sexual response by displaying their belly buttons, midriff, ankles, knees, arms, neck, face and eyes. And, if so, you may also blame rape on the woman. Okay, maybe that’s a bit strong but do you wonder “what she was wearing or how was she acting” when she got herself raped?
Please… let us all be respectful of ourselves and others and assume responsibility, sole responsibility for our thoughts and our conduct.
Monday, February 06, 2006
How much do Americans know about America?
| I Passed the US Citizenship Test |
 |
Thursday, January 19, 2006
Just Anger but Unjust Revenge
My wife and I have developed a Larry King Show habit. I generally enjoy the content and I usually agree with King's opinion. Last night’s show is a complete exception. Last night King's principal guest was a woman who had shot and killed her father. The woman appeared to be at least 45 years old and the father was probably 70 to 75 years old at the time of his death. Along with the woman were her mother, two sisters and her lawyer. The woman had spent 17 months of a 7 year sentence in prison before she was paroled. The father was about as horrible a person as any could be. He physically and sexually abused his children and, in at least one case, a granddaughter. He abused his wife in every way - he even brought other women to his home. He made no attempt to hide his conduct and many of these acts were committed in front of some or all of the family. He was said to be a very poor provider and an alcoholic. He and his daughters' mother were never separated or divorced. All of his children were married and lived separately in the same area.
At the time of the killing the mother had recently been diagnosed with cancer and the prognosis was very poor. As one would expect the father did not take care of his sick wife and she was finally removed from her home and placed in a hospital. This disregard for her mother angered the woman enough that she decided to kill her father.
At a later date, the woman armed herself and went to her father’s house to shoot him but found the doors locked. She took this as a sign that God did not want her to kill him. However, one month later she returned to the house and ignored the locked doors. She brought wine with which she got her father drunk. She then pointed the gun at her father’s chest and pulled the trigger. It did not fire. She pulled it two more times and still it did not fire. However, it did fire on the fourth attempt. The father fell on his back and said “now you’ve done it”. She told him that she agreed and then shot him a second and third time.
At the trial her lawyer pled for mercy because of the horrible treatment she had suffered as a child. The judge agreed and the charge was reduced to manslaughter from premeditated murder. She received a seven year sentence - the minimum required by law. In the case of family abuse parole is possible after serving one-quarter of the sentence. She was paroled after 17 months.
On King’s show all three daughters were still celebrating their father’s killing. The two that had not shot him admitted with smiles that they had been plotting to kill him together when their sister beat them to it. Although King stated at the closing of his show that he thought the daughter had done the world a favor, he had at least started to challenge why the killing was necessary. Even though the mother had witnessed many of the physical and sexual abuses, she never considered leaving her husband because of her wedding vows and she didn’t know how she would care for herself and her children. None of 4 or 5 children had been living with their father for at least 20 years.
The killing was neither self-defense nor in defense of anybody else. The killing didn’t occur in the heat of an emotional argument or fight. Although the father’s criminal and immoral acts were worse than most people would imagine possible, these acts had been committed more than 20 years ago. None of the children complained of threats by the father or fear of harm to them or their families since they no longer lived with him. Although the mother continued to live with her husband, she was not living with him when he was killed and during the last 20+ years she might have lived with one of her children had she wanted to and was offered the opportunity.
The daughter killed the father because she hated him for what he is and what he had done to her. The other children approved of his killing for the same reasons. The mother accepted the killing and seemed, in my opinion, emotionally uninvolved. She would not have killed him and she would never have asked somebody else to kill him but she accepted his killing.
Several people called into the show and all of them applauded the killing.
The children had more than enough cause to always hate their father. I believe they have plenty of reasons to ask why their mother had never acted responsibly by removing them from their father’s home instead of honoring her marriage vows. Since their father’s family knew of the abuses, why not ask why they did nothing to protect the children. In the last 20+ years while all of the children have been living on their own, did any of them offer their home and financial assistance to their mother?
This was murder - premeditated revenge. It was not a heroic act. It was criminal and immoral. The court has acted irresponsibly and by so doing has sent a message to everybody that in their town such acts will be more than tolerated.
Apparently their state government doesn’t approve of the local court’s decision. They have since modified their laws to ensure that such acts will not be so tolerated. I applaud the state’s response.
At the time of the killing the mother had recently been diagnosed with cancer and the prognosis was very poor. As one would expect the father did not take care of his sick wife and she was finally removed from her home and placed in a hospital. This disregard for her mother angered the woman enough that she decided to kill her father.
At a later date, the woman armed herself and went to her father’s house to shoot him but found the doors locked. She took this as a sign that God did not want her to kill him. However, one month later she returned to the house and ignored the locked doors. She brought wine with which she got her father drunk. She then pointed the gun at her father’s chest and pulled the trigger. It did not fire. She pulled it two more times and still it did not fire. However, it did fire on the fourth attempt. The father fell on his back and said “now you’ve done it”. She told him that she agreed and then shot him a second and third time.
At the trial her lawyer pled for mercy because of the horrible treatment she had suffered as a child. The judge agreed and the charge was reduced to manslaughter from premeditated murder. She received a seven year sentence - the minimum required by law. In the case of family abuse parole is possible after serving one-quarter of the sentence. She was paroled after 17 months.
On King’s show all three daughters were still celebrating their father’s killing. The two that had not shot him admitted with smiles that they had been plotting to kill him together when their sister beat them to it. Although King stated at the closing of his show that he thought the daughter had done the world a favor, he had at least started to challenge why the killing was necessary. Even though the mother had witnessed many of the physical and sexual abuses, she never considered leaving her husband because of her wedding vows and she didn’t know how she would care for herself and her children. None of 4 or 5 children had been living with their father for at least 20 years.
The killing was neither self-defense nor in defense of anybody else. The killing didn’t occur in the heat of an emotional argument or fight. Although the father’s criminal and immoral acts were worse than most people would imagine possible, these acts had been committed more than 20 years ago. None of the children complained of threats by the father or fear of harm to them or their families since they no longer lived with him. Although the mother continued to live with her husband, she was not living with him when he was killed and during the last 20+ years she might have lived with one of her children had she wanted to and was offered the opportunity.
The daughter killed the father because she hated him for what he is and what he had done to her. The other children approved of his killing for the same reasons. The mother accepted the killing and seemed, in my opinion, emotionally uninvolved. She would not have killed him and she would never have asked somebody else to kill him but she accepted his killing.
Several people called into the show and all of them applauded the killing.
The children had more than enough cause to always hate their father. I believe they have plenty of reasons to ask why their mother had never acted responsibly by removing them from their father’s home instead of honoring her marriage vows. Since their father’s family knew of the abuses, why not ask why they did nothing to protect the children. In the last 20+ years while all of the children have been living on their own, did any of them offer their home and financial assistance to their mother?
This was murder - premeditated revenge. It was not a heroic act. It was criminal and immoral. The court has acted irresponsibly and by so doing has sent a message to everybody that in their town such acts will be more than tolerated.
Apparently their state government doesn’t approve of the local court’s decision. They have since modified their laws to ensure that such acts will not be so tolerated. I applaud the state’s response.
Saturday, December 24, 2005
Is your Christmas a warning?
The Christmas season can be the most challenging and telling time of the year. It is an accurate and unavoidable gauge of a person's satisfaction. Whether one wants to know does not matter. Christmas, like dying, is a mandatory self-evaluation of your satisfaction with your life. While dying is the final exam with no retake, Christmas is a practice test - a warning if one is not doing well.
Everybody is familiar with Dickens' story "A Christmas Carol". When it is taken seriously, as Dickens intended, the story is sobering and terrifying. Dickens' Scrooge learns his lesson, takes a good share of the satisfaction that was waiting for him and the story has a happy ending for all. Real life is harsher than this Dickens' tale. Satisfaction for Scrooge was always there for the taking. Scrooge only had to accept it.
In real life, satisfaction is not low hanging fruit. Sometimes Tiny Tim does not recover. Satisfaction is not a goose in a butcher's shop and we are not islands of self-contained satisfaction. Our satisfaction is the product of our relationships with friends and family. It is not who or what we are. It is what we have made with others and of others.
On the day of our final exam, it is another’s hand that we must find in our own – warm and comforting, holding tight with love. On Christmas morning count the people around your tree not the gifts under it. Is your Christmas a warning?
Everybody is familiar with Dickens' story "A Christmas Carol". When it is taken seriously, as Dickens intended, the story is sobering and terrifying. Dickens' Scrooge learns his lesson, takes a good share of the satisfaction that was waiting for him and the story has a happy ending for all. Real life is harsher than this Dickens' tale. Satisfaction for Scrooge was always there for the taking. Scrooge only had to accept it.
In real life, satisfaction is not low hanging fruit. Sometimes Tiny Tim does not recover. Satisfaction is not a goose in a butcher's shop and we are not islands of self-contained satisfaction. Our satisfaction is the product of our relationships with friends and family. It is not who or what we are. It is what we have made with others and of others.
On the day of our final exam, it is another’s hand that we must find in our own – warm and comforting, holding tight with love. On Christmas morning count the people around your tree not the gifts under it. Is your Christmas a warning?
Saturday, December 17, 2005
John Murtha can be wrong without being bad
Last month Congressman John Murtha told the House why he disagreed with Bush's strategy in Iraq. Murtha didn't suggest that the US should walk away from Iraq. He recommended a change in strategy since he believes that our current strategy is not and will not succeed. I’m not qualified to say how the war should be fought in Iraq but I think we were right to go in to remove Saddam. I think the US should continue do whatever is necessary to maintain a democratically elected government in Iraq. I hope they do it in the best way. Murtha believes there is a better way to do it and he might be wrong. However, to disagree with the war and/or our prosecution of it does not make Murtha bad.
Congresswoman Jean Schmidt thinks otherwise. Schmidt considers Murtha unpatriotic and cowardly and said so in congress. Although I support the war in Iraq I don't consider those that disagree with me to be cowardly traitors. It appears that the entire House feels the same way that I do because it came down on Schmidt like a ton of bricks and she deserved it.
In her attack on Murtha, Schmidt quoted a Marine officer's reaction to Murtha's statement. The quotattion was by far the harshest content in Schmidt's statement. The Marine officer is Colonel Danny Bubp, an Ohio state representative in Jean Schmidt’s Ohio Congressional District. During his 30 years of military service Bubp was not involved in a single military engagement yet he felt both qualified and justified to call Murtha, a retired battle-decorated Marine officer and the longest ever continuous serving congressman a coward and traitor.
Jean Schmidt has apologized for her statements. Colonel Bubp has stated that Schmidt made more of his comments than she should have. Bubp also stated “We never discussed anyone by name and there was no intent to disparage the congressman or his distinguished record of service for our nation.”
I’m glad that the US and Britain kicked Saddam and the Bathists out of control in Iraq. I also think that Bush played whatever intelligence he could put his hands on to win support. I suppose that was wrong but I’m tempted to say that it is alright with me. I think the history books will hold that Bush did the right thing. Schmidt and Bubp, on the other hand, are wrong and their attack on Murtha was bad.
Congresswoman Jean Schmidt thinks otherwise. Schmidt considers Murtha unpatriotic and cowardly and said so in congress. Although I support the war in Iraq I don't consider those that disagree with me to be cowardly traitors. It appears that the entire House feels the same way that I do because it came down on Schmidt like a ton of bricks and she deserved it.
In her attack on Murtha, Schmidt quoted a Marine officer's reaction to Murtha's statement. The quotattion was by far the harshest content in Schmidt's statement. The Marine officer is Colonel Danny Bubp, an Ohio state representative in Jean Schmidt’s Ohio Congressional District. During his 30 years of military service Bubp was not involved in a single military engagement yet he felt both qualified and justified to call Murtha, a retired battle-decorated Marine officer and the longest ever continuous serving congressman a coward and traitor.
Jean Schmidt has apologized for her statements. Colonel Bubp has stated that Schmidt made more of his comments than she should have. Bubp also stated “We never discussed anyone by name and there was no intent to disparage the congressman or his distinguished record of service for our nation.”
I’m glad that the US and Britain kicked Saddam and the Bathists out of control in Iraq. I also think that Bush played whatever intelligence he could put his hands on to win support. I suppose that was wrong but I’m tempted to say that it is alright with me. I think the history books will hold that Bush did the right thing. Schmidt and Bubp, on the other hand, are wrong and their attack on Murtha was bad.
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
Capital Punishment: Remember the Real Issue!
Do you feel better since Stanley Williams was executed this week by the state of California? If so, why do you feel better? Do you feel safer? Is it a feeling of satisfaction? A life for a life?
I watched the pre-game show on CNN hosted by Larry King. Some of Larry's guest were defense attorney Mark Geragos, conservative radio talk show host and the prosecutor for Williams' trial in 1979. The prosecutor was so excited about being on national TV that he rarely quit grinning hugely.
Opponents of the death penalty debated all night and lost. The death penalty is neither a matter of the severity of the crime nor the criminal's conduct after the crime. It should not matter whether there was one victim or 200 victims. It should not matter whether the criminal is or ever will be repentent and rehabilitated.
It doesn't matter. We don't execute criminals because of what they are. We execute criminals because of what WE are. Uncivilized.
I watched the pre-game show on CNN hosted by Larry King. Some of Larry's guest were defense attorney Mark Geragos, conservative radio talk show host and the prosecutor for Williams' trial in 1979. The prosecutor was so excited about being on national TV that he rarely quit grinning hugely.
Opponents of the death penalty debated all night and lost. The death penalty is neither a matter of the severity of the crime nor the criminal's conduct after the crime. It should not matter whether there was one victim or 200 victims. It should not matter whether the criminal is or ever will be repentent and rehabilitated.
It doesn't matter. We don't execute criminals because of what they are. We execute criminals because of what WE are. Uncivilized.
Saturday, December 10, 2005
How The ACLU Didn't Steal Christmas
I was going to address this subject with an e-mail to everybody on my address list including my bible study group, the Thursday morning men's prayer group and my conservative conscience and ex-shipmate. To be fair I'll post it here rather than harassing them directly.
The ACLU is under constant attack from every group that would silence every opinion that is different from their own. I don't mean "every opinion that opposes their own" because that is not always the case. Such groups believe that the principles on which the United States of America and its Constitution are based exclude all opinions except theirs. The evangelical Christians are one of these groups and I am an active member of an evangelical Pentecostal church. I’m also a supporting member of the ACLU.
Now that the Christmas season is here many of the accusations against the ACLU are seasonal. An executive director of the ACLU in Indiana addressed this issue in the following paper appropriately titled “How The ACLU Didn't Steal Christmas”.
How The ACLU Didn't Steal Christmas (12/7/2005) By Fran Quigley
When the angry phone calls and emails started arriving at the office, I knew the holiday season was upon us. A typical message shouted that we at the American Civil Liberties Union are "horrible" and "we should be ashamed of ourselves," and then concluded with an incongruous and agitated "Merry Christmas."
We get this type of correspondence a lot, mostly in reaction to a well-organized attempt by extremist groups to demonize the ACLU, crush religious diversity, and make a few bucks in the process. Sadly, this self-interested effort is being promoted in the guise of defending Christmas.
For example, the Alliance Defense Fund celebrates the season with an "It's OK to say Merry Christmas" campaign, implying that the ACLU has challenged such holiday greetings. (As part of the effort, you can get a pamphlet and two Christmas pins for $29.) The website WorldNetDaily touts a book claiming "a thorough and virulent anti-Christmas campaign is being waged today by liberal activists and ACLU fanatics." The site's magazine has suggested there will be ACLU efforts to remove "In God We Trust" from U.S. currency, fire military chaplains, and expunge all references to God in America's founding documents. (Learn more for just $19.95 . . . ) Of course, there is no "Merry Christmas" lawsuit, nor is there any ACLU litigation about U.S. currency, military chaplains, etc. But the facts are not important to these groups, because their real message is this: By protecting the freedom of Muslims, Jews, and other non-Christians through preventing government entanglement with religion, the ACLU is somehow infringing on the rights of those with majority religious beliefs. In truth, it is these website Christians who are taking the Christ out of the season. Nowhere in the Sermon on the Mount did Jesus Christ ask that we celebrate His birth with narrow-mindedness and intolerance, especially for those who are already marginalized and persecuted. Instead, the New Testament—like the Torah and the Koran and countless other sacred texts—commands us to love our neighbor, and to comfort the sick and the imprisoned. That's what the ACLU does. We live in a country filled with people who are sick and disabled, people who are imprisoned, and people who hunger and thirst for justice. Those people come to our Indiana offices for help, at a rate of several hundred a week, usually because they have nowhere else to turn. The least of our brothers and sisters sure aren't getting any help from the Alliance Defense Fund or WorldNet Daily. So, as often as we can, ACLU secures justice for those folks who Jesus worried for the most. As part of our justice mission, we work hard to protect the rights of free religious expression for all people, including Christians. For example, we recently defended the First Amendment rights of a Baptist minister to preach his message on public streets in southern Indiana. The ACLU intervened on behalf of a Christian valedictorian in a Michigan high school, which agreed to stop censoring religious yearbook entries, and supported the rights of Iowa students to distribute Christian literature at their school. There are many more examples, because the ACLU is committed to preserving the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom for all. We agree with the U.S. Supreme Court's firm rulings that this freedom means that children who grow up in non-Christian homes should not be made to feel like outsiders in their own community's courthouse, legislature or public schoolhouse. To our "Merry Christmas" correspondents and all other Hoosiers, we wish you happy holidays. Fran Quigley is executive director of the Indiana Civil Liberties Union, http://www.iclu.org/. As of January 1, 2006, the organization is changing its name to ACLU of Indiana.
The ACLU is under constant attack from every group that would silence every opinion that is different from their own. I don't mean "every opinion that opposes their own" because that is not always the case. Such groups believe that the principles on which the United States of America and its Constitution are based exclude all opinions except theirs. The evangelical Christians are one of these groups and I am an active member of an evangelical Pentecostal church. I’m also a supporting member of the ACLU.
Now that the Christmas season is here many of the accusations against the ACLU are seasonal. An executive director of the ACLU in Indiana addressed this issue in the following paper appropriately titled “How The ACLU Didn't Steal Christmas”.
How The ACLU Didn't Steal Christmas (12/7/2005) By Fran Quigley
When the angry phone calls and emails started arriving at the office, I knew the holiday season was upon us. A typical message shouted that we at the American Civil Liberties Union are "horrible" and "we should be ashamed of ourselves," and then concluded with an incongruous and agitated "Merry Christmas."
We get this type of correspondence a lot, mostly in reaction to a well-organized attempt by extremist groups to demonize the ACLU, crush religious diversity, and make a few bucks in the process. Sadly, this self-interested effort is being promoted in the guise of defending Christmas.
For example, the Alliance Defense Fund celebrates the season with an "It's OK to say Merry Christmas" campaign, implying that the ACLU has challenged such holiday greetings. (As part of the effort, you can get a pamphlet and two Christmas pins for $29.) The website WorldNetDaily touts a book claiming "a thorough and virulent anti-Christmas campaign is being waged today by liberal activists and ACLU fanatics." The site's magazine has suggested there will be ACLU efforts to remove "In God We Trust" from U.S. currency, fire military chaplains, and expunge all references to God in America's founding documents. (Learn more for just $19.95 . . . ) Of course, there is no "Merry Christmas" lawsuit, nor is there any ACLU litigation about U.S. currency, military chaplains, etc. But the facts are not important to these groups, because their real message is this: By protecting the freedom of Muslims, Jews, and other non-Christians through preventing government entanglement with religion, the ACLU is somehow infringing on the rights of those with majority religious beliefs. In truth, it is these website Christians who are taking the Christ out of the season. Nowhere in the Sermon on the Mount did Jesus Christ ask that we celebrate His birth with narrow-mindedness and intolerance, especially for those who are already marginalized and persecuted. Instead, the New Testament—like the Torah and the Koran and countless other sacred texts—commands us to love our neighbor, and to comfort the sick and the imprisoned. That's what the ACLU does. We live in a country filled with people who are sick and disabled, people who are imprisoned, and people who hunger and thirst for justice. Those people come to our Indiana offices for help, at a rate of several hundred a week, usually because they have nowhere else to turn. The least of our brothers and sisters sure aren't getting any help from the Alliance Defense Fund or WorldNet Daily. So, as often as we can, ACLU secures justice for those folks who Jesus worried for the most. As part of our justice mission, we work hard to protect the rights of free religious expression for all people, including Christians. For example, we recently defended the First Amendment rights of a Baptist minister to preach his message on public streets in southern Indiana. The ACLU intervened on behalf of a Christian valedictorian in a Michigan high school, which agreed to stop censoring religious yearbook entries, and supported the rights of Iowa students to distribute Christian literature at their school. There are many more examples, because the ACLU is committed to preserving the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom for all. We agree with the U.S. Supreme Court's firm rulings that this freedom means that children who grow up in non-Christian homes should not be made to feel like outsiders in their own community's courthouse, legislature or public schoolhouse. To our "Merry Christmas" correspondents and all other Hoosiers, we wish you happy holidays. Fran Quigley is executive director of the Indiana Civil Liberties Union, http://www.iclu.org/. As of January 1, 2006, the organization is changing its name to ACLU of Indiana.
Friday, December 02, 2005
Cruel and Unusual
Early this morning we killed a man because he killed two people. He was the one-thousandth person to be executed since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that we have a constitutional right to kill as long as the method is not cruel and unusual. The court should have ruled that we can execute a criminal only if we can prove that our justice system is 100-percent infallible. Had that been the court's primary concern we would not have killed a man this morning or any one of the 999 people before him. And, we would not be preparing to kill the next person at 6 PM today.
We have executed many innocent people and we will continue to execute innocent people because we are not infallible. I remember an execution that was almost stopped too late. The gas chamber was sealed. The pellet was dropped. The man was dying. Then the phone call. He was saved but only by risking the lives of the execution team. Did this man feel the process was neither cruel nor unusual? If he had been Gary Gilmore, we could not have recalled the bullet. Once the trap door is released we can not prevent a broken neck. Once the switch is closed we can not reverse the current’s damage.
Only three countries used capital punishment more than we did in 2004 – China, Iran and Vietnam. How have we been able to demand more Human Rights in these countries while we are executing our citizens? Is there a better example of “the kettle calling the pot black”?
We have executed children. We have executed the retarded. This is not justice. This is hate and convenience. Our own crime statistics prove that capital punishment is not a deterrent. I wouldn’t support capital punishment no matter how much the process might be “sanitized”. Killing is wrong. It is the desperate act of a society that knows neither how to prevent crime nor how to rehabilitate criminals.
At 6 PM Eastern, South Carolina will execute a man. Please pause at 6 PM to pray for this dying man. Pray that he repents his sins and accepts Jesus. If you agree with me then pray that he is the last person we will execute. If you disagree with me then imagine yourself as the executioner standing in the death chamber and at 6 PM Eastern, imagine your hand closing the switch.
We have executed many innocent people and we will continue to execute innocent people because we are not infallible. I remember an execution that was almost stopped too late. The gas chamber was sealed. The pellet was dropped. The man was dying. Then the phone call. He was saved but only by risking the lives of the execution team. Did this man feel the process was neither cruel nor unusual? If he had been Gary Gilmore, we could not have recalled the bullet. Once the trap door is released we can not prevent a broken neck. Once the switch is closed we can not reverse the current’s damage.
Only three countries used capital punishment more than we did in 2004 – China, Iran and Vietnam. How have we been able to demand more Human Rights in these countries while we are executing our citizens? Is there a better example of “the kettle calling the pot black”?
We have executed children. We have executed the retarded. This is not justice. This is hate and convenience. Our own crime statistics prove that capital punishment is not a deterrent. I wouldn’t support capital punishment no matter how much the process might be “sanitized”. Killing is wrong. It is the desperate act of a society that knows neither how to prevent crime nor how to rehabilitate criminals.
At 6 PM Eastern, South Carolina will execute a man. Please pause at 6 PM to pray for this dying man. Pray that he repents his sins and accepts Jesus. If you agree with me then pray that he is the last person we will execute. If you disagree with me then imagine yourself as the executioner standing in the death chamber and at 6 PM Eastern, imagine your hand closing the switch.
Monday, November 07, 2005
One Post, Two Rants
The IRS has threatened to revoke the tax-free status of the All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena, CA for antiwar remarks in a sermon that was also published in newspapers. Should the IRS be allowed to decide when a statement is political action rather than social action? Is this action of the IRS politically motivated? If the IRS is not acting politically then we should expect the IRS to admonish the churches responsible for the recent attack on Bush for his Miers nomination. I don’t suggest that anybody hold their breath until this happens. Should we expect the IRS to threaten any of the conservative churches for their pro-war, anti-Kerry rhetoric prior to the 2004 election? If Kerry had been elected would the IRS be threatening the All Saints Episcopal Church? Of course it wouldn’t. However, would the IRS be re-evaluating the tax-free status of equally outspoken conservative, pro-war, anti-Kerry churches. Perhaps. Is not a politician by any other name still a politician?
The speaker, Reverend George F. Regas, a past rector of the church, admonished Bush for the war but did not advise who to vote for in the 2004 election. However, the reverend took the liberty to speak for Jesus in a hypothetical debate with Bush and Kerry. Regas made the following statements, "Mr. President, your doctrine of preemptive war is a failed doctrine. Forcibly changing the regime of an enemy that posed no imminent threat has led to disaster" and "I will tell you what I think of your war: The sin at the heart of this war against Iraq is your belief that an American life is of more value than an Iraqi life. That an American child is more precious than an Iraqi baby. God loathes war."
Reverend Regas obviously overlooks the holocaust against the Kurds and the murders of another 300,000 Iraqis that had opposed Saddam throughout his dictatorship. This war is being fought FOR the Iraqi people not AGAINST the Iraqi people.
The question often posed to me is “why should OUR children die in Iraq?” Is an American life worth more than an Iraqi life? Aren’t we fighting against the enslavement and murder of other humans? Aren’t we all equal citizens of this earth?
The speaker, Reverend George F. Regas, a past rector of the church, admonished Bush for the war but did not advise who to vote for in the 2004 election. However, the reverend took the liberty to speak for Jesus in a hypothetical debate with Bush and Kerry. Regas made the following statements, "Mr. President, your doctrine of preemptive war is a failed doctrine. Forcibly changing the regime of an enemy that posed no imminent threat has led to disaster" and "I will tell you what I think of your war: The sin at the heart of this war against Iraq is your belief that an American life is of more value than an Iraqi life. That an American child is more precious than an Iraqi baby. God loathes war."
Reverend Regas obviously overlooks the holocaust against the Kurds and the murders of another 300,000 Iraqis that had opposed Saddam throughout his dictatorship. This war is being fought FOR the Iraqi people not AGAINST the Iraqi people.
The question often posed to me is “why should OUR children die in Iraq?” Is an American life worth more than an Iraqi life? Aren’t we fighting against the enslavement and murder of other humans? Aren’t we all equal citizens of this earth?
Saturday, September 10, 2005
Revisited: Justice, though late, is still Sweet
In June of this year Edgar Ray Killen was found guilty of killing three civil rights workers 41 years ago. In August Killen was released on bail pending an appeal process that could have outlived Killen. The judge that released Killen on bail said, at the time, that he did so because he was convinced that Killen was neither a threat to society nor likely to run.
Now Killen has been returned to jail by the same judge, who now claims that he had released Killen on bail because of his deteriorating health. With sickening arrogance Killen, while free on bail, did not hide the fact that he didn't need the wheelchair and oxygen bottle that he used throughout the trial and the bond hearing and, by doing so, provided the proof that his health is not so deteriorating. In fact, Killen was planning to attend a "Killen Appreciation Day" reception proposed by a white supremacist group.
The judge under justified pressure to return Killen to jail claims that Killen lied to the court about his health. I think the judge is worried about losing his job in the next election. The judge showed an outrageous disregard for the justice for which the families of the murder victims had to wait far too long. I pray that good sense will still unseat this judge at the earliest opportunity.
Now Killen has been returned to jail by the same judge, who now claims that he had released Killen on bail because of his deteriorating health. With sickening arrogance Killen, while free on bail, did not hide the fact that he didn't need the wheelchair and oxygen bottle that he used throughout the trial and the bond hearing and, by doing so, provided the proof that his health is not so deteriorating. In fact, Killen was planning to attend a "Killen Appreciation Day" reception proposed by a white supremacist group.
The judge under justified pressure to return Killen to jail claims that Killen lied to the court about his health. I think the judge is worried about losing his job in the next election. The judge showed an outrageous disregard for the justice for which the families of the murder victims had to wait far too long. I pray that good sense will still unseat this judge at the earliest opportunity.
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
Photo Upgrade
Ever since I posted a photo of my wife on my blog she has asked me to remove it or replace it with a picture that she won't mind. She's not going to like any photo but she might accept this new one.The earlier picture, now removed, was taken after a day of painting and she had white paint in her hair. I liked the photo. She may think the paint looks like gray hair.
Whatever. Here's another picture (I must have one of her on my blog) taken in front of a B&B in Newport, RI. We've stayed at this place on a couple of our anniversaries.
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
Read a good blog
Although I strongly disagree with some of this blogger's opinions I urge you to read this post "Property of Jesus" on his blog.
Sunday, July 03, 2005
"Falling Off"
As I sit in my home-office/spare bedroom, I can hear more noise than I should be caused to hear without my express permission. I have not given anybody permission to make this much noise. The noise is coming from cars, motorcycles and dogs. But, the noise is being made by inconsiderate people. I often feel like the character played by Michael Douglas in the movie titled "Falling Down". Douglas portrays a man that is so fed up with everybody's "screw you" attitude that he starts doing to them what many of us only imagine.
It seems that most people don’t even notice. The downside of which is that everybody thinks that I’m nuts. For example, let’s say that you and I are separately shopping for new cars and we are both walking through the same car lot with several other people. Then a young man about 25 years old drives into the lot in a convertible with the top down. When he gets out of his car he leaves his radio on and the volume high. Before he is 10 feet from his car, I shout “turn down your radio”. He turns his radio off. That’s good. Everybody else in the parking lot stares at me as though I might start spraying the parking lot with bullets. That’s bad. My wife starts pretending that we aren’t together. Did you feel like shouting “turn down your radio”? Did you think I was a nut?
The typical car of a young person today is not overloaded with horsepower as in my youth; they are overloaded with noise. Their so-called mufflers are designed to convert the exhaust of their puny engines into a noise as loud as track-side at a drag race. It reminds me of the old adage “if you can’t sing well, sing loud”. And, of course, the car is equipped with a powerful sound system with special emphasis on the base frequencies. You don’t need this much power to listen to your music unless your car is in a different state than you are. The power is needed to punch through the exterior and interior walls of every house within a quarter-mile of the car. So, even though you are in your shower with the door closed and the spray cascading over your head, you won’t escape the penetrating base beat. It can seem like you are inside of giant heart. You can’t escape the noise.
It isn’t just the youth that are making the noise. Men of all ages are riding motorcycles with the same so-called mufflers as the youth have on their cars. These bikes are typically louder than the cars. Riding a bike satisfies some need in these men that nothing else in their lives can satisfy. Riding alone isn’t adequate. The bike has to be loud. The louder the better. The men have do dress like outlaw bikers. Of course, they aren’t outlaw bikers and I wasn’t a real cowboy when, at 6 years of age, I dressed up like Roy Rogers. I don’t mind if a person has to live a fantasy but they don’t have the right to fill the environment, especially my environment, with unnecessary noise.
A couple houses away from my home-office, is a relatively new resident of this area. This person has about 5 dogs in various sizes. The dogs bark constantly. They don’t need stimulus from outside their fenced yard to begin barking. They bark at each other. I thank God that I’m not living immediately next to them and I can’t help but wonder how long their next door neighbors will put up with the barking. Unless I go into my office-office, I work in my home-office from about 7 AM to 7 PM. The dogs will bark non-stop for at least 8 of those 12 hours. Does the owner of the dogs realize how much they are disturbing their neighbors? Of course! At the least they don’t care what effect the noise has on the neighbors. However, I suspect that this kind of neighbor gets some satisfaction from disturbing the neighborhood.
I wonder why these people have to violate others for their satisfaction. I wonder even more why the laws against these abuses aren’t enforced by our police. Why do we tolerate these abuses of our rights? When was the last time you called or wrote your mayor or police chief to demand an end to this? I wrote our mayor a couple of years ago. He was apparently too busy to acknowledge my letter and he obviously didn’t take the action I demanded.
I heard over all the noise last week that a neighboring town has decided to crack down on speeders. That’s great. I wish Danbury would do the same. Why did we ever let speeding get out of control in the first place? Why do most drivers think it is appropriate to drive 45 mph in a 25 mph zone? Why can you see at least one car driving through a red light every time you stop at an intersection? How often do you see a school bus speeding along the back roads of Danbury? Every school bus that passes through the intersection in front of my house is speeding. “Every school bus” is not an exaggeration. The school buses going into town also frequently run the stop sign at my intersection. Why not? 9 out of 10 cars do the same thing.
I’m getting close to retirement (you guessed, right?). I’ve lived in Danbury for 26 years and not one of those years will make me think twice about moving out of Danbury as soon as possible. I know that Danbury isn’t the only town with a noise and speeding problem. However, I’m going to keep looking until I find a place I can call Peace and Quiet. It may be the difference between my sanity and my insanity. After all, I don’t want to be one of the increasing numbers of people who are “Falling Off” like the Michael Douglas character.
It seems that most people don’t even notice. The downside of which is that everybody thinks that I’m nuts. For example, let’s say that you and I are separately shopping for new cars and we are both walking through the same car lot with several other people. Then a young man about 25 years old drives into the lot in a convertible with the top down. When he gets out of his car he leaves his radio on and the volume high. Before he is 10 feet from his car, I shout “turn down your radio”. He turns his radio off. That’s good. Everybody else in the parking lot stares at me as though I might start spraying the parking lot with bullets. That’s bad. My wife starts pretending that we aren’t together. Did you feel like shouting “turn down your radio”? Did you think I was a nut?
The typical car of a young person today is not overloaded with horsepower as in my youth; they are overloaded with noise. Their so-called mufflers are designed to convert the exhaust of their puny engines into a noise as loud as track-side at a drag race. It reminds me of the old adage “if you can’t sing well, sing loud”. And, of course, the car is equipped with a powerful sound system with special emphasis on the base frequencies. You don’t need this much power to listen to your music unless your car is in a different state than you are. The power is needed to punch through the exterior and interior walls of every house within a quarter-mile of the car. So, even though you are in your shower with the door closed and the spray cascading over your head, you won’t escape the penetrating base beat. It can seem like you are inside of giant heart. You can’t escape the noise.
It isn’t just the youth that are making the noise. Men of all ages are riding motorcycles with the same so-called mufflers as the youth have on their cars. These bikes are typically louder than the cars. Riding a bike satisfies some need in these men that nothing else in their lives can satisfy. Riding alone isn’t adequate. The bike has to be loud. The louder the better. The men have do dress like outlaw bikers. Of course, they aren’t outlaw bikers and I wasn’t a real cowboy when, at 6 years of age, I dressed up like Roy Rogers. I don’t mind if a person has to live a fantasy but they don’t have the right to fill the environment, especially my environment, with unnecessary noise.
A couple houses away from my home-office, is a relatively new resident of this area. This person has about 5 dogs in various sizes. The dogs bark constantly. They don’t need stimulus from outside their fenced yard to begin barking. They bark at each other. I thank God that I’m not living immediately next to them and I can’t help but wonder how long their next door neighbors will put up with the barking. Unless I go into my office-office, I work in my home-office from about 7 AM to 7 PM. The dogs will bark non-stop for at least 8 of those 12 hours. Does the owner of the dogs realize how much they are disturbing their neighbors? Of course! At the least they don’t care what effect the noise has on the neighbors. However, I suspect that this kind of neighbor gets some satisfaction from disturbing the neighborhood.
I wonder why these people have to violate others for their satisfaction. I wonder even more why the laws against these abuses aren’t enforced by our police. Why do we tolerate these abuses of our rights? When was the last time you called or wrote your mayor or police chief to demand an end to this? I wrote our mayor a couple of years ago. He was apparently too busy to acknowledge my letter and he obviously didn’t take the action I demanded.
I heard over all the noise last week that a neighboring town has decided to crack down on speeders. That’s great. I wish Danbury would do the same. Why did we ever let speeding get out of control in the first place? Why do most drivers think it is appropriate to drive 45 mph in a 25 mph zone? Why can you see at least one car driving through a red light every time you stop at an intersection? How often do you see a school bus speeding along the back roads of Danbury? Every school bus that passes through the intersection in front of my house is speeding. “Every school bus” is not an exaggeration. The school buses going into town also frequently run the stop sign at my intersection. Why not? 9 out of 10 cars do the same thing.
I’m getting close to retirement (you guessed, right?). I’ve lived in Danbury for 26 years and not one of those years will make me think twice about moving out of Danbury as soon as possible. I know that Danbury isn’t the only town with a noise and speeding problem. However, I’m going to keep looking until I find a place I can call Peace and Quiet. It may be the difference between my sanity and my insanity. After all, I don’t want to be one of the increasing numbers of people who are “Falling Off” like the Michael Douglas character.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)