Which is fine... I am too.
Here we are just east of Waterbury, CT... the Saturday before Easter and I'm happily hammered. Hope Ryan and Jambo are as well.
Saturday, April 3, 2010
Happy Easter!
Hope everyone has a happy and blessed Easter. We'll be in CT with my in-laws and the last day of Nolan's robotic's club competion, and I might not have a connection to check, so I'll see everyone next Monday.
Hope Ryan has a safe trip to MS, and that both he and Jambo remember to toss some back for me.
Hope Ryan has a safe trip to MS, and that both he and Jambo remember to toss some back for me.
Friday, April 2, 2010
"Old Wounds"...
I won't spoil the surprise, but I want all you Spartacus fans to get ready for another frigging unbelievable episode... these guys just can't lose!
Also, for those that are long-time Peter Jackson fans, look for another of the "extras" from the LotR movies to make an appearance... my favorite one, too! I was wondering why he wasn't already in the show, but now I know he had a bigger role to play.
This show is fantastic... I'm damn near obsessed with it. Thank God for Netflix letting me watch it before it airs on Starz!
Also, for those that are long-time Peter Jackson fans, look for another of the "extras" from the LotR movies to make an appearance... my favorite one, too! I was wondering why he wasn't already in the show, but now I know he had a bigger role to play.
This show is fantastic... I'm damn near obsessed with it. Thank God for Netflix letting me watch it before it airs on Starz!
I wasn't going to go here, but I can't help myself...
Our oldest is in the school play, and the teachers running the practices are driving me crazy with their inability to manage their practice times with any kind of efficiency or consideration for the parents that have to get students to and from these practices. Short version is that every night this week, Katey has been kept at least 25 minutes late for one of these three-hour events (and they start at 5:45 PM), and last night she was 40 minutes over-due. I'm not mad at her, but I am frustrated at the "directors" inability to manage the practice schedule.
So, background aside, I'm sitting in the car for a full 50 minutes waiting for the child. Not much else to do but listen to the radio, right? I'm dialing through the satellite channels and stop at the "liberal left" station to see what the "majority" has to say about the state of the world.
The program is the Mike Malloy Show, who is a professed liberal and (judging by his website and program intro) an advocate of tolerant, open-minded acceptance of all voices and lifestyles in the American political arena. However, I didn't have this show on for more than a few minutes when the level of hatred and the spiteful, venomous nature of what the man was saying became almost too much to listen to.
Many is the time when, in the past, I have criticized such conservative radio personalities as Hannity or Limbaugh (especially Limbaugh) for taking their opinions of the "left" to extremes and reducing their position as pundits as a result. Today, there are literally hundreds of public voices criticizing conservative radio hosts as "angry, obstructionist, racist, sexist supporters of a white male-dominated status quo" political system... but none that I have heard are as venomously hateful towards specific individuals or established institutions, such as Hannity and the Catholic Church, as Malloy.
The details of what he said are too nauseating to repeat here with any enthusiasm, but suffice to say that he made the public assumption that the root of Hannity's political opinion rests with his abuse at the hands of Catholic priests as a young child. This "measurable and specific" topic of discussion then led (seemingly... he is hard to follow at times) to a rant about the Roman Catholic Church as the root of all evil, and that it should be violently disbanded and every priest punished for the millions of children abused at their hands. He went on for some time about the "truth" of the Church finally coming out in the accusations of the millions of people who were molested and abused by priests over the years, and that this truth was undeniable and the final evidence of the evil inherent in mainstream Christian religious practice.
If we were to take Malloy at his word (a disturbing thought, believe me), then that must mean that education should be taken out of the hands of "private" institutions, such as the Church, and placed exclusively in the hands of secular government-funded structures within the existing American education system. Seems logical, right?
In 2004, the Secretary of Education initiated a study of the prevalence of sexual harassment and abuse in the US education system. The results were staggering, and actually prompted one official to state that the problem of sexual abuse in the public school system was 100 times as bad as anything the Catholic Church has been accused of in the last 25 years.
18% of males and 82% of females will be the victims of sexual harassment by a school district employee during their high school career, and a full 14% will have intercourse with a teacher during that time. This is a national average here... not some isolated, problem school district with no over-sight or regulation. In a report published in 2000, it was found that 290,000 students were targeted for abuse by teachers and staff between 1991 and 2000 ALONE. That is more than TWICE as many of ALL the complaints filed against the Catholic Church in the US since 1950 (fully 38% of which were found to be groundless or determined by investigating authorities as false claims).
Since 1950, more than 12,000 reports of abuse at the hands of Catholic clergy were made, and 7,700 of these were investigated as crimes, with a total of 4% of all US Catholic priests at the time falling under these investigations. That's roughly 4,400 priests who allegedly committed a crime over the period of nearly 60 years resulting in the 12,000+ complaints and 7,700 investigations by police or public authorities. Terrible crimes, and the guilty should be brought to justice swiftly, as dictated by our legal system. I do not make light of that at all.
I'm simply amazed that someone like Malloy can make the blanket, ignorant accusations against the Church in general, when the very organs of the government they are advocating to educate our children are found to have as much as 18% of their teachers and staff proven to harass and abuse children and teens at the taxpayer's expense!!! I mean, honestly... 14% of ALL girls in this country face the prospect of having intercourse with a teacher by the time they get out of PUBLIC SCHOOL, and the Catholic Church has a "sexual abuse scandal" that has utterly captivated the media of this nation? 8% of all male children face the prospect of sexual abuse at the hands of teachers/coaches/school staff (compared to less than 4% in Catholic schools over the last 50 years)... and priests are labelled as the threats to boyhood innocence in this country?
The hypocrisy and ignorance of the "liberal" portion of this nation staggers the imagination. This is the path to "Hope and Change" in this country, and THIS is the direction that our President is promoting as the best for everyone: more government control and regulation to ensure the fair and equitable distribution of benefits to all.
Nauseating.
So, background aside, I'm sitting in the car for a full 50 minutes waiting for the child. Not much else to do but listen to the radio, right? I'm dialing through the satellite channels and stop at the "liberal left" station to see what the "majority" has to say about the state of the world.
The program is the Mike Malloy Show, who is a professed liberal and (judging by his website and program intro) an advocate of tolerant, open-minded acceptance of all voices and lifestyles in the American political arena. However, I didn't have this show on for more than a few minutes when the level of hatred and the spiteful, venomous nature of what the man was saying became almost too much to listen to.
Many is the time when, in the past, I have criticized such conservative radio personalities as Hannity or Limbaugh (especially Limbaugh) for taking their opinions of the "left" to extremes and reducing their position as pundits as a result. Today, there are literally hundreds of public voices criticizing conservative radio hosts as "angry, obstructionist, racist, sexist supporters of a white male-dominated status quo" political system... but none that I have heard are as venomously hateful towards specific individuals or established institutions, such as Hannity and the Catholic Church, as Malloy.
The details of what he said are too nauseating to repeat here with any enthusiasm, but suffice to say that he made the public assumption that the root of Hannity's political opinion rests with his abuse at the hands of Catholic priests as a young child. This "measurable and specific" topic of discussion then led (seemingly... he is hard to follow at times) to a rant about the Roman Catholic Church as the root of all evil, and that it should be violently disbanded and every priest punished for the millions of children abused at their hands. He went on for some time about the "truth" of the Church finally coming out in the accusations of the millions of people who were molested and abused by priests over the years, and that this truth was undeniable and the final evidence of the evil inherent in mainstream Christian religious practice.
If we were to take Malloy at his word (a disturbing thought, believe me), then that must mean that education should be taken out of the hands of "private" institutions, such as the Church, and placed exclusively in the hands of secular government-funded structures within the existing American education system. Seems logical, right?
In 2004, the Secretary of Education initiated a study of the prevalence of sexual harassment and abuse in the US education system. The results were staggering, and actually prompted one official to state that the problem of sexual abuse in the public school system was 100 times as bad as anything the Catholic Church has been accused of in the last 25 years.
18% of males and 82% of females will be the victims of sexual harassment by a school district employee during their high school career, and a full 14% will have intercourse with a teacher during that time. This is a national average here... not some isolated, problem school district with no over-sight or regulation. In a report published in 2000, it was found that 290,000 students were targeted for abuse by teachers and staff between 1991 and 2000 ALONE. That is more than TWICE as many of ALL the complaints filed against the Catholic Church in the US since 1950 (fully 38% of which were found to be groundless or determined by investigating authorities as false claims).
Since 1950, more than 12,000 reports of abuse at the hands of Catholic clergy were made, and 7,700 of these were investigated as crimes, with a total of 4% of all US Catholic priests at the time falling under these investigations. That's roughly 4,400 priests who allegedly committed a crime over the period of nearly 60 years resulting in the 12,000+ complaints and 7,700 investigations by police or public authorities. Terrible crimes, and the guilty should be brought to justice swiftly, as dictated by our legal system. I do not make light of that at all.
I'm simply amazed that someone like Malloy can make the blanket, ignorant accusations against the Church in general, when the very organs of the government they are advocating to educate our children are found to have as much as 18% of their teachers and staff proven to harass and abuse children and teens at the taxpayer's expense!!! I mean, honestly... 14% of ALL girls in this country face the prospect of having intercourse with a teacher by the time they get out of PUBLIC SCHOOL, and the Catholic Church has a "sexual abuse scandal" that has utterly captivated the media of this nation? 8% of all male children face the prospect of sexual abuse at the hands of teachers/coaches/school staff (compared to less than 4% in Catholic schools over the last 50 years)... and priests are labelled as the threats to boyhood innocence in this country?
The hypocrisy and ignorance of the "liberal" portion of this nation staggers the imagination. This is the path to "Hope and Change" in this country, and THIS is the direction that our President is promoting as the best for everyone: more government control and regulation to ensure the fair and equitable distribution of benefits to all.
Nauseating.
Another ego-tickler...
Seems someone from the Wall Street Journal agrees with me about Michael Steele's Job... while I can't hold Steele responsible for the goings-on of every single political hack in the Party, and I have no direct knowledge that he was at the Hollywood sex club where GOP members rang up a $2k bill on the donor's tab, there is a good quote in that article.
Seems someone in the party decided that they didn't need Steele to tell them that Obama was doing a bad job (something he does too much of)... they need Steele to find ways to inspire others to see the wisdom and common sense inherent in the conservative approach to government (something he hasn't done near enough of). It is nice to know that when we do voice our opinions here on the Bund, our opinions are mirrored by professionals only days later. That's an ego-booster, let me tell you.
If you bother to read the article, you'll also see that a big factor in MY reading the article was the Lombardi quotes... which I always love to see in the mainstream press.
Gentlemen, this is FOOTBALL!
Seems someone in the party decided that they didn't need Steele to tell them that Obama was doing a bad job (something he does too much of)... they need Steele to find ways to inspire others to see the wisdom and common sense inherent in the conservative approach to government (something he hasn't done near enough of). It is nice to know that when we do voice our opinions here on the Bund, our opinions are mirrored by professionals only days later. That's an ego-booster, let me tell you.
If you bother to read the article, you'll also see that a big factor in MY reading the article was the Lombardi quotes... which I always love to see in the mainstream press.
Gentlemen, this is FOOTBALL!
Thursday, April 1, 2010
What is so "wrong" about a castle doctrine?
Jambo's post is profound, to say the least. No one wants to see their neighborhood, city, apartment complex or place of employment become such a risk to safety and security that loaded firearms are the only safe and viable means of self protection, but facts are facts, and when someone is forcing their way into a home, vehicle or business in an illegal manner with the express purpose of committing a felonious act... and you KNOW the police/law enforcement is at least 5 to 13 minutes away from being able to respond in person... what other option is there?
As for arguments that there is a moral requirement to "do no harm", I'd say it extends FIRST and FOREMOST to those individuals that have made the conscious decision to forcibly enter a dwelling/vehicle/business in which they have no reason to be, and NOT primarily with those legally within those dwellings/vehicles/businesses.
Jambo might have concerns and worries about the state of society that has brought about a situation where he feels forced to keep a firearm handy for self defense, but I truly hope he doesn't let his mind dwell too long here. Mississippi enjoys one of the most well-defined "Castle Doctrines" on the books, for anyone wanting to look for one.
I quote the Mississippi Code of 1972, Title 97, Chapter 3, Section 15 (97-3-15), Subsections 3 and 4:
"(3) A person who uses defensive force shall be presumed to have reasonably feared imminent death or great bodily harm, or the commission of a felony upon him or another or upon his dwelling, or against a vehicle which he was occupying, or against his business or place of employment or the immediate premises of such business or place of employment, if the person against whom the defensive force was used, was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, occupied vehicle, business, place of employment or the immediate premises thereof or if that person had unlawfully removed or was attempting to unlawfully remove another against the other person's will from that dwelling, occupied vehicle, business, place of employment or the immediate premises thereof and the person who used defensive force knew or had reason to believe that the forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred. (...);
(4) A person who is not the initial aggressor and is not engaged in unlawful activity shall have no duty to retreat before using deadly force under subsection (1) (e) or (f) of this section if the person is in a place where the person has a right to be, and no finder of fact shall be permitted to consider the person's failure to retreat as evidence that the person's use of force was unnecessary, excessive or unreasonable. "
This is, and has been for more than 1,100 years, considered a basic and fundamental "common law" understanding of the primary importance to being able to feel safe and secure in our own homes and businesses against those that would do us harm or violence in any manner. Alfred the Great understood this when he first codified the Law in Saxon England, and King John reaffirmed this when he signed the Magna Carta in 1215, as did the Founding Father when they drew up the Constitution in 1787 and made such provisions for the same legal protection of rights and property as they saw existing in England at the time. This sentiment is basic to the established inherent Rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness and our understanding of all that stems from them.
While I understand your unease when thinking about what leads a society to this point, Jambo, I certainly hope you don't lose any sleep thinking about the nature of the right you are exercising by keeping that gun handy. We can talk about the "right" to keep and bear arms all day long, but the point everyone forgets about until they are facing a break-in or an armed assailant is the "obligation" you have as a husband and a father to protect your family, your property and your person from harm.
As for arguments that there is a moral requirement to "do no harm", I'd say it extends FIRST and FOREMOST to those individuals that have made the conscious decision to forcibly enter a dwelling/vehicle/business in which they have no reason to be, and NOT primarily with those legally within those dwellings/vehicles/businesses.
Jambo might have concerns and worries about the state of society that has brought about a situation where he feels forced to keep a firearm handy for self defense, but I truly hope he doesn't let his mind dwell too long here. Mississippi enjoys one of the most well-defined "Castle Doctrines" on the books, for anyone wanting to look for one.
I quote the Mississippi Code of 1972, Title 97, Chapter 3, Section 15 (97-3-15), Subsections 3 and 4:
"(3) A person who uses defensive force shall be presumed to have reasonably feared imminent death or great bodily harm, or the commission of a felony upon him or another or upon his dwelling, or against a vehicle which he was occupying, or against his business or place of employment or the immediate premises of such business or place of employment, if the person against whom the defensive force was used, was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, occupied vehicle, business, place of employment or the immediate premises thereof or if that person had unlawfully removed or was attempting to unlawfully remove another against the other person's will from that dwelling, occupied vehicle, business, place of employment or the immediate premises thereof and the person who used defensive force knew or had reason to believe that the forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred. (...);
(4) A person who is not the initial aggressor and is not engaged in unlawful activity shall have no duty to retreat before using deadly force under subsection (1) (e) or (f) of this section if the person is in a place where the person has a right to be, and no finder of fact shall be permitted to consider the person's failure to retreat as evidence that the person's use of force was unnecessary, excessive or unreasonable. "
This is, and has been for more than 1,100 years, considered a basic and fundamental "common law" understanding of the primary importance to being able to feel safe and secure in our own homes and businesses against those that would do us harm or violence in any manner. Alfred the Great understood this when he first codified the Law in Saxon England, and King John reaffirmed this when he signed the Magna Carta in 1215, as did the Founding Father when they drew up the Constitution in 1787 and made such provisions for the same legal protection of rights and property as they saw existing in England at the time. This sentiment is basic to the established inherent Rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness and our understanding of all that stems from them.
While I understand your unease when thinking about what leads a society to this point, Jambo, I certainly hope you don't lose any sleep thinking about the nature of the right you are exercising by keeping that gun handy. We can talk about the "right" to keep and bear arms all day long, but the point everyone forgets about until they are facing a break-in or an armed assailant is the "obligation" you have as a husband and a father to protect your family, your property and your person from harm.
It's been nine days...
since the attempted break in at my apartment.
Last Tuesday someone tried to enter my apartment around 10AM by smashing out the bedroom window. Since everyone in my building EXCEPT me works during the day, the burglar must have been very surprised to hear the dogs and people inside protesting the violent way we'd woken up.
My window has yet to be repaired, but the plywood that covers the window is solid and I've duct taped the gaps so I'm not air conditioning the outside. One of my shotguns has a new home outside the gun cabinet in a secure yet easily accessible place in my bedroom, loaded with buckshot. I do not fear this particular burglar's return, but my place is on the ground floor, and is the furthest corner apartment in the complex. I am VERY afraid for the next person that tries to gain unauthorized access to my place.
We become, growing up in our generation, desensitized to general violence. The thoughts and ideas concerning the taking of another person's life are casually debated. A phrase I have often used throughout my life, "They'll never find the body," is a testament to this. But looking from my bed to where the shotgun, loaded with one in the chamber, a safety release and a trigger pull away from doing horrific and almost certainly fatal damage to whomever decides to make a bad life decision and engage in robbing Apt 151, that callus and cavalier attitude about taking another life floats away. And what I'm left with is a cold and very certain reality that while there will be no hesitation, just the THOUGHT process involved in bringing live ammunition into the apt has fundamentally changed how I look at personal defense and home security.
After the storm, we EXPECTED crime. The complete demolition of almost every infrastructure on the city, county and state level within a day's travel of my home told me that we were on our own. Yet NEVER did I feel threatened or scared. Never did I have to warn someone away. Never did I have to buy bullets. One recession and four and a half years later and I'm a window down and loaded for bear. Literally.
Last Tuesday someone tried to enter my apartment around 10AM by smashing out the bedroom window. Since everyone in my building EXCEPT me works during the day, the burglar must have been very surprised to hear the dogs and people inside protesting the violent way we'd woken up.
My window has yet to be repaired, but the plywood that covers the window is solid and I've duct taped the gaps so I'm not air conditioning the outside. One of my shotguns has a new home outside the gun cabinet in a secure yet easily accessible place in my bedroom, loaded with buckshot. I do not fear this particular burglar's return, but my place is on the ground floor, and is the furthest corner apartment in the complex. I am VERY afraid for the next person that tries to gain unauthorized access to my place.
We become, growing up in our generation, desensitized to general violence. The thoughts and ideas concerning the taking of another person's life are casually debated. A phrase I have often used throughout my life, "They'll never find the body," is a testament to this. But looking from my bed to where the shotgun, loaded with one in the chamber, a safety release and a trigger pull away from doing horrific and almost certainly fatal damage to whomever decides to make a bad life decision and engage in robbing Apt 151, that callus and cavalier attitude about taking another life floats away. And what I'm left with is a cold and very certain reality that while there will be no hesitation, just the THOUGHT process involved in bringing live ammunition into the apt has fundamentally changed how I look at personal defense and home security.
After the storm, we EXPECTED crime. The complete demolition of almost every infrastructure on the city, county and state level within a day's travel of my home told me that we were on our own. Yet NEVER did I feel threatened or scared. Never did I have to warn someone away. Never did I have to buy bullets. One recession and four and a half years later and I'm a window down and loaded for bear. Literally.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
