Monday, July 28

How Times Have Changed!

Remember when the news was full of stories about police arresting someone and confiscating their beeper, (and later it was their cell phone) and calling all the numbers that came through while trying to pretend they were someone else so they could find out who all the people were? They don't have to worry about pretending anymore!

Thursday, July 24, 2008 | 8:07 PM

After catching one of two people wanted in a series of break-ins, Catawba County sheriff's deputies let their fingers do the chasing to catch the second suspect.

The Hickory Daily Record reported Thursday that when deputies caught a 16-year-old suspect, they confiscated his cell phone. While they had it, a text message came across asking him if he had been caught.

The deputies responded "no," and after a few more messages, the sender said he would try to pick up his partner, not knowing he was in custody. While waiting in an area where several break-ins occurred, deputies said they arrested the 17-year-old texting teenager after finding him in a car with three other people. Both teens face several charges, including larceny and breaking and entering.

Friday, July 25

Virginia Man Executed Who Challenged Lethal Injection

Is lethal injection humane enough? I think that's the question that was being asked by the man who challenged lethal injection as a means of carrying out the death penalty in Virginia's penal system. He was executed yesterday, by the same method that he fought so hard against, lethal injection. Christopher Scott Emmett, who "was convicted of beating a co-worker to death with a brass lamp in 2001 so he could steal the man's money to buy crack cocaine", claimed that death by lethal injection "mounted to cruel and unusual punishment because of the possibility that paralyzing and heart-stopping drugs could be administered before inmates are rendered unconscious by another drug." In other words, the condemned might not be unconscious enough when the other drugs were administered.

How does anyone consider the death penalty 'humane' in the first place? (Although I guess it's more humane than electrocution or hanging or firing squad.) You sentence someone to death; then you have them sitting in a cell for however many years that it takes for the appeal process to go through contemplating his death. Once the appeals are exhausted, you set a date for some future time, and leave him to contemplate his impending death 24hrs a day in a cell. The only thing 'humane' about getting the death penalty is that once it's carried out, the inmate no longer suffers the way he did while sitting on Death Row.

To give them life in prison is more of a penalty; to take away their freedom, to make them have to live inside those gray prison walls, among all those other inmates, and spend the rest of their natural life thinking about the crime they committed, now THAT is punishment! Once he's dead, he's away from it all; no more worrying about anything, from where his food is coming from, to dealing with his conscience on a daily basis.

There's another reason that IMO, the death penalty should be abolished, and it's a very simple one.

If killing another human being is a crime, how is the death penalty not only NOT a crime, but something that's sanctioned, performed, and paid for by the US Government?

Sunday, July 20

Checkpoints Resume After Spate of Violence

I am irate right now; I'm sitting here gritting my teeth, wanting to yell and scream and shake someone, and ask them "What good is that going to do now? The people are DEAD! Why are you closing the barn door now when the horses are already gone?" It's ridiculous to me. According to the story, 3 men in a gold 2002 Dodge Intrepid were responsible for some of the shootings which occurred in Trinidad over the weekend. One young man who was shot and killed was 13 years old, visiting from out of town, and at the time he was shot, he was sitting on a fence talking with someone who was also shot. In other words, he was an innocent victim. No connection between him and his killers, it was just a horrible case of the young man being in the wrong place.

How do these government officials expect checkpoints to stop random incidents like this? You have 3 nuts running around the city robbing and killing people; you don't know what section of the city they might go to next, if they even stay in the city. You don't know what streets they might use, if they're going to change cars, nothing. How can blocking off the neighborhood that they've already terrorized and left in a shambles possibly help? With that having just happened, do you really think anyone but the dumbest and most desperate dope fiend is going to be out doing anything illegal? What the hell are the people supposedly in charge of this city thinking? Making this section of the city into some kind of gulag isn't going to catch that child's murderer, and it isn't going to prevent some other young innocent child from getting hurt!

Every time I see something about this, I get angry all over again. I feel like the Jews must have felt when they were imprisoned in the ghettos which used to be their cities. It makes absolutely no sense to put up these checkpoints and detain people from going down certain streets in their own neighborhood ; the damage has already been done! The police that are put to work manning those checkpoints ought to be pounding the pavement looking for those 3 guys in the Intrepid.

Wednesday, July 16

Someone asked me what I thought of the New Yorker cover

So I thought that's what I'd talk about today. What do I think about the New Yorker cover....I've read lots of blog posts and reviews and editorials and just plain people ranting, and it seems that there are a lot of different sides to this issue. On the one hand you've got those who thought it was hysterically funny; then on the other hand you have those who took it seriously, those who thought everything in it was true, so they didn't get the joke. Then on the other hand, you've got people who got the joke, but thought it was in very poor taste, if not bordering on slander. (libel?) And of course you've got those who think that's what the Obamas get for being exactly what they are portrayed as being, a Muslim with a terrorist gun-toting wife.

I'm not so sure how I feel about it; although they keep saying that it's not meant to be offensive, it's really hard for me to believe that. What's the difference between that cover and the 'monkey ' T-shirts that were out a while back? Is either one less degrading? I don't think so....

And a 'terrorist fist jab'? WTH?? Black people have been doing this for YEARS, as a greeting, as a parting gesture, as congratulations or agreement; now all of sudden because the soon-to-be-President does it, it's a terrorist gesture? Where do these people come up with this stuff? Any little thing they can use to twist and make appear negative, it certainly seems like they'll use it.

People have been saying for years that the race problem in this country is better than it was; is it really? I don't think so. I keep wondering, if it had been a white man running against Hilary, what would they have come up with then?

Tuesday, July 15

A Change of Topic

It's another of those days where I'm posting something different; I've been so busy lately with school and work and my grandson, that I just have not had the time to sit down and write a blog entry. I did want to share something that a friend wrote though, and see what you all thought of it . (personally, I don't think it's very good, but another 'friend of the author' said she loved it!):

She looked in my eyes,

My loins ached, my breath came short

I didn’t know what to do

Not with my eyes,

Or my hands,

Or my aching heart.

The sun rose when she smiled at me,

And set when she looked away;

I knew what I wanted to do

With my hands

With my lips

With my aching heart.

She laughed a laugh so warm and low,

So full of mystery and promise

That the world stopped in its tracks,

In that moment

I knew what to do.

I filled my eyes with her beauty,

My hands with her softness,

My lips with her taste,

My nose with her scent,

My loins with her heat

And my aching heart ached no more.

Wednesday, July 9

Gay Marriages Still Unequal In the Eyes of Federal Government

And that is why I have not gone running to New Jersey, or Canada, or California to have a legal ceremony. This is a great story; it spells it out so well, the problems that we still have to face even if we get married. There are so many hurdles to be overcome that heterosexuals never have to even think about, let alone get past. Gays who choose to marry still have to protect themselves and their families in so many ways...It is not fair that I have to worry about whether or not my marriage will be recognized in another state. It's not fair that as a "domestic partner" (I hate that term) I have all the obligations of a married person, but I am entitled to none of the rights. I cannot take my partner's last name without spending money and going to court and filing to legally change my name. I can be sued for child support (well I could if we were younger!) but some insurance companies will not let me put her on my medical insurance. It appears that as long as we stay here in DC we are fine, within limits, but if we go elsewhere there is a good chance that our status as domestic partners won't even be recognized; god forbid we go on a trip, something happens to one of us and we need medical care! My partner might not be considered 'immediate family' or 'next of kin', so she could not give her consent to medical treatment for me, could not visit me in intensive care, could not carry out my wishes as far as whether I wish resuscitation or not (I don't), and could not claim my body if I were to die! What if we want to move to another state? We have to do all kinds of investigating and research to make sure that our relationship will not be deemed nonexistent, or worse yet, illegal! Slowly but surely the country is beginning to realize that this situation is not going to just fade into the background; gay people have just as much right as anyone else to marry the person they love, and to protect that spouse and their family. Why does this country insist on trying to make us second class citizens and treat us as if we're going to ruin something if they allow us to get married? I've heard so many people say that to allow gays to marry would ruin the sanctity of marriage, but no one has yet been able to explain how.

I'm going to end this before it turns into a rant. (and I feel it coming on.) It's just ridiculous that the Federal Government will not stop dragging their feet and do what we all know they're going to eventually end up doing: allow us the same rights and benefits as the rest of your citizens. Allow us to 'love, honor, and cherish, till death do us part' whoever we choose, not who you tell us we can choose.

Saturday, July 5

Why Can't They Get Over It?

What is wrong with the Clinton supporters? Why can't they get over the fact that she lost her bid for the nomination and move on? Instead of realizing, as Mrs. Clinton did, that in order to make sure that a Democrat makes it into the White House they will have to vote one in, they're now saying they just won't vote! How crazy is that? If Hilary Clinton can swallow her pride and show solidarity after her loss, why can't her followers? Why can't they follow the example their 'leader' has set? By saying they're not going to vote, rather than vote for Obama, it's like they're saying they know better than the candidate they're backing! It's a really twisted logic if you think about it; they're following her because they believe in her judgment and her ability to run this country, and lead people in the right direction, but when she tries to show them they now need to vote for the party, not for the person, they ignore her. They decide if they can't have her, they don't want to have any part of it, despite the fact that she urges them not to think that way. She actually tells them flat out: “To anyone who voted for me and is now considering not voting or voting for Senator McCain, I strongly urge you to reconsider,” , and yet they don't listen. It's really a shame that we're in danger of ending up with another 4 years of a Bush-like government thanks to the stubbornness of some ignorant people, who can't see beyond the end of their noses.

Wednesday, July 2

Here's a question for you...

You look out the window of your house and see two men climbing out the window of your next-door neighbor's house, carrying your neighbor's belongings. Your neighbor is out of town, so you know they haven't hurt anyone. You call 911 and report the crime, the dispatcher tells you the police are on their way. What do you do then? Do you sit and wait for the police? Or do you take the law into your own hands?

Joe Horn of Houston, Texas chose to take the law into his own hands. He chose to get his shotgun and blast away at two illegal immigrants who had broken in and stolen some of his neighbor's personal property. He's not going to be tried for it either; the judicial system in Texas has chosen not to indict him for it. It wasn't his property, he wasn't in any danger, he'd already called the police who were coming; how is it that he's not being charged with murder? Even the dispatcher on the 911 call knew what he was going to do because HE TOLD HER; how can he not be tried for taking those men's lives? He was not in fear for his own life, but he gets away with killing them, yet if a woman waits until her husband (who's been beating on her for years) turns his back before she grabs a gun and pulls the trigger, she is tried and convicted and sent to jail for life? I can't understand how anyone could not only allow this 'vigilante justice' to go unpunished, but applaud the vigilante!! If the robbers had been trying to murder or rape someone, or if the man's own life had been threatened that would be different, but to shoot them because they broke into someone's house I can't see. And this in a country that just decided that to put someone to death for child rape is unconstitutional!