..Pry it from my Cold Dead Fingers

The recent tragic shootings at Virginia Tech have already started to prompt the perennial debate on guns, gun laws, and whether or not citizens should even own them.

Guns have their purpose. They can stop a rapists from attacking you, shoot a deer in the head for dinner, or be used as a never ending euphemism to the glory of the male anatomy.

But lets face it, King George has been dead for a while now.

Lets take a look at the infamous second amendment, the right to bear arms:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Many gun-crazed persons in the NRA have repeatedly cited this as the main protection to owning guns. The fact is, however, the history doesn't really support this.

They often cite that it's all about self-defense. Well, the matter of personal or individual self-defense, whether from wild animals or modern-day predators, does not fall within, nor is it dependent on, the Second Amendment rubric. Nothing in the history, construction, or interpretation of the Amendment applies or infers such a protection. Rather, legal protection for personal self-defense arises from the British common law tradition and modern criminal law; not from constitutional law. The common law right of self defense is legally distinct from the right to bear arms.

The potential connection between the right of self defense and the perceived constitutional protection of a right to keep and bear arms contained in the Second Amendment depends on the distinction whether 'keep and bear arms' is synonymous more broadly with the right of individual self defense or does 'keep and bear arms' pertain more narrowly towards use of arms in a military context, or, in the case of the Common Law while still under the British, in service of the king and country. Clearly, the right to bear arms pertains to a state militia.

Some history-savy NRA persons have even gone so far as to say that if the settlers were not allowed guns in the west, then americans would have been slaughtered by hostile native american tribes. This may be true. But I feel compelled to point out that settlers weren't in america then. They were in territoires, that is, lands that had not been admitted into the union subject to federal law. Thus, its like arguing that Canadians, or any foreign peoples are subject to federal US law.

I'm not suggesting people shouldn't protect themselves. Indeed, I think it's a fundamental right (just not outlined by the second amendment). But, technology has advanced past projectiles hurled by the chemical reactions of gunpowder. One could get the same level of self-defense with a non-lethal weapon. Some may argue, what if multiple persons? I assure you, non-lethals weapons exist that can do this job.

Many pro-gunners believe that the 2nd is the Constitution's way of making sure that our government never becomes tyrannical, and ensures that if it does, we will be able to overthrow it. There are a few reasons why this is not a good argument.

First and most important, the Constitution was a document intended to create a government that could be changed by the people through peaceful means, and it has succeeded for over 200 years to that effect. In fact, America is the oldest continual democracy on earth. Other democratic means already exist to change, or even overthrow, the government. One counter-argument sometimes heard here is that if the government disarms the populace, the populace is ripe for a dictatorial takeover, and cannot fight back. My response to this is simple: America has nearly 300,000,000 citizens. No dictator could "take over" without popular support of these citizens.
There is always the possibility (although an incredibly remote one) that another Hitler may arise to power, democratically elected and supported, and then begin to ignore the basic ideals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. However, not only can we elect our leaders, we can un-elect them as well. We have extensive checks and balances to make sure no one person or agency can have too much power, and we have a healthy respect for democracy earned over 200 years. These are features that Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan lacked. There is always the possibility that another Hitler will come, yes, but in the meantime, we have at least ten thousand persons a year dying from guns, and countless more injured. We must weigh this certainty against the infinitesimally small chance that our well-constructed checks and balances will suddenly all fail.

Krazed Korean Kills 33

No, its not Kim Jung-il (I was surprised too)

It was Virginia Tech shooter Cho Sueng-Hui, who was admitted to a hospital for treatment of mental illness in 2005 because he was "an imminent danger to himself," according to court documents. (See at cnn.com)

Of course, why authories didn't respond in an attempt to protect students for two hours after the first shooting seems like bad business. If students die, universities can't get their tuition checks. Plus one has to wonder what the Virgina Tech Dean was doing for those hours.

Of course, hindsight is 20/20, and in hindsight there were plenty of warning signs that this Sueng-Hui was teetering on the edge. The only thing that seems to be missing was a picture of him wearing a sign plastered to his forehead saying "The Chemical imbalance in my brain makes me CrAzY!"

Nikki Giovanni, one of the gunman's professors stated, "I know we're talking about a troubled youngster and crap like that, but troubled youngsters get drunk and jump off buildings; troubled youngsters drink and drive," Giovanni said. "I've taught troubled youngsters. I've taught crazy people. It was the meanness that bothered me. It was a really mean streak."

Hmm..mean... Noteably, Giovanni is an English professor, not a Psychologist.
That must be a whole to new level to "mean" to shoot people. Lets just call a duck a duck; the guy was insane.

On a more personal note, my condolences to those that lost someone due to this senseless violence.

Toronto: Canada's LA?

Yes, according Albert Nerenberg; whose passionate distaste for the city of Toronto warranted an entire documentary.
Of course, for the east-coasters living in the USA, Los Angeles, or Hell, is the arm-pit of the earth.

And apparently, according the documentary, the two cities do have something in common: souless inhabitants.

To be fair, of course, not all the inhabiants of either Toronto or LA are souless. Some are in fact just catholic; which is often understandably confused with being souless.

Source

Article:http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/Movies/04/13/hate.toronto.reut/index.html

Future of American Jewry

Does Judaism have a future in America?
Personally, I would like to say so - despite assimilation; and many jews, including myself, wondering if wearing that yarmakle would draw too much attention; or if taking one of the various jewish holidays off would upset management too much - just enough to deny you a promotion.

However, everytime I see a story casting the dark shadow of assimilation, I can't help but think its a tad bit alarmist. Afterall, as americans we do have rights; and an assortment of employment laws protecting us from religious discrimination.

Yet, the primary objections seem to come from intermarriage not the business world. Falling in love with those pretty gentile boys and girls. To oppose intermarriage today means going against the entire modern American ethos by placing group identity over social integration, individualism, and liberal values.

Many an orthodox, and perhaps even conservative jew would object - citing that we'd just be sacrificing ourselves just to fit in. I say, not exactly. It's ridiculous to think that judaism isn't compatiable with liberalism, or concern for individual rights - values which are also american. So why not embrace them?

Part of embracing them is that as Jews, we need to stop feeling so insecure about our own traditions - aka, we don't have a christmas tree, and we're proud. We have a religious tradition much older, and much richer.

So light that shabbat candle, and wear that kippot like a rock-star; basically, be Jewish without apology.
Besides, The Jewish Enlightenment (Haskalah) had positive effects, like Zionism, and ultimately Einstein; and it had it's roots in a certain gentile enlightenment...we can't as a group remain completely isolated from the rest of the world, that only invites antisemitism.

Source Article:http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1162378383951&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

Queer and in Charge

A new poll indicates that a majority of Americans would vote for a gay person for president. The Gallup survey finds that 55% of respondents would vote for a gay candidate if he or she were "generally well-qualified."Given the wide range of backgrounds among the current field of 2008 presidential contenders, the poll asked how willing Americans would be to vote for them, and it included hypothetical candidates for good measure. The results, released earlier this week, reveal that 95% of those polled would vote for a Catholic (the religion of Republican hopeful Rudy Giuliani), 94% would vote for an African-American (Democratic contender Barack Obama), 88% would vote for a woman (Hillary Rodham Clinton), and 72% would vote for a Mormon (Mitt Romney, Republican former governor of Massachusetts).The only category to poll below 50% was atheist. (The Advocate)

I have to say, I'm only surprised the number isn't lower. Perhaps its from living in one of those red states too long; but I could only imagin the objections of some..."Just think who would be invited to the lincoln bedroom" - Perhaps thats only a polite objection.

The Good News (sort of)

Surprisingly, we may not all be going to hell in a handbasket; so to speak.

Yes indeedy, America, already the most religious post-industrial nation, according to the Baylor University sociology department, is experiencing an up-swing in religion - dare I say, a minor revival of sorts.

Although the statistics on G-d are a bit skewed toward the Gentiles among us, it's interesting to note the opinions on Big-Guy's personality. Although I'm somewhere between "Benevolent" and "Critical", the majority of my fellow Americans believe in an authoritarian creator.

Interestingly, scholars have been saying for some time that the relevance of denomination is decreasing. But the Baylor survey, which asks about such subjects as God's "personality" and what people pray about, adds to a debate about what that means. It reveals the complex ways Americans describe their religiosity, and the minefield for today's scholars in trying to measure it. Is someone religious if they attend church? If they believe in God? If they identify with a particular religious group? What if they do one but not the others? Which gets more weight?

One has to wonder, however, where this leaves atheists - having known quite a few myself. From a telephone sampling of more than 2,000 households, university researchers at the University of Minnesota’s department of sociology, found that Americans rate atheists below Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in “sharing their vision of American society.” Atheists are also the minority group most Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry.

Indeed, atheists are truely the ultimate outsider. In the course of the past three decades increasing social acceptance - atheists have been left out. One could attribute this to atheism's identification with communism. However, we often see that as society changes and once outcasts are accepted; they are ultimately identified as having some common core. In America, this core is religion-based values. Of which atheists, perhaps unfairly, are identified as lacking this kind-of moral core. Dr. Edgell, an associate sociology professor and the lead researcher in the project, said that Atheists "play the role that Catholics, Jews and communists have played in the past" in that we provide "a symbolic moral boundary to membership in American society."

Researchers also tried to discover any correlations between negative attitudes toward Atheists and similar views of homosexuals and Muslims. "None of these correlations is large," reported the researchers. "We believe this indicates that the boundary being draw vis-a-vis atheists is symbolic, a way of defining cultural membership in American life, and not the result of a simple irrational unwillingness to tolerate small out-groups."

US urges Iraq not to cash checks until after April 15th

It's that wonderful time of the year again. The birds are singing, the sky is blue, and sun shining brightly - and you're inside wondering how many "dependents" you can claim.

It's tax time, and we're all wondering why column A of section E doesn't seem to have enough alloted spaces. As if parting with your cash weren't painfull enough.

At least we can all take some comfort in the fact that our money will be spent wisely on 500 dollar hammers, and jeweled encrusted toilet seats.

President Bush requested $103 billion in emergency spending for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and disaster relief. On March 23, the House of Representatives voted 218-212 to pass H.R. 1591, which includes an additional $21 billion in unrelated domestic spending. The extraneous items include $400 million for rural schools, $283 million for the Milk Income Loss Contract program, $74 million for peanut storage costs, and $25 million for spinach growers. According to "citizens against government waste"

And you thought only prostitutes were screwed for dough.

Let Freedom Ring

Recently, there have been some Genocide denial stories in the news - specifically laws being proposed to forbid such denials.

Such as this story detailing the EU's far-reaching attempt at squashing denials.

In Germany, there are actually laws on the book that say its illegal to DENY the holocaust; though as europe as a whole (germany included) is moving to a more conservative stance this could change.I think perhaps the nations in which the genocides or attempted genocides in question occured perhaps should have laws similar to germany's....at least temporarily.In most european nations holocaust denial is actually illegal, and seen as stemming from some kind of neo-nazi agenda; but in France on both sides of the radical spectrum they seem to deny, or doubt the number murdered in the holocaust...but yeah, on the other side of the coin France is trying to pass laws that make denying the armenian genocide illegal....it could be a reaction to increased immigration from nations like turkey.

As for the freedom of speech thing....I think it stems from most of continental europe having a civil-law based system, as opposed to england's having a common law based system. Just different general political philosophies about freedom...the reason I'm actually cautious to actually criticize these types of laws is this:

Gregory H. Stanton, formerly of the US State Department and the founder of Genocide Watch, lists denial as the final stage of a genocide development: "Denial is the eighth stage that always follows a genocide. It is among the surest indicators of further genocidal massacres. The perpetrators of genocide dig up the mass graves, burn the bodies, try to cover up the evidence and intimidate the witnesses. They deny that they committed any crimes, and often blame what happened on the victims." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial

Now, Gregory H Stanton isn't just "some guy that founded a foundation"; he actually does have some academic authority in the area: he's been a law professor and has a phd in cultural anthropology; in addition to drafting the UN security council resolutions that created the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and Cambodia.

It should also be noted that freedom of speech is not absolute. Incitment for example, is not protected; these include incitments to violence such as threats, or encouraging people to preform illegal acts. But, noteably, I think the philosophy that many of these genocide-denial laws come from is that liability and slander are not protected speech. Libel and slander defined as: a false statement, or one put into a context that makes the true statement misleading. So,here in the US at least, you can be prosecuted for lies that damage or defame the reputation of a person or organization as well as inciting violence. In this sense, I think these anti-denial laws are seen as an extention of slander and incitment. We have to remember that in europe when these laws were created, esp in germany, democracy was still fragile. Indeed, in Germany, they had just come out of an era of ethnic hosilities of massive proportions ; and cultural preceptions about jews and other minorities in didn't just change overnight - thus, justice for victims wasn't guaranteed - which yes, without anti-denial laws, could have easily lead to retaliation (by victims), and/or further victimization; which could have easily destabilized the fragile democracy that was just starting to revitalize itself in germany.

Outed

Well, we may have already kind-of known, heard whispers, or dismissed them as sheer rumor. Hell, we may have even known, but choose not to approach the subject out of respect for their privacy. But, apparently OUT doesn't take such a stance.

They've been outed, more or less, CNN's own Anderson Cooper, and Jodie Foster. Both of whom I'm fans of - ever since Contact and while Cooper was still just another anchor on CNN at 3AM.

Out explains that writer Michael Musto's article explores "the Glass Closet," in which he identifies a number of gay celebrities and public figures who live gay social lives "while stubbornly avoiding any on-the-record revelations, a delicate dance that's difficult to pull off." Musto challenges those such as Anderson Cooper, Jodie Foster, "Will & Grace" star Sean Hayes, comedienne Wanda Sykes and former chair of the Republican National Committee Ken Mehlman, who dance around the question rather than give a "yes" or "no" answer.
"It's true that stars are free to put up whatever walls they want in order to maintain boundaries with the public," writes Musto, "But even at their most controlling, straight stars never seem to leave out the fact that they're straight in interviews. Whenever a subject tells me, ‘I won't discuss who I'm dating' or ‘I resent labels,' I generally know not so much that they're passionate about privacy but that they're gay gay, gay."

Really Musto? Even though I'm much too timid to actually wish to be in the spotlight, I'm pretty sure, even being openly gay, I wouldn't consider it anyone's business about who I'm dating. Perhaps I'm just too oldschool, actually considering that others may want a bit of privacy in their personal life.

Though, admittedly, I have to say, somewhat begrudgingly, that OUT supports have a point when they state: "How is a construction worker supposed to come out when the top strata of society won't even come out of the closet?"

Of course, I think I've already witnessed an effect of this story; on CNN recently a corespondent commenting on the outrages attire some were wearing at a certain computer convention said, "Clothes Anderson Cooper's mother would be proud to wear."

Yeah CNN, because so many gays wear ill-fitting, ill-designed clothes. At least get your stereotypes right if you insist on using them.

Westernite, not a movie obsession, a cultural obsession.

No, the title of the blog isn't a shout out to John Wayne; so just to clear things up; here are some definitions..
(American Heritage Dictionary)
The West: 1. The nations of North America and Europe, along with Australia, New Zeland and Israel with developed capitalist economies, especially in contrast to less-developed nations, that share a common cultural heritage.

Sodom: 1.an ancient city destroyed, with Gomorrah, because of its wickedness. Gen. 18–19. 2.A place well known for vice and corruption.

Sodomite: 1.An inhabitant of Sodom. 2. One who engages in sodomy.

Considering how non-western peoples often view the west (you know who you are) I propose a new word:
The Westernite: n. 1. One who lives in the west and/or holds western values.

Of course, given my love of western culture, I would be a proud materialistic, decadent, vice-ridden Westernite. Eat your heart out Yemen.

Screw you Eminem

People are always saying that you have to take your shot when it comes. Go for it. Grab the brass ring. Grab the bull by the horns. Hold your nuts - that last one is mine.

People are stupid that way. We all get chances, multiple chances- like orgasms, every day. Big and small, also like orgasms. "Grabbing the brass ring" originates from riding on a carousel. And if I'm not mistaken, those things have a tendency to go 'round and 'round, again and again. Sure, there may only be one brass ring for everyone to try to grab, but that's why you have to learn to bribe the carnie and punch the other people on the carousel in the back of the head.

Opportunities don't come once in a lifetime, they come around like four or five times a day. Sometimes while you're sleeping. That's why men wake up with erections most mornings. The opportunity fairy visits us and plays brass ring toss on our junk. The point is, as if I ever have one, is real men wake up with some morning glory; knowing they don't need a second chance; because one will naturally come along anyway - they need only look down for proof.

That's so gay..

With all the recent coverage of a-certain-tv-star-calling calling a certain co-star a faggot (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16696521/); it got me thinking..

I've often heard other gays claim that by using the word "faggot" among themselves "weakens" the word and "makes it our own."
I don't think it does. If it did, anyone could say "faggot" and all of us gays would just sit and laugh .
I think a word like faggot has two parts:
1.) In one instance, yes, if another gay person (or any person) used the term faggot to describe me it would accurate in the sense that faggot denotes a gay person. In this way, such epithets can actually be accurately descriptive, because they denote a certain quality that is true of a person (like sexuality, skin tone, religion, etc.)
2.) However a term like faggot is also used to denote some extra quality that doesn't just simply note some true quality about something, it also denotes that quality is less then human.In this sense, I don't think any word like "faggot" should be used, even by other gay folks, ever. If I call another gay person "faggot" it's still like dehumanizing them; and that goes for any epithet.

Although, I think word-reclaimation can work; there are certain words that always have a certain connotation. Speech that we may never "reclaim".

Ahhh...the smell of freshly toasted Imus in the morn'

So, the hypocrisy has finally stunk up to high heaven, literally, in Al Sharpton's case.

But first, if you didn't know:
Here in the US the raido show host Imus, has been recently fired for his comments about some women-basketball players.http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/TV/04/13/i...gers/index.html

Now, I don't condone what Imus said, and I'm glad that he was punished, though, because I don't commonly listen to his show I'm not sure if "the punishment fits the crime."
However, In 1998, Imus called Washington Post media writer Howard Kurtz “that boner-nosed . . . beanie-wearing little Jew boy” (Newsday, 10/19/98). I didn't see Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, or really anyone run to aide of Jews; I mean, if one minority group is fair game; then surely all must be.
The thing is; one of Imus' main critics in the news has been Rev. Al Sharpton. The thing about this is Sharpton, bluntly, is racist himself; and has no room to point and scream racism at anyone else.
Let's not forget, Sharpton hates Jews; he said so himself; and lets not forget the Tawanna Browlie incident either.
Just one example that comes to mind: Freddie's Fashion Mart. Sharpton decided that Harlem should be segregated and decided that the Jewish owned store should close even though its been there for decades. At one of the many rallies meant to scare the Jewish owner away, Sharpton charged that “there is a systemic and methodical strategy to eliminate our people from doing business off 125th Street. I want to make it clear . . . that we will not stand by and allow them to move this brother so that some white interloper can expand his business.” Sharpton’s colleague, Morris Powell, said of the Jewish owner — Sharpton’s “white interloper” — “We’re going to see that this cracker suffers. Reverend Sharpton is on it.” Three months later, one of the protesters, Roland Smith, stormed Freddy’s with a pistol, screaming, “It’s on now: All blacks out!” In addition to shooting, he burned the place down. Eight people died. Sharpton first lied about being present. When confronted with a video tape showing his presence, he said: "What's wrong with denouncing white interlopers?" Well, "Reverend", perhaps no one has explained the difference between denouncing and killing - and the fact that no action was taken on Sharpton's part to stop the incident.

But then, with Yom HaShoah just around the corner; perhaps it's appropriate to have Sharpton so clearly in the public eye - to remind us that a real anti-semite, like Sharpton, with just as much free reign as a German-born-Aryan-in-Nazi-Germany, walks among us.

The whole situation is just rife with hypocrisy; and the media is doing generally the same thing when they railroaded those Duke Lacrosse players...aka, conviently ignoring facts and just focusing on hot button issues.
One would think they would have learned.

Thus, in honor of fairness, and out of some hope that perhaps one day their past will catch up with them; here's the dirt..
Jesse Jackson:
http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A1074_0_2_0_C/

Al Sharpton:
http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200312030840.asp
http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2003/1205.asp