Saturday, January 12, 2013
This isn't gun control. This is the right of self defense. This doesn't come close to gun control.
Very nice sentiment. Appreciation. So often the American people are dumped on.
The sentiment is fine and the initiatives portrayed in this video are great. But, there is one thing. Just one thing. I believe AIG had a noble purpose. Patriotic even. To save the USA from complete collapse of Wall Street. AIG was insuring the chance Wall Street would ? perhaps ? collapse.
AIG was insuring a bubble. A bubble based completely in the American Dream, home ownership. At any point in time, did the promise to protect the USA from a Wall Street collapse actually seem like a responsibility rather than a sales gimmick?
I would expect. The word was expect. I would expect AIG would see the folly in insuring bubbles and back President Obama in all his economic endeavors in creating a real economy, based in reality, with real values and a solid basis for something actually worth insuring that has a very slim margin of collapse.
That is what I expect from a thankful AIG, every bank that actually blew it and even Morgan to eliminate fraud, waste and corruption for the sake of a quick buck in pharmaceuticals best left out of the market place.
Basically, ethics. The USA, its people and its economy are no longer a toy, but, you all are welcome to invest. You are welcome for the help. It was not as though there was much of a choice now was there?
And to think the most unethical still standing actually complained about interest rates after taking the country hostage.
The USA needs to discern private industry that actually cares about it's economy, people, promises and future.
No more. The USA will insure itself from here on. Thank you, though.
I would not be so quick to criticize the United Nations or the efforts to date in regard to Haiti.
Men bathe in the evening in a branch of the Artibonite River outside Saint-Marc. Haiti's cholera outbreak in 2010 began about 60 miles upstream from here.
In the events after Hurricane Doria in New Jersey in 1971, people waded through the stagnant waters. They succumbed to cholera and dysentery. The difference between New Jersey and Haiti is infrastructure. When the illnesses hit folks that never intended to contract them, we had emergency rooms responsive to their emergency.
Cholera and dysentery are public health issues. Haiti has no sincere infrastructure to address some of the most basic needs of its people. Not even the idea of sustainable earthquake proof structures. So, to expect an international effort to operate in a void of government structure is completely unrealistic. These issues are huge investments by a society including education in basic hygiene.
Not quite 10 months after Haiti's devastating 2010 earthquake, a more insidious disaster struck: cholera.
Haiti hadn't seen cholera for at least a century. Then suddenly, the first cases appeared in the central highlands near a camp for United Nations peacekeeping forces.
Since then the disease has struck one out of every 16 Haitians — nearly 640,000 people. It has killed 8,000.
The disease struck with explosive force. Within two days of the first cases, a hospital 60 miles away was admitting a new cholera patient every 3 1/2 minutes.
"Part of the reason we think the outbreak grew so quickly was the Haitian population had no immunity to cholera," says Daniele Lantagne, an environmental engineer at Tufts University. "Something like when the Europeans brought smallpox to the Americas, and it burned through the native populations."...
Every nation contributing to the SURVIVAL of what remained of the Haitian population was extremely challenged to set up any form of triage, yet alone a national health department. Haiti is the type of country where when monies are moved to Haiti, the needs of the country soak it up like a sponge. When those dynamics occur there is no efficiency involved in spending it. The spending happens in emergent ways to serve the populous.
Now, to say that is exactly the problem is a gross error. The United Nations acted to prevent corruption within Haiti's government from removing benefits of monies given to Haiti. So, to say the United Nations is the problem is completely idiotic. The problem is Haiti's corruption and the complete inability of its people to move into productive lives, heck, even learned lives.
I really don't care how small the country is, building infrastructure from NOTHING, takes a lot of money and a sustained effort. This is ridiculous.
What needs to be addressed is the lack of sovereign status of Haiti and whom exactly is able to lead and able to build the country into a civilized nation with sustainable jobs and growth from NOTHING.
There is also some very real and stark realities for the Haitian people. They live on a highly dynamic and dangerous fault. They live on a small plate chronically 'acted on' by the North American Plate. The NA Plate grids away at that smaller plate. It is that PROCESS that leads to 'the big one' from time to time to this nation. Japan is no different, but, Japan has infrastructure. Even Japan has woefully inadequate infrastructure to face down a dynamic Earth.
Criticism of the United Nations sincerely belongs to groups seeking to always defeat it like the American GOP. After all, the UN can't have its own assets, its own military or its own ability to support its mission.
NOW. When Haitian sovereignty and the UN's right to exist is more than adequately addressed; then and only then any entity has a right to criticism!!!
Every nation contributing to the SURVIVAL of what remained of the Haitian population was extremely challenged to set up any form of triage, yet alone a national health department. Haiti is the type of country where when monies are moved to Haiti, the needs of the country soak it up like a sponge. When those dynamics occur there is no efficiency involved in spending it. The spending happens in emergent ways to serve the populous.
Now, to say that is exactly the problem is a gross error. The United Nations acted to prevent corruption within Haiti's government from removing benefits of monies given to Haiti. So, to say the United Nations is the problem is completely idiotic. The problem is Haiti's corruption and the complete inability of its people to move into productive lives, heck, even learned lives.
I really don't care how small the country is, building infrastructure from NOTHING, takes a lot of money and a sustained effort. This is ridiculous.
What needs to be addressed is the lack of sovereign status of Haiti and whom exactly is able to lead and able to build the country into a civilized nation with sustainable jobs and growth from NOTHING.
There is also some very real and stark realities for the Haitian people. They live on a highly dynamic and dangerous fault. They live on a small plate chronically 'acted on' by the North American Plate. The NA Plate grids away at that smaller plate. It is that PROCESS that leads to 'the big one' from time to time to this nation. Japan is no different, but, Japan has infrastructure. Even Japan has woefully inadequate infrastructure to face down a dynamic Earth.
Criticism of the United Nations sincerely belongs to groups seeking to always defeat it like the American GOP. After all, the UN can't have its own assets, its own military or its own ability to support its mission.
NOW. When Haitian sovereignty and the UN's right to exist is more than adequately addressed; then and only then any entity has a right to criticism!!!
I is astounding what we do not know about physics.
I believe what we do know is that Earth exists with biotic life at this distance from an amazing new reality. It give me sound reason to completely value the magnificent planet I live on.
Fabulous discovery.
Biggest Thing in Universe Found—Defies Scientific Theory (click here)
Quasar cluster is "challenge to our current understanding," astronomer says.
National Geographic News
Published January 11, 2013
Talk about a whopper—astronomers have discovered a structure in the universeso large that modern cosmological theory says it should not exist, a new study says. (Also see "Giant 'Blob' Is Largest Thing in Universe [2006].")
Using data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, an international team of researchers has discovered a record-breaking cluster of quasars—young active galaxies—stretching 4 billion light-years across.
"This discovery was very much a surprise, since it does break the cosmological record as the largest structure in the known universe," said study leader Roger Clowes, an astronomer at University of Central Lancashire in England.
For comparison, our own galaxy, the Milky Way, is just a hundred thousand light-years across, while the local supercluster of galaxies in which it's located, the Virgo Cluster, is only a hundred million light-years wide.
Giant Quasar a Head-Scratcher...
Friday, January 11, 2013
Gingrey's argument is rather pathetic. It is not based in anything except rhetoric.
He is imposing a 'belief system' into the facts about a woman's reproductive capacity. He sees his words as important to validate the "Pro Life" initiative to bring pregnancy as a real outcome to sex as punishment for sex outside marriage. Heck, it is punishment inside a marriage if the pregnancy is unwanted.
Dr. Gingrey completed his internship (click here) at Grady Memorial Hospital in Atlanta, and his residency at the Medical College of Georgia. He also completed a rotation during this time at Doctor's Hospital in Columbus.
He is a licensed physician and needs to be peer reviewed. That it to begin with.
Fact Sheets by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy (click here)
The website Georgia Campaign for Adolescent Power and Potential is overt about racism and pregnancy.
When young women, girls and their families do not have options, are not educated to the facts of pregnancy then what results are high pregnancy rates.
Georgia has the 13th highest adolescent birth rate (click here) in the United States. Source: CDC/NCHS, National Vital Statistics System. National Vital Statistics Reports, Volume 60, Number 1. Births: Final Data for 2009. November 2011.
I sincerely expect EVERY STATE in the country to offer young women, especially girls, the option of an abortion. Children should not being having children.
Dr. Gingrey's understanding about infertility and 'casual behavior' to CURE the problem is grossly incorrect. There can be issues at times. Sometimes advise to THE MAN is more important than the woman. It is not about relaxing, except, to allow the testicles to descend ever so gently from the scrotum in shorts rather than briefs. Sometimes sperm are sensitive to body temperature and aren't in sufficient numbers or motility to make it to the target ovum. Sometimes men have to appear less macho when trying to have a baby and actually air the darn things in shorts so they aren't over cooking the sperm.
Men may find a higher fertility rate if their balls look more like walnuts than smooth golf balls. I wish them all the luck and happiness they deserve.
So, Dr. Gingrey needs reorientation to casual treatment of infertility and certainly not victimize and make guilty the prospective mother. While emotional tensions surround the act of sexual intercourse I doubt seriously that is the overwhelming reason for infertility in couples. Sexual tension can precede intercourse and not the interruption of it. I mean the couple has to get each other's attention after all.
There may be a reason why the Right Wing is stuck in the past.
I thought this was an excellent interview with Judge Scalia. It also portrays the profound difference between the Justices when they make decisions.
There are conservative judges that sincerely do not see an obligation to address the modern era. I do believe Justice Scalia explains these differences quite well. He doesn't do a compare and contrast, however, he does discuss the values dictating his focus on the USA Constitution.
Some coin this as a Living Constitution. Does the USA Constitution actually assign the right to Justices, the Legislature and the Executive Branch to treat it in a way it is responsive to a modern day society. Basically, the Founders were movers and shakers themselves, so when contextualizing the Constitution as a 'carved in stone' document it is not the best endearment of our heritage.
The Founders, including scientists such as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, remained skeptical the USA Constitution would actually serve the people and remain as a stable form of government. The Founders definitely were interested in creating a nation of, by and for the people. They were not interested in creating a dictatorship of their own words and purpose.
But, in appreciation of Judge Scalia and his reasoning, he does clearly state the limitations of the Second Amendment. It is not as though his point of view is null and void. He does hold a valuable view of the Constitution, that is not it at all. It is the fact that view overrides the realities Americans now live in as they seek the best understanding of the USA Constitution to their new realities opposed to those of the Founders.
I also believe Judge Scalia can be political in his decisions, too. I mean "Broccoli?" Give me a break.
Can the federal government make you buy broccoli? (click here)
Mississippi receives Medicaid for 20% of its population compared to the USA which receives 18%. (A link for the curious - click here) The majority of recipients of the Mississippi program are children. 68% of Mississippi children are covered by Medicaid with 32% of adults. California is 18%, 58% and 42% which are closer to national averages. DC is 25%, 40% and 60%. Those are higher averages than the nation.
A Weekly Influenza Surveillance Report (click here)
While not everyone will receive a flu vaccination, Public Health policy usually dictates as many should be vaccinated to prevent epidemics. So, while spead is from east to west and eventually the ranking of California will no doubt change, the fact the recovery rate of any widespread occurrence is recovering more quickly in states leaning toward aggressive public policy in vaccinating as many as possible is significant. No doubt those vaccinated, if they succumb, will recover more quickly than if they weren't vaccinated. So, while effectiveness from this strain of flu may be only 65% or so, that doesn't mean the vaccination never was effective for a better outcome.
There are economic impacts of the flu. The obvious is time off from work from being ill and the need to take care of children.
By LINSEY DAVIS (@LinseyDavis) and AMANDA KEEGAN
Jan. 11, 2013
The flu outbreak (click here) that is sweeping the nation has caused one school district in Oklahoma to cancel classes as 25 percent of the student body is ill with the flu.
On Thursday, the Kiefer public school district announced they would cancel today's classes to give students the weekend to rest as nearly 150 of the 650 student-body are suffering from the flu.
Kiefer, located 30 minutes south of Tulsa, will use today's day off to clean all of the water fountains, lockers, desks and chairs in the school district,according to ABC News affiliate KTUL....
The National RIFLE Association has been controlling the dialogue regarding guns.
What does anyone believe that dialogue is going to look like, considering where it is today? The NRA is now living its prophesy.
The chart to the right is from 1994.
The only approach for the USA to state it has a profound reason to effect gun control, is to call in the reality of statistics that prove guns in our society at these levels are dangerous to the people whom were elected to Congress and the Executive Branch.
- How many rapes were prevented or stopped because the woman was carrying a concealed weapon or otherwise?
- How many crimes were ended or prevented when guns were present to prevent the crime?
- How many guns are used for sport in the USA?
- How many guns are used for target shooting?
- How many gun owners participate in SAFE competition to ultimately lead to participation in events such as the Olympics?
- What are gun owners saying about their guns? Do they have social acceptance because they own? They carry? They stand for the Second Amendment defined as the NRA would define it?
- Do owners like owning their guns? Do they use them regularly? Practice? Do they feel more secure with a gun in their possession? Do they worry about owning a gun? Do they worry about carrying a gun? Do they worry in a wholesome way? Is there a limit to the presence in their own lives to the gun in their life?
- Do they spend money on securing their guns? Do they have a bedside table with a lock where the gun is stored? Do they pay warehousing fees on ownership of large amounts of ammunition and guns? Do they fear an adverse outcome to owning a gun?
From the thread at the blog this entry was about two months ago (11/12).
...For fun, (click here) I put together a fairly conservative breakdown of the costs associated with owning/using a competition gun and the 1st thing that is clear is the cost of a quality firearm is only about 11% of the equation....
I always chuckle when I think of the enormous amounts of ammunition and guns purchased after an event that brings about discussion of gun control. Like, where does that money come from to do that? Guns and ammunition are not cheap, so like do these folks run to Pay Check Advance? What does a man say to his 'woman' when it arrives home and the checking account is severely damaged after a trip to the gun shop in these occasions? My favorite fantasy to that potential reality is, "Look, honey, I have to protect my family and no government is going to stop me. I don't care if we can't pay the mortgage right now. If they come to evict us, they'll never succeed, okay?"
This is a chart from the standard argument that when gun legislation in the UK was enacted the crime statistics went up. That is not exactly the case, so the statistics used have to be real. Impacting these statistics are the definitions used, namely what is crime, what is violent crime, what is homicide and what is not as well in all these cases. The USA needs its own statistics to 'find' the reason why legislation effects dynamics of crime and why it does not. To simply state gun legislation causes higher crime rates is not accurate. To state that means people with guns were actually acting as a threat to the escalation of crime. Not so. People are not out there preventing crime. As a matter of fact vigilantes are not allowed to carry out the role of police officers. So, these arguments have to be met with economic dynamics that would effect government budgets to reduce officers in its society. Economics also causes higher crime rates or prevents them. There is a lot here that dictates crime rates. Crime rates are not directly connected to the incidence of guns. It is a gross deception. Crime and its prevention is the role of the government, not the citizen. These statements by the NRA are focused to convince people they are accurate in the face of many other factors that contribute to crime and violence. There has to be a none biased examination of American crime as well as American violence. Both are not the same, but, most people think they are because Americans frequently equate crime with guns. Follow? There needs to be sanity brought to the arguments of the private sector stating they have the best arguments. They do not. They have AN argument and it is based in economic success and political pressure.
The ethical problem in the USA within the federal government are the amendments attached to what could be effective legislation in order to water it down and perhaps make it ineffective. This is corruption. When it comes to controlling violence and saving lives I would object to any and all amendments to weaken the words of the legislation. Why go through asking police officers how to best protect their lives and the lives of the communities where they work, if it will be undone by an NRA amendment?
If we are to end the slaughter. And we are talking about children. If we are to end the slaughter, we need to have the best policies, the best outcomes, the best realities. Not those that serve a faux agenda by extremists. Please. Let's keep this one real.
- What do police officers say about defending the law these days? More dangerous, less dangerous? Is there a profoundly good dynamic in their jobs when large volumes of guns exist within the USA society? Have they ever lost anyone due to a gun? How do they cope with that? Is your union proving to be an effective advocate for gun safety in the USA to reduce the gun crimes you face? Do you seek that type of advocacy from your unions as well as seeking pay and benefits? Do you believe they are trying everything they can to stop this momentum in the USA?
- Do gun owners and police officers believe the Second Amendment is being enforced by the courts in the spirit it was intended? Why or why not? Do they believe the Second Amendment as been perverted for the sake of economic benefit?
- Has a gun owner / police officer visited gun manufacturers? Why or why not? With such a supposedly important aspect to the USA Constitution and the brevity of life and death in the balance don't they feel a need to understand the industry better?
- What do gun owners/purchasers believe is a realistic number on the amount of guns any one person should own in the USA? If no limit, why? A no limit capacity doesn't speak to respect of the Second Amendment or does it?
- Should Concealed Carry permits require proof of need? Is there such a thing as unreasonable possession? Should ownership be limited to those who take lessons and to what extent does that add an unreasonable demand to ownership, especially in the demands on the industry for sport. What do hunting permits prove to gun ownership for sport? Should a gun owner be viewed through the lens of USE as well as ownership? If a gun owner / purchaser doesn't find use of the guns, except, in hoarding them what does that say about a law allowing it? What does that say about the people that will be victimized by that dynamic?
Have a better day? Yes or no?
Prove the case and win the day.
The chart to the right is from 1994.
The only approach for the USA to state it has a profound reason to effect gun control, is to call in the reality of statistics that prove guns in our society at these levels are dangerous to the people whom were elected to Congress and the Executive Branch.
- How many rapes were prevented or stopped because the woman was carrying a concealed weapon or otherwise?
- How many crimes were ended or prevented when guns were present to prevent the crime?
- How many guns are used for sport in the USA?
- How many guns are used for target shooting?
- How many gun owners participate in SAFE competition to ultimately lead to participation in events such as the Olympics?
- What are gun owners saying about their guns? Do they have social acceptance because they own? They carry? They stand for the Second Amendment defined as the NRA would define it?
- Do owners like owning their guns? Do they use them regularly? Practice? Do they feel more secure with a gun in their possession? Do they worry about owning a gun? Do they worry about carrying a gun? Do they worry in a wholesome way? Is there a limit to the presence in their own lives to the gun in their life?
- Do they spend money on securing their guns? Do they have a bedside table with a lock where the gun is stored? Do they pay warehousing fees on ownership of large amounts of ammunition and guns? Do they fear an adverse outcome to owning a gun?
...For fun, (click here) I put together a fairly conservative breakdown of the costs associated with owning/using a competition gun and the 1st thing that is clear is the cost of a quality firearm is only about 11% of the equation....
I always chuckle when I think of the enormous amounts of ammunition and guns purchased after an event that brings about discussion of gun control. Like, where does that money come from to do that? Guns and ammunition are not cheap, so like do these folks run to Pay Check Advance? What does a man say to his 'woman' when it arrives home and the checking account is severely damaged after a trip to the gun shop in these occasions? My favorite fantasy to that potential reality is, "Look, honey, I have to protect my family and no government is going to stop me. I don't care if we can't pay the mortgage right now. If they come to evict us, they'll never succeed, okay?"
This is a chart from the standard argument that when gun legislation in the UK was enacted the crime statistics went up. That is not exactly the case, so the statistics used have to be real. Impacting these statistics are the definitions used, namely what is crime, what is violent crime, what is homicide and what is not as well in all these cases. The USA needs its own statistics to 'find' the reason why legislation effects dynamics of crime and why it does not. To simply state gun legislation causes higher crime rates is not accurate. To state that means people with guns were actually acting as a threat to the escalation of crime. Not so. People are not out there preventing crime. As a matter of fact vigilantes are not allowed to carry out the role of police officers. So, these arguments have to be met with economic dynamics that would effect government budgets to reduce officers in its society. Economics also causes higher crime rates or prevents them. There is a lot here that dictates crime rates. Crime rates are not directly connected to the incidence of guns. It is a gross deception. Crime and its prevention is the role of the government, not the citizen. These statements by the NRA are focused to convince people they are accurate in the face of many other factors that contribute to crime and violence. There has to be a none biased examination of American crime as well as American violence. Both are not the same, but, most people think they are because Americans frequently equate crime with guns. Follow? There needs to be sanity brought to the arguments of the private sector stating they have the best arguments. They do not. They have AN argument and it is based in economic success and political pressure.The ethical problem in the USA within the federal government are the amendments attached to what could be effective legislation in order to water it down and perhaps make it ineffective. This is corruption. When it comes to controlling violence and saving lives I would object to any and all amendments to weaken the words of the legislation. Why go through asking police officers how to best protect their lives and the lives of the communities where they work, if it will be undone by an NRA amendment?
If we are to end the slaughter. And we are talking about children. If we are to end the slaughter, we need to have the best policies, the best outcomes, the best realities. Not those that serve a faux agenda by extremists. Please. Let's keep this one real.
- What do police officers say about defending the law these days? More dangerous, less dangerous? Is there a profoundly good dynamic in their jobs when large volumes of guns exist within the USA society? Have they ever lost anyone due to a gun? How do they cope with that? Is your union proving to be an effective advocate for gun safety in the USA to reduce the gun crimes you face? Do you seek that type of advocacy from your unions as well as seeking pay and benefits? Do you believe they are trying everything they can to stop this momentum in the USA?
- Do gun owners and police officers believe the Second Amendment is being enforced by the courts in the spirit it was intended? Why or why not? Do they believe the Second Amendment as been perverted for the sake of economic benefit?
- Has a gun owner / police officer visited gun manufacturers? Why or why not? With such a supposedly important aspect to the USA Constitution and the brevity of life and death in the balance don't they feel a need to understand the industry better?
- What do gun owners/purchasers believe is a realistic number on the amount of guns any one person should own in the USA? If no limit, why? A no limit capacity doesn't speak to respect of the Second Amendment or does it?
- Should Concealed Carry permits require proof of need? Is there such a thing as unreasonable possession? Should ownership be limited to those who take lessons and to what extent does that add an unreasonable demand to ownership, especially in the demands on the industry for sport. What do hunting permits prove to gun ownership for sport? Should a gun owner be viewed through the lens of USE as well as ownership? If a gun owner / purchaser doesn't find use of the guns, except, in hoarding them what does that say about a law allowing it? What does that say about the people that will be victimized by that dynamic?Have a better day? Yes or no?
Prove the case and win the day.
I would not over estimate this ? fact ?
From Politico:
NRA TELLS PLAYBOOK it has gained over 100,000 new paid members in the past 18 days (Newtown shooting was Dec. 14), from 4.1 million to 4.2 million: “Our goal is to get to 5 million before this debate is over.” Membership is $25, and comes with a choice of three gifts: Rosewood Handle Knife, Black & Gold Duffel Bag or Digital Camo Duffel Bag. Meeting with Vice President Joe Biden at 1:45 p.m. in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building today will be James Jay (Jim) Baker, the NRA’s director of federal affairs, who works for Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action (NRA’s chief lobbyist). Baker has dealt with Biden personally many times before, and they both are fixtures at the Delaware beach. Baker was in Cox's post during the ’90's for the Brady Bill and first assault-weapons bill.
This is not necessarily a loyalty issue, the NRA provides a list of participating retailers who offer discounts with membership (click here).
Folks will join the NRA before they purchase. I doubt these are all new members either. Newly renewed, maybe to purchase the ammunition for the gun a person hasn't used in eons because the stuff is so expensive. So, statistically, there has to be at the very least 5% ... actually...more 10% of former members coming back for one reason or another.
There are also people willing to act to reduce extremism by joining and acting against the lousy political agenda put forward as their members wishes. For the most part memberships of large faceless organizations like this are silent partnerships. When people join and seek to effect change within the organization it can actually make it to the leadership to tone down their rhetoric. And that is all the NRA has, is rhetoric in what they consider to be advocacy. So, unless there is a valid opinion poll taken of their membership, which never happens (it is always volunteer reporting to any of their internal polls), there is no way of knowing why or who is actually joining the NRA.
The NRA has irrelevant advocacy. They simply tweak the extremism. That is brainless, rhetorical mind speak. That is not advocacy.
If the NRA leadership had brains rather than air space between their ears, which makes them really boring people to listen to at meetings with a Vice President of the USA, they might realize there is a real dynamic, including statistical analysis, of what is effective gun ownership in the USA that will prevent extremism and prevent marshaling in Martial Law.
Here again, the NRA is a populous organization seeking nothing more than common sense understandings among their members. They don't seek to reach a higher level of understanding. It is completely obvious where there is no significant basis to the NRA rhetoric. It is extremely obvious in other nations where the NRA has introduced their rhetorical fear of one another based on horrific incidents.
Today, the NRA is trying to use the rape issue to bring market penetration to India. The NRA is diabolical. There are very interesting laws in India to prevent escalation of gun ownership in a population of over a billion people. There are inheritance laws that provide for guns to be passed down from generation to generation will being about obsolete weaponry over time anyway, but, it sincerely prevents huge explosions of guns in the society there.
The NRA is seeking to turn the rape issue into a 'murder the rapist' issue. That is sincerely wrong headed. Women do survive rape in India. They survive it in Pakistan, too, where it is used to 'shame' populous ideation / culture. I am not saying it is correct women should be raped, but, what I am saying is turning rape into a murder is worse than allowing the population to sincerely address oppressive gender issues allowing rape to exist in the way it does. It is far better for women in both India and Pakistan to bring about democratic change in their political systems and government than to seek to become a society of armed women. The guns will ultimately be used against a woman. They will be used against them physically and politically. The guns will provide more of a reason to oppress women and not elevate their arguments and concerns.
That is another thing. Women actually believe a gun is an equalizer. It sincerely is not. Women are not as physically strong as a man. A man will assault a woman with a gun seeking to over power her and commit the crime anyway. Ultimately, a man while succeeding in his crime can then use the woman's personal gun to heighten the crime and possibly bring about her death. But, that is something no one will ever hear from the NRA or will find research on by the NRA.
There are many intelligent approaches to personal gun ownership and use. Many. The NRA is far from taking the high road to being an advocate. Their relationship with their membership is not what I would call valuable in most lives anywhere in the world, yet alone the USA.
NRA TELLS PLAYBOOK it has gained over 100,000 new paid members in the past 18 days (Newtown shooting was Dec. 14), from 4.1 million to 4.2 million: “Our goal is to get to 5 million before this debate is over.” Membership is $25, and comes with a choice of three gifts: Rosewood Handle Knife, Black & Gold Duffel Bag or Digital Camo Duffel Bag. Meeting with Vice President Joe Biden at 1:45 p.m. in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building today will be James Jay (Jim) Baker, the NRA’s director of federal affairs, who works for Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action (NRA’s chief lobbyist). Baker has dealt with Biden personally many times before, and they both are fixtures at the Delaware beach. Baker was in Cox's post during the ’90's for the Brady Bill and first assault-weapons bill.
This is not necessarily a loyalty issue, the NRA provides a list of participating retailers who offer discounts with membership (click here).
Folks will join the NRA before they purchase. I doubt these are all new members either. Newly renewed, maybe to purchase the ammunition for the gun a person hasn't used in eons because the stuff is so expensive. So, statistically, there has to be at the very least 5% ... actually...more 10% of former members coming back for one reason or another.
There are also people willing to act to reduce extremism by joining and acting against the lousy political agenda put forward as their members wishes. For the most part memberships of large faceless organizations like this are silent partnerships. When people join and seek to effect change within the organization it can actually make it to the leadership to tone down their rhetoric. And that is all the NRA has, is rhetoric in what they consider to be advocacy. So, unless there is a valid opinion poll taken of their membership, which never happens (it is always volunteer reporting to any of their internal polls), there is no way of knowing why or who is actually joining the NRA.
The NRA has irrelevant advocacy. They simply tweak the extremism. That is brainless, rhetorical mind speak. That is not advocacy.
If the NRA leadership had brains rather than air space between their ears, which makes them really boring people to listen to at meetings with a Vice President of the USA, they might realize there is a real dynamic, including statistical analysis, of what is effective gun ownership in the USA that will prevent extremism and prevent marshaling in Martial Law.
Here again, the NRA is a populous organization seeking nothing more than common sense understandings among their members. They don't seek to reach a higher level of understanding. It is completely obvious where there is no significant basis to the NRA rhetoric. It is extremely obvious in other nations where the NRA has introduced their rhetorical fear of one another based on horrific incidents.
Today, the NRA is trying to use the rape issue to bring market penetration to India. The NRA is diabolical. There are very interesting laws in India to prevent escalation of gun ownership in a population of over a billion people. There are inheritance laws that provide for guns to be passed down from generation to generation will being about obsolete weaponry over time anyway, but, it sincerely prevents huge explosions of guns in the society there.
The NRA is seeking to turn the rape issue into a 'murder the rapist' issue. That is sincerely wrong headed. Women do survive rape in India. They survive it in Pakistan, too, where it is used to 'shame' populous ideation / culture. I am not saying it is correct women should be raped, but, what I am saying is turning rape into a murder is worse than allowing the population to sincerely address oppressive gender issues allowing rape to exist in the way it does. It is far better for women in both India and Pakistan to bring about democratic change in their political systems and government than to seek to become a society of armed women. The guns will ultimately be used against a woman. They will be used against them physically and politically. The guns will provide more of a reason to oppress women and not elevate their arguments and concerns.
That is another thing. Women actually believe a gun is an equalizer. It sincerely is not. Women are not as physically strong as a man. A man will assault a woman with a gun seeking to over power her and commit the crime anyway. Ultimately, a man while succeeding in his crime can then use the woman's personal gun to heighten the crime and possibly bring about her death. But, that is something no one will ever hear from the NRA or will find research on by the NRA.
There are many intelligent approaches to personal gun ownership and use. Many. The NRA is far from taking the high road to being an advocate. Their relationship with their membership is not what I would call valuable in most lives anywhere in the world, yet alone the USA.
Thursday, January 10, 2013
I simply love brave women. There ain't nothin' like them.
The Republic | azcentral.comTue Jan 8, 2013 7:52 AM
When Roxanna Green’s car (click here) crossed into Newtown, Conn., a pretty little town of about 27,000, she felt a too-familiar fear crawl up her back and over the top of her head. She tried to rub away the goose bumps on her upper arms.
It was Monday, Dec. 17. Green could feel grief hanging in the air of the town where, three days before, a gunman had shot and killed 27 people, including 20 first-graders in their schoolrooms, and then himself.
“It was just so heartbreaking. It was really, really sad,” she said.
From the car window, she could look down quiet streets where yellow ribbons had been tied to lamp posts and stop signs in honor of those killed.
Our efforts cannot bring back the 20 innocent children murdered in Newtown, CT -- or the 33 people murdered with guns every day in America. But we can prevent future tragedies by passing common sense legislation that will:
- Require a criminal background check for every gun sold in America
- Ban assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines
- Make gun trafficking a federal crime, with real penalties for “straw purchasers”
Demand that your members of Congress and the president support these legislative priorities.
Who leads this mess? The NRA. They do it for financial upticks. NRA doesn't care about the country.
This is exactly what will happen because the NRA has lead a radical gun agenda that has translated into liberal gun laws.
People like this are prime examples of how a violent gun culture has developed into a financial reason for it to continue. This guy has a video website (the link is at the title to this entry). He probably gives lessons and endorsements, etc. He even likes Katana swords for whatever reason he does. They are romanticized weapons. Face to face blood thirsty combat for one's life. Hypermasculinity. Guns can't make that claim. In the methods this man advocates, guns are removed from the sincere death of an opponent. He is arming himself and others for the purpose of defeating an imaginary enemy that will come in mass numbers to turn the USA into Saloth Sar who lead the Khmer Rouge.
Interesting thing about the people of Southeast Asia. They have driven out the West with all its defoliant, jets, bombs, tanks and guns, they are gone now.
Interesting thought, isn't it?
There is this story of hundreds of people in Cambodia enslaved to remove trees from a forested hill for sale and the wealth of the nation. Tropical hardwoods are valuable. Today in 2013 they are more valuable alive than harvested, but, in those days conservation was not an issue, certainly not in the Third World.
The story goes like this. The people of the village who worked to harvest the trees passed a plan to defeat their overlords among themselves. They decided they would cut down enough trees to lay across the hillside and at a time designated they would roll the trees down the hill to kill the men with the guns. They did that and in full expectations to be killed themselves they rolled themselves by the hundreds down the hill following the trees. The men with the guns were dead and the village was rid of their maniacal oppressors.
People always find a way to stop oppression. They prefer methods they can life through. Mass murder is not allowed in the world we live in. The Hague and its proceedings are still testament to that. People are subject to their governments to a certain degree, but, in time it stops.
I know the argument; "I don't want to be among the people remembered, I want to be alive." Not a bad strategy, except, when it becomes toxic to a country desiring to stay alive rather than propagate the culture killing them.
The United States is NOT a country that will commit mass murder of its people. We are especially not that country because we rein in extremism. We especially rein in extremism we cannot control and can ultimately destroy our democracy and destroy domestic tranquility.
Today, the USA is under siege. All one has to do is realize how many people are dying everyday in this country at the business end of a gun. We have far too many guns in circulation in the USA. We have a porous border with Mexico that is feeding a drug economy powered by guns from the USA. No one can accuse the Mexican drug cartels of being armed by Russia or Iran.
We need gun control in the USA. At this point I don't care how it happens and men like this will bring about Marshall Law if he continues to enforce the idea he has the right to dominate the cultural content of this country causing deaths in double digit numbers everyday.
This man is his own worst enemy and by damn it he is determined to prove it.
Beasts Of The Southern Wild - Official Trailer (2012) [HD] (click title to entry for official site)
This is a magnificent picture and screams the entrapment of enforced impoverishment. It portrays how culture grows within poverty. The culture is valued and becomes a barrier itself to changing the quality of life.
The genius of "Beasts of the Southern Wild" is the impacts of this reality in the USA as seen through the eyes of a child. A very intelligent child who uses imagination to incorporate her reality to her identity.
Every peoples living in a third world dynamic has a lifestyle, has values and has cultural understandings about life. The length the 'value / belief system' exists in the community, the depth in which it provides solace, coping and accepting of reality out of their control; the more difficult it becomes for those people to move outside of the demands of their culture.
"Beasts of the Southern Wild" is nominated for Best Picture this year and I sincerely hope it wins. It deserves the award. It would be a new reality for the USA to examine in realizing how children of poverty use their imaginations more than books to secure their lives in love by the people and circumstances around them.
There are two wonderful women who would serve as inspirations at the Inaugural.
Meet Reverend Detherage. She works diligently within the doctrine of AME. She focuses on justice, the legal standing of women and seeks solice in ministry with prison populations.
Rev. Kimberly L. Detherage is an itinerant elder in the African Methodist Episcopal Church and the Pastor of St. Mark A.M.E. Church, Jackson Heights, New York.
Prior to being appointed to St. Mark she served as Pastor of Bright Temple A.M.E. Church, Bronx, New York and Bethel A.M.E. Church , Arverne, New York. Before being appointed to Pastor Bethel Rev. Kim served as the Minister to young Adults and Minister to Youth at Bridge Street, A.W.M.E. church, Brooklyn, New York. For 15 years. Rev. Kim owned her own law firm and has been engaged in the practice of law for over 20 years. Rev. Kim serves as a Board member on the First Episcopal District Self Help Board, an Instructor for the Ministerial Institute, and also serves on the New York Conference Board of Trustees, Board of Examiners and previously served on the Ministerial Efficiency Committee. She co-authored the legislation on clergy and lay sexual misconduct which can be found in the Book of Discipline of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, has provided extensive training on the Church’s Sexual Misconduct Policy and conducted workshops on a variety of issues. Rev. Kim received her BA in Speech Communications and her Juris Doctor degree from Boston College in 1982 and 1985 respectively. In 1996, she received her Master of Divinity Degree from Candler School of Theology at Emory University with certificates in Black Church Studies and Women’s Studies. In 1997, she completed a program of studies in Clinical Pastoral Education with Emory University Health System.
Rev. Kim is excited about the future direction of AME/WIM and looks forward to the strengthening the internal and external structure of the organization. With the support of the Executive Board, District Presidents, Coordinators and all women in ministry we can make a difference, and set a standard for the church at large. Our mission this quadrennium is to honor the legacy of Jarena Lee and trailblazing women past and present by defining, supporting and expanding the presence of women in ministry and the AME church.
Accomplishments
- 1st Black Female Supervisor of Criminal Defense Division, of The Legal Aid Society, Brooklyn , NY
- Developed female Rites of Passage program
- Set up Women's Literacy Program with curriculum, Ghana ,West Africa
- Implemented Mechanisms for identifying police brutality in court system
- Co-author, Clergy Sexual Misconduct Policy, Doctrine and Discipline of AMEC.
- Organized Women Be Well, Inc.
- Collect and document the stories of women in ministry in the New York Annual Conference
- Legal Advisor to women in ministry
Both are incredible women. Perhaps, there is room for two at the Inaugural. I sincerely wish the faith community would find a way to resolve to be a comfort to President Obama on his inauguration day. While the nation looks on as a witness to their President's inauguration, it is his inauguration after all.
A dedication to God no one can contest, Mary Glasspool is first openly lesbian Anglican consecrated as Bishop.11:07 UK time, Friday, 14 May 2010
After her episcopal consecration (click here) in California tomorrow, Canon Mary Glasspool will become the second openly gay and partnered bishop, and the first openly lesbian bishop, within the Anglican Communion. She also becomes the 17th female bishop with The Episcopal Church. Predictably, her election proved controversial both within the United States and internationally....
The Rev. Canon Mary Douglas Glasspool
Canon to the Bishops
An ordained priest since 1981, Canon Mary Glasspool served in parishes in Philadelphia,
Boston and Annapolis (St. Margaret’s) before becoming Canon to the Bishops in 2001.
She has served on Diocese of Maryland’s Standing Committee, the board of Episcopal Community Services of Maryland, and has been a Deputy to General Convention four times, each time having been elected the head of the deputation.
Canon Glasspool’s responsibilities are varied and range from pastoral care to development. She serves as pastor to clergy and their families, provides counseling to congregations in crises, oversees parish and mission retreats, and attends Sunday visitations with congregations. Her development responsibilities include leadership development and training, performing demographic studies, assisting parish Wardens and the Wardens’ Conference, serving on the Diocesan Council Planning Team, and overseeing parish, mission, vestry and advisory board retreats.
EDUCATION AND ORDINATION (click here for her story and vitae)
Fall 2006 Merrill Fellow, Harvard Divinity School
Coursework and Faculty
The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion, The Rev. Dr. Ian T. Douglas
World Religions in Boston, Dr. Diana L. Eck
Religious Dimensions in Human Experience, Dr. David Carrasco
Merrill Fellows’ Colloquium, Dr. Emily Click
Fall 1998 Certificate Program, St. George’s College, Jerusalem
The Bible and the Holy Land, Past and Present
In-depth (eight weeks) experience of the Bible in its geographical, historical, and theological contexts through travel, study, and dialogue. Travel throughout Israel, Jordan, Egypt, and Turkey. Introduction to contemporary issues of peace and justice and Islamic StudiesMarch 1982: Ordained Priest by Bishop Lyman Ogilby (Pennsylvania)
June 1981: Ordained Deacon by Bishop Paul Moore, Jr. (New York)May 1981: Master of Divinity, Episcopal Divinity School, Cambridge, Massachusetts
May 1976: Bachelor of Arts, Dickinson College, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. Magna Cum Laude; Honors in Music; Hufstader Prize – Outstanding Senior Woman
Coursework and Faculty
The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion, The Rev. Dr. Ian T. Douglas
World Religions in Boston, Dr. Diana L. Eck
Religious Dimensions in Human Experience, Dr. David Carrasco
Merrill Fellows’ Colloquium, Dr. Emily Click
Fall 1998 Certificate Program, St. George’s College, Jerusalem
The Bible and the Holy Land, Past and Present
In-depth (eight weeks) experience of the Bible in its geographical, historical, and theological contexts through travel, study, and dialogue. Travel throughout Israel, Jordan, Egypt, and Turkey. Introduction to contemporary issues of peace and justice and Islamic StudiesMarch 1982: Ordained Priest by Bishop Lyman Ogilby (Pennsylvania)
June 1981: Ordained Deacon by Bishop Paul Moore, Jr. (New York)May 1981: Master of Divinity, Episcopal Divinity School, Cambridge, Massachusetts
May 1976: Bachelor of Arts, Dickinson College, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. Magna Cum Laude; Honors in Music; Hufstader Prize – Outstanding Senior Woman
They are wonderful women who would bring honor to the inauguration of President Obama.
Not Even Close: 2012 Was Hottest Ever in U.S. (click here)
2012 Was the Hottest Year on Record (click here)
January 10, 2013, 4:40 am
By MICHAEL GONCHAR
WHAT were some of the most extreme climate events in the United States in 2012?
WHAT was the average temperature in the United States last year?
WHAT was the average temperature in the United States last year?
HOW did the numbers represent a change from previous years’ average temperatures?
By HOW much did 2012’s average temperature beat the previous record?
HOW did 2012 rank for the United States in terms of the Climate Extremes Index?
By HOW much did 2012’s average temperature beat the previous record?
HOW did 2012 rank for the United States in terms of the Climate Extremes Index?
WHEN was the previous record for highest average temperature set?
WHY did scientists say average temperatures most likely rose so significantly last year?
WHO is Jake Crouch?
WHERE did temperatures reach 112 degrees in 2012, setting a record?
Joe, we need gun control not more of the same.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)