Wednesday, February 21, 2007

An Honest Confession by an American Coward

(link)
An Honest Confession by an American Coward
Pat Conroy
Author: Pat Conroy
Source: This essay is from his book, My Losing Season.
Date: November 7, 2006

The true things always ambush me on the road and take me by surprise when I am drifting down the light of placid days, careless about flanks and rearguard actions. I was not looking for a true thing to come upon me in the state of New Jersey. Nothing has ever happened to me in New Jersey. But came it did, and it came to stay.

In the past four years I have been interviewing my teammates on the 1966-67 basketball team at the Citadel for a book I'm writing. For the most part, this has been like buying back a part of my past that I had mislaid or shut out of my life. At first I thought I was writing about being young and frisky and able to run up and down a court all day long, but lately I realized I came to this book because I needed to come to grips with being middle-aged and having ripened into a gray-haired man you could not trust to handle the ball on a fast break.

When I visited my old teammate Al Kroboth's house in New Jersey, I spent the first hours quizzing him about his memories of games and practices and the screams of coaches that had echoed in field houses more than 30 years before. Al had been a splendid forward-center for the Citadel; at 6 feet 5 inches and carrying 220 pounds, he played with indefatigable energy and enthusiasm. For most of his senior year, he led the nation in field-goal percentage, with UCLA center Lew Alcindor hot on his trail. Al was a battler and a brawler and a scrapper from the day he first stepped in as a Green Weenie as a sophomore to the day he graduated. After we talked basketball, we came to a subject I dreaded to bring up with Al, but which lay between us and would not lie still.

"Al, you know I was a draft dodger and antiwar demonstrator."

"That's what I heard, Conroy," Al said. "I have nothing against what you did, but I did what I thought was right."

"Tell me about Vietnam, big Al. Tell me what happened to you," I said.

On his seventh mission as a navigator in an A-6 for Major Leonard Robertson, Al was getting ready to deliver their payload when the fighter-bomber was hit by enemy fire. Though Al has no memory of it, he punched out somewhere in the middle of the ill-fated dive and lost consciousness. He doesn't know if he was unconscious for six hours or six days, nor does he know what happened to Major Robertson (whose name
is engraved on the Wall in Washington and on the MIA bracelet Al wears).

When Al awoke, he couldn't move. A Viet Cong soldier held an AK-47 to his head. His back and his neck were broken, and he had shattered his left scapula in the fall. When he was well enough to get to his feet (he still can't recall how much time had passed), two armed Viet Cong led Al from the jungles of South Vietnam to a prison in Hanoi. The journey took three months. Al Kroboth walked barefooted through the most impassable terrain in Vietnam, and he did it sometimes in the dead of night. He bathed when it rained, and he slept in bomb craters with his two Viet Cong captors. As they moved farther north, infections
began to erupt on his body, and his legs were covered with leeches picked up while crossing the rice paddies.

At the very time of Al's walk, I had a small role in organizing the only antiwar demonstration ever held in Beaufort, South Carolina, the home of Parris Island and the Marine Corps Air Station. In a Marine Corps town at that time, it was difficult to come up with a quorum of people who had even minor disagreements about the Vietnam War. But my small group managed to attract a crowd of about 150 to Beaufort's waterfront. With my mother and my wife on either side of me, we listened to the featured speaker, Dr. Howard Levy, suggest to the very few young enlisted Marines present that if they get sent to Vietnam, here's how they can help end this war: Roll a grenade under your officer's bunk when he's asleep in his tent. It's called fragging and is becoming more and more popular with the ground troops who know this war is bullsh*t. I was enraged by the suggestion. At that very moment my father, a Marine officer, was asleep in Vietnam. But in 1972, at the age of 27, I thought I was serving America's interests by pointing out what massive flaws and miscalculations and corruptions had led her to conduct a ground war in Southeast Asia.

In the meantime, Al and his captors had finally arrived in the North, and the Viet Cong traded him to North Vietnamese soldiers for the final leg of the trip to Hanoi. Many times when they stopped to rest for the night, the local villagers tried to kill him. His captors wired his hands behind his back at night, so he trained himself to sleep in the center of huts when the villagers began sticking knives and bayonets into the thin walls.

Following the U.S. air raids, old women would come into the huts to excrete on him and yank out hunks of his hair. After the nightmare journey of his walk north, Al was relieved when his guards finally delivered him to the POW camp in Hanoi and the cell door locked behind him.

It was at the camp that Al began to die. He threw up every meal he ate and before long was misidentified as the oldest American soldier in the prison because his appearance was so gaunt and skeletal. But the extraordinary camaraderie among fellow prisoners that sprang up in all the POW camps caught fire in Al, and did so in time to save his life.

When I was demonstrating in America against Nixon and the Christmas bombings in Hanoi, Al and his fellow prisoners were holding hands under the full fury of those bombings, singing "God Bless America." It was those bombs that convinced Hanoi they would do well to release the American POWs, including my college teammate. When he told me about the C-141 landing in Hanoi to pick up the prisoners, Al said he felt no emotion, none at all, until he saw the giant American flag painted on the plane's tail. I stopped writing as Al wept over the memory of that flag on that plane, on that morning, during that time in the life of America.

It was that same long night, after listening to Al's story, that I began to make judgments about how I had conducted myself during the Vietnam War.

In the darkness of the sleeping Kroboth household, lying in the third-floor guest bedroom, I began to assess my role as a citizen in the '60s, when my country called my name and I shot her the bird. Unlike the stupid boys who wrapped themselves in Viet Cong flags and burned the American one, I knew how to demonstrate against the war without flirting with treason or astonishingly bad taste. I had come directly from the warrior culture of this country and I knew how to act.

But in the 25 years that have passed since South Vietnam fell, I have immersed myself in the study of totalitarianism during the unspeakable century we just left behind. I have questioned survivors of Auschwitz and Bergen-Belsen, talked to Italians who told me tales of the Nazi occupation, French partisans who had counted German tanks in the forests of Normandy, and officers who survived the Bataan Death March. I quiz journalists returning from wars in Bosnia, the Sudan, the Congo, Angola, Indonesia, Guatemala, San Salvador, Chile, Northern Ireland, Algeria.

As I lay sleepless, I realized I'd done all this research to better understand my country. I now revere words like democracy, freedom, the right to vote, and the grandeur of the extraordinary vision of the founding fathers. Do I see America's flaws? Of course. But I now can honor her basic, incorruptible virtues, the ones that let me walk the streets screaming my ass off that my country had no idea what it was doing in South Vietnam. My country let me scream to my heart's content - the same country that produced both Al Kroboth and me.

Now, at this moment in New Jersey, I come to a conclusion about my actions as a young man when Vietnam was a dirty word to me. I wish I'd led a platoon of Marines in Vietnam. I would like to think I would have trained my troops well and that the Viet Cong would have had their hands full if they entered a firefight with us. From the day of my birth, I was programmed to enter the Marine Corps. I was the son of a Marine fighter pilot, and I had grown up on Marine bases where I had watched the men of the corps perform simulated war games in the forests of my childhood. That a novelist and poet bloomed darkly in the house of Santini strikes me as a remarkable irony. My mother and father had raised me to be an Al Kroboth, and during the Vietnam era they watched in horror as I metamorphosed into another breed of fanatic entirely. I understand now that I should have protested the war after my return from Vietnam, after I had done my duty for my country. I have come to a conclusion about my country that I knew then in my bones but lacked the courage to act on: America is good enough to die for even when she is wrong.

I looked for some conclusion, a summation of this trip to my teammate's house. I wanted to come to the single right thing, a true thing that I may not like but that I could live with. After hearing Al Kroboth's story of his walk across Vietnam and his brutal imprisonment in the North, I found myself passing harrowing, remorseless judgment on myself. I had not turned out to be the man I had once envisioned myself to be. I thought I would be the kind of man that America could point to and say, "There. That's the guy. That's the one who got it right. The whole package. The one I can depend on."

It had never once occurred to me that I would find myself in the position I did on that night in Al Kroboth's house in Roselle, New Jersey: an American coward spending the night with an American hero.

Pat Conroy's novels include The Prince of Tides, The Great Santini, The Lords of Discipline, and Beach Music. He lives on Fripp Island, South Carolina. This essay is from his forthcoming book, My Losing Season.



Current Mood: Proud to be an American
Current Music: None
Current Gun: Para-Ordnance P14 .45ACP

Sunday, February 18, 2007

Big boo boo, followed by mea culpa

(link 1)
(link 2)

Mr. Zumbo of Outdoor Life magazine made a big mistake with regards to gun owners. He posted a personal opinion on use of military style semi-autos for hunting. Ok, he made a big mistake. But he apologized for it (Link 2). Still, there are more than a few "holier than thou" types among us gun owners, who just can't forgive an honest mistake.

Of course, many of them don't believe it's an "honest mistake." That's more the pity. They're not willing to give the benefit of the doubt. They are not willing to take the high road of forgiveness. For that, I truly pity them. They forgot, "To err is human, to forgive divine."

I just hope, for their sakes, they never find themselves in a similar situation. If any of you do, just picture me laughing my ass off at you. It's something that I think should happen to all hypocrites.

UPDATE:
Due to the overwhelming number of protesters, it appears that Outdoor life has caved into the pressure and suspended Zumbo's blog. Only time will tell if this is permanent or not.

While I disagree with Mr. Zumbo's mistaken position on semi-automatic military style rifles, I fail to see how ANYONE can tell if a person is sincere or not in their apology, when said apology is in a typed format.

Apparently, not only do we have a large number of saints still living, we also have a large number of clairvoyant people among the gun owning public. Accordingly, the links no longer lead to Mr. Zumbo's blog, but to the notice from Outdoor Life, regarding the removal of the blog.




Current Mood: disappointed
Current Music: None
Current Gun: Para-Ordnance P14 .45ACP

From the Mustang Bobby's blog

(link)
I found this on Mustang Bobby's "Bark Bark Woof Woof" Blog. I thought it was worth sharing with everyone who reads this blog.
Contrition - a fundamental act

Do you think fundamental religious leaders and their followers will ever acknowledge the harm to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people -like certain denominations have apologized for once condoning racism in America?

How close is the day when they realize bigotry disguised as religious truth not only harms others but themselves? How close is the day that they say they're sorry?

I can't answer how close that day is.

But I do know that I can no longer wait.

I carried the Religious Right's anti-gay banner for many years but am thrilled to say today that I'm no longer held captive by bigotry disguised as religious truth. It's tough admitting your words, thoughts and actions were once guided by bigotry. It's more difficult yet to realize the harm you caused.

Three years ago, I was in a conversation with a dear family member. As a 43-year-old fundamentalist-leaning Christian, I was railing about how homosexuals were out to destroy America. My mother stopped me mid-sentence with a question: "Was the attitude I held toward gay men and women truly a Christ-like attitude?"

I had so often stated how I "loved the sinner but not the sin" but I never stopped to consider if I really meant that. More importantly, what did the gay co-worker actually feel when I spoke those words. It seems consistent with God's message of love and forgiveness that I should treat everyone with love and compassion. But being reared in a fundamentalist Baptist church, I was taught that the Bible says homosexuals are engaged in sinful behavior and that they want to bring about moral decay within our society.

Yet, can any student of the Bible say that the overall message - from beginning to end - is not one of forgiveness, love and redemption? God calls upon Christians to love as Christ did. God forbids us from judging or condemning people based on what we consider sin. That, I believe the Bible says, is God's job. As I pondered these questions, God began to slowly open my heart and mind to what I know as truth today - gay men and lesbians are not wicked and evil individuals and their sexual orientation is simply how God created them. They have jobs, homes, families and many desire a meaningful relationship with God just as I do. While I'm no theologian, I believe deeply that God grants us the ability to discern spiritual truths. One truth that God allowed me to discern is that judging a group of people as wicked and evil because of their sexual orientation - and deeming them as unworthy of my association and unworthy of a relationship with God - was wrong.

It didn't reflect a Christ-like love toward gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.

Certain religious leaders who espouse attitudes of discrimination and condemnation when it comes to the issue of homosexuality are quick to say they love the homosexual - it's just their sexual orientation they have a problem with. We cannot have it both ways. Christ accepts us just as we are? Shouldn't we do the same?

Over time I have had the opportunity to speak with numerous of my gay and lesbian neighbors - some Christians, some of other faiths and some who profess no particular faith. They tell me how the harsh and condemning language coming from certain conservative Christian organizations causes them great psychological and emotional distress. When they hear Christians espousing a condemning and judgmental message, they feel no love, compassion or respect. Each time I hear this from a gay or lesbian person it reinforces what I came to realize about my past attitude toward homosexuals - condemning people as sinners because of their sexual orientation prevented me from showing the type love and compassion that Christ calls us to exhibit in all our relationships. Sometimes we accept certain biblical teachings as truth without placing those teachings up against God's overall message of love, forgiveness and redemption.

It often takes a step out in faith to question a long-held religious belief. Perhaps we're afraid that changing our belief on something we've accepted as truth will lead us to discard other truths found in God's Word. It reminds me of how Christ was perceived as a threat by religious leaders of his time because he challenged many of their long-standing religious beliefs and practices.

At the end of my days, this is what I will know in my heart: As I discarded my attitude of discrimination and condemnation toward gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals, my faith was strengthened as I realized the difference between genuine love and insincere words.

It's ironic. After years of wanting to change what I perceived as the hardened hearts of homosexuals, God changed my heart instead.

There's one thing I still must do and thus the reason for this post.

To all the wonderful, decent and loving gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people in the world, I have to ask your forgiveness?

I unfortunately know that I can't undo the hurt that I caused with my condemning words and hateful thoughts, so it seems very insufficient to say I'm sorry.

But I am.

Brent Childers
Visit faithinamerica.com



Current Mood: Awake
Current Music: None
Current Gun: Taurus PT92AFS 9x19mm

Friday, February 16, 2007

US House of Reps rebukes the President, and "UN-supports" the troops.

(link)
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Democratic-controlled House issued a symbolic rejection of President Bush's decision to deploy more troops to Iraq on Friday, opening an epic confrontation between Congress and commander in chief over an unpopular war that has taken the lives of more than 3,100 U.S. troops.

The vote on the non-binding measure was 246-182....

No matter how you white wash this vote, it was a slap in the face to US Service men and women serving in Iraq.

Speaking as a former soldier, if you don't support the mission, you ARE NOT supporting the troops. The best way to support the troops is to help them finish the mission... SUCCESSFULLY. Do it any other way, and it's Vietnam, all over again. And I would not want our current service men and women to go through that. I did, and I didn't even go to Vietnam, but because I was in during that time, I got the same treatment that our combat vets did, including getting spat upon, and called "baby killer."

I don't care if you like President Bush or not. This "non-binding resolution," is just the first step in a very wrong direction. If you are like me, in that you want to support the troops, contact "Non-Stop" Pelosi, and let her know you're not happy with this, so-called, non-binding resolution.

Office of the Speaker
H-232, US Capitol
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-0100

On the other hand, if you agree with her, go ahead, let her know you agree. But know this, you are not worthy to shine my boots, if you agree with this cowardly, "non-binding" resolution.

As with most statements on this blog, this one is my personal opinion, and I don't expect everyone to agree. But I hope that most of you do.

Current Mood: Sad
Current Music: None
Current Gun: Para-Ordnance P14 .45ACP

PRESS IGNORES FBI STUDY SAYING GUN LAWS IGNORED BY COP KILLERS

(link)
While not really surprising, it is more than a little disappointing that our police chiefs would prefer to ignore this vital report. I expect such treatment from the press. But I expect better judgment from our top law enforcement officers.

BELLEVUE, WA – For more than two months, a damning report on a five-year study by the Federal Bureau of Investigation about how cop-killing criminals ignore gun laws and where they get their guns has languished in the shadows, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms revealed today.

“The public has a right to know the contents of this report, which was revealed to the International Association of Chiefs of Police last year,” said CCRKBA Executive Director Joe Waldron. “According to the Force Science News, research focused on 40 incidents involving assaults or deadly attacks on police officers, in which all but one of the guns involved had been obtained illegally, and none were obtained from gun shows.”

The study is called “Violent Encounters: A Study of Felonious Assaults on Our Nation’s Law Enforcement Officers.” Waldron called it a “smoking gun” in terms of revelations about the sources of crime guns. Anti-gun politicians and police chiefs do not want the public to know as they campaign against the so-called “gun show loophole,” he said.

The newsletter quotes Ed Davis, who told the IACP that none of these criminals who attacked police officers was “hindered by any law – federal, sate or local – that has ever been established to prevent gun ownership. They just laughed at gun laws.” The Force Science News is published by the Force Science Research Center, a non-profit institution based at Minnesota State University in Mankato. The newsletter also stated, “In contrast to media myth, none of the firearms in the study was obtained from gun shows.”....

If you want to read the rest, click on the link, here or at the top.

BGA


Current Mood: sad
Current Music: none
Current Gun: EAA Witness .45ACP

Another American Traitor in the Press.

(link)
Another American Traitor..Oops, I mean Journalist...
Mr. Arkin says the troops need to support the American People. I thought the that's what American troops have ALWAYS done. Usually in battle, with their lives.

While Mr. Arkin has the right to express his opinions, I also have the right to disagree. I think Mr. Arkin owes the American service men and women a HUGE apology.

Below is just a portion of Mr. Arkin's post. You can click on the link above to read the whole thing. I included the "highlights," for your edification.
William M. Arkin on National and Homeland Security
The Troops Also Need to Support the American People

I've been mulling over an NBC Nightly News report from Iraq last Friday in which a number of soldiers expressed frustration with opposition to war in the United States.

I'm sure the soldiers were expressing a majority opinion common amongst the ranks - that's why it is news - and I'm also sure no one in the military leadership or the administration put the soldiers up to expressing their views, nor steered NBC reporter Richard Engel to the story.

I'm all for everyone expressing their opinion, even those who wear the uniform of the United States Army. But I also hope that military commanders took the soldiers aside after the story and explained to them why it wasn't for them to disapprove of the American people.

Friday's NBC Nightly News included a story from my colleague and friend Richard Engel, who was embedded with an active duty Army infantry battalion from Fort Lewis, Washington.

Engel relayed how "troops here say they are increasingly frustrated by American criticism of the war. Many take it personally, believing it is also criticism of what they've been fighting for."....

...These soldiers should be grateful that the American public, which by all polls overwhelmingly disapproves of the Iraq war and the President's handling of it, do still offer their support to them, and their respect.

Through every Abu Ghraib and Haditha, through every rape and murder, the American public has indulged those in uniform, accepting that the incidents were the product of bad apples or even of some administration or command order.

Sure, it is the junior enlisted men who go to jail. But even at anti-war protests, the focus is firmly on the White House and the policy. We don't see very many "baby killer" epithets being thrown around these days, no one in uniform is being spit upon.

So, we pay the soldiers a decent wage, take care of their families, provide them with housing and medical care and vast social support systems and ship obscene amenities into the war zone for them, we support them in every possible way, and their attitude is that we should in addition roll over and play dead, defer to the military and the generals and let them fight their war, and give up our rights and responsibilities to speak up because they are above society?.....

.....But it is the United States, and the recent NBC report is just an ugly reminder of the price we pay for a mercenary - oops sorry, volunteer - force that thinks it is doing the dirty work.

The notion of dirty work is that, like laundry, it is something that has to be done but no one else wants to do it. But Iraq is not dirty work: it is not some necessary endeavor; the people just don't believe that anymore.

I'll accept that the soldiers, in order to soldier on, have to believe that they are manning the parapet, and that's where their frustrations come in. I'll accept as well that they are young and naïve and are frustrated with their own lack of progress and the never changing situation in Iraq. Cut off from society and constantly told that everyone supports them, no wonder the debate back home confuses them.

America needs to ponder what it is we really owe those in uniform. I don't believe America needs a draft though I imagine we'd be having a different discussion if we had one.

Why is it, when it comes to the American military service men and women, the vast majority will ALWAYS be graded according to the excesses and crimes of the pitiful minority? What I mean is, we have a SMALL number of people in our military who committed a small number of crimes. Barely a percentage, as compared to the vast majority of law-abiding troops. Yet we constantly have these few crimes tossed into our faces, as though we all participated in the crimes.

I guess when you have nothing else sensational to write about, you have to drag up the past, just so you can rub our collective noses in the dirt one more time.

Frankly Mr. Arkin, you can kiss my big, white, hairy ass.


Current Mood: Angry
Current Music: Dulaman (Irish Folk Music) - Altan
Current Gun: Taurus PT92AFS 9x19mm

Tuesday, February 13, 2007

Global Warming = Junk Science

(link)
Don't believe me? Click on the link, check out their info. Makes sense to me.

First, if the world is getting warmer, WHY do we have so much snow? I know, global warming.

Second, if the world is getting warmer, WHY has it been so cold this Winter? I know, global warming.

Third...Global Warming makes NO SENSE, unless of course you're a left wing weenie trying to take over the world. It's about the only political weapon they have left.


Current Mood: Amused
Current Music: None
Current Gun: Taurus PT92AFS 9x19mm

Wednesday, January 31, 2007

The Ghost of Tokyo Rose

Anyone who remembers anything about World War II, or has studied anything about World War II, will understand and remember that during World War II, the Japanese developed a way to demoralize the American forces. The Japanese psychological warfare experts developed a message they felt would work.

They gave their psychological warfare script to their famous broadcaster "Tokyo Rose" and every day she would broadcast this same message packaged in different ways, hoping it would have a negative impact on America and GI's morale.

What was that demoralizing message?

It had three main points:

1. Your President is lying to you.
2. This war is illegal.
3. You cannot win the war

Does this sound familiar?

Is it because

Tokyo Hillary,

Tokyo Harry,

Tokyo Teddy

Tokyo Nancy ,

Tokyo Durbin,

Tokyo Kerry,

etc. have all learned from the former enemies of our country and have picked up the same message and are broadcasting it on

Tokyo CNN,

Tokyo ABC,

Tokyo CBS,

Tokyo NBC,

etc., to our troops?

The only difference is that they claim to support our troops before they demoralize them.

Come to think of it... Tokyo Rose told the American Troops she was on their side, also.


Yup, sure sounds familiar to me. Only one they left out was Hanoi Jane.


Current Mood: Angry
Current Music: None
Current Gun: Para-Ordnance P14.45

Sunday, January 28, 2007

More on Harvard Junk Science about guns

(link)
Since first posting my very amateurish attempt at showing how the Harvard study was flawed, (States With Higher Levels of Gun Ownership Have Higher Homicide Rates,) , Prof. John Lott has posted his own article on the subject. Suffice it to say, he does a much better job than I can. He also shows how the anti-gun "academicians" (and I use the term VERY loosely) have a tendency to not release the data on their "research." What's wrong Mr. Hemenway? Afraid we'll come to a different set of results?


Current Mood: Amused
Current Music: None
Current Gun: Para Ordnance P14.45

Thursday, January 18, 2007

Evangelical LGBT congregation snaps up extra elbowroom

(link)
Evangelical LGBT congregation snaps up extra elbowroom
By SHARON GITTLEMAN

MADISON HEIGHTS -

While some peg LGBT people as ultra-liberals in all aspects of their lives - from faith to politics, the Reverend Rick Green knows better. Green leads the Praise Fellowship Christian Church in Madison Heights, a conservative sanctuary that recently expanded to accommodate its membership's growth.

The house of worship more than doubled its size on Dec. 1, now taking up 2,800 square feet.

Another factor prompted the change - to ensure that its 40-member primarily gay, lesbian and transgendered congregation would have enough space to enjoy their religious-based social groups and gatherings.

"We have room for some children's programming," Green said. "We'll be having a healthy living group focusing on issues like diet and exercise."

Future activities include a spring conference about how to inspire the growth of churches and expand the Kingdom of God.

Praise Fellowship is protestant and affiliated with the Alliance of Christian Churches.

"Theologically, we're a little on the conservative side, with the exception of homosexuality," he said. "We believe in the inspiration of scripture. I guess you can classify us as evangelical. We believe in a personal relationship with Christ."

Some parishioners have made Praise Fellowship their faith home after experiencing gay bashing at other churches.

Green believes bible passages that appear to condemn gay sexual relations are misinterpretations of scripture.

"Most of the so-called clobber passages used to beat up on our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters are actually talking about pagan temple worship," he said. "In the ancient pagan fertility worship, part of that process was sexual relationships with temple prostitutes both male and female."

The verses actually denounce the exaltation of things other than God, he said.

"It's more an issue of idolatry," said Green.

While members believe the bible is the divinely inspired, infallible word of God, and those who die without affirming Jesus as their savior endure an eternal separation from the Almighty, they are not entirely accepted as part of the conventional evangelical movement, he said.

"For the most part, we don't have a lot of contact with mainline churches like the Baptists," said Green.

Worshippers will find a familiar service in an unusual setting - inside the Farnum Plaza shopping center.

"For some people, having a different environment is a good thing," he said. "We have people who are incredibly hurt by the traditional church."

Services include contemporary praise music played on the piano, guitar and drums, lead by a worship team, Green said. A message or sermon is presented, followed by time dedicated to praying for people's needs.

What is his church's best quality?

"Our people are friendly and kind," he said. "They never met a stranger. Anyone who comes in is welcome."

Women play a big role at Praise Fellowship, from helping lead prayers to performing music during the service.

Everyone is invited to participate in social activities, including picnics, concerts, game nights and holiday outings, like the one church members recently took to Greenfield Village.

Worship services are held at 10 a.m., on Sundays at the church, which is located at 27627 John R. Road in Madison Heights. Small home fellowship groups also meet throughout the community.

To learn about special events or to read the church's newsletter visit www.praisefcc.org or call (586) 201-7884.


I guess you could call this the "Gay" part of this blog. It is in my opinion, a good bit of news for the LGBT Community. So I thought I'd pass it along. It also takes place in Michigan, a happy circumstance, if I do say so myself.

Unfortunately for me, they're located near Detroit. Now if we could get one going somewhere near Lansing.

Current Mood: Happy
Current Music: Rob Zombie - Dragula
Current Gun: EAA Witness .45ACP

Wednesday, January 17, 2007

Mexico wants US Assault Weapon Ban reinstated

MEXICO CITY - The Mexican village of Zazalpa got a chilling lesson in American-made firepower recently. Homes, cars, everything was destroyed. Even the cows were shot.

About 60 Mexican drug smugglers rolled into Zazalpa, 300 miles southeast of Douglas, looking for a rival trafficker in November. They rounded up residents, then raked the empty village with American-made AR-15 rifles.

The destruction of Zazalpa is just one of dozens of unrelated drug skirmishes in Mexico with a common element: American guns....


We should make them a deal, they stop the illegal aliens from their side of the border, and we'll stop the guns from our side of the border. But I doubt they'll call it a fair trade.


Current Mood: Amused
Current Music: None
Current Gun: EAA Witness .45ACP

Harvard Study on Guns: My final word...maybe

Regarding the Harvard paper that says: States With Higher Levels of Gun Ownership Have Higher Homicide Rates.

Ok, first a very kind Tim Lambert, (Thank you) sent me a copy of the Harvard paper, so I could evaluate it. However, not being college educated myself, I had to resort to my own research, based in part on theirs, in order to figure out what they were really trying to say.

In their report, they made references to several studies, books and other research. And one of the items they mention is the BRFSS Survey Results 2001 for Nationwide Firearms. According to their claims, the states with the highest rate (percentage???) of gun ownership, have the highest rates of gun (firearm) related deaths. In this respect, they are correct.

I went to the site for the BRFSS study, which is at the North Carolina State Center for Health Statistics. I'll grant, my "research isn't as scientific. Then again, my research wasn't funded by the Joyce Foundation either.

The states with the highest rate of gun ownership, did appear to have a slightly higher "rate" of gun death. However, typically, the physical numbers are significantly lower than those states with "lower" rates.

I ran California ,Illinois, New York, Alabama, Idaho and Wyoming through the CDC's WISQARS system. And I also got their rate of ownership numbers from the BRFSS study. In the table below, you can see my findings.



*=Death by firearm of all categories, i.e., murder, suicide, etc., etc.
**=Wyoming also has an F rating from the Brady Bunch, WAY TO GO, Wyoming!!!


You'll notice, just like the Harvard study claims, the states with the higher rates of gun ownership, have higher rates of firearms related deaths.

As our anti-gun counter parts like to point out in other examples (British and Australian crime rates since their gun bans went into effect, for instance.), percentage rates don't tell the whole truth.

In MY OPINION, I think basing this kind of research on a state level, is a mistake. It seems to me that the more sparsely populated states have a higher rate of firearms ownership. When looked at on a state wide level. It seems that county level is the best way to judge this sort of thing. However, I have to add this. I understand why they did it on a state level. The BFRSS report on gun ownership is on a state level, so I suppose they were constrained by that study with regard to their own. Still, it doesn't make their findings valid.

Then again, it's only my opinion.

And, as those of us on both sides of the gun debate are fond to quote, "there are lies, damn lies, and statistics."

Current Mood: Amused
Current Music: Wolfe Tones - Rifles of the IRA
Current Gun: EAA Witness .45ACP

Saturday, January 13, 2007

Gun Facts, Part Six

Myth: Every firearm leaves a unique "fingerprint" that
can pinpoint the firearm used

Fact: "Firearms that generate markings on cartridge casings can change with use and can also be readily altered by the users. They are not permanently defined like fingerprints or DNA."23

Fact: "Automated computer matching systems do not provide conclusive results.”24

Fact: “Because bullets are severely damaged on impact, they can only be examined manually”.25

Fact: “Not all firearms generate markings on cartridge casings that can be identified back to the firearm.”26

Fact: The same gun will produce different markings on bullets and casings, and different guns can produce similar markings.27

Fact: The rifle used in the Martin Luther King assassination was test fired 18 times under court supervision, and the results showed that no two bullets were marked alike.28 “Every test bullet was different because it was going over plating created by the previous bullet.”

23 “Feasibility of a Ballistics Imaging Database for All New Handgun Sales”, Frederic Tulleners, California Department of Justice, Bureau of Forensic Services, October, 2001 (henceforth “FBID”)
24 Ibid
25 Ibid
26 Ibid
27 “Handbook of Firearms & Ballistics: Examining and Interpreting Forensic Evidence”, Heard, 1997
28 “Ballistics 'fingerprinting' not foolproof”, Baltimore Sun, October 15, 2002



Current Mood: Awake
Current Music: None
Current Gun: EAA Witness .45ACP

Just a little comment from me

Regarding my previous post about the Harvard Study:

Since I seem to have drawn the attention of Mr. Tim Lambert, for picking on a "scientific" study that he apparently favors, as soon as I get paid (this coming Friday) I will purchase and read the article in question, and then I shall render a more informed, though obviously, less scholarly review.

After all, I'm not college educated.


Current Mood: Amused
Current Music: Rob Zombie - Dragula
Current Gun: EAA Witness .45ACP

More Junk Science from Harvard

link
States With Higher Levels of Gun Ownership Have Higher Homicide Rates

For immediate release: Thursday, January 11, 2007
Boston, MA -- Firearms are used to kill two out of every three homicide victims in America.. In the first nationally representative study to examine the relationship between survey measures of household firearm ownership and state level rates of homicide, researchers at the Harvard Injury Control Research Center found that homicide rates among children, and among women and men of all ages, are higher in states where more households have guns. The study appears in the February 2007 issue of Social Science and Medicine. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.09.024

Matthew Miller, Assistant Professor of Health Policy and Injury Prevention at Harvard School of Public Health, and his colleagues David Hemenway and Deborah Azrael, used survey data from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s 2001 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, the world’s largest telephone survey with over 200,000 respondents nationwide. Respondents in all 50 states were asked whether any firearms were kept in or around their home. The survey found that approximately one in three American households reported firearm ownership.
Matthew Miller, Assistant Professor of Health Policy and Injury Prevention at Harvard School of Public Health, and his colleagues David Hemenway and Deborah Azrael, used survey data from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s 2001 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, the world’s largest telephone survey with over 200,000 respondents nationwide. Respondents in all 50 states were asked whether any firearms were kept in or around their home. The survey found that approximately one in three American households reported firearm ownership.

Analyses that controlled for several measures of resource deprivation, urbanization, aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, and alcohol consumption found that states with higher rates of household firearm ownership had significantly higher homicide victimization rates for children, and for women and men. In these analyses, states within the highest quartile of firearm prevalence had firearm homicide rates 114% higher than states within the lowest quartile of firearm prevalence. Overall homicide rates were 60% higher. The association between firearm prevalence and homicide was driven by gun-related homicide rates; non-gun-related homicide rates were not significantly associated with rates of firearm ownership.

These results suggest that it is easier for potential homicide perpetrators to obtain a gun in states where guns are more prevalent. “Our findings suggest that in the United States, household firearms may be an important source of guns used to kill children, women and men, both on the street and in their homes,” said Miller.

This study was supported by the Joyce Foundation.

All I can say is...BULLSHIT!   To get the type of statistics THEY want to see, they divide the states into "quartiles." WHY? Because if they did it on an individual state level, or, as Prof. John Lott did, by county, they wouldn't get the "desired" results. Their desired results? They want to prove that more guns equal more crime, not less, as Dr. Lott has shown.

I also recommend you check out the Alphecca blog on this subject. I think Mr. Soyer says it more eloquently than I can. But then, I'm not college educated either.


Current Mood: Pissed Off
Current Music: None
Current Gun: EAA Witness .45ACP

Two Denver Nuggets players seeking permit to carry concealed

2 Nugs seek permits
Hodge, Evans filed paperwork to carry guns 2 months ago

By Cbs 4 News Reporter Brian Maass, Special to the News
January 13, 2007
A Denver Nuggets player who was shot nine months ago and traded this week was one of two Nuggets in the process of trying to obtain concealed handgun permits.

But apparently their desire to legally carry guns was not a response to the death of Denver Bronco Darrent Williams.

Guard Julius Hodge, who was traded Thursday to the Milwaukee Bucks as part of a multiplayer deal, and Nuggets forward Reggie Evans, began the process of trying to get permits about two months ago, well before the shooting death of the Broncos cornerback.

Asked about his application for a concealed weapons permit, Hodge said, "Who said that?"

Hodge did not deny applying for the permit but refused to answer questions about why he wanted to carry a gun. (For the rest of the story, click on article title.)

Ok, SO WHAT? What is the big effing deal? Two law-abiding citizens want to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon. WHO'S business is it, other than the issuing authority? Yet, this reporter, Brian Mass, is trying to make it seem like a big deal.

Colorado needs to alter their law on CCW permits to make that info confidential, like it is here in Michigan.

And Mr. Maass needs to go find a REAL story to report on, not the private business of two law-abiding citizens.

Current Mood: Awake (at 4:00AM!!!)
Current Music: None
Current Gun: EAA Witness .45ACP

Thursday, January 11, 2007

Denied right to bear arms

Denied right to bear arms
From staff reports
Article Last Updated: 01/10/2007 11:32:15 PM PST

A few months ago, I made a life-changing decision.

After years of being a gun owner and an N.R.A. member, I decided to apply for a Carry Concealed Weapon (CCW) permit. The permit allows an individual to carry a concealed firearm on his or her person or inside of a vehicle. The reason for the permit is to provide law-abiding persons the ability to protect themselves and their loved ones in the event that a situation demands it. No one can be sure when such a situation will arise, a breakdown on a deserted highway or a car-jacking in a dimly lit parking lot, but regardless of the environment, crimes do take place and one should be ready for any possibility.

Being a resident of Lake County for 7 years and residing in a rural area such as Cobb Mountain with the local authorities at least 30 minutes away, I thought taking such an action to be appropriate. I had heard that Lake County Sheriff Rodney Mitchell believed that law-abiding individuals have a right to carry firearms and should be able to protect themselves if necessary, so I decided to file an application.

After completing the required two-day training session and an interview by a staff member of the Sheriff's Department, I was told that I would receive word on their decision in a few weeks or so. After a couple of months I received a disappointing letter from the Sheriff's Department stating that my application had been denied because "I was not a U.S. citizen".

I promptly wrote a letter of appeal stating that I was a Canadian citizen living here in the U.S. as a Permanent Legal Resident for 24 years now and I supplied them with the documentation to prove my claim. However, my application was still denied.

Now I know that the State of California has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country and acquiring a CCW permit here can be quite a task, but according to the representative that I spoke with at the California Department.of Justice in Sacramento, Legal Permanent Residents are treated no differently from citizens when it comes to firearm ownership and are issued CCW permits on a regular basis. In fact in most counties, in most of the states in the country, CCW permits are issued on a regular basis to Legal Permanent Residents.

After further research, I discovered that even though Lake County approves many more CCW applications than other counties such as Sonoma or Napa, they seem to have a reputation for denying ordinary individuals permits on the basis of not "being a longtime resident", or not being "a prominent member of the community". It seems to be part of a "good old boy mentality" that still exists in various communities in California where friends, relatives or neighbors are granted permits by the local agencies while the common everyday person is considered an outsider and is denied their rights. (Unfortunately in California the final decision is left up to the issuing agency and an application can be denied for any reason that they deem fit).

I see this whole experience not as a negative one but as an awakening to become more politically active in the drive to allow people "the right to bear arms". Individuals who apply for CCW permits are aware of the civil and criminal responsibility that goes along with using lethal force to protect one's life and take this responsibility very seriously. Criminals, however, are not inclined to apply for permits [thereby] subjecting themselves to fingerprints and background checks but they will carry weapons illegally and will commit crimes with them.

I encourage anyone who is a firearm owner or a person who is concerned about constitutional rights to challenge elected officials and representatives and perhaps one day California will become a "right to carry" state.

David W. Adams

Unfortunately, this is what can happen when you live in a Socialist state, such as California. EVEN when the person is charge is said to believe in the "Right to Bear Arms." It just goes to show, bigotry is STILL alive and well in the Lake County California Sheriff's office.

If Mr. Adams lived here in Michigan, he could not be turned down for a Concealed Pistol License, just because he's from Canada. As long as he's a legal resident, without any felony convictions, and no other disqualifying problems, the authorities here would HAVE to issue him a permit.

What a difference a few thousand miles and 3 time zones can make.

Current Mood: Awake
Current Music: None
Current Gun: EAA Witness .45ACP

Wednesday, January 10, 2007

General Wants Gay Ban Lifted

In an op-ed published in Tuesday's New York Times, John M. Shalikashvili, retired Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, says Congress should give "serious reconsideration" to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," the ban on openly lesbian, gay and bisexual military personnel. Shalikashvili, who supported the ban on open service in 1993, writes that "I now believe that if gay men and lesbians served openly in the United States military, they would not undermine the efficacy of the armed forces," and goes on to say that "Our military has been stretched thin by our deployments in the Middle East, and we must welcome the service of any American who is willing and able to do the job."

"'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' is out of step with both the American public and those within our armed forces," said C. Dixon Osburn, executive director of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN). "The counsel of military leaders increasingly supports repeal of the law. Congress must, as General Shalikashvili urges, consider the overwhelming evidence of the past fourteen years. If they do, the clear answer is that we must lift the ban."

Read the rest of the story here.


Current Mood: Awake
Current Music: None
Current Gun: EAA Witness .45ACP

Friday, January 05, 2007

70 Million More Guns…38% Less Violent Crime

Data released by the FBI on Monday showed that in 2005, the nation’s total violent crime rate was 38% lower than in 1991, when violent crime hit an all-time high. Rates of the individual categories of violent crime were also much lower in 2005 than in 1991. Murder was 43% lower, rape 25% lower, robbery 48% lower, and aggravated assault 33% lower. The FBI’s report came on the heels of a Bureau of Justice Statistics crime survey that found that violent crime was lower in 2005 than anytime in the survey’s 32-year history.

Defying the anti-gunners’ claim that more guns means more crime, from 1991-2005 the number of privately owned guns increased by more than 70 million....(To read the rest, click on the title of this article, it will take you to the NRA's full article on this very important info)

Yup, that's right, 70,000,000 more guns equals 38% less crime. Sounds incredible doesn't it? I mean, the anti-Freedom crowd is always telling us "there are too many guns on the street." Problem is, they REFUSE to distinguish between legally owned guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens, and guns in the hands of criminals.

Oh, and guess where the highest murder rate is? Yup, the murder capitol of the USA, is the Capitol of the USA, Washington, D.C. A city with some of, if not the toughest anti-gun laws in our country, and yet, murder and mayhem continue unabated in this city.

Don't you think it's time something that has proven to be effective, should be tried in our nation's capitol, to stem the tide of crime? Yes, I referring to Right To Carry. I think it's past time when the handgun ban should be lifted, and concealed pistol licenses should be given out as in any other shall issue state. They've tried outlawing guns, and it doesn't work. The statistics PROVE that, beyond a shadow of a doubt. How about we go with something proven by FBI statistics to work, legal, concealed carry.

It's an idea who's time has come, and is still waiting to be implemented.

Current Mood: Awake
Current Music: Rob Zombie - Dragula
Current Gun: EAA Witness .45ACP

Wednesday, January 03, 2007

Concealed gun era under way in Kansas

Concealed gun era under way in Kansas
State is the 47th to have a conceal-carry law. Applicants must undergo training.
By LAURA BAUER and BENITA Y. WILLIAMS
The Kansas City Star

Today, Kansas will begin issuing permits to the nearly 3,000 Kansans eligible to carry concealed weapons in the state.

On Monday, Kansas became the 47th state to adopt a conceal-carry law, with permits available on the first business day of the new year. Because of the day of mourning Tuesday for former President Gerald Ford, the first wave of successful applicants had to wait until today to pick up their permits at Department of Motor Vehicles driver’s license offices.

Just after Christmas, the Kansas attorney general’s office mailed approval notices to 2,981 residents who had requested a permit by Oct. 31.

Others, who completed applications later, must wait a few weeks before they are notified.

More than 4,800 Kansans have applied to carry concealed guns, state officials say, and most have been approved.

“We’ve been working hard to get the notifications out,” said Chuck Sexson, director of conceal-carry services. “It’ll be pretty busy in our shop for the next few weeks.”

The office still must release a guide for law enforcement agencies on the procedures that licensees must follow.

Earlier this year, Attorney General Phill Kline approved a sign for establishments to post if they don’t want concealed weapons on the premises. Concealed weapons will not be allowed in libraries, courtrooms, government buildings, schools, bars, sporting events, places of worship and buildings that post the approved sign.

The application period began in July, and law enforcement officials across the state are beginning to see an upswing in applications.

“I imagine at least for another year we’ll still get a high level of traffic,” said Deputy Tom Erickson of the Johnson County Sheriff’s Department.

Initial predictions had 20,000 to 48,000 Kansans seeking permits in the first four years.

Before they can get a permit, Kansans must pass a background check and take a training course.

The training prepares people to know when a shooting would be justified.

“It’s not like you just sign up and here’s your permit,” said Ed Daniels, a certified firearms instructor from Olathe who has provided training for conceal-carry permits.

In the eight-hour course, students learn everything from breaking down a gun and cleaning the parts to firing the weapon properly and knowing where the guns are allowed. Students spend time on the firing range.

“A lot of the people who take the class have backgrounds in shooting as hobbyists,” Daniels said.
Getting a permit

To carry a concealed weapon in Kansas, you must:

•Be a Kansas resident older than 21, without a criminal history or record of multiple DUIs, drug arrests or domestic violence. Those involuntarily committed for mental illness or substance abuse are disqualified for five years.

•Take a certified conceal-carry training course.

•Submit an application to the local sheriff’s department along with a training certificate, a color photo and a $150 fee. You will be fingerprinted.

•Pass the application review by the attorney general’s office and the background check by the Kansas Bureau of Investigation.

•Take your driver’s license and the approval notice you receive from the state to a Kansas Department of Motor Vehicles driver’s license office. An examiner will check the information and take your picture. You can have your conceal-carry status noted on your driver’s license or request a separate card.

Your conceal-carry permit will arrive in the mail within 10 days and is good for four years.



Current Mood: Awake
Current Music: No Music, watching NYPD: Blue
Current Gun: EAA Witness .45ACP