Military Protection Issue?

  • Posted on January 31, 2010 at 2:29 am

I couldn’t contain myself in the world of politics of course, as the repeated arguments (that on both sides were mostly silly rhetoric with no meaning) drove me crazy, I have for the most part moved on with my life. Going to school and being a mom at the same time takes up pretty much all of my time (unless I slack utterly on one or both, which I occasionally let myself do.) However, I got my weekly message about how the Obama presidency was coming along, and decided I wanted to take a look because of the specific time of year it is. I was impressed with it (as the link in my twitter feed suggests), and so I decided since I am all caught up on everything at the moment I would devote a little time to reading if others thought it was as good as I did. Of course that yielded somewhat mixed results (as I expected), but over all it seems like I am agreed with. (It was good.)

Anyway, I saw a lot of talk about Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. I admit I don’t know anything about the military, and next to nothing about that particular thing (DADT). However, like most people my lack of education in a particular subject doesn’t mean I don’t have an opinion. Normally I like to research before I state it on here (my opinion) but on this one I just don’t have more time to do so. (I should be asleep, and if not working on my school work.) So here is my opinion…

I am all for equal rights for everyone. When it comes to allowing people that are gay to marry, it shouldn’t even be a real question (of course they should be allowed to marry!). I understand the hesitation (I think) when it comes to Don’t Ask Don’t Tell though, and I don’t think it has much to do with the idea that the people in charge are biased against gay people (although some might be.) Rather I wonder if it might be a security issue, as changing a law doesn’t change peoples opinions.

I think of the rights won by the black people, all the people that were hurt AFTER they were technically protected by the law. Could it be that the military can’t promise to protect someone from bigots if they are openly gay? Maybe I am being naive on the subject, but it seems from the questions that are being asked about how it could be done this is in the forefront of the discussion…

Maybe I am giving undue credit here (to reason), but it is a thought and I thought I would share it…

Care to leave a comment?

Supreme court mess up 1985

  • Posted on January 25, 2010 at 4:17 pm

I realise that I am quite a few years late on this post, but please keep in mind I just read it. I am angry and need to get it off my chest (as I get when the rights of the people in the United States are cut short.) In Heath v. Alabama the Supreme Court errored in the most horrible fashion!

I will leave out details that are not relevant to my judgement about the Supreme Court (and the court in Alabama.) Man pleads guilty in exchange for a life sentence to paying someone to kill his wife, in Georgia. Alabama then tries him for the same crime three  months later, using a jury that largely knows that the defendant has already plead guilty in Georgia. They say he is guilty at trial (note: after they already knew he plead guilty in a different state!), and sentence him to death…

Supreme Court says: this doesn’t go against the double jeopardy rule? Same offence? Not even counting the jury this is SO horrible. Rights trampled on… Totally trampled on

Care to leave a comment?

Coffee Cake – Success!!!

  • Posted on January 15, 2010 at 6:50 am

So I am in the process of making coffee cake, and don’t know how well it will turn out (I will detail the ingredients at the end if it turns out well with pictures.)

Back story: I have been craving coffee cake, but I have never made one. (I am not a baker, a good cook though.) So I looked one up on the Internet not knowing what I was looking for and ended up creating a crumb cake yesterday, it was quite possibly the worst tasting “cake” I have ever put in my mouth. So I was going to call my mother (after all I know I liked, but didn’t love her coffee cake). It dawned on me, it is MY MOTHER so it was either the Jiffy or Bisquick coffee cake. Which isn’t what I want, I want “real” made at home (completely made by me – well as much as possible.)

So I asked D’s grandma, she is a good cook. She gave me this sour cream recipe. That is the SAME recipe she gave me by the way. I was going to make it, but I just couldn’t make myself. I hate sour cream (all those foods most people love with it “hidden” in there, I can tell its there and HATE it.) So I decided to create my own, based in part on all the different ones that I have looked at. After all I am not a good cook because I follow directions, but because I use my own ideas and my own stuff incorporated with what I have been taught. (The problem is when I cook I can add new things as it is going if it doesn’t taste quite the way I want.)

Decided to take pictures (after it looked pretty in the pan), and document if I was a success or failure… It is a success on taste (more important to me) but a failure on looks :) Also not quite the right texture for coffee cake, but I think I like it better this way!

See looked so pretty, to begin with, I just had to take pictures!

Well I don’t want to over load the post with the pictures so I will add a link HERE once I make a page in case anyone has any interest in them.

(Note: I am sure some of these steps aren’t needed, because I kind of  changed my mind in the middle…)

Preheat oven to 350 degrees

3/4 c sugar
1 egg
1 1/2 c flour
1 t Baking powder
1 t baking soda
1/2 t salt
1/4 c milk
3/4 c butter milk
1/4 c butter

mix and set aside – next time I will try to skip regular milk to see if topping stays on top a bit better with a thicker batter.

1/2 c brown sugar
2 T butter
2 t cinnamon
2 T flour

mix and set aside – butter and flour 9 inch round baking pan. Add first mix, then in a circular fashion add second mix to top (I used my hand, should look similar to the picture.)

Cook 30 minutes for less of a sweet tooth, and a pretty look.

(I was in a sweet tooth mood) so cook 15 minutes and

1/2 c brown sugar
3 T rolled oats
2 t butter

mix and add to the top – cook 15 more minutes…

Prepare some coffee while it cools (about 5 minutes) and enjoy. (The bitter of the coffee mixed with the sweet of this cake is PERFECTION!)

Care to leave a comment?

Nancy Grace

  • Posted on January 2, 2010 at 11:57 am

I have been debating on writing this at all, because it is going to be hypocritical of me to do. However, I decided I have to say it anyway. I am like most people (OK honestly I haven’t met a single person that isn’t at some point) somewhat hypocritical. I am going to express my disappointment at someone that is being quite hypocritical. (See the problem there? I am going to behave in the exact way that is angering me about someone else?)

Anyway, I am still reading the book Objection. It is taking me a lot longer to read then any book that have had read that I can remember (even though the length would suggest I would be done in a day). Mostly this is because it angers me and I put it down. Now I should say not all of it, and there are some ideas in the book that have merit. You see it is a book that is about victims of crime from the view of a prosecutor. I told before of what I think the woman who wrote the books personality; black and white. Also very judgmental, and someone that assumes the worst in most people by judging her by what is written by her or with her. It appears that she either chose not to write about anyone she would judge to be “innocent” or she thinks all defendants are in their position because they are in fact guilty.

Now I could write about the interesting ideas she has, but for that you need to read the book. Instead I am just getting out a small bit of hypocritical thinking that has been bothering me for the last couple of days. (I can’t read the book anymore until I get this off my chest.) She goes into great detail about all the horrible ways that people profit from the suffering of others. From buying something from or about a serial killer to someone involved in the crime (or witnessing it) selling the story and thus making money from the victim, all ending up being taking advantage of something horrible happening to someone, and in principle I could understand. Then she details several ideas on how to stop it, from enacting laws to donating any profits to the victims and/or their families.

Doesn’t that all sound nice and neat? No one should have a problem with that right? Well the author in this book went into great detail explaining this. Giving details of crimes, the names of the victims and criminals to get her point across, to a level that I would say she was writing for the ignorant. (After all how many stories does one need to show that this is something that happens?) Anyway, in the process of doing this she is exploiting the victims as a witness just as she details others are doing. She is making a profit from the suffering of others, not that it is new, and not that it is even something that I couldn’t forgive. Rather it is horrible because she should condemn herself.

Proof in the pudding (APA since we are talking in social terms)…

“Jurors aren’t the only ones who cash in by writing exposes. After Louise Woodward’s “nanny trial,” I was reading through… I was stunned to see all the books spawned from the Simpson trial offered as proof that everyone and their house cat is making money off the misery of others. The authors include old girlfriends… and detectives.” (Grace and Clehane 78)

Talking about those that sell things that are “wrong” in the authors mind, specifically talking about internet sellers of “murderabilia” the following is said, “In my mind, these online brokers are aiding and abetting in furtherance of the original crime by profiting from a victim’s pain.” (Grace and Clehane 108) Then explains it should be against the law, with a fine and jail time…

Therefore, I a reader judge Nancy Grace to a fine and jail time for exploiting victims in her book by writing about their pain, and making money off of their pain. After all her book sells online and it talks about (and by her own definition exploits) victims of crime… I am not really judging her, as in theory I agree with some of what she says. However, I think it is important to point this out as it is a perfect example of an important truth.

If you are judged you will be judged by your own judgment (while I am sure she will never see these words, I am judging her by her own words.) Although like almost all do I am sure excuses would be made, and “her” reasoning is different and therefore it is OK… This is the main one; she sees in black and white for every case she writes about. Yet in her very own pretend case here (by the rules she says she wants), in black and white she is guilty…

**I do note that some of the money made on this book that makes money from the misery of others was donated to missing and exploited children. It isn’t that it is all wrong, or all bad… Just so hypocritical…**

Works Cited
Grace, Nancy and Diane Clehane. Objection. New York: Hyperion, 2005.

Care to leave a comment?

Websites

  • Posted on December 29, 2009 at 10:16 am

Here are my newest adds to my favorites list…

1. www.goalforit.com – chore charts for the kids with customizable rewards (and cool stickers), to do lists, goal trackers, and you can make a chore chart for you too. All on the pc, no messy printouts! :)

2. http://www.healthvault.com/websites/MayoClinic-MayoClinicHealthManager.html – keeps track of all of your health records, easily prints information for you to take to the doctor, and even reminds you if you need shots. No more trying to remember what medication you were on five years ago.

Care to leave a comment?

What I am in politics?

  • Posted on December 26, 2009 at 10:15 am

Ok this was a question that I asked a whole lot last year, and I have had several friends ask me what they are since. The short answer is I (nor anyone else) can really answer that for you… So here is what I can do I will list a few things that are generally on one side of the other. Now I am going to do this in the form of liberal and conservative. (Generally but not always; conservatives are Republican & liberals are democrats.) Also note this is my opinion based upon the actions of the different people that are categorized on each side, and lots of research.

Liberal Conservative
 Pro-Choice   
      Sees this an issue in which woman should be able to choose what they do with their own bodies.		  Pro-Life
      Believe that having an abortion is killing a baby. Sometimes to the extent that taking birth control is killing a baby (or potentially doing so.
REALITY IN MY VIEW – It appears to me that most people take a position closer to the middle. That abortion shouldn’t be done all of the time on a whim or as a means of birth control, but that it should remain legal especially in cases of rape, incest, and so forth. Very conservative people generally take the position that a baby is a baby regardless thus abortions shouldn’t be allowed under any circumstances. Very liberal people point out that a pregnant woman is risking her life by giving birth, and thus the choice should be hers to make. I am pro-choice more than I am pro-life, but I fit in a little bit on both sides. (Mainly because I do recognize that forcing a baby upon someone can in effect cause them many problems – if you do not understand where this comes from watch Dirty Dancing. Pay attention to more than just the music.)
Feminist
      Believe that woman should be treated as well as men, make equal money for equal work, and so on…		 Anti-Feminist
     Believe that the bible explains why the sexes are treated differently, and it is supposed to be that way…
 I don’t think I can really offer insightful commentary on this one, I am without a doubt a feminist, and nothing makes me more upset than the propaganda that conservatives put upon this issue. (Suggesting that only lesbians are feminists, that they do not understand gender differences and so on. Basically trying and succeeding in making woman afraid to say or act like they are feminists for fear of being labeled in this way.)
Affirmative Action is Good
    Believe that because of the way we have limited specific types of people we need to “even the score”.		 Affirmative Action is Bad
     Believe that affirmative action is reverse racism, and that to even that score the specific type of people need to work at it.
Anti-Death Penalty Pro-Death Penalty
I used to be for the death penalty, after all I am human and I see certain things to be worthy of death. However, after a lot of research I have learned that our system is flawed to an extent that I am not comfortable with it.
Regulated Market Totally Free Market- Unregulated
I think there is a balance that needs to be maintained here, the government shouldn’t have to much control, but the market cannot (as being proved right now with the economy) regulate itself.
Environmental
     Worry about things like global warming.		 Economic
     Worry about what policies to help environment will do to the economy.
This isn’t nice, but in this particular one I find the conservative view to be ignorant. When you ignore over 90% of scientists you are doing yourself and everyone a disservice.
Anti-Gun Pro-Gun
Most people fall somewhere in the middle. They can see the reasons why armor piercing rounds might be bad, but do not want to take away someone’s ability to own a gun. (Although I would preach safe practices.)
Pro-Health Care Change
     Would like everyone to receive health care regardless of ability to pay.		 Pro-Market
     Health care should remain privatized.
I don’t think I need to get into this one, just read a bit of this blog (there is an actual blog if you are reading this on facebook).
Against Patriot Act Not as against Patriot Act
I can’t believe that we gave up so much so fast… Give me liberty or give me death was forgotten in the heat of anger.
Against God in Governmental places (schools and such) For God in Governmental places
Equal rights for Gay people (including marriage) Gay people should not be allowed to marry
Higher taxes and more programs (and thus bigger government) Lower taxes, less programs and thus smaller government
For welfare (and other social programs such as food stamps) Against welfare (if you need help get it from your relatives, church, help yourself)
This is another that a middle ground is most likely best…

So in general I am liberal. Not 100%, and I can see merit in both sides in a lot of things but still more liberal than conservative. What throws me more to one side or the other is simply the ignorance I see in one side. However, one thing that isn’t written up there is that conservatives in general pay more attention to what things cost, and that is a good thing.

There are so many more topics that can be put on one side or the other. (Google the terms if you wonder about more, I put the ones I see as most important.)

Care to leave a comment?

Internet Etique

  • Posted on December 25, 2009 at 8:35 pm

Backstory;

In a game I am playing I lose a city to someone else (it is a war game), no big deal. (Believe it or not I actually do not take my games very seriously. Few games hold my attention for a long time, I get bored with them.) Anyway, I am watching chat and this is what I see:

Someone bragging about getting kicked out of an alliance (like a guild for the game), because he told someone that said they were losing or lost a kid – have another one. Now in his defense he might be right, the particular person that he was talking to most likely wasn’t in the process of losing a kid, (after all who would care about a game in such a situation & shame on the person for making such a thing up at such a time.)

Here is the thing though; shame on both of them. (Assuming that the person was not telling the truth)…

So this is what I ask of all people on the internet; even if we don’t know who you are, even if you think someone is not telling the truth, have some compassion in what you say… Some things shouldn’t ever be said, no matter who you are talking to. The idea that a baby is something that can be traded in for a different baby is heartless to every person that has ever lost a child…

Photobucket

Care to leave a comment?

1D Objection

  • Posted on December 24, 2009 at 5:02 pm

 I go to sleep with a book, most of the time. It is how I fall asleep. I am currently reading Objection. I am angered by the outlook given so far, it is so one dimensional. So I thought I would get my frustration out here. This is (or was) a very popular book, with good ratings after all.

 

She starts off with explaining why she is a one dimensional person. She lost the person she intended to marry to murder.

 

Now don’t get me wrong I can understand that after such a traumatic event we lose our heads (I after all lost my child, and felt much the same way.) However, this is definitely good versus evil, black and white. She explains the evil of the guy who shuts off someone’s electricity right before Christmas and the evil of being a defense attorney. How explaining that “it is just my job” isn’t an excuse for these evil acts, and wow does she assume that she has the moral authority?

 

She does, life isn’t black and white and those that believe it is; shouldn’t be thought of as a moral authority. It could be that the difference between the guy out shutting off someone’s electricity and the guy living in the house is the job. As noble as it might be to walk away and not shut off someone’s electricity (at Christmas or otherwise), it could just end up putting the one with a job in the unemployment line, thus making his situation the same as the person losing the electicity. This doesn’t make one person evil, now if he doesn’t feel bad about it, perhaps then… There are many undesirable things that must be done, but this cannot be the measure of a person. In addition, who the hell does she think she is to think she is someone that should be taking the measure of someone else?

 

It says she is a lawyer, particularly a prosecutor. Now I study this system of justice, and this particular person has no business in the field because she neither understands it nor appreciates the complexities of the human condition. She is pushing the idea that to defend a murderer would make the person less of a person, this is a total underestimation of our justice system.

 

It is a delicate balance between our rights as US citizens, and our criminals. One must understand this balance, and I am shocked every time I hear our rights being belittled because “who cares if someone looks at _____, if they aren’t doing something wrong then it won’t matter.” That ignores our entire history, and everything we should have learned.

 

Power can be abused, and if enough power is given then power is normally abused. PERIOD (watch a movie, read some philosophy, and look up some history, and LEARN.) Heck, watch or read The Lord of the Rings, and look to the deeper story.

 

Sure don’t fight about a wire tap after all nothing is ever said that can be taken out of context, the government of any town never gets things wrong. So on and so forth. YES, to protect ourselves we also have to protect “undesirables” it is the way it is. However, we cannot allow our freedoms to go south because of them. Those rights are there to protect all of us. We put people in prision that are innocent as it is, and then to take away the rights that protect US from being that person in prision that is innocent is stupid… GIRR 

I have more to say on the issue but for now I have to leave it at that. She annoyed me so badly, I am looking at the jacket cover and feeling angered that we (society) allows such a self serving, ignorant person to be put in print.

Care to leave a comment?

Dear Pot Smoker,

  • Posted on December 18, 2009 at 11:39 pm

OK, so I know someone that is on medical marijuana and we had this disagreement. Basically he thinks what he is doing is legal, and under his states law it is. However, under federal law it isn’t. Now I know that as children we are taught that state law “trumps” federal law, but really it depends on the situation. Anyway, the DEA (feds) trump in this situation.

Controlled Substances Act (CSA) (21 U.S.C. § 811) &  Gonzales v. Raich (2005) S.C. Links are to prove it, in case you need to see it yourself. CSA specifically says they win if state law and federal law do not ummm work together. Gonzales says that the federal government has that authority. (Law & Supreme Court working together…)

So then why are states getting away with this?

ANSWER

First let me explain something about the American court system; you know how TV (and even officers in real life) will ask if you want to press charges? Well in reality you don’t have that power. Our criminal system is based on the idea that if you break the law you harm all of society, and thus it isn’t the criminal verse the person that was wronged. Rather it is the state verses the person who broke the law. (Seriously)

OK, so now that you know that you know who really presses the charges? The prosecutor (normally the office of).

Now that you hopefully understand this, Obama (and his administration) has the position that the prosecutor should NOT go after those that are following state law to the letter in the case of medical use of marijuana.

This is like a specific state NOT pressing charges against the wife that was beaten for years after she does something bad to her husband. What she did was still illegal, and if a different prosecutor was to take the case up later s/he could do so.

Hopefully that is all understandable, and it is now understood that the law hasn’t changed. It is still illegal to smoke pot. BTW, in order to change that really it needs to be done through the legislative branch. So don’t blame Obama for it being illegal, and don’t blame the Supreme Court. In this particular thing it is up to Congress to change it, so if you want it changed start talking to them, and if you are going to complain be sure you are complaining about the right people.

Last but not least if you want to change it: pay attention and vote. If you don’t know who your legislators are, don’t pay attention to what they do, and haven’t voted then really the only person you can blame for things not going the way you want is yourself. Oh and one last thing be careful with the news they “spin” things. So if something angers you, be sure to watch both sides (MSNBC for liberal – FOX for conservative) then research it on your own (good luck finding anything not tainted with propaganda) and only THEN decide where you stand on an issue.

Link to more in case you need to hear it from someone other than me. :)

2 Comments on Dear Pot Smoker,

Doctors

  • Posted on December 18, 2009 at 11:53 am

Urologist says “everything looks good, your healing well.” OBGYN says “not doing as well as I hoped, your stitches aren’t even gone yet.”

Now that it is has been messed with a few times in one day I say, “I was feeling good, now it hurts.”

Bla

Care to leave a comment?