Small Town

Jason Aldean may not be the brightest bulb in the chandelier, but I don't believe he's advocating lynch mobs.  I'll clarify. 

First:  Pairing footage from a BLM protest gone bad with those lyrics?  Incredibly ignorant move.  Small towns, particularly in the south, have historically dealt with black "troublemakers" by way of a noose.  Jason Aldean may not have made that connection because he isn't and never was black.  He didn't grow up being warned about Sundown Towns or Emmet Till.  But ignorance is not malice, people.  

Second: Jason, dear, they do have a point.  A simple "Oh crap I didn't realize" could have gone a long way to defuse the situation.  There should be no shame in admitting your ignorance or your error.  I've said and done a lot of things from in my straight white ignorance - and usually been forgiven when I admitted it.  

Third: It's more reasonable to believe the entire thing is a publicity stunt.  The song has been out for a while, but few seemed to notice until the video was released. Jason Aldean just happens to be opening a bar/restaurant the same summer.  I'm more inclined to think he's greedy than ignorant or racist.  

Fourth: Jason Aldean is a city boy.  He's got no idea about small towns, especially the ones with a church on every corner.  The list of people who died because they tried something in a small town is growing every day.  There is a tragic drive in small towns to conform.  Especially in towns with strong political or religious leanings.  That's what killed Brandon Teena and Matthew Shepard.  That's what got the West Memphis Three convicted of murder. 

Make Up Your Minds

I'm not privy to details, and the stories contradict each other, but what it boils down to is this:  A civilian was given a weapon and sent (or allowed to go) into what was essentially a battle.  The weapon was not anything a civilian would have ever used outside of a gun range.  Add the youth of said civilian to the mix.  Frankly, it's a miracle more people were not killed.

Society tells us that anyone even a day under the age of 18 is not capable of informed consent.  Any adult who gives a minor a beer, a cigarette, or an orgasm is breaking the law.  The news media and the general public will opine at length about how the adult victimized the child.  

Kyle Rittenhouse was 17 years old.  He is neither hero nor villain.  Kyle is a victim, a pawn played by polarized talking heads.  Legally speaking, as a child, he was not capable of making the choices he made.  His adults let him, perhaps even encouraged him to, go into danger.  

Those adults should be put to trial.  I believe the legal terms are "contributing to the delinquency of a minor" and "child endangerment".  Likely, there are others in the book we should be throwing at them.   If Kyle was not capable of  consent where beer or tobacco or sex is concerned, he absolutely was not capable of knowing what the was getting into that night. 

If Kyle was capable, we need to take a long hard look at how we, as a society, view teenagers. 

In Defense of My Hometown

The little Ohio town where I spent most of my first 40 years has been in the news a lot lately.  In light of recent events, a group of locals put together a "demonstration of solidarity".  Other locals, and some who aren't so local, decided to counter-protest.  Not sure how you counter-protest something that isn't a protest, but that's what they did.  They clearly don't understand the implied "too" in the BLM movement and a large number of them seemed to think rioting is the norm for BLM.  Oh, yeah, and the 2nd Amendment was somehow threatened by people carrying signs.

Now for some background: Bethel is 98% white, but it was founded by abolitionists.  The Grant Memorial building is one of our landmarks - yes, that Grant.  He's from that neck of the woods.   I'm not going to say there is no racism in Bethel, but I can recall only two overtly racist incidents and one of those may have been nothing but a rumor.  My family doctor was Filipino and a member of Daddy's church.  

The counterprotestors (not all of whom were locals) were convinced the BLM movement is about Black Supremacy, anti-police, and rioting.  That's what they rolled into town to stop from happening.  Then they physically attacked the peaceful demonstrators and ignored police instructions.  (Wait, what?)  That's what was all over the news.  The loud mouths and the violence.  Now the whole world seems to think Bethel, Ohio, is a hotbed of racism.  

It. Is. Not. 

Racism did not exist to me until my world grew beyond the borders of Bethel.  Not just because I'm white, but because in my world the color of people's skin was simply a difference, just like the color of their eyes of their hair.  I knew enough to think the n-word was impolite.  I do recall feeling the need to qualify thinking Billy Dee Williams was cute with "for a black guy" but honestly, that's the only way any of it touched my life until adulthood.  

My point, and I do have one, is that Bethel is a nice town populated by nice people.  Those counter-protestors were coming from a position of ignorance, not of hatred.  Most of them, anyway.  I don't live in Bethel any more, through no fault of Bethel's, but I will defend it.  

  

Amendment Number Two

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

As with most political issues, I'm very middle-of-the-road on gun control.  I have friends on both sides of this debate and can understand both points of view.  I think the first thing we need to do is look at the language and historical context of the amendment itself. 

A well regulated Militia: Regulated means "Controlled or Supervised by means of rules and regulations" and Militia has several meanings that might be applied here.  It can be a civilian military force, a rebel force that opposes a regular army, or all able bodied citizens eligible for military service.  

Being necessary to the security of a free state:  We need it to keep our hard won freedom.  

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms: "The People" is the crux of this section.  The People means all Americans, collectively.  Keep and bear arms means have and use guns. 

Shall not be infringed: Infringing on something is limiting or undermining it.

Paraphrased into more modern terminology, it says "Since we need a sort of civil army in case our government becomes oppressive, we shouldn't limit the collective American right to own and have guns."  Simple enough.  

But... and you know there is at least one... Is telling individuals they can't have an Uzi infringing upon The People's rights?    Is any given civilian a well regulated militia?  This is where the debate rages.  (Not that an actual debate would rage, but I digress.) 

Any comments on this blog or on links to this blog that fail to retain a civilized tone 

WILL BE DELETED. 

1. "No one needs an assault rifle."  Of course not, in normal day-to-day life.  No one needs Barbies, but I have the right to keep and bear them!  Yes, Barbie is not known for killing dozens of people in minutes, but bear with me.  I'll address that.

Remember the historical context, too.  The Founding Fathers want us to be able to stand against the government if it becomes oppressive.  To do that, we need similar weaponry and skills. To fulfill the desires of the Founding Fathers, We The People do indeed need an assault rifle.

2. "Barbies can't kill people like these guns can."  Of course not.  The analogy can be made with things that have that capability.  Cars driven into a crowd, for example.  Shall we advocate the banning of motor vehicles?  

3. "You don't care about the murdered" and "You wanna take my hunting rifle".  All of my gun-guys care about those who were killed and most of my non-gun-guys volunteer to take any leftover venison you might have.  All these statements are is parroting of propaganda.  The NRA in particular is really good at convincing people that any gun control at all is only the first step in a dastardly plot to disarm us all totally.  That's called Slippery Slope Logic and I was warned against it in high school. 

The Crux Of The Matter  

I try not to have opinions on matters I know little about.  Before forming an opinion, I become Research Whore (cue superhero music) and use sources from as many sides of the issue as I can find. My self-educated, but considered, opinion follows:

1. Any given individual is not a "well regulated militia". Chuck Norris, maybe, but I digress again.... Any given individual is not The People. 

2. Freedom of Speech doesn't allow me to incite riots.  Freedom of Religion doesn't let me commit human sacrifice.  Even "the pursuit of happiness" is limited... no matter how happy it might make me, there are things the law says I can't do without punishment. No reasonable human being believes any of those things are infringements, as they are needed for public safety.  

3. Allowing only screened and trained adults of sound mind to own weaponry is in keeping with what the Founding Fathers had in mind. Well-regulated means rules are applied.  Militia means trained and organized in a group. 

4. Most of the mass shootings that spur this debate happen in "gun free" zones.  Would the inevitable scofflaw be so willing to open fire in a public place if, for all they knew, most of the intended victims were packing heat themselves?  

5. In summary, the well regulated militia called for by the Founding Fathers can simply be a group of everyday citizens that have proven themselves capable of defending The People. Those citizens, and only those citizens, should be permitted to bear arms anywhere they go. 

Blades and Books

When my minions were little, they watched educational TV shows.  The specific show changed depending on the minion (after all, the oldest is now in her 40s and the youngest is currently in the womb) but every single one of them had the same game.  One of these things is not like the other.

Gillette has a new ad campaign that focuses on how men should teach their sons (and help each other) be "the best a man can get".  Don't punch each other out.  Don't force yourself on others of either sex.  Basically, just be a better human being.

People who can't tell why a banana is different from a monkey, a walrus, and a horse are in an uproar.  Gillette is attacking men!  The feminists have taken over!  Run for the hills!  Times like this are why adjectives exist.  Masculinity is fine, y'all.  Toxic - that's an adjective - masculinity is not.

The behaviors addressed in the ad apply to either sex.  But society has dismissed them when men do them.  Boys will be boys, right?   That's the entire point of the ad.  But man, have I seen some crazy responses.  One guy posed his children with guns.  (Well, the boys.  The girl was holding a flower.  But I digress.)  "I'll raise my kids how I want, you stupid razor company."   Did Gillette tell you not to teach your kids gun safety?  (Did Gillette tell you not to foist medieval gender roles on your daughter? Oops, digressed again.)  Because I missed that part.

If you use a Gillette razor, your penis is not going to vanish.  Unless you're using it very wrong.

*****

I discovered organizing guru Marie Kondo, or at least her philosophy, a long time ago.  She's in the news now for apparently ordering all of us to toss our books.

My books "spark joy" for me.  Therefore, Marie Kondo said I can keep them. Not that she's the boss of me, anyway.  God knows I ignore that advice about neat rows in my sock drawer.

In conclusion, let's play a round of that game.  Which is different: A suggestion, a hint, a bit of advice, or an order? 

Writers' Agendas

"I'm sick of this show pushing its liberal agenda on us."  "Why can't they just tell a story without cramming their conservative politics up our noses?"  "That book series is a lot of propaganda."

Anyone who has been in a High School or College literature class can tell you about having to psychoanalyze writers.  What is the significance of Harry Potter's glasses?  Why do they run through a series of rooms in The Mask of The Red Death?  How does Dracula illustrate the sexual repression of the Victorian era?   That analysis of the author's psyche is not a lot different from seeking out the agenda.

Everyone has an agenda.  Speaking for myself, as a fiction writer, I don't deliberately plant mine into my stories.  But it leaks in there.  My stories tend to focus on large, loving families.  I put together couples who fit, not really caring about their race or sex.  I don't set my stories in large cities.  I never thought much about those things - I was just enjoying my chosen role as story teller.

I've been guilty of diversity for diversity's sake - which led to the happy accident of Olivia Ross.  My white heterosexual male Owen became an Amerasian* lesbian and for some reason (buried deep in my psyche) this new incarnation blossomed into the rich character Owen never was.  Olivia also taught me not to force these things.  A diverse cast of characters is good, but only if they can bloom as Olivia did.  She isn't "the lesbian" or "the Asian".  She's Olivia.

But I digress.  My point is this - what so many today are calling the writer's agenda is nothing more than their subconscious mind leaking into the tale.  If two characters fit as a couple, it doesn't matter to me what color they are or what genitalia they're packing, so I write them together.  Is that pushing my liberal agenda on my readers?  If my characters go hunting, am I screaming in reader's faces about the Second Amendment?

There are writers out there actively pushing agendas.  It would be foolish to claim otherwise.  I've found that, in that case, the story telling suffers.  All the characters are stereotypes.  Couples that make no sense hook up.  Those writers lose viewers/readers.  I often think that George Orwell didn't sit down to make a comment on Big Government.  If he had, I doubt 1984 would be the classic it is.

A final bit of advice - if you don't like the way the story is going?  Put down the book or change the channel.



*Not sure what the current "correct" term would be.  Olivia has a white American father and a Korean-born mother.  I intend no offense to anyone by my use of this term.  This is the term I imagine Olivia herself using.

Observations, Unconnected

It's that time of year.  Prom Season.  What do you associate with Prom?  Romance? Expense? Dancing?  How about sex and guns?  From the look of social media (and even one politician's campaign ad) it's become the norm to meet your daughter's Prom date with a gun.  Far too many people seem to see this as acceptable.  I've even seen this nonsense applied to everyday dating.

Mind you, I'm not talking about the jokers.  Let's get that out of the way.  We all fear our children being hurt and most of us joke about what scares us.  But the joke is lost on a certain demographic.  Some of us still believe a virgin daughter is still a valuable commodity and not a person.  Some of us never teach our daughters about these things and then wonder why they aren't safe.  Some of us even think sex on Prom Night is some kind of obligation.

I would say "And they vote" but they probably don't. They do, obviously, breed.

****

If you were born before 1967, you're a senior?  I'm pretty sure 50 qualifies as middle-aged.  Or did the definition of that change, too, like "entitlement" and "white"?  An entitlement is something you're entitled to, that you've earned, or at least it used to be.  I can remember a time when the only white people were those with ancestry in the parts of Europe that didn't touch the Mediterranean.  Italians, Spaniards, and Greeks were a category in and of themselves.  There used to be a distinction between biological sex and "gender".

I understand, and have even argued in defense of, the evolution of language and Common Usage.  Maybe I'm just showing my age (apparently I'm a senior) but those things are supposed to happen slowly.  Day-to-day conversations between people speaking the same language shouldn't require a translator.

Mind you, I really don't care how you label me.  White, old, female, whatever.  I shrug at you.  But stop confusing me!

****

And my last unconnected observation for the day: Stop assuming the worst about total strangers and mere acquaintances.  If I see one more person fumbling to explain they meant no offense to someone who won't listen...  Jeez.  Seriously.

Walk Up, Not Out

Like many well-intended people, I was sharing the "Walk Up" notion all over my social media, but some folks for whom I have respect have pointed out a few problems. 

Some of those against "Walk Up" claim there's no proven connection between school shootings and bullying.  There's no proven connection of ANYTHING and school shootings because there's never been a real study made of it.  However, even the shooters "proven" not to be bullied left behind evidence they felt bullied.  I was badly bullied in junior high and, had my mind already had a violent bent, I could have gone there and done that. The connection, although unproven, is possible. 

There's also the possibility of making a kid feel even more singled out than they already do.  Why are you falling all over yourself to be nice to me when yesterday you ignored my very existence or were overtly hostile to me?  Pity?  Fear? If I am violent, you just made yourself more of a target, and if not - well, you just insulted a harmless classmate.

And then there's the perception that this is a Blame The Victim thing.  Go befriend the guy who, yesterday, you were actively bullying?  WTF?  Why not just say it - the murdered students brought it on themselves.  (Look how they were dressed!)

Last of all, there is a small possibility that such overtures will make a dangerous kid latch onto you.  Another bit of anecdotal evidence:  I latched onto a guy because he was nice to me.  God only knows how bad it would have been a few years earlier, during the the worst of it.  As it was, he finally had to be really mean to me and then we talked it out.  But what would have happened, had I been violent?  When I found out he didn't want to marry me and live happily ever after, would I have killed him?

Here's my version of "Walk Up".  Just be a little bit nicer to everyone. As a former pariah, I can tell you - a smile and nod as you pass in the hallway goes a long way.  One of the kindest things a classmate did for me was to tell me she liked me -- and then ask me not to tell anyone because she didn't want to be bullied, also.   Strange but true. 

Even if the connection to bullying doesn't exist, a touch of kindness that singles out no one can't hurt.   

Universal Health Care and Gun Control

At the risk of being one of those people who uses a tragedy to push a political agenda, I'm blogging my thoughts on the subject.  One subject, because the two topics are connected.  Hear me out.

Let me get this out of the way first - if you don't want Universal Health Care because your tax dollars shouldn't support the lazy:  They already are.  The tiny percentage of Welfare people who are truly lazy and the do-nothings in office are already using your tax dollars for their Viagra.  UHC, on the other hand,  would help that couple who are working two jobs each to pay the bills (including student loans), the widow of a soldier who is working her way through college, and the guy with a temporary lapse in employment...  all of whom the Welfare department rule ineligible for benefits.

In the wake of the recent school shooting in Florida, the debate on Gun Control is back in force.  The hard-liners on both sides shout so loudly we shades-of-gray folks get drowned out.  The fact of the matter is simple:  both sides are correct, but only to a point.  Banning AK47s is not going to stop the determined, but it might slow them down.  The Second Amendment does exist, but like most things held sacred, is subject to interpretation.

Here's where I get to the connection.  Lots of Gun Control Advocates like to hold up other countries as a model - Nogunlandia has only had 1 mass shooting in 57 years!  Going by statistics, Nogunlandia likely also has UHC.

Every shooter I've heard of has been mentally ill and not getting proper treatment.  (The anti-prozac folks made sure I heard about that.)

I'm not foolish enough to believe UHC would stop every incident.  There will always be those who won't or can't seek help.  There will be, and probably have been, shooters who are not mentally ill.  However, I believe that proper and timely treatment of mental illness, especially the nascently dangerous, would go a long way toward that goal.

My own experience with mental illness has taught me that the existing system will not help you unless you can pay and/or have commited a crime.  Far too many doctors toss pills at the problem without educating or following up with the patient.  UHC would at least help with the first problem.

It is my considered opinion that Universal Health Care would prevent mass shootings.  No one thing is going to be a cure-all, but it could be a cure-most.

Bazookas and Barbies

If you buy your kids guns, they will be Jack The Ripper.  If you buy your kids fashion dolls, they will be prissy and brainless.  What?!  That's possibly the silliest thing I ever heard of.  A BB Gun or a Barbie is an inanimate object.  It has no power over you or yours.  What has the power over you, particularly as a child, is other people.  I live with a seven year old boy who plays with both weapons and dolls.  He is not growing up to be either Charlie Manson or Liberace.

He knows not to shoot anything with a face and a pulse - unless he is going to eat it, or it is trying to eat him - even with Nerf.  Violence he sees on TV and video games is explained in context.  "Yes, James Bond killed that guy, but that guy was trying to blow up Europe."  "Captain Kirk was bad to want to kill all the Klingons.  I'm glad he figured that out."   

The dolls technically aren't his, they belong to the crazy aunt in the attic.  At least, the evil fashion dolls are.  His plastic people are 'action figures' and therefore either belong in the War Toys discussion or are socially acceptable.  The fashion dolls generally have what he calls "Barbie School".  He is teacher and principal.  Curriculum has covered subjects like Pokemon, volcanoes, video games, dinosaurs...  never fashion!  His class has a variety of skin tones (many of them aren't even human), they all get along, and most of them look like they've been through a wind tunnel.

We teach by example.   I have used Barbies for many years to teach kids of both genders about the things that make us different, and how it ultimately doesn't matter unless you're hurting someone. My Barbies have had adventures that'd curl Mattel's hair!  The hunters and military men in my family have always been very big on the safety issues.  And, no, that doesn't meant put the safety on before handing the gun to Junior.

Inanimate objects do not have that kind of power unless YOU give it that power.  Even the official toy company line has no power once that toy is in your kid's hot little hands.  Hand your little girl a Barbie and she's going to emulate the people around her.  Hand your boy a Nerf Bazooka and he's gonna do what he's been taught is appropriate. Switch the toys and the kids will be fine.

I used to get really mad about "Boy Toys" and "Girl Toys" because I felt that it limited the child's options, but I've come to realize that it is a generalization.  Most boys prefer certain toys, most girls prefer other toys.  This is not meant to be a limitation, no one is going to stop a little boy from buying Barbie.  Except maybe you...