For Goodness Sakes

There is a new message that is going to be commuting through Washington D.C. on Metro Buses. The message is: “Why Believe in God? Just be good for goodness sakes.” This ad has sparked a movement to keep CHRIST in Christmas (as the movement leaders putting).

Granted, this argument has been around for a while. Ever since the politically correct phrase became, “Happy Holidays,” instead of, “Merry Christmas,” most Christians feel offended and that their freedom of speech has been infringed upon. However, the politically correct phrasing generally applies to work settings, to not favor one religion over the other. (Which is not entirely possible because most religions don’t celebrate a major holiday during December?)

Now, I consider myself to have faith. I believe that there is a God and I pray to him or her in my own time. I don’t feel like I need a priest to mediate for me. Nor do I feel a pull to be in church because I believe the practices have become so formalized that they’re idolized. Over all try to be a good person. In general, however, my faith is very personal to me. I hate public prayer, even around a dinner table. I also don’t believe in pushing my faith on another.

So I guess I have to wonder, in the age of diversity and acceptance, why are Christians so up in arms about, “Happy Holidays?” It reminds me of the prayer in school argument, which I always thought was funny. The law does not eliminate prayer in school, it eliminates administrative led prayer. If a student wishes to pray before a meal, before class or before taking their test, all they have to do is bow their head and no one will question them. They also will not be expelled for practicing their faith either.

The advertisement that will appear this holiday season does suggest that faith is unimportant. But, in reality, religion will always be important to those who believe it is important. An advertisement won’t affect this. I seriously doubt people will read the advertisement and decide that god is merely a fantasy and the teachings a hoax.

In the end, what’s really wrong with just suggesting to people to, “just be good for goodness sakes?” Isn’t that what we all want during November and December (as well as the entire year)? Don’t we all want peace and harmony regardless of our faith?

Religion is not something you can push on your friends, family, or even co-workers. It’s disrespectful and the tactic doesn’t work. All you anyone can do is keep their own faith, live a good life, and be respectful of each other. In reality, Jesus’ teachings (for a Christian example) were to love one another? Why is it that some people forget this?

So, this upcoming holiday season, I will wish you all peace and happiness and all I’ll ask in return is to, “just be good for goodness sakes.”

Another Brick to be Laid with Calloused Hands

After months of campaigning, supporters for Senator Obama had tears in their eyes as their President-Elect stood before them, thanking them for their support and promising to unite this country, promising to work towards the vision that inspired a nation. On January 20, 2009, the nation will watch as the first black man is sworn in as the 44th President of the United States. For most of us, we are still pinching ourselves, scrolling through Facebook status updates, and reading global headlines about the road to victory. But this victory, while historic and a keystone for change, is only the first step. As Senator Obama promised, there are many more bricks to be laid on this path toward change. Yesterday, I wrote how the nation needs to come together, work together to solidify its greatness. Today, let us take the steps to have real discussion about immigration, same-sex marriage, abortion, taxation, and the War in Iraq. If we keep the lines of communication open and build trust, we can find common ground. Specifically, today, I want to speak about same-sex marriage. With 95 percent of the precincts reporting, it looks as if Proposition 8 will pass in California which would restrict marriages to one man and one woman. Since the California Supreme Court overturned the law in May of 2008, LGBT couples have been able to enjoy the same rights as heterosexual couples, applying for marriage licenses, exchanging vows, and having their commitments recognized by the state. And thought this race is still too close to officially call, similar initiatives passed in both Florida (which restricted the rights of heterosexual domestic partners) and Arizona. Why are we as a nation, founded on the premise of minority rights, so willing to restrict the rights of its minority citizens? Is it because people don’t understand it or believe being gay is a choice? SO I ask, who in their right mind would, “choose,” to come out to a society that will deny them equal treatment and equal protection under the law? A society that would judge them, persecute them, deny them jobs, and spousal benefits. Is it because a lot of Christian denominations preach that same-sex relationships are sinful and immoral? Not that I agree with this interpretation of the Bible, but correct me if I’m wrong, aren’t we all sinners under that text? Jesus never preached hate; he preached love, acceptance, and not judging your neighbor. However, biblical teachings aside, our Constitution clearly states in the First Amendment that the government shall not establish religion. Therefore, state and federal law should not be defined by religious doctrine. My freedoms should not be limited by another citizen’s faith. Further, if the word, “marriage,” has religious overtones due to its historical connotation, then why is it used in our laws? Again, invoking the First Amendment, and using the religious activists argument here, the word should therefore be removed from the government’s vocabulary and instead substitute the word, “union.” Everyone could enter into a legal union without violating the sanctity of marriage as seen by the church. However, this argument still doesn’t satisfy those against same-sex marriage on the basis of protecting their religious beliefs. Another popular argument against same-sex marriage is in regards to if children were brought in the picture. Could a child be raised by a same-sex couple and in turn be straight? Be healthy? Function in society? What about the other children raised in non-traditional families—single mothers or fathers, grandparents, or even aunts and uncles. Having been raised in a non-traditional family, I firmly believe that it’s not the number of people in the household or their genders, but instead whether the child was loved, provided for, supported, and encouraged to succeed. Also, plenty of gay children are raised by opposite-sex couples. Social justice for LGBT citizens in America is going to be an uphill battle. The opposition is strong and that was proven during the campaign to toward the election. But nothing worthwhile is ever easy. Equality is an American value that I’m not willing to live without. As we continue to celebrate our victory, let us also begin the discussion; let’s open up the dialogue to see if we can lay another brick for LGBT rights.

But What About Tomorrow

Today, the nation holds it breath, consumed with anticipation and dare I say hope. Today, we are a nation that is divided, divided by our political ideology. Months of campaigning, media frenzies, and excitement by each party’s respective volunteers and base has split us based on whether we plan (or have) cast our ballot for either Senator Obama or Senator McCain.

I have not made a secret of where my allegiance has been during this election. And tonight, I plan on watching with anticipation as the results are reported state by state. I feel as if the country has decided that it is time for a change and I have been proud to be a part of that initiative.

But what happens tomorrow? There can only be one victor. We are a nation that, ideally, is united, regardless of our differences. But the past 8 years has proven that we are anything but united. The nation became entrenched in their respective ideologically driven battles after Bush v. Gore and has remained that way with the exception of the months surrounding 9-11.

No, I’m not naïve enough to believe that our nation has never been divided or that a utopian society is possible. Over the years, divisions have arisen over many issues, including abortion in the 1970s and Civil Rights in the 1960s to name a few. With that said, tomorrow, we will have to find a way to put aside our differences so that we can work together.

Also, tomorrow will not mean, ‘to the victor goes the spoils.’ Since my prediction is that this year will be a Democratic victory for both the presidency and in congress, we (as Democrats) cannot ramrod our ideals through congress at the expense of others. Coalition building still needs to be at the heart of all of the initiatives.

So tomorrow, after the celebrations, the mourning, the history making (either way it is), and things begin to return to normal, I encourage us, as a nation, to see beyond the platforms of the political parties and instead look next door at our neighbors, family members, and colleagues so that we can work together to make this nation great. Because what is at stake is more than just an election, it is the principles behind ‘United We Stand.’

A Moment to Consider

In 5 days, the fate of our nation, for the next four years, will be decided. The road here has taken many twists and turns and now we must discern who presents the best step forward.

This election is important to me for many reasons. Like many others in this nation, I am thirsty for change. And I know this term has been over advertised by both parties during their campaigns, but over the past 8 years I have become disheartened by our nation’s attitudes, both on domestic and on foreign policies. I want a leader at the helm who I can identify with, their values, vision, and policies.

I worry what a McCain/Palin Administration would bring for this country. I worry about what would happen to healthcare, specifically women’s healthcare. As a nation, we should be working to make healthcare more accessible for everyone through access to health insurance (which is what the campaigns are talking about, not socialized medicine). Taxing healthcare creates incentives for employers to not offer it and millions of Americans will lose their ability to pay their premiums (which will be the cost of their entire plan). To exacerbate this, reading the data that women will be charged more for health insurance plans that they have to seek out themselves, for pre-existing conditions, such as the ability to have or having had children.

I worry what will happen to minority rights. Given the age of some of the U.S. Supreme Court Justices, the next President will nominate their successors and I want a Justice who will stand up for minorities and women rather than the current Court who, in the past two years, has essentially eliminated a woman’s ability to prosecute her employer for discrimination based on equal pay. Because of privacy laws, it could take years to discover that you’ve been paid less than your male counterpart. As such, you would have no legal standing to sue. According to the new legal precedent, you only have a window of six months.

In addition, I want a Court that will stand up for GLBT rights and defend our Constitution. I want Justices that will recognize that our country, while it respects religious beliefs, does not establish them in their laws. I appreciate that I have the freedom to my own faith and am not forced to worship a god I do not believe in.

I want a leader who will inspire our nation. Over the past 8 years, President Bush has done nothing but turn away the majority of American citizens as well as the global community. America is now perceived as a bully who does not respect the sovereignty of other nations. Instead, we have become a global police force. Our defense policy has been founded on lies and now we are tied up in a war that has nothing to do with capturing Bin Laden. And only after we tore apart Iraq, did Al-Qaeda appear. Plus, I would think in 6 years, we would have found some indication of Weapons of Mass Destruction. We can not continue to discredit the 9-11 Commission Report.

I believe in Senator Obama’s vision for a new direction. I have seen how he has inspired many across this nation, including my generation, which has traditionally been apathetic to politics and historically has not participated in the electoral process. In addition, both conservatives and liberals have been rallied behind him. In that sense, and that he is a politician unlike the others, he would be the Maverick.

This election is also very personal. I am tired of being embarrassed by its leadership. I am tired of knowing that my rights are dismissed by Right-Wing Fundamentalists and their actions justified by their interpretation of the Bible. I want a united country, not a divided one; one that respects all of its citizens.

If you have not already voted, I encourage you to do so. And when you mark who you believe is best equipped to serve at the helm of our country, consider who best represents America’s values. For me, that leader was Senator Obama.

Sarah Palin Is Not the Right Voice for Women

Before 2000, potentially $457,000 was generated from the female victims of sexual assault in Wasilla, Alaska alone. Charging victims the cost of the a rape kit was a state-wide practice until Representative Eric Croft, a Democrat, sponsored legislation to overturn this policy. The only resistance to the initiative was from Wasilla where the now Vice Presidential nominee, Sarah Palin, was presiding as the town Mayor.

As a woman, I am appalled and saddened that another woman would not lead the charge for overturning this practice. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, a national survey studying violence against women, one in six women will either experience an attempted or completed rape. Applying this data to Wasilla, where in 2000 the total population of women was 2,741 that would mean 457 women would have been the victim of sexual assault. If these women wanted to prosecute their attacker, they would have had to come up with the $1,000 to pay for the rape kit before the District Attorney would take their case. This practice further victimized the victims and potentially deterred them from prosecuting their offenders.

In the United States alone, seventy percent of sexual assault victims do not report the crime to the authorities or an advocacy organization. Victims are either afraid of retribution from their attacker, feel ashamed because of misperceptions about the criminal act, or they fear being attacked again. In the same study from the U.S. Department of Justice, it was found that sixty-two percent of rape victims know their attacker. Do we really need another roadblock for women to overcome just to report the crime and for her to be able to prosecute her attacker? Do we really want a woman who is unwilling to lead the charge to protect these women standing second in command at the helm of our country?

Sarah Palin’s track record proves that she is not qualified to speak on behalf of women because she does not understand every woman’s basic desire to not be victimized by a predator but also to not be victimized by their government as well. Instead, women should rally behind a leader who will protect women.

Senator Barrack Obama is a leader whose track record shows that he voted to increase funding for advocacy organizations that help victims of sexual assault. Obama believes that ending violence against women should be a top White House priority by creating affordable housing and equal pay for women. In addition, Obama will appoint a top advisor who will be responsible for keeping him up-to-date on this issue.

When you go to the polls on November 4th, think of yourself, your mother, your sister, and your friends, all of whom would suffer from legislation that would be enacted from a McCain/Palin Administration. Would you want any woman you know to have to pay for her rape kit order to prosecute her attacker? Instead, cast your ballot for Barack Obama. Senator Obama and his running mate, Joe Biden, will stand up for the rights of women. Barack Obama and Joe Biden will work to eradicate this and other issues that plague women. On November 4th your voice matters.

Divided We Will Fall

It’s early July, November is still four and a half months away, and the question still remains—is the Democratic Party strong enough to move beyond the divisiveness of the primaries and unite to win the general election?

At the beginning of 2008, everyone was talking about the election, which candidate they were supporting, and how anxious they were for a President who was anyone but Bush. History was being made with the first Black man and the first woman contending for the office as well as a man who would be the oldest elected President. Young voters were inspired, women were rallying, and political apathy seemed to be a thing of the past.

Two months after the primaries ended, there is still excitement, but the rhetoric has changed. It’s not so much the my candidate is better than yours, though there is some of that between McCain and Obama supporters, but now the focus is on Independents and former Hillary supporters. The objective has shifted for both political camps—target the women. Primaries are essentially about rallying the base of your political party. These are not your swing voters, but instead are the ones who will be solidly entrenched with you during the general election. The months preceding the election are about everyone else, vote counts, and polls.

In January, I think all Democrats assumed this election would be a breeze, that there would be enough anti Bush sentiment to fuel a Democratic election. And though the primary season facilitated true democracy, a sense of disinterest, hurt, and anger has been left behind for some. Now, Obama has to make amends with Hillary’s supporters.

The question now is: Can Obama do it? Initially, Obama was the media’s golden boy. He could do no wrong, but as his focus shifts towards Middle America, people assume his values are changing as well. From the onset of his campaign (and even prior) he has brought Conservatives, Democrats, and Independents together. To do this, I doubt his message has drastically changed.

As someone who certainly doesn’t want a McCain Presidency and doesn’t believe McCain can speak to what matters to the American public, I believe Obama is the better choice. That said, as Democrats, and former Hillary supporters, we need to look at the issues and potential threat McCain is. If we truly want to see change, then we need to join the ranks of the ‘Obamanites’ and march loyally with him through this battle.

Mercy Killing

In the same world where the media exploits and exposes an alleged affair between A-Rod and Madonna, 5,000 women each year are murdered as what is considered to be “mercy killings” to free them from their arranged marriages.

Chaudhry Rashid, a Pakistani man in Atlanta, GA, is charged with murdering his daughter, or in his eyes freeing her from a marriage she wasn’t happy with. Police and other officials have reported that Rashid is upset and saddened over the loss of his daughter, but not remorseful.

Anyone who knows me knows that I fully respect everyone’s right to practice their own religion, live their own lives, and not have anyone, let alone the law, interfere in your pursuit of happiness. However, I do not condone this.

How sad it is for a woman who lives and practices these cultural norms to believe that the only way out of an unhappy marriage is through death. How demeaning it must feel to know that your worth is through your family, your husband and nothing that’s directly yours.

Though it’s not as extreme, here in American culture, there is a public perception cast upon the woman when she gets divorced. “How will she take care of the kids?” or “I guess she just didn’t know how to please him.” Or maybe even little jokes such as, “I guess he just got tired of her cooking,” or “he traded her in for a newer model.” Not one of those presents a positive image of the woman. And no, not all divorces are his or her fault. They are messy, tough to talk about, stressful, legal hassles. We chastise and brand the woman. A divorced man is still a catch; a divorced woman carries society’s baggage.

Most of us will read the first part of this story and be shocked at the audacity of a father to take his daughter’s life and believe that was freeing her. We will want justice and a fair trial. And all of these are true, but who will standup and advocate for other women, whose lives have also been ripped apart because society still finds it easier to believe in a woman’s scorn, over emotional, and irrationalness, rather than see her as a person?

Yes, I realize it’s an extreme jump to go from a mercy killing to society’s perceptions, but really, if you brand a woman for being divorced as being “damaged goods” then maybe she too might desire a “mercy killing.” She, too, might want a way out.

Is The Public's Perception Stronger Than The Glass Ceiling?

This isn’t a new topic, especially for anyone who’s been paying attention to the 2008 election, but there seems to be so many double standards that we, as a society, are comfortable with. Earlier this year, the media had a field day when Hillary became a little choked up and she took a few extra seconds to compose herself. All of a sudden she was an emotional woman and this made her too soft.

On the flip side, she was also perceived as being to shrill. People actually questioned what would happen if she experience PMS and pressed the big red button. My usual response was, hasn’t our current President already done that?

Today, I came across a story that highlighted a trip McCain took in 1987 to Nicaragua where the McCain picked up an Ortega Associate by the collar of his shirt and attempt to put him in his place. Mind you, this was a diplomatic peace keeping mission, as the story reports. But unlike Hillary, McCain’s actions were lauded, (in comments I saw in today's press) and to some, this further solidified him in their minds as a hero. My only question is how is this any less of an emotional response?

I realize that Hillary isn’t the Democratic nominee and really, this discussion isn’t about the 2008 Presidential Election, but more so about the general perceptions we have and expect from men and women and these people serving as our leaders.

As Hillary put it, the glass ceiling was shattered into 18 Million pieces during her primary campaign. But look at the adversity she faced simply for being a woman. (Forget her politics for a second) The media criticized her hair, her cleavage, runs in her hose, whether she was too emotional or had any emotions at all, because of her husband’s previous indiscretions, etc. Tell me, when, when was the last time you heard of a male candidate’s standard Navy suite being criticized as being too dull, his hair too gray, or the fact that his wife either had or didn’t have a career. The media only introduces these when a woman is running.

Today, we tell children to dream big, work hard, and become anyone they want. But do we subtly tell little girls, except that or with a major cost? Even the President Barbie Dolls that were created to inspire young women to run for office were still anatomically incorrect and sexualized the image. (Perky boobs, high heals, short skirts) She even comes with her own ballroom dress rather than maybe a copy of the Constitution or something else that would be Presidential.

Most Americans speak on sound bites they’ve heard from political commentators, radio hosts, television shows, and websites to name a few. How the media characterizes a woman candidate starts the dialogue of how voters will critique her as well.
So the next time someone commends McCain for his temper, remember, he’s just as an emotional man, (temper) who’s equally capable of pressing the big red button for emotional reasons and rationalizations.

The Mess They Left Behind

It appears the U.S. government has let down its citizens again. In what appears to have been an act of carelessness, the U.S. Military failed to clean up their mess, leaving bombs behind, in Orlando, FL. Now, homeowners are watching as the Army Corp of Engineers searches with metal detectors to locate the weapons that were left behind.

During WWII, the property was known as PineCastle Jeep Range. There, the military tested bombs that would later be used on German and Japanese forces. However, after the war, the military forgot to clean up its mess. Two live bombs were found behind a school and others are still turning up as the Army Corp of Engineers continues their cleanup project.

Now, this story is about a year old and it appears that the Army Corp of Engineers is still working to clean up this mess. However, Mike Ornella, the leader of this clean up project stated that, “we’re never going to be 100 percent sure. We’re never going to give a 100 percent guarantee that the properties are clear.” How reassuring is that?

Imagine you’re a property owner; you have the 2.5 kids and a dog. Your kids attend this school where the first live bombs were found, how infuriating would that be that the government A. deceived you and B. cannot guarantee that all of the live bombs will be removed. Plus, the value of your home just dropped dramatically, not only because we’re in the middle of a downward spiral with the housing market, but also because who wants property that might have live bombs on it?

Too many times, our government has looked the other way and in turn has left people in a bind. Check out the Road to Nowhere in North Carolina. In 1943, the government came in and removed people from their homes to build a damn with the promise of building a road around the waterway so that commerce and life as normal could return. However, the road ends less than half a mile from where it started because there was a lack of government funding. Money was again secured in 2000, however, the road is still less than half a mile long.

Thus far, no fatalities have occurred from the live bombs in Orlando, however, there have been reports of injuries such as people being burned because a bomb detonated and ignited a fire. As a promise to its citizens, the U.S. government needs to be responsible for all of its projects, not only the implementation, but also the cleanup.

Down and Dirty

I’ve recently gotten on the Obama bandwagon. Skeptical at first given that I was a Hillary supporter. But because of Obama’s Primary victory and my supreme distrust of McCain, I’ve therefore become an Obama supporter. However, my question is this, is it possible for one politician to change the face and perceptions of politics and how the game is played?

This was something Obama supporters originally found enlightening, a breath of fresh air. They believed he could change the system, a modern day JFK. He is young and charismatic and not caught up in the political backstabbing found (or assumed to be found) in Washington. And Obama has done well for himself. His grassroots campaigning was something Hillary couldn’t compete with and he brought young voters to the table- voters most thought were apathetic. (Most Americans for the past half century have been apathetic in elections).

But now that we have our presumptive nominees, the attacks have begun. Americans vote on sound bites, their willingness to drink a beer with the candidate, single issues, religion, and war records to name a few. These aren’t things that are new to our political system. And for a politician to win, he or she has to be willing to play this game with the best of them.

Currently, McCain and the media have been attacking Obama because they feel he reneged on his original campaign promises—not to solicit private donations in the general election and to not use mudslinging tactics to name a few. However, at what point is it possible to bring about political change; is it before or after the election? Does one change politics from the inside out or the outside in?

For one thing, political campaigning is a billion dollar business. The amount of money it costs to for even a no body to challenge a Congressional seat in the 2008 election is between $3 million and $8 million. Senate races have gotten even costlier. Especially in 2008 when everyone is looking for an answer that’s as far away from George W. Bush.

Therefore, for Obama to remain a viable candidate, because McCain didn’t take the public financing, then he would have to raise the money the same way he did in the primaries. If we want this system to change, then we will have to change the institution. (This becomes a Freedom of Speech/1st Amendment issue) But we would have to limit the amount of money that could be spent on it, require candidates to use the public finance, have media advertising cost less, etc. But the other thing that would help this is if voters would care enough to stay educated on the candidates rather than off the sound bites, Youtube clips, and e-mail forwards.

If we want the system to change, then we have to be willing to change too and not crucify someone who, in all honesty, can’t do it for us. We, as a country, need not tune into infotainment (the news), but instead do a little research ourselves and figure out which candidate's message resonates with each of us. Otherwise, WE allow the cycle to continue.

Restricting the Use of Capital Punishment

This week has been a big week for the US Supreme Court. Because they are leaving for a recess, I’m sure they were trying to release a lot of major decisions. Before they defined the 2nd Amendment, The Court spoke out on the capital punishment and when it’s an appropriate punishment.

As a pretty liberal Democrat, I have a hard time with the death penalty. Yes, I do realize that cretins walk among us and commit heinous acts against others. And DNA testing has made charging and convicting the right person more accurate, therefore, lessening the chances of the wrong person going to prison or being executed. On the flip side, I know that executing the criminal doesn’t bring solace for the family. Most don’t feel any better about watching someone else die. In addition, it costs more for the criminal to go through the entire appeals process than to live out their remaining days in jail. That’s if you factor in all of the costs… lawyer fees, the judge’s salary, the cop’s salary, etc. I do realize that could be an argument for not giving the convicted as many accused, but through those appeals, it has been discovered that our judicial system has put innocent people on death row. Check out the Innocence Project at http://www.innocenceproject.org/.

On June 25th, the Supreme Court Justices were called to make a decision on whether the death penalty should be used in cases involving the rape of the child. In a 5-4 decision, they stated that capital punishment should strictly be used in cases of murder and crimes against the state (treason). This decision followed the precedent set in a case from 1977 where the death penalty could not be applied to a rape case where the rape was of a 16 year old girl.

The responses I read to this opinion were appalling. Some people were wishing that the Justices own children would experience being raped so that the Justices could then make a more informed decision. Others said that if the courts were unable to provide the “justice” they felt was appropriate, that they would take matters into their own hands. Even the presumed Presidential nominees, John McCain and Barack Obama, spoke out about this ruling.

First of all, all judges serve the Constitution, be it the State Constitution and/or the Federal Constitution depending on their office. Also, the opinions they render are supposed to remain free from personal opinion and judgment. Yes, I realize this is a slightly utopian idea, however, it is what our judges must strive for, impartiality. Otherwise, no one would get a fair trial in this country. Plus, how reprehensible is it to wish something as tragic upon any child?

Second, though it’s not always perfect, the legal system is set in place and vigilantes who take justice into their own hands prevent the defendant of due process. As a society, we have to trust the system, even with its imperfections, because it’s the only thing we have bringing us one step closer towards fairness… towards justice.

I think the Justices were forced to make an unpopular decision. This case split the liberal and conservative justices, but one that also swung Justice Kennedy—a justice who has sided with the conservative Justices lately but one who is an independent Judge. Do I think that the rape of a small child is one of the most despicable things I have ever heard of, yes. But this time, I think the court got it right.

DC Gun Laws

The SCOTUS ruled on the definition of the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights. "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 of June 26, 2008 that means that the citizens, in good standing with the state and federal government (not convicted criminal, etc.) have the right to bare arm. This is a major victory for gun proponents and a loss for others who wanted stricter regulation.

District of Columbia v. Heller was brought before the courts by a man named Heller (obviously) because he didn't feel safe and able to protect himself or his family from DC's crime. He was a security guard who had to relinquish his side arm every time he left work. As part of his case, he noted bullet holes outside of his door.

So I know this is a controversial issue. And frankly, I'm not exactly sure where I fall on this issue. Here's what I do I do know. Adding more guns to a city already considered to be a violent city might not be the best answer. It could simply make weapons more accessible to the criminals. But yes, I do understand the deterent factor. What I don't know are the numbers for how many crimes were commited or detered because the criminal was intimidated by his intended victim's gun. (I don't think this data is available or would be 100% accurate if there was something... mostly because what criminal would report, 'yea, I thought about it, but his 9 millimeter stopped me.)

And yes, I've been shooting, once. I was pretty angry at the time. (Probably not the best time to have decided to do target practice, but those of you who know what I'm referencing know the entire story) But me and a friend took a stuffed rabbit that had been given to me (and was no longer wanted) to his family's farm. I think I put 70 some rounds into it and it felt liberating. In fact, I still have a bullit from this excursion in my desk. When we picked up the rabbit, this bullit was stuck to the rabbits face.

So, that's my only hands on experience with guns. Generally, they scare me. It seems so easy for something to happen.

Okay, so back to DCs hand gun laws being reversed. To me, violent crime is a symptom of poverty, economic hard times, family hardships, to name a few. So if there's an issue of crime, wouldn't it make more sense to actually go in and fix the problem and deter crime from the get go rather than on the back end? It's like putting a band aid on a wound that needs surgery and stitches. The wound won't heal properly.

I guess I'm not anti gun... not on the whole. I do think there needs to be stricter regulations. For example, the fact that you can buy a gun at a gun show without background checks is incomprehensible to me. And I think there should be locks that make it harder for anyone other than the owner to use. (i.e. kids or criminals can't use the weapon) But I do understand the need for a free society to bare arms. I mean, this country wouldn't exist if it's citizens didn't own firearms. Granted, that was a different time because weapons weren't only used for protection, but also for a tool when hunting.

So many things have also changed our attitudes towards weapons-- movies, video games, music videos, etc. We all know what it would look like for a gangsta to shoot a gun (held on its side) as well as how to properly hold a gun when aiming. If nothing else, Duck Hunt taught us that. I guess we don't strictly see a gun as a tool, a dangerous tool at that, but something of status and in some cases popularity.

That's my two cents. Since I work in the district, and live a block outside, it should be interesting to see what happens.