Greatest Invention Ever

I am a huge fan of the Hubble Space Telescope. It has given us the opportunity to learn more about the Universe and our seemly insignificant place in it. The images it provides are stunning. I will shut up and let them speak for themselves.

This is for those whe stuck around to the bitter end. I don't know how my anus would appear if it were on the horizon but uranus seems to take up a lot of the sky if it were as close as the moon. There is always time for the adult male mind to work in some juvenile humor.

No She's Not

I took a look at my recent posts and realized that I had gotten too political. Distracted by the events of the day. I had overlooked passing along important news. You know, stuff that Lily is doing.

We brought home a puppy.

After Candy's death I wasn't ready to get another dog. I told myself that I would never allow myself to get that attached to a dog again. The loss was just too painful.

This is a recent picture of Lily. It was a bit cool so she managed to lay on one of my shirts and cover up with one of Carol's quilts. As you can see, she is not a puppy. The other thing she is not, is a dog. She is a member of the family. Our relationship has evolved to become something more like, she is not our dog, we are her people.

I wrote a couple of weeks ago about digging post holes for Lily's new exercise area. This is her old enclosure. The Humane Society says this 10' X 10' area is sufficient. Lily says no. As you can see she loves to dig. If you don't have room to run you have to do something to burn that energy.

This picture was taken during the rain last week. Off to the left is Lily's old pen. The fence posts around are her new area. Room to run. By the way, in her case running does not translate into less energy for digging. Now there are just more places to dig.

Yesterday she determined that standing on the deck was not high enough to get a good view of her domain. She is on top of the hot tub cover supervising all that happens in her part of the world.

You never know who might stop by for a visit. These two geese hung around for about an hour this morning. Lily barked at them the entire time. They were about as impressed as they appear in this picture.

Lily finds that supervising me and keeping annoying animals like geese away from her property is hard work. Nothing wrong with a nap in the afternoon sun.

It is important to keep your most valued possessions close by. There are those who would steal them.

So there you have it. She has managed to work that magic only dogs can. She is no longer a pet. We are not her masters. We are lucky. We are her people.

Follow up to 5and6

This article is from Salon.com. It reenforces my comments from yesterday. I read it after I wrote my blog.

Lindsey Graham

South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham is not pleased that the Obama administration decided to prosecute Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev in civilian court, even though it would probably be illegal and counterproductive to treat the U.S. citizen as an enemy combatant.

The senator, a lawyer and reserve Air Force JAG officer himself, called for stripping Tsarnaev of his constitutional rights to due process even before the 19-year-old was captured Friday evening. “The accused perpetrators of these acts were not common criminals attempting to profit from a criminal enterprise,” Graham said on Twitter on Friday. “Under the Law of War we can hold #Boston suspect as a potential enemy combatant not entitled to Miranda warnings or appointment of counsel.”

But Graham seems to hold the opposite view when it comes to different constitutional rights for those accused or suspected of terrorism. At a press conference he set up this afternoon to slam the White House on the enemy combatant decision, he was asked about legislation that would stop people on the Terrorist Watch List from buying guns. Here’s his response:

GRAHAM: “I think, anyone who’s on the Terrorist Watch List should not lose their Second Amendment right without the ability to challenge that determination. I think, Senator Kennedy was on the Terrorist Watch List. There’ve been people come up on the watch list. I did not want to make that a — the basis to take someone’s Second Amendment rights away. What I would suggest, is that if you come up on the Terrorist Watch List, you have the ability to say, “No, I’m not a terrorist.” And that would be the proper way to do that.

Currently, the federal government can only prevent a firearm sale for 11 reasons — suspected ties to terrorism, or even suspicion that a gun would be used in an attack, are not one of them. Between February 2004 and December 2010, 1,453 people on the terror watch list tried to buy a gun and over 90 percent were not stopped.

Democratic Sen. Frank Lautenberg’s bill to close what he calls the “terror gap” would not automatically strip anyone’s Second Amendment rights, as Graham suggests. It would, in fact, allow “any individual whose firearms or explosives license application has been denied to bring legal action to challenge the denial.” In Graham’s world, Tsarnaev would have no such clear recourse to challenge his status as an enemy combatant.

The Terrorist Watch List is imperfect and there are plenty of legitimate civil libertarian arguments to be made against restricting firearms access to people on the list, since people on it haven’t been convicted of any crimes and they’re not even allowed to know whether they’re on the list. For instance, Ted Kennedy was, indeed, briefly and erroneously placed on the no fly list in 2004, though that’s a different list. But Graham’s opposition to limiting the Second Amendment rights of people suspected of being terrorists is wholly inconsistent with his support for completely stripping away their Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights to a fair trial in court.

Contrast his opposition to closing the “terror gap” with this, from a 2011 New York Times article:

Citizens who are suspected of joining Al Qaeda are opening themselves up “to imprisonment and death,” Mr. Graham said, adding, “And when they say, ‘I want my lawyer,’ you tell them: ‘Shut up. You don’t get a lawyer. You are an enemy combatant, and we are going to talk to you about why you joined Al Qaeda.’ ”

So the only right that Graham seems interested in preserving for people suspected of being affiliated with al-Qaida is their right to purchase firearms.

The NRA also opposes closing the “terror gap,” fearing that it would be used to strip the Second Amendment rights of “Americans who disagree with the policies of the Obama Administration,” “who believe in federalism,” or “who post their political opinions on the Internet.”

Alex Seitz-Wald

What About 5 & 6?

I am back on my soap box. I keep hearing about the constitution and the second amendment right to keep and bear firearms. A week ago today an idiot pair of brothers set off two bombs killing three people and wounding around 200. It was a senseless act of violence against people who were just out to enjoy one of America's iconic sporting events. The brothers were foreign born and apparently Muslims. The older brother was killed in a shoot out with police. The younger brother is a naturalized United States of America citizen.

I said that to say this, Senator Graham and Senator McCain have gone on record that the younger brother should be declared an "enemy combatant". This would mean he could be held indefinitely without charges and when charges were brought he could be tried by a military tribunal.

They killed and maimed with bombs made from items available at a hardware store and placed in a pressure cooker. I didn't take the time to check but it seems to me that the movie theater shooting in Colorado resulted in about 20 deaths. The shooting of Congresswoman Giffords in Arizona resulted in several deaths and injuries. Both acts were committed by white males that one would reasonably assume to be Christian using guns. I don't recall in either case a demand from a United States Senator that either subject be declared an "enemy combatant". The crimes were as senseless, carried out in a public venue and in one case was a deliberate attack on a government official.

Would the Boston Marathon attack be viewed differently if it had been carried out with guns? The brothers had plenty of those and no one seems to be making an issue out of that. I'm not either. My concern is that the younger brother is a United States citizen. He is entitled to notice of charges, a right to confront his accusers, a trial by a jury of his peers, representation by an attorney. The constitution I read and follow does not stop at the second amendment. When you talk about what to do with this kid, and he is a kid, he is entitled to the rights granted in the constitution. Being foreign born or Muslim does not void those rights. He is an American citizen who committed a crime on American soil. If he is treated as anything other than a citizen, if his fifth and sixth amendment rights are violated, we are all in some manner diminished.

Grant him representation by an attorney, present the charges, try him before a jury of his peers. Let our magnificent justice system work. Show the world that the process works and let justice be done. He is innocent until proven guilty, as are we all.

Humor

It's hard to argue with a slogan that says: "make your meat look like meat"

 Every day miracle here.

 

Mr. Jefferson, we never knew!

This is one of my favorite dog pictures. It's not Lily because the burger wouldn't be there long enough to get a picture.

 Andy's mom is a PLAYER!

 How does that go? I'm not paranoid, but you would be too if all these people were after you.

 Oh, yeah. Get your freak on.

 Easter Island!

 I think she is funny, scary funny.

 Low in the 30's here tonight. I want winter to die.

Anger

Charles Dickens had it right. "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times." I am angry and confused. Bewildered and pissed off. I am aggravated to the depths of my being. There are things in this world I do not understand.

The first thing is the bombing in Boston. What was the purpose? Was it meant to scare us? It didn't work and it will never work. I don't get up in the morning and wonder if some idiot (and they most certainly were that) is going to bomb something or shoot me or do some other thing to harm me or a group of people I am with. Maybe it was the 20 plus years working in a prison. You go in every day knowing that something could go horribly wrong. You could be in the wrong place, or say the wrong thing, or something completely out of your control could happen. I got asked a few times what I would want a guard to do if I was being attacked. Would I want them to shoot? My answer was always yes. They would say most of the shots were from a long distance and the guns got banged around so the shot wouldn't be accurate. I would tell them that was okay, at least they tried. Even if they shot me, they tried. I got threatened on a regular basis. When you are in a position of authority and you have a bad habit of speaking what you think, sometimes people get pissed off. I never got hurt and to the best of my knowledge my actions never got another staff member hurt. So, back to Boston. It seems to me that the folks in Boston have a healthy dose of "Fuck you, it that the best you got." So the idiots who did this managed to kill 3 people and ruin the lives of many more. In the process they strengthened our resolve. The resolve to live our lives regardless of their plans to disrupt.

I continue to be confused about gun control. What again is the issue with universal background checks? No one can explain to me in a way that makes any sense what is wrong with this. I am a law abiding citizen. I have, and it causes me no shame to admit it, sought the assistance of a mental health professional in the past. If receiving authorization to purchase a gun required the release of those records I have no problem with that. The law that was defeated yesterday did not require that. I am not impressed with the fact that surveys indicate 90% of the public want universal background checks. It has been my experience in the past that 100% of people want stupid things from time to time. I offer as proof pet rocks and troll dolls. Maybe the 10% are right this time. The problem is that the debate is filled with too much emotion and too many mistruths. One of the big mistruths was that the law required a national gun registry. It did not. The bill actually outlawed registry. There are those who continually maintain that they need their guns to protect themselves from a tyranical government. I find that argument amusing. Let's keep in mind that Red Dawn was a movie. Not real life folks. When the second ammendment was written the fire power on both sides was roughly equal. A bunch of back woodsmen with muskets fighting a bunch of troops with muskets. The fight today would be with a government armed with M1A1 tanks, apache helicopters, stealth bombers, drones, and hundreds of other things citizens will never be allowed to possess. So, go on and talk shit about how the government will take your gun from your cold dead hands because that is the only part of the debate you got right. If you think it will take long, you should go back and watch what happened to Iraq's army. I leave you with this thought on that subject. "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must gohand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." Thomas Jefferson. Times change. Jefferson wrote all men are created equal, while he owned slaves and forbid women the right to vote. The second ammendment did not forsee the development of the machine gun. The right to keep and bear arms needs to be tempered by the reality of modern times. Debated and voted on with facts. Discussed by adults acting as adults. Compare Jefferson's comments to those of one of our current representatives. "In fact, I had this discussion with some wonderful, caring Democrats earlier this weeek on the issue of, well, they said "surely you could agree to limit the number of rounds in a magazine couldn't you? How would that be problematic?" And I pointed out, well, once you make it ten, then why draw the line at ten? What's wrong with nine? Or eleven? And the problem is once you draw that limit; it's kind of like marriage when you say it's not a man and a woman any more, then why not have three men and one woman, or four women and one man, or why not somebody who has a love for an animal? There is no clear place to draw the line once you eliminate the traditional marriage and it's the same once you start putting limits on what guns can be used, then it's just really easy to have laws that make them all illegal." Louis Gohmert, United States House of Representatives, Texas District One. If we follow Mr. Gohmert's logic, and I'm not sure I can, the only thing that keeps us from having sex with animals is the fact we can go hunting with any gun we want. I don't think I will go hunting with him.

Times change and we must find a way to adapt and change with them.

15

The weather in BFE has turned for the better. It is warm and reasonably dry. Well, dry for April. So today it was finally time to leave the cozy indoor hell of daytime television and get back to work. So to Kelly and Michael, The View, The Talk, the Chew, Dr. Phil, Ellen and anyone else who has tormented me since November- FUCK OFF!

Lily went out to spend time in her kennel while I dug fence post holes for her new larger and improved exercise area. I had everything lined out and started digging. The title of the post is the number of holes I dug today. They are all 30 inches deep and about 10 inches in diameter. All hand dug with a spade and a clam shell post hole digger. I still have 8 more holes to dig. I hit the wall at 15. No posts in the holes just the holes dug. When you are 59 it seems clear you cannot sit around all winter and then work like you did the year before. The old saying is true. What I used to do all day now takes me all day to do.

I am going to pay for this tomorrow. Advil, save me!

It's About Love

There are days that you can sit down and write a blog and the words flow out of you like a flood. An unstoppable force. Then there are blogs like this one. I have written this one a hundred times in my head. It is different every time. Not better, not worse, just different. I used to be a very religious person. Not just religious but fundamentally religious. There was no room for gray. Everything was black and white. I think we all have periods of insanity during our lives. I am pretty sure that one was mine. I have walked away from organized religion. I don't know if there is or isn't a god. It really doesn't matter. I will do the best I can every day and when I am dead I will find out what happens and where we all go. We do all go somewhere even if that is just in the ground. This blog isn't about religion it is about gay marriage.

I wanted to attack the religious folks out there who make it a sin to be gay. They want to cherry pick verses out of the Bible while they claim every verse is the inspired word of God. If you want to believe that being gay is a sin I can't stop you or change your mind. Okay, it's a sin. Don't let a gay couple get married in your church. If another church wants to let them get married in their building what is that to you? How does that offend your beliefs. If they offend you pray for them. Maybe someday they will be as "enlightened" as you are.

Senator Portman from Ohio got a lot of flak for changing his position on gay marriage after his son came out and announced he was gay. Carol and I have a gay son. You can claim all you want that it shouldn't change your position on gay marriage or the sin of homosexuality. Good luck with that plan. I know that there are lots of folks out there who believe being gay is a choice. The question I cannot answer is a simple one. "When did I choose to be straight?" I don't remember making that choice. I always found women attractive. When I think about sex (if you believe some research it is every 7 seconds) it is always with a woman. Thanks Carol. Now you know I think about you almost 10 times every minute. As a parent we want our children to be happy. If being gay and finding someone who loves him makes my son happy then that is all I want. That is all Senator Portman is saying.

I wanted to attack people who wanted to prohibit gay marriage as a part of their political beliefs. Those folks are generally Republican and that is my current political affiliation. I find myself increasingly at odds with what they stand for so who knows what the future holds. Anyway it would seem gays and Republicans would be a somewhat natural fit. Like peas and carrots. Different yet complimentary. Republicans hate abortion. Gay men aren't making babies so abortion would be off the table. The lesbian woman who brought the issue to the Supreme Court did so based at least in part on the fact that she had to pay several hundred thousand dollars in estate taxes because she and her partner were not allowed the spousal exemption. Apparently Republicans are okay with a gay tax.

In the end I rejected all of those approaches and focused on something I read the other day on Facebook. Generally I find most of what I read on Facebook to be a waste of time. I am retired so I have lots of time to waste. So I read it anyway. This is what I read.

"Maybe it's me guys. But, I've always found it weird to worry and obsess about who other people have sex with.
It's about love. It's always been about love."
Brittany Gibbons

Gays aren't asking us to recognize their sexuality. They are asking us to recognize and accept their love. They want us to grant them the same rights and privileges straight couples have under the law. The recogniton straight couples have based not on the sex they are having but on the love they profess for each other. If you go to a gay wedding, and I have, you do not see two people professing their desire to have sex with each other (we have bars for that) you see two people professing their love for each other. I never felt like that had any negative effect on my marriage or on the institution of marriage. They are two people in love. Let them get married. What they do behind closed doors with their genatalia is none of our concern.

So when you consider gay marriage all I ask is that you keep one thing in mind. It's about love. Thanks Brittany. You said it better in three words than I have in this entire mess I call a blog. If you want to learn more about Brittany she has a site called Brittanyherself.com.