Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Make Me Laugh

Word on the street is that I'm a sourpuss.

Recently, a friend of mine sent me this article, and encouraged me to add the interviewer to the "the list."

For the ignorant, "the list" is the mythical list of racists and bigots black people walk around with in their heads. Well, at least this black person.

Anyway, after I checked out the interview I decided I shared her sentiments. I then passed along the interview to another friend of mine.

Now, this guy and I often disagree on stuff, so when I pass stuff to him it's mainly because I want a different perspective to shake myself up. I like to force myself to defend and consider all my positions so that I can be comfortable explaining why I believe what I believe. I think I told y'all about this compulsion before.

Anyway, this friend tells me that I'm be too sensitive about the article, and I've missed the point. Mainly, the interview is for laughs, and there is nothing sinister about it. He chided me for looking for a reason to be offended.

This ain't a new thing. Those of y'all who have been following the blog for a while know I've discussed sensitivity and humor.

My friend's comments made me think. Have I lost my funny bone? Has my newfound pledge to treat folks the way I want them to treat me, or more importantly, the way they would like to be treated, turned me into a simp? A boring, bland mush of unfunny?

I don't think so.

I like humor, and I can laugh at stuff that's risque. I think Dave Chappelle was a freaking genius.

That said, I'm tired of this new breed of comedy that focuses on demeaning folks for laughs. I'm tired of snarky blogs that poke fun at any and everything and turn away complaints by hiding behind the stock response of "Lighten up." Yes, being intelligent is nice, but why do so many folks need to reaffirm their intelligence by taunting others? Why is that funny?

I wrote a while back about the lack of ass whippings in the world. I stand by that sentiment. While I don't like using violence to solve problems, I cannot deny the fact that violence can be a great deterrent. When I was growing up children talked about each other all the time, but there was always the understanding that things could get physical if you crossed the wrong line.

For some cats that was a momma joke, for other cats it was something else. No matter what, everybody understood that unless we were bosom buddies, you had better be careful with your mouth if you weren't ready to fight.

This interview reminded me that without checks and balances things get out of hand. In my opinion, the interviewer was lazy, and relied on stereotypes and snark instead of actually working for real laughs.

It wasn't funny at all.








Share

Monday, September 28, 2009

Pop Quiz

So, let's say Big Man is a world famous writer with tons of fans. He writes masterpieces that make men weep and women swoon. He is like crack, hard and potent.

But, Big Man has demons. Particularly, he likes his women a little young. Not May and December young, but "Daddy DayCare" young. One time, Big Man gets a 13-year old girl in his home, gives her a little booze, a few pills and then proceeds to have his way with her despite her objections. Big Man later pleads guilty to having sex with minor, is given a sweetheart deal by prosecutors, but blows town because he's worried that the the judge might not go along with the plan.


Simple question here: Could you still celebrate Big Man's writing career?

Those of y'all who read or watch the news now that today's blog topic is ripped directly from the headlines, as they say. Celebrated director Roman Polankski was recently arrested by the Swiss police, and his apprehension has outraged many in the artistic community. It seems that back in 1978, Polanski participated in a situation similar to the one described above and now it's time to pay the piper.

However, Polanski's supporters think it's time to let bygones be bygones. They argue that the police should stop hounding the 76-year old who has spent the past few decades jetting around the world making movies and banging groupies. (I assume he's banging groupies, don't know this for a fact.) I actually saw where one dude argued that this whole arrest thing is "sinister," and it's been tied to this country's puritanical views about sex, and a quest to get some money from the Swiss.

How about it's tied to the fact that this cat raped a child and then jumped bail?

Come on people, let's call a spade a spade. First and foremost, this cat raped a little girl. According to the girl's account, the sex was in no way consensual. Even if she's lying about that, she was 13-years old and Polanski used alcohol and drugs to coerce her. This is an open and shut case of pedophilia, with the additional bonus of some forcible rape.

Polanski apparently only left town once he realized that a judge wasn't going to let him plead out to a lesser charge, and he decided that he didn't want to hear the other inmates holla "Short Eyes" when he hit the tier. That would have been ugly.

I really can't fathom how folks are defending old boy's actions and arguing that he shouldn't have to deal with what he did. Not only does he need to do some time for the rape, but he needs to do some time for running. If Leroy or Tyrone raped a chick and jumped bail nobody would be questioning whether they deserve to get dealt with by the law. But because this cat is handy with a video camera he's supposed to get special treatment? And Mike Vick just did two years for killing some dogs?

That's crazy talk.

If you as a person are really bothered by the fact that Polanski is catching flak for a child rape he admitted to committing, then you need to reevaluate your life. Bottom line, this ain't the kind of cat you need to be celebrating. He represents something disgusting and nasty about our world. He's the embodiment of a policy that most of us despise.

It ain't what you do, it's who you are.






Share

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Pants On Fire

"Daddy, can I have some of that chocolate?"

"This chocolate right here? Nah, you don't want this chocolate, it's nasty."

"If it's nasty, why you eating it? Why did you eat the whole pack of chocolates?"

"Sometimes grown-ups like to eat nasty stuff, remember how I liked liver and onions and you hated it?"

"Yeah."

"Well, this chocolate tastes kind of like that, like liver and onions. You don't want liver an onions chocolate right?"

"No, I don't want that."

"Good, now go grab the remote for daddy and then go play."


The above conversation is fictional. Despite my online name, I do not eat whole packs of chocolate in a single sitting. Now, if we talking about Cool Ranch Doritos, well I'll admit to making that mistake once or twice. But, I digress.

I wrote the above conversation because it seemed like something that would happen in many American homes. A child starts asking uncomfortable questions or making demands, and a parent responds with a little white lie to smooth things over. Nothing and nobody is really hurt, since the child will probably one day laugh at the fact that he thought chocolate tasted like liver and onions.

Or, he might hate your guts.

According to this study there is an epidemic of dishonesty among parents. It appears that when the going gets tough, parents get to lying.

I don't have a lying problem. My momma beat that out of me when she caught me lying about vacuuming her room when I was seven years old. And folks say spanking doesn't work.

It's not that I don't get the urge to spin some tall ones for my little ones. Sometimes when my oldest is asking me questions, it seems much easier to answer with a little lie, then try to break down the truth. Yet, as far as I can remember, I've resisted the urge. I don't know if that means I'm really honesty, or that I have a selective memory.

Anyway, I know it seems cute to tell our kids these little lies to shut them up, but I wonder about the long-term effects of our falsehoods. When the truth is finally revealed, what happens to the parent-child relationship? I guess it's ok when they find out about Santa Claus, but what about when they find about that their "Auntie" Angie, is really the mother of their half-brothers and sisters?

My opposition to lying today is biblical now that the scars from my beating have worn off. I often wonder though if God permits some lies when they serve the greater good, or if they are always a sin. I guess it's one of those questions I'll never get answered definitively. Anyway, what I do know is that if you're one of those parents, or just plain adults, who thinks that lying to kids is no big deal you need to know one thing.

You ain't alone.



Share

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

The Age of Anger

Are you mad?

If you're like many folks in this country, you have a whole host of reasons why you're upset, and all of them feel justified. It could be your job, your family, your health or just some nebulous feeling of unease. Whatever, it is, it's making you angry.

American has been an angry place since that guy got in the oval office. You know the guy, purple lips, slim build, peculiar gait. That guy seems to have made everything worse. Civil discourse has completely disappeared, the economy is tanking, racial violence is increasing, and dammit, I can't turn on the news without having to hear about a racial issue.

What happened to my country?

In my America, people knew how to talk around important issues, we knew how to sweep certain discussions under the rug. There was not this incessant push to confront injustice, it was more about going with the flow. Don't make waves and you'll be taken care of, you know.

Look at how this new anger thing has affected the blacks. (By the way, I still don't understand why we can't say Negro. It means "black" in Spanish and it sounds so much more poetic than regular "black.") Back in my day, the blacks knew how to enjoy life. The ones who were poor had their Saturday night fun, and the ones with a little money understood how to keep to themselves.

You could be confident that if you gave a Negro, I mean a black, a hand-up he understood that you were his benefactor. He was eternally grateful to you. The blacks knew that success was a privilege and that it could be snatched from them. Althea Gibson would have never gotten cheeky like Serena Williams, and if you think Bill Russell would have dared give a speech like Michael Jordan's, well you don't know America.

And Kanye? Kanye! First of all his momma would have never named him after a pepper. And, I know he damn sure wouldn't have a career if he did that to an all-American girl in my day. It's like these Negroes have lost their tiny minds.

You know it's all because of him. He made them think they could let their hair down, that we would tolerate this sort of behavior. Sure, he says all the right things, although he showed his black buttocks with that Henry Gates thing, but beneath that placid veneer lurks an angry black man. Do y'all remember how he got all huffy when folks started making some good natured jibes about his wife? Issuing threats like he has the right to impede my free speech, how dare he!

It's like these Negroes think they can say anything now that this guy is running the show. And running it into the ground I might add. How do we go from peace and prosperity to anarchy in ten months? Well, when you start worrying about diversity and not about results, what do you expect? I don't want to sound like a racist, but any time you let certain folks get involved in stuff, well the quality deteriorates. Look at our urban areas.

What really galls me is how angry so many of the blacks are now. You would think that they would be satisfied now that they've got their guy in the White House. But you give a Negro an inch and there's no stopping him. It's like they think that the world should change immediately. Where's the patience, where's their understanding? Folks don't like disruption. Intelligent people can discuss problems without resorting to name-calling or ugliness. I wish these blacks would follow the example of real Americans.

I just want to let all the hardworking, tax-paying Americans know that I get their confusion over all this misplaced anger. Just like you, it makes me mad, and I think I deserve to be mad. It's the folks without legitimate complaints that need to learn some decorum.

Thanks for your time.







Share

Friday, September 18, 2009

Parenting 101

Unconditional love is a funny concept.

We hear people talking about unconditional love with their spouses or partners. We hear them talk about unconditional love with God. Most often we hear about unconditional love when folks are speaking about their children.

Unfortunately, I firmly believe that the very concept of unconditional love is flawed in our society. Check out this article for a look at how one New York Times writer views unconditional love in families.

As a parent, and a Christian, this article just doesn't sit well with me. Maybe I just don't "get it," but it seems to me that the article is basically telling folks that discipline is overrated.

That doesn't compute.

I get the idea that withholding love and affection from our children can cause serious problems. I believe that children should always understand that their parents love them even when we're doing stuff that they might view as mean. However, what I got from this article was that if you try to dictate to your little ones how they should live their lives, you are doing them a disservice and you probably don't love them unconditionally.

First, I'll say that I believe forcing your children to behave the way you think is best for them is the core job of any parent. It sounds tough, it sounds mean, but the truth is that we owe it to our children to give them the proper blueprint for life. The idea that doing this is wrong, just seems, well wrong.

Yes, children need autonomy. They must be allowed their independence to grow properly. But, that doesn't mean they just get live their lives as they see fit. That is a complete abdication of our God-ordained duties.

But, what I really want to talk about is the world's concept of unconditional love. For many people, unconditional love means that no matter what you do, somebody will love you. But, those people also think that love means being sweet, and kind and nice and wonderful.

Those people are wrong.

Love means spanking your child when he needs a spanking. It means taking away your teenager's car keys when they've shown they're not ready for the responsibility of being a driver. It means pushing your children to excel in school, even if that means they can't go outside and play with their friends. Love isn't about making people feel good, it's about doing what's good for them.

Unconditional love means that no matter what you do, no matter how you fail me or disappoint me or hurt me, I'm still going to care about what's best for you. That's what parents should show their children. That's what God shows all of us. Sometimes doing what's best for others means chastising them, but that's fine when it's done in the spirit of love.

The truth is, most young people have no idea what's best for them. I know I didn't. Young people know what they want and what they like, but beyond that, they are clueless. We adults can love them unconditionally, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't place conditions on their lives.

Class dismissed.




Share

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Get It, Got It, Good

Apparently, I just don't "get it."

I don't get it about women. I don't get it about God. Definitely don't get it about white folks and racism. Man, it seems like on just about every topic in the world, I just don't "get it."

At least, that's what I've been told.

Any of y'all had that experience? You disagree with someone, point out what you feel is a valid and thoughtful critique of their comments, and suddenly you're being brushed off with "You just don't get it."

I call it, "The 'Get It' Complex."

This affliction affects folks of all stripes. Smart folks, dumb folks, rich and poor. People who typically enjoy nuanced conversations can contract the "get it" complex. Folks who only like to deal in the most basic cliches are victims as well. Hell, I've caught the disease myself at times.

There's nothing worse than being told that you don't "get it." It's as succinct a critique of your intelligence as you'll find. When somebody says that you don't "get it," they are basically telling you that you lack the acuity necessary for them to want to engage in any sort of debate or discussion with you. It's the ultimate brush off.

Which is why folks use it erroneously all the damn time.

Look, I'm not saying there is not a time and place for telling folks they don't "get it." Sometimes it's impossible to impart feelings or emotions to others unless they themselves have walked in your proverbial shoes. Unfortunately, too often people say "you don't get it" when they really should say "You're kicking my butt in this argument and I'm tired of losing." Or, when they should say "I just don't agree with you, but don't want to admit any merit in your position."

Honestly, I'm tired of hearing about people not "getting it," and since I hate hypocrisy, I've decided to try to eliminate the phrase from my vocabulary. Even when it's legitimate that phrase shuts down conversation. It is a slick way to belittle people, and, truthfully, I can be more creative when I want to belittle someone.

While some people truly don't "get it" most of the time, they understand our point and choose to ignore us. It's not a lack of understanding, it's a lack of agreement or empathy. The sooner we're all honest about that, the easier it will be to have productive conversations.

Get it?



Share

Friday, September 11, 2009

Perfectly Normal

This Newsweek story is getting some run on the web.

For some reason, it's caused people to sit up and take notice. I guess the fact that babies identify each other by race, or the idea that really young children are anything but colorblind, surprises some folks. I'm sure people are dismayed by how uncomfortable some parents are with discussing race.

Don't count me in that number.

I can't muster surprise. There is no shock. This story doesn't present me with any startling revelations, nor will it require me to reconsider my worldview. Matter of fact, I only had one reaction when I finished checking it out.

Damn, I was right again.

Now, I can't say that I've spent a lot of time musing about whether little children notice race. I've thought about it, but it hasn't been something that has consumed my attention. But, I've always believed that our attitudes about race are deeply ingrained in us due to a combination of our natural human instincts, and our societal indoctrination.

I call my oldest son my mockingbird. That little dude repeats the darnedest things, and loves to mimic my behavior. If I scold him, it's a given I'm going to catch him giving his younger brother a similar scolding. He loves to repeat random tidbits of conversation back to me and my wife and his ears are always open.

I make that point because almost all children are sponges. Just like my little boy learned to say "Michael Jackson" and bob his head at The King of Pop's music because I started playing a Greatest Hits cd, little kids learn about race and discrimination from watching their parents and the world. It's obvious. Teaching kids how to behave is cool, but they will always learn more from watching our actions.

See, we're not just fighting against the world's influences, we're fighting against human instincts. Discrimination isn't a social construct, it's a genetic mandate. In the face of limited resources, humans have always tried to figure out ways to deny access to others. It's as deeply ingrained in us as the desire to fornicate.

Therefore, the current popular idea of just avoiding race and racial discussions is stupid. It's only inviting a place for the same trite ideas about the world to flourish. Because, while certain bad habits are natural, that doesn't make them right. Often times, we need to buck our natural instincts because they do not serve our higher purpose.

Consequently, we have a responsibility to our children to have uncomfortable discussions. We must move outside of our comfort zones because comfort typically leads to stagnation. Only when we push our children on matters of race will they move beyond our failures.



Share

My Spirit Grieves

Some of y'all have heard the news.

Caster Semenya, who I wrote about in this post, is now dealing with the news that she may be a hermaphrodite. Semenya learned of this condition not through a discreet meeting with her family doctor, but through the sports pages of newspapers and websites across the world.

The international governing body charged with investigating Semenya's gender has not released its official report, but apparently somebody at the organization decided to leak the personal information to an Australian newspaper. That paper proudly trumpeted its "scoop," and news organizations across the world ran with the news.

And somewhere, I'm sure a young woman cried.

At least, I know I would have cried. Maybe Miss Semenya is stronger than me. Likely she's dealt with taunts and jibes about her physique and "manliness" her entire life. I'm sure those outcries only became worse when she began to dominate the other little fast girls at track and field. After all, nothing brings more hatred than dominance.

Maybe Semenya didn't cry when the news broke of her internal testes. Maybe she just shrugged and took it in ground-eating stride. But, I doubt it. After all, the recent pictures released of the runner all dolled up in makeup and jewelry, an abrupt departure from her typical look, tell me that either she or the people around her are susceptible to public pressure.

This whole thing has been a debacle. There is no other way to describe it. The life of this teenager will never, EVER be the same, and it is completely not her fault. From the initial questioning to this recent leak, it's as if the IAAF had no concern for the feelings of this young runner, and instead was hellbent on destroying her.

It's mind boggling to consider that the sports media was immediately willing to run a story based on anonymous sources that proclaimed a teenager a hermaphrodite, but when confronted with a court filing that accused a famous NFL player of rape, it took days for the news to break. Wait, scratch that, it's not mind boggling, it's perfectly understandable.

Some people's feelings and self image are important. Other people are nothing. This is the way the world has always worked, and likely it's the way it will always work.

And that's why my spirit grieves.

Share

Wednesday, September 9, 2009

Woodpeckers, Termites and Footstools

"It is difficult to say who do you the most mischief: enemies with the worst intentions or friends with the best."



Imagine yourself as a mighty oak tree, standing strong against the storms of life. Your roots reach deep into the earth. Your branches provide shade and sustenance. You are impervious to most danger, and your life is measured in centuries.

What scares you more, woodpeckers or termites?

We all have enemies. Sometimes they are people who don't like us, and who let us know they don't like us. Other times they are people who pretend to like us but, who we still know hate our guts. And too often, our enemies are disguised as our friends.

Woodpeckers are those enemies that attack you obviously and consistently. They hammer at your defenses, constantly challenging you to protect yourself. They do not try to hide their attacks because they are secure in your inability to defend yourself. Nor are their attacks malicious, they are simply looking to advance themselves and hurting you provides the best means for accomplishing their goals.

Woodpeckers can be other people, or they can be our own internal shortcomings. Some of our flaws are obvious, even to the most biased of observers. Namely, ourselves. We know where we fall short, we know who or what the enemy is, but yet we can only watch as holes are drilled in our lives.

Then there are termites. These enemies attack us from within. Often they, and the damage they do, are invisible to the naked eye. It's only when we try to take serious stock of our lives, when we truly examine the progress we're making, that we can get a full understanding of how rotten our support truly is.

Just like woodpeckers, termites can be external and internal, yet unlike woodpeckers they are easier to ignore. They are silent, small. They insidiously devour us, all while leaving behind a facade of well being and strength.

Termites scare me more than woodpeckers.

But, ultimately, at least according to the Bible, both of them will be my footstools.

Life is about perspective. As we walk along the road of life, often we stumble upon pitfalls and danger because we lack the perspective to chart a better path. Strangely enough, our enemies, the internal and external ones, can provide us with that perspective if we use them correctly.

We don't have to see our enemies as obstacles to avoid, but rather footstools to climb upon. Our enemies force us to hone our focus, they train us in how to behave. As we struggle against our enemies we gain strength, we gain courage and ultimately we gain perspective on them and ourselves.

Nobody likes enemies. Very few of us truly enjoy danger. But both things serve a purpose and the sooner we realize that purpose and conduct ourselves accordingly, the better off we will be.




Share

Wednesday, September 2, 2009

Fantastical Voyage

A while back, I finished reading Philip Jose Farmar's Riverworld saga.

For all the non-science fiction geeks, Farmar's series is considered one of the definitive works of the genre, kind of like Frank Herbert's "Dune" series, or Issac Asimov's Foundation series. Well, not on that level, but still pretty well known, I think.

Anyway, I had read a couple books in the past, but I always wanted to read the whole thing. The series describes a world where all of humanity, from the beginning of human life until 1983, is resurrected from the dead and placed on a new world alongside a massive river.

The inhabitants are largely left to their own devices in a world where, initially, there are no serious weapons and three meals a day are beamed down to everyone. They later discover that the world was created by either an advanced race of aliens, or super-developed humans.

The series explores a lot of philosophical ideas, but the author's favorite whipping boy is religion. All stripes and kinds get the treatment, but Christianity, Judaism and Islam are singled out for particular scorn.

The general feel is that the idea of the deity described in the Bible, Torah or Qu'ran being real is just too fantastical for anybody to take seriously, and those who do fall for that farce need to be branded with a massive scarlet "I" for idiot.

I thought of the Riverworld series recently while I was watching an interview between Richard Dawkins and Ben Stein. Dawkins is the self-proclaimed God-hater, while Stein likes to sell people stuff on television. Neither of them is one of my favorite people, but I was interested in the discussion.

During the interview, Dawkins explained that he's not against the idea of intelligent design, just against the idea of intelligent design by "God." He even posited that it's an "intriguing" and "plausible" theory that an advanced race of aliens began life here on Earth. But, he scoffed at the idea of a God.

See, that kind of bothered me.

As I explained to my agnostic friend, why would this guy who finds it so ridiculous to believe that there is an omnipotent and omnipresent God be willing to believe that some random aliens created Earth as a science experiment? Why is one idea deemed plausible and the other one evidence of mental instability?

Don't get me wrong, I am guilty of scoffing at other people's beliefs, particularly Scientologists. (I still can't understand how they believe in something created by a dude who said he thought religion was the best scam running. Hell the whole belief system could have been one of his novels.)

But, I've been working on that because I know it's hypocritical of me. After all, Christianity requires some pretty substantial leaps of faith. Rising from the dead? All-powerful deities who still get jealous? Virgin births? I can see why folks reject my religion as being kooky.

What I can't understand is how you can reject Christianity as being crazy, but believe that an alien might have jump-started creation. Hell, I think believing in the concept that inanimate life created animate life is wild as well. It seems like these beliefs require pretty substantial leaps of faith themselves, in my opinion.

I honestly, and truly, do not have care if people don't believe in God. It doesn't bother me. But, as my friend Deacon Blue has said on his blog, don't tell me my beliefs brand me as a retard, while refusing to admit that you've got some pretty outlandish beliefs yourself. This Dawkins guy sneers at folks who believe in something as primitive as religion, but has the audacity to advance the "alien intelligent design" theory. Come on now, man.

That's a fantastical voyage right there.


Share

Tuesday, September 1, 2009

Pulling the Trigger

BAM



There is a man lying on the floor of your home. Blood pools around his body, his flesh is visible through the hole in his clothing. His breathing is shallow and then it ceases.

You've just killed a man.

Another human being is dead by your hand.

Most of us will never know what it feels like to kill someone. Our lives have become so civilized that violent death is no longer a regular part of it.

Sure we listen to the news reports about anonymous black men in the ghetto killing and dying, but rarely do we know them. We cannot escape the reports of fresh-faced soldiers in distant lands taking and giving life, but that's not real for many of us. Despite the violence beamed into our homes and brains, most Americans have very little experience with killing.

But, for some folks, that's not the case. Check out this article.

The piece discusses the aftermath of death. The reporter spoke to several business owners who have killed someone in defense of their businesses. From what I read, it appeared that very few people are happy about the price they paid to protect their livelihood.

I've often thought about having to kill someone. I keep a weapon in my home to protect myself, my family and my things. I have no problem with killing to protect the first two items on that list, but the last item, my possessions, well sometimes I wonder about that one.

Would I feel comfortable shooting someone I saw trying to climb out of my window with a television or radio? Would I think that was a fair trade? How would that person's family view me? Would they want revenge?

I remember reading a story once about this guy who shot a man trying to steal the chrome rims from his car. Apparently the man heard his alarm go off, went to the balcony of his apartment, and saw the thief working. The guy yelled for the thief to stop, but the man kept right on stealing the rims. Finally, the man got his handgun and fired several shots killing the thief.

Was it worth it?

Part of me thinks that if a man is brazen enough to take your possessions from you, it's not long before he'll be brazen enough to take your family or your life. Y'all know the old saying "If you lie, you'll steal. And if you steal, you'll kill."

Yet, there is another part of me that knows that rarely do the people who commit property crimes become violent. Most burglars stay burglars their entire career, they don't randomly become armed robbers and rapists unless something drastic happens.

I have sympathy for these shop owners made the choice to defend their businesses and must now live with killing someone. It must be terrible to see the face of the man you killed in your dreams, particularly if you know that that same man would still be alive if he had chosen another path.

Some would say that these business owners brought their misery upon themselves by keeping weapons in their stores, but I can't endorse that worldview. It seems logical that if you're a target for robberies you would take steps to protect yourself and your things. After all, no matter how altruistic you may be, nobody wants to finance the crack and heroin habits of the neighborhood hoodlums. It makes sense that people who service tough neighborhoods would keep weapons and use them.

Still, I'm not totally sure how I would react in the moment of truth.

Recently, I walked through my home, searching for the source of a strange noise during the middle of the night. I carried my weapon with me.

My city is dangerous, and I knew that I might stumble upon someone in my house. Yet, as I crept from room to room, I found myself wondering if I would really have the ability to shoot someone if my life wasn't threatened.

Would I really be able to kill for my ipod?

Would you?






Share

Raving Black Lunatic