Just One More Hit Of That "H"

Pull that belt

Tap that vein

Ease a little in, take a little blood out, then bang it all the way.

Now you're riding the "H" Train baby, don't it feel good?

There seems to be a strong sentiment in Congress that the only constitutional right suspected terrorists have is the right to bear arms.

“I think you’re going too far here,” said Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina at a hearing of the Senate Homeland Security Committee on Wednesday. He was speaking in opposition to a bill that would keep people on the F.B.I. terrorist watch list from buying guns and explosives.

Say what?

Yes, if you are on the terrorist watch list, the authorities can keep you from getting on a plane but not from purchasing an AK-47. This makes sense to Congress because, as Graham accurately pointed out, “when the founders sat down and wrote the Constitution, they didn’t consider flying.”

The subject of guns turns Congress into a twilight zone. People who are perfectly happy to let the government wiretap phones go nuts when the government wants to keep track of weapons permits. A guy who stands up in the House and defends the torture of terror suspects will nearly faint with horror at the prospect of depriving someone on the watch list of the right to purchase a pistol....

The Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing on “Terrorists and Guns: The Nature of the Threat and Proposed Reforms,” concerned a modest bill sponsored by Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey. It would allow the government to stop gun sales to people on the F.B.I. terror watch list the same way it does people who have felony convictions. Because Congress has repeatedly rejected this idea, 1,119 people on the watch list have been able to purchase weapons over the last six years. One of them bought 50 pounds of military grade explosives

Oooh, nothing feels better than hypocrisy. That "H" is better than heroin.

So we can take away citizenship, but not guns.

Gotcha.



Share

That "H" Word Again

On the car bomb guy in Times Square Joe Liberman says:

I think it's time for us to look at whether we want to amend that law to apply it to American citizens who choose to become affiliated with foreign terrorist organizations, whether they should not also be deprived automatically of their citizenship, and therefore be deprived of rights that come with that citizenship when they are apprehended and charged with a terrorist act.

Big Man wonders why it has to be "foreign terrorist organizations"?

Do the homegrown terrorist organizations practice a brand of terrorism that is less dangerous or repugnant? Have they gone "Green" or something?

Shouldn't we strip them of their citizenship as well?

Or would that impact the wrong people?

And why are we depriving folks of citizenship based on apprehension and accusation? Is "beyond a reasonable doubt" now passe?

Hypocrisy makes you stupid.

Remember that.


Share

Hold Up, Don't Go There

As part of my growth as a man and Christian, I'm really working on not expressing every opinion that comes into my head.

Seriously, I am.

Folks who knew me as a youngster could tell you all kids of stories about some of the rude and crass things I said and did. Honestly, when I think about that phase in my life, I'm quite embarrassed and I wonder why I was so obnoxious. Who knows?

In my quest to reform, I've been trying to let stupid people be stupid. That's a big task in today's world, but I've decided that it's not my job to always expose the stupidity of others and force them to confront and acknowledge it. I don't have to open people's eyes. If they would rather be blind, then I'll save my light for those wishing to see.

(That sounded kind of arrogant, but y'all know what I meant.)

But, I must admit that sometimes it's hard to keep my resolve. Just recently, a friend of mine told me a story that had me seriously considering how I would have reacted in his shoes, and to be honest, I think some of the old Big Man would have come out.

My homie was at a social gathering talking to this chick we both knew in college. The woman was going on and on about the depravity and uselessness of men, and my boy was pretty much letting her vent. Sometimes sisters just need that ear, you know?

Anyway, he said he was cool as she went through her long-winded tale of how some dude didn't make a move on her even when she pretty much threw the cooch at him. She was heated that the same cat later complained that he couldn't really tell that she was digging him. The dude said she should have just told him she was interested if she really wanted something to pop off.

Apparently the woman was upset by this. I guess she felt that it was the man's job to decipher her feelings and make the first move. Y'all know how women be on that selective chivalry and old-fashioned values kick in these modern times. They don't want everything the "old way" just the stuff they like.

Anyway, this woman couldn't believe that the dude tried to pass that onus to her. I don't really know how she handled the cat that "wronged" her, but she decided to let my friend know that his fellow penis bearer's behavior was symptomatic of a larger deficiency in men. So she said:

"Men of your generation are cowards."

(Record scratch)

What did she say?

See, I really hate when men or women make blanket negative statements about the opposite gender. It's not that I'm innocent of this practice, it's just that when I make my generalizations they are always correct and based solely on stringent research and careful consideration... Lol. Yeah right.

But, I really am irked when people make what I deem stupid comments about the opposite sex. Saying that men of my generation (My friend and I were born six days apart) are all cowards is just ridiculous.

It's particularly ridiculous when the woman making the comment has admitted that she feels this way because a dude she was digging didn't smash while she slept over in his bed.

I've heard too many stories from women about how they slept over with a dude, but didn't really want to do anything. It seems like in these modern times, an opposite gender bedmate isn't a guarantee of lovemaking.

Plus, as a man who has refused to make the first move on a chick sleeping in his bed because he didn't want to cede power to her, I can understand why dude held up. Sometimes you gotta lay ground rules if you want the relationship to operate on the correct wavelength.

But, before I go off on a tangent about the craziness inherent in relationships let me focus on this woman's comment and my friend's reaction. My homie bit his tongue initially, but her comment irked him quite a bit, and eventually he let this woman know that maybe her difficulties with men were due to one common factor: her.

Of course, she didn't take kindly to this observation, blew up and made a scene. Now I chastised my boy for expressing himself honestly because as every man learns early, women hate when you tell them that their problems are because of them. But, I had to admit that I would have been hard pressed not to tell the woman the exact same thing.

See, there are some lines folks shouldn't cross in conversation. You really shouldn't go about insulting entire genders, races, religions and the like. It's unseemly and it's almost like an invitation to a verbal or physical battle. I don't understand how this woman could presume to call my friend a coward, and then get upset when he made an equally personal observation about her.

I'm bothered by people who say offensive stuff, and then have the nerve to get upset when people respond with anger and frustration. Seriously, this chick tells a red-blooded man that all men of his generation are "cowards" and she doesn't think that's going to cause some friction? Clearly she actually believed her own hype. She actually thought that just because she says something, it must be fact, and all men should take it as such. Sorry, that ain't happening with a man with fully descended testicles.

I remember in a media law class I learned that there are certain words that are exceptions to free speech and if you say them you can't fall back on free speech if you get pummelled. I'm not saying this woman should have been beaten, but I'm saying she really should have put some more thought into her comments before she made them. Particularly if she was extra sensitive about folks offering her unsolicited, blunt opinions about her life choices and habit. It's really quite simple. If you don't want to get your feelings hurt, follow one easy rule:

Just don't go there folks.









Share

Know What? Eff Arizona.

Not only do these desert dwellers using an unacceptable amount of our water resources pass a bill that encourages the racial profiling of Latinos, but they turn around and pass this bill as well.

That bill bans ethnic studies programs because they apparently promote separatism and resentment. The bill's creator doesn't want ethnic studies taught because they encourage revolution against America, and aren't consistent with Martin Luther King's dream of a character-based society.

You gotta be kidding me.

First, if we're banning ethnic studies that promote resentment and separatism, then I'm guessing American History is next on the chopping block.

Because, while I haven't seen many Latinos advocating for a separate state, I have seen a whole bunch of white, Tea Party folks calling for Texas to secede, and arguing for armed revolution. Matter of fact, those folks seem quite full of resentment, and they've even used HISTORY to justify their claims.

But, I won't hold my breath waiting for a law banning American History, or rather, White History courses. For some reason, I doubt the law's creators can recognize the connection.

Not only does this law highlight just how much cognitive dissonance there is in this country, it also highlights how thouroughly Dr. King's message has been co-opted and twisted in our time. You have to hand it to conservatives, those cats are masters of spin and outright lies.

To posit that Dr. King would be in favor of a law banning ethnic studies because of his "I Have a Dream" speech takes a special set of balls and blinders. You have to ignore all context for King's speech, you have to ignore all the other speeches he made, and you to have lack a moral compass to make that argument. It would be mind-boggling if I wasn't talking about conservative white folks.

They will say and do anything.

What really bugs me is that this law caters to the idea of a black and brown bogeyman, while ignoring the white insurgents right in front of our eyes. This law basically advocates that we need to limit the information granted to coloreds and prevent them from congregate in numbers because they are clearly planning an insurrection even if we have no proof. This despite the fact that we have tons of proof that white folks want revolitions RIGHT NOW!

The truth is, ethnic studies courses were created because white folks did a horrible job covering the contributions and experiences of people of color in America. Most folks get a very white-washed version of how this country's history in our elementary, high school and college classes. This version of history reinforces the concept of white folks as a force of good all over the world, and downplays the evil done in the name of white superiority. Ethnic studies programs typically explode that lie.

It's funny that the immigration bill has garnered so much attention that the ethnic studies bill is sorta flying below the radar. Nobody's noticed a bill that in my opinion is just as dangerous and racist. Remember that old maxim:

Those who forget their history are doomed to repeat it.




Share