Thinking of Buying a Gun

Are any of y'all gun owners? The German and I are considering buying a gun. We've been looking at a few different ones (e.g. the Desert Eagle, a Kimber). There are so many to choose from that it's difficult to decide which one would best suit us.

One of our reasons might seem a bit problematic to some folks, though. You see, VanGoghGirl is about to start high school and I think The German really wants anybody who wants to date her to know just how far he will go if they ever put a hand on her. Being from the south, I'm kinda used to this. My dad kept guns for hunting and I have to admit that LIKED being able to shake off any jerk who wouldn't leave me alone by introducing him to my dad.

I also want VanGoghGirl to get gun safety lessons. Because of the gun culture here in Louisiana, she has somewhat frequent exposure to them and I want her to know how to handle one. She knows not to play with them, but I want her to know how to load, clean, and shoot one. When she goes off to a university, she may wind up living on her own and I want her to know how to use a gun, just in case she wants to buy one for self-defense. Now that I mention it, I could probably stand to have some gun safety lessons, too. My dad taught me the basics, but it's been so long that I would probably benefit from going through it again with a bit more detail this time around.

As a household with several people who are disabled, to some extent or another, I feel like it might be wise for us to be a bit more armed. I've seen so many stories about how a person with a disability was chosen by a criminal because they seemed like an easy target. I don't want that to be me or my family members. As a woman of color with disabilities, I just don't have faith that anyone else (including law enforcement) is going to give a damn or put their life on the line to protect me. I don't think that a gun is going to keep me safe, but I do think that I'd like to at least have a fighting chance if I am ever put in a situation where I need to be able to defend myself.

Anyway, I'd love to hear any one's opinions about this--advice, criticism, condemnation and gun recommendations are welcome, too.

The Suppressed Speech of Wamsutta (Frank B.) James, Wampanoag

Sometimes I worry that when I go looking for links with information like this, they won't be there anymore. That's why I'm copying it here. However, I want to give full credit to where I found it. From the United American Indians of New England (UAINE):

THE SUPPRESSED SPEECH OF

WAMSUTTA (FRANK B.) JAMES, WAMPANOAG

To have been delivered at Plymouth, Massachusetts, 1970

ABOUT THE DOCUMENT:
Three hundred fifty years after the Pilgrims began their invasion of the land of the Wampanoag, their "American" descendants planned an anniversary celebration. Still clinging to the white schoolbook myth of friendly relations between their forefathers and the Wampanoag, the anniversary planners thought it would be nice to have an Indian make an appreciative and complimentary speech at their state dinner. Frank James was asked to speak at the celebration. He accepted. The planners, however , asked to see his speech in advance of the occasion, and it turned out that Frank James' views — based on history rather than mythology — were not what the Pilgrims' descendants wanted to hear. Frank James refused to deliver a speech written by a public relations person. Frank James did not speak at the anniversary celebration. If he had spoken, this is what he would have said:

I speak to you as a man -- a Wampanoag Man. I am a proud man, proud of my ancestry, my accomplishments won by a strict parental direction ("You must succeed - your face is a different color in this small Cape Cod community!"). I am a product of poverty and discrimination from these two social and economic diseases. I, and my brothers and sisters, have painfully overcome, and to some extent we have earned the respect of our community. We are Indians first - but we are termed "good citizens." Sometimes we are arrogant but only because society has pressured us to be so.

It is with mixed emotion that I stand here to share my thoughts. This is a time of celebration for you - celebrating an anniversary of a beginning for the white man in America. A time of looking back, of reflection. It is with a heavy heart that I look back upon what happened to my People.

Even before the Pilgrims landed it was common practice for explorers to capture Indians, take them to Europe and sell them as slaves for 220 shillings apiece. The Pilgrims had hardly explored the shores of Cape Cod for four days before they had robbed the graves of my ancestors and stolen their corn and beans. Mourt's Relation describes a searching party of sixteen men. Mourt goes on to say that this party took as much of the Indians' winter provisions as they were able to carry.

Massasoit, the great Sachem of the Wampanoag, knew these facts, yet he and his People welcomed and befriended the settlers of the Plymouth Plantation. Perhaps he did this because his Tribe had been depleted by an epidemic. Or his knowledge of the harsh oncoming winter was the reason for his peaceful acceptance of these acts. This action by Massasoit was perhaps our biggest mistake. We, the Wampanoag, welcomed you, the white man, with open arms, little knowing that it was the beginning of the end; that before 50 years were to pass, the Wampanoag would no longer be a free people.

What happened in those short 50 years? What has happened in the last 300 years? History gives us facts and there were atrocities; there were broken promises - and most of these centered around land ownership. Among ourselves we understood that there were boundaries, but never before had we had to deal with fences and stone walls. But the white man had a need to prove his worth by the amount of land that he owned. Only ten years later, when the Puritans came, they treated the Wampanoag with even less kindness in converting the souls of the so-called "savages." Although the Puritans were harsh to members of their own society, the Indian was pressed between stone slabs and hanged as quickly as any other "witch."

And so down through the years there is record after record of Indian lands taken and, in token, reservations set up for him upon which to live. The Indian, having been stripped of his power, could only stand by and watch while the white man took his land and used it for his personal gain. This the Indian could not understand; for to him, land was survival, to farm, to hunt, to be enjoyed. It was not to be abused. We see incident after incident, where the white man sought to tame the "savage" and convert him to the Christian ways of life. The early Pilgrim settlers led the Indian to believe that if he did not behave, they would dig up the ground and unleash the great epidemic again.

The white man used the Indian's nautical skills and abilities. They let him be only a seaman -- but never a captain. Time and time again, in the white man's society, we Indians have been termed "low man on the totem pole."

Has the Wampanoag really disappeared? There is still an aura of mystery. We know there was an epidemic that took many Indian lives - some Wampanoags moved west and joined the Cherokee and Cheyenne. They were forced to move. Some even went north to Canada! Many Wampanoag put aside their Indian heritage and accepted the white man's way for their own survival. There are some Wampanoag who do not wish it known they are Indian for social or economic reasons.

What happened to those Wampanoags who chose to remain and live among the early settlers? What kind of existence did they live as "civilized" people? True, living was not as complex as life today, but they dealt with the confusion and the change. Honesty, trust, concern, pride, and politics wove themselves in and out of their [the Wampanoags'] daily living. Hence, he was termed crafty, cunning, rapacious, and dirty.

History wants us to believe that the Indian was a savage, illiterate, uncivilized animal. A history that was written by an organized, disciplined people, to expose us as an unorganized and undisciplined entity. Two distinctly different cultures met. One thought they must control life; the other believed life was to be enjoyed, because nature decreed it. Let us remember, the Indian is and was just as human as the white man. The Indian feels pain, gets hurt, and becomes defensive, has dreams, bears tragedy and failure, suffers from loneliness, needs to cry as well as laugh. He, too, is often misunderstood.

The white man in the presence of the Indian is still mystified by his uncanny ability to make him feel uncomfortable. This may be the image the white man has created of the Indian; his "savageness" has boomeranged and isn't a mystery; it is fear; fear of the Indian's temperament!

High on a hill, overlooking the famed Plymouth Rock, stands the statue of our great Sachem, Massasoit. Massasoit has stood there many years in silence. We the descendants of this great Sachem have been a silent people. The necessity of making a living in this materialistic society of the white man caused us to be silent. Today, I and many of my people are choosing to face the truth. We ARE Indians!

Although time has drained our culture, and our language is almost extinct, we the Wampanoags still walk the lands of Massachusetts. We may be fragmented, we may be confused. Many years have passed since we have been a people together. Our lands were invaded. We fought as hard to keep our land as you the whites did to take our land away from us. We were conquered, we became the American prisoners of war in many cases, and wards of the United States Government, until only recently.

Our spirit refuses to die. Yesterday we walked the woodland paths and sandy trails. Today we must walk the macadam highways and roads. We are uniting We're standing not in our wigwams but in your concrete tent. We stand tall and proud, and before too many moons pass we'll right the wrongs we have allowed to happen to us.

We forfeited our country. Our lands have fallen into the hands of the aggressor. We have allowed the white man to keep us on our knees. What has happened cannot be changed, but today we must work towards a more humane America, a more Indian America, where men and nature once again are important; where the Indian values of honor, truth, and brotherhood prevail.

You the white man are celebrating an anniversary. We the Wampanoags will help you celebrate in the concept of a beginning. It was the beginning of a new life for the Pilgrims. Now, 350 years later it is a beginning of a new determination for the original American: the American Indian.

There are some factors concerning the Wampanoags and other Indians across this vast nation. We now have 350 years of experience living amongst the white man. We can now speak his language. We can now think as a white man thinks. We can now compete with him for the top jobs. We're being heard; we are now being listened to. The important point is that along with these necessities of everyday living, we still have the spirit, we still have the unique culture, we still have the will and, most important of all, the determination to remain as Indians. We are determined, and our presence here this evening is living testimony that this is only the beginning of the American Indian, particularly the Wampanoag, to regain the position in this country that is rightfully ours.

Wamsutta

September 10, 1970

Common Typos and Misspellings Quiz

How Smart are you? 25 Common Typos and Misspellings

88% (22 out of 25 Questions Correct)

Fun quizzes, surveys & blog quizzes by

Rep. Broun Says Global Warming is a Hoax

I love it when people like Broun stand up and make their stupidity evident. It makes it a lot easier to identify the people we need not take seriously. I wish this video would have shown just who applauded this nonsense, so that we can

It also gives me the lulz when these dumb-asses prove that they have absolutely no idea about how science works. In science, it doesn't matter what someone SAYS. It's the data that proves/disproves ideas and establishes things. Consensus is built through the peer-review process and independent verification of conclusions. In other words, scientists can think whatever they want, but it doesn't affect the facts.

Most of the scientists I've gotten to know over the years believe in some sort of deity. However, that doesn't prove that one exists. Only the facts can do that. They understand the difference between beliefs and facts. To the extent that one's beliefs don't harm others, it's perfectly okay to believe in something that you can't prove. As far as I'm concerned, an it harm none, do as ye will! However, if members of Congress want to establish whether or not humans have induced the climate change that we are now witnessing, then they need to refer to science, not scientists. When a member of Congress bases his support on opinions, instead of facts, it leads to the passing of bad legislation that can only compound the problems they were supposed to fix.

Talking to My Six-Year Old Daughter About Death (and Life)

Though my partner and I avoided conversations about death with my daughter, we weren't able to avoid the topic eventually. I remember the day when things finally came to a head and it had to be dealt with.

When, in my daughter's presence, several people had spoken about the likelihood of me dying --you'd be surprised how many thoughtless people there are in the world--she came to me all worried and asked me about whether it was true. I decided to pretend as if the possibility of this had never occurred to me before. I acted like it really, really scared me and then I told her, "Wait a minute, if I could die from cancer, there's probably a whole lot of other things that might kill me, too!"

I told her that we'd better stop using forks, because we might accidentally put it too far down our throats and stab ourselves to death and we'd better stop eating anything solid because we could get a piece of food stuck in our air passage and suffocate and we'd better not use any paint brushes or crayons or pencils because we might slip and fall on one of them and impale ourselves and I went on and on and on.

She quickly got tired of me freaking out and told me that nobody dies from that stuff. I said, "Yeah, but it could happen! I mean, it is possible! Oh, I'm gonna die! I'm gonna die! I'm gonna die!"

I remember seeing her eyebrows knitted together as she fussed at me and said, "Look! It's not going to happen! Okay?" I told her that I wasn't taking any chances and I put my hands on my forehead and started walking around in circles lamenting the fact that I must be about to die.

She yelled at me and yanked my hand. "Sit down! Just wait right here! Okay? I'm coming right back." After a minute, she returned with something behind her back and she demanded that I close my eyes. When she told me I could open them, she was sitting on the floor, using a crayon. She said, "See! Nothing happened!"

I replied, "Nothing happened to you but if I use it, I might die." That got her really aggravated. By the way, there's nothing in the world that's cuter than watching a six year old child trying to explain to an adult that they are being completely irrational.

So, while I'm still pretending to freak out, she says "Arghh! Look! Remember what Ms. Merianne said? Stop, breath, and think!" This was the strategy her preschool teacher taught them for dealing with situations that make you angry or upset. The irony was that she always seemed to forget about Ms. Merianne's advice whenever I wanted her to remember it.

I took a few deep breathes and asked, "I guess I don't have to be afraid of everything that might happen, do I?"

"No! So, just calm down!", she replied sharply, and that was the end of that. From that point on, whenever she heard someone saying something about me and cancer and dying, she'd give them the nastiest glare imaginable and point out that they could die of all sorts of things, too, but that didn't mean they were about to die right then.

Hey, I can't say we handled things perfectly, but it worked for us.

The New Agenda is the same as the old agenda

Amy Siskind has written an article for the Huffington Post entitled "Sexism Against Conservative Women is Still Sexism". It was mildly interesting, but I don't think she has expressed the problem nearly as others have. She's still stuck on the idea that sexism is the ultimate problem we need to face.

When is sexism acceptable? The answer should be never. Yet for many feminists in our country, only certain types of women have been worth defending. When a conservative woman is the target of an attack, many so-called feminists stay silent. This "selective sexism", or speaking out against sexism on a case by case basis, does not advance our national dialogue on women's issues. Rather, selective sexism allows a dangerous level of permissible sexism to live and breed in our country. The only way for the women of this country to truly move forward is to unite and speak out against all forms of sexism regardless of party or the source of the attack.

I disagree. I think that bigotry is the problem and that sexism is just one expression of this kind of hatred. While groups like The New Agenda claim to represent a different kind of feminism, they really don't. As long as they are willing to engage in bigotry, they aren't any different from the sexists that they complain about.

Notice what the women that Siskind mentioned have in common. Many womanists have pointed out how neither the Republicans nor the Democrats tend to address the bigotry that women of color and non-Western women experience. White, Western feminism is white, Western feminism. It's still the same no matter what you call it, no matter what you name your group. Until the white, Western, mostly middle-class feminists (that make up the majority of what people in this country consider "the movement") learn to de-center their experiences and see that other people have problems that are just as significant as theirs, it's going to remain just as unsuccessful as it always has been with regards to uniting folks.

You're not going to get Democrats and Republican and Independent women to all support your goals if you aren't working on their behalf, too. There's a reason why so many women and equality-minded men don't want to identify themselves as feminists these days. Siskind represents a dying, unsuccessful model. She's trying to put a new face on an old idea. As a result, women and equality-minded men don't have much of a reason to unite under a "feminist umbrella". Instead, you mostly see conservatives complaining about conservatives who are subjected to forms of bigotry, while the liberals mostly speak up when liberals are subjected to bigotry, et cetera.

As long white, Western feminism ignores the fact that many people think that other forms of bigotry are just as important to fight, then how can it be anything other than what it is? It's stagnant. The majority of feminist progress isn't being made by people like Siskind. It's taking place in other countries, where activists have come to see that feminism is just one facet of the social justice movement. Meanwhile, Siskind is just playing whack-a-mole.

Storekeeper Proves Actions Speak Louder Than Words

This story really warmed my heart.

NEW YORK (CNN) -- A potential victim became a compassionate counselor during a recent robbery attempt, changing the would-be criminal's mind -- and apparently his religion.

Storekeeper Mohammad Sohail was closing up his Long Island convenience store just after midnight on May 21 when -- as shown on the store's surveillance video -- a man came in wielding a baseball bat and demanding money.

"He said, 'Hurry up and give me the money, give me the money!' and I said, 'Hold on'," Sohail recalled in a phone interview with CNN on Tuesday, after the store video and his story was carried on local TV.

Sohail said he reached under the counter, grabbed his gun and told the robber to drop the bat and get down on his knees.

"He's crying like a baby," Sohail said. "He says, 'Don't call police, don't shoot me, I have no money, I have no food in my house.' "

Amidst the man's apologies and pleas, Sohail said he felt a surge of compassion.

He made the man promise never to rob anyone again and when he agreed, Sohail gave him $40 and a loaf of bread.

"When he gets $40, he's very impressed, he says, 'I want to be a Muslim just like you,' " Sohail said, adding he had the would-be criminal recite an Islamic oath.

"I said 'Congratulations. You are now a Muslim and your name is Nawaz Sharif Zardari.'"

When asked why he chose the hybrid of two Pakistani presidents' names, the Pakistani immigrant laughed and said he had been watching a South Asian news channel moments before the confrontation.

Sohail said the man fled the store when he turned away to get the man some free milk.

He said police might still be looking for the suspect but he doesn't intend to press charges.

"The guy, you know, everybody has a hard time right now, it's too bad for everybody right now in this economy," said the storekeeper.

I first heard about it in a short blurb on MSNBC, but they didn't mention the fact that the store owner was Muslim. I'm glad that CNN didn't leave that out in their article. These days, so many people use their religion as an excuse to hate people. My view towards religion is that if a particular god doesn't make you want to be a kinder, more loving person, then it isn't worth worshipping. Evidently, Mohammed Sohail's religion motivates him to be compassionate and forgiving towards others. Sohail clearly had the upper hand in this situation. His gun trumped the robber's bat, hands down. Many (most?) people in his position would have, at the very least, turned the guy in to the police. Instead, Sohail put himself in the guy's shoes and tried to address the reasons why the man was trying to rob him.

A lot of Christians would benefit from heeding his example. Instead of trying to force society to show deference to their religion, they'd probably have a lot more success at proving the validity of their beliefs if they behaved more like Mohammed Sohail.