Isn't that what the First Amendment is for?

 

The Oklahoma House of Representatives has approved the Religious Viewpoints Antidiscrimination Act. The act protects the voluntary expression of a religious viewpoint by a student.

 

Gosh, I thought that was settled in 1789 in the Bill of Rights. Our Founding Fathers must be shaking their heads in disbelief.

 

"Religious expression measure advances." The Dallas Morning News; March 15, 2013; p. 4A.

Circular Reasoning

or

Chasing Your Own Tail

 

I've written before about how excited scientists are that they think they've discovered the Higgs boson or, as they refer to it, the God particle. I find their discovery quite amusing.

 

It goes something like this.

 

The Higgs boson must exist because if it doesn't, our model of the universe is wrong.

Our model of the universe is correct because the Higgs boson exists.

 

I guess it's never occurred to them that they could be wrong about both the origin of the universe and the Higgs boson.

 

Ahhhh - those kooky scientists! What will they come up with next?

Where is the outrage?

 

I'm sure you all have heard the news about the nutcase who stabbed 14 people with a box cutter at the community college in Houston. However, you had to go to page two to read it. Do you think it would have made page one if he had used a gun?

 

I have a few other observations:

 

Where are all the liberals calling for background checks and controls on box cutters to stop box cutter violence?

Where are the calls for bans on double edge razor blades?

 

If students and faculty had been allowed to carry guns on campus, do you think someone might have been able to stop this maniac before he injured all those people?

Did I miss the commiseration speech from Obama with grieving family members serving as his backdrop?

 

"At least 14 hurt in stabbing attack." The Dallas Morning News; April 10, 2013; p. 3a.

What country did you say this is?

 

 I heard on the news yesterday morning that an Oregon legislator has introduced a bill requiring public schools to fly an American flag and recite the pledge of allegiance. One of the spurs to his action was a charter school that wanted to fly a world flag instead of the Stars and Stripes. "We have schools in southern Oregon that will not fly an American flag. They'll fly a united world flag. Since they are a public school, I think that's a little out of line," said Representative Sal Esquivel. The school to which he is referring was refused permission to fly the world flag, so it has refused to fly the American flag. When I saw Rep. Esquivel on the news, he said it was astonishing to him that he would have to introduce legislation addressing such a basic principle. In fact, Rep. Esquivel's bill is redundant. This issue is already covered in the United States Flag Code in Section 6(g):

"The flag should be displayed during school days in or near every schoolhouse."

This rule goes all the way back to the 19th Century when President Benjamin Harrison ordered every school in America to display the flag.

Then, there is Texan Brenda Brinsdon. Brenda declined to participate when her high school teacher and principal instructed her to stand to recite the Mexican pledge of allegiance and sing the Mexican national anthem. Her family is suing the McAllen school district for punishing her for her refusal to pledge allegiance to a foreign country. Ironically, this article appeared in the newspaper on Texas Independence Day.

 

All of this has left me wondering -- are we still in the United States of America?

 

"Suit: Girl prodded to say Mexican pledge." The Dallas Morning News; March 2, 2013; p. 3A.

 

http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/04/daily_pledge_of_allegiance_sho.html

http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL30243.pdf

I wonder . . .

 

Sam Madden of Garland doesn't like it that the jury exemption for parents applies only to those parents with children under the age of 10. He says he is the custodial parent for a child who was 10 years old when he was summoned for jury duty. He says if he had been picked for that jury, he wouldn't have been able to afford day care.

 

I wonder what Sam does with his daughter when he's working? I also wonder about his contention that he cannot afford child care. In another letter to the editor, Sam says, "I have been manager of financial planning and analysis for a public company and a CFO for a private company."  Sounds to me like he's doing OK. Surely, if he can manage the finances for a company, he can manage his personal finances enough to be able to provide care for his child. 

 

I wonder if Sam just didn't want to serve on a jury and was looking for a reason not to.

 

"Single Parents need exceptions." The Dallas Morning News; August 21, 2009; p. 28A.

 

http://letterstotheeditorblog.dallasnews.com/2012/11/youre-spending-our-money.html/

Remember, Trace, you asked!

 

Trace Ordiway of North Dallas says we can solve this gun violence thing by making bullets a controlled product.

 

For example, he says that ammo for a Bushmaster should be sold only at target ranges. You take your Bushmaster, buy however many rounds you want to fire, fire them at the range, show proof of how many you fired, and turn back in any leftovers. "Where is the flaw in this logic," he asks.

 

Flaw #1: Suppose I want to shoot my Bushmaster somewhere besides the target range.
Flaw #2: Suppose I shoot 20 rounds at the range, but tell them I shot 30 rounds and pocket the extra 10. Will they have someone counting?
Flaw #3: How many extra employees will the range have to hire to police the shooters and fill out and turn in the government reports on how many bullets they have?

 

But that's not Trace's only example. If you go deer hunting, you show your license at the sporting goods store, and they sell you only the bullets they think you need for the season. "Where is the flaw in this logic," he asks.

 

Flaw #1: What if you're a lousy shot and you use up all your ammo on misses?
Flaw #2: What if you have licenses in multiple states? Does that mean you have to buy your ammo where you hunt?
Flaw #3: What if you want to do some sight-alignment or target practice before you go?
Flaw #4: What if you just get the license, but you don't hunt at all? Is it illegal to save your ammunition?

 

But Trace has another logical example. If you want a pistol for home protection, you show the sporting goods store your license to carry and they sell you the bullets they think you need for a month or a year. "Where is the flaw in this logic," Trace asks.

 

Flaw #1: You don't have to have a carry license to have a gun for home protection. A carry license is just what it says -- a license to carry the gun. So how do people who don't have a carry license get ammunition to protect their families?
Flaw #2: Who's to say how many bullets are enough? Do you think such a policy might be discriminatory? Don't you suppose that people who live in the 'hood need more bullets for home protection than people who live in upscale neighborhoods?

But here's the flaw that makes all the others superfluous: . . . The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If all you can carry is an unloaded gun, your right to bear arms has been infringed.

 

So, Trace, I have to conclude that you're of the same caliber as that ditzy congresswoman who thinks a magazine and a bullet are synonymous. Neither one of you has the slightest idea what you're talking about.

 

"Bullet regulation." The Dallas Morning News; April 8, 2013; p. 16A.

Essie's back!

 

Essie has been on a little hiatus for a variety of reasons I won't go into. But I'm back! And I want to start my blogs with an upbeat update.

 

Remember the story of Dallas Wiens and Jamie Nash? Dallas was severely injured when he came into contact with a high voltage wire while repairing a church window. He literally lost his face, but through the miracle of modern medicine and the generosity of a family in grief, he received a face transplant. Jamie was critically burned when she wrecked her car while texting (be wise --- don't text or read email or text messages while driving!).

 

Through personnel at Parkland Hospital where both were treated, they met. Dallas and Jamie were married Easter weekend at the Ridglea Baptist Church in Dallas. That happens to be the church where Dallas suffered his accident, but he says that the happy memories there outweigh the memories of his horrendous ordeal. "He grew up there; he felt really connected there," explained one of his childhood friends.

 

Dallas and Jamie entered their reception to the song "Just the Way You Are." Dallas was able to give a dazzling smile, because he has new teeth implants. Dallas, may you wear those implants out with smiles in the coming years!

 

"At site of tragedy, a new journey starts." The Dallas Morning News; March 31, 2013; p. 1B.