Delusional Angel
03 April 2015 @ 07:05 pm
I feel like I cannot say this enough --
This week the main (US) news story was religion and gays.  One of the states (Arkansas) debating this gave us Justin Harris (their state rep literally gave his daughters away to a man who raped them).  He's still in office, still has kids, and apparently did nothing wrong according to the law (despite using his connections as a politician to adopt children everyone agreed he couldn't handle and having people sign the kids into the school he ran when they weren't there).  That sounds to me like a state with a very broken child protection system.   Still, Arkansas spent their week on a "religious freedom" law.

People rushed to donate to some bigots in Illinois.  I'd almost gurantee that their few days of GoFundMe donations is greater than all of the money  they make in ten years (have you ever worked in a pizza place in that size of town?  I have. Still don't know how my boss could afford to pay us).  I'd be surprised if EVERY organization in Indiana that helps kids (like those Justin Harris gave away) got the kind of money all month that these jerks got in a few days.

It's hard to believe these good people doing God's work are serious when all they do for their god is to bash gays and beg for money while the people who actually need help don't even get a word of sympathy from these jerks.
Tags: ,
Delusional Angel
13 February 2015 @ 05:11 pm
I've seen multiple stories over the past few days saying that atheists have to I don't know apologize for or distance themselves from the Chapel Hill shooting.

While I do not consider myself atheist, most people would probably label me such.   I actually consider myself agnostic but if you put a gun to my head demanding I claim a religion I'd be with the Pagans.  That said, yeah I will gladly distance myself from that psycho.  I'm not sure why people think it's a challenge to say you're against nutjobs if they happen to share some of your beliefs.

You can be the members of the same religion or political party and still disagree, especially when it's such a horrific crime you're being asked about.   Just because that dude was for gay marriage and fairly anti-church, doesn't mean I'm going to cheer him on in slaughtering innocent people.
Delusional Angel
17 December 2014 @ 10:07 pm
There's a lot of nostalgia around old franchises coming back right now. Movies, TV shows, even action figures! What's something from your childhood that you wish would come back? Why?

(This question will remain in place for a few days while Writer's Block is re-launched -- we'll have new questions each weekday starting on Monday!)
Most things from my childhood have already come back. At this point I'm more into stuff from before my childhood like silent movies and Dark Shadows - which have also already come back. Time for new stuff, the old is still available and pretty much always better than the newer versions.
Delusional Angel
13 December 2014 @ 07:23 pm
Still a n00b at tatting, but getting to where it's not as frustrating as when you first learn.  At least I got further with it than I ever did with knitting (not so much as a good stitch) and crochet (a few stitches before cursing it).

Delusional Angel
27 October 2014 @ 01:32 am
Today I got my haircut way short. Such a big and yet nothing kind of event. A day or two earlier I did the semi-annual "whatever happened to" search. I found that someone I totally adored when I was 17 had died earlier this year of a massive heart attack. Which made me think, there comes that day when you realize that while you're not old, you're also not young. You've been through enough to say "back in my day" without being joking. You've seen so many losses and wins. And yet you're still here and have no clue why x,y, and z made it (including yourself) while a,b, and c didn't. You're grateful. And hey, you got an oh so major haircut. I do, at least, still think of a,b,c,x,y, and z.
Delusional Angel
20 October 2014 @ 12:28 pm
Lately a lot of colleges and politicians have been discussing rape. More specifically "campus rapes". In my state it's the "Yes means yes" movement. If you make the mistake of reading any of the comments on any of the stories about this top you will find a lot of people making excuses for the guys, blaming the women, or denying that rapes even happen.

I'm not even going to rant on how stupid this all is. What am I going to do is point out that we had two major stories this week that show why people should take claims of rape more seriously. First they found human remains while searching for missing UVA student Hannah Graham (not yet officially ID'd but believed to be her). The suspect? Accused of rape while he was a football player in college. Next up was the serial killer in Indiana who is a registered sex offender in Texas.

If their earlier cases were taken more seriously and/or we had tougher sentences for such dangerous people, maybe they'd not have the opportunity to turn into even bigger monsters. All of the folk who act like rape allegations are, in general, just vicious attacks on poor innocent men need to wake up. There definitely ARE false claims but those numbers are tiny compared to actual rapes and those who make false claims also tend to end up in jail, where they belong. Also, if someone is not charged that doesn't mean they were falsely accused. So many people acting like that 1 false claim here and there means the millions of true ones are also lies. It leads to a culture where the real ones aren't taken as seriously as they should be and now a day or two of stories about the dead women, then back to forgetting it all.
Tags: , ,
Delusional Angel
08 August 2014 @ 01:48 pm
I don't know why I don't just leave LJ as little as I check in here, but still here is kinda my first online place to rant -- I just don't have much to rant about good or bad.

I've started to teach myself tatting and posted pics here and here. Just playing with stuff, no real finished projects yet because, you know, I'm a newbie and want to be closer to expert before I use that much thread/yarn.

Been reading a fair amount - according to GoodReads, I'm at 43 of my 36 yearly goal but since a few are comics or craft books, I'd put that at more like 30-35 read. I'm currently reading reading two that aren't yet out: Gracefully Grayson and Slimy Underbelly (Dan Shamble, Zombie PI #4) and owe about three others a read / review.

Really not much else to say. Neuro appointment next month, when I will have reached my no meds limit and will be getting back on drugs. I've enjoyed the time without them, but you know health is health and too long off of them is not a good thing.
Delusional Angel
01 July 2014 @ 02:48 pm
If you haven't read Ruth Bader Ginsburg's dissent, you should (Huffington Post has it available here). Even if you agree with Hobby Lobby, it's kind of scary. She starts her dissent with:

"In a decision of startling breadth the Court holds that commercial enterprises including corporations, along with partnerships and sole proprietorships, can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs. "

Sorry but even if you are religious, even if you agree with Hobby Lobby, that should scare you. What if some nuts decide that their religion says it is okay to bomb anyone that goes against their God. Oh but the Supreme Court said it only applies to these specific beliefs. None others will be exempt from other laws. Really? Precedent doesn't work that way. Either a truly held religious belief exempts you from laws or it doesn't.

Also I am getting less and less fond of churches. Not that I was a big fan before, but I didn't cringe anytime it got brought up. Certain people keep saying there's a war on religion. Really? You're the ones saying that gays wanting the same rights as straights is "special rights" but then you go to the Supreme Court to say you want to be exempt from laws because you're special.

And saying it's just certain drugs (because you cannot exempt Viagra and vasectomies) probably makes it even worse - talk about special treatment. Only drugs for women that you say kill babies. Abortion pills. Umm, right. Take a pregnancy test the day you have sex. You're not pregnant. Take a test the day after. Still not pregnant. It takes days to actually implant then several more days to really detect that you're pregnant because stuff often goes wrong early, before the pregnancy hormone is even in your body. You could have implantation but before your body could detect it you have an early miscarriage -- so early you never realize it happened unless you happened to check for pregnancy every day, detected hCG (pregnancy hormone), checked the next day or two and suddenly not pregnant anymore (it's called a chemical pregnancy). Plan B prevents pregnancies, it doesn't cause abortion. If you were never pregnant, you could not have had an abortion.

I guarantee it's only a matter of time before some nut does something violent and says "But I believed it, I'm exempt". Just saying no no we said only these beliefs and these pills will not mean anything. You already set a precedent that so long as you truly believe it, go for it, no laws apply. That's scary. And yeah, I know they said it's corporations but I'd think it's easier to prove that PEOPLE have sincerely held beliefs than it is a corporation.
Delusional Angel
30 June 2014 @ 02:32 pm
Barbara Walters interviewed Peter Rodger, the father of the Santa Barbara shooter.

One aspect of it stood out to me. His son had sent him his manifesto. He jumped in his car to rush to Santa Barbara. He knew his son had problems, though it seems no one knew what kind of problems or the extent of them. He's hearing on the radio there is a mass shooting where his son is. He's hearing his son's car described. Still when the cops tell him we found a body inside of your son's car, the ID matches your son, he's still thinking his son must have been shot by the rampager -- not that his son was involved.

Even in people trying to get loved ones help, denial is that strong.
Delusional Angel
31 May 2014 @ 07:30 pm
There is a difference between being anti-gun and being pro-regulations. Technically I am probably both. I want NOTHING to do with a gun -- all of the BS about everyone needing a gun can just skip right on by me. Never want to see one, touch one, etc. Don't have it in me. As a kid, squirt guns in the hot California summers were probably the closest I ever got to caring about guns, and even then I preferred the sprinkler. Still, realistically I know we're not getting rid of guns.

So since we cannot get rid of them, I do feel that there should be laws and checks in place. You should have to go through a background check no matter where you buy a gun. Ideally you should have to go through safety courses. If you do not secure your gun, you should be at least partially responsible for whatever damage that carelessness causes. If your crazy kid has access to your gun and kills, you're just as much to blame as your kid is. If you are a seen as a danger with a gun (serious crime record, mental health issues, etc) then you should not be able to buy one. If you personally sell your gun you should be just as responsible as a store in who you sell it to - the same checks should apply.

I know, some think that makes me some Anti-American crazy person who is trying to come for their guns. In other words, they don't think they'd pass such checks and balances and that is MY fault. Whatever.

I the last week or two we've had stories about a young adult who went crazy and shot up a town (a town close to my heart having grown up in that county). We've seen a 3 year old easily gain access to an unsecured gun and kill his even younger brother. There were two accidental shootings in two separate Walmarts because people who are too stupid to have guns do have them.

And then there's the guys who get together with their biggest guns (I am sure that doesn't say anything about them) to visit restaurants together to see what happens as a "protest". Then when groups of concerned moms speak out about such things they post their home addresses, call them names they'd only call women, threaten them, etc. Way to prove you can be trusted with a gun, you cannot even be trusted to act civil to mothers who have a different view on guns than you do.

Same with some NRA members -- they recognized the daughter of a Newtown victim at one of their events and spat on her. Really? You're responsible enough to own a gun when you're spitting on someone who has an opposing opinion on gun laws due to personal experiences? That's assault in most, if not all, states. No one wants your germ laden spit on them. You cannot even act civilly with your spit but you are totally responsible with a gun? The same young woman got home from that event to find a guy at her home, sticking a squirt gun in her face, calling her a bitch, and telling her she probably wished she had a gun now. WTF? Yes threatening people who lost parents to guns, with a gun (toy or otherwise) is a very mature and responsible way to handle differences of opinion. I'm sure you'll be a-okay with a gun.

All of these people talking about how responsible they are as gun owners. I am sure plenty of gun owners are, I know some. But when you're bullying people with your guns, posting their addresses and siccing your buddies after clearly non-violent moms, et cetera? Well, you're simply not someone I trust to handle a gun responsibly. Still, we cannot block stupid people from owning guns. We can say that you need to have a license to carry. We can say that if you are a known threat, you cannot own. We can say you cannot carry your guns in our homes or businesses. And we can say if you do screw up when it comes to securing your gun, then we can hold you partially responsible and perhaps in certain cases like those were you were in charge of a gun and a very young children then fully responsible. And yes, if you sell a gun illegally no matter if the person could buy legally or not, you should face some sort of penalty.

Sorry if saying we should deal with guns responsibly is somehow shocking.
Tags: , ,