Auntie Pincher talks to kids about bullies

Hi, kids. I hope you had a good school day. I know work was a real drag for me. There's chocolate-chip cookies on the table, so help yourself; I bet you're probably still hungry after your reduced-calorie vegetarian school lunch, especially when you threw it out and got by on black-market Fritos instead.

Today I want to talk to you about a very serious subject called "bullying". Now, don't groan like that. I know you're probably sick to death of being talked to about this by teachers, police, counselors, Muppets, MTV and the President. And that gay anti-bullying guy Dan Savage. Everyone wants to jump on the bully bandwagon to tell you its bad, but I'm here to take the wheels off of the wagon.

What you kids need to hear and know is that pretty much everyone who talks to you about how bad bullying is, is a bully. And so our Word-of-The-Day is hypocrisy. "Hypocrisy" is something a person can be accused of when they say publicly to others that something is wrong but persist in doing that thing themselves.

For example, your teachers will tell you that bullying the smaller and weaker kids is bad. Many of your teachers belong to teacher's unions, and if the regular people feel that the union's benefits are costing taxpayers too much, and they ask the lawmakers to get the union to pony up a little more and help pay their fair share (something the unions are always asking others to do), then the unions rally their entire membership to go take sick days and not report to work. They go out to protest instead, and if anyone says to them, "hey, we are just asking for some fairness here", they will bring out their biggest guys to intimidate and maybe even punch some guys who dare to be asking those questions. That's bullying.

Or, if your school passes a budget that the local homeowners feel is going to raise their property taxes too much, and it looks like the voters won't agree to the tax hike, the school comes out and says, "oh, we'll have to cancel after-school programs! We'll have to cut bus service! We'll have to have bigger classes. We can't have a music program anymore, because the voters are too greedy." They threaten to cut the meaningful and enriching things, rather than dump an administrator with a half-a-million-dollar annual salary. They threaten your parents by holding your school experience hostage, rather than thinking about consolidating some school districts, or ditching this "iPad" nonsense and going back to good old textbooks. We all know you guys are passing notes and doodling on the iPads during class, don't we? Yes we do.

Threatening to cut your music class because the taxes aren't raised again for the umpteenth time in a row is bullying. Your teachers and their various organizations engage in bullying. 

How about the President? He's the President! He's supposed to be the best guy in America, more or less, right? He's got to set an example for the rest of us. We should be able to listen to him, right?

Nuh-uh.

The President is from Chicago, which is the number-one city of bullying. Chicago perfected the art of bullying, and made a unique form of government from it. When the President was just getting started in government, he won his Senatorship by unsealing private court records about his opponents, and leaking the information to the media. Well, maybe his friend David Axelrod did that, but the result was the same: Barry Obama's opponents were forced off the ballot, and with no one to really run against him, Obama became an Illinois Senator! Voters didn't really get a choice of candidate. That was bullying.

And when Barry Obama became President Obama after having his gang in the media attack his opponents while completely overlooking his own shortcomings, did he work with those who represented the other half of the country that did not vote for him? No! He said to them, "I won," which meant "Your ideas and concerns are not important to me, because if you did not vote for me, I don't like you." Having an enemies list and using the power of the government to harass those who disagree with you is bullying.

As far as that Dan Savage guy goes, he's the worst of them all. He's the worst because he should have some empathy for the picked-on and the minority, because he's gay. But does that matter? Heck no, kids! Dan Savage is a savage when it comes to Christians who have ideas and opinions different from Dan. Dan calls the Christian kids very bad, naughty names when they respectfully disagree with him. He wishes cancer on people. He's not a nice guy at all, and he gets a lot of money for telling kids "It gets better" when in reality, it doesn't get better.

In fact, it may get worse. It can get worse precisely because of those types of people I mentioned. Kid bullies are annoying and cause stress and injury to be sure. But when those kids get big, and get into positions of power, they cause widespread damage. Maybe now you can go and "tell the teacher", or tell an adult. Maybe something will be done about the bully, maybe not. But you've left the decision to act, the authority over your situation, with someone else. Maybe you have to. What's going to happen later, when you're twenty or forty years old?

The best thing you can do for yourself and everyone else in the world is to know who you are and what you stand for. This will take time and care, but it will give you confidence and self-worth, and these things will help keep you from becoming a bully. If your parents aren't screwed-up people, then ask questions and listen to what they tell you. They went through all this stuff already, why force yourself to re-learn it the hard way? Go have some adventures. Get into some minor trouble, and figure out a way to get things right again. Pick good friends, and be a good friend. And don't tolerate bullcrap. You all know what it is. Stop putting up with it. Learn to say to people who need it, "You're full of crap, and you're making the world worse. Go away." Say it until they actually go away. It may take awhile, and you may have to rest and come back, but keep trying.

The world has a lot of bullies in it, and many of them don't stop at name-calling. They depersonalize, they wound, they murder. You will have to face them one day. Start learning how to deal with them now, in ways that matter. 

An Open Letter to Clergy Regarding "Gun Control".

During the first several weeks following the tragic shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary, my Episcopal diocesan leadership joined the hue and cry for gun control. At the same time, my State government passed some truly bad legislation called "the SAFE Act". Very few legislators actually read the bill which was overwhelmingly passed in a great big hurry 147-61, days after the start of a new legislative session.

  I read statements from Episcopal leaders regarding gun control and started to become irritated, and then alarmed by the rhetoric. This letter was a response sent by me to my local Bishop, and to The Very Reverend Gary Hall, Dean of Washington National Cathedral. Since I have not been given the courtesy of a reply, I am now publishing this as an open letter, with personal information redacted.

It is my hope that others who value our 2nd Amendment rights will respectfully challenge their clergy as warranted.

January 27, 2013

The Right Reverend Lawrence Provenzano

Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Long Island

36 Cathedral Avenue

Garden City, NY 11530-4435

Dear Father Provenzano,

After prayerful consideration, I am writing to you on a matter that concerns me deeply. I sincerely hope you will read and consider my meditations.

I am relatively new to the Episcopal Church, but feel blessed to be part of it. I was confirmed in October of 2007, a month before my wedding. That confirmation was a remarkable joy to my parish as we had among ourselves many more confirmands and persons to be received than in years past. I was delighted to be able to participate by delivering the Old Testament reading, Isaiah 61, before the full Cathedral. Our parish group was first to be received, and as the first of the first to approach the Bishop, I was anointed with the Sanctum Chrisma. My fiancé was present to lay his hand on me as I was joined to the church.

I took the special blessing and my confirmation vows seriously and got right to work. I joined our parish vestry, served on committees, worked for fundraisers, and taught Sunday school. I recently began serving as a Lay Eucharistic Minister. I attend mass regularly, and do my Christian duty to the best of my ability by serving others, and by representing both Christians and Christ in a world which seems increasingly to care less about both. Throughout my daily life and work I ask myself what it is God’s will and for him to make it known to me if my works find favor in His sight.

I try to be an informed and active voter, and always seek Christ’s guidance on my decisions. I am a shooting sports enthusiast, a law-abiding American citizen, and a member of the National Rifle Association. As such, I cannot adequately describe how troubled I am by the tone taken by some of the Church leadership recently concerning the lawful exercise of my constitutional right to own a firearm.

There are Episcopalian and Christian gun owners of all denominations, and I can say with certainty that every single one of them is keenly interested in helping to eliminate violence. I can also say with almost the same degree of confidence that given some of the derogatory statements made about firearm ownership, each of these gun owners feels that his voice is not only not valued, but unwanted. For all the talk of dialogue, debate and deliberation, too frequently all that occurs is demonization and demagoguery. The honest search for solutions is being shoved aside in the pursuit of fulfilling a narrow-minded agenda. Your statements contribute to this unfortunate state of affairs.

In August of 2012 you issued a statement about gun violence in our area of New York. You stated that “No one has the right to carry a gun for the purpose of unleashing its power on another human being,” not considering the point that it is primarily criminals who use guns to settle disputes, steal property, and otherwise prey upon others. I am not prepared to offer an apology here for self defense and there are others who can do so with more information and eloquence than I have. I will state, however, that I firmly believe that the sanctity of life requires that it be defended when necessary. Thus, the law-abiding citizen, Christian or otherwise, when able to navigate the necessary permit process will sometimes carry a firearm in order to defend himself and others against criminals who have no concern for the law or for human life.

Your statement pronounces it “illegal, immoral and sinful” to carry a weapon. This statement is troublesome for several reasons.  First, granted the necessary permit, it is within a person’s legal right to possess or carry a weapon. One may argue that a legal action is immoral or sinful, but certainly it is legal. Further, I cannot believe it is immoral or sinful merely to possess a firearm. God created us as creatures of free will, and almost any object can be used as a weapon. Is it reasonable to say that certain inanimate objects are manifestly sinful or immoral? Or is morality more a matter of how an object is used?  I also cannot believe that self defense, when necessary, is sinful.  Christ gave himself over to violence and death for our sins so that those who believe might have everlasting life. His teachings, however, do not suggest that believers are somehow required to surrender their own lives or the lives of others when confronted with violence. I cannot accept that defense of innocent life is somehow sinful.

You also said that the end to gun violence is to be brought about by an end to guns. Even if all guns and the knowledge of their manufacture miraculously disappeared from the Earth, people would go back to using swords and clubs if not sticks and stones. Gun violence would certainly end in the absence of guns, but violence itself would not end. Violence is a problem as old as Cain and Abel, and because the causes are so complex and the will to dispense justice is so weak, the easy road of demonizing the law-abiding gun owner is all too often taken. This is a most deplorable mistake.

It has not escaped the commentary of many people in the blogosphere and other online sources that the Episcopal church has seen membership decline steeply over the last few decades due to various policy stances, and this is regrettable given the number of hands needed to do Christ’s work. There is a heated exchange going on currently at the Episcopal News Exchange’s comment area and elsewhere. How many gun owners are sitting in the pews, trying to justify their continued membership and service in an organization that, based on statements such as yours, apparently not only doesn’t want them, but also thinks they suffer from some kind of psychological, moral, and mental defects? How are they supposed to choose between supporting the Church and the abrogation of their rights?  Is this the next in a series of schisms to further chip away at the body? This vehemently anti-gun tone taken by the Episcopal Church is divisive, wrong, and can only serve to alienate members and others from the Church.

I recognize that I am but one member of Christ’s community, and that not everyone will agree with my opinions. Differences are natural and part of the process of discerning God’s will. Inconsiderate criticism of whole segments of the Church and general population, however, is unreasonable. I take offense at the implication that I am somehow less of a Christian and perhaps a defective human being because I enjoy shooting sports and take a stand for my right to defend myself. And I am not the only one who feels this way.

I encourage you to consider my perspective and rethink some of the divisive statements you have made concerning firearms and firearm ownership. Addressing the issue of violence is unquestionably part of the Church’s mission, but this cause is not served by ill-conceived criticism of moral, law-abiding people who choose to exercise their right to keep and bear firearms.

Respectfully,

TC

@J_tsar: Islamist psychopath

 On Monday, April 15, the Boston Marathon had been underway for several hours when two bombs went off within minutes of each other near the finish line. Crowds standing along the route waiting to cheer on their loved ones due to run past were torn by a deadly hail of shrapnel, including what would later be identified as nails and ball bearings that had been packed into home-made devices constructed of pressure cookers and batteries taken from toys. Three people were killed outright: a Boston University graduate student named Lingzi Lu, Krystle Cambell, 29, and 8-year-old Martin Richard. Martin's mother and sister were among at least 180 others present who were wounded. Dozens of spectators lost at least one limb, and the sidewalks underneath them were stained red with running blood.

A search for suspects began immediately, with appeals for video and stills from anyone who had been in the vicinity of the blasts. Mainstream media and writers in the Leftist blogosphere insinuated or explicitly placed blame on right-wing groups, citing April dates of infamy including Tax Day, Hitler's birthday, and the anniversaries of the Branch Davidian siege and the retributive Oklahoma City bombing. (For some reason, probably ignorance of American history, the obvious start of the Revolutionary War on April 19 was not included.) Security camera footage from nearby department stores and street corners was pored over, but it wasn't until he regained consciousness on the 17th  that double-amputee Jeff Bauman identified the suspects from his hospital bed at Boston Medical. Eight words gave police the break they needed.

"Bag. Saw the guy, looked right at me."

 Bauman's clues led law enforcement to two men, Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsaraev, brothers originally from Chechnya, Russia. Dzhokhar had been naturalized on September 11, 2012. The FBI had been asked by a "foreign government" (believed to be Russia) to investigate Tamerlan, who had gone to Chechnya for months during 2010, presumably to make contact with and receive training from terrorist groups. Despite the red flags associated with Tamerlan and his activities, the FBI and other Federal agencies permitted him to stay in the United States.

While on the run and still unknown by the public, Dzhokhar tweeted part of a Jay-Z song to his followers.

Ain't no love in the heart of the city, stay safe people
— Jahar (@J_tsar) April 16, 2013

At 11PM that same night, he had an odd exchange with user @MelloChamp:

@mellochamp and they what "god hates dead people?" Or victims of tragedies? Lol those people are cooked
— Jahar (@J_tsar) April 16, 2013

April 16, as people affected by the bombs were waking up in hospitals or trying to cope with the deaths of loved ones, Dzhokhar twittered about illicit things.

@therealabdul_ #heavy I've been looking for those, there is a shortage on the black market if you wanna make a quick buck, nuff said..
— Jahar (@J_tsar) April 16, 2013

A picture of a man cradling what appears to be a dead woman lying on a sidewalk is posted to Twitter by @ImRealTed.

 J_tsar's response is a kick in the gut:

@imrealted fake story
— Jahar (@J_tsar) April 16, 2013

This Tweet was favorited by Dzhokhar, who would soon be known as "Suspect in the white ball-cap" or later, "Suspect number two" :

The sad part about the events in Boston today, is that some bs Hollywood director is gonna try n make a movie n profit from tragic evens smh
— 2Explicit (@ballholic34) April 16, 2013

In the early morning hours, the events of the past few days were not weighing heavily on this young psychopath.

I'm a stress free kind of guy
— Jahar (@J_tsar) April 17, 2013

At about 10:30 PM on Thursday, local police are concerned that the trail is growing cold. Suddenly, shots are fired at MIT. The suspects have carjacked a Mercedes with a "Coexist" bumper sticker on it, later releasing the owner after taking her money. At 12:45AM there is a shootout and Tamerlan is incapacitated. While police are handcuffing Tamerlan as he lay on the ground, Dzhokhar gets behind the wheel of the getaway car to escape and barrels toward the police. They dive out of the way, and watch as Dzhokhar runs over his brother, killing him and dragging his body underneath the car for some distance.

Much later, after his apprehension and questioning (which yields no more information after he is suddenly Mirandized), it is learned that he texted friends to request that they help themselves to anything in his room, at which time the friends take a backpack and a laptop with the intent of protecting Dzhokhar. None of them report anything to the FBI or police. One of them, seeing Dzhokhar's image on the newscasts, texts to him "LOL".

There is a segment of the US population which is in this country without supervision and intends, at best, to do no good, and at worst, to do harm. They are young, they are radicalized, and they are sociopaths. There is absolutely ZERO chance that the local and national administrations in place have any interest in solving this problem, and even if they did, they have no idea whatsoever how to do it.

Today is May 2, the one-year anniversary of the killing of Osama Bin Ladin. We are less, not more safe from acts of terror on US soil because our elected officials have the personal security THEY need for safety, and your safety is not as important to most of them as passing feel-good-do-nothing legislation. The hard questions are not asked, much less answered, and tough choices will never be made by those elected to lead. The issue is not the issue. The agenda must be advanced.

God help us.