(I refuse to call it a “cult”. I think that’s more offensive than what these people actually did.)

This has been in the media a lot, but I will explain what’s going on. Basically,

“In 2008, starting on April 4, Texas State officials took 436 children into temporary legal custody after someone claiming to be a 16-year-old girl made a series of phone calls to authorities in late March, claiming she had been beaten and forced to become a “spiritual” wife to an adult man. Acting on her calls, authorities raided the ranch in Eldorado, about 40 miles south of San Angelo. The YFZ ranch is owned by the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS), a Mormon offshoot that practices polygamy. Two men were arrested for obstructing the raid, and it remained unclear whether the person who made the initial call has been located by authorities. The children ranged in age from infants to teenagers, including teenage mothers and pregnant teens.”

^that would be from the wikipedia page on polygamy in the United States, found in the “Recent Polygamy Cases” section.

You know, I’m all for freedom of religion. Totally. The first amendment is probably my favorite. That being said, I’m also all for children’s rights and obeying the law.

Firs things first: Just because you are part of a specific group of a specific religion does not mean that the bill of rights gives you the right to do whatever you want.

Secondly: This is a whole ‘nother topic, but I do not believe that God wants old men to impregnate younger women (excuse me, girls) and then avoid punishment. Whether or not polygamy and statutory rape should be illegal is not the question here. Right now, they are, and anyone who breaks those laws should be punished as such.

My apologies to everyone who lost a child in the chaos, or who was separated from a loved one. I can’t empathize with that at all, and I’m sure it was hard to deal with (and I’m sure it still is). However…by bringing this upon yourselves, by knowingly breaking a law-what did they expect? It’s not like the extremely brave individuals who broke Jim Crow laws. I think this just goes back to the whole separation of Church and State thing- religion isn’t an excuse for breaking a law, nor is it a reason to create one.

I’m back!

Between having the flu (D and Spring Break and just plain being busy, I haven’t really had a lot of time to write.

Which sucked.

But anyway, I’m here now =D!!

Okay. Well, a week or 2 (or 3) ago for my English project, we were asked to pick topics and debate on them. My topic was gun control laws should be tightened and I was on the yes side. Here’s my paper:

Every year 3600 children go to the hospital for unintentional gunshot wounds. 200 of them will die.

It’s no mistake that buying a gun is easy- here in Virginia anyone over the age of 17 can purchase a rifle or shotgun and anyone over 18 can purchase a handgun, all without a permit or sate waiting period. The question at hand today is how easy is too easy?

One of the reasons these laws should be tightened is because it is fairly easy – too easy – for children to get a hold of firearms. Currently there are an estimated 223 million guns in American homes- 70 million of those are handguns. Of those handguns, 30% are stored loaded, 51% are stored unlocked, and 13% are stored both unlocked and loaded. One study found that as many as 80% of young children knew where the guns in their homes were kept. 75-80% of first- and second-graders knew where their parents’ guns were kept (these are 6, 7, and 8 year olds). 50% of all childhood unintentional shootings occur in their home from their parents’ guns and 40% occur in that of a friend.

The second reason is that gun control isn’t something recently thought up. Other countries, particularly countries such as Japan and New Zealand, have stricter gun control laws than the United States. According to the Center for Disease Control, the number of people in the United States killed by firearms is five times higher than that of Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, England and Wales, Finland, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Netherlands, New Zealand, Northern Ireland, Norway, Scotland, Singapore, Sweden, Spain, Switzerland, and Taiwan. All of these countries have stricter gun control laws than the US. In Canada, gun-related violent crimes went down 8% in one year.

Another reason is that when they are in the home, guns are rarely used for self-defense. A firearm in the home is 43 times more likely to be used in the killing of a family member of friend than it is to defend oneself. Why? The sole purpose of a gun is TO KILL, which means the purpose is to shoot it, not whack someone over the head with it. In addition, if the gun is stored unloaded and in a locked container, like it should be, then why take the time to unlock the container and load the gun when you could be running away or calling the police? There are other options besides firearms.

Our final reason is that the very few of both state and federal gun laws we have are loose ones- they have loopholes or they just aren’t enforced. Only 20 of the 22 federal gun laws are actively enforced, and only 2% of gun crimes ever make it to trial.

223 million firearms and we have 200 child deaths a year. Our government spends 3.7 billion dollars a year on locking away the criminals who commit gun law crimes, money that could be spent on the educational system or alternative energy research. Letters should be written to the different people in our government explaining to them our viewpoint and why laws should be enacted that make it harder for someone to buy a firearm.

Stepping away from that, let me add some more thoughts (if I can). One thing I did not put in the paper was the fact that one study found that every single shooting in which a child 5 or under shot and killed themselves or others could have been prevented by a trigger lock. Also, most children 3 and older have the strength to pull the trigger on most handguns. THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH THAT. No, not saying our children should be weak…but why does someone have a gun where their 3 year old can get it? Seriously. Just think, people.

okay, I’m thinking up something interesting to please you guys, but just so you know I haven’t been killed by one of the U.S.’s bajaillin nuclear weapons, I have an announcment to make that will please MCR fans everywhere.

On Sunday, March 9th, 2008, Frank Anthony Iero (otherwise known as Frank or Frankie) married his fiancee since May 26th, 2006, and girlfriend since forever (basically), Jamia Nestor. Congrats to the two of them and many happy years to come!

this website is the funniest thing ever.

AND THERZ R KATZ!!!

take this as an example:

Enter the ICHC online Poker Cats Contest!

http://icanhazcheesburger.com

you will love it.

WED is world Evanescence day *obsessed fan*. It’s going to be “held” on March 4th, the day Fallen, Evanescence’s major-label debut was released. Fallen helped the band gain 2 Grammy Awards and somewhere around 5 nominations.

A couple things to say about the dearly beloved My Chemical Romance:

1. The Mama single and video was a rumor. Frank Iero stated that it would be fun to do something for Mama, and he would love to, but between The Black Parade is Dead! and the touring and recording, MCR just doesn’t have enough time.
2. There are 2 new songs that are easily the main topic of every MCR rumors thread. One doesn’t have a known name, and the other is called “Stay” at the moment. You can find download links for LIVE VERSIONS (that’s the only time they’ve been played) somewhere, I’d say.
3. The Black Parade is Dead! is the 3 Disc CD/DVD compilation from MCR. It includes a live performance DVD of songs from the 3 albums, a live CD, and we’re not sure what the other DVD is for xD. Depending on who you ask the release date ranges from April 22nd to March 18th to May 5th. A lot of websites have it available for pre order, though.

All right, that’s my ranting

This is not an old topic. Actually, I think it’s a very controversial debate topic right now. Basically, some people believe that if children, and sometimes older people, see violence in things like movies, TV (which includes the news), and video games, hear it in music, or read it in the newspaper, and any other things that fit the media, then they will have a higher likelihood to commit a crime, or just be violent kids.

Okay. I see where these people are coming from. Gangs commit all sorts of felonies and look at what rappers condone: Nothing left to do but buy some shells for my glock/ Why? so I can rob every known dope spot/I got 19 dollars and 50 cents up in my pocket with what?/ With this automatic rocket/ Gotta have it to pop it, unlock it, and take me up a hostage
(from Da Game Is To Be Sold, Not To Be Told, Priority Records 199 , a little piece from our friend Snoop Dogg - 20 Dollars To My Name (I wonder why??).

The people who self harm are probably more on the gothic/emo side, listening to stuff like this: I don’t know what set me off first/But I know what I can’t stand/Everybody acts like the fact of the matter is I can’t add up to what you can (From Linkin Park’s song “Papercut”).

Surely music is an influence in people’s behavior. I mean, go to any MCR message board and you’re bound to find out that nearly half of the people there will proudly say “MCR saved my life.” That is an influence.

If the media can save people, the media can hurt people. Like that boy, Charles “Andy” Williams. He shot 2 of his classmates and wounded 13 in his San Diego high school. He was a fan of Linkin Park, particularly the songs “One Step Closer”, “Papercut”, and “In The End”.

Of course, sometimes it is easier to ignore the neglegant parents, the school system that was aware of a problem, and the peers who watched it all go down and blame it on the music. Because come on, no one in their right mind dare listen to Linkin friggin Park and then expect something else to be blamed when they go ballistic.

My opinion? No one hears someone say “singing songs that make you slit your wrists/ it isn’t that much fun/staring down a loaded gun” and says to themselves, “Hmm..if Gerard Way wrote it he must think it’s cool. I think I’m gonna cut myself tonight.” If someone does do that, then I have a hard time believing that they were properly taken care of and were sane enough to listen to something like that. Someone should notice if a person, especially a child, meant to be under someone else’s care, only needs to hear My Chemical Romance sing it to do it. If someone does something just because the media flaunts it in their face, they were well on their way to doing it anyway.

Leave the music be. It’s done more good, by letting kids know that there’s someone they can relate to, than seeing “normal” looking people living “normal” lives on MTV every day.

…with a poor skill of differentiating morning and noon. Nine in the Morning exists, as does Nine at night.

But Nine In The Afternoon? My apologies to Ryan Ross, Brendon Urie, Jon Walker, and Spencer Smith- but the last time I checked there was no such time.

There is, however, a new Panic At The Disco song of that name. Right now it’s somwhere around number….7, I think, in Fuse’s Rock countdown (though while a band with a unique Vaudevillian meets pop meets electronic is suddenly rock, I do not know).

The album is called Pretty. Odd. (yes, Panic At The Disco got rid of the ! from their old name, as it used to be Panic! At The Disco and traded it in for its cousin the period) and comes out March 25th, 2008.  As of today.

Oh dear. Stereotypically, Conservatives are against gay rights. That is understandable. The grand majority of them have a god telling them it is wrong (actually, the Bible says “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a women; that is detestable. –Leviticus 18:22. It goes on to say, “Everyone who does any of these detestable things- such persons must be cut off from their people.” –Leviticus 18:29). Although, honestly, I would think that grown adults would have a little more tolerance and respect for people than that.

But anyway.

The main Republican candidates this time around are Mitt Romney, John McCain, Mike Huckabee (Mr. Let’s-Change-the-Constitution ;]), and Rudy Giuliani.

Let’s get this straightened up- I am a Democrat. The majority of the stuff these guys say I will not agree with, most likely have a STRONG disagreement. That doesn’t mean I don’t respect them :).

The Fabulous *cough* Mitt Romney

” The status of marriage, if it’s allowed among the same sex individuals in one state is going to spread to the entire nation. And that’s why it’s important to have a national standard for marriage. And I’m committed to making sure that we reinforce the institution of marriage in this country by insisting that all states have a right to have marriage as defined as between a man and a woman; and we don’t have unelected judges saying we’re going to impose same-sex marriage where it was clearly not in their state constitution.My state’s constitution was written by John Adams. It isn’t there. I’ve looked. The people need to speak on this issue and make sure that marriage is preserved as between a man and a woman.” (from OnTheIssues, my new favorite website =D.)

Okay. Let’s see…last time I checked the Constitution didn’t ban slavery, give women practically any rights, and most likely a whole lot of other stuff before that was added and changed and toyed around with. Why should marriage be treated any differently?

Moving right along to…John McCain

hmm..this makes me sad, the website had no quote for him. It did, however, say this:

Gay Marriage - Believes it’s an issue best left up to the states. While in the Senate McCain voted “No” on a constitutional ban of same-sex marriage.

Cool. I also agree that it should be up to the states. However…I think all of the states should say yes :).

Next up….Mr. Let’s-Change-The-Constitution..er, I mean Mike Huckabee!

(this is kind of old, 2002)

Q: Should Arkansas recognize civil unions between same-sex couples?

A: No.

Q: Should Arkansas restrict marriage to a union only between a man and a woman?

A: Yes.

Ick(y Thump). I understand opinions and all, and I agree that the decision should be left to the states. At the same time, I just don’t agree. Someone with no tolerance for everyone in the country shouldn’t be running it.

Rudy Giuliani (sorry, couldn’t think of anything to say xD)

Q: You said that if DOMA were to fail, or states began to legalize gay marriage, you would [withdraw your opposition to] a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.A: I do not believe under the state that presently exists, with the Defense of Marriage Act and basically one state that has by judicial fiat created same-sex marriage–I don’t think we need a constitutional amendment at this point. If a lot of states start to do that–5 or 6 states–then we should have a constitutional amendment.

Agreed- sort of. Technically he supports “domestic partnerships”, not gay marriage. I’ve been wondering why - when so far only one state allows it - everyone is talking about a constitutional amendment.

Okay, I know that most of you already have a good idea of the candidates, the issues, and who you’re voting for. Even though I know I can’t vote, I still think it’s a good idea for everyone who can to be aware of the candidates and such. This is just my opinion on everyone, both Democrats and Republicans. I’m pretty sure most everyone I know is respectful enough not to go around bashing me because I have an opinion. I don’t do that to anyone, and I would like the same kindness in return =]. Since it’s so long, I’ll do the Democrats on gay rights, then the Republicans on gay rights next time, etc. etc. with the other issues of the world.

The main candidates at this point for the Democrats are Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, and Mike Graval.

When it comes to gay rights….

Hillary Clinton is probably not the person to go to.

When asked what her honest position on gay marriage is, she said “Well, I prefer to think of it as being very positive about civil unions.” As in, civil unions with “full equality of benefits, rights, and privileges.” (from http://www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/Hillary_Clinton_Civil_Rights.htm#Gay_Rights)

Barack Obama could possibly be a better choice. He doesn’t think that being a lesbian or gay is choice (neither do I).

” That’s why I opposed DOMA in 2006 when I ran for the Senate. That’s why I am a strong supporter not of a weak version of civil unions, but of a strong version, in which the rights that are conferred at the federal level to persons who are part of the same sex union are compatible.When it comes to federal rights, the over 1,100 rights that right now are not being given to same sex couples, I think that’s unacceptable, and as president of the United States, I am going to fight hard to make sure that those rights are available.“

Pretty awesome. There is no reason for anyone to be denied marriage. It’s not like you can up and say that “you’re different. I’m better than you.” The world doesn’t work that way; sorry.

Moving on to John Edwards:

He does not support gay marriage. Keep that in mind while you read.

” We both [Edwards and John Kerry] believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. But we also believe that gay and lesbians and gay and lesbian couples, those who have been in long-term relationships, deserve to be treated respectfully, they deserve to have benefits.“

That actually seems more realistic as to what’s going to be occurring in the United States at this point. As much as I would love to, I can’t see gay marriage becoming legal everywhere yet. I guess for now everyone will have to settle for gay RIGHTS. Sure, marriage is a right, and one everybody deserves regardless of orientation…but that’s a big leap.

And now for Mike Gravel, the last one for today (xD). But not the least. I guess.

(This is taken from wikipedia. The source I used for the other candidates was www.ontheissues.com. I couldn’t find an On The Issues page about Mike Gravel for gay rights. Just remember that.)

“Since the Second World War, various political leaders have fostered fear in the American people - fear of communism, fear of terrorism, fear of immigrants, fear of people based on race and religion, fears of gays and lesbians in love who just want to get married. Fear of people who are just different. It is fear that allows our political leaders to manipulate us all and to distort our national priorities.“