Long time, No write! Let's talk about race!!

Hi, everyone! It has been almost a YEAR since I wrote anything. I will try to be more-better. :) I know how all three of you readers love you some Carmen.

First and foremost, I am sick, sick, sick of hearing about race. I seem to recall ranting writing about this before, but it just will not go away!

I will take the most recent events as an example. The killings of Michael Brown and Eric Garner, both by police officers.

From everything I have heard, the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO was completely justified. And aside from being a witness, everyone else out there, black and white, have the same information that I do. The only thing I question is the number of times Mr. Brown was shot, which was excessive, in my opinion. However, you cannot dare a police officer to do something, threaten him physically, and expect not to be shot.

Black people seem to be mad because the officer is white and the dead man was black. There is no mention that he was a thug, who had just robbed a store, and allegedly attacked the officer through the window as the officer sat in his patrol car. Reasonable people would think, "Well, what did the thug expect?"

Oh, no! Everyone is screaming "Excessing Force! Excessing Force!" Baloney.

The second is the death of Eric Garner in New York City. Police stopped him for some reason, which is not the important part here. The important part is that, in video evidence, he did absolutely not one thing to warrant being put in the choke hold that eventually killed him. There was an inordinate amount of police officers standing around, so I have to assume that the officer holding him didn't actually fear for his life. Mr. Garner, in the hearing of the video, told police several times that he couldn't breathe. The officer continued to basically choke the life out of him. That police officer should be charged with excessive force, I don't care what color everyone is.

And that is the crux of the matter. I DON'T CARE WHAT COLOR EVERYONE IS. Everyone is entitled to feel safe and protected under the law. Mr. Brown broke the law and physically threatened a police officer. Force needed. Mr. Garner was smack-talking the police, but was not threatening them physically in any way. Force NOT needed.

Being black has nothing to do with this, and I am SICK UNTO DEATH of (mostly black) people making it an issue.

You know who sees color? Black people. And the loudest ones seem to see it most when something "bad" happens.

Another example is the 2015 Academy Award nominations. No black people were nominated in the main categories. Black people are all in a tizzy. Evidently, whether or not their performance warrants it, some blacks have to be nominated to make the pool more diverse. Hogwash! You are nominated if the members of the Academy think you deserve it. Do black people everywhere actually think a bunch of liberals in Hollywood are going to NOT nominate because of skin color? That is crazy!! It doesn't even pass the common sense test.

And has anyone but me noticed that the freaking president of the Academy is a BLACK WOMAN?

Sooooo, STFU.

Forming a union for NCAA players

The NCAA has a new look, but where do the players fit in? No one really thought of that. Until January 28^th. Then it got real. According to Yahoo Sports, “Tuesday in Chicago, with former quarterback Kain Colter as their frontman, Northwestern football players took the historic first steps toward joining a labor union. The College Athletes Players Association (CAPA) is the working title. They have the United Steelworkers in their corner, and former UCLA linebacker Ramogi Huma – the founder of the National College Players Association – as their leader. A petition has been filed with the National Labor Relations Board.”

Okay. I must not have all of the facts here, because I have followed this on the periphery, and have read only a few articles on the subject. NCAA players want to be paid for their play. As a knee-jerk reaction, my first response is that I guess getting educated for free is not enough.

However, upon more reading on my part, I find that all of the players are not being affording complete tuition/housing/meal tickets. And if you are on the team, regardless of whether you are a starter on third string, you do not have time to get a part time job to help with the expenses that are not covered by a scholarship. So that leaves quite a few players in a financial lurch when they graduate.

How can it be a financial lurch when they go to the NFL and make millions of dollars, you ask? Well, I'm sure that Mark Ingram doesn't have any outstanding student loans, but I'll bet that third string offensive lineman who doesn't make it to a draft of any kind does. And that's just one of the issue theses players are looking to resolve.

Plus, there is the matter of merchandise. Let's say, for example, you bought a #22 jersey while Mark Ingram wore that number. It may or may not have had his name on the back, but it's pretty clear that the reason you bought it is because it was his number. Mark Ingram gets nothing from that. He is the sole reason you bought the jersey, and he sees no revenue. That is just wrong, in my mind.

College football is a billion dollar industry. And it's all on the players. They are the reason fans get excited, spend money, buy merchandise and support the schools. Coaches make a huge difference, as well as the ADs, but it's the players who bring us back week after week.

With that said, some would say that getting educated and playing a game for glory should be enough thanks. Well, I can certainly see that view. However, I have an issue with the vulgar amount of money earned outside the stadium because of these young men. They should get a cut of that. Mark Ingram should have received a percentage of every #22 Alabama jersey sold while he was on the team wearing that number. I don't think anyone else on the current roster wears that number, but until it is retired, it is available for another player. That's why he gets paid only while he is wearing it.

And insurance. Yes, every player should have the same insurance that the coaches enjoy. No dependents, just the players. They are the ones getting hurt. And there is little to no consideration given to long-term injuries that are caused during their time on the college field. The university is responsible for that long-term injury and needs to be held accountable for treating it in the long term.

And Title IX ensures that all athletes at any school receiving federal monies will apply benefits to all sports. So, if I buy a gymnastics outfit that has Laura Lee Frost's name on it, she needs to get paid. Laura Lee also needs to have university insurance. Gymnastics is not for sissies.

I don't want these athletes to get paid for playing. I think the university should give them a free education, with no student loans at the end of the process. I think they need to get a percentage of profits made from merchandising them/their likeness/their image/their associated numbers. I think they need to be insured while at the university and for long-term injuries sustained. After all, that protects the university’s investment, too. That's it. It’s the right thing to do. As we move into a new college football playoff scenario, schools will be flush with money. Coaches are getting millions of dollars, where is the rest of the money going? Yes, there are expenses galore, but the people with the bank books are forgetting the most important people: the players.

What do you think?

January 27, 1945 - Liberation of Auschwitz

Isn't this a beautiful building? Perfectly symmetrical, with a welcoming doorway in the middle Almost like two great arms, wide with welcome, as the gaping mouth in the center promises to swallow whole all trains and their inhabitants.

This is Auschwitz, the notorious Nazi concentration camp. To get an invitation here, you had to be a political prisoner, Jew, Gypsy, homosexual, negro, Jehovah's Witness, Polish...really the best way to be a guest at this German Kill Center was to get on the bad side of a Nazi soldier, spy, sympathizer, family member, or friend.It was quite easy.

Auschwitz was only one concentration camp and kill center. There were many more. Soviet forces liberated the first camp in July 1944. Even though retreating Nazi soldiers tried to destroy most of the evidence of their atrocities, the allies were bearing on them faster than they could hide their sins. Only a few thousand people were found alive when Auschwitz was liberated, but there was evidence of many more: hundreds of thousands of men's suits, more than 800,000 women's outfits, and more than 14,000 pounds of human hair.

The liberation was staggering, shocking and overwhelming for the soldiers. The initial entrants were usually armored division soldiers whose task it was to make sure the Germans were gone, captured or killed. Their task was not to assist the prisoners. A few comments:

• A few officers conducted brief inspections before continuing toward their military targets. Dr. Sol Nichtern stated, "I did some kind of inspection which consisted of a walk-through, a shattering experience for me, and reported to Headquarters that a unit our size could not handle the camp." Dr. Nichtern along with his unit were instructed to proceed into Bavaria.
• Colonel James Moncrief conducted only the briefest of inspections at Buchenwald. "It was far more important for me to seek relief than to tarry making further inspections....I emphasized the urgency of the situation to the Division Chief of Staff....I reported that the limited assistance from within our division would be far short of that which was required. I urged that Third Army, to which the Armored Division was attached, be requested to send logistical support immediately."
• American soldiers who first arrived at the camps radioed immediately for assistance with manpower, medical supplies, food, and for advice on how to proceed. Most did not undertake formal inspections, but simply reported the conditions prevailing in the outer barbed wire enclosures to their superiors.

Surrounding village residents had the audacity to state their ignorance to the happenings. Because of this, many soldiers rounded up residents and forced them to walk, or tour, the camps. They would no longer be able to deny what their fuhrer has done to innocents.

As we mark this day with reverence, sadness, shock and regret, let us hold a solid mind to never let this happen again.

Happy Birthday, Roe v. Wade

Now, let me set the record straight on how I feel about abortion: It is murder. Plain and simple. I don't care if you were raped, your baby is deformed, or the mother's life is in danger. Having an abortion is ending a potential life.

With that said, I believe absolutely that abortion should be legal. A woman who decides to kill her baby should have a safe way to do so. It is her choice.

I heard a sermon today in my Southern Baptist church about the sanctity of life. However, the preacher talked about abortion only. He never mentioned suicide or euthanasia. He used these verses:

• Genesis 2: 7 "Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."
• Deuteronomy 30:19-20 "This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live and that you may love the LORD your God, listen to his voice, and hold fast to him. For the LORD is your life, and he will give you many years in the land he swore to give to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob."

My issue with the first verse is that it seems to indicate that Adam became a living being when he took his first breath. That is a really bad verse to use when your point is that life begins at the moment of conception.

The second verse, in my opinion, deals with choosing eternal life over eternal death, not choosing life on earth. Of course, preachers are very prone to use an interpretation that supports their point, and this preacher's point was life on earth.

My preacher even stated that God wants us to be happy while we are here on earth. Wow. I'd like to see THAT verse in the bible. I can show him where God promises over and over that we will have trials, tribulations, problems, opposition and even death. I really don't see anything pointing directly to being happy here on earth.

So, here is the problem, in a nutshell: the values of today's family. If you teach your children to make good decisions, like not going to a bar, picking up a man, having unprotected sex, and (if you get pregnant), ending your pregnancy as a method of birth control, the problem is pretty much solved. If we are going to stop women's ability to choose, why not make bars illegal? Why not make unprotected sex, unless you want a child, illegal? Why make her last choice of whether or not to terminate her pregnancy the place "ProLifers" draw the line.

Morality starts at home. In strong families with strong ties to a personal Jesus. A bunch of rules and laws is not going to get rid of it. It just makes it dangerous. If the church wants to get rid of abortion, legislation is not the way. Reach out to kids, teach them the ways of the Lord, love families which are hard to love, support their decisions and (here is the hard part), let GOD do the rest.

New Party: Gender Reveal

Do we need party excuses so badly that we are now hosting "gender reveal" parties for new parents? I saw a "name reveal" party idea online, too.

What on earth and what is next?

"Welcome to the Baby Reveal Party! Come to City Medical Center for Carmen's scheduled C-Section and welcome Baby Boy Sam in person! Disposable cameras and barf bags available."

Is there nothing sacred between the parents anymore? Oh! Know! Here is a great idea:

"Please join us as we try to conceive! Jim and Carmen have been tracking basal temperatures for months and think the time is right to make a baby! Come celebrate this beautiful act of love between a man and woman as we mix Carmen's Eggs with Jim's Baby Gravy. Refreshments and cigarettes afterward."

Who on earth has these parties? I will tell you who. The same parents who have two photographers at their child's first birthday: one to snap candids and one to snap poses. The parents who have three cakes at the aforementioned party: One to freeze, one to have the toddler dig into for pics, and one to serve to the guests. Hopefully, the latter cake has several tiers because there will be at least 75 guests. And don't forget the take-home gifts. After all, what is a birthday party without the birthday parents thanking everyone for coming by giving each guest a bag of goodies to take home.

Lord have mercy.

Like has very few good surprises. Most surprises suck to the max. The gender of a newborn baby is one of life's best surprises. Can you not have two names at the ready? Do you have to have all of the monogramming done pre-birth? Can you not clothe your newborn in yellow or green? Can you not keep anything at all private?

For the love of all that is sacred! Have people over to your home for pizza or a movie! You don't need a freaking gender-reveal party. That is setting a dangerously high precedent.

First polio, and now rickets. REALLY?!

I just read that rickets is making a comeback. As a refresher, rickets is a softening of the bones due to lack of Vitamin D, which helps the body absorb calcium. You can get vitamin D from dairy, eggs and mushrooms, among other sources. And sunlight. The sun helps us make vitamin D.

This is of particular concern in the United Kingdom, where the foods are not fortified with vitamins like in the US.

What is causing this? Children playing inside, copious use of sunscreen, and lack of good nutrition. And when I say lack of good nutrition in the UK, I really mean lack of parental guidance in what goes into the mouths of their children.

There is also a polio epidemic in Syria, putting Europe at risk. Polio is a disease, unlike rickets, which is a deficiency. Polio is spread through contaminated food and water. Vaccines against polio are turned down more and more by parents in the US because of what the CDC refers to as "herd immunity", which means that it is pretty much eradicated.

Not so anymore. Say someone from Syria flees to Europe. It can take up to one year for symptoms to surface, and in the meantime, this person is spreading the polio virus to a number of people. Just one of those people comes to the US, where a child may or may not have a vaccination against it...see the problem?

Then there are people like Jenny McCarthy who are extremely vocal against routine vaccines. She thinks her son's autism was caused by his vaccinations. However, I will bet you that she had all of her vaccines.

There is a religion (which I call "cult") called Christian Scientists who are against vaccines. There was recently an outbreak of measles among Christian Scientists. Bet those with the measles rethought those shots then...

On a side note, it looks to me if they have the word "science" in their title, they would do a little scientific research on whether or not they need to be vaccinated.

The CDC called me a few weeks ago to conduct a survey about whether or not I have had my children immunized. I told them that they have had all of their shots and then some. They were very glad.

I think Mellie Grant says it best when she had to do a PSA on immunizations: "I am holding the sticky hands of children who pick their noses, and telling their idiot parents to do their job and immunize their kids. How stupid do you have to be not to immunize your kid? Isn’t it just natural selection if your unimmunized ,snot-nosed brat gets smallpox in the 21^st century?"

Rant today: Hot Buttons Need to Change

First and foremost, let me tell you that I am a Christian. I believe in Jesus as the Christ, the only son of God, who is my Savior and secures my place in Heaven.

With that said, it's time for Evangelical Christians to change their hot buttons: Abortion and Homosexuality. They are getting tired, and you people need a new bag of tricks. Or rather, it would seem, a new subject on which to harp and call people out on their heinous sin.

Let me throw a Bible verse at you: "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" Romans 3:23. Do you know what that means? That all of those people standing outside abortion clinics with signs, banners and pictures of fetuses are just as sinful as the person walking into the clinic.

Unless you are of the mind that, when you accepted Jesus as your Savior, you no longer sin. If that's the case, you may want to stop reading, because you and I are not going to see eye-to-eye.

Let me explain something about sin: God hates it all. As a matter of fact, here is another Bible verse for you:

Proverbs 6:16-19: "there are six things the Lord hates - no seven things He detests: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that kill the innocent, a heart that plots evil, feet that race to do wrong, a false witness who pours out lies, a person who sows discord in a family."

So, you see, God hates liars just as much as he hates the act of abortion. Even more interesting, this verse points out that He hates "eyes", "tongue", "hands", "heart", "feet". However, there are two PEOPLE that He hates: a liar and a person who stirs up trouble in a family. See the difference? He hates the ACT of the first items. He hates the PERSON on the last two. So, if you look at it that way, the liar is actually worse than the person ending her pregnancy.

Tough to swallow, huh?

I am completely against abortion. I think it's murder, unnecessary in a day when birth control is so readily available, and so many woman trying to conceive cannot do so. In my opinion, if you are going to open that gate (i.e. you legs), you need to be ready to tend the sheep (i.e. babies).

However, I do NOT believe it should be illegal. Families need to educate their children at home. This is NOT a subject for the courts. Conservatives want less government until it's one of their agenda items, then they want the government all up into uterus-business. You can't have it both ways. TEACH your kids what you think is correct, and pray to God that they will make the wise decision, when and if it comes. Making abortion illegal is not going to stop it. It will just make it unsafe.

What we need to change is the collective attitude. New attitudes that couples who can't conceive deserve to have children. New attitudes that young girls who get pregnant should carry these treasures to term, and give them up. New attitudes that abortion is NOT a form of birth control. New attitudes that, if you abort your child, you will probably have a deep-seeded guilt for the rest of your life. New attitudes that a pregnancy is not merely an inconvenience for a young person. A new attitude that it's not all about ME, ME, ME. Sometimes you have to make the hard decision; the decision that is going to cost you a little effort. Kids don't like that nowdays, and parents are not helping by making life too easy.

How can we change these attitudes, which have morphed over decades? Let me tell you how you CAN'T do it: you can't do it by knocking them over the head with your self-righteous, lay-person preaching. No one wants to hear that crap. If you want an example by which to follow, I will point you again to the Bible. Jesus embraced the sinners, gently guiding them in a loving way to the right path. Who was he harshest with, yelling and getting physical? The religious right. Go figure. He called you a "pit of vipers". You don't think you are just like the Pharisees, wanting to legislate instead of instruct? You are kidding yourselves and making a mockery of Jesus.

So, I am pro-life, and pro-choice. Next time: Homosexuals have feelings, too.