A Little Humor

Ed. - I've been cleaning up my email folders here recently and came across the following gem that still tickles me every time I read it because I can see it happening for real. Rule number one for any attorney is to know the answer to the question before you ask it.

In a trial, a Southern small-town prosecuting attorney called his first witness, a grandmotherly, elderly woman to the stand. He approached her and asked, 'Mrs. Jones, do you know me?' She responded, 'Why, yes, I do know you, Mr. Williams. I've known you since you w ere a boy, and frankly, you've been a big disappointment to me. You lie, you cheat on your wife, and you manipulate people and talk about them behind their backs. You think you 're a big shot when you haven't the brains to realize you'll never amount to anything more than a two-bit paper pusher. Yes, I know you.'

The lawyer was stunned. Not knowing what else to do, he pointed across the room and asked, 'Mrs. Jones, do you know the defense attorney?'

She again replied, 'Why yes, I do. I've known Mr. Bradley since he was a youngster, too. He's lazy, bigoted, and he has a drinking problem. He can't build a normal relationship with anyone, and his law practice is one of the worst in the entire state. Not to mention he cheated on his wife with three different women. One of them was your wife. Yes, I know him.'

The defense attorney nearly died.

The judge asked both counselors to approach the bench and, in a very quiet voice, said, 'If either of you idiots asks her if she knows me, I'll send you both to the electric chair.'

An Open Letter

Dear Dr. Kermit Gosnell*,

You do not know me, and I do not know you. My God warns me not to judge others lest I be judged myself; however, I your case, I would say that you had best be glad that I am not on the jury or in the same room with you. That judging others thing and the whole "vengeance is mine sayeth The Lord" thing just might have to be conveniently forgotten for a time.

Having said that, I do not write to condemn you as God will see to that far better than I ever can no matter how temporarily satisfying it may be to me. No, instead I write to thank you. I know that may come as a shock to you at this point in your legal troubles; however, it is a true and sincere thanks that I offer you nonetheless.

Why do I wish to thank you? Quite simply, you have succeeded in restoring some small measure of my humanity to me that I had thought lost forever. You see, I have been in the insurance claims business for over 17 years now, and I have seen some much injury, death and destruction that I am numb to it. I became immune to the tragedies of others. Very little, if anything, disturbs me to my core anymore.

That is, until you came to my attention. When I first read the story of your alleged crimes a week or so ago, I was not surprised that it had not made bigger headlines. Why cover the legal troubles of an abortion doctor when there is the blood of innocents to dance in in the furtherance of a gun control agenda?

Then I scanned an article too fast and saw a photo depicting the results of your "snipping" procedure. To say that I was shocked is an understatement, and I do not shock easily. I have seen charred bodies, decapitations and more in my line of work far more often that I care to admit. Those tragedies were merely the result of accident and misfortune. Your procedure, in comparison, is the work of precise, clinical intent.

And that is what disturbed me to my core.

That you could look at a perfectly formed infant (and don't you dare try to say it was nothing more than a fetus) and do what you do without a second thought is in my mind absolute purest evil far worse than anything that Jeffrey Dahmer or any other mass killer has done. Not only have you decimated an entire population of infants, you did with absolute cold hearted precision and you took payment for the service.

As a new father thanks to the miracle of adoption, my heart truly breaks for the hundreds and probably thousands of lives that you have ended. I do not understand what would lead a woman to seek out the services you and others like you provide, and it is not in my power to forgive in this lifetime. Perhaps I am not spiritually converted enough yet, but it is the truth nonetheless.

God will surely demand a reckoning from you, and I pray that I will be able to see His justice done.

In the meantime, I do thank you for showing me that there is still some humanity residing within me.

Sincerely,

Daddy Hawk

P.S. Seriously, never, ever come into my presence. Witnesses will not protect you.

P.P.S. Since the death penalty does not appear to be on the table for you, I'd ask for solitary confinement if I were you.

*For those that do not know or have not heard who Dr. Gosnell is, Goggle him at your own risk. Scan articles slowly as some contain graphic photos that can not be unseen.

Another Thing I Will Never Understand

[Insert Name Here] (who I have decided to rename as Wicket...he is the hairiest little tricycle motor I've ever seen) will be going back to his original foster family on Tuesday. As much as it shames me to admit this, neither The Queen nor I can wait for him to go back. While he can be a very sweet little boy, his behavioral issues and our being prevented from properly training him have us pulling our hair out. The only thing that has saved him from having his hide tanned is that it would end any chance we have of getting M&M.

Anybeating, this is about stuff I will never understand not how to retrain a four year old in two weeks or less (note to those interested...it can't be done without means to instill fear of imminent bodily harm).

I have commented here before about my complete lack of understanding when it comes to subjects like homosexuality (I don't condemn those that practice it...I just have no grasp on why it is attractive to some people), the blind optimism of people who think that a politician will keep a promise and why people abuse children.

We can now add child pornography to the list of things I will never comprehend.

Not that I ever considered it appropriate before. Quite the opposite. I would gladly take any opportunity to arrange a meeting between God and a child pornographer. They would have so much to discuss.

Here's the deal. When Wicket came to us 12 days ago, he had a raging rash on his butt. You've heard the phrase "that really chaps my a**." Well, I can tell you what that looks like. As a result of said condition, we have been forced to let Wicket run amok au natural in the castle to allow his butt to heal. After what seems like the four hundredth time of saying, "Cover your penis. No one wants to see it." as Wicket sits on the couch or a chair at the dinner table with his legs spread wide for all heaven and earth to see the glory of his little pee shooter, I can honestly say I will NEVER understand what would possess some demented pervert to WANT to look at that for giggles, grins and sexual gratification.

I'm still looking for suitable brain bleach. I'll take suggestions.

Strange Day

I've seen some pretty interesting stuff come across my desk over the last 15 years as a claims adjuster. I've seen the photos of the results of someone who had the misfortune to get caught under a massive steel bridge girder. There were the photos of the crispy remains of three unfortunate drunks who found out the hard way that pickup trucks moving at over 90 miles per hour stop VERY quickly after encountering a stack of solid concrete highway barricades...and then burst into flames. Then there were the photos of the guy who had an unfortunate encounter with one of those saws you see in road paving projects that cuts expansion joints into concrete. He got 20 inches of rapidly turning saw blade through the back and lived....for a little while.

In short, you could say that I've seen some stuff that would shock most normal people into a puking fit. I've seen so much of it, that I'm generally immune to human tragedy in whatever form it takes. However, having said that, I discovered today that it is still possible for me to be shocked by my work.

You see, in 15 years of handling all sorts of claims including my fair share of workplace gender based harassment matters (I'm intentionally avoiding a more appropriate term here in an effort to avoid getting unnecessary and unwanted Google search term traffic), I've never once had photos of a lascivious nature, alleged or otherwise, delivered directly to my office desktop. Ever. Until today.

I can't go into too many details for obvious reasons, but I can share a little about what makes this so shocking. At least to me. Aside from the fact that I consider myself a Christian.

Generally speaking, when a claim for gender based harassment is made, the allegations are typically coached in euphemism and/or "proper clinical" terminology. This is especially true here in Texas where we consider ourselves the buckle of the Bible Belt. Occasionally, to emphasis a particularly egregious point, an attorney will employ direct quotation of the alleged offender's harassing remarks. Providing evidence in the form of copies of explicit emails or photos is almost always left to the discovery process when information is exchanged in a more or less controlled fashion. It is unheard of for copies of explicit photos to be attached to a copy of a lawsuit.

Which is exactly what happened in the case that was assigned to me today.

What made it even more surprising, to me at least, was the number of levels this claim went through with no one thinking to put a warning on it. You know...like "WARNING - EXPLICIT MATERIAL ENCLOSED". The claimant's attorney's letter was addressed to three women who make up part of the board of our named insured. They forwarded the letter to their agent. Their contact at the agency is also a woman (who is someone I've dealt with for years). That agent forwarded the claim to my company where it wound up in our support unit to be assigned to the appropriate team by a clerical person...who is female. It then goes to my supervisor...who is female.

So, by my count, 6 women touched this correspondence and attendant explicit photos (which happen to be of a somewhat infamous female of negotiable virtue) WITHOUT thinking to put a warning on the file or the materials that there was explicit material enclosed. 

Imagine my surprise when I encountered some rather graphic images of uninhibited and unclothed womanhood...at work. My mouth literally fell open when I scrolled through the materials and the attendant images. I was so stunned, I immediately went and told The Queen what had happened because I could not believe it myself.

I guess those company firewalls only keep you from going and looking for it yourself but don't keep others from sending it to you.

Liar, Liar Pants On Fire

A while back, I complained somewhat loudly about the breathlessness with which Ruger hyped it's latest pocket pistol offering (the LC9) when I was hoping that all the teasing was a lead in to announcing a 1911 style pistol in the one hundredth year since JMB's ascension into gunnie immortality.

Say Uncle has a link to an article on The Firearm Blog with what is purported to be leaked photos of an impending release by Ruger of a 1911 style pistol.

It looks real pretty.

But Ruger lied to me when they said "I am not aware of any plans at this time for any new products / calibers." The have broken the ninth commandment and bore false witness to one of their loyal and faithful customers. I must go to their headquarters and preach to them about Hellfire and lepers. 

Right after I find out how much they plan to charge for one, and where I can put a deposit down.

Rhetoric vs. Reality

I don't know if there has ever been a time in which debate, civilized or otherwise, hasn't been slave to rhetoric instead of cold, hard, undeniable facts. I guess there would be nothing to debate if everyone had to concede that the facts were undeniable. That would kind of defeat the purpose of a debate, and some folks just plain need something to argue about. Besides, from what I've seen, any "facts" mentioned in a debate are nothing more than self serving fabrications manufactured by the side using them to support their position.


One of the problems, I think, is that people are no longer taught how to separate fact from fiction. We seem to have lost our ability to critically think and assess the validity of information. I mean, if you can find it on the internet, it must be true. At least until you find the next website with completely opposite information. I think Mark Twain said it best: "There are lies, damned lies and statistics."


Facts are really irrelevant in debate, though. The side that is able to control of the rhetoric controls the terms of the debate. For example, the end of George W. Bush's presidency saw a rip roaring, howling debate over immigration reform. I personally think it was nothing more than a mid term ploy by the Democrats to get minority groups angered at Republicans in the run up to the 2008 presidential elections in which the American public somehow managed to elect a post turtle with a teleprompter. For those of you who have not heard the term, a post turtle is a turtle that is found sitting on top of a post. You know full well it didn't get up on top of the post by itself, you know it has no clue what to do while it's up there or how to get down, and you have to question the sanity of the person that put it there in the first place.

Speaking of President Obama, I found it profoundly amusing that he dignified Congressman Wilson's "You lied" outburst during Obama's address to Congress on Wednesday by saying "That's not true." I guess he told him. Did we suddenly have a mass regression to first grade that I missed? The only thing that would have made it funnier is if it had degenerated into "did not/did so", "my dad can beat up your dad", "I'm gonna tell my mommie." Now boys, play nice or go play somewhere else.

Anyway, back to our main story. The immigration reform debate got hijacked by rhetoric pretty quickly. If you were in favor of building a wall to keep illegal immigrants out, or against amnesty for illegal aliens already here, or for enforcing existing laws and rounding up and deporting illegals; the rhetoric painted you as "anti-immigrant" and against the very melting pot that made America great. If, however, you were in favor of letting millions of people who entered the country illegally have a "path to citizenship" (a.k.a blanket amnesty), the rhetoric painted you as Ceasar Augustus watching Rome burn as the Visigoths raped, pillaged and plundered our great nation. What? You've got to be kidding me. Instead of focusing on real issues, we're going to demonize our opponents and their positions?!?!?

Preachers are getting into the act now, too. I recently started seeing billboards pop up in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area with a couple of variations on the theme: "Would Jesus Discriminate? Why Should We?". Well, the short answer is: No, He wouldn't and neither should we. The problem I have with this billboard campaign is the blatant misrepresentation of scripture to support an agenda.

If you go to the website advertised on the billboards (http://www.whywouldwe.org/), you will find that this ad campaign is supported by a group of churches primarily catering to the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transsexual community. They cite Matthew 8:5-13 to claim that Jesus "affirmed a gay couple". They also cite Acts 8:26-40 to claim that "the early church welcomed a gay man." As you probably have guessed, this group's position is that we Christians shouldn't discriminate against those of the GLBT persuasion because Jesus and the early church didn't either. So now, if I don't accept homosexuality, I am somehow discriminating against GLBTs and being hypocritical of my Christian faith at the same time?

I don't think so. Let's look at some ugly facts for a moment. The folks at whywouldwe.org would have you believe that Matthew 8 is the story of a Roman Centurion (an officer in charge of 100 men) who comes to Jesus to have his gay lover healed of an affliction. The term in question in this section of the scripture is the word translated in English as "servant" from the Greek word "pais". Whywouldwe.org claims that this word can mean "his master's male lover." According to my Strong's Exhaustive Concordance and it's Greek Dictionary, pais means "a boy (as often beaten with impunity), or a girl, and a child; specifically a slave or servant (especially a minister to a king...).

Similarly, whywouldwe.org says that the eunuch mentioned in Acts 8 was actually a homosexual. They claim that homosexuality was widely associated with eunuchs in the ancient world. Here again, Strong's tells another story. The Greek word translated in English as "eunuch" is "eunouchos". The definition is "a castrated person (such being employed in Oriental bed-chambers); by extension an impotent or unmarried man, by implication a chamberlain (state officer).

Now, I am gracious enough to concede that understanding cultural and historical context is as important to understanding the Bible as anything else. However, just because a Roman officer might have used a male servant as a sex toy or that a eunuch might have been gay does not mean that those verses cited by whywouldwe.org automatically mean what they say it means. Further, you can't take one verse out of context and ignore what the rest of the Bible says. There is plenty of other scripture that condemns homosexuality as sin (just as it does for adultery, murder, and several other things).

The rhetoric whywouldwe.org is using would have you believe that condemning the sin is the same as condemning the person, but that is not the example that Christ set for us. Look at John 8 and the story of how He handled the adulterous woman who was brought before Him for stoning. He didn't tell her that it was okay to be an adulterer. He told her: "Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more." He had compassion on her and forgave her the punishment prescribed by the Law, but He did so with the strict admonishment for her to cease her sinful ways.

To borrow from Congressman Wilson, you lied whywouldwe.org. Would Jesus discriminate against a GLBT person? Absolutely not. Would He accept them into the church after repentance and baptism? Absolutely. Would He condone homosexuality? Absolutely not. He would love the person but hate the sin. We as Christians (literally followers of Christ) should do the same.