Yes, I think this blog may have run its course. At the very least I've run my course with this blog. It's not that I have nothing more to say about the subject matter that I've addressed these past however many years (I haven't kept track) because I really do. I am just simply tired of speaking at thin air. The effort to type out an entry is such that, without any response whatsoever, I no longer find it worth my time. I have plenty of time but I think to myself all day long anyway. Why bother putting it in writing anymore? I've found it equally unsatisfactory to post the links on Facebook that I do but it's less demanding and therefore I will stand that a while longer.
My health is rapidly declining. Gathering thoughts and putting them into anything resembling intelligent thought has become virtually impossible. As I'm preparing to resign myself to being wheelchair bound after years of being house/bed bound, the last thing I want to do anymore is write to myself on a blog.
I've enjoyed taking the opportunities to vent and, hopefully, educate that I've used this blog for over this brief(ish) period. I'm not going to delete it and may even occasionally return to put up some entry but for now I'm retiring.
I do thank those who have read for awhile and even occasionally commented. Those times meant a lot to me and I've missed them. Fortunately some of those who have been consistent "blog friends" are also friends of mine on Facebook so we'll not lose touch.
Thank you for the time and the opportunity to send my thoughts out for a short time. And for the last time (for awhile anyway)...
The Trash Heap has spoken.
Ok! It's been awhile since I had a really good soul cleansing mind purging rant but the time has come and here I go!
"True Christian" is a misnomer.
There is no universally accepted definition of what a "True Christian" is and therefore the title is subject to stripping by anyone within the group that finds another's actions objectionable labeling them "not a 'True Christian'". Examples? Nobody seems to want to claim the members of the Westboro Baptist Church as fellow members of the Christian religion because their actions are detestable at best but the members of the church consider themselves to be few of the "True Christians" out there because of their own hard-line interpretation of their scripture. Another? Those Catholic priests who have been sexually assaulting youths within the church since it began while the Church shuffles them about from church to church so they don't have to do anything about it. These are two groups of people that most certainly identify themselves as Christian and yet those who also label themselves the same exact way are only too eager to strip these "type" of people of the title. Even the most liberal minded Christians - those who accept that not everyone has to be a Christian to be a good person or even to "go to heaven" - are only too quick to denounce those unlikable characters from their numbers.
How do you define "True Christian"? It really doesn't matter because there is going to be someone out there who disagrees with you on any number of points if you choose to refer to yourself as a Christian. You are too liberal. You don't attend church. You are a hypocrite. You are not rigid enough in your interpretations of scripture. You are too forgiving. You are a nominal Christian which is no Christian at all. You don't read the scripture. You have idols in your home. You may accept the J-guy as your lord and savior and believe he died for your sins but you don't protest or proselytize. The criteria go on and on ad nauseum and the point still remains the same - there is NO universal definition of Christian let alone "True Christian".
Do I personally care who calls themselves Christian and who doesn't? Not at all. But there is tremendous hypocrisy in this so-called Christian nation that I do have to contend with and since this is my blog I can tell those self-righteous bastards to fuck off right here because this is my corner of the world to say what I will.
Christians in the US (and by "Christians", in this case, I mean the loud ones who presume to speak for the group) refer to the United States as a "Christian Nation". Whether the US was formed by Christians or not and whether the laws are based on the bible or not, they are correct that the majority of people in this country do label themselves as Christian in some sense of the word - whatever that means to them. The problem is that when you have a majority and take pride in that majority as they do you also have to accept that not everyone in those numbers is going to be the quality people you hope to have representing you - but they do. Not wholly but certainly they are in your number and reflect how Christianity is observed by those within and outside of the group. You cannot proudly claim the majority without accepting the warts that some of that number bear and that it might reflect poorly on you because there is no universally accepted definition of who is Christian except that label one gives to themselves.
Why does any of this matter at all? Because there was a rape in a small Texas town of an 11-year old girl by at least 17 and possibly as many as 28 teenaged boys and men and when people ask "what kind of culture blames the victim for something like this" as they are doing with this poor girl and I answer "people who don't value women or, dare I say, 'Christian Culture'" I am, predictably, lambasted for the comment. What is said to me? "Don't blame Christians! True Christians value women - what about 'Islamic Culture?!'"
First of all, I did not blame Christians for any of the actions that were reported. I was referring specifically to Christian Culture. When you live in a country that is majority Christian, as is reported and touted constantly, there is, without a doubt, a Christian Cultural influence that can account for these happenings - like it or not. Would I care to explain myself? Well sure! I'm so glad you asked. Shall we start from the beginning? Eve? Or would you rather go a little further in to Lot and his daughters? Or the demands not to marry women of other religions because they will steal you away from the righteous path? What about the statements of Paul? The enslaving of several women throughout the text by men? Or should we simply go to general politics and the denial of women's rights to choose for themselves? When women can stop asking men for permission to do what they need to do with their own bodies I might believe that this is a culture that values women but since this is a "Christian Nation" that culture that attempts to influence and control is decidedly Christian. Did this subjugation of women start with Christianity? No. But Christian males and older Christian women are happy to continue perpetuating women's lower station for the sake of a "faith" that they have whether you share it or not. I'm willing to also bet that of the 1 out of 4 women who have suffered sexual assaults in the United States, most of those women have been assaulted by Christians - or those perpetrators became Christians at a later stage and received "forgiveness" for their actions.
Secondly, I am in serious doubt that, according to what this particular antagonist said, there are enough Muslims in a small town in Texas to have established an "Islamic Culture" let alone that they might have any pull with the "good Christian people" to influence them to do something so heinous to a young girl. The mention of that particular religion in these circumstances is just one more detestable move by the over-privileged white Christian male in this society to deflect attention from his own cushy place and move it to where it absolutely does not belong - a fictional "Islamic Culture" in a small Texas town. Chances are the boys/men who committed this crime were Christian - even only if by name. Those are the easy odds. Like it or not. I'm sure Christians don't like it at all.
As a pagan and socialist I have grown all too familiar with the misunderstandings and misinformation of my own views, values, philosophies, and beliefs. I don't like it but I accept that this is part of the deal. Ignorance abounds and is beyond plentiful in the USofA. Christians may actually have to accept that there is going to be some ugly representations of their religion despite the ready supply of media overdose of Christian wonder we are usually "treated" to.
The Trash Heap has spoken.
Once again I can only apologize for my long absence from posting. I offer a series and then stop at one part. No real excuse - just trying to decide whether this was the direction I wanted to continue with on this blog.
At any rate - until I decide what format this blog shall take - I'll post Part 2.
Vocabulary -
As simple as this seems the wording of policy seems to make a huge difference in the minds of the people. While the majority of the country supports decriminalization of cannabis, far fewer are comfortable with the idea of legalization. Do they understand the differences in these terms? I doubt that most do. What they do understand is the money aspect - decriminalization would keep minor drug offenders from tying up the courts as well as filling prisons. They may not all agree with smoking a bit of pot but they don't really have a problem with someone making that choice for themselves. The word "legalization", however, seems to conjure images of children in their minds. It's as if they believe that legalizing cannabis would make it readily available to anyone at all when the opposite is more true. But hey, I'm a team player, if you want to legalize cannabis to create a safer situation for our children and just call it decriminalization, I'm all for it. At this point I'm for whatever will keep patients and adults out of prison for choosing a safer alternative to alcohol and pharmaceuticals.
Really that's all I've got right now. I had several other parts in mind when I started this series but things have happened and my mind is full with the issues in Egypt, health care, and my daughter's inevitable leap into adulthood.
Tell y'all what - if you want me to continue on the cannabis path, let me know in comments. What do you want to read about on this sad little blog? Politics? Religion? Parenting? Jane of all opinions - master of none!
The Trash Heap has spoken.
I realize that this post is overdue. Prop 19 failed in California (as did a few other medical propositions in other states) but Massachusetts did manage to pass yet another demand on its representatives that said they want looser laws on cannabis. I stated support for Prop 19 only because it was a bill to legalize and once passed could have been worked on further. Propositions are seldom perfect in their inception.
Why did Prop 19 fail? There are several reasons and not least of which was a poorly written proposition. Does that mean that cannabis will never be legal? Hardly. But there are steps that would be beneficial and things that we learned if we bothered to listen to (instead of just criticizing) the opposition. I will take on some of those things in a series of posts and give my own point of view. Why not? Nobody's listening to me no matter where else I say these things and at least saying them on my own blog gives me opportunity to say nearly all I can before being yelled at by those who misunderstand what I'm saying.
DUI - There are people in the cannabis community who make the same claim as all too many drunks: "I drive better/more safely when I'm high." In fact some of the biggest advocates of legalizing cannabis have touted this line countless times as they beat their drums for legalization. I've actually heard someone saying that "they act like there's some standard you have to meet before you can drive". Well, yes, yes there are standards! If you are going to get behind the wheel of a 2 ton bullet you'd better damn well be capable of handling the responsibility (not to mention that this is the reason we issue drivers licenses - to make sure you can meet a basic standard of safety).
We need to address accountability and testing on this issue.
Accountability - The public has had enough of the lack of accountability in all areas. Pretending that there is no safety issue from toking and driving does not soothe the public at all - in fact it might just heighten their skepticism toward the legalization movement. Fear is an enormous motivator for people and being afraid to be on the road with drunk and stoned drivers is no incentive to legalize when you "have no horse in this race" anyway - they are more likely to vote "no". We can actually recruit non-users and never-plan-to-use people if we approach this responsibly and sensitively. With auto accidents being one of the top killers in the country mocking that concern is just plain dumb. What you don't do is blame cannabis. You blame the moron with the poor judgment. You hold the individual accountable for their actions. You don't hold the entire community hostage because of a fear - and if you are supporting people's "right" to toke and drive you are just as responsible for holding the community hostage and foresaking the responsible users' rights as the prohibitionists. If someone is driving under the influence, and it is detected, they should be prosecuted for their crime. People have the right to expect a certain level of safety. The cannabis community needs to demand responsibility from our people (and stop excusing people's bad behavior as they are certainly in the minority) if we're going to get through to the rest of society that we're serious about what we're doing. There are few that benefit and really do drive more safely under the influence because of seizure or spastic health disorders (and special licensing could be issued for them).
Testing - We need to be at the forefront of new testing advances to ensure the safety of the public and the cannabis community would go a long way in validating our sincerety if we were working in that direction rather than making ridiculous arguments for the safety of stoned driving. My understanding about the testing is that there are finally some advances being made. There is one test being developed that detects THC through the apocrine (sweat) glands. It's non-invasive and seems to detect use within the past 1-2 hours. It seems to take awhile to show results at this point (up to 4 hours oddly) but proves actual impairment at the time of testing (rather than the urine, blood, or hair tests that detect for the past weeks-months). It's the most promising test at this point and the community would do well to promote and further its progress. Let's lend a little legitimacy to the argument that we are responsible adults capable of making private choices for ourselves!
First my husband's step-dad dies. Then my husband's great-aunt dies. Then my husband's uncle dies. Then his mother dies. Now the dog we'd gotten for his mother, trained for her, took to her, and inherited after she died has just died this morning!
I sat on the floor with him, petting him, crying, and apologizing. He was far too young. The bouncing baby boy is now cool and stiff with no life left in his light brown eyes after only 2 hours - seems too fast for a little being so full of life once. Our suspicion is that he ate something he shouldn't have (we think it may have been stuffing from the cat's bed). He screamed in pain and lost control of his bodily functions in the middle of the night. My husband left for work this morning with the intention of quickly finishing an important task and then returning home to take Dobby to the vet to give him a painless peaceful passing. But one hour after Mini Me went to school, Dobby was gone. So here we sit - my dog, my cat, Dobby and me - waiting for my husband to get home so he can take Dobby to the pet cemetary to be cremated and have his ashes scattered over beautiful tree covered hills overlooking a pretty pond. My dog and cat seem strangely unaffected by his death and I'm not at all sure what to make of that.
I truly can't believe he's gone. He should have had so much more. He should have had a longer life to be sure. He should have had young energetic kids to play with. We did try to find that perfect family for him but perhaps it's for the best that we couldn't if this was his destiny... if there is a destiny.
The sweet, smart, stubborn Dobby has left. May he journey well to the Otherworld and maybe even find his mama there. You will be well missed, little boy. I'm so sorry.
Samhain nears and the veil thins. Every year at this time I am surrounded by thoughts of loved ones I've lost as well as kindred I never knew. For the past several years I've been playing with my genealogy and searching out the past as far as I'm able to go beyond what has been provided for me by my paternal grandmother. Her goal was to link to royalty and she seems to have done that. The royals' stories are well known - just pick up a book and you can learn all about them - so it seemed a rather boring goal to find those we already know so much about. Being the type never to take the past of least resistance - I opted to go another way.
Awhile ago I discovered that at least some of my family was living in Salem during the witch trials. I was sort of shocked to find that nobody anywhere in my revealed line (that which my grandmother had traced herself) had any recorded involvement - accused or accusing - in the trials. My family was seemingly just sitting on the sidelines of the event taking place right before them and doing nothing at all. Rather surprising when you consider the size of my family living there and the relatively small size of the town at the time. Oddly I was disappointed. It's not that I was hoping anyone in my family suffered as a result of the hysteria, or worse, to have contributed to the hysteria with accusations. But to think that all of this was going on and my family may have sat idly by doing nothing at all was disheartening to say the least and cowardly to say more.
Finally, after a great deal of searching, I was able to find the link buried in my family's history. Ok, it wasn't really "buried" but since it wasn't the direct line to royalty that my grandmother was seeking it wasn't elaborated upon either. It seems that there is a direct line from the Row/Rowe/Roe family, the Langton family and the Day family within my own line. Their names, if anyone is curious, were: Phoebe Day, James and Rachel Fuller, Abigail and Mary/Martha Rowe, Andrew and Mary Sanford, Sarah Vinson, and Rachel Vinson (Varney, Cook, Langton). I'm not a direct descendant of all (obviously) but each of them were within my family line and I am the direct descendant of some. I still have a great deal of work and research to do to learn the reasoning and fate of each of them but I've also learned that if I so desired, I could become a member of ."The Associated Daughters of Early American Witches".
What does it mean to become a member of "The Associated Daughters of Early American Witches"? I'm really not sure what the benefits are but I do know that the cost of membership ($100 lifetime membership fee and $25 non-refundable application fee) goes to fund the Cook College and Theological School which aids Native Americans in their efforts to become Christian Presbyterian clerics! In fact, nearly 3/4 of all ordained Native American Christian clerics have been students at Cook.
In order to join ADEAW you must be a woman of at least 16 years of age and able to prove that you are a descendant of someone who was accused of, tried for, or hanged for witchcraft prior to December 31, 1699. A complete listing of accepted ancestors is available for your perusal to determine if you too are eligible for membership to "The Associated Daughters of Early American Witches" and therefore entitled to aid the Cook College and Theological School with your lifetime membership to ADEAW. I personally will not be joining the ADEAW if only because the absurdity of donating to a Christian college as a Pagan descendant of Christian women accused of witchcraft by other Christians only to perpetuate the same religion amongst Native Americans that most certainly had their own [Pagan] religion prior to Christian invasion is simply making my head spin in its irony. Your choice to join however, if you meet all of the requirements, is entirely up to you.
So it's not all hemp and cannabis around here (even though that's an extremely important part of my "work"). I do have other thoughts and interests and thought I'd mention this one at this particular time.
Hoping the veil was thin for you this Samhain and your loved ones near. Blessings of the season.
The Trash Heap has spoken.
Okay, class, gather 'round. There are some things I'm going to clarify here because nonsense seems to be running amok in the cannabis movement and I'm going to state my positions here very carefully so there is no confusion. I'm trying to cover territory I haven't covered in previous posts.
First of all, I support Prop 19 in California. This proposition would allow for the use of cannabis in the state for adults age 21 years and over. It will permit adults to grow their own cannabis in a 25 square foot space. It creates the opportunity for actual regulation of the drug and does more to prevent cannabis falling into the hands of children than prohibition has ever done by putting dealers out of work and moving cannabis into shops that will be required to ask for ID before the sale. It will NOT place cannabis on the candy shelf of the local gas station. This proposition does NOT take away any rights of the medical cannabis community and if you're one of those "I gots mine" people who don't care that responsible adults are still considered criminals for doing the same thing you're doing as long as you've got your second-class-citizen-medical-card to use cannabis for your occasional sadness or insomnia - I have NO use for you whatsoever! Prop 19 acknowledges and ends the failed policies that have placed hundreds of thousands of non-violent offenders in prison. In short, the proposition stops the insanity - for California anyway. My hope is that the sanity will spread throughout the country once everyone sees that the sky isn't falling just because people can smoke a joint because they want to.
I do not support, condone, nor promote a "free-for-all" in regards to cannabis. I support adults making choices for themselves and their bodies - none of us relinquished that right to the government. I do support regulation for the protection of children and am angered by the backlash that prohibition has created in this society and against children and minorities especially (prison, jobs, student loans, voting - just to name a few). And I think if you are getting your animals high for your entertainment - you're an idiot just like you're an idiot if you're getting children high or you're getting high in the same room with children. If you are in fact a responsible adult - act like one! You're representative of a movement which includes a large number of people who do not care to be boxed into a stereotype due to your stupidity.
You will never see me arguing for the right of people to drive under the influence of any mind-altering substance and this includes cannabis. There are a few people with a few health conditions (such as seizures) that benefit from using cannabis before they drive and are therefore safer while under the influence but they are certainly, in my eyes, the exception and not the rule when it comes to this very sensitive issue. Driving is a responsibility and not a right. Promoting the idea that "I drive better when I'm drunk/high/texting" is something that I do not support and find the arguments that do as going from laughable to offensive to ludicrous. I have given up driving because my health makes me feel less than perfectly safe behind the wheel and I'm not willing to risk my safety nor anyone else's because my reflexes, sight, concentration or strength are not what they should be. I expect responsible adults to make the same decisions when they're unable to handle the responsibility that places others at risk. The one flaw in cannabis legalization is the driving issue. There is not currently a test available that determines whether someone is or is not under the influence at a particular moment. This is something that needs to be worked out and in place sooner rather than later.
The idea that when cannabis is legal will lead suddenly to doctors operating while they're high or pilots flying planes while high is ridiculous. There is absolutely NOTHING saying they would not be doing those things now and if they are of such compromised character as to do those things once they're legally able to ingest cannabis - why would they wait until it's legal to do so? Legalization will not increase the odds of things like this happening - it's simply fear mongering at work to make others fear the legalization. If someone commits a crime under the influence of anything they should most certainly be prosecuted for their crime but the ingestion of a herb does not constitute crime in itself. If you murder someone while under the influence of anything you should be convicted of the murder not for being under the influence.
I believe that certain people are predisposed to certain issues - mental and physical. I do not believe that cannabis will cause _____ in anyone though it may hasten its appearance. For example - there are some studies that say that 1:10,000 children who use cannabis are more likely to end up with schizophrenia. There is nothing at all that says this child would not have ended up with the disorder without the aid of cannabis. There are studies that say some people suffer physical withdrawl upon quitting the use of cannabis. I believe that these people might actually be encountering physical ailments that they'd not realized sooner because cannabis was actually blocking these symptoms for them - in essence easing their lives with its medicinal properties. I do not consider cannabis to be wholly 100% safe no matter what which is why I insist that children not be given access easily especially while their brains are still forming, but it is a great deal safer than the majority of things we're prescribed by physicians daily and with much easier side-effects. Big Pharma offers drugs that have as their side-effects - stroke, blood clots, dizziness, cancer, heart attack and even death. Cannabis - sleepy, happy, hungry. I think that it's time we have the right to choose which things we're willing to deal with rather than being brow beaten by doctors receiving kick backs from Big Pharma or a government that no longer remembers why cannabis was placed under this useless prohibition and only persists in spewing the false propaganda in defense of its archaic position.
Under prohibition there is no ability to regulate cannabis in any way. When you make something illegal it is the criminals who make those decisions as to who, when, and why people are given access and their standards are quite low - got cash? cool - got weed/heroin/coke/meth etc. It's time to recognize that keeping something illegal is no way to make sure it doesn't fall into our children's hands. Tobacco and alcohol are decidedly more difficult to obtain for minors. The average teenager was asked how long it would take them to get alcohol and answered that it takes several days to a week. When asked how quickly they could get cannabis they said it would be less than 24 hours. My daughter says she could find it (if she so desired) in 2 minutes. I believe her but I also believe that she doesn't touch the stuff because of the way she's been raised. She's not a saint - she just has a different perspective than her peers because she's been raised differently and with an alternative education than they have.
People drink to relax and socialize. People smoke pot for those reasons and many others. Adults should have the right to make the decision for themselves. Do not think to protect others from your temptation by continuing the lunacy of this prohibition. If you don't want to use anything - don't. If you have difficulty with moderation - seek help for this problem. If you don't like it - too fucking bad - stay away from it.
Freedom.
That's enough for now.
The Trash Heap has spoken.