I prefer. . .

 . . . to give benefit of the doubt whenever possible. . .

. . . but I don't believe any benefit remains for one who continues to say such things as. . .

(from http://santorumexposed.com/wp/?page_id=22)
    “I don’t believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute. The idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country” on the absolute separation of church and state, 2/26/2012

    “…everything I’ve read shows that we would not have gotten this information as to who this man was if it had not been gotten information from people who were subject to enhanced interrogation. And so this idea that we didn’t ask that question while Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was being waterboarded, he [John McCain] doesn’t understand how enhanced interrogation works. I mean, you break somebody, and after they’re broken, they become cooperative. And that’s when we got this information. And one thing led to another, and led to another, and that’s how we ended up with bin Laden.”  on John McCain, who was tortured as a prisoner of war, doesn’t understand “enhanced interrogation”, 5/17/11

    “A lesbian woman came up to me and said, ‘why are you denying me my right?’ I said, ‘well, because it’s not a right.’ It’s a privilege that society recognizes because society sees intrinsic value to that relationship over any other relationship.”  on gay adoption, 5/3/11

    “The reason Social Security is in big trouble is we don’t have enough workers to support the retirees. A third of all the young people in America are not in America today because of abortion, because one in three pregnancies end in abortion."  on how abortion is responsible for Social Security’s problems, 3/29/11

    “I find it almost remarkable for a black man to say ‘now we are going to decide who are people and who are not people’.”  on President Obama’s race and pro-choice beliefs, 1/19/2011

    “But is there such thing as a sincere liberal Christian, which says that we basically take this document and re-write it ourselves? Is that really Christian? That’s a bigger question for me. And the answer is, no, it’s not. I don’t think there is such a thing. To take what is plainly written and say that I don’t agree with that, therefore, I don’t have to pay attention to it, means you’re not what you say you are. You’re a liberal something, but you’re not a Christian. That’s sort of how I look at it.

    “When you go so far afield of that and take what is a salvation story and turn it into a liberation theology story, which is done in the Catholic world as well as in the evangelical world, you have abandoned Christendom, in my opinion. And you don’t have a right to claim it.”  on “Is Obama a sincere, liberal Christian?”, 10/200

    “Is anyone saying same-sex couples can’t love each other? I love my children. I love my friends, my brother. Heck, I even love my mother-in-law. Should we call these relationships marriage, too?”
on love that same-sex couples share, 5/22/2008

. . . but having depleted all the magnanimity and tolerance that I can possibly muster, I must now paraphrase one of the most opinionated yet talented artists of our time,  "Rickie's such an asshole."

What do YOU think?
http://www.rayjozwiak.com/guestbook.html

You can NOW download your
very own copy of Ray Jozwiak's
newest release:
AMBIENCE & WINE

Please visit
http://www.rayjozwiak.com

Tweet

Once upon a time . . .

 . . . there was. . .

. . an open-ended  law in a particular state called the "Stand Your Ground" law.  This law allowed people to defend themselves with deadly force as long as they "reasonably believed" it was necessary to protect themselves.

In this state there was a very bad man who found the opportunity to invoke this law, claiming he was acting in self-defense, and was forced to kill an unarmed teenager. The unarmed teenager happened to make a phone call to a friend only minutes before his death, which made it clear the teenager did not pose a violent threat to the very bad man, calling public attention to a law that clears a suspect from prosecution if the state does not find evidence to dispute their claim of self-defense.

In short, this was a very bad law.

The law extended what has been called the Castle Doctrine, which asserts that a person has the right to defend his or her home with deadly force if they are in "fear of great bodily injury." Unlike similar laws across the country, this particular state's provision does not require residents to retreat before using lethal force -- whether it be with a gun, knife or baseball bat -- against a home intruder, a concept that is based upon the English common-law idea that an individual's home is their "castle."

With this very bad law a person no longer needs to prove that they feared for their safety, only that the individual they shot, even if unarmed, had forcefully and unlawfully intruded. Unlike the initial Castle Doctrine, the newer law extends the principle to vehicles and public places and also does away with an earlier requirement that said a person attacked in a public place must retreat if it is a viable option.

Many people involved did NOT live happily ever after.

What do YOU think?
http://www.rayjozwiak.com/guestbook.html

 
Download your
very own copy of
ANOTHER SHOT
by Ray Jozwiak

Please Visit
http://www.rayjozwiak.com

Tweet