In the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre, the NRA proposed putting armed guards in schools to increase safety. Now, one town in Arkansas is doing just that—but with school staff rather than professional security guards.
With 53 hours of training under their belts, more than 20 administrators, teachers and school employees in Clarksville, Ark., will head back to school this August packing a 9mm handgun, AP reports.
“The plan we’ve been given in the past is ‘Well, lock your doors, turn off your lights and hope for the best,’” Superintendent David Hopkins told AP. But as deadly incidents continued to happen in schools, he explained, the district decided, “That’s not a plan.”
Although most proposals to put armed guards in schools after Newtown went nowhere thanks to “resistance from educators or warnings from insurance companies that schools would face higher premiums,” Arkansas already had a law on the books that allows “licensed, armed security guards on campus,” according to AP. The extensive training school staffers in Clarksville received allows them to be considered guards.
Students will not know which faculty and staff will be carrying weapons, although signs will be posted at each school about the armed guards—already a
HOT SPRINGS, AR -- It was a "shocker" at the gun show today.
A man accidentally shot himself and another person at the event hosted by the Lions Club in Hot Springs.
Organizers of the gun show say they're very safe when putting this event together, so they're really not sure how this could've happened.
Just about every kind of weapon can be found at the Lions Club Gun Show, but those weapons typically aren't loaded, that's why organizer Larry Louden says everyone is shocked by today's accidental shooting.
He said, "We've been doing these gun shows since 1985 and never had a safety incident whatsoever."
Anyone who comes into the gun show with a weapon, checks in at the front desk.
Then, they're asked to clear their gun and receive a plastic zip tie which goes around the gun to make sure it doesn't fire.
Even with those safety measures in place, for both visitors and vendors, police say 42-year-old Charles Pike picked up a pistol from a table and it went off, hitting him in the hand.
Then, the bullet ricocheted off the floor, grazing another man.
Louden said, "And for some reason, we don't know, this particular weapon had a round in it and had an accidental discharge."
Philip Kastner -- with Trader Bill's Outdoor Sports in Hot Springs -- says he's been to hundreds of gun shows but never heard of a weapon discharging at one.
He says it's something that just doesn't happen.
Kastner said, "I think it's a freak accident, I'm sure."
The reporter asked Kastner, "Do you think this incident will have people questioning safety at gun shows?"
After a pause, he replied, "You know there was a three car wreck here yesterday. Are we going to question vehicle safety every single day?"
No charges have been filed in this case, but police are still investigating.
Both men hurt went to the hospital with non-life threatening injuries.
The gun show will be open again at the Hot Springs Convention Center Sunday from 9:00 a.m.- 4:00 p.m.
All I can say is, dumbasses! Observing the basic rules of firearms precludes and prevents these kinds of things from happening. There is no excuse for this. 1) Treat any and All guns, as if they are loaded. This is sometimes cited as, All guns are always loaded, for emphasis. Immediately check a firearm to see if it is loaded. Visually check it, check it by feel, recheck it. 2) Never point any firearm at anything, ANYTHING, ANY THING, that you are NOT PREPARED TO DESTROY. 3)Do not place your finger on the trigger until you are prepared to fire. 4) Never fire a gun until you have identified the target's and everything within the potential line of fire, foreground, or background--wherever it is pointed. 5)Never lose control of or allow any firearm for which you are responsible (if you own it, you are responsible for it)to be out of your control and/or supervision. Never allow anyone who is not competent to handle a firearm, to handle your firearms.
There are many variants, but these are the basics that anyone and everyone who handles a firearms should know and lie by. Any ONE of these could have prevented this from happening. All of them should have made this an impossibility.
Police officers from Fort Worth, Texas, are blaming bad lighting rather than their own incompetence for wrongly killing 72-year-old Jerry Waller.
According to a search warrant affidavit acquired by the Star-Telegram, police were dispatched to 409 Havenwood Lane on May 28 because of a reported burglary. The problem was that they went to 404 Havenwood Lane instead of their intended destination.
The affidavit complains, “there is no lighting around the home and the officers had only the use of their flashlights.”
To make matters more complicated, the police might very well have lied in their report. The police claim that they saw a man “armed with a handgun standing near the corner of the home.” They ordered him to drop the gun, and when he pointed the gun at them, the police opened fire.
And yet, Waller died inside of his garage, leaving residents of the community to wonder why there is such a blatant discrepancy between the facts and the report.
I do NOT go looking or this stuff to repost. I just run across it. But the reason I run across it is that it seems to be epidemic. Law Enforcement serves such a vital role and they have such a high bar to maintain. I know the textbook answer is that it is a dangerous job and that they can't take any chances.That is NOT a good enough answer. Innocent people dying because of stupid mistakes such as going to the wrong place just is not good enough to excuse killing a man who is justified in protecting himself and his own property. Seeing someone pointing a gun at you when you are at the right place, may justify killing them if self-defense. It does not always. Who should get the benefit of the doubt and caution when police are on someone else's private property, intruding, uninvited, and weird hours--the Lawmen or a private citizen.
while I agree that private citizens also need to exercise care when wielding or brandishing firearms--even on their own property--police training should involve restraint and competence, before a man's life is taken.
If the Trayvon Martin incident has brought anything to light, it is that mistakes do not excuse deadly force. Having a badge does not remove a person from personal responsibility. If this had been private citizens--a murder or manslaughter charge would result.
being a police officer carries great risks that should be trained for and guarded against--but too bad, so sad, just doesn't cut it. We expect more of police officers.
However, the U.S. Department of Education said the investigation would not include the student wearing the Confederate flag, but would “be limited to whether a racially hostile environment was created due to language and actions that were not protected by the First Amendment.”
Maupin was disappointed the feds would not be investigating the flag incident.
“While I’m glad they are investigating, the letter itself is a permission slip for racist parents to send their children to school wearing any symbol they want?” he told the Phoenix New-Times. “To me, there is no difference between a confederate flag and a swastika flag. Is the Department of Education saying it’s OK for a young neo-nazi to wear a swastika flag? It’s clear to me that the mere presence of the confederate flag and the swastika flag creates an atmosphere of racial hostility.”
I am not sure what a Redneck Day implies, but I do not think it is necessarily a racist theme, especially not out West. I have written about the term redneck several times over the years as regarding its origin, usage, and context given different groups of people.
It is not surprising that African-Americans would feel especially disturbed by a Redneck Day, as African Americans use the term disparagingly to refer to racially bigoted and socially backward Caucasians.
But other groups, unless they have also absorbed and assigned this meanin g to the term, do not use the term in this way.
Redneck was apparently first applied by other Caucasians to Dutch immigrants in Northern states such as Pennesylvania and Ohio who had very fair skin and whose farm labors in the fields caused sunburn and literally turned their necks red.
These farmers were poor, hadworking people, Christians with Christian values, who had good work ethics. Because they were poor and different from the other more established and mostly immigrant stock of other ethnicities, they were looked down on by these peoples. As is often the case, the minority newcomers were labled, mocked, and made fun of.
It was a fairly new phenomenon, within the last fiftyl-years or so that this term has been used by Hollywood to describe a particular Southern racist stereotype. It appears that from this application that the Confederate Flag was coupled with the term Redneck. The first time I, living in the South during the sixties and seventies, that I first hear the term. It was then used by young men who wore their hair long and embraced much of the quasi-Hippy culture of the times, to refer to backward Southhern men as were those depicted in the classic movie flop, Easy Rider.
Easy Rider was a fairly plotless low budget movie produced by a young Perter Fonda. It was fitting for his neophyte acting abilities, as he said very little and spent most of the movie riding a cool motorcycle with extended-forks and an American Flag gas tank. While the movie portrayed Southern men as overly-patriotic shotgun toting killers of longhairs, it idealized Fonda's pot-smoking drug trafficking, amoral, though apparently enlightened character as heroes. But even with these shortfalls, this depiction of Southern Rednecks had no racial elements.
The popular comic strip 'Lil Abner, also had a lot to do with establishing and reinforcing stereotypes of Southern Hillbillies as moon-shining, stock-car driving (NASCAR'S roots are in the Moonshine Culture when stock cars were modified to outrun the Law on the way to deliver their products between Middle and Eastern Tennessee stills to the urban Atlanta market). Of course these folks were not many generations removed from the War of Northern Aggression, which was only in history ever as much about race as it was about States Rights at that time regarded as as guarantying the right of individual states for self-determination up to and including succession. But history has, of course, been rewritten to be another thing entirely.
My point, however, is that most of these rank and file Southerner's ancestors, property, and lives had been unalterably affected by the horrible and far-reaching destruction of the civil War, which was fought almost entirely in the South--over tenants both real and entirely manufactured for political propaganda prior to, during, and post war.
While these poor rural people of European origin were fiercely independent and unappreciative of these outsiders invading their homelands, destroying their homes, properties, and live-stock for no apparent good purposes--they were too poor to own slaves nor did their lifestyle require them.
Slave-owners were majorly a minority of rich gentry who owned large plantations, and enjoyed the lifestyle of the rich and famous--often both envied and resented by poor whites. These folks never had necks made red from their toils--unless it was from too long rides fox-hunting or traveling too legislate.
Poor whites who did not eek out a miniscule living, as is always the case, were used and abused by the rich--often in much the same ways or worse than were black slaves. Sharecropping whites were just another practical name for slavery.
However, as a result of the Civil War, many of these poor people gained a hatred for the North and for all of the symbols over which they had been required to sacrifice so much--including the institutions of slavery. Further, many of them had found positions or leadership and personal gain from their military service, and liked it. They put their skills to use rebel-rousing and inciting and punishing Northern Sympathizers, Carpetbaggers, and former black slaves. Perhaps it was from this that the Rebel Flag gained its most-entrenched associations with racism. Still, people with red necks, were not much a part of these symbols.
It was during the Civil Rights movements in the South when I first heard the term rednecks applied with a racist-intent. This came from black people,and Northerner would-be Civil Rights workers, accept for their failure to do anything but talk--who seemingly wanted to apply a broad racist brush to Southerners apparently lacking a suitable counter racial slur to describe white people. It was used alongside Honky, which did not stick so well as did Redneck. The association with the rebel flag was still only abstract, however.
Again, aided by Hollywood, such show as The Dukes or Hazard, used many of these general stereotypical symbols to describe the South, albeit in a more-comical way. Similarly, country singers, as they often do, began to embrace negative epithets as positives, redefining them to symbolize Conservative social and moral values. They did not include racism among these attributes--except for a few White Supremacists and KKK'ers, who were as always--representative of only a minority of Southerners. Very few mainstream Southerners have ever identified themselves by condoning racism. And even though the term Redneck has been embraced my some white people as a symbol of Conservative Christian values--those values do not include racism. Whether or not a person is truly racist, unless they are actively wanting to be identified as a race activist, they do not want to have a term applied to them that implies that they are narrow-minded, uneducated, or racially bigoted. However, this disparity in the meaning of the term redneck, is often mistaken to mean this. This is one problem regarding slang. Meanings are not agreed upon.
So it does not surprise me the personalities such a Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton who came to notoriety as racial activists, while their respective racial groups were using this term, Redneck, as a racist term to describe their white opposition embodied by their own stereotypical racist white people--many good and decent white people were merely using the term to describe themselves as good, hardworking, socially-Conservative, morally-based, unassuming, working class, white people. This is, after-all,all bit in a derogatory way, to whom the original reference was made. Herein we have a classic cultural misunderstanding of a slang term. But who are the racists in this application or misapplication of the term?
We are seeing a lot of comparisons in the media--by far and away with this particular slant--not because this is all they can find, but this is what they feel can further devide along racial lines. There are numberous cases where the race toles are reversed, but why get into a pissing contest?
The simple fact is that two different cases, different juries, different judges, different personalities, different players altogether arrive at different conclusions.
My guess here is that this judge leans toward being antigun, so she wanted to throw the book at this lady. Judges should NOT be predisposed in their views. Most try not to be. But some still are. Regardless, if this lady did not have elect to have a jury decide her fate, she could have and probabl shold have.
If the facts are as cut and dry as this "reporter" makes it out to be--and I am guessing that it is NOT, it is indeed unfortunate for her. She probably should have begun with a stand your ground defense. Her case can and should be appealed. George Zimmerman also had to deal with the cumbersome wheels of the justice system.
But I mean, really, what is the point of this article? Is it to somehow indicate that these cases are in any way related? Is it suppose to say that George Zimmerman should have been found guilty and locked up? Is it suppose to sya that this lady should have gotten off? Is it to say that a domestic dispute is the same as what happened with Zimmerman and Trayvon martin? What?
All I can get out of this is an attempt to sew dischord and racial divison. I feel so sad for Trayvon Martin and his family. I feel sad for Zimmerman and his family. I feel bad for this lady. Okay, so we all feel bad. Now, do we feel better?
1. George Zimmerman was part of an organized and recognized
Neighborhood Watch. He had had some training this capacity. The Neighborhood Watch had been
legally formed in response to real crime problems. George Zimmerman was legally
authorized to carry a gun for his own self-protection. He was the Captain of
the neighborhood watch. He observed someone whom he did not recognize, whom he
felt was out of place, and whom he felt was behaving suspiciously. This person
was wearing a hoodie, which reminded Zimmerman of those criminals who had been
causing problems in the community. So Zimmerman followed him. Zimmerman called
the police dispatcher, who rightly told Zimmerman to disengage from following,
because a police car had been dispatched.
2. If Zimmerman did NOT stop following this young man, then
he made a major error. Was it criminal? Maybe. Was it malicious? I don't think
so. Was it racially motivated? I cannot see that it was. Was race a factor.
Probably, in that this young man fit the description of those who had
purportedly been wreaking havoc upon this neighborhood. Was it a poor judgment?
Obviously. Was it stupid? Absolutely--in hindsight.
3. Trayvon Martin was in an unfamiliar neighborhood. But he
had every right to be doing what he was doing while crossing through the
neighborhood. He was doing nothing wrong. He had been to the store to buy a
soft drink and candy. He saw a white guy following him. Likely because he was
afraid and suspicious of the motives of this older fat white or Hispanic guy
following him, he was hiding along the side of the building and had his hoodie
up. It is not illegal to wear a hoodie, it was afteral said to be raining.
Placing myself in this young man's shoes, I can understand how he may have felt
that having his hoodie up could have been advantageous while assessing the
perceived threat of being followed by this unknown man. He man have felt that
his youth was a disadvantage and concealing himself would make him a more
formidable victim to a potential assault. Or he may have simply been aggravated
that Zimmerman was following him--for whatever reason. He was doing nothing
illegal. Even if he had suspected that the guy was part of a neighborhood watch
and have been aggravated by being wrongly suspected of wrongdoing--it would be
understandable--bur really, how could he have known this? Indications are that
he did not.
4. At this point, with George Zimmerman being the only
surviving witness, only HE knows what happened during the confrontation. He
claimed, with some authority as the Captain of the Neighborhood Watch, that
Martin ambushed him while he was on his way back to his car, as I understand
it. The only part of this that I find to be suspect, is whether or not he had truly disengaged from following
this kid. To me, it is pretty apparent that the kid did indeed attack him and
was apparently kicking his ass.
5. Much has been said about self-defense in this case. In my
personal estimation, having taught self-defense classes, I can see how this
mere teenager, who had apparently been in confrontations before and had some
sense of how to preserve oneself, chose to confront his perceived nemesis on
his own terms, which is often strategically advantageous. If Zimmerman was
still following him, I can fully understand how Martin would have felt
compelled and justified in jumping him. I mean, what right did the this fat guy
have to be bothering this kid at all? Had he identified himself as the Captain
of the Neighborhood Watch? No, not according to what I have heard. So when we
invoke self-defense, we would almost be splitting hairs to say that Martin did
not have a right to confront Zimmerman--a fat-ass over-zealous white guy--if
indeed he was still pursuing him. It was dark and no one else was around. For
crying out loud, if Zimmerman had the right to use deadly force and kill this
kid because he felt his life or limb was in danger--did not Trayvon Martin have
a similar right to physically confront, smack, or constrain this unknown fat
potential assailant--for the same reasons. If a reasonable person had been in
the place of this kid, armed only with a beverage and candy, in an unfamiliar
neighborhood, would he not have reasonably felt that his own life and limb was
in danger? In my estimation, although it was obviously, again in hindsight, the
wrong thing to do--was it not a reasonable reaction to resort to physically
protection--albeit, proactively? What would you have done? The wrong thing, or
something else?
In most self-defense instruction, we are taught to never
allow yourself to become a victim, to not hesitate, to act decisively and
harshly when it comes to protecting yourself. Martin may have learned this
precept on the streets. He may have learned it in a self-defense class. He may
have learned it on TV. He may have acted instinctively. But if he reasonably
thought that his life or limb was in danger--his own self-defensive actions
would be condoned by many self-defense instructors. However, in this case, it
led to his death.
6. Local Law-Enforcement examined the evidence. They quickly
came to the conclusion that according to the evidence available and according
to the law, that they had no choice but to release George Zimmerman. It is
likely that Zimmerman's reputation as a good and solid citizen with evident
good intent figured into this equation. But the available facts are what they
based their decision to release Zimmerman on. Undoubtedly, they recognized the
terrible tragedy that had occurred, but by simply following and interpreting
the laws, they did not have sufficient evidence--none that is--to indicate that
Zimmerman had not acted in self-defense. They let him go. My guess is that
Zimmerman's life had already been ruined by this terrible event--but there is
no indication other that Zimmerman MAY have made a bad decision. He had not
acted hatefully. He had not acted unreasonably. He had screwed up big time. He
had killed an innocent kid. But the law recognizes that such things can happen.
It was a big tragic mistake. Local Law Enforcement acted correctly. This is now
more clear than ever.
7. Trayvon Martin's family was understandably upset. They had
every right to be; as parents, they had
every right to question and delve into the circumstances of the case. They
should have. To not have done so would have been negligent.
8. The media jumped all over this. They intentionally
distorted the facts and misrepresented the circumstances. Why? I can only
speculate. Maybe the Liberal Media mindset caused them to see sinister motives
where none existed. Maybe they simply wanted a story. Maybe they felt that it
was their duty as the press to merely call this to the public's attention so
that a possible injustice could be more closely examined. But they were
dishonest about it. they misreported it. So often I see that thosw with such a
biased crusader mindset somehow finds it okay to ignore time-tested laws of honesty
because they feel that honorable ends justify dishonorable means. Once again,
this post-modern Liberal rethinking of the basic laws of decency upon which civilization
is founded, have proven to be incorrect. The arrogance of this mind-set is once
again shown to be absurd.
9. The
politicians piled on, fanned by the medias dishonest representation of the
facts. Al Sharpton, for one, who calls
himself a Christian Reverend, fanned the fires of racial hatred--because this
is wha t Al Sharpton does. Al Sharpton assumed to know things that he had no
way of knowing about the case. He assumed the worst possible case scenario and
further distorted the facts because this is what he does. He divides. He plays
the race card even where none exists. Sharpton and others have made careers of
fanning the fires of racial hatred. If they taught the true tenants of
Christianity, he would not have a job. Al Sharpton thrives on divisive hatred
based on race. I cannot even hod this against him. Sharpton, charlatan reverend
though he is, serves a purpose. He is a racially-motivated political activist.
His hatred of white people is evident. This is the role he plays in life. This
is what he does. If there is a hint of an opportunity to sew racial hatred, Al
Sharpton is there. This is more-or-less the same role that many others play who
piled on in this case. But what about those who are supposed to be racially neutral?
Such as the President of the United States. Or the Attorney General of the
United States--who by the way--had no business weighing i n on this local
matter at all. If it is not evident that these men are racially biased--are
themselves racists as reflected by their actions regarding this case--then
those failing to see this are simply blind.
10. President
Obama has an obligation to represent all Americans. he should not have assuaged
himself into this case as an African American. He should not have assuaged his
influence as the Chief Executive of this nation in this local case at all. It does not matter if
he feels that Trayvon Martin looked like a son if he had had one. He does not
have a son. President Obama, revealed himself as the racist hat he is, by
weighing in on this case. He did not know the facts. he spoke--just as so many
others have spoken in this case--out his ass--without the benefit of the facts.
Never mind that he may have a deserved racial chip on his shoulder that caused
him to feel a personal emotional involvement in this case. A President of the
United States of America does not have this power or right. He overstepped his
bounds and unjustly sought to influence the outcome of a local matter where he
should not have. He used his power, not to try to find the truth, but to
further divide the races of or already racially divided country. How dare him
even that he could compare himself to President Abraham Lincoln. How dare him.
11. So what has
been served by the Attorney General of the USA or The Attorney General of
Florida, or local prosecutors, or all the others who piled onto this case for
political advantage and assuaged their influence where it was unneeded,
unsought, unwanted, unwarranted, unjust, and unusual. What? Millions of dollars, more
hatred, more racial division, more dishonesty, more disengenuosity , more
misuse, and more injustice?
13. Do the
parents of Trayon Martin have the basis for a civil case against Zimmerman for
his reckless, albeit "legal" behavior that led to the unjustified death
of their son? I am not an attorney, but I am a reasonable and rationale person.
I think they do have a good case against him. That appears to me all that they
ever had. Does he have any money to serve as reparations? Has Zimmerman not already paid considerably
for his mistake? Should they pursue a
civil case against him? It is a costly thing to do. He has no money. Would a
jury rule differently? Who knows. Would a reasonable persons in similar
circumstances pursue a Civil Case Against Zimmerman. I think not. Would I if I
were in their shoes. Probably--maybe--or maybe I would just let it go at this
point as another one of those tragic mindless life events that inevitably
happens to each of us. Life is too short.
14. When my
daughter youngest daughter attended high school in the community where we then
lived, a nice young man whom she knew
and went to classes with, was driving down a main street near where we lived a
random limb feel from a giant old oak tree and smashed his car and killed him. I
don't recall whether the family sought any kind of reparations from the city or
the property owner or anyone else. I
suppose fault could have been found that someone under some definition of something
was to blame for this tragic thing that happened. It was surely awful. It
undoubtedly disrupted his parents and siblings and classmates lives and changed
them forever. This young man was unable to fulfill any measure of his hopes and
dreams. It was awful. No doubt about it.
The boy chose to
go wherever it was that he was going at the particular moment that placed him
under the falling tree limb. Was he at fault? It was his choice. but he did not
know that this course of action would place him in a situation that would end
his life. The city or the property owner
might well have been inclined--especially in retrospect to have done something
to have prevented this from happening. The parents might well have felt that
they should not have allowed him to drive their car when they did, moved to
this wonderful little town when they did, or have made any number of other
choices. Someone could have been blamed for the young man's tragic demise. It
is tragic.
No, it is not
exactly the same, with George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin's situation and
choices. But the fact remains that neither of these people set out to hate or
harm or even encounter the other that fateful night. If there could be an
instant life replay where one or the other or any number of other people could
change the events leading up to this tragedy, they would do so. Don't think for
a minute that George Zimmerman has not been held to account for his actions--however
malignant or benign they may have been. He has, and he will, continue to pay
for his actions forever--as did Trayvon Martin. But why does it have to be
anything more than it was--an unfortunate set of choices and circumstances that
ended as it did--much as did those that placed my daughter's classmate under a
falling limb.
15. Was Trayvon Martin's civil rights violated? Did George
Zimmerman commit a hate crime? Everyone's civil rights are violated in some way
daily. It is unfortunate, but these kinds of crimes against humanity will never be eliminated by laws. They can only be affected by changing men's hearts. Well, after the press weighed in, and the politicians weighed in, and
the President of the United States weighed in, and a publicity-seeking
prosecutor weighed in, and the entire judicial system was skewed in favor of
finding George Zimmerman guilty of a crime--and after years of legal wrangling
and expense and discussion, a jury of peers was approved by all parties and
seated. They were women, mothers, black and white. After a public trial was
held on TV, and after a Judge made many concessions to the prosecution down to
the last day--providing an opportunity for the jury to consist on a lesser
charge that was not even asked for by the prosecution initially--but which they
had apparently scrambled to have approved at the last hour--the jury found
George Zimmerman Not Guilty of the crimes for which he had been charged. It
took them a short time and was apparently unanimous very quickly.
Still, throngs of people are protesting. Racial prejudice
and inequality is being accused, foul is being cried. Racial division is being promulgated. Racism
is being fueled. I am sorry. The law may be screwed up--may be, maybe. But it is the law--until it is changed. No law is perfect. Most laws have undesirable side effects in some cases. The overall net net positive affect has to be considered.
George Zimmerman was found Not Guilty of violating the Law of the Land. This
was a very public, very media monitored, very media biased case. The outcome is
what it is. It is also the same outcome as the local system arrived at initially.
Yet this case has and is being leveraged as a race crime. I don't get it. What
else can be done? Are we supposed to try this man over and over and over again
until the outcome is what the media and race-based politicians want it to be?
That ain't the way America is supposed to work. All I can consistently say is that this entire event and the circus that has surrounded it was, is, and will continue to be a terrible tragedy--just as was the tragedy of the tree killing my daughters young friend.
Several people have complimented me lately aobut some FB posts. I wanted to thank them, but decided it would be too self-indulgent to do so on fb. I mean, they were jsut simple compliments. They don't really warrant a big response. Still, I had these thoughts. Part of the reason I write, whether on social media or on my blogs, is that my parents thoughts have come to mean a lot to me, and I want to capture some of my own for the benefit of my kids and grandkids in the event they are similarly affect after I am gone. Here is my response to the FB compliments:
Btw, I did leave a couple of more textured surfaces as ways for Froggy to escape. He was not there this morning so I guess it worked. Thanks for the compliments, but everyone has word skills if they'd just write them down. I learned typing on my own and incorrectly, but I can roll pretty good if I look at the keys. Stories are everywhere around us--just reg'r ole stuff. My Momma was a writer and she encouraged me to write early and I did. I write pretty much the way I talk. I just don't talk much. I usually use the first words that occur to me and try to use the most common words that most closely match what I want to say. I don't revise enough. Spell-checks help catch spelling mistakes. Punctuation represents pauses, near stops, full stops, inflection, and other changes in cadence. I don't know many rules, but I use my ear. I am a bit OCD so the rules I do know, I find hard to break. Fortunately, my parents spoke fairly correct English. And I have plenty of time on my hands when I am not able to do much else. I know all that was not called for, but that's what happens. ;-)
