To all Muslim haters and other zealots

Are a billion Muslims now fair game? How about Hindus? Sikhs? Mexicans? Jews? Where does it stop?

I am increasing disturbed that people in the barber shop (and the barber), colleagues, friends, some here in the South and others scattered across the country,  feel free to tell racist jokes about towel heads, camel jockeys, wetbacks, etc. They mock the Brahman bindi, and say they negotiate by "Jewing people down." (Anybody ever Baptist anyone down?)

Ninety-nine percent of people in the world just want to raise their kids and get on with their lives. Yet in one very racist town in California I was shunned by local and state law enforcement on a committee because I suggested part of the 911 celebration should be conciliatory.

Not for the SOBs who kill indiscriminately, but the other hundreds of millions who want their children to have decent education, a clean and safe place to live, enough to eat and hopes for a future. Is that so different from what the average American wants?

Are we to let 10,000 derange zealots--Muslim, Christian or other--determine how the other multiple billions of us relate to each other?

I am sick of Islamic zealotry and intolerance. But, I am just as sick of uber nationalism in this country and the intolerance of so many of the people I know personally.

In 1775, Samuel Johnson said, "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." We have too many of these false patriots today who wrap themselves in the American flag and cry that any "non-American" is an apostate.

One of these uber patriots once told a newspaper reporter to go back and have the paper send an American to interview him. You see, she wore a Muslim headscarf. My secretary once opined that all those "foreigners" (read Muslims, the hated of the day) should go back where they came from. When I asked where they should go if they were born in the United States, she was at a loss for an answer.

As a world, we will never make progress until we unite all freedom loving people against the hatemongers irrespective of their national or religious beliefs.

Conservatives, get out of my bedroom

Well, D.C. has turned down a challenge of same sex marriage. Mostly, I blame Republicans (so-called conservatives) and bible-thumping Democrats for misunderstanding the nature and sense of contract law. The United States Constitution forbids the establishment of a state religion.

Yet, we take what is basically a contract between two people (we call it marriage) and confuse that with religious ceremonies that tie two people together religiously. What Constitutional provision gives the federal government the right to impose religion (religiously-sanctioned marriage) on a secular population? What makes sense is a "civil union" (not a popular term since it's been demonized by the religious right) sanctioned by the government. Union with your Pomeranian or your bicycle if you want to--it's just a contract.

Then, if you wish, do what millions of others have done: Have that union sanctioned by whatever church rings your (church?) bell. Let's get the government out of our bedrooms and back to the powers given by the Constitution. My wife and I had a civil ceremony. We will do a religious ceremony when we choose.

Giffords shooting and guns

What a waste: the shooting in Tucson. Now, many are calling for tougher gun control. After all, this 22-year-old walked into a gun store and passed a "quick check" to purchase the gun he used. Appears to be a prima facie case for tougher controls.

Let's assume for a moment that Arizona had some of the toughest gun control laws instead of some of the most lax laws. What would have flagged this kid's application? He's a loner? He dropped out of college? Nothing, I can see, would have prevented his purchase.

Ah, but if only we had tougher control. Perhaps laws as tough of those in Washington, D.C. That surely would have saved lives, right? Perhaps with D.C.'s tough laws (and a 31.4 per 1000 murder rate), Arizona (with a murder rate of 7.0 per 1000) would see 24 more deaths per thousand. So, tougher laws would kill 24 more citizens per 1000 population. (Source: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0304.pdf)

Control folks will say D.C. is an anomaly: New York which has very tough gun laws would be a better exemplar. (New York's murder rate is 4.3 per 1000 population.)

The problem with this logic is that if tougher gun control laws reduce the murder rate, there should be consistency when laws are tougher, the constitutional question notwithstanding.

If fact when Kennesaw, Georgia, passed an ordinance REQUIRING all citizens to have a gun, crime rates dropped. Perhaps the case can be made that all adult citizens must carry a firearm at all times. I wonder how long this low life would have lasted if all the citizens were armed and saw what he was about.