after serving in the same parish for 30 years father potts of Boston decided to start molesting boys in order to get transferred to another more dynamic parish in Los Angelo's. "I was tired of this congregation," said father potts. "every Sunday the same old lame people stuck in the 40's would show up. i mean come on, its a post Vatican 2 world. we need rock music not a return to the latin mass"
according to diocese records father potts applied for a transfer 8 times over a 15 year period and was turned down each time. cardinal walter who oversees all parish assignments said, "father potts needs to be content where he is at and stop romanticizing about other congregations. if the grass looks greener on the other side its because your not taking care of your own flock." in an exclusive interview with local a news station father potts was quoted as saying, "after molesting over 30 boys they finally approved my transfer. i now can go to California or Chicago. what a blessing"
ironically the catholic church has paid out an estimated 1 billion dollars over the past ten years in priest sex abuse cases including 35 million to clean up after father potts yet little has been done to rectify the transfer angst that exists with so many priests. "we are considering the matter very seriously," said cardinal walter. "we simply have to find a better way to transfer priests without it costing us so much money. father potts should have stated in his first letter that he was going to molest boys, then we could have transferred him right away."
irregardless with recent pronouncements by the Vatican that a 1 boy 1 transfer policy will be instituted by next year the problem of disgruntled priests feeling trapped in dying congregations in a dying faith may be solved.
the National Organization of Women (NOW) and the National Transgender League(NTL) have successfully filed suit in the 9th circuit court of California to have Hollywood remove all gender specific references from films including the scripts, screen titles, and dialogues. "We believe these films perpetuate misogynistic stereotypes and convey an ethos of female inferiority and thats why we have worked so hard to achieve what we have achieved this day" stated Betty Frigid of NOW. "We have suffered so much in this country and in a male dominated world. by eliminating these references in gender specific films we can change the way people think and eliminate prejudice against women worldwide."
Several Hollywood executives who did not want to be named have stated that fan favorites such as 'Spiderman', 'Superman' and the 'X-Men' will all be refilmed and rewritten in order to comply with what they believe will be more politically correct and gyno safe dialogue. According to one exec 'SpiderPerson 4' will be out in 2010 and 'SuperPerson Returns' will debut in the spring 2011. Some obstacles will have to be overcome though in order to release 'X-Persons' because it sounds so vague and no one is sure if anyone would actually go see a movie with that title. "Its important that creative freedom and movie goer preferences be subject to a small minority of people who are easily offended " , stated one Hollywood Producer "we have even considered making superman... i mean person, a transsexual because they are really super people."
Of major concern is the film 'Men In Black' or 'MIB' which would have to be changed to 'Persons In Black'. many on the Hollywood inside just don't think it would do well. some fear that the only thing to do in order to prevent the spread of patriarchal structures through portrayal of female inferiority by the use of gender specific terms such as 'men', 'male' and 'man' is simply to burn all films and scripts that have these terms. it has been rumored that 'MIB' s digital master has been deleted already and that all thats left is to collect the remaining copies and destroy them. "we must stamp out all that is offensive for the greater good" stated Frigid.
in response to NOW and the NTL and what will eventually be a supreme court victory an online underground of black market for 'gender specific' films has quietly formed and has marked over a million downloads of 'SpiderMan' with the old title still unerased just in the last month. and the United States Marine Corp has petitioned the president to keep "A few good men" as a slogan despite righteous indignation of an angry minority.
the recent success of Batman has also been very very problematic. with so many people going to see the movie no women have come forward to complain about the title. "It will be changed to 'Bat Person'," said Frigid angrily. "if you think im going to stand by while women are shamed liked this your all crazy."
im choosing to write about this because of the recent decision by the supreme court to allow people in Washington D.C. to own a firearm. several years ago i used to live in an average crime rate neighborhood. that is during the day anyway. for some reason at night the crime rate entered another bracket of local law enforcement statistics. over a five year period i had two different cars broken into for my stereo, a windshield shattered, and my apartment almost broken into(i was home and turned on the lights before they could enter). so i eventually purchased a handgun. a 9mm springfield with double safety's (one on the grip and one on the trigger) so the gun couldnt accidently go off if it dropped. i kept it loaded but not chambered and an extra clip loaded on the side as well. i felt good after buying it and would periodicly take it out to look over and hold.
i come from a gun family. several members are ex-mil and current NRA members and hunters. so guns aren't new to me. but owning one was. and i was surprised how easy it was to get one. i simply went to the gun store, picked the gun i thought i needed then, filled out some paperwork and then waited seven days. it cost about 500$ and i was able to bring it home. of course some people have to have a foid card and no criminal record whatsoever but that it. thats all i had to do. it surprised me. i remember thinking, "this just isn't right". two years later without firing a shot i unloaded the clips, returned the ammo and sold the gun back to a local gun store for about half what i paid for it.
i still respect gun owners and i like watching you-tube videos of people using guns. and on the holidays when the family is together the men will get together and talk guns and sometimes get one out to show everybody after the turkey has been eaten. and thats always cool to listen to. especially the old timers talking about shotguns. barrel lengths, shot patterns, and the good old days before lead was banned. but im just not ready to have a gun. i don't feel i should be able to own either even though i am qualified. im not going lib or pink i just feel that the bar should be set higher.
i think if i have to be 16 to drive - 18 to vote/enlist - 21 to drink - and 27 before my car insurance gives me break then i should have to be required to at least take an exam to get a license to own a gun. a FOID card is just a card it doesn't really mean anything and how many states have that as a requirement?. i should be required to take a written test on gun safety and a field test that requires proper firing and cleaning of a shotgun/rifle and handgun. simply not having a criminal record and waiting seven days is really not all that much of a hurdle. some states require a license to ride a motorcycle and ticket you if your not wearing a seat belt. why not require a gun license? it would increase knowledge about gun safety and foster responsible gun ownership. having a bunch of untrained people with loaded guns in their houses frankly is an accident waiting to happen.
for now ill still stick to shooting a paintball gun but in the future i might get a handgun for self defense. like a small 9mm with a 6 shot clip. but not until a take a safety class and practice at the range. there is enough people in my family to talk to and thats a big help but not everybody has my type of family. i think "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." should be contingent on being able to actually safely use those arms as was probably standard when the bill of rights was drafted.
