Segen


What’s in a name?

I was once subjected to the song “A boy named Sue” by Johnny Cash after making the mistake of riding in Billy Joe Mills’ van; for those of you who know Billy…perhaps the debris, litter, and rotting food should have been an indicator for me not to enter the vehicle. The song is about a boy whose mean-spirited father named him “Sue” and the strife the boy suffered in his life because of the name.

But what’s really in a name? Did the boy named “Sue” really have name-related problems in his life? According to a NYT article today, the boy named “Sue” shouldn’t have had a problem in life because of his name. The NYT author argues that names *generally* do not have a bearing on a person’s success or failure in life. Previous studies showed that children with unusual names did more poorly in school and were more emotionally disturbed than their common-named peers. This conclusion was debunked recently when studies that controlled for race and ethnicity showed that children with uncommon names performed as well as their peers. The poor test scores and the emotional disturbances were more likely related to poverty or less-educated parents whose poor-parenting skills would allow them to select odd names such as “Ima Pigg” or “Lotta Beer” for their children…

While reading the NYT article, I was reminded of the baby-name laws in Germany. Germans must name their children a name that clearly identifies the child’s gender—feminine names for girls and masculine names for boys. The name must also not be offensive, derogatory, or cause the child harm in any way. There are also a set of names that are banned, such as Hitler and Osama (as in, Osama bin Laden). Sweden and Denmark have similar legislation. France passed a naming-conventional law in the 1800s that restricted parents to names on a pre-approved list; that law was rescinded in 1993. In 2007, however, Venezuela proposed a bill that would limit parents to a list of 100 government-approved names when naming their children. I am not sure if this Venezuelan bill passed.

In light of this information indicating that names have no bearing on a child’s success, I wonder if these name-laws are pointless–or if there is some value in the naming-conventions. I know I certainly would have a problem being named “Satan” or some other equally “creative” word, but I wonder if “Segen” (meaning “Blessing”) would have made the government-cut…

Banksy—Graffiti/Painting reconfiguration artist in the UK

Since I am new to the blog–I asked Augur what sort of things would be good to post. He told me anything—so I chose to feature some artwork.

So here is an artist I would like to share with you. His name is Banksy and you can check him out here http://www.banksy.co.uk/

I particularly like this drawing of hunters creeping up on some grocery carts; notice the carts are three different sizes (Mama cart, Papa cart, and baby cart). This drawing reminds me of my monthly shopping excursion to Meijer where my primal instincts lead me to “hunt” for deals in the protein sections and “gather” in the produce aisles.

I hope you enjoy perusing through his work.

Story-time about guns continues

I don’t have the right to “take away your guns” apparently…but do you have the right to take away my safety–or my life? How about this: you keep your guns—but if anyone accidentally dies or someone gets ahold of your gun that isn’t you–you go to prison for life. Fair deal?

1. What does me having German-descent have to do with the previous gun post? I thought this was an anonymous blog….? For the record, I am not German. I am an American. I cannot reiterate that enough to people. If you are interested in my genealogy: I descend from Germans, Irish, Native Americans (Blackfeet Tribe), and Africans (or African-Americans, however you want to put it). Let’s try not to stereotype me as “German” from now on. For the record–and to clarify the story below–I “look” white to other people.

2. Your gun “saved” your wife, let me tell you how idiots with guns terrorized me and my family in the early 1990s.

In 1990, my parents bought and fixed up an old house in northern, Illinois. (Off Rt. 72 between Dekalb and Chicago). During the first week, my mom’s car died and my dad headed to the used car joint to pick up another one. The salesman was eager to sell to my dad, but my dad wanted my mom’s opinion on the car since she would be its primary driver. My dad–the “German/Irish” descent looking one of the family brought over my mom–the “German, native American, and black” one of the family to the car store. When my mom got there–the salesman refused to sell the car to my parents–”because they don’t sell to Jews”. (For the record, we are not Jewish–but we were raised Catholic. Not like this sort of discrimination needs to be qualified by that. It is wrong no matter how you look at it.) They thought my mom was Jewish because of her “look”.

The “not selling to Jews” thing in the town blossomed to other areas. We no longer could shop at the two local grocery stores–nor the video stores because we were “Jewish”. We couldn’t eat at a restaurant in the town because my mom has black, fuzzy, curly hair.

It got worse. Old men sitting on their porches would yell at me and my sisters and throw rocks at us (5-7 year olds) because we were “nigger lovers” and played with the “dirty Mexican” kids down the street. You do the math: 60+ year old men v. 5-year old kids?

We called the cops on these people–but guess what? The cops WERE these same people.

After other harassments—we caught a break. The town idiots began opening up all of our mail–which mind you is a FEDERAL offense. We started to get the federal authorities involved when…

One night…a group of these heathens drove by our house and SHOT out our front porch windows. Thankfully we all slept on the 2nd floor of the house–otherwise I’m not so sure I’d be writing on this blog.

We moved immediately…the next day…

Why should these assholes have rights to own guns—and to USE THEM against innocent people—just because the mother of the family has black hair? How are these guns protecting my safety–or the safety of the idiots using them? Explain this to me, Mr. Augur (who I can only assume is actually Augur himself–how would Papa Augur know my lineage?).

I want my brass knuckles.

Issues surrounding the Second Amendment to the US Constitution have sprouted again on the Illinois campus following the gun-shootings at the NIU. Here are my two cents on the Second Amendment and why individuals should not possess guns:

1st cent: The Second Amendment does not say that individuals have the right to own weapons; it says the state can maintain a military. Verbatim, the Second Amendment reads: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Other legal documents at the time refer to the terms of “bearing Arms” as military service. (For examples, please check my Wikipedia source for all this logic at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_rights). The Oxford English Dictionary defines the term “bear Arms” to mean “to serve as a soldier, to do military service, fight”—and can date this usage back to the days of Beowulf. If we modern-day citizens had an interpretation of the Second Amendment that was correct—meaning that the state has a right to a military and not that individuals have rights to own and carry weapons—I wonder what kind of difference that would have made in the NIU shooting (if at all).

2nd cent: Ok, ok, so you don’t buy my “military v. individual” meaning of the Second Amendment? Let me try again. Within the last year, I was physically attacked twice—count twice—by strangers. After feeling completely helpless in during these attacks, I learned some hand-to-hand combat techniques and learned how to shoot a hand-gun (I also learned a few years back how to properly use mace and pepper spray.) In the face of another attack, I would not want to carry mace because the chances of me mishandling it and hurting myself are too great; the same goes for the gun. If the subject of another attack, I could either run, or engage in some hand-to-hand combat. I am not a fast runner, nor a powerful fighter. If it came to me fighting back, I would really want to wrap my fingers around some brass knuckles—to give a less-powerful person an edge during a fight.

Guess what?

Brass knuckles are illegal in Illinois. Why, Illinois? Why are you infringing on my ‘right’ to bear arms? Generally being a law-abiding citizen, I dutifully submitted to the fact that I cannot own brass knuckles in this great state—but could not help but wonder if I could extrapolate the brass-knuckle ban to banning guns. (The Second Amendment says right to bear “Arms” not “guns” specifically.) Personally, I feel that brass knuckles must be somewhat safer than guns—since you have to actually attack someone with them. With guns, it is easy to stand at a distance—and also easy to miss your target and unintentionally hurt others.

I can live without the brass knuckles (hopefully) and support their continued prohibition. I would also like guns to be illegalized following the same weapons-ban logic. This would not infringe on people’s “rights” to own weapons wholly; individuals could carry things like tazers and tranquilizer guns for protection instead.

-Segen

P.S. Hello. I’m new to Urbanagora and will be contributing sporadically. I look forward to your comments. Feel free to contact me anytime: segenswunsch@gmail.com