I totally get it- I mean it makes sense for the police to be in the streets rioting all the time- just look at what they are up against. The Democrats have slashed police budgets all over the place- in Boston they lost their pension and then there's the Pennsylvania folks who got their pay dropped to minimum wage. The republicans are running a candidate who has said he wants to fire policemen so yeah i'd be pissed off too-
wait... you mean they're hitting- no sorry SHOOTing other protesters? Oh so the police aren't protesting? Why?

     Okay so I guess I don't understand at all. I figured the police were on strike and marching in solidarity with the protesters, but I guess they've been shooting us with “less lethal” rounds instead. I'd say they are shooting their on toes... but it's more like they're shooting women, kids, elderly, and every other group of unarmed protesters. The polices actions leave me bewildered because it is clearly against their own interests- and against public interest so again why? It seems to me that the police certainly look bad when they are tear gassing teenagers, or shooting up an artwalk- or pepper-spraying students so why would they do it when they gain seemingly nothing?

     Who do you serve? Who do you protect? I think these chants are completely fair questions because Police officers are public servants sworn to serve and protect- yet are consistently oppressing and assaulting the citizenry. They are certainly “just doing their job” which is what officers have said to me at protests I’ve attended- but I think what they mean is they are doing what they are told by their superiors. Well sure but that's not doing your job is it? If they truly did their job then wouldn't they have arrested the bankers- for instance HSBC who launder Mexican drug cartel money or standard charter bank for breaking the sanction with Iran? Of course that would be serving and protecting Americans, but as we see the only thing the police serve is the corrupt leaders of society and they would rather shoot us in the streets than do an honest days work.

    Every single police officer makes a decision about their involvement in the assaults on protesters, and it's time for them to start making better decisions. Yes protesters are very angry with you for assaulting us, but you are the 99% and if you are ready to join us peacefully we'll welcome you- because you are us and we're all being screwed by the people whose bidding you have been doing. Better yet when you join us protect us! Officers you of all people should know that we need to be protected from those who want to see us shot and arrested and beaten. Some of you must have your doubts about the course this country is taking and some of you must know it's wrong to shoot unarmed protesters (I hope this is the case anyway since you hold jobs of high responsibility and authority granted to you because we believe you have good judgment). Please join us when we march and protect us when we are assaulted- arrest those who illegally attack protesters. In all likelihood this means arresting other police, but at this point isn't that really your job?

    You need to start actually doing you job as opposed to blindly following orders that are illegal because if the police officers across this country continue to show that they are not interested in upholding the law and are merely the paid thugs you will teach the populace to hate you. Maybe you don't care, but you are members of the community and we will revile you. Police have a reasonable reputation in our society- heck kids grow up wanting to be officers... you are dismantling your own reputations each time you assault us or stand by and allow us to be assaulted by other officers. My personal belief is that there are only a few officers who are sadistic and enjoy harming protesters, but they are protected (and encouraged) by the whole system- I think they are likely repugnant to the officers who have honor and want to do their jobs. There is very little we protesters can do to change the system, but any officer who is honorable can do their part to change the system much more. So any officer who does have honor left, and who doesn't want to be lumped in with the sadistic officers stand up to them and stop them- and refuse to stand with them at protests- arrest them when they break a law.

Chick-fil-A and the simple solution to the Gay Marriage question:

      Chick-fil-A isn't particularly interesting to me in terms of a (very successful) cooperate gimmick to stir up controversy and free press, but what is interesting to me is the reactions to their anti gay rights stance. There are those who simply find homosexuality to be gross, and don't want GLBTQ rights in America because of pure hate which is disgusting but at least I can recognize it as a sort of logic. What I am continually bewildered by is the lack of Christianity practiced by Christians who try to claim GLBTQ rights are against their religion, so maybe it's time to stop thumping your bible long enough to read it because you'll find you'll be in hell just as quick as any GLBTQ person.

     First of all let's get it out there- In the old testament Leviticus 20:13 (and no where else) homosexuality is mentioned as a sin. “Do not lie with a man as you would with a woman” and it's even punishable by death. Okay- but what does Jesus say about GLBTQ? … nothing of course. Not a single mention in the entire new testament (perhaps because Jesus was a confirmed bachelor who spent his life traveling with 12 other “single” men?). Jokes aside Jesus did have a few things to say that you should keep in mind; first of all everyone is your neighbor (and remember- Love thy neighbor) especially the people who you might not want to consider your neighbors. Second of all let he who is without sin cast the first stone- and when we're talking strict biblical sin remember we are all sinners.

     Back to Leviticus where we learned that homosexuality is a sin- if we are going to strictly enforce the biblical laws of Leviticus let's think this through for a minute. Right now the Christians who are using the bible to justify being anti homosexuality are playing a game of picking and choosing what laws are important. Leviticus has some more rules for you to follow:

Leviticus 19:27
Don't cut your hair or Shave

Leviticus 19:19
Don't wear clothes of more than one material

Leviticus 20:9
Anyone who curses their mother or father must be killed

Leviticus 20:18
If a man has sex with a woman during her period they must both be shunned by the community

Leviticus 21:17-18
People with flat noses, or who are blind or lame, cannot come to the alter of the lord

...or for a laugh
Deuteronomy 25:11-12
If two men are fighting and the wife of one o the men tries to help him by grabbing the other mans... genitals... you must cut off her hand.

     There are many many many other old testament laws (most of which Christians are not clamoring to follow) that main stream Christianity has decided to let go of, so why die in a ditch over a single line chosen out of many and why go so far as to use that one sentence to try to curtail the rights of your biblical neighbors (whom you have a commandment to love)? When your neatly groomed (cut hair and shaved) priest tells you hell awaits homosexuals while wearing a cotton-wool blend stole (mixed materials) it's just arbitrary, mean, and unchristian. Jesus came to the people who were held in low societal regard- the detested minorities of the day- and to those who were called sinners. He was the prince of peace, the lord of love and preached acceptance and universal neighborliness, yet his followers are practicing the exact opposite on GLBTQ rights.

     Now as promised I will simply solve the whole issue without any major problems. Marriage is a holy sacrament- it is religious, and we have a very important separation of church and state. The state cannot dictate how churches handle their holy sacraments... so gay marriage should not be legalized. Neither should marriage. The rights involved in present marriage should be conferred only by a civil union between consenting citizens (so no animals, or children ect). This would mean religious ceremony is completely up to each individual religion to determine without interference from the state, and it means that every citizen has the same rights and terminology under the law. Grandfather in the statuses of those who are already recognized as legally joined, and well isn't this easy? The only issue I can see is that cooperations are people, so they might start getting civil unions... wait is Chick-fil-A seeing anyone?