Okay, I’m a sucker for these quizes. However, this one had me disagreeing with both answers they gave for about half the questions. Here’s my results.

I had a problem with the second question:

2. Immigration policies

• Should be less strict. Immigrants enhance this country.
• Should be more strict. Too many people enter illegally.

My true answer would have been “Should be less strict. Too many people enter the country illegally.”

I also had a problem with number 3:

3. Gay marriage

• Should be legal and given the same rights as heterosexual marriage.
• Should not be legal. Marriage is between a man and a woman.

Marriage is between a man and a woman. That’s the definition. I have no problem with homosexual couples having a similar, or even exactly identical relationship recognized by the state. Let’s not be changing definitions.

Now look at number 7:

7. Carrying a gun is:

• Taking responsibility for one’s own defense, and admirable
• Dangerous and sketchy

To me, both of those statements could be true, depending on who is carrying the gun. Someone who has gone through the training, the first answer is true. For someone who has never been instructed in firearm safety the second is true.

Now on to number 16:

16. Abortion should be…

• Completely legal and available
• Restricted, discouraged, or illegal

Completely legal and available for a woman? Yes.

Restricted? Yes. An abortion should be restricted to being performed by a licensed doctor, preferably an OB/GYN. An abortion should be restricted to medical emergencies, such as a threat to the mother’s health, at some point not far past the second trimester. Also I don’t think minors should be allowed to just walk into a clinic and get an abortion. They can’t just walk into a tattoo parlor and get a tattoo can they?

Discouraged? Come on now. How many of you would encourage anyone to get an abortion? Generally speaking abortions should be discouraged.

Illegal? It should be illegal for an unlicensed person to perform abortions. Certain procedures possibly should be illegal.

Anyway, you see what I’m getting at. None of the above questions were clear cut enough to use the given answers.

Maybe I need to come up with my own poll.

Back in March I told y’all the story about my day in court. Well, I got a letter from my attorney yesterday. My new court date is June 17^th. Hopefully this will conclude this business and everyone can get on with their lives.

There is one thing that I need to try to understand before then. In court, insurance is not suppose to be mentioned because it is irrelevent to liability or damages. However, Ms Simmons statements to me about her insurance are relevent in that they go to establish her credibility, or lack of credibility. My lawyer says that even in that context insurance can’t be brought up. Since this is not a jury trial I don’t understand why it can’t be brought into question.

If she was sure that she was not at fault why would she lie to me, twice, about the state of her insurance? If she was sure that my son was at fault why didn’t she submit a claim to my insurance company? I think these questions are relevent. Maybe I’ll ask another attorney about this.