The Gross National Debt

Saturday, October 22, 2016

Jack & rack

It's not universal, but a lot of people say the best weapon for home defense is a shotgun. Of those who agree, most say a pump shotgun is best.

I'm in that crowd for non-lethal reasons.

You read that correctly. Non. Lethal. As in no one dies.

Before I go any further, I ask how many of you who poo-poo the idea or say I've lost mind have killed another human being?


How many of you have been involved in an actual gunfight?


How many of you have had to use a gun, whether fired or not, in self defense?


Could you kill someone? How would it affect you? It is seriously NOT easy to get over forcing someone to take a dirt nap.

This is why I say non lethal, even with a shotgun.


Jack & rack. That sound is not something you hear in nature. So far as I know, it's a found made by only one device, a pump shotgun being cycled.

A burglar breaks into your house. He hears that. He either has a fecal hemorrhage or keeps coming. If he needs to change his pants, then you have eliminated the threat, no shots fired. If you hear screams, you yell instructions, based on what you hear.

You might be drawing on a family member. Think about that.

If he keeps coming and you hear nothing, you know you are committed to killing someone.

You shoot to kill. Anyone who hears that sound and keeps coming is not there for good reasons. They intend harm.

You shoot to kill. Dead people cannot shoot back.

You shoot to kill. Dead people cannot testify in court.

While I'm here, I also suggest the Mossberg 500 series or the Remington 870 series as the best choice for home defense. The 20 gauge is ideal. My HD is a Mossberg 500 (and I truly believe having this gun is what kept me and my family from being killed 2.5 years ago) in 12 gauge. It doubles as a hunting and sporting shotgun. It's responsible for my only deer kill with a shotgun. Susan prefers it to her own Browning pump for shooting skeet.

Tuesday, October 18, 2016

Circle the women and protect the wagons! We're being invaded!

Blame today's missive on a recent post by me bud Paul.

I'm terrified of the growing trend of ideological isolationism, and yet swamped with the same urge to protect myself from the constant effluent tide of ignorant ejaculations from so many.

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
― George Carlin

Very sad...

Very sad indeed. Terrifying at the same time.

Thanks to the Internet, and social media in particular, the human race is now more isolated than it has been in centuries.

Someone will decry this and say "I have friends all over the planet!"

Your friends list is composed of carbon copies of you. Skin tones may differ. Joggerfee will definitely differ. What you drive, what you eat and other things will differ. But when it comes to the fundaments, yeah, carbon copy. You have the same weltanschauung.

You disagree? And what are their views on the world, macro and micro. Do they ever vehemently disagree with you? Do they ever say things that make you want to swear and throw things? (A few of my friends are now pointing at me and nodding. Back atcha.)

How many people have you dropped and blocked? Why?

Ahhhhhhhh. You punt people out of your online life because you won't tolerate their views. They are idiots and should be purged. Sign them up for a Darwin Awards challenge!

How many people have blocked you for the same reasons?

Way to be diverse. Way to be open. Way to expand your horizons and your mind. Didja feel the sarcasm?

You are entitled to ask who I've blocked and why.

I block people who attack other people in the threads on my pages. No ad hominem. Shred the argument, I love it. Make me think. I tolerate attacks on me more than other folks in my threads. Attack me too many times, you're gone.

"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." - Attributed without cause to Eleanor Roosevelt.

I block people who won't control their language. Profanity has a place and time. Yes, some research shows that people who swear are creative and have a bigger vocabulary than those who do not swear. Eviscerating animals as part of the butchering process has a place and time too.

Know also, I have blocked one person, after a lot of long and deep thought. This is someone I know personally and have known for many years. This person is no longer welcome in my real life either. I do not share the reasons, but will say this was not a step I took lightly. I'm not interested in hosting a human parasite.

My online friends (and real life) list contains people who are diametrically opposed to my core values. They make me think. I make them think. We learn from each other. I cherish them.

"I never learned from a man who agreed with me." - Robert A. Heinlein


Google "travel broadens" and look at the results you get. All of them point to an expansion of the cerebral organ. (Travel broadens the mind.)

Most of the people I know love to physically visit new places. See new people. Experience new food. See new things. Do new stuff. Come back with tales of adventure and wonder and delight. Yes, a few folks I know prefer to never physically leave their caves. I don't get this. It's been explained to me and I still don't get it.

At the same time, too many of these people who love to go off and different places also hate the idea.

They look for the familiar. They demand it. If they don't get it, they get bent.

Steve Martin once quipped, "You never appreciate your language until you go to a foreign country that doesn't have the courtesy to speak English."

And then, there are the complainers who find them furrin parts is just a bit too furrin.

Too many people treat social media the exact same way. Gotta have the familiar. Gotta have the known. Got to have what we know, what we like and what we're comfortable with. Anything else, nope, nope, nope. Can't be having with stuff that challenges the belief structure.

Isolate yourself if you wish. Stay in your cave. Eliminate people who challenge you. Only associate with people who agree with you.



Circle up and prepare your defenses because who knows what those fast-moving riders will do when they get here. They might rape the wagons, pillage the women and burn the sheep.

Gear grinding in 3... 2 ... 1-

The cartoon genius Gary Larson was once described as "anchovy pizza for the mind." How apt.

I'm looking for a place that serves deep-fried anchovy-jalopena-durian. Who's with me?

Ah, there's the clutch!

Those riders coming in fast? I'm gonna go out there and see what they want. Might learn something. Might get killed. I just know that my life is going to be a lot richer than yours because I'm trying to experience that which is truly new to me. They might have deep-fried anchovy-jalopena-durian gyros. 

Monday, October 17, 2016


Dunno where the idea of a "slam" originated when it means to achieve a goal. Not gonna look it up either, but I suspect in baseball with a grand slam homer.

Regardless, a slam has expanded. It's now part of the hunting world. There are various kinds of slams. A Grand Slam is getting all of the major variants of a single species of critter.  Some say it has to be done in a single season. I don't. I think if you get at least one of each of the subspecies, then you have a grand slam.

This guy almost got a grand slam. I say almost because he's missing one. This one.

I don't intend to try to beat his accomplishment. I have my own slam in mind - a weapons slam. It's my goal to put meat on the table with one of every major class of weapon. What kind of meat is not important. What is important is the weapons used.

Today, I realized much to my chagrin, I am 4 short of a Grand Slam, not 3.

Lemme run down the accomplishment list and the 3 I previously thought as the only missing weapons. See if you can figure out the one I skipped.

Hands - I have put meat on the table after dispatching the main course with my bare hands.

Knife - Sometimes, ya can't use a gun and supper is too big to take out with with bare hands unless you are Bruce Lee.

Air gun - Yep. Poppped squirrel and rabbits for the pot with a pellet rifle. First rabbit I ever killed. Was sitting on the tractor in the middle of the road. Saw a rabbit in the field. Took him out. Greatly surprised Dad.

Handgun - Rabbits, turtles, hogs, deer, coon. Rimfire and centerfire.

Shotgun - Well, yeah. I gotta shotgun, rifle and a four wheel drive and this country boy can survive. Birdshot, buckshot and slugs.

Rifle - Longest confirmed kill, 130 yards. The 8 point is on the wall and I am looking at him as I type. Kills with rimfire and centerfire. Largest animal I ever killed, 1,500 pounds, dropped in tracks with a single shot from a .22 rimfire.

Muzzleloader - Popped a hog with a .45 cap & ball. Wounded it. Finished it with a shotgun. Does that count? OK, then the deer I dropped in his tracks with a frontstuffer will count. As does the buffalo.

Bow - I am one of the few hunters to kill more than one rattlesnake with a bow & arrow and then eat the snakes.

Vehicle - Not a weapon you say? Ok. Not a weapon. Still, I have clobbered various and sundry critters and picked up a few of them for supper.

What 3 did I need before I remembered the 4th? I give you a hint on the 4th. Pneumatic.

Sling - I'm good with a hand spun sling or a rubber-banded slingshot to meet this category. Expect this to be a rabbit or squirrel. YMMV. I am looking at a Whisker Biscuit on a stout slingshot. Shoot an arrow instead of a pellet.

Spear - Hog is #1 on the agenda followed by deer, maybe a gator. If necessary, a big bullfrog. Frog legs are quite tasty. Maybe a fish, flounder, salmon, stingray. Lots of options here.

Sword - Pretty self explanatory. Most likely this will be a hog kill. As I am not into cannibalism, my daughter's ex boyfriends are safe, at least from being turned into BBQ.

Someone is going to say "crossbow." That's just a bow mounted to a gun stock. Got my gun and bow kills. My list, my rules. YMMV.

An atlatl is just a supercharged spear.

Got it yet? It is used for hunting.

As it happens, I do have this weapon around here (somewhere). It is lethal. It is regulated in some places. It is the easiest to make (except for fire-hardened wood tip spear) and very likely the hardest to make a kill with. Hands are not made, so they don't count.

Another hint - whoosh. One more hint:

Got it yet?

The 4th weapon I need to use to achieve a weapons grand slam is - a blowgun. Bonus points to you if you figure out the three clues. If you can't message me. This kill will be a bird, frog or squirrel most likely.

A Super Grand Slam is you make all the weapons and then kill something with 'em. I'd love to do that, but don't have the megabucks to invest in boring and rifling barrels from blank stock for a handgun, shotgun, a rifle and a muzzleloader.

Tuesday, October 11, 2016

Tales from the Bananananna - some questions for y'all

Just took a survey at YouGov about school busses. Some interesting questions. So now, I ask you.

What can we do to make busses safer?

We have a disco worth of lights that go off when we flip switches to stop to collect or drop kids off.  People still zoom past. We have digital video cameras. But getting oncoming traffic car tags in the morning before the sun is up is next to impossible. Passing from behind, gottem nailed.

Would you like a tracking system? Log on to a website and see where the bus is on the route. GPS tracking.

Would you like live video from the bus?

Should a parent be standing outside before any child 3rd grade (or you pick the age) or younger is dropped off?

Would you like an automatic text message system telling parents if the bus is running late?

How long should a child be on the bus? Bear in mind in some very large rural counties, it may take 30+ minutes of straight driving to get from house to school.

Now how would you pay for all this without taking resources away from educating the chitlins?

Riding a bus today is far different from when I did it. Kids today do things that would have gotten me in SO much trouble years ago. Parents today just ignore it or say their child didn't do it. Show the video, they still say their child didn't do it. How would you handle this?

They are coming

As Rebel recently posted, "Your opinion is invalid or REALITY CHECK!"

Time for a reality check.

For those of you who have problems separating fact from opinion, I have neatly broken this post into sections.

FACT - This is reality. The world in which we live. This is what happens, whether you, I or the clown behind you who just ducked around the corner so you can't see him, like it. You may deny it. Reality is under no obligation to conform itself to your expectations.

OPINION - This is what I think about it. It is based on a fact, but of itself, it is not a fact. Your opinion may differ. I support your right to your opinion. I do not have to agree with your opinion to support your right to have it.

THE OPENING PARAGRAPH/POST - May or may not be fact or opinion. It starts the discussion. In this case, one onus is on me to prove it is fact. Another onus is on you to prove it is opinion.

Saddle up, Pancho. WE RIDE!

OP: Some of them are coming to take our guns

FACT: This is public, government-funded housing in Birmingham. That means everyone has an equal right of opportunity and access. Yes, this kind of housing does have income limits and a few other restrictions. This agency cannot infringe on the Constitutional rights of the residents. The Rules.

OPINION: Fair enough. If you can afford a house on the open market, live there and let someone who can't, have the public housing.

FACT: "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." Heller v. DC.

OPINION: A 20 gauge pump action shotgun is the best weapon for home defense.

FACT: People who live in public housing sometimes have their HOME in that housing unit.

OPINION: Home is where the heart is. A building can be a house. A tent can be a home.

FACT: Government has restricted gun ownership repeatedly. The 1934 Firearms Act required a special tax to own a certain category of firearms. The 1968 gun control act added more restrictions. Even more restrictions were signed into law by Ronald Reagan. The "assault weapon" ban did expire, but it was the law of the land. Efforts to renew this ban have repeated cropped up. Bans and restrictions are in place in a number of states.

OPINION: A mountain is not moved in a single day. Over the course of years, it can be flattened. Incremental advances are still advances.

FACT: Government has taken guns away in the past. "The local police superintendent ordered all weapons, including legally registered firearms, confiscated from civilians. But as theTimes noted, that order didn't "apply to hundreds of security guards hired by businesses and some wealthy individuals to protect property…[who] openly carry M-16's and other assault rifles." Mother Jones. Connecticut.

OPINION: An isolated incident? A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

FACT: Yes, Virginia, there are people who really do want to take away guns, all of them. The Daily Beast. Salon. PetitionsAn actual bill presented in Congress.

OPINION: These people don't truly understand what they are trying to do.

FACT: Many bills are introduced in Congress. Few ever get traction to get anywhere.

OPINION: Persistence pays.

FACT: You have the empirical evidence. You may treat this as you wish.

Martin Niemöller.

Thursday, October 6, 2016

Hate on your terms only

Lemme make this clear up front.

I am privileged, but not in the way you happen to be thinking right now. I am privileged because of my chosen vocation. My industry is the ONLY one mentioned in the US Constitution. My business is the ONLY one afforded protections under the Constitution. My chosen way of making a living has stood up more times than I can count to legal challenges from every direction.

Yes. I am privileged. As a professional wordsmith (or as Rebel calls it, a language prostitute. I write you long time), I am privileged. I can write what I want. No one can legally force me to write anything. You come to me and want me to write vows for your marriage? I can tell you to get stuffed, if I want to. You have to accept that. Have to. Want me to write anything for you? I can tell you to fold your writing request and insert it in my choice of your body orifice. You must accept this. Must.

I can refuse to write for any reason at all. There are only a very few other professions that have similar guarantees, but none are ensconced in the Constitution.

This makes me sad.

As a professional writer, I have protections so many other people in business do not have. I think these rights and privileges I enjoy should be greatly extended to bakers, shoemakers, computer repair shops, furniture stores, grocery stores, day care centers, roof contractors and so forth.

Ok, THAT outta the way, here's the grindstone and ax du jour.



Redlining as an official government policy is now illegal. As it should be. Government should be equal access to everybody. Government is not private business.

However, redlining still exists. Traditionally it is applied to mortgages. In the Detroit area, it still applies to home loans. It's just not government policy. It is a business decision.

Redlining in a broader sense is, well, broader.

As this story notes, redlining even extends to WHERE people will set up a business.

Whacha gonna do? Gonna sue the mortgage companies? Gonna sue the business owner for NOT putting his operation in a certain neighborhood? Hello?


Gonna sharpen the torches and light the pitchforks 'cause a baker says no! When the business owner won't even open a business... When a mortgage company redlines a neighborhood...

"Well, that's a business decision," you say.

So is baking or not baking a cake.

"But being gay is not a choice," you say.

Who said anything about being gay or not? We're talking business decisions.

Lemme juuuuuust point out mortgage lenders have reams of regulations they must follow. Bakers have a notebook.


But to the point, is it ok to hate because of choice?

"People should be held accountable for the choices they make," you say.

HUZZAH! Now, we agree.

Is it OK to force someone to do something they are opposed to?

"Yes, if they refuse–"

Careful there! Loose your grip, Damocles, and your head comes off. And, uh, don't bring up "gay" again, m'Kay, 'cause that's a dead issue for me. Peoples is peoples and what two (or more) consenting adults do to and with each other ain't none yo bidnez and ain't none my bidnez.

"Well if you'd let me finish. Yes, if they refuse to serve someone because of their race or religion or gender, that's wrong. They need to serve everyone."

Everyone? Nah. Will let you slide on that one.

But am pointing out your body parts you just lopped off. When will you be storming the mortgage broker offices and demand they start making loans in neighborhoods populated by ethnic minorities? When will you be beating down a businessman's doors because he refused to open shop on "that" side of the tracks?

When will YOU stop discriminating and spread the hate evenly? Or will you keep discriminating and be like the people you claim to despise?

You got time for that?


This is discrimination, as repeatedly proven. It's de facto discrimination based on non-choice matters of enthicity and country of recent ancestry and discrimination based on choice of where someone lives.

Hate is easy when you have a well-defined target. Ain't so easy when your own views create a smoke screen to hide the other stuff that is far more egregious.

Let's pick on Detroit s'more. Here's the story that sparked me.

“Independents like ourselves have to make a business decision as to whether or not we choose to make that investment in certain communities,” he said. He pointed to a combination of the costs of regulatory compliance, and disinterest from brokers in marketing to areas where the homes are super cheap. “It’s difficult to make a loan of that size and earn an appropriate amount of income.”

In other words "I don't wanna" is the only reason. "I don't wanna" was enough to make so many of you rise in righteous anger to shut down bakeries. But when a person can't get a home...

Ain't nobody got time for that!

I may be wrong – correction, based on what so many of you show by your actions, I am wrong – but I happen to think that a home to live in is more important on the order of galactic magnitudes than any cake. Yet this story about the mortgage business and redlining has been knocking around the news for longer than any freekin' cake. Outrage much?

Nah. Because it has to be hate on your terms. Hate the baker, stage protetsts, shut 'em down and make their lives hell. But take on the mortgage companies?

"Ummm, we've gotta go over here and whine about Middle Eastern refugee rights. Can't be concerned with folks who can't get a mortgage," you say.


Hate, but on your terms. Hate those who are different with different opinions and a different belief structure. Hate those who do things that really don't matter. Hate over a cake? But you can't be bothered when someone can't get a mortgage to buy a house BECAUSE OF WHERE THEY LIVE?

(insert your choice of string of profanities here)


Yassee, as with most things, there is a simple solution here.

YOU open a bakery.
YOU open a mortgage company.
YOU offer the services and goods you keep whining about.
YOU be the difference you want to see in the world.

Rather than demand someone else do it, YOU do it.

Money talks. Bullshit walks.

Keyboard warriors? What ya gonna do?

Hate on your terms? Or say "Ain't got time for hate, gotta make a positive difference in this world" and then GET UP AND DO SOMETHING!

Y'ain't gonna do it staring at a screen.

Next time you decide to rip someone a new one because of their discrimination, ask yourself "who am I discriminating against?" Hate is hate, no matter who spews it or in what direction.

Me? I am officially discriminating against people who rise in ire over the idiotic cause du jour while completely ignoring the real issues. Conduct yourself accordingly and go find someone else to write your stuff. I ain't got time for that.

Tuesday, October 4, 2016

The woo factor

Back in 2011, I was hired to write a press release for "the enlightened K u n d a l i n i    K r i y a    Y o g a     Master    Y o g i r a j    G u r u n a t h    S i d d h a n a t h."

I spelled his name with spaces so Google won't trip on his name and show this blog. Can't be having clients track me down later to rip my head off because I expose them as Uri Geller types.

Woo Master Yogi Smith, as I call him cause I cannot pronounce his names, promised that 2012 was a "year of change."

Among the quotes in the article is this one:

“It is time for the second advent. It is time for the second advent of the Christ who was one with Krishna,” he says. “The 5,000 year cycle is complete and it is time for him to come to clear the negativity of the world and balance all creation.”

I did not make up that quote. Every quote in that press release (which has inexplicably vanished from the Internet) was supplied by Yogi Master Woo Smith. This is odd. Normally when I write press releases for hire (I am a word hooker. I write you long time), I make up quotes. Not this one.

Yogi Master Swami Smith also said 2012 was the end of 350 million year cycle and a 5,000 year cycle.

Lotta cycling going on there.

He said it would take a few years for things to get straightened out and those years would be marked by "turmoil." Some "souls" have to leave earth. Only said the souls would be "taken." Did not say how.

Makes me wonder if he was predicting the 2016 presidential election.

Here is some babble I generated from the information he sent about a psychic hoedown he planned in NYC - " Participants can expect to reach into the fifth dimension on a journey of blissful tranquility and crystal clarity. The experience will deliver a thoughtless awareness of the mind."

Yeah. I wrote that bit.

So, did anyone attend the free mental shindig in NYC? Did anyone get "thoughtless awareness of the mind?"

Other than Trump and Clinton, that is.

The woo factor

Back in 2011, I was hired to write a press release for "the enlightened K u n d a l i n i    K r i y a    Y o g a     Master    Y o g i r a j    G u r u n a t h    S i d d h a n a t h."

I spelled his name with spaces so Google won't trip on his name and show this blog. Can't be having clients track me down later to rip my head off because I expose them as Uri Geller types.

Woo Master Yogi Smith, as I call him cause I cannot pronounce his names, promised that 2012 was a "year of change."

Among the quotes in the article is this one:

“It is time for the second advent. It is time for the second advent of the Christ who was one with Krishna,” he says. “The 5,000 year cycle is complete and it is time for him to come to clear the negativity of the world and balance all creation.”

I did not make up that quote. Every quote in that press release (which has inexplicably vanished from the Internet) was supplied by Yogi Master Woo Smith. This is odd. Normally when I write press releases for hire (I am a word hooker. I write you long time), I make up quotes. Not this one.

Yogi Master Swami Smith also said 2012 was the end of 350 million year cycle and a 5,000 year cycle.

Lotta cycling going on there.

He said it would take a few years for things to get straightened out and those years would be marked by "turmoil." Some "souls" have to leave earth. Only said the souls would be "taken." Did not say how.

Makes me wonder if he was predicting the 2016 presidential election.

Here is some babble I generated from the information he sent about a psychic hoedown he planned in NYC - " Participants can expect to reach into the fifth dimension on a journey of blissful tranquility and crystal clarity. The experience will deliver a thoughtless awareness of the mind."

Yeah. I wrote that bit.

So, did anyone attend the free mental shindig in NYC? Did anyone get "thoughtless awareness of the mind?"

Other than Trump and Clinton, that is.

Monday, September 26, 2016

Life in prison, death or starvation?

Those of us old enough to remember the wacky movie The Gods Must Be Crazy, recall the little bushman sitting in a cell staring at the window. The movie would have us believe he would have died, staring at the window and the freedom he lost.

I happen to believe orcas resent being kept in giant fish bowls. Not a fan of bird liver, but if you are, note pate can be made without force feeding. This kinda thing goes on and on. Which brings me to the Rant du Jour.

Because of well-meaning ninnyhammers, a preserve in Africa is gonna shoot some lions.

Don't take my word for it.

Please note preserve said they are willing to MOVE the lions IF suitable territory can be found for 'em.

• No human conflict.

• Won't get beaten up by existing prides.

• Can get money to effect the move.

These lions will be shot by the preserve owners. All right, they HIRE someone. Same difference. The government there will NOT collect the huge licensing and trophy fees associated with a lion hunt. The animals, probably, will be donated to area tribes. That's where the meat from these hunts go.

But trackers, bushmen, porters and guides won't get paid. Won't get tips. Won't earn much needed money.

All because a bunch of yappers who do not know what they are talking about got too excited because someone shot a lion with a radio collar.

If you yapped, please note: You are directly responsible for this lion cull. If there's a murderer anywhere in this, it's you. You yapped. People lost jobs. You yapped. Lions, being lions, overpopulated the preserve. You yapped. People lost money.

You gonna replace that money? You gonna send checks?

Didn't think so.

You gonna save the lions? How? Where? The preserve laid down the conditions.

'Cept there's another one. Zoos, if they can find a zoo to take some lions.

Wild animals, sentenced to life behind bars. Wonder if they'd rather die than be stuck in a tiny enclosure the rest of their life.

Some yapper is going to ask "Well what happened when free range lions overpopulated?"

They starved to death.

Someone is gonna say those lions were raised to be hunted. And? Any idea how many animals die daily to provide even the most devout vegans with food? If you eat any kind of meat, STFU now.

So lemme hit you upside yo haid with one more Clue X 4.

Would you prefer to starve to death, be locked in a tiny enclosure for the rest of your life and separated from everything you knew or be killed quickly?

C'mon keyboard warriors. Hit me with your best shot. Then, think about what you did to those lions.

Friday, September 23, 2016

Random observationings

The is not universal, but it is common.

The same groups that want to ban my AR-15 and other guns believe the police are enough to protect me. Then, they rip the police apart for a handful of cop-committed murders.

Pick one. Either the police can protect me or they are corrupt.

I pick neither. LEA (law enforcement agencies) are a reactive force the great majority of the time. They cannot protect me 24/7. Do I need that protection? No. I have a gun. I still believe this is the reason I'm intact today.

The person accused of this attack is serving life w/o parole for murder in another community.


If you have a major infection in your leg, do not worry about a hangnail on a toe.


Colds suck. The rhino virus family ONLY exists to irritate people.


I appreciate my haters. They inspire me to work that much harder to make this world a better place while all they do is complain. If you are a hater, thank you.


I need a nap.


If you hunt and kill deer or hogs and do not want them, the food bank does. Get aholt to me and between us, we'll figure some way to gettem to my house for processing for the food bank.


This week was too rough. Far too many people believe they cannot get by without me. Far too many people believe they can arrange my schedule.

If you demand I lead, then do not complain about the direction and the decisions. You probably can do better than me. Ready to take these reins? Then either take 'em, get out of the way or pitch in. Otherwise, yeah, I may run over you.

Thursday, September 15, 2016

Time to get over it

If this story is correct, that the US gummint intends to round up wild horses and turn the land over to cattle production, then... Well, a lot of people are quite excited about this.

There's a simple solution that costs taxpayers nothing and actually generate revenue.

Eat more horse.

It is legal in the US. I ordered some horse jerky from Great Britain. It was good, but so is beef, coon, buffalo, elk, gator and other animal jerky. Pretty much the only reason I ordered horse jerky from GB was so I could put horse on the list of animals I've eaten. I plan to add kangaroo, lion, ostrich and rhea to the list soon as I get money.

France has horse farms. Canada has processing plants.

Two ways to do this:

1) Let ranchers out west round up the horses.

2) Let hunters thin the herd.

Hunters will gladly pay for the privilege of hunting horses. You say no? Hunters pay mondo bucks to go to Africa to shoot zebras. What's the difference? Hunters in the US are already paying to hunt wild and feral sheep, wild and feral goats and Watusi.

The idea of eating horse is probably causing bile to rise in the throats of some reading this. I tell you that some people find the idea of eating cheese to be as disgusting as you find eating horse.

Before you technicolor yawn, lemme point out you are eating bugs pretty regularly. Alcoholic beverages, and medicines containing alcohol, are made from rotted fruit, grain and vegetables. The antibiotic Penicillin is a product of bread mold.

It was recently brought to my attention that the "Paleo Diet" is nothing of the sort. It does not include insects, grubs, wild bird eggs and carrion.

Some people are aghast at the horse roundup. The Humane Society of the United States says something else should be done, like birth control. Any time the HSUS wants to start horse birth control at its expense, have at it. Just don't use taxpayer dollars.

I'm also opposed to spending tax dollars to round up the horses.

If you are one who opposes this, on whatever grounds, then put your money where you mouth is. Pony up the bucks to do something else with these horses. Me? I'd pay to go on a horse hunt and gladly bring home meat to eat.

If you are not willing to drop some cash to support something you believe in, then you are not serious about it. If you are not serious, get out of the way of the people who are serious.

Monday, September 12, 2016


I don't give a compost heap what professional sports players do on the sidelines when the national anthem is played. I really don't. If every professional sport in the world ceased to be played, I'd likely never notice the difference.


I am quite irked over the current furor over some pro athletes who choose to kneel instead of stand when the national anthem is played.

KNEEL - v. - be in or assume a position in which the body is supported by a knee or the knees, as when praying or showing submission.

Wikipedia - Kneeling is a basic human position where one or both knees touch the ground. It is used as a resting position, during childbirth and as an expression of reverence and submission. It is possible to kneel with one leg and assume another position (such as squatting) with the other leg. 

When does one kneel? When showing respect to a superior. To show submission.  Players in HS football "take a knee" when a player is injured on the field.

And one last thing for all you "CHRISTIANS" out there whining about players kneeling during the national anthem:

Christians kneel in church.

Thursday, September 1, 2016

Whackin', stackin', yakkin' and put up or shut up

Back when "Cecil" the lion was killed, I said I supported the hunt. As expected, I was vilified.

Several people even said killing the lion was murder.

So, what do you think about THIS?

Yes, Zimbabwe later said it won't cull lions. Backtrack much? Negative publicity has made African governments back up more than once. When the keyboard warriors move on to the next Cause du Jour, the African governments quietly go back to what they originally planned.


How? Where?

Try this.  "There is basically no more space left in Africa for a new viable population of lions."

The outcry over the lion hunt is condemning far more of these beasts to death without the financial remuneration which comes from a paid hunt. If you are one of those who bitched and screamed and whined, then YOU are responsible for these critters' deaths. And more of 'em too boot.

So. How does it feel to be a murderer? Keep reading, I splain. Call it huntersplaining if you will.

While I'm on the subject, read these (except you won't because they directly and with evidence aforethought contradict your weltanschauung)


“Whenever I donate a hunting trip for the Children's Leukemia Foundation, Ronald McDonald Cancer House, all these children's charities, I offer the anti-hunters an opportunity: if you donate more to the children's charity than the hunters donate we won't go hunting.”
Ted Nugent

How much have you contributed?

This is, bluntly, economics. Are the animals worth more alive or dead? The qualified answer, I 'splain below, is they are worth more when they are hunted. "And in other places, the fees derived from legalized trophy hunting can fund important conservation efforts on the ground. As WWF researcher Robin Naidoo points out in a new paper in the journal Conservation Biology, the Western opposition to trophy hunting is a bit ironic given how much funding legal hunting generates for wildlife management and conservation in North America."

And "The results suggest that most conservancies need both hunting and ecotourism to benefit from their wildlife. Between 2003 and 2010, ecotourism benefits were larger than those from hunting, while hunting overshadowed ecotourism from 2010 onward. Hunting allowed payments and non-financial benefits (i.e. meat) to accumulate faster than ecotourism did, though ecotourism-related salaries have grown ten times faster than have those from hunting-related jobs."

And "Of 52 conservancies that had any sort of financial benefit from wildlife (that is, their income was higher than their expenses), more than half derived all or almost all those benefits from hunting. Just six were wholly or mostly reliant on ecotourism, while 18 conservancies benefited equally from both activities." Again, few hard numbers, but this piece contradicts the NPR article.

So, if you object to trophy hunting, how much are you sending these African communities? Cash. Hard dollars. Money. Moral support does not feed hungry children. Lion and elephant steaks feed hungry children.


You. Are. The. Problem. You are the reason lions, elephants and other animals are killed.

You. The person reading this. Me, the person writing this. All those hungry children in Africa. There's the problem.

Larry and Andy Wachowski nailed this one in The Matrix. "'I'd like to share a revelation I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with their surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to another area, and you multiply, and you multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You are a plague, and we are the cure."

Not a new statement. Scott Westerfeld said the same thing, "...humanity is a disease, a cancer on the body of the world.” Similar statements appear in Red Dwarf, by Dave Foreman and many others.

There's a harsh truth for you.

The NGS article puts this slightly less plainly.  "Culling is a management tool that may be used for many species. That includes: elephants, lions, kangaroos, and deer, basically animals that have very little natural control mechanisms other than disease and starvation, and that are now bounded by human settlements and live in smaller areas than they did historically."

In other words, PEOPLE are pushing animals. We shove them into ever more tiny habitats. They are not free to roam, hunt and naturally control their own numbers. Animals move. When they move, they bring their diseases, habits and ability to reproduce with them. They ruin crops grown to feed you and me. They attack people and pets. "Mountain lion attacks on people apparently increased dramatically since 1986."

Animals behave like animals. They do not respect man's boundaries.

More people means less room for animals. When animals run out of room, they run out of food, be that other animals or vegetation. They move to find more food. Food is highly concentrated around people.

Because I like simple things, and like to make things simple, I tell you there is a simple solution to this. You can support the people, which means killing the animals that threaten the people or you can support the animals, which means the people have got to go. I'm seriously leaning toward fewer people.

Compromise? On a large scale it does not work. Micro scale, it can and does work. Wildlife does not operate on a microscope, neither does humanity as a whole.


I say revise your thinking. Many will not. In the face of empirical evidence, people will double-down and entrench deeper. 

Reality is under no obligation to conform to your beliefs. Reject it and get run over. Let Darwin rule. Which solves some problems mentioned above.

Trophy hunting is NOT the problem.  "However, impoverished Africans are killing lions at a rate estimated at five to 10 times the number of lions killed from trophy hunting, and the hunts take place almost entirely within national parks and other 'protected' areas." "Kenya’s much-praised ban on hunting, in fact, has had an impact opposite to its intent: wild animals are disappearing at an accelerating rate."

Botswana has a hunting ban, about 2.5 years old now. Many are asking the bank be lifted.

The third option is to starve, people and animals. Elephants starve to death naturally. Their teeth wear down and they cannot eat. Many other critters also starve to death.

I'm told by some anti-hunters and animal rights activists, this is natural. Let nature run its course.

Lemme axe you this: Which is more cruel? Starving to death or being killed by a hunter? Careful how you answer because whatever you say may be used as a Clue x 4 on you.


Cut out the extraneous parts. Let's get right down to it.

"If you want to save a species, simply decide to eat it. Then it will be managed - like chickens, like turkeys, like deer, like Canadian geese."
Ted Nugent

That is the reality. When people are trying to make a living and protect what is theirs, animals have an economic value. The highest economic value will be protected. If animals are worth the most as trophies, the community will guard them for licensed hunters. If the animals are worth the most as parts on the black market, poachers will kill every one they can find. If the animals are worth the most as a tourist attraction, then hunting of all kinds won't be allowed.

It's money. Period.

Free-roaming animals may bring in tourist dollars, but if that does not offset the crop, livestock and other damage created by the free-roaming critters, they will be killed. 

Your call. Your wallet. You decide.

Friday, August 26, 2016

Where for art thou rights?

This one covers a lot of different ground.

At issue is this monkey and whether or not he holds the copyright to the images. The author of this Quartz piece is "a law professor at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law. He is an expert in constitutional law and received his J.D. from Harvard Law School." He also believes animals have rights.

A Constitution expert (as many people claim the current POTUS is) believes animals have rights. This scares me immensely. It scares me more than the gun grabbers. Yes huh.

Afore we get any further, let's get this clear. There is a gulf of distance between "rights" and "welfare." I happen to be bang up against animal welfare. Don't be cruel. Don't mistreat 'em. Abuse animals, and I say we rub you down with a cheese grater and roll you in salt on second offense. First offense, a good caning suffices. Hunting is not abuse, unless the same rule is applied to animals. (I 'splain, keep reading).

Rights goes (go?) much further. Rights requires the entity having the rights to be able to understand right from wrong, make decisions based on right and wrong and know that actions have consequences, even if those consequences are delayed. Self-awareness figures heavily into this. Reason is the other major part.

ASIDE - Someone is gonna bring up people with diminished mental capacity. I cover this in a moment.

So what about all this and animals? SCIENCE! once said "no way hoser boy!" In the continuing pursuit of determining how little we actually know, SCIENCE! now says "Uh yeah. Well, we've got this evidence..."

Some critters are self-aware.


Here's a great way to put this into perspective. Are animals altruistic to other animals, especially other species? Other species is the key here. Doing it for your own family group or species doesn't fit my definition of altruistic (see people of diminshed capacity). That's self-preservation.

Animals certainly have emotion. Recent events at Sea World shows the orcas may be able to resent their confinement. Yow.

Talk about making muddy waters even more murky!

But do animals have rights?

This Quartz author and parasite of the human condition (my affectionate term for lawyers) says yes. He writes a decision for the monkey will "...pave the way for future litigation that will afford non-human animals the fundamental rights they deserve." This scares me massively, as I stated above. He scares me too.

Here's why. The other side of having rights is understanding consequences for affecting another's rights. As humans, we execute people for murder. We jail people for rape. We detain, fine and restrict a person's rights for other offenses.

If animals have rights, then they must be held accountable for their actions.

Try these:

Remember, animals also kill each other for food. Cats come to mind. Cats must eat meat because they do not have the ability to make a protein from the food they eat. Obligate predator,, Humans and most other omnivores can. But do cats have to kill? Could they eat animals which die naturally? Carrion eaters do and are pretty successful at it. If some carnivores can make do with naturally dead critters, then every carnivore should be held to this standard.

A lot of people told me the guy who killed that collared lion in Africa committed murder. When the lion killed a warthog, was that murder? If lions have rights, then I say yes.

Someone is going to say I am being totally ridiculous. "Animals don't think that way," someone will say. Then explain the above altruism and the ability to reason and self-awareness. Explain an animal's thought process.

"Baker, you are an idiot. You won't understand."

Either I don't and probably lack the ability to understand (likely) or I understand a lot more than my critics (equally likely). Take your pick.

Bottom line. If animals have rights, then they must be held accountable for their actions. When squirrels are charged with murder for eating baby birds, then I'm willing to talk about animal rights.

Wednesday, August 24, 2016

Aiming to offend - caution, contains profanity

It is impossible to not cause offense. Impossible.

No matter what you do, someone will be offended. 30+ years as a word slinger have taught me that I can write "a black cat crossed the road" and someone will call me a racist.

Sticks and stones may break my bones but whips and chwoops.

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words cannot harm me. Harm. Not hurt. I see a real difference there.

You may disagree. Tellya whut monkeybutt,

You write 10+ books, contribute to 40-something history books, edit & publish a series of history books, produce a dozen or so books for other people, edit book manuscripts and have 10,000+ articles (and counting) published around the world, be physically attacked for what you write, be threatened repeatedly with lawsuits for what you write AND survive an assassination attempt (or be killed by an assassin) for what you write THEN you can come talk to me about words and hurt and harm.

I generally object to using profanity in public settings and in places where kids happen to be, but today I do not care. Some things must be said. If it causes offense, then offense needs to be caused. This world is not fair and does not care that you suffer butthurt. Get over it. Move along.

I ask, is it fair for you to lash out because of your butthurt? Is it fair for you to offend others because you were offended? If the offense was incidental, who is really at fault?


Had one person, who was offended, tell me it is not the intent that matters, but the result. Monkeybutt, you're right when you are dealing with things that cause actual measurable harm. Butthurt is not a measurable harm by my standards. YMMV. Yes, tort does allow for butthurt. I can agree with that ONLY when there is measurable other damage.

Understand this world will not conform to your expectations and you have two basic choices:

Live with it.

Exit stage whatever comes next.


You do have the right to express your butthurt. I will support your right to whine with everything that is within me. I will also laugh about it.

Why today's rant? I login to FB, the source of all butthurt in the world, and one of me buds has posted this.

"I am tired of trying to figure out just what the hell is going to offend people and then trying to avoid posting that shit. It's too much work. Maybe, MAYBE if I had a complete list of what's going to offend everyone...
It was an image of Elmer Fudd, a cartoon I identify with, shooting an idiotic female cartoon who was taking a selfie of herself doing that godawfully stupid duckface pose. It was an obvious play on the Elmer/Bugs/Daffy rabbit season/duck season storyline.
Judging by the 15 or so private convos that were aimed my way, this image is offensive.
I am fucking lost here. I grew up with those cartoons. They're what led to my nickname and interest in opera. But all I'm hearing is "gun violence against women isn't cool." Well no shit!
I need a nap..."

Not telling you who posted it as I don't have permission to reprint. However, as a journalist and in the interest of telling news, current topics and journalist commentary, I am sharing it. This is copacetic under copyright law. Further, I invoke the same First Amendment rights to reprint the offending toon.

Those taking offense saw this as violence against women. Lemme state categorically - Violence against humans is flat wrong. Period. However, those taking offense at this toon need to take a chill pill. Those taking offense will, I can guarantee this, laugh their collective ass off at things other people find offensive. 

I can find plenty of other things far more offensive. I shan't include them. Yet. – Bugger it. Here's one that offends me so much ...

The picture is not offensive. What it represents drives me into an incoherent rage. If the cartoon offends you and but what this child went through does not offend you, your priorities are seriously f'd up. If you support bombing children (past presidents, current POTUS, Trump & Clinton do), please never speak to me again.

Anyway, the people who are offended by the cartoon...

It is absolutely NOT cool for them to be offended, but entirely appropriate for them to find humor in something that offends others. Hypocrite much?

Just for the record, me bud who posted this is quite possibly the most gentle, forgiving and wonderful person I've ever met who had an IQ over 100. Well, he and Grandma are in a dead heat for that title. He goes well out of his way to avoid causing offense, but admits he can't do it anymore. He will read this. To him I say - You do you. Maybe those who suffer extreme butthurt need to be excised like a festering boil.

"To criticise a person for their race is manifestly irrational and ridiculous but to criticise their religion - that is a right. That is a freedom," he said.
"The freedom to criticise ideas - any ideas even if they are sincerely held beliefs - is one of the fundamental freedoms of society.
"And the law which attempts to say you can criticise or ridicule ideas as long as they are not religious ideas is a very peculiar law indeed.
"It all points to the promotion of the idea that there should be a right not to be offended. But in my view the right to offend is far more important than any right not to be offended.
"The right to ridicule is far more important to society than any right not to be ridiculed because one in my view represents openness - and the other represents oppression."

No doubt this post is going to offend people. Excellent. If you are offended, please send me your name so I can mark it off my list. It is my goal to reach out and offend every person on the planet. (This goal does have some arcane rules, which I will not explain here.) If you'd care to tell me how you are offended, I will be glad to laugh at that as well.