There ain't no limit on spending

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

A balanced budget! At last!

I am totally, completely, irrevocably and absolutely justified in my opposition to a Constitutional Amendment requiring a balanced federal budget.

"What? Talk about your non sequitors, Baker! Have you lost your mind or something?"


I suggest to you that if you favor such an amendment you need to pull out Occam's Razor and start shaving off some delusions.

"In simple English please?"

Ok, Try these on for size.

Say we get a Constitutional Amendment requiring a balanced budget. What happens?

"Well, duh, Congress is forced to approved a balanced budget."

And how do you think Congress will balance the budget.

"Cut spending."

Yeah. Lean over this way. I'ma slap the rose-colored glasses off your face.

Then I'm gonna slap you.

Do you REALLY think Congress is gonna cut spending to balance the budget?

"Yes."

Why?

"They will have to. The Constitution will require a balanced budget,"

You do realize there is another way to balance a budget?

"Uhhhh."

Awesome illustration!

Raise taxes. If Congress is absolutely REQUIRED to balance the budget, what do you think they are gonna do?

"ohcrap."

Right. With an amendment, they can ALL hide behind the Constitution and sayd "We've got no choice. We have to balance the budget."

Which brings me to another item (thanks Vicki) about the "debt ceiling."

There ain't one.

No. There is no debt ceiling.

http://wap.wsbtv.com/wap/news/text.jsp?sid=146&nid=54257863&cid=377&scid=-1&ith=0&title=National+News

Lemme simplify this one for you.

Just another added feature of Pork Brains and Milk Gravy

The budget is approved by Congress. The budget, then, is the law of the land.

Budget being law, the executive branch of government (i.e. the president) is required to implement the law.

Following me so far?

Another way to look at it. Congress approves the budget. Congress is ordering the president to spend this money.

Got me? The president is under Constitutional obligation to spend the money as ordered by the president.

Ya gotta do what ya gotta do

He has no real choice.

If Congress does not approve the money needed to fund the laws it passes, this does not excuse the president from having to implement the laws. The president still has to do this.

If Congress objects to the president spending the money in the budget, the Congress should not approve the budget which requires such spending.

If an individual acted like that, we would call that person BiPolar at best and a complete effing nutjob at worst.

So what does the president do? He has to borrow money. Has to.

If Congress does not want the president to borrow money, Congress should cut the budget.

And we all glow in the dark.

So far, the current president is playing nice with Congress and trying to Sinators and Reprehensibles to raise the debt ceiling. But he doesn't have to. He can do it by executive order and it be legal. This is the nuclear option, which is why he's staying away from it. Our current spender in chief avoids that kind of scenario, unless it suits his political purpose. In that, he's no different from most of the people in Washington.

The problem with the nuclear option is, once you use it, it's used. The other side can use it too and probably will use it to blow your plans to subatomic particles.

Tomatoes, riots, revolutions, clueless people and pain

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
If you have ever had a garden, think tomatoes, peppers, squash, etc., then you enjoyed the end results of that garden. At the same time you know an end is coming. The plants will die. They won't produce forever.

Limited space means limited plantings

At the same time, when you get ready to plant a garden, you have a limited space in which to plant. You have to decide what you want. Once it's in the dirt and growing, unless you want to completely start over, you're stuck with what you have.

In other words, there's no more room.

The mantra is growth, growth, growth. What do you do when you can't grow any more?

Meet Remerton, GA - Remerton is a city within a city that is completely land locked by the City of Valdosta. The Strickland Cotton Mill brought about the formation of Remerton in 1899.  In 1951, the Strickland Mill and village became the incorporated City of Remerton.

For many years, Remerton has been faced with the problem that so many people refuse to admit even exists.

Mathematical proof of a limit.

There's an upper limit to growth. When you hit that limit, what can you do? What do you do?

One more story before today's point. Lemme introduce you to a friend. On most topics, my friend is not only sane, but very intelligent. I've gone to him for help on several subjects.But. He believes the solution to the nation's economic woes is to raise taxes, raise the spending limit and raise the debt ceiling.

I don't get that.

There is a limit.

If you have been paying a modicum of attention to news these days, you know there are riots in Greece. The Greek legislature has voted on "austerity" measures which are cutting public employee pay, benefits and pensions. The cuts are a requirement for Greece to get bailout money.

If Greece doesn't get bailout money, it will collapse. Or will it?

As government grows, the private sector shrinks.

The government there can't borrow any more money. It therefore cannot continue deficit spending.

So, the government there can't continue the kind of fiscal outlays it has been doing unless taxes go up dramatically. Greek citizens are already taxed pretty well.

At some point a government can tax the populace to the point where they do not have enough money to live on. Not enough money for food, housing, clothes, etc.

The legislature in Great Britain is also implementing cost cutting measures, which is resulting in strikes by certain sectors.

I just like this image.

These countries which have required a fiscal bailout, which means SERIOUS cuts to government spending whether they like it or not, all have one thing in common.

Their deficit was equal to or greater than the Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

While GDP is more nebulous than Newt Gingrich's presidential campaign, it can be computed. It can be examined. It is a record of a country's productivity.

When a nation's productivity is equal to or less than the country's debt, well, look at Greece.

The most recent report on GDP and the national debt says the two will be equal in 10 years.

Got a turnip handy?

If that happens in the United States, raising taxes will only make matters worse. The only solution, borne out by modern times and the historic record, is to cut government spending. How that spending is cut has varied, but has included a violent overthrow of the existing government.

I am not advocating we storm Washington and commit bloodshed and mayhem. I am merely saying this has been done in other places.

In other words, your garden is this big and you can't make it any bigger. If you intend to plant something new, you gotta tear out something already there.

Remerton can grow, but only destructively. It can only uses what it has as best it can. Anything new for Remerton means something old must be taken out first.

In all these cases, there is tremendous pain that must be suffered through. In your garden, you lose what was growing while the new plants take root and take time to produce. That interim means no fresh vegetables. Then you have no absolute guarantee what you replanted is going to be better than what you tore out.

And not the fun kind either

For Remerton, a new business replacing an old business means no sales tax while the new biz is setting up. It may also mean a loss of jobs for a while, if not permanently

My friend, as smart as he may be in other things, just doesn't have a clue what increased borrowing means. It's merely delaying some pain. The pain is going to have to be dealt with. The only we put it off, the worse its going to be.

Unhatched chickens and hitching a ride in space

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I can't find the scar any more. I cannot remember the inoculation which gave me the scar.

Got scar?

If you are of my generation and older, you probably have the same thing. If you are some 20 years younger than me, likely you don't.

I refer you here to the Smallpox vaccination.

Aside from a few cultures stored in Russia and the Centers for Disease Control, it's widely believed smallpox no longer exists on the planet.

To date, the last known case of smallpox occurred in Somalia on October 26, 1977 in the Merca District. The World Health Organization declared smallpox eradicated in 1979. The international Rotary Club is working hard to eradicate polio, again with Africa being the place where the disease has its holdout. That's also where smallpox was last seen (see above).

Comes news now that another disease has been eliminated - rinderpest. You may be excused for not knowing what this disease is. It's a cattle disease. Again, Africa was the place where the disease made its last stand.

Not all virii look like this.

I question if it is really gone. I question if smallpox is gone (forget about the lab samples for a moment.)


Last time I checked, scientists were split on how to categorize a virus. Is it alive? It's certainly not dead, but it does lack some of the critical components for life, i.e. it does not consume and cannot reproduce under it's own power.


But it certainly does reproduce.


I have some theories about this, none of which I shall go into here.


Here's my problem - I think some eggs are being counted as fried chicken.

A virus ranges from being tough enough to withstand being in outer space to being so fragile simple exposure to the elements on a kitchen table for a few minutes will kill it.


"Viruses can survive almost anywhere, so I presume that can survive in space as well, as long as the exposure is relatively short. The issue with viruses is whether a host cell can also survive, since a virus depends for reproduction on its ability to invade a host cell and preempt its nuclear and metabolic machinery." David Morrison NAI Senior Scientist

Yassee what I'm driving at?

No hot wings yet...

A virus can be tough. They can live in the soil for a long time. Other critters can host a virus without being made sick by it.

In the case of rinderpest, the world has several forms of wild cattle. Are they susceptible to rinderpest? There are also domestic cattle turned feral all over the place too.


Beyond rinderpest, could smallpox be lurking somewhere out there? Could be that some primates in Africa or S. America have some smallpox exposure and harbor the virus. The same with polio.

Apologies extended to the porcine crowd for raising taxes

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
Reboobicans, no surprise, are being pigheaded in Washington as Damnocrats, no surprise, are also being pigheaded.

Which is an insult to pigs. I apologize.

The present incarnation of idiocy is over the budget. If you REALLY believe there is this much disagreement in Washington, then you must be considering a run for office in Washington. The truth is the Reboobicans and Damnocrats are staging a massive play to make sure they get re-elected.

Anyway. The budget is the issue. Damnocrats want to raise taxes. Reboobicans want to cut spending.

Neither is budging off this.

Myself? I say raise taxes. Yep. Raise taxes. No. I have not lost my mind.

Really.

Let's raise taxes.

At the same time, for every dollar of additional taxes raised, we cut spending by $2.

Ooooooo.

Still object to my idea of raising taxes?

We gotta pay off this massive debt to China. Might as well get started on it. If we raise taxes and cut spending by twice that amount, we can be out of debt within a decade. Betcha.

I ain't planting on the moon

 

 

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
My paternal grandfather died a millionaire. Really.

In case you were wondering...

Not bad for a man who dropped out of school in the 7th or 8th grade, never had any additional formal schooling and was a farmer for his entire life.

One of his sisters married a farmer as well. Grandpa's brother-in-law liked to get up late, go to the store and have a drink. Grandpa was up before daylight and working.

I remember him or Grandma telling me one time it was planting season. Grandpa headed out to plant. His brother-in-law saw what was going on and attempted to dissuade Grandpa.

"The moon ain't right," B-I-L said.

"I ain't planting on the moon," Grandpa said.

Bringin' on the pain...

 It was never said, that I can remember, but the undercurrent was there. B-I-L resented Grandpa's success on the farm.

Not too unusual there. Success breeds resentment, especially in those who refuse to put forth the effort to be successful.

Grandpa was a success. He achieved it on his own power. He worked for everything he owned. He made it.

Yet, there are people who resented that.

Not only do they resent it, they want to punish those people for being a success. I call these people conservatives and liberals, Reboobicans and Damnocrats and a whole buncha other political parties.

No. I did not make a mistake. Yes, I know what I'm talking about.

They try to prevent other people from getting ahead as well as seeking to restrict those who are already ahead.

Or Reboobicans.

Yes they do. You want proof? Look at Congress and state legislatures and the laws they pass. There's your proof.

They take from those who can, do and are being successful to give to those who won't, aren't and actively attempt to avoid success.

I don't get that.

My Grandpa worked 16 hour days, frequently, while his B-I-L might have worked 8 hours. Grandpa spent his money wisely, invested and saved. B-I-L spent his.

Liberals and conservatives alike tried to take what he worked for and earned to give it to people who would not make the same investments Grandpa made.

Nope. Still don't get it.

I remain confused.

Maybe one of my liberal or conservative friends can explain it to me.

Why is it proper to take away from millionaires, who work 16 hours a day, and give to people who won't work at all?

Robbin' in the Hood

Why should I have to work to support someone who won't work?


Is this fair? Is this justice? Is this equitable?

I really need a liberal to explain to me why this appropriate - take from the rich and give to the poor. Where's Robin Hood when I need him?

Then I need a conservative to explain to me why it's necessary to pass laws to prevent others from succeeding.

Stealing is when you take what is mine and keep it without my permission. Doing it by government fiat is still stealing, it's just made legal by that same government.

You may say there are no jobs. I hear that a lot in my community, which has unemployment rates of 18 percent and higher.

I tell you there are jobs. There are jobs available RIGHT NOW in my community. But people won't take 'em. I know. I talk to the bosses who beg me to find someone to work there.

Apply by 'scribing to this blog.

I tell someone "go here, they are hiring" and the person looks at me as if I'm speaking Swahili.

Some people don't want to work. Some people won't work.

I'm still confused.

Ya want proof people don't want jobs? HERE'S YA PROOF! http://www.statesman.com/news/nation/georgia-program-tries-to-replace-migrant-workers-with-1564176.html

As the story points out, clearly, some people simply do not want to work. Some do.

Somebody PLEASE rationally explain to me why I should support someone who won't support themselves. Please. I'm listening.

In the meantime, those who will work will succeed. As for the rest who won't work, won't succeed and resent those who do, well,

BONUS: Here's a pretty good take on Ayn Rand and why and how Atlas Shrugged applies to today.  http://biggovernment.com/waroot/2011/06/21/ayn-rand-was-right-wealthy-are-on-strike-against-obama/ While I don't agree with everything said (and think Rand is hilarious) there's some stuff in here I do agree with.

Smokin' The Couples - 2 blogs for the price of one

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Run a Google search on new cigarette labels. I'll wait. In case you decide not to, here's one for ya.

waiting for someone to scream racism...

I don't think these new warning labels are gonna have any noticeable effect.

That's the way it is.

I write today as a former cancer stick puffer, which may make me seem sanctimonious. So be it.

I quit smoking.

If you smoke and you want to quit and you can't, what you are saying is "Baker is better than me."

Yeah. I'm better than you.

"Shuddup Baker. It ain't that easy to quit."

Wanna bet? You will quit. Eventually.

I'm better than you. Get used to the idea.

Besides which, not only did I quit, my brother quit, my mother quit. Even my Dad quit (and he quit a good while before he died of pancreatic cancer). I have LOTS of relatives who quit and lived for years and years after they gave it up.

Gators should be eaten, not ridden.

I also know there are some people who chose to not quit. I don't have a problem with that. Adults have the right to engage in risky behavior, provided they are willing to accept the consequences and pay the price. If you are not willing to do either but still engage in risky behavior, then as far as I'm concerned you're still gonna pay the bills and suffer 'cause I won't.

So speaking of risky behavior, New York has approved gay marriage. A Gay Pride march today is expected to turn into a celebration of what the supporters see as a victory.

My position on this has been made clear so I shan't rehash it here.

Instead I ask those who oppose gay marriage - why?

"If Christians would really live according to the teachings of Christ, as found in the Bible, all of India would be Christian today." M. Ghandi.

What gives you the right to dictate to another person, an adult person in full command of their senses (forget for the moment they wanna get married) who intends to engage in an activity that does not, cannot and will not harm you in any way?

Confusing. Arg. Lemme see if I can make this clearer.

Ahem. Hrm. Ah. Um. That is...

The Christians - and I try to be one with varying success - point to the Bible and its passages railing against homosexuality. Right!

The Bible is also clear, its precepts, guides, rules, prohibitions and so forth apply to those who believe in the tenets expressed in those pages. Right!

Yes, the Bible also says that those who do not accept the Bible's teachings will be judged according to the Bible and subject to the curses therein. Right!

Maybe I missed or forgot it, but I don't recall a passage in the Bible which says people are to be forced to accept the Bible and its teachings.

Be right with ya there bro!

I do recall lots of places where the Bible instructs people to educate, inform, discuss, review and present the teachings of the Bible. I also recall places in the Bible which say if the Word is not accepted, we are to pack our stuff and leave.

I also clearly recall a bit about some guy needing a come-along, chain saw and a logging truck before he goes in search of a tweezer.

In our society, the danger with turning your morals into law means you also grant the other guy the right to turn his morals into law.

Do you really want to go there?

As SW says FREE WEEDIES!

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Not quite.

But unless you've been totally disconnected today, you know some reprehensibles and Rep. Ron Paul in Washington have signed on to a bill to make marijuana legal in the United States.

National organization for people who can't remember what comes next.

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/bill+would+legalize/4998773/story.html

While I am long on record about this, I note here my HS English Teacher added her voice to the calls to legalize it on FB today.

Well. I was surprised at that.

How far is this gonna go?

About that far.

Anyway, as I masticated some chicken for my midday repast, I got to thinking about this.

Say this actually passes. What does this mean for business?

Whew. Good to know the brewery quits but what about the employees?

Obviously businesses can prohibit employees from inhaling while at work. Or is it that obvious?

Lotsa places allow workers to Take 5 to step outside and fire up a cancer stick.

Most workplaces I know have an on-the-job alcohol policy. How well does that work? Alcoholics generally ignore such policies. Most places I know also turn their head if someone has a cold drink at lunch.

But proving someone is smashed or at least tipped a few while on the job is fairly simple. Aside from watchin' 'em, you can run a breathalyzer and if they won't do that, $75 for a blood test. Alcohol burns out of the average human system pretty quickly, so those tests are fairly reliable for checking to see if someone is doing 12 ounce curls on the job.

In this cup please. THE CUP! Jeez, your keyboard is now a mess.

Tain't the same with mary jane.

The measured components of what Ozzy calls sweet leaf remain in the system for some time. Furthermore you don't even have to partake in order to have it show in your system. Myself I've never even held ganja, except when I tagged along with law enforcement and they were staging a raid. Not being sanctimonious - just never wanted it. But I have been around those who chose.

(If I keep rhyming, someone slap me.)

That's enough to get it into my system enough to show on a test.

Just throwing this out for your consideration. No opinion offered.

So if a business has a policy that blunts are not permitted during working hours or prior to coming to work that day, how you gonna check? Really. I don't know.

As for it being legal to check, welllllll, yes that's probably legal.

T'other 2.5 gillion pound gorilla on the block is - can a business prevent their employees from partaking of MarryHUEwanna at any time while NOT on the job? Pilots cannot have an alcoholic drink a serious amount of time before they get behind the yoke.

What about school bus drivers would you feel safe with your kids on a bus driven by someone fried to the gills on dope?

Is there a way to tell exactly how stoned a person is? We can judge blood alcohol content. How about THC content? If so, where's the benchmark?

There's another matter lurking on the horizon here which I shall dispose of forthwith.

From the above story: "Mexican President Felipe Calderon, whose country is the main supplier of

Word to da prez of Messico.

marijuana to the United States, warned recently that legalizing cannabis would make it tougher for countries like Mexico to prosecute farmers for growing a product that was legal in the United States."

I'll start worrying about THAT when the Mexican government passes laws that prohibit THEIR FARMERS from using chemicals outlawed for farmers in the United States and so forth. Make illegal in MehHEECo what is illegal in the US. We'll talk then, FeeLeepay.

I'm willing to give the same amount of attention, concern and regulation to US laws affecting Mexico as Mexico does to the United States.

When Calderon levels his side of the playing field, I'll demand the same on the US side.

ahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaahhh. (whew)

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Me today.

This is one of my shameless self-indulgence pieces. You are thusly warned.

The Ashburn City Council met last night to take up two pieces of unfinished business: Make an appointment to the Planning & Zoning Board and adopt the budget.

WAKEY WAKEY!

If yer still with me, I must bore you for a moment.

P&Z is round 2 of any zoning and land use application which requires a change to the zoning or formal action by any of the local government boards in my community. Round one is through the Zoning Administrator Mike M. Round 3 is to go before the local elected board which makes the final decision - A City Council or the County Commission.

P&Z only makes recommendations. The final decision rests with the elected board.

Earlier this month Mike approached the City as one of the City's P&Z appointments stepped down. He asked Council to appoint someone.

Prior to the meeting at City Hall this was discussed. Usual procedure. I offered to serve. Come meeting Councilman Art Eld moved to appoint me to the board.

Join the Evolution. This ain't a revolution.

Councilman James Burks asked to hold off to see if anyone else was interested in serving and to see who is already on the board. Why he wanted to know the second bit, he never explained. I have suspicions, none of which are even remotely connected to the "justice" that Mr. Burks constantly demands. But then his concept of "justice" is as malleable as beeswax at 2 p.m. today in my opinion. (Temps expected to be over 100 at 2 p.m. today)

Come last night P&Z was first on the list. Art so moves.

Burks, who has raised the EXACT same objections about me in the past for other appointments said: He is the media. Will this be a conflict of interest?

"I can't see how it will be an issue. He does report on zoning issues, but this group does not make the final decision," replied Mayor Jim Hedges. The mayor also pointed out I serve on other boards, including boards with members appointed by the City Council. "It depends on how many hats you want to wear, Ben."

G'head. Press it. Harder!

For the record I am required, with my job, to be active in my community. I can serve on any board in any capacity I feel comfortable with, excepting I cannot run for elected office. I shan't bore you with the list of local boards I'm on - but you won't find many people who are on more boards. Being on P&Z will actually help me do my job in the long run.

The mayor also pointed out I leave my reporter's hat in the hall when I attend Development Authority meetings.

Mr. Burks did not bother to address me, did not bother to ask me if there was a conflict on interest. Justice? He's never asked me in past meetings, always addressed his comments to the rest of the Council. Anyone else, he'd asked them directly. Why? Keep reading.

Nope. Still don't get it.

"I get exposed from his views. I know the views of others are limited. He is a veteran 20-25 years and he knows how to twist things," Mr. Burks said.

Yeah. Except for that last bit, I don't get it either. But that's common, for me to not understand what Mr. Burks is talking about.

I will note in all his years of serving on Council and being elected (sometimes by very narrow margins) Mr. Burks has been in my office a grand total of three times. He has only once said my reporting of a Council meeting was incorrect (it was not, the Council tapes backed me up).

yeah. crank my tractor baybee!

Other elected officials have come to me in the past for reporting errors. I do make mistakes. They have sent letters to the editor (all published without comment by me) critical of my reporting (but not about mistakes). They have even launched diatribes in open meetings about me and my reporting, (but not about mistakes).

Mistakes make me mad as all git out. Insanely furious, at myself.

I try very hard to present things in news stories as dispassionately and objectively as possible.

But some folks object to the truth.

Ripping my head off because I told the truth and you don't like it? Make my year why doncha? Yeah. I love it. Mmmmm baybee!

As for others with "limited views," I have rejected a grand total of 7 (legit) letters the editor in 16 years here. Those letters were not signed, were ineloquent attacks on another person and very likely would have landed me and the newspaper in court on libel charges. I define legit as written by a reader of my paper or from someone connected to my community or about something my community. I reject out of hand blanket form letters from giant corporations, national heads of political parties and so forth.

Because knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Limited views? Only because people won't send me a letter to the editor and sign it. I firmly believe if you want to use my newspaper to express your point of view, the readers deserve to know who you are. You wanna be anonymous, go ahead. I will help you stay anonymous by not printing your stuff.

Send me a letter. Meet my VERY liberal publishing requirements and I'll run it. Guaranteed.

Councilman Art Eld a few years back referred to Mr. Burks as "intellectually bankrupt." Yeah, I put that in the newspaper, lead story, Page 1.

What is limited here is not "views" but cerebration.

As for knowing "how to twist things" well, yeah, guilty. As a wordmonger of decades of experience with a mental lexicon inferior only to a very small group of people (William F. Buckley leading that list), I can absolutely warp, bend, fold, spindle and mutilate words.

Because idiots are allowed to vote.

My opinion pieces are clearly identified as just that. And, despite what some people think, opinion pieces are supposed to express a point of view, offer an opinion, point out failings and shortcomings and praise where needed. Objectivity is not a part of opinion pieces.

Eh. Whatever. The proof of who is right and who is wrong in this discussion hits the streets in my community every Tuesday afternoon and is on the web sometime each Tuesday at http://www.thewiregrassfarmer.com. You don't like my reporting, cool. Go listen to the council tapes and see how right and how wrong I am. Go talk to the people I interview and see how right and wrong I am.

Then, send me a letter to the editor.

Letters to the editor rock!

I told you

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Immigrants taking jobs from American workers?

HAH!. Here's the truth, RIGHT from the field.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110622/ap_on_re_us/us_food_and_farm_probation_harvesters

Truth.

I have picked cukes in 100 degree temps for cents a bucket. I know what the work is. I fired I dunno HOW many people who wouldn't work picking cukes, wanted to sit on buckets, smoke and even fight in the middle of the field.

Proof.

Now if you continue to say immigrants take jobs from Americans, we have empirical evidence you are a fool.

Poke in the eye with a sharp stick

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Any idea what this is? Hint: it's semantics

The above image is the Hebrew letter Shin or Sin depending on who is pronouncing it. I use it periodically to annoy a certain group of people. I put it here today for several reasons.

A typical Baker household conversation

Sin lies only in hurting others unnecessarily. All other “sins” are invented nonsense.

Robert Heinlein

 

 A purty good definition of sin. It ain't perfect. Like all aphorisms, it's trite and open to a myriad of interpretations. Those mass interpretations are the reason we have contract lawyers. It takes volumes to fully explain all the nuances involved in that one apparently simple statement.

Sin, according to the late Grand Master, is something one person does which then causes harm to another person without just cause.

The perfect computer.

Christians will say sin is anything that separates the Christian from God. Too many Christians misuse the Bible to prove their own ill-formed prejudices. I have been accused, repeatedly, of sinning when I drink a beer. That's not Biblical. These Christians may be reading the Koran, which does carry prohibitions against consuming beverages with alcoholic content.

 

Yeah. I said it.

He didn't turn the water into Tang!

 

Other religious adherents will say sin is whatever separates them from perfection, complete union or whatever final reward is waiting for them.

 

Rational atheists will also agree on the general concept of sin. Yes, they will. You will not find a rational atheist who believes murder is right and proper. They will also say this is wrong. Why? Because it harms someone else to bad ends. That is included in the definition of sin.

 

Me? Only if you are incredibly myopic.

Pretty much any rational adult will agree with part of Heinlein's definition.

To expand it a little bit, sin is causing hurt, harm, pain and suffering to someone else without just cause.

Poking someone in the eye with a sharp stick is a good way of defining sin.

 

Without just cause is pretty easy to get a grip on. A surgeon causes harm to a patient in an operation. But the operation inflicts a lesser harm to achieve a greater benefit. So, this becomes a necessary harm. Just cause exists.

 

You can think of others I am sure.

 

 My chief problem with the definition is "harm."

 

To give you a better idea of what I mean by that, I give you another famous quote: No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.

 Eleanor Roosevelt

It is impossible to not hurt people.

 

What is hurt? Who defines it?

Aye, there's the juncture which needs a lubricant. 

Some kinds of "hurt" are universally accepted. Murder is wrong, for instance. Physical harm is pretty easy to define. Economic harm gets a bit tougher, but can be defined. Stealing, f'r'instance, is wrong.

But what about other kinds? Emotional? Mental? Other kinds? Is being offended a kind of hurt?

I can say something that will cause one person to erupt in paroxysms of laughter. Another person hearing the exact same thing would burst into tears.

What's the difference? Perception.

You say "You need to be more careful in what you say."

What you see may not be reality.

Why? I am more offended by censorship than I am the free expression of ideas. Under my definition, I am indeed hurt when someone's right to free expression is curtailed by another person.

I ask you now, who determines the hurt and who decides which person should be hurt and how much?

Am I less of a person because I am hurt by someone not speaking out as opposed to a person who is hurt by the speaking?

Judgment call?

You may say it is ludicrous from me to claim to be hurt because someone is not saying something.

You have now make a judgment against me and your judgment says I am less of a person. 

Who gave you that right? I could say such a judgment also hurts me. 

Now who is at fault?

I am not responsible for another person's perception. I refuse to be responsible. If you insist on making me responsible, then I will determine what the other person's perceptions are, not the other person. 

 

Sin may indeed be hurting another person unnecessarily. But who defines hurt?

Define it how you will. But be warned. I'm gonna apply those same standards to you.

Pick a standard, Stick to it.