Pork Brains with Milk Gravy: July 2011

Friday, July 29, 2011

Saying things you don't want to see

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

Hear no nerds, see no nerds, no speaking to nerds.

I bring you two VERY different stories today and will attempt to make a cohesive thread from them.

http://www.live5news.com/story/15154990/sc-woman-gets-jury-trial-for-display

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2011/07/29/polygamist_leader_mute_during_opening_statement/

Now if you didn't bother to run those links, lemme brief you. Item one is a lady in S. Carolina who got a ticket, and is getting a jury trial over the ticket, for her display of a set of fake testicles hanging from the rear of her vehicle. As I grew up on a working farm that was also a working cattle ranch, I got to see plenty of sets of hanging testicles on the various animals that roamed the farm. I'll leave it at that.

Apply to heads as necessary

Item 2 is Warren Jeffs, the Texas polygamist accused of child molesting. Jeffs has repeated fired his defense attorney team and told the court he intends to represent himself. After explaining his action to the court, Jeffs remained silent, despite repeated requests by the judge for him to comment.

Aside from being in court, what links these two items?

Your right to challenge government. Guaranteed in writing.

They are both challenging what they see as an injustice. I am not defending either of these people (although I could work up a great defense for the lady with the wedding tackle on the back of her ride). I'm just telling you what I see.

A lot of people are going to say Jeff's position is indefensible, something I shall not dispute. I do note the vast majority of the media covering the case is stymied by Jeffs' actions and his refusal to speak.

I ain't, and I is the media. (and I am again driving my favorite high school English teacher around the bend with my syntax). I know exactly why he's doing it. There's two methods to his madness. I shall leave you to wonder about one of the reasons. The other is: By ignoring the court and refusing to answer questions, Jeffs is proving that he does not recognize the court has authority over him.

Possibly madness to his method. Possibly just madness.

You can call that a stupid idea, as many of you will, but it is a moral stand for him. This is also intimately linked to the other reason he acts the way he does in court.

Unless I'm missing something, that is. Which is entirely possible considering Jeffs is likely more delusional than a baboon on moonshine. But that doesn't matter. Our judiciary allows people to be idiots and still have a day in court.

Faster than a... Um. Able to leap... Ahhh, forget it.

Again, I am not defending Jeffs (although I will be accused of doing so). I am merely pointing out that he and the lady are both exercising a fundamental right in this nation. Our Constitution sets up guarantees to protect the minority against the dictates of the majority.

For as much as I pontificate on the "Will of the People" I am extremely glad the Constitution has that provision and I am more glad our court system upholds it. Just because you get what you want, doesn't mean it's what I want or need.

If it's not what you really asked for, you phrased the request wrong.

I am most glad that the provision is both adhered to by the people and challenged by the people.

Challenges are necessary. That which does not face opposition grows stale, weak and eventually dies.

Whatever does not kill me, makes me stronger.

We need people like the lady and her fake cojones on her vehicle. We need people willing to put themselves forward to be an example. Myself, I hope she wins.

Nuf said.

As for Jeffs, well dammit. We desperately need people to challenge the system. But when you start abusing others, especially children, in order to make your point and issue your challenge, no, I just can't support that at all. I will, in fact, oppose it with violence of my own.

That said, if Jeffs is convicted of the molestation charges, I will be glad to strap him to an onager and hurl him into a cliff.

In closing and because I'm that kinda guy, I'll drop you a hint to the second part of Jeff's defense strategy. Go read the New Testament. That's all yer getting hint-wise 'cause books are the most dangerous things around, only if you read them.

Thursday, July 28, 2011

In seach of...

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Talk about a oxymoronic paradox and other difficult to pronounce words.

This morning I get in and run my usual feeds. Crost them came this item from a lawyer I actually like and respect:

Yer unhumble scribe is trying, CB, I'm trying

"I wish that just one morning I would wake up to see that someone had posted something that convinced me that they could research the facts instead of repeating someone else's prejudices. What happened to original thoughts????" Cheryle Bryan

Gotta admit. I am quite guilty of just repeating a prejudice offered by someone else or repeating my own.

I throw myself on the mercy of the court. Which reminds of something a member of the judicial community once told me as I sat in his chambers.

"You try to make people think."

Well, if I am not vindicated, I can plead extenuating circumstances to the charge so leveled by CB.

The question then becomes, do these musing instill in you, the reader, a desire to cogitate? Or are you steadfastly chained to the wall watching shadows dance through the flames?

For those on whom literary allusions are lost.

Even now I can't come up with an original thought. Makes me wanna quote from Ecclesiastes.

In my defense, lemme slide you back to troglodyte-dom and the above subterranean enforced dwelling.

Which would you prefer:

A person to come along an tell you flat out something you've never considered

OR

Someone come along and ask you questions that make you look at what you know in a different way.

The double fist justice of intellectual reasoning.

As for me? Both options have an equal opportunity to back me into a solipsist corner of dangerous irrationality. I have been known to object strenuously when someone challenges me. But this happens less and less as I get older.

DeathTongue!

I am now reminded of something an erstwhile editor of mine said. "I'd rather lose an argument than win, because if I lose, I have learned something I needed to know." Or something like that. I can tell you I have followed that maxim unfailingly since I heard him say it. I can also tell a lie.

So what's it gonna be? Will you follow the crowd? Will you march to the beat of a different drum? Or will you, as I once encouraged a freshly minted high school graduate, learn to play the tuba?

Whatever you decide, the dancing shadows of prejudice will be there if the world outside gets too scary.

Don't worry. You'll have plenty of company.

Wednesday, July 27, 2011

Reader comments - a brief guide to getting yours posted.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Comments which contain unnecessary profanity will not be posted. Convince me it's necessary and yer good ta go.

Comments which object to the title - Pork Brains etc. - will not be posted, unless it is in response to a column about the title - like this posting.

Comments which disagree with me will be DELIGHTFULLY posted. Bring 'em. Make me think.

Comments which agree with me will be posted.

Comments that have nothing to do with the column subject will be posted.

Comments which make no sense whatsoever will be posted.

Comments promoting spam will not be posted.

Comments promoting Spam will be posted.

Comments wondering what the difference between spam and Spam is will be referred to my High School English teacher for a primer on proper noun usage, and then posted.

Comments made by anonymous will be posted, with some hesitation cause I prefer to know who is commenting. You do know who is writing this.

Comments about typos will make the author even more irritable about his inability to catch said typos before posting columns. But no ire will be aimed at the person making the comment.

Comments with Reba McEntire's phone number will not be posted, but I will definitely print it out and save it.

Getting what you wanted

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

HOORAY!

Georgia has a new law which allows the governor to disband a local Board of Education if that board is found to be dysfunctional. While the law was aimed at the Cobb County (as best I remember) School Board, it applies statewide.

Coffee County, a short ride from where I collect advertising circulars and pay taxes, is on the hook now.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/26/atlanta-school-board-memb_n_909831.html

I have two issues with this law:

1) The BOE affected by the law may be dysfunctional, but at least it's functional. OK, really bad joke.

A more appropriate accreditation

My real issue with this law is: It takes away the rights of the voters.

"But Coffee County schools are in danger of losing their accreditation! That means graduation diplomas are worthless, not valid and not considered an actual high school diploma," you say.

So?

"Think about the kids. They can't get into college unless they graduate from an accredited high school!" you say.

So?

"The School Board is making a mockery of the education process! The board members are idiots! They won't do what's right, what's needed and necessary!" you say.

So?

Teach 'em to cut off and steal labels instead of buying the product

"Explain already!" you say.

Glad to. The members of the Board of Education targeted by the Peach State law are elected by residents of that community.

The new law strips away the rights of the voters to determine the course and destiny of the school system.

The fact that voters put complete morons into office is irrelevant. What is relevant is voters, VOTERS, chose to put those refugees from rationality into office. Voters made the decision.

Voters got what they wanted.

The simple fact that voters, in Coffee County for instance, left their brains in the freezer at home when they went to the polls is no concern of mine, yours or anyone else except the people in Coffee County.

Voters, I reiterate for disbelieving amongst you, got what they wanted.

A universal truth.

It is not up to you, me, the State Legislature or the Governor to overrule the will of the people.

Think about it. This sets a precedent.

A law could be passed giving State leaders the power to overturn City Councils, County Commissions, and roll right on down the list.

For those of you not in Georgia, don't think you are safe. It can happen where you are. In some places it has happened.

When government at ANY level overrules the will of the people what you have is a tyrannical dictatorship, NOT government of the people, by the people and for the people.

Do you want someone who disagrees with you to come along and arbitrarily cancel your vote, your decision, tell you your opinion is no longer considered and won't be factored into the decision?

Not mine. Yours maybe. Theirs definitely.

This nation was founded in blood because we had no representation in England. Our ancestors' pleas and requests were ignored by the King. Our ancestors went to war to give us the right to self determination.

And now, so many of us are hell-bent on throwing that right away.

Call me extremist and an idiot if you want to, but the real question here is not about local control of a Board of Education.

The real question is, how much of your life are you willing to turn over to government?

Tuesday, July 26, 2011

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
It's likely the generation following me has never heard of Josef Mengele. Frankly, I'm not sure if that is a good thing or a bad thing.

All righty then!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Mengele

Lemme stress here I am not defending him and what he did, yet some people will immediately accuse me of that. But a number of advances in the medical sciences are directly attributable to Mengele and the things he did.

More simply put - There are people alive today because of the experiments he conducted.

Complicates things eh?

Lemme give you another story.

1983-84. Dad found out he had pancreatic cancer. He tried, repeatedly, to get into experimental medical programs and was turned down every time. The cancer did kill him.

Dad knew he was dying. But. He wanted to get into one of the programs on the off chance it would save his life and the better chance that whatever was learned about him and his condition could help someone else down the road.

The line forms to the left.

See what I'm driving at? Medical experiments on humans.

Now there is a world of difference between my Dad who was a volunteer and the people Mengele experimented on.

And let us not forget the various human medical experiments conducted by the United States Government on unwilling and unknowing subjects. One for all my liberal readers who believe in our government - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment Don't like that? http://www.naturalnews.com/019187.html

Now SOME of the experiments above did include volunteers. But I have to ask you - can a 5 year old honestly volunteer to be the subject of a medical experiment? What about when the parents are paid actual money and get a gift certificate to a toy store? Are the parents always capable of understanding the choice they make for their child.

Of course not.

Fire away!

So with all this in mind, I bring you one of the most important stories you will ignore.

The government is proposing rule changes to medical experiments on humans.
http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/anprm2011page.html

In my brief perusal of the PDF file, most of what I saw was discussion of how to speed up the process of getting people in human medical trials.

Myself, I have no problem with that provided the experimental subject is fully mentally competent to make the decision to participate. But considering the state of cognitive abilities in this nation today, a nation more concerned with suing for money, who is on American Idiot tonight and where the suicide of a celebrity is more important that soldiers coming home in body bags - well, yanno what? I think we need more medical experiments on humans after all.

Monday, July 25, 2011

Still her choice

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Who determines the worth of a person?

Who gets to decide this person is worth more than this person?

And just because you're important doesn't mean you're necesssary

I do not refer to finances here. Go wide. I mean the intrinsic worth of a person, their value to themselves, their family, their community and on until you get to the world as a whole.

Is a person who spends his (or her) life quietly running a motograder scraping dirt roads worth more or less than say Brittney Spears? Is the president of the United States worth less than a commercial fisherman in the Gulf of Mexico?

How are you gonna determine this?

I can think of a few ways:

• How many people are affected and effected by the person.

• How many people believe in the person, the goals, aims and achievements, whether or not these are realized.

• How the person lives his or her life.

• What the person does with his or her life. (which is not the same as the one just above this.)

Any idea why I included this image?

I could probably come up with more, but I'm more interested in knowing the ways you might consider the worth of a person.

Careful with that ax Eugenics (with apologies to Pink Floyd).

So, what about Amy Winehouse? In case you don't know, she killed herself last week. Wanted to kill herself in fact. Succeeded in grand style. That she got what she asked for and it maybe wasn't what she wanted, well that's still her choice.

This was news because Winehouse was a celebrity. I think. I believe, from scanning the headlines in my news feed, she was a singer.

I also do not know and am steadfastly refusing to know the circumstances of her demise, beyond knowing she got what she asked for. I'm also rejecting any and all attempts to inform me further about the woman.

Its the results that count, not the method. Or is it?

I ask you why Winehouse is more important that a person down the street who also self-destructs.

I have no said she is more important, despite this commentary. I merely use her to point out a hypocrisy.

There are people, I am certain, who will weep, wail and gnash their teeth over Winehouse' death, never mind the woman had no idea about the very existence of the people who are so upset. Yet these same people can hear about the same death of someone they actually know, albeit not very well, and aside from a "Oh, I'm so sorry" they never think about it again.

"But she touched me. Her work meant so much to me," you say.

Ah. Did you bother to find out about the person down the road? The one who also self-destructed? Did you ever see if that person could touch you even more deeply? Did you ever consider the person down the road was actually willing to talk to you? What do you really know about Winehouse and what do you really know about the person down the road?

But then, it's too late to know anything more about either one of them directly. Not that you'd ever had a chance to learn about the real Amy Winehouse. But you could have learned about the real person who lived down the road.

Which person is really more important?

Unified field theory

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Light is both a wave and a particle.

At near 0 Kelvin, helium is absolutely frictionless.

At quantum levels you can either know the position of a particle, or the direction, never both.

There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened.

heh.

Along that line, some people think the Higgs boson particle will answer all these questions.

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/07/end-of-higgs-search-will-confirm-or-refute-the-standard-model-of-physics-within-months/242466/

Myself, I am not that optimistic. Every time scientists think they have narrowed things down and come to an answer, they wind up with more questions than they started with.

Besides which, consider the last three lines of the story - "And that's really the most fascinating possibility. If scientists can't find the Higgs even at LHC energies, then the entire model of standard physics will have to be rethought. And there's nothing better in physics than experimental data ruining the theory."

Friday, July 22, 2011

Mix Master Def Gene

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
WARNING: This column probably will disturb some people, unless you are like me have been disturbed for years. Seriously. It talks about some topics that some folks will find beyond revolting.

Ya been warnt.

For those of us in Science Fiction, the writing and consumption of it, the idea of humans and another species interacting on a very personal level is a common theme.

you saw this coming. Right?

Don't look at me that way. Spock, in the Star Trek series, was half Vulcan and half Human. OK, so Vulcans are human-looking, but doesn't change things. But you don't have to go outside the solar system or even this planet to find that kind of stuff. Piers Anthony even writes about it in his Xanth novels.

Is it right to mix human DNA and DNA from other non-humans? Before you answer that, let's walk down this road a bit.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2009/01/09/science-us-gtc-atryn-idUKTRE50873T20090109

That's from 2009. In addition to that, other scientists are working on ways to splice human and animal DNA to get animals to humans that produce things like human blood, human organs and so forth.

Not just bacon! Possibly part of your physical heart some day.

Before you get all hepped about that, transplanting pig parts into humans has been going on for a while. Yes huhn. I recall when I was in high school, research doctors implanted a baboon heart into a an infant. Some folks in my class went ballistic. Myself, I had no issues with it. It was an attempt to save the little girl's life.

What about getting this a lil closer to home. Human and chimp DNA is close enough so that the two could probably breed and produce a successful offspring.

Have I disturbed you yet? Gets worse. While this is sometimes a thought experiment in college classes, at least one young lady want to try it for real. No. Am not kidding.

http://www.radiolab.org/2008/apr/07/

It's in those archives.

The lady in question was finally disabused of the notion. Prior to that, she said she'd carry the fetus to near term and then have an abortion.

French sculpture.

The question I have is: has this already been done somewhere?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/21/us-science-animal-human-idUSTRE76K7Q220110721

Telling quote: "Chinese scientists have already introduced human stem cells into goat fetuses and U.S. researchers have studied the idea of creating a mouse with human brain cells - though they have not actually done so."

A distant cousin?

"Not actually done so" at least as far as we know. Dunno about you, but I absolutely do not believe our government will tell me the truth. Private labs have even less reason to step forward and expose their research.

Human, chimp and bonobo DNA according to the most recent study I can find is 95 to 98 percent identical. Close enough for cross-breeding.

Another for-instance, human and celery DNA is 40 percent or so identical according to what I've read. I am certain some cross breeding has taken place there and I point you to Washington D.C. for the empirical evidence.

Now that you're thinking, what would a Human-Chimp hybrid be like? A Human-Bonobo?

Chimps are far more vicious than bonobos. They are also cannibals, go to war, plan and carry out raids and attacks. Bonobos, in contrast, take out most of their aggressions with sexual behavior.

Both are proven to be self-aware, inasmuch as we can define and determine it, can think, reason and plan ahead.

Humanzee? Chiman?

Most DNA scientists already think pre-Historic Europeans cross-bred with Neandertals. (Again, I can point you to some people whom I think prove this one too.)

Lest you think merging DNA with other creatures is something that you would never participate in, I remind you of a cold virus. It invades your body, takes over your cells and then replicates itself in your cells, creating more virii. Some of 'em even hijack part of your DNA to create an entirely new virus.

While I'm here and leading you down paths of wonder, lemme sling one at you from far left field.

Chimera.

Mythical chimera. A blending of different critters.

Ever heard of a human Chimera? I read about 'em many years ago. I heard about 'em again on RadioLab.

The idea is two eggs are fertilized in a woman. Within a few days, the two blastocysts merge. Slammed together so to speak. The two then develop into a single human being. But! Part of blastocyst 1 develops part of the body while blastocyst 2 does other parts. Two completely distinct and separate sets of DNA in the same person. One set may make the kidneys, another eyes. B1 the skin. B2 the brain. And so on.

Follow me? What was meant to be two separate and distinct people instead becomes one.

Now here's m'question. A lot of people believe life begins at conception. If you accept that and the notion that a soul takes up residence at the same time (a religious concept shared by many religions), then:

Does a human Chimera have two souls?

Thursday, July 21, 2011

I. Am. Offended.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Not kidding either. I am. Offended. Irked. Annoyed.

You been warned

But not to the point of being deep fried.

To 'splain.

Recently I stopped at Ma's house in Tifton. She needed some heavy lifting done. In between bouts of re-arranging my vertebrae, I stopped and sat on the couch. One of the cable TV channels was having a Swamp People marathon.

My kinda folks.

I do not watch TV. Have not done so in years. Do not have cable, satellite or an antenna at my house.

Nope. Not enough there,

Why don't I watch TV?

As was reinforced watching Swamp People, I'm not smart enough to watch TV.

I shan't go into my lack of knowledge which prevents me from watching TV. Rather, I tell you now what proved I'm not smart enough in this instance.

The show had subtitles.

I was, am and will be offended.

Shag pointed out "Well, Benjamin, not everyone can understand them. We do. But we speak the language."

I speaks it.

So?

Do you see subtitles when a show is shot in NYC and the people there speak with an incomprehensible accent?

Hell no.

So, I am offended and not smart enough to watch TV.

But I shall be redeemed. As Lewis Grizzard said, "God talks like we do."

Call me Heretic

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

.
Some snarky apologies to Herman Melville are probably due here. See title.

Get the pitchforks and torches boys!

Why? ‘Cause I am about to question. Some people will condemn me for what I write here. For that matter, I have relatives who will condemn me for what I write here.

Bring it.

Your opinion of me is none of my business anyway.

That outta the way, on with some heresy.

Is the Bible the inerrant word of God?

Got proof? I don’t mean tautological proof. I mean external proofs. Proofs which can be backed up and independently examined.

No? I expected as much. No worries.

But in a nod to the Christians, atheists can’t back up their rejection of a deity any better.

Ouch.

But what if I can give you proof that the Bible which exists today is not the same Bible which existed at the time Jesus walked on the Earth? What if I can give you proof that New Testament which exists today was not the same that existed in the first century A.D.?

Call me Heretic.

http://www.npr.org/2011/07/17/138281522/how-bible-stories-evolved-over-the-centuries

Telling quote: Warren points to another significant change in the gospel of John: In the earliest manuscripts, he says, John did not include Jesus challenging a mob that's about to stone a woman accused of adultery with the now-famous line: "Let any among you who is without sin cast the first stone."

And it's that easy!

Um. How about that? These guys at the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary are going back and the finding the oldest records of the New Testament they can lay their hands on.

I hate Rubik cubes.

“For 11 years, they've combed through the earliest Greek manuscripts of each book in the New Testament and found more than 17,000 pages of variations.”

That’s a lotta variation.

For those of you out to hang me in effigy (or the south end of town where I live), lemme remind you - This is a study being done by professors at one of the most prestigious Bible universities in the nation. Hang me, hang them and hang the people who created the modern translations of the Bible (including the KJV), write Sunday School books and study guides.

After we tell you what we want you to know.

These are the very people telling YOU what to think about the Bible. Or are you telling me that you understand absolutely everything in the Bible? Are you telling me you can read ancient Greek and Hebrew and Aramaic?

Think about it. I’ll wait.

I also wonder about the Apocryphal books. I’ve read transcriptions of historical records dating back to when these books were removed from the Bible by the religious authorities. I’ve even asked modern ministers about why the books were removed.

Most modern ministers tell me to quit wondering about it.

Not gonna happen. Those ministers who do tell me that quickly find I no longer pay much attention to what they say.

A few have told me “Well, I don’t know.” I can respect that. A lack of knowledge is not a fault, unless you do not attempt to fill in that lacuna.

Yo. Galileo! Can I get a witness here?

So the question is, if the Bible has been changed and altered over the centuries (which is what the Muslims claim), is it accurate? Is it believable?

Is it inerrant?

More importantly, should people base their life around what the Bible teaches?

As to question 1, I say anything that man has a hand in will be changed. Man has tinkered with the Bible over and over and over. It does not surprise me that it has changed.

Man pretty well buggered up the Garden of Eden and has been on a downhill slide every since as best I can see.

As to question 2, I say yes. It’s just as believable as any of the other ancient records. More believable to me. YMMV

As to the third question, before I get to that, I have a bit more to say.

Pick one. Pick both. Pick neither.

The vast majority of “Christians” I know have never read the entire Bible through as a book. I have yet to meet any professed Christian who understands the entire book. Yet they are arrogant in their “knowledge.”

Yep. She said it.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

“How can anyone read the Bible when it is being shoved down their throat?” asks my friend Andrew.

So on question three I will allow a man wiser than me to answer: “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

Mohandas Gandhi

As for question 4, is it inerrant?

If you say yes, then by default you also accept that it is truth and must be adhered to. How well are you living up to the precepts listed in there? All of 'em. Especially the one which states in order to be forgiven you must first forgive, else you will not be forgiven.

That includes forgiving me, BTW.

If you say no, you may believe parts of it or none of it. If you believe parts, why? Which parts and why not others?

If you believe none of it, then I ask how you can prove it is wrong? If the Bible is inspired by a being far above the abilities of any human (except one) alive or dead, then how can you expect to fully understand everything in it?

Call me Heretic. Looking down the road of history at others who were called heretic, I'm in excellent company.

Wednesday, July 20, 2011

Getting what you asked for when it's not what you wanted

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
"Gay people have every right to be as miserable as straight people."

Can I get a witness?

So says one of the highly snarky arguments for allowing marriage of two people of like gender.

Snarky. But absolutely, totally and 100 percent truth. Except it's worse.

What's your definition of worse?

Yeah worse.

And what happens when it comes to worse?

http://www.npr.org/2011/07/20/137674268/gay-divorce-a-higher-hurdle-than-marriage

"And if the couple's home state doesn't recognize gay marriage, they can't divorce there, either."

Uhn. Talk about getting what you asked for but not what you wanted.

Supposedly gay folks can go to a state that recognizes gay marriage and get a split there. But divorce is not equitable with marriage. Getting hitched is FAR easier than breaking the ties that bind. Lotta states require a legal separation period, counseling and some (see story) require you be a resident of that state for a certain amount of time.

Well, some folks will do it.

If the state the couple lives in doesn't recognize same-gender marriages, then the state also doesn't admit they can get separated.

Among those who so oppose same-gender divorcee are the very same who are so opposed to the union to begin with.

"That infuriates people like Lunt. It makes no sense, she says, for opponents of gay marriage to keep people like her from ending one."

As much as I like Lunt's argument here, she's wrong. So wrong. Because I am rational about a lot of things (armadillos being one thing I am totally irrational about), I'm not supporting those who oppose gay marriage and oppose gay divorce, but I am saying they at least are standing firm on their principles

Good representation of my thought processes.

Blown your mind yet?

If you oppose the idea of such a union, you must also oppose the dissolution of said union.

Because if you agree they can get divorced then Ibso Factotum Onion (or some other Latin phrase my brother will shortly supply), you have to admit there was a marriage to be sundered.

If you admit they can divorce, then you have to admit they were married.

That at least is consistent.

Brutal Antipathy is back

Warning - contains strong language and is incredibly offensive to misandrists.

Includes a link to the original column on which he comments

http://brutalantipathy.blogspot.com/2011/07/schrodingers-psycho-bitch-or-girls.html

Monday, July 18, 2011

An actual, real, no-kidding, genuine column about writing. Except not really

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

and it was. I was there and I saw it.

.Aaight. This is a column about writing, but don't expect any "writing" advice beyond this-

Shuddup. Go write.

Wisdom dispensed.

Not long ago Paul and Sabrina (who have appeared in this space previously and left a HUGE mess for me to clean up. No wait, sorry, that was the cat) penned a piece about the numerous MS rejections they've received from publishing houses and agents.

Paul opined that he wished they'd provide some advice. He said he'd also be willing to pay actual cash, real money, dinero, moola, you get the idea if the rejecting person would only provide SOME meaningful feedback, even a paragraph. http://writeryourbabyisugly.blogspot.com/2011/07/i-love-twitter.html

In the comments section, I did post (and it has vanished for some reason) I did not agree. I said such people who'd charge for that kinda thing deserved unpleasant things.

A better option no doubt.

Not long afterward, Paul asked me to edit a MS he and Sabrina are writing. Nonwithstanding the bills Paul and exwife No. 1 left when they weekend highballed out of the house we shared in college (I forgive you Paul), I agreed to edit the MS.

There's just some things you do for friends. Paul is one such. Sabrina, I hope, will become one. I really really want to list the other people here whom I'd call at 2 a.m. and the first words out of their mouth will be "Do I need to bring you a shovel too" but I know I'll leave someone out. But, these people know who they are. If you're not in the list, then you don't need to know who they are.

Damn. I do tend to ramble don't I?

Shuddup. No comments from the peanut gallery needed. Go write. But finish reading this first.

I have now edited the MS. I have learned a few things about horses. I also hoped I improved their MS. Whether I did or not remains to be seen. Judging from the language included in reply emails from P&S, I did improve the MS according to them. Writers don't use language like that about the editing of their work unless it's a good edit. If it's a bad edit, the language is directed at the editor.

If the truth hurts, I'm probably telling it to someone.

It took me hours. A lot. I don't begrudge the work.

Understand I could read a novel of the size they wrote in an evening. But that's reading.

I still do not begrudge the effort.

Canya bleed for me baby?

I was editing. I was looking at each single word, instead of speed reading. I was comparing, contrasting, evaluating and looking at the whole as well as the individual parts and seeing if everything added up to what it was supposed to be.

Did it add up? Not gonna tell you. Is not my place to. Such editing is a private affair between editor and author unless the author chooses to text risque photos about the process so that tabloids can hack the account and publish the lurid details.

What I will tell you is: I have about-face my opinion on editors-for-hire and paying for advice on a MS. Sort of.

I have long believed that editors are needed. I said that before I became one. As an editor, I still need someone to edit my work.

I has 3 typewriters. They work too.

I also believe that editors at publishing houses are needed. They also need to get paid for their work. Always have had that opinion.

My change came about for freelance editing, which is what I did for P&S. Previously, I felt such people were little more than parasites, a step or two above lawyers.

Now, having invested 24 or so hours in editing S&P's (Sabrina, you get first billing too) work, I disagree.

Such editors deserved to be paid. The trick is finding an editor who is worth the pay.

You can, like P&S get non-writer friends to edit the piece. They will likely tell you "I liked it" and not much else. Chances are beyond high that you are not going to get substantive feedback from them. It is not completely useless. It can serve as a bad example. I have plenty of bad examples of that kind. Even from fellow writers.

I deliver

You need substance in your feedback. That can be, as Paul suggested, as little as a paragraph or as much as my edit which took the MS down to individual words and punctuation all the way up to a detailed examination of crucial and critical character developments across the MS.

That kind of feedback deserves pay. It really does. If you expect to get paid for your manuscript, then why do you expect someone to edit it for free? Editors don't get free bread at the grocery store because they are editors. Good editors get paid because their work is worth hard, cold cash. It's just as hard to be a good editor as it is to be a good writer. Both deserve compensation for their work.

Ya gets what ya pays for.

If you paid attention the kind of attention to this which you give to American Idol (which you haven't) you now ask did I edit S&P's MS for free? Until I posed that question for you, I imagine you believed I edited the MS for free. Now you doubt that.

Yep. One of those (the Lahti 20mm) will do nicely.

I did not do it for free. They have the unenviable task of taking apart and reassembling one of my MS. Paul's suggestion. I intended to edit the MS for free. But since Paul offered, I jumped at it. That's how I'm getting paid. After the fact, but still getting it.

I expect them to bleed on the MS. I expect to get the MS back and use language that hard boils the eggs while they sit in the fridge. I expect them to be merciless. Prisoners, to malaprop an aphorism, should be shoved into a cannon and fired back from whence they came.

If they come back with hollow praise and a simple "I liked it" the next MS they ask me to edit is going to require compensation. I'm just simply not willing to invest that kinda effort without something substantial in return.

And generally worth every penny.

I do edit, free, short pieces for friends who are in some writer associations I belong to. But that kinda work can be done quickly and provides a needed break for me from my own wordsmithing.

You want me to edit your MS? Whacha gonna pay me? It doesn't have to be cash, but it has to be valuable to me. And in case you're wondering, I already have one of 'em's phone number. And, I interviewed her. Neener, neener, neener.

So's you know, I won't read poetry unless forced to at nuclear weaponpoint (or I'm being held prisoner by a Vogon and my esophagus won't strangle me), don't like to read romance and don't understand westerns.

What would I consider just compensation? Run something past me. I'll tell you what I think.