Making the connection

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I can't get these thoughts outta my head until I put 'em down so feel free to skip this one.

I sat there in recliner, book in hand and large glass of ice next to the chair. On one wall, middlin' 8 point looks across the room. Middlin' to you. To me, it's the best trophy I will ever have, better even than the world records whitetail. The story behind that I have told and will tell again, but not today.
 
Directly in front of me a buffalo skull hangs. Above it a black fox squirrel, chest with red patches, perches on a fence post. Another wall holds a fox. The old catfish I caught in college, it's not hanging up but it needs to. In the hall, a blonde, black and red fox squirrel hide hangs from a wall. Out in the barn hang a variety of skulls and in the deep freezer are hides of various kinds.


As noted previously, Grandpa hunted deer for years and never killed one. Dad had one 8 point, about the size of mine, on the wall. I have 2 and could have a third, but I let him walk. Other smaller and fewer point bucks are around in various places.

First kill. A hunter is born.

Susan has a coon in her room. Her first kill. I have Jesse's first kill, a wild hog skull, that needs a bit more work before it becomes a wall hanger.

A picture of my great grandfather and his wife, likely the only one ever made of him, has the two of them sitting. He's holding the skull of a buck, I forget how many points.

I understand why he did that. I feel his pride across the years, the decades and the generations. I am equally proud to continue the tradition.

I am a hunter. I kill animals. The vast majority of hunted animals, my family eats or we share with people not in my immediate family, especially those in need of food.

Can you?

I hang various parts of the animals to show my prowess as a hunter, to show my ability as a provider. I did this. I, by my hand, went and brought home food for my family. I proved I can survive.

I hang them to remind me of the hunt. I hang them to brag to other hunters "Look what I did!" I am not above a little ego stroking.

I hang them because there is a connection between them and I which goes beyond the sustenance they provide to my flesh. I have a physical reminder when I see trophies hanging on the wall. My ancestors, and yours, would give thanks before the hunt, during the hunt and after the hunt for the animals that died. I do this.

Can you say the say for yourself.

Hank Jr's refrain "a country boy can survive" is not just an anthem. It is a way of life.

It is who I am. It is what I do. It defines me in ways I cannot explain. It completes me in ways I do not understand, but I accept.

If you too are a hunter, you understand. If you are not a hunter, then you cannot understand.

If you do not know and want to know, come with me and hunt.

Feel the connection and learn what it means to live in my world.

Stouble Dandards on that worm sandwich please

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

On the ride back from Adel today I listened to a ____________ talk radio show (yes, yes, but it was either that, orchestral symphonies or 10 minutes of commercials for a minute of music I probably wouldn't like).

I left the defining word blank to let you fill it in. It's blank 'cause it doesn't matter 'cause all of  'em act the same. Which I now prove.

Yes. IRL I am a cartoon.

As I listened, I noted the words being espoused by the host and his guest were the very words they decried when used by the opposition.

In fact I experimented. I stripped away the defining terminology and left the statements bare excepting the semantics.

Then, I switched the defines terms. In the place of the attacked went the original attacker. IN the place of the attacker went the original attacked.

Confusing?

Sample sentence, defining words stripped away:

"For the ___________________ to demand that [giant retailer] stop doing business with [Company X] is wrong. People should be allowed to do business with [Company X] because it supports causes they believe in."

The above statement is 100 percent accurate in substance if not in the actual words used.

No semantic difference to be seen.

Here's the problem - Stouble Dandard.

Yeah, an intentional Spoonerism. If you prefer, go to James 1:8 - He is a double-minded man, unstable in all he does. Mo betta - Do unto others as ye would have them to unto you.

Yassee, the talk radio guy and guest also demanded that [giant retailer] stop doing business with [Company X] because [Company X] has also supported causes and groups which the talk radio guy opposes.

Arg. Confusing.

Lemme give you specifics.

The talk radio guy (TRG) was complaining that homosexual rights activists were calling for a business boycott of a company that supported groups opposed to gay marriage and the homosexual lifestyle. This, the TRG said is wrong.

This is Cog. dissonance.

However, TRG has NO problem in calling for a boycott of businesses which promote the homosexual lifestyle and gay marriage.

See? Just switch places with pro and anti and you have the exact same argument, exact same words, just coming from the other direction.

But TRG and his Legions (we are Legion...) don't see a problem. Cognitive dissonance don't live there. Cognitive disconnect, on the other hand, has done built a mansion, has a few thousand acre spread and is eying a takeover of all adjoining lands.

This is Cog. disconnect.

Free speech also don't live there. Not that I am surprised. When you look at the people making the noise on both sides of the American political divide, neither sides believes the other should be able to have a fair say.

I'm not sure it's fair to say TRG and Legion opened this can of worms. I'm equally not sure it's fair to say the Opposition (also Legion) opened this can of worms.

What I can say for certainty is a phrase I borrow from my brother:


Don't complain about a worm sandwich when you opened the can.


Something to think about, something that goes far beyond the divide I use to bring you today's point.

How many times have you done something and then had it done to you, but you reacted negatively? If it was fair for you to do it, why isn't it fair for someone else to do it?

If we'd all quit shoving worms at each other and go fishing and have a giant fish fry in the evening, this world would be a whole lot better.

Think about that next time to decide to open a can of whatever it might be. If someone takes the can away from you and uses it on you, what are you gonna think about that?

Steel toed diatribe

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

It's hammer time.

In what follows, I refer mostly and largely to those in administration who create the policies which the Boards of Education adopt. BoEs do very little policy development, relying instead on staff who are veteran teachers who got kicked up the food chain out of the classroom into an office.

The Peter Principle immediately comes to mind.

Can I get a witness?

Having covered School Boards in 4 states, about twice that number of county-school systems and well over 100 School Board members, I can say with that much authority that most School Board members have little to no idea of what policies are vital to the education of students. They rubber stamp what the administration wants.

Hairdos over substance and getting what you asked for is not necessarily what you wanted.

Dlsclaimer outta the way-

A new study links student achievement to class attendance.


Well, duh, many of you are thinking. If you ain't in class, you ain't going to learn a whole lot.

If the truth be told...

The new study shows a SHARP correlation between even a few absences and student achievement.

Again, not a huge surprise there, but some surprise at how dramatic this is.


"McGibboney says graduation rates drop 26 percent for ninth graders with more than five absences. "

Veteran educators will say "HA! I knew it!"

I ask the veteran educators (especially those in administration) - If you knew this why do you insist on suspending students for infractions of the rules and sending them home?

If a student being in the classroom is so strongly linked to student success, why do you send them out of the classroom?

Why are you insisting students become failures?

Not really. I'm be sarcastic.

Let the mumbling, red faces, toe scrubbing and blame passing commence and run rampant over those hallowed halls of education.

Awww. Tell ya what. Just because I'm that kind of guy, I'm going to kick someone while they are down on account of their own idiocy.

How does suspending a student encourage them to learn?

What lesson is taught by kicking a student out of school for a few days?

Dese boots is made for kickin'

Hurting yet? Lemme aim for some vital organs with my steel-toed diatribe.

Consider the academic achievement level of students who are suspended. How many honor roll kids are given the boot? How many marginal kids are tossed out?

Which student is better capable of catching up a day or two of missed work?

Which student is most likely to be involuntarily invited to leave the classroom for a day or two?

Aaight. Here's a hand up, no joy buzzer included. It's to those people who deserve it, the few, the far between and the ones worthy of my respect.

And I do mean it. Really.

Teachers have to be momma and daddy, parole officer, counselor, brother, sister, coach and a whole lotta other roles these days. Somewhere in there, the teacher has to be a role model and a teacher too. No, it ain't easy. Yes, I tremendously appreciate the work you do.

Now, move your feet. Fast. My sledgehammer is coming down on the posers in the crowd. Don't want any collateral damage.

Why, considering all the roles you must play and the tremendous burden on you and the ethics you have AND the student you take action against, why do you tell the student MOST in need of your services that he is not welcome in your room?

Teachers know the consequences of sending a kid out of the room, including suspension.

Teachers also know what they are getting into when they step into the classroom each day, so if you plan to complain very much, bring some good sharp cheddar-colby-jack so I can have some cheese with that whine.

Well? Do ya?

Hand up time again. I also admit, right here, sometimes a student just needs to be removed from a teacher's classroom. I support the right of teachers to remove a student from their room.

There is no contradiction, because somewhere, a teacher has to step up and say "I will take this child in my classroom." It's what teachers do. It's what their ethics require. if you ain't willing to that kind of person, you have no business in the classroom from my perspective.

Turn the other cheek. I'm gonna gently pat it. I promise.

At the same time, students must accept responsibility for their actions. Hold the kids accountable, absolutely, but do not reward them for bad behavior with a three day vacation. Instead look at ways to keep them in school, but make it uncomfortable so that they'd prefer to be in a regular classroom and behave. Sending them home, especially teenagers, doesn't do that.

It's time to stop suspending students and start teaching them. Administrators and government need to get out of the way and let teachers do their job. We also need to fire, with extreme prejudice, the vast legions of idiots who pose as teachers.

Of feet, deer, apathy, choices and this morning

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
I never lamented about the vicissitudes of time or complained of the turns of fortune except on the occasion when I was barefooted and unable to procure slippers. But when I entered the great mosque of Kufah with a sore heart and beheld a man without feet I offered thanks to the bounty of God, consoled myself for my want of shoes and recited:

'A roast fowl is to the sight of a satiated man
Less valuable than a blade of fresh grass on the table
And to him who has no means nor power
A burnt turnip is a roasted fowl.'

Ah.

Photo on FB from Ken Moore's page and from where he got it I know not.

In general where the subject of African famine and rampant disease comes up, I am apathetic, with leanings of hostility (which is another column for another day). I turn away from such images and block references from them.

This'n touched me today and I know why.

 I got in this morning and dumped email. One was from a friend in an ongoing conversation. My letter of yesterday continued today.

I complained about a largely self-inflected and self-chose lot in life. Never mind that I admit to it being my choice. I still whined about it.

But I wrapped note this morning with a bright spot, the morning spent in a deer stand.

It was good.

It was good. God & me watched the deer feed for a bit and then leave. He kept watching them while I stayed in the stand grinning like a possum eating briars.

I thought about shooting. I didn't because I did not want to spook the other deer. Had it been just the big doe come out, I'd be packing the freezer right now instead of typing this. The nubbin buck? I'da probably let him walk too. Let him grow and get a set of antlers to hang on the wall and THEN I'll put him in the freezer and the wall.

I recalled my grandfather. He never killed a deer, not for lack of trying. Dad killed deer. He shot a monster buck at night in the 70s (never found it) and was party to some other night shootings (some of which still hang on walls). He had an 8 point on the wall.

I have a line of bucks on the wall, including two 8 points, a monster 7x9 elk and a Safari Club International silver-class fallow deer and other trophies. Still have meat in the freezer from last year's hunting as well.

This is a GREAT album.

And I still complained about my life, never mind it is what I chose.

This morning I chose to get up before 6 a.m. and sit in a deer stand. This morning I watched the woods wake up around me. This morning I chose to watch 4 deer walk around. This morning I chose to come to work after getting out of the woods.

This morning I made more choices which will further define who I am.

This morning, I regret the complaints I emailed to my very good friend in Canada.

This morning, my life is pretty good compared to the emaciated person in the picture I swiped from Ken Moore's FB page.

Complain about your life if you wish, it's your right. But the questions are:

Are you man enough to admit that your choices have led you to where you are?

Are you willing to admit that no matter how bad your situation is, there's someone who'd eagerly swap places with you?

I think I should have stayed in the deer stand longer this morning.

Socrates doth dwell herein

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
As I walked out of the prison last Thursday evening the sergeant on duty stopped me. We had quite a talk about the inmates and how I work with them. He said it makes a difference.

Ya gets what ya asks for,

I certainly hope it does. At the same time I know that most of the inmates have jailhouse religion. Once they step free of the prison, they will abandon what they professed and learned while incarcerated. Few of them will carry on as they promised to do.

I keep going. It's what I do.

I spend a considerable amount of time asking the inmates questions. Some of the questions I ask and say "don't answer that." Some I let them answer. Some I actively encourage them to answer and solicit responses.

Longtime readers of this column will know I also pose plenty of questions here.

That's a good one.

Questions make people think before they react. If you make a statement, then you may get someone to think before they fire back. Rude Interruption Show hosts on both sides of the American political divide are great at this.

They espouse an insult crudely hidden in an opinion. The target fires right back with a similarly thinly veiled insult. In the end, both sides are even more firmly entrenched in their respective positions. The Maginot Line got nothing on today's talking airbags.

But when you pose questions, you make a person consider their own position. At least that's the hope.

Questions mean you seek explanation, not confrontation. Questions mean you need information.

Flame On

You don't force them to defend their position. A question makes the person consider how best to defend the position to himself.

A person highly skilled in the art of Socratic Reasoning (SR) can lead a person with a poorly reasoned outlook around in a tautological circle Ouroboros would balk at. Some accomplished SRs can make the opposition eventually argue against the original position.

Talk about infuriating some people.

But the main reason behind SR is as the philosopher once said - to draw forth the innate truths the person already knows.

In other words, a SR tries to make you confront the truth within you. If it hurts, well, if the truth hurts you ain't living right.

The Socratic Method makes you think, when applied properly. Dad told me years ago, as I worked on building a portable shop fan, "the thinking is the hardest part."

No comment.

A really good SR will also admit that he doesn't know and is only seeking the truth himself. Unfortunately some of the best SRs on the planet are also lawyers and they use the method to pervert and subvert the truth instead of deliver it.

It ain't 100 percent. You will find some people who are so insecure and neurotic they take a question as personal attack. I don't know how to deal with such people, except to ignore them. If they are not willing to face reality, I make them as inconsequential in my reality as I can.

I'm sure those in the mental health field will say this is not the correct way to handle such things. I am not in the mental health field. I frankly don't want to deal with such people anyway, so I ignore them.

By ignoring them, their insecurities are likely reinforced. Again, this is not my problem. They can either grow up and take responsibility for themselves or get run over by the metaphysical bus I'm driving.

When I grow up...

So what about you?

What brings you back on a regular basis to read these ramblings? Learning something? Found a new truth? Just need to get your blood pressure up?

Thinking more these days? Less?

If Socrates knocks on your door, are you going to let him in?

Interested in finding the truth? Are you willing to take the pain?

Or, are you afraid of the truth?

(insert regular disclaimer about answering these questions.)

Getting what you asked for and it's killing people

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
If you happen to be in the hospital any time soon for work, well, it's going to be a LOT less pleasant that it used to be.

Wrong drugs.

If you need surgery, ummmmm. You are in in really deep kimchee.

The problem? A real, a severe and an intense shortage of critical drugs hospitals use for patients. I am not kidding.

"Gregory Warner: Some drugs are in such short supply that hospitals are buying them on the gray market, paying 10 times the price for certain cancer medications or anesthetics, or telling doctors to use unfamiliar alternatives. That's led to overdoses, deaths, and in some cases, patients waking up in the middle of surgery."

Got your will made out?

Read the whole piece here  http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/09/23/am-whats-causing-national-drug-shortage/

In case yer not willing to read the whole piece,

"Cohen: They've literally decided it's not profitable enough to make this drug anymore. We're not getting paid enough for it.


"Medicare limits drug prices."

Ya got that? Lemme put this another way - If you support the national health care bill as pushed on the nation by the current thief in chief and the other liars in Washington, then you are getting what you asked for.

What you asked for...

"Oh no, Baker! I didn't ask for this!"

Yes, you did. You demanded government intervention in the health care system with price controls. Since the medicine makers can't generate sufficient income from the sale of these drugs because of government interference, they quit making 'em.

You got what you asked for. That it is not what you wanted is the problem created now, which we all have to deal with.

No doubt many people will point to overseas where there is no paucity of these drugs. G'head. Point.

Have some lead with that dose of antibiotic. Makes it work better.

"In the first instance, more than half of the recent shortages are due to the detection of microbial contamination within medicines borne out of foreign factories" http://www.pharmiweb.com/Features/feature.asp?ROW_ID=1364

Still wanna point to foreign manufacturing processes?

Swear all you want to. You still got what you asked for if you support the national health care bill.

Government doesn't.

The Pharmiweb story ALSO points to government interference as a major problem. "Another cause can be found in an almost unavoidably ugly characteristic of capitalism. Put simply, with generic drugs often commanding unattractively low prices in the market place, many manufacturers simply drop certain drugs from their roster because they don’t draw adequate revenues. In the next instance, third party vendors then purchase the remaining stockpiles of the drug and hoard them on-mass. Subsequently selling them for three to four times their original worth."

Again, this runs right back to government price controls.

I wish you'd stay out of my life unless I invite you in. I promise to stay out of your life unless you invite me in. But that idea doesn't fit the present conservative or liberal values of most of the people in Washington.

Welcome to your life

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
This piece is not about politics, I promise. It does mention politics, but only as a vehicle to carry the message. Today's piece is about you.

Except you don't want it.

Yeah. You.

If you look at the present crop of presidential contenders and presidents, there are some who (probably) will do what they promise to do. Ron Paul is one.  Meet some others here http://2012.libertarian-party.org/ Probably are some more I don't know about, but they are even more fringe candidates than the libertarians.

There are, of course, some people who are running who would lead us to a complete totalitarian state. Ralph Nader comes to mind, whether he's running or not.

With the exception of Ron Paul, none of these people are electable. Ron has a shot, not a great one, but a shot.

The problem with Ron Paul, as my bud buckDharma says, is Ron is an ass.

Ron is an ass because he has opinions and won't back off them to pander to voters who want to hear what they want to hear.

No. 1 Bad Guy on the Block.

If the truth hurts, you've been living wrong.

Ron is an ass because he has a solid voting record, the most solid in the entire House of Reprehensibles. He refuses to compromise on important issues, nor will he bow to the dictates of the Reboobican Party leaders, nor the Damnocrats.

Do you want to stand on a rock or Jell-0?

Ron Paul, most importantly, is an ass because he will deliver to the people of the United States what they are asking for and what he promised.

For that reason, if he gets elected, he will be the most vilified president this nation has ever seen.

Ron Paul will deliver unto the people what they ask for.

And that will be more than we will stand for.

We, the people, will be the new Nation of Israel from Old Testament Times. We will be on the way to the promised land but complain that all we have to eat is quail and honey buns. We will complain of thirst when the best sweet tea ever comes from the rock. When Paul goes off to hammer out complex deals for our benefit, we will demand style over substance and recreate the idol of government Ron helped destroy.

Ron don't care what his hair looks like. Do you?

But unlike Israel with a God that could (and still does) deliver them from their sins, we will have to accept that we got what we asked for. Never mind that it is not what we wanted.

I say "we." I mean you. Not all of you, my readers, but certainly some. There are a few who want to shuck off the burden of government and live or die on our own feet, blaming no one but ourselves and the vagaries that no man can control (ask any farmer what that means).

Some of my readers want to continue to run to the Nanny State (and I had a far more graphic description in mind, but modesty precludes my posting it here) for the false security it provides from the boogey man under the bed.

The real Superman.

Ron Paul wants to pick the bed up and show you there's nothing there, except what you put there. Failing your belief in that, Ron Paul wants you to buy a honking big shotgun and let you deal with the monster under the bed yourself. If you happen to shoot yourself in the process, Ron Paul is cool with that as well. One less idiot to worry about, not that he's going to do much worrying.

Ron Paul, more than the other major candidates, believes in the power of YOU.

The question is, do you believe in yourself?

Are you willing to stand on your own?

Are you willing to be your own person?

Are you willing to make the hard decisions needed for you to run your life?

Are you willing to accept the consequences of your own actions?

I have never been overly concerned about pissing people off, which I am about to do here.

Will you define it or let someone else?

If you are not willing to accept the consequences of your own actions, then you must be a supporter of the current president or the Reboobican contenders for the job, except Ron Paul. Yeah. I said it. All of them are more interested in creating a nanny state than in giving you the power to run your life.

If the truth hurts, you've been living wrong.

Aye. There's the real issue here. As I really like saying, the worst problem with being a rebel is living long enough to suffer the consequences of your actions. I must also admit - the best thing about being a rebel is living long enough to enjoy the consequences of your actions.

How about you? Are you willing to do that? Or, do you want to thrust the consequences of your actions onto everyone else? Careful how you answer that! No matter what you say, it's gonna hurt.

How much pain will you take? Will it be pain from someone else or your own pain?

Myself, I have no interest in being forced to take someone else's pain. What about you?

Some quality time

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

I rolled out of bed at 6 a.m. today. Didn't sleep well, back still hurts from going out over a week ago. Finally decided, ahhhhh, yeah. Get up and get to it.

Stepped into the ground blind at 6:30 a.m. and was glad I did so. It was dark outside. The woods came awake around me and I was again glad I got up and went to a deer stand.

About 7:30, a deer moved at the every edge of my vision. I watched. Couldn't tell what it was. It moved closer and I saw antlers. Couldn't tell how big.

It stepped into a clear spot. Either a 6 point or an 8 point. A moment later, I confirmed it was an 8 point.

For more than 30 minutes God and I sat there and watched His creation walk around the feeder, being joined occasionally by other critters. A bit after 8 a.m. the young buck walked into the woods and I lost sight of him. God kept watching.

I could have shot him. No question. He was 5 yards away at one point. but I have two 8 points on my wall. He had a small rack. There are people in the hunting club who've never killed a nice racked-buck and a new member has never killed a deer at all.

It was not ENTIRELY altruism that let him walk. I really didn't relish the thought of dragging him out of the woods by myself. I also kept thinking if he stayed, another bigger buck might come in.  I'm not hunting for antlers, but if a wall-hanger comes by....

I hunt for meat, which he would supply. But I prefer does for the freezer. I waited and hoped a doe (which I would shoot) might come in.

That didn't happen. So he walked after entertaining Jesus and me quite thoroughly.

That's quality time, something I don't get nearly enough of.

It is well with my soul.

Object lessons in consequences

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The older I get the more I appreciate Shakespeare, whether or not old Will actually wrote that stuff (and evidence so far tells me he didn't but that other guy did. Sorry, forgot his name).

What was the question again?

To be or not to be. That is the question. Whether tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune or take arms against a sea of troubles and by opposing, end them...

More or less, that's what Hamlet said. If I didn't get it right, blame my high school English teachers who made me read Shakespeare against my will.

Speaking of which, should people be forced to do something against their will?

Really? You sure? Certain? Your answer, as longtime readers of my ramblings have come to expect, will be used to beat you down.

Simply put, ya can't make a blanket answer Yes or No to that question. Duh huh, right?

No free speech zone.

Ok, so lemme get more specific. There is a community in the United States where a law is pending that will make saying something optional and I don't mean prayer in schools.

"There's a catch here, Baker," you say. "What are you not telling us?"

Aaight. Say it with me then:

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of American and to the republic for which is stands, one nation under God with liberty and justice for all.

Say on. Say on. Unless forced to do so.

Next question. Didja say it correctly? Bet you didn't. You paused between "one nation" and "under God." Under the grammatically correct enunciation, as taught to me eons ago by uber patriot Bubba Akin, you don't pause there. It's one continuous phrase. That is the way the writers of the pledge intended it to be spoken. Try it again.

Now, should school children be forced to say the Pledge?

Before I go further, lemme state. I say the pledge. I'm proud to do it. I've led the pledge at some events.  I sing (quietly) the national anthem.

Authoritarian regimes require a pledge or something similar from school children. The kids are forced to say it as a form of indoctrination. Call it brain washing, because that's what it really is. The kids, with malleable minds, have their thoughts directed down a certain path of direct-able citizenship by the dictator's puppets.

Should school children be forced to say the Pledge?

It's right there in the numbers...

What intrinsic value is achieved by rote repetition of the flag? History lesson? Where? You could make a specious argument that it does teach societal values and citizenship with the "liberty and justice" bit. You can even make a more plausible argument that it teaches deification with the phrase "under God."

Rather by forcing kids to recite the pledge what you are actually doing is telling them the First Amendment doesn't apply. They can be forced to say things against their will. They can be forced to take what amounts to a loyalty oath in front of their peers.

Forcing kids to say the pledge, to my thinking, is diametrically opposed to the most important mission of today's schools: teaching kids to be critical thinkers. More in a second.

Someone is going to say that if children (or anyone) chooses to not say the pledge, they are subject to ridicule by people around them.

I smell my thumb in your general direction.

Yep.

So?

Which is more important:

• The right to keep your mouth shut or

• The right to force someone to do something against their will.

Careful again how you answer! Both choices are loaded with planet-busters.

So yes, children will be derided for failure to say the pledge. Is still a reason to force them to do it?

I suggest no. Let the kids decide and face the consequences. Making the decision of whether or not to run that gauntlet is an incredibly, massively and dang near impossible to underestimate juncture. By allowing kids the choice, say it or not, they must employ those critical reasoning skills that schools SHOULD be imparting to our kids.

Please merge into coming destruction.

KID: I can say/not say the pledge and fit in. I can say/not say the pledge and be true to what I believe.

In fact, it is an object lesson in one of my favorite (and coined by me) expressions:

The worst thing about being a rebel is living long enough to suffer the consequences of your actions.

What what about the kids who do say the pledge and want to? What about their decision matrix? They must decide as well. Do they support their nonconformist classmate, support those who ridicule him or take a third course and stay out of the issue completely?

To us, this may indeed be a minor decision. Then again, maybe not. It could be a crisis of conscience. But to a 6 year old, this is something that can and does keep them up at night.

Sometimes more real than reality

As for me, as long as it's my decision to say the pledge, I'll be loud and proud. If someone forces me to say it, I'm gonna put my 350 pounds on the ground and dare someone to move me. If anyone around me is forced to say it, I'm going to park my carcass on their behalf.

I don't see a conflict there either.

Gotta have one

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

There's no long any doubt in my mind. Next year, I gotta have a four-wheeler.

This is no longer optional. This is a requirement. I found out Sunday evening.

We got home from Susan's birthday lunch with the rest of the family. She went to bed. Others went about their stuff. When things calmed down from the "just got home" rush, I ambled around to get things together to get in a deer stand a bit later.

Barn owl

I was in the stand at 5:30. I sat, watched birds, listened the to the wild turkeys and squirrels.

About 6:30 or so, a bird of prey lit in a tree a pretty far piece away. I watched the bird for a while. Curiosity got the better of me.

I got the 'nocs out of my case and scanned for the bird.

A pair of black eyes and hooked beak peered RIGHT AT ME through an opening only big enough for the owl's head.

I grinned like a maniac. It is moments like this I live for. I was entirely happy sitting there watching the big bird watching me. There was no doubt in my mind the owl was watching me. I've played stare down with a bunch of owls over the years at distances from 25 to 250 yards.

Then, movement in the bottom of the 'nocs. Huhn?

A DEER!

The owl could fall of the limb now. I sat the 'nocs down. The deer was in no rush, not worried and was looking around, feeding and so on. She saw me, but since I was sitting in a ground blind that's been there for more than a year, she wasn't worried.

Finally she put her head down well below the bushes.

This outdoor event brought to you by the Muzzy Moment Club.

She jumped, head down, tail not flagging and went into the woods.

I got out, found a spot of blood at the edge of the woods. I trailed her probably 35 yards and found her laying in the firebreak she was headed down.

That's when I learned I'm gonna HAVE to have a four-wheeler next year. It was a yearling doe and hauling her out of the woods was almost more than I could do. Had she been a mature buck, I'd either still be in the woods trying to drag it out or I'd be dead from trying. I barely managed to put her in the truck of the Crown Vic I was driving.

Got home and Susan got out of bed, annoyed that she didn't get to go hunting. But as I've often told her when I head out for something like that, I ask once if anyone wants to go. She didn't stir. But she did help cut the deer up to hang in the meat cooler.

Gummint Cheese

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Does government create jobs?

But is it worthwhile to the taxpayers?

You really have to be an idiot to say no. Government does create jobs - law enforcement is a great example. There are tons of others. Your life is touched daily and repeatedly each day by government-based jobs.

The Economist took a look at government created jobs.


http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/09/employment


The chart shows that the federal government is the single largest employer in the nation. That's job creation.

Lemme restate the problem for you...

Saying government is the single biggest employer is applying the most extreme form of tunnel vision I imagine.

Where are the bulk of the jobs in the nation found? Not in government. The private sector out-employs people as compared to the government on the order of several magnitudes.

Private sector jobs also do something a government job is not supposed to do: Create wealth.

The only time government creates wealth is when it directly competes with private industry. That is wrong.

Government should supply only necessary services to the people and no more. What those necessary services are is a column for another day.

Some cool mutants.

Government creates jobs. Some jobs are contracted out to the private sector, true. That creates a hybrid, a mutant if you will. I learned in biology class (to mix some academic fields of research) that most mutants are self-destructing and most hybrids are sterile or require massive outside help to reproduce.

In other words, such contracted jobs are mostly dead-ends. The science of biology is applicable in this instance to the alchemy of economics.

Roads are dead ends. Once built, the massive amount spent on the road comes to an end. Maintenance is a tiny fraction of the construction expense.

All this still does not get to the major point of government-created jobs. There's a huge issue with this which some people are not willing to admit exists.

The American taxpayer.

Where does government get the money to pay these employees?

From taxpayers.

Denying that taxpayers foot the bill is just as stupid as saying government doesn't create jobs.

Which brings up another question.

Are these jobs worth the cost to taxpayers?

Think hard on that one.

Sometimes the answer is absolutely. The court system comes to mind. Road construction is even a good thing - most of the time. Defense is squarely on the side of government.

Defense. Not offense. Bring the troops home.

Research is one of those items that hits both sides, good and bad.

The good, bad and ugly all in one.

When government competes with private industry, that falls absolutely on the bad side. Government does several things when this happens:

1) Most important. It shuts down private enterprise, which is the main source of government funding which creates a death spiral unless it is stopped.

2) It stifles innovation in that area. Why compete with government?

3) It creates huge disparity. Government creates the rules, after all, and absolutely will modify those rules to benefit itself.

4) Consumers have No Choice in the matter. If government does it, you either pay voluntarily or government takes the money from you via taxes. Don't pay your taxes and you could go to jail. Would you let private industry run this way?

So yeah, government does create jobs. But until you honestly answer the question - are those jobs worth the cost to the taxpayer - you haven't really addressed job creation.

Your rights are not being restricted

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Yeah. Odd title for me right? But in this case it is the truth.

Your right is not being restricted.

Issue du jour is from the Sunshine State.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011/09/15/business-us-doctors-guns_8681049.html

From the lede "A federal judge on Wednesday blocked enforcement of a first-in-the-nation law that restricted what Florida physicians can say about guns to their patients, ruling the law violates the U.S. Constitution's free speech guarantees and does not trample gun rights."

Doctors have an obligation (whether or not they live up to that is a different matter) to inform their patients about safety and health. Doctors also have the right to free speech.

Except there is no good poetry.

A doctor talking with a patient about gun safety is adhering to the ethical requirements of his field AND exercising his right to free speech.

Simply put here - The NRA got this one wrong.

A gun, left alone, is not dangerous. In order to become dangerous, an outside force has to act on the gun.

A pool is not dangerous. In order to become dangerous, an outside force as to act on the pool.

A one-foot high pile of heroin is not dangerous. In order to become dangerous, an outside force as to act on the heroin.

The danger, in case you haven't figured it out, is human intervention.

People need to know how to handle, react to and responsibly use guns. If you don't know what to do with a gun, leave it alone and call someone (like me, law enforcement, another gun owner) who does. A doctor may or may not be the best source of firearm information (I know some who hunt as much as I do). But a doctor is a good source of basic safety information.

When balanced, all is well.

From the story - "The law arose out of the so-called "Ocala incident," in which a young mother in 2010 was dropped from a doctor's practice because she refused to answer questions about gun ownership."

I don't have a problem with this. The doctor has the right to run his practice as he see fit, at least he does right now. With the national health care plan this could change.

Some of you may object to this. If you do, then will you let someone dictate how you run your business and force you to do things you'd rather not?

Be fair. That's what I'm asking for.

While I do not know the doctor's sympathies toward guns, it also doesn't matter. The doc has a right to gather important information about his patients. If he feels firearms is an important bit of information, that's OK with me. If the patients don't like it, they can find another doctor.

The doctor here was completely within his rights. Florida attempted to undermine his rights. The judge in this case saw it correctly.

"This case concerns one of our Constitution's most precious rights - the freedom of speech," said Cooke, appointed to the bench by Republican President George W. Bush. "A practitioner who counsels a patient on firearm safety, even when entirely irrelevant to medical care or safety, does not affect or interfere with the patient's right to continue to own, possess or use firearms."

Regardless of your opinion on firearms and free speech, both are protected by the Constitution. Talking with and giving someone information about firearms does not restrict in any way the Second Amendment and fully supports the First Amendment.

And that is the truth.