The Gross National Debt

Monday, October 31, 2011

and who is at fault

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
About 30 men, givertake a few, all dressed identically. White pants with a blue stripe. White shirt with DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS on the back.
Not quite that easy

I pointed this out. I also asked them who is really at fault for their being in the state prison.

Yeah. I went there. I do not pull my punches where I go to the state prison to preach. I am not dealing with men who are up for a Citizen of the Year award in their respective communities.

Harsh? Maybe. Too harsh? If so, what are you doing for those men behind bars?

Thought so.

So lemme ask you the same thing. Who is really at fault? Pick something. Anything.
If the truth hurts, you ain't living right.

Here's one. http://ideas.time.com/2011/10/31/judges-are-for-sale-and-special-interests-are-buying/

I ask you: Who put these judges in office?

Big money did not put such people in office. Voters put such people in office.

Who'd you vote for and why?

If you complain that only candidates who get huge contributions from major corporations get elected to office, I ask again: Who did you vote for?

Saying "well, I don't know anything about the other candidates" is not even a cop out. It would have to improve to be a cop out. If you are going to say you don't know anything about the other candidates, I'm not going to call you ignorant.

Ignorance is curable. Stupdity ain't.
I'm not gonna be a receiver.

What about the Occupy Whatever movement? The only central complaint I can see they had, and I very well could be wrong, is that corporations make too much money.

How do corporations make money? Where does that money come from? Where do you shop and what products do you buy?

Better question: Of all the stuff you buy, what can you really and truly live without?

The real question: How much of your current situation is 100 percent attributable to the choices you have made?

If you are like most people, the real answer is: Far more than I am willing to admit to.

I have an idea for a new movement: Occupy Your Life - Take responsibility for yourself and quit blaming others.

It'll never catch on. It requires personal honesty.

Saturday, October 29, 2011

A matter of trust

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


Do you trust someone whole lies?

Will you trust someone who tells you ahead of time they may lie?
Getting warm yet?


Please note carefully. This link takes you to the Federal Register, the place where the federal government announces all kinds of things.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-03-21/html/2011-6473.htm

I tell you - This proposed rule will not go before Congress. It is an Executive Branch decision. In other words, the current president (who has proposed this rule) will sign it into being without going before Congress.

Since you are not going to wade through the proposed rule, I summarize:

The government, specifically the president, is giving the government, specifically the president and the justice department, permission to lie.

The rule will let the federal government lie. The rule will let the federal government say paper does not exist, when in fact it does exist.
Does this make it right?

In other words, the government will have official sanction and permission to lie. Never mind the government has a long history of lying.


This is an attempt to get around the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

By saying certain paperwork does not exist, the government hopes the people looking for the paper trail will go away.

Those looking for the paper trail can sue.

But if government is busy lying, all government has to do is lie more.

I remind you, the current president is behind this rule.

The current president wants government to be able to lie to you and make it permissible and as legal as an executive decision can make it.

I ask you president supporters, is this man you want as president? Someone who seeks to make lies legal and a matter of routine?

Maybe not invented...
A good synopsis: http://www.propublica.org/article/government-could-hide-existence-of-records-under-foia-rule-proposal

Where I got the news to begin with: http://www.onthemedia.org/2011/oct/28/government-vs-freedom-information-act/

I tell you now, the information this rule attempts to block is already covered, and blocked, under existing law and case law. Case law means the courts have ruled on this. Under these items, government cannot legally say the paperwork doesn't exist. Government must say it exists, but we're not giving you access to it for reasons permitted under the law and case law.

Fact remains: The current presidents wants government to be able to lie and that be legal.

If you support this decision and the man behind the decision, why should anyone trust you?

Thursday, October 27, 2011

An update from the front lines of the Occupy movement

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
One of the few crop of modern writers whom I actually admire is Michael Dare. Don't tell him that. He's also in my list of writing cohorts which includes people you've never heard of, but 100 years from now will be hailed as geniuses.

Anyway, here's his piece about the "Occupy" movement, which I have gleefully ripped off from him. He won't mind. If he does, he's homeless and living in Seattle. What's he gonna do?


Hi, I'm Michael Dare, and since I don't live on a private island surrounded by gunboats with a harem devoted to peeling my grapes, since I haven't fleeced mankind with economic corruption and terrorism for nothing more than my own personal benefit, since I'm not doing high dives into a pool of gold like Scrooge McDuck, since I haven't abandoned the basic precepts of human decency we're all born with for nothing more than my own personal betterment, since I haven't turned into a corpulent slavemaster whose soul can only be measured in micropayments, since this is the best of times for money shufflers and the worst of times for the entire rest of the human race, since I now find myself completely and utterly fucked by a system that puts corporate greed over human need, since I'm now reduced to stealing material not only from Charles Dickens but from signs I read in the park, since the chasm between the haves and the have-nots in this city, this state, this country, this planet, is so wide and so deep that somebody, and it's not me, is looking to get pushed into it, because of all these things, I am part of the 99%, I fully support Occupy Wall Street, and I have been a member of Occupy Seattle since day one.

I had to get that out. Run-on sentences are no good for the public microphone where I've been speaking lately. It's an acquired skill (It's an acquired skill). You speak in short bursts (You speak in short bursts). Everything takes twice as long (Everything takes twice as long). You have to be an insta-poet. Ta da DA da da (ta da DA da da) Da da TA da da da (Da da TA da da da) Writing's so much more simple, where my words only echo endlessly in my OWN head, thank you very much.

From that first day where everything was a triumph, one of the most exciting of my life, the park coalescing into little pods of discourse, interactive amoeba, a big bang of expanding social evolution in front of my eyes, to the fourth morning where I woke up to find a dozen Seattle Police headed by an intimidating officer surrounded by media and lights asking me to take down my tent, to sleeping in the park without a tent, getting my backpack stolen, getting another tent, setting it up on the night of 500, waking again to at least 50 Seattle Police on bikes and the park surrounded by barricades, no way out, no way in, from the first rain where we were forbidden to stand under the awning to the war of the umbrellas where we were literally ordered to get wet, to seven blocks away where I now mysteriously find myself the central facilitator of Occupy Seattle South in that little building called city hall, I've been completely convinced that the movement is organic, embracing all strata of humanity, a living breathing frustrating disorganized mess that's the most beautiful thing I've ever seen.

Compared to Westlake Park, City Hall is the goddam Hilton. Westlake Park is absolutely one of the worst places in the city to try to get a good night's sleep. City Hall has a whole other vibe, peaceful, organized, sanitary, a place where things got done instead of talked about.

Mysteriously, I was called a traitor. How dare I accept the Mayor's kind offer of a place to sleep, bathrooms, running water, dozens of free electrical outlets, no police, and a safe place to leave my stuff where I can find it when I get back? Why was I giving in to THE MAN? I asked if the Mayor offered them a room in the Hilton, would they take it, and was told No way, man. He's the problem. It would be like accepting cake from Marie Antoinette. It's all just a ruse. They want us where they want us so they can surround us and BAM, round us all up.

Well, first of all, that's not what the permit says. Second, no Mayor in the history of Seattle has EVER offered the front plaza of City Hall for occupation by a political movement, much less suspended the fees which should be running up to $500 a day. Third, if there was any political pressure on the Mayor to do something, it was surely NOT to offer us City Hall, it would have been the opposite, to squash us like bugs. Fourth, if the Mayor hadn't offered it to us, we'd be demanding it, and fifth, I asked him if he'd ever heard of the Trojan Horse. When the Mayor invited us to occupy City Hall, he surely didn't expect ME in the lobby.
Writing in the lobby of city hall, I try to figure out what to call myself. Days ago, I was told that the night before they had a vote and I was now in charge. I was uncomfortable with being called a leader so we settled on facilitator but I'm not happy with that because it makes my kids facilitator tots.

So I need a new word for myself. I'm in a goddam lobby. The city council and the mayor are upstairs. I have been, and I cannot stress this enough, invited.

The one thing I've done outside is listen to people's stories. I cannot claim to represent Boeing, but I can claim to represent the Boeing worker I met in Westlake Park. I cannot claim to represent the hotel worker's union, but I can claim to represent the needs of the member of the hotel worker's union I met in Westlake Park. To claim to represent the 99% means to claim to represent everything from crack addicts to cops. That's a big bridge to gap, but I guess I represent them too.

I didn't choose to do this. I'm filling a vacuum, much as my cat once did. What I am is a very non-professional lobbyist for the 99%.



Dear Mayor McGinn,

I have decided to accept your brave and generous offer to occupy city hall, and for the first time in my life, I'm not being the least bit facetious. I speak both in my volunteer capacity as primary facilitator for Occupy Seattle: City Hall, and in my personal capacity as a homeless person in the City of Seattle. Occupy Seattle and the homeless problem are now joined at the hip and they're both mine. I am both a relentless advocate for social change and a fellow human being with no place to stay tonight. I'm couch surfing, and mean it from the bottom of my cold cold heart, I appreciate the place to crash.

That being said, you should know I'm right here, dude, in the southeast corner of the main lobby, sucking up your electricity with a broken laptop, and I'm going to be here till you throw me out. I'm in City Hall for the long haul. This isn't going to take days or weeks or months. This is going to take years, and I'm going to be here, sometimes in full support, sometimes a massive obstruction in your sigmoid colon. I'll try to be a nice guest. I am here, after all, at your invitation, and I'm not a shmuck. I know that a courteous person leaves everything behind as they found it if they ever want to be invited back. This chair I'm sitting in? I moved it. I promise to move it back when I'm done.

Our permit is up for renewal at the end of the month, and hopefully, the month after that and the month after that. My personal needs directly correlate to the needs of the movement I hesitate to claim to represent. I need a job and a place to live. I need food and transportation and entertainment and companionship. I need to know that life isn't like joining a game of Monopoly already in progress, a game that never starts over, where every square is already owned, so anywhere you land except Free Parking, you're screwed, you never pass go, and you never collect $200 (or, in the case of Seattle, $197). There's got to be a way out of this. I know there is, and it's not just me.

The OCCUPY movement has spread across the country. Every mayor in America is facing the exact same problem you're facing. The mayor who figures out how to deal with us with grace and compassion, the mayor who can take the principles of Occupy Wall Street and successfully apply them to their own town, could end up leading this country out of the second great depression.

How do I know this is a "depression" and not a "recession" or "downturn in the market" or "bump in the road that will correct itself?" Because of the people I've met. Because making a claim to represent 99% of Americans, in all their splendor, with their wildly divergent sizes and shapes and colors and religions and IQs and political affiliations and endless personal needs seems completely outrageous until you enter an OCCUPY camp and find men and women, big and small, black and white and everything in between, preaching the gospel and preaching anarchy, brilliant people who have never had the chance to share their views in public finding, goddam, there are others who agree with them, the good looking mingling with the ugly, macho scumbags high-fiving semi-transsexuals all in the name of one thing, to secure a place on this planet where our basic human needs are seen to, a social safety net that applies to everybody whether anyone thinks we deserve it or not.

You've got it particularly tough since this is a company town where the companies are Microsoft, Boeing, Starbucks, Amazon, etc., some of which are completely cool, and some of which are part of the problem. You want to lead this movement instead of oppress it, you've got to start dealing with local corporations according to the national guidelines set by Occupy Wall Street.

We want money out of politics. How about banning all political contributions in the City of Seattle and setting up a taxpayer financed electoral process? Seattle can show America how it can be done. (Don't ask me.)

You can personally stand up to the Supreme Court and say No thank you, in Seattle, corporations aren't people and money isn't speech. We all know these are both legal fictions that only exist to codify corruption, making it possible for you, right now, to squeeze local corporations for dough for your own personal benefit. Want to join us? Squeeze corporations for the benefit of the city. (Easy example, the current plan to lose the free bus zone downtown. This is easily branded as part of the war against the poor, and a war against the poor is a war against Occupy Seattle. Personally, now that general relief checks have stopped coming in, I can't afford ANYTHING, much less public transportation. Get a corporation, or a conglomeration of corporations, to pony up for the free buses.)

The one thing you can't do is ignore us. I may seem to be representing the dregs of the earth, but there's a militia that's got our back. They've made themselves known to me. Seattle is on the verge of the showing the US how NOT to deal with us, and it won't be pretty. This isn't a threat. I don't like it any more than you do. I want to defuse the situation.

Mayor McGinn, I genuinely think you're on our side, that if fate had sent you careening into a life other than mayor, you'd be with us.

There's a fireplace in the lobby of City Hall I understand is rarely used. On some beautiful, cold, windy, and obviously rainy Seattle day, how about a fireside chat? I'll bring the marshmallows.

Sincerely,

Michael Dare
Lobby
City Hall
Seattle, WA

Dear Occupy Seattle,

Let me tell you about the Seattle Hempfest. It is not the biggest political event in Seattle. It is not the biggest music or cultural event in Seattle. It is the biggest event in Seattle, period, and the biggest peaceful political protest and act of civil disobedience on the planet earth, maybe ever.

How do we do it when we're a political protest in a public park governed by a city ordinance that bans camping, just like Occupy Seattle? We work with the mayor and the police who, amazingly enough, agree with us that the war against marijuana is outrageous. There's a three year waiting period for police to volunteer for working the Hempfest. They want to be there.

This year they cut their staff way back. There were basically only four Seattle Police for the whole park.
Are you listening to me? Every year, up to 250,000 people gather in a public park in Seattle as a political protest against the drug war, openly buying and selling paraphernalia, openly sending giant white clouds of pot smoke into the air, and the Seattle Police and Mayor not only let it happen, THEY'RE ON OUR SIDE.
What's the difference between Occupy Seattle and Hempfest, where the city ordinance just as clearly forbids camping? We don't camp. That's it. You think we don't want to let venders and performers spend the night? You don't think we've asked for a variance? No way. On that point, they won't budge. We've been fighting this exact same battle for 20 years. They have threatened to do to Hempfest what they've been doing in Westlake, coming through the park at night and hassling people who might be sleeping.

But they don't. Why? Because we do it for them. I personally have gone up to people at Hempfest and ordered them to take down their tents. I don't like it. I think they should be able to stay. But it's a small price to pay for Hempfest to happen. How many of you think we should have allowed the city to cancel the Hempfest permit this year and stop the entire event by drawing an imaginary line in the sand concerning the enforcement of this one stupid law. We had bigger fish to fry and so do you.

You want to change a city ordinance? You believe in democracy? There's an app for that. It's called the initiative process. Getting it on the ballot and getting the 99% to vote this inhumane ordinance out of existence will be MUCH more effective than pitching a tent in the rain in a deserted park.

It's particularly not worth fighting for since the mayor has already acquiesced to so many of our demands.
You can't ask for 24 hour access to bathrooms. He's given them to us at city hall.

You can't ask for permanent booths devoted to medical needs and food distribution. He's given them to us at city hall.

You can't ask for a safe place to store your things where you'll find them when you get back, you can't ask for a location to pitch a tent without fear of police interference, and most importantly, you can't ask for a bongo free environment where you can actually get a full night's sleep, because he's already given them all to us at City Hall.

You may have had a bad experience with cop. I'm not surprised. So have I, but you can't carry that baggage with you into this movement and apply it to all police, any more than you can take a bad experience you had with an Eskimo and apply it to all Eskimos. Do you know any police who live on private islands surrounded by hula girls and tidy mile-high stacks of hundred dollar bills? If they're not the 1%, they're the 99%, and I personally invite every Police Officer, every Social Worker, every bus driver, and every city employee to come join us at city hall in protest of the corporate takeover of the United States of America.

I'll put it as simply as possible. When we started, we were living in a single. We slept and worked in the same place. Now that we've grown, we need a one bedroom. Let City Hall be your bedroom and nothing more.

At night, downtown Seattle clears out and turns into a standard deserted urban shithole. What exactly is the point of occupying Westlake at night? You can demonstrate up the wazoo and it'll only be seen by three crack addicts and a pigeon.

At Westlake, there are no Honey Buckets, so at night, the alleys surrounding the area have turned into public urinals and worse. This should be a Parks Department issue. They provide free trashcans they routinely empty, regardless of the political affiliation or race or gender of the pedestrians disposing of their empty Starbucks cups. They don't want trash in their parks and they shouldn't want crap in their alleyways. It's a public health issue. Whatever the may think of our possession of the park, the city should provide Honey Buckets in city parks where there are hundreds of people, whatever the purpose. Depriving anyone of the simple right to empty their bladders and bowels is intestinal terrorism and pretty goddam despicable. (Personally, I think it should be the law that ANY business open to the public must have bathrooms open to the public. Call me crazy but shitting and pissing are the smelliest human rights that the Occupy movement should be fighting for.)

I have nothing but admiration for the brave souls who got themselves arrested in Westlake. There was a particular moment when it was a direct strike for the movement, the tents symbolizing everything we stand for. Hell, I was there with you in a borrowed tent. But that moment has passed. Now it's just an unfortunate distraction from the real issues.

It seems to me that you have been surround by the police doing terrible things for so long that you have deluded yourself into thinking they're out to stifle free speech and squash the movement. It's not true. They don't give a shit about what you're saying. Ask yourself. Have they ever busted a SPEAKER? No. All they're interested in is tents. and allowing the Park Service to do their job cleaning the park. THAT'S the only law they care about. If the tents are gone, POOF, so are the cops. No more paranoia about being busted. Really. Just like Hempfest. I've talked to them (before I found out I wasn't supposed to). As soon as they're convinced there will be no more camping at night, the only cops you will see in Westlake are the ones off duty who are joining us. You've got to pick your battles. Corruption in politics or tents.

MD

Dear Anarchists,

You're part of the 99% so God help me, I represent you too, even though you don't want representation, even though you believe we've reached the tipping point where the only possible solution is to bring down the system. I'm with you. The problem of corruption is systemic and has to go. It's like cancer that has spread throughout the structure of society so surgery, radiation therapy, whatever it takes to kill the damn thing without killing US in the process.

It's like the aqueduct. It had to come down. But that doesn't mean it had to be blown up while people were driving on it. Step by step, the old structure will be replaced with a new one, just like we're going to do with society.

When society crumbles, there will be anarchy. It is a necessary part of the transition process from one system to another, but the open mike at general assembly is positive proof that order and responsibility will naturally evolve and arise out of anarchy and chaos. Nobody could have planned it that way. I watched. It just happened and nobody could have stopped it. The natural impulse towards structure and safety is one of the trademarks of our species.

The first man to hurl an insult instead of a rock invented civilization. You can't fight FOR civilization with rocks.

Wednesday, October 26, 2011

Holler Wienie!

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
We are approaching my favorite holiday.
STILL FUNNY!

Yes. Halloween is my favorite holiday. Beats all the others with a pumpkin-flavored 2x4 into a pool of fake blood and fake vampire fangs.

This morning, I got an advance on my favorite holiday. The Pre-K program in town came Trick or Treating. The street was packed with goblins, ghouls, witches, superheroes, fairies and all other kinds of costumed wonders.

I like it. A lot.

Some people object to Halloween, calling it satanic, evil and a whole buncha other negative descriptions.

ShupshupShupshupShupshupShupshupShupshupShupshupShupshupShupshupShupshupShupshup.

K THKS

Did I mention I like Halloween? I do. A lot.

I love seeing the kids dressed as something from their imagination, be it SpiderMan, Thor, a witch or the slasher guy from any of the horror movies.
Because imagination leads to knowledge

I spose that's what I like the most. Watching kids use their imagination.

Imagination rules.

Kids who have a vibrant imagination have an equally active mind. Kids with active minds can become adults with equally active minds.

You will find people who use their brain are also successful. Those who do not use their brain become Halloween haters.

Halloween is meant to be fun and end with a massive sugar overdose. OK, for diabetics, that can actually be dangerous, but for the most part a sugar OD results in a kid that walks across the ceiling for a while and suddenly stops, collapses and sleeps for 12 hours.

Halloween is also, to my thinking, the only holiday which only requires fun. It's also largely for kids. Adults can get into it (to wit - an annual Halloween Bash for adults), but it's still for kids.
Works for me.

Christmas, by today's standards, means gifts and seeing distance relatives and arg arg arg. And commercialism.

Thanksgiving requires waaaaay too much cooking.

Easter comes close to Halloween in the fun department, but egg hunts don't last as long as walking for two hours through a neighborhood knocking on doors. And you don't get to dress up however you really want to for Easter. A vampire at Easter just ain't fitting in.

4th of July is OK, especially since it has fireworks, but the costumes are still missing.

I will admit a partiality to St. Swithen's Day, he being the patron saint of people who kill armadillos to death, but that's not really a recognized holiday.

I'm sure you can think of other holidays, Robert E. Lee day comes to mind, but they aren't really holidays. They are more an excuse for some people to take the day off from work.

Friday, October 21, 2011

Insert obscenity of your choice

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Stepped into the stand about 4:45 yesterday. It was a good day to hunt.

A few minutes of 7, I saw way down in the bottom. Movement. AHA!

Yes indeedy, a deer was slowly making it's way to me. Calm. Not in a hurry. No rush.

It came in and started feeding. Under the feeder, he raised his head, banging his rack into the bottom of the feeder. That scared him a bit as he jumped back. Not enough to leave as he kept feeding.

Eventually he worked his way around to me and clear of everything. I slipped the smokepole out.

He saw me. No idea exactly WHAT was going on, but he knew there was something.

I lined the sights up and a 209 primer ignited 100 grains of WhiteHots under a 250 grain PowerBelt hollowpoint.

This being a black powder firearm, I had no idea where I hit him. There was a 10-foot cloud of thick smoke between me and the deer the instant after I pulled the trigger.

When the smoke cleared, I got out. Found blood. A good sign but also not a good sign. I was aiming for his neck. A neck shot should have floored him right there.

A moment or so after the shot Clint & Stacy saw the deer walk past.

Not going to give you gory details, but the deer was hit.

We tracked that deer for more than a mile, It circled around and around. I have never tracked a deer that twisted and turned like that one. Eventually with batteries running VERY low and us having only a marginal idea of where we were, we called it quits. We came out of the woods about a mile from the stands and two miles by road.

The deer is dead now. Has to be. The amount of blood we found tells me he's dead.

While searching for the deer I also lost my cell phone, which had my driver's license and library card.

Somewhere a squirrel was busy making calls to 1-900-GO-WILD until I had the phone shut off.

Go find it you say? How? It's on vibrate and in the middle of a dry bottom. We marked the trail as best we could, but that was last night. No telling what happened to the trail markers.

So, DL and phone are replaced. Phone is charging as I write. If you have my phone number and want to be in my contact list, call me sometime in the next few days. Just not this evening please. At my daughter's request I also added texting, but if it is the PIA it was last time, it's coming off.

Regardless of that I'm still extremely upset about the deer. I believe in a quick, clean kill. He didn't get that. This was the second deer I've lost in my hunting career. The first was the very first deer I shot.

I'm not happy about either one.

Before you decide to rip my head off, I point out deer die painfully every day of the year in this nation - hit by cars, starvation and disease. Compared to some of the ways a deer dies, even with the poor shot I delivered, that deer died quicker than many others.

I only take shots I know I can make. I knew I could make that one. I'd take the same shot every time and will again. I don't know what happened.

Thursday, October 20, 2011

Bleep. Bleepbleepableepbleep Part II

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


Welcome back. In case you missed Part I go here -

This is the part where I use words and more concepts which offend people. Here's the opening salvo - Your brain is can be used for more than making your fingers operate a TV remote control.
Offensive concept du jour No. 3

Gimme that thing and let me push some buttons.

On guard! Dysphemism fast approaching! What is the difference between urinate and piss? Hang on, I have only begun to offend.

No less a book than the King James Bible uses the phrase "that pisseth against the wall" five times. So I did not use a dysphemism (but I have made you wonder what that word means.) And yet, the Supreme Court has ruled "piss" is a word which cannot be used on broadcast TV. See the George Carlin decision. Hrm. It's good enough for the majority of Christian churches in the nation but not good enough for TV, the other altar at which so many worship daily.
OBSCENE TREE! Cut it down! Call in the anti-lorax

I was in a Bible study one in which the Shittim tree was discussed. (32 uses. I counted 'em). The preacher said those who objected to the word could use Acacia (according to scholars it is the same thing). One of the lady readers in the study came to Shittim, paused and used Acacia and moved on. What's the difference? Would she object to Shitake mushrooms? Shitepoke? What about the English surname Shithead (pronounced shuh-THEED or sheh-THEED)? Ooo. Since the Bible also has several references to a community named Shittim, wonder what she'da done?

In a business in town a dear friend of mine who is quite devout in her beliefs has no problem using the phrase "goddamn" (your spelling may vary) especially when quoting others. She professes a
Expletive deleted.

belief in Jesus and God, but denies the deity's name is the three letter word G-O-D. Hence, she is not "taking the Lord's name in vain" according to her beliefs. What she sees as misuse of Jehovah will result in at least a LOOK and possibly a verbal excoriation of the offender.

Some are offended by what she has no problem with. Why? If there is no intent to harm, shock or abuse the word, why are some people offended? If an atheist uses the phrase, what does it mean?

Is meaning more important than the sound or word? Who decides meaning?

In this same business another person once took me to task for using the word "shit." I intended it as an expression of dismay and mild disgust. I also use the words "crap" "sheep dip" "sheetrock" "fork" "fudge" and a variety of other words and random sounds for the same thing.

She said "You have something in your mouth I wouldn't have in my hand." Ah. What is the difference between that word and feces, excreta, manure, poop, dung, and the other words we use to describe the semisolid waste product of the digestive tract? Words she has used, I note.

Really, what's the difference?

This second person had enough sense to not accuse me of having a "limited vocabulary." She's been witness to my personal sesquipedalian lexicon unleashed on a hapless soul who attempted to cow me with language. When you pull the bull's tail, you get the attention of his horns.

If it is a meaningless phrase, a mere exclamation devoid of semantic content, why should it offend? Does a loudly exclaimed "ARG!" offend?
Offensive Concept. Your brain is used for more than filling your skull.

Point of order Mr. Chairman: If the word is used to offend, shock, harm, etc. that's another matter. Point accepted. We are not using the word to offend, shock, harm, etc.

Say the word has real meaning. Does using a euphemism or degenerate form of the word provide an excuse? A way out? A way around? If the meaning is the same, what's the real difference?

Purport for a moment the existence of a divine being as described in the Bible. Do you think this entity will see a real difference in an atheist who says "goddamn" as an expletive or exclamation and a Christian who says "laws" - a degenerate form of Lord - as an expletive or exclamation?
Close enough for government work

Why does one collection of letters and sounds offend when another collection of letters and sounds meaning the EXACT SAME THING does not offend? Does this smack of hypocrisy to you? Mental instability? Or is this just being responsible, polite and genteel? Who decides?

Does it matter, as with the word nigger, who says it? Why?

Do the circumstances under which it is said matter?

If you mean the same thing, is there a difference? If what I mean is not what you believe it means, whose meaning is correct?

If you insist I curb my certain parts of my language around you, I have the right to demand the same of you. This extends to anyone who you wish to censor. Do you want to go there? Where are the Knights Who Say Nii?
Here's your herring for the next task.

Why am I responsible for what you think of my words? I take full responsibility for the things I say. How you interpret them is your business, not mine. Arg. Complicated.

Mo betta. I am responsible for what I say, not what you think I said.

So, in closing I say euphemism euphemism euphemism euphemism and euphemism. And if that offends you, dysphemism euphemism.

Wednesday, October 19, 2011

Bleep. Bleepbleepableepbleep

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

Yeah. Get used to the idea. This column is probably going to contain language and concepts which will offend a number of people. But I have a few things to say first to set the stage for my point. (IOW I'm rambling again.)
Quentin Tarantino as host


Remember Romper Room? I do not remember the show's lady host getting pregnant and how the networks refused to allow that to be seen. I have since learned about it. Back then even the very word pregnancy was not permitted on TV.

Now, you can watch Sesame Street and see women with enormous abdomens walk down the street. Some of them are even with child. A few of 'em are actually pregnant. Ar har har.

Bad jokes aside, pregnancy, breast feeding and so forth are just another thang even on Sesame street these days.

I am told my great-grandmother objected to television. She said it would not be long before you could witness people engaged in what Shakespeare called "making the beast with two backs" on TV. [smirk]
So much for the birds & the bees...


Explicit coverage of such details remains taboo in broadcast TV, but it can certainly be right up to that limit.

I disgress sharply here.

You can see graphic death easily on TV. I ask you - Which would you rather see or, more importantly, let your children see: 1) Someone be killed (literally as in the news or figuratively as in fictional or event re-creation shows) or 2) Two people "make love"?You parents, which have your children seen more of?

Hrm. May be future column lurking in that.

Back on topic. I also remember watching an episode of M*A*S*H in which one of the characters said "son of a bitch." I immediately rushed to tell my mother what was said on TV. She gave me a look. Not LOOK, or Look, but a look. You know what I mean.
Woooo. Watch that tongue dude.

It was not that long ago the word "sucks" was a profanity. Now, my mother uses it everyday conversation.

Today a TV show (I forget the name) uses the BLEEP to much comedic effect. Rather than just bleep censorable words, entire phrases are bleeped, leaving the viewer to either read lips or use imagination to fill in the blanks. No, I do not recall the show's name and I don't watch TV. My report on this comes second hand from On The Media, a public radio show.

SCOTUS (the Supreme Court) is expected to review the Federal Communications Commission authority to regulate what broadcast television may and may not air. Broadcast TV, as opposed to cable TV, is regulated by this federal board. The FCC gets this right from Congress which set up a permitting and license system for the broadcast spectrum. This includes cellular communications, ham radio, broadcast TV, radio and other forms of wireless communications.

The last time SCOTUS ruled on this significantly was on George Carlin's famous 7 dirty words.
FCC example of free speech

I ask you, should broadcast TV be regulated by the federal government? Cable TV is not so regulated. The internet absolutely is not regulated (hence this column is available for your perusal). Print media is not regulated. Speak is not regulated. Internet and satellite radio is not regulated while "terrestrial" radio is. Well, yes, they are regulated a bit. But for profanity, nudity and such it is not federally regulated.

The aforementioned On The Media has gleefully bent the FCC's rule so far I thought the rule would break. On public radio.

Is there a need for FCC regulation? Should the FCC's powers be extended? Retracted? How far would you go? Remember the rules you intend to apply to others may likewise be applied to you, especially in this case. Do you want the government regulating what you can and can't say?

My point, circuitous as ever, is what's in a word?
Not even close...

Yes, I know,trying to make people think (which is a capital offense according to some people in my community including a few elected officials). I also I haven't used language which would offend. Son of a bitch, after all, is the male offspring of a female canine.

Offending words come in Part II. Along with another heaping helping of offense for those who believe a brain is a useless appendage.

A box of assorted conglomerations

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Today, as I posted a bit ago on FB, I wish I lived in Zanesville, Ohio.

http://www.newarkadvocate.com/article/20111018/NEWS01/111018015

On a central column at my office. 800+ pounds on the hoof.




Yes indeedy. I wish I lived there. I would be out looking for these escaped critters with the full intention of putting one (or more) on the wall and meat in the freezer.

Reminds me of the time we had a live tiger come to Ashburn. The owner said regulations required he keep the animal confined behind a double (or triple) barrier. If it escaped, he had 1 minute to get his hands on it. If that failed, he had a bit more time to tranquilizer the critter. If that didn't take, instant trophy.

A lot of people are going to object to my attitude.

A lot of people have also never been 10 feet away from an animal fully capable of and intending to kill them to death. I have. My last stare down was with a 200+ pound wild boar which was charging at me. Now THAT was a rush.

WILD animals are not pets. Attempting to make them so is an excellent way to court death regularly.

The only thing to do now to these escaped animals is shoot 'em before they kill someone. Wish I was there.

•••

Harold Camping, the guy who predicted the end of the world back in May and was proven wrong is now saying the world will end Friday. "Probably" in his words.
Random image.

http://www.kansascity.com/2011/10/18/3215394/world-probably-ending-this-friday.html

Considering how well the football team is doing right now...

Anyway, when the world doesn't come to an end, Camping et al will back up, refigure, recalculate, reassess and make a new prediction. It's what such folks do. The Seventh Day Adventists formed when a prediction their leaders years ago failed. The Jehovah Witnesses have made the prediction so many times no one (except the followers of the Council in New York) take them seriously.

All of 'em ignore what the Bible has to say about false prophets.

•••

Raining today. Could not go deer hunting as we're just in black powder season. BP and rain do not mix.

•••

What is the job of a formal teacher?
Chuck Norris don't need logic.

Too many today think their job is to collect a paycheck and force rote memorization of students.

If you are a teacher, do you encourage your students to debate with you? Do you let them argue their point? Do you reward them or slap them down for speaking out and up in class?

If a student develops a cogent, rational and deliberate case to support their point and you disagree, what grade does the student get? OK, say the student comes to the wrong conclusion, but the chain of logic is admirable. What then?


•••

An awesome turnout last night for the Sheriff's forum. Standing Room Only, literally. Hope to have the video up on Youtube later this week.

Most interesting was how the candidates answered the question about staying within budget. What they said, I am absolutely certain, is not what a lot of people heard.

If you ask a "yes" or "no" question and the person gives you an answer and starts putting qualifiers on it, the real answer is the opposite of what they first said.

Our next sheriff will have a MAJOR impact on our property taxes. Think about that when you vote.

The same applies to any politician. Think about that when you vote.

•••

What're your thoughts on this Wednesday?

Monday, October 17, 2011

The real problem.

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

Being a genius I have found the real problem with having multiple wives.

It is not, as some have suggested, having two mothers-in-law.

It is a lot worse.

Meet Phread. Phread comes from a culture where multiple wives are common. Phread and Co. also are a bit pompous where names are concerned.

So, Phread marries Psoiux (the X is silent). Psoiux, is the progeny herself of a multiple partner marriage. Psoiux has 3 mommas.
Paint your wagon?

Phread now has three mommas-in-law.

Phread now marries Bhetti (silent second T) who is likewise the progeny of a multiple partner marriage. She has 5 mommas.

Phread now has two wives and eight Mommas-In-Law.

It gets worse every time Phread marries another woman. He adds one wife, but tacks on a whole bunch of additional mothers-in-law.

In short order Phread can have a mother-in-law not just for every day of the week, not even for every day of the month. Phread as a momma-in-law for every period of the DAY. One for morning. One for noon. One for afternoon. One for evening. Several for every night.

That's just the mommas-in-law. It doesn't factor in Grandmothers and great-grandmothers.

Phread is NOT going to die happy.
The happiness Phread will never experience.

I tell you, I now fully understand why those people who believe in multiple partner marriages seem crazy.

They ARE crazy. Any man who'd willingly subject himself to that kind of pain and suffering is seriously mentally unbalanced.

Friday, October 14, 2011

Where does responsibility end?

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

This is ripped from another forum I’m known to inhabit.

Here’s your groundwork:
Unnatural accident.

1.) An individual has been a victim of a terrible accident. There was no person responsible, only a series of natural events that are responsible for injury to the victim.

There were many well-known steps the victim could have taken, and several educated choices the victim could have made that would have prevented or significantly lessened the injuries.

An example: A woman is hospitalized for hypothermia, frostbite and exposure after being being caught in an avalanche while hiking and trapped under the snow for hours. There were many things she could have done which would have prevented or significantly lessened the injuries. She could have dressed in snow-gear, carried safety equipment, checked the weather report and avalanche risk and hiked with a buddy, but instead she was out alone in sneakers and a hoodie for what she expects to be a short hike on a mild afternoon. Was she being responsible for her own safety?

Do you hold the victim responsible for his/her role in being a victim?
Without all three, it doesn't happen.

2.) An individual has been a victim of a violent crime. The perp is charged. There were many well-known steps the victim could have taken, and several educated choices the victim could have made that would have prevented or significantly lessened the injuries.

Example: This one is quite gray and murky, which makes it both ideal and a poor choice for an example. You can think of far more clear examples I'm sure.


A woman is raped by a popular man she knows only by his celebrity after she is invited to his hotel room by one of his employees. They are both intoxicated. He is arrested and is being prosecuted/held responsible for raping her. There were many well-known steps she could have taken, and several educated choices she could have made that would have prevented or significantly lessened the injuries. She could have chosen not to drink to intoxication in a public place, she could have chosen to remain in a public area since her 'new friend' is a stranger, she could have had a friend come along with her.

Do you hold the victim responsible for his/her role in being victimized?

And that whole concept about being a rebel...
The real question is if you answered these questioned differently- Why?

Do you think that having a human attacker (v. being attacked by a mountain lion or tornado) removes a measure of responsibility from an individual for their own safety? If so- Why?

Now that you know the specifics I ask again, if you answered these questioned differently- Why?

Do you think that having a human perpetrator removes a measure of responsibility from an individual for their own safety? If so- Why?

Thursday, October 13, 2011

Fear Me

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


Gotta explain something before I get to my point.
Then, I TAKE OVER THE WORLD!


People who study brains and how people think will tell you we attack that which we fear. Most folks think of attack as  physical as in jumping on it and beating it for however long is necessary.

It can be a different form of attack. You can attack through the legal system. You can attack through the legislative system. Cyber attacks, a new compound word, is part of the modern lexicon.

You can even launch intellectual attacks. This is both the most devastating and least effective.

How is it devastating? Because done properly, an intellectual attack can drive a rather sedate group of people into a frenzied mob. The revolutions underway in the Middle East began as intellectual attacks. As more and more people learned about the real oppression they suffered compared to other places, their thoughts galvanized into physical action.
Where's the signup table?


Totalitarian regimes shut down the intelligensia as best they can. Such leaders fear what great minds, to paraphrase Albert Einstein, may come up with.

Consider too - ridicule is a form of attack.

Damnocrat. Reboobican, Liarberal (thanks Rebel), Can'tservative, Tea Baggers. As a moron in my community once tried to say Liberaltarians (what he meant by that I have no idea, but as I say, he's a moron.) Sinators and Reprehensibles (thanks Joe Klock). The Unamerican Uncivil Anti-Liberties Union. Even my reference to the "moron" above are all attacks. There are others, many more, but these are the major ones.

Positing that an attack is born in fear, you are well justified in asking why I fear these groups and these people.
Edify yourself. Look it up.


What am I am afraid of?

These people have the power to force me to do things I do no wish to do. I have no recourse against these people and their potential actions except to ridicule them and expose them for the fools they are. Even my community moron (who has a criminal record, BTW).

All these people seek to impose their will on mine. I have no effective way to fight back, except ridicule.
Sure, I trust the government. Don't you?


Physical response would quickly result in my demise, which would serve no purpose. See Randy Weaver and "David Koresh." Read the complete files on these people before you decide they are fools.

I do not have the power or the financing to seek attacks legislatively or legalistically.

Logic will not work.

Rational debate will not work.

Intelligent discourse will not work.

Why? "None is so blind as he who will not see." We have seen what their enforced policies generate. Rather than accept failure as their responsibility, they pass the blame to someone else.
And? Answer the question...


Do you know people like that? They are never at fault? If, by some chance, they do take the blame it is only to be a martyr, which really means they are still not at fault.

How do you deal with people like that? You can ignore them. But can you ignore them when they have enough power to directly affect you against your will?

What do you do?

You can hold your head down and try to minimize damage. You can go on the attack, knowing you will most likely lose. Your method of attack determines how quickly and how badly you will lose. But! in attacking you may inspire others to so attack and eventually overwhelm by sheer mass of numbers.

The question is: Are you willing to suffer the loss? How much loss are you willing to suffer?
If the truth hurts, you ain't living right.

Myself, I have made an uneasy peace with the losses I incur.

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

Corollary - Sometimes you cannot know the consequences until you reach them, but the great majority of the time you can know the consequences. You just choose to believe they will not happen.

Such people I ridicule are so hidebound to Idiotology (yet another word I have coined) they cannot see an opposing side except as something that must be defeated. If it can't be defeated right now, the other side must be backed into a corner under the guise if compromise to make later defeat possible.

In that, they too are rebels. Rebels who refuse to admit their actions will have consequences. In so refusing, they cast the blame on those who had nothing to do with it.

Fear me. For I will not accept responsibility for your actions.

Wednesday, October 12, 2011

You can't read this

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Should books be banned because of their content? If so, what content should make them be banned?
And, I write them.

Fairly easy question that. Intelligent people will shout "NO!" Those of lesser mental acumen, not secure in themselves or their beliefs AND who believe they have the right to dictate how someone else should live will say "yes."

Nother question. Should access to books be restricted? Ah. A much tougher question now. Before you say yes or no, consider the entire spectrum of literature. At one end put the incomprehensible and brain-petrifying works of sociologists. They take much delight in taking obfuscation to levels that make my ramblings seem like the work of a second grader.

At the other end place the most hard-core material imaginable.

I ask again, should access to books be restricted? The most damage you could incur in giving a 5 year old a sociology book is a hernia. Hand that same child the illustrated works of mass murders, sausage making, Reboobicans, Damnocrats, Liarberals, Can'tservatives and so forth and you might turn the munchkin into a politician or lawyer.
You are getting sleepy...

I am not serious. It takes far more than a single exposure to one book to irrevocably wreck a child's psyche. I hope anyway.

Intelligent people won't ban books, but will restrict access to 'em for a while. See above.

Intelligent adults can read anything they can get their hands on and more power to 'em. So sez I, whose personal library has included works by Anton LeVay, Ambrose Bierce, Moses, Mohammad, Zoroaster, George Orwell, Isaiah, the Marquis de Sade, Douglas Adams, Hemingway, Matthew Henry, Adam Clarke, William Gaines and other folks you've never heard of.

The question THEN becomes - what criteria do you use to ban or restrict access to a book? Afore you answer that, eyeball this list.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Books/2011/0928/10-banned-books-that-may-surprise-you/James-and-the-Giant-Peach-by-Roald-Dahl
HE'S NAKED UNDER THE BEARD!

I have served on a library committee which reviewed one of the listed books. A parent at the elementary school object to Shel Silverstein's book. The librarian asked if I'd read the book and give her my opinion. The majority opinion of the committee would decide if the book stayed or got booted.

The book stayed. Unanimous verdict. Don't know what the parent had to say. Don't care either.

I told the librarian I didn't need to read the book. It's a children's classic, enjoyed by adults too. (never mind that I abhor poetry, I make an exception for Silverstein in small doses).

I ask again, what is your criteria for keeping a book away from someone?

How about "Harriet the Spy,' No. 5 on the list mentioned above. "Louise Fitzhugh's well-loved tale of a girl who spies on her friends and has to face the consequences was banned because it set a bad example for children, supposedly encouraging them to spy, lie, and swear," states the clip about the book.
This man is accused of reading Little Black Sambo.
 
Ah. It sets a bad example. So books that teach children to lie, spy, and swear should be banned or restricted?

You sure? How about books that also speak of cannibalism, incest and ritual murder including murder of infants?

I recall one large televangelist describing why some books should be banned because "they describe the movement of the tongue over the body." I think he was jealous.

I also think he needs to re-read a book.

Gonna torque a bunch of people right here and delight some others. Hey. It's what I do.

"How delightful is your love, my sister, my bride!
   How much more pleasing is your love than wine,
Biblical scholar at a seminary wrote this.
and the fragrance of your perfume
   more than any spice!
Your lips drop sweetness as the honeycomb, my bride;
   milk and honey are under your tongue.
The fragrance of your garments
   is like the fragrance of Lebanon."

Song of Solomon, 4:10-11

Plenty more. Men are instructed to be delighted by their wife's breasts. Other passages describe far more graphic things as I'm not going into here. But yeah, it's in the Bible.

I forget how many times David lied. I forget how many times the Israelites were sent to spy. Etc. etc. etc. Not even the great Matthew Henry could adequately explain the lying that takes place in the Bible.

Does the Bible apparently condone lying under certain circumstances? I can't find any place that David was held accountable for his lies. Other Biblical liars are likewise venerated as heroes and nowhere in Scripture are they held accountable for the lies. Maybe I missed it. I am not a Bible scholar, just a humble reader of the Word.

So should a book be banned or restricted based on the words and situations described in the book?

Or is the intention more important than the content? That's what SCOTUS has ruled on pornography.

The problem with that is, Who will decide what the intention is?

"Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." Matthew 7:1-2

Are you willing to go there?

•••



Throwing this in as well as a last minute thing. Couldn't figure where to place it in the above.

Some folks would ban Harry Potter.

Some folks is idiots too. If you intend to start banning books based on content, then we should throw The Chronicles of Narnia on the same heap as Harry Potter. Both books have magic. Both use magic to good ends. In both, good triumphs over evil.
Another victim of cable news shows.

My brother, an educator, points out that when a child picks up a 500 page book and attempts to read it in ONE sitting, then something is going on. Something that needs to be encouraged. Something that needs to be reinforced.

If a young'un picks up a Harry Potter book, make sure the next installment is handy for the child to read when that book is done.


There is no greater indicator of success in this world that the ability and willingness to read. And yet, as I have observed in the past, some parents actually object to their children being required to read books in school. These parents, I note, are in low paying jobs (if employed), resentful, often bigots and believe then can do a better job of running other peoples lives than the person whose actually living the life. They are Liarberals and Can'tservatives, Reboobicans and Damnocrats.

They are also poorly educated and do not willingly read.

And in closing, I remind myself I've given people in my community yet another stack of reasons to vilify, excoriate, hate and judge me all because I choose to not watch shadows dancing on the wall. The same kind of people nailed Jesus to the cross. I reckon I'm in pretty good company.

Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds."

Monday, October 10, 2011

Baby I was borned this way III

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

.Shall we recap? Nah. Go here http://porkbrainsandmilkgravy.blogspot.com/2011/10/baby-i-was-borned-this-way-part-ii_08.html. If you missed yesterday's piece, read it before you read this one. And read the first installment too.

So what did you decide? Ready to storm Washington and demand new laws and reform?
The difference?

How are you going to fund this? Eh. That's a less relevant question. Really.

Remember I said the handicap is also somewhat subjective. Here's the real question. How are you then going to define the handicap in legal terms? Can you?

Shift gears abruptly. How about art? What makes it art?

I know art when I see it.


Another transmission busting shift.

The US Constitution prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment." Define cruel and unusual. Death penalty? Some people say absolutely. Others say it is only a fitting end for a criminal and all too often far too humane. Capital punishment in the US is absolutely more humane than what the victims of many murderers went through.
Definitely time to replace it.

One more, then you can get your clutch replaced.

Pornography is another great example. What one person sees as porn another sees as an expression of art. SCOTUS ruled that the standards of the community must define what is porn. That being the case what's porn in my South Georgia community is art in some California communities.

The concepts behind these above issues is important. The concept - personal perception - is the driving force behind the real topic here.

Need a new breed of cop maybe?
So are you in favor of creating a new law or laws regarding equal treatment for so handicapped people. Bearing in mind you don't yet know the handicap.

Enforcement becomes the real nightmare. In one place the person may be handicapped and another, could be non handicapped. Yes. Really.

Set aside the issue of people who voluntary handicap themselves this way. If you do it intentionally, be prepared for the reactions you get. And yes, some people do handicap themselves this way, at least from my definition of this handicap.

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

So what is the handicap? What's yer guess Tom?
Handicapped men? According to some, yes.

It is ugly.

That's it. Ugly. Ugly is not used as an adjective, adverb or other modifying word. It is the predicate, the noun, the subject.

Now the proof I promised.

Ugly. G'head and laugh. Gut check. Now remember how you have discriminated against ugly people.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/28/opinion/sunday/ugly-you-may-have-a-case.html

http://www.independentsentinel.com/2011/09/classify-ugly-people-as-disabled-and-entitle-them-to-all-rights-of-the-disabled/

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

http://www.experienceproject.com/question-answer/Do-You-Think-That-Being-Born-Ugly-Should-Be-Considered-As-Being-Born-Handicapped/539088
Not handicapped. Just ... never mind.

Like it or not, laugh if you will. But if you strip the facts of a handicap down to the essentials, being ugly fits the definition. Most people cannot afford corrective plastic surgery, except in the case of accidents. Even then, they need insurance.

Until you learned what the handicap is, how'd you feel about the handicap. Now that you know what I'm talking about, what's your impression of the handicap?

If your impression changed, why? How?

If your impression didn't change, I also ask why and how?

How about those laws to guarantee equal rights to the so handicapped?

Still support 'em?

This being a possibly correctable handicap, should insurance companies be forced to spend money to  "help" ugly people as they do people with other handicaps? What about the poor? Should they be entitled to public help?