The Will of the People and People of Will

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

.
.
.

Do you believe in democracy, or in the case of the governments of and in the United States, a republic?

What happens when the "wrong" people win?

A better question - Do you believe in the will of the people? By that I mean, do you support the concept it embodies?

The will of the people is the law of the land, in other words.

Before you work up an answer, lemme point this out - the Constitution actually states that societal mores must determine whether or not certain laws are permissible. “Cruel and unusual punishment” is a direct reflection of what the people say.

In one of the more famous Supreme Court decisions, SCOTUS handed down a ruling which states in part that pornography has to be defined by the standards of that community. In another decision, SCOTUS ruled that election districts must also take into account the social and economic makeup of that district, not just race and politics.

A community where I do not wish to live.

Relying on that, SCOTUS has said that a community standards are a deciding factor in making a law. The reach of that community apparently varies by the kind of law being implemented.

I re-phrase the question

If a sufficient number of people say “It should be this way” then that’s the way it ought to be?

What is a sufficient number of people? Who gets to have a say? Should there be limits on who gets to have a deciding voice? Where will you set the limits?

What amount of people is sufficient to set a policy or law? Do you need a certain number of people or just a percentage of them?

Whether you admit it or not...

What percentage? A majority? A plurality? Both exist in the United States

Does age matter? Would you allow a 3 year old to vote for president? A 17 year old?

You know people who are 30 years old and not as mature or cogent as some 16 year olds.

In the US, anyone over the age of 18 who is a US Citizen and is in possession of their civil rights (convicted felons have abrogated rights at times) gets to vote. Anyone, including a person on death row, has the right to speak. They may not have a right to make decisions or participate in decision making, but they can be heard. NB: This is not a universal policy. Some countries not do allow citizens any rights. Even life is held by a tenuous thread of those in charge and can be clipped at any time.

Artificial limits based on artificial boundaries

BTW, we're still at war here. Yes huh.

Should a decision be bound by geography? In other words, can something be a law here, but not a law there?

Within the corporate limits of a city, the residents can call for a referendum. If approved, that referendum is binding within the City but not outside the City. City residents are the ones who get to decide.

Is this fair? Unfair?

Say the City passes a referendum. The unincorporated County passes a referendum exactly the opposite (this has happened in Georgia many times). The City residents, being residents of the County too, get to vote on the County ballot. But County-only residents don’t get to vote in the City referendum.

Splain THIS ONE!

Both referenda become of the law within the political jurisdictions.

Fair? Unfair?

The County-wide decision applies to the unincorporated County, but not within the City.

So you can literally do something legal and take one step and that action become illegal.

State laws also vary, meaning you can take one step there and what you do is legal, a step back and your action becomes illegal.

Where do you draw the line?

One more monkey wrench and I’ll turn you loose. If the will of the people is the law of the land, what protects minorities from being oppressed by a majority? Will your opinion be different if you are in the majority or the minority?

She's married, has kids and asthma. I am not kidding.

15 years

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
15 years ago from  today, I literally held a life in one hand.

15 years from that day, that life is capable of picking me up.

15 years ago from today, I was changed, permanently. If you've been there, you understand. If you've never been there you can't understand. It can't be explained either.

15 years from that day I am yet again a different person than I was.

For 15 years, I have daily learned something I did not know before.

Happy 15th anniversary of your birth, my son.

My favorite Jesse picture. He was "scaring" me from under a table.

Jesse on his favorite instrument

Yep. He killed it. Helped process it too. That's his rifle.

Your right to be offended - Part I

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

OK, bad ancient pun. I still like it.

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 to take Arms against a Sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them: to die, to sleep
and etc…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_be,_or_not_to_be

I pose to you today an ancillary to the Bard’s quandry -

Which is more important? The right to offend or the right to not be offended?

My position on this is clear, at least to me.

Today’s musing has come about by way of conversations I’ve had recently with a number of atheists regarding religious displays. The more intelligent atheists have avoided the word “offend” and its various permutations to discuss why they object to religious displays on public property. One has used “offend” to describe how people of one religion may perceive a display of another religion. The less intelligent describe how such displays offend them.

Please, do tell me.

Arg. Confusing.

I retreat back to the Topic du Jour statement. Which is more important? The right to offend or the right to not be offended?

What about it? Ever been offended. Ever offended someone?

Well, duh, of course you have.

So what was your reaction to being offended? To offending someone?

Lemme take one more step down this road. When you were offended and the other person knew, what did you think about their reaction to your being offended? How did you react to someone being offended at what you did?

Just need some help to know what to do.

Back on track - Should there be limits to how much offense can be incurred or delivered?

Who is going to set those limits? Do we even need limits?

What gives anyone the right to give offense? What gives anyone the right to not be offended?

If you have ANY interaction with fellow human beings, you are going to offended eventually. As remarkable as it may seem, I can be offended. You are going to have get up early in the morning to do it. It’s probably best to not even go to bed if you want to offend me.

Anyway, in Part II below, I provide you with some reader feedback.

Your right to be offended Part II

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

I posted the question on FB and it generated a fairly good thread. I repost here, edited slightly to remove full names, links to FB pages and some grammar.

Rebecca - Wow! Good question. Deep one. I don't know if either one is more important. Let me think on this. It's got to bounce around in the mind some.

April - Depends on the subject matter. Example:When it comes to taking God out of schools BEC it may offend or go against some ppls beliefs, then I would prefer to offend them! I am outraged that the government don't allow Christians have prayer in school and in some other counties school functions! I am offended when you call businesses and have to press 1 for English and 2 for Spanish when this is a English speaking country. I know English is not the only language here but it is the predominate language here not the 2nd or. 3rd!!

Me -  And who decides what can and can't be discussed.

Rebecca - Ben, you love playing devil's advocate? :)

Me - I just want people to think.

April - Ben what do you think is more important then? To offend or be offended?

Me - I want to hear other opinions. I know mine. (which has been expressed in my blog.)

Mike - The right to offend...without question. If I am offended by something, I still have a choice in how I accept the info and how I respond to it. If that info is blocked because of a right NOT to be offended, then I stem the flow of info and I am not given any choice at all. The choice should be mine. I should be a big enough person to make my own decisions and to handle it.

Kathryn -I try not to offend others. But I know everyone won't always agree on the same thing. How about asking God what he thinks? I think it may be better not to offend him. Psalm 32 : 8 I will instruct thee and teach thee in the way to go: I will guide thee with mine eye. Proverbs 3 : 5 , 6 Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not on thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths. ........ Maybe that will help in deciding important things like that.

Pakrat - The right to offend.

Kathryn - I don't mind being offended btw. I know how to turn a channel or press a button or walk away.

Greg - I would go so far as to suggest that there is no right to not be offended. I think each person has a right to attempt to avoid offense by carefully selecting the viewpoints, images, etc. to which they will give attention. I also think each person has a responsibility to not unnecessarily offend his fellow man (though defining 'unnecessarily' already puts us on debatable ground). At the end of the day, though, any action we take (including total inaction) will be offensive to someone, and I don't think that God would have given us any rights which were impossible to attain.

Tom - Got to hand it to you, Ben, you like the quandaries. I think MM nailed it, not that the other opinions don't have merit. The bottom line is the free flow of ideas. If that is restricted, then a freedom is lost. Doesn't matter if its objectionable or not, because if you never have the opportunity to hear/read/see it, you never have the chance to evaluate its merits. Moreover, how could you even debate an idea if you don't know what it is? As I have stated many times before, freedom is messy. If you have a problem with that, maybe you should go somewhere with less of it, and see how that works out for you.

Steve - I agree with Tom and Mike, the free flow of information and the opportunity for me to make a choice is paramount. However, we live in a society where too many people "require" us to be subjected to their viewpoint. Even if we have thoroughly evaluated an idea, the ability to opt out is frequently taken from us, most notably when it comes to educating our children.

Mark - Ben, I think the right not to be offended is more important than the right to offend; however, much like a "judgement" placed upon someone, that reasoning must be enforced. One cannot expect not to be offended if he or she walks through life thinking that not to be offended is a given right. If one chooses to walk "outside" of the normal circles that are created by society, then one "opens the door," so to speak to be offended; it is at that time that one needs to speak his mind and "defend his right not to be offended." It is not something one gets for free, for everything in life comes with a price.

Tom - to Mark‎; What if in the course of vigorously defending one's right not to be offended, one offends others who feel that their right not to be offended is being trampled upon? Moreover, who determines what the societal norms are that one must adhere to in order not to give offense? And what if you are offended by those norms when they abridge your rights in some other aspect? I can see this dog running his paws off to get that stub of a tail. Unless you posed this particular conundrum to elicit this exact query, which I don't put past you!
16 hours ago · Like

Mark - Gee -- I'm really offended! :)

Bryan - (me brother) I much prefer to be offended as it purports free speech and the opportunity to be heard and to hear.

Mark - Interesting twist on the rights of others.

Greg - I think Steve Mecham makes an interesting point. There is a difference between a right to not be offended and a right to avoid participating in that which offends you. This points to a tangentially-related debate around the issue of tolerance/intolerance. Classic objective definitions will tell you that to 'tolerate' means to peacefully coexist with that which bothers (or offends) you while to 'not tolerate' means to find a way to end the existence of that which you find intolerable. Various social and political movements have, however, twisted the word 'tolerance' to be synonymous with 'acceptance' and even 'support', with intolerance being anything less than that bar. Do we have a right to not ever be offended? No. But do we have a right to be offended when confronted with something we find offensive? Absolutely.

Kathryn - I simply think of it this way. You have the right to be a jerk as long as you let of walk away. Not meaning any of you are being a jerk... figure of speech.

My kinda Christmas

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2066860/Scottsdale-Gun-Club-Arizona-invites-children-pose-Santa--arm.html

Gunning for the Easter Bunny

I cannot fully imagine the chagrin, ire, angst and a whole bunch of other negative emotions running through the anti gun crowd over this story.

In what will absolutely not surprise you, note that I support this idea of Santa and guns. The idea that is driving the antis irrational delights me even more.

Firearms make GREAT Christmas gifts.

In this era where a woman pepper sprays people and a riot erupts over $2 waffle irons, I think it is more than appropriate for people to pose with firearms and Santa.

I understand some people will object to this on other grounds. As one person on FB said "Christmas should be one thing only. Peace and Good Will."

.50 BMG. Turning enemies into jelly since Granpa's day.

If that is what Christmas should really be, the Santa has no place in it. 

The original St. Nick, we are told, gave to children and expected nothing in return. Archaic. This is not the modern definition of Santa Claus.

The modern Santa is commercialism, greed and capitalism (nonwithstanding he runs a totalitarian regime). Santa is getting gifts. Giving gifts is of lesser import where the jolly old elf's main followers are concerned.


Is Santa is your main icon for Christmas, then why do you object to people posing with him with items they would REALLY like to get for Christmas?


In terms of gifts what is the real difference between a car, a doll or a Ma Deuce?


If Santa is something that is important to you, then why shouldn't you pose with Santa with something else which is important to you? I know a lot of people who consider their firearms to be significant investments, treasured heirlooms and something they are incredibly proud to own.

Men In Black. Daughters In White.

I suspect a major reason for the discomfiture is the juxtaposition of something seen as benign and comforting with something that is seen as dangerous and violent.

Perceptions cannot define reality, but they can make the perceiver mistaken.

I have seen MANY children totally freak when presented with Santa. I have yet to see any child totally freak (unless indoctrinated ahead of time) when presented with a firearm.

Ask the un-indoctrinated screaming child which he is more afraid of - Santa or a gun.


If Santa truly represents peace and good will and firearms do not, then I can only reply - Sic vis pacem, parabellum.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2066860/Scottsdale-Gun-Club-Arizona-invites-children-pose-Santa--arm.html

and

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/26/nation/la-na-air-force-pagans-20111127

And what would you have done?

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Got up this morning. Truck parked in the driveway. Not mine. Bulldog in back seat.

Moseyed out to check. Dog barked. An arm on the front seat moved. I saw the person was alive, wrapped in a blanket so I walked back to the house.

Went back to the house to resume cooking lunch, washing clothes and making jerky. Later while pattying out BACON burgers in the barn, truck cranked and left. Back in 30 seconds.

Man walks up. Asked where he was. Did not remember how he got here. Called his mother (dude is my age) to come from the far side of Albany to bring him money for gas.

He admits to being too drunk to drive home last night.

"I figured it was something like that. Not just anybody is going to park in my driveway," I said.

Gave him a large glass of ice water. A short while later, cooked him an egg sandwich and took it to his truck. Figured by then he could hold it down.

"Remember, Jesus will always take you back," I said, handing him the sandwich. While hanging out clothes, he waved at me. I waved back. A short while later someone arrived and he left behind them.

What would you have done?

I know what most of the people who don't want me in their church would have done.

I also know what Jesus would have done because He was with me this morning.

We're (with) stupid

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Brooke Gladstone amuses me and annoys me. On one side she is quite witty, sarcastic and acerbic. At the same time as a commentator on all things media and demanding that mainstream media be impartial, she bends the very rules of impartiality as far as they'll go.

We has met the enemy and broke our hand punching the glass he was in.

That's also what annoys me. And her NYC accent.

Just a short while ago, I heard an update to a story I wrote about some time back. Brooke, as she prefers to be called, narrated and interviewed. She referred to liberals, conservatives and libertarians as "equally stupid." That comment which both delighted and torqued me (it is accurate and a quote from the person being interviewed, but also an editorial observation) led to this rare second Saturday blog.

Here's the On The Media bit - http://www.onthemedia.org/2011/nov/25/everyone-rejects-inconvenient-facts/

Here's the first article I held forth on. http://econjwatch.org/articles/economic-enlightenment-in-relation-to-college-going-ideology-and-other-variables-a-zogby-survey-of-americans And Here is a less obfuscatory write up of the same research piece by one of the authors - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703561604575282190930932412.html

A telling comment from the WSJ journal "But the left has trouble squaring economic thinking with their political psychology, morals and aesthetics."

Close enough

AR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR (and continue).

I knew that. Liberals can't square their idiotology with reality.

Mr. Daniel Klein got body slammed by liberals who objected to the way the survey was framed. They said the questions showed a political bias. Mr. Klein describes himself as libertarian.

Here are the questions:

1. Restrictions on housing development make housing less affordable.
2. Mandatory licensing of professional services increases the prices of those
services.
3. Overall, the standard of living is higher today than it was 30 years ago.
4. Rent control leads to housing shortages.
5. A company with the largest market share is a monopoly.
6. Third-world workers working for American companies overseas are being
exploited.
7. Free trade leads to unemployment.
8. Minimum wage laws raise unemployment.

Shall We Play A Game?

Are there correct answers to these statements? They can be empirically answered. Others not. Regardless, I'm not smart enough to be a liberal (a loaded statement to be sure).

So, Daniel et all did ANOTHER study and this time posed matters "...that would balance the first one by including questions that would challenge conservative and/or libertarian positions." http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/12/i-was-wrong-and-so-are-you/8713/#

The additional issue statements put forth are:

1) Mandatory licensing of professional services increases the prices of those services
2) Overall, the standard of living is higher today than it was 30 years ago
3) Rent control leads to housing shortages
4) A company with the largest market share is a monopoly
5) Third World workers working for American companies overseas are being exploited
6) Free trade leads to unemployment
7) Minimum-wage laws raise unemployment

So what'd he find? "The new results invalidated our original result: under the right circumstances, conservatives and libertarians were as likely as anyone on the left to give wrong answers to economic questions." and "A full tabulation of all 17 questions showed that no group clearly out-stupids the others. They appear about equally stupid when faced with proper challenges to their position."

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAAAAAA

Conservatives and libertarians cannot square their idiotology with reality. I state here for the record I'm not smart enough to be a libertarian or a conservative (a loaded statement to be sure).

In other words when presented with facts which contradict one's idiotological beliefs, all too many people side with belief. Reality doesn't fit and so must be discarded.

Many Americans wonder why Congress appears to be paralyzed, I suggest they look in the mirror. Cognitive dissonance begins at home.

"A double minded man is unstable in all his ways." James 2:8

A reply in another forum

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
This is a reply to someone in another forum I inhabit. I thought it was worth sharing on this Saturday afternoon. I have expanded it a bit here in hopes it makes more sense as you don't have the full thread to read.


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

An original quote from me. Also, a universal truth. Being a long standing rebel and continuing through today, I can testify to the effects of living to see the fruits of ones actions.

A be different, just like everyone else.

A high school principal, now deceased, once accused me of being a rebel without a cause. A few months before the principal died, I saw her again. She said I gave her immense amounts of trouble.

The occasion of the rebel statement came as she debated whether or not to expel me. Which in turn reminds me of another occasion I had with her for a dental-directed posterior adjustment. This occasion was over something I absolutely did not do. Another student, offended by my mere presence, had it in for me. I have not see this fellow classmate since graduation and frankly do not want to.

Anyway as to the levied charges. Guilty on the principal/'s second accusation, partly guilty on the first. I am a rebel. I have a cause. I object to stupidity couched in the form of authority.

Furthermore, rebellion is enough of a cause. As Frank Zappa said, and I paraphrase, a society that gets rid of its rebels is a society headed for stagnation.

18 years later, still in that mode.

Rebels are necessary. They keep us from being complacent, compliant and inert. They make us fight back with requires energy, thought and action. This is a good thing.

Rebels also sow the seeds of their own destruction. This is not a good thing.

But, someone has to do it.

BTW I abhor poetry and verse. But I was compelled just now to pen this bit.

Rage, rage against the machine
Ye may tilt at a windmill
But the dragon is there
tho others may not see
Rage, rage and rage is life

And now you see partly why I abhor poetry.

It just doesn't seem right

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
While a lot of people were busy packing down another round of Thanksgiving chow I was in prison.

Amen.

This is not a post on religion, but it does mention that to set things up.

My sermon topic (I preach in prison), was (no surprise) on Thanksgiving. I remembered my brother's invocation at lunch at Ma's house. He gave thanks for the men and women of our military who cannot be home with their families for the holidays.

Speaking to 17 men yesterday evening, I recalled his words. I told the men we need to be thankful for the soldiers. It is because of them that we can come together in that prison for a church service. It is because of those soldiers that most of the men in that prison do not have to come to church services. Because of soldiers, we are free to worship or not as we choose.

So then I asked if there were any veterans in the congregation. Two hands went up.

Freedom ain't free.

I was not surprised. Immensely saddened, but not surprised. http://www.veteranstoday.com/2005/02/01/helping-vets-in-jail-get-a-fresh-start/

Since beginning my prison work, almost always a veteran is in the crowd. Rather that wearing fatigues, BDUs or dress uniforms, these men wear white clothes with blue stripes and often black shoes.

I do not know and do not ask why these men are behind bars. I do not ask what they did to become a ward of the State of Georgia. I do not ask what drove them to commit whatever infraction led them to the penal system.

But I wonder.

What do they really deserve?

It bothers me immensely that these men who could have died to preserve the things this country stands for are now held in contempt by this very same country.

I am not excusing what they did. I am saying the entire matter bothers me. I cannot find peace over this. I do not know what to do to provide a suitable resolution.

So, I continue to wonder and leave unasked questions.

One of these questions which I do not give voice to is - I do not ask why they sacrificed the freedoms they fought for.

Except that is not a completely fair statement. Certainly some veterans are in prison because of crimes of violence, theft or something that certainly should be illegal.

But what about those veterans arrested for crimes in which no one was harmed?

What freedom do you have owed to those who were arrested?

I remind you that it was not too long ago a person could be arrested for sitting in a certain place on a public bus.

Maybe these veterans continue to struggle for freedoms once they left the military service. Those freedoms they sought are restricted by present law. Perhaps they see those laws as unjust and in direct opposition to the very ideals they represented while in the military.

This nation has a long and storied history of people opposing what they see as unjust laws. This opposition has taken many, many forms over the years, including simple civil disobedience like refusing to comply with a law. Some of the people over the years who have resisted are hailed as heroes, others are vilified.

Perhaps their rebellion is a continuation of their service to this country.

You could say I am attributing far more weight to their thought and actions than the thoughts actions deserve. You may be correct.

But at the end of the day, there are veterans behind bars. This bothers me.

If it doesn't bother you, then I have to ask, are you worthy of the sacrifices the men and women of our military have made, are making and will make?

Can you make the grade?

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

Some time back I took the GED test. Not because I needed to, but because I wanted to see if I could pass it.

What th? I got this on GED search in Google Images.

I took the test. I passed. What surprised me is I passed the math section. Well, I say I passed. I did not bother with the essay portion of the test. I knew I’d either ace that or fail it worse than anyone has ever failed in it the history of the GED. I didn’t want to take the chance either way.

But when I passed, I wrote a newspaper story about it. My story encouraged several other people to step up and take the test, which is exactly what I hoped for.

So to the point, I took another test today. I passed. How well would you do?

If you are a like me ( and I REALLY hope you are not in a lot of ways), then you are a citizen of the United States by birth. You may be a citizen by naturalization. You may not be a citizen of the US.

If you are a citizen by birth, do you think you could pass a citizenship test?

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/0104/Could-you-pass-a-US-citizenship-test/Who-signs-bills

You must get 58 or more of these test questions correct in order to pass. That's a 60 percent passing rate, a D- where I come from.

I got 94 of 96 questions correct. That's 98 percent. A+.

I didn’t google any of the questions. Never crossed my mind to do so. I took the test exactly like a person trying to be a citizen would. I used my own knowledge.

I ask again, how well will you do?

I will bet you whatever you want to lay down that I have friends in other countries (Will comes to immediate mind in Canada) who will do far better than friends I have here in South Georgia.

Anyway, ‘cause I’m that kinda guy, I’ll tell you what I missed. So you can head into the test with two correct answers already at hand.

63. The Federalist Papers supported the passage of the U.S. Constitution. Name one of the writers.

I selected John Adams. The correct answer is James Madison. The other two choices were George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.

This one I either didn’t know or could not remember.

66. Who was President during World War I?

I selected Theodore Roosevelt. The correct answer is Woodrow Wilson. The other choices are Franklin Roosevelt and Warren Harding. I knew it wasn't Harding or FDR. I picked Ted because I kept thinking of the Rough Riders and the Bull Moose party. Threw me off.

Take the test. Lemme hear from you.

We don't call...

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Like as not when I stop by Mom's house these days, she has the TV on to one of those "reality" shows involving animals. Chasing coons, gators, snakes, bears, hogs, problem dogs, whatever.

Now it's a teddy bear.

Reminds me of the visit recently from High School bud Rusty Freeman. Freeman is now a game warden in Wakulla County, next to Tallahassee. All around the Big Bend area, except for one small region, bears are a problem. The folks in Carrabelle, he tells me, now use bear proof garbage cans.

Florida Fish & Wildlife routinely gets calls now for nuisance bears. Game wardens show up, trap the bear and move it. Move it where? To somewhere else in the state. What about nuisance bears in other parts of the state? They too are moved - to the Apalachicola National Forest, parts of which are known  as Tate's Hell.

So, bears increase their range and get more and more used to humans thanks to humans.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203710704577050464182836548.html

I have friends who live in dangerous places. Consider Merle and Lara who live in Alaska in the middle of bear country. I worry regularly about them and dearly want to send 'em a bear-caliber rifle. They need the protection.

Tate's cougar and about to be deceased wild hog.

Closer to home, Tate Anderson hunts deer on the Brooks-Lowdnes County line here in Georgia. He has on his game camera a picture of a mountain lion chasing a wild hog. This is about 60 miles from where I live. This ain't the first painter recently seen in Georgia.


http://easterncougar.org/CougarNews/?p=152

Lemme state here that people who claim to have seen "black" panthers are likely seeing wild dogs. I know. I have seen 'em and killed said wild dogs.

I also say if I'm on a deer stand and a painter shows up, he's going home with me and ain't nobody gonna know except me until the hide is on the wall. I have no intention of becoming one run below the top of the predator ladder. http://tchester.org/sgm/lists/lion_attacks.html

Now THAT's huntin'!

My nephew Jake had two buds recently spend the night with him. The two boys asked why they could not play outside at night (they live in the city). I told Shag, Jake's dad and my brother, the two boys were small enough that a big bobcat would attack one of them. He nodded. Shag also has coyotes. http://www.varmintal.net/attac.htm

I also recall all the exotic critters in Florida now - gator-eating snakes, lizards, monkeys, toads, etc - and how people there call for someone with a badge when these critters show up and become a pain.

But as I hinted earlier, not everyone calls on law enforcement.

Freeman told me of a regional meeting. The regional supervisor asked one of the game wardens why they never get bear calls for one place.

And that's all you need to know.

"People in Sopchoppy know how to handle bears," was the reply.

I count myself as a brother-in-knowledge to fine people of Sopchoppy. I am one of those people who knows how to handle bears, cougars, snakes, gators, bobcats, wild dogs, coyotes and even the two-legged predators that occasionally invade our desmenses. I shoot. I have yet to shoot a 2-legged predator or a cougar, but all the rest I have.

People who think like I do don't call for help, unless we need help tracking it, loading it in the back of the truck or skinning it out. We take care of business in a terminal fashion.

This will drive animal rights activists beyond insane. Animals do not have rights. Rights imply an ability to be held accountable for the actions taken. It also means the ability to comprehend why an action is a result of another action even if there is a significant delay.

The "why" is the critical part. Animals don't understand why.

Nephew Jake and his first hog.

As soon as the AR crowd agrees to hold animals accountable for their actions and animals understand this, I will be at the forefront of rights for animals. Even if that happens, I will continue to hunt animals as long as animals continue to hunt and kill each other.

You ain't gotta like that. But as long as lions on the African plains take down wildebeest, I will hunt for meat. As long as animals attack people, I will remove them from being a threat to me and my family. Attacks, BTW, include animals destroying farm crops.

Your money

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
My representative to Congress, and a personal friend, Austin Scott has come out in favor of the federal Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution.

Lemme ask you? What do you think? Support it? Oppose it?

Me? I am absolutely opposed to it. I am also absolutely opposed to term limits. I am absolutely opposed to limiting corporate spending on elections campaigns.

Shouldn't surprise you, those last ones. But why I am opposed to the Balanced Budget Amendment?

Just this once, I ask you to turn your brain off.

Congress is faced with a Constitutional Amendment forcing Congress to balance the budget. Congressional leaders won't (not can't) balance the budget.

What do they do?

They raise taxes.

They throw their hands up and say "We don't have a choice. The Constitution requires a balanced budget.

You may say "That's childish. Congress won't act that way."

Not gonna dignify that comment with a reply.

___

While I'm here, let me point out the nation is well into a fiscal year and Congress has YET to pass a budget. This is the exact same thing which happened when the Damnocrats controlled both houses and the Presidency. They did not pass a budget.

Now with the Reboobicans controlling the House and the Damnocrats in a slim majority in the Senate, we again do not have a budget.

Austin, you are my friend. I also realize you are one person in a 400+ member legislative body and there is little you can do.

But you can stand up. You can say this is wrong. You can demand action. You have done this, and I appreciate it. But you also need to yell a lot louder.

Make some noise up there.

We may disagree on the budget amendment, but if you'll do what you were elected to do, I'm behind you. If you wuss out like so many of your colleagues, I'm going looking for someone who won't.

Looking for a Unified Field and not in basketball

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Unless yer an ubernerdgeek, like me, this one is not gonna much appeal to you. Then again, it may 'cause it won't just be about science.

Close enough for government work.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-502223_162-57327392/2nd-test-affirms-faster-than-light-particles/

Test 2 shows FTL particles and NOT tachyons. Tachyons are a theoretical particle, the minimum speed of which is the speed of light. Roughly 186,000 miles a second. Tachyons can move much faster than that, but not slower.

Afore you jump my case, I tell you this is information I got from a Florida State physicist. He also told me "no one really believes they exist." This is from an interview in the 90s.

So what if this is correct? What if 186KPS is not the "ultimate speed limit" as the article states. Fortunately the article also gives us that information.

This is either physics or federal budget math. Not sure which.

"If it's correct, it's phenomenal," said Rob Plunkett, a scientist at Fermilab, the Department of Energy physics laboratory in Illinois, in September. "We'd be looking at a whole new set of rules" for how the universe works.

And? This is news?

Not hardly.

As long as man has been watching the world and universe, man has been "discovering" new sets of rules to explain what is observed. http://fabpedigree.com/james/mathmen.htm

Nu'clar devices split the atom.

At one time man was certain everything in creation was a mixture of earth, fire, air and water. At one time man was convinced the world was flat and the center of the universe.

At one time the atom was considered the smallest unit of matter. It could not be split or further divided.

As science advances, a few questions are answered.

More questions are raised. A favorite of mine is: why is helium at near 0K absolutely frictionless?

Seems like the more science knows, the more it becomes a Socratic equation: "All I know is that I know nothing."

As I understand things right now (and I very well could have this wrong), there are two theories which are held as explanations for the universe. For some reason, String Theory and Chaos Theory come to mind. Probably wrong. If so, someone correct me and I'll update this.

Absolute proof. The universe is stranger than you can imagine.

Regardless, the two items can be proven (with such proofs as we have now), but are also contradictory. There's an awesome experiment done with light (both a wave and a particle) which can't be reconciled with both theories.

So, scientists have been hard at work searching for a Unified Field Theory which will bring everything together and make it a tidy lump sum. That the people with more brainpower than me haven't found it yet continues to annoy them nearly as much as armadillos annoy me.

Now, the people who get paid to study things like this say the universe is infinite.

Ah. So if the universe is really infinite, then anything, no matter how improbable, must exist.

Or does it? If the universe really is infinite, a lack of something must also be a highly improbable circumstance.

Myself, I found a unified field theory a while back. It accounts for everything, including infinity and all its improbabilities. I just can't provide the proof many people demand. So, they say I am wrong.

But they can't provide proof my unified field theory is wrong.

Lack of proof is doesn't mean it's not true. It merely means we haven't found the proof.

The president was almost right

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Ever carried 6" irrigation pipes? Big aluminum pipes 20 feet long Every thrown watermelons all day long? Every caught 60 pound bags of cabbage and packed a semi trailer full with those bags?

Yep. Been there, done that.

Growing up I spent my summers in a field throwing watermelons. While my friends were at various camps, pools and in general spending time doing pretty much nothing, I worked. I started working in the field when I was 5 years old. I kept it up until I graduated from high school and headed to college.

I know what work is. I worked.

I also know what the president said and what he meant with his recent "lazy" comment. The comment was "we've been a little bit lazy, I think, over the last couple of decades." In context, the "we" he referred to is not the American people but elected leaders.

Not going to argue that.

But I will say if the president referred to the people of America, the nation as a whole as being lazy, he was dead on accurate, straight up, hit the nail on the head and was telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

We, as nation, have gotten lazy over the past few decades. It's telling on us too.

You ain't got to agree or like it. But facts are facts and you refusing to accept 'em is not going to change matters.

The new motto of the United States?

There is a reason the United States has such a problem with illegal immigration. These people are coming here to take jobs Americans won't accept. Here's one for instance: http://savannahnow.com/opinion/2011-11-18/georgia-farmers-good-kingston

You can look around your community and find other examples. Where hard physical labor is the requirement you're going to find immigrants and older people. Young people won't take demanding jobs. They must have climate controlled offices, full internet access and a break room.

This kind of job does not produce the food you eat, the clothes you wear, the vehicles you drive and even the building you might work in. All that stuff is generated by intense, hard, sweaty physical labor. That kind of stuff is created by people who are not afraid to work hard.

Americans are afraid of hard work.

OWs relies on iPhones. Irony?

That is why so much of our manufacturing base has shifted overseas. Those people are not afraid of hard work.


What manufacturing base we still have in the United States is run as much by unions as it is by the giant companies which are the target of the Occupy Wherever Doesn't Have Toilets movement. Consider union contracts that require companies to continue to pay workers after a layoff, allow workers to draw a full day's pay for a couple of hours work and union demands that force companies to raise prices to cover those demands.

Pride in product has also slipped over the years. This is yet another indicator of laziness.

Companies are going to go where they can make a profit and provide their product at the lowest reasonable cost to their customers.

Consumers, including union members, aren't off the hook either. In a continuing demand for products as cheap as possible, consumers have forced companies to shift production overseas. Given the choice "buy American" or "but cheap" most Americans opt for the cheap route, never understanding that it is costing jobs in this nation.

The United States also leads the world in obesity rates and the health problems which come with that. This comes about not only from poor eating habits but from a surfeit of leisure time. Simply put, Americans are not working hard enough to keep the fat off.

You don't have to like the idea that Americans are lazy. But I'll bet you whatever you want to put on the table the average American cannot put in a real day's work on a real South Georgia farm.

Common ground ain't common

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Define justice.

G'head. Use simple words.

Any of these fit into your definition?

Most likely you either used the word "fair" or "equality" or incorporated that concept into your definition.

What is fair? What is equality?

In my community a City Council member sits on the Council and runs for office on the platform of "justice." If you ask him his definition, it will be something to effect of seeing that everyone is treated fairly.

If you watch his actions and his votes, you will see that his definition means unequal treatment and favoritism extended to people who surficially resemble him. You look at his voting record and you see he disregards the merits of situation and votes based on skin color and frequently against authority when he has a choice.

Side question: Will you believe his words or his actions?

Anyway, his definition of justice, as defined in how he acts, is a perverted form of justice to my thinking anyway. It is not perverted according to his thinking. Then again, maybe it is a perverted form of justice according to his thinking. This Council member was accused of being "intellectually bankrupt" by another Council member.

This man has a career in talk radio.

With the limited information I've given you, does your definition of "justice" match his?

Some people are diametrically opposed to the death penalty. Others believe it is not used enough.

Which is justice?

Now, is your definition of justice the same as my definition? Is your definition the same as someone in Australia? Austria? Moscow? Tehran?

If we can't agree on a definition of justice, which is a pretty basic concept, then how can we agree on more complicated things?

Changing the rules cause you can

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Think about how nice if would be if you could change the rules in midstream, midplay, midwhatever.

I WIN!

Things not going your way? CHANGE THE RULES! You are losing? No problem. Now the rules state the person with the lowest score wins (which explain why golf is so bizarre).

Ever been in a place where you wanted to change the rules? As kids we all did that. Our game wasn't going the way WE wanted, so HUZZAH! instant rule change and we're suddenly back in control and on top of things.

Reality unfortunately does not work that way.

Except it does if you are in a position to decide what the rules are going to be. You say you can't do that? I say you aren't putting forth enough effort.

For instance, does Nov. 23 have any meaning for you, except that it's the day for Thanksgiving?

And you believe in the Easter Bunny?

It is the deadline for the Stupid - excuse me, I mean Super Committee in Congress to come up with deficit cutting ideas or automatic budget cuts take place, at least that's what you are being told.

Does anyone REALLY believe the automatic cuts will take place?

Really?

If you honestly believe Congress is going to let automatic budget cuts go through, I must borrow your rose colored glasses. Or perhaps you are wearing Joo Janta 200 Super-Chromatic Peril Sensitive Sunglasses. Regardless. May I borrow your eyewear so I can get your perspective on things? I promise I'll hand 'em right back.

I just want to see what delusion feels like.

Those who say these cuts WILL take place are forgetting something.

Congress made the rule about the cuts. Congress can change the rule about the cuts.

The Little Engine that Couldn't.

Congress has a long and solid history of changing the rules when things don't go to suit them. 

Reality in Washington is not what Congress defines. But the rules certainly are what Congress defines. That Congress continually tries and fails, to warp reality to fit the new set of rules is no impediment. Like the Little Engine that Could, Congress is going to try, try and try again.

And Congress is VERY happy.

Never mind doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is the very definition of insanity. If you look up insanity in my dictionary, you see a picture of Congress hooked to an IV mainlining Alprazolam Alplax, Alviz, Alzolam, Alprax, Apo-Alpraz, Constan, Kalma, Ralozam, Restyl, Solanax, Tranax, Trankimazin, Tranquinal, Tafil, Xanax, Xanor, Zamhexal, Zolarem Buspirone Ansial, Ansiced, Anxiron, Axoren, Bespar, Buspar, Buspimen, Buspinol, Buspisal, Narol Chlordiazepoxide   Librium Clonazepam Klonopin, Rivotril Diazepam Apozepam, Diapam, Seduxen, Valium Escitalopram Cipralex, Lexaprin, Lexapro, Seroplex, and Sipralexa Fluoxetine Fluctin, Fludac, Fontex, Foxetin, Lovan, Prodep, Prozac, Sarafem, Symbyax Fluvoxamine Luvox, Faverin, Fevarin Lorazepam Ativan, Temesta, Tavor Meprobamate Miltown, Equanil, Meprospan Pregabalin Lyrica Reboxetine Edronax, Norebox, Prolift, Solvex, Vestra Citalopram, Chlorpromazine, Moclobemide and Phenelzine.


Changing the rules doesn't mean reality also changes.


No action by a legislative body is permanent except to disband. Now that's an action and a rule I'd like to see Congress enact.

Reading is not for fundamentalists

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

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know. It's a shameful habit, but I'm gonna keep doing it.

Conservative radio show listeners.

I listen to talk radio in the evenings. Mostly, I listen to American Family Radio and the very conservative talking heads they have on. Despite them raising my blood pressure, I can tolerate 'em better than liberal talking heads - which I can't find on the radio anyway as I live in S. Georgia.

Last night they were in an uproar about a former porn star in Kalifornia who is going to elementary schools and reading to the kids. She says she supports and works with the Read Across America program. http://www.eurweb.com/2011/11/ex-porn-star-sasha-grey-defends-right-to-read-to-compton-school-children/

She read “Dog Breath” by Dav Pilkey to 1^st and 3^rd grade children.

Pack with puns, it really satisfies.

“Read Across America is a program that was designed to promote literacy and instill a lifelong love of reading in elementary school students.  Promoting education is an effort that is close to my heart.  Illiteracy contributes to poverty. Encouraging children to pick up a book is fundamental," she said.

One of the talking heads called working in porn the most detestable work a human can do.

I disagree. Ordering young men and women to their death in a foreign country we have no business being in is a far more detestable.

As with Miss Grey, YMMV

Which would you rather see? Two people enjoying themselves or two people literally killing each other? Which is more life affirming? Which is really more offensive?

But as usual, I digress. Back on topic to the literate porn star. Shocking, yes, that a former porn star is capable of reading.

Even more disturbing.

What's more shocking to me is the outrage of parents in the Granola State. I'm of the opinion you can't throw a pecan tree limb over there without hitting a current, former or aspiring porn star. When you live in a community like the Left Coast, you are going to get porn stars who are neighbors and members of the PTA.

Ya don't like it, ya move to Utah where Biblical "knowledge" of each other is almost outlawed.

More to the point, I wonder how many of the protesting parents have bothered to show up at the elementary school to read to the kids.

How many of the protesting parents bother to show as much attention to their kids as this former porn star is doing?

You may be one of those horrified about this woman reading to elementary school children.

If you are a parent, how much reading did you do with your children? How much do you read now? How much do your children read?

Muscle up your mind. I dare you.

It's not gonna be an absolute relationship, but I bet there is a really strong correlation between parents who object to the porn star reading to kids and how little the parents read to their children.

There is no greater indicator of success in a person than the person's willingness to read.

Reading Is Fundamental and it doesn't matter who does it, porn star, preacher or someone who doesn't have an opinion one way or another.