Tolerating intolerance?

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Is it OK to yell movie in a crowded firehouse?

Ok, so that is a bizarre idea.

But if you flip the nouns, then you encounter an illegal act. The Supreme Court has ruled you cannot legally use speech to incite dangerous situations, like a panic in a theater.

Keep that in mind. Free speech?

Yes? No?

There are conflicting reports that Terry Jones was told to stay away from the gathered crowd.

Unless Jones is a certifiable idiot (and I offer no opinion on this), he had to know going to that crowd was gonna spark them. They were there to protest him.

I insult you with FOOT ODOR!

Aside, I find the idea of waving shoes at him as a form of insult to be beyond droll. Talk about cultural differences...

Back on topic, as I still am unable to read people's minds with any degree of accuracy, I can't tell you what Jones was thinking when he approached that group of protesters.

Now Jones is not the same level idiot that inhabits Westboro Church; he has listened, albeit briefly, to reason in the past. So there is a very slight chance he actually believed he'd be allowed to present his case.


I will tell you from my perspective, I support him. In part, anyway.

Jones has the right to say what he wishes. That it offended some people is irrelevant. Jones has the right to say what he wants to say.

Those people protesting also have the right to say what they said. Jones approached them. They yelled him down.

I like that.

What I do not support and what I do not like is Jones intentionally escalated the danger level in a tense situation. I do not care at all that Jones put himself into a dangerous situation. Nor do I care that the protesters were also in a dangerous situation.

Myself, I'da let 'em have at each other.

I object to Jones putting OTHER people in harm's way- the police officers there to try to maintain the peace, innocent folks who may have been caught up unaware in the drama.

That's just wrong.

If Jones and all the extremists on both sides of this issue really want to beat each other to a bloody pulp, I'll supply a few big sticks. But when they so engage and they drag other people into the fray, that's wrong.

Your right to free speech ends when you endanger others unnecessarily.

Recipe?

,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Anyone have a decent recipe for stingray?

Crambo and I went out fishing this morning and we hauled stingrays from 10 pounds to nearly 200 pounds to the side of the boat. Capt. David said he knows of no way, except for some Mexicans who invest hours in prepping the meat, to make it edible.

Not that I have a stingray to eat right now. We let 'em go. 


They skin the ray out, beat the wings with cubing hammers for a long time and then cut it into tiny pieces.

The idea that some scallops are actually stingray meat is ludicrous, he said. The meat is far too tough.

This is different from what I experienced fishing in Florida in the gulf. Dunno why,

Anyway, the reds refused to bite. Even the whiting, a poor first cousin to the reds, refused to bite.

But a bad day fishing is better'n a good day at work, unless you are a commercial fisherman.

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

A Darwin Award candidate

More'n 20 years ago I rolled through the western United States to what would be my home for a year in the middle (literally) of the Rocky Mountains.

New Mexico wind farms reap a bumper crop

In New Mexico I picked up a newspaper. A columnist said he'd pitched an idea to the editorial board about the wind. The board wanted know if the newspaper should be in favor of it, against it or what.

The writer said the wind just is. New Mexico residents just accept it.

I never did accept the wind, which NEVER (and I am not kidding) stops. Permanent kite flying weather. Amazing wind. Everything is sandblasted out there.

I write today of wind and the nearly 200 people dead in the wake of the storm that is just east of where I sit typing this.

This is not the first front this year to wreak such havoc. My money says it won't be the last either.

Like that New Mexico newspaper writer from 20 years gone by, I am neither in favor of such weather (tornadoes) nor against them. Tornadoes are not evil; evil requires an intellect and a mindset. Tornadoes are just an act of nature.

Unless you are willing to admit to God, a Gaia-type over-entity that is earth, possibly global warming or you are a lunatic wackjob who believes the government is trying to control the weather and it is getting out of hand, then you have to admit tornadoes just are.

No malevolence. No evil. No intentional. No malice afore- or afterthought.

They just are.

We who inhabit this planet just have to cope with it. We pray for those in the path of the storm and those who suffer the after effects.

For those of us who do believe in God and believe in an afterlife, we can pray those who die in these storms do reach paradise. Meanwhile we can ask for understanding and acceptance while doing what we can to relieve the pain our neighbors are in.

Turn left in Albuquerque

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

.
.

I write this afternoon having failed to take the left turn in Albuquerque. So to speak.

I do not exactly where I am. Not that this is unusual. I am somewhere in South Carolina not far from the town of Holly Hill at the house of Doug et al. Doug, being in dire need of excessive pain and suffering in his life, has agreed to let me trash his house.

Tomorrow, have spread destruction across a swath that would impress a hurricane,  I will leave to speak to a S. Carolina writers group. Apparently they too need pain and suffering in their lives.

Getting here is the point.

I tell you the nearest town to where I grew up is Ellenton, about 250 people. Yes. I knew every person there when I lived there.

I also got lost in Ellenton.

I am not kidding.

Being so navigationally challenged, I developed a system to get me from point A to point B.

I find Point B. Point A is usually where I start from.

I find major roads, like interstates and four lane highways and roads which I have traveled enough to know about, that are between A and B.

When I get lost, I head toward one of these roads.

These roads, you understand, create a box around me and my eventual destination.

As long as I continue in a straight line, I will eventually cross one of these roads. Then, I get on that road and drive to wherever I want to be.

Yes, sometimes this does result in my going well out of the way, but as my Grandpa said many years ago "If you don't get lost, how will they know you've been there?"

So I write to you from somewhere in S. Carolina, having made it to my destination and probably having taken a rather roundabout way to get here.

But I'm here. That's what matters.

An anniversary that changed the world

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

And chances are, you CAN'T read a real KJV.

In terms of anniversaries on issues like the best selling book of all time, this is not the most important one. More on this anniversary in a moment-

A bit of history first, then I'll get around to REALLY annoying KJV Apologetics.

More important anniversaries, which we can actually identify, linked to the Judeo-Christian Bible are in no particular order:

1648 Treaty of Westphalia. This treaty more'n anything else, set up the modern concept of democratic and republican forms of government. This treaty ended the de facto theocratic rule of the Catholic church.

He didn't the water into Tang.

Far, far, far, far more important than the KJV is what happened in the 1450s. Johannes Gutenberg, considered by many to be the most important person on the planet for the past 1,000 years, printed the Bible in Mainz, Germany. Gutenberg and his press set about the educational revolution in which reading and writing were no longer the exclusive province of monastic scholars and the very wealthy.

Admittedly, books were not available to the masses at that time, but the movable type press presaged the time when books would become available to anyone.

Martin Luther set up the protestant reformation and translated the Bible from Latin into ordinary language at the time.

The Council of Trent December 13, 1545-December 4, 1563, further cemented a schism between the Catholic church and the protestants. This Council also canonized what the protestants call the apocryphal books of the Bible. Those books were rejected as canonical by Jewish Council of Jamie in A.D. 90.

Nuf of all that eh?

As the KJV prepares to celebrate 400 years, I tell you that it is a horrible book and a wonderful book. At the same time.

It's wonderful because it has changed the lives of so many people around the world. They shifted from being despicable to being upright. Criminals reformed. Those addicted to various chemicals found within those pages the strength to lay down their addiction and walk away.

Leaning on that same book, humans have killed and tortured each other in the most horrible ways imaginable, all in the name of the God represented within those pages.

No matter how you look at it, the book inspired people. People, each person so affected, had to make a decision on their own to do what they did. Even the Bible is clear on that part.

Put people aside for a moment and consider the book. Beautifully written with flowing language, amazing poetry and incredible syntax and the vast majority of people who think they possess a KJV do not actually have a KJV.

In the original.

The original KJV is as hard to read as Chaucer in the original.

I know. I have a modern copy of KJV printed in the style and formatting as it was in 1611. I only use it to prove most people can't read the original KJV.

KJV is also a multi-generation translation of the original writings. The fact is, no matter how hackneyed it sounds, something is always lost in translation. Argue that I am wrong, and I will point you to the acrostics in Psalms. If you do not know what an acrostic is, then you have no intelligent grounds to argue against me. If you know what an acrostic is, you have to agree with me.

Those who argue the KJV corrected earlier errors in the Bible, from which the KJV was translated, also don't have an empirical leg to stand on.

If you can't read the ancient texts in the original writing, then how do you know that your translation is correct?

"Because scholars have verified it's accuracy?"

Really? People who CAN read the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Vulgate edition and Ancient Greek do know the KJV contains some translational errors.

Shall we dance?

"Well, it is an article of faith then. It is correct."

Ya got me there. I can't rationally debate an article of faith. I can counter with my own faith that the KJV has errors.

Tautology gets you where you already are.

Back up my assertations? A f'r'instance? Ok. The word "slave." KJV uses "slave" through when the ancient texts used different words to describe the different kinds of slaves.

Not important? If it was important enough back then to differentiate between the kinds of slaves, why is not important to make that distinction today?

Today, the KJV is not the best-selling translation of the Bible. Blindbegger.org provides this list of best-selling translations:

Idiocy knows no bounds.

1. New International Version
2. King James Version
3. New King James Version
4. New Living Translation
5. English Standard Version
6. Holman Christian Standard Bible
7. The Message
8. Other Translations
9. Reina Valera 1960 (Spanish)
10. New International Readers Version 

I have all of 'em listed by translation, cept the Spanish. I also have several other translations, so you can say I cover some of No. 8.

In my ministry and prison preaching, I my first choice is the Amplified Bible. That's followed by the NIV, NLT, Holman. I use the KJV only for passages which are VERY familiar and which most people who listen to me preach have memorized.

I give away the NIV exclusively.

The purpose of a Bible, as I understand it, is to let the reader come to a greater understanding of the word and the Word. If a person can't easily read and understand the Bible (yeah, yeah I know parts of the Bible are pretty confusing, but I refer to the grammar, syntax and language), then the Bible merely becomes something to prop up a short table leg.

If you come to my office and wanna speak to me, you will walk under a sign which states: Eschew Obfuscation.

So far, no KJV apologetic has understood that sign. Either word or the entire phrase. Yet, one of those words appears in the KJV.

Therefore I ask: If you can't understand the words in what you read, what good is it? Why don't you get something with words you can understand?

Riddle me this, riddle me that. If you don't understand, why do you criticize others who attempt to understand?

Yeah, well not really but still yes, but yanno I'm ranting. A bit

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
We, that is the offspring and one-generation removed offspring and the mates of the offspring (well, maybe them not so much) are indeed glad that the matriarchal unit has relocated.

In less obfuscatory language, m'self, brother and our families are glad Mom is now living in Tifton. This means we all get to see her much more often. We spent most of Sunday at her house.

Whilst the chirrens played in the pool, Shag and I were visiting Elbonia, land of hip-deep mud and ankle-biting weasels. At least that's what it felt like.

To splain

We installed an outdoor shower.

This was partly done in case any of the grandkids suddenly re-develop an exhibitionist streak (Mom's house is adjacent to a golf course) and to allow anyone who's spent time in the pool to hose down. Mom has a saltwater pool. By hosing off under the outdoor shower, salt-treated swimmers can remove the salt.

That went perfectly.

I am not kidding.

However (and you KNEW there was gonna be one) to install the shower, the water had to be cut off.

Again, that went perfectly.

Turning the water back on also went perfectly.

Neener, neener, neener.

We repeated this several times. Flawlessly.

But in the midst of the work, we found a pipe in the yard which was leaking. This is generally not a problem as I have repaired MANY busted pipes in my lifetime.

This particular leak was connected to a Rube Goldberg system of elbow, joints, and a series of water valves which served no purpose I could determine, other than to provide a plumber with additional revenue.

The leak was in a joint which had not been properly glued, hence the leak.

Yep. It was that tight.

We had about as much space to work in as your dentist does when he is removing your wisdom teeth.

It was about that pleasant too.

After three trips to the hardware store for pipe, each time buying fewer and fewer pieces, we finally cut the #$%^&* line and capped it. That way Mom would have water for in the house but not in the yard sprinkler system, that apparently being what the valves and infinite loop mobius strip network of pipes were for.

Then we went BACK to the outdoor shower, intending to hose the mud off and FINALLY after 4 hours of work, jump in the pool/

No water.

The genius who installed the sprinkler system also hooked the lines at the back of the house to the same network.

At 6:30 p.m., we jumped in the pool anyway. It has a vacuum system.

Going back today to reconnect the lines. If you can lend a hand, lemme know. Mom will buy supper.

A special easter message

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

I'm a take a stack of these to DQ and get me a GIANT blizzard made from 'em.

That is all.

It's all about you

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

I’m gonna take a quote from a speaker I listened to recently and slightly change it.

If you were arrested for (INSERT CHOICE HERE), would there be enough evidence to convict you?

I say “insert choice here” because that’s the way the quote has to be structured to make sense. At least to me and this writing.

You make a choice.

You carry out that choice.

When done, did you do it well enough to convince a jury of your peers you are guilty?

Please note - Guilt may carry a negative connotation, but it does not have to mean that. Guilt merely means it is determined you did something. That something can be good, bad or indifferent.

Anyway, move away from the simple things.

Look at that question in terms of how you claim to live your life, who you claim to be and what you claim to do.

I’m after a self-defining item here.

In other words, what do you want people to see in you, believe about you and think about you?

Now think about that for a moment.

Do you do it well enough that you can be honestly convicted of it, if put on trial.

Lemme sling some examples:

Honest. Are you honest? If someone had 24/7 unfettered access to your life, would they see you are really and truly honest?

Hard working. How about it? Do you give your all to you work? Play Farmville on company computers on company time?

Upright. How is your moral character? Are you good enough to meet your own standards, not to mention the standards by which you judge others? What if someone else tried to judge you by the same standards? How would you come out?

If someone has to introduce you and define you, how would they do it? I’m not after what’s on your resume, but that would be a good starting point, if you go from there and don’t just use that.

HI! I'm a martial arts expert!

F’r’instance, I have been introduced to various people at various times as: a son, brother, dad, husband, writer, hunter, fisherman, farmer, redneck, graphic artist, journalist, editor, author, photographer, preacher, pastor, evangelist and irrelevant. There are others but that gives you an idea.

Let’s get even more intense. How do you define yourself? If you had to introduce yourself to an alien being and describe who and what you what would you tell it? Not something so basic as human. I mean defining yourself as something you choose to be. See above.

“I am _______________________________.”

What about it? Are you really whatever you put in the blank? If you were arrested for that, could you be convicted of it?

The original quote is from Marc Mero, former pro rassler Johnny B Badd. He said “If you were arrested for being a Christian, would there be enough evidence to convict you?”

Depending where in the world you happen to be arrested for being a Christian, that could be enough to convict you and sentence you to death. But Mero was not referring to that. He was talking about being arrested in a place which has full due process, discovery and discussion.

Most “Christians” I meet couldn’t even be charged with Christianity. A brief investigation would turn up so little evidence, the authorities would shrug it off and walk away without a second thought.

It ain't bragging if you can prove it.

Most churches I have been in, if the place was raided, nearly everyone in it would be released after a cursory chat with the raiding authorities.

How about it? Is there enough evidence to convict you?




Come of you are right now chuckling over my poking at Christians. Why? Are you better than they are?

Can you prove it?

Saying something is far different than proving it. I’m after solid, hold-up-in-court, empircial evidence.

Well?

Callin' em like I see 'em

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

Imagine someone walks into your house, business, your car, whatever and looks around. They see something they like. They pick it up and walk off with it.

They don't bother to tell you. They don't pay you. They often tell other people what they did and how they can do it too. They actually invite other people to come over to your demenses and take stuff.

What would you do?

Most likely you would call law enforcement and demand that person be arrested.

Consider this - When the person is arrested, they turn around and sue you. They claim what they took should be free and available to all. They say it doesn't matter that you worked for whatever was taken.

They even claim that you have no right to exclusive possession of the items. They even claim that if you charge for it (in the case of a business selling things) that is a greater affront.

They even claim that since you are rich, you should share with people who have less.

They say the laws which protect your property are wrong, antiquated and should be illegal.

If you attempt to turn this argument around and take from them as they took from you, they immediately scream and demand you be arrested.

Has the depths of lunacy of this mode of thinking set in yet? What do you think about that person's thought processes? Mental stability? Personal code of ethics and morals?


He is a double-minded man, unstable in all he does. James 1:8

Is the person who took from you a criminal?

Ready to grab the person who took from you and have 'em subjected to the full force of the law?

Why?

Really? You are sure? No doubt in your mind? All yer ducks in a row, irrefutable arguments lined up, ready to take this to the Supreme Court and win your case on unanimous decision? 

Point of order yer honor. What if the accuser is guilty of that which he accuses?

In other words, what if the person you are taking to court can take you to court on the same exact charges, reasons and basis?

"Our study ... reveals a large discrepancy ...  of young people regarding what is right and wrong," states the conclusion of a study on this very topic.

Yeah. I cut some stuff from the quote. Hang on, I'll tell you how to get to this study in a moment and you can read the whole thing yourself.

I now tell you Pirate Bay is changing to Research Bay. The website is going to help researchers discuss peer to peer file sharing by hosting periodic surveys of users. Why do you share files? What good does it do? Etc. etc. etc.

The simple fact is when you download copyrighted material without paying for it, you are stealing. (A few minor exceptions exist.)

You don't have to believe me. I can show you the law.

You can say the law is wrong.

I tell you people who create songs, music and assemble words (like I do) for a living do this to make a living. When you take that stuff without permission and without paying or it, you are stealing from those who create it.

If you disagree, then I ask you - how should the people who create the stuff you steal make a living, if not by creating the stuff you steal which other people pay for?

Will you pay their bills, fund their retirement account, pay for their vacations?

"But that stuff should be free," you say.

Fine. Answer my question. Who will financially support the people who create that which you say should be free?

They have a job. Their job is creating the stuff you steal.

Furthermore, if you think the kind of stuff they produce should be free, then you create it. Become a musician, an artist, an author. You create the stuff, you invest the time and energy and resources necessary to create it and then you can give it away if you so choose.

But remember, you have to pay the costs associated with that creation. Power bills, salaries for employees and assistants and all the other costs.


Read This.

Freedom

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

.

.

.

.

May be some legal action pending. As I am not a lawyer, although I despise most of them, I cannot say for sure.

But in Mississippi, a small town managed to thwart Westboro Baptist Church.

And be proud of your sign brother!

In looking up links on this story, I found plenty of derivative news articles, precious few first hand accounts and apocryphal accounts of what may have happened, including blocking the protesters in at the hotel, slashing their tires and so forth.

I am doubtful of the hotel blocking thing, because it's my understanding that the church uses a bus to go to a from such protests. That leads me to believe they do not stay over night in the community.

Further, I am not in favor of slashing their tires. Nope nope nope nope.

That is just wrong. It sinks well below their level. While I periodically have no problem in sinking to someone else's level, or even below, in order to definitively prove what such people are, slashing tires is a criminal act. Westboro church members, in their protests, have not committed a criminal act.

 

I also find a story of a Westboro church member in the Miss. community ahead of the protest getting clobbered to be highly unlikely. That is not their M.O. 

Blocking the vehicles at the motel and all area tow companies being a bit too busy right then to help. Legal? Ehhhh. Motels are generally private property. Questionable.

There is some apocrypha I do find appealing.

I will not comment on what I think of introducing Westboro members to some vigilante justice.

Tire repair shops refusing to help. Legal. I like it. A lot. Westboro absolutely has the right to protest. Businesses also absolutely have the right to refuse to serve church members.

The community also had the right to turn out en masse and stage their own protests to block the Westboro crew.
 United we stand. If divided, we will fall.

What was Jesus' only unanswered prayer?

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

This is NOT a How-To book. Not that I need instructions.

My yard and the lot to either side have been taken over my a mockingbird.

I do mean taken over.

He tolerates a pair of doves but will brook no other intrusion by feathered kin into his environs. Seriously. He will see another bird and whup up on 'em badly. If it's another mockingbird, then feathers are gonna be scattered around.

I do not hugely object to this. It does keep birds from fertilizing the vehicles.

This mockingbird also announces his territorial possessions. Loudly. Frequently. Often. At all hours.

I am not kidding.

3 a.m., he's in the tree outside my bedroom window yelling. As I live on one of the main drags in town, in the middle of a commercial-zoned block, there is plenty of light around the house. Enough light so that this bird is awake a lot.

Normally this would not bother me. I have learned to sleep through the train coming by, the peanut mill working and sirens whizzing by.

Yassee, these are regular, steady and repeated sounds. I have learned to ignore them. I can sleep through 'em.

But this mockingbird with an avian vocabulary that rivals mine won't repeat the same things. He rambles on at great length in a variety of sounds.

Since this is different, I wake up. Mockingbird meanwhile continues to scream defiance and challenge to the feathered kingdom.

Gonna be about the same thing.

In the morning, I leave the house and he's still going at it. I come home and he sits in the mulberry tree and gives me the evil eye, as if I'm the one interrupting his nap time.

Yes, I do live in the City Limits which is supposed to mean I cannot discharge a firearm unless it is in self defense.

I am also told that people who become sleep deprived can died from this, if it goes on long enough.

Hrmmmm.

One of my personal favorite columns

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

When one bowl for breakfast ain’t enough... HAVE 2!

Excerpted from the book A Dog Named Nekkid.

Which is now available as an ebook as well as a printed version.

I think we ought to have a court for stupidity.

Do something stupid and you ought to have to go to court. Either explain yourself satisfactorily to a judge or you get slapped with a fine, possible jail time (not in Sheriff’s Iron Bar Hotel, but something like house arrest by being chained to Geraldo Rivera for 48 hours), community service work, etc.

I’m not talking about doing something foolish, like wearing a lampshade at a party. Or weird, like wearing different colored socks at the same time on purpose. Or even, mind-bogglingly ignorant like walking into the Radio Ranch in Moultrie on a Friday night and admitting to being from New York City.

I’m talking about pure, simple, unadulterated dumb stupidity.

The kind of stupidity that makes you jam a butter knife in an outlet to see if the electricity is flowing through it.

The kind of stupidity that makes you talk back to a Georgia Highway Patrolman when he pulls you over for something.

The kind of stupidity that makes you reach into an oven without mitts and pull out a pot that’s been baking for 3 hours at 300 degrees.

This may be a stupid idea, but...

You know what I’m talking about. You have remarked to yourself on occasion that you just did something incredibly stupid.

You start to do something. “I can’t believe I’m going to do this. This is so stupid.”

You are doing it. “I can’t believe I’m doing this. This is so stupid.”

You get done. “I can’t believe I did that. That was so stupid.”

My idea is that the Stupid Patrol would be self-policing.

You do something stupid. You know it. Write yourself a citation charging yourself with being stupid in the whatever degree. Call the Stupid Court and set a court date.

You show up. You are the defense and the prosecution.

You will, of course, have to represent yourself. As lawyers are fond of saying, only a fool represents himself. This is a Stupid Court after all.

BAILIFF - This Stupid Court is now in session. The Honorable Judge Roy Bean presiding. Everyone stand, slap yourself in the head and say “DUH!” -

First, try to convince the judge that you weren’t actually being stupid.

DEFENSE - Yer honor my client was merely attempting to determine if the songwriter was correct when he said “You don’t spit into the wind. You don’t tug on Superman’s cape and you don’t mess around with Slim.” -

Then, try to convince the judge that you were stupid.

PROSECUTION - Yer honor, the defendant spit into the wind.

JUDGE - I find the defendant stupid in the 3rd degree. I sentence you to 25 hours community service work at a local dry cleaners and a $75 fine. -

All fines collected by the Stupid Court could go to some giant benefit or charity, like the Society for the Prevention of Politicians, Lawyers and other Alien Beings (SPPLAB).

Fail to show up for your court appearance and the judge could issue a bench warrant. Your best friend would hunt you down and hit you with a bench.

We’d have to have degrees of stupidity. A minor offense, like kicking the couch leg in bare feet, could be ranked as a 4th degree, or misdemeanor stupidity. Do something like that and if the judge finds you guilty, you’d be given a warning

A more serious offense, being an Auburn fan, would merit harsher penalties. Except that you could use the Insanity Defense in case of being an Auburn fan and the judge would let you go.
The most serious offense, a first degree, would be reserved exclusively for second time offenses. The first time you do something stupid, you pay the price. If you do the same exact thing later on, the judge will sentence you to take yourself out and shoot yourself in the foot. Sooner or later you’ll learn your lesson.

If y’all like the idea, we can hold court at my office on Tuesday afternoons after the paper has left for the press ...unless this is a really stupid idea.

Armadillo leather, lies and pain

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
For reasons I don't full understand and probably never will, a writer's group in S. Carolina has asked me to come speak to them. They're gonna foot my gas bill and I'll be bunking at a buddy's house.

Aside - The real argument there is who has to put up with me that night. For some reason, there is a serious stack of people around the Lakes region in S. Carolina who feel it would be an honor for me to spend the night in their house.

But this group has asked me to come speak (and they will read this column as well). Among the topics - how to break into newspapers.

A crowbar works pretty well.

Ar har har.

Since I don't wanna give away what they are paying me to do, I am not gonna spill any secrets here. I am, instead, gonna tell you something related.

I have personally driven two people out of journalism. I mean made 'em hang up their hat and slam the door on the way out, muttering imprecations about me the whole time. I rather suspect these two people also had a deep-seated hatred of me for what I did.

But given the same situation, I'd do it again. Absolutely no question.

Journalism is not a career for the timid. It is not, despite appearances to the contrary, a career for the stupid either.

I do not mean to say you must be incredibly overbearing, arrogant and have an IQ like that of Einstien.

But you can't be a mouse either. I know person who invested 4 years of life and a serious amount of money in getting a journalism degree. Person graduated. Got a job on a nearby newspaper.

Lasted six months.

The person had the force of personality of a nearly drowned mouse.

Simply put, the person could not handle the aggressiveness necessary to be a reporter.

Journalism is not sitting at a computer, watching and editing videos and news stories to present your point of view. Journalism is going out there and getting the story yourself.


Derivative writing ain't journalism, no matter what some other people may believe.Journalism is NOT writing a blog, NOT commenting on the news in any forum.

Journalism is:

Getting out of bed at 4 a.m. because the police are staging a series of arrests and you are going along to take pictures and get a first hand account.

Interrupting a peaceful Saturday because a train has wrecked and you have to get pictures (which happened this weekend.)

Sifting through a stack of records 2 feet high to find one page with useful information.

Cornering a politician and refusing to let him weasel out of a question.

Letting a politician avoid answering the hard questions so you can maintain your access.

(Yeah. You don't HAVE to believe those two items, but if you don't then you don't understand the nature of journalism.)

Having sources you can trust.

Being someone other people trust, whether they will publicly admit it or not.

Realizing that your opinion is not news.

Telling the story, as completely and accurately as you can, no matter what.

Realizing that you might never get to tell the whole and complete story and you have got to go with what you have.

Having armadillo leather for skin because people are going to attack you mercilessly.

Making judgment calls of what information is important, what's not and who is important to the story and who is not.

Being fair which means others accuse you of being unfair.

Being lied to, lied on and lied about regularly.

Having an ethical standard that sometimes appears to be unethical to outsiders.

Trying to fit ALL the above into the space you have.

It ain't easy.

But compared to other aspects of journalism, all that is easy.

At a conference I was on a panel with a reporter. The reporter was objecting to covering a story that conflicted with her personal beliefs. This was the PYT's first journalism job outta collage.

I was asked my editor's opinion. I didn't hesitate.

"I don't care. You get the story or you get another job."

Harsh? Yep. But real journalism is a harsh world. We have to do things we personally find distasteful.

Even worse is having to write the stories which personally hurt. I've had to do this over the years. I did not like it then and I will not like it in the future.

But I have a higher obligation.

No matter how much it may personally hurt.

Whappin' people upside the head with the other shoe

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
A local lady, her name is not important, continue to impress me with her common sense, simple wisdom. Wisdom, I find, is often in the simple things. We make it complicated.

But this lady has children, adults now. One of her children is divorced with one child in school and the other moved out and an adult in his own right.

This lady said she never speaks a harsh or unkind word about her former son-in-law. Never.

"He will always be the father of my grandchildren," she said.

Lemme tell you, that shut my mouth in a hurry. I felt about knee high to a microbe.

Now if you knew this grand lady's former son-in-law you would marvel even more at her self-restraint.

Simply put, and even by his own admission, her former SIL is an idiot. Yep. He admits this. He also admits he doesn't know what to do about it.

An extreme case, yes and I am likewise sure there are worse cases out there.

That is not going to change reality.

Reality is:

Two people cared about each other enough to spend enough time together to have children.

Nuf said.

Or it should be. Unfortunately since the world is peopled with ADOLTS instead of Adults, I must interject some Dose O' Baker into this.

RAH once opined in one of his books the purpose behind a marriage is that the two people so agreeing to the union agree to raise to maturity any and all children produced by that union.

Somewhere, we have lost sight of this.

If you are a single parent, by choice, what do you say about your ex? What do you say about your ex in places where your children can hear, see and even read it?

What do you think the kids are thinking? I'll give you a hint (and I speak from personal experience here 'cause my parents divorced):

Here is one of the two people they care most about in the entire world tearing the other person to pieces. Yeah. Way to be supportive Mom/Dad! Can you use a bigger knife next time?

Hrm.

I love Google Image search.

Lemme whap some people upside the head with the other shoe.

What does your ex say about you to your children? What do you think the kids think about that?

Do you care?

Do you think your kids are perceptive enough to make up their own minds about their parents, you and the other person?

What good does it to do to tear down the other person?

What's it doing to your child?

Do you care?

Chances are you do care, at least a little bit. If not you need to surrender your parental rights to someone who does care. I ain't saying this is your ex, but your kids deserve a better parent than you.

But you also don't bother to think about what you are doing. That's pretty familiar territory, isn't it?

Kids are hurt most in a divorce. Parents who continue to feud and tear each other down make it worse.

Come on.

Thumper got it right.

The kids are hurt enough. if you can't say something nice don't say anything at all.

One final thing and I'll leave you.

If the truth hurts, you ain't living right.

Living in the moment

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Just before I left for lunch, one of Robin's grandchildren came in.

A toddler. Just wearing a diaper. Wobbled around the office, waving his arms are sounding nonsensical sounds.

All was perfect in his world.

He toddled up to the copier and removed a calendar on a magnet.

"You can play with that, but don't eat it," I told him.

He promptly tossed it over his shoulder and forgot about it.

More zooming around the office and commenting in baby gibberish. Then he spied the calendar again.

Picked it up. Shoved it in his mouth.

Momma reached down and took it away.

"I told you don't eat it," I said.

His bottom lip ran out and he threatened to cry, looking at me. (I have that effect on people.)

"Hey. Don't look at me. I told you don't eat it. She took it away," I said and pointed to his mother.

Then, just like that, it was forgotten and he was toddling off on another mission with color commentary.

Living in the moment, not worrying about the future and forgetting about the past. What an outlook.

Don't look for anything metaphorical, deep wisdom or profound insight (and if you look for that in my writing, then you have really got to be desperate anyway) in the above.

It was just a very bright spot on one of the worst Fridays I can ever remember having.

As I have often said, as the editor of a newspaper I have no friends. Easy to say.

But as one of my friends said this morning, it is also "impossible."

Sometimes being the newspaper editor is the worst job in the world.

Here's hoping for a better Monday.

The good, the bad and the completely ridiculous to believe - contains strong language and images

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Brace yourself.

In his speech, the president actually said something I like and agree with. Shocking, I know.


The good

He proposed $2 in cuts for every $1 in new taxes. This is the kind of budget America can live with and needs.

But you understand federal spending originates in the House of Reprehensibles, presently controlled by Reboobicans. The president has as much chance of getting those idiots to adopt his budget as he does od getting me to vote for him in 2012.

Well. It has happened.

I also note STRICTLY FOR THE DAMNOCRATS AMONG US, the House of Reprehensibles despite being CONTROLLED by Damnocrats FAILED TO PASS A BUDGET, making us a fiscal global laughing stock. Apparently Damnocrats had things more important to do than passing a budget. What was more important I have yet to see, but something obviously kept ‘em from doing their job.

Ah, I got it. Incompetence.

 

 

New motto for Congress.

Irony. I knows it when I sees it.

Aside - does anyone except me see the irony in the current president calling for a balanced budget and decreased federal spending? Is this the same president who, leading the Damnocrat-led congress, pushed us into new record deficit spending and made government larger than it has ever been before? Did I miss something. Maybe I slept through the Invasion of the Body Snatchers or the takeover by the Stepford Politicians.

The Bad

The bad part of the president's speech, aside from he is the president and the man who delivered the speech, is: It is a typical politician speech.

Long on promise.

Short on substance.

Looks for a middle ground instead of finding a solid position and standing on it.

POTUS makes grandiose promises, without getting specific. Where are the cuts coming from? What departments are being cut? What programs are gonna have less money? Will anyone get laid off? What services will be scaled back or eliminated?

If his budget actually makes the kind of cuts he proposes, he at least hints are where cuts will come from.

"Around two-thirds of our budget is spent on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and national security. Programs like unemployment insurance, student loans, veterans' benefits, and tax credits for working families take up another 20%. What's left, after interest on the debt, is just 12 percent for everything else. That's 12 percent for all of our other national priorities like education and clean energy; medical research and transportation; food safety and keeping our air and water clean," he said.

In other words, expect to see a LOT MORE stuff shifted back to the states and then expect to see the states shift as much as they can back to local government.

The shift is gonna hit the fan.

The Completely Ridiculous To Believe It

Pundits and commentators are agog over one part of the president's plan. (remember it ain't be adopted yet and likely won't be).

Unless budget targets are met, automatic spending cuts and tax hikes kick in.

Excuse me. I have to be blunt here. Where's Penn & Teller when I need 'em? Ah. There they are.

Not clear enough? Sorry. Try this.

Am I clear yet?

I'm certainly trying to be clear.

Ya wants feel-good lies, ya looks somewhere else. Ya wants truth ya in the right place.

If you believe that automatic spending cuts and tax increases will take place if Congress does not act, than you are beyond delusional.

The last time Congress passed legislation that would do something this drastic automatically, they passed NEW legislation to postpone the implementation.

In other words, Congress said, "Nope. Can't do this now. We'll push it back."

Automatic cuts absolutely, positively without question Will Not Happen.

Members of Congress are not going to let their authority to do something be usurped. Not gonna happen. Am I clear on this? If not, well, I can't help you understand it then.

The president also says his budget will get the US back to being balanced by 2014.

Balanced budget by 2014?

Ahem.

Again,

His proposal requires Congress to stick to the spending plan he puts forth.

The last time Congress stuck to a spending plan for more than one year was before I was born.

We'll have another election before 2014 and who wins then will determine what direction we head in fiscally. My money is on continued idiocy in Washington.

The other part of the prez' budget plan, which has been HIGHLY overlooked is: It gets set aside if the nation is at war.

I was born in the late 60s. The United States has been at war constantly since the 1950s. Yes huh. Some people won't see it that way because they have a delusional view of what a war is.

If military troops are firing live bullets and intentionally killing other people, that is war. Your mileage may vary.

So I repeat, the United States entered a war in in the early 1950s and has not been in a state of peace since. The war which started in the 1950s is still going on, has not stopped and may get a whole lot hotter very soon.

Bearing this in mind, if the nation is at war, the spending plan is set aside. Since we are at war and have been for decades, the spending plan is automatically set aside even before it is adopted.

But such sleight of hand is SOP in Washington.