We don't dial 911

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Some time back the State of Florida decided exotic snakes, mostly of the constrictor variety, were a problem. With typical state thinking and invoking the Power Of Idiocy, state officials said was OK to hunt the snakes ... during gator season.

Lunch is served in S. Florida.

Hah? There is a problem with an invasive species and the state limits the public's ability to eliminate them to a few weeks a year?

Here in the Peach State, we have a slightly different policy on "exotic" critters. Kill 'em all. Kill 'em however and whenever you want.

But in the State of Retirement, especially down in the Everglades, the snakes are getting really out of hand.

In other words "Nearly all the raccoons, possums, deer and bobcats gone."

The ultimate empiricists.

Now lemme interject here - I am not a fan of any state or federal biologist program. Part of this is a requirement of working for taxpayer dollars. They are not just not allowed to say things that massively contradict official sanctioned wildlife policy. Furthermore, the biologists live in their own little insular world; anything that doesn't fit their notions must be rejected. I've had run-ins with biologists over the years over things like turtles, bears and eagles - all of which I have seen and seen repeatedly in places they are not supposed to exist according to the biologists.

Black panthers are another matter entirely. I ain't saying you've never seen one, but every one which has been pointed out to me was a feral (or non feral) dog.

Bit off more'n he could chew.

Anyway, S. Florida is starting to run short on small to mid-sized mammals. Snakes are being blamed.

The government has again stepped in. "The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has been watching the python explosion and is taking action. On Jan. 17, the agency made it illegal to import Burmese pythons or transport them across state lines. That includes three other constrictor species from Africa and South America: the yellow anaconda and the northern and southern African pythons."

 To much, too little, too late. The snakes are here to stay.

This man is now running for office.

So what can be done? Enter the government.

At Mom's house not long ago I learned in utter amazement as a county in S. Florida actually has a Public Safety branch exclusively aimed at removal and handling of animals, specifically snakes and gators. A lot of people employed by this department.

Uh what?

These officers corral said offending reptiles and haul them off to other places in the Glades in the case of gators or to a secure facility in the case of snakes where the critters can live out the rest of their life.

Uh what?

Anyone other than me wondering what anaconda tastes like? Seriously.

Betcha

When snakes show up around my place, I don't dial 911. I decide if the snake is big enough to eat or not. If not big enough (and not an exotic snake), I relocate it to the woods well away from people. If it's big enough to be skinned out and fried, well now, I have just acquired lunch.

If S. Florida is seriously interested in getting rid of the exotic snakes, they'll encourage people to treat the snakes like I do armadillos.

Kill 'em all. To death and then some.

Yup.

Not gonna happen

..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
A Georgia judge has ruled against the President. The suit challenges the president's standing as a natural citizen of the United States and seeks to have him removed from the ballot.

An extremely hyperbolic report here.

The POTUS didn't show for court. As expected.

From one legal side of this, if someone sues and the the sued side doesn't show up for court, the judge often has little choice but to find for the side that shows in court.

In this case, the judge had to rule against POTUS.

Don't expect to see his name removed from the Georgia ballot. While the judge didn't have much a choice in this matter, an appellate court will. Besides which, I suspect the judge in this case didn't research all the applicable laws and court cases.

Sue anyone anytime for anything. An American right.

On another legal side of this, the POTUS cannot be expected to appear in court every time he's sued. He'd simply have no time for anything else. I have not looked up the relevant laws and court decisions on this, but they are available.

I am told Sarah Palin resigned as governor of Alaska for this reason. She was spending far too much time in court defending herself. I cannot say this is a true, I can only say this is what I was told. Alaska has a different set of rules regarding politicians being hauled in court than most states.

For another reason the POTUS will be in the ballot, this is a "birther" issue. That's no pretty much irrelevant unless someone can come up with absolute proof the POTUS was not born on US soil.

Yes, it is that way. SCOTUS has already taken steps to put the current POTUS in office. He was sworn into office by a member of the Supreme Court with the concurrence of the remainder of the court. SCOTUS has determined the POTUS is eligible to be president.

SCOTUS' action trumphs any action or decision by a lower court.

'Round these parts of the South Georgia, we call this reality. You ain't gotta like it, but it ain't gonna change.

Yes, states do have some leeway in deciding who can be on the ballot. That's why some states have a LOT of people on the ballot for president and other states have only Reboobicans and Damnocrats and maybe Libertarians. But when it comes to the presidential election, federal law is going to play a role.

As to whether or not the POTUS was born in the United States, I do not know.

What I do know is

Age and Citizenship requirements - US Constitution, Article II, Section 1
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.

I hate Facebook and all the rest

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
S'true. Despite being on Facebook and other networking sites, I hate them.

By the time you get to the end of this column, you will agree with me.

I hate those websites.

A lot.

More than a lot.

To explain, I must derail your train of thought for a moment.

Alfred Lord Tennyson didn't have Facebook et al in the 1950s when he was writing his poetry. But he did have the same kind of thoughts we have today.

In Memoriam: 27

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

A Vogon poetry recital.

Just for the record, I detest poetry with very few exceptions and believe most poets should be fed to a Vogon. A Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal is too good for them. But in this case, I have to resort to Tennyson 'cause his words are so famous that you should now have an idea of where I'm headed.

Regardless of whether I share Tennyson's expressed sentiment, I have to admit to being in the loser's position as he describes.

The internet just makes it worse. Consider Doc. You may not know Doc. For that matter, I can't say I know Doc, beyond the hours spent in chat rooms with him, emails and other forms of highly impersonal electronic communication.

YAY DOC!

If you don't know Doc, well, dang. How do you describe the color red to a a person blind since birth? (Doc is blind, BTW, but lost his sight only a couple of years ago). If you don't know Doc, you have missed meeting one of the most admirable human beings to ever walk the earth.

He ranks No. 1 of all the people on earth whom I most want to meet face to face.

And now, Dammitall, I don't know if he's even alive. Doc was piggbybacking some time back on a neighbor's internet connection. When the neighbor moved, Doc lost his connection. As he will not have a phone, and I don't have his address, getting ahold of him is extremely difficult. Doc is a very private person and keeps it that way.

Doc, as of our last communication, was not in great health.

Definitely not Doc.

To answer your next question, yeah I tried. No one on his FB "friends" list will pass along any word of him or his condition. I 'spect his real friends are not part of his FB group or are respecting his wishes and protecting his privacy.

I must also admit, I know Doc from the internet. That's it. He could be the world's most intense asshat (but I doubt it.) Certainly there are many many people who've made online friendships and then upon meeting face to face found out reality is FAR different from what they expected.

Now do you see why I hate FB et al?

Doc is only at the top of the list of people I want to someday meet in person. There are many many others. Some are in the United States, Ireland, Washington state, Alaska, New Jersey, California, places I can't easily get to. Some are on the North American continent. Some are in Africa, China, Australia, Europe, South America.

Is the situation any clearer?

In order to actually meet all these people, I'd need to be a multi-millionaire. That's the only way I could either visit all these places OR pay their way for them to come visit me. Despite our associations being only electronically (internet, phone etc), some of these folks are closer to me than some of my family.

Of course being a realist, I have to admit that the chances of some of them being an asshat or them considering me to be an asshat is pretty good. We'll meet, sparks will fly and we'll part company to never speak again, electronically or otherwise.

Still, I want to have that chance.

A few of these folks I will get to meet. But only a few and only after some detailed and probably expensive planning.

I have managed to meet a few folks I once only knew by the internet. They are great friends today I will see them again sooner or later.

But most of these people, eventually one of us will be gone and we'll never get to meet on this side of reality.


And that is why I hate Facebook and all the rest of today's modern marvels that are shrinking our world in one respect but making it infinitely larger in another.

Amend THIS!

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Some legislators are renewing a push and redoubling their efforts for a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage.

Some people is more insane than others.

How about you? Would you support such an amendment?

For those arriving late, I'm going to briefly restate my position on same gender unions. It's none of my business. As an ordained minister, I will not officiate a same gender union. My thoughts on that are: If you don't like gay marriage don't have one. Marriage is, to my opinion, a religious institution. Civil unions are a government matter. As for multi-partner unions of either kind, as long as a woman can have more than one husband as a man can have more than one wife, I'm cool with that.

Interestingly, multi-partner marriages are rarely discussed when the idea of a Constitutional Amendment on marriage comes up. But this will be just as affected and effected as same gender unions.

So I ask again, will you support a Constitutional Amendment on marriage?

Don't break what's working fine.

Before you answer consider this: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That is the text of the First Amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" is the important part.

If marriage is not a religious institution but a government one, then the law may certainly set the rule for who can and can't be married. Nuf said.

If marriage is a religious institution aha! A Constitutional Amendment on marriage creates two directly conflicting amendments.

That's marriage.

The First says government can't tell me what to do as a minister. Hands off. The Marriage Amendment tells me what I can and can't do as a minister. Hands on.

That is a Constitutional Crisis.

Some will argue, "We're carving out an exception for marriage."

To which I could easily reply slippery slope and all that leading to further restrictions, regulations and requirements regarding religion for all of us.

Lemme get more basic. Do you want government telling you what you, as a consenting adult, can do in your house with another consenting adult?

Eschew obfuscation.

"This ain't about sex, Baker. It's about marriage," you say.

In the first place, I didn't say it was about sex. You did. In the second place, so you don't have a problem with two women living together without official sanction, be it religious or governmental? Two men? Three women and two men? Four men? Pick any number of adults of any gender and have them live together, intimately in all ways. Got problems yet?


"You're making this complicated, Baker."

No. The situation was already complicated. So in the THIRD place I'm merely pointing out HOW complex this issue really is.

A Constitutional Amendment will also set the terms for all kinds of legal matters when marriage is a state-sanctioned institution. Who can inherit. Who is in charge of pulling the plug. Who gets the kids in event of separation or demise of all adult partners. If people get hauled into court, who else has to be hauled, who must testify and who can't be forced to testify. Joint property rules. Ad infinitum.

Now if we could people people to DO THIS...

When marriage is a religious matter, the above items are also highly relevant but the answer may be different depending on the religious requirements.

This is not just a matter of who is knockin' whose boots and who is making the headboard rattle with whom.

I circle BACK to an issue I already brought up. Referring to the above polygamous marriage, arrests for that these days are rare. Convictions, these days are even more rare. Warren Jeffs, the Texas whackjob, was mostly charged with offenses related to sex with minors. A Constitutional Amendment could affect and effect these people.

Depending on how it's worded and interpreted, the Amendment could also prevent people from having a second marriage after divorce or death of a spouse.

Ooh ah.

... and he has always been the enemy...

That's an issue that Christians can't even agree on. A New Testament Biblical directive, that a man be husband to one woman, is widely argued in churches that a preacher either can or can't be remarried after a marriage ended.

Interestingly enough, the major supporters of this Amendment are also people who are loudly screaming that government is too involved in our lives.

Bonus points for doublethink?

Two more points and I conclude.

Ministers in the military are already grumbling and rumbling about same gender unions in the military. The present policy is they "may" do such ceremonies with a number of restrictions.

(The Nit Pickers amongst us will point to laws protecting minors from marriage. Yes yes yes. Same thing with use of proscribed substances like mushrooms in Native American rituals. Yer point is made, M'kay? Now if you still want to split hairs, go ahead.)


So to wrap this up, I will vehemently oppose a Constitutional Amendment on marriage because I see marriage as none of government's business. If a Civil Union is proposed, I'll have to see what the wording is before I support it.

For us Macheads.

Estate of the Onion

..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Had pancreatic cancer not taken him down at the age of 42, my Dad would be 68 today.

Shag, Benny, Sebastian, Plato & Ben

Today I also learned Dave Meredith died yesterday of cancer.

I'm gonna miss Dave nearly as much as I miss Dad. Dave was one of the most awesome people I've ever met. He belongs in the Outdoors Hall of Fame.

Dave & Dad were both major believers in the Second Amendment. They both loved children. They both taught me many things I needed to know. They both liked beer and naps in the afternoon.

With that in mind, it makes the rest of this morning's commentary seem a little less important in one respect and more important in another.

I gotta agree with something my buddy Buck says about our current liar in chief.

You can say whatever you want to about him, but it in no way diminishes his accomplishments. Would that it DID diminish his accomplishments.

Thinking back, I know there are a couple of things the current president did which I like. The only one I can recall is a decision to send suitcase-sized internet hubs to trouble spots around the globe. That means even the rulers or the rebels shut down the internet, folks will still have access.

And cantservatives.

As I told Buck, for every positive accomplishment or promise kept he can list (and the president has some) for the current president, I can list at least one negative accomplishment or a broken promise for that same person.

Eh. I can do that for every president whom I can remember being in office.

But then I have a fundamental difference between most supporters of the current and most past presidents. I see government as the problem. They see it as the solution.

That being said, I must sort of come to the defense of the president in one regard. Yesterday my friend and US House member Austin Scott opined on Facebook  "Today marks 1000 days since the Senate has passed a budget! Do you think the President will address this in his SOTU tonight?"

Sort of defend the president. 

US Constitution Article 1 Section 7 "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."

In other words, the responsibility for a budget starts in the House (Reboobican controlled now). The Senate is Damnocrat controlled.

As the leader of the Damnocrats, the president is having a hard time getting his party to fall in line. That I like. For far too long our elected leaders in Washington have played follow the leader and toed a party line. We need independent thinkers in Washington, ones who will not do as instructed by higher ups in the various parties and caucuses.

If the president cannot control the members of his party, then this is a good thing. It means someone has started thinking independently.

I refuse to fault the current president because he can't get another elected official to do what he wants done.

I did not listen to the State of the Union speech. The only things the current president could say, which I want to hear, he will not say. He ain't got the guts to say it. What did I want him to say?

1) Our troops on foreign soil are coming home. Now. If they can't bring equipment and supplies back, they will blow it up. If anyone gets in the way, they will be blown up. Henceforth, if we are attacked, we will blow that country up, with nukes if necessary.

yadda yadda yadda

2) We will stop deficit spending now. This means some government services won't be supplied, some people are going to be laid off and there are no more grants.

3) It's time to Buy American. Quit buying imports and jobs will come back to the United States.

4) Things are tough. Quicherbichen and do something.

5) If you can't find a paying job, get off your butt and do some volunteering. Every community in this nation can use someone to pick up trash on the highway, volunteer in a library, read to children, visit inmates in prison, help in a homeless shelter. Volunteer. It could turn into a job. Even if it doesn't you'll learn some things.

6) It is not government's job to run your life. You run your life. We'll stay out of the way.

7) This is my last State of the Union speech. I will not run for office again and I am endorsing Rep. Ron Paul for president.

Takin' a fifth

..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Is the 5th Amendment an absolute protection? For those who need a primer, I supply the text:

Yes please.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Refer now to the opening question.

Answer? No.

You cannot begin to testify and later change your mind and invoke 5th Amendment rights. You gotta start what you finish in other words.

The question then becomes how far does the 5th Amendment extend? To your computer?

This Wired version of the story includes a PDF to your computer of the judge's decision.

Before I get into my opinion, lemme also point out a few other exceptions to required testimony:

Attorney - Client
Doctor - Patient
Minister - Congregant

As an ordained minister, I am exempt from the legal requirements to testify if someone comes to me in my office as a minister.

IT'S MINE (Ok, bad pun referencing personal possessions)

That outta the way, some issues.

Wired lists the computer as "hers." Does this mean she bought it? Her personal property or more a case of "hers" in the sense that her employer provided it? Was she employed by another? Self employed?

That matters, 'cause it if was not her computer but belonged to her employer, then any records on it are subject to her employer's inspection. That one was settled a while back by SCOTUS.

If she doesn't actually own the computer, open them files.

Now if she actually owns the computer what then? Ah so. More complicated.

Nuf said.

Can police get a warrant to search the contents of a personal home safe? Betcha. Can they seize any records found therein? Betcha. If you refuse to open the safe can they have it opened? Betcha. Can they use those records against you? Betcha.

Still feel the same way about encrypted computer files? Until that line of reasoning popped into my head, I was leaning toward the idea of "Nope, can't get them files."

Now I ain't so sure. And, as you will see in a moment, I am even more uncertain about this.

What is the real difference between personal information, such as an accounting ledger of drug deals kept in a personal safe and those same records stored as encrypted data in a personally owned computer?

RESISTANCE IS USELESS!

Aha. Surely you didn't think it was gonna be that easy.

Nother question, can they force you to open the safe? Arg. I don't know.

I do know you can passively resist law enforcement (which annoys them) and passively resist a judge (which leaves you in an Iron Bar Hotel room). But, sometimes ya gotta do what ya gotta do (even if the alternative is being tossed out an airlock, see image at right).


OK, say the safe is wired to destroy all the documents inside if someone tries to break in. Can you be forced to open the safe? Again, damfino.

I rather suspect a judge could (as will happen the above laptop case) charge you contempt of court. Whether or not such a contempt charge would stand a SCOTUS scrutiny, I know not. The first issue to be examined would be the judge's order to open the safe or computer. If that was legal, then contempt should stand. If you cannot be forced to open said storage, I suspect contempt charges would have to be tossed.

One thing I am certain of, if you are forced to open said storage device and in the process of doing so, trigger a self destruct of the records inside, then you will be charged with a crime - destruction of evidence at minimum.

Like my bud Mike Moore said on FB, this is one case I hope gets to SCOTUS.

I remember a maxim I was told in college by one of my favorite professors. I have MOSTLY applied this to my life, but a few times I did not. Some of those few times came around and shredded my posterior.

"If you don't want to see it in print, don't write it."

In other words, don't make a permanent record if you're worried it can be used against you later.

Nine Gates - book review

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

I do not like book series that take several editions to tell a complete story. I like to have the whole story wrapped up in one book and I don't care if it runs to 500 pages. Cliffhangers annoy me. Immensely.

But, as I haunt the remainder bins at various stores, I sometimes wind up getting a book which is part of trilogy. Then I have to poke and prod and look for the remaining books in that series so I can get the whole story.

Last week I picked up Nine Gates, book two of the 13 Orphans series by Jane Lindskold.

This one was tough, tough to get into. Lindskold jumped right into the story of this book without giving the reader an backstory (which I appreciate even as I don't like trilogies. I don't need to walk the same real estate twice).

Compounding the problem is some main characters in the book have two names, a Chinese-based named to reflect their magical nature and power and their American-mundane name. These names are used interchangeably by Lindskold without explanation. That means the reader is left wondering exactly who Lindskold is writing about until an explanation is offered later in the book.

It took me about halfway through the novel to get into the book enough that I felt comfortable reading it. This, despite a rocking action-packed opener that hooked me immediately. Not many SF-F authors are willing to open a book and immediately and permanently cripple a main character as Lindskold does. That opening battle scene lends an immediate sense of realism to her work. In a pitched battle, the good guys and the bad guys die.

I am less impressed with her use of the Chinese mah jong tiles as the basis for spells. Through use of Ch'i, the life force Chinese believe inhabits us all, power is invested in the game times. Tiles are press, cast and inscribed with mah-jong characters. Ch'i is invested in the tiles during the making process.

To access and activate the spell, a tile is crushed, releasing the power. This also, as Lindskold has her characters admit, limit the number spells a 'caster can carry. It's also inconvenient, as she notes. Fumbling for a specific tile while someone is rushing at you with a sword is a good way to die.

The book also ended a bit less tidily than I wanted. In fantasy novels, there often will be some Deus Ex Machina. The trick is to hide it and make it blend in. Lindskold only does a fair job of this.

Maybe I'd have a different overall opinion of this work had I read 13 Orphans first. I suggest anyone interested in this trilogy start with 13 Orphans first. I hope it'll make Book 2 and presumably Book 3 an easier read.

But I reads 'em as I can get my hands on 'em. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Gratuitous use of the muppet Animal at the end

..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The Supreme Court has ruled, unanimously, a search warrant must be obtained before putting a Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking unit on someone's car to track them.

Supporters of the current president and people who share his way of thinking (Reboobicans and Damnocrats mostly) are no doubt grinding their teeth in frustration.

"It hands a key defeat to the Obama administration, as lawyers at the Justice Department have defended vigorously their use of location tracking writ large," states Tony Romm, writing for Politco. This story also includes a link which will dump a PDF copy of the decision to your computer.

Before you Reboobicans celebrate too much, note: This is merely a continuation of a policy Reboobicans endorsed when Dubya was pres. Damnocrats are just falling in line.

Anyone else want to join me in celebrating and thumbing our nose at those who attempt to take away our rights?

Pardon me a moment. I must do a victory dance. I apologize in advance for any earthquakes this may cause.

...

OK, back.

The case went to the SCOTUS on behalf of a nightclub owner whom police suspected also dealt in contraband drugs. They tagged his ride without getting a warrant. That eventually led to his being arrested on drug charges, whereupon he faced spending the rest of his life as a guest of the state in an Iron Bar Hotel.

Romm adds "In arguments, the government contended that vehicles traveling on public roads lack a reasonable expectation of privacy, relying on a 1983 case involving the placement of a so-called beeper in a container that police tracked. But the argument was met with skepticism before the court, which noted the great advances in location tracking technology in over two decades."

Indeed it has. If you have a "smart" phone, it can be used to track you, an idea many parents appreciate. The flip side is predators can also track our kids. Those in the know can also turn on a cell phone remotely and activate the camera function. Now they know where you are, who you're with and etc.. Yes huhn.

At the same time I exult in this decision, I note it may come as a blow to the Thin Blue Line. I count myself as having a number of good friends who serve in law enforcement and for them, I feel some regret. Already held to a higher standard than I could ever manage to achieve, this decision simply raises the bar a bit more.

At the same time, considering laws passed and approved by the Idiotocracy in Washington, that same bar has been lowered quite a bit. It's time it went back up some.

Arg. I just can't find enough good to say about this SCOTUS decision. The fact that it is also unanimous makes me want to run down the street shouting (I'd take 10 steps, collapse and EMS would have to bring me oxygen).

ROCK AND ROLL!

This one just rocks. Absolutely rocks.

Here's a link to Nina Totenberg's story on the decision for you NPR junkies like me.

This is a two way street going nowhere

..
.
.
.
.
.
.

.


.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Back in the late 80s and early 90s, if you were a person of a specific ancestry and applied to a college in Southwest Georgia, you got a scholarship.

Flat out. You got it just because you applied and met an ancestry requirement, provided your recent ancestors, say the past 300 years or so, were from a specific part of the planet and not from another part of the planet.

Sound racist?


My allegation will be hotly denied, but the records will back me up, if those records are still on file. I believe they should be. This is a state-funded institution of higher learning we're talking about.

The college is now a university. The institution is a Historically Black College or University (HBCU). Those who qualified for and got those scholarships were not the group of students primarily served by Albany State College (now University).

Still sound racist?

ASC was then under orders to diversify it's student population or it would be combined with other colleges & universities.

Reverse busing of a sort.

Now ASU is taking heat again for admitting students who do not meet the minimum qualifications for admission. About half the freshman class in fact did not meet the admission requirements.

They got in anyway.

ASU officials are chalking it up to simple errors.

Hah.

For several years now, Georgia has been tightening the fiscal reins on education and that includes adult education centers. The tech college shut down in my community because there was not enough students to keep the place open.

And half of ASU's freshman class didn't meet the necessary admission requirements.

Anyone see a pattern forming here?

I ain't picking on ASU, which can be a fine institution of higher learning. It certainly has some quality people. But, just like any other university across the planet, it has some idiots.

It also is located in a small urban outpost in a hugely rural part of the state. It must also compete with two other institutions of higher learning.

If ASU was not an HBCU, I suspect it woulda been combined with another college or university or shut down. But because of the specter of racism lurking over it, ASU has gotten a pass for years.

Again, I'm not picking on ASU, but it certainly is a symptom of a much wider problem in this nation. Until we can get past the idea that skin color somehow determines a person's worth, then we will remain mired in idiocy, the kind of idiocy that makes people vote a person into office because of the ancestors they claim, not their ability to do the job.

Racism is a two-way street. It doesn't lead to nowhere though. But no one on that road really wants to get to the destination, despite what they say.

Of amphibians, men and things they won't admit to

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

Hi! I'm Newt!

Timing may not be everything, but it comes bloody close.

Timing, and the need to get ratings and take potshots, is what I think is behind Newt Gingrich's second wife's charges that Newt wanted to be a swinger.

While I do not know any of the three people intimately involved (in more ways that one) in this matter, I do wonder why wife #2 waited until NOW to announce her accusation.

Vindictive comes to immediate mind.

I have no doubts the woman was hurt by Newt. I also equally suspect she is very much interested in revenge and this is a good way for her to do it.

I think she bided her time to see how far The Amphibian would get. Seeing her chance, and seeing what similar allegations have done to other presidential contenders, she fired away.

Her charges do nothing to change my mind. I will not support The Amphibian. He can't be trusted and I do not refer to his running around on his various spouses.

He was Speaker of the House years back. When Reboobicans lost control of the House, he resigned, despite winning re-election. He lied. He lied to the people in his district. He ran for office, and won, which is an agreement that he would serve his term of office. He quit because his feelings got hurt.

This man does not need to be president.

Anyway to throw some metal shavings in your gear box, consider this news story. I'm fixing to say some things that are gonna infuriate a lot of people, cause a lot of people to say I'm a liar and worse.

Here's a clip from the story-

"The fallout from Marianne’s allegations will severely test Gingrich’s famed powers of political recovery.

''It’s going to impact men and women equally,' said Joe Morris, a Mercyhurst College pollster who will release a 'What Women Want' poll of female Pennsylvania voters at the end of the month."

No, Joe, it won't. It won't because men and women think differently about this.

I'm just using the image. No comment on the book.

What women want is not always what men want. You don't have to believe me. I can prove it.

A lot of men may get mad at Newt for what he did and is accused of. That won't change what I'm about to state.

Whether or not Newt asked for an open marriage is beside the point I'm making. The fact is if you ask 100 men if they would enjoy an open marriage, at least on their side of the bed, at least 75 of them will say yes IF they are willing to tell the truth. The real number is probably over 90, but I'm being conservative here. I suspect a smaller number of women would like the same thing.

Whether or not a man will act on this wish is another matter entirely. Plenty of men reject the wish for more than one partner, seeing is as a base desire, evil and something that does not belong in their life. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It just means they are beating it back.

Besides which, the problem with polygamy is having more than one mother-in-law.

I can tell that some ladies out there are no wondering if they should ask the man in their life about this. I can only advise you this: If you trust your man, then leave it at that (see above about beating it back.) If you don't trust him, why are you still with him?


In closing, I tell you this, which was once said from pulpit by a pastor friend. "Ladies, if you feed your man prime rib in the kitchen, he's not going to go looking for scraps in the alley."

In search of more government regulation

..
..
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Hang on. I'm serious here.

Yes. I am calling for government regulation. Pick yourself up off the floor. I'll wait.

Where do you fall?

While I am ALL about personal responsibility and personal accountability, I do think some government regulation is necessary. As much as I abhor zoning laws, I do think they are necessary. If you don't, I'm coming to where you live and set up a swine production and slaughtering facility next to you.

I firmly believe we have too much regulation of business and industry these days. There are far too many licensing boards running around.

People should take the time to understand what they are about to do. They should invest in some research. They should LEARN.

Call it Due Diligence.


The flip side of this means people can get buried in minutiae.

Going to a doctor? Without a licensing board and regulations, anyone can hang a shingle and claim to be an MD. A person CAN check claims than someone is a health care provider. Call the college the person attended. Find out what their degree was and their GPA.

But then you must find out if the college is actually a reputable med school. What does the GPA actually mean? What courses were taken?

See what I mean? You can quickly be buried by an avalanche of information that only leads to a need to gather MORE information.

Eventually charlatans will be exposed, yes, but how long will that take?

If it's an emergency situation, you don't have time to run a background check to see if the doctor is qualified.


Sooner or later you will have to trust someone. In the above case of the doctor, unless you want to attend the same med school, take the same courses and training, you are going to have to trust someone's opinion of the school et al.

At this point someone will mention the idea of self-policing. That's a wonderful idea. It works, in a utopia. But I live in this place called reality where self-policing is another way to describe ripping people off in the guise of doing what's right.

With all that in mind, I remind you of the recent economic catastrophe and the financial collapse.

I do not blame big finance for everything. I put a lot of the blame on stupid people who didn't bother to do Due Diligence.

This is where self-policing comes in. Rather than do what is right, big finance attempted to make a quick and big profit by going after people too stupid to do Due Diligence.

So I bring you now to The Volker Rule. This is a massively complicated rule. The story does a fair to middlin' job of reducing it to something comprehensible.. I'll simplify a bit further.

The Volker Rule will limit how banks can invest money. Banks won't be able to invest in uber-high risk stuff.

I hate the idea that government is stepping in to regulate finance even more. But I just can't find a more reasonable and viable alternative that won't lead to an even greater financial collapse. Not saying one doesn't exist. Saying I can't find it.

Such are the compromises of living without rose colored glasses.

Endlessly Engrossing - book review

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

Seriously. What can be said about the Uncle John series of books that hasn't been said and said and said. This - It is one of my favorite series of books.

I have a number of the books in the 20+ and growing series and am trying to get the whole set. Most of the books are general interest stuff, but a few are specialized - sports being one.

Endlessly Engrossing is another general information compendium. About every subject you can imagine is covered within the pages and a few subjects that might surprise you are also stacked in there. Yes, of course, the small one liners are on the bottom of each page.

While it's hard to single out a single story from the book, or a set of connected essays spread through the book, in this one I do have a favorite, a look at Adolf Hitler. This series of stories takes a look at the man's personal physician and der fuhrer's declining health in the latter days of WWII. The information presented is something I didn't know. Without spoiling it for you, I will say the German dictator was subjected, actually he agreed to experiments that would put a doctor under the prison today.

The essays range from short reads to the "leg numb-ers."

If you are a major fan of learning and can't get enough information about the world around us, Uncle John is for you. The writing is clear, concise and simple. You do not have to be a brainiac to read and enjoy Uncle John. Everyone can find something in an UJ reader that will appeal to them.

It does help if you are a nerd, but that's not a requirement.