Double Standards II

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

Go back and read yesterday’s piece to get caught up for this one.

Does an accident of birth give me the right to do something and deny you that same right?

[snort!]

A lot of people argue yes for this. While I have said it before, it’s still not a valid argument. Consider the word “nigger.” Why can some people use this word and others can’t?

Saying an accident of birth gives you the right to use it and not me is a cop out of the highest order. You are hiding behind a lie, compounding that falsehood and continuing to perpetrate your disingenuous ways.

Speaking of prejudice, Tom Clark author of the mind-engaging Blatherspot offered this: “Since I have been told point-blank by members of a particular minority group that it is impossible for them to be prejudiced because they are of said group, I must pose a counter-question, to wit: Why is it okay for some groups to be either A) ignorant or, B) obstinate, or C) disingenuous? The particular minority in question, by the way, enjoys an enormous number of perks not available to the rest of the US population, and so feels itself to be privileged. Given the aforementioned perks, it actually is, de-facto, a privileged class.”

Nuf said on that specific.

Taking a slightly different track, does an accident of geography give you the right to do something and deny me that same right?

Coming RIGHT NOW to a Washington DC

Well, in this political reality of this world, the answer has to be yes. Here in the United States I have a freedom of speech that is probably the most unrestricted in the world. My Aussie chums in the newspaper bidden tell me stuff printed here would land the editor, reporter and publisher in court in a hurry and they would lose in Down Under.

So, let’s set aside artificial boundaries created by artificial political divisions.

Why can you do something and it is acceptable and when I do it, it is not acceptable?

You are looking for another for instance. I’ll give you one from  the history of my community which shows parity.

We had a superior court judge some years ago who would hand down a Contempt of Court fine to anyone who showed up for court late.

The judge showed up for court late one day. He looked around and decided to be fair. He found himself in contempt of court and fined himself.

That is parity. The judge realized he had a standard to uphold and he upheld it.

Most judges I know would not do this.

So why is it OK for a judge to be late to court and not OK for those petitioning the court to be late? Doesn’t the law apply to all?

Just another example to chew on.

Move out of the courts and law. Put this on a more even ground than we’re already on.

I give you another example, semi-hypothetical. Two students Phread and Ghorge. Phread has a 3.8 GPA. Ghorge has a 3.5 GPA. In all other respects except one, they are identical.

They both apply to a college and Ghorge gets accepted while Phread is rejected.

Remember, there is only one other difference in the two. Assume you don’t know this difference and had to weigh their college applications which are as close to identical as two applications could reasonably get. Who would you accept into college?

MLK said it

That other difference is known to the college admissions people.

Ghorge gets in. Phread doesn’t.

Yeah, that’s a pretty easy on. Affirmative action admission policies. One of the two is a “minority.” Which one is the minority?

Hint: It’s not Ghorge.

Threw you there didn’t I?

More tomorrow.

Double Standards

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

Why is it OK for some people to do something and not other people?

When I posed this question yesterday, I got this reply: “Could be several factors... race, religion, morals, values, ethics, etc.”

Or vice versa

Then, I got this addenda: “and something (commentor) omitted... Equipment”

So, I tightened up the question a bit: Physical and mental attributes being equal, I reiterate and add this. Person A does this. It is OK. Person B does it and Person A says it is not OK.

One respondent asked if Person A and Person B are adults. “There are definitely things that are OK for me to do, but not my children.”

Note my rephrased question. I add this:

The only variables permitted in my question are those which the person has control over. In other words, religion is a choice. Birth gender is not a choice.

Can I get a witness?

I’m trying to keep this simple. So I ask again: Why is it OK for some people to do something and not other people?

I draw your attention to this fact: I have done things. Some people have threatened to kill me because of what I did.

BUT! When these same people do the same thing, it’s OK and even laudable under some circumstances.

Want a for instance?


PETA killed 95 percent of the adoptable pets under PETA care. When I lived on a farm and shot stray animals, PETA members who found out threatened to kill me.

Is there a real difference? What makes it OK for PETA to put down unwanted pets and when I do the same thing, that’s not OK?

There's a reason for that. Men buy comic books.

That’s just one example. I have more and I do have a very specific one I will get to.

Let me be vague again.

Person A commits an act. Person B condemns it, harshly. Hints that the action may be illegal.

Some time later Person B commits the same act. What was one detestable has now become commendable.

There is one variable, a mental decision. All the rest of the circumstances are identical.

Why? What could happen to make this acceptable?

More tomorrow. We have enough to mentally masticate today.

From me buddy CB.

The War redux

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Say "The War" to a person of my heritage and only one conflict comes to mind. The caps are important.

Is the stage being set for a second one? Montana is certainly pointing in that direction.

Bout $8K or more worth of guns.

Say what? To explain, the Supreme Court in the Citizens United case ruled corporations have the same rights as citizens. A decision, incidentally, the current president lambasted and now embraces, a matter which still drives me into paroxysms of laughter.

This is not the only time Montana has decided to express sovereign rights. The legislature there passed a law stating firearms suppressors (aka Can, Silencer, etc) made in Montana and used in Montana and never leaving the state are not subject to federal oversight.

Really. Buy a can in Montana and you don't need to get federal permission, so say state leaders.

This one has yet to be tested in federal court. But given the Montana Supreme Court decision on corporate citizenship, I don't think Montana will care what the federal courts say.

Forget hell!

However, in Montana, it is not the state which will be held liable. It is an individual. Someone has to buy a can without paying the federal fees. Then the court cases begin.

Given the current leaning of SCOTUS, I hesitate to say how that body would rule.

But. As the federal regulation relies on the Interstate Commerce clause of the Constitution, overturning the can laws would set a precedent for a LOT of other federal regulation.

Slinging another "but" at you, SCOTUS is already headed for an Interstate Commerce clause showdown, over the socialized medicine National Health Care bill.

No matter what is decided on that one, it's gonna set precedents. The decision will be used if a suppressor case from Montana ever gets to the Supremes.

I opined long ago that if the South had not attempted to break away from the federal government, the West would have. It just makes sense, if you look at the political geography.

Montana is certainly rolling down the road toward breaking away unless the federal government loosens its stranglehold on states and citizens.

Me? I like the idea.

Frydee Funnie

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Until I change my mind, or I come up with something I need to write and have 2 Friday blogs, I'm gonna make Fridays a humor stop. Give you something hopefully to be bit of a chuckle.


A TOUGH TRUCK

Wanted. A tough truck

Recently while shopping for some new wheels, I took to reading “reviews” of new trucks in outdoors magazines. These so-called “reviews” of the trucks are pretty much a joke. You could take a Cadillac and run them through the same kinds of tests and get similar results.

F’rinstance, take this excerpt: “The dual shock suspension provided a comfortable ride even on the roughest terrain we encountered.”

Yeah. Right. Golf courses are some really tough places to test drive an off road vehicle. I wanna know, how is the ride while sliding down a pond dam. Will I spill my coffee on the dash? How comfortable is the ride while chasing a bobcat through a just-harvested corn field at 10 p.m. on a Saturday night?

As far as the suspension goes, that’s pretty much irrelevant. Suspension doesn’t mean a hill of beans when the front end of the truck hits a rock and the axle falls off. Shock absorbers to are a bunch of nonsense. We’re talking about an off road vehicle. A shock absorber here is a well developed spinal column. If I wanted a smooth ride, I would never have left the highway.

Then, there is the classic “It handles well in tight turns.”

I wish a writer would tell me how easy it is to turn the thing upright after it flipped over after failing to complete a tight turn at 60 mph to avoid flying into a ravine slightly less deep than the Grand Canyon because the fool driver missed the correct turn in the first place. Can Hawgin'’, er, the fool driver, and I turn the truck back upright or are we going to need a wrecker and a half dozen more rednecks?

Power is another thing these writers seem to be hung up on. Heck, my lawnmower will pull many boats. What I want to know is: Can this truck haul another truck attached to a boat and trailer up the ramp and out of Little River at Red Roberts landing? I need enough power in a truck to do this ... at least I did last week.

The ability to go through “mud” is another hot topic. The writer hires the local fire department to hose down a side spot on a dirt road and the writer flies down the road and then reports the truck handles well “off road” and gets good traction. Oh puh-leeze. Tell me if I can cross the Alapaha River over in Irwin County. I really need to know that. Could I drive down the Ocmulgee River in 4x4 low? In case you doubt me, somewhere I have pictures of a truck I stuck so badly it took a semi wrecker to haul it free and that almost didn’t get it. Furthermore, the truck was stuck in my parents-in- law’s yard in Mississippi.

Gas mileage reports annoy me. I don’t care what kind of mileage I get on the highway. If I run out of gas there, I’m usually within walking distance of a gas station. I need to know how long a half a tank of gas will last if I’m on a mountain side stuck in the snow. How many times can I pull  Hawgin’s truck out of the mud before I need to refuel? What kind of mileage can I expect while chasing down the dogs? How long will it take me to refill the tank by siphoning gas from Hawgin’s truck while he’s still on a deer stand? Then, how hard is the thing to push out of the way if I run out of gas.

Big cow-catcher bumpers are really popular among the 4x4 city drivers. These bumpers are strategically designed to absorb the impact of, say, a pine cone falling from 30 feet and distribute the impact along the length of the bumper so instead of getting a wrinkled fender, the whole front end is crushed. I need a real bumper, something substantial like another entire truck strapped across the front end as a sacrificial vehicle. Having had more run-in than I care to think about with jumping trees, I need something that will be there when I need it, something I can use to run into brick walls, wild hogs, Damnocrats, or something equally unlovable without me or the truck getting hurt in the process.

I also want to know how tough the sides are. Will the door panels stay bent of they hit a tree while the truck slides down a hill in the middle of Stewart County? Is the hood sturdy enough to support some fat hunting buddy standing on the hood to listen for the dogs so we can go catch ‘em or is he going to leave a dent bigger than some western U.S. lakes?

The “0-to-60” test is not as popular with truck writers as it is with sports car writers, but it is just as important. I want a truck that will not only outrun the game warden, but will get me into the next county before he has time to read the license plate ... um, not that I ever have need to run fro m these fine stewards of the game laws. This is a “just in case” kind of thing.

I also wonder what these writers mean by roomy. Will it hold my tackle boxes (small children can live in my tackle boxes), rods and reels, at least 2 shotguns per family member and/or passenger, a .22 rifle and a deer rifle per family member/ and or passenger, a case of ammunition per gun, a tent, a canoe, the dogs, me, several coolers, camp stove, cameras, computer, first aid kit, second aid kit, a body bag in case the aid kits aren’t enough, the change of clothes I always want to pack but forget to take and still have enough room for Shari to spread a map across the dash to prevent me from seeing the road so she can explain just how lost I’ve gotten us now and that’s just on the trip to the campground? In fact, I need enough room to live in the thing for about two days without having to leave for any reason. That’s what I call roomy.

Furthermore is the tailgate one of the chomping variety with an appetite for Orvis flyrods, Benelli shotguns, fingers and $15 fishing lures or is it a normal tailgate that won’t chomp anything without at least giving a gentlemanly notice? I’m tired of buying cheap outdoors gear because I’m afraid the tailgate will reduce it to splinters. The vet has refused to reattach my bird dog’s tail again.

Yes, these are some tough questions, but I need answers to them. If any of the truck makers think they make a truck tough enough for the Ben Baker test, let me know. We’ll do the Okefenokee.

The Cult of Personality

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I dunno if it is a majority (probably not), but it is a disturbing large percent of the people. Even one is too many.

Actions speak louder than words.

Too many, at least according to the precepts these people claim to live by.

The guidelines they voluntarily choose to follow state they do not follow a man. They follow a higher order, or so they say.

In case you missed it, what people say and what people do are not always in perfect alignment.


The people whom I speak of today are those who follow a cult of personality, bow their heads, bend a knee and give their allegiance to one man.

They will, of course, vehemently deny this.

Actions speak louder than words.

Here's proof.

The preacher in this story, Ed Dobson, routinely had crowds of 5,000 or so people in church, the story says. "After retirement six years ago, the massive crowds went away."

Yep. Another one.

Ah.  Ed was not pastor at Calvary Church in Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Ed was the figure of worship at the Cult of Personality Calvary Church in Grand Rapids, Mich.

This statement will infuriate many people, all of whom are those who exulted at the throne of Ed. If Ed ever reads this, it will bother him too.

Amen.

These people were not interested in attending a Christian church. They were interested in attending an Ed church.

The extended reasoning in this is also going to infuriate a lot of other "Christians" who follow the man behind the pulpit and not the Man above the pulpit.

Change the preacher at any church and a number of people are going to leave.

It's a cult of personality.

The people who left never attended church. They attended the preacher. They came because of who was doing the speaking, not the subject matter. They were not there to learn what was being taught. They were there to learn who was doing the teaching.

I note the immediate above image. This man's ratings among a segment of the population have never dipped below 90 percent, despite or in spite of his performance. That too is a cult of personality.

Whenever you focus on the person bringing a message and ignore the message, then you set up a cult. When you consider the outside and ignore the inside, you have a cult. When you hear the words and ignore the deeds, you have a cult.

The Bible is right when it calls humanity sheep. We are.We follow anyone who even looks like they can lead.

Looking for the cult of personality and someone to follow is just human nature. Only the very strongest can break away from this impulse.

A few become wolves.

Even fewer can become real humans, the kind of human that nearly every religion in the world says a person is supposed to become.

A lift of the editor's bottle in memory of a fallen brother and sister

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Robert Capa said "If your photographs aren't good enough, you're not close enough." How good was he? Aside from being killed by a land mine, check this picture. http://notcloseenough.blogspot.com/2009/03/falling-soldier-robert-capa.html (That's a Mosin-Nagant in his hands BTW.)

Mawk Arnold told me "Benjamin, mortars don't care if you are a journalist."

With that in mind, I bring you this news: Journalists Marie Colvin and Remi Ochlik were killed in a bombing in Syria.

Arg. Pardon me while I lift the editor's bottle in their memory. My sister, my brother, you will be missed.

Complain about journalists all you wish, but the fact remains, we do put our lives on the line to bring you news. You may attempt to call BS on that one, so I point you to Marie and Remi above.

I also point you to the Committee to Protect Journalists which tracks attacks on journalists around the globe.

The fact is journalism is a dangerous business. No, not as dangerous as some careers, but dangerous. I've received death threats, violence threats and was mildly attacked once over a HUMOR COLUMN of all things. I cannot count the number of times people have threatened to sue me. None have followed through yet.

I have never been a war correspondent, although I dearly wanted to the first time we went to war with Iraq. Issues at home kept me at home. These days I rarely want to be on the front lines. Such reporting is for younger folks, literally battle-hardened reporters and those whose homes and countries are fighting.

It was sometime after the Vietnam war when journalists lost their battle immunity. It really ramped up in the 80s. By that I mean before 'Nam journalists were not taken prisoner, not intentionally attacked (mortars being indiscriminate as Mawk said) and generally had the freedom to talk to all sides.

Something changed. Suddenly, journalists became targets. One side in the fight objected to the reports about the other side. The journalist filing those stories was hunted down.

Yes, Twitter, Facebook, Youtube and other social media has dramatically changed the way war is covered. Citizen journalism has also dramatically changed the way news is gathered and disseminated in non war zones. In an ironic twist, these people are discovering that journalism actually is dangerous as they face reprisals.

As much as these people contribute, we still need journalists with an objective eye to bring us news. We always will.

Unfortunately that means journalists will continue to die as they try to bring you the truth. That means the editor's bottle will have to be lifted again.

The cost of truth is too often paid with human lives.

Enough? When?

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
A young mother in my community was recently charged with murder.

Her toddler climbed into a pool at their house and drowned.

Horrific, yeah.

This is not one of those cases where the momma sets out to kill her children. As best we can tell, this was a total and complete accident.

Arg.

The decision to charge the young mother was not an easy on, said the law enforcement investigator who took charge of the case.

"Someone has to stand up for the baby," he said.

Can't argue that.

Is being blinded a good thing?

I have a cousin who was a bit smashed and on a 4-wheeler down on the river. He had one of his children with him. They wrecked. The child was killed.

My cousin was charged. Paid his "debt" to society. Yes, this too was an accident, but it was exacerbated by his decision to get drunk.

That's a bit easier than momma above. There, if there is any fault it is the momma was not being as watchful as she could have been. Should have been?

Parents, how many times have you not been as watchful as you should have been? How many times have you just not paid close enough attention, whether or not something untoward happened?

Uh huhn.

Yes, the decision to file charges was hard, but it does not neatly tie things up in a perfect package. I'm not saying there are loose strings, but I am saying this case (and so many others so similar around the nation) make me wonder.

The momma in this case is now facing the criminal justice system. This punishment, if inflicted, will be added to the anguish she is already suffering.

At what point do we reach the threshold set by the 8th Amendment? At what point does this momma suffer enough? At what point do we as a nation say, "Aaight. That's enough"?

Lady Justice, see left, is generally depicted as being blindfolded. This is so that she can weigh everything impartially and so render a true and just verdict not influenced by external factors.

Is mercy an external factor? If Justice is truly blind, then how can she see when enough is too much?

If you sat on the jury for this momma, what would you decide? Could you send her to jail? As this is a murder charge, capital punishment is an option. Could you sentence the momma to death?

How much punishment in this case is enough to repay whoever for the loss of this child?

For that matter, who is being repaid for the death of the toddler? What is being repaid?

If I sat on the jury, I'd have to look at this case as a daddy. Knowing this momma has to spend the rest of her life with "what ifs" running through her mind, I don't think I could send her prison. If she is a real momma, she's already inflicting a punishment on herself which this world can never match.

Go west young man

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
 .
.
.
The phone call from somewhere in Texas was expected. Seconds before I'd given Scott my phone number after all. As owner of Team No Prisoners - No Prisoner Nation, he's sort of my boss. I am on the pro staff and one of the on-camera personalities (no pay for this work, yet).

One seriously happy hunter.

But what Scott talked about was entirely UN-expected.

FourTracks Outfitters, based in eastern Washington State, wants to give a hunting trip away to a disabled youngster. Scott immediately thought of my son Jesse.

Jesse has been signed up for this kind of thing before. Two outfits in Florida have repeatedly promised him a hunt. Neither has come through. One in Georgia has promised a hunt as well. The Georgia outfit has come through once.

I tell you this to remind you that not all groups which make claims are worthwhile.

Hunt of a Lifetime is one of the good groups. Jesse is also a member of Special Youth Challenge, which has done several trips for him and other members. If you feel inclined to support groups that put disabled kids in the outdoors, these are two I can recommend.

So what about FourTracks? They are legit and are interested in seeing Jesse come out and put something on his wall. Possible hunts are bear, moose, elk (2 species), deer (2 species), cougar and assorted varmints.

Jesse is not interested in bear. "I hate bears," he said. That's his was of saying he's a bit afraid of them. Moose? Now moose is definitely a possibility. "Me love moose," he said.

The only issue here is geography, a continent's worth to be precise. Eastern Washington state is a 4-5 day drive from South Georgia. That means 8-10 days on the road, which is not going to happen.

So, if this hunting trip is going to happen, he will have to fly. This being Jesse and this being a youth hunt, I will have to go with him.

So, we're working on a way to buy plane tickets, deciding what we'll need in the way of clothes and getting a scope for a rifle for him.

More details as the situation warrants.



Then a voice said to him, "Get up, Peter; kill and eat them." Acts 10:13

No Can Do ... dangit

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I share two stories with you first.

Person A was, well, I'm not entirely sure how to describe Person A in a few words. I know that Person A made a WHOLE lotta people made before leaving.

Class B people they are. I'm class R, WAY off this chart.

Was Person A incompetent? I don't know. Deliberately incompetent, yes. Person A worked with another person in the same office. Person A never answered the phone, unless Person A was the only one in the building. Person A rarely made Person A's own outgoing phone calls. The other person in the office had to call on Person A's behalf.

Person B was cut from the same jib. Person B would not make Person B's own phone calls, had Person B's secretary fetch coffee, etc etc etc.

Another thing they had in common. Both were (are) self promoters who make me look like someone who sits under a rock.

While I have no doubt they were capable of performing those tasks, they insisted on having "an underling" do it.

For these and other reasons I felt somewhat uncomfortable in their presence. Didn't much care for 'em either.

I prefer doing things for myself. If I can't do it and it needs doing, I may learn how to do it for future instances.

If I can do it for myself, I'm going to. It bothers me IMMENSELY when people do things for me which I can do myself.

So. I have an ad client at the office. The client emails paperwork to me. I have to print it (can do), sign it (can do) and fax it back. Can't do.

Yes, I know how to operate a fax machine. I can fax stuff. Do it frequently in fact. But there's something about this one client and her phone number.

I can't do it.

Can't. Not won't, but can't.

The real reason I'm bald.

I punch numbers and punch numbers and punch numbers. It. Never. Goes. Through.

So, I have had to resort to getting someone in the office to fax it for me. Goes RIGHT through for anyone but me.

It drives me around the bend and then some.

Robin and Linda both don't mind sending the fax for me.

I mind. A lot. Never mind the fact I can't get the $%^&*~ fax to send. It reminds me of Persons A and B above. Deliberately incompetent and with a serious attitude of superiority.

Can't stand that.

I did say I can fax. I do. Most of the time the stuff I send goes through. Sometimes it does and I retry and it goes. But this one client, I cannot get it to fax.

This may sound silly to you and it probably is. But that doesn't change the way I feel about it.

Hoooooooooaaaaaaaaaa...

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I'm not really good at it, except for a few things most of which are fried, but I do like to cook.

Can I get a witness?

I get complaints that some of the stuff I cook no one but me can eat it. That suits me fine. More for me.

It's another reason I look forward to the Fire Ant Festival next month. Polish sausage dogs with extra onions & peppers and enough grease to lubricate even the most obstinant congressman.

And the, deep fried Oreos.

Deep. Fried. Oreos.

No. I am not kidding. Frankly, I do not care if you believe me either. Just means more for me.

Every now and then something comes along that just screams to be cooked.

brownie batter ... poured over oreos ... arranged over cookie dough ... also known as Santa's Suicide.

My sister Rachel likes to bake, but she's also a deer shot from Tennessee. A bit far. Grandma is cooking with Granny Nancy and Aunt Ginger has her hands full with grandkids. Mom can cook, but it's hard for her to get around these days.

I don't know if Juanita Wheeler or Mary Wynn could be talked into cooking one of these. Considering Juanita's fried pies and Mary's layer chocolate cake, I don't care if they can cook the above.

Which leaves ... me.

The above recipe looks simple. And it probably is for some people.

Not for me. I can fry anything. I have been known to make fairly decent scratch banana bread, but that one above looks serious complicated.

Of course if someone wants to cook one I will be glad to taste test it...

Racism by any other name

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

Well. That sums up this column...

February. The month of love and racism.

No? What about "Black History" month?

"Ain't racist, Baker. You are."

I'm just the reporter here.

Really? And on what evidence do you make that judgment?

"What you just said."

And if I tell you I did not say, I merely repeat the words of another?

"He's racist too."

Really? You say that not even knowing whom I quote.

"Yes."

Ah. Then please define racism. Let me help.

Racism - a belief that one group of humans is superior to another because of geography, ancestry or both. Evidenced by different treatment of these groups of humans based on that accident of geography, ancestry or both.

That being the case, I resubmit to you "Black History Month" is racist.

To back my case up, I present the following interview excerpt on which I base this statement. At the end of this column I'll tell you who the person being interviewed is.

I: Black history month you find…

M: Ridiculous.

I: Why?

M: You’re going to relegate (black)  history to a month?

I: Oh come on.

M: What do you do with yours? Which month is white history month?

I: Well, I’m Jewish

M: Ok, which month is Jewish History month?

I: There isn’t one.

And?

M: Oh, oh. And why not? Do you want one?

I: No.

M: Right. I don’t either. I don’t want a Black History Month. Black history is American history.

I: How are we going to get rid of racism?

M: Stop talking about it.

Before I explain the above, your thoughts?

The I: above is an interviewer (not me). The M: above is, I’ll still tell you at the end.

Why do we need a Black History month? Why should we set aside a month to observe such history?

Is it racist? What is racism anyway?

Another definition: Racism is the belief that inherent different traits in human racial groups justify discrimination.

Time for a bit of logic...

Ah. By that definition Black History Month is racist. It is set aside, treated differently and given specific attention simply because of the “black.” part.

Don’t agree with me? Then you define racism.

Whatever you define, provided you are being rational about it, is going to come down to some sort of separation based on a perceived difference in “race.”


Talk to me. I'm listening. Tell me where, why and how I'm wrong.


If you tell me "You just don't get it," I will agree. If you say "You can't understand it," then I will say you can't understand it it either. No to mention that's a cop-out. You don't want to explain.



You grok?

Setting aside a month to observe one “race” history is creating a difference.

You ain’t got to like the idea that Black History month is racist. But then you ain’t got to like reality either. But reality ain’t gonna change just because you don’t like it.

Or will yours come back marked NSF.

As the M: above says, the only way to get rid of racism is quit talking about it. Quit. Refuse to admit to race.

If enough people do this, then racism cannot exist because racism is a mental state. It’s in your mind, in other words. If you banish it from your mind, it can’t exist.

As long as you insist on different treatment because of race, and this includes Black History month, then racism will exist.

Who is the M: above? Not me. M: above is a very well respected member of the human race and that’s all you really need to know.

Bother, said Pooh

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

Sometime over the weekend I finally figured out what else is bothering me SO much about so many Christians who want to make same gender marriage illegal.

Jesus.

Yeah. The guy who lived and died about 2,000 years ago.

Read what the Bible says about this Man. Read the words He spoke. Review the actions He took.

Now I ask you, would Jesus demand a same gender marriage be made illegal?

Or, would Jesus rather try to convince people His way is the right way?

Jesus never demanded or commanded people He wanted to follow Him. He only sought to persuade. Once they decide to follow, then He does have two requirements.

As my buddy Gus Reinhardt continues to say, it’s all about free Grace, unmerited, unearned, un-repayable favor from God. There’s nothing compulsory about it.

Some will wonder, as Tom Clark just did, about a few items in the Bible.

Jesus didn't demand His way become the law of the land. There's more than a month's worth of sermons in that.

In the temple Jesus simply told the money changers to get out of the temple. He did not command them to stop doing business. He never said what they were doing was illegal.

As for the 10 commandments, Jesus walked the earth when the Israeli tribes were subject to the Roman Empire. He did not demand those commandments be codified into the Roman legal system.

The 10 commandments, as well as all the other Biblical directives, are for those who believe in the Bible. The 10 Commandments are also superceded by two in the New Testament.

In case you are wondering about the other major bother I have, Christians are NOT demanding other Biblical prohibitions be made illegal. Some of them also want to make certain things illegal which the Bible says are acceptable.

As is painfully obvious, all too many Christians pick and chose what parts of the Bible they want to accept and reject.

GO DAD GO!

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Surely by now you have seen the video where an irate dad shoots his daughter's laptop.


Here's one of the many links.


GO DAD GO!


Here's an update on the situation.

GO DAD GO!

Got to say I agreed with him shooting the laptop, putting the video online and pretty much everything else.

My daughter got her cell phone back yesterday evening, a few days early. She was surprised. She said she thought it was gone permanently.

She got it back for good behavior. She did not complain when I took it away. She did not throw a fit about it. She asked to have it one time at the house to see if she could use it to get a computer online to do some research. She couldn't.

In the process of that, she told me there were three messages waiting for her. She did not listen to them.

As for the dad in this case refusing to talk to the media, where it concerns broadcast media, I have to agree with him. Every time I have been interviewed as part of a news story for a broadcast media, the story has come out wrong.

Every time.

Every. Single. Time.

And I have been on TV a lot.

Two years ago, my TV appearances got cut back a minor amount. A regional TV station banned me from being on the station.

Yeah. Really.

Apparently the truth hurts them a whole lot and they took tremendous offense at my expressing the truth. I suspect they also got a little more than bent out of shape with the complaints I filed with the Federal Communications Commission.

I will still be on TV, with a local station just to the north of here because I know what I say to them will be broadcast exactly as I say it, no interpretations, no editing and any commentary will be done in my presence so I have a chance to respond. If Team No Prisoners continues the strides it is making, I'll be on TV as part of the TNP outdoors show.

And yeah, there may come a day when the TV station which banned me will want me back on the air. I will grant 'em the interview, but it won't be broadcast. The FCC would fine the station approximately the gross nation product. As to why a fine would be levied, I leave that to your imagination.

As for my daughter, she's been told (and this was before I saw the dad shoot the computer) if she breaks the rules again she'll the phone back in however many pieces I can pick up after a 12 gauge is done with it.

As for those of you who object to that and object to the dad above's treatment of his daughter and her computer, I recommend you contact the TV which has banned me. Y'all deserve each other.

Ain't no difference

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
According to the law, an employee cannot be forced to join a workers union in the United States.

When you are looking for a job.

Except "Even though you may not be forced to join a union it is possible you may be forced to pay dues. Some states have passed Right to Work laws which prevent educators and others from being forced to pay union dues when they are not union members. In states that have not passed one of these laws educators and others may not be forced to join the union, but they will be forced to pay the union fees." From this website.

Huhn? Can someone explain that to me. Can't be forced to join, but you can be forced to financially support the organization.

Is there a real difference here? I think not. De Juri may see a difference but De Facto does not.

If you make me support something against my will, well, then you are making me support it against my will.

Yep. And the etc. includes...

Didn't this nation fight a war over being forced to pay for things we didn't want to pay for?

Union membership should be voluntary, not compulsory.

If you force me to financially support a union, you are forcing me to join it. The legal nicety of whether or not my signature is on a membership application is strictly a nicety.

What got me to wondering about this is several things. First was a news pieces about 23 states which have "right to work" laws. Essentially these are union-busting laws. I probably mis-remember when I say something in the article said employees can be forced to join a union. It was probably cannot be forced to join.

In the kingdom of idiots, a winking idiot can be king.

Even as I bash unions, I support 'em. The First Amendment requires me to support them.

At the same time  the First Amendment requires me to support the rights of idiots to run off at the mouth. I don't have to agree with them, but they certainly have the right to have their say.

Vists to the Chop & Stitch Hotel

.
.
.
.
.
.

.


.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
It's very likely you have complained in the past that hospitals discharge (a polite word for saying kicked out) patients before said patient is really ready to be discharged.

Some things come to immediate mind. Are you a physician? How much do you know about the course, treatment and followup care for the condition which landed the person in the Chop & Stitch Hotel in the first place? What makes you qualified to express an opinion?

Those in the medical field "practice" what they do for a reason. It is not an exact science. If your alternator goes out in your vehicle, replace it with an identical (except functioning) model and you're good to go. That replacement alternator will work on thousands of vehicles exactly the same.

If something goes wrong in your body, well, the medicos can do what they can, but every person is different and will react differently.

If we were all the same and would do the same things, medical work could be as precise as auto repair.

But. Sometimes folks are put back on the street before they need to be. The omnibus health care nightmare that needs to be taken out and shot at high noon in a public street makes an attempt to address this.

Who is at fault here?

In other words, Osamacare is trying to cut down on hospital re-admissions. Hospitals that have too many re-admissions will be fined.

That may sound wonderful, awesome, great, fine and the kind of thing you want on your sliced bread.

Think again.

I reiterate - ...every person is different and will react differently.

This health care bill provision is holding hospitals hostage to patients.

Let me put that another way.

Next exit. Get it? NEXT exit. You never get there.

Government can fine YOU based on what someone else does. You have no control over that someone else.

Is that fair?

YOU = hopsital. Someone else = idiot who won't do what the doctor said to do.

Doctors and hospitals cannot force patients to adhere to the care plan after the patient is discharged. But the nightmare health care bill forces the hospitals to pay the consequences if the patient doesn't.

This story does mention a program that has cut back on one case of hospital re-admissions. It says this could be a way to cut costs and let hospitals avoid fines for re-admissions.

And, it absolutely will work. Just as soon as scientists learn to graft wings to pigs that will let them fly.

A wallet-ectomy. Where the doctor removes your wallet through your nose.

But in this place I call reality, it ain't gonna work. This hospital fine provision is simply going to increase the cost of going to the hospital.

Why? Because patients will be kept longer in high-risk cases, driving up the cost of their care.

Why? The hospital knows its gonna be fined and can project that fine to be X amount. So where is the hospital gonna get the money?

From the people who pay hospital bills, mostly insurance companies. Where do insurance companies get their money? From people who have insurance.

And so the cost of health care rises yet again.

With rights come responsibilities

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Do you support animal rights?

Before you answer that, think hard about it.

Rights, in this sense, carry with it responsibilities. Rights also mean there are expected behaviors. Violate any of these and the entity with "rights" must be held accountable. That includes punishment.

Still favor animal rights?

Does a lion on the Serengeti have rights? If you say yes, then I ask, does a wildebeest on the Seregenti have rights?

When the lion attacks and kills a wildebeest, are any rights violated?

When a male lion takes over a pride and kills all the baby lions sired by the former pride leader, are the rights of the baby lions violated?

Ain't so easy is it?

What about animal welfare? A far different thing than rights. Me, I strongly support animal welfare.

Me, I do not believe animals have rights.

PETA - not the People Eating Tasty Animals, but the other one, disagrees. Like most people hidebound to an idiotology, PETA members have not bothered to think it through.

ASIDE - I point out here, I have been on the receiving end of death threats from PETA. I have encouraged each and every one of 'em to come over and try. I'm still kicking, still eating deer and wild hogs and the occasional chicken.

Consider this most recent court case filed by PETA. Yes. Most recent. PETA has filed a number of such suits in the past. This news story errs in saying it is the first.

And thank you Lord!

Since this would be a boring piece if I just called PETA what they are, lemme take a step into lunacy and say the court finds the orcas DO have the same rights as enumerated the Constitution as humans.

Some immediate questions come to mind:

1) Will the orcas vote for the current president in the November election? Or will they form yet another political party and put forth their own candidate?

2) Are orcas murderers? In the wild, orcas eat fish and seals and whales, all animals PETA also says have rights. PETA reasons when a human kills a chicken, that's murder. So, under PETA reasoning, orcas are then murderers. Under the Constitution, orcas should be arrested, brought to trial and if found guilty, locked up for a defined amount of time, up to the rest of their life.

Now someone is going to argue these are just animals. Killing each other is what they do naturally and they should not be held accountable for that. They can't understand.

Point of order Mr. Chairman, the PETA brief in this case demands that orcas are capable of reasoning.

Can't have it both ways, except where idiotology reigns supreme.

Idiotology = (a word I coined). An unwavering belief in a system or way of operating and functioning that has only a tenuous relationship with reality and is riddled with fatal flaws. (Arg. Tom Clark rescue me from overly verbose definitions!)


Also, when you start carving out special exceptions in the law, sooner or later the law will be so weak as to be unenforceable. The law must apply equally to all. Otherwise, anarchy.

If I am going to be charged with murder when I shoot a deer, then a coyote that kills a deer must likewise be charger with murder. Otherwise there is a double standard, except PETA refuses to see it that way.

Now this is funny.

PETA also strongly promotes sterilizing pets. The Supreme Court has ruled forced sterilization is a violation of the Constitution. So PETA here is demanding Constitutional protections with their hands and stomping on 'em with both feet at the same time.

Only in the case of idiotology can two contradictory ideas be embraced as a dogma. Idiotology reigns supreme in an organization who's leader Ingrid Newkirk once said "a rat is a pig is a dog is boy."

I fall back on one of my maxims. You set the rules. I'll play by them but I'm also going to make sure the rules apply to everybody equally.

As I conclude, lemme tell you I don't like putting animals in pens. I do think the orcas should be turned loose. Zoos bother me. Hairball, the Clan Baker resident feline, pretty much comes and goes as he pleases.

I accept that some animals need to be confined - extremely rare critters unfortunately need the protection of zoos. Animals used in medical experiments certainly can't be allowed to run loose. However, these animals do need to be treated as well as possible under the circumstances. Animals which will be turned into food do need some sort of enclosure. But we can be reasonable about this.

Reasonable. Rational. This is what I support where animals are concerned. I do not support giving them the same set of rights I have.

There ain't no good time

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Friday, I gave an invocation to open the Area I Sectionals high school rassling tournament.

Saturday, right after lunch I found myself having to pray, aloud, again.

The Friday part I enjoyed. Gave some praise, gave thanks, told God I appreciated Him bringing our visitors to town, asked Him to get 'em home safe and so forth.

Typical invocation. People kept talking. I was on the PA system so everyone could hear me.

Saturday.

I was on the edge of a mat at the far end of the gym. My voice boomed. Everyone heard me. That gym has never been that quiet with so many people in it.

And I didn't like it. I didn't like having to give that prayer Saturday afternoon. I did not like the quiet.

I'da have given much to NOT have given that prayer.

But I tell you this too, the Saturday morning was far more important in my view than the one Friday.

Had someone showed up to tell me not pray Friday, I would have still done it. If someone in law enforcement had tried to stop me, I would have complied. No resistance.

Saturday. Nope. If they tried to arrest me, it would not have been pleasant. I rather think the entire gym would have risen up in support as well.

Yassee, there just ain't no good time for what I did Saturday after lunch.

I came back from lunch. A wrestler was in a corner room in a corner of that room. A coach was with him, arm on his shoulder. I shrugged it off. Figured he got hurt horsing around after lunch and before the afternoon matches started.

Continued business as usual. Cleared the mats, grabbed a broom and started sweeping the mats down.

Coach Phillip Lyons gets on the PA. He made an announcement.

The gym was quiet and I mean quiet. I was amazed as I leaned on broom, head down.

After what was a suitable interval, I broke the silence. I had me another talk with God, this time on behalf of that young man who I'd seen a few minutes earlier in the corner of the gym.

The young man I'd see in the corner? His momma died a a short while before. Here he was a wrestling tournament miles and counties away from home and his mother died.

So yeah, I prayed. For him, for his family, for his community. Yeah, my voice broke too.

Yeah. I prayed at a school function.

And now, I pray I never have to do it like that again. But if the need comes, I will.

Sometimes, we need prayer in school. We sure did on Saturday morning.

Sensing the presence of evil

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I am only responsible for what I say. I am not responsible for what you think I said.

That is not going to stop people from distorting what is said. Years ago I worked at a daily newspaper. I wrote a piece about a neighborhood that was experiencing a bit more crime than usual.

An LOL (little old lady) from the neighborhood called the police investigator I interviewed and accused him of calling everyone in that neighborhood illiterate.

Where she got that, I have no idea.

Doesn't matter. I can write (and I'm doing so) "a black dog crossed the street." Someone is gonna accuse me of being a racist.

I don't get that either.

Some folks is just looking for a reason to take offense I guess.

Offending FB image

Consider this pix from FB (at left) which has generated some commentary. In the thread I saw, most of the commentary is negative and accuses the boy of being racist.

 It reminds of a cartoon from a few years back. The cartoonist used the idea of the chimp which ripped a woman's face off and was later shot by police as a political metaphor for the presidential race.

He was accused of being racist, which he said caught him by surprise. He intended no racial slur from it, but thought  the juxtaposition created an interesting concept.

I see the same thing at work in the above image, relying on the old Monkey See Monkey Do adage.

In the FB thread, I said I supported the expressed opinion (and I still do) and added a comment about racism to short circuit those who'd attack me. I shan't here. If you feel the need to attack me as being a racist, g'head.

What about be no evil?

I am responsible for what I say. I am not responsible for what you think I said.



Regardless of the opinion expressed by the young feller above, I support his right to have that opinion.

As much as I don't understand people who support the current president, his policies and how much he's just like the president he replaced, I support their right to their opinion.

Doesn't mean I agree. But I don't have to agree.

 

Glad you asked

The traditional three monkeys of See No Evil, Hear No Evil and Speak No Evil pretty much cut off all but two senses - smell and touch. You can argue, from the traditional pose they are, the sense of touch is also restricted.

So should it be Sense No Evil?

Which begs the question - what is evil?

Can you define it in such a way that someone who vehemently disagrees with your weltanschauung would agree?

Or is it subjective? Does it depend entirely on your point of view?

Hitler in his pogrom did not believe what he was doing was evil. Rather, he sought to exterminate what he saw as an evil.

Say you do cut yourself off from perceiving evil as mentioned above. Then how do you know what is evil?

I rather thing evil is a subjective matter, and one that requires a definite contrast to define. Without that contrast, I don't think you can adequately define evil.

Pity things can't be as simple as they are in Dungeons and Dragons.