.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Othello Act 1 Scene 1: I am one, sir, that comes to tell you your daughter and the Moor are now making the beast with two backs.
HUZZAH! Having successfully taken the moral high ground because this Shakespearean play is taught in public schools around the nation, I can now dive to whatever depths I feel like. Which I was gonna do anyway, but when I launch a discussion on sex, I like to be highbrow too. I could quote graphic stuff from the Bible as well, but I shan't.
The very medium through which you are reading this column has been advanced over and over and over again because of the sex industry. Live chat. Streaming movies. Web cams. Sex websites pioneered much of this work because of demand by customers.
Of course sex has been around before Turing even came about. It predates the abacus.
With all this in mind, I direct you to the sex industry.
Someone is now going to go off on me. I retreat behind George Carlin and ask this: Which is more life affirming? Watching people have sex or watching people kill each other?
Anyone can log into Youtube and watch video of people being killed. You can see it in the news. I mean real people, real death. Not actors. People being blown up, shot, run over, etc etc etc. And what about actors being killed?
Now what ya gonna do with that big ole rock?
Lemme slap this on you as well. Malcolm McDowell and Peter O'Toole also appeared in a porn film that is available in many public libraries around the nation. Yes huh.
So. The first sex film is credited as being a strip tease filmed in France in 1896. What we call "hard core" porn was first filmed between 1907 and 1912. Call it more than 100 years old. So as long as we've had movies, we've had porn.
I recently watched several documentaries on the porn industry and came away with a startling revelation. May catch damnation for this as well. So be it. I seek understanding.
All but one of the women interviewed in these films was looking up, down and away from the camera-interviewer the vast majority of the time.
The sole exception is Nina Hartley.
All the men looked straight forward, with only a few letting their gaze and face shift a bit. They always almost immediately turned back to the camera-interviewer.
When being interviewed outside the documentary or outside porn settings, all the women (Hartley was not so interviewed) were highly animated. To me this is indicative of much stress and nervousness. With more than 25 years of interviewing people under my belt, I rather think I'm correct in this assessment. The men were calm in comparison.
One female performer appeared on the Jerry Springer show. Clips of the show were interspersed in the documentary. On Springer she acted like she was jacked to the gills on speed. Elsewhere, far calmer. When interviewed for the documentary, she spent a lot of time looking away from the camera. When interviewed in porn settings, she kept her eyes locked on the camera.
Not making any kind of judgment here. Merely pointing out a reality. Also wondering, why? Really. Why? There appears to be a serious difference in how male and female porn actors view their work. Why?
I shared these thoughts with Mary Anderson. In case yer wondering, no we never danced the naked tango. Toward the end of our conversation, she summed things up nicely.
MA: Don't think it's for everyone. You would have to have shed a lot of cultural baggage.
Anyway, she had some thoughts which made me think. With her permission, I share some of these with you.
MA: It's hard without seeing it myself (the documentaries). It may indicate that they feel uncomfortable with their profession. That doesn't necessarily mean that they think porn is wrong, but possibly they feel judged by others. After all, a woman who has sex for a living, whether in porn or prostitution is a whore or skank in our culture. After all, we "fragile flowers" are only supposed to want to have sex with Prince Charming. And even then real "good girls" aren't supposed to like it. Taking money for it is supposed to cheapen it in our eyes.
As MA will freely admit, that ain't the case in reality where sex for gain is concerned. It's perception. If you disagree and say that kind of naked twister is wrong, answer this question: Is it wrong for a woman to have sex with a man for material gain? If your answer is yes, then you have real problems with a whole lotta marriages today.
Oops.
You may argue a religious ritual makes it entirely proper. So if a rabbi blesses the set, the actors and the action in a porn flick, that'd be OK?
You may also argue a state-approved contract makes the sex for economic gain in a marriage OK. I point out to you the top porn producers have state licenses and permits for their business. Does this make it OK?
Oops.
It's fang'd hard these days to find a movie which does not have simulated boot knocking scenes. And yet these movies are not subject to protest, recall, court inquiries and threats of jail time for the performers. Full nudity is not an issue either, at least when compared to a porn flick.
In porn there's yet MORE double standards. Most of it is produced for men. Most of it involves women. And yet there's that whole "skank" thang MA mentioned above.
MA: Men don't get the same judgement. Being a porn star is a job other men (supposedly) envy. It's kind of like being fat. Even if you're healthy & fine with it yourself, as a woman, the judgement of others can be very stressful and unhealthy. You shouldn't have to explain yourself all the time, but people, even total strangers, feel like they have a right to an explanation. Men in the past haven't been treated the same way.
True dat. Definite double standard. Speaking as a fat man, I can also say there's plenty of multiple standards where fat and thin guys are concerned and then where fat and thin women are concerned.
Despite this multi-level standard in porn, there is another oxymoron. Women are the real force behind porn. Women decide what they will do, how they will do it, when and with whom. They are also paid considerably more than male actors. As one veteran male actor once said, a man in porn is nothing more than a life support system for a penis.
MA: Yeah, other men think it's a great job. But they're definitely second class citizens.
Some of the women interviewed said there is a disconnect when they appear on camera. In other words, they see themselves as physically in one place and yet emotionally and mentally in another. I strongly suspect a LOT of women who have mattress adventures (an RNG original phrase) with their husband also feel the exact same way. (See above discussion on marriage.)
MA: Women tend to see themselves as parts rather than as whole bodies.
Der yaggo. I have seen a number of women with this same attitude. Fully expecting to torque a number of women now, I point to the ladies who spend plenty of time with hair, makeup and clothes, all done to impress someone else.
MA: I think there's a freedom angle there. And maybe taking women off a pedestal.
MA: People think it's nice, but it's very stressful. You have so much maintenance.
It is probably the hardest form of live performance there is. Live in that the people are real, engaging in being totally exposed and filmed doing something which would see them be arrested if they did it on a street corner. As one of the male actors interviewed in California said, "If I pay you $50 for a (sex), we can be arrested. If we have a camera recording it, it's art. Explain that." Long pause. "See? You can't."
MA: And let's face it. Sex isn't abstractly pretty.
None of this really explains why the women acted so differently when being interviewed in different settings. MA again has some insight.
MA: I was thinking about something similar yesterday. Everything I do, I consider how it will affect those around me. I feel like I'm always reacting to others instead of just acting how I want to act.
MA: I get the impression that men don't live like that.
Now I am reminded of of my all time favorite movie, M*A*S*H. Sally Kellerman played Hotlips and had a nude scene, less than a second. She was concerned. Not because people would see her breasts but because her thighs would be naked. Really. Robert Altman, Gary "Radar" Berghoff and the camera man were the only three people, other than her, who were on the set for that scene. They were also naked.
While I never saw it, the stage production of Oh Calcutta has an act in which the entire cast appears on stage naked. It's also a movie.
Researchers interviewed say the women in porn are in for the money, the fame or the sex. Rarely the sex. Many of the women say it's the money too. They can work two days a week and make more than $2,000. The average life expectancy of a woman in the performing side of the industry is about two years.
MA: Women are the property, though. It's like having a really valuable horse.
Sorta. As I note above, the woman run the sets. This true outside porn to some degree. Years ago I worked for a professional modeling agency. When I held the camera, I was a god. When I put it down, I was lower than dirt. But yeah, women are used and when done, turned out.
The smart ones, in porn, build up savings and learn the rest of the industry. Hartley, for example, directs and produces now.
Mary raises another question:
MA: It would be interesting to compare to call girls (not streetwalkers) and see how sex for money without being filmed changes your satisfaction level.
MA: There's a book called "Working: My Life as a Prostitute" by Dolores French. Very positive view. She says that the happy ones fly under the radar and never get interviewed.
Xavier Hollander wrote "The Happy Hooker" in the 70s describing her life as a prostitute and brothel owner. It was a best seller in its day.
In the end it comes down to cultural conditioning and a very real difference between men and women, I think. I still don't understand, but then I can't understand it completely.
The views in this blog are not those of people who can't think for themselves and rely on others to think for them. For that matter, the views expressed here may not be those of people who CAN think for themselves, but it comes extremely close.
Tuesday, December 31, 2013
Friday, December 20, 2013
Your right to _______________________
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I forget which pundit said it, but tis true. When government dictates what a parent must do to a child, there are no limits to what government can and will do.
Lemme rephrase that
"We have reached the point where government believes it gets to play God."
One sentence about the Robertson flap and I'm done; this particular comment is in an article on the Duck Commander nonsense, but is is true. Government believes it equal to God.
Disagree?
The death penalty. Abortion. Same gender marriage. Multiple partner marriage. Edward Snowden. The NSA. The federal health care requirement, a tax you pay simply for living. Business regulations out the wazoo! Forcing a photographer to take pictures. Forcing a baker to make a cake. Speed limits. Drug laws.
The simple fact is government believes it is better equipped to run your life than you are. This is a fault of both the major parties in power today. Both 'em propose and support legislation that restricts what you can do.
A lot of this revolves around offense. Someone gets offended. (read to the end, please) "There needs to be a law." A lot of this revolves around someone's notion of morals. "There needs to be a law." A lot of this revolves around what one person did. "There needs to be a law to prevent someone else from doing it."
Really? Why? Why must everyone be punished for something one person did?
The only reason is to build conformity. The only reason is to stamp out independence. The only reason is to stamp out reason and thought.
The only reason is to mold you into a non-thinking servile entity capable only of doing what you are told. If that sounds familiar, it is. George Orwell said it.
Period. You may argue against me. But reality says otherwise.
In case you wonder, I am by no means an anarchist. I support laws. For instance, I support local zoning ordinances BECAUSE it is done at the local level. I believe murder is a crime and the person committing it should be jailed and in some circumstances killed. I believe child molesting is a crime and the offender should be hurled off a cliff.
An oversimplified version was stated by a (probably now dead) editor of mine - Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I forget which pundit said it, but tis true. When government dictates what a parent must do to a child, there are no limits to what government can and will do.
Lemme rephrase that
"We have reached the point where government believes it gets to play God."
One sentence about the Robertson flap and I'm done; this particular comment is in an article on the Duck Commander nonsense, but is is true. Government believes it equal to God.
Disagree?
The death penalty. Abortion. Same gender marriage. Multiple partner marriage. Edward Snowden. The NSA. The federal health care requirement, a tax you pay simply for living. Business regulations out the wazoo! Forcing a photographer to take pictures. Forcing a baker to make a cake. Speed limits. Drug laws.
The simple fact is government believes it is better equipped to run your life than you are. This is a fault of both the major parties in power today. Both 'em propose and support legislation that restricts what you can do.
A lot of this revolves around offense. Someone gets offended. (read to the end, please) "There needs to be a law." A lot of this revolves around someone's notion of morals. "There needs to be a law." A lot of this revolves around what one person did. "There needs to be a law to prevent someone else from doing it."
Really? Why? Why must everyone be punished for something one person did?
The only reason is to build conformity. The only reason is to stamp out independence. The only reason is to stamp out reason and thought.
The only reason is to mold you into a non-thinking servile entity capable only of doing what you are told. If that sounds familiar, it is. George Orwell said it.
Period. You may argue against me. But reality says otherwise.
In case you wonder, I am by no means an anarchist. I support laws. For instance, I support local zoning ordinances BECAUSE it is done at the local level. I believe murder is a crime and the person committing it should be jailed and in some circumstances killed. I believe child molesting is a crime and the offender should be hurled off a cliff.
An oversimplified version was stated by a (probably now dead) editor of mine - Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.
Friday, December 13, 2013
Pondering more education
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
At lunch, I pitched this idea to my daughter.
Turner County has a seminary. Should I go back to college and get a PhD?
"Would you be able to do anything different than you do now?" she asked.
No. Well, no, that's not true. I could teach in college. (Later I found the seminary is not accredited by an agency which would give me the ability to become a public college professor.)
"Do you want to teach in college?" she asked.
Dunno. I could teach at ABAC if I wanted to. I'd definitely teach journalism down there.
"Yeah, I think you should do it," she said.
So. I continue to think about it.
From an economic point of view, getting the advanced theological degree makes no sense. It'll never pay for itself, barring a college teaching job and even then, the return on investment is minimal. I'd be better off stuffing the money for tuition into an IRA (which presumes I will live long enough to retire). The tuition is dirt cheap, BTW and the college is accredited, I'm told, through the American Association for Higher Education and Accreditation. (See parenthetical note above.) I have since decided to not pursue that route.
From a strictly theological point of view, I could probably learn a few things. Probably would as well.
From a research and historical point of view, wow, what I could learn! That does crank my tractor. Learning about ancient times, what people did, how they did it and so forth. However, I've been slowly educating myself about this over time anyway and all it costs is the time and the cost of the reading material.
From the ego side - eh. I don't need to prove myself or my dissertation to a group of professors.
Besides which, I've written and researched and published enough to qualify for a couple of doctorates, even in countries which require a doctoral candidate to publish more than one book.
To say I hold the modern educational system at the collegiate level in disdain is to say water is wet. Today's colleges and universities do pretty much nothing to prepare their students for the reality of working today. These selfsame institutions of questionable learning also put such a premium on their form of education that they require advanced degrees in order to instruct the students.
The ability to actually go forth and do what is being taught is irrelevant. I graduated with a guy who went on to get a PhD in journalism and then went right into college to teach. Aside from a 9-week internship and what he'd done in college, he had no journalism experience.
In my experience, the more advanced the degree a person holds, the less able they are to exist outside academia. I just don't think I want to be that way.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
At lunch, I pitched this idea to my daughter.
Turner County has a seminary. Should I go back to college and get a PhD?
"Would you be able to do anything different than you do now?" she asked.
No. Well, no, that's not true. I could teach in college. (Later I found the seminary is not accredited by an agency which would give me the ability to become a public college professor.)
"Do you want to teach in college?" she asked.
Dunno. I could teach at ABAC if I wanted to. I'd definitely teach journalism down there.
"Yeah, I think you should do it," she said.
So. I continue to think about it.
From an economic point of view, getting the advanced theological degree makes no sense. It'll never pay for itself, barring a college teaching job and even then, the return on investment is minimal. I'd be better off stuffing the money for tuition into an IRA (which presumes I will live long enough to retire). The tuition is dirt cheap, BTW and the college is accredited, I'm told, through the American Association for Higher Education and Accreditation. (See parenthetical note above.) I have since decided to not pursue that route.
From a strictly theological point of view, I could probably learn a few things. Probably would as well.
From a research and historical point of view, wow, what I could learn! That does crank my tractor. Learning about ancient times, what people did, how they did it and so forth. However, I've been slowly educating myself about this over time anyway and all it costs is the time and the cost of the reading material.
From the ego side - eh. I don't need to prove myself or my dissertation to a group of professors.
Besides which, I've written and researched and published enough to qualify for a couple of doctorates, even in countries which require a doctoral candidate to publish more than one book.
To say I hold the modern educational system at the collegiate level in disdain is to say water is wet. Today's colleges and universities do pretty much nothing to prepare their students for the reality of working today. These selfsame institutions of questionable learning also put such a premium on their form of education that they require advanced degrees in order to instruct the students.
The ability to actually go forth and do what is being taught is irrelevant. I graduated with a guy who went on to get a PhD in journalism and then went right into college to teach. Aside from a 9-week internship and what he'd done in college, he had no journalism experience.
In my experience, the more advanced the degree a person holds, the less able they are to exist outside academia. I just don't think I want to be that way.
The economics of meat
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Some few years ago, an Animal Rights activist was after me about my hunting. No 'sprise there. As my brain was on high functionality then, I hurled this one at him.
"I pick up road kill animals and eat them. Is there something wrong with this?"
He said no, but added eating meat was cannibalism and disgusting and so forth and so on. And so his true colors came out.
With more than 7 billion people in the world, eating meat is critical to survival.
• Humans do not digest vegetation as efficiently as pure herbivores.
• Land that can support meat-providing critters can't always support the crops humans can eat well enough to survive.
Don't take my word for it. Maureen Ogle spent several years researching the meat industry in this nation. Her conclusion?
"As long as the demand is there, we're going to continue to have these very large industrial systems, because that's the only way to satisfy demand."
You may, of course, argue this. But then you have no idea what it takes to produce billions of pounds of meat a year. You also have no idea what it's like to live in a protein poor society.
Recently Melissa Bachman was attacked from around the world for a lion hunt. Still ain't figured that one out. Elephant hunts are also criticized. For those of you who point to the elephant and lion being endangered, I have a number of things to tell you, in addition to ending the life of starving animal quickly and humanely.
"If you want to save a species, simply decide to eat it. Then it will be managed - like chickens, like turkeys, like deer, like Canadian geese." Ted Nugent
This is truth. In the United States hunters are directly responsible for the booming population of a number of hunted animals and by extension far more non hunted animals. Not all, but a lot. Furthermore, these hunters contribute more to habitat maintenance and preservation than any other group of people, especially bunnyhuggers, and this directly benefits far more non-game species than game species. This, fortunately, is changing as states are now requiring non hunters and non fishermen to buy passes to use state wildlife areas.
In Africa, an elephant or mature male lion hunt is gonna set a hunter back $40,000 to $75,000 plus depending on where the hunt takes place. Further, these hunts are most often done in the bush, deep cover and places where eco tourists don't go. Photo safaris, in other words, generally never see the elephants which are hunted.
These license fees go directly to the government. The government in turn uses this money for whatever it spends money on. That includes hiring the US equivalent of game wardens.
Which brings me to my next point, and a very graphic image. Poaching.
Make NO mistake. Poaching is about economics. The rhino was killed for its horn. The meat, in this case, was left to rot. On paid hunts the meat is used to feed people.
For that matter, African safaris with gun or camera are also about economics. The question must then be asked: Where is the greatest economic impact?
Poaching?
Hunting?
Photography?
I leave researching this question to you.
In closing, I point out that game preserves set up for hunting do more to preserves species than non-hunting preserves. There are more hunting preserves than non hunting ones. The hunting areas generate far, far, far more money than the non-hunting areas.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Some few years ago, an Animal Rights activist was after me about my hunting. No 'sprise there. As my brain was on high functionality then, I hurled this one at him.
"I pick up road kill animals and eat them. Is there something wrong with this?"
He said no, but added eating meat was cannibalism and disgusting and so forth and so on. And so his true colors came out.
With more than 7 billion people in the world, eating meat is critical to survival.
• Humans do not digest vegetation as efficiently as pure herbivores.
• Land that can support meat-providing critters can't always support the crops humans can eat well enough to survive.
Don't take my word for it. Maureen Ogle spent several years researching the meat industry in this nation. Her conclusion?
"As long as the demand is there, we're going to continue to have these very large industrial systems, because that's the only way to satisfy demand."
You may, of course, argue this. But then you have no idea what it takes to produce billions of pounds of meat a year. You also have no idea what it's like to live in a protein poor society.
Recently Melissa Bachman was attacked from around the world for a lion hunt. Still ain't figured that one out. Elephant hunts are also criticized. For those of you who point to the elephant and lion being endangered, I have a number of things to tell you, in addition to ending the life of starving animal quickly and humanely.
"If you want to save a species, simply decide to eat it. Then it will be managed - like chickens, like turkeys, like deer, like Canadian geese." Ted Nugent
This is truth. In the United States hunters are directly responsible for the booming population of a number of hunted animals and by extension far more non hunted animals. Not all, but a lot. Furthermore, these hunters contribute more to habitat maintenance and preservation than any other group of people, especially bunnyhuggers, and this directly benefits far more non-game species than game species. This, fortunately, is changing as states are now requiring non hunters and non fishermen to buy passes to use state wildlife areas.
In Africa, an elephant or mature male lion hunt is gonna set a hunter back $40,000 to $75,000 plus depending on where the hunt takes place. Further, these hunts are most often done in the bush, deep cover and places where eco tourists don't go. Photo safaris, in other words, generally never see the elephants which are hunted.
These license fees go directly to the government. The government in turn uses this money for whatever it spends money on. That includes hiring the US equivalent of game wardens.
Which brings me to my next point, and a very graphic image. Poaching.
For that matter, African safaris with gun or camera are also about economics. The question must then be asked: Where is the greatest economic impact?
Poaching?
Hunting?
Photography?
I leave researching this question to you.
In closing, I point out that game preserves set up for hunting do more to preserves species than non-hunting preserves. There are more hunting preserves than non hunting ones. The hunting areas generate far, far, far more money than the non-hunting areas.
Everyone has a price
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
This is not about religion, but I do mention it briefly to make a point.
Some many years ago when I was but a reporter I lost an argument with an editor. At the end of that day he was still the editor and I was looking for a job. I found one in Tallahassee working stock and returned goods for a giant chain department store.
One of my supervisors, a devout Christian, and I were discussing something about how everyone has a price. I told him even Jesus had a price. He gave me a blank look and said I was wrong. I then pointed out Jesus paid a debt for us, ergo, even He had a price. My supe admitted I was right.
Some time back I talked with longtime friend in the public relations field, Bud. Bud buys ads in the newspaper and sends press releases. As we talked, Bud squelched a rumor I'd heard. Bud also said it was good that I had nothing bad to write about his company.
The slight reference hearkened me back a few years. A local elected official criticized Bud's company. The elected official said under no circumstances would she hire anyone recommended by Bud's company. The elected official said she knew personally knew the people being recommended. The comments were made in a public meeting. No question it'd be in the newspaper.
Being responsible, I called Bud and asked for a reply for the newspaper story.
The fur began to fly. I was accused of attacking Bud's company, attacking Bud and being out to get everyone there.
I just asked for a comment. To repeat: the elected official made the remark in a public meeting and the remark went on the record.
But hey, I'm used to people wanting to shoot the messenger.
Eventually some "heavy hitters" got called in. Whether Bud called or Bud's boss called for backup, I do not know. Reinforcements definitely arrived. Serious reinforcements.
I gently explained, again, the comment was made on the record, in a public meeting by an elected official. It was going in the paper. The reinforcements objected again and urged me to do the right thing.
I did the right thing.
It went in the paper.
Which reminds me of when some local elected officials took offense at my writings and letters to editor in the paper. They asked me to stop it.
Pretty sure you know what happened.
Getting no satisfaction from me, they went over my head to the paper's owner. He told 'em if they had an issue with what went in the paper they could write a letter to the editor which would be published. What I was doing would continue.
It continued.
Over the years people have gone to great lengths to try to make me not put something in the paper. They have offered plenty, but none have met my price.
Yes I have a price. The price is truth.
You may not like the truth, but it beats living a lie. At least it does to me.
If the truth hurts, yer living wrong.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
This is not about religion, but I do mention it briefly to make a point.
Some many years ago when I was but a reporter I lost an argument with an editor. At the end of that day he was still the editor and I was looking for a job. I found one in Tallahassee working stock and returned goods for a giant chain department store.
One of my supervisors, a devout Christian, and I were discussing something about how everyone has a price. I told him even Jesus had a price. He gave me a blank look and said I was wrong. I then pointed out Jesus paid a debt for us, ergo, even He had a price. My supe admitted I was right.
Some time back I talked with longtime friend in the public relations field, Bud. Bud buys ads in the newspaper and sends press releases. As we talked, Bud squelched a rumor I'd heard. Bud also said it was good that I had nothing bad to write about his company.
The slight reference hearkened me back a few years. A local elected official criticized Bud's company. The elected official said under no circumstances would she hire anyone recommended by Bud's company. The elected official said she knew personally knew the people being recommended. The comments were made in a public meeting. No question it'd be in the newspaper.
Being responsible, I called Bud and asked for a reply for the newspaper story.
The fur began to fly. I was accused of attacking Bud's company, attacking Bud and being out to get everyone there.
I just asked for a comment. To repeat: the elected official made the remark in a public meeting and the remark went on the record.
But hey, I'm used to people wanting to shoot the messenger.
Eventually some "heavy hitters" got called in. Whether Bud called or Bud's boss called for backup, I do not know. Reinforcements definitely arrived. Serious reinforcements.
I gently explained, again, the comment was made on the record, in a public meeting by an elected official. It was going in the paper. The reinforcements objected again and urged me to do the right thing.
I did the right thing.
It went in the paper.
Which reminds me of when some local elected officials took offense at my writings and letters to editor in the paper. They asked me to stop it.
Pretty sure you know what happened.
Getting no satisfaction from me, they went over my head to the paper's owner. He told 'em if they had an issue with what went in the paper they could write a letter to the editor which would be published. What I was doing would continue.
It continued.
Over the years people have gone to great lengths to try to make me not put something in the paper. They have offered plenty, but none have met my price.
Yes I have a price. The price is truth.
You may not like the truth, but it beats living a lie. At least it does to me.
If the truth hurts, yer living wrong.
A condundrum
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
William Blackstone
I went to college with a guy who was famous, rather INfamous, for his ability to get behind the wheel of a vehicle no matter his condition and attempt to drive. I forget how many times he was caught. I also know he wrecked a very expensive convertible.
Arrested a lot.
Never convicted.
His dad had plenty of money. Every time ole CT was caught, a call went in to a Montgomery attorney who guaranteed a no conviction on a DUI arrest or the client didn't pay.
That Montgomery ... attorney is not the only one to make such claims and promises.
I'm trying REALLY hard right here to not hope all those ... attorneys get involved in a major crash with a DUI driver. I'm on the verge of losing that struggle.
I do believe that if one of these ... entities were to suffer the kind of loss that other innocent people do after a DUI wreck, they might change their minds about offering such a defense. I could be wrong. Probably am in fact.
All too many ... lawyers these days are interested in the all mighty green back dollar. Justice has nothing to do with it. If they truly wanted justice, they'd be queued up in front of the courthouse to represent poor people at no charge who are genuinely innocent and are the target of revenge.
This attitude is why I refer to the vast majority of ... lawyers in the world as parasites of the human condition. They make their living by exacerbating suffering.
I have met some genuinely noble attorneys. Not many. But they do exist. These people are excused from the vitriol I heap upon their companions. I wish there was a way to better separate them from the pack. Until I can figure out how to do that, you few good lawyers please know you have my thanks and respect.
Anyway, in my freelance work I'm occasionally called upon to write PR for some of these infestations on humanity. The ones I detest the most are those in DUI defense. I admit that some people are wrongly charged on occasion and deserve to have the charges tossed.
But the frequency with which some (insert word of your choice here) manage to get their clients set free means they are gaming the system.
I have several of the ebooks these lawyers sometimes write on DUI, arrest and how to handle things. While I'm not a lawyer, I do think I could take a DUI defense case to court and stand a very good chance of winning. That bothers me. A lot.
I do note successful defense of a case is going to require a lot more than is contained in these books, but I could pull it off. Most people couldn't, which is scant solace to me.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
William Blackstone
I went to college with a guy who was famous, rather INfamous, for his ability to get behind the wheel of a vehicle no matter his condition and attempt to drive. I forget how many times he was caught. I also know he wrecked a very expensive convertible.
Never convicted.
His dad had plenty of money. Every time ole CT was caught, a call went in to a Montgomery attorney who guaranteed a no conviction on a DUI arrest or the client didn't pay.
That Montgomery ... attorney is not the only one to make such claims and promises.
I'm trying REALLY hard right here to not hope all those ... attorneys get involved in a major crash with a DUI driver. I'm on the verge of losing that struggle.
I do believe that if one of these ... entities were to suffer the kind of loss that other innocent people do after a DUI wreck, they might change their minds about offering such a defense. I could be wrong. Probably am in fact.
All too many ... lawyers these days are interested in the all mighty green back dollar. Justice has nothing to do with it. If they truly wanted justice, they'd be queued up in front of the courthouse to represent poor people at no charge who are genuinely innocent and are the target of revenge.
This attitude is why I refer to the vast majority of ... lawyers in the world as parasites of the human condition. They make their living by exacerbating suffering.
I have met some genuinely noble attorneys. Not many. But they do exist. These people are excused from the vitriol I heap upon their companions. I wish there was a way to better separate them from the pack. Until I can figure out how to do that, you few good lawyers please know you have my thanks and respect.
Anyway, in my freelance work I'm occasionally called upon to write PR for some of these infestations on humanity. The ones I detest the most are those in DUI defense. I admit that some people are wrongly charged on occasion and deserve to have the charges tossed.
But the frequency with which some (insert word of your choice here) manage to get their clients set free means they are gaming the system.
I have several of the ebooks these lawyers sometimes write on DUI, arrest and how to handle things. While I'm not a lawyer, I do think I could take a DUI defense case to court and stand a very good chance of winning. That bothers me. A lot.
I do note successful defense of a case is going to require a lot more than is contained in these books, but I could pull it off. Most people couldn't, which is scant solace to me.
DUNE: The Bulterian Jihad - a book review
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Fans of the awesome DUNE series by Frank Herbert have and will long discuss the master's plans for a series on the Butlerian Jihad which overthrew the Thinking Machines. Referenced repeatedly in Herbert's published works, an outline and notes for the Jihad were also included in notes he left behind in a safe deposit box.
His son Brian and award winning SF novelist Kevin Anderson took the notes and put together a number of books based around Dune and the topics Herbert Sr. raised. The Butlerian Jihad, The Machine Crusade and The Battle of Corrin detail this paradigm shift of Herbert's world of the distance future.
Book 1 (Legends of Dune 1) sets the stage for the Jihad which removed thinking machines from the known universe. The S.F. staple plot of humanity struggling to overcome an invader has the not that unusual twist in that the invader is created by humans. Sub plots, as to be expected in any Dune book, abound. This is not a book with lots of surprises. Revelations, yes.
The writing is solid, the characters well developed and believable. The writers know their stuff. Amazon.com lists this as a "science fiction essentials" book. I agree because it fills in unexplained parts of Dune which Frank apparently intended to take care of, but died before he could get to it. It also gives us a tiny, and I do mean TINY, glimpse of another intelligent life form which inhabited the galaxy before humans began their expansion. We learn here why the Jihad has the name Butler name attached. The beginnings of House Atreides and Harkonnen are found here.
Rather more important in a different respect, the book gives readers Arrakis before the Fremen became known as Fremen and before melange was known to the universe. I felt the book shorted me on Arrakis. I hope the authors plan another book about the beginnings of Arrakis. We Dune fans eagerly await that. That being said, this is a trilogy on the Jihad, not Dune and the spice.
It also gives us a look the future Reverend Mothers, the genetic chase
As with the other Dune-based books by the Herbert-Anderson duo, this work is based on the notes by the senior Herbert. While talented writers in their own right, Brian and Kevin are not Frank Herbert. Fans going into this book expecting to see Frank all over the place are going to disappointed. Readers going into the book expecting to learn more about the future Herbert senior created will be pleased.
http://www.amazon.com/Hunters-Dune-Sci-Essential-Books/dp/0765312921
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Fans of the awesome DUNE series by Frank Herbert have and will long discuss the master's plans for a series on the Butlerian Jihad which overthrew the Thinking Machines. Referenced repeatedly in Herbert's published works, an outline and notes for the Jihad were also included in notes he left behind in a safe deposit box.
His son Brian and award winning SF novelist Kevin Anderson took the notes and put together a number of books based around Dune and the topics Herbert Sr. raised. The Butlerian Jihad, The Machine Crusade and The Battle of Corrin detail this paradigm shift of Herbert's world of the distance future.
Book 1 (Legends of Dune 1) sets the stage for the Jihad which removed thinking machines from the known universe. The S.F. staple plot of humanity struggling to overcome an invader has the not that unusual twist in that the invader is created by humans. Sub plots, as to be expected in any Dune book, abound. This is not a book with lots of surprises. Revelations, yes.
The writing is solid, the characters well developed and believable. The writers know their stuff. Amazon.com lists this as a "science fiction essentials" book. I agree because it fills in unexplained parts of Dune which Frank apparently intended to take care of, but died before he could get to it. It also gives us a tiny, and I do mean TINY, glimpse of another intelligent life form which inhabited the galaxy before humans began their expansion. We learn here why the Jihad has the name Butler name attached. The beginnings of House Atreides and Harkonnen are found here.
Rather more important in a different respect, the book gives readers Arrakis before the Fremen became known as Fremen and before melange was known to the universe. I felt the book shorted me on Arrakis. I hope the authors plan another book about the beginnings of Arrakis. We Dune fans eagerly await that. That being said, this is a trilogy on the Jihad, not Dune and the spice.
It also gives us a look the future Reverend Mothers, the genetic chase
As with the other Dune-based books by the Herbert-Anderson duo, this work is based on the notes by the senior Herbert. While talented writers in their own right, Brian and Kevin are not Frank Herbert. Fans going into this book expecting to see Frank all over the place are going to disappointed. Readers going into the book expecting to learn more about the future Herbert senior created will be pleased.
http://www.amazon.com/Hunters-Dune-Sci-Essential-Books/dp/0765312921
Thursday, December 12, 2013
A sandwich of your own making
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
This ain't about politics, but it starts with a political story.
This morning NPR aired a story of a Florida city chief of police resigning for doing his job. No real 'sprise there. Chiefs are fired and resign regularly for doing their job.
So why this story? Why now? Damfino.
But it did give me an excuse to blog.
The problem here is the people in Miami Gardens got what they asked for.
I am not kidding.
Have you ever been there? You really wanted something and when you got it, oh sheet rock. That is SO not what you wanted. Me? Been there, done that got all kinds of scars to remind me; physical, mental, emotional, etc.
The folks in Miami Garden wanted the MGPD to do something about the huge upswing in violence. The MGPD did so.
Now the residents are screaming that's not what they wanted. Cognitive Disconnect. Here's a good explanation of this:
"The term, cognitive disconnect, applies to the condition where reality and one's understanding or perception of reality differ. Perception that differs from reality is ordinarily referred to as delusional. However, in the case of a cognitive disconnect, sanity is not necessarily an issue.
"For example, checking the mail box on a national holiday would be a minor cognitive disconnect. One knows that no mail delivery occurs on a holiday. One knows that a certain day happens to be a holiday. There is no reason to expect mail on that certain day (reality), yet one still looks in the mailbox (perception). This behavior could be explained as simply forgetfulness or habit, but it is still a disconnect of reality and perception."
Stand by. Better explanation incoming...
So back to Miami Garden. Really, back to you and me. Exactly and precisely WHAT do they (we) want?
How about you? Have you ever given real thought to what you want? Sometimes, sure. Sometimes not. More often NOT than we're willing to admit, I bet.
Unfortunately cognitive disconnect is getting worse in today's world. People want and give no thought to how it will be delivered or how it will affect them once they get it.
Do us ALL a favor and think before you make a request. I'll try to do better in this area too.
My brother, Shag, summed this whole thing up in one of the greatest quotes ever:
"Don't complain about the worm sandwich when you opened the can."
Brilliant.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
This ain't about politics, but it starts with a political story.
This morning NPR aired a story of a Florida city chief of police resigning for doing his job. No real 'sprise there. Chiefs are fired and resign regularly for doing their job.
So why this story? Why now? Damfino.
But it did give me an excuse to blog.
I am not kidding.
Have you ever been there? You really wanted something and when you got it, oh sheet rock. That is SO not what you wanted. Me? Been there, done that got all kinds of scars to remind me; physical, mental, emotional, etc.
The folks in Miami Garden wanted the MGPD to do something about the huge upswing in violence. The MGPD did so.
Now the residents are screaming that's not what they wanted. Cognitive Disconnect. Here's a good explanation of this:
"The term, cognitive disconnect, applies to the condition where reality and one's understanding or perception of reality differ. Perception that differs from reality is ordinarily referred to as delusional. However, in the case of a cognitive disconnect, sanity is not necessarily an issue.
"For example, checking the mail box on a national holiday would be a minor cognitive disconnect. One knows that no mail delivery occurs on a holiday. One knows that a certain day happens to be a holiday. There is no reason to expect mail on that certain day (reality), yet one still looks in the mailbox (perception). This behavior could be explained as simply forgetfulness or habit, but it is still a disconnect of reality and perception."
Stand by. Better explanation incoming...
So back to Miami Garden. Really, back to you and me. Exactly and precisely WHAT do they (we) want?
How about you? Have you ever given real thought to what you want? Sometimes, sure. Sometimes not. More often NOT than we're willing to admit, I bet.
Unfortunately cognitive disconnect is getting worse in today's world. People want and give no thought to how it will be delivered or how it will affect them once they get it.
Do us ALL a favor and think before you make a request. I'll try to do better in this area too.
My brother, Shag, summed this whole thing up in one of the greatest quotes ever:
"Don't complain about the worm sandwich when you opened the can."
Brilliant.
Wednesday, December 11, 2013
No simple solution in sight.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
National Public Radio is running a series on veterans with "other than honorable discharges."
In addition to being fascinating and the kind of solid reporting I expect from this news agency, this morning's report raised a really major issue. I give you an example:
Veteran A and Veteran B are identical in every aspect in their service record except for one thing. I do mean identical, straight down the line.
That one exception: A was convicted of DUI while in the service and given a dishonorable discharge,
B was convicted of DUI after leaving the military on an honorable discharge.
Sole difference. Period.
Both these veterans' legal trouble has been traced right back to PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder). Everyone, and I do mean everyone, agrees PTSD is at fault. Even you agree, for the sake of this discussion anyway.
B can receive no charge treatment from the Veterans Administration. A cannot receive treatment at the VA.
Why? A has a dishonorable discharge.
Really? Yes.
What's the solution here? The simple one is that both get treatment.
However, since we're dealing with human beings who must be handled by human beings, there is no simple solution. While in the above scenario, everyone agrees, real life steadfastly refuses to conform to our wishes. In real life, A apparently gets the short end of the stick.
You may find this intolerable. I remind you, again, this is reality.
What can we do? Damfino.
Who will decide whether a less than honorable discharge is PTSD related? For every "expert" you find to say it is PTSD, I bet I can find one who says it is not. Who ya gonna believe?
While this wrangling over who can help A is taking place, B is getting help. A gets worse. B gets better,
I just ain't got a simple solution to this one. I really wish I did.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
National Public Radio is running a series on veterans with "other than honorable discharges."
In addition to being fascinating and the kind of solid reporting I expect from this news agency, this morning's report raised a really major issue. I give you an example:
Veteran A and Veteran B are identical in every aspect in their service record except for one thing. I do mean identical, straight down the line.
That one exception: A was convicted of DUI while in the service and given a dishonorable discharge,
B was convicted of DUI after leaving the military on an honorable discharge.
Sole difference. Period.
Both these veterans' legal trouble has been traced right back to PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder). Everyone, and I do mean everyone, agrees PTSD is at fault. Even you agree, for the sake of this discussion anyway.
B can receive no charge treatment from the Veterans Administration. A cannot receive treatment at the VA.
Why? A has a dishonorable discharge.
Really? Yes.
What's the solution here? The simple one is that both get treatment.
However, since we're dealing with human beings who must be handled by human beings, there is no simple solution. While in the above scenario, everyone agrees, real life steadfastly refuses to conform to our wishes. In real life, A apparently gets the short end of the stick.
You may find this intolerable. I remind you, again, this is reality.
What can we do? Damfino.
Who will decide whether a less than honorable discharge is PTSD related? For every "expert" you find to say it is PTSD, I bet I can find one who says it is not. Who ya gonna believe?
While this wrangling over who can help A is taking place, B is getting help. A gets worse. B gets better,
I just ain't got a simple solution to this one. I really wish I did.
Tuesday, December 10, 2013
Some non-emotional discussion about abortion
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Few things can stir passion as much as a discussion of abortion. Imagine, then, my surprise last week when I launched a FB discussion on it which stayed nearly 100 percent polite and involved no vicious attacks on anyone in the thread.
FULL DISCLOSURE: I do not permit attacks on people in threads on my page. You do that, yer kicked out. Applies here too. Comments welcome. Attacks on people in this thread will get you banned. A lot of attacks will result in this thread being closed to commentary.
Anyway, what happened was an insightful discussion of this issue. I have edited out the extraneous comments. With people who've known me nearly 30 years and have been closer than my blood kin, extraneous is often the order of the day. If you MUST have the whole thread, it's in my page on Dec. 7-8.
I have edited the names to their initials to indicate whom is speaking. I mostly left names alone in the comments. So, I have to point out there are 3 different people named Mary commenting below.
It kicked off with this toon and my statement: I admit to honest confusion.
PRP: The first three panels clearly show the largest fetus ever.
ME: The largest baby ever was born in Canada in 1879, according to Guinness Book of World Records. He weighed 23 lbs, 12 ounces at birth. He lived for less than 1 day.
ME: Largest to survive, according to records, 22 pounds.
PRP: Wait, if the first three panels depict babies then I am confused too.
MB: 3 babies, one fetus...no confusion at all.
ME: At what point does a fetus become a baby? I have yet to get a straight answer to that. Insults, plenty of them.
MB: well my opinion is when it is born. But I'm sure there are plenty who will have 100 variations of "but what ifs"
RBA: I'm gonna say about 22 weeks or when viable. The only time you will see someone as pregnant as the person in this post getting a "late" term abortion is when the baby has either already passed away or is brain dead. There is a great new documentary that EVERYONE should see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/.../f0b0570e-40d3-11e3-a624...
‘After Tiller’ movie review: Documentary lucidly explores late-term abortion
www.washingtonpost.com
There are only three doctors in the United States who perform "late term" abortions, by the way. Most abortions are in the first trimester.
MA: Generally, if a woman gets an abortion after the first trimester, it's because she really wanted the baby and told that it wasn't going to happen, or so many obstacles were put in her way as she tried to get a first trimester abortion that she ran out of time and wound up in the second trimester.
MA: I'm with MB. I think it becomes a baby when it is born.
RBA: I don't disagree with Mary either. I am SO concerned with many laws that have come about during the past few years trying to take the right of women to chose away. In many states, like Texas and so many others, it's down right terrifying what is happening. In North Dakota and in Texas, I think there is only one place a woman will be able to get an abortion. There is a city council woman in Washougal, Washington who has gone after a group for providing homeless women with info for Planned Parenthood (along with all of the other names of groups to help homeless pregnant women). This crazy council lady is upset because the city provides $7,500 in grant money to the group since they do so much work with the homeless and all this crazy council lady could say was, "they are giving out information that kills babies." No, they gave out the contact info for Planned Parenthood which helps homeless pregnant women have HEALTHY babies at birth if they chose to remain pregnant.
JW: I always ask a pregnant woman - "When is your fetus due to become viable?"
JW: By the way, my friends in China and India are quite supportive of aborting female babies. So I'm very careful to ask them only about the viability date of their male fetuses.
RSM: My only real comments on this poster is kind of a tangent. People are always speaking of the woman's rights when it comes to abortions. "My body, my life" etc are always bandied about but you never hear anyone speaking about the flipside of that coin. What about the Father's rights? Lets say a couple get together, get their bed on and make a future human being. IF the woman decides she doesn't want it, she has the right to have an abortion. What if the father of the child doesn't want her to do this. What if the Father wants the baby? The fetus is the product of two people, but no one ever speaks about the rights of the 2nd biological donor. If the Mother has rights then so does the Father. Just curious about people's thoughts on the matter.
MB: The odds of that happening are EXTREMELY small. If a woman decides to have an abortion, usually it's because the father doesn't want to be involved, the second most common scenario is that they decided TOGETHER that it would be best.
MA: That's one of those situations that is very difficult. If only we had incubators we could put the fetus in until it was able to go to its father. Unfortunately, that isn't the case, and until they're available, I think the person who is the incubator would get the last word on the subject.
MB: I understood the original question, I'm just saying that I don't think laws should be changed just to protect the "right" of one person out of a couple of thousand or more.
MA: Really, we probably ought to sign a contract before we have sex with someone specifying all of these things in advance. That would certainly end the "well, I thought she consented" situations. I doubt that will happen either, though.
MA: I guess you just have to be very careful who you make babies with, huh?
MB: The cold hard facts are that this boils down to a religious issue every time. You can't get around it. Everyone has a different opinion as to how this relates to the bible and murder, etc. etc. It is probably the ONLY medical issue that will ever be a religious issue, besides the whole "right to die" scenario.
RBA: The Hand Maiden's Tale.
MA: I never wanted kids. I never had any. That's fairly easy. If you want kids, then you have to involve someone else, which is a bit harder. Either you have to get a surrogate or sperm donor, or you have to be connected to someone else forever.
ME: Ehhh, no, MB. Transplants, blood transfusions, vaccinations and even surgery itself are all forbidden according to come religions. Bob Marley is a great example of a surgical proscription.
Is also not a religious issue. Concerted atheists have the same debate over abortion. Again, I thank you all for being sincere about the question. I have much to think about.
RBA: I just think it comes down to a person's body being the ultimate right of that person to control. I would never tell a man he had to be a sperm donator and if you can trust a woman with a baby, then we should be able to trust her with the decision to make a choice with her own body that is right for her. If a man wants a choice, then he should chose a woman who wants to have a child with him. I have SO many clients who don't have parents - I sure wish all these people wanting children would want them.
MA: I think that, religious or not, abortion debates mostly center around whether or not you think human beings have a "soul" (or whatever you call what makes you you) or not, and, if so, when you think that soul (for lack of a better word) enters the physical body. I don't believe in a soul that exists separate from the body (or exists when the physical body does not).
MB: Mary I have two; one grown, one almost there. I fully respect the right to an abortion. Having children is a hell of a responsibility, one that some women or couples are not ready for, or capable of doing. I have many friends that have had abortions and I have been with them through the process. Each had their own very real reasons for doing it. Me knowing these people personally, I fully understood their reasons. It was never taken lightly, and at times a very, very painful choice to make mentally. I truelly believe that in each of those circumstances they made the right decision for them at that time.
MB: Ben I'm speaking in general terms...for most people it is a religious issue.
MA: I agree that they're a big responsibility, MB. That's why I chose not to have them. Plus I'm an introvert, and kids are house guests that never go home. If people truly wanted to lower the abortion rate, the only proven method is to provide low cost, easy to obtain, and easy to use birth control. I know anti-abortion folks like to claim that people use abortions as birth control, but that is a hell of a hard way to get birth control, and I think that they would much rather prevent the pregnancy than stop it after it begins.
RBA: I totally agree Mary. I have a good friend who planned to have just one child and then to have surgery to have no more. she became pregnant during a period of her life that was very rough and having a child at that time may have led to suicide or just incredible depression. She made a decision to abort during the first trimester and then years later had a child when she was ready, along with surgery to have no more. That child that was ultimately born would have never been born had she taken a different route in her life. As it was, she became an awesome mother and who knows the tragedy that may have occurred had she had a child when she was extremely depressed. That's just one story, but it's very profound. The documentary Freakonomics also deals with this issue in a very profound way.
MA: Sadly, there are still people who think women don't know what they want and don't understand the consequences of their decisions. I got a lot of flack when I got my tubes tied because they were sure I would change my mind, and I didn't realize how permanent that it is. How insulting.
MA: And you're right, for most people it is entirely a religious issue, as far as I can see. I used to be a pro-lifer, you see, entirely because my religion told me that I had to be or I was condoning murder. When I dropped the religion, I realized that I had never looked at the other side of the issue. Even back when I was pro-life, though, it really upset me when others judged the ones who had abortions.
MB: I can give another example. Back around twenty years ago one friend had just left her boyfriend. He was abusive and alcoholic, he couldn't hold down a job and made it clear he did not want children. She never even told him she was pregnant. She was homeless, had no car and was making minimum wage. She knew she could not take care of a child at that point in time, she couldn't even take care of herself.She didn't want to be a burden to society. She wanted to be a mother very badly, but she wanted to wait until she could be the mother she knew she wanted to be. It was very painful for her to make that decision and she struggled with it for years.
RBA: I was in the same boat Mary and when I was 19 or 20, an ethics professor had each of us privately decide where we stood on the issue of abortion. Then, we had to write a persuasive paper for the OTHER side. This forced each of us to take a hard look at the other side. It was a great assignment and as a result, I went to the other side on that issue and never looked back.
RBA: MB, your example is very similar to some of the stories that came out in the documentary Freakonomics. In that case, they looked at Romania and the United States from the 1970's until the 1990's and the specific issue was because Romania outlawed abortion and the United States had Roe vs. Wade. What they saw was that women made the best choice when it is right for them to have a child and it primarily came down to those issues surrounding economics and a woman having a child at 30, when she is more often able to provide for them is very different from that same woman having a child when she is 18 and has very little means to provide. The children of women given a choice are FAR more likely to not grow up in poverty and many other issues that surround poverty.
MB: Other story is a couple who had 4 kids. They were both low income earners and barely getting by. They too did not want to have to ask for government assistance. They knew that one more child would be the straw that broke the camel's back. It's very easy to say you are against something till you start hearing the stories and understanding the reasons why.
RBA: The new documentary After Tiller explores many of these same issues.
MT: I actually was pro choice til I found out I was an accident. My mother was actually driven to the clinic in Jacksonville to abort me. Finding that out changed my mind. I'm just saying that it's all fine and well to make your decisions, (I believe we'll all be judged in the end....I'm not perfect.) just don't take the humanity out procedure. It's a baby, a person with potential not a potential person.
MB: I think there is humanity of both sides of the issue, you just have to see it.
MA: We don't help mothers to care for their children after they're born, so it's pretty hypocritical to insist that they have to bring them into this world. What's really annoying is when they're against birth control AND abortion. What do expect women to do? Because it's the women who are going to deal with the consequences. It's nearly impossible to make a man pay child support if he doesn't want to, and if you give custody to the man, you're a horrible mother. It should be easier to get sterilized, too, if you want it.
MA: My husband just asked who I was arguing with. I told him that we were talking about abortion, but it wasn't much of an argument, since we all seemed to agree.
MB: This is why it is so important to keep the government out of this issue. It is a personal choice, a life long choice. A life-changing choice.
MT: Yes I agree life changing.....for more than one person.
MT: Yeh, sadly though I disagree.
MA: It's interesting that many of the same people who are up in arms over Obamacare because "the government shouldn't interfere between a person and their doctor" are all for laws that come between a woman and her doctor.
MB: Mary T. obviously your mother made the decision that was right for her. Not every child can be born into a loving home. Many will be in adoption centers for years...just call your local Family and Children agency and see. Many will be born into povery and suffer. This goes on in America every day. The house behind me is 300 square feet, there are 6 people living in a building the size of a large carport. I'm happy that things worked out for you and your mother, but that doesn't mean there should be laws forcing women to have children that they cannot take care of.
MT: I've seen adoption first hand....I know it's not all rainbows and happy endings. I suppose I'll just seem biased because of the way I feel. I just think there is something to be said for the baby.
Paul Hodges According to Roe vs. Wade, one of these things is not like the other. I see a baby in three.
RBA: I've been acquainted with a young woman who committed suicide because she saw no "choices" and she was desperate. I'm sure we can always come up with that "one" story that will convince us of either side. But that's why choice is so important. My mother had a miscarriage before becoming pregnant with me, had it been that she had chosen a prior abortion, same difference I could have been born while another not. Maybe that other person would have been a better person than me? Maybe we could say too bad Hitler's mom didn't have an abortion. I don't think that the individual stories that make up each of our personal lives should dictate what others can or should do. It's a personal choice, at least up until viability (however you define that).
TC: I see lives forever changed in all four, no matter how narrowly rhetoric chooses to define them. Who could they all have been? We will never know, because one person decided to make a decision for both lives.
MB: Tom when you can get pregnant, let me know.
TC: That capability, or the lack of it, is irrelevant to my point. You can argue whether a fetus is a person, whether it has a soul, whether it is imbued of rights, or is human, etc. 'til you're blue, but one point is factual and medically as well as scientifically unarguable; that mass of cells is alive, same as the rest of the cells in a body, and has the potential to 'be' a human, and nothing else. Seems to me that's two lines of potential history, one of which is being decided by the other by force. Something feels basically wrong with that, IMHO.
MB: Going to go to bed now..not gonna get in a debate about whether a mass of cells have rights or not.
TC: I'm not debating, just throwing a observation into the conversation, and I really don't care whether there is agreement or not. Not much short of a major breakthrough in science will change how I feel on this issue.
RBA: I think MA and I can ONLY imagine what was said. Glad I can't see anymore - I use to get REALLY mean but MA is helping me to be a better person on FB. lol
Every parent makes decisions for their children every day. I've had to hold my little girl, screaming and kicking, as a shoved a frozen bullet of medicine-butter up her rear end against her preferences.
If I truly believed what was best for her was for me to wring her little head off, I'd've done that too, and the same for anyone who tried to stop me.
I do not make assumptions for every other person, and I really don't want to hear a ton of statistics about it, because every case is unique. There are horrible wrongs being done on both sides of this argument, but in the end, I'm with Mary Beth: not going to debate whether a ball of cells has rights.
Heck, I don't think you guys have rights aside from what you can defend. I make my choices based on my morals, and the only thing that makes me care about your preferences is that my morals and ethics require it.
As for Tom's argument, I know a lot of grown people with the potential to be a human that the world would be better off without.
LMR: I believe that along with most things, you must decide for yourself. I could never have one, but I love people who have done so. No matter what, if it is something desired, it will be acquired, politics or not. I want to add the difference in how babies are viewed now. I read these comments and see a certain common similarities in lifestyles and thoughts. Now give a glance to the very large population of young people who see a baby as just another tally, the boys who boost how many they have by different women -the girls who brag who's baby they have. Babies and toddlers in herd of young girls at mall who see them as accessories. These kids are no longer seeing post birth children as babies, never mind while still in womb. I am certainly not advocating shipping young girls off in the night for 9 months, but the trend is now so far in other direction. Schools teeming with pregnant girls. I suggest more focus on the common prevention tools for ALL--birth control.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Few things can stir passion as much as a discussion of abortion. Imagine, then, my surprise last week when I launched a FB discussion on it which stayed nearly 100 percent polite and involved no vicious attacks on anyone in the thread.
FULL DISCLOSURE: I do not permit attacks on people in threads on my page. You do that, yer kicked out. Applies here too. Comments welcome. Attacks on people in this thread will get you banned. A lot of attacks will result in this thread being closed to commentary.
Anyway, what happened was an insightful discussion of this issue. I have edited out the extraneous comments. With people who've known me nearly 30 years and have been closer than my blood kin, extraneous is often the order of the day. If you MUST have the whole thread, it's in my page on Dec. 7-8.
I have edited the names to their initials to indicate whom is speaking. I mostly left names alone in the comments. So, I have to point out there are 3 different people named Mary commenting below.
It kicked off with this toon and my statement: I admit to honest confusion.
PRP: The first three panels clearly show the largest fetus ever.
ME: The largest baby ever was born in Canada in 1879, according to Guinness Book of World Records. He weighed 23 lbs, 12 ounces at birth. He lived for less than 1 day.
ME: Largest to survive, according to records, 22 pounds.
PRP: Wait, if the first three panels depict babies then I am confused too.
MB: 3 babies, one fetus...no confusion at all.
ME: At what point does a fetus become a baby? I have yet to get a straight answer to that. Insults, plenty of them.
MB: well my opinion is when it is born. But I'm sure there are plenty who will have 100 variations of "but what ifs"
RBA: I'm gonna say about 22 weeks or when viable. The only time you will see someone as pregnant as the person in this post getting a "late" term abortion is when the baby has either already passed away or is brain dead. There is a great new documentary that EVERYONE should see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/.../f0b0570e-40d3-11e3-a624...
‘After Tiller’ movie review: Documentary lucidly explores late-term abortion
www.washingtonpost.com
There are only three doctors in the United States who perform "late term" abortions, by the way. Most abortions are in the first trimester.
MA: Generally, if a woman gets an abortion after the first trimester, it's because she really wanted the baby and told that it wasn't going to happen, or so many obstacles were put in her way as she tried to get a first trimester abortion that she ran out of time and wound up in the second trimester.
MA: I'm with MB. I think it becomes a baby when it is born.
RBA: I don't disagree with Mary either. I am SO concerned with many laws that have come about during the past few years trying to take the right of women to chose away. In many states, like Texas and so many others, it's down right terrifying what is happening. In North Dakota and in Texas, I think there is only one place a woman will be able to get an abortion. There is a city council woman in Washougal, Washington who has gone after a group for providing homeless women with info for Planned Parenthood (along with all of the other names of groups to help homeless pregnant women). This crazy council lady is upset because the city provides $7,500 in grant money to the group since they do so much work with the homeless and all this crazy council lady could say was, "they are giving out information that kills babies." No, they gave out the contact info for Planned Parenthood which helps homeless pregnant women have HEALTHY babies at birth if they chose to remain pregnant.
JW: I always ask a pregnant woman - "When is your fetus due to become viable?"
JW: By the way, my friends in China and India are quite supportive of aborting female babies. So I'm very careful to ask them only about the viability date of their male fetuses.
RSM: My only real comments on this poster is kind of a tangent. People are always speaking of the woman's rights when it comes to abortions. "My body, my life" etc are always bandied about but you never hear anyone speaking about the flipside of that coin. What about the Father's rights? Lets say a couple get together, get their bed on and make a future human being. IF the woman decides she doesn't want it, she has the right to have an abortion. What if the father of the child doesn't want her to do this. What if the Father wants the baby? The fetus is the product of two people, but no one ever speaks about the rights of the 2nd biological donor. If the Mother has rights then so does the Father. Just curious about people's thoughts on the matter.
MB: The odds of that happening are EXTREMELY small. If a woman decides to have an abortion, usually it's because the father doesn't want to be involved, the second most common scenario is that they decided TOGETHER that it would be best.
MA: That's one of those situations that is very difficult. If only we had incubators we could put the fetus in until it was able to go to its father. Unfortunately, that isn't the case, and until they're available, I think the person who is the incubator would get the last word on the subject.
MB: I understood the original question, I'm just saying that I don't think laws should be changed just to protect the "right" of one person out of a couple of thousand or more.
MA: Really, we probably ought to sign a contract before we have sex with someone specifying all of these things in advance. That would certainly end the "well, I thought she consented" situations. I doubt that will happen either, though.
MA: I guess you just have to be very careful who you make babies with, huh?
MB: The cold hard facts are that this boils down to a religious issue every time. You can't get around it. Everyone has a different opinion as to how this relates to the bible and murder, etc. etc. It is probably the ONLY medical issue that will ever be a religious issue, besides the whole "right to die" scenario.
RBA: The Hand Maiden's Tale.
MA: I never wanted kids. I never had any. That's fairly easy. If you want kids, then you have to involve someone else, which is a bit harder. Either you have to get a surrogate or sperm donor, or you have to be connected to someone else forever.
ME: Ehhh, no, MB. Transplants, blood transfusions, vaccinations and even surgery itself are all forbidden according to come religions. Bob Marley is a great example of a surgical proscription.
Is also not a religious issue. Concerted atheists have the same debate over abortion. Again, I thank you all for being sincere about the question. I have much to think about.
RBA: I just think it comes down to a person's body being the ultimate right of that person to control. I would never tell a man he had to be a sperm donator and if you can trust a woman with a baby, then we should be able to trust her with the decision to make a choice with her own body that is right for her. If a man wants a choice, then he should chose a woman who wants to have a child with him. I have SO many clients who don't have parents - I sure wish all these people wanting children would want them.
MA: I think that, religious or not, abortion debates mostly center around whether or not you think human beings have a "soul" (or whatever you call what makes you you) or not, and, if so, when you think that soul (for lack of a better word) enters the physical body. I don't believe in a soul that exists separate from the body (or exists when the physical body does not).
MB: Mary I have two; one grown, one almost there. I fully respect the right to an abortion. Having children is a hell of a responsibility, one that some women or couples are not ready for, or capable of doing. I have many friends that have had abortions and I have been with them through the process. Each had their own very real reasons for doing it. Me knowing these people personally, I fully understood their reasons. It was never taken lightly, and at times a very, very painful choice to make mentally. I truelly believe that in each of those circumstances they made the right decision for them at that time.
MB: Ben I'm speaking in general terms...for most people it is a religious issue.
MA: I agree that they're a big responsibility, MB. That's why I chose not to have them. Plus I'm an introvert, and kids are house guests that never go home. If people truly wanted to lower the abortion rate, the only proven method is to provide low cost, easy to obtain, and easy to use birth control. I know anti-abortion folks like to claim that people use abortions as birth control, but that is a hell of a hard way to get birth control, and I think that they would much rather prevent the pregnancy than stop it after it begins.
RBA: I totally agree Mary. I have a good friend who planned to have just one child and then to have surgery to have no more. she became pregnant during a period of her life that was very rough and having a child at that time may have led to suicide or just incredible depression. She made a decision to abort during the first trimester and then years later had a child when she was ready, along with surgery to have no more. That child that was ultimately born would have never been born had she taken a different route in her life. As it was, she became an awesome mother and who knows the tragedy that may have occurred had she had a child when she was extremely depressed. That's just one story, but it's very profound. The documentary Freakonomics also deals with this issue in a very profound way.
MA: Sadly, there are still people who think women don't know what they want and don't understand the consequences of their decisions. I got a lot of flack when I got my tubes tied because they were sure I would change my mind, and I didn't realize how permanent that it is. How insulting.
MA: And you're right, for most people it is entirely a religious issue, as far as I can see. I used to be a pro-lifer, you see, entirely because my religion told me that I had to be or I was condoning murder. When I dropped the religion, I realized that I had never looked at the other side of the issue. Even back when I was pro-life, though, it really upset me when others judged the ones who had abortions.
MB: I can give another example. Back around twenty years ago one friend had just left her boyfriend. He was abusive and alcoholic, he couldn't hold down a job and made it clear he did not want children. She never even told him she was pregnant. She was homeless, had no car and was making minimum wage. She knew she could not take care of a child at that point in time, she couldn't even take care of herself.She didn't want to be a burden to society. She wanted to be a mother very badly, but she wanted to wait until she could be the mother she knew she wanted to be. It was very painful for her to make that decision and she struggled with it for years.
RBA: I was in the same boat Mary and when I was 19 or 20, an ethics professor had each of us privately decide where we stood on the issue of abortion. Then, we had to write a persuasive paper for the OTHER side. This forced each of us to take a hard look at the other side. It was a great assignment and as a result, I went to the other side on that issue and never looked back.
RBA: MB, your example is very similar to some of the stories that came out in the documentary Freakonomics. In that case, they looked at Romania and the United States from the 1970's until the 1990's and the specific issue was because Romania outlawed abortion and the United States had Roe vs. Wade. What they saw was that women made the best choice when it is right for them to have a child and it primarily came down to those issues surrounding economics and a woman having a child at 30, when she is more often able to provide for them is very different from that same woman having a child when she is 18 and has very little means to provide. The children of women given a choice are FAR more likely to not grow up in poverty and many other issues that surround poverty.
MB: Other story is a couple who had 4 kids. They were both low income earners and barely getting by. They too did not want to have to ask for government assistance. They knew that one more child would be the straw that broke the camel's back. It's very easy to say you are against something till you start hearing the stories and understanding the reasons why.
RBA: The new documentary After Tiller explores many of these same issues.
MT: I actually was pro choice til I found out I was an accident. My mother was actually driven to the clinic in Jacksonville to abort me. Finding that out changed my mind. I'm just saying that it's all fine and well to make your decisions, (I believe we'll all be judged in the end....I'm not perfect.) just don't take the humanity out procedure. It's a baby, a person with potential not a potential person.
MB: I think there is humanity of both sides of the issue, you just have to see it.
MA: We don't help mothers to care for their children after they're born, so it's pretty hypocritical to insist that they have to bring them into this world. What's really annoying is when they're against birth control AND abortion. What do expect women to do? Because it's the women who are going to deal with the consequences. It's nearly impossible to make a man pay child support if he doesn't want to, and if you give custody to the man, you're a horrible mother. It should be easier to get sterilized, too, if you want it.
MA: My husband just asked who I was arguing with. I told him that we were talking about abortion, but it wasn't much of an argument, since we all seemed to agree.
MB: This is why it is so important to keep the government out of this issue. It is a personal choice, a life long choice. A life-changing choice.
MT: Yes I agree life changing.....for more than one person.
MT: Yeh, sadly though I disagree.
MA: It's interesting that many of the same people who are up in arms over Obamacare because "the government shouldn't interfere between a person and their doctor" are all for laws that come between a woman and her doctor.
MB: Mary T. obviously your mother made the decision that was right for her. Not every child can be born into a loving home. Many will be in adoption centers for years...just call your local Family and Children agency and see. Many will be born into povery and suffer. This goes on in America every day. The house behind me is 300 square feet, there are 6 people living in a building the size of a large carport. I'm happy that things worked out for you and your mother, but that doesn't mean there should be laws forcing women to have children that they cannot take care of.
MT: I've seen adoption first hand....I know it's not all rainbows and happy endings. I suppose I'll just seem biased because of the way I feel. I just think there is something to be said for the baby.
Paul Hodges According to Roe vs. Wade, one of these things is not like the other. I see a baby in three.
RBA: I've been acquainted with a young woman who committed suicide because she saw no "choices" and she was desperate. I'm sure we can always come up with that "one" story that will convince us of either side. But that's why choice is so important. My mother had a miscarriage before becoming pregnant with me, had it been that she had chosen a prior abortion, same difference I could have been born while another not. Maybe that other person would have been a better person than me? Maybe we could say too bad Hitler's mom didn't have an abortion. I don't think that the individual stories that make up each of our personal lives should dictate what others can or should do. It's a personal choice, at least up until viability (however you define that).
TC: I see lives forever changed in all four, no matter how narrowly rhetoric chooses to define them. Who could they all have been? We will never know, because one person decided to make a decision for both lives.
MB: Tom when you can get pregnant, let me know.
TC: That capability, or the lack of it, is irrelevant to my point. You can argue whether a fetus is a person, whether it has a soul, whether it is imbued of rights, or is human, etc. 'til you're blue, but one point is factual and medically as well as scientifically unarguable; that mass of cells is alive, same as the rest of the cells in a body, and has the potential to 'be' a human, and nothing else. Seems to me that's two lines of potential history, one of which is being decided by the other by force. Something feels basically wrong with that, IMHO.
MB: Going to go to bed now..not gonna get in a debate about whether a mass of cells have rights or not.
TC: I'm not debating, just throwing a observation into the conversation, and I really don't care whether there is agreement or not. Not much short of a major breakthrough in science will change how I feel on this issue.
RBA: I think MA and I can ONLY imagine what was said. Glad I can't see anymore - I use to get REALLY mean but MA is helping me to be a better person on FB. lol
Every parent makes decisions for their children every day. I've had to hold my little girl, screaming and kicking, as a shoved a frozen bullet of medicine-butter up her rear end against her preferences.
If I truly believed what was best for her was for me to wring her little head off, I'd've done that too, and the same for anyone who tried to stop me.
I do not make assumptions for every other person, and I really don't want to hear a ton of statistics about it, because every case is unique. There are horrible wrongs being done on both sides of this argument, but in the end, I'm with Mary Beth: not going to debate whether a ball of cells has rights.
Heck, I don't think you guys have rights aside from what you can defend. I make my choices based on my morals, and the only thing that makes me care about your preferences is that my morals and ethics require it.
As for Tom's argument, I know a lot of grown people with the potential to be a human that the world would be better off without.
LMR: I believe that along with most things, you must decide for yourself. I could never have one, but I love people who have done so. No matter what, if it is something desired, it will be acquired, politics or not. I want to add the difference in how babies are viewed now. I read these comments and see a certain common similarities in lifestyles and thoughts. Now give a glance to the very large population of young people who see a baby as just another tally, the boys who boost how many they have by different women -the girls who brag who's baby they have. Babies and toddlers in herd of young girls at mall who see them as accessories. These kids are no longer seeing post birth children as babies, never mind while still in womb. I am certainly not advocating shipping young girls off in the night for 9 months, but the trend is now so far in other direction. Schools teeming with pregnant girls. I suggest more focus on the common prevention tools for ALL--birth control.
Monday, December 9, 2013
Fire some people
Then, arrest them. Throw them in jail and walk away.
http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/atf-uses-rogue-tactics-in-storefront-stings-across-the-nation-b99146765z1-234916641.html
http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/atf-uses-rogue-tactics-in-storefront-stings-across-the-nation-b99146765z1-234916641.html
Thursday, December 5, 2013
Leading a person to reason...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
In this week's Wiregrass Farmer is a letter which I knew was going to spark much controversy. I do not post the letter here because I do not have the writer's permission. You can read it online if you have a subscription, get a printed copy of the paper or just continue to wonder what he said.
What he said is less important than what he said.
Yes, I know that doesn't make sense. Lemme 'splain.
The writer was trying to make a point about racism. In my opinion, he didn't succeed very well. Again, in my opinion he also makes some extremely sweeping statements that eliminate anything useful in his argument. He points to this website www.waronthehorizon.com as a website representing the views of "95 percent" of a group of people numbering in the millions. He is not, never has been and can never be one of those millions.
He cannot responsibly speak for those millions either. Doesn't mean he can't try.
The newspaper's FB feed has received a few comments. It has certainly not blown up. Another feed on a reader's page (which I do not link to because I do not have her permission) had a bit more commentary.
The majority of the comments said the letter should not appear in a community newspaper. The chief reason given is that the letter was offensive.
Really? How? Why? The writer was not profane. He was not obscene. He was not libelous. He agreed to have his name attached to the letter. He expressed his opinion in simple, plain language.
I really do know why it was offensive. He offered an unpopular opinion. He did it in a public forum. Ergo, people with thin skin were offended.
Lemme step on some more toes at about neck level.
Those who were offended and say such letters should not be published say that because they don't bother to think. They run strictly off emotions.
I have asked readers to suggest letters to the editor policy updates. No one has offered suggestions. If you have some ideas for me, consider these questions:
• Do you want to be fair to everyone?
• If you only publish letters you agree with, are you being fair to everyone?
• Who determines if the letter is offensive?
• What is the threshold for offending people before a letter should not be published?
• Does the Second Amendment apply only to popular opinions? Does it apply to unpopular opinions too?
• What gives you the right to tell someone he can't express his opinion in a public forum?
If you just say "I'm offended and you shouldn't publish that" then you have no right to express that kind of opinion in a public forum.
I am only applying your rule to you.
Lemme take my boot off someone's neck for a moment.
Think. When you do, you quickly realize this letter was extremely important.
If I am to NOT publish letters which may offend someone, we might as well not publish any letters to the editor. None. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada. I can guarantee you that any letter I publish is going to offend someone somewhere. I've seen it happen time and time and time again. An innocuous letter gets published. The next day my phone rings. The caller is incoherent with rage over the letter. It goes beyond letters too.
Sometimes, the rage goes farther.
Make sense? Nope. But people are more ruled by emotion than logic.
One of the newspaper's columnist's work was also mentioned in a comment. This comment said 90 percent of this columnist's work is racist. Again a sweeping statement that destroys any cogency in the remaining post, at least in my opinion.
In the BEST comment of the series, a reader said the columnist (and by unspoken extension the letter writer) gives people a look into the mindset of part of our community he would otherwise never get to see or understand. He appreciates that.
Brilliant.
So I ask you this: What gives you the right to restrict information and knowledge? Especially information that tells you how other people think. If you believe how other people think is not important, then you must love the federal government and absolutely everything it does.
So now, I tell you again, what he said is less important that what he said. The words on the page (what he said) are nothing when compared to the insight offered into the weltanschauung (what he said) he and other people share.
There are plenty of people who will attack and insult me, rather than honestly answer the questions I honestly pose above. Which just further proves another point: You can lead a person to reason, but you can't make him think.
I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.Voltaire
Jan. 31, 2013, I proved how far I'll go to protect your right to free speech. If you are one of those who doesn't believe I should post inflammatory letters to the editor, will you stand next to me when the bullets are flying?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
In this week's Wiregrass Farmer is a letter which I knew was going to spark much controversy. I do not post the letter here because I do not have the writer's permission. You can read it online if you have a subscription, get a printed copy of the paper or just continue to wonder what he said.
What he said is less important than what he said.
Yes, I know that doesn't make sense. Lemme 'splain.
The writer was trying to make a point about racism. In my opinion, he didn't succeed very well. Again, in my opinion he also makes some extremely sweeping statements that eliminate anything useful in his argument. He points to this website www.waronthehorizon.com as a website representing the views of "95 percent" of a group of people numbering in the millions. He is not, never has been and can never be one of those millions.
He cannot responsibly speak for those millions either. Doesn't mean he can't try.
The newspaper's FB feed has received a few comments. It has certainly not blown up. Another feed on a reader's page (which I do not link to because I do not have her permission) had a bit more commentary.
The majority of the comments said the letter should not appear in a community newspaper. The chief reason given is that the letter was offensive.
Really? How? Why? The writer was not profane. He was not obscene. He was not libelous. He agreed to have his name attached to the letter. He expressed his opinion in simple, plain language.
I really do know why it was offensive. He offered an unpopular opinion. He did it in a public forum. Ergo, people with thin skin were offended.
Lemme step on some more toes at about neck level.
Those who were offended and say such letters should not be published say that because they don't bother to think. They run strictly off emotions.
I have asked readers to suggest letters to the editor policy updates. No one has offered suggestions. If you have some ideas for me, consider these questions:
• Do you want to be fair to everyone?
• If you only publish letters you agree with, are you being fair to everyone?
• Who determines if the letter is offensive?
• What is the threshold for offending people before a letter should not be published?
• Does the Second Amendment apply only to popular opinions? Does it apply to unpopular opinions too?
• What gives you the right to tell someone he can't express his opinion in a public forum?
If you just say "I'm offended and you shouldn't publish that" then you have no right to express that kind of opinion in a public forum.
I am only applying your rule to you.
Lemme take my boot off someone's neck for a moment.
Think. When you do, you quickly realize this letter was extremely important.
If I am to NOT publish letters which may offend someone, we might as well not publish any letters to the editor. None. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada. I can guarantee you that any letter I publish is going to offend someone somewhere. I've seen it happen time and time and time again. An innocuous letter gets published. The next day my phone rings. The caller is incoherent with rage over the letter. It goes beyond letters too.
Sometimes, the rage goes farther.
Make sense? Nope. But people are more ruled by emotion than logic.
One of the newspaper's columnist's work was also mentioned in a comment. This comment said 90 percent of this columnist's work is racist. Again a sweeping statement that destroys any cogency in the remaining post, at least in my opinion.
In the BEST comment of the series, a reader said the columnist (and by unspoken extension the letter writer) gives people a look into the mindset of part of our community he would otherwise never get to see or understand. He appreciates that.
Brilliant.
So I ask you this: What gives you the right to restrict information and knowledge? Especially information that tells you how other people think. If you believe how other people think is not important, then you must love the federal government and absolutely everything it does.
So now, I tell you again, what he said is less important that what he said. The words on the page (what he said) are nothing when compared to the insight offered into the weltanschauung (what he said) he and other people share.
There are plenty of people who will attack and insult me, rather than honestly answer the questions I honestly pose above. Which just further proves another point: You can lead a person to reason, but you can't make him think.
I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.Voltaire
Jan. 31, 2013, I proved how far I'll go to protect your right to free speech. If you are one of those who doesn't believe I should post inflammatory letters to the editor, will you stand next to me when the bullets are flying?
Wednesday, December 4, 2013
Government, church legalizes prostitution across the world
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
That headline is not a typo. It is not an error. It is a fact.
Stone. Cold. Solid. Fact.
Regular readers of this blog have sense enough to not call me a liar. They will keep reading to see what kinda point I am gonna make. For the new people reading, you may call me a fabricator of fantasy and say the US federal, every state and local government with that power, Canadian and other governments have not legalized prostitution nor has any church.
Wanna bet? Betcha I can out-monkey wrench you...
A formality first. There are two kinds of law under discussion here:
• Government fiat law. This is law those running government make.
• Ecclesiastic law. Law of the church.
M'kay? Monkey wrench time - Sometimes the two are the same.
Now, define prostitution. I'll help ya. Google's first result:
1) the practice or occupation of engaging in sexual activity with someone for payment.
2) the unworthy or corrupt use of one's talents for the sake of personal or financial gain.
Synonyms. the sex trade, the sex industry, whoring, streetwalking, sex tourism; the oldest profession, hooking, hustling;
Let's stick with the first definition.
Here's the where yer gonna need some lube (heh heh) and the next monkey wrench.
Two people have sex. At some point money is exchanged.
Is this prostitution? Are you sure?
MW time. The two people are married and have sex one night. The next morning Partner A gives Partner B $20.
Prostitution?
"Baker, yer not being fair. You didn't state they were married."
Ok. They are not married, according to government law. Prostitution?
Here flies another Primate Hand Tool. What about Mormon marriages in which one man has multiple wives? Statutory law says this is illegal, but case law says statutory law can take a flying leap. The First Amendment covers that one. Under ecclesiastic law, they are married.
Posit they are not married under any law. Partner A gives Partner B money. Prostitution? Monkey wrench. What if they are living together and share the expenses of running a household?
Lean this way. I have another monkey wrench. What is "payment?" Cash? Moola? Deniro? Dead presidents? Certainly. As Grandpa called 'em, here's a Stilson Wrench. Can payment be something else? It certainly can for me. I have performed various kinds of work and received food, guns, fishing gear etc etc etc instead of money.
So define payment as "cash, goods or services received in exchange for something." That "something" can be anything, including cash, goods and services. And sex. Yes indeedy! Sex!"
Cash for sex. Simple enough.
Lemme monkey wrench you again.
Partner A and Partner B are married. This is a heterosexual marriage performed in a church by a genuine minister with the necessary state licenses properly obtained, filled out and recorded. As married as two people can get.
They make the beast with two backs. Is this prostitution?
"Baker, you are a blithering idiot. Of course not." At least some of you are thinking that. Some veteran readers are waiting for the Howler Monkey Wrench to come flying through space.
Some people get and stay married for the security and benefits a marriage provides. This can be economic (money), emotional, mental, physical or some other form of benefit and security. Whether or not these people like sex, they have sex in order to preserve the marriage. In other words, these people are exchanging sex for a "something" which can include money.
No sex, no "something."
Is this prostitution? Sex is being exchanged for money. They may be married, but the base equation remains.
What's the real difference between a person who has sex with many people for money to make a living and one person who has sex with one person for money to make a living?
Governments around the world and every church I know sanctions unions
between two people for strictly economic reasons. Money is why they got
married. One has it and one doesn't. No money, no marriage. Sex for money.
How many people does one person have to sleep with, in exchange for money, before that person is a prostitute? How much money must change hands?
Reality says we've already established who is and who ain't a prostitute. Now we're just negotiating a price.
Reality says prostitution is, was and will be legal. Some folks can't handle reality.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
That headline is not a typo. It is not an error. It is a fact.
Stone. Cold. Solid. Fact.
Regular readers of this blog have sense enough to not call me a liar. They will keep reading to see what kinda point I am gonna make. For the new people reading, you may call me a fabricator of fantasy and say the US federal, every state and local government with that power, Canadian and other governments have not legalized prostitution nor has any church.
Wanna bet? Betcha I can out-monkey wrench you...
A formality first. There are two kinds of law under discussion here:
• Government fiat law. This is law those running government make.
• Ecclesiastic law. Law of the church.
M'kay? Monkey wrench time - Sometimes the two are the same.
Now, define prostitution. I'll help ya. Google's first result:
pros·ti·tu·tionˌ prästəˈt(y)o͞oSHən/
noun: prostitution - 1) the practice or occupation of engaging in sexual activity with someone for payment.
2) the unworthy or corrupt use of one's talents for the sake of personal or financial gain.
Synonyms. the sex trade, the sex industry, whoring, streetwalking, sex tourism; the oldest profession, hooking, hustling;
Let's stick with the first definition.
Here's the where yer gonna need some lube (heh heh) and the next monkey wrench.
Two people have sex. At some point money is exchanged.
Is this prostitution? Are you sure?
MW time. The two people are married and have sex one night. The next morning Partner A gives Partner B $20.
Prostitution?
"Baker, yer not being fair. You didn't state they were married."
Ok. They are not married, according to government law. Prostitution?
Here flies another Primate Hand Tool. What about Mormon marriages in which one man has multiple wives? Statutory law says this is illegal, but case law says statutory law can take a flying leap. The First Amendment covers that one. Under ecclesiastic law, they are married.
Posit they are not married under any law. Partner A gives Partner B money. Prostitution? Monkey wrench. What if they are living together and share the expenses of running a household?
Lean this way. I have another monkey wrench. What is "payment?" Cash? Moola? Deniro? Dead presidents? Certainly. As Grandpa called 'em, here's a Stilson Wrench. Can payment be something else? It certainly can for me. I have performed various kinds of work and received food, guns, fishing gear etc etc etc instead of money.
So define payment as "cash, goods or services received in exchange for something." That "something" can be anything, including cash, goods and services. And sex. Yes indeedy! Sex!"
Cash for sex. Simple enough.
Lemme monkey wrench you again.
Partner A and Partner B are married. This is a heterosexual marriage performed in a church by a genuine minister with the necessary state licenses properly obtained, filled out and recorded. As married as two people can get.
They make the beast with two backs. Is this prostitution?
"Baker, you are a blithering idiot. Of course not." At least some of you are thinking that. Some veteran readers are waiting for the Howler Monkey Wrench to come flying through space.
Some people get and stay married for the security and benefits a marriage provides. This can be economic (money), emotional, mental, physical or some other form of benefit and security. Whether or not these people like sex, they have sex in order to preserve the marriage. In other words, these people are exchanging sex for a "something" which can include money.
No sex, no "something."
Is this prostitution? Sex is being exchanged for money. They may be married, but the base equation remains.
What's the real difference between a person who has sex with many people for money to make a living and one person who has sex with one person for money to make a living?
 |
| Anna Nicole Smith (dead) and her equally dead husband. |
How many people does one person have to sleep with, in exchange for money, before that person is a prostitute? How much money must change hands?
Reality says we've already established who is and who ain't a prostitute. Now we're just negotiating a price.
Reality says prostitution is, was and will be legal. Some folks can't handle reality.
Tuesday, December 3, 2013
A conflict of rights
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Telling you up front, as I write this piece I am the very definition of ambivalent.
Here's the issue. Here's my double-minded status:
• Does the hospital, being a Catholic operation, and its physicians have the right to conduct its (their) medical practice according to its (their) religious beliefs?
• Does a patient in an emergency situation like this, have the right to expect the best care and information from the medical providers?
Here's a monkey wrench: The Hippocratic Oath. Please click this link and read the traditional and modern versions of the oath. There's QUITE a difference. The statement "first, do no harm," is not found in either oath.
Arg. Arg. Arg. Arg. Arg.
How many doctors today actually take this oath? According to the PBS report (link above), the oath is not universal. It is nearly so and the number of docs in the US taking the oath has risen steadily over the years. Posit the doc takes the oath. We're now left with the question of "what does the oath really mean to the doctor?" That's something else I can't answer. F'dangit.
So on this specific case above I'm still fence straddling. I also have some questions which will never be answered in the media. Maybe not even in court. As this is a case of policy, it's going to court.
• Why did the woman miscarry? Was she using any substances which could cause miscarriage and harm the baby?• Was she getting any prenatal care and from whom?
• Where's dad?
• What's the doc's opinion on abortion, et al?
• If the doc had been in a non-religious hospital, what would he have done?
• If the doc has issues with the religion-based restrictions, what's he doing working there in the first place?
I do have one thing to say about this matter. Lawyers are killing medicine. Brain surgeons in southern Nevada quit doing trauma brain surgery because they were constantly being sued. Get a bad head injury in Vegas and you're SOL unless you can be shipped over to California. I have known a number of docs who left medicine because they were sued.
It's one thing to sue someone for doing something wrong. It's entirely another case to sue because you don't like what happened. I suspect most malpractice cases are a matter of not liking what happened.
I wish there was a way to vet patients when they go into a hospital. If the patient is an attorney with a stack of malpractice suits, kick his posterior to the curb.
Here's a MAJOR issue: "Catholic hospitals account for about one in six of the country’s hospital beds and in many regions their influence is spreading as they forge alliances with non-Catholic medical groups."
And a quote from Wiki, which is footnoted: "In modern times, the Catholic Church is the largest non-government provider of health care in the world. Catholic religious have been responsible for founding and running networks of hospitals across the world where medical research continues to be advanced."
Lemme pile this on: "In 2012, the church operated 12.6% of hospitals in the USA, accounting for 15.6% of all admissions, and around 14.5% of hospital expenses (c. 98.6 billion dollars). Compared to the public system, the church provided greater financial assistance or free care to poor patients, and was a leading provider of various low-profit health services such as breast cancer screenings, nutrition programs, trauma, and care of the elderly."
Aside - if you have a problem with the Catholic church running hospitals, do not go to those hospitals.
That's a LOT of hospital beds and a LOT of free care. I'm willing to bet the lady in question was getting free care. If it's free, what right do you have to complain about it?
Which brings me to another question: What happens if the lady's lawyers win and the hospitals are forced to go against their religious precepts? More chilling, what if the Catholic church decides to shut down its hospitals if this happens?
You cannot justifiably say some other group will step in to run the hospital. Fact is hospitals are shutting down all over the place and nothing is taking their place: "It was a tragedy that stunned a small Texas town: 18-month-old Edith Gonzales, a grape lodged in her tiny throat, died in her desperate parents’ arms because the county’s only hospital and emergency room had closed for good a few months earlier."
It's quite likely lawyers were not the direct cause of the Texas hospital shutting down. May be lawyers they had nothing to do with it. The fact remains malpractice suits are on the rise and have been rising for years.
The Texas hospital closed, probably, for the same reason so many others close. Not enough money coming into keep the doors open.
My county has been without a hospital for nearly 23 years. Lack of money is why it closed. We have one doctor's clinic. Used to have two. One closed a few months ago, finances again, which I attribute to mismanagement on the part of the owning hospital's administration and not actual health care issues.
Back to the OP. The real question here is whose rights and which rights are more important. The libertarian streak in me says doctors and hospitals have a right to to have policies like those created by the Catholic church, especially if it's free. Ya don't like it, don't go there.
The practical part of me that says in emergencies you take what you get. Doctors should do their best, even if it's free.
Both sides of me say the medical malpractice lawsuit system needs serious reform. Both sides of me also say people need to take personal responsibility for their actions.
Beyond that, I just ain't got an answer for you.
You don't want gender equality
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
How many of my three readers say they want true equality and parity between men and women? As in each is treated exactly the same regardless of gender.
Last night I posed this question on FB. Everyone who replied as of this column is opposed to the idea.
The ladies, especially, said they are not in favor of parity and equality. They all said they prefer to be treated better than men.
This does not surprise me.
Being a man, I know how we treat each other. The women I know would not appreciate this treatment. If a woman was treated, by a man, the same way he treats his men friends, yeah well.
Let's go ahead and dispense with the biological stuff that says men and women are not equal. Hygiene is a major issue. Women require more of it because of the menstrual cycle. Women get pregnant. Men don't. Men are stronger. The world's strongest woman cannot compete with the world's strongest man one to one. Men are faster; human-powered speed records are held by men. Men are taller, on average. And so on.
So, true parity is impossible.
"That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to treat men and women equally," someone will say.
Someone also needs to think a bit longer. Or, more likely, think in the first place.
Should the idea of parity be carried out everywhere possible? I point to the recent addition of women in recognized combat roles. I stress recognized 'cause I've interviewed ladies in the military who were in combat and inflicted casualties on the opposition (not enemy. Opposition). I decline to offer an opinion on this right now. I have opined in the past in this forum.
Back in the early 90s, a female reporter got a bit bent when she was in a pro sports locker room after the game and one of the players, completely nude, waggled his wedding tackle at her and suggested a romp. This created quite an uproar.
The player's action is EXACTLY what men do in locker rooms. To each other. You'll have to ask some pysch types for the possible reasons behind this, but it is what men do. You do not have to like it nor understand it. I offer no opinion on this activity.
I clearly remember at the time being irked for a different reason. I reasoned if women were allowed in men's locker rooms, male reporters should be allowed access to the women's locker rooms. I still have that opinion. Whither parity?
How many of you support this idea? I remind you that once you start carving out exceptions, then you have broken the rule. Further, if you still insist on equality and parity, when you hack those exceptions off, you grant others the right to do the exact same thing.
So here's another question for you who support gender equality. Should we house violent male and female criminals together? Should we house male and female criminals together, period?
Ah so. And so the idea of gender equality crashes into the wall of reality and disintegrates.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
How many of my three readers say they want true equality and parity between men and women? As in each is treated exactly the same regardless of gender.
Last night I posed this question on FB. Everyone who replied as of this column is opposed to the idea.
The ladies, especially, said they are not in favor of parity and equality. They all said they prefer to be treated better than men.
This does not surprise me.
Being a man, I know how we treat each other. The women I know would not appreciate this treatment. If a woman was treated, by a man, the same way he treats his men friends, yeah well.
Let's go ahead and dispense with the biological stuff that says men and women are not equal. Hygiene is a major issue. Women require more of it because of the menstrual cycle. Women get pregnant. Men don't. Men are stronger. The world's strongest woman cannot compete with the world's strongest man one to one. Men are faster; human-powered speed records are held by men. Men are taller, on average. And so on.
So, true parity is impossible.
"That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to treat men and women equally," someone will say.
 |
| Cognitive dissonance, rather. |
Should the idea of parity be carried out everywhere possible? I point to the recent addition of women in recognized combat roles. I stress recognized 'cause I've interviewed ladies in the military who were in combat and inflicted casualties on the opposition (not enemy. Opposition). I decline to offer an opinion on this right now. I have opined in the past in this forum.
Back in the early 90s, a female reporter got a bit bent when she was in a pro sports locker room after the game and one of the players, completely nude, waggled his wedding tackle at her and suggested a romp. This created quite an uproar.
The player's action is EXACTLY what men do in locker rooms. To each other. You'll have to ask some pysch types for the possible reasons behind this, but it is what men do. You do not have to like it nor understand it. I offer no opinion on this activity.
I clearly remember at the time being irked for a different reason. I reasoned if women were allowed in men's locker rooms, male reporters should be allowed access to the women's locker rooms. I still have that opinion. Whither parity?
How many of you support this idea? I remind you that once you start carving out exceptions, then you have broken the rule. Further, if you still insist on equality and parity, when you hack those exceptions off, you grant others the right to do the exact same thing.
So here's another question for you who support gender equality. Should we house violent male and female criminals together? Should we house male and female criminals together, period?
Ah so. And so the idea of gender equality crashes into the wall of reality and disintegrates.
 |
| And here's yer dose of reality. |
Friday, November 29, 2013
Never let facts get in the way
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Probably you've heard that Melissa Bachman, a TV personality and hunter, has killed a lion in Africa. If not, you've now heard.
The first news I got of this was a screaming headline stating Bachman "killed a lion on Facebook and Twitter." I am not kidding. You might be able to imagine my amazement. Huge predator cats are now stalking in Facebook and Twitter and can be hunted there? SIGN ME UP!
Snark aside. Not really, more on the way. I just felt like saying that.
In case you wonder, I do not want to kill a lion. Just not my thang. I do want to kill a Cape Buffalo and a warthog.
Bachman killed a lion. Parts of the world are now outraged. Why? This guy and some others called Bachman a coward. You'll note all these people said this from a vehicle or another place of safety. None of them got out of the vehicle and approached a lion on foot. You can tell they've never done this because they are still alive.
Lemme just note also - when you resort to insulting the other side in a debate, you lose.
You can see repeated videos of lion hunts on YouTube. These vids do spark outrage from anti hunters. But nothing like the furor over Bachman. Why the outrage? I really do not know. Baffled, I am. Why aren't all these people raising hell about all the other lion hunting? Aside from complaining, what are they doing to protect the lions and help the people who live in lion territory?
Ah so.
You may be one who decries lion hunting. I then ask again what are you doing to protect these beasts? "Whenever I donate a hunting trip for the Children's Leukemia Foundation, Ronald McDonald Cancer House, all these children's charities, I offer the anti-hunters an opportunity: if you donate more to the children's charity than the hunters donate we won't go hunting." Ted Nugent. So far Ted has yet to cancel a hunt. Why?
Does hunting lions actually protect them? Some in Africa say yes. I personally find it very hard to argue with someone whose feet on are on the ground being discussed and who has far far far more knowledge about the situation than I do. "If you want to save a species, simply decide to eat it. Then it will be managed - like chickens, like turkeys, like deer, like Canadian geese." Ted Nugent.
I can't find hard numbers of the number of lions killed every year. I can state killers are hunters who pay big bucks for the privilege, natives who protect their livestock, ritual killings, each other, starvation and natural causes. Lions are killed by poisoning by ranchers, BTW. In every article I read about lions, killing and their decline, loss of habitat and human-lion conflict were mentioned every time.
Hrm.
Humans and wildlife can coexist. There's two ways to do this. 1) When the wildlife is managed per human wishes. This means killing 'em when they "get out of hand." Wildlife does not reason and cannot be reasoned with. Wildlife is interested in procreating and eating. 2) According to an unmodified natural order. I have yet to meet a human willing to live according to the wildlife's way of life. In other words, a human would have to accept an unmodified place in the food chain. Everyone who complains about lion hunters is hereby cordially invited to live with wild lions on the lions' terms. There won't be enough left of you to bury. You're lunch.
There is no third option. Ideas like birth control, sterilization and so forth are part of Option 1 and when it does not work, the guns and bows and poison come out.
In another thing I don't understand, the anti hunting crowd is threatening to kill the hunters. Anti's have on several occasions threatened to kill me. I am not kidding. This is bizarre. The anti's are opposed to killing and yet are threatening to kill? Further, they generally have little to no idea how to use weapons and they claim to want to tangle with people who know how to kill. Huhn? Color me confused. Meantime, if you're one of this crowd, tell me when and where you'd like to meet to settle this.
Some facts, which I am SURE the haters will not let get in the way:
Lions kill people. I am not complaining. Merely stating facts. Lions eat meat. While the Bible says the Lion will lay down with the Lamb, getting the big cats to eat grass and survive on it ain't gonna happen short of a miracle. While big cats occasionally "adopt" a prey animal, they do eat it within a few days.
You can buy lion meat. Purty 'spensive, but hey, you can do it. I'd eat it. If you eat meat and you object to this, I must ask why.
You can say a lion can be photographed over and over again, generating fees each time while a lion kill results in a one-time payment. Yup. I again point you to the lion poisoning, livestock protection killing and ritual killings. No fees are generated by this and a lion is still dead. As long as Africa's population grows, lions are going to be in increasing conflict with humans. See Options 1 and 2 above.
The simple truth is when human and wildlife collide, wildlife dies.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Probably you've heard that Melissa Bachman, a TV personality and hunter, has killed a lion in Africa. If not, you've now heard.
 |
| A good trophy for Ms. Bachman. |
Snark aside. Not really, more on the way. I just felt like saying that.
In case you wonder, I do not want to kill a lion. Just not my thang. I do want to kill a Cape Buffalo and a warthog.
Bachman killed a lion. Parts of the world are now outraged. Why? This guy and some others called Bachman a coward. You'll note all these people said this from a vehicle or another place of safety. None of them got out of the vehicle and approached a lion on foot. You can tell they've never done this because they are still alive.
Lemme just note also - when you resort to insulting the other side in a debate, you lose.
You can see repeated videos of lion hunts on YouTube. These vids do spark outrage from anti hunters. But nothing like the furor over Bachman. Why the outrage? I really do not know. Baffled, I am. Why aren't all these people raising hell about all the other lion hunting? Aside from complaining, what are they doing to protect the lions and help the people who live in lion territory?
Ah so.
You may be one who decries lion hunting. I then ask again what are you doing to protect these beasts? "Whenever I donate a hunting trip for the Children's Leukemia Foundation, Ronald McDonald Cancer House, all these children's charities, I offer the anti-hunters an opportunity: if you donate more to the children's charity than the hunters donate we won't go hunting." Ted Nugent. So far Ted has yet to cancel a hunt. Why?
Does hunting lions actually protect them? Some in Africa say yes. I personally find it very hard to argue with someone whose feet on are on the ground being discussed and who has far far far more knowledge about the situation than I do. "If you want to save a species, simply decide to eat it. Then it will be managed - like chickens, like turkeys, like deer, like Canadian geese." Ted Nugent.
 |
| Habitat loss. And where do YOU live? |
Hrm.
Humans and wildlife can coexist. There's two ways to do this. 1) When the wildlife is managed per human wishes. This means killing 'em when they "get out of hand." Wildlife does not reason and cannot be reasoned with. Wildlife is interested in procreating and eating. 2) According to an unmodified natural order. I have yet to meet a human willing to live according to the wildlife's way of life. In other words, a human would have to accept an unmodified place in the food chain. Everyone who complains about lion hunters is hereby cordially invited to live with wild lions on the lions' terms. There won't be enough left of you to bury. You're lunch.
There is no third option. Ideas like birth control, sterilization and so forth are part of Option 1 and when it does not work, the guns and bows and poison come out.
In another thing I don't understand, the anti hunting crowd is threatening to kill the hunters. Anti's have on several occasions threatened to kill me. I am not kidding. This is bizarre. The anti's are opposed to killing and yet are threatening to kill? Further, they generally have little to no idea how to use weapons and they claim to want to tangle with people who know how to kill. Huhn? Color me confused. Meantime, if you're one of this crowd, tell me when and where you'd like to meet to settle this.
Lions kill people. I am not complaining. Merely stating facts. Lions eat meat. While the Bible says the Lion will lay down with the Lamb, getting the big cats to eat grass and survive on it ain't gonna happen short of a miracle. While big cats occasionally "adopt" a prey animal, they do eat it within a few days.
You can buy lion meat. Purty 'spensive, but hey, you can do it. I'd eat it. If you eat meat and you object to this, I must ask why.
If
you want to save a species, simply decide to eat it. Then it will be
managed - like chickens, like turkeys, like deer, like Canadian geese.
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/tednugent189511.html#G9JJORbvAbre3jK5.99
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/tednugent189511.html#G9JJORbvAbre3jK5.99
If
you want to save a species, simply decide to eat it. Then it will be
managed - like chickens, like turkeys, like deer, like Canadian geese.
Ted Nugent
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/t/ted_nugent.html#RJl3x816Oic8BX5F.99
Ted Nugent
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/t/ted_nugent.html#RJl3x816Oic8BX5F.99
If
you want to save a species, simply decide to eat it. Then it will be
managed - like chickens, like turkeys, like deer, like Canadian geese.
Ted Nugent
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/t/ted_nugent.html#RJl3x816Oic8BX5F.99
Ted Nugent
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/t/ted_nugent.html#RJl3x816Oic8BX5F.99
If
you want to save a species, simply decide to eat it. Then it will be
managed - like chickens, like turkeys, like deer, like Canadian geese.
Ted Nugent
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/t/ted_nugent.html#RJl3x816Oic8BX5F.99
Lion hunts ain't cheap. A lion like Bachman killed is gonna run more than $20,000. This website lists ONLY the cost of the hunt package. It does not list the tips you are expected to pay and other fees not included. The lion feeds local villagers who also get to partake of the license fees and earn tips for helping with the hunt. Photo safaris run less than $2,000 per person. I'll also betcha the guide on these trips packs a gun just in case. And, I have yet to see anyone on a photo safari get within 30 yards on foot of a wild lion. It's dangerous.Ted Nugent
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/t/ted_nugent.html#RJl3x816Oic8BX5F.99
You can say a lion can be photographed over and over again, generating fees each time while a lion kill results in a one-time payment. Yup. I again point you to the lion poisoning, livestock protection killing and ritual killings. No fees are generated by this and a lion is still dead. As long as Africa's population grows, lions are going to be in increasing conflict with humans. See Options 1 and 2 above.
The simple truth is when human and wildlife collide, wildlife dies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)