Looking for logic and finding rhetoric

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
In general when looking up something on the internet, I can find it in less than three minutes. Not that I'm a search engine genius or such, but I know how to research. It's how I make my living.

Hit & run...

For a couple of days I've been mulling a blog topic which required what I thought was going to be hit & run research. I fired up Google and typed in my search parameters.

All my hits are for the wrong side of the debate. Well, not the wrong side. My side. This time, I wanted the other side of the debate. I got nada.

I reset my search engine terms. Hit enter. Same results. Rinse & repeat. Insert choice of profanities here.

I have heard, and seen, how search engines are tailoring results now to what a person has searched in the past. In other words, Google directs you to sites it thinks you'll want. Good idea in part, but this also means Google steers you away from sites it doesn't think you will like or sites which you've shown no interest in.

This is disturbing. It means people are searching for stuff and by a wide margin, only finding information which supports what they already know, believe and so on. Sites with opposing information are not listed or appear so far down in the results that it doesn't matter.

One of the fastest routes to cognitive dissonance is to only listen to people you agree with.

From a general political point of view, Cantservatives epitomize this. Again in general terms, Liarberals at least will listen to other points of view, witness the huge audience Rush Limbaugh has (had?) of liberals who raise their blood pressure listening to him.

So I continue my search, looking for the side of the debate which I disagree with. Ten minutes in and I have some some websites, but none which offer rational states. Each one fires up rhetoric. The few sites I find without rhetoric have no substance, no facts and have generic information about the group holding that point of view.

Except two. The two sites I do find attempt to present facts, but the falsehoods, distortions, outright manipulations and emotionally laden rhetoric render their information next to useless for what I want.

You make me ashamed to agree with you...

So, to be fair, I switched and begin a search for the same kind of information for the side of the debate I support.

Yep.

A couple of places say they present real facts, undistorted, unmanipulated and stripped of emotional reaction.

F'dang. Refer to picture at right again.

As I write, I am reminded a human being is not a Vulcan. Humans are ruled by emotion. Logic takes a distant back seat, if there are even seats left on this bus, to temper.

And so, I leave you today with a rather ambiguous post and a detailed post at the same time. As for the topic which inspired this search and resulting rant, you'll just have to keep wondering until I can get some solid and undistorted facts in hand - from both sides.

But in hopes of leaving you happy, enjoy this last picture.

Bacon & egg cupcakes.

In fear of absolutism

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
A few things scare me. Some more than others. One which does scare me is an absolutist.

This is one area where I really appreciate the true scientist. The true scientist says "I can state this, because of observations and available information. If more observation and information becomes available, I may have to change."

That means the scientist is open to reason. A person who is open to reason is safe, well fairly safe.

Wild boars cannot be reasoned with.

A dogmatic absolutist is not safe and I do not care what side of the divide the person falls on. A dogmatic absolutist blows himself up and takes other with him in hopes of getting to his version of paradise. You can take that literally or figuratively.

An absolutists believes he knows what is right for someone else. That scares me beyond measure.

Such people are liarberals, cantservatives, Reboobicans, Damnocrats and whatever other political persuasion and party you care to insert. They all believe they know what is best and everyone should toe that line.

I don't quite understand that.

I do not recall ceding control of my life to anyone. I do recall making some compromises. For instance, I have agreed to get a license so I may drive Purple Haze, my motorcycle. I have further made other compromises so that I may drive my truck, car and a school bus (which no doubt scares a lot more people).
I do not like all the compromises I have made in order to drive, but at the same time I'm quite certain those on the other side are less than happy about me being behind the wheel or handlebars.

These are my choices. I can opt to not drive a motorized vehicle in which case I need not have a license.

There are lots of other compromises I make. The point is I have a choice. I can make the compromise or not.

If the balance is too far out of sync or beyond my willingness to meet the other side, I refuse.

That, at least to my thinking, is fair. I'm in a minority there.

Not just in physics...

When someone else forces me to make a compromise, then it is not a compromise. It is an unjust, unethical and should be illegal use of force. Force also comes in more flavors than physical. It can be economic, mental, emotional, social, etc. This is absolutism. These people tell me, "It is my way, or no way." No way, in this case, also results in the use of force, which is more absolutism.

I have long said we attack that which we fear. I view this as a defensive attack, yes sometimes pre-emptive.

I fear absolutists and absolutism because of how I perceive them to be a threat to me. I attack them. I will continue to do so. With each attack, I will weigh the strength and effect of the attack against potential and possible reprisal. In this too, I must compromise.

Good hysteria!

You may call me an absolutists because of that position, but I wish to add the following:

I also fear absolutism because there is no consistency.  The rules are applied with massive inequity. What works here, according to an absolutist, may not work here and that's all which will be said. There can be no discussion.

Why? Absolutism is based on hysteria and there can be no reasoning with the hysterical. Hysteria sees exactly what is not there and cannot be convinced otherwise. I said and I meant "exactly what is not there."

Someone else will point out one of my favorite Bible verses - A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways. Troo Dat. But a person who is willing to accept new information is not double-minded.

I accept new information. That I do not like the new information is irrelevant. Reality will not reorder itself because I object.

Absolutists don't get that. This is another reason I fear them.

Breaking on the wall of equality

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The idea that the US is now going to put women into combat roles has many people on both sides of the issue up in arms, enjoy the pun.

Me? Aside from being opposed to war, I have no problem in seeing a lady take up weaponry. It happens every day in this nation. It happens daily in the small Southern town in which I live. We have ladies in the police department and the Sheriff's department and the state prison. If we are willing to let a woman pack and be part of a law enforcement agency and run the risk of being killed in the line duty, then why object to them serving in the military in combat roles?

A myriad of reasons. Women in LE get to go home at end of shift. Combat troops don't. Hygiene; if you don't think that's a problem, ask some 'Nam combat vet. Average physical ability; on average, men are stronger than women. Beyond average, even the world's strongest woman won't compare to the world's strongest man. There's a reason the world's strength and endurance records are held mostly by men.

And yadda yadda yadda.

Beyond that, women have been part of military forces for as long as the world has seen military forces. So neener, neener, neener.

What this comes down to, at least to me, is equal opportunity. I am firm believer in equality of opportunity. I believe everyone should have the right to try. I believe the rules should also be the same, no modifications whatsoever, if the goal is going to be the same.

If modifications are necessary to let someone try, then the goal should likewise be modified.

Someone here is going to scream that defeats the purpose. The purpose of what, I ask?

Equality! they will scream. That's what you just said you favored! they will yell.

No, I didn't. And while I'm here lemme state, again, for the record I do not believe in equality. It's a nice fantasy to have, but living in the real world as I do, I cannot accept the notion of equality. For instance, my son Jesse has a functional IQ of between 50 and 75. He is not the intellectual equal of a Rhodes Scholar and trying to make the two equal is beyond ludicrous.

I really don't even believe in equality of opportunity. I believe in a qualified equality of opportunity, i.e. when there is an intelligent chance of successfully reaching the goal. I believe it is beyond stupid to let a wheelchair-bound person attempt to compete in the Olympic High Jump trials. Letting that person compete, as I understand the Olympics, means a person who realistically can compete is prevented from doing so.

That's a forced equality resulting in inequality. I object.

But when it comes to women in the military, let 'em I say. Equality of opportunity with an intelligent chance of success. If they can hack it, great. I have interviewed ladies in our military who were in combat situations in everything but what our US military calls a combat engagement. Works for me.  Unfortunately in this case, equality of opportunity also means unequal opportunity to share the pain. Dang that reality! Still, if women are willing to face an expanded set of risks brought on by being part of a war combat force, good'un onya I say.

Fantasy world

The screaming problem with this is women who think they will be equal to men in war are delusional.

Say what, Baker? you ask.

Did you miss it? I said "expanded set of risks." It's that damned PIA thing called reality interjecting itself again. F'dang. Can't escape it.

There ain't no equality. Women prisoners of war are often subjected to different treatment than men. Far be it from me to say women couldn't handle the same treatment as men. But it will be different. Still, if they are willing to run that risk, let 'em. Just don't come howling at me when women are treated differently in combat by the opposition.

There ain't no equality and attempting to force equality is going to break the one forcing it. In this case, gonna be some women broken to pieces they will never conquer.

The monster under the bed

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

To some degree I can support this.

To a greater degree, I have to say this is also laughable.

Direct your attention to the 9-11 attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Among the people who say the Pentagon was not hit by a plane was a teenager, 13-15 years old as I remember. He had no formal training in engineering, no formal training in the construction of a building, the construction of a plane and so on. When he uploaded a video of himself saying how the Pentagon was not hit by a plane, his story was immediately hailed by conspiracy theorist as proof.

Mmph. If that's the kind of "expert" evidence you happen to rely on, then I suggest you sell your house because Bigfoot is living in the crawl spaces telepathically instructing you that waffles are nothing more than a government plot to make you quit eating bacon.

Other people who believe in conspiracies point to "government" documents which appear to be written on official government stationery but are more full of typos than a 7th grader's social study report. Someone with the actual ability to reason might point out such "reports" look like the work of a deranged mutant orangutan. The conspiracy theorists merely say this proves their point - the government is covering things up.

Which is not to say conspiracies do not exist. Ever heard of the West Point Mafia? I heard about it on NPR this morning. Indeed this may be a quite innocuous cabal, but it existed and it changed the way the military prosecutes war. War is defined by me as when the United States uses force against people in other countries.

Certainly conspiracies have existed in the past. MK Ultra. The Tuskegee experiments (oops. Government link there so can't trust it. So you look it up). The IRS. The CIA. To be sure there is plenty of reason to not trust the government. Can't trust the media either, so the conspiracy theorists say, never mind the mainstream media are the folks who discover most of the conspiracies. Sacrificial lambs and all that.

In the interests of conspiracy, I must report here than I am an active member of the US media corps and have been for 25 years, therefore according to the conspiracists I can't be trusted either.

 

Some days, I love being me.

I am, so a lot of people tell me, a critical thinker - when I want to be anyway. I am also an empiricist in a great many things. The combination journalist-thinker-realist makes me even more suspect to a lot of people in the conspiracy crowd because when they present their theories I ask for proof. When no solid proof is forthcoming, they say that's just further proof of their position because the government is hiding it.

Yet, when their own system of "logic" and "proof" is applied to views which contradict their own cherished beliefs, it has to be flawed. They have no problem in pointing out the flawed reasoning. Makes me wonder if that redwood tree stump they wear in the place of contact lenses is actually a telescope, obscuring that which is close up and magnifying that which is distant. I wonder if that makes it easier or harder to see the monster under the bed.

True critical thinking must also be applied to one's own belief structure. To reject this is to be be a conspiracy theorist.

Gratuitous bacon shot.

I have a nightmare

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Alphaeus Days, someone you have probably never heard of, now lives in the same town I live in. He was one of the honor escorts in the funeral procession of The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. His picture, in the honor escort, can be seen in the archives in Atlanta.

An opinion which separates me from Liarberals and Cantservatives

When I interviewed him, the Rev. Days said he believes MLK would be proud to see a "black" man as president of the United States.

I disagree.

I could be wrong where the Rev. Days' sentiment is concerned. I am most emphatically NOT wrong where that sentiment is expressed by a whole bunch of other people.

As I understand (misunderstand) the statement, the Rev. Days believes MLK would be pleased so see our current president in place simply because of his recent ethnic heritage. This may be a misconstruction of the Rev. Days opinion and if so, I most heartily apologize!

However, a lot of people believe that.

They are wrong.

MLK would not be happy to see our current president in the Oval Office simply because he is of very recent African descent.

MLK preached and lived acceptance based on the qualities a person presents and that person's abilities. He said people should be judged on how well they do what they can do.

If those who elected our current president did so because they believe in his character, MLK would be happy. But those who voted for him because of the color of his skin would greatly disappoint MLK.

I am raising a son with Down Syndrome. MLK would look at Jesse in the light of what he can do and how well he does that. He would not seek to compare Jesse to a researcher at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. He would also not consider Jesse in the light of his ancestry, an ancestry which includes abuse and slavery by MLK's ancestors.

Cannot speak to the website listed, but the toon is accurate.

Who your parents are was much less of an issue for MLK than what you are doing with your life.

MLK had a dream.

"But there is something that I must say to my people who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice. In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred."

MLK's dream has turned into a nightmare in too many places.

MLK had a dream.

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

 Too many people have tried to hijack this dream and turn it into a nightmare. MLK as I understand what he lived for, would reject these people too.

In at least one regard, MLK would certainly be ashamed of the current president. Our current president has expanded the US war effort into more countries while keeping us at war in the same places George Bush II put us in. I define war as when US government agents be they military or another armed branch use physical force against residents of another country in that country.

MLK was not totally opposed to war, as I understand him, but did feel the US had no business in promulgating war. "And when I hear them, though I often understand the source of their concern, I am nevertheless greatly saddened, for such questions mean that the inquirers have not really known me, my commitment or my calling. Indeed, their questions suggest that they do not know the world in which they live."

He may have been speaking about Vietnam, which was a "police action" and not a "declared war,' but his words ring ever true if you substitute Afghanistan, Korea, Iraq, Pakistan, Honduras, Mexico, Somalia, Yemen. "Now, it should be incandescently clear that no one who has any concern for the integrity and life of America today can ignore the present war. If America's soul becomes totally poisoned, part of the autopsy must read Vietnam. It can never be saved so long as it destroys the deepest hopes of men the world over. So it is that those of us who are yet determined that America will be are led down the path of protest and dissent, working for the health of our land."

MLK had a dream. It took less than 40 years to turn it into a nightmare.

Crunch time

.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Fred Eister, you don't know him but he's a preacher and sits on the Sycamore City Council, left a short while ago. We talked about killing people.

Also a punk band. Never listened to 'em.

Yes really.

He recalled a conversation he had many years ago with a young man who wanted a gun for home defense. Fred asked the man if he could kill someone.

Horrified, the man said he could not kill someone.

Fred told him he did not need a gun for home defense. He reasoned unless the man was actually willing to kill someone, a home defense gun was a greater danger to the man than to a would-be criminal.

Say on Say on.

When teaching Vicki to shoot, I told her to get a pump shotgun for home defense. The sound of a pump shotgun racking a round into the chamber is unmistakeable. It will cause a near fatal fecal hemorrhage in a criminal who has his wits about him.

If said criminal is lacking wits (an idiot or whacked on street corner prescriptions) and ignores the sound of the gun being loaded, then Vicki knows she is going to have to shoot and kill someone. She is willing to do that.

For that matter, so am I.

That's a two-way street.

Let me stress here. Neither Vicki, Fred nor I want to end someone's life. But if someone breaks into my house and hears the sound of my Mossberg cycling and keeps coming, then we're both committed. I have children in my house. I will protect them.

Could you kill someone?

I understand some people cannot do this. I do not understand why they cannot do this. If you are a parent and someone is trying to harm or kill your child, you won't fight back with deadly force?

I just don't get that.

What I do get is what Fred said. If you cannot bring yourself to end someone's life, then you have no business packing heat in self defense.

F'dang, f'dang, f'dang

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I have several thoughts today. All of which neatly come together in my mind, but I can't figure how to make 'em come together in a coherent fashion for the rest of you. So, you're getting a shotgun approach today and you'll have to tie 'em together as best you can.

Mo "Kill 'Em All" Gandhi

1) Gandhi was not a pacifist. The poster boy for non violent reaction to oppression may never have personally punched someone in the face or delivered a 30-caliber message, but he had no problems with that.

"...When my eldest son asked me what he should have done, had he been present when I was almost fatally assaulted in 1908, whether he should have run away and seen me killed or whether he should have used his physical force which he could and wanted to use, and defended me, I told him that it was his duty to defend me even by using violence."

"...Hence also do I advocate training in arms for those who believe in the method of violence. I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor." - M.K. Gandhi, The Doctrine of the Sword.


"...He who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honour by non-violently facing death may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden. He has no business to be the head of a family. He must either hide himself, or must rest content to live for ever in helplessness and be prepared to crawl like a worm at the bidding of a bully ..."
 
And so on and so on.

2) I personally applaud the increasing number of sheriff's across the country who are saying their departments will resist unConstitutional orders from Washington. I also applaud state legislators who introduce bills saying unConstitution laws may not enforced in their states and those who try are subject to arrest.

This is largely aimed at gun control efforts.I support this effort.

The idea is called "nullification." The US Supreme Court has ruled this is unConstitutional.

I am now reminded of president Andrew Jackson who told SCOTUS to get stuffed, a precedent that continues today. "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!" he said.

Nullification also is being touted as a way for juries to get rid of laws they disagree with. In this case a jury can find a defendant not guilty if they object to the law under which the person was charged. In other words, if a person is charged with possession of marijuana, the jury could vote not guilty because they object to the law and believe MJ possession should be legal.

The basis for nullification

I support this concept too.

SCOTUS has not ruled on this, to my knowledge, but the right to a jury trial is also ensconced in the Constitution.

3) Might Makes Right. The winner writes the history books. The one with the power determines what will be done. See Andy Jackson above.

You do not have to like this. Do not expect reality to reorder itself because you object. Whether or not I like it is also irrelevant.

It's the truth.

In the case of Might Makes Right, if you object long enough and loudly enough, you may lose the right to object. Very likely you might lose the right to do anything except become compost.

Don't agree? Argue with a tank and come back...

On the other hand, such objections may result in you being the one who gets to determine what is right. Your might overcame the other. Reality is not reordered in this case. There is no base paradigm shift.

The balance of power shifted. That's all.

4) I am responsible for myself. You are responsible for you.

If either of us choose to be responsible for someone else, that is entirely acceptable. Forcing us to be responsible for someone else is not.

Force and might are not just found coming from the end of a gun barrel. But sometimes a gun barrel is the only way to prevent other kinds of force.

Of interest to self-publishing authors and wannabe

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

Having gotten a couple more of my books up and running, I'm here to share some experiences with the self publishing process. Jump to the end if you want to see why I'm qualified to say what I say.

Step 1 - Write the book already.

Step 2 - Get someone to edit it. By edit, I mean the person needs to lay the book on a table, get a razor, cut a wrist and bleed heavily across the pages. If you are a writer you know what this means.

If you are not a writer it means you need to get someone who will be honest to the point of causing you incredible pain. I mean it. A friend who reads it and says "Wow, that's great!" is not an editor. You need someone to really rip the MS apart and hand you confetti. Yes. You do.

Step 3 - Publish. This is the meat of this blog.

My chops established, I tell you, unless you are REALLY lost where layout and design is concerned, do not hire someone to do this for you. CreateSpace (Amazon and Kindle) and Lulu each have layout programs you may use. They can even help with covers, but skip that.

COVER

Get someone to design you a decent book cover. Here's some really bad covers. You will have convert the cover to a PDF to upload. Needs to be 300 DPI or so. Simple enough. Be sure to leave a hole on the back bottom right for the ISBN. You want an ISBN. If that's not simple, get help from someone you can physically put your hands on (in case you need to strangle them later). Here's one of mine.

Photoshop and I put this together. I drew the toons.

If you MUST have someone do it for you, ask what experience they have in layout and design. Make sure you get a proof of the work before sending it to printer. If you go the Kindle (or other ebook) route, expect to have to make changes to make the MS fit the formatting for those. Yes.

In my two Dictionary books (See below), the Kindle formatting screwed the cartoons up, but I have yet to find a way to easily fix it. A difficult fix is in the works. (sigh) Print versions are OK.

WORKING THE SYSTEM

For me, Lulu.com was easier to navigate and get my book and up and running. I had to supply my own ISBN or buy one from them. I supplied my own. Their prices were a bit higher than CreateSpace as well. May be different now.

CreateSpace for me was FAR more difficult to maneuver through. I partly suspect this is because I am expert in layout and design. (I have the work, credits, awards, experience and teaching chops to back that statement up too). I found myself repeatedly frustrated with the instructions. No doubt part of my problem is that I don't have much patience with electronica.

I suspect someone (with more patience) more willing to pay close attention to the instructions and not just assume, as I do, will find CreateSpace's advanced settings easier. I have no experience with the basic setup guide. I suspect it can be just as frustrating, especially for people with no experience in L&D because of the need to make adjustments in the layout.

Specific instructions are best left to the appropriate POD website and getting ahold of me in person.

PROOF THE BOOK

Yes Lord! Download the free proof from Lulu. Use the CS online proof program. Pay close attention to the margins, spacing, etc. If that's too complicated, order a book and get it in your hands. With the ebooks, you'll have to use the electronic proofing cause a dead tree version ain't available.

Is also a good idea to let someone else look at it, someone who will tell you the truth.

WHY AMAZON

Kindle, free ISBN, expedited listing in Amazon and other distributors and cheaper. I have not checked recently, but three months after getting Nekkid up & running at Lulu, they had STILL not listed it with Amazon et al. I expect to soon work on the Barnes & Noble nook as soon as I can get Rebel (a fellow author) within arm's reach.

That said, I loaded some books first as a print edition. Then I told CS to convert to Kindle using the files already loaded. This process takes a WHILE. Even as I write, one of my books has spent 30 minutes in the conversion process. Fortunately, it's not tied my computer up.

Another drawback to Amazon is, at least in my case, the need to create an Amazon account and create a CS account. (shrugs) More passwords to forget...

I do not recommend using any POD firm other than CS or Lulu. The others want too much from the author.

MARKETING

I'm not going to discuss marketing here. So if you came looking for that, you're out of luck. Except, don't spend money on their marketing plans.

Th' EXPERT

25 years in newspapers doing everything that can be done on a paper. Hundreds and hundreds of magazine articles. Syndicated humor column. Conceited.

Lemme point out I have the following books in "print"

humor books at Lulu.com
A Dog Named Nekkid
Origins of Hawgin'
humor at Amazon and on the Kindle platform
A Golfer’s Dictionary
A Fisherman’s Dictionary
Philosophy at Amazon and possibly Kindle
Lessons I learned in State Prison - Freedom
Religious at Amazon and on the Kindle Platform
Old Testament Jesus
Forsaken
My Mountain Won’t move
A Christian Minister’s Take on Gay Marriage - This one needs an update as I've modified something fairly important to this book

I have more comin' too.

I've also laid out a bunch of other books for other people. The work has ranged from traditional printing to Print on Demand. Some time back I abhorred POD. Now, I say this is the way to go. It's cheaper, faster, easier to fix something and now you can control the entire process while keeping all your rights. Used to not be that way.

Whither need?

.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
What do you need?

Don't append any adjectives, adverbs, modifiers or qualifiers to that. None. Just take the word - Need.

Buncha hooey...

Short answer? Nothing. Long answer is also nothing.

You do not need anything. I'll give you a for instance.

You do not need oxygen.

"Hang on Baker. I need oxygen!" you say.

Why?

"Because, ya moron, if I don't have it I'll die."

Nope. You missed the point of the question. You do not need oxygen. When you say "I need oxygen or I'll die" you have modified need. You have qualified it. You have appended modifiers to it. I said do not do this.

"That's just stupid then,"

You are entitled to your opinion. It does not change the fact that you do not need anything.

The concept of need, without some way of defining what you need, is a semantically null statement. It's probably also a mathematically null statement but you are going to have to get someone who can do that kind of math. I can't.

Someone is likely to go off on a tangent here if that hasn't already happened. The tangent is empiricism. Being one of those folks myself, I appreciate the tangent, but that also runs into the word need requiring modifiers.

You don't need anything.

Want is an entirely different matter. You want oxygen. You want water. You want food, shelter, etc. Want does not require modifiers because want is subjective. Need is objective.

Yes, please.

So my real question of the day is: Why are you wants more important than mine? What gives you the right to deny my wants while at the same time fulfilling yours when I would deny you?

I've got an idea. How about you tend your business, I'll tend mine and where they overlap, unless I'm actually causing you harm, you stay out of my wants. I'll gladly do the same to you.

Who's zoomin' who?

.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Aretha (and if you need a last name for that, stop reading this blog now, leave and never come back) once sang "Who's Zoomin' Who?" She sang about someone trying to put one over on another person. The other person, in this case, was more clever than the purported wit.

I am here reminded of the King's Foole. In the time of monarchs and especially in Shakespearean era plays, the King's Foole was no fool at all. He was extremely wise and counted among the king's advisers.

The fool had the ability to do something which would have resulted in the death of anyone else. The fool could insult the king and get away with it.

Now to the meat of today's blog. As I do not watch TV (I'm not smart enough), I have to rely on second hand reports. So I draw your attention to a show which I believe is called "Here Comes Honey Boo Boo."

I don't know the premise of the show nor do I care. I think the participants are from Georgia. I do warn you, I'm about to express a sentiment that is going to offend people and some others will misunderstand what I'm saying.

Google says this is a HBB image. I do not know.

In another time and place and, if they had better tans, I believe this family would be called a bunch of niggers. Since they are not blessed with melanin, they are "white trash." Semantics...

Anyway, this show is watched by hordes of people, most of whom enjoy feeling superior to this family.

A family that is making some serious money appearing in a reality TV show.

A family that is appearing on TV (and computer) screens around the world and is packing in money faster than the vast majority of the viewers can.

Who's zoomin' who? asks the King's Foole.

Multiple diagnosis disorder

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
By now I'm sure you've heard New York has passed stage one of getting a a gun control law in place. Among other things, the law allows guns to be confiscated from people identified as having dangerous mental health issues.

While many people may applaud this, I am not.

Who decides if a person has sufficient mental instability?

"Get real Baker. The NY proposal says 'mental health professionals,'" you tell me.

Ah so.

Who picks the mental health professional?

"Whatta ya mean, Baker?"

Exactly what I said. Who gets to pick the mental health professional to determine whether or not a person is mentally competent to have access to a firearm?

The government? The same government which ranks 37th out of 50 for corruption risk, according to StateIntegrity.org? You are really willing to trust the government to make such decisions, knowing how well they've managed in the past?

Lemme run this out a bit further. Chances are very good that I have more experience in courtrooms than you. Yes, I know CH, Judge P and a few others leave me in the dust when it comes to courtrooms, but I refer to the majority of my readers.

How many criminal and other cases have seen "expert" mental health witnesses testifying exactly the opposite to what the other side says from the witness stand? If it's not exactly the opposite, there is enough difference of opinion to make or break a case.

I call it multiple diagnosis disorder.

And you want a "mental health expert" to make a call as to whether or not someone should be allowed access to a gun?

Sooner or later, this is going to kicked to a judge too. Do you want a judge, who has little to no training in what constitutes mental health to decide if a person is stable?

Here's the real kicker. What if someone comes up and decides you are unstable? Not just to have a gun, but to even be in charge of your own life?

Do you really think it couldn't happen?

Cognitive Disconnect does not live here. It may live with you, but not me.

Just a link for the writers

.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
http://www.rachellegardner.com/2013/01/5-surprises-about-self-publishing/

Looking for expert advice Part II

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Yesterday I left you hanging. Before I cut the rope, let me tell you this book from which I quote has changed my thinking a bit on a subject important to me, and I've only read 20 percent of the book.

If you need a refresher of yesterday, here ya go.

After the completed paragraph is read, I wonder how many yesterday agreed with the law enforcement statements yesterday and will now backtrack faster than a Congressman caught with his hand in a secretary's blouse.

Lemme cut the rope. Here's the completed paragraph.

"Mail in surveys are seldom accurate, because only those who feel intensely about an issue are likely to respond, but the provide the best information that we have on police officer views. A 2005 mail survey for 22,000 chiefs of police and sheriffs conducted by the National Association of Chiefs for Police found that 92 percent believed that law-abiding citizens should continue to be able to purchase handguns for self defense. Sixty percent thought that a national concealed-handgun permit law will "reduce the rate of violent crime.: The Southern States Police Benevolent  Association surveyed its 11,000 members during June of 1993 (36 percent responded) and reported similar findings: 96 percent  of those who responded agreed with the statement "People should have the right to own a gun for self-protection," and 71 percent did not believe that stricter handgun laws would reduce the number of violent crimes."

Reading the 3rd edition.

Now, I have probably lost some readers, torqued a few more and have some cheering.

The book More Guns Less Crime is by John R. Lott Jr., a noted economist.

Yesterday I also promised to prove to you how NOT doing what law enforcement suggests is racist.

"It was, after all, the defenselessness of the Negroes (denied legal rights to keep and bear arms by state law) from attack by night riders — even to protect their own lives, their own families, and their own homes — that made it imperative that they, as citizens, could no longer be kept defenseless by a regime of state law denying them the common right to keep and bear arms," wrote Duke University Law profession William Van Alstyne.

This is verifiable history folks. Do not take my word for it. Read the pre-Civil Rights era and a few post Civil Rights era laws to find out for yourself.

Given the demographics of my readership, I doubt I have made anyone seriously mad. But I do say if you favor gun control, then history shows you are a racist.

http://www.a-human-right.com/

Looking for expert advice

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
If you are sick, where do you go for advice?

Right. The commode rinse cycle is better.

Most people will say a doctor. Some will say a pharmacist and others will turn to advice from a friend or relative. Would you call your congressman and ask for advice?

Lemme reconfigure this matter. Under what circumstances would you call your congressman and ask for advice?

For the hugely vast majority of people, the only time they call and ask a congressman for help is when they are dealing with some government agency. Some will call and ask for advice when they are in over their heads. A very few will call and ask for advice about pretty much anything.

Lemme rephrase this a bit. What do you trust Congress to do?

Ahhhhhhh. Considering Congress' now ranks behind spiders ans snakes in public opinion polls, I suspect the answer to the last question is: NOTHING!

Ok. I now ask you this. If you want advice on a certain situation whom would you go to? By whom, I mean a classification of people. Doctor, lawyer, plumber, electrician, etc. The person you call on would certainly depend on the what advice you need, right?

All right. Say you want advice on how to control crime and make your community safer. Whom would you go to? Would a Chief of Police or Sheriff be a good choice? I suspect most people would agree. If you do not agree, then I ask where would you turn?

Here's a quote for you from a book I'm reading. You fill in the blanks.

"Mail in surveys are seldom accurate, because only those who feel intensely about an issue are likely to respond, but the provide the best information that we have on police officer views. A 2005 mail survey for 22,000 chiefs of police and sheriffs conducted by the National Association of Chiefs for Police found that 92 percent believed that law-abiding citizens should ________________ ______________________________________________. Sixty percent thought that a national ______________________________________________ will "reduce the rate of violent crime.: The Southern States Police Benevolent  Association surveyed its 11,000 members during June of 1993 (36 percent responded) and reported similar findings: 96 percent  of those who responded agreed with the statement "People should have the right to_________________________________________" and 71 percent did not believe that stricter __________________________________________ violent crimes."

(multiple words per blank)

Before I fill in the blanks, let me tell you a substantial percent of Congress disagrees with this. Congress, whose only experience with crime is committing it, does not believe the Thin Blue Line.

Who will you side with?

Before I fill in the blanks, let me add this information. In course of my career as a journalist I have known, spoken to and interviewed nearly 20 Chiefs of Police and Sheriffs across the nation. Admittedly not a lot. I have no idea how many line officers I have interviewed over the years. More than 100 certainly.

I tell you each and every one of these men and women whom I spoke to agreed with the sentiments expressed in the above quoted paragraph.

In other words, the people who deal with crime in a very personal way each and every day of their life have a super majority opinion for a way to handle crime. A super majority. The experts say "This is a good way to handle crime." The people who make their living dealing with and arresting criminals say "You need to do this."

Now, will you do what they say?

Because I'm me, gonna make you wait until tomorrow to get the blanks filled in on that quote. I'm also going to tell you about how Congress efforts against what police recommend is racist and rooted in racism.

The new logic

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
An opinion is not a fact.

A lot of people will not accept this. They state their opinion as a fact. While I want to call this the "new logic" it's not new and it's been around as long as humans have been around. I just get annoyed when someone presents their opinion to me as a fact and insists I'm an idiot because I don't accept their opinion as fact.

Pretty much

I may be an idiot. But I also refuse to subscribe to a delusional world view. At least, I'm not subscribing to someone else's delusional world views. Mine is a different matter.

That said, as I understand it, a fact is something that be empirically proven.

Anything that can't be proven empirically, proven under controlled circumstances and can be proven over and over again is not a fact.

But why?

Of course, I have been wrong in the past and likely will be wrong again. I very well may be wrong now.

But I wonder how an opinion can become a fact. Some people, especially politicians but not limited to this class of entities, put forth an opinion and consider it to be fact. Reminds me of the last part of the Taming of the Shrew.

In other words, the person says something and it becomes fact. A new fact has been spoken into existence

God complex much?

Yesterday I engaged in a historical discussion on religious texts, a bunch of 'em, online. The religious aspect was not discussed, merely the history. One of the thread participants offered this statement (typos are the writer's not mine) "[S]o wondered, maybe you have proof of all events in the bible?9sarcasm), otherwise, it is not my opinion."

Of course, I am wrong here, but just because I can't prove everything in the Bible, it is not factual, this writer's opinion becomes fact? The writer called the Bible "a historical fiction based on truths myths and ppropoganda." (typos not mine.)

A lack of evidence is not proof one way or another. 

Today's blog

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
You get a link cause Yahoo hired me to write this one.

Picking the top three

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
An excellent way to start a heated argument, or at least a debate that will last for hours, around folks who appreciate guns is to ask "What is the best gun?"

The BFG.

Since I have a bit of knowledge about firearms, people periodically ask me this question. My immediate reply is "What do you want it for?"

Sometimes that question elicits an answer and sometimes it gets a blank stare. If it is a blank stare, I advise the person to attend a gun safety and shooting class before buying a gun. If the person has a rational answer, then I give my best advice, based on their answer, experience and size. All three are important.

The purpose of the gun is important. If a person just wants something to take a range and pop targets, then it needs to shoot inexpensive ammo. Home defense needs to be easy to handle and not subject to shoot through walls. Hunting, well, whatta ya wanna hunt?

Experience is also important. A novice needs to learn some gun basics and simple guns are best for that.

The Samaritan - as carried by HellBoy

Size is also important. I'm not going to tell someone who weighs 90 pounds to get a double-barreled 10 gauge shoulder-crusher.

But there's also a good and simple answer to the question. The best gun is one you personally feel comfortable handling, shooting and can control.

So, with all that in mind, I say there are three basic guns a person should have.

A medium to big game caliber rifle

A shotgun

A .22 rifle

Very few people are going to argue this as an excellent starting place for a hunter and beginning gun owner who has some experience with firearms.

Deer rifles

Call it a deer rifle. Choose one that can be used to shoot bear and elk in a pinch and if you really know what you are doing, a moose.  The effective range should be at least 400 yards, with 700 yards even better. In the hands of an expert, a .30-30 will go to 400 yards, but finding someone capable of accuracy at that range is rare. I'm partial to the .30-06 just because of the wide variety of loads possible.

Mossberg pump shotgun

A shotgun. I recommend a pump like the Mossberg 500 or the Remington 870. A shotgun can fire everything from non-lethal loads to two-ounce lead slugs that will knock anything running around the United States flat. With exotic ammo, the shotgun turns into a seriously formidable weapon. This is also what I recommend for home defense.

A .22 rifle. Some people will argue this until they take time to thing about it. A .22 has no recoil, is pretty quiet, extremely quiet with .22 shorts, has cheap ammo and is fun to shoot. The lessons learned with a .22 translate to all other shoulder-mount firearms. The humble .22 will also kill anything that walks in North America. A lot of people will tell me I'm crazy, but I have personally dropped an animal weighing more than 1,000 pounds with a single shot from a .22 rifle. I forget how many wild hogs I've killed with it.

Single shot .22 by Cricket.

If pushed to eliminate one of the three guns, the deer rifle would be the first to go. Between the shotgun and the .22, I can feed my family. I know this for a fact because I have done it and continue to do it. The only thing I miss by not having a deer rifle is effective range. A shotgun is good to 150 yards with slugs, 200 if you are REALLY good and the .22 is good to about 200 yards, 300 if you are REALLY good.

If forced to live with just one gun, and thankfully this is not the case, I'd take the .22. The ammo is cheap, plentiful and it will kill everything the other two guns can kill.

And, for those of you who are wondering, all of these guns I list here are fully adequate for defending yourself in case of a zombie attack.