Cause you've been there too

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
How many times have you had your head ripped off (metaphorically of course) for something you didn't do?

How many times has someone lit into you for something you had no control over?

How many times has someone exploded on you and they were not in possession of all the facts?

How many times has someone just gone off on you and you have no idea why?

How many times has someone presented a highly distorted and twisted version of events as the gospel truth?

When that happened, didn't you just about beg for the chance to explain?

Didn't you REALLY want the chance to present your side?
 
What would you have given if the other person had just closed their mouth and let you get a word in edgewise or simply explained?

Do you think the other person could have seen reason?

Would they have seen reason?

If you just had your chance to present your side of things and then let everyone else decide, that would be better. Just asking them to be fair. Am I right?

Been there? Done that? You are not alone. I'm right there with you.

In fact, I'm stating categorically, firmly and without question that you are one of those people who had ripped into someone else without justification.

You shredded someone for something they had no control over. You refused to admit to the existence of another side. You categorically denied they had facts to add. You insisted your position was right and not even divine intervention could make you wrong. You would not listen and blocked their attempts to explain.

Chances are pretty good that you even left out information which would have undermined your presented view.

Not gonna say you lied, but it would take an electron microscope to find the line between your story and a lie.

If the other person happened to be right or had facts you did not possess, it's still their fault and you made sure they knew it. I'm still right there with you.

Why do you get upset when someone treats you like an idiot when you've done it to so many others? Do you really want to be fair?

In search of equality

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
"To unequal privileges among members of the same society the spirit of our nation is, with one accord, adverse." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Address, 1801.

This has often been rephrased to: "There is nothing more unequal than the equal treatment of unequal people."

Those who object totally are not being rational. Those who offer total support are also not being rational. Me? I find a lot to support and reject in that idea.

Equal treatment means you expect a paraplegic to be the same athlete as Roger Bannister. It cannot happen, at least with today's technological innovations.

I also believe in equal treatment of unequal people in certain circumstances.

The case being argued before the Supreme Court today is a good example. I refer you to Windsor v. The United States. In what surprised many SCOTUS junkies, the Supremes also agreed to hear the case on California’s Proposition 8, a voter initiative which bans same gender marriage.

If I had to put money on this, I'd say SCOTUS will come down on the side of saying Yes to same gender marriage.

Both cases are about government, not about religion. As I've said before, the true case before SCOTUS right now is: Is marriage a function of government or a function of religion? I expect SCOTUS to say it is a government function.

Here's why. It cannot be a religious matter.

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

If I, as an ordained minister, choose to officiate a joining ceremony of two (or more) people of the same or different gender, the government cannot stop me.  The government can only say the union is not recognized by the government.

Since religion is therefore not an issue because of the First Amendment, it has to be about a government document - a marriage license.

At the same time attempting to force religion into statecraft should be a violation of the Constitution. Unfortunately, it doesn't happen that way.

A PIECE OF PAPER

In the Windsor case, this is a matter of government treating people unequally. It's about whether or not they have the right to same piece of paper as other adults. Marriage is a side issue.

Hammer time!

In this case the lady bringing the suit had to pay a chunk of inheritance taxes which she'd not have to pay if her marriage was recognized by the government.

She and her late spouse were married in Canada. Not legit in the US according to federal law. A marriage of one man and one woman in Canada is recognized as legit by the US government.

Had her marriage been legit, she would not have paid the inheritance taxes.

In short, do you have the right to say who gets your stuff when you die? The huge majority of Americans will say an emphatic "YES" to that one.

So Windsor v. The United States is a decision on how much the federal government will be restricted or freed to interfere with individuals.



MOB RULE

In other case, on Prop. 8, it's a matter of whether or not voters can dictate to individuals. This answer is far less clear because voters can dictate to individuals in some cases and cannot in others. Ballot initiatives are nothing more than voters ordering individuals to do certain things. At the same time, SCOTUS has ruled voters have limits on how much they can order individuals around.

Mob Rule?

I don't know how SCOTUS will handle this one. I suspect they will come down on the side of saying Prop 8 is illegal, but I can't be sure. The Supremes have sided with voters in the past.

The municipal attorney in the City where I live has argued cases before SCOTUS. He said a while back the Constitution exists to protect the rights of the few from the dictates of the many. SCOTUS bounces back and forth on this concept of protection.

Myself, I like the idea of voters being allowed to decide what is law and not law. At the same time, I admit there are serious flaws with this idea too. The problem is voters, taken en masse, make a flatworm look like a genius. The biggest flaw is that people get exactly what they asked for and it's nowhere near what they wanted.

Tasty pain!

By and large I say when voters speak, that's the way it should be. They should then be forced to live with the consequences of their actions, no matter how much it hurts. In fact, where mass stupidity is concerned, the more pain the better.

Voters of the Granola State have spoken. Their word should stand and in the Land of Fruits and Nuts, same gender marriage is illegal. I see this as yet another reason why we should all mass at the Nevada and Oregon border and pry California off the rest of the United States and dump it in the ocean.

Stupid is as stupid does.

Myself, I support the idea of allowing same gender people to marry. As someone wiser than me once observed, why should misery be restricted to heterosexuals?

COGNITIVE DISSONANCE

In what I see as a sterling example of why the Right and Left in this country are nothing more than mirrors of each other, Cantservatives argue against same gender marriage which is increased government interference in a private life. Liarberals argue for the same, which is decreased government interference in a private life. Stupid is as stupid does.

Go Pope Francis! WOOHOO!

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Newly elected Pope Francis is putting his hands where he said they'd go - to work.

While I am not a fan of the Catholic church, I do admire the Jesuits. Of course, I admire lots of people and groups who've been unjustly persecuted throughout history and a few who have been justly persecuted. BTW, my jaw is still bouncing off the floor over the news that the Pope is a Jesuit.

Now if we are to act as Penn Gillette does, and take someone at his word until he gives us reason to do otherwise, this is the kinda Pope who will change things.

"This is what I want, a poor church for the poor," he said just after being elected pope.

This Pope has his hand directly on what the Bible teaches us to do. As my buddy Doc says, God is love. That this Pope is reaching out to the hurting, to the unwanted, to those society rejects and wants the church to do more to help the poor, dunno about you but I cannot think of a better definition of love.

Double high 5 back atcha my brother!

For too many years, lifetimes in fact, the Pope has presided over a church that was far too concerned with things that should be minor matters. It doesn't matter what kind of hat the pope wears. It doesn't matter what his vestments look like. It matters what he does.

Pope Francis is off to an excellent start as far as I'm concerned. He is leading by serving. How cool is that?

As I prepare to go to prison tonight and share with a group of men, I will be thinking about and probably talk about Pope Francis. Church is not just about God, salvation and fried chicken dinners. Church, the real church, the church God wants us to have is about getting off our butts, getting out and getting our hands dirty.

 You don't even have to believe in God or god to be a part of a real church. You just have to reach out. Every major religion in the world has that concept as a central tenet. Even the most hard core atheists accept the idea.

Real church is not about dressing up on Sunday. Lemme put that another way. Do you really think a coat of whitewash is going to do anything about the rot in the wood?

Real church is about telling that drug addict if he wants money, you'll personally take him to church and feed him lunch afterward. Real church is looking everyone else straight in the eye and saying "And why aren't you doing the same thing?"

Yeah. It's about visiting a juvenile detention center and washing the feet of the boys there. It's about visiting prison PERIOD and meeting those behind bars. It's about reaching into your own wallet and providing a cheeseburger to that homeless person.

Real church is about YOU doing something instead of demanding someone else do it. Real church is YOU making the investment, not forcing someone else to.

Real church is about you and how you interact with everyone else.

It's been said real leaders lead by example. It's been said a real leader will not ask his followers to do something he won't do. It looks like the Catholics about about to have a real church leader. Now, it's up to the rest of us to follow his example, no matter what you may believe or not believe about God.

Real church, and I don't care what your denomination, belief structure or god happens to be, is about making a difference in this world. If that ain't what your church believes, then you need to find one that does.

Real church is not condemnation. Real church is forgiving.

I restate here - You don't even have to believe in God or god to be a part of a real church. You just have to reach out. God will make sure you find Him.

You don't get to vote on this

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Far be it from to tell a fellow Christian if he is right or wrong, especially a Catholic, since I left that denomination as a teenager and ain't looked back.

I'll let Penn Gillette do it. Gillette is a confirmed atheist. He speaks on atheism and routinely questions and occasionally ridicules religion and its adherents. He is also absolute correct about the Catholic church, which makes a lot of Catholics uneasy.

He says Catholics who want the church to "modernize" need to re-examine their belief.

"Well, I think I may be somebody who believes in the Pope's position more than most Catholics. I really take people at their word. And it seems like all of the cynicism and all of the – who are we going to get in, modernizing – there's not supposed to be modernizing. It's supposed to be [the] word of God," he told Piers Morgan.

Morgan complained the church and the Pope are not keeping up with the times. Gillette correctly points out a central tenet of the Catholic religion is that the Pope interprets God's commands. Parishioners don't.

If you can't accept that, you're not a Catholic.

"This is great, what side you're picking here. I would say on my side that if you have someone who is a conduit to God and is speaking God's word, even if you can't understand exactly what God's plan is, even if you do see suffering, that you consider unacceptable, or any suffering is unacceptable, that still doesn't mean you get to vote on what God actually believes," Gillette said.

"Once you have somebody that is telling you, we are interpreting God for you, it seems like you either agree or you don't. You either say, like Martin Luther, I'm going to have a direct relationship with the word of God, or I'm going to go through a conduit of God on Earth, which would be the Pope."

Gillette, a confirmed atheist, has a better understanding of Christianity than most Christians I know.

You. Don't. Get. To. Vote.

You can, if you follow the Protestant Reformation and the Treaty of Westphalia 1648 sort of on this last one. I explain in a moment.

The Protestant reformation said people can interpret the Bible for themselves. No pope needed. Most Christians the world today are of this stripe. A sizeable percentage are Catholic, but not a majority.

That being said, if you interpret the Bible for yourself, then you must also grant that right to everyone else. Of course you could intend to set yourself up as a Pope and speak for God because they cannot speak to God directly. Unless you are being irrational. This being religion, I'm going with irrational.

If you believe everyone has the right to interpret the Bible for themselves, then finding proof you are correct and they are incorrect is going to be impossible. Unless you are being irrational or can provide bona fide miracles.

As for this ability to disagree over the Bible (and representative-style governments like we have in the United States and many other countries), you can thank the Treaty of Westphalia 1648 for that. This treaty removed the Pope and the Catholic church as the government from several countries. It spread from there.

Gillette, like so many atheists I know, has a far better understanding of the Bible and Christianity than most Christians I know. They admit if God is running the show, we don't get a vote to decide what God believes and does.

Elwood joins them

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Yeah, it was one of "those" phone calls. I've had too many of them in my life.

This latest call brought me the news that Reginald Gerrard died Monday of a massive heart attack. I called him Elwood. He and I played the Blues Brothers twice a year at the annual CWOT in Warm Springs. I was Jake.

Reg, Elwood, whatever you wish to call him is only the latest in a group of brothers in ink who have left this reality and go on to whatever is next.

The roll call is long. It starts with Jim "Mr. Joe" Joseph, one of my college journalism professors and one of three teachers to whom my first book is dedicated. Mr. Joe left with a heart attack as well. I spoke to Miz Joe not long after he died.

While I can't swear to it, I strongly suspect the second to go that way from my cadre was Robert Grove "Bob" Fischer. I lost touch with him when I moved back to God's Country from Nevada. When I left the west, he was suffering from a pretty severe cough and a few other ailments. He also smoked unfiltered cancer sticks for most of his life. He was in his 60s.

In no particular order from here:

A heart attack took a fishing buddy and newspaper columnist in Florida. Miss ya Bill.

He beat pancreatic cancer, but Bill Schulz gave up when doctors told him he had liver cancer.

Cancer also took Allen "Wally" Walworth, a real native American, genius and someone who saw humor in absolutely everything.

Cancer took Tom Rollins, who along with Bill S. sponsored me for membership into the Southeastern Outdoor Press Association. Miz Mona was not long behind him with cancer of her own.

Miz Lois died quietly in her sleep, leaving Bill Patridge some while without her. He too met that last deadline.

BZ "Beez" Leonard was the voice of reason and moderation in the Net Wits. She died quietly in nursing home with family and friends.

Max "Maxie" Ridley died from complications from the dialysis port in his arm. I still remember his last email, in which he laughed about the port "exploding."

The cancer that was killing him didn't succeed. Pneumonia contracted while undergoing radiation destroyed the lungs of LeRoy Powell.

Marta loved West By God Virginia and those mountains. She died peacefully in a rocking chair on her porch, leaving a pair of teenagers behind. She never spoke of the pain her ailing heart was putting her through.

While I did not know him as long as some others, Austin Saxon worked for and edited the paper I now edit for nearly as long as I have now been alive. He taught me much about community newspapers.

Bocephus says if Heaven ain't a lot like Dixie, he don't wanna go. I agree with that, but must also say if they don't have a place for us hacks to enjoy cold ones while talking about the business we love so much, yeah, I'm not sure if I'm interested in going.

Anyway, Elwood, I hope you're making the rounds with  these and other writers who met their final deadline.

For all the rest of us, life's short. Hug often.

The dangers of friends

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The vast majority of the people who read these irregular ramblings will agree with much of what I say. The few things on which we disagree are not fundamental disagreements. More a matter of tone.

Unfortunate. Most unfortunate.

When I read for edification and pleasure, v. strictly for pleasure, I seek out writers who discuss things I don't know much about. I look for columnists with different points of view. I look for people who pen words that, indeed, are in marked contrast to the views held by myself.



In case yer not wondering, when I read strictly for pleasure, I pull down the stuff of fairy tales, unicorns, mages, alien invaders and humor.

In other words, I actively look for writers who disagree with me. Liarberal firebrand Susan Estrich is a particular favorite. A committed feminist and mysandrist (at least in my view), Susan has a distinct way with words. When she climbs Mt. Everest to preach from the mountainside is when I enjoy her work most. When she blathers about finding something to cook for supper, I tune her out.

I want her to challenge me. Make me think. Make me prove my point, my belief, back up my opinion and support my argument with logic and not heated rhetoric. Such writers are a treasure.

At the same time there are writers whom I will not read even if threatened with revocation of my library card. Ann Coulter is one, since I opened with XX chromosome writers. I think she authored a book with the title "How to Talk To a Liberal (If you have to)" which pretty much defines the word pedantic to me.

While I can learn from those who agree with me, I can learn much more from those who disagree with me. If nothing else, I learn whether or not they are capable of independent thought or are simply a mindless minion like the Dittoheads. If they can think for themselves, then AYE! There's someone to pay attention to. If they can't, file them under the mental filing cabinet instead of in it.

By seeking out those with different and even opposing views, I engage in something called growth.

The only way anything living grows is to encounter, test and in some way accommodate opposition. That accommodation can be going over, under, through, around or even leaving and going somewhere else without that opposition.

If nothing else, that which grows must encounter gravity.

The harder the opposition the stronger the living must be to handle it.

Me? I'm not cut out to be a weakling.

Furthermore, that which is not living does not grow.

Therein is the danger of friends. Surround yourself with people who believe the same as you, think the same as you and act the same as you and, well, you're doing nothing more than living in Plato's Cave. Some of my closest friends on the planet have fundamental differences with my views. I cherish them for that.

I leave you with a final comment from another writer who says the same thing I just did, just as eloquently and a lot more tersely.


"If you have never changed your mind about some fundamental tenet of your belief, if you have never questioned the basics, and if you have no wish to do so, then you are likely ignorant.

Before it is too late, go out there and find someone who, in your opinion, believes, assumes, or considers certain things very strongly and very differently from you, and just have a basic honest conversation.

It will do both of you good.” -Vera Nazarian

You won't do it.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I come to you today with an offer. One the vast majority of people will reject. No worries. I'm not the one gonna suffer from it. Actually, it's more of a challenge.

A challenge few will accept:
 
Think back to the best times in your life. When were they, who were they with, how much time and money was spent to make those memories?

For one week, keep a journal of your time in 15 minute increments. List EVERYTHING. At the end of the week, look over your schedule.

You have more than enough time.

Track your expenses for a month. Down to the penny. At the end of the month, look at where you spend money.

You have plenty of money.

Now think again to the best times of your life. The memories that stick with you. The kind of things you'll talk about if you are 105 years old (or any age really) and a drooling heap in a wheelchair in a nursing home.

If you are being truthful, those best times involved spending time with someone who meant a lot to you.

Now go back to your two lists. See how much time and money you spent on the people in your life who are important. Of the two, time is by far the most valuable. "People don't care how much you know until they know how much you care."

You didn't spend enough time or money with them. Mostly, you didn't spend enough time with them.

Bottom line? What we claim to want and seek does not match that which we really pursue.

Our priorities are out of proper alignment.

The question now is, will you realign or continue your ways? Will you change? Will you invest what really matters where it really matters?

The answer is no. We're all too caught up in keeping up and that's expensive in terms of time and money, as your list, which you didn't bother to do, would prove to you.

The right to offend

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Working in a reference to Dennis Rodman visiting N. Korea is easy - I just did it. But making that relevant to a column on offending, offense and being offensive ain't. Now if this were a column on being underqualified for a no brainer task, then Rodman references would be everywhere.

This is a column on being offensive without trying. Sort of.

A number of my longtime friends have cast the gauntlet daring me to offend them. I'm trying, believe me I am trying!

That is easy. I could offend each one of them with just a few words.

However.

I ain't going to do that.

"Baker, you just contradicted yourself," you say.

No. I did not give you all the information.

A kick in the knee is much more effective.

To now elaborate - I can offend anyone. But to offend some people easily, I'll have have be to malicious about it. Bring on the hate, bring on the wounds that won't heal and crank up the heat. Kick 'em where it really hurts.

For instance, go after their kids.

Some people could easily be offended by slinging profanity. Etc.

Too easy.

It's a cheap shot.


Taking the low road to offend someone is not what I want to do.

To my mind, offending someone is an art. Example: slinging the word fuck around mindlessly is the same as giving a two year old a crayon and a wall. Yeah, yer gonna get a result and yeah it is art by a broad definition. From a two year old's perspective it may even be a masterpiece.

But with the weight of decades of living and the experience which comes with that, is that wall scrawl really something to be admired?

I point you to George Carlin who could take the F-word and turn it into high art. That people were offended by his incredibly creative use of the word fuck is a salute to the genius of the man. No cheap shots there. He worked hard to find inventive ways to bring offense. He created high art. It was only in his later years of life that he turned maliciously cynical, and yet his genius remained.

GAAAAAAAAAAH! The right words won't come out in sentence form! Try this:

Art. Offense. Intellect. Cogitate. Gadfly. Amuse. Annoy. The King's Foole. Torque. Comprehend. Twisted. Perspectives. Ruination. Reconstruction. Sapper. Idiot. Humor. Think. Offend. Brilliance. Open. Closed. Direct. Imagine. Estopple. Mock. Foundation. Anger. Commonality. Bridge. Grasp. Concept. Individual. Ridicule. Light. Darkness. Insult. Monument. Invest. Primal. Help.

Ah. Mo better, at least from my perspective.

Finest kind

Yes, I include "insult" in the list because an exquisitely timed, brilliant and piercing insult is a joy to see, especially when it deflates the pompously arrogant and exposes the lies, corruption and denigration of others within the target. It is high art.

And really, that's what I'm after when I bring offense. Art. I want to create something that affects my target in way they never expected. I want to bring something out of them they didn't know was there.

I'm also a surgeon, reaching into the person and hauling out something that, in my opinion, needs to be removed. Once hauled out, I mock it.

And again, I run out of adequate words. Maybe after I've had time to reflect I'll come up with a better description.