Call it like I sees it.

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

The Church of God International (which still holds my church membership for the time being) has issued the following statement regarding the two SCOTUS decisions:

Further, the Church addresses the critical issue of Moral Purity by asserting,

Our body is the temple of the Holy Ghost, and we are to glorify God in our body (Romans 12:1, 2 ; 1 Corinthians 6:19, 20; 10:31). We are to walk in the Spirit and not fulfill the lust of the flesh (Galatians 5:16). Examples of fleshly behavior which do not glorify God are noted in several passages of scripture (Romans 1:24; 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10; Galatians 5:19-21; Revelations 21:8). Sinful practices which are made prominent in these scriptures include homosexuality, adultery, worldly attitudes (such as hatred, envy, jealousy), corrupt communication (such as gossip, angry outbursts, filthy words), stealing, murder, drunkenness, and witchcraft.

“…fleshly behavior which do not glorify God…” & etc.

Having attended services in several COG churches, including services at the state headquarters and seen licensed and certified church pastors within the COG, I ask:

When is the Church of God going to require its pastors to live up to this code in its entirety?

If the church is going to selectively enforce this code (which is being done now), who gets to choose which parts are enforced and why?

Why are certified COG pastors allowed to continued to violate some tenets of the Bible and retain their license violations of other parts result in their license being revoked?

The Bible says there are two kinds of sin: forgivable and one unforgivable. Is the COG delineating further categories of sin?

A pastor weighing 100 pounds or more more than he should is not building a temple which glorifies God. A pastor who smokes is not supporting a temple which glorifies God.

I have personally witnessed COG pastors fly off the handle. I have seen them have worldly attitudes, chasing after the physical possessions of this world. I have seen them walk in ways Jesus told us to avoid. I have seen jealousy. I was pushed aside by a COG pastor because of what he thought I was doing.

You reading this may wonder why the COG still holds my membership. Most days when I think about that, I wonder too. Then I remember, I'm just as imperfect as these people I mention, possibly and probably worse. I'm certainly no better than they are. Like them, I'm trying to do better.

I could judge the COG here, but then I'd need the entire COG membership from the entire world to help me get back on my feet.

So why does the COG have my membership (provided I'm not kicked out after this is read)? 2,000 years ago, one man made a difference. In 1966, one man made a difference. In 1996 and 1997, one man made a difference. Every day, one man makes a difference. I'm one man. I hope to make a difference yet again.

Love each other. Let God take care of judging people for their sins.

The war continues

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
There's a LOT of misconceptions about yesterdays two Supreme Court rulings. I've read some excellent news stories on them and some opinions that ranged from accurate and factual to ones that are full of misunderstanding.

Mike L at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution nailed this one perfectly.

Here's what was decided.

1) Homosexual couples who are legally married have rights to federal benefits.

2) Those defending California's proposition didn't have the right to do so.

DISCOURSE ON RULING 1

Here's a piece that does pretty good job of explaining what the first decision means. It does have profanities. There are errors in it.

This is cool.

"If You Are Currently in a Heterosexual Marriage: This decision does not affect you in any way."

Not true. This may be a fine point, but hey! that's how lawyers make a living. See Ruling 2. The first SCOTUS decision gives homosexual partners equal rights and access to federal benefits.


Who pays for federal benefits? Taxpayers. If you are a heterosexual taxpayer, then part of you taxes will go to providing benefits for partners in homosexual marriages.  This affects you.

If a homosexual couple seeks marriage or divorce under a state's laws, the marriage license may pay for all the paperwork and employee salaries needed to officially record it, but I doubt it. Taxpayer dollars cover the difference. A divorce, through the courts, also relies on taxpayer dollars to support the infrastructure needed.

DISCOURSE ON RULING 2

SCOTUS dodged the issue (wusses) by saying those who defended it do not have standing to do so. If the State of California decides to defend the referendum, then the proposition can go live again until SCOTUS hears the case, again.

Personally I think the Supremes using a legal dodge to avoid a ruling is so much a sack of fresh fertilizer.

DISCOURSE IN GENERAL

So, do homosexuals have the right to marry?

SHORT ANSWER

It depends on what state they are in. Some states allow it. Some don't.

LONG ANSWER

States which have a man-wife marriage only law or constitutional amendment are now Ground Zero in this battle. Both sides are gearing up for what should be the final battle. SCOTUS should take one of these cases and rule. I wonder if they will.

This non ruling is gonna make a lot more lawyers rich.

Here's the problem. Say Fred and George or Sue and Jan get married in Washington State. They then move to Mississippi and while there, decide they hate each other. They file for divorce. Mississippi, being a state that specifically does not allow homosexual marriage, doesn't admit the two are married to begin with. No marriage, no divorce.

Oy.

Let's compound this problem. Ruling 1 says homosexual couples are entitled to all the federal rights and benefits as heterosexual couples. This includes economics, which was the base reason behind U.S. v Windsor. This case was about TAXES (economics). This case was about actual and provable harm one person suffered because of unequal treatment under the law.

SCOTUS has repeated ruled federal law trumps state law.

So. Let's throw the biggest monkey wrench of all into this morass.


Article I, Section 8, Clause 3: [The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;


This is the "interstate commerce clause" which gives Congress the right to regulate economic transactions which cross state lines. US. v Windsor is about economics. Congress has the right to regulate it.

Like it or not, marriage has a LOT to do with economics. Think inheritance, insurance, tax refunds and other benefits. These also cross state lines.

Furthermore, some licenses can cross state lines and be effective. Think driving in Alaska on a Maryland driver's license. Some licenses do not. Think medical, lawyer and some others.

Wednesday's rulings are a partial victory. A battle was won. The war rages on. Certainly only an idiot can't see which way the tide is running, but only an idiot forgets while the tide goes out, after a while it also comes in.

This ain't over.

American Gods by Neil Gaiman - a book review

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

My edition of this book has a short interview in the back with Gaiman and a series of book discussion questions. I suspect this is because the book was such a major hit and wound up in book circles being discussed.

I skipped the questions. Read the interview.

While this book managed to nab a stack of major awards, I'm not so impressed. Explain in a moment.

The premise is a sort of Ragnarok with the old world gods, Thor, Ganesh, Horus, etc getting ready to pitch down with new world gods, Media, Technology, etc. The protagonist, Shadow, is pulled into the fray and only at the end do we learn exactly why.

Gaiman does a good job of overlaying a critique of modern society on a somewhat historical perspective. His character development is pretty good, ranging to amazing in a couple of points. But I just could not believe Shadow was the main man. I kept expecting Gaiman to pull a George R.R. Martin and Shadow would really be a shadow and dead.

The author even discusses, in the interview section, Shadow did not lend himself to a tremendous amount of character development. An ex con who got paroled and was a model prisoner, Shadow walks through the story line following directions and showing little to no initiative. In that sense, Shadow is the perfect example of the American populace he's meant to emulate in the novel. Do this, don't do that and when you don't have orders, be as invisible as possible.

Shadow's redemption at the end is too little too late and, just like the society he represents, can't put forth the sustained effort to make a real difference and effect real change.

Call me jaded and cynical, but when I read a book of fiction, especially one that grabs the Nebula and Hugo, I expect more than what I already see and know about my fellow Americans. Failing that, I want to see something that makes me want to get involved.

Frankly, I could have put this book down at any point and walked away without looking back. I didn't because Gaiman also wrote Neverwhere, a book I've read several times and one which continues to stir me intensely.

What I do very very very much appreciate about American Gods is Gaiman is fresh. Rather than rewrite the same book, as far too many authors do, the author takes a new slant, a new approach, new characters and heads off into new directions. That, and Neverwhere, is why I did read through the book.

A venom-packed rant - Just to make 'em feel better ... or let the medicos make more money

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

In my continuing effort to torque the entire planet, I come to you today with this well-thought and well-researched statement.

Addiction is not a disease. Ergo, alcoholism is not a disease. Neither is drug addiction, tobacco addition.

Neither is being fat.

So what is disease? Disease is the body and it's functions being knocked out of the normal range of function.

"Yeah well, Baker, alcoholism causes that!"

Yes. It can. But, being poisoned is not a disease by anyone's interpretation of the word "disease." Poisons alter the body's functions. Being in a wreck is not a disease. If you survive a wreck, you may come out with body parts that no longer work as they used to. You may even be missing body parts. Eating fugu can kill you and people die every year from eating it. They do so anyway. It's not a disease.

And not 1 is a disease.

Disease is involuntary. Addiction is completely and totally voluntary.

For that matter, there are a LOT of things people do every day because they want to which can kill, maim cripple, disfigure, wound, permanently alter body function and shape. No one calls Base Jumping a disease. I could go on.

"Baker, you have no idea what you're talking about. You are an idiot."

That could be, but I am an idiot who has overcome three addictions. At no time during the addictions I had did I feel any of them was a disease.

Addiction is a behavior driven by a personal decision.

Addiction is a problem you can control. Disease is something outside your direct control.

THE CASE FOR DISEASE

On alcoholism, the Mayor Clinic says "Alcoholism is a chronic and often progressive disease that includes problems controlling your drinking, being preoccupied with alcohol, continuing to use alcohol even when it causes problems, having to drink more to get the same effect (physical dependence), or having withdrawal symptoms when you rapidly decrease or stop drinking. If you have alcoholism, you can't consistently predict how much you'll drink, how long you'll drink, or what consequences will occur from your drinking."

In the above statement the word "you" or a derivative was used or understood to be used more than 10 times. Each time the word "you" is used, it is directly connected to a voluntary action.

THE CASE AGAINST DISEASE

As much as I don't like the idea, the federal gummint agrees with me, sort of. "The specific disease concept, associated mainly with the Fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous, is contradicted by empirical evidence and unhelpful for preventive and treatment responses to problem drinking, especially for the effort to detect and modify problem drinking at an early stage." National Center for Biotechnology Information

The debilitating effects alcoholism stop when drinking stops, except when a person has ruined their body to the point it cannot recover. Cirrhosis of the liver, caused by a lifetime of drinking, is a disease. Yup.

Bashing your head with a hammer will eventually crack your skull and if you keep going, you'll damage your brain. That's not a disease.

Addiction is only disease I know of that is totally, completely and 100 percent within the control of the person with the disease.

Don't wanna be an alcoholic? Quit drinking. Don't wanna be addicted to something? Quit.

"It ain't that easy, Baker."

The value of anything is directly related to the effort put into it. In slightly different wording, nothing worth doing is every easy.

Either quit or do not whine to me about your addiction. Before I quit listening to you, I will ridicule you and probably do it maliciously.

With all this being said, I point out the American Medical Association has just declared obesity to be a disease.

It's not. Some in the AMA agree with me.

The AMA decision was not unanimous. Reporting in the NY Times, Andrew Pollack wrote, "In making the decision, delegates at the association’s annual meeting in Chicago overrode a recommendation against doing so by a committee that had studied the matter."

Why did the AMA decide being fat is a disease? Mo Money.

Money. Period. By declaring a decision to overeat and not move around enough to burn off the extra calories, the AMA positions its members to make majorly much more money from insurance companies and the government. In other words, your decision to be fat suddenly becomes the responsibility of everyone who has the same insurance company as you (if you have insurance) and-or taxpayers if you have Medicare or Medicaid OR you must rely on charity - indigent care - which puts the bill on insurance companies and taxpayers who pick up your bill through higher rates and more taxes to the gummint health care programs. Them doctors and nurses ain't working for free and I don't blame 'em.

If you are fat and do not wish to be, then lose weight. Eat less. I absolutely guarantee without question that if you take in 900 calories a day and burn 901 calories a day, you will lose weight. Wanna burn more calories? Move more.

As in the past, I expect some people to whine at me that they cannot lose weight. No. They do not want to lose weight. Go on an African bushman diet and see how much you weigh at the end of a week. Stick to it for a while and soon you too will be incredibly thin.

Of voting, lawyers, SCOTUS and other things that can *%$^&% your life

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Some people believe the rulings of the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) are not law, but opinions.

No argument here, but when a SCOTUS ruling can put you in jail, take away everything you own and end your life (capital punishment) I don't really see a difference between law and opinion.

So this week SCOTUS handed down several decisions. The one drawing the most attention is the 7-2 decision from Arizona which ruled in part, and in part ONLY, that states can't demand proof of citizenship to be eligible to vote.

positioned on the left side of the screen...

States are still free to petition the Election Assistance Commission and the Department of Justice for the 13 Southern states still subject to laws that don't apply in the rest of the nation. States can ask for ways to determine voter eligibility.

A minor problem is the Constitution splits authority for running elections between the states and Congress. This means a hodge-podge of election laws across the 50 states and various territories lumped in with federal election law.

The real problem is the oligarchy which is doing everything it can to prevent free elections. If state legislatures wanted free elections, they'd do away with taxpayer-paid party primaries, let anyone who wanted to get on the ballot do so (well, if the meet Constitutional requirements) and have an election.

Those who say such a system would result in mass confusion and pandemonium at the ballot box are also part of the problem.

MARACICH v. SPEARS:

I admit to not understanding a lot of this, except that it has to do with how parasites of the human condition conduct business and personal privacy. Each side is a class action suit. The plaintiff said the defendants got his personal information for their suit in violation of privacy laws. This one got kicked back to a lower court to see if damage awards are needed.

The majority ruled gathering personal info for a class action suit is not acceptable under the federal Driver’s Privacy Protection Act. According to the minority, this will make some lawyer's jobs harder.

 Sometimes we win one.

SALINAS v. TEXAS

In this one, the court ruled the Miranda rights only apply after being arrested. If you've not been arrested, they don't have to tell your rights.

Easy way out of this:

1) Keep your mouth shut.

2) If law enforcement persists with questions, tell them you need a lawyer present.

At the same time, be polite. Most law enforcement officers are trying to be helpful and take the oath to serve and protect very seriously.

You may think "I have nothing to hide." That may be. But it doesn't mean you must explain, show and allow them to investigate without a warrant or probable cause.

The most expected rulings didn't come down this week. The decision, opinion, ruling, whatever on gay marriage is the one everyone is looking for. The reality is this is not a case on gay marriage. It is a case of whether or not two people of the same gender who consider themselves married are entitled to all the legal benefits of a heterosexual married couple.

If you view marriage as a religious matter, as I do, government cannot be involved, cannot say it is right or wrong and in general can't have any view of it. The rights enumerated in the First Amendment spell that out.

In closing, go read for youself. Get you some.

Of wrecks, sharks, and paying for the privilege

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
It accounts for about 150 or so human deaths every year. Violent deaths.

It accounts for more than $1 billion in property damage every year.

It accounts for nearly 200,000 wrecks each year.

It's not a mind altering substance either.

It is only somewhat regulated, with regulations varying widely by state and no federal oversight whatsoever.

It is controlled by a small number of people who pay the state and federal government for the privilege of controlling it.

Some people want no human controls at all. Without these controls, as limited as they are, experts predict human deaths would skyrocket. Even if that doesn't happen, historical evidence shows that without this even limited human control, there would be incredibly widespread suffering, intense pain and massive death.

Some of these demanding no human controls have even said some of the controlling humans are the problem and should themselves be eliminated. [raises hand] I'm one who's received such death threats.

Lemme appear to completely change gears on you now. I'm not, but you won't see it for a few minutes.

Predators do not tolerate competition, even from their own kind, unless they are all part of the same group. Those who like to talk about "nature's way" tend to forget a male lion taking over a pride kills all the cubs. They forget male lions kill hyenas and will kill leopards and cheetahs if they can catch 'em. They forget canines will fight each other, driving away interlopers. Big sharks eat small sharks. Little gators get chomped by big gators.

They conveniently forget the defeated is driven away, often to starve to death or died from the infections in wound received in battle.

Nature's way is that the biggest and meanest predators rule and don't long tolerate competition.

Predators ensure their food supply by eliminating competition. Even vegetarians do this. Monkey troops fight "wars" over territory. Birds defend home ground. Fish battle each other.

Predators also do not solely rely on fang, muscle and claw. Giant sea otters bash open molluscs with rocks. Big raptors will drop turtles onto rocks from on high. Some apes use tools.

So what does this have to do with wrecks, fatalities and property damage?



The "it" above.

To be a bit more obfuscatory, if you wanna get excrutiatingly technical, it's good for you. Health food in fact. Finest kind.

"It" is the cervid, of which there are several species in the US. Whitetail, Coues, Mule, Moose, Elk and some introduced species related but which are not cervid. Add to this the growing numbers of feral hog.

I work to reduce the population of these animals. By doing so, I thin the herd. I prevent overpopulation, starvation when the food sources crash and the aforementioned wrecks and deaths. I eat these animals. I pay handsomely for that privilege every year.

I am the apex predator.

As the apex predator, I do not tolerate competition unless the competition is part of my group. Non-group competition is eliminated. Permanently.

If you are an apex predator, you understand this. If you are not, then you cannot understand and there is no way to explain it.

If you say "let nature take its course," I remind you, I am the force of nature.

No permanent allies, only fools

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

We have no permanent allies,

we have no permanent enemies,

we only have permanent interests. 

paraphrased comment from Henry John Temple Viscount Lord Palmerston 1784-1865 

 

Depending on which side of the political mountain (it is not a divide as that implies 2 sides) you fall, you may consider me a cantservative, a liarberal, a libertarian, a libertine or something else. I believe I tend to the libertine (which is a lower case L Libertarian) view.

Damnocrats one side, Reboobicans the other.

So it was with much delight, fist pumping and chortles of glee that I heard this report last night on NPR.

I am not a fan of the ACLU. However, I recognize they do good things from time to time. This is one of those times. In what will stun the hell out of some card carrying liberals, the ACLU has blinders on. Really. That's something I admire them for. If you don't believe the ACLU has blinders on, read this.

The extended NPR report points to historical research dating back to the days of FDR (that's where the research stopped) of instances where government gathered personal information on people. In every (every, no exceptions) where government gathered personal information, that data was used BEYOND the scope it was originally intended for. The top secret papers already show government is taking the information it gathers BEYOND the scope of the Patriot Act Law. So says experts interviewed by NPR.

Arg. Confusing,

 

Government takes your information and uses it illegally. Always has. NPR says so and NPR is supposed to be the No. 1 news agency in the nation to toe the government line. 

 

Government takes your information and uses it illegally. My opinion, always will. Opinion supported by people who make a living studying government.

This research paper pointed out some people in government also used that information for personal reasons - stalking, revenge, etc.

These people are rarely prosecuted.

 

As much as I support the ACLU suit in this case, I don't expect much to come of it. 

 

Nothing is going to happen until people start being arrested and thrown under the jail. That also won't happen. Government will rig the cases.

 

It's what government does.

 

While I'm here, let me point out this is being done by a "Damnocrat" administration and Damnocrats and Reboobicans are howling. When it was done by a "Reboobican" administration, Damnocrats mostly howled, joined only by a few Reboobicans.

 

What's the difference? Same action. "Different" POTUS, at least as different as you can get in an oligarchy.  

The difference is fools prefer lies to truth, prefer to be coddled than educated and will follow a leader in such a manner that even lemmings will stand up and say "Whoa! Dude, I think you need to look where you're going."

Most of the people who read my ramblings are nodding their heads sagely at this point and saying I am correct. A select few will say I have no idea what I am talking about and I am an idiot.

There are fools among us, yes, and sometimes I am one. In this case, I am not the fool. Who is the fool? I leave that to your incredible powers of discernment.

Rackin', whackin' & stackin'

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
When Susan announced she wanted to be on the 4-H Shotgun team, I set about finding a shotgun for her. In case you are wondering, finding a left-handed shotgun is like finding a non-lying politician. They exist, but they are about as hard to find as a, well, a non-lying politicians.

I checked all over the place for sinister autoloader. NOTHING. Then I remember Thumper is ambidextrous. Safety on the top, ejects on the bottom.

Hammer time!

I saw Harvey Broome over in Fitzgerald. I told him why I was buying it and he immediately dropped the price. Harvey understands we must get the younger generation involved. So Crambo got a BPS 20 and later I bought a set of chokes.

With her shotgun she's average. She breaks about half the clays she shoots at.

Saturday at the Baker Clan extended reunion, we hauled out to a pond to bust some clays. What I thought was a case of 20 gauge shells turned out to be 12 gauge skeet loads.

Fortunately, I packed The Riot Act. I assured Susan the loads were the same as for her shotgun and it might even kick less because of a ported barrel and the weight.

She decided to try it.

I think she missed 10. She shot more than five boxes of shells.

For some reason - we think it is the rifle sights on the barrel but it could be she was shooting against a background of trees - she went from an average shooter to the best or second best on the pond that day. As to who was better, she or I, that will have to settled another day.

She also managed to rip four shots, several different times, before the clay hit the water. This despite my 12 gauge is harder to cycle than her Browning.

In addition, TRA cycles to the right. With each pump, she had a spent shell crossing her line of sight. Most people who who left handed find this to be an intolerable distraction. If Susan found it distracting, I couldn't tell it.

Someone might say we just have to find out exactly WHY she shot so much better with my 12 gauge.

I reply, she just needs to keep shooting that old Mossberg. If she continues to turn in that kind of performance, next year she'll be the top shooter for the 4-H team and definite contender for state champ.

This ain't stereo

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
This is not the kind of blog you'd expect me to write.

To explain, Susan recently asked to switch stereos with me. She said the one I had "looks better." She has it. I have the one she had.

The one she traded is louder, has superior speakers, but it does look old. It has a record player and dual cassette decks. No CD. The one I traded her has a 3-CD spinner.

So. We traded.

An RCA jack on one speaker is missing. So I wired it into the other speaker. What looks like a stereo system is a mono system.

This has created, for me a different listening experience when I tune in a terrestrial radio station in the evenings.

Today's music is recorded in stereo. Sometimes ertain tracks intended to be played in one channel only.

Radio is also broadcast in stereo.

This combines, in my case, for some interesting listening experiences. I find that I am listening to very familiar songs differently. Instrumental tracks sometimes fade to nearly nothing while the vocals, done on both tracks, remain strong.

This lets me hear the singer in a new way.

On straight instrumental work, I get to hear playing that I otherwise didn't quite realize was there.

This is proving to be a very interesting experience. Soon I will switch the connected speaker(s) to the other port and see what I've been missing on the other channel.

The perfect plan!

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Being brilliant, I have come up with the perfect plan. A perfect plan for dealing with idiots.

I am setting aside one day a month to deal with idiots.

So, if you are an idiot and need to talk to me, at me, with me or otherwise need to be dealt with, come by the office on this day each month. I will deal with you then.

Do not come on any other day as I will tell you, "I'm not dealing with idiots today. You will have to come back."

No appointment is necessary. First come, first dealt with.

Idiots will have to wait outside. They can wait in Elrod Park next door, play in the fountain, roll around on the rose bushes in the planted areas or get sunburned laying on the granite benches. I'm good either way.

Idiots may also be dealt with in groups. I prefer this option as it will save me a lot of time. Because of space in the office, idiot groups will be limited to one less person than actually shows up.

Some of you are wondering what day of the month I have set aside to deal with idiots.

What? Do I look like an idiot? I am setting aside yesterday, each month, to deal with idiots.

All your base are belong to us

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
As noted previously, government has a huge file on me. With all the stuff I do, the licenses I have and frankly, being me in general, this is not surprising.

I go through a background check at least once a year, sometimes more. I get fingerprinted regularly. My annual physical is part of the government records. In short, the government knows a LOT about me.

The Supreme Court ruled yesterday the government can learn even more about me. Law enforcement now has the right to pull DNA samples from someone who's been arrested.

On one hand I see this as the 4 dissenting Justices see it - an intolerable invasion of privacy.

On the other hand, I see it as some of the 5 judge majority see it - the same thing as getting fingerprints.

I pull my info from this HuffPo story.

IN FAVOR

"Taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee DNA is, like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the court's five-justice majority.

Pulling fingerprints is a long established matter. It has led to the solving of many other crimes. Getting DNA, under a search warrant, has also led to solving crimes. Both have exonerated people.

Are your fingerprints a matter of your personal and private business? When you touch something with a bare finger, you leave a fingerprint behind. For that matter, you also leave some cells behind which have your DNA. Do this is in a public place and yeah, it's public. Period. To me it's exactly like walking down the street. Do that and you're in the public eye.

Ya doesn't like it, ya stays out of the public.

However...

IN DISSENT

Public is one thing. Government is quite another.

The SCOTUS case ruled the warrantless DNA swabbing is allowed for "serious" and violent crimes.

 Anyone who believes government is going to stick to that limit voted for the current president.

...Justice Antonin Scalia predict[ed] the limitation to "serious" crimes would not last. "Make no mistake about it: Because of today's decision, your DNA can be taken and entered into a national database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason," Scalia said in a sharp dissent which he read aloud in the courtroom. "This will solve some extra crimes, to be sure. But so would taking your DNA when you fly on an airplane – surely the TSA must know the `identity' of the flying public. For that matter, so would taking your children's DNA when they start public school."

Oy. He's absolutely correct. Once government gets permission to harvest information about people in for one thing, it will expand that to cover anything and everything.

You think not?

EXPANDING GUMMINT

A Maine license with fingerprint coding.

Do you have a bunch of gibberish on the back of your driver's license? Not a bar code, but what looks like the printer had a migraine. In Georgia and some other states, that's a fingerprint digitally encoded.

When this was passed in Georgia, it was done to help eliminate identify theft and fraud. In this regard, it has been one of the most spectacular failures in the history of government. Not too long ago federal folks served warrants in an ID theft case in the town where I live. Several people have been arrested on more than 100 ID-theft related charges per person. Law Enforcement simply didn't bother to pursue more warrants.

The fingerprint is NOT supposed to be used in criminal investigations, in Georgia at least.

And if you believe that's actually what is happening, you voted for the current president twice and wish he could be elected dictator for life.

The simple fact, born out by the history of humanity, is that government will take everything it can get and then some. DNA harvesting is just another step in giving government more control of our lives.

It's wrong and it's going to lead to more abuses.