.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
In the spirit of this season, Yes, Virginia, there are bad guns. There are good guns.
Here's a pretty good start on the bad ones. I don't agree with all his choices. My list would not include 6, 7 and 9. Here's a good starting point for the best ones.
I have owned a lot of the guns on the best list. Depending on your source for bad ones, I've owned a few there as well.
Dave Petzal is considered by many to be a world authority on firearms. For my money, he's got a LONG way to go to reach the status of Col. Jeff Cooper. But, Petzal lists as Remington 16 gauge as one of his worst guns of all time. This particular Remmy was a converted 12 gauge receiver. Petzal hates it. I had one for a while, traded it for a 16g double barrel and I was (am) happy with both.
Petzal also included a 36-inch barrel bolt-action 12g shotgun as one of
the worst of all time. I've seen one, watched someone hunt dove with one
and I absolutely agree. Fortunately I have never owned one of those.
As Joe Saxon says, "You pull the trigger and it goes bang. What more do you want?"
Joe will agree with me when I add: "A gun that won't blow up in your hands, works properly and doesn't take a 2x4 and a vise to reload." The last could be negotiable depending on the circumstances.
So with that in mind, lemme tell you my worst and best gun of all time.
WORST
RG10s. I've had 2, both given to me and I overpaid for both. This wheelgun shoots .22 shorts ONLY and the cylinder will line up properly with the barrel sometimes. The back blast is truly impressive when someone else is shooting one. If you are shooting it, the back blast is beyond impressive. Wear safety glasses, ear plugs, gloves, an asbestos shirt and still try to talk to someone else into shooting it while you watch from a safe distance a few counties away.
It shoots shorts but the noise is incredible. What it lacks in accuracy it makes up for in trigger pull. When your trigger finger needs a workout, get an RG10s and dry fire it. That 35-pound trigger pull will even work your abdomen.
Some people say the "Saturday Night Special" is the Raven .25 acp. Not so. The Raven is a dependable little autoloader. Do not blame the gun for the puniness of the round.
If any gun ever deserved the moniker "Saturday Night Special" it is the RG10s.
Bizarrely enough, this gun was made in Germany, a country known for the quality of it's engineering. I think it's Germany's revenge for what we did to 'em in WWI and WWII.
BEST
Mossberg 500. Someone will argue this place should be occupied by the Remington 870. Go write your own column after you read this.
I've also had 2 Mossbergs, one of which I traded. I traded because the recipient in this trade needed a 500 in his gun safe.
The 500 straight from the factory can sport a barrel of 18 to 36 inches with removable chokes. The receiver can be mounted for a scope or you can get a cantilevered barrel for the scope (get this the cantilever). You can get wood or synthetic furniture. Customizing is only limited by your imagination.
You can load everything from mouse-hunting to ammo that I'd hunt Dangerous Game with.
It's a pump, the most reliable repeating shotgun you can buy. For my money Ithaca perfected the pump with the older model 37s. But the Ithaca is not as customizable.
The 500 and the 870 are the most customizable guns on the planet. The reason I put the 500 above the 870 is black powder. Yes, the 500 now has a .50 black powder barrel which means the 500 is now a truly all-season, all use firearm.
You may have a gun which you say is the best. But unless you've actually hefted and tried to a shoot the RG10s, I suggest you don't have a worse one.
The views in this blog are not those of people who can't think for themselves and rely on others to think for them. For that matter, the views expressed here may not be those of people who CAN think for themselves, but it comes extremely close.
Tuesday, December 23, 2014
Tuesday, December 16, 2014
Free speech and forcing the government
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The First Amendment, free speech, includes the right to keep your damfool mouf shut. It also prevents government (not private business) from making you keep your damfool mouf shut.
Clear enough.
But. Can a private citizen force the government to say something?
You may now state, "Say what, Baker?"
At issue are vanity license plates. These are vehicle tags that sometimes have witting statements. My taxidermist has one "Strap1On." I'll let you wonder what he means by that.
Governments have long denied and approved various vanity license plates. Profanity is routinely shot down. Vulgarity, well, standards vary. How about offensive?
Offensive to whom? Why? How?
SCOTUS is taking this one up. At issue is a Confederate License Plate too offensive? In Georgia, it;s not. You can buy a license plate with a Sons of Confederate Veterans emblem. The Sons are a non-racial group, even yankees welcome, which supports Southern Heritage.
The right to be offended clobbers the right to not be offended, as it should be.
However, this case does not turn on offense. It is a very real question of how much can we force government to say. A license plate, issued by the government, is a statement by government. Can private citizens force government to say anything?
Look at this another way. Government is supposed to be by, for and of ALL of us. Government is supposed to be us. You. Me. The guy behind you who just ducked around the corner so you can't see him when you look back. Racists. Right to Life and Right to Choose. Atheists. Deists. Anarchists. Socialists. Even your weird cousin.
In a sense, when government says something, we all say it.
So, can one person force government to say something? Can one person force the rest of us to say something? Can the rest of us tell that one person to shut up and make that stick? Do we have to listen to him? Does he have to listen to us?
I say let 'er rip. When one voice is silenced, we are all diminished.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The First Amendment, free speech, includes the right to keep your damfool mouf shut. It also prevents government (not private business) from making you keep your damfool mouf shut.
Clear enough.
But. Can a private citizen force the government to say something?
You may now state, "Say what, Baker?"
At issue are vanity license plates. These are vehicle tags that sometimes have witting statements. My taxidermist has one "Strap1On." I'll let you wonder what he means by that.
Governments have long denied and approved various vanity license plates. Profanity is routinely shot down. Vulgarity, well, standards vary. How about offensive?
Offensive to whom? Why? How?
SCOTUS is taking this one up. At issue is a Confederate License Plate too offensive? In Georgia, it;s not. You can buy a license plate with a Sons of Confederate Veterans emblem. The Sons are a non-racial group, even yankees welcome, which supports Southern Heritage.
The right to be offended clobbers the right to not be offended, as it should be.
However, this case does not turn on offense. It is a very real question of how much can we force government to say. A license plate, issued by the government, is a statement by government. Can private citizens force government to say anything?
Look at this another way. Government is supposed to be by, for and of ALL of us. Government is supposed to be us. You. Me. The guy behind you who just ducked around the corner so you can't see him when you look back. Racists. Right to Life and Right to Choose. Atheists. Deists. Anarchists. Socialists. Even your weird cousin.
In a sense, when government says something, we all say it.
So, can one person force government to say something? Can one person force the rest of us to say something? Can the rest of us tell that one person to shut up and make that stick? Do we have to listen to him? Does he have to listen to us?
I say let 'er rip. When one voice is silenced, we are all diminished.
Thursday, December 11, 2014
Getting my attention
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
As a newspaper editor, I am wanted. Admittedly a lot of people want to get ahold of me to strangle me, but some people want me because they believe I can get them free publicity.
My spam folders fill every day with requests for free PR. Increasingly less common is snail mail requests. Most of these go to File 13 unopened and unread. Every now and then, one merits opening.
It is always MORE than just a standard envelope with a few pages shoved inside. It's ALWAYS thick, many times a box and often oddly shaped.
The best one EVER was more than 20 years ago when a fish finder company introduced an truly new underwater fish sonar. It was called SideFinder and this one look to the SIDE of the boat instead of straight down. The PR campaign was a week long. Each day I got a box. Inside was a fortune cookie. I opened the cookie for a cryptic message. The final delivery was the PR package explaining the previous fortune cookies.
A very expensive PR campaign, but if I remember it 20+ years later, it shows how effective it was.
Crost my desk today is a stuffed envelope from a company called DipDip.com . I was expecting something comestible when I opened it.
Nope. I got Egg-Shaped Mini Christma stickers, DipDip Christmas Stickers and DipDip Magic Poker.
I call BS on No. 3. If you want to see REAL magic poker, attend one of the Isabella Poker Club meetings and watch how fast your wallet mysteriously empties. Happens to me every. single. time.
Anyway, goal achieved. They got free PR for their creative attempt to get my attention. You have the website. Go ye forth to learn more if you want to. It's something to do with education. Me? I've learned enough about the company. I'm gonna give the stickers to a child and slide the cards into my next hand at the Isabella Poker Club meeting.
Monday, December 1, 2014
Ain't not never done gonna agree on where this be at
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Ok, so this title is a bit over the top, even for me.
My point is about grammar, spelling, punctuation, syntax (as opposed to sin tax HAR!) and all the other rules which make up verbal communication.
I'm pretty flexible, in case you've not noticed, about the rules of English.
I have long said and believed the point of communication is to get an idea across. If the intended audience fully understands the idea on the first attempt, communication wins! If the audience doesn't get it, then communication is a failure. More specifically, the person trying to express an idea has failed.
If you are not the intended audience for the idea, it doesn't matter if you get it or not. In some cases, you being unable to understand is actually intended. Think cypher and secret codes.
My writing cohorts out there regularly throw fits over what they see as incorrect use of the language.
Why? More importantly, why is it wrong? See above regarding a successful attempt at communication.
Who put YOU in charge of the language?
At the same time, I admit to seeing the use of "your" when the word should be "you're" as jolting. If you are attempting communication with me and you use the pronoun wrong, then you have failed. I have to back up and re-read. This annoys me because you have wasted my time, not because you have twisted the language to suit your own purposes. Do it often enough and I will tune you out completely.
I dangle prepositions. I mix metaphors. I split infinitives. I use "ain't." I will even use a triple negative from time to time: "ain't not never." I deliberately twist the English language for effects. I have my own ways of spelling some words. Yassee, yer ways ain't mine. I refuse to be constrained by a set of arbitrary rules created by people who are not a part of my world.
I'm gonna write and talk the way I want to. If this' here be bothering you, then lemme introduce you to this thing we in the South call a door. Open. Step through. Close.
If you understand, on the first attempt, what I am saying/writing/communicating, SUCCESS! If you don't then:
1) I failed.
2) I didn't intend it for you.
Most of the time, pick option 2.
Always pick option 2 if you object to where I'm at.
Typos, OTOH, drive me beyond around the bend. GAH!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Ok, so this title is a bit over the top, even for me.
My point is about grammar, spelling, punctuation, syntax (as opposed to sin tax HAR!) and all the other rules which make up verbal communication.
I'm pretty flexible, in case you've not noticed, about the rules of English.
I have long said and believed the point of communication is to get an idea across. If the intended audience fully understands the idea on the first attempt, communication wins! If the audience doesn't get it, then communication is a failure. More specifically, the person trying to express an idea has failed.
If you are not the intended audience for the idea, it doesn't matter if you get it or not. In some cases, you being unable to understand is actually intended. Think cypher and secret codes.
My writing cohorts out there regularly throw fits over what they see as incorrect use of the language.
Why? More importantly, why is it wrong? See above regarding a successful attempt at communication.
Who put YOU in charge of the language?
At the same time, I admit to seeing the use of "your" when the word should be "you're" as jolting. If you are attempting communication with me and you use the pronoun wrong, then you have failed. I have to back up and re-read. This annoys me because you have wasted my time, not because you have twisted the language to suit your own purposes. Do it often enough and I will tune you out completely.
I dangle prepositions. I mix metaphors. I split infinitives. I use "ain't." I will even use a triple negative from time to time: "ain't not never." I deliberately twist the English language for effects. I have my own ways of spelling some words. Yassee, yer ways ain't mine. I refuse to be constrained by a set of arbitrary rules created by people who are not a part of my world.
I'm gonna write and talk the way I want to. If this' here be bothering you, then lemme introduce you to this thing we in the South call a door. Open. Step through. Close.
If you understand, on the first attempt, what I am saying/writing/communicating, SUCCESS! If you don't then:
1) I failed.
2) I didn't intend it for you.
Most of the time, pick option 2.
Always pick option 2 if you object to where I'm at.
Typos, OTOH, drive me beyond around the bend. GAH!
Tuesday, November 18, 2014
JFK, FDR, Cain, The Cos and the Kama Sutra
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Bill Cosby, long America's father figure, is being body slammed, again, by allegation of sexual misconduct. The Cos is presently ignoring attempts to get him to address this issue.
In the most recent NPR interview, The Cos kept his mouth shut despite repeated questioning from Scott Simon.
Yay Bill!
Yay for several reasons, enumerated here in whatever order they happen to fall out of my brain.
1) It's none of the media's business. Really. Cos is a public figure, but he does not make policy, create or pass laws or do pretty much anything that can directly affect any of us. So, his character and how he conducts himself is irrelevant. If you don't like his forms of entertainment, don't partake of it.
2) It's none of your business. Your prurient interest in him is only driven by the fact he's a celebrity. If he was a man living two cities away from you, likely you'd not care one bit. If you don't like his forms of entertainment, don't partake of it.
3) If anything illegal happened, it's a matter for the courts. That does make it your business, but only after charges are filed. Someone showing up and making a claim is so much bullshit.
4) It's a matter between Bill and the accusers. You ain't got a dog in this fight, unless it goes to criminal court.
Why all this mass interest in what other people do to and with each other? It's not new (nor is it news as I just said). Ancient literature is packed with sex. Even the Bible has plenty of gossip about patriarchs making the beast with two backs. Yes. Gossip.
Attention to the sexual habits of other people, and turning that into news, got its modern start with Gary Hart when he took a cruise with on the aptly named Monkey Business with Donna Rice. I met and talked at length with the then-editor of The Miami Herald newspaper, the paper which broke this story. He told me the paper was swamped the next day with subscription cancellations. Most returned. Today, wouldn't be a whimper.
To me this was news. Hart, as he was running for president, displayed exactly what kind of character he had. Character is important in the people who choose as our leaders.
But, it's not always been news. Ted Kennedy got away with murder, nee' Chappaquiddick and the late Mary Jo Kopechne. Were a US sinator (no typo there) to do the same thing today, he'd be hounded out of office.
FDR, the nearly sainted president handicapped by polio, kept a spare bedroom for his mistress. The press cadre surrounding him knew of this, but said nothing. JFK was also well known for boot knocking outside the confines of his marriage to Jackie, but the press was again silent.
Now, it's news. Herman Cain's run for the presidency was derailed by allegations from women. So far as I know, those allegations remain allegations. I'm could be convinced their stories were faked and aimed at ending his run for president.
FDR, JFK and Hart are different than Cain. Hart was caught and called out. The MH editor talked about it at length and how Hart replied "I don't know" to the reporter's questions, despite the reporter having plenty evidence of what was going on. Cain was simply accused.
What two (or more) consenting adult people do to and with each other is none of your business, unless you're one of the consenting adults, the vast majority of the time. The only time it is your business is when one of those people is in a position to affect you directly, as in an elected official. Even then, it only becomes your business when one of those people lies, cheats or steals. That shows character. If the person is willing to lie, cheat and steal in their private life, they'll do so when in office.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Bill Cosby, long America's father figure, is being body slammed, again, by allegation of sexual misconduct. The Cos is presently ignoring attempts to get him to address this issue.
In the most recent NPR interview, The Cos kept his mouth shut despite repeated questioning from Scott Simon.
Yay Bill!
Yay for several reasons, enumerated here in whatever order they happen to fall out of my brain.
1) It's none of the media's business. Really. Cos is a public figure, but he does not make policy, create or pass laws or do pretty much anything that can directly affect any of us. So, his character and how he conducts himself is irrelevant. If you don't like his forms of entertainment, don't partake of it.
2) It's none of your business. Your prurient interest in him is only driven by the fact he's a celebrity. If he was a man living two cities away from you, likely you'd not care one bit. If you don't like his forms of entertainment, don't partake of it.
3) If anything illegal happened, it's a matter for the courts. That does make it your business, but only after charges are filed. Someone showing up and making a claim is so much bullshit.
4) It's a matter between Bill and the accusers. You ain't got a dog in this fight, unless it goes to criminal court.
Why all this mass interest in what other people do to and with each other? It's not new (nor is it news as I just said). Ancient literature is packed with sex. Even the Bible has plenty of gossip about patriarchs making the beast with two backs. Yes. Gossip.
Attention to the sexual habits of other people, and turning that into news, got its modern start with Gary Hart when he took a cruise with on the aptly named Monkey Business with Donna Rice. I met and talked at length with the then-editor of The Miami Herald newspaper, the paper which broke this story. He told me the paper was swamped the next day with subscription cancellations. Most returned. Today, wouldn't be a whimper.
To me this was news. Hart, as he was running for president, displayed exactly what kind of character he had. Character is important in the people who choose as our leaders.
But, it's not always been news. Ted Kennedy got away with murder, nee' Chappaquiddick and the late Mary Jo Kopechne. Were a US sinator (no typo there) to do the same thing today, he'd be hounded out of office.
FDR, the nearly sainted president handicapped by polio, kept a spare bedroom for his mistress. The press cadre surrounding him knew of this, but said nothing. JFK was also well known for boot knocking outside the confines of his marriage to Jackie, but the press was again silent.
Now, it's news. Herman Cain's run for the presidency was derailed by allegations from women. So far as I know, those allegations remain allegations. I'm could be convinced their stories were faked and aimed at ending his run for president.
FDR, JFK and Hart are different than Cain. Hart was caught and called out. The MH editor talked about it at length and how Hart replied "I don't know" to the reporter's questions, despite the reporter having plenty evidence of what was going on. Cain was simply accused.
What two (or more) consenting adult people do to and with each other is none of your business, unless you're one of the consenting adults, the vast majority of the time. The only time it is your business is when one of those people is in a position to affect you directly, as in an elected official. Even then, it only becomes your business when one of those people lies, cheats or steals. That shows character. If the person is willing to lie, cheat and steal in their private life, they'll do so when in office.
Friday, November 14, 2014
Adding consternation to confusion ... or the other way 'round
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
What is freedom of speech? Really.
Do you have the unfettered right to say any anything you want to, any time you want to, wherever you want to under any circumstances?
No. You can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theater. It is ok to yell "MOVIE!" in a crowded firehouse. You can't incite people to riot, agitate for the violent overthrow of the US government (which I have issues with) and a few more things.
A lot of people think they have the unfettered right, in the US anyway, to say whatever they want to in letters to the editor, posts on social media and so forth.
You don't.
Freedom of speech prevents the government from shutting your piehole, except in some very narrow circumstances.
It does not mean you get to have your say when someone else is footing the bill.
That, like much of what I right (that is not a typo), doesn't make sense.
Try this: Freedom of the press belongs to the man who owns the press.
Let's make this practical, if a bit personal.
I run a newspaper. I publish letters to the editor. Am I obligated to print your letter to the editor?
No.
You disagree? Please show me in the Constitution, a state or federal law which requires a private company to let you have your say. I can show you many laws, including court decisions, which say you can't have your say on my time.
In short, if I'm paying for it, I decide what gets to be said. If you pay, you get to decide.
You don't like it? Start your own newspaper. Government can't stop you, nor can I use the law to stop you..
Free speech is a big issue on Facebook. Lots of people think they can say whatever they wish on FB and FB can't make them stop.
Not true.
FB is paying the bills and FB gets to decide what is said. If you don't like it, you can start your own social media and set the rules to please you. FB, being a private company, has no obligation to support or enable your right to free speech.
On the other side of this coin, and this is what confuses people the most, free speech is the right to keep your damfool mouth shut. You can't be forced to speak.
That's why FB can shut down discussion groups. That's why I don't have to publish your letter to the editor.
Free speech is a block on government, period.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
What is freedom of speech? Really.
Do you have the unfettered right to say any anything you want to, any time you want to, wherever you want to under any circumstances?
No. You can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theater. It is ok to yell "MOVIE!" in a crowded firehouse. You can't incite people to riot, agitate for the violent overthrow of the US government (which I have issues with) and a few more things.
A lot of people think they have the unfettered right, in the US anyway, to say whatever they want to in letters to the editor, posts on social media and so forth.
You don't.
Freedom of speech prevents the government from shutting your piehole, except in some very narrow circumstances.
It does not mean you get to have your say when someone else is footing the bill.
That, like much of what I right (that is not a typo), doesn't make sense.
Try this: Freedom of the press belongs to the man who owns the press.
Let's make this practical, if a bit personal.
I run a newspaper. I publish letters to the editor. Am I obligated to print your letter to the editor?
No.
You disagree? Please show me in the Constitution, a state or federal law which requires a private company to let you have your say. I can show you many laws, including court decisions, which say you can't have your say on my time.
In short, if I'm paying for it, I decide what gets to be said. If you pay, you get to decide.
You don't like it? Start your own newspaper. Government can't stop you, nor can I use the law to stop you..
Free speech is a big issue on Facebook. Lots of people think they can say whatever they wish on FB and FB can't make them stop.
Not true.
FB is paying the bills and FB gets to decide what is said. If you don't like it, you can start your own social media and set the rules to please you. FB, being a private company, has no obligation to support or enable your right to free speech.
On the other side of this coin, and this is what confuses people the most, free speech is the right to keep your damfool mouth shut. You can't be forced to speak.
That's why FB can shut down discussion groups. That's why I don't have to publish your letter to the editor.
Free speech is a block on government, period.
Friday, October 24, 2014
The hard language reality of high school football
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Doug Rogers recently said something which bears repeating: "If any of you have ever been on the sidelines of a high skewl fooball game like I have, I assure you that you would be absolutely appalled at the language and attitude of ANY given coaching staff. This whole Academic Magnet thing is a joke to me personally. I was in the military for 11 years and have never heard some of the language I had to listen to on the sidelines. We really need to look at the bigger picture. Just my two cents."
Like Doug, I have spent a lot of time on the sidelines of high school football games and I will spend time on the sidelines tonight. I have heard coaches curl the grass with their language. I have watched, from a distance as they said things which even the worst lip reader on the planet could interpret.
The comments section on FB are full of replies of people complaining about these coaches. Hang on to that thought a moment; I have to shift gears.
I reminded of what my late grandmother said about former UGA football coach Ray Goff. "He's not mean enough," she said when Vince Dooly announced Goff was being replaced after less than spectacular performances at UGA. Other said Goff was certainly not suitable as a head coach for the same reasons. One person said Goff was best as a recruiter, because he could make parents feel good about their children attending UGA.
Someone, perhaps MA, is going to remind me of an NFL coach who was never abusive toward his players, racked up an impressive win record and is routinely listed as the "Coach I'd most like to play for" by NFL players. I don't really wonder why more NFL players didn't join his team in that case. They didn't because of NFL rules and money, mostly money.
That coach is an aberration.
Let's shift back to the people complaining about high school football coaches.
Lemme ask you this: Which do you want, a winning football team OR a coach who doesn't swear on the sidelines? Pick one because you cannot have both. Sure, sure, there are aberrations like that NFL coach. But of 1,000 high school coaches with winning records, 999 will be the kind who explode with language that makes some people cringe.
So, which do you want?
I already know.
You want a winning football team. Yes, you do. Attendance in the stands proves it. A winning team packs the stadium. A losing team has only the most die-hard fans most, not all, of whom are parents of children on the team.
The kids want a winning team. When the coach delivers victories, turnout for the team rises. When the coach can't put together a winning season, kids migrate to other activities.
The Board of Education wants a winning team. Losing coaches have a hard time getting their contracts renewed. Winning coaches are courted by other schools.
Winning is what matters. If it takes a coach who can knock the bark off a pine tree at 20 paces, then we'll just have to replant the trees.
Parents of players, you are the worst of the lot. As MH said, "I find it hard to equate any reality into a game where professionals are so over paid that parents would rather their kids get permanent injuries to get on a team."
Complain and disagree all you like. Actions speak louder than words and reality proves you don't really care what kind of language a coach uses so long as he delivers the win.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Doug Rogers recently said something which bears repeating: "If any of you have ever been on the sidelines of a high skewl fooball game like I have, I assure you that you would be absolutely appalled at the language and attitude of ANY given coaching staff. This whole Academic Magnet thing is a joke to me personally. I was in the military for 11 years and have never heard some of the language I had to listen to on the sidelines. We really need to look at the bigger picture. Just my two cents."
Like Doug, I have spent a lot of time on the sidelines of high school football games and I will spend time on the sidelines tonight. I have heard coaches curl the grass with their language. I have watched, from a distance as they said things which even the worst lip reader on the planet could interpret.
The comments section on FB are full of replies of people complaining about these coaches. Hang on to that thought a moment; I have to shift gears.
I reminded of what my late grandmother said about former UGA football coach Ray Goff. "He's not mean enough," she said when Vince Dooly announced Goff was being replaced after less than spectacular performances at UGA. Other said Goff was certainly not suitable as a head coach for the same reasons. One person said Goff was best as a recruiter, because he could make parents feel good about their children attending UGA.
Someone, perhaps MA, is going to remind me of an NFL coach who was never abusive toward his players, racked up an impressive win record and is routinely listed as the "Coach I'd most like to play for" by NFL players. I don't really wonder why more NFL players didn't join his team in that case. They didn't because of NFL rules and money, mostly money.
That coach is an aberration.
Let's shift back to the people complaining about high school football coaches.
Lemme ask you this: Which do you want, a winning football team OR a coach who doesn't swear on the sidelines? Pick one because you cannot have both. Sure, sure, there are aberrations like that NFL coach. But of 1,000 high school coaches with winning records, 999 will be the kind who explode with language that makes some people cringe.
So, which do you want?
I already know.
You want a winning football team. Yes, you do. Attendance in the stands proves it. A winning team packs the stadium. A losing team has only the most die-hard fans most, not all, of whom are parents of children on the team.
The kids want a winning team. When the coach delivers victories, turnout for the team rises. When the coach can't put together a winning season, kids migrate to other activities.
The Board of Education wants a winning team. Losing coaches have a hard time getting their contracts renewed. Winning coaches are courted by other schools.
Winning is what matters. If it takes a coach who can knock the bark off a pine tree at 20 paces, then we'll just have to replant the trees.
Parents of players, you are the worst of the lot. As MH said, "I find it hard to equate any reality into a game where professionals are so over paid that parents would rather their kids get permanent injuries to get on a team."
Complain and disagree all you like. Actions speak louder than words and reality proves you don't really care what kind of language a coach uses so long as he delivers the win.
Thursday, October 23, 2014
Of interest to gun folks - A top 20
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Joe Saxon said there's something about owning a gun and being able to walk into just about any hardware store and know they have ammunition for it.
Can I get a witness?
It's one thing to own gun, but quite another to be able to feed it. A gun without ammunition is an expensive stick. Consider this article from Outdoor Life on a new wildcat round. Jim Carmichael says "This new wildcat may be the ultimate answer for long-range deer and varmint hunting."
Really? And what, I ask, is wrong with the .243? The .308? The .270 and of course the venerable and mighty .30-06? If you wanna get really technical, the 6.5 Leopard is already duplicated by other wildcats. I say it is a duplicate, but I don't have absolute proof. I do have a conversation with the guys at C4HD who tell me they've cranked out so many wildcatter dies they can't tell me for sure.
Where is Mr. Carmichael gonna get ammo for the 6.5 Leopard except from his own reloading press?
Say he goes on a hunting trip with this rifle and loses his ammo supply. Now what? He's either buying or borrowing another gun.
Which rolls me right back around to my original point. It's well and good to have a rifle and a cartridge that you absolutely adore, but if you can't get ammo for it, then what?
Plenty of people have done the 1, 2, or three gun SHTF scenarios, A few have even reached beyond to include 5 guns. I'm asking you what you'd have in the gun safe if you were limited to 20 guns?
With ammo availability the key requirement, here's what I'd have, if I could afford it:
SHOTGUN
A 12 gauge pump - This is the best all around gun. It can shoot light loads of No. 12 shot all the way up to 1 ounce slugs. It's good for everything from squirrel to bear. Why a pump? Less maintenance and more reliable than an auto and faster backup shots than a single shot and more shots than a double-barrel.
A 20 gauge pump. Less kick than the 12 and less punch too. But a 7/8 ounce chunk of lead at 1,200 FPS is gonna flatten what you shoot.
RIFLE
I can go bolt action or single shot with these. Bolt provides a faster second shot than a SS, but a SS is the most accurate and reliable. The sole exception is in a .22. I will take a SS .22 any day over any kind of repeater.
.22 short, long, long rifle - Gimme a .22 and I can kill anything that is native to North America today with one shot. Guaranteed. I've dropped animals weighing more than 1,000 pounds with a .22. I dispatched an elk, mortally wounded, with a .22 revolver. Biggest hog I ever killed, .22 and he dropped.
.22-250 - Anything bigger than a medium hog, this is a head-shot only proposition. But if you are after meat or hides, this will do it out to 1,000 yards.
.223 5.56 NATO - Runs neck and neck with the 7.62x39 as being the world's most common military-style rifle round.
.243 - I don't consider this - and I know this is gonna make some folks mad - a suitable rifle for big deer and larger game. However, small deer, small hogs, etc, you betcha. YMMV.
.270 - Second only to the .30-06 in my book.
7mm Mag - Ubiquitous and no other reason at all.
.30-30 - North America's most popular deer round. If a store has only one box of ammo for a rifle, this is gonna be it.
.308 - A short .30-06. Will handle everything up to most bears. With a head shot, even the biggest bear will wait for you. BONUS! You can load it subsonic and stick on a suppressor.
.30-06 - The King. Load 110 grains and you bust varmints. Load up 220 grain round nose and you can stop a moose.
300 Win Mag - Not as common as the others in this list, but it is in the top 10 best selling rifle cartridges in the United States.
HANDGUN
I prefer revolvers. More reliable.
.380 - Not the strongest to be sure, but the main criteria is feeding the gun. And, it'll still kill supper.
.357 - Shoots .357 mag, .38 special and .38 S&W.
9mm - Underrated, especially when +P ammo is used.
10mm - A 10mm will also shoot .40 ammo. Yes huhn.
.44 mag - Dirty Harry, here we come!
.45 ACP - The original slabsides.
This list is not 20 yet. I add two that I just happen to like and just want in my 20-gun collection.
16 gauge shotgun. Purely emotional decision, I admit. Dad left me a Stevens nickle-plated SXS in 16 gauge and der yaggo.
.45-70 - This old buffalo cartridge has made a comeback in recent years because of cowboy action shooting. It's not extremely common, but can be found. It is also capable of killing any land critter on the planet up to and included the Big 5. Load it hot with 500 grain monolithics and I'd hunt Cape Buffalo and elephant with it. It's a lot MORE common that the other dangerous game rounds.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Joe Saxon said there's something about owning a gun and being able to walk into just about any hardware store and know they have ammunition for it.
Can I get a witness?
It's one thing to own gun, but quite another to be able to feed it. A gun without ammunition is an expensive stick. Consider this article from Outdoor Life on a new wildcat round. Jim Carmichael says "This new wildcat may be the ultimate answer for long-range deer and varmint hunting."
Really? And what, I ask, is wrong with the .243? The .308? The .270 and of course the venerable and mighty .30-06? If you wanna get really technical, the 6.5 Leopard is already duplicated by other wildcats. I say it is a duplicate, but I don't have absolute proof. I do have a conversation with the guys at C4HD who tell me they've cranked out so many wildcatter dies they can't tell me for sure.
Where is Mr. Carmichael gonna get ammo for the 6.5 Leopard except from his own reloading press?
Say he goes on a hunting trip with this rifle and loses his ammo supply. Now what? He's either buying or borrowing another gun.
Which rolls me right back around to my original point. It's well and good to have a rifle and a cartridge that you absolutely adore, but if you can't get ammo for it, then what?
Plenty of people have done the 1, 2, or three gun SHTF scenarios, A few have even reached beyond to include 5 guns. I'm asking you what you'd have in the gun safe if you were limited to 20 guns?
With ammo availability the key requirement, here's what I'd have, if I could afford it:
SHOTGUN
A 12 gauge pump - This is the best all around gun. It can shoot light loads of No. 12 shot all the way up to 1 ounce slugs. It's good for everything from squirrel to bear. Why a pump? Less maintenance and more reliable than an auto and faster backup shots than a single shot and more shots than a double-barrel.
A 20 gauge pump. Less kick than the 12 and less punch too. But a 7/8 ounce chunk of lead at 1,200 FPS is gonna flatten what you shoot.
RIFLE
I can go bolt action or single shot with these. Bolt provides a faster second shot than a SS, but a SS is the most accurate and reliable. The sole exception is in a .22. I will take a SS .22 any day over any kind of repeater.
.22 short, long, long rifle - Gimme a .22 and I can kill anything that is native to North America today with one shot. Guaranteed. I've dropped animals weighing more than 1,000 pounds with a .22. I dispatched an elk, mortally wounded, with a .22 revolver. Biggest hog I ever killed, .22 and he dropped.
.22-250 - Anything bigger than a medium hog, this is a head-shot only proposition. But if you are after meat or hides, this will do it out to 1,000 yards.
.223 5.56 NATO - Runs neck and neck with the 7.62x39 as being the world's most common military-style rifle round.
.243 - I don't consider this - and I know this is gonna make some folks mad - a suitable rifle for big deer and larger game. However, small deer, small hogs, etc, you betcha. YMMV.
.270 - Second only to the .30-06 in my book.
7mm Mag - Ubiquitous and no other reason at all.
.30-30 - North America's most popular deer round. If a store has only one box of ammo for a rifle, this is gonna be it.
.308 - A short .30-06. Will handle everything up to most bears. With a head shot, even the biggest bear will wait for you. BONUS! You can load it subsonic and stick on a suppressor.
.30-06 - The King. Load 110 grains and you bust varmints. Load up 220 grain round nose and you can stop a moose.
300 Win Mag - Not as common as the others in this list, but it is in the top 10 best selling rifle cartridges in the United States.
HANDGUN
I prefer revolvers. More reliable.
.380 - Not the strongest to be sure, but the main criteria is feeding the gun. And, it'll still kill supper.
.357 - Shoots .357 mag, .38 special and .38 S&W.
9mm - Underrated, especially when +P ammo is used.
10mm - A 10mm will also shoot .40 ammo. Yes huhn.
.44 mag - Dirty Harry, here we come!
.45 ACP - The original slabsides.
This list is not 20 yet. I add two that I just happen to like and just want in my 20-gun collection.
16 gauge shotgun. Purely emotional decision, I admit. Dad left me a Stevens nickle-plated SXS in 16 gauge and der yaggo.
.45-70 - This old buffalo cartridge has made a comeback in recent years because of cowboy action shooting. It's not extremely common, but can be found. It is also capable of killing any land critter on the planet up to and included the Big 5. Load it hot with 500 grain monolithics and I'd hunt Cape Buffalo and elephant with it. It's a lot MORE common that the other dangerous game rounds.
Controlling your thoughts
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The recent attempt by the City of Houston to get ahold of preacher's sermons on homosexuality et al has got a number of people riled, including the American Civil Liberties Union.
I have read reports that the subpoenas were filed by a "pro bono" attorney, done without the mayor's knowledge and it's just a fact-finding effort.
For the record, I don't believe any of that. The attorney filing the paperwork may not be getting paid in cash direct, but that lawyer is getting something for this other than a "feel good." The mayor knew about this. I have covered politics and politicians for 30 years now and when a politician says "I didn't know" about something like this, he's lying. So yes, I am calling Annise Parker a liar. As for it being a fact-finding mission, the same can be said of just about any witch hunt.
Brutal Antipathy, a devout atheist and one of the most rational people I know is likewise quite bent about this. He wrote to me:"Talking about Houston mayor Annise Parker's subpoenas ... for churches to turn over their sermons pertaining to homosexuality, gender identity, or herself. Her office has now 'narrowed the scope' of the subpoenas so that it is only 'speeches' given on those topics. 'Scuse me, but isn't a sermon a speech?"
Indeed it is. However in a part of the law I don't understand, churches are tax exempt. Why? People point to the First Amendment and the mistaken idea of "separation of church and state." Me? I think churches ought to pay taxes on everything except their charitable work like a food bank (which the church I attend has).
In another byzantine twist of the law, churches only get to maintain their tax-exempt status when they do not engage in obvious political activities. Supposedly.
The truth screams otherwise. Jeremiah Wright, the current president's former pastor in Chicago, has politic'ed from the pulpit. Other megachurch leaders have done the same. Why aren't they the subject of government scrutiny? Because they are too big and too well connected. Tax exempt status maintained.
It's a clear case of picking on someone who can't effectively fight back. It's what bullies do.
BA says, "This is again one of those issues of separation of church and state. The state, in this case the city, is attempting to bully and intimidate churches into silence. The mayor is saying that churches are only free to promote what she, a self-identified and open lesbian, approves of."
The Thought Police, led by liarberals and cantservatives of the ReDamnoboobicratican stripe, are out to shut you down and shut you up. If they can manage to shut you sideways, diagonal and inverted, they'll do that too.
BA extends the logic: "Now to take a ride on the slippery slope, but it can't be helped. If the mayor of Houston is allowed to tell churches they are not allowed to interpret Leviticus 18:22-23 as literal, what is to stop her from telling churches they are not allowed to interpret Romans 4:25 as literal? While this is unlikely to ever happen (though I seem to recall something akin to this happening in Soviet Russia), it should never be within the power of the state to dictate what we can and cannot believe. That wall of separation is there to protect everybody. WBC has as much right to believe what they believe as the LGBT community has to believe what they believe."
Except government will not accept this. And that, luddites and geraniums, is exactly what this is all about.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The recent attempt by the City of Houston to get ahold of preacher's sermons on homosexuality et al has got a number of people riled, including the American Civil Liberties Union.
I have read reports that the subpoenas were filed by a "pro bono" attorney, done without the mayor's knowledge and it's just a fact-finding effort.
For the record, I don't believe any of that. The attorney filing the paperwork may not be getting paid in cash direct, but that lawyer is getting something for this other than a "feel good." The mayor knew about this. I have covered politics and politicians for 30 years now and when a politician says "I didn't know" about something like this, he's lying. So yes, I am calling Annise Parker a liar. As for it being a fact-finding mission, the same can be said of just about any witch hunt.
Brutal Antipathy, a devout atheist and one of the most rational people I know is likewise quite bent about this. He wrote to me:"Talking about Houston mayor Annise Parker's subpoenas ... for churches to turn over their sermons pertaining to homosexuality, gender identity, or herself. Her office has now 'narrowed the scope' of the subpoenas so that it is only 'speeches' given on those topics. 'Scuse me, but isn't a sermon a speech?"
Indeed it is. However in a part of the law I don't understand, churches are tax exempt. Why? People point to the First Amendment and the mistaken idea of "separation of church and state." Me? I think churches ought to pay taxes on everything except their charitable work like a food bank (which the church I attend has).
In another byzantine twist of the law, churches only get to maintain their tax-exempt status when they do not engage in obvious political activities. Supposedly.
The truth screams otherwise. Jeremiah Wright, the current president's former pastor in Chicago, has politic'ed from the pulpit. Other megachurch leaders have done the same. Why aren't they the subject of government scrutiny? Because they are too big and too well connected. Tax exempt status maintained.
It's a clear case of picking on someone who can't effectively fight back. It's what bullies do.
BA says, "This is again one of those issues of separation of church and state. The state, in this case the city, is attempting to bully and intimidate churches into silence. The mayor is saying that churches are only free to promote what she, a self-identified and open lesbian, approves of."
The Thought Police, led by liarberals and cantservatives of the ReDamnoboobicratican stripe, are out to shut you down and shut you up. If they can manage to shut you sideways, diagonal and inverted, they'll do that too.
BA extends the logic: "Now to take a ride on the slippery slope, but it can't be helped. If the mayor of Houston is allowed to tell churches they are not allowed to interpret Leviticus 18:22-23 as literal, what is to stop her from telling churches they are not allowed to interpret Romans 4:25 as literal? While this is unlikely to ever happen (though I seem to recall something akin to this happening in Soviet Russia), it should never be within the power of the state to dictate what we can and cannot believe. That wall of separation is there to protect everybody. WBC has as much right to believe what they believe as the LGBT community has to believe what they believe."
Except government will not accept this. And that, luddites and geraniums, is exactly what this is all about.
Friday, October 3, 2014
The great cover up
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
This is not about a media or government coverup. Partly it is about a conspiracy and partly it is about simply covering up as in wearing clothes.
Dunno why, but I got to thinking about Muslim women wearing a burka and Ku Kux Klan members wearing their full-head and body covering outfits. I thought I remembered a court declaring the full hood of a KKK member to be illegal. A hood with the face exposed is entirely fine.
So, I set about looking for the court case which decided this. I found out, there ain't one. It has yet to reach the US Supreme Court. Meantime, various states have ruled in different ways. The most recent case found in favor of the person wearing a full-face hood.
So. Let me ask you what's the difference in these two people?
Aside from some physical attributes - white outfit v. black outfit, setting, etc. you cannot tell anything. You do not know why each person is so dressed. You do not know if it is a man or a woman, nor can you say definitively that it's not the SAME person in each picture.
Beyond question, you cannot tell what the person is thinking, plans to do or the reason for wearing such attire.
Therein is the danger.
We have elements in society today who demand the Thought Police show up in force to accuse, prosecute and condemn those who think differently. These elements have no problem in saying their own views, thoughts and words are sacrosanct.
Parity is not even a word in their dictionaries.
So. If we intend to ban the public wearing of the garb on the left in the above picture, I suggest you to parity demands the same of the garb on the right. If the face must be exposed in the left picture, the same must be applied to the one on the right.
Parity.
Now, two divergences:
1) While I'm here, lemme rock your world a bit about the KKK. My kid's mother grew up in Central Mississippi where the Klan had a presence. She describes the outfit then as a little more than a civic club with a streak of vigilante justice that was applied across the board regardless of the ethnicity of the person targeted. Abusers were common targets, no matter who they were.
2) While researching this, I stumbled across stories of the ACLU repping the KKK in various cases. I posted about that, resulting in this thread.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
This is not about a media or government coverup. Partly it is about a conspiracy and partly it is about simply covering up as in wearing clothes.
Dunno why, but I got to thinking about Muslim women wearing a burka and Ku Kux Klan members wearing their full-head and body covering outfits. I thought I remembered a court declaring the full hood of a KKK member to be illegal. A hood with the face exposed is entirely fine.
So, I set about looking for the court case which decided this. I found out, there ain't one. It has yet to reach the US Supreme Court. Meantime, various states have ruled in different ways. The most recent case found in favor of the person wearing a full-face hood.
So. Let me ask you what's the difference in these two people?
Beyond question, you cannot tell what the person is thinking, plans to do or the reason for wearing such attire.
Therein is the danger.
We have elements in society today who demand the Thought Police show up in force to accuse, prosecute and condemn those who think differently. These elements have no problem in saying their own views, thoughts and words are sacrosanct.
Parity is not even a word in their dictionaries.
So. If we intend to ban the public wearing of the garb on the left in the above picture, I suggest you to parity demands the same of the garb on the right. If the face must be exposed in the left picture, the same must be applied to the one on the right.
Parity.
Now, two divergences:
1) While I'm here, lemme rock your world a bit about the KKK. My kid's mother grew up in Central Mississippi where the Klan had a presence. She describes the outfit then as a little more than a civic club with a streak of vigilante justice that was applied across the board regardless of the ethnicity of the person targeted. Abusers were common targets, no matter who they were.
2) While researching this, I stumbled across stories of the ACLU repping the KKK in various cases. I posted about that, resulting in this thread.
Tuesday, September 30, 2014
Jeremiah Johnson - a look at a movie 42 years old
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
At the suggestion of Mike Moore, I watched Jeremiah Johnson. It helped that Mike supplied the DVD.
When the credits rolled, I decided I did not care for the movie.
As I’ve since had time to partly digest what I saw, I am no longer certain I don’t like the movie. To be sure there are parts of the movie which I do not care for. There are parts that still have me thinking and anything that makes me think is a VERY good thing.
What makes me think:
One man, new and alone in the wild. How did he make it? What kind of challenges did he face? What was most rewarding about being alone? What did he miss? What would he change? Why did he do the things he did? What did he leave behind and why? These questions are far deeper than these simple words.
As someone who periodically wonders about moving into The Bush to live, this struck a real chord with me. There are places in this world where a determined and intelligent person can live like that. Getting away from “civilization” appeals to me immensely. Judging from the popularity of the movie, this strikes a resonant chord with a lot of people.
The depth of the character of Jeremiah Johnson in this movie leaves me not really wanting more, but yes, wanting more. I think it hit the right balance of development. Imagination can take flight. I like it.
The fights, to the death in the movie, with the Indians (Ok, Native Americans if you wanna be PC) bother me the most. I am glad the fight scenes were very brief, else I would not have finished watching the movie. Some people need to be killed, child molesters come to mind, and I’m decidedly OK with that. If necessary, I can and will kill someone in self defense. But the idea of killing in war … it’s partly the idea of war that I can’t handle and partly the idea of killing another person without good reason. The movie had plenty of killing for no good reason by my definition.
What I do like-
It was shot entirely on location in Utah. If it did not snow there, I'd want to live there.
Paints His Shirt Red had a double-barrel muzzleloader that was a shotgun on one side (smoothbore) and a rifle (rifled barrel) on the other. Such guns were actually made. I have seen pictures of them. Now, I want one.
From what I know of the clothes at the time, they are accurate.
So, what I do not like, incongruities bother me, a lot -
The firearms in the movie are supposed to be black powder. What was fired in the movie was not. A smokepole generates so much smoke from firing that you literally cannot see your target after shooting if there is no wind.
Jeremiah wanted a .50 Hawken. A fine rifle to be sure, but the most common size was .54 with rifles up to .68. Considering he planned to have a gun capable of taking out a grizzly, a .50 is marginal. However, in the movie he was also a green horn, so I can excuse part of this.
The recoil he experienced when shooting the .50 is entirely Hollywood. I’ve shot a .50 with 150 grains of powder under a 320 grain bullet. That was far more power than Jeremiah was packing and the recoil was still nowhere on the level of Robert Redford’s overacting.
With a much shooting as he likely needed to do, he needed more powder & bullets. Where and when did he get ‘em? That could be in the scenes where he met with other trappers, or understood that he did so when he traded hides. Just makes me wonder.
Blood doesn’t dry bright red on leather, to wit the hole in his jerkin after the wolf attack.
So, do I like the movie? I am not sure. Even after writing this column about it, I am not sure. What I am sure of is, I’ll be thinking on this movie for a long time to come. Very very very few movies have ever had this effect on me. Plenty of books have.
Would I recommend the movie? Without any reservation or hesitation, yes.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
At the suggestion of Mike Moore, I watched Jeremiah Johnson. It helped that Mike supplied the DVD.
When the credits rolled, I decided I did not care for the movie.
As I’ve since had time to partly digest what I saw, I am no longer certain I don’t like the movie. To be sure there are parts of the movie which I do not care for. There are parts that still have me thinking and anything that makes me think is a VERY good thing.
What makes me think:
One man, new and alone in the wild. How did he make it? What kind of challenges did he face? What was most rewarding about being alone? What did he miss? What would he change? Why did he do the things he did? What did he leave behind and why? These questions are far deeper than these simple words.
As someone who periodically wonders about moving into The Bush to live, this struck a real chord with me. There are places in this world where a determined and intelligent person can live like that. Getting away from “civilization” appeals to me immensely. Judging from the popularity of the movie, this strikes a resonant chord with a lot of people.
The depth of the character of Jeremiah Johnson in this movie leaves me not really wanting more, but yes, wanting more. I think it hit the right balance of development. Imagination can take flight. I like it.
The fights, to the death in the movie, with the Indians (Ok, Native Americans if you wanna be PC) bother me the most. I am glad the fight scenes were very brief, else I would not have finished watching the movie. Some people need to be killed, child molesters come to mind, and I’m decidedly OK with that. If necessary, I can and will kill someone in self defense. But the idea of killing in war … it’s partly the idea of war that I can’t handle and partly the idea of killing another person without good reason. The movie had plenty of killing for no good reason by my definition.
What I do like-
It was shot entirely on location in Utah. If it did not snow there, I'd want to live there.
Paints His Shirt Red had a double-barrel muzzleloader that was a shotgun on one side (smoothbore) and a rifle (rifled barrel) on the other. Such guns were actually made. I have seen pictures of them. Now, I want one.
From what I know of the clothes at the time, they are accurate.
So, what I do not like, incongruities bother me, a lot -
The firearms in the movie are supposed to be black powder. What was fired in the movie was not. A smokepole generates so much smoke from firing that you literally cannot see your target after shooting if there is no wind.
Jeremiah wanted a .50 Hawken. A fine rifle to be sure, but the most common size was .54 with rifles up to .68. Considering he planned to have a gun capable of taking out a grizzly, a .50 is marginal. However, in the movie he was also a green horn, so I can excuse part of this.
The recoil he experienced when shooting the .50 is entirely Hollywood. I’ve shot a .50 with 150 grains of powder under a 320 grain bullet. That was far more power than Jeremiah was packing and the recoil was still nowhere on the level of Robert Redford’s overacting.
With a much shooting as he likely needed to do, he needed more powder & bullets. Where and when did he get ‘em? That could be in the scenes where he met with other trappers, or understood that he did so when he traded hides. Just makes me wonder.
Blood doesn’t dry bright red on leather, to wit the hole in his jerkin after the wolf attack.
So, do I like the movie? I am not sure. Even after writing this column about it, I am not sure. What I am sure of is, I’ll be thinking on this movie for a long time to come. Very very very few movies have ever had this effect on me. Plenty of books have.
Would I recommend the movie? Without any reservation or hesitation, yes.
Monday, September 29, 2014
Taking responsibility
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
This one has been jelling for a long time and, frankly, it may need to age more. If this has to be revisited down the road, then we shall do so. But I read a piece today that fanned the slumbering embers a good bit.
It is unquestionably dangerous, foolhardy and irresponsible to take a single line from such a precision essay and use that line to encapsulate the entire argument.
So, here ya go, "The price of women’s modern freedoms is personal responsibility for vigilance and self-defense."
With that in mind, witness this woman and how her image was turned into a meme.
But to continue the fish metaphor, sharks in the ocean account for a small fraction of the total fish population. Those sharks which attack humans without provocation are an even smaller percentage. Nonetheless, a smart person is not going to jump in the ocean with Lady Gaga's formal wear from the 2010 MTV awards. Remember there are other aquatic critters which attack people. So, when something is tearing sizable chunks out of you, does it really matter what has turned you into buffet?
The real question: Who is at fault for what happens?
Certainly her human attackers must bear the blame for their attack. But I point you back to the links above regarding the mental makeup of human beings. Human nature and all that. Educate all you want to, you will not eliminate the people who eagerly give in to "base" desires.
Well, it happened. Now what? Under the same circumstances, it'll happen again.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
This one has been jelling for a long time and, frankly, it may need to age more. If this has to be revisited down the road, then we shall do so. But I read a piece today that fanned the slumbering embers a good bit.
It is unquestionably dangerous, foolhardy and irresponsible to take a single line from such a precision essay and use that line to encapsulate the entire argument.
So, here ya go, "The price of women’s modern freedoms is personal responsibility for vigilance and self-defense."
With that in mind, witness this woman and how her image was turned into a meme.
Me? I'm siding with the OP in the meme. There are people among us who are sharks. Get used to the idea. There are also others, not sharks, but just as dangerous. If the shrinks and dog-slobber specialists (think Pavlov) are right, then the rest of this meme above is pretty f'dangin' shaky.
Lemme summarize: People are mean.
If a person did take such an attired jump, we'd call said person a damfool idiot who got what he-she deserved. If the same person jumped in a regular swimming pool, there'd be plenty of eye-rolling and pejoratives slung about, but the apprised level of stupidity would be far, far below the person who jumped in the ocean.
The lady above had her picture taken in a very public place in the daytime surrounded by hundreds of other people. Lemme run back to the ocean metaphor. She wore a meat suit but jumped into the ocean surrounded by a pod of protective dolphins. Any shark showing up would be beaten to death by the dolphins.
Let's put this same lady, appearing exactly the same, walking through one of the more crime-ridden neighborhoods in her community at 1 a.m. She jumped in the shark tank at Seaworld wearing a filet mignon suit. What do you think would happen? Too easy.
The real question: Who is at fault for what happens?
Certainly her human attackers must bear the blame for their attack. But I point you back to the links above regarding the mental makeup of human beings. Human nature and all that. Educate all you want to, you will not eliminate the people who eagerly give in to "base" desires.
Point to the law? Law is reactive. In other words, the law can't do anything until she's been assaulted. Besides which, making things illegal doesn't deter everyone. Lemme also beat you with this legal stick. Add to this, despite the best efforts of politicians and bureaucrats, the thought police are not fully established in the US. Thought police are well established in other countries.
Put this same lady walking down the streets of some countries in this world and the men who attacked her would be hailed as community heroes.
Context matters.
"They should not do things like that," you may scream.
Well, it happened. Now what? Under the same circumstances, it'll happen again.
Rant, fume, complain, demand, protest and call me whatever names you chose to call me. I'm living in this thing called reality which demands I adapt to it. Reality will not be reordered to suit your personal preferences. So, take off your rose-colored glasses (put on a shirt) and realize "The price of women’s modern freedoms is personal responsibility for vigilance and self-defense."
The lady above may truly believe she is "not asking for it." The rest of the world is not obligated to respect her beliefs. Play with sharks long enough, you will get bitten and you are the one at fault.
Women and men who refuse to acknowledge this will be held accountable by reality. It won't be pretty. In fact, it'll be a feeding frenzy.
Tuesday, September 23, 2014
Ban books now!
A blog by request.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Seriously.
Ban books.
I am not kidding.
Hold mass book burnings. Build that pyre. Run 'em through a shredder. Compost them. I don't care so long as mass efforts bring about the widespread destruction of books.
Someone poke Ray Bradbury (never mind he's dead) and tell him we're trying to make Fahrenheit 451 a reality.
This is most decidedly not a joke.
Hold protests. Call the library and school board and demand books be removed from the shelves. Stand outside book stores with protest signs. Again, I don't care so long as people come together and demand books be destroyed, never printed again, etc, etc, etc.
Light the pitchforks and sharpen the torches folks! Let's storm the press room!
This is National Banned Books week. As to what are the top 10 all time banned books, that depends on what list you read. Tropic of Cancer is the only book I can find that appears on all of 'em. I find that I've read about half the most banned books.
I stress, once again, I am absolutely serious about this. I am not kidding. I mean this.
Some years ago I was asked to serve on a book committee at an elementary school. A parent raised an objection to one of Shel Silverstein's books. The parent complained that one of Shel's illustrations was of a man's naked posterior.
The book stayed on the shelves at the elementary school, with my full support.
How's that for a non sequitor?
No doubt for a while now you've been asking how and why I can support banning books. You may point out I am an author with several books in print. Some of you still think this is a joke. It's not. I point you to the book The Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie. This is a massively banned book which I have not read.
Here's why I support banning books. Rushdie's book was banned in some countries and "religion of peace" leaders demanded his actual head on an actual plate, once removed from his body. An otherwise obscure book that would have sold under 100,000 copies was a million-seller overnight.
Tell someone he can't have something and he'll run over you trying to get to it.
In a society that is increasing fixated on idiocy and determined to be stupid - witness the attention given to intentionally limited-run TV series like Breaking Bad and Sons of Anarchy - the only way to get some people's attention is to slap them in the face and tell them no.
Ban books. Now. Because when books are banned, people will break the law to get a copy of the book to read it to find out what the fuss is about. Ban books because people will demand to read them.
Ban books and cure ignorance because people are too stubborn to realize they are being led like sheep to an infinite pasture of clover and sweet water springs with no predators within thousands of miles.
In a less serious vein, can we start by banning my books?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Seriously.
Ban books.
I am not kidding.
Hold mass book burnings. Build that pyre. Run 'em through a shredder. Compost them. I don't care so long as mass efforts bring about the widespread destruction of books.
Someone poke Ray Bradbury (never mind he's dead) and tell him we're trying to make Fahrenheit 451 a reality.
This is most decidedly not a joke.
Hold protests. Call the library and school board and demand books be removed from the shelves. Stand outside book stores with protest signs. Again, I don't care so long as people come together and demand books be destroyed, never printed again, etc, etc, etc.
Light the pitchforks and sharpen the torches folks! Let's storm the press room!
This is National Banned Books week. As to what are the top 10 all time banned books, that depends on what list you read. Tropic of Cancer is the only book I can find that appears on all of 'em. I find that I've read about half the most banned books.
I stress, once again, I am absolutely serious about this. I am not kidding. I mean this.
Some years ago I was asked to serve on a book committee at an elementary school. A parent raised an objection to one of Shel Silverstein's books. The parent complained that one of Shel's illustrations was of a man's naked posterior.
The book stayed on the shelves at the elementary school, with my full support.
How's that for a non sequitor?
No doubt for a while now you've been asking how and why I can support banning books. You may point out I am an author with several books in print. Some of you still think this is a joke. It's not. I point you to the book The Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie. This is a massively banned book which I have not read.
Here's why I support banning books. Rushdie's book was banned in some countries and "religion of peace" leaders demanded his actual head on an actual plate, once removed from his body. An otherwise obscure book that would have sold under 100,000 copies was a million-seller overnight.
Tell someone he can't have something and he'll run over you trying to get to it.
In a society that is increasing fixated on idiocy and determined to be stupid - witness the attention given to intentionally limited-run TV series like Breaking Bad and Sons of Anarchy - the only way to get some people's attention is to slap them in the face and tell them no.
Ban books. Now. Because when books are banned, people will break the law to get a copy of the book to read it to find out what the fuss is about. Ban books because people will demand to read them.
Ban books and cure ignorance because people are too stubborn to realize they are being led like sheep to an infinite pasture of clover and sweet water springs with no predators within thousands of miles.
In a less serious vein, can we start by banning my books?
Tuesday, September 16, 2014
Christians opened the door
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Much to my amusement, Satanists are now a presence in the Orange County, FL school system.
At the same time, I am not sure I like this, but not for the reason you probably suspect.
If the kids are the ones handing out Bibles, religious info and so forth, Cry 'Havoc!', and let slip the dogs of war! If the adults are the ones handing this stuff out, Hey! Lemme show you to the door and if necessary, lemme push you through the door without opening it. I suspect the adults are pushing this, hence my objections.
Here's some 'splainin'.
The most relevant comment in this story: "Greaves made it clear that, in both cases, his organization is only responding to provocations by the Christian community."
Yep. Christians brought this on.
It's that furshlugginer First Amendment again, f'dang it. "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."
To briefly explain - Public schools receive federal tax dollars. This puts Congress in a position of having some control over the schools. Under that pesky 1st Amendment, public schools cannot say which religion or lack thereof is allowed in school and which are not. Let one in, all come in.
When one religions demands X of government, all religions are entitled to the same treatment. Don't like it, then shup, petition to change the Constitution or move to another country.
So. When Christians (and I am trying to be one) demand prayer, the Bible and etc. in schools, they are opening the door to other religions. This offends many Christians. This also offends many non Christians. Ahem. The right to offend is greater than the right to not be offended.
The solution is simple. No religion at all in school. This offends people as well.
Lemme doubletap this one simply. Take prayer. If you want prayer in school, who is allowed to pray? Christians only!, you say. OK. You gonna let a Catholic recite the rosary? Catholics pray to saints. What if a pentecostal starts speaking in tongues? Ooooo.
Division in the ranks, general!
Anyway, now that other religions are getting access to schools, Christians are getting upset. Cool. Their faith needs some shaking up.
Yassee, this tells me these people are not really Christians. Real Christians know that God has it all in hand and it's going to work out right.
Real Christians don't worry. Real Christians wouldn't worry about Satanists and others getting access to public schools because real Christians know God is allowing it.
Real Christians are also not worried about their faith going toe to toe with other beliefs.
And one last thought - Real Christians don't force their beliefs on anyone.
Aside - Our public school has a voluntary Bible Study class conducted off campus. It's packed with kids and it's privately funded. Should any other group wish to start a religion or non-religion class under the same set of rules, they are welcome to come. Doubt they'll get takers, but der yaggo.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Much to my amusement, Satanists are now a presence in the Orange County, FL school system.
At the same time, I am not sure I like this, but not for the reason you probably suspect.
If the kids are the ones handing out Bibles, religious info and so forth, Cry 'Havoc!', and let slip the dogs of war! If the adults are the ones handing this stuff out, Hey! Lemme show you to the door and if necessary, lemme push you through the door without opening it. I suspect the adults are pushing this, hence my objections.
Here's some 'splainin'.
The most relevant comment in this story: "Greaves made it clear that, in both cases, his organization is only responding to provocations by the Christian community."
Yep. Christians brought this on.
It's that furshlugginer First Amendment again, f'dang it. "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."
To briefly explain - Public schools receive federal tax dollars. This puts Congress in a position of having some control over the schools. Under that pesky 1st Amendment, public schools cannot say which religion or lack thereof is allowed in school and which are not. Let one in, all come in.
When one religions demands X of government, all religions are entitled to the same treatment. Don't like it, then shup, petition to change the Constitution or move to another country.
So. When Christians (and I am trying to be one) demand prayer, the Bible and etc. in schools, they are opening the door to other religions. This offends many Christians. This also offends many non Christians. Ahem. The right to offend is greater than the right to not be offended.
The solution is simple. No religion at all in school. This offends people as well.
Lemme doubletap this one simply. Take prayer. If you want prayer in school, who is allowed to pray? Christians only!, you say. OK. You gonna let a Catholic recite the rosary? Catholics pray to saints. What if a pentecostal starts speaking in tongues? Ooooo.
Division in the ranks, general!
Anyway, now that other religions are getting access to schools, Christians are getting upset. Cool. Their faith needs some shaking up.
Yassee, this tells me these people are not really Christians. Real Christians know that God has it all in hand and it's going to work out right.
Real Christians don't worry. Real Christians wouldn't worry about Satanists and others getting access to public schools because real Christians know God is allowing it.
Real Christians are also not worried about their faith going toe to toe with other beliefs.
And one last thought - Real Christians don't force their beliefs on anyone.
Aside - Our public school has a voluntary Bible Study class conducted off campus. It's packed with kids and it's privately funded. Should any other group wish to start a religion or non-religion class under the same set of rules, they are welcome to come. Doubt they'll get takers, but der yaggo.
Thursday, September 11, 2014
Which is the greater?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
This is a serious question. Which do you think is the greater crime- rape or shutting down someone's freedom of speech?
We sort of tackled this question in a recent FB discussion. By we, I mean the group of regulars on my page. By sort of, I mean it was addressed in a rather oblique way. I broached the idea of Sharia in the US. That led to a discussion of how Sharia is implemented in the US and then into a discussion of marital rape. MA brought up the First Amendment.
As to why MA brought the First Amendment into a discussion that examined marital rape, ask her. I thought the juxtaposition of the two, whether intended or not, is fascinating. So, lemme ask again:
Which is the greater crime against a person? Rape or stifling free speech?
Are you sure? Is that your final answer?
Rape is an intensely personal offense. It is a violation of another person's body.
Shutting down free speech is an intensely personal offense. It is a violation of another person's mind.
I ask you again, which is more heinous?
I mangle some grammar in this next statement.: According to our Fire Chief BM, the late Sheriff Lamar Whiddon once told him that people who shoot you, beat you and etc., well, you can get over what they do to you. The people who assassinate your character, you can never get over that.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
This is a serious question. Which do you think is the greater crime- rape or shutting down someone's freedom of speech?
We sort of tackled this question in a recent FB discussion. By we, I mean the group of regulars on my page. By sort of, I mean it was addressed in a rather oblique way. I broached the idea of Sharia in the US. That led to a discussion of how Sharia is implemented in the US and then into a discussion of marital rape. MA brought up the First Amendment.
As to why MA brought the First Amendment into a discussion that examined marital rape, ask her. I thought the juxtaposition of the two, whether intended or not, is fascinating. So, lemme ask again:
Which is the greater crime against a person? Rape or stifling free speech?
Are you sure? Is that your final answer?
Rape is an intensely personal offense. It is a violation of another person's body.
Shutting down free speech is an intensely personal offense. It is a violation of another person's mind.
I ask you again, which is more heinous?
I mangle some grammar in this next statement.: According to our Fire Chief BM, the late Sheriff Lamar Whiddon once told him that people who shoot you, beat you and etc., well, you can get over what they do to you. The people who assassinate your character, you can never get over that.
The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones. William Shakespeare
Look at it this way. Rape is a singular act, even a gang rape. But take a one-on-one rape. If the two people never tell, two people are affected, presuming pregnancy does not result.
In the absence of free speech, that may be all that can ever be done. Two people left to deal with the ramifications.
With free speech, both can tell what happened. This brings more people into the matter. Whether or not the rapist is convicted or even charged with a crime, his reputation is forever marked by more than just the two people involved in the rape. Indeed, that free speech can be used to bring the rapist to judgment. It was not too long ago that rape was a capital punishment crime. But in order to prosecute a crime, the victim must have free speech. Free speech means more people become involved: judge, jury, law enforcement, legal teams, medical people, etc.
Because of free speech, more people must deal with the ramifications of a one-on-one crime.
After I posted this, MAG shot this comment to me "Only one omission from your blog which I believe bears mentioning: rape is also an attack on the mind; not just the body. The effects are long lasting and debilitating even with the presence of free speech to help mitigate the impact of the mental and physical assault."
She's right and Thank You for that!
Lemme also point out the First Amendment. Free speech is Constitutionally codified. Rape is a legislative issue. Yes, there is a very real difference. Changing a legislative law is a matter of getting a majority of the legislative body to agree. Constitutional changes require a far stronger effort.
I am in no way denigrating victims of rape or excusing the attackers. I'm just throwing out something to think about.
Look at it this way. Rape is a singular act, even a gang rape. But take a one-on-one rape. If the two people never tell, two people are affected, presuming pregnancy does not result.
In the absence of free speech, that may be all that can ever be done. Two people left to deal with the ramifications.
With free speech, both can tell what happened. This brings more people into the matter. Whether or not the rapist is convicted or even charged with a crime, his reputation is forever marked by more than just the two people involved in the rape. Indeed, that free speech can be used to bring the rapist to judgment. It was not too long ago that rape was a capital punishment crime. But in order to prosecute a crime, the victim must have free speech. Free speech means more people become involved: judge, jury, law enforcement, legal teams, medical people, etc.
Because of free speech, more people must deal with the ramifications of a one-on-one crime.
After I posted this, MAG shot this comment to me "Only one omission from your blog which I believe bears mentioning: rape is also an attack on the mind; not just the body. The effects are long lasting and debilitating even with the presence of free speech to help mitigate the impact of the mental and physical assault."
She's right and Thank You for that!
Lemme also point out the First Amendment. Free speech is Constitutionally codified. Rape is a legislative issue. Yes, there is a very real difference. Changing a legislative law is a matter of getting a majority of the legislative body to agree. Constitutional changes require a far stronger effort.
I am in no way denigrating victims of rape or excusing the attackers. I'm just throwing out something to think about.
Friday, August 22, 2014
That music is just degrading and should be banned
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
With thanks to M.A.
Taking this from the rear and moving forward, banning anything just makes people want it more. The most (un)successful ban I can think of in recent times is The Satantic Verses by Salman Rushdie. When the towelhead terrorists put a death sentence on Rushdie for the book, he packed it off to England and sales of his book skyrocketed. It's still being sold.
Meanwhile, I am trying like mad to get some of my books banned. I can use the money.
Banning stuff is idiotic. People with more sense than me have pointed to Prohibition as the single act that let the Mafia get a hold on American society. The War on Drugs is absolutely not working.
Anyway, some people would like to ban certain types of music because they find it offensive and degrading. Some record labels will put that "WARNING OFFENSIVE LYRICS" on the album cover. A few artists stuck that same label on their recordings in hopes to selling more. Their work was not offensive.
Or was it?
Many years ago, I sat back stage with The Kingston Trio and had a beer while they ate. The gents told me their song "Greenback Dollar" was nearly banned when it was released. Why? Because of the line "I don't give a damn about a Greenback Dollar." When they performed the song on stage that evening, they emphasized the "damn."
Today, the word damn is ubiquitous. Times change.
(C)rap songs today often glorify violence, put women down and brag about breaking the law. This offends a great many people.
Really?
"But I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die."
Pretty graphic. That's also a line from Folsom Prison Blues, recorded in 1955, well before the birth of the current crop of (c)rap performers. Hank sang about crying into his beer.
Today's crop of "country" music glorifies getting drunk, having sex anywhere and everywhere. The First Lady of Country Music sang about jackin' another gal up for messing with her man. She also bragged about birth control, a VERY controversial matter at the time.
The truth is, the most popular music of today is pretty inhumane.
The objections to (c)rap music are because it appears to represent - yeah, I'm going there - the Ferguson riots. In other words, it appears to represent a subculture of America that is resentful and is only waiting for a spark to ignite an inferno to destroy everything. The objection is less about the lyrics and far more about fear.
If you get the chance, watch Fear of a Black Hat. It explains in far more detail what I'm trying to say here.
Myself, I do not like most of what passes for popular music today. That is pop, country, (c)rap, R&B, soul and others I probably don't know about. It's not the lyrics I object to, it is the lack quality music. Learn to play and sing and I'll listen. Gimme old blues, soul, funk, rock and I'm a happy listener.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
With thanks to M.A.
Taking this from the rear and moving forward, banning anything just makes people want it more. The most (un)successful ban I can think of in recent times is The Satantic Verses by Salman Rushdie. When the towelhead terrorists put a death sentence on Rushdie for the book, he packed it off to England and sales of his book skyrocketed. It's still being sold.
Meanwhile, I am trying like mad to get some of my books banned. I can use the money.
Banning stuff is idiotic. People with more sense than me have pointed to Prohibition as the single act that let the Mafia get a hold on American society. The War on Drugs is absolutely not working.
Anyway, some people would like to ban certain types of music because they find it offensive and degrading. Some record labels will put that "WARNING OFFENSIVE LYRICS" on the album cover. A few artists stuck that same label on their recordings in hopes to selling more. Their work was not offensive.
Or was it?
Many years ago, I sat back stage with The Kingston Trio and had a beer while they ate. The gents told me their song "Greenback Dollar" was nearly banned when it was released. Why? Because of the line "I don't give a damn about a Greenback Dollar." When they performed the song on stage that evening, they emphasized the "damn."
Today, the word damn is ubiquitous. Times change.
(C)rap songs today often glorify violence, put women down and brag about breaking the law. This offends a great many people.
Really?
"But I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die."
Pretty graphic. That's also a line from Folsom Prison Blues, recorded in 1955, well before the birth of the current crop of (c)rap performers. Hank sang about crying into his beer.
Today's crop of "country" music glorifies getting drunk, having sex anywhere and everywhere. The First Lady of Country Music sang about jackin' another gal up for messing with her man. She also bragged about birth control, a VERY controversial matter at the time.
The truth is, the most popular music of today is pretty inhumane.
The objections to (c)rap music are because it appears to represent - yeah, I'm going there - the Ferguson riots. In other words, it appears to represent a subculture of America that is resentful and is only waiting for a spark to ignite an inferno to destroy everything. The objection is less about the lyrics and far more about fear.
If you get the chance, watch Fear of a Black Hat. It explains in far more detail what I'm trying to say here.
Myself, I do not like most of what passes for popular music today. That is pop, country, (c)rap, R&B, soul and others I probably don't know about. It's not the lyrics I object to, it is the lack quality music. Learn to play and sing and I'll listen. Gimme old blues, soul, funk, rock and I'm a happy listener.
Wednesday, August 20, 2014
The Traveling Wall
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The Traveling Wall, a 3/5ths scale model of the Vietnam Wall in Washington DC is coming to my community Sept. 4-7. As part of this appearance, the crew in the office has produced the official program (a magazine) for this event.
It is the biggest magazine we have ever produced. It is FTP'ing to the printer as this is written. 40 pages, 6,000 copies.
To say this magazine was hard to produce is both a vast overstatement and an understatement.
It's hyperbole because it's a magazine. We produce them regularly. It's no more trouble than putting out a newspaper every week.
It's a serious shortcoming because this one hurt me. Everything about it did. From the front cover to the back cover, pain everywhere.
The two extremes didn't stop there. As this is an official program, I shared galleys with people who are heading up The Wall's visit. SOP for such a magazine.
When I watched veterans look over the pages and some of them cried - yeah, that hurt.
What hurt me the most and what I am most pleased with are the two infographics. It took a half day to produce the two pages. Normally I can do that in an hour. I had to regularly stop and compose myself as the pages came together. Still hurts thinking about it.
•••
For myself, I barely remember Vietnam. My memories of it are very sketchy and are confined to the last few years of that war. I remember one summer in the middle of watermelon season riding to town for lunch with Billy Joe and Howard and they discussed the atrocities being committed in the war. True or not, I found the stories fascinating.
But.
The names on that wall. Those who did come home shattered and crippled in body, mind and spirit.
I can't know their pain, but I feel it nonetheless.
When The Wall comes, I'll be there. I'm supposed to be a minister counselor for those who visit the wall and need someone to talk to. I don't know if I'll be able to to hold up.
I'm gonna be there.
I will support the men and women who served there. I just hope none of them wind up having to support me.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The Traveling Wall, a 3/5ths scale model of the Vietnam Wall in Washington DC is coming to my community Sept. 4-7. As part of this appearance, the crew in the office has produced the official program (a magazine) for this event.
It is the biggest magazine we have ever produced. It is FTP'ing to the printer as this is written. 40 pages, 6,000 copies.
To say this magazine was hard to produce is both a vast overstatement and an understatement.
It's hyperbole because it's a magazine. We produce them regularly. It's no more trouble than putting out a newspaper every week.
It's a serious shortcoming because this one hurt me. Everything about it did. From the front cover to the back cover, pain everywhere.
The two extremes didn't stop there. As this is an official program, I shared galleys with people who are heading up The Wall's visit. SOP for such a magazine.
When I watched veterans look over the pages and some of them cried - yeah, that hurt.
What hurt me the most and what I am most pleased with are the two infographics. It took a half day to produce the two pages. Normally I can do that in an hour. I had to regularly stop and compose myself as the pages came together. Still hurts thinking about it.
•••
For myself, I barely remember Vietnam. My memories of it are very sketchy and are confined to the last few years of that war. I remember one summer in the middle of watermelon season riding to town for lunch with Billy Joe and Howard and they discussed the atrocities being committed in the war. True or not, I found the stories fascinating.
But.
The names on that wall. Those who did come home shattered and crippled in body, mind and spirit.
I can't know their pain, but I feel it nonetheless.
When The Wall comes, I'll be there. I'm supposed to be a minister counselor for those who visit the wall and need someone to talk to. I don't know if I'll be able to to hold up.
I'm gonna be there.
I will support the men and women who served there. I just hope none of them wind up having to support me.
Tuesday, July 29, 2014
If you set the rules, don't complain when I play by them
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The band Nazareth had a 1975 hit which is still played on classic rock stations today. Unlike in 1975, you can actually hear the whole song on terrestrial radio stations today. I refer to, of course, the seminal and repeated lyrics "Now you're messing with a son of a bitch." (I don't think Dan McCafferty was referring to me.)
Blase' by today's standards. Today various people with no talent and even less ability to be coherent are exploiting the ability to record using nothing more than a smartphone to bring us a cacophony of discord that ranges from the truly terrible to sounds that make me want to climb the clock tower with a deer rifle.
This morning while waiting for the cheerleaders to get dressed for pictures, I was ... subjected? tortured? irritated? annoyed? Bah. I can't find the right word. Anyway, I listened to a verbal assault coming from the field house as the boys got ready for morning football practice.
Among the words I did understand were various iterations of MF and the word nigger about every 5 seconds or so. Understand I have zero objections to these kids listening to this stuff. Their practice, their team, their warmup, their sonic assault from the stereo.
But.
I leaned on Purple Haze waiting for the cheerleaders and wondered what would those same boys (and coaches) would do if I suddenly walked in to the field house and my every 5th word was nigger. I didn't really wonder long. I pretty much know what the reaction would be. Hostility.
I also know that if I were famous, had several recordings of the type I mention above and more attitude than I could possibly back up even with the whole football team behind me, I could have walked into the field house and my every 5th word be nigger and they would cheer for me. My skin color, background, personal history and so forth would be irrelevant. Marshall Mathers gets away with it.
I have said, say and will continue to state words do not require special privilege or rights to use. Words should be used by everyone or no one. If you can use it, I can use it. If you truly believe in parity, then you cannot justify allowing some people to use a word and deny that use to others.
If you don't believe in parity, I can deal with that too. But when you complain that I take special privileges for myself and others and deny them to you, expect me to remind you that you set the rules.
In other words: If you set the rules, don't complain when I play by them.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The band Nazareth had a 1975 hit which is still played on classic rock stations today. Unlike in 1975, you can actually hear the whole song on terrestrial radio stations today. I refer to, of course, the seminal and repeated lyrics "Now you're messing with a son of a bitch." (I don't think Dan McCafferty was referring to me.)
Blase' by today's standards. Today various people with no talent and even less ability to be coherent are exploiting the ability to record using nothing more than a smartphone to bring us a cacophony of discord that ranges from the truly terrible to sounds that make me want to climb the clock tower with a deer rifle.
This morning while waiting for the cheerleaders to get dressed for pictures, I was ... subjected? tortured? irritated? annoyed? Bah. I can't find the right word. Anyway, I listened to a verbal assault coming from the field house as the boys got ready for morning football practice.
Among the words I did understand were various iterations of MF and the word nigger about every 5 seconds or so. Understand I have zero objections to these kids listening to this stuff. Their practice, their team, their warmup, their sonic assault from the stereo.
But.
I leaned on Purple Haze waiting for the cheerleaders and wondered what would those same boys (and coaches) would do if I suddenly walked in to the field house and my every 5th word was nigger. I didn't really wonder long. I pretty much know what the reaction would be. Hostility.
I also know that if I were famous, had several recordings of the type I mention above and more attitude than I could possibly back up even with the whole football team behind me, I could have walked into the field house and my every 5th word be nigger and they would cheer for me. My skin color, background, personal history and so forth would be irrelevant. Marshall Mathers gets away with it.
I have said, say and will continue to state words do not require special privilege or rights to use. Words should be used by everyone or no one. If you can use it, I can use it. If you truly believe in parity, then you cannot justify allowing some people to use a word and deny that use to others.
If you don't believe in parity, I can deal with that too. But when you complain that I take special privileges for myself and others and deny them to you, expect me to remind you that you set the rules.
In other words: If you set the rules, don't complain when I play by them.
Thursday, July 17, 2014
Education, experience and appendix surgery
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
If you insist on getting right down to the absolutely stripped bare fundamental, there are extremely few experts on anything in this world. I know a couple of people who are experts, but they are few and far between.
A lot more people who qualify as expert unless you want to stay particular about the definition. And, of course, there's gajillions of people who are really amazingly good, educated, knowledgeable and experienced.
And then are those people who have a few classes, a year, two, three of experience and they are experts.
You know what I'm talking about. I have fallen into this category way too many times. My attitude gets ahead of my brain sometimes. Perhaps you've been there too.
An expert is a person who has the knowledge and can back it up with experience. To get back to that particular definition, I suggest you have to nearly be a senior citizen to be a true expert. There's always something else to be learned and then put into practice.
Lemme come at this from a different angle. This is what I tell the guys in prison:
You need an operation. Doesn't really matter what kind, but for this one, call it an appendix removal. Fairly straightforward operation, yet complications do arise. You have a choice of people to operate:
Person 1: This guy (generic term for male and female cause it's my column and I get to make my own rules of grammar), has never been to med school, but circumstances placed him in an operating room assisting surgeons. He's gone through a thousand appendix removals.
Person 2: This guy is right out of med school and his internship. Appendix removals, call it a dozen under supervision.
In the words of Ray Parker Jr,, "Who ya gonna call?"
Ok, you can leave prison now and get back to this column.
In keeping with this column, which of these two is closer to being an expert? Shouldn't be much dissension in the ranks on this one.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
If you insist on getting right down to the absolutely stripped bare fundamental, there are extremely few experts on anything in this world. I know a couple of people who are experts, but they are few and far between.
A lot more people who qualify as expert unless you want to stay particular about the definition. And, of course, there's gajillions of people who are really amazingly good, educated, knowledgeable and experienced.
And then are those people who have a few classes, a year, two, three of experience and they are experts.
You know what I'm talking about. I have fallen into this category way too many times. My attitude gets ahead of my brain sometimes. Perhaps you've been there too.
An expert is a person who has the knowledge and can back it up with experience. To get back to that particular definition, I suggest you have to nearly be a senior citizen to be a true expert. There's always something else to be learned and then put into practice.
Lemme come at this from a different angle. This is what I tell the guys in prison:
You need an operation. Doesn't really matter what kind, but for this one, call it an appendix removal. Fairly straightforward operation, yet complications do arise. You have a choice of people to operate:
Person 1: This guy (generic term for male and female cause it's my column and I get to make my own rules of grammar), has never been to med school, but circumstances placed him in an operating room assisting surgeons. He's gone through a thousand appendix removals.
Person 2: This guy is right out of med school and his internship. Appendix removals, call it a dozen under supervision.
In the words of Ray Parker Jr,, "Who ya gonna call?"
Ok, you can leave prison now and get back to this column.
In keeping with this column, which of these two is closer to being an expert? Shouldn't be much dissension in the ranks on this one.
Thursday, July 3, 2014
The hypocrisy of special privilege with one word
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Read this first.
Now lemme take this point by point.
1) You know that whole 600 year time period when White Europeans were buying and selling Black Africans as chattel?
Point 1 - I abhor the use of colors to define people. I consider that insulting.
Yeah? And? That was in the past. Furthermore it was the Africans who sold the people of Africa into slavery, as I’m told by historians. Beyond that, slavery as an institution saw all stripes of people so enslaved.
Myself, I prefer to move forward, but if y’all wanna live in the past, eat my dust. Now if you wanna talk about current slavery in Africa, I'm all ears. In fact, if you wanna talk about the history of slavery, I'm still ready for that discussion.
Back on topic, let’s ALSO talk about ancestry. Few people can genuinely claim they do not have people from Africa or Europe in their ancestry for the past few hundred years. The current president is a great example of this. People tell me because he identifies with a "race" of people, then he is of that "race." Really? So if I decide to identify as Ainu, I can be one? Ludicrous? Then pick a side and stay there. If you get to flop around, so do I.
2) No matter how long that conversation goes on in Black communities, though, White people do not get to take part.
Really? F’danging REALLY? People are screaming about equality, justice and treating each other the same and some people want to carve out an exception? Parity don’t live here. (and if you don’t like my grammar, lemme introduce you to the Don’t Visit My Blog Any More link.)
3) Not Everything Should Be in Bounds to Us as White People
Pick a side. Park your butt there. If you insist in fence jumping, I’mma call you on it every time. We either have parity or we have special privileges.
Me? I do not like special privileges except where there is a demonstrated need. Blind people need Braille books or audio books. People who have lost the use of their legs need wheelchairs or the amazing new electronic bio-devices that let ‘em walk.
Special privileges based on who your ancestors happened to be? If you want such, fine. But I also get to claim that right and, well, when it comes to being treated like a septic tank RECENTLY then I have the trump card. I just ain’t gonna play it unless you back me into a corner.
4) It Is Not, in Fact, a Double Standard – It’s a Standard
This doesn’t merit the dignity of a reply, except some people still do not get it. And someone needs a dictionary.
When you afford one person special treatment and do not give the other person the same opportunity without justifiable reason, It. Is. A. Double. Standard. Ancestry ain’t a justifiable reason, sez me. See No. 3 above.
And as to the wrap in this article I refer to, lemme add I have been known to use the “N” word. I use it as a pejorative. I use it to refer to a person who abandons responsibilities like skipping out on children, refuses to work, demands support from those around him/her without justifiable reason and in general would do humanity a favor if he/she got hit by a train.
ADDENDA: My use of this word is entirely within my own head. No one ever hears me say it in connection to another person or group of people. Like you, I have thoughts that never leave my head. However, in the interest of fairness and full disclosure, I felt this needed saying.
The person's ancestors have no bearing on my use of the word.
I do not use the word in connection with how much melanin a person has OR that person’s recent ancestry. It's ALL about the character of the person.
So, chew on THIS: 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.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Read this first.
Now lemme take this point by point.
1) You know that whole 600 year time period when White Europeans were buying and selling Black Africans as chattel?
Point 1 - I abhor the use of colors to define people. I consider that insulting.
Yeah? And? That was in the past. Furthermore it was the Africans who sold the people of Africa into slavery, as I’m told by historians. Beyond that, slavery as an institution saw all stripes of people so enslaved.
Myself, I prefer to move forward, but if y’all wanna live in the past, eat my dust. Now if you wanna talk about current slavery in Africa, I'm all ears. In fact, if you wanna talk about the history of slavery, I'm still ready for that discussion.
Back on topic, let’s ALSO talk about ancestry. Few people can genuinely claim they do not have people from Africa or Europe in their ancestry for the past few hundred years. The current president is a great example of this. People tell me because he identifies with a "race" of people, then he is of that "race." Really? So if I decide to identify as Ainu, I can be one? Ludicrous? Then pick a side and stay there. If you get to flop around, so do I.
2) No matter how long that conversation goes on in Black communities, though, White people do not get to take part.
Really? F’danging REALLY? People are screaming about equality, justice and treating each other the same and some people want to carve out an exception? Parity don’t live here. (and if you don’t like my grammar, lemme introduce you to the Don’t Visit My Blog Any More link.)
3) Not Everything Should Be in Bounds to Us as White People
Pick a side. Park your butt there. If you insist in fence jumping, I’mma call you on it every time. We either have parity or we have special privileges.
Me? I do not like special privileges except where there is a demonstrated need. Blind people need Braille books or audio books. People who have lost the use of their legs need wheelchairs or the amazing new electronic bio-devices that let ‘em walk.
Special privileges based on who your ancestors happened to be? If you want such, fine. But I also get to claim that right and, well, when it comes to being treated like a septic tank RECENTLY then I have the trump card. I just ain’t gonna play it unless you back me into a corner.
4) It Is Not, in Fact, a Double Standard – It’s a Standard
This doesn’t merit the dignity of a reply, except some people still do not get it. And someone needs a dictionary.
When you afford one person special treatment and do not give the other person the same opportunity without justifiable reason, It. Is. A. Double. Standard. Ancestry ain’t a justifiable reason, sez me. See No. 3 above.
And as to the wrap in this article I refer to, lemme add I have been known to use the “N” word. I use it as a pejorative. I use it to refer to a person who abandons responsibilities like skipping out on children, refuses to work, demands support from those around him/her without justifiable reason and in general would do humanity a favor if he/she got hit by a train.
ADDENDA: My use of this word is entirely within my own head. No one ever hears me say it in connection to another person or group of people. Like you, I have thoughts that never leave my head. However, in the interest of fairness and full disclosure, I felt this needed saying.
The person's ancestors have no bearing on my use of the word.
I do not use the word in connection with how much melanin a person has OR that person’s recent ancestry. It's ALL about the character of the person.
So, chew on THIS: 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.
Wednesday, July 2, 2014
The last one! HUZZAH! Some questions for same gender marriage Part VI
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
In case you missed yesterday and the days before.
All the court cases I can find, including the landmark SCOTUS decision United States v. Windsor No. 12-307 hinge on equal treatment under the law. The couple in this case were married in Canada. I do have real problems with laws of other countries being enforceable in the United States, but that’s well off topic.
Law. Considering the history of marriage, then law is the right and proper way to consider marriage, a political and economic contract.
Writing a dissent, Justice Alito penned: “Past changes in the understanding of marriage—for example, the gradual ascendance of the idea that romantic love is a prerequisite to marriage— have had far-reaching consequences.“ See previous posts on how love had little to do with marriage.
Emotion, except when it is used to restrict another’s rights for marriage, is not something much discussed in court cases regarding same gender marriage.
So I get to my final point:
Why do you need someone else’s permission to get married if marriage is not about economics and political machinations?
Why is it necessary to have the approval of an outsider over your relationship? Note provisos posted previously.
If you are getting married for economic benefits, then SCOTUS has clearly stated government has the power to regulate this. If you are getting married for political reasons, ditto.
If you are getting married for love, why do you need a government seal of approval?
You don't.
Parity under the law is one thing. Emotion is something entirely different.
If you get married for economics, yep, government has the legal right to step in under SCOTUS decisions. If you get married for love, then government has no right to tell you what to do. If you combine the two, then government has the right under SCOTUS decisions to tell you what to do.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
In case you missed yesterday and the days before.
All the court cases I can find, including the landmark SCOTUS decision United States v. Windsor No. 12-307 hinge on equal treatment under the law. The couple in this case were married in Canada. I do have real problems with laws of other countries being enforceable in the United States, but that’s well off topic.
Law. Considering the history of marriage, then law is the right and proper way to consider marriage, a political and economic contract.
Writing a dissent, Justice Alito penned: “Past changes in the understanding of marriage—for example, the gradual ascendance of the idea that romantic love is a prerequisite to marriage— have had far-reaching consequences.“ See previous posts on how love had little to do with marriage.
Emotion, except when it is used to restrict another’s rights for marriage, is not something much discussed in court cases regarding same gender marriage.
So I get to my final point:
Why do you need someone else’s permission to get married if marriage is not about economics and political machinations?
Why is it necessary to have the approval of an outsider over your relationship? Note provisos posted previously.
If you are getting married for economic benefits, then SCOTUS has clearly stated government has the power to regulate this. If you are getting married for political reasons, ditto.
If you are getting married for love, why do you need a government seal of approval?
You don't.
Parity under the law is one thing. Emotion is something entirely different.
If you get married for economics, yep, government has the legal right to step in under SCOTUS decisions. If you get married for love, then government has no right to tell you what to do. If you combine the two, then government has the right under SCOTUS decisions to tell you what to do.
Tuesday, July 1, 2014
Some questions for same gender marriage Part V
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
In case you missed yesterday.
In Part I of this series, I stated, "Race is a matter of genetics and ancestry. A person cannot choose their ancestors." Some of you are now saying to yourself "Don't go there, Baker."
Too late. I've built an entire country there.
Is sexual orientation a fixed matter or is it mutable? I do not know. I've read articles from "authorities" that argue it is fixed and other “authorities” who say it is a matter of choice. Again, I do not know. I can only say SCIENCE! has not made a completely solid case either way.
SCIENCE! has also revealed the homosexual behavior among animals is more common that thought. "Currently, homosexual behavior has been documented in over 450 different animal species worldwide.” This article also states “Yet another example is lizards of the genus Teiidae, which can copulate with both male and female mates.”
The New Mexico whiptail lizard is a species comprised solely as best we know, of females. “Despite reproducing asexually, and being an all female species, the whiptail still engages in mating behavior with other females of its own species, giving rise to the common nickname ‘lesbian lizards.’ A common theory is that this behavior stimulates ovulation, as those who do not ‘mate’ do not lay eggs,” sez Wikipedia. (yeah, Wiki. I am too lazy to dig out the actual SCIENCE research papers.)
Some of those who vehemently oppose same gender marriage like to point out these unions cannot produce offspring. See above for the contrary. Anyway, let’s just skip right past infertile couples, couples who don’t want kids and etc and point out that excuse is just stoopid. It’s not even worth the dignity of spelling stupid correctly.
What about the argument that even in homosexual animal relationships, the other gender is needed to produce offspring? The whiptail is the one exception breaks a rule. I suspect there are others.
What about hermaphrodite animals? Snails & worms, the rare human. What about sequential hermaphroditism. That’s the natural process of gender-changing in case you wondered. Yes, it is real. Most common in fish.
Biology is not as neat as people would have it. It's messy in far more ways than one.
Part 6 when I remember to post it, after today that is.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
In case you missed yesterday.
In Part I of this series, I stated, "Race is a matter of genetics and ancestry. A person cannot choose their ancestors." Some of you are now saying to yourself "Don't go there, Baker."
Too late. I've built an entire country there.
Is sexual orientation a fixed matter or is it mutable? I do not know. I've read articles from "authorities" that argue it is fixed and other “authorities” who say it is a matter of choice. Again, I do not know. I can only say SCIENCE! has not made a completely solid case either way.
SCIENCE! has also revealed the homosexual behavior among animals is more common that thought. "Currently, homosexual behavior has been documented in over 450 different animal species worldwide.” This article also states “Yet another example is lizards of the genus Teiidae, which can copulate with both male and female mates.”
The New Mexico whiptail lizard is a species comprised solely as best we know, of females. “Despite reproducing asexually, and being an all female species, the whiptail still engages in mating behavior with other females of its own species, giving rise to the common nickname ‘lesbian lizards.’ A common theory is that this behavior stimulates ovulation, as those who do not ‘mate’ do not lay eggs,” sez Wikipedia. (yeah, Wiki. I am too lazy to dig out the actual SCIENCE research papers.)
Some of those who vehemently oppose same gender marriage like to point out these unions cannot produce offspring. See above for the contrary. Anyway, let’s just skip right past infertile couples, couples who don’t want kids and etc and point out that excuse is just stoopid. It’s not even worth the dignity of spelling stupid correctly.
What about the argument that even in homosexual animal relationships, the other gender is needed to produce offspring? The whiptail is the one exception breaks a rule. I suspect there are others.
What about hermaphrodite animals? Snails & worms, the rare human. What about sequential hermaphroditism. That’s the natural process of gender-changing in case you wondered. Yes, it is real. Most common in fish.
Biology is not as neat as people would have it. It's messy in far more ways than one.
Part 6 when I remember to post it, after today that is.
Monday, June 30, 2014
Some questions for same gender marriage Part IV
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Re-read or get what you missed here.
To repeat myself, part of the SCOTUS ruling from 1967 bothers me, a lot: "While the state court is no doubt correct in asserting that marriage is a social relation subject to the State's police power..."
Again, this bothers me. A lot. It's my contention that government has only very limited business being involved social relations, if any business whatsoever. Yes, I am a libertarian, so keep reading to let me explain. (break news note - SCOTUS sided this morning with individual rights in the Hobby Lobby case and the unions case HUZZAH! May blog these later).
I object, but not totally. What two or more adults of sufficient mental capacity do to, with, by and for each other is no one's business as long as it is consensual. I point you to NAMBLA (and now my browser history has NAMBLA in it, dammit). I personally believe child molesters, which is what NAMBLA is, should be loaded into a catapult and hurled into a cliff face. So yeah, I can tolerate a tad of government involvement there.
The statement by SCOTUS says government can get involved in marriage. This also bothers me.
I do object to marriages minors to mature adults. I believe this is child abuse and government does have the right to step in to stop this. Where adults are concerned, none of your business unless you’re in the relationship.
“The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.”
In a statement hat hugely amuses me, the court states, “Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival.”
Really? How is it fundamental? Certainly it is one of the oldest contracts man has. But I do not see how it is a bedrock of human existence.
As for it being a basic civil right, SCOTUS did say “marriage is a social relation subject to the State's police power.” However, the Supremes have never defined concretely marriage. The decisions do point to marriage being a function of the state of economics and not a religious ritual, but this is not a firm statement, rather weighted inference. I remind y’all that for most of humanity’s history, religious authority was also the political authority. Secular government is a recent convention. Theocracy is the history of human government.
Historically, marriage has been a function of rulers. A ruler in this case can be the head of state, a local official or the head of a family. The ruler orders a marriage. Freedom of choice is a new concept where marriage is concerned. Arranged marriages are not made with the thoughts of the two or more people being married in mind. Rather, the people planning that arranged marriage are working on building political ties and fiscal gain.
Fortunately, the court case did put some brakes on government power in marriage.
The court said, “The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.”
In the case which turned the tide on same gender marriage, United States v. Windsor, the 5-4 majority opinion states “It (the Defense Of Marriage Act which was signed by a Damnocrat president) also forces same-sex couples to live as married for the purpose of state law but unmarried for the purpose of federal law, thus diminishing the stability and predictability of basic personal relations the State has found it proper to acknowledge and protect.”
Why does government need to protect the stability and predictability of basic personal relations? Government is doing a greatly damned horrible job if this is a basic function of government. In regard to this government function, we exist in a river of chaos flowing with anarchy and piled high with islands of well-nigh inexpressibly stupid fascism.
It’s not government’s business to regulate basic personal relations. Anarchy, defined as a total lack of government, is the best option.
I also note the words “marry” and “marriage” do not appear in the Constitution.
More tomorrow if I remember to post.
Friday, June 27, 2014
Some questions for same gender marriage Part III
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Pick up Part II (and the link to Part I) here.
Part of the SCOTUS ruling from 1967 bothers me, a lot.
In the Loving v. Virginia SCOTUS decision, Justice Warren also wrote, "While the state court is no doubt correct in asserting that marriage is a social relation subject to the State's police power..." Where this is elaborated on, it’s always in reference to race.
Much hangs on the word “race” and its variants. Court cases turn on a single word, so the relevance of “race” in this decision has to be fundamental.
SCOTUS makes it clear: “The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.”
The 14th Amendment: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
In the Wikipedia article on Loving v. Virginia, the article states: "Before Loving v. Virginia, there had been several cases on the subject of interracial relations. In Pace v. Alabama (1883), the Supreme Court ruled that the conviction of an Alabama couple for interracial sex, affirmed on appeal by the Alabama Supreme Court, did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. Interracial marital sex was deemed a felony, whereas extramarital sex ("adultery or fornication") was only a misdemeanor. On appeal, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the criminalization of interracial sex was not a violation of the equal protection clause because whites and non-whites were punished in equal measure for the offense of engaging in interracial sex.”
Race is mentioned in the Constitution.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Pick up Part II (and the link to Part I) here.
Part of the SCOTUS ruling from 1967 bothers me, a lot.
In the Loving v. Virginia SCOTUS decision, Justice Warren also wrote, "While the state court is no doubt correct in asserting that marriage is a social relation subject to the State's police power..." Where this is elaborated on, it’s always in reference to race.
Much hangs on the word “race” and its variants. Court cases turn on a single word, so the relevance of “race” in this decision has to be fundamental.
SCOTUS makes it clear: “The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.”
The 14th Amendment: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
In the Wikipedia article on Loving v. Virginia, the article states: "Before Loving v. Virginia, there had been several cases on the subject of interracial relations. In Pace v. Alabama (1883), the Supreme Court ruled that the conviction of an Alabama couple for interracial sex, affirmed on appeal by the Alabama Supreme Court, did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. Interracial marital sex was deemed a felony, whereas extramarital sex ("adultery or fornication") was only a misdemeanor. On appeal, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the criminalization of interracial sex was not a violation of the equal protection clause because whites and non-whites were punished in equal measure for the offense of engaging in interracial sex.”
Race is mentioned in the Constitution.
Tuesday, June 24, 2014
Some questions for same gender marriage Part II
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
In part 1, we looked at two definitive SCOTUS cases on marriage.
I pick up now on the Loving v. Virginia case and your relations with another consenting and mentally capable adult. This case revolves around whether or not interracial marriage is a criminal offense.
I cannot find any examples of a same-gender couple being arrested in the United States on the charge of being in a same-gender marriage. My search was far from exhaustive. I did find an article stating “Texas, like many other states, outright bans issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Any official who issues a license to a same-sex couple can face misdemeanor criminal charges.” Yes, I understand people are so arrested in other countries, but I don’t live there.
I can find plenty of articles stating certain states do not recognize same gender marriages performed in another state. Refusing to recognize is not the same thing as a criminal offense.
The SCOTUS ruling states basing a criminal offense on race is extremely questionable. “Indeed, two members of this Court have already stated that they cannot conceive of a valid legislative purpose . . . which makes the color of a person's skin the test of whether his conduct is a criminal offense.” and “There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification.”
Writing for himself in a concurring opinion, J Stewart said, “I have previously expressed the belief that "it is simply not possible for a state law to be valid under our Constitution which makes the criminality of an act depend upon the race of the actor." McLaughlin v. Florida, 379 U.S. 184, 198 (concurring opinion).”
I have to point out race is a matter of genetics and ancestry. More on this in subsequent posts.
Monday, June 23, 2014
Some questions for same gender marriage Part 1
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
This blog goes through six parts. One per day, if I can remember to post each day.
To start, let's run this train back to 1883.
In Pace v. Alabama, SCOTUS ruled that Alabama's anti-miscegenation statute was legal. They were not actually married, but having sex. Extra marital sex was also frowned on at the time, much moreso than today. Adultery was also illegal. At the Jail Museum, we have records of people being criminally charged with adultery and given various sentences.
Later cases upheld this even in the face of the "Cruel and unusual punishment" challenges. In other words, having established that interracial relations was wrong, the court further ruled that since both sides were given the same treatment under the law (HAH! That is bullshit and we all know it), there was no problem.
Now if Mr. Peabody will set the Wayback Machine to 1967... in a somewhat ironically named case, Loving v. Virginia, SCOTUS tossed Pace v. Alabama to the curb. At issue here is race. Writing for the court and the unanimous decision, Justice CJ Warren wrote, "The clear and central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate all official state sources of invidious racial discrimination in the States."
There's a whole 'nother blog in that phrase "eliminate all official state sources."
In the Loving case, Justice Warren wrote, "Over the years, this Court has consistently repudiated '[d]istinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry' as being "odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality.'" Indeed, the court had shifted on the topic of race.
Race is a matter of genetics and ancestry. A person cannot choose their ancestors.
In short, no matter your ancestry, the law has to treat you the same as everyone else. What is legal for one is legal for another.
Ancestry is one thing. Sexual orientation is another. For this series, same gender marriage means two or more women, two or more men or any combination as long as at least two are of the same gender and swap bodily fluids. Nitpickers of my definition are invited to slap themselves smart and go away.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
This blog goes through six parts. One per day, if I can remember to post each day.
To start, let's run this train back to 1883.
In Pace v. Alabama, SCOTUS ruled that Alabama's anti-miscegenation statute was legal. They were not actually married, but having sex. Extra marital sex was also frowned on at the time, much moreso than today. Adultery was also illegal. At the Jail Museum, we have records of people being criminally charged with adultery and given various sentences.
Later cases upheld this even in the face of the "Cruel and unusual punishment" challenges. In other words, having established that interracial relations was wrong, the court further ruled that since both sides were given the same treatment under the law (HAH! That is bullshit and we all know it), there was no problem.
Now if Mr. Peabody will set the Wayback Machine to 1967... in a somewhat ironically named case, Loving v. Virginia, SCOTUS tossed Pace v. Alabama to the curb. At issue here is race. Writing for the court and the unanimous decision, Justice CJ Warren wrote, "The clear and central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate all official state sources of invidious racial discrimination in the States."
There's a whole 'nother blog in that phrase "eliminate all official state sources."
In the Loving case, Justice Warren wrote, "Over the years, this Court has consistently repudiated '[d]istinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry' as being "odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality.'" Indeed, the court had shifted on the topic of race.
Race is a matter of genetics and ancestry. A person cannot choose their ancestors.
In short, no matter your ancestry, the law has to treat you the same as everyone else. What is legal for one is legal for another.
Ancestry is one thing. Sexual orientation is another. For this series, same gender marriage means two or more women, two or more men or any combination as long as at least two are of the same gender and swap bodily fluids. Nitpickers of my definition are invited to slap themselves smart and go away.
Thursday, June 12, 2014
[insert string of violent words here]
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Few things make me madder than getting something wrong in the paper. Typos drive me around the bend, yes, but it's nothing compared to what happens when I get a mistake of fact in the paper. Typos are like getting your legs chew by briars when you're in the woods. It comes with the territory. A mistake of fact is like being mauled by a bear. You (or in this case me) screwed up badly because you (me) didn't pay attention, were not prepared, etc etc etc. All. Your (My). Fault.
And yes, it happened this week according to our City Manager.
He says I got a quote wrong in a major story on page 1. I do not doubt him. I thought we had this corrected before the paper went to press. Apparently not.
[insert second string of violent language]
Those who know me will tell you I am
But the great majority of the time, when this image is posted in a FB thread, it's done out of fun. Same thing when I point to the errors in logic in my friend's posts. Some call this trolling. The group of people I've known for nearly 30 years call this bustin' some chops. It's done out of fun.
But sometimes, the post is in earnest. Sometimes when I correct someone's presentation of "facts" it is in earnest.
Folks who know me will also tell you a good way to get my hackles rising is to misquote me. If done for chop bustin' it's OK. But if you do it and mean it, as in you are trying to convince others that is what I said, no.
I also come down incredibly hard on another news outlet in my region of Georgia. This outfit regularly, routinely and pretty much with every story they produce, gets something factually wrong. Every. Time.
So, I misquoted our City Manager in a major news article this week. It's going to bother me for a LONG time to come.
[insert third string of violent language]
The other problem is I don't just publish a newspaper. I publish a history book. Yes, I do. Come to my office, and I can prove it to. Go to our courthouse and I can prove it to you. Real. Books.
So, now that I have made this mistake, it will be recorded in the history book of my community. As John Lee once said when I worked at the Apalachicola Times, it doesn't matter that a correction will appear in the next edition. It's wrong forever. People doing research years from now will not bother to check subsequent editions for corrections. They'll pick the error up and it will go forward and be compounded through the years.
[insert fourth string of violent language]
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Few things make me madder than getting something wrong in the paper. Typos drive me around the bend, yes, but it's nothing compared to what happens when I get a mistake of fact in the paper. Typos are like getting your legs chew by briars when you're in the woods. It comes with the territory. A mistake of fact is like being mauled by a bear. You (or in this case me) screwed up badly because you (me) didn't pay attention, were not prepared, etc etc etc. All. Your (My). Fault.
And yes, it happened this week according to our City Manager.
He says I got a quote wrong in a major story on page 1. I do not doubt him. I thought we had this corrected before the paper went to press. Apparently not.
[insert second string of violent language]
Those who know me will tell you I am
But the great majority of the time, when this image is posted in a FB thread, it's done out of fun. Same thing when I point to the errors in logic in my friend's posts. Some call this trolling. The group of people I've known for nearly 30 years call this bustin' some chops. It's done out of fun.
But sometimes, the post is in earnest. Sometimes when I correct someone's presentation of "facts" it is in earnest.
Folks who know me will also tell you a good way to get my hackles rising is to misquote me. If done for chop bustin' it's OK. But if you do it and mean it, as in you are trying to convince others that is what I said, no.
I also come down incredibly hard on another news outlet in my region of Georgia. This outfit regularly, routinely and pretty much with every story they produce, gets something factually wrong. Every. Time.
So, I misquoted our City Manager in a major news article this week. It's going to bother me for a LONG time to come.
[insert third string of violent language]
The other problem is I don't just publish a newspaper. I publish a history book. Yes, I do. Come to my office, and I can prove it to. Go to our courthouse and I can prove it to you. Real. Books.
So, now that I have made this mistake, it will be recorded in the history book of my community. As John Lee once said when I worked at the Apalachicola Times, it doesn't matter that a correction will appear in the next edition. It's wrong forever. People doing research years from now will not bother to check subsequent editions for corrections. They'll pick the error up and it will go forward and be compounded through the years.
[insert fourth string of violent language]
Tuesday, June 10, 2014
The stupid is strong in these people
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
We get a couple of fake classifieds a week at the office. It's always someone with poor English skills looking to hire part time help to work from home, give away some dogs, a motorcycle, etc.
It is, of course, a scam. For the business ad, anyone who bites is sent money orders or checks and instructed to deposit the checks, withdraw some cash and wire it to another address. The credit card they would use to pay for the ad is also stolen information. For the others, wire some money to handle shipping. Either way, bye bye money!
They are amusing to read.
Every now and then, I yank some chains and apply for the job. I always give a Post Office as the address because UPS won't deliver there. This throws them into a tizzy about 60 percent of the time.
If I ever do get the fake checks or forged money orders, I just stick 'em in a folder and forget about them until I get an email wondering where the money is. First reply is always I did not get it. This generates a slightly more heated email. Second reply is I have the MO, but have not had time to get to the bank. Now there are threats to involve law enforcement. I pretend to panic. On the 4th email, the swearing starts. I reply I used the money to buy some drugs and ask if they will send more.
Every great once in a while a real winner comes in.
The best one was someone using the TeleType (telephone communications for deaf people) to run a scam. They claimed to have an office at 106 N. Gordon St. My office is 109 N. Gordon St. I really doubted Bob was going to allow anyone else to run a business out of his coin laundromat across the street.
After I discussed the matter at length with the lady doing the interface work, the scammer finally hung up.
Here's the latest one:
Hello How are you doing…Please I want to Place Below AD on your Newspapers and on your website for 2weeks, Please email me back and let me know how to Proceed
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
Appointment coordination, Generated reports, invoice documents, Billing Adjustments, Event and meeting planning,setting appointments, send your resume and salary expectations to: js24113@________.com
Jose Sanchez
3**** Stanford Rd
Ashburn, GA 31714
404-***-0320
Turner County is a small place. But just to be sure, I checked. The 3**** Stanford Road is a field under cultivation. The nearest mail box is half mile away. The phone number is an Atlanta area code, which could be legit considering how cell phones jump all over the nation these days.
A quick Internet search links this number to a variety of scams sent by text message.
But I also used one of my emails to reply to the email, hoping I might eventually be able to trap one of these idiots well enough to catch him or her. Not heard back yet.
Ah the joys of running a community newspaper.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
We get a couple of fake classifieds a week at the office. It's always someone with poor English skills looking to hire part time help to work from home, give away some dogs, a motorcycle, etc.
It is, of course, a scam. For the business ad, anyone who bites is sent money orders or checks and instructed to deposit the checks, withdraw some cash and wire it to another address. The credit card they would use to pay for the ad is also stolen information. For the others, wire some money to handle shipping. Either way, bye bye money!
They are amusing to read.
Every now and then, I yank some chains and apply for the job. I always give a Post Office as the address because UPS won't deliver there. This throws them into a tizzy about 60 percent of the time.
If I ever do get the fake checks or forged money orders, I just stick 'em in a folder and forget about them until I get an email wondering where the money is. First reply is always I did not get it. This generates a slightly more heated email. Second reply is I have the MO, but have not had time to get to the bank. Now there are threats to involve law enforcement. I pretend to panic. On the 4th email, the swearing starts. I reply I used the money to buy some drugs and ask if they will send more.
Every great once in a while a real winner comes in.
The best one was someone using the TeleType (telephone communications for deaf people) to run a scam. They claimed to have an office at 106 N. Gordon St. My office is 109 N. Gordon St. I really doubted Bob was going to allow anyone else to run a business out of his coin laundromat across the street.
After I discussed the matter at length with the lady doing the interface work, the scammer finally hung up.
Here's the latest one:
Hello How are you doing…Please I want to Place Below AD on your Newspapers and on your website for 2weeks, Please email me back and let me know how to Proceed
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
Appointment coordination, Generated reports, invoice documents, Billing Adjustments, Event and meeting planning,setting appointments, send your resume and salary expectations to: js24113@________.com
Jose Sanchez
3**** Stanford Rd
Ashburn, GA 31714
404-***-0320
Turner County is a small place. But just to be sure, I checked. The 3**** Stanford Road is a field under cultivation. The nearest mail box is half mile away. The phone number is an Atlanta area code, which could be legit considering how cell phones jump all over the nation these days.
A quick Internet search links this number to a variety of scams sent by text message.
But I also used one of my emails to reply to the email, hoping I might eventually be able to trap one of these idiots well enough to catch him or her. Not heard back yet.
Ah the joys of running a community newspaper.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)