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.

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.

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.

Martin Luther King, Jr.

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.

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.