Some advice you will probably ignore

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Say you have lost your mind. Say you intend to get married. But I repeat myself.

Having now made a whole lot of people mad, I'm gonna make some more mad.

Do yourself a LONG TERM favor. Hire a real professional photographer.

I write this as a former pro photog and a full time newspaper editor who's had to work with the WORST wedding pictures you can possibly imagine for announcements in the newspaper.

Seriously. You can get a buddy with a digital camera to do the wedding. You can get someone who does photography as a hobby. You might get good pictures.

I can guarantee you will not get AWESOME pictures.

Why? 'Cause a real pro carries enough lights to give you a sunburn, has the experience you want and has the knowledge you need. The flash that mounts atop a camera is good. It ain't awesome. Awesome are the big lights with umbrellas and stands and hoods and backdrops and on and on.

Consider these pictures:

Sharp, well lit, full frame

Fuzzy, poor framing. bad lighting

The pic at left is very good. Could be a little lighter for my taste, but that's handled in editing. The pix at right, not much hope there. An out of focus imagine is just always gonna be that way. Cropping and some lighting can be adjusted in editing.

Excellent! notice how well lit everyone is.

And who is that guy in the very front of the picture? Nice hair!

 As you can see in these examples, LIGHTING makes a massive amount of difference. The kind of camera used also makes a huge difference. If the photog in pix 2 had used a GOOD telephoto, he could have caught the scene at the altar much better. 

A good idea gone bad.

Wow. Just wow. THIS is the mark of a pro,

Pros also have the experience to know what works, when it works and how to set things up ahead of time.  Above in Pix 1, the photo had a GREAT idea and blew it. Bad lighting. Angle could have been much better.

Pix 2, now that rocks. The couple will remember that for a long time.

Oooooo. Call the fire department cause this is smokin'

GREAT pictures can happen by accident. GREAT pictures on a regular basis are not an accident. They are the work of a person who knows what he is doing.

A good pro is also going to pose people. See above. Sometimes chillun can't be posed, but in my opinion the chilluns is what makes weddings fun and how they act and appear in pictures are the best memories.



Back when dinosaurs roamed the earth and I did wedding photography. When I was booked to shoot a wedding, I had three standard contracts. Contract 1 was the cheapest and had the fewest pix. Contract three had the most pix and was the most expensive. Each contract spelled out what pictures would be taken and when. Costs for extra pix was also identified. I'd also do more or less, depending on what the wedding party wanted.


M'point is, everyone knew going in what was needed, what was gonna happen and what they needed to do because I knew what to do. I had the experience to do it. I was a pro. My prices reflected that.

No, it wasn't cheap. Yes, my customers were completely satisfied with my work.

As my momma told me years ago, you will get what you pay for. G'head let a buddy shoot the wedding for free. Or, grit your teeth and get someone who'll make the pictures your grandkids will talk about in detail rather than wonder who the hell is that in the picture.

Hey. These are your memories. Make of them what you want. You have to live with it.

A guest column

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Author's note: The following is a letter to the editor in the newspaper this week. With the permission of the author, I reprint here. Immediately after this post, I post a response to items this writer puts forth.

[Another person wrote piece in the newspaper] that made the word Liberal sound like profanity.  The discourse between Americans of all beliefs has gotten out of hand and there seems to be very little respect for views that are different from other persons.  These are just a few of a much longer list of what being a liberal means to me:

I believe that freedom means freedom for everyone, not just me and mine.

I believe in not only personal responsibility but shared responsibility towards my country and fellow citizens.

I believe that leadership does not equal dominance.

I believe that every person is entitled to dignity and respect, not because of what they have but because of who they are – human.

I believe that each individual’s religious belief should be respected, but it should not infringe upon others’ belief, non-belief, or personal freedom and that religion and government should be separate – for the good of both.

When people disparage ‘diversity’ (always said with the little eye-roll), I assume they prefer inbreeding.

I believe that there are some things that government is better equipped to deal with than private enterprise; that there is room for both. I do not believe government should be run like a business, and I do not believe that private enterprise should be run like the government.

I believe that the areas that include shared life-and-death resources (clean air, fresh water, safe food, transportation infrastructure, judicial and legal infrastructure, essential [not elective] medical care, military defense), and education for all, should be administered, overseen, and protected without a profit motive by a body that is accountable to the people – that is, government.

If I claim freedom for myself, I need to extend it to others in return. Civil rights are rights conferred upon citizens, and civil marriage is one of those rights. No one should be guaranteed a religious marriage; that is up to the tenets of that particular religion and not the business of government. But civil marriage recognized by the state grants rights, benefits and responsibilities to married couples that all citizens who wish to marry the person they love should be able to benefit from – and be responsible for. 

I believe basic health care is a right, and not only that, but a benefit to society that saves money to all Americans in the long run. I believe that national single payer health care, administered (but not provided) by the government, is the most cost-effective and fair way to ensure that no person is denied care because they can’t afford it, or goes bankrupt because of an illness or accident.  The argument that health care should not be called a ‘right’ because no doctor should be forced to care for an ill person against their will makes no sense. Emergency rooms are already mandated to care for anyone who comes in regardless of their ability to pay; the cost is astronomical and borne by the taxpayers anyway.  No one should die because they can’t afford care!!

I believe that government is US – We the People – and, as flawed as it can be, it is answerable to us.
Private enterprise in charge of public needs is NOT answerable to us (See California’s disastrous power deregulation and subsequent grotesque theft from the people of CA for a good example of what the lure of the profit motive can lead to with public utilities.) Privatization is not the answer to what’s wrong with government.

I do not believe that the Invisible Hand of the Free Market will make everything hunky-dory with the economy. I think that is a willful misinterpretation from Adam Smith that Republicans accept as fact because it favors the interests of Big Business to do so. I do not believe that ‘free markets’ are free if all the power is on one side of the equation.

I do not believe that tax cuts for the wealthy create jobs. All they do is add to the deficit and give Republicans an excuse to cut social programs in the name of ‘deficit reduction’.

I also believe in reasonable regulation. If we had had reasonable regulation in place over the last 15 years, we would not be in an economic collapse only rivaled in the last century by the Great Depression. There is a middle ground between micro-managing and reasonable regulation, but the corporate powers-that-be treat any attempt to oversee financial matters as the grossest of meddling, nit-picking, and job-killing. That, of course, is their strategy. It’s called ‘working the refs’ and it has worked like a charm for them. For us? Not so much. Even a football game has rules.

I believe that justice and the rule of law should not be for sale to the highest bidder.

I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT CORPORATIONS SHOULD BE LEGAL PEOPLE.

I believe that elections should be financed by the public to ensure that politicians are not purchased by corporations and that the important work of our nation is not disrupted by 24/7 fundraising once a candidate is elected. I don’t believe a congressperson should be under the thumb of corporate money, and subject to the pressure of having an opponent financed by a corporation if that congressperson doesn’t ‘play ball’. I also do not believe that there should be a revolving door between Congress and K Street once that Congressperson leaves office.

Gary Gentry

A reply to the above post

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

The above is a letter to the editor publish in my newspaper this week. The author has graciously given permission for me to reprint it.

I offer my views on a few of the points he makes. If I do not address his points, assume I agree with him.

As this reply gets a bit winded (see the letter in the post just above this) I shall summarize.

Liberals say that all points of view deserve respect. The key is respect. What do they mean by that? I can’t get one to tell me.

Objection noted. Coon jerky 4 days from now...

What I can infer is: Respect means agreeing with people who think the same way, disagreeing with those who don’t and actively trying to force agreed-upon opinions down the throats of those who disagree. Those who disagree are not allowed to push their opinions on others.

If you think that sounds like conservatives, you win! Your prize is in the mail.

Anyway, my commentary. His items are in italics (if I remember to do it that way).

“I believe in not only personal responsibility but shared responsibility towards my country and fellow citizens.”

Weeeeelllll. Can’t disagree totally with this. But I do not believe my responsibilities go as far as Mr. Gentry indicates his in other parts of his letter.

But I am NOT in charge of yours.

My obligations to my country are: Pay my just taxes. Obey just laws. Agitate for change for unjust laws, including refusing to obey them. My obligation to fellow citizens is to stay out of their way. If they need help, I may CHOOSE to give it. If I am forced to give it, my rights have been abrogated.

“I believe that every person is entitled to dignity and respect, not because of what they have but because of who they are – human.”

Willing to stipulate that, provided the other person reciprocates. Liberals generally are not willing to do this when faced with someone of seriously opposing views.

“I believe that each individual’s religious belief should be respected, but it should not infringe upon others’ belief, non-belief, or personal freedom and that religion and government should be separate – for the good of both.”

Calling John Lennon, Paging John Lennon...

Nice concept. Impossible to implement. Contradictory even.

Say you respect my religion. But my religion requires me to convert other people by any means necessary. If you object, then you cease to respect my religion.

In that regard, liberalism (and conservatism) is a religion which attempts to force other people into that mode of thought.

A tenet of religion is to spread the faith. Religions older than 1,000 years have a history of doing this with violence. The history of humanity has intertwined leadership and religion to the point you can’t tell where one begins and one ends. That is the way people are.

“When people disparage ‘diversity’ (always said with the little eye-roll), I assume they prefer inbreeding.”

No argument, but his statement of respecting others just took a hit. When you "eye roll" anything you disparage it. So much for respect.

“I believe that the areas  …  that is, government.” [truncated for space]

Not part of my system. Will you respect my wishes?

Transportation infrastructure is not part of my package. I also have zero problem with private companies building, maintaining and charging people to use roads. You want a road? Convince enough people to go in with you to build it. I live in a rural county. Our Road Department maintains roads that benefit as few as 6 people.

I have no problem in a free educational system. I object to it being mandatory. Someone doesn’t wanna partake, cool! But when they drop out, they also drop out of any kind of assistance on the public dime, including everything Mr. Gentry listed in his essentials. If they can buy it for themselves, excellent. I shouldn’t have to foot a bill for such idiots. I also don’t have a problem with for-profit education systems.

I have HUGE objections to teachers who work in a public school and send their kids to a private school. I do see it as major conflict of interest. I would not make this illegal, but given the chance I’d also fire those teachers. Let ‘em work in a private school. If the school is good enough to draw a salary from, it’s good enough to educate your children in.

Private institutions are accountable to the people. You don’t like the private company, you don’t do business with ‘em. Period. Enough people take that attitude and the private business changes or closes.

“No one should be guaranteed a religious marriage; that is up to the tenets of that particular religion and not the business of government.”

And the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

I REALLY REALLY REALLY wish I had said that in that exact way. I SO agree with that one.

“I believe basic health care is a right … No one should die because they can’t afford care!”

Socialism is a fine system until you exhaust the resources of the people who can pay on behalf of those who won’t pay. Socialized medicine provides longer waits, lower standards of care and fewer resources. You ain’t gotta believe me. Just check and see how many doctors in the nation are refusing to take Medicare and Medicaid these days.

If you force these doctors to participate in this kind of system, they will either close their doors or go into speciality medical areas where they can charge whatever they want and practice medicine on whomever they want. And, you’ll get some bloody poor doctors.

R.E.S.P.E.C.T. Find out what it means to him.

Once you force a doctor to participate, you have eliminated his basic rights, dominated him, reduced his dignity and pretty much stomped all over the other rights Mr. Gentry wants to see preserved.

Respect has just been defenestrated

As for the ER argument, no one forces doctors to work in Emergency Rooms, unless they are in their training period. Personally, I think mandated care ER is a crock too. Too many people use it as a free doctor’s office for minor matters. Been there, seen it.

“I believe that government is US – We the People – and, as flawed as it can be, it is answerable to us.”

I wish this were the case. Ain’t. Nuf said.

“Privatization is not the answer to what’s wrong with government. “

Not in all cases certainly. But in a lot of ‘em heck yes. Not gonna detail ‘em.

Take from those who do and give to those who don't.

“I do not believe that tax cuts for the wealthy create jobs. All they do is add to the deficit and give Republicans an excuse to cut social programs in the name of ‘deficit reduction’.”

Not gonna argue the jobs bit. But tax cuts do not create deficits. Spending creates deficits. If you don’t spend money, you do not create a deficit.

“I also believe in reasonable regulation …For us? Not so much.”

Reasonable. Aye. There’s where the copper wires come together and spark. Define reasonable and I’ll tell you if I agree or disagree. Regulation is another word for saying “restricting rights.” There has to be a balance. As for our current Depression, I’ve not seen any plan that would have prevented it. Delayed it a bit maybe.

As for the corporate powers nit picking, I completely agree. I also point out in my mind this contradicts Mr. Gentry’s earlier statement of “We the People.” Either the people have the power or corporations do.

“I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT CORPORATIONS SHOULD BE LEGAL PEOPLE.”

Sounds good anyway.

Bit confused there. So be it. State of Confusion is my home territory.

“I believe that elections should be financed by the public to ensure that politicians are not purchased by corporations and that the important work of our nation is not disrupted by 24/7 fundraising once a candidate is elected."

No No No No No No No No. Well, maybe. Regardless, it’s a nice thought and it won’t work. Elected officials will merely figure out a way around whatever law is put in place to continue to get money from special interests. I also note in my opinion Mr. Gentry again contradicts himself.

But I contradict myself too. It is a prerogative of being human.

Having thought more, I again say No to public election financing. Why should my tax dollars go to finance the campaign of an idiot? I think immediately of Cynthia McKinney.

What is needed, instead, is an informed and education voting public. A public that researches issues and people. A public that ignores advertising and looks for detailed stories no matter the media. TV is the major problem. If this happens, the Cynthia McKinneys of this nation will be forced to move to Cuba, which is where they really want to be anyway.

Wait! American Idol is on! Learning can happen later.

What ya gonna do?

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Not long ago the almost nation of Palestine held an election. The United States heavily invested in this election, actively supporting and promoting leaders the US wanted to see. This was under Dubya's watch when Connie Rice was Secretary of State.

To the victor go the spoils.

Lo, Anna hold a bee, the "wrong" people won the election. Fiercely anti-Israel and anti-US leaders pretty much swept the election.

Connie and Dubya were quite flabbergasted.

After all, here the US went demanding that people be given the right to decide. Democracy in other words. When the people decided, they did not vote the way the United States leadership wanted 'em to vote.

HOW DARE THEY MAKE UP THEIR OWN MINDS! is pretty much the attitude and opinion of the administration, and even the Damnocrats, in Washington at the time.

Every politician in Washington today.

Kalifornia Governor Jerry Brown is pushing an item that would make ALL of the Granola State's Electoral College votes go to whomever gets the most popular votes in the presidential election. I point out the aforementioned Dubya won the presidential election on Electoral College votes. He lost the popular vote. Nor is he the first president to do so.

I now bring you to Wisconsin, land of cow farts, cheese, beer and some of my cousins who won't read this. Remember when the Wisconsin legislature was ground to a halt because the Damnocrats walked out on the Reboobicans? The Reboobicans, over Damnocrat objections, gutted the state's public employee collective bargaining rights.

Talk about making folks mad.

Recall petitions went up ALL over the place. Elections have been held.

Who won?


http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wisconsin-recall-gop-retains-senate-control/story?id=14269209

The peoples has spokened. The actions of the Legislature were upheld and union busting is a GO!

We may be morons, but ... well no, we're probably morons.

You ain't gotta like it.

But unless you plan to substitute your will for the Will of the People (and I wonder if Will has even been consulted about this), then you must respect the decision.

The peoples has spokened.

If you reject this, do not respect it and so forth, then you are essentially saying you prefer an non-elected dictatorship to be in charge of everything.

More than one politician in this nation has gone into an election confident of being returned to office. Voters instead returned him to private life. I've covered elections where this has happened. I'll do it again I am sure.

When the people take control of government it is both an awesome and an awful thing. 

When people take control of the government and have no idea what they are doing, we wind up with record deficits, a lowered credit rating, war in four countries (yes, 4) and a nation of people who won't be bothered to take the blame as long as they can take the services.

Random thoughts, Spurious comments and Assorted observations

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

Hodge Podge

Yes, today is a hodge podge of statements of things.

Hackers have now shifted their attention to completely illegal activities in response to arrests of some members.

http://www.informationweek.com/news/security/attacks/231300411

While I might have supported some of their efforts, I no longer do. When they start hacking police files, posting Social Security numbers taken from incident reports (these people probably did not commit a crime, but called for police to help them) and so forth, they have crossed a line.

They are now involving innocent people who have done nothing more than asked for help from law enforcement authorities. They are also guilty of theft, according to the story.

M'self? I say it's time to amp it up the response. A few well-placed swings with a baseball bat will do nicely. Yes. I am advocating vigilante justice and violence in this case.

You come after me, you give me the right to come after you.

•••

This is just cool. No matter how you look at it.

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2011-08/double-amputee-sprinter-oscar-pistorius-will-be-first-amputee-compete-world-championships

I do have to agree with some detractors that he's using artificial technology to compete. Makes it unfair for athletes using their own bodies. While he's not likely to win the race, it's only a matter of time before the sci tech reaches the point that such athletes can outperform athletes with unmodified bodies.

•••

Mom?

Did life originate on Earth? Not an unusual question.


http://www.hindustantimes.com/Are-we-all-aliens/Article1-731169.aspx

The article references new research which shows the "building blocks" of life are coming to Earth via interstellar curve balls.

Anyone else remember the "microfossils" found inside a meteorite some years ago? It looked like tiny bits of dirt to me and to a lot of other scientists.

Seriously. What kind of fossil is an amoeba gonna leave behind anyway?

•••
Despite some changes, the Mormon religion continues to oppress women, even if some groups don't practice polygamy any more.

I still say if it is OK for the man, it is OK for the woman. To say otherwise is prove the speaker to be an idiot who should be sterilized to avoid any more people like him.

I don't get it either, but it looks cool.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-mormonism/2011/08/03/gIQAyIhTwI_story.html

"Church policy permits widowed and some divorced men to be sealed for all eternity to more than one wife, while Mormon women may not be sealed to more than one husband."

And this comment:

"It is true that mainstream Mormonism does not accord women equal status with men."

What more evidence do you need? The article was written by a Mormon, who admits women are not equal to men. Seems to me that DOES mean women are second class citizens in Mormon culture. If you disagree, then explain to me how I'm wrong.

I'm not gonna hold my breath. You are welcome to hold yours.

•••

Til they glow, then shoot 'em in the dark.

When is the president going to announce that we are invading Great Britain? Haven't you heard about the riots going on over there? Citizens are up in arms, as much as they can be, over the shooting of a man there.


The government is hammering down on the citizens.


If this was in the Middle East, our bombers would be leveling the place.

•••
Diana Nyad didn't make it to Cuba by swimming. Dang it.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14456081


I was hoping she'd get all the way there. That would be awesome!


Instead of getting flotillas of Cuban refugees, we could use her as a role model and start shipping our idiots to Cuba. We could start with the president and work our way through government.


•••

Criminals fear armed homeowners. So do governments.

People who are opposed to private ownership of firearms would do well to read this.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/08/us/08crime.html


While the three criminals who broke in had guns, they could just as easily have used knives, my aforementioned bats or pretty much anything else. A hammer in the skull kills just as well as any bullet.


911 - Government sponsored dial-a-prayer.


You break into my house and I catch you, I will not be calling the police department. Well. Not exactly true. I will call the chief and let him know, after I've called the coroner.

The pot speaks

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
With the downgrading of the United States Government's credit rating (which is long overdue if you ask me), China has been hollering that the US needs to get it's fiscal affairs in order.

Specifically, China said the US needs to cut the military spending and the social network spending.

In other words, China is saying in one voice what the Damnocrats and the Reboobicans have been saying in two voices.

I could not find the Chinese editorial translated in English. Sorry.


http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/08/06/119720/china-slams-us-debt-situation.html

Part of me is highly annoyed by this. China owns $1.3 trillion in US debt, making it the largest loan agency the US has by far. If they have so much invested in the US, why should China bitch?

China don't like it, China cashes in its bonds and leaves.

Another thing that bothers me is, I am Southern. While I was not alive during The War of Northern Aggression, I continue to suffer and chafe under the sanctions imposed on the South as a result of losing that war.

Off topic, but on subject.

Because of this and because I am a rebel born and bred and through and through, I have major objections to anyone telling me what I have to do. You can ask my boss.

China has no business in telling my country what to do.

Toilet paper or money?

Once I get past being mad, my realistic side kicks back in and reminds me of several things.

For years the US and other countries have bitched about China's fiscal policies and demanded that government do more to let the Chinese currency value be determined by the world market. If we have the right to tell China what to do, certainly China has that same right.

China as a new world power is flexing its muscles. It has the right to do that. Again, the United States has been doing that for years. It was not original when we started doing it. Empires are as old as man.

Veterans Day is every day for me.

China is right. We need to cut spending. We need to cut military spending. Bring the troops home. At the same time, we need to increase veteran benefits. I will support any and every cut to the federal budget EXCEPT for veteran benefits. The men and women of our military go forth. Most come back. A few don't come back. A few more come back missing pieces.

They deserve our support when they come back. We should take care of them. If you believe we do not need to take care of them, then I am not interested in you have to say and if you post here to the effect that we don't need to support 'em, you will be blocked and banned. I did not serve in the military.

China is also semi-correct in that Congress can't seem to get its fiscal affairs in order. Semi-correct.

The recent budget fight in Congress shows me Congress DOES have brains (at least some of 'em) and is doing the work congressmen were hired to do.

The "semi" part comes from the first 18 months of the president's administration. With control of both houses of Congress and the presidency, the Damnocrats FAILED to pass a budget, FAILED to create a long term fiscal policy but did massively succeed in driving up the amount of debt the nation has.

I must also admit that China has the right to complain. The right to complain about your investments possibly being mishandled is called capitalism, a concept China is fairly new to. Never mind how China treats its own economy and citizens.


Regardless of all that, in the end I am a rebel and I object to China telling my country what to do. If China doesn't like the way we do business, China can quit doing business with us.

Need help

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Need some liberal readers to explain exactly and in precise detail what they mean when they say they "respect" another's point of view. I know what it means to me, but I cannot know what it means to others unless they define the word.

Don't get touchy-feely on me. I need concrete here. Gimme a slab of granite. Gimme Capt. America's shield.

Yeah, I'm looking for what happens when you put "respect" into practice. Think what it means in terms of making the word a legal term so that it applies to people, their actions, words and so forth. I will not reply in this thread, but I need the definition for what I describe below.

Conservatives, libertarians and realists (like me) need not apply on this round, please. Lawyers may respond, but I reserve the right to snigger severely and beat them to death with their rose-colored glasses.

A piece is pending for later next week, written by a self-described liberal who uses phrases like "respect." I'm not satisfied with his treatment of the term.

You''ll get a rebuttal from me after my guest writer has his say.

I'll offer the same to conservatives later on and then any libertarians willing to pony up and play will get their chance.

For that matter, heck, I'll open this forum beyond the comments section. You got something you need to say but don't want your own blog? Convince me what you have to write is worth reading and you got the space.

Extremely well-written pieces may be, at the author's permission, turned into an editorial or a letter to the editor for the newspaper. Yes, you too can be a published writer.

Lemme hear you.

Can't do it. Nope nope nope

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

Won't do any good to ask later, either

He was joking, but I gave a serious reply.

Was talking with a potential candidate for sheriff in my county. The subject of chief deputy came up and I said I was absolutely not interested.

Still ain't.

Years ago I went to the Public Safety Training Center in Forsyth. As part of the day we spent there, I got to go through the Shoot - Don't Shoot simulator. I didn't stand on the line, but I watched others.

The first guy up was told to arrest a person. He went. A man on the screen, the subject, reached behind him and turned around. Our guy shot. 3 times. Killed him. The man on the screen had come back with a Coke can.

After that, no one would shoot, even when the sound of a pump shotgun being racked behind a door was obvious.

The Thin Blue Line.

Nobody walked away from the simulator feeling good.

I've done ride alongs with police for years. Written stories and taken pictures. If it's a crime in the United States, I've probably covered it. Except for treason. Don't recall covering a treason case. Hrm.

That's not my problem with carrying a badge. Readers of this column should already know I have no issues with carrying a gun.

I couldn't be in law enforcement. Not for long anyway.

First time I got called out to make an arrest in a child abuse case, the perp might not make it to the jail in one piece. If I was certain of the abuse, I know the perp would not head to the jail first. Emergency room maybe. Coroner's office maybe.

Speaking of false accusations...

And that would mean I'd be the person being arrested.

I understand, I know and I support the right of anyone accused of a crime being allowed to have their day in court. If you have ever been falsely accused of something, you really appreciate the right for the chance to clear your name. Can I get a witness?

But this is about children.

Children who are abused by the very people they look to for protection.

I am a supporter of the death penalty under certain circumstances.

If you maliciously kill a child (accidents can happen and I am not talking about that), then I have no problem in being your executor. I am fully in favor of the death penalty for people who clearly are guilty of the murder of a child.

As an officer of the law, I fear I would become judge, jury and executioner on the spot.

A reader replies

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
This comment was posted outside Blogspot. The writer has given me permission to post it here.

The writer references this column: http://porkbrainsandmilkgravy.blogspot.com/2011/08/demanding-is-not-accepting.html



An interesting post, and I find I agree partially.

It's true, that to request for someone to change their method of thought to be accommodating is a big request, and one that can't be easily done. It's also true that, honestly, people are allowed to have their opinions, and religions are allowed to follow their dogma... to a degree.

The problem is, when this oversteps the boundaries as well; I have no problems with someone hating me. Go ahead and hate me. Loathe me for absolutely no reason and detest me simply because I was born. It's your prerogative, and I've no issues with that. Hell, I'll even fight to defend your RIGHT to hate me.

However... as soon as you step over the line and stop just "hating", and start actively attacking? Ah, that's when your right to hate disappears. You can't attack, harm, murder, or restrict employment based on birth circumstances... this is where things get messy.

To state that a religion has the right to hate gays or whatever, is to also state that it's alright to hate them. This then gets twisted into the belief that it's also okay to do other things that the religion states to do, such as "stone them to death". Which... is not okay.

The biggest issue, is that if a gay person wants to go to church, they generally want to go for the sake of praising the lord and, more or less, just to be a christian in most cases. Technically, as long as they don't have gay sex, they're not even committing a sin, either. They can cuddle and kiss and love each other and all that so long as gay sex isn't involved, and the bible's pretty clear on that, though some choose to interpret things as being beyond that point.

Conversely, however, if a christian hates a gay person, there's a chance they'll actually try to kill or physical, emotionally, or financially harm the gay person in return, since they've been told it's okay to do that, when it really isn't.
So... what do we do about the problem? If you allow such thinking to continue, and encourage it, then it causes other unfortunate implications, and far, far worse sins to be committed. Should we not choose the lesser of two evils? It's a tricky question, and not so easily answered.

Do I think gays should be allowed to be married in terms of a christian or other religious wedding in the sense of being bound under god's law? Nupe, not really. Do I think they should be allowed to say "I love this person and want to be married to them and get full legal standings and benefits for such"? Yes, yes I do.

Marriage is not really related to religion, and should not be mistaken for such. It is, however, a church's decision to state that it is not within their dogma to permit the religious binding of two individuals for sins committed, or because they simply believe it does not follow their scripture.

However, I also believe that marriage should be specifically separated as being non-religious. You can be married by virtually anyone with any kind of ranking. You can be married by a town leader, a military officer, and a fat guy in an Elvis suit in Las Vegas. You can be married if muslim, just as you can be married if hindu, and can be married if christian.

People have got to stop thinking that their religion is the ONLY one which exists, and that their interpretation is the ONLY one which counts.

Now, with that being as it is, gays should be allowed to marry and have full entitlement to such, and they should be allowed to call it marriage, because, contrary to the christians' idiotic belief, they don't actually hold any kind of claim to the word, and it has nothing to do with their religion in the slightest.

I do, however, also believe that they can say no to marrying gay people in their church. That is fine, if not quite perfect, as it does still state that it's alright to hate other people or discriminate against them, but really, that's what the religion's all about. For being a religion which preaches peace and loving of ones' neighbours, there's an awful lot of suggestion to harm or kill each other in it over the most trite and trivial of things.

Personally, I consider this to be kind of bizarre that we encourage this sort of a mindset, and I believe it to be exceedingly unhealthy for everyone involved. However, that is merely my opinion, and I equally do not believe I have any right to force my opinions upon others, and therefore will not do anything about it, except state my opinion and why I feel that way.

If we could all just agree to disagree, and not blow each other up, it wouldn't be a problem. As that doesn't seem to be the case, however, I would suggest that the churches, mosques, and so on, who preach love and understanding, to also accept that it is also their responsibility to teach people that, while you can have your own opinions, you do not have the right to force those opinions on others at gunpoint, and you do not have the right to use the bible as an excuse to kill people.

After the fact, it is often "oh such terrible people, they're not true christians, or muslims, or whatevers", but it really is the responsibility of the church, who controls the dogma, to explicitly explain to their membership that, just because it says you should kill people, doesn't mean you should REALLY go out and kill people in god's name.

As this really isn't done in a preemptive measure, and the encouragement to hate people is still not only allowed, but often encouraged, I would suggest that the religion might want to consider rethinking their role as a morality role model, because they're doing a pretty piss poor job of it.

If it requires you to suck in your gut and accept a gay marriage in your church, in order to keep your idiot congregation from murdering gays and transgendered people, or to not blow up abortion clinics, then perhaps that's what you're going to have to do, because the current method of "preach peace on one hand, and hatred on the other" just doesn't seem to be cutting it.

It's been shown time and again, with consistent, repeated evidence, that people will still kill in god's name, because they think it's the right thing to do. So long as this occurs, I don't think it's really possible to claim the moral high ground when your opposition doesn't do the same thing back.

Yes, you have the legal right to not let gays marry in church, and I agree with you, that if all things were equal, that you would be allowed to do so. All things are not, however, equal, and considering the message it sends, I would suggest that people start thinking about their actions, or lack thereof, in a larger, broader sense, of what these can do on a large scale.

Remember, no single rain drop thinks it is to blame for the flood, but it doesn't mean you're any less guilty for letting it happen.

Telling what I can

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
A lot of eyes, more than usual, have been looking at me in the past couple of weeks.

Hasn't bothered me. Comes with the territory.

But, all these eyes are also attached to people who also bring questions. A lot of 'em.

I have not answered a lot of the questions. Chances are, I never will.

To briefly explain, our county Sheriff resigned this week. Other media outlets have gone wild reporting rumors. They have, no surprise there, gotten parts of the story wrong. By reporting the rumors they have also spread outright lies.

This is not surprising. A major media outlet in this area, which shall go unnamed, specializes in spreading lies. This outlet has also banned me from being in their stories.

Image at left cutline: Their version of the truth.

And no, I am not kidding about their lies and being banned. This media outlet has NEVER gotten a story about my community 100 percent correct. Never.

Being banned from a media sources that specializes in lies is a badge of honor as far as I'm concerned.

Back to the topic du jour:

That I will probably never tell the entire and the complete story about the situation here is not unusual. That is the Standard Operating Procedure for all media anyway.

Image at right cutline: Well, maybe not everything unless you believe what you see on TV.

You, the information consuming public, do not have the patience, time or understanding to process the entire story. This is not an insult. It's merely a simple fact.

I reference the recent federal budget debacle. How much do you really and truly know about the federal budget and how the federal government spends money? Do you know how much is spent annual by the federal folks on paperclips? Do you want to know?

That is one area of ignorance. Another area is when people like, journalists, don't tell you everything we know despite you seriously wanting to know this information.

There's a couple of reasons for that.

Ethical, responsible and honest journalists will not use anonymous sources. We will not report rumors as facts, as the abovementioned media outlet does regularly.

Anonymous sources, as I have stated many times, is a great way for journalists to lie and make up information and you never know the difference.

If you or your family is the subject of a major news story, you will greatly appreciate me not publishing rumors in the place of facts. Think about that next time you want to complain I'm not telling you everything.

It may very well be the rumors are true. But unless I can get an authoritative source to confirm the rumor or tell me the information, it's not gonna be published. You will appreciate that as well if you are ever the subject of a major news story.

Another reason journalists don't tell you everything is, we don't want to. Seriously. Just because we know something you may want to know doesn't mean we're going to tell you. We make a judgment call. Is the news value of the information worth the pain and suffering it will cause?

Need an example? I don't report on suicides, unless it is spectacularly public. Someone is in so much pain that they end their life privately, that's none of your business as far as I'm concerned. They jump off the clock tower at the courthouse, OK, I'm gonna write that one.

Another? I don't give crime victim names unless the person is dead (murder) or gives me permission to do so OR they go public of their own volition. Our community has a long history of retaliation for those who go public.

Sometimes, journalists don't tell you everything because our information is off the record. We can, like some reporters who tell lies, use anonymous sources. Off the record information is just that.

Sometimes that OTR information is given confidentially to help us research a story and get publishable information. Frequently that is the case. Sometimes we manage to get the OTR information on the record, in which case it can be published subject to the abovementioned provisos.

OTR information is taken that way for a variety of reasons. Protecting the source is the far and way most common reason.

Lots of people come to me to talk OTR. I've met sources in all kinds of places. They do this in confidence that I will not disclose who they are. That they place such trust in me humbles me. Sure, other people will badger me to try and find out who told me what. Over the years I have perfected a poker face and a poker attitude.

And finally, every once in a while I get information which I can't tell because if I did, I could be arrested. Yes huh.

For many years, I kept notebooks packed with my notes. One day I looked at the pile and realized there was enough information in there to ruin a whole lot of people. I burned the notes. Not long after that, some of my notes were subpoenaed for a court case. These days, I destroy my notes pretty quickly. Can't hand over what doesn't exist. Since this is a now a routine practice, I also can be charged with doing something to avoid a court order.

Hot Sauce Review

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Received from by great friend Glen: Torchbearer Sauces - The Rapture.

As Glen notes, VERY fruity. Has oranges and carrots.

Instant heat, very entertaining. Great taste. Scorched nicely all the way down, which is appreciated. Tongue feels a bit temperature burned, not hot sauce burned. No sinus flames. Good afterburn.

Not overly heavy on the vinegar. No salt that I can see. I like this. A lot. This is a thick sauce. Think dippin'. Chunky in that the chunks are very small.

Not a chili sauce or a sauce to be added to something, cept maybe vegetable soup. Problem is you'd wanna use a lot of the bottle in the soup. Would be VERY good on chicken wings, fish chunks or anything where you'd like some fruit bouquet with your heat. Expect it would make some flat out AWESOME coon jerky.

Hrm. Far from the hottest I've ever had, but absolutely not for a novice. It will burn the belly in a novice. Yes it will. Mature pepperheads will like it, as mentioned above, as a change of flavor but not for the heat.

I like it. Finding it hard to criticize except in the heat department AND at 5 ounces (typical hot sauce size), small for pepperheads. I'd prefer to see this in Salsa sized jars which is where it belongs. A video does show much larger bottles. But hey, this was a gift and I treasure it and I will immensely enjoy it.

Not the best sauce out there, for sure. But well and away so far from the worst that any decent pepperhead would be delighted to have this in the case. Standard hot sauce bottle.

Trinidad Scorpion peppers, Ghost Peppers, Hanaberos. Does not given country of origin on the label for the peppers.

4.5 five gasps for flavor.
3 gasps for heat.
2.5 gasps for the label artwork.

WTH do you want?

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Americans are raising various unpalatable crops over the recent debates in Washington over the national debt, taxes and so forth.

No s'prise there.

Unfortunately what is also not a surprise is the furor Americans have when they perceive Congress does nothing.

What we have just witnessed is the most substantial, detailed, vigorous and yes HEALTHY debate on a major nation issue in decades.

Lemme restate that for you.

Congress. Did. Its. Job.

Got that? Our lawmakers did exactly what they were hired to do. The fact that it was also partisan in the extreme is irrelevant. Those people in Washington did what their constituents asked 'em to do. That you don't like this is relevant, but there ain't much you can do about it.

Our elected leaders took a major issue. They dissected it. They chewed it up. They spit it out. They stomped on it. They put it under a microscope. They tried to come to grips with it. They tried to do what they were elected to do. They tried to do what they felt was best for the country. I remind you - Our elected officials are in possession of FAR more facts about the deficit, the budget and US fiscal policy than you are.

And you don't like this?

You complain when Congress passes stuff without comment. You complain when Congress passes stuff with a modicum of comment. You complain when Congress is turned into a sausage factory of discussion and debate.

Pray tell, what do you want?

I suggest to you that the most delusional people are not the ones serving in Congress.

What would you do

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

An eye for an eye?

Literally?

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/middle-east/110801/iranian-acid-victim-spares-her-attacker-same-fate

How many people would forgive as much as this woman did? She didn't completely forgive her attacker. He's still going to jail and she wants money to cover her medical expenses.

But she did spare him the loss of an eye.

Would you?

Me? I don't know. My personal guide book to the human condition says we are to forgive. It also says restitution must be made. The requirement for restitution is placed on the person who committed the offense. The requirement to forgive is placed on the person who was offended.

I am reminded of the wackjob a few years ago that went to an Amish community and killed some people. The Amish there razed the school house and forgave the attacker.

Would you do the same? What would you do?

When the subject of the death penalty comes up, people are sharply split. Some say the death penalty is unconscionable under any circumstances. Others volunteer to pull the trigger, drop the door, inject the needle, etc.

Myself I support the death penalty, as I have said, but only in very clear and extremely obvious circumstances. The guy who went on a rampage in Norway? Send him to me. Sentencing someone to die on circumstantial evidence? Nope. Can't do that.

Think about it. Someone attacks you. What should be done to them?

What is justice? Where are the limits? How far should we go?

Consider another aspect of this. The law of must countries in the world does allow a victim to forgive. Just because forgiveness is extended, punishment is still meted. In the United States as in many other countries, the law itself is considered a victim and is allowed to seek restitution.

The victim doesn't have to testify, doesn't have to agree to the punishment. It's carried out anyway.

Is that justice? Is that fair?

Demanding is not accepting

Blogspot is misbehaving. Again. You'll have to imagine cutlines for images. I barely got this to post to begin with.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
This column is NOT what you are expecting, I guarantee. But if you come and read my stuff expecting anything, including sense, I wonder. Anyway...

Sunday morning. Spaghetti sauce cooks on the stove, clothes are washing, NPR is on the radio and I'm working on my new novel.

The show turns to homosexuality. A specific homosexuality. Christian singers who have come out about their same gender preferences and their careers have paid the price for this.

This column is STILL not what you are expecting and you still have my guarantee.

The singers spoke of how they had to make a change in their ministry work because of their orientation. Although it was not said directly, that I can remember anyway, it was certainly inferred that they were increasingly uncomfortable living one public life and one private life.

Betcha I can get a witness or three for that last statement and it doesn't have to be about closet homosexuality either.

It reminded me of something Lamar Lee once said. The Church of God's international headquarters in Cleveland, Tenn. receives a stack of ministerial licenses each month. The licenses are surrendered. The ministers simply cannot live that dual life any more.

One of the Christian singers interviewed by NPR who came out and continued his career in modern sacred music said his concerts have gone from sellout crowds to the point "I'm begging people to come, again." He said attendance dropped by 3/4s.

While it was not directly said, that I can recall, the undercurrent of all the speakers was "Why can't the people who used to accept me, accept me now?" Hold that thought.

One lesbian minister did say "they still love me" but her views on the Bible which she called well-thought out and grounded, are incompatible with the place she used to work. So she launched her a new ministry in which she is openly homosexual.

I have a few questions.

Consider: The people who came out had previously and publicly toed (towed?, whatever) the public line of the ministry in which they participated. Then, they came out. They said they got tired of living a lie.

Ah.

Lemme set aside theology just for a moment. I'll come back to that.

These people "came out" after lying repeatedly and over many years. Why should they be believed now?

Bout dat theology.

These folks who "came out" are asking to be accepted. But, they have announced what is a major change in who they present themselves as. It really is an extremely major change to the Christians to whom the now-public homosexuals are speaking.

Is it fair to ask for blanket acceptance when a person undergoes a fundamental change? Is it fair to reject that person?

By asking to be accepted as a homosexual, the "came out" people are also asking for a major and fundamental change in the Christians. They are asking the Christians to set aside a tenet of their belief. Hang on! Gonna get to that in a moment as well.

Is that fair?

Because you change, I have to change?

If you change and then demand I change, who is being tolerant?

Before you answer that, consider this:

What you may see as a minor matter is an earth-moving matter to me. What may be nothing to me, could be a cosmological shift to you. Position determines perspective.

Why do I have to change if you change?

Is that fair to me?

If I change and demand that you also change, is that fair to you?

If you demand I change, then you give me the right to demand that you change. I just might demand that too.

To restate - Homosexuals who seek and often demand acceptance in the Christian church are demanding a fundamental shift in the beliefs of those Christians.

Is that fair? Is that really seeking acceptance? Or is it a thinly veiled extreme demand couched in a polite phrase?

Lemme sling this by you - To be accepted, one must first accept.

A bit more theology. I understand the primary command of the Bible is love - Agape in the ancient languages of the Bible. I also understand the Bible speaks against homosexuality, but Agape is a much more important commandment.

The Bible also says that while all things are now legal, under Grace, not all things are profitable.

I have no problems with homosexuals. If I ever manage to become a church pastor (about as likely me becoming a lawyer) I will welcome them to the congregation. I will use their skills to better the church. I will seek their counsel. I will make them leaders, if appropriate. I will celebrate and mourn with them. I will not marry them to a person of the same gender.

That last sentence is correct. If the homosexuals are as accepting of me as I am of them, they won't demand I officiate a same gender wedding.

Would I attend such a ceremony as a guest? Mmm, yes. Would I take pictures for them? Sure. Would I serve as a member of the wedding party? Hrm. Gotta say I don't know. I really don't. That's gonna take much more thought.

This is who I am.

I will not demand you change, if you don't demand I change.