Bleep. Bleepbleepableepbleep Part II

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


Welcome back. In case you missed Part I go here -

This is the part where I use words and more concepts which offend people. Here's the opening salvo - Your brain is can be used for more than making your fingers operate a TV remote control.

Offensive concept du jour No. 3

Gimme that thing and let me push some buttons.

On guard! Dysphemism fast approaching! What is the difference between urinate and piss? Hang on, I have only begun to offend.

No less a book than the King James Bible uses the phrase "that pisseth against the wall" five times. So I did not use a dysphemism (but I have made you wonder what that word means.) And yet, the Supreme Court has ruled "piss" is a word which cannot be used on broadcast TV. See the George Carlin decision. Hrm. It's good enough for the majority of Christian churches in the nation but not good enough for TV, the other altar at which so many worship daily.

OBSCENE TREE! Cut it down! Call in the anti-lorax

I was in a Bible study one in which the Shittim tree was discussed. (32 uses. I counted 'em). The preacher said those who objected to the word could use Acacia (according to scholars it is the same thing). One of the lady readers in the study came to Shittim, paused and used Acacia and moved on. What's the difference? Would she object to Shitake mushrooms? Shitepoke? What about the English surname Shithead (pronounced shuh-THEED or sheh-THEED)? Ooo. Since the Bible also has several references to a community named Shittim, wonder what she'da done?

In a business in town a dear friend of mine who is quite devout in her beliefs has no problem using the phrase "goddamn" (your spelling may vary) especially when quoting others. She professes a

Expletive deleted.

belief in Jesus and God, but denies the deity's name is the three letter word G-O-D. Hence, she is not "taking the Lord's name in vain" according to her beliefs. What she sees as misuse of Jehovah will result in at least a LOOK and possibly a verbal excoriation of the offender.

Some are offended by what she has no problem with. Why? If there is no intent to harm, shock or abuse the word, why are some people offended? If an atheist uses the phrase, what does it mean?

Is meaning more important than the sound or word? Who decides meaning?

In this same business another person once took me to task for using the word "shit." I intended it as an expression of dismay and mild disgust. I also use the words "crap" "sheep dip" "sheetrock" "fork" "fudge" and a variety of other words and random sounds for the same thing.

She said "You have something in your mouth I wouldn't have in my hand." Ah. What is the difference between that word and feces, excreta, manure, poop, dung, and the other words we use to describe the semisolid waste product of the digestive tract? Words she has used, I note.

Really, what's the difference?

This second person had enough sense to not accuse me of having a "limited vocabulary." She's been witness to my personal sesquipedalian lexicon unleashed on a hapless soul who attempted to cow me with language. When you pull the bull's tail, you get the attention of his horns.

If it is a meaningless phrase, a mere exclamation devoid of semantic content, why should it offend? Does a loudly exclaimed "ARG!" offend?

Offensive Concept. Your brain is used for more than filling your skull.

Point of order Mr. Chairman: If the word is used to offend, shock, harm, etc. that's another matter. Point accepted. We are not using the word to offend, shock, harm, etc.

Say the word has real meaning. Does using a euphemism or degenerate form of the word provide an excuse? A way out? A way around? If the meaning is the same, what's the real difference?

Purport for a moment the existence of a divine being as described in the Bible. Do you think this entity will see a real difference in an atheist who says "goddamn" as an expletive or exclamation and a Christian who says "laws" - a degenerate form of Lord - as an expletive or exclamation?

Close enough for government work

Why does one collection of letters and sounds offend when another collection of letters and sounds meaning the EXACT SAME THING does not offend? Does this smack of hypocrisy to you? Mental instability? Or is this just being responsible, polite and genteel? Who decides?

Does it matter, as with the word nigger, who says it? Why?

Do the circumstances under which it is said matter?

If you mean the same thing, is there a difference? If what I mean is not what you believe it means, whose meaning is correct?

If you insist I curb my certain parts of my language around you, I have the right to demand the same of you. This extends to anyone who you wish to censor. Do you want to go there? Where are the Knights Who Say Nii?

Here's your herring for the next task.

Why am I responsible for what you think of my words? I take full responsibility for the things I say. How you interpret them is your business, not mine. Arg. Complicated.

Mo betta. I am responsible for what I say, not what you think I said.

So, in closing I say euphemism euphemism euphemism euphemism and euphemism. And if that offends you, dysphemism euphemism.

Bleep. Bleepbleepableepbleep

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

Yeah. Get used to the idea. This column is probably going to contain language and concepts which will offend a number of people. But I have a few things to say first to set the stage for my point. (IOW I'm rambling again.)

Quentin Tarantino as host

Remember Romper Room? I do not remember the show's lady host getting pregnant and how the networks refused to allow that to be seen. I have since learned about it. Back then even the very word pregnancy was not permitted on TV.

Now, you can watch Sesame Street and see women with enormous abdomens walk down the street. Some of them are even with child. A few of 'em are actually pregnant. Ar har har.

Bad jokes aside, pregnancy, breast feeding and so forth are just another thang even on Sesame street these days.

I am told my great-grandmother objected to television. She said it would not be long before you could witness people engaged in what Shakespeare called "making the beast with two backs" on TV. [smirk]

So much for the birds & the bees...

Explicit coverage of such details remains taboo in broadcast TV, but it can certainly be right up to that limit.

I disgress sharply here.

You can see graphic death easily on TV. I ask you - Which would you rather see or, more importantly, let your children see: 1) Someone be killed (literally as in the news or figuratively as in fictional or event re-creation shows) or 2) Two people "make love"?You parents, which have your children seen more of?

Hrm. May be future column lurking in that.

Back on topic. I also remember watching an episode of M*A*S*H in which one of the characters said "son of a bitch." I immediately rushed to tell my mother what was said on TV. She gave me a look. Not LOOK, or Look, but a look. You know what I mean.

Woooo. Watch that tongue dude.

It was not that long ago the word "sucks" was a profanity. Now, my mother uses it everyday conversation.

Today a TV show (I forget the name) uses the BLEEP to much comedic effect. Rather than just bleep censorable words, entire phrases are bleeped, leaving the viewer to either read lips or use imagination to fill in the blanks. No, I do not recall the show's name and I don't watch TV. My report on this comes second hand from On The Media, a public radio show.

SCOTUS (the Supreme Court) is expected to review the Federal Communications Commission authority to regulate what broadcast television may and may not air. Broadcast TV, as opposed to cable TV, is regulated by this federal board. The FCC gets this right from Congress which set up a permitting and license system for the broadcast spectrum. This includes cellular communications, ham radio, broadcast TV, radio and other forms of wireless communications.

The last time SCOTUS ruled on this significantly was on George Carlin's famous 7 dirty words.

FCC example of free speech

I ask you, should broadcast TV be regulated by the federal government? Cable TV is not so regulated. The internet absolutely is not regulated (hence this column is available for your perusal). Print media is not regulated. Speak is not regulated. Internet and satellite radio is not regulated while "terrestrial" radio is. Well, yes, they are regulated a bit. But for profanity, nudity and such it is not federally regulated.

The aforementioned On The Media has gleefully bent the FCC's rule so far I thought the rule would break. On public radio.

Is there a need for FCC regulation? Should the FCC's powers be extended? Retracted? How far would you go? Remember the rules you intend to apply to others may likewise be applied to you, especially in this case. Do you want the government regulating what you can and can't say?

My point, circuitous as ever, is what's in a word?

Not even close...

Yes, I know,trying to make people think (which is a capital offense according to some people in my community including a few elected officials). I also I haven't used language which would offend. Son of a bitch, after all, is the male offspring of a female canine.

Offending words come in Part II. Along with another heaping helping of offense for those who believe a brain is a useless appendage.

A box of assorted conglomerations

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Today, as I posted a bit ago on FB, I wish I lived in Zanesville, Ohio.

http://www.newarkadvocate.com/article/20111018/NEWS01/111018015

On a central column at my office. 800+ pounds on the hoof.

Yes indeedy. I wish I lived there. I would be out looking for these escaped critters with the full intention of putting one (or more) on the wall and meat in the freezer.

Reminds me of the time we had a live tiger come to Ashburn. The owner said regulations required he keep the animal confined behind a double (or triple) barrier. If it escaped, he had 1 minute to get his hands on it. If that failed, he had a bit more time to tranquilizer the critter. If that didn't take, instant trophy.

A lot of people are going to object to my attitude.

A lot of people have also never been 10 feet away from an animal fully capable of and intending to kill them to death. I have. My last stare down was with a 200+ pound wild boar which was charging at me. Now THAT was a rush.

WILD animals are not pets. Attempting to make them so is an excellent way to court death regularly.

The only thing to do now to these escaped animals is shoot 'em before they kill someone. Wish I was there.

•••

Harold Camping, the guy who predicted the end of the world back in May and was proven wrong is now saying the world will end Friday. "Probably" in his words.

Random image.

http://www.kansascity.com/2011/10/18/3215394/world-probably-ending-this-friday.html

Considering how well the football team is doing right now...

Anyway, when the world doesn't come to an end, Camping et al will back up, refigure, recalculate, reassess and make a new prediction. It's what such folks do. The Seventh Day Adventists formed when a prediction their leaders years ago failed. The Jehovah Witnesses have made the prediction so many times no one (except the followers of the Council in New York) take them seriously.

All of 'em ignore what the Bible has to say about false prophets.

•••

Raining today. Could not go deer hunting as we're just in black powder season. BP and rain do not mix.

•••

What is the job of a formal teacher?

Chuck Norris don't need logic.

Too many today think their job is to collect a paycheck and force rote memorization of students.

If you are a teacher, do you encourage your students to debate with you? Do you let them argue their point? Do you reward them or slap them down for speaking out and up in class?

If a student develops a cogent, rational and deliberate case to support their point and you disagree, what grade does the student get? OK, say the student comes to the wrong conclusion, but the chain of logic is admirable. What then?


•••

An awesome turnout last night for the Sheriff's forum. Standing Room Only, literally. Hope to have the video up on Youtube later this week.

Most interesting was how the candidates answered the question about staying within budget. What they said, I am absolutely certain, is not what a lot of people heard.

If you ask a "yes" or "no" question and the person gives you an answer and starts putting qualifiers on it, the real answer is the opposite of what they first said.

Our next sheriff will have a MAJOR impact on our property taxes. Think about that when you vote.

The same applies to any politician. Think about that when you vote.

•••

What're your thoughts on this Wednesday?

The real problem.

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

Being a genius I have found the real problem with having multiple wives.

It is not, as some have suggested, having two mothers-in-law.

It is a lot worse.

Meet Phread. Phread comes from a culture where multiple wives are common. Phread and Co. also are a bit pompous where names are concerned.

So, Phread marries Psoiux (the X is silent). Psoiux, is the progeny herself of a multiple partner marriage. Psoiux has 3 mommas.

Paint your wagon?

Phread now has three mommas-in-law.

Phread now marries Bhetti (silent second T) who is likewise the progeny of a multiple partner marriage. She has 5 mommas.

Phread now has two wives and eight Mommas-In-Law.

It gets worse every time Phread marries another woman. He adds one wife, but tacks on a whole bunch of additional mothers-in-law.

In short order Phread can have a mother-in-law not just for every day of the week, not even for every day of the month. Phread as a momma-in-law for every period of the DAY. One for morning. One for noon. One for afternoon. One for evening. Several for every night.

That's just the mommas-in-law. It doesn't factor in Grandmothers and great-grandmothers.

Phread is NOT going to die happy.

The happiness Phread will never experience.

I tell you, I now fully understand why those people who believe in multiple partner marriages seem crazy.

They ARE crazy. Any man who'd willingly subject himself to that kind of pain and suffering is seriously mentally unbalanced.

Where does responsibility end?

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

This is ripped from another forum I’m known to inhabit.

Here’s your groundwork:

Unnatural accident.

1.) An individual has been a victim of a terrible accident. There was no person responsible, only a series of natural events that are responsible for injury to the victim.

There were many well-known steps the victim could have taken, and several educated choices the victim could have made that would have prevented or significantly lessened the injuries.

An example: A woman is hospitalized for hypothermia, frostbite and exposure after being being caught in an avalanche while hiking and trapped under the snow for hours. There were many things she could have done which would have prevented or significantly lessened the injuries. She could have dressed in snow-gear, carried safety equipment, checked the weather report and avalanche risk and hiked with a buddy, but instead she was out alone in sneakers and a hoodie for what she expects to be a short hike on a mild afternoon. Was she being responsible for her own safety?

Do you hold the victim responsible for his/her role in being a victim?

Without all three, it doesn't happen.

2.) An individual has been a victim of a violent crime. The perp is charged. There were many well-known steps the victim could have taken, and several educated choices the victim could have made that would have prevented or significantly lessened the injuries.

Example: This one is quite gray and murky, which makes it both ideal and a poor choice for an example. You can think of far more clear examples I'm sure.


A woman is raped by a popular man she knows only by his celebrity after she is invited to his hotel room by one of his employees. They are both intoxicated. He is arrested and is being prosecuted/held responsible for raping her. There were many well-known steps she could have taken, and several educated choices she could have made that would have prevented or significantly lessened the injuries. She could have chosen not to drink to intoxication in a public place, she could have chosen to remain in a public area since her 'new friend' is a stranger, she could have had a friend come along with her.

Do you hold the victim responsible for his/her role in being victimized?

And that whole concept about being a rebel...

The real question is if you answered these questioned differently- Why?

Do you think that having a human attacker (v. being attacked by a mountain lion or tornado) removes a measure of responsibility from an individual for their own safety? If so- Why?

Now that you know the specifics I ask again, if you answered these questioned differently- Why?

Do you think that having a human perpetrator removes a measure of responsibility from an individual for their own safety? If so- Why?

Fear Me

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

Gotta explain something before I get to my point.

Then, I TAKE OVER THE WORLD!

People who study brains and how people think will tell you we attack that which we fear. Most folks think of attack as  physical as in jumping on it and beating it for however long is necessary.

It can be a different form of attack. You can attack through the legal system. You can attack through the legislative system. Cyber attacks, a new compound word, is part of the modern lexicon.

You can even launch intellectual attacks. This is both the most devastating and least effective.

How is it devastating? Because done properly, an intellectual attack can drive a rather sedate group of people into a frenzied mob. The revolutions underway in the Middle East began as intellectual attacks. As more and more people learned about the real oppression they suffered compared to other places, their thoughts galvanized into physical action.

Where's the signup table?

Totalitarian regimes shut down the intelligensia as best they can. Such leaders fear what great minds, to paraphrase Albert Einstein, may come up with.

Consider too - ridicule is a form of attack.

Damnocrat. Reboobican, Liarberal (thanks Rebel), Can'tservative, Tea Baggers. As a moron in my community once tried to say Liberaltarians (what he meant by that I have no idea, but as I say, he's a moron.) Sinators and Reprehensibles (thanks Joe Klock). The Unamerican Uncivil Anti-Liberties Union. Even my reference to the "moron" above are all attacks. There are others, many more, but these are the major ones.

Positing that an attack is born in fear, you are well justified in asking why I fear these groups and these people.

Edify yourself. Look it up.

What am I am afraid of?

These people have the power to force me to do things I do no wish to do. I have no recourse against these people and their potential actions except to ridicule them and expose them for the fools they are. Even my community moron (who has a criminal record, BTW).

All these people seek to impose their will on mine. I have no effective way to fight back, except ridicule.

Sure, I trust the government. Don't you?

Physical response would quickly result in my demise, which would serve no purpose. See Randy Weaver and "David Koresh." Read the complete files on these people before you decide they are fools.

I do not have the power or the financing to seek attacks legislatively or legalistically.

Logic will not work.

Rational debate will not work.

Intelligent discourse will not work.

Why? "None is so blind as he who will not see." We have seen what their enforced policies generate. Rather than accept failure as their responsibility, they pass the blame to someone else.

And? Answer the question...

Do you know people like that? They are never at fault? If, by some chance, they do take the blame it is only to be a martyr, which really means they are still not at fault.

How do you deal with people like that? You can ignore them. But can you ignore them when they have enough power to directly affect you against your will?

What do you do?

You can hold your head down and try to minimize damage. You can go on the attack, knowing you will most likely lose. Your method of attack determines how quickly and how badly you will lose. But! in attacking you may inspire others to so attack and eventually overwhelm by sheer mass of numbers.

The question is: Are you willing to suffer the loss? How much loss are you willing to suffer?

If the truth hurts, you ain't living right.

Myself, I have made an uneasy peace with the losses I incur.

I remind you - The worst thing about being a rebel is living long enough to suffer the consequences of your actions.

Corollary - Sometimes you cannot know the consequences until you reach them, but the great majority of the time you can know the consequences. You just choose to believe they will not happen.

Such people I ridicule are so hidebound to Idiotology (yet another word I have coined) they cannot see an opposing side except as something that must be defeated. If it can't be defeated right now, the other side must be backed into a corner under the guise if compromise to make later defeat possible.

In that, they too are rebels. Rebels who refuse to admit their actions will have consequences. In so refusing, they cast the blame on those who had nothing to do with it.

Fear me. For I will not accept responsibility for your actions.

You can't read this

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Should books be banned because of their content? If so, what content should make them be banned?

And, I write them.

Fairly easy question that. Intelligent people will shout "NO!" Those of lesser mental acumen, not secure in themselves or their beliefs AND who believe they have the right to dictate how someone else should live will say "yes."

Nother question. Should access to books be restricted? Ah. A much tougher question now. Before you say yes or no, consider the entire spectrum of literature. At one end put the incomprehensible and brain-petrifying works of sociologists. They take much delight in taking obfuscation to levels that make my ramblings seem like the work of a second grader.

At the other end place the most hard-core material imaginable.

I ask again, should access to books be restricted? The most damage you could incur in giving a 5 year old a sociology book is a hernia. Hand that same child the illustrated works of mass murders, sausage making, Reboobicans, Damnocrats, Liarberals, Can'tservatives and so forth and you might turn the munchkin into a politician or lawyer.

You are getting sleepy...

I am not serious. It takes far more than a single exposure to one book to irrevocably wreck a child's psyche. I hope anyway.

Intelligent people won't ban books, but will restrict access to 'em for a while. See above.

Intelligent adults can read anything they can get their hands on and more power to 'em. So sez I, whose personal library has included works by Anton LeVay, Ambrose Bierce, Moses, Mohammad, Zoroaster, George Orwell, Isaiah, the Marquis de Sade, Douglas Adams, Hemingway, Matthew Henry, Adam Clarke, William Gaines and other folks you've never heard of.

The question THEN becomes - what criteria do you use to ban or restrict access to a book? Afore you answer that, eyeball this list.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Books/2011/0928/10-banned-books-that-may-surprise-you/James-and-the-Giant-Peach-by-Roald-Dahl

HE'S NAKED UNDER THE BEARD!

I have served on a library committee which reviewed one of the listed books. A parent at the elementary school object to Shel Silverstein's book. The librarian asked if I'd read the book and give her my opinion. The majority opinion of the committee would decide if the book stayed or got booted.

The book stayed. Unanimous verdict. Don't know what the parent had to say. Don't care either.

I told the librarian I didn't need to read the book. It's a children's classic, enjoyed by adults too. (never mind that I abhor poetry, I make an exception for Silverstein in small doses).

I ask again, what is your criteria for keeping a book away from someone?

How about "Harriet the Spy,' No. 5 on the list mentioned above. "Louise Fitzhugh's well-loved tale of a girl who spies on her friends and has to face the consequences was banned because it set a bad example for children, supposedly encouraging them to spy, lie, and swear," states the clip about the book.

This man is accused of reading Little Black Sambo.

 
Ah. It sets a bad example. So books that teach children to lie, spy, and swear should be banned or restricted?

You sure? How about books that also speak of cannibalism, incest and ritual murder including murder of infants?

I recall one large televangelist describing why some books should be banned because "they describe the movement of the tongue over the body." I think he was jealous.

I also think he needs to re-read a book.

Gonna torque a bunch of people right here and delight some others. Hey. It's what I do.

"How delightful is your love, my sister, my bride!
   How much more pleasing is your love than wine,

Biblical scholar at a seminary wrote this.

and the fragrance of your perfume
   more than any spice!
Your lips drop sweetness as the honeycomb, my bride;
   milk and honey are under your tongue.
The fragrance of your garments
   is like the fragrance of Lebanon."

Song of Solomon, 4:10-11

Plenty more. Men are instructed to be delighted by their wife's breasts. Other passages describe far more graphic things as I'm not going into here. But yeah, it's in the Bible.

I forget how many times David lied. I forget how many times the Israelites were sent to spy. Etc. etc. etc. Not even the great Matthew Henry could adequately explain the lying that takes place in the Bible.

Does the Bible apparently condone lying under certain circumstances? I can't find any place that David was held accountable for his lies. Other Biblical liars are likewise venerated as heroes and nowhere in Scripture are they held accountable for the lies. Maybe I missed it. I am not a Bible scholar, just a humble reader of the Word.

So should a book be banned or restricted based on the words and situations described in the book?

Or is the intention more important than the content? That's what SCOTUS has ruled on pornography.

The problem with that is, Who will decide what the intention is?

"Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." Matthew 7:1-2

Are you willing to go there?

•••



Throwing this in as well as a last minute thing. Couldn't figure where to place it in the above.

Some folks would ban Harry Potter.

Some folks is idiots too. If you intend to start banning books based on content, then we should throw The Chronicles of Narnia on the same heap as Harry Potter. Both books have magic. Both use magic to good ends. In both, good triumphs over evil.

Another victim of cable news shows.

My brother, an educator, points out that when a child picks up a 500 page book and attempts to read it in ONE sitting, then something is going on. Something that needs to be encouraged. Something that needs to be reinforced.

If a young'un picks up a Harry Potter book, make sure the next installment is handy for the child to read when that book is done.


There is no greater indicator of success in this world that the ability and willingness to read. And yet, as I have observed in the past, some parents actually object to their children being required to read books in school. These parents, I note, are in low paying jobs (if employed), resentful, often bigots and believe then can do a better job of running other peoples lives than the person whose actually living the life. They are Liarberals and Can'tservatives, Reboobicans and Damnocrats.

They are also poorly educated and do not willingly read.

And in closing, I remind myself I've given people in my community yet another stack of reasons to vilify, excoriate, hate and judge me all because I choose to not watch shadows dancing on the wall. The same kind of people nailed Jesus to the cross. I reckon I'm in pretty good company.

“Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds."

Baby I was borned this way III

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

.Shall we recap? Nah. Go here http://porkbrainsandmilkgravy.blogspot.com/2011/10/baby-i-was-borned-this-way-part-ii_08.html. If you missed yesterday's piece, read it before you read this one. And read the first installment too.

So what did you decide? Ready to storm Washington and demand new laws and reform?

The difference?

How are you going to fund this? Eh. That's a less relevant question. Really.

Remember I said the handicap is also somewhat subjective. Here's the real question. How are you then going to define the handicap in legal terms? Can you?

Shift gears abruptly. How about art? What makes it art?

I know art when I see it.


Another transmission busting shift.

The US Constitution prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment." Define cruel and unusual. Death penalty? Some people say absolutely. Others say it is only a fitting end for a criminal and all too often far too humane. Capital punishment in the US is absolutely more humane than what the victims of many murderers went through.

Definitely time to replace it.

One more, then you can get your clutch replaced.

Pornography is another great example. What one person sees as porn another sees as an expression of art. SCOTUS ruled that the standards of the community must define what is porn. That being the case what's porn in my South Georgia community is art in some California communities.

The concepts behind these above issues is important. The concept - personal perception - is the driving force behind the real topic here.

Need a new breed of cop maybe?

So are you in favor of creating a new law or laws regarding equal treatment for so handicapped people. Bearing in mind you don't yet know the handicap.

Enforcement becomes the real nightmare. In one place the person may be handicapped and another, could be non handicapped. Yes. Really.

Set aside the issue of people who voluntary handicap themselves this way. If you do it intentionally, be prepared for the reactions you get. And yes, some people do handicap themselves this way, at least from my definition of this handicap.

"The worst thing about being a rebel is living long enough to suffer the consequences of your actions."

So what is the handicap? What's yer guess Tom?

Handicapped men? According to some, yes.

It is ugly.

That's it. Ugly. Ugly is not used as an adjective, adverb or other modifying word. It is the predicate, the noun, the subject.

Now the proof I promised.

Ugly. G'head and laugh. Gut check. Now remember how you have discriminated against ugly people.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/28/opinion/sunday/ugly-you-may-have-a-case.html

http://www.independentsentinel.com/2011/09/classify-ugly-people-as-disabled-and-entitle-them-to-all-rights-of-the-disabled/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ugly_law

http://www.experienceproject.com/question-answer/Do-You-Think-That-Being-Born-Ugly-Should-Be-Considered-As-Being-Born-Handicapped/539088

Not handicapped. Just ... never mind.

Like it or not, laugh if you will. But if you strip the facts of a handicap down to the essentials, being ugly fits the definition. Most people cannot afford corrective plastic surgery, except in the case of accidents. Even then, they need insurance.

Until you learned what the handicap is, how'd you feel about the handicap. Now that you know what I'm talking about, what's your impression of the handicap?

If your impression changed, why? How?

If your impression didn't change, I also ask why and how?

How about those laws to guarantee equal rights to the so handicapped?

Still support 'em?

This being a possibly correctable handicap, should insurance companies be forced to spend money to  "help" ugly people as they do people with other handicaps? What about the poor? Should they be entitled to public help?

Baby I was borned this way part II

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
 Before reading this, suggestion you read part 1 first:
http://porkbrainsandmilkgravy.blogspot.com/2011/10/baby-i-was-borned-this-way-part-i.html

 That outta the way...

A severe, but voluntary, mental problem. Not a handicap.

OK. Define handicap. Items I touch on above are included in the definition.

Blindness. Handicap? Yep. Missing limb? OK. Mental retardation? Absolutely. Ignorance? Noooo. Ignorance is simply a lack of knowledge, which can be cured. Stupidity? Absolutely not. Stupidity is an intentional lack of knowledge.

Good, good, but these are examples. Not a definition.

Consider this - A handicap is a non-voluntary condition which causes other people to treat the handicapped person differently than non-handicapped people. The treatment in question is worse than that given to non-handicapped people. Or not. The treatment can be better.

How's that working for you?

Regardless, it has to be a treatment that has nothing to do with the handicap.

Non-voluntary is important. (Just cause yer fat doesn't mean this is a handicap. Fat people, shuddup unless you agree with me. At 350 pounds, I am absolutely qualified to say being fat ain't a handicap. Nuf said.)

Do you agree? If you disagree gimme yer definition. For now, we'll run with my definition. Other definitions will be added to part 2, soon's I can get it posted - after today.


This brings another question - Is treating handicapped people worse than non-handicapped people "right" or "wrong?" Is treating them better "right" or "wrong?" is treating them differently in any way, shape or fashion, "right" or "wrong?" Do the handicapped deserve different treatment?

At the intersection of Decision Road.

Because you fit under the bed.

How about you? How do you treat such people?

Now lemme give you this one - I can point to a handicap, as defined here, which causes the so affected people to be treated worse than non handicapped person. What do you think should be done? An example of worse treatment - so handicapped people routinely get higher interest rates on mortgages, regardless of income, credit, standing in the community, etc etc etc. Yeah, this is proven. Proof tomorrow. Meantime, take my word for it.

These so-handicapped people are also ostracized in society. Is this right?

I also tell you I am guilty of being prejudiced against people with this handicap, but less and less so as I get older.

To make matters worse, I tell you this handicap is somewhat subjective, making it that much harder to define. Again, this relies on the definition I provided.

Like some handicaps, this one also has degrees. It can range from slight to severe.

Yes, I know you are wondering what the handicap is. Just to prove how evil I am, I will tell you  in the next post. I want you to consider these questions. Remember I am talking about an involuntary condition as well.

Baby I was borned this way Part I

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Yep. A 3 parter. Part 1 today. Hope to get Part 2 up tomorrow and Part 3 Sunday when I get out the deer stand.

Baby I was borned this way.

Self made person. Should have hired someone to do it.

Sometimes. Not always. Sometimes changes are thrust upon us, sometimes they gradually creep up on us.

This is not a piece on Lady Gaga or homosexuals. Keep reading and find out what I'm talking about.

Should handicapped people be given special protections under the law to make sure they receive treatment equal to non-handicapped people? And before you answer this, let me remind you of two things


1) Your answer may be used to beat you down.


2) You have no idea where I'm going with this, only that it's gonna be an interesting ride.

I am of two minds about this. I do not believe such places as private restaurants and businesses should be forced, under the law, to make accommodations for handicapped people. I prefer letting market forces drive such adaptations and changes.

Example:

nuf said.

Walk into a giant retail store these days and you'll see a row of motorized electric shopping carts. Mobility impaired shoppers can jump in one and shop and shop and shop. Folks my age recall the days when this was not the case.

This is a prime example of business adapting to meet the needs of customers.

If a business refuses to make the changes needed to serve a group of people, those folks will take their business elsewhere. These semi-blocked customers can also agitate for change: boycotts, protests and reform campaigns which do not require legal action, but do mobilize the general public to take action with their wallets.

I like it. A lot.

I also support laws which require basic services to be afforded to all equally regardless of handicap. Examples? Utilities, basic banking services, treatment under the law. You can probably think of a few more.

Or just exceptionally fat.

At the same time, I support laws which force public places, spaces and such to make adaptations for the handicapped. Curb cuts (which are used more by non-mobility impaired than the handicapped) is a great exampled. Elevators in public buildings. The older I get , the more stairs are a pain for me.

So, I "ax" you again. Should handicapped people be given special protections under the law to make sure they receive treatment equal to non-handicapped people?

Next post, I look at the definition of handicapped and pose some additional questions. And you still don't know where I'm going with this. Guaranteed.

Of teenagers and fast food

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
I do not willingly arise at 4:30 a.m. and stay up even to hunt or fish. 5:30 is plenty early enough for that.

But.

Yes but.

Today I arose at 4:30 a.m. not to hunt, not to fish, not to do anything for myself.

I hauled out of bed to take 70 teenagers to Albany to be on TV, Channel 31, the morning show. Our high school and middle school band. I drove the long bus. With the girls.

We arrived right about daylight. The kids performed twice on live TV and rocked the house. We are now in the running for  $50,000 grant from some TV show (I think) called Glee. 50K will buy some uniforms, for which we've been raising money for the past 10 or so years.

The kids were well behaved as well.

The fun part came when we crossed the road to a fast food joint to let 'em buy breakfast. I thought the restaurant crew was going to stroke out. We literally packed the place past legal capacity.

Other people coming in for a morning jolt and heartburn never bothered to look until they got inside. Eyeballs popped. One guy literally doubletaked at the door. He opened it, looked in, closed it, opened and looked and left.

More than 30 people showed up, gandered at the crowd of kids and exited stage somewhere else for the morning fuel up. The cop was the best one.

He was talking on a cell phone. Walked in. Looked up.

"oh my god,"

And he walked out. You shudda been there.

And, being the bus drive, I got my food for free. Huzzah!

The kids are safely back at school (at least as safely as I could deliver 'em there. And I get to drive a bus again tonight to go to the football game.

We may be stopping for supper since I eat free. Especially if I can find a seafood or steak buffet place.

Big money walking

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The protests in Wall Street and other financial districts around the nation amuse me.

And so are small children with a box.

For that matter, most protests amuse me. Unfortunately the amuse quickly turns to annoyance.

I am amused because the people protesting, by a very very wide majority and margin, got what they asked for.

That it was not what they wanted is the problem. Cognitive dissonance doesn't allow them to connect the dots in order. Enter annoyance and elevated blood pressure.

Consider the statements made by two people who protested in Wall Street and were interviewed.

Person 1: Upset about the economic situation and specifically complained he and others like him would not be able to repay their student loans.

You can never underestimate the intelligence of the masses.

Uh. Solution? Don't take out the loans. You can go to college without loans, it's just harder to do.

Person 2: Upset that "big money" runs the nation and the politicians.

Solution? Who'd you vote for? It's better than 90 percent that IF you voted, you voted for a candidate backed by big money. This idea got wide support, especially among those who self-identify as 99 percenters. The 99 percenters are the people who are not the 1 percent richest people in the nation. That's about as far as I can go in identifying with them.

Why do people vote for the "big money" candidates?

Do not tell me "there was no other choice." I do not want to call you a liar, but I will if you insist on such prevarication.

Where my ho at? Oh I see you now.

"Well. I didn't know anything about the other candidates."

And whose fault is that, oh ye consumers of American Idiot, Jersey Whores and whatever the other brain-rotting programs you watch are named? How much times did you invest in researching and learning about the other candidates?

"Voting for those other candidates is wasting a vote."

And the alternative? Vote for the "big money" and then complain about the "big money?" Perhaps, don't vote at all? How is this better than voting for lesser known candidate?

Ah. Did I step on your toes about hip level?

If the truth hurts, you ain't living right.

But you already know this one...

Don't complain about the worm sandwich when you are the one who opened the bait can.

All I'm saying is own up to what you do and be man enough to take the consequences of your actions without blaming someone else.

I pride myself on not being smart enough to be a liberal or a conservative under today's definitions. You make interpret that comment however you wish.

All I know is that I know nothing.

The Naked Ape - not what you are thinking.

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

Close enough for government work

Recently finished reading The Naked Ape by Desmond Morris. Back in the late 60s and early 70s this book created a massive impact. Decades later, I find much of what Morris penned to be still relevant.

In actuality, the entire book is still relevant. The few items Morris makes mistakes on are based entirely on research which was current at the time but has since been supplanted. An error he makes is that the Naked Ape (his zoological term for a human) is the only one to make war simply for the sake of war. This is not the case. Other primates go to war, commit murder, rape and etc.

I sit here attempting to review this book knowing that exhaustive and far better reviews have been penned by others. So lemme tell you what the book is, without a review.

Not as different as you might hope.

As a Zoologist, Morris applied the same study methodologies to humans which he applied to animals.

Strictly to aid in the morphology and delineate and separate the human from other primates, Morris calls humans the Naked Ape. Most of our bodies are not covered with substantial hair. Think orangutan.

Through several chapters, he puts a zoologists eye on humans and relates how and why we act the way we do to how and why other animals react under the same circumstances. If you've ever lived in a big crowded city, you can certainly understand why he compares such places to overcrowded rat pens in a lab.

Some of the predictions he makes are still dead on accurate. Some of 'em remain to be seen.

One thing he does miss is that humans are unique in that we have the ability to manipulate our environment and know what we are doing at the same time. We also know the consequences, but whether or not we're willing to accept those consequences as reality is another matter.

I can, from a view decades after he penned this awesome book, understand now why there was such an uproar at the time. Being a child at the time the book was fresh, I didn't understand.

I get it now. The things Morris says about the Naked Ape are truths that only some of us are willing to admit to. Far fewer are willing to do anything about.

You can get a copy now free, PDF dropped to your computer, here: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.122.4206&rep=rep1&type=pdf