What would you change?

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
By "change" I mean modify, delete or add to. I refer you here to the Constitution of the United States. You non US readers are welcome to chime in as well, as I suspect you have a greater knowledge and understanding of our Constitution than most Americans.

NPR recently asked its audience what to change about the Constitution. The top 3 choicesare 3 new amendments:

1) Abolish the Electoral College

2) Limit campaign contributions from corporations & deny corporations the rights of citizens

3) Prohibit members of Congress from lobbying once they leave office

While this may sound good on the surface, I ask you how you would word these amendments. The Fallen Angel is in such details. In a nation where we argue and sue over what the placement of a comma in the Constitution means, your amendment must be clear, concise and have PLENTY of ancillary information to back up the meaning of it.


By ancillary information, I mean the debate, discussion and what you want the amendment to mean. This information not included in the text of the amendment will be used by courts in the future to decide how the amendment should be applied.

 I'll tackle my take on these tomorrow (unless I shoot a deer in the morning). Meantime, give me your ideas.

Here's some more to masticate in the meantime. The NPR story contains some surprising and not surprising suggested amendments. Some I like. Some I don't.

Limits on government should be very tight.

For space reasons I post the ones I like. Presume if I don't post it, I don't like it.

4. Limit Supreme Court seats to a single 9-year term with one seat getting turned over every year. Justices would be chosen by lot from a pool of candidates. The amendment would state the requisite qualifications needed (as decided by both houses of Congress). If you meet the criteria, and you want to be a Supreme Court justice, you enter your name in the pool. The most senior judge is chief justice.


6. Ten percent of voters may demand a national referendum on laws passed by Congress. A law is void if voters reject it, otherwise it retains its validity. Congress may repeal the law before the referendum takes place.

11. A direct citizens' vote should be required before entering in any type of war. 

If you look at the three I like v. the 8 I don't you may be surprised that I rejected proposals which would put even more control of the government into the average citizen's hands.

I do not like electronic elections. It's too easy to hack and FUBAR the election.

Some, I object to the way the amendment is phrased. Too many loopholes and if I can see 'em and I (for which I am MOST thankful) ain't a lawyer, then such amendments are doomed.

This one is particularly troubling: 5. The approval of the U.S. citizens would be required on all spending bills. Once per month, all taxpaying U.S. citizens would have the ability to log in to an Internet site and vote on the spending proposals that Congress puts forward.

The Magic 8 Ball says...

In addition to the electronic voting issue, there's the problem of getting the nation to vote monthly on spending bills. Consider the present gridlock in Congress which is merely a reflection of the collection state of mind of the U.S.

I ask, would someone in Washington State vote to approve a bill that included spending only in Florida? Get more personal. Would you vote to approve a spending bill that did nothing for your state and exclusively benefited a state 1,000 miles away?

While I'm against pork barrel spending probably more than most people, I also admit that a few state-specific projects are good ideas and need some federal funding.

I also ask you, are you going to take the time to read through all the spending bills?

When you head to the ballot box come time to vote, if there's an issue for you to vote on and you don't understand it, how do you vote?

Ya pays ya money, ya plays the game

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
As a counselor (according to State of Georgia anyway), I have a code of ethics for that role.

I do have this one.

However, I am not a certified counselor, do not have a formal degree in counseling nor am I a member of any professional association which certifies counselors. Ergo, I do not have to adhere to whatever code of ethics the boards require.

If I ever decide to pursue a formal degree and training, I'll have to abide by what the boards require if I want to keep my certification.

Ya pays ya money, ya plays the game and ya plays by the rules.

If you can't play by the rules, you can't play the game.

http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2011/12/appeals-court-rejects-anti-gay-graduate-students-bid-for-reversal-of-her-expulsion/

This is NOT a free speech issue. This is, as the story states, a matter of a person seeking to become a counselor. As such, she would be required to do her best for anyone who came to her. Her personal feelings must be set aside.

"The court noted that the requirements of the counseling program ... are similar to the rules for judges, who must apply laws even if they consider them erroneous."

As the lady in question does not appear willing to set her personal beliefs aside, then she cannot be approved by the national certification boards. Nuf said.

The different issue, her expulsion, has nothing to do with her being certified. This is free speech, sorta.

It is not the university's role to determine if she can meet the ethical standards set by the national certification board. It is the university's role to train and educate her to be a counselor. Passing the board's requirements is up to  her.

Are yours the same as mine?

She is allowed to  think and say what she believes. That it may be incompatible with what appears to be her chosen profession is a personal matter she will have to deal with.

Expelling her was wrong.

As an ordained minister, I have the right to join two people in marriage. I will not officiate a ceremony of two people of the same gender, nor will I offer them premarital counseling. I do not object to other ministers officiating same gender marriages nor do I object to same-gender civil unions.

Furthermore, if two people of the same gender wish other kinds of counseling and advice from me, I'll do my very best.

Fortunately for me and unlike the young lady in the story above, as a minister I cannot be forced down a path not of my choosing. At least for right now, the First Amendment guarantees me that right.

Exit stage next

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
A significant percentage of the people who oppose abortion favor the death penalty. A significant number of people who oppose abortion and favor the death penalty also object to euthanasia.

I ain't figgered that one out yet.

This is not euthanasia. This is getting porkchops for the table.

"Hang on! Don't kill that unborn baby! Let him grow up and then we'll decide if he should be killed. But he can't kill himself."

Simplified, but accurate.

http://www.latimes.com/health/la-me-1218-lopez-bucketlist-20111218,0,4685249.column

My opinion? Abortion is very complicated. The death penalty is much simpler. Suicide, in whatever form you wish to call it, is absolutely clear. It's your life.

Period.

Abortion is complicated because it involves making a decision for an entity which cannot make a decision for itself. It also affects another person, the mother. I am not saying abortion is wrong, nor am I saying it is right. That's a decision, as man, I cannot make.

Because the death penalty actually works

Capital punishment is less complicated because this involves a person who has made a decision. My issues with the death penalty is once someone is killed, you can't bring 'em back to life and turn them loose. I don't know how many innocent people have been killed by court order over the years, but is too many. I only favor capital punishment when there is clear and irrefutable evidence. One or two "eyewitnesses" is not enough.

Euthanasia is quite clear to me. A person wishes to end their life.

G'head.

You may call me cruel, callous and indifferent. I shall not dispute you. I note the life in question is not yours.

What is the real difference between putting someone to death by court order and keeping someone alive by court order when that person wishes to die?

Ah. More government in action.

There is no difference. Both instances is (are? Hmmm which is the correct verb?) the government intervening in a human life in the most direct, personal and intrusive fashion possible. In the case of capital punishment, the guilty offender made a decision and now must suffer the consequences of his actions. I am a big believer in owning up to what you do and accepting responsibility.

Same thing with bringing an end to your own life.

Someone is going to bring up mental instability and such issues. G'head.

Wanna do the psychiatric/psychological tango? That's where you get two experts to testify the other person is absolutely wrong. Ah. Not a red herring, but a valid point that needs a whole 'nother column to address.

Should have used the "delicate" cycle and skipped the dryer.

What gives you the right to order someone to receive medical treatment? Point of order Mr. Chairman. You do not have that right, You can refuse medical treatment. Unless you are determined to be mentally unstable.

OK, so someone is a whackjob and is ordered to undergo treatment. They do the treatment, are considered "cured" and still want to take the Big Exit. Now what?

What if the person refuses to take the treatment?

The real question here is: What gives you the right to run someone else's life?

If you decide you can run someone's life, then you give them the right to decide how your life should be run.

Saying the same thing from opposite sides

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
It doesn't happen as much as it used to, but there was a time when I lept into online arguments with both feet and fists swinging. Now I have much better things to do with my time, such as write this blog, wash my hair, shoot feral cats and make coon jerky.

It wears ammo. I shoot ammo. And things like this.

A major reason I quit is because finding someone who is intelligent enough to debate is hard to do. Most people insult me instead of attacking my argument.

By my rules, I win that argument. As my rules are the only rules that count, I win yet again.

Engaging in a war of insults over an intellectual issue is ... well, to explain succinctly, I'd have to lower myself to the level of the insulters. I don't have a problem in doing that from time to time (see image at right), but not here and now.

Which brings me to today's topic du jour.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/12/atheists-hijack-christmas-nativity-display-in-santa-monica-critics-say.html

Lemme slap to telling quotes on you:

"Their goal is getting rid of us, and squelching our 1st Amendment rights," said Hunter Jameson, 65, who no longer lives in Santa Monica but still worships at Lighthouse Church of Santa Monica.

and

The SCDM - Talent on loan from Thor.

"It's littering — literally, littering — these spaces," Gaylor said of such displays, which she said are a "territorial attempt by Christians to impose their beliefs in this season."

Stick these two comments into my patented and trademarked Semantic Content Distillation Machine. The result is they both say the exact same thing. Both sides insult the other in the exact same way.

If the references to religion were excised from both comments, you'd not know which side said what comment.

I admit these two comments pulled from a larger story are also comments from a much more extensive commentary from the two speakers. But it's what I have to work with. I suspect the two comments are extremely representative of the overall thoughts expressed by both sides.

Rather than engage on the real issue here, both sides decided to let matters degenerate to hurled invectives.


As my longtime bud Tom said on FB where I posted the link originally - Fortunately for everyone concerned, the totalitarians on both sides of the political coin have not yet deprived us of the ability to debate the merits, or lack of same, of these sorts of issues. Just keep it civil, sez I, and no gouging, tweeking or throwing of heavy objects. While that might make it more lively for some, you could put an eye out and lose your depth perception.

Well said Tom. But I wonder if maybe "an eye for an eye" might work best for these people. If they reduce themselves to being blind, mute and deaf, then maybe people who can reason will be able to impose some rationality on the scene.


And, since you are wondering what's my opinion of the Christmas scenes, I like the lottery system. That the atheists "won" several of the slots this year for their display, I like as well. Everyone deserves to have their say, even the people who can only debate via insults. Whether you and I agree is irrelevant.

Sharing the water

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
What are the three most powerful words in the English language?

Before you answer, I  tell you, Actions speak louder than words.

Yep.

Now your answer?

Bet you got it wrong. The Rev. John Burnett told me the answer years ago:

Let Me Help.

Three simple words.

If you've got a problem, I don't care what it is
If you need a hand, I can assure you this
I can help, I've got two strong arms, I can help
It would sure do me good to do you good,
Let me help.

Billy Swan

How many times have you uttered those words? How often have you reached out to someone in need with this offer?

Now, how many times have you not really meant those words? If the person you offered to help called on you, would you help?

Ah.

Chances are better than good than when you offer to help, it's low grade fertilizer. A trite banality uttered in the moment as a social lubricant, devoid of semantic content. In other words, you don't mean it.

As some of you know, my brother is in Atlanta with his son Jake. Jake is having cardiac problems and has been in Egleston Hospital for a few weeks now. Probably won't be home until after Christmas. Things are looking way way way way up from when they got there, btw.

Our extended family has folks in Atlanta. Some have called and offered to help any way they could. Shag asked for help.

They backtracked so fast I think they might have stripped their internal transmission.

I expect no less from them. It's the way they live, it's who they are and what they do.

Switch locations to other family members who are in S. Georgia, more than two hours away from Atlanta. There has not been a request for help issued and yet help is coming in.

I expect no less from them. It's the way they live, it's who they are and what they do.

If you offer to help and when help is requested you back out, what does that say about you? If you are one of those kind of people, I think you should run for office. Liars and hypocrites abound in Washington so you'd fit right in.

If you are one of those people who doesn't wait to be asked before you pitch in to help, then stay right where you are and keep doing what you are doing. We need more people like you this old world.

All American Idiot

..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I am told there is a TV show "All American Muslim" now being shown. Told, I say, because I do not watch TV. I ain't smart enough to watch TV, but that's another story.

The best image I've found to illustrate a point in a long time.

Anyway, as I understand it this is a show about 5 Muslim families in Michigan. (This further underscores the notion I am not smart enough to watch TV.) A Christian outfit, the Florida Family Association (FFA) has led a charge to get advertisers to quit supporting the show. Lowe's pulled its ads.

Enter recoil.

Telling comment - Dawud Walid, Michigan director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said his group felt "extreme disappointment" at Lowe's "capitulation to bigotry."

The American Family Association has also entered the fray on the side of the Florida group. The AFA is supporting Lowe's decision to pull its ads. No s'prise right?

In the latest news I saw, the ad spots for the TV show are now sold out. As in you can't get a spot when the show airs on whatever network it is airing on.

Reading books can be hazardous to your ignorance

So much for the FFA and the AFA's efforts, eh?

But all that is beside the point. The point here is much more basic.

The TV network saw a chance to make some money by producing a show about some Muslim people living in Michigan. Free speech meets free market capitalism (both of which, BTW, are proscribed under some forms of Islamic law and certain tenets of the Koran).

I point out for the record - Sharia, the formal name for Islamic law, except for that specifically mentioned in the Koran is not universally codified. Sharia varies by country. So what may be illegal under Sharia in Iran may be allowable in Turkey. And so on.

Some Christian groups objected to this TV show. They then exercised their rights to free speech by calling for a boycott.

I like this.

Some Muslim groups then objected to the Christian efforts to get advertisers to pull their spots.

I like this.

In the meantime, Eve reaches for another apple.

Where's Alice when I need her?

As to the religious diatribes and free speech,
There is no contradiction. Both groups are relying on fundamental rights of this nation - the right to free speech. Free speech, BTW, includes the right to keep your damfool mouth shut.

Free speech, BTW, does NOT include the right to force someone to say something they disagree with. Free speech, BTW, includes the right to support ideas you like. Free speech BTW, includes the right to object to ideas you do not like.

Free speech means you have two religious groups hurling epithets at each other and demanding the other be shut down.

Free speech, in case you wondered, is not fully supported by any religion in the world. Free speech means you have the right to discuss your religion openly.

Most Christians I know are not in favor of free speech. The Christ I read of in the New Testament did believe in free speech. Most Muslims I know are also not in favor of free speech.

For that matter, most people I know are not in favor of free speech.

Hrm. I wonder if I talk a TV network into doing a show - All American Idiot. For all I know, there's already such a show on TV today, just not under that name. Maybe I'll watch a TV news program tonight and confirm this.

Imagine

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Stretch your mind a moment.

Can you be held criminally liable for breaking the laws of another country if you NEVER go to that country? Can you be held criminally liable for breaking the laws of another country if you never leave the country where you were born?

Depending on where you ride.

Yep.


http://www.jta.org/news/article/2011/12/04/3090552/david-duke-arrested-at-german-neo-nazi-event

"In 2007, a ruling originating from Switzerland banned Duke from entering and staying in the contiguous states of Europe, but the 61-year-old Holocaust denier reportedly was living in Austria since then and came to Germany for the event last week." Duke was arrested in Germany, BTW.

Duke, an idiot of a very high caliber, did leave the United States and went to Europe. Europe has different laws regarding idiots than the United States has.

But, Duke did leave the US. He went to places where denying the Holocaust is crime. Had he stayed in the US, he'd still be liable for criminal penalties in Europe. I already noted he is an idiot.

A number of people have been charged with denying the Holocaust ever took place. Denying this is a crime in Germany. These people are subject to arrest if they ever enter German territory.

Anyone remember Salaman Rushdie? He wrote a satire/parody of the Koran and was sentenced to death by the Iranian theocracy. He had to hide in  Great Britain for years. Rushdie was born in Bombay and moved to Great Britain.

I do note these instances are from other countries.

Does that mean you are safe?

Nope. Doesn't matter where you live either. While I do live in the US and have a United States perspective, that doesn't matter when it comes to the long arm of the law in any country in the world. Make a government made enough and they will come after you, no matter where you live.


That includes the United States.


http://www.boston.com/news/world/latinamerica/articles/2011/12/12/many_indifferent_as_noriega_returns_to_panama_cell/

Friend today, enemy tomorrow

I remember when Noriega, AKA Pineapple Face, was "arrested" on drug and money laundering charges and hauled to the United States. When the US invaded under then president Ronald Reagan, Noriega was the leader of the country of Panama. Didn't matter. Where he was once the darling of the US State Department's Central-South America division, something soured.

In what is more disturbing to me, US courts ruled Noriega could be tried under US law and, if convicted, be made to serve a jail sentence. He did spend time in prison here.

The leader of a country was taken into custody by a military force from another country, brought to criminal court in that country and sentenced to jail. After being released he was then shipped to yet another country for more jail time. Released from there, he is now back in his original country to still be a guest in the iron bar hotel.

So, can you be arrested in the United States (or any country) for violating the laws of another country?

Actions speak louder than words. You can be arrested, charged, convicted and sentenced no matter where you live for what passes for a crime in another country.

Imagine that.

Remembering a legend

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Every so often in life you meet a legend.

I met one many years ago.


If you did not get to meet him in this life, it's too late.

http://www.iveyfuneral.com/sitemaker/sites/iveyfu0/obit.cgi?user=531360Wingate

My friend Jack Wingate was one of the most real people I have ever met. Anyone who knew him would say the same thing.

I have yet to meet anyone who did not like and admire Jack Wingate, former owner of Wingate's Lunker Lodge on the shore of Lake Seminole.

Best known for his love of fishing, Jack told me one day while he toured me across his loved lake, he had a greater passion than fishing - archeology. He was as proud of the mammoth tooth and stone-age ax hanging on the walls of the Lodge as he was of any of the animal trophies.

On that day, I also got to fish with him. There are anglers around the world and anglers yet to be who now envy me. As well they should. An angler like Jack Wingate is more rare than a 20 pound largemouth bass.

His funeral will be the largest Bainbridge has ever had. People from across the nation and likely the world will attend.

As for me, I will miss him and regret that my children never got to fish with him as I did.

Two of these things are just alike...

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
What links these two articles?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/07/astrazeneca-jobs-idUSL5E7N74JQ20111207

http://www.moneytalksnews.com/2011/12/08/online-sales-tax-may-be-coming-soon-3-ways-to-avoid-paying-more-taxes-now

Add caption

There are several correct answers.

The answer I'm looking for is disparate at first. I shall give you the answer and then tie 'em together.

On the first, jobs are leaving the US and going to China.

On the second, Congress is considering passing a law to make stores collect sales tax online.

 What ties these together? Cognitive dissonance.

There's your connection.

Still not making sense?

On the first, people are mad that jobs are leaving the United States. Jobs for Americans. Money in American pockets. Keeping the US economy turning.

Anyone can do it!

On the second, people are mad that government is implementing a national effort to collect sales tax. "It's my money. I shop online to save sales tax. WTH?"

Drawing a connection yet?

I now ask you - what do you want from government? You like roads in good shape? Ambulance services? Schools? Law enforcement? Etc Etc Etc

How are these things paid for?

Money, money generated from people who earn and spend money. People who have jobs make money and spend money. No job, no money, no spending, no taxes generated, government can't provide services.

Am I making a connection yet?

Fact is most state governments in the US and most local governments across the nation rely heavily on sales tax dollars to provide the very services you want and also complain about paying for. Those roads you use to get to and from work, sales tax foots a lot of the bill for them. The internet you use to connect and shop online (and read this), the very root is a government network.

You should support a national sales tax effort because it means more sales tax dollars for your state and community. That means lower taxes in other places.

If you are mad about jobs leaving the US, that's good. So am I. This means less money for local communities and local governments to do what they need to do.

If you are mad about the sales tax idea at the same time, you're logic train derailed.

Both are very important to economic development. Both matter a lot to the local, state and national economy.

I don't have the numbers (no one really does) but I suspect if sales tax was collected on internet sales for my community, it could easily amount to a mil of taxes ($60,000) a year in my town. That's tax dollars equal to a new and very large industry setting up shop here. That tax dollars that can be used to entice new industry and development and retail and keep existing ones on hand. It will go a long way in my school system too.

How it happens.

If you support the national effort for Fair tax (a federal sales tax which I don't support) and don't support the national collection of local and state sales taxes, then your logic train derailed a long way from the station.

It is economic development. Yeah, it's complicated. But unless you are intrinsically involved in economic development you probably don't understand why a sales tax is so important, just like jobs.

You are probably going to disagree with me. Is OK. But I ask you, have you ever opened, from the ground up, a retail business employing 20 people? Ever started an industry with a gross bottom line of more than $1 million a year? Ever been involved in the superfine details which cause one of these businesses to happen? Do you know how your government spends money and I mean right down to how much is spend on cold patch every year to fill in potholes? Do you know how much the school system spends annually on mowing grass?

I'm gonna sound like an ass here. But, it's still going to be right.  If you don't have that kind of experience, then I suggest you don't really know what economic development, which includes sales taxes as well as jobs, is all about.

And finally

Cause I'm still peeved at the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame.

Ummmm, what?

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I'm not normally one to comment on pop culture, but this time I gotta say

http://www.npr.org/blogs/therecord/2011/12/07/143275658/what-no-heart-questioning-this-years-rock-and-roll-hall-of-fame-inductees
Once again, KISS was not given the nod. Guns N Roses was.

Rock & ferkin' ROLL!

I will not deny the impact on metal which GNR has made. But I will argue the impact of KISS is far greater. In terms of impact on the music industry, rock and roll and heavy metal, few bands can equal KISS. GNR certainly cannot equal KISS.

Heart is also not making the grade this year.

"Funk pioneers Rufus and Chaka Khan, rap standard-bearers Eric B & Rakim, disco goddess Donna Summer, Latin-influenced rockers War and soul hitmakers The Spinners were all nominated and denied," writes Ann Powers.

Hah? The Sex Pistols (2006) made the cut and War didn't? Not arguing that Sid Vicious et al don't belong cause they do. But War didn't? C'mon people!

I am told a small group of people get to cast votes to decide who gets into this list. I'm wondering what they listen to.

'course MOLLY HATCHET ain't made it in either, which tells me all I really need to know about the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame.

Nuf said.

Kill 'em all!! Let God sort 'em out

.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Today's title is an unofficial Special Forces motto. Should be self-explanatory.

My opinion on wild hogs and armadillos.

Bear that in mind as you look at this http://www.eternalforces.com/

Now read this review.

Gotta admit, I'm somewhat ambivalent about this. Why? It's a video game. It's not reality.

Reality is Muslims are killing each other and pretty much everyone else. Jews in Israel are not exactly killing each other, but do come close and are killing Muslims. Christians are killing everyone. Atheists are killing everyone.

Kill 'em all. "Get 'em sorted in whatever existence, if any, comes after this one" is the motto of mankind.

Humans don't need a religion in order to kill each other. We just need an opportunity.

Anyway, I strongly suspect a lot of people will like the idea of a video game that lets Christians take out people who don't convert to the faith.

If you are one, I now ask what's your opinion of this: http://www2.wsls.com/news/2008/jun/02/object_of_new_video_game_is_to_stop_the_spread_of_-ar-401417/

 "The object of the game is to stop the spread of Christianity and Islam by murdering Abraham and the authors of the Bible, before beheading Muhammad."

 I'm still ambivalent. Why?

Because people who complain about either one of these video games are complaining because they are the object of attack.

So?

"Baker, you're an idiot. These video games teach people it's OK to attack me because of who I am," you say.

So?

I readily admit these "offensive" video games enact violence against a certain segment of humanity.
 
Call of Duty, Medal of Honor, pick a war-based shoot 'em game. Someone is the enemy and someone is getting killed. Chinese, Russian, Mexican. These video games have as the object, kill someone because they are different.

You are going to tell me it's OK to have a video game where a kind of person you don't like is killed, but it's not OK to have a video game where the kind of person killed is someone you like?

Humans don't need a reason to kill each other. We just need an opportunity. That this violence is enacting in video games doesn't much matter.

If you plan to decry the killing of atheists, Muslims or Christians in a video game, will you decry such violence against other human avatars in the game?

If you don't denounce the violence, all the violence, then what does that really say about you?

This may sprain your brain

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
If the universe is infinite, as the current crop of heavy duty thinks believe, then this raises an major existential question.

Oh don't I wish...

No matter how improbable, it must exist if the universe is infinite.

This raises a major set of contradictions.

On one hand with infinity to be in, intelligent life somewhere else in the universe must exist. This is a probability.

On the other hand (and you may need Kali to have enough hands if I run this one far enough) there is no intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. This is a probability.

If the universe is infinite and everything, no matter how improbable, must exist then both ideas about intelligent life are equally correct and true.

Reminds me of physics, math and politics.

Such is the stuff of philosophers better than me and late nights with a keg of cold beer, good friends and a roaring bonfire.

Well, what can you say?

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

Whack 'em and stack 'em.

 When it comes to being a merchant of death, my brother Shag is more like a street peddler of flesh wounds. Not saying that I'm any better at killing things mind you, but I had to have something to say about my brother.

He has recently taken up bowhunting, a sport I've been involved in for years off and on. We both have bow kills to our credit. Shag has a nice fallow deer on his wall he bow killed. I don't have anything on the wall with a bow, but I have put meat in the freezer.

I remember my first bow kill. It was a rattlesnake. I emptied the .45 I carried, missing the snake every time. Disgusted, I took a broadhead off an arrow, and pinned the snake to the ground with the blunted arrow. This year in deer bow season, I got a small doe.

Blue tailed skink.

Some years back Shag and I were slinging arrows in our Grandmother's back yard. As happens, we sometimes missed the target. Shag collected arrows.

In one collection, he held up a blue tailed skink. Dead. The lizard was in the weeds behind the target. Shag's broadhead (I wasn't shooting broadheads) cut the skink's neck perfectly. Killed it right there. That was his first bow and arrow kill. No, we didn't eat it.

This weekend, a crew from Team No Prisoners show came over to film some stuff, hunt, reload and in general behave like hunters.

So. Saturday afternoon, I put folks in stands. Went to my stand. 30 minutes after settling in, I hear a shot. I text Shag."You shoot?" He replies yes, a bobcat. He heads out to retrieve said critter.

We shoot bobcats, yotes and foxes. They eat are rabbits and wild turkeys. We don't tolerate 4-legged competition.

A few minutes later another text message.

Shag shot the tail off the bobcat.

I am not kidding. He has the tail and should, by now, have it attached somewhere to his already mounted bobcat.

That evening while looking for coons, all we find are armadillos. PeeWee, with his .270 (which is now an inside joke) shoots one and misses another. He is a bit depressed now. This is the first miss with that rifle.  We retire for the evening, me extremely glad to have one dead dammit, but annoyed that 3 more got away. Yes, I have an irrational hatred of armadillos, which as Shag points out I have now rationalized.

A good dammit.

Sunday morning in a stand with PeeWee and the camera, a doe walks about. Shag shoots. I get a text "DOE DOWN!" Then, they can't find it. I go help. We review the footage. A clean miss.


I will not tell you how many deer Shag has missed this year, but it is one less than all the deer I have missed in my entire deer hunting career. That said, I have missed way more critters than Shag but I have also hunted a lot more than my brother.

Misses come with the territory. Unfortunately, so does the occasional wounded animal such as the 6 point I shot and lost in black powder season this year. Real hunters accept the misses and massively regret the woundings and lost animals. An animal wounded by a hunter is no different from an animal wounded by someone in a vehicle. The difference is, hunters accept it as part of the process. Hunters, in case you wonder, come in two and four-legged and two-legged and two wings varieties,

What can you say, except, Team No Prisoners, y'all come back. Somewhere there's a really bob-tailed bobcat that I want on someone's wall so it won't eat any more of my wild turkeys.

We has met the enemy and he is us

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
That "mainstream" media you so despise picked up the story before one of the conspiracy sites you so treasure, Masa. Yeah. NPR told me about it several days ago and has continued to keep me updated.

Might makes right in the world. Has for millennia

At issue is a pending bill in Congress to define American citizens who engage in terrorist acts against the United States as enemy combatants. As of this morning the bill would allow the US military to intervene on US soil to deal with suspected terrorists.

In other words, with this proposed law you could be arrested by local, state and federal law enforcement agencies as well as the military.

If the military arrests you for being a terrorist, then you can be held in detention for years without being formally charged and without access to a lawyer.

Under this bill if you are determined to be a terrorist, you no longer have rights under US law.

Now on the surface that may seem cool. You want to blow up Americans, fine, we'll treat you like a militant towelhead. (This epithet brought to you by Ethnic Slurs R Us)

Might still makes right.

Think deeper. Who will decide if you are a terrorist? The military? Law enforcement? Even worse, a politician?


What is the determining criteria for being a terrorist? I rather think blowing up a building is enough evidence. How about threats? Possibly.

What about people who don't threaten, but just demand change and insist on different priorities approached from a different direction?

The Supreme Court has ruled sedition, calling for the violent overthrow of the United States Government, to be illegal.

The violent overthrow of another government by the United States Government is also illegal under international law. (Disclaimer: International law is equally used and ignored by every country in the world to suit their needs of the moment. Literally, they may ignore one of the international conventions today and tomorrow demand it be applied.)

When you are a politician you get to pick and choose which rules apply to you. When you don't like a set of rules you can either ignore them or change the rules. Now the politicians have decided to enable a new set of rules which do not apply to them, but apply to you and me.

Reality will not conform itself to your expectations.

In this nation, we are supposed to have a representative government, of the people, by the people and for the people. If that was true, then Pogo's famous statement - we have met the enemy and he is us - is the truth. As long as our elected representatives can do one thing and the ordinary people cannot do the same thing, we do not have a this kind of government. We have an oligarchy which will take whatever measures are necessary to keep it that way.

The simple reality-based fact is: Might makes right.

You don't have to like it. You don't have to accept it. But the people with the big club will be glad to beat the idea into your head.

Lawyers in the midst

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. 
What if a private company determines the limits of free speech?

Increasingly, corporate lawyers working for private companies will have more to say about freedom of speech than governments and courts.

Don't believe me? http://www.npr.org/2011/11/30/142714568/interpreting-the-constitution-in-the-digital-era?sc=fb&cc=fp

If you can, listen to the Fresh Air podcast.

Consider this quote: "Nicole Wong (former lead attorney for Google) was the one woken up by the Turkish government, for example, who were upset because Greek football fans were posting videos on YouTube saying ... the founder of modern Turkey was gay [and it is illegal in Turkey to insult the modern founder of Turkey]," says Rosen. "So Wong, in the middle of the night, has to decide, 'Is this a clear violation of Turkish law?' on which case it comes down, [or] is it an edge case and should be protected as free speech? In the end, she decided to block access to certain videos through Turkish IP addresses. ... So Nicole Wong concretely dramatizes that lawyers at Facebook and Google have more power than a Supreme Court justice."

The reasoning behind this: More and more people are turning to the internet as their primary source of information. They use the big search engines to find that information.

When these search engines make a decision to delete or block something, that pretty effectively shuts down access to that information.

Rosen co-edited this book, Constitution 3.0: Freedom and Technological Change, which I plan to get very soon. It discusses freedom and what it may and may not mean in the digital age. Some of the ideas expressed in the book are beyond disturbing. Lemme hit three for you.

FREEDOM OF THE PRESS

In the case of Turkey (above), free speech is stifled. It is shut down not by government fiat but by private lawyers working for a private company. And, it's legal.

Today's issue out shortly...

The right to free speech is a restriction on government. Private companies have a LOT more legal authority to shut down free speech within their demesne.

This is NOT a contradiction with the right to free speech. The right to free speech INCLUDES the right to keep your damfool mouth shut AS WELL AS the right to not be forced to say something.

In simpler terms, freedom of the press belongs to the man who owns the press.

You don't like what the press owners says, you go buy your own press and say what you want to say.

Google, Yahoo, Bing, Facebook, et al are absolutely no different from the man who owns a newspaper printing press. They all have the right to decide what content they allow to be produced through their equipment. Lawyers will make these decisions and governments won't be able to do much about it.

Many object to this. Good. If you don't like the TOS (terms of service) or such internet giants, go start your own internet company and you can make the rules as you see fit.

STUPID IS AS STUPID DOES

In this story, Jeffery Rosen speaks of what he calls a Right to Oblivion. I 'splain.

Like gone man...

You are young, foolish, stupid and probably should be shot (I actually was shot, but that's another story). You do something stupid. You make a record of it. Think pictures.

Some years down the road you wish the stupidity had never happened. You want to destroy the evidence.

Before the internet, this was pretty easy. Burn the prints and negatives and if necessary, shoot the photographer. This can create additional problems though.

Now with the internet, once something is online, it's pretty much gonna be there forever. With one possible exception. Over a decade ago I found a mind-boggling picture of a Natural Light-induced technicolor yawn. I have not been able to find it since. Which is probably good as posting it here would lose me a goodly number of readers.

This man will one day run for president.

A pop/rock singer in South America had some "racy" pictures taken at the beginning of her career. They periodically showed up on the internet. She objected. She also sued to have the pictures taken down and to prevent search engines from locating them. A court in S. America agreed.

Google said blocking access to those pictures along could not be done. So, apply Occam's Razor.

They have blocked all mention of the singer. According to Google at least, she does not exist. This partly embodies the Right to Oblivion as Rosen outlined it.

BIG BROTHER

As Rosen goes on, he dips into an Orwellian nightmare. With ever increasing knowledge of the brain and how it functions, some criminal court cases are actually presenting a defense that the criminal's brain would not stop him from committing the crime.

We're watching you.

Well. It's more complicated than that.

The defense stipulates the part of the brain which should have worked to stop the criminal impulse does not properly work. Ergo, the criminal deserves some leniency because his brain does not work right.

My thoughts exactly.

But extend this out. Scan a brain. Determine that the brain doesn't work well enough to control criminal impulses - this is a hardwired matter.

The brain-scanned person is now identified as a person who has a tendency to commit crimes. Not just a tendency. Based on brain scans, this person will commit crimes.

What do you do? Can you arrest the person or otherwise restrain them in an attempt to keep them from criminal behavior?

I am not a luddite, but some of the new technology does give me cause for pause.