A guest blog

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

I personally do not like Ann Coulter and have private opinions about what needs to be done to her. But, this pieces is absolutely, 100 percent dead on accurate.

Negroes with guns

by Ann Coulter

04/18/2012

1316
Comments

Liberals have leapt on the shooting death of Trayvon Martin in Florida to push for the repeal of "stand your ground" laws and to demand tighter gun control. (MSNBC'S Karen Finney blamed "the same people who stymied gun regulation at every point.")

This would be like demanding more funding for the General Services Administration after seeing how its employees blew taxpayer money on a party weekend in Las Vegas.

We don't know the facts yet, but let's assume the conclusion MSNBC is leaping to is accurate: George Zimmerman stalked a small black child and murdered him in cold blood, just because he was black.

If that were true, every black person in America should get a gun and join the National Rifle Association, America's oldest and most august civil rights organization.

Apparently this has occurred to no one because our excellent public education system ensures that no American under the age of 60 has the slightest notion of this country's history.

Gun control laws were originally promulgated by Democrats to keep guns out of the hands of blacks. This allowed the Democratic policy of slavery to proceed with fewer bumps and, after the Civil War, allowed the Democratic Ku Klux Klan to menace and murder black Americans with little resistance.

(Contrary to what illiterates believe, the KKK was an outgrowth of the Democratic Party, with overlapping membership rolls. The Klan was to the Democrats what the American Civil Liberties Union is today: Not every Democrat is an ACLU'er, but every ACLU'er is a Democrat. Same with the Klan.)

In 1640, the very first gun control law ever enacted on these shores was passed in Virginia. It provided that blacks -- even freemen -- could not own guns.

Chief Justice Roger Taney's infamous opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford circularly argued that blacks could not be citizens because if they were citizens, they would have the right to own guns: "[I]t would give them the full liberty," he said, "to keep and carry arms wherever they went."

With logic like that, Republicans eventually had to fight a Civil War to get the Democrats to give up slavery.

Alas, they were Democrats, so they cheated.

After the war, Democratic legislatures enacted "Black Codes," denying black Americans the right of citizenship -- such as the rather crucial one of bearing arms -- while other Democrats (sometimes the same Democrats) founded the Ku Klux Klan.

For more than a hundred years, Republicans have aggressively supported arming blacks, so they could defend themselves against Democrats.

The original draft of the Anti-Klan Act of 1871 -- passed at the urging of Republican president Ulysses S. Grant -- made it a federal felony to "deprive any citizen of the United States of any arms or weapons he may have in his house or possession for the defense of his person, family, or property." This section was deleted from the final bill only because it was deemed both beyond Congress' authority and superfluous, inasmuch as the rights of citizenship included the right to bear arms.

Under authority of the Anti-Klan Act, President Grant deployed the U.S. military to destroy the Klan, and pretty nearly completed the job.

But the Klan had a few resurgences in the early and mid-20th century. Curiously, wherever the Klan became a political force, gun control laws would suddenly appear on the books.

This will give you an idea of how gun control laws worked. Following the firebombing of his house in 1956, Dr. Martin Luther King, who was, among other things, a Christian minister, applied for a gun permit, but the Alabama authorities found him unsuitable. A decade later, he won a Nobel Peace Prize.

How's that "may issue" gun permit policy working for you?

The NRA opposed these discretionary gun permit laws and proceeded to grant NRA charters to blacks who sought to defend themselves from Klan violence -- including the great civil rights hero Robert F. Williams.

A World War II Marine veteran, Williams returned home to Monroe, N.C., to find the Klan riding high -- beating, lynching and murdering blacks at will. No one would join the NAACP for fear of Klan reprisals. Williams became president of the local chapter and increased membership from six to more than 200.

But it was not until he got a charter from the NRA in 1957 and founded the Black Armed Guard that the Klan got their comeuppance in Monroe.

Williams' repeated thwarting of violent Klan attacks is described in his stirring book, "Negroes With Guns." In one crucial battle, the Klan sieged the home of a black physician and his wife, but Williams and his Black Armed Guard stood sentry and repelled the larger, cowardly force. And that was the end of it.

As the Klan found out, it's not so much fun when the rabbit's got the gun.

The NRA's proud history of fighting the Klan has been airbrushed out of the record by those who were complicit with the KKK, Jim Crow and racial terror, to wit: the Democrats.

In the preface to "Negroes With Guns," Williams writes: "I have asserted the right of Negroes to meet the violence of the Ku Klux Klan by armed self-defense -- and have acted on it. It has always been an accepted right of Americans, as the history of our Western states proves, that where the law is unable, or unwilling, to enforce order, the citizens can, and must act in self-defense against lawless violence."

Contrary to MSNBC hosts, I do not believe the shooting in Florida is evidence of a resurgent KKK. But wherever the truth lies in that case, gun control is always a scheme of the powerful to deprive the powerless of the right to self-defense.

---

Ann Coulter is Legal Affairs Correspondent for HUMAN EVENTS and author of High Crimes and Misdemeanors, Slander, Treason, How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must), Godless, If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans, Guilty: Liberal "Victims" and their Assault on America, and Demonic: How The Liberal Mob Is Endangering America.

You can also follow Ann Coulter and Human Events on FACEBOOK.

Click Here to Become a Fan:

Your password for this job...

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

Applied for a job recently?

When more than 50 people apply for a job running a register at a grocery store, you know the job market is tight.

That means employers have the upper hand. How upper? How about getting into your Facebook account?

No worries, you say. Let ‘em look.

How about if they ask for your FB password?

As generally happens, the National Public Radio story goes further than the above link. NPR’s piece asks the questions you have.

So what would you do? Pony up the password or say No and exit the job interview?

Depends entirely on how much you need the job, I say.

Employers do have some restrictions on the questions they can ask. Employers cannot ask your religious preference (unless you are applying for a job in a religious organization). Can’t ask how many kids you have, albeit finding that out is simple enough. Can’t ask if you have any handicaps unless it is directly related to your ability to do the job.

Which does not address the issue of: Is this FB request legal? If you ask me, I say probably. Here’s why.

FB by it’s very nature is a public medium. It is used to spread drama far and wide, share bad jokes, express political opinions and be an idiot in a very public forum. Yes it has private groups (I am in one for the TV production company I work for).  Some people do set their profiles to private, but they do have friends.

Those friends can “share” the stuff you post, making it very public.

The truth about the internet

So. If you are employed by a company and on FB, you and your FB are a public reflection of that company. Companies do have the right to control what their employees do which affects and effects the business.

Point 2: You’ll find that a serious percentage of FB users who hold FT jobs access FB while on the job. If you use company time, company property and company resources to do this, then what you do belongs to the company unless you have a contract that clearly states otherwise. So yeah, if post to FB on company time, then the company has as much right to access your FB page as you do.

On the flip slide, the company does not monitor your calls made from your house. If you pay your cell phone bill, the company can’t monitor your calls, provided you don’t do it on company time.

You may say “If I do it on my time, the company can’t do anything about it.” Not so. If you rob a bank on your own time and get caught, expect to be fired.

“Well, yeah, that’s breaking the law though.”

I lie. I'm not sorry at all. I may be irked, though

You don’t have to break the law. I know plenty of people who were fired because they did something on their own time which was legal but made them look bad in public OR the “my time” activities did not fit the corporate culture. You probably do too.

Further there is an implied “good will” whenever someone is hired. That means you agree to not speak ill of the company you work for. This has been upheld.

You don’t have a lot of recourse if you are fired for any of the above issues.

“I’ll sue ‘em.”

Go ahead. You do two things. 1: You immediately set yourself up to be fired as soon as you screw up in the tiniest fashion. 2: You establish you are willing to sue if you don’t get your way which means other employers are going to regard you as toxic waste.

Mandatory drug testing - II

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Yesterday's post generated some commentary, which I like. It also made me think about the issue of mandatory drug testing a bit more.

I came up with the following ideas.

Do you think you, as a taxpayer, have the right to know how your money is being spent?

"YES!" you say.

Then, mandatory drug testing for people who receive taxpayer dollars as well benefit from taxpayer-supplied services gives you that information.

There will now be objections. Some people will object on the basis of privacy. They will say it's none of our business how they spend the money they get from the government.

That is not a concept upheld entirely in the court system nor is it a concept found in the Constitution. As much as I hate to admit it, the Constitution does not provide an absolute right to privacy. Robert Bork, who was kicked to the curb during his nomination to the Supreme Court, unfortunately had it right.

 It is Public Assistance. Public. Not private. Public means the right and expectation of privacy is not there.

Public.

If you object to your business being made public, then you can eschew public assistance.

Another item that came up, thanks mostly to the rational and polite discourse twixt Tom and Doc is one that is very central to me.

Freedom and Security.

I bring to you a comment from a Founding Father: Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither. ~ Benjamin Franklin

The flip side of liberty, to me, is privacy. I firmly believe you cannot have one without the other. If you can figure out a way to make one happen without the other, please tell me. In detail.

Your guarantee of privacy too.

Public assistance of ANY kind is security. Those roads we travel daily? Public assistance. For using these road, we trade away our right to drive however we wish. Want to drive however you want? Build your own road.

Those who directly take tax dollars to support themselves have come close to the maximum trade of security for liberty. They put their freedoms as sacrifice on the altar of security.

Again, there is a simple solution to this: Eschew public assistance.

The less you use, which is taxpayer supplied, the more liberty, freedom and privacy you will have.

Mandatory drug testing

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Blog sort of by request.

I was recently asked to defend my position on mandatory substance abuse testing for people who receive tax-payer supplied living assistance.

Now in 23 states!

To simplify - If you get food stamps, you should be tested periodically for drugs. This applies to the other social welfare programs as well.


It's my opinion that if I am forced to support you, then you will adhere to the decorum rules I lay down. In other words if I have to pay to keep you alive, you are going to behave the way I tell you to.

Someone is going to now say I'm not being forced to support people who get public assistance. These people do not understand taxes. I pay taxes because I have to. The government takes the money from me. The government in turn uses part of this to support people who cannot or will not support themselves.

Give responsibly.

I am forced, against my will in many cases, to support these people.

When I give to charity, I make sure my money will be used as I want it used. If the person or group uses the money for things I don't agree with, I don't contribute again.

A homeless shelter in a neighboring county has a substance abuse policy. If you live there, you adhere to the rules. Violate the rules (show up drunk), you are kicked out. I just don't have a problem with that.

Why should forced charity (taxes) be any different?

The people whom wanted me to explain my views pointed out other venues which tax dollars support. Should people who use these things be tested? Roads, they point out, are built with tax dollars.

Indeed. Dunno about where you live, but in Georgia a driver's license carries with it the requirement to be checked for substance abuse if a law enforcement officer suspects the driver is under the influence. Mandatory testing, in other words.

What about other tax-supported endeavors? I favor drug testings for teachers and student-athletes. I favor testing for government employees.

Once you get past the current spending on social services and the military at the federal level, there's very little left in government spending which I support. At the state level, I support public safety, education and very little else.

Cut the programs I object to and my drug testing requirements are also cut.

My opinion on drugs is on record. The fact remains recreation drug use is illegal. The current president intends to keep it that way, in case you wondered. His remarks from Latin America say he opposes legalization.

Furthermore, Georgia has a program called Drugs Don't Work. Companies that sign up for this program get a sharp discount on their workman's comp insurance premiums. At the same time, these companies see increased worker productivity, decreased absenteeism and increased profits, well above the cost of the program.

But to sum this all up into one thought: I support substance abuse testing for people who benefit from my tax dollars. I should have the right to decide how my tax dollars are spent. If you object to that, quit taking my money.

As serious case of WTH

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
This is about as much "celebrity" type news as you're ever going to get out of me.

This year's list of Rock & Roll Hall of Fame inductees is:

Guns N' Roses
Red Hot Chili Peppers
Donovan
Laura Nyro
The Small Faces/Faces
Beastie Boys
The Crickets
The Famous Flames
The Midnighters
The Comets
The Blue Caps
The Miracles
Early Influence:
Freddie King
Sidemen:
Don Kirshner
Cosimo Matassa
Tom Dowd
Glyn Johns

Notice anyone missing? Of course you do. There are many performers and groups not on this list.

But there is one group which is more conspicuous by its absence than any other.

I look at this year's list and note the presence of such bands as, yes, Guns & Roses. Yes they were a major band. Yes they had a major influence. Yes, Axl is a major idiot and probably needs to have his knees introduced to sledgehammer.

But including them before KISS? WTH?

I do not believe any single band can adequately define the music genre of heavy metal, but KISS comes closer than any other group. Why has KISS be overlooked year after year?

How does this happen? The R&RHOF is not very forthcoming.

While I am not generally a fan of Wikipedia, this article does a pretty good job of explaining the nomination process.

Gene Simmons had this to say about it a few years ago. "There's nobody in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame -- in fact, if you took all of them and put them together -- they couldn't match all the licensing and merchandising we've done and the legacy we've left." He echoed many outsiders' critiques of the Hall by identifying a few famous inductees that aren't as "rock"-oriented as his own band. "I mean, yes, Madonna's important. I have no [darned] idea what she's doing in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Or Grandmaster Flash or any other disco or rap artist."

Paradigm shifts happen

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

My mind has been changed. I can even point you to the nearly exact time it happened. Late Friday evening as I walked into my bedroom. I was not thinking about this subject. I was only concentrating on getting to the recliner, sorting out everything in my hands and reading for an hour or so.

Wham. It hit me.

So yeah, it was an epiphany.

To explain: Christians are called to love, not to condemn. I am trying to be a Christian, but I have a long way to go.

Christians certainly do not hold a monopoly on being hypocrites, despite being slammed it for regularly.

The Bible describes two kinds, types or levels of sin.There is the unforgivable sin, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and all the rest. That's it. Any other divisions are creations of man.

So, in an effort to trim a little more hypocrisy out of my personal life, I give you the following announcement which is going to further ostracize me in my small deeply conservative South Georgia community. So be it. I’m used to standing on the outside and looking in.

If a same gender couple comes to me and asks me to officiate their marriage, I will.

Christian ministers around the world officiate unions between two people who are just as sinful as the same gender couple and nothing is said. Fat people are married. People who smoke are married. Non believers are married to believers. Adulterers get divorced and remarried. I could go on but you get the idea.

Why do we accept, nay, embrace!, some sin and reject others?

Someone here is going to point to the Bible and claim it says marriage is a union of man and woman.

I shan't argue that point.

Rather, I point to many and repeated studies of the animal kingdom which shows homosexuality is common. It is common even among higher order animals.

If these animals are capable of reason, then they have made a choice - free will in other words.

If these animals are not capable of choice, then they do not have free will. They exist as the Creator made them and that includes their same-gender attractions.

Pick one.

So, I point you to the whiptail lizard, a species of lizard which has no males. While it’s up for discussion, some research shows the lizards must engage in sexual acts to reproduce. One female mounts another female.

I see nothing in the Bible which condemns animals for their sexual behavior. 

Pick your direction.

Of course I could have it wrong. There could be a third option, for animals, which I do not see. They could have a separate set of rules set down by the Creator. Could be. I do not claim to know the mind of God. I've gotta go with what He said and has done as best I understand it.

To shift gears, someone is also going to point out Georgia does not recognize same-gender unions. This does not bother me in the slightest. I continue to see marriage as a religious matter, which puts it beyond the reach of man's law. The Constitution agrees with me on that.

I don't need man's law to do God's business.

At one time “mixed race” marriages were illegal. The arguments used against same gender marriage were trotted out then and are still used by idiots on “mixed race” marriage.

Beyond that, I also point to the many of restrictions which the Bible puts on marriage (see above for a few), restrictions which are ignored or excused away by the great majority of Christian clergy.

I also point to the most overriding commandment of the Bible - To Love. I point to another - We are not meant to condemn each other, rather we are to encourage each other and help each other and be there for each other. Sounds like marriage, the Biblical definition of marriage, to me.

So yes, I will officiate a same gender marriage.

I realize that by making this announcement, many “Christians” are going to find yet another excuse to excoriate me. It’s cool. Jesus hung out with people just like me.

A partial list

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
This list is by no means complete. I thought of two things to add while hauling up the big road today. Sit down to put this down, completely forgot what they are.

Anyway, when you get done with this list, please add to it. I want to know what's on your list.

I do not want to know about places to eat. I want to know WHAT to eat. I've eaten in the finest restaurants on the planet down to the tailgate of my own pickup truck. I find the very best commercially cooked food is at hole-in-the-wall greasy spoons, like Impire in Adel. The very best home cooked food ain't available on this planet any more 'cause Granny Nancy has been gone now for more'n 20 years.

Anyway, my list of foods to eat before you die:

Gharial.

Huckleberries

Things to eat before you die

Ants
Any cetacean (whale)
Anything you killed, prepared and cooked
Bear
Capybara
Caribou
Cephalopod (squid, cuttlefish, octopus)
Chile Relleno
Chitlins
Collards
Crawfish
Crickets/Grasshoppers
Crocodilia (gator, croc, gharial or caiman
Durian
Elephant
Emu (or ostrich or rhea)
Grits
Hot Krispy Kreme donut
Huckleberries
Fried chicken
Fried Green Tomatoes
Fried Oreos
Fried ribs
Frogs' Legs
Fugu
Home baked bread
Home cured bacon
Kangaroo
NYC bagel
Peach right from the tree
Poke Salit
Pork brains (with or without eggs
Rabbit
Raccoon jerky
Raw honey

Softshell crab sammich

Raw oysters
Sea Salt
Seal
Snail
Snake
Soft shell crab
Squash flowers
Squirrel
Sushi
Turtle
Vegemite
Venison
Wild hog

Here’s a list other people have compiled. The list includes food served at specific restaurants. I am not interested in your restaurant recommendations.

Post 'em here or on Facebook.

Canned and not the way you think

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

Texas has banned high-fence enclosure hunts for some endangered animals.

Three species are most affected - dama gazelle, the addax and the scimitar-horned oryx.

Before you cheer this idea of banning hunting these animals, read this: "Texas has the largest population of the animals in the world, far more than even their native Africa. In 1979, Texas had less than three dozen scimitar-horned oryx, just two addax and nine dama gazelles, according to the Exotic Wildlife Association. But by 2010, the state had more than 11,000 scimitar-horned oryx, about 5,100 addax and nearly 900 dama gazelles, according to the association."

Lemme clear this up. These "endangered animals" live on fenced enclosures in Texas specifically for the purpose of being hunted. Unless these animals can be hunted, they will no longer exist in Texas.

If you eat meat, then you eat animals which are born, raised and live out what life they have on fenced enclosures.

The hunt preserve owners will not pay the feed bill for these animals. They'll either be shot illegally or illegally turned loose. Give them to zoos and such, you say? 

Animals in prison, I mean zoos.

"Only a few animal sanctuaries for such animals exist, and “they don't want 100; they want two or four,'' Bulkley said. The Exotic Wildlife Association plans to send about two dozen of the animals to a nature preserve in Senegal."

Without these preserves, these animals won't be around in these kinds of numbers. In some cases, the animals may go extinct except for a handful in zoos.

You may still object to the hunts. I ask what are you doing to build the animal's numbers?

“They are very prolific and had been valuable because a lot of people wanted to hunt them,'' Seale said. “We've built our herds with our own money, and we increased an extinct population, one of the biggest conservation efforts in the world. And now they're telling us we can't do it? It's ridiculous.''

Remember too, these hunt preserves are interested in provided trophy-class animals. That means they carefully manage the herd. Stocks are maintained with an eye toward herd health and quality genes. Trading breeding animals is common.

Who are you rooting for?

If any zoo or animal preserve wants some of these animals, the Texas hunt preserves are certainly willing to sell an animal or two, that being all the preserves want anyway.

I say the Texas ranchers have invested their money, time and other resources. While the animal may be endangered in the wild, it is not on the hunt preserves.

"The rule will not only hurt the $1.3 billion exotic animal industry in Texas but will cause the scimitar-horned oryx population to be reduced to 1,000 in a decade, Seale said."

Some people also object to the idea of a canned hunt. When you factor in all the costs of going to Africa to hunt, killing the same animal in the United States in a fenced enclosure is much cheaper. The hunter still gets a trophy for his wall.

"But he shot it inside a fence," someone will complain.

Jurassic Park meets S. Georgia Redneck

"When it's on the wall, you don't know if I caught it with a worm (artificial lure) or a shiner (live bait)," said Lamar Browning many years ago as we discussed fishing. At issue was a wall hanger.

Lamar had caught a number of 10 pound + bass with live bait. My largest bass to date came on an artificial lure. It was 9.8 pounds and I hope Nancy Wooten still has the pictures of it somewhere because I never got a print. It was nearly as long as my leg.

Anyway, some fishing purists would object to catching a trophy bass with live bait. They'd claim it was not sporting enough.

But when its hanging on the wall, only you and whoever you fished with know what it was caught with.

The same applies to trophy animals, like the ones I have hanging on my wall. You, looking at the taxidermy, the skulls and the cutters (hog tusks) have no idea how I acquired all the animals. Only I know the tale behind all of them. I will tell you I killed every one that hangs on my walls. I killed them with various firearms.

Putting this to the lowest common denominator - if you are a human alive today, you bear some responsibility for the domestic animals  raised and slaughtered in captivity. You also bear some responsibility for animals in zoos and other enclosures around the world. What is the difference between an exotic animal raised on a hunting preserve and a cow raised in a pen?

The difference is who pulls the trigger and how much they pay to do it.

It's the smoke

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

Everyone deserves the kind of friend you call at 2 a.m. and the first word out of their mouth is either:

• How much do you need (for bail)?

or

• Do I need to bring you a shovel too?

Hope you have some people in your life like that.

I think back to growing up and I pretty much always had one or two such people in my life until I hit college. Then my world changed. Foreshortened horizons suddenly reached into those places where "here be monsters." While I have always been unique (and likely always will be), I found in college a number of people who heard the same music I did, to horribly twist a phrase.

Welllllll, I might.

All of a sudden, if I needed a spare shovel, I had a cadre of people there.

Upon leaving college, I lost touch with nearly of them. One I kept up with - The Old Man and I have stayed in contact. Thanks to the internet I've found a few others. Some remain AWOL - Priscilla, Gary, Hope, Dennis, Keith, Taka, and Mike come to mind.

In the intervening years, I have found a few more folks who fall into the 2 a.m. phone call category. Sadly as I have aged, they have too and some of them are no longer around to get or give a 2 a.m. wake up call.

If you are my age or older, none of this is a revelation. For you younger folks, the day is coming when you have a renewed appreciate of these words.

I tell you this because of a discussion I had this weekend. In talking with this person, I said "I'm not an easy person to get along with." I meant it too. The person I was talking with disagreed.

When I pointed out this person is not exactly objective on the subject, the person replied, "I'd like you even if you weren't."

Then, smoke got in my eyes.

I can hope this person's opinion does not change in the coming years. It certainly may. This road we call Life carries us to place we never expected to visit and changes us in ways we never thought would happen. Opinions, attitudes, outlooks and perceptions change. Compound this by some hard decisions this person and I will have to make in the coming years. It is within the real of possibility we'll eventually wind up not speaking to each other. I've seen it happen to other people.

Arg. Smoke again.

Regardless, I am not easy to get along with. Repeating that statement in case you missed it the first time. For those people who do put up with me and answer my 2 a.m. phone calls (and vice versa), just know that as much as you appreciate me, I appreciate you.

You have my number.

Nuf said

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

Frydee Funnee - Call with questions or comments

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

What is the purpose of having a toll free number to ask call and ask questions if the person who answers the phone won’t answer your question?

To explain: Consider the pack of jawbreakers I’m presently using to ruin my teeth and the $62 repair job Dr. Dent did for me last week. Look on the package. Does it have a toll free number to call with questions? No. Obviously a bad example then.

Mental floss. Clean your brain.

Since I’m on dental hygiene, look at the unopened pack of dental floss I have. It does have a toll free number to call with questions.

I called.

“Hello” said a pleasant voice on the other end. “This is (the company’s) Consumer question line. How may I help you?”

“Hi. I’m presently ruining my expensive dental work with cheap jawbreakers, and probably driving my sugar levels through the roof. When I’m done I may need to use some of the dental floss I bought from one of your stores. If I have any teeth left and am not in a sugar coma, that is,” I said.

“Well. Um. Good,” Pleasant Voice said. “What I can do for you?”

G'head. I'll wait.

“I saw on your package that if I call this toll free number I can ask questions or offer comments,” I said.

Pleasant Voice admitted this is the case.

“Ok. Question 1. Provided I’m not unconscious on the floor from a sugar overdose and have not destroyed my teeth crushing jawbreakers, I pull a string of dental floss out of the container. I floss my teeth. When I’m done can I use the string as a bungee jump cord?”

There was no answer from Pleasant Voice.

“Hello?” I said.

Live large. On your computer.

“I don’t think that would be wise, sir,” Pleasant Voice said. “Our dental floss is not meant to be used as a bungee cord.”

“But could I?” I asked.

“We don’t recommend that,” Pleasant Voice said. “Besides which, and this is just my opinion, the string will probably not hold you. It will break.”

“Are you saying I’m fat?” I asked.

“Oh no sir,” Pleasant Voice said. I can hear the worry in her voice.

“S’ok. I am fat,” I said. “Besides I wasn’t going to be the one bungee jumping. I was going to teach the fleas in my flea circus to bungee jump off the edge of my desk.”

Pleasant Voice went silent again.

“I see I can also make comments,” I said.

“Yes sir,” Pleasant Voice said. I can hear the hesitation in her. Right about now, she was probably wishing she’d listened to her mother when her Mom said “go to college and become a doctor or marry one.”

“Phred, he’s my ringmaster in the flea circus, is really not pulling his weight any more. I’m going to retire him,” I said.

“Sir. This line is for people to ask questions and offer comments about our products,” Pleasant Voice said.

“Ok,”I said. “Can I use the dental floss to hang Phred?”

Pleasant Voice hung up.

Resenting the impact

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
A lot of people resent the impact I have on my community. And I don't mean the kind of impact that happens when I fall down on the sidewalk.

What happens when I go to meetings.

I'm not alone. There are a good number of people now living here who are not natives to this community. A handful of these people are having serious impacts on this community. We guide discussion. We influence policy. Some of us even make policy. We are determining parts of the future of this community.

Some people, natives, do not like this. A very small few will work openly and actively against us. The majority who do oppose us newcomers prefer to work in the shadows, behind the scenes and in places where they can't be held to account for their actions.

At the same time, some of the native folks welcome us, our ideas and are standing shoulder to shoulder with us to get things done. But I do not refer to them. I am just talking about the ones who complain.

Wherefore art thou, Ozymandis?

My community is not unique. Everywhere I have lived "outsiders" who get involved and try to do things are resented by some people.

Look closely.

What have the get-involved newcomers done for the community?


A lot.

This is what primarily builds resentment. The new folks, the resented ones anyway, are rolling up their sleeves and getting stuff done.  The old crowd resents this. They see their edifices being eroded, covered, dismantled and taken down.

These complainers want to rest on the laurels of their parents and grandparents. They want to stand on the accomplishments of 30 years ago, accomplishments most of them had little to nothing to do with.

Communities don't work that way. Communities are constant work in progress. Lead, follow or get embedded in the pavement.

Because last year is now in a history book.

For instance, our School Board recently tore down the old segregated school, over some objections. The old buildings were literally falling in. Yet, some complained.

In its place will go up a new series of apartment buildings.

Eventually, those apartments too will come down, to be replaced.

The people who complain about me and those like me being so involved in the community and wielding so much power and influence only complain. They don't do anything.

If they would get up and put forth some effort, they would learn a few things. But, they prefer apathetic complaints. I repeat myself. Sorry.

If you are one of those who gets things done, I salute you. If you are one of those who complains about people getting things done, I have a place for you too. Right in front of the asphalt roller. At least there you'll make an impact that will last for a few minutes.

We don't retreat

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
About half the states in this here U.S. of A. have what a lot of people are calling "stand your ground" doctrine. It's also referred to as castle doctrine, but that's a bit narrower. Call it self defense. All images in today's piece taken from this website.

Barrett. 50 BMG. Good for what ails 'em.

The difference is Stand Your Ground applies wherever you are, walking down the street for instance. Castle doctrine applies in your home and such places.

Both mean you have the right to use lethal force to defend yourself against attack. In other words, if you go after someone in a state with SYG, they can kill you.

Fact: People are killed regularly across the US when someone Stands Their Ground. These people are not prosecuted. They are hailed as heroes. They regularly save the life of someone else. Fact: you rarely hear about these heroes.

Some states do not have SYG laws. If you are attacked, you have to escape. Have to. If you fight back and kill your attacker, you can be charged with murder.

Reload. Repeat.

Ah. In those states, you can be attacked, maimed, disabled or killed yourself. But if you kill the person intent on doing you harm, you will be charged with a crime. Great Britain prosecutes people for this. I have a bud in Australia who served time for shooting a person who broke into his home. Didn't kill the thief, just wounded him.

SYG has become a hot topic now because of the shooting down in Florida. I offer no opinion on that. I say I do not have all the facts and neither do you.

Shootings have also taken place in other places. Again, they make news. Instances where a shooter starts his rampage and is dropped by law abiding citizens does not make this kind of news. Yet, this kind of shooting is FAR FAR more common.

It's like planes. Thousands of planes land safely every day. That's not news. A plane crash is news. You can, if you wish, blame the media for this. You can accuse of sensationalism. You forget the purpose of the media too.

Living in the South, as I do, Stand Your Ground has been a de facto policy for as long as there's been history of the South. Parts of the US where this has not been the case are making it so.

Other parts of the nation which don't value human life as much as we do, refuse to codify your right to protect yourself.

Why?

If someone attacks you, don't you have the right to defend yourself? If you see someone being attacked, shouldn't you be able to go to their aid?

Dial 911? Last time I did it, it took officers about 2 minutes to get to my house. I am not complaining. That's a quick response time. But, by the time they arrived, I'd swept the house and yard - twice - with a loaded shotgun. I was leaning on my car when they arrived.

Had I encountered someone, the officers would have been at my house quite a while filling out paperwork.

Fortunately, I live in a place where my right to take defensive action is guaranteed by law.

I hope I never have to shoot someone. That will be a hard reality for me to live with. But if the choice is them or me, I'm voting for me.

The way of the Dodo

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Barring some enterprising scientist, a gene lab, and DNA from the taxidermy specimens in various museums, the Dodo ain't coming back.

Read parts of that.

It's not the only one. In 2010, the last print edition of the book so many elementary, middle and high school students copies reports from rolled off the press. Yes, Encyclopedia Britannica's dead tree edition is no more.

Arg.

Not that I own a copy of EB. I do have, somewhere, the Childcraft Encyclopedia, a less complicated version version of an adult Encyclopedia, replete with annual updates. Grandma bought it for me.

I also read it. The whole thing.

Read that.

Call me ubergeekazoidnerd if you wish. It does not bother me. 

As I aged and re-read parts of it, I learned of errors in the books. I wondered why the authors would include such obvious mistakes.

As I have aged even more, I have learned why those mistakes are there. The authors were running on the best available information at the time. They wrote what was thought to be true.

That what they wrote then is not true today is not a reflect on their writing skills.

Rather, what we write today, scientific fact, may be overturned tomorrow. As the ancients once thought the elements were Earth, Fire, Air and Water, current thinking is tending to string theory - ultra tiny bits of matter which vibrate at certain speeds thereby creating sub-subatomic particles, which create subatomic particles which create atomic particles which then unfortunately lead eventually to things like Reboobicans and Damnocrats.

Didn't read all that

Time, tide and deadlines to file lawsuits wait for no man. The inexorable march of progress continues, running over and crushing those who seek to stop it.

Rather than be crushed, EB is doing away with the print edition and focusing its effort digitally.

Indeed a sad day, especially for those like me who like the feel of paper, the smell of a new book opened for the first time (OK, not so much that) and the ability to read wherever there is enough light.

I find it disturbing that more and more people need electricity to read. The computer, tablet or smart phone by which you read this for instance. The tablet devices by which you download for 99¢ and read the latest books.

When I get home in the evening, I like to sit in a chair and pull out a book. The only power I need, until the sun goes down, is that supplied by me. As long as there are yard sales, flea markets and, as close to paradise as a person can get on earth, used book stores, there will always be books for me to find and read.

Some people credit Milton with being the last human to read everything that was in print. Others credit one of the famous mathematicians. Regardless. The ability for one person to read every book published is gone and may never come again. May, I say, because we do not know what the future holds.

Even the Dodo may come back.

Frydee Funnie

Reading your mind and finding out nothing

Scientists are a step closer to being able to read your mind. No, I am not kidding, but you have nothing to worry about. 

You are thinking I can't read your mind.

The idea that science can read your mind probably won’t bother most people. A perusal of the contents of their gray matter will reveal stale Cheetos, flat Coke and a worry about whether or not they left the lights on when they left the house that morning. A closer examination of your brain will probably convince scientists you need to be locked up in a small closet because you are reading this column.

Scientists attempting to read my mind would probably order an immediate NATO air strike. If they attempted to read Larry “Hawgin’” Fishbreath’s mind, their mind reading equipment would go on strike.

This research comes, not entirely by coincidence from the University of California, located in the Granola State. If you are thinking one too many earthquakes have joggled their brains, you are probably right.

In what is good news on one hand and quite disturbing news on the other hand, the mind reading is so far limited to Youtube videos which the person has already seen. 

Ladies if you can't, you're not trying.

The news story about the mind readers states: “Currently, researchers are only able to reconstruct movie clips people have already viewed. However, the breakthrough is expected to pave the way for reproducing the movies inside our heads that no one else sees - such as dreams and memories.”

Researchers played a Youtube video and then used the mind reading computer equipment to read the mind and recreate the video as a very blurry, shaky blob of a movie with no details and only a vague resemblance to the original video.

The recreated videos are now a major viral hit on the internet video channel, especially with people stoned out of their minds and mind-reading scientists, who may or may not be stoned. Ozzy Osbourne is considering using the footage as the video for his new song release - Still Whacked After All These Years.

Bigfoot researchers are pointing to the recreated videos as absolute proof of the existence of Sasquatch running around research labs in southern California.

In what is a MAJOR disappointment according to the news story: “Researchers emphasize that the brain imaging technology is "decades" away from allowing users to read thoughts and intentions - a theme which is prevalent in numerous dystopian science fiction books.”

This is disappointing because it means we’re still decades away from finding out if a person running for office actually should be elected. Now we have to elect them to office to get proof they are double-dealing, back stabbing liars that should be rubbed down with sandpaper and tossed in a shark tank. With mind-reading technology, we can hook ‘em up, read their minds and throw them in jail without having to first send them to Congress.

The news article does not say if the researchers wore colorful dresses, way too much makeup and jewelry, did the experiments in a dark room with a huge crystal ball on a table in the middle of the room.