A venom-packed rant - Just to make 'em feel better ... or let the medicos make more money

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

In my continuing effort to torque the entire planet, I come to you today with this well-thought and well-researched statement.

Addiction is not a disease. Ergo, alcoholism is not a disease. Neither is drug addiction, tobacco addition.

Neither is being fat.

So what is disease? Disease is the body and it's functions being knocked out of the normal range of function.

"Yeah well, Baker, alcoholism causes that!"

Yes. It can. But, being poisoned is not a disease by anyone's interpretation of the word "disease." Poisons alter the body's functions. Being in a wreck is not a disease. If you survive a wreck, you may come out with body parts that no longer work as they used to. You may even be missing body parts. Eating fugu can kill you and people die every year from eating it. They do so anyway. It's not a disease.

And not 1 is a disease.

Disease is involuntary. Addiction is completely and totally voluntary.

For that matter, there are a LOT of things people do every day because they want to which can kill, maim cripple, disfigure, wound, permanently alter body function and shape. No one calls Base Jumping a disease. I could go on.

"Baker, you have no idea what you're talking about. You are an idiot."

That could be, but I am an idiot who has overcome three addictions. At no time during the addictions I had did I feel any of them was a disease.

Addiction is a behavior driven by a personal decision.

Addiction is a problem you can control. Disease is something outside your direct control.

THE CASE FOR DISEASE

On alcoholism, the Mayor Clinic says "Alcoholism is a chronic and often progressive disease that includes problems controlling your drinking, being preoccupied with alcohol, continuing to use alcohol even when it causes problems, having to drink more to get the same effect (physical dependence), or having withdrawal symptoms when you rapidly decrease or stop drinking. If you have alcoholism, you can't consistently predict how much you'll drink, how long you'll drink, or what consequences will occur from your drinking."

In the above statement the word "you" or a derivative was used or understood to be used more than 10 times. Each time the word "you" is used, it is directly connected to a voluntary action.

THE CASE AGAINST DISEASE

As much as I don't like the idea, the federal gummint agrees with me, sort of. "The specific disease concept, associated mainly with the Fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous, is contradicted by empirical evidence and unhelpful for preventive and treatment responses to problem drinking, especially for the effort to detect and modify problem drinking at an early stage." National Center for Biotechnology Information

The debilitating effects alcoholism stop when drinking stops, except when a person has ruined their body to the point it cannot recover. Cirrhosis of the liver, caused by a lifetime of drinking, is a disease. Yup.

Bashing your head with a hammer will eventually crack your skull and if you keep going, you'll damage your brain. That's not a disease.

Addiction is only disease I know of that is totally, completely and 100 percent within the control of the person with the disease.

Don't wanna be an alcoholic? Quit drinking. Don't wanna be addicted to something? Quit.

"It ain't that easy, Baker."

The value of anything is directly related to the effort put into it. In slightly different wording, nothing worth doing is every easy.

Either quit or do not whine to me about your addiction. Before I quit listening to you, I will ridicule you and probably do it maliciously.

With all this being said, I point out the American Medical Association has just declared obesity to be a disease.

It's not. Some in the AMA agree with me.

The AMA decision was not unanimous. Reporting in the NY Times, Andrew Pollack wrote, "In making the decision, delegates at the association’s annual meeting in Chicago overrode a recommendation against doing so by a committee that had studied the matter."

Why did the AMA decide being fat is a disease? Mo Money.

Money. Period. By declaring a decision to overeat and not move around enough to burn off the extra calories, the AMA positions its members to make majorly much more money from insurance companies and the government. In other words, your decision to be fat suddenly becomes the responsibility of everyone who has the same insurance company as you (if you have insurance) and-or taxpayers if you have Medicare or Medicaid OR you must rely on charity - indigent care - which puts the bill on insurance companies and taxpayers who pick up your bill through higher rates and more taxes to the gummint health care programs. Them doctors and nurses ain't working for free and I don't blame 'em.

If you are fat and do not wish to be, then lose weight. Eat less. I absolutely guarantee without question that if you take in 900 calories a day and burn 901 calories a day, you will lose weight. Wanna burn more calories? Move more.

As in the past, I expect some people to whine at me that they cannot lose weight. No. They do not want to lose weight. Go on an African bushman diet and see how much you weigh at the end of a week. Stick to it for a while and soon you too will be incredibly thin.

Of voting, lawyers, SCOTUS and other things that can *%$^&% your life

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Some people believe the rulings of the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) are not law, but opinions.

No argument here, but when a SCOTUS ruling can put you in jail, take away everything you own and end your life (capital punishment) I don't really see a difference between law and opinion.

So this week SCOTUS handed down several decisions. The one drawing the most attention is the 7-2 decision from Arizona which ruled in part, and in part ONLY, that states can't demand proof of citizenship to be eligible to vote.

positioned on the left side of the screen...

States are still free to petition the Election Assistance Commission and the Department of Justice for the 13 Southern states still subject to laws that don't apply in the rest of the nation. States can ask for ways to determine voter eligibility.

A minor problem is the Constitution splits authority for running elections between the states and Congress. This means a hodge-podge of election laws across the 50 states and various territories lumped in with federal election law.

The real problem is the oligarchy which is doing everything it can to prevent free elections. If state legislatures wanted free elections, they'd do away with taxpayer-paid party primaries, let anyone who wanted to get on the ballot do so (well, if the meet Constitutional requirements) and have an election.

Those who say such a system would result in mass confusion and pandemonium at the ballot box are also part of the problem.

MARACICH v. SPEARS:

I admit to not understanding a lot of this, except that it has to do with how parasites of the human condition conduct business and personal privacy. Each side is a class action suit. The plaintiff said the defendants got his personal information for their suit in violation of privacy laws. This one got kicked back to a lower court to see if damage awards are needed.

The majority ruled gathering personal info for a class action suit is not acceptable under the federal Driver’s Privacy Protection Act. According to the minority, this will make some lawyer's jobs harder.

 Sometimes we win one.

SALINAS v. TEXAS

In this one, the court ruled the Miranda rights only apply after being arrested. If you've not been arrested, they don't have to tell your rights.

Easy way out of this:

1) Keep your mouth shut.

2) If law enforcement persists with questions, tell them you need a lawyer present.

At the same time, be polite. Most law enforcement officers are trying to be helpful and take the oath to serve and protect very seriously.

You may think "I have nothing to hide." That may be. But it doesn't mean you must explain, show and allow them to investigate without a warrant or probable cause.

The most expected rulings didn't come down this week. The decision, opinion, ruling, whatever on gay marriage is the one everyone is looking for. The reality is this is not a case on gay marriage. It is a case of whether or not two people of the same gender who consider themselves married are entitled to all the legal benefits of a heterosexual married couple.

If you view marriage as a religious matter, as I do, government cannot be involved, cannot say it is right or wrong and in general can't have any view of it. The rights enumerated in the First Amendment spell that out.

In closing, go read for youself. Get you some.

Of wrecks, sharks, and paying for the privilege

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
It accounts for about 150 or so human deaths every year. Violent deaths.

It accounts for more than $1 billion in property damage every year.

It accounts for nearly 200,000 wrecks each year.

It's not a mind altering substance either.

It is only somewhat regulated, with regulations varying widely by state and no federal oversight whatsoever.

It is controlled by a small number of people who pay the state and federal government for the privilege of controlling it.

Some people want no human controls at all. Without these controls, as limited as they are, experts predict human deaths would skyrocket. Even if that doesn't happen, historical evidence shows that without this even limited human control, there would be incredibly widespread suffering, intense pain and massive death.

Some of these demanding no human controls have even said some of the controlling humans are the problem and should themselves be eliminated. [raises hand] I'm one who's received such death threats.

Lemme appear to completely change gears on you now. I'm not, but you won't see it for a few minutes.

Predators do not tolerate competition, even from their own kind, unless they are all part of the same group. Those who like to talk about "nature's way" tend to forget a male lion taking over a pride kills all the cubs. They forget male lions kill hyenas and will kill leopards and cheetahs if they can catch 'em. They forget canines will fight each other, driving away interlopers. Big sharks eat small sharks. Little gators get chomped by big gators.

They conveniently forget the defeated is driven away, often to starve to death or died from the infections in wound received in battle.

Nature's way is that the biggest and meanest predators rule and don't long tolerate competition.

Predators ensure their food supply by eliminating competition. Even vegetarians do this. Monkey troops fight "wars" over territory. Birds defend home ground. Fish battle each other.

Predators also do not solely rely on fang, muscle and claw. Giant sea otters bash open molluscs with rocks. Big raptors will drop turtles onto rocks from on high. Some apes use tools.

So what does this have to do with wrecks, fatalities and property damage?



The "it" above.

To be a bit more obfuscatory, if you wanna get excrutiatingly technical, it's good for you. Health food in fact. Finest kind.

"It" is the cervid, of which there are several species in the US. Whitetail, Coues, Mule, Moose, Elk and some introduced species related but which are not cervid. Add to this the growing numbers of feral hog.

I work to reduce the population of these animals. By doing so, I thin the herd. I prevent overpopulation, starvation when the food sources crash and the aforementioned wrecks and deaths. I eat these animals. I pay handsomely for that privilege every year.

I am the apex predator.

As the apex predator, I do not tolerate competition unless the competition is part of my group. Non-group competition is eliminated. Permanently.

If you are an apex predator, you understand this. If you are not, then you cannot understand and there is no way to explain it.

If you say "let nature take its course," I remind you, I am the force of nature.

No permanent allies, only fools

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

We have no permanent allies,

we have no permanent enemies,

we only have permanent interests. 

paraphrased comment from Henry John Temple Viscount Lord Palmerston 1784-1865 

 

Depending on which side of the political mountain (it is not a divide as that implies 2 sides) you fall, you may consider me a cantservative, a liarberal, a libertarian, a libertine or something else. I believe I tend to the libertine (which is a lower case L Libertarian) view.

Damnocrats one side, Reboobicans the other.

So it was with much delight, fist pumping and chortles of glee that I heard this report last night on NPR.

I am not a fan of the ACLU. However, I recognize they do good things from time to time. This is one of those times. In what will stun the hell out of some card carrying liberals, the ACLU has blinders on. Really. That's something I admire them for. If you don't believe the ACLU has blinders on, read this.

The extended NPR report points to historical research dating back to the days of FDR (that's where the research stopped) of instances where government gathered personal information on people. In every (every, no exceptions) where government gathered personal information, that data was used BEYOND the scope it was originally intended for. The top secret papers already show government is taking the information it gathers BEYOND the scope of the Patriot Act Law. So says experts interviewed by NPR.

Arg. Confusing,

 

Government takes your information and uses it illegally. Always has. NPR says so and NPR is supposed to be the No. 1 news agency in the nation to toe the government line. 

 

Government takes your information and uses it illegally. My opinion, always will. Opinion supported by people who make a living studying government.

This research paper pointed out some people in government also used that information for personal reasons - stalking, revenge, etc.

These people are rarely prosecuted.

 

As much as I support the ACLU suit in this case, I don't expect much to come of it. 

 

Nothing is going to happen until people start being arrested and thrown under the jail. That also won't happen. Government will rig the cases.

 

It's what government does.

 

While I'm here, let me point out this is being done by a "Damnocrat" administration and Damnocrats and Reboobicans are howling. When it was done by a "Reboobican" administration, Damnocrats mostly howled, joined only by a few Reboobicans.

 

What's the difference? Same action. "Different" POTUS, at least as different as you can get in an oligarchy.  

The difference is fools prefer lies to truth, prefer to be coddled than educated and will follow a leader in such a manner that even lemmings will stand up and say "Whoa! Dude, I think you need to look where you're going."

Most of the people who read my ramblings are nodding their heads sagely at this point and saying I am correct. A select few will say I have no idea what I am talking about and I am an idiot.

There are fools among us, yes, and sometimes I am one. In this case, I am not the fool. Who is the fool? I leave that to your incredible powers of discernment.

Rackin', whackin' & stackin'

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
When Susan announced she wanted to be on the 4-H Shotgun team, I set about finding a shotgun for her. In case you are wondering, finding a left-handed shotgun is like finding a non-lying politician. They exist, but they are about as hard to find as a, well, a non-lying politicians.

I checked all over the place for sinister autoloader. NOTHING. Then I remember Thumper is ambidextrous. Safety on the top, ejects on the bottom.

Hammer time!

I saw Harvey Broome over in Fitzgerald. I told him why I was buying it and he immediately dropped the price. Harvey understands we must get the younger generation involved. So Crambo got a BPS 20 and later I bought a set of chokes.

With her shotgun she's average. She breaks about half the clays she shoots at.

Saturday at the Baker Clan extended reunion, we hauled out to a pond to bust some clays. What I thought was a case of 20 gauge shells turned out to be 12 gauge skeet loads.

Fortunately, I packed The Riot Act. I assured Susan the loads were the same as for her shotgun and it might even kick less because of a ported barrel and the weight.

She decided to try it.

I think she missed 10. She shot more than five boxes of shells.

For some reason - we think it is the rifle sights on the barrel but it could be she was shooting against a background of trees - she went from an average shooter to the best or second best on the pond that day. As to who was better, she or I, that will have to settled another day.

She also managed to rip four shots, several different times, before the clay hit the water. This despite my 12 gauge is harder to cycle than her Browning.

In addition, TRA cycles to the right. With each pump, she had a spent shell crossing her line of sight. Most people who who left handed find this to be an intolerable distraction. If Susan found it distracting, I couldn't tell it.

Someone might say we just have to find out exactly WHY she shot so much better with my 12 gauge.

I reply, she just needs to keep shooting that old Mossberg. If she continues to turn in that kind of performance, next year she'll be the top shooter for the 4-H team and definite contender for state champ.

This ain't stereo

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
This is not the kind of blog you'd expect me to write.

To explain, Susan recently asked to switch stereos with me. She said the one I had "looks better." She has it. I have the one she had.

The one she traded is louder, has superior speakers, but it does look old. It has a record player and dual cassette decks. No CD. The one I traded her has a 3-CD spinner.

So. We traded.

An RCA jack on one speaker is missing. So I wired it into the other speaker. What looks like a stereo system is a mono system.

This has created, for me a different listening experience when I tune in a terrestrial radio station in the evenings.

Today's music is recorded in stereo. Sometimes ertain tracks intended to be played in one channel only.

Radio is also broadcast in stereo.

This combines, in my case, for some interesting listening experiences. I find that I am listening to very familiar songs differently. Instrumental tracks sometimes fade to nearly nothing while the vocals, done on both tracks, remain strong.

This lets me hear the singer in a new way.

On straight instrumental work, I get to hear playing that I otherwise didn't quite realize was there.

This is proving to be a very interesting experience. Soon I will switch the connected speaker(s) to the other port and see what I've been missing on the other channel.

The perfect plan!

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Being brilliant, I have come up with the perfect plan. A perfect plan for dealing with idiots.

I am setting aside one day a month to deal with idiots.

So, if you are an idiot and need to talk to me, at me, with me or otherwise need to be dealt with, come by the office on this day each month. I will deal with you then.

Do not come on any other day as I will tell you, "I'm not dealing with idiots today. You will have to come back."

No appointment is necessary. First come, first dealt with.

Idiots will have to wait outside. They can wait in Elrod Park next door, play in the fountain, roll around on the rose bushes in the planted areas or get sunburned laying on the granite benches. I'm good either way.

Idiots may also be dealt with in groups. I prefer this option as it will save me a lot of time. Because of space in the office, idiot groups will be limited to one less person than actually shows up.

Some of you are wondering what day of the month I have set aside to deal with idiots.

What? Do I look like an idiot? I am setting aside yesterday, each month, to deal with idiots.

All your base are belong to us

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
As noted previously, government has a huge file on me. With all the stuff I do, the licenses I have and frankly, being me in general, this is not surprising.

I go through a background check at least once a year, sometimes more. I get fingerprinted regularly. My annual physical is part of the government records. In short, the government knows a LOT about me.

The Supreme Court ruled yesterday the government can learn even more about me. Law enforcement now has the right to pull DNA samples from someone who's been arrested.

On one hand I see this as the 4 dissenting Justices see it - an intolerable invasion of privacy.

On the other hand, I see it as some of the 5 judge majority see it - the same thing as getting fingerprints.

I pull my info from this HuffPo story.

IN FAVOR

"Taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee DNA is, like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the court's five-justice majority.

Pulling fingerprints is a long established matter. It has led to the solving of many other crimes. Getting DNA, under a search warrant, has also led to solving crimes. Both have exonerated people.

Are your fingerprints a matter of your personal and private business? When you touch something with a bare finger, you leave a fingerprint behind. For that matter, you also leave some cells behind which have your DNA. Do this is in a public place and yeah, it's public. Period. To me it's exactly like walking down the street. Do that and you're in the public eye.

Ya doesn't like it, ya stays out of the public.

However...

IN DISSENT

Public is one thing. Government is quite another.

The SCOTUS case ruled the warrantless DNA swabbing is allowed for "serious" and violent crimes.

 Anyone who believes government is going to stick to that limit voted for the current president.

...Justice Antonin Scalia predict[ed] the limitation to "serious" crimes would not last. "Make no mistake about it: Because of today's decision, your DNA can be taken and entered into a national database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason," Scalia said in a sharp dissent which he read aloud in the courtroom. "This will solve some extra crimes, to be sure. But so would taking your DNA when you fly on an airplane – surely the TSA must know the `identity' of the flying public. For that matter, so would taking your children's DNA when they start public school."

Oy. He's absolutely correct. Once government gets permission to harvest information about people in for one thing, it will expand that to cover anything and everything.

You think not?

EXPANDING GUMMINT

A Maine license with fingerprint coding.

Do you have a bunch of gibberish on the back of your driver's license? Not a bar code, but what looks like the printer had a migraine. In Georgia and some other states, that's a fingerprint digitally encoded.

When this was passed in Georgia, it was done to help eliminate identify theft and fraud. In this regard, it has been one of the most spectacular failures in the history of government. Not too long ago federal folks served warrants in an ID theft case in the town where I live. Several people have been arrested on more than 100 ID-theft related charges per person. Law Enforcement simply didn't bother to pursue more warrants.

The fingerprint is NOT supposed to be used in criminal investigations, in Georgia at least.

And if you believe that's actually what is happening, you voted for the current president twice and wish he could be elected dictator for life.

The simple fact, born out by the history of humanity, is that government will take everything it can get and then some. DNA harvesting is just another step in giving government more control of our lives.

It's wrong and it's going to lead to more abuses.

Definitely not good enough

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Among the many books I have, there are three which I will never read.

Book 1 is independently published. I received the book as an entry in the Benjamin Franklin Awards, an annual book competition for independent publishers in which I am a judge. I will not tell you the author nor the name of this book. I do not want to embarrass the elderly man who wrote it.

Book 2 is Syndey's Comet by Brian Herbert, son of the late SF grandmaster Frank Herbert. I don't even like to TOUCH this book. It is that bad. I might touch it long enough to hurl it and lots of profanities at Herbert if I ever meet him.

Book 3 is actually the kind of book I'd genuinely LOVE to read. But, I'm not gonna.

It has nothing to do with the writing of the book.

It has a bit to do with the content of the book.

It mostly has to do with the way a handful of people treated me.

"Baker, that don't make a bit of sense, even for you," you tell me.

It's just the way I am.

The book cover is at right. Looking at the cover, this would be a perfect fit for me.

I ride and like it a LOT. I hugely enjoy philosophy. Combining the two for me just, well, it's a case of cosmic congruence for me.

Except it's about Harleys.

I have nothing against the Harley-Davidson motorcycle. Correction. I do have something against Harley-Davidson in a way, hence this column. But what I have against this American motorcycle has nothing to do with the bike, but everything to do with a few people who ride Harleys.

More specifically, just a few people I have met over the years, more recently one in particular in the county where I live.

I 'splain.

I ride a Honda 1100. I call it Purple Haze. It has the loudest exhaust of any bike in the county.

Some time back I was talking with some other riders who ride Harleys. I asked about the rides they take. For non-bikers, "ride" has a variety of meanings. In this case, I mean a road trip.

I was immediately informed by one of the riders that their rides are for Harley owners only. No one else is welcome.

My Honda and I are not good enough, apparently, to ride with them.

This is an attitude I've seen expressed by a number of other Harley riders. Sometimes it's done without malice or an intent to discriminate, such as pouring rice under an import ride at a bike show. The rice means it's leaking. That's just funny.

The rider I mention above was clear in his discrimination. I am not good enough to associate with them.

He's exactly right. I am not good enough. I'm too good to hang around people who insist on dividing the world based on arbitrary information and refuse to accept other people.

Anyway, as to the book - I tried to read it. I read the opening chapter. The author even discussed the Honda motorcycles. He said clearly, the Honda brand is a better, tougher, longer-lasting and more reliable motorcycle than a Harley (which is also backed up by maintenance and repair records from around the world). He also said there's just something about riding a Harley that cannot be found in any other motorcycle.

Agreed.

But as I read the author's musings my mind continually ran back to the rider who thinks I'm beneath him. I thought about other Harley riders I have known who didn't exactly express the same opinion, but made it clear through their actions that I'm a lesser rider because my steel steed is a Honda.

What infuriates me to no end is that this kinda attitude goes beyond HD discrimination.

What really makes me mad enough to chew nails is: This kind of attitude is pervasive in society. We judge people based on choices they make which have NOTHING to do with the kind of person they are. For instance, Justin Beiber fans are sneered at, as is the singer himself. When done without malice, this is funny. When done to create discrimination, it's just freekin' wrong. If someone like Beiber's music, that's their business! It's none of your business and should not affect how you treat them.

Exactly like that.

Even beyond that, what takes my anger to the outer limits is:

I do the same damned thing. I will judge people based on a factor that has nothing to do with who they are. I consider that factor and decide I am better than they are. I have even done so in this column, expressing an opinion that I'm better than the discriminatory Harley riders. Never mind it is a defensive reaction.

Dammit.

That is NOT the person I want to be, NOT the person I try to be and it pisses me off beyond belief.

I have simply got to do, correction, BE better.

You have no idea...

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The vast majority of people in the United States have no idea what they ingest or absorb on a regular basis.

As remarked this week at the County Commission meeting, sheep parts are often processed in things people put into their bodies. By parts I do not mean the meat as in lamb chops.

No animal testing needed. The four-legged sheep are dead.

"Lipstick from sheep guts." was a comment made at the Commissioner's meeting.

Really?

This page is a PIA to read. I suggest highlighting the text and it becomes easy to read. But it does tell you what sheep byproducts are used for, including cosmetics. "Also, fats and fatty acids play an integral role in chemicals; glycol is found in brake fluid and glycerol is the ingredient that makes asphalt stick together. To top things off, most people don't realize that products they use on themselves everyday, such as: makeup, cosmetics, tanning lotion, shaving cream, and hand cream, contain sheep fat and fatty acids."

I'm laughing insanely right now.

The same people who would have conniption fits simply SEEING a pile of sheep fat have no problem smearing it on their lips and eating it. If you don't think you wind up eating the lipstick you wear, then you have cognitive issues I'm not going to be able to fix.

Then again, I have been wrong before. 

Really? Sheep placenta? Face cream?

Somebody needs to explain this to me.

It's entirely fine to wear sheep placenta (see right image) but lipstick made from sheep fat is right out. Admittedly a critter had to die to deliver up the rendered fat, but that's also a side issue. The sheep died to provide meat. enterprising folks learned to use the fat rather than just throw it away.

As for other uses for sheep byproducts, sausage casing is made from the chitterlings. Chitterlings are the intestines, in case you missed that. 

The hooves, bone and horns go into marshmallows, piano keys, gelatin desserts like ice cream, yogurt, and jello.

For you baseball fans, remember the outside is leather. The inside of the baseball "contains processed blood."

I am beyond amused right now because of the massive discomfort and revulsion some of you are experiencing.

Compounding my delight is the fact that the vast majority of people have no idea what they are eating when they eat "food." 

If people really bothered to learn about what they eat ... I don't know. Thinking more critically, I don't believe eating habits would change. People gotta eat or die. Given the choice, most folks will eat rather than starve.

Even more discombobulated than usual

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Most people have a stream of consciousness. Most people also have a mild, meandering creek that's lovely to look at and ride down. Me? I have a Class VI rapids stream of consciousness. Y'all know that, or should by now.

So with that in mind, I warn you now: Today's rambling may be more disjointed than usual. It's a topic I've been rassling for a good long while now. I do not expect to achieve a resolution in my mind, but I have to get this out.

I start with this news item from the HuffPo. You need to scroll down toward the end of the article to get to the good part. I am HUGELY looking forward to this experiment being repeated. If it is repeated and found valid, this it's going to amount to a bitchslap across the face of a lot of people. At the same time, it is NOT going to be 100 percent validation for a bunch of other people. If it can't be repeated, it'll be listed as yet another anomaly.

Ooooooo!

What we have here is a case of science possibly validating something that religion has long stated.

Oooooo.

So here's my conundrum.

I do not claim to be a scientist nor do I claim to understand everything science does.

Neither do I claim to be an expert of religion nor do I understand everything that God does.

So.

SCIENCE

I have read that accepted scientific fact at one time stated the earth was flat. We now have evidence the earth is round.

The science of A'Tuin.

I point this (and many other now-overturned scientific "facts") to certain people. The most coherent reply I get is that "What we state as fact is what fits the available evidence and our understanding of that evidence."

Meanwhile I mentally burn out another transmission."Yeah, but you (science) were wrong! Not just once but a BUNCH of times! So why should I trust everything you say now?"

"Because we're right," is the answer I get. I truncate here for space reasons. But semantically, that's exactly the answer provided.

And so a tautology is launched that would give Ouroboros a choking fit.


Of course the same exact thing can be said of religion. Further some of the scientific "facts" which were wrong were based on religious teachings.

F'dang. More tautology.

Occasionally I get an "I don't know" as an answer. When faced with that as an honest answer, the debate is over.

RELIGION

The chief question for religion is "why." Why anything and everything. Actually, the same can be said for science.

God at work?

Periodically someone who claims to have a skull-to-cosmic-consciousness connection to the great creator will write down (so to speak) what that creator dictates. Over the course of human existence, plenty of people have stepped up as a spokesman for the one true god. Most - correction - all are ridiculed. Ridicule is the resort of those who run out of intellectual ammunition. Both sides are equally guilty of that kind of fight.

Religion has often been proven wrong. The dogmatic move forward, ignoring or rationalizing away the mistakes of the past. And yet, science has proven as factual many things which religion has stated. Prior to the science proving it, it was pooh-poohed as bushwa.

Is any of this sounding familiar?

When asked for proof, the essence of the reply of the religious is "God said."

Calling Ouroboros. Paging Mr. Ouroboros...

Rarely, less often than in scientific circles, someone will stand up and say "Well, I just don't know." Argument over.

MAKING SENSE

In this debate which has raged ever since the first shaman clobbered the first person to question him, I find myself increasingly retreating into the statement Socrates made popular - All I know is that I know nothing.

Science, at least the hard sciences, as I understand it is an attempt to make sense of the physical world.

Religion, at least as I understand it, is an attempt to make sense of the human condition.

Move the most infinitesimal distance away from either of those positions and the two overlap. The overlap is where the arguments reside.

For those interesting in walking out to the far end of science, you can read of how our universe is one of many, perhaps unlimited, how our "laws" of physics don't apply in those other places, how our "laws"  and "facts" were created at the instance the universe was created and at least one noted big thinker who says gravity does not exist. Really. Boiled down to the essence, these advanced theories are the same thing as religion. To wit: Something happened. We don't know what, why or how. We're trying to figure that out.

The same stuff exists on the religious side with various levels or realms of existence, what happens there and so forth.

As Rebel says, "my head parts hurt."

ONE MORE THING

Science has not proven the existence of God one way or another. As my scientific friends tell me, lack of proof is not proof. In other words, saying "It does not exist" is not a valid scientific statement. Saying "We do not know if it exists" is a valid statement.

On the religious side, mankind is attempting to bring a human-order and understanding to a cosmic consciousness. Understanding that metaphors are always inexact, I tell you that trying to reduce God to a human understanding is is like trying to teach calculus to Hairball, my daughter's cat.

Blow 'em ALL up

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Many many years ago I said when I owned a house, I'd have book shelves in every room. People who've been to my place have seen shelves in every room.

Every room.

On two different shelves I have a set of books some of which have profoundly influenced me and helped shape me into the person I am today. They are also my all time favorite reads. The list includes The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Dune, Tales of the Old Duck Hunter's Association and Other Drivel, My Health Is Better in November, Stand on Zanzibar and This Is Your Captain Speaking. The Bible is not included in this list because the above books are all first edition (except Dune) and cannot be replaced.

To this list I must now add Ralph Peters' work, The War After Armageddon. This surprised me immensely.

I found the book in a rack at a discount store, a chain of stores I routinely visit because I can get novels for about 20 percent or less of the original cover price. I nearly passed over Peters' work because I seriously do not like war novels and don't care for action novels. But the price and the fact that it was a novel of what could happen in the future made me buy it.

Egad.

The writing is good. Not great, but good. The character development is very good, not awesome, just very good.

The exploration of human interaction with politics and religion as the basis for those relationships is as good as anything I have ever read, including Dune. That kind of discussion cranks my tractor.

Peters, a former military man, uses war in the Middle East as a plot device for his exploration of what can happen when a large group of people is simply pushed too far. Egad. Egad. Egad. Egad.

The scenario he posits is frightening realistic and to my thinking quite possible. Religion and politics are not a metaphor in this book. It's reality and can be seen right now.

One of the statements which struck me hardest was made by the protagonist Lt. Gen. Gary "Flintlock" Harris. He said that if it was possible, he'd blow up every part of the planet over which war in the name of religion was fought.

Arg. Confusing.

He said he'd blow up any rock that caused religious division.

Yes. 

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes to the whatever power necessary to blow up every religious rock in the world that has sparked a war.

Blow them up. Turn them into dust.

If you serve a god that is more concerned about a piece of dirt than the people of this world, then Ralph Peters suggests and I clearly state your god has his priorities in the wrong place. Attaching so much religious significance to a piece of dirt or a building that you'll kill someone over it — No. Blow it up so it can't belong to any religion. If a religion tries to lay claim to it again, blow it up again. I say that knowing what the Old Testament states.

Peters' work in this book is infinitely forgettable for his writing ability, somewhat forgettable for his character development, but the message in the book is one that needs to be writ large, remembered and lived.

If you follow me, we're both in deep kimchee

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
This not about church or religion.

Some time back I interviewed a Church of God pastor from West by God Virginia. He runs a church which his grandfather ran. He's been there more than two decades and has turned down promotions from the COG international office.

talk about a parking problem...

His church is on a leveled off mountain. At the time, the congregation was waiting for a mining company to flatten another mountain so they could build a bigger sanctuary.

He told me "The passion of the Christ is 'I will never leave you and I will never forsake you.' The passion of too many minister is 'I will leave you and I will forsake you.'" He went to to say a church pastor should buy a cemetery plot in the community where that pastor serves.

As the COG pastor said, it takes an average of 18 months to get to  the point of trusting someone. So, just as the congregation is willing to trust the preacher, he's gone.

I brought this up a while back on FB, about how church leaders are experts showing up and leaving in short order. Some preachers don't even bother to unpack, I believe. I know a few who absolutely will not stay in one place for more than six months. I also know a few people who won't hold a job for more than a few months. Ahem. Anyway, the average pastor stays at a church for 18 months.

A friend reported a conversation from another pastor who said "I know it's time to leave when they start looking to me instead of Christ."

I suggest the pastor in that case ain't doing his job.

Except that he very well may be.

He's dealing with humans, after all.

The problem is when the Bible describes us as sheep, it was dead right on. We need a leader. Even the most devout anarchists I know pledge allegiance to leaders. They espouse the views offered by others. They demand everyone walk down the path someone else created. They look for inspiration from others.

Leaders worth following are a rare commodity. Even more rare is that individual willing to stand up and say "I'm going another way. You can follow me if you want to, but I am not your leader."

I hesitate to say that humans want to be accepted, but I believe that to be the case. Even the most misanthropic person on the planet wants to be included, whether or not he or she will admit to it. That inclusion may be only one other person, but the isolationist is going to want someone. The Unabomber comes to mind when I think of an isolated person. And yet it's still obvious from his writings that he wanted to be a part of, not apart from. If he truly wanted isolation from humanity, he'd have never written his manifesto.

A good cult!

The problem is people are far too willing to attach themselves to someone who is a good salesman and not a good leader. Cults are made by people who can fake a connection to other people with such sincerity that it reaches a primal need for a human to human connection. This is why I say the pastor who said he was leaving may have done his job. It's also why I criticize the pastor.

This is also why this nation has elected the same person with a different face to be the president for as long as I've been an adult. It's the Cult of Personality.

This is also why we are splintering into an increasing number of factions.

Until we are willing to break away and find a leader worthy of the title, even if that leader is ourselves, don't expect much to change. When, and if, we do manage to rally behind a leader worthy of leading us, I doubt most will have the intestinal fortitude to be led.

Let 'em get in the way

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
This article posits a query which has been going on for as long as I can remember.

Full disclosure - I often have problems remembering last week. So I really have no idea how long this debate has been going on.

No problem here.

But still. If the boy wants to play with dolls, let him. If the girl wants to be a ninja, more power to her. Let the kids be kids.

More to the point, get involved with the kids. When they want to do something, help them do it. In raising my two, I did stuff with them. Lots of stuff. Whatever they wanted to do which included (when they were small) riding around checking on the cows.

We did things together. Now my son is 16 and my daughter 14. Both hug me regularly in public. In front of their friends.

Neener. Neener Neener.

Even MORE to the point, get your little ones to help YOU.

When my two were small, I got them to "help" me frequently.

It took twice as long to accomplish the task v. me doing it by myself. Doesn't matter.

Atta boy!

I showed them I cared. I showed them they mattered to me. I taught them that they could. They now have skills. They can do, by themselves, what we used to do together. They can even doing it faster than I can in some cases.

I also taught them skills that are sadly lacking in today's world. My two can put food on the table straight from the source. They have fed the family several times over in fact.

I spent time with them, time that can never get retrieved. They spent time with me. We did things that had to be done and things we wanted to do. The two were not always the same.

The point is, WE did it. How many of you parents can say the same thing? You new parents, will you be able to say it years down the road?

What I did is not hard. In fact, it was beyond easy. I capitalized on something.

Children absolutely LOVE to help. Guaranteed.

I can take ANY toddler, no matter how scared he or she is of me and hand the little one something and say "Can you help me take this to (insert some person a short distance away)." The kid is zooming off with whatever it was in his hand. It gets delivered, He hauls back, zooming past me and giving me a High Five at the same time.

Children have a major desire to be needed, wanted, to contribute and feel useful. When you feed into that, you build real character into that child. You teach him or her that they can matter, they do matter and what they really will make a difference.

It's now so ingrained in my two that they go out looking for things to do to help other people. Unfortunately this has not translated into doing stuff around the house. Someone else's house? They are all over it.

Getting back to the original subject, if the kid wants to play with dolls, let the kid play. If it really bothers you (and it should not, unless the child is doing vivisectionist work), then ask the kid to HELP you do things. Equally good, ask the child if you can help with what he is doing.

Thanks but, nah. I'll pass

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Social media has been beyond awesome in allowing me to connect to people I lost touch with. Rebel, Mary, Phil, Tom and James come to immediate mind. They are part of a crew who took me through one the hardest periods in my life and made sure I came out the other side.

I've also reconnected with most of my graduating class. Two major exceptions. Marcus, well, I'm not gonna reconnect to him in this reality. In the next world I certainly hope so. Marcus was killed in a car wreck in his freshman year of college.

The other major exception I shan't discuss here.

Then, social media has thrown some names up in front of me from people I left behind (and in turn was left behind) years ago. As I see these names and pictures pop up, I look and wonder if I should reach out.

Then I remember what we went through.
 
I emphasize we because it took two (or more) to tango. 

Certainly I was the cause of strife in far too many cases. At the same time the other person was the cause of strife in far to many cases.

We were both an exacerbating agent far to many times.

There's certain memories that need to remain where they are. Forgiveness is granted. Forgetting is done as long as I don't have to deal with them now.

You may very well say we've grown, up, out and older. Certainly this is the case. Maturity definitely brings a different outlook on certain matters.

Irrelevant to me where some folks are concerned. While I must truthfully thank them for helping shape me into the person I am today, I really don't need to relive what it took to get me to this point.

So, why I say thank you for the potential re-connections, Social Media, I say, nah. I'll pass.