Microcosms and Macrocosms

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
As an avid reader of Science Fiction, I've perused more "alien invasion" stories than I can count. Two series I am reading - Through the Looking Glass by John Ringo and Worldwar and the follow up series Colonization by Harry Turtledove.

I recommend both, but add the Turtledove series is far superior.

What stands out in both these novels (series) is not that Earth is invaded and attacked, but that despite this invasion, we humans are still quite busy trying to kill each other while being united in the face of a common enemy.

Lemme get this a lot more personal and a lot more local. If you have a brother or sister (or more than one), describe your relationship. If you are typical, you are your sibling fought with each other. A lot. However if an outsider stepped in, you two or more would unite against then foreign aggressor most of the time. Not always.

If you are now an adult and you've moved into the still typical relationship, you may still fight, but you'll still be there for your brothers and sisters if the fecal materials strike the oscillating air disturbance machine.

That is the microcosm.

Take a step back. We're not to the macrocosm yet; we've just taken that step back to gain a slightly wider perspective. Include close friends in your group. You may fight and argue, but you're still going to be there for each other and woe unto those who are outsiders with ill thoughts on their mind.

Shall we dance?

Let's take another step back.

In the city where I live, a street in town is a dividing line. This arbitrary division splits cousins against cousins. Really. People have been beaten badly for crossing this street.

One more step back.

At a local City Council meeting in my county this past week, an economic developer said he continues to be stunned by how the Norfolk-Southern railroad track divides a community. Like as not, your town is the same way, albeit the divider is not necessarily a railroad. Events on either side of this railroad attract people living on that side. Crossing over is incredibly rare.

And yet, outside attacks on our community rally everyone to defense.

I am now reminded of Afghanistan. No invader has ever conquered this country completely. The only thing that unites the warlords and the various tribes in Afghanistan is an outsider invading. Even that is not enough to make all the tribes set aside their difference as inter-group fighting continues.

Perspective matters

So, continue to step back until you can take in the macrocosm view. Admittedly, you might need to be standing on the moon. But see the whole world.

Now, lemme slap this on you.

"So (name withheld) had his first experience with racism this afternoon. He said a little girl was sitting with him and her sister said 'don't sit with the white kids.' How very very sad..." This was posted by my longtime friend and the little fella's mom. It happened at school.

This young fella is just starting school. He's now launched on a path that we all hope will lead him to success and happiness.

He encounters racism, a learned and a taught behavior. Make no mistake - little children recognize there are differences in children. They know some are boys, some are girls, some have better tans, etc etc etc. But, they don't care. They have to be taught that these genetic differences are important enough to make one person better than another.

I read comments like the above and my world crashes around me. Profanity-laden invective-driven interrogatives want to burst forth. In other words, I want to scream WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?

And then, I read the gentle wisdom of the one our group calls MacT. Hope is restored. My faith may be tarnished, dented and have a few holes in it. But it's still there.

Aliens may indeed invade earth some day. If that happens, I do think it will unify humanity like never before, but even that is not going to be enough to make us set aside the arbitrary divisions we insist on creating.

Exit stage whatever comes next

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
A very few people believe that if a living being is dying in a lot of pain, they should be left to die that way.

The vast majority of people would say if a living entity is in pain and is terminal, something should be done to alleviate that pain. Cancer patients and other terminally ill humans are routinely drugged into insensibility. Well, this done where such medications can be delivered.

In places where analgesics are not available, I suppose people die screaming.

Not the way I wanna go.

Quite a number of people, m'self included, support euthanasia. We believe it is our life, not yours. You have no right to regulate how I live and you have no right to regulate how I die.

A majority of us who own pets will opt to end our pet's life with a shot from a vet, or as some of us country folks do, a shot to the head with a .22,  if that animal is suffering from a terminal and painful disease. Yes. I have "put down" treasured family pets because they were suffering and the only end to it was death.

I was not happy about it. I cried in fact. If necessary, I'll do it again.

So lemme ask you, if you had the ability to prevent months of terminal suffering for some living creature, would you, could you take the step to end that suffering?

Doin' it the hard way. With spears.

This is why I support elephant hunting, albeit I doubt I ever get to shoot one. The only way I'd shoot one is if it was starving or was charging me or was rampaging and killing people.

But yeah. Elephants starve in the natural course of things.

"Elephants replace their teeth six times. At about 40 to 60 years of age, the elephant no longer has teeth and will likely die of starvation, a common cause of death."

For those of you who object to Wikipedia, "If this last molar doesn't last, the elephant won't be able to chew effectively and may starve," says bunnyhuggers. "May" starve. Consider this statement from the same article "They eat grasses, tree foliage, bark, bamboo, shrubs, roots and fruit. They also eat soil for its mineral content." This kind of diet requires molars because the food HAS to be shredded to aid digestion. HAS to be. So no molars = starvation. The bunnyhuggers say "may starve" in hopes of falsely casting doubt on the pain and suffering an old elephant goes through.

Yeah. If the old noble beast is suffering, bring it to an end quickly. That is honorable.

Predators hunt.

For those of you who say this is not honorable, I can only guess at the depths of sadism you are willing to plumb.

For those of you who say let nature take its course, I point you to the above image of an African tribal elephant hunt, a hunt which has gone on for thousands of years. Nature's way is that predators eat prey. Nature's way is that humans are the top predator.

If you eat meat, you don't have solid ground to complain about hunting. In the case of elephants and all African hunts, the animal is butchered and used to feed the autochthons of the area. No meat is wasted.


For those who say elephants are incredibly destructive, I agree.  Elephants do wreak havoc on the ecosystem. However, long term studies show this behavior is also self-regulating. In other words, elephants control their own populations as to not overburden their feeding grounds. Similar long term studies show that where elephants decimate trees, savannah takes over. Eventually trees return. This is a long term cycle and is natural.

http://molonlave2012.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-desperate-plight-of-starving-people.html

Those who like the idea of animal reserves, as I do, should consider this, which appears to fly in the face of the above observations. Oy. While you're busy looking at the game preserves, lemme ask you this - who funds these preserves?

Ah so. This is a good place to end this one as I'm about to get into the economics of hunting and that's not my intention today. Maybe tomorrow.

To close, lemme ad this: I could not be a natural photographer and documentary producer. I've seen the footage of starving wild animals and listened to the documentary producers say "this is nature's way." I could not do it. Shoot the poor beast and end its suffering. Humanity also means bringing a quick end to things.

In the meantime if you'd like to see what commentary has been generated so far, visit my Facebook page and see this thread.

Update: Second thread with the Wisdom of MacT. https://www.facebook.com/RedneckGenius/posts/10151561505936024

Can't see parity for the hood in the way

..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Took Mom shopping over the weekend. While in one of those giant members-only galaxy-sized stores, I saw a lady - excuse me. I saw what I presumed to be a human female - walking around in a black burka. Possibly a niqab. Definitely not a hijab cause she was completely hidden except for her hands.

heh.

What immediately went through my mind was a spear of anger and not for the reasons you are thinking.

Wanna bet?

Here was a person (benefit of the doubt cause I've never seen an ape that tall or any other animal capable of what the entity in the burka was doing) walking around in a store covered head to toe with only a small slit around the eyes to provide limited vision. And now I find myself irked for yet another reason, which I'll detail in a moment.

There was no way to see the person's face. I upset.

Not that I cared what the person looked like. Had the person been horrifically scarred, I still would not care what he or she looked like. I do not judge people on unintentional physical appearance. Intentional appearance is another matter.

I don't care if the person was male or female. I don't care that the garment was full length.

So says the vast majority of people

Why was I mad? 'Cause of a double standard, and not the one you're thinking of.

Had I walked into the same store wearing a slightly different outfit with my face completely covered, I could have been arrested. Why?

You can point to the obvious difference. One full body outfit is of a religious nature. The other, you can argue, is not. Pick a side. I can just as easily argue the other is of a religious nature.

You can also argue that one is embedded in hate and violence and subjugation and terror. I can argue the same thing with an equal amount of historical records to back my side up. Again, pick your side.

In fact, I point you to this report from the Southern Poverty Law Center which argues the Georgia Supreme Court decision I point to above. The author states  "the court emphasized that (the people who hide their faces) had a long record of "harassment, intimidation and violence against racial and religious minorities." I deleted the exact words to parenthetically insert my own to make you think.

Lemme be very clear here. I offer an equal amount of support to both groups of people who hide themselves when in public. Feel free to twist that statement however you wish; it's not going to change what I say.

If it is illegal for one group to go about in public with their faces hidden, it should be illegal for another group to go about in public with their faces hidden. The reasons for hiding are irrelevant.

The law should be equally applied. Carving out exceptions because you like or don't like what one group does is a double standard of the worst kind.

If one is wrong, both are. If one is right, both are.

Now for the reason which irked me as I write this column. I presume - could be wrong but I did not see the person escorted by someone else - this person would get behind the wheel of a vehicle wearing this outfit. It blocks peripheral vision and severely limits a line of sight. In short, this is a major hazard to the driver any passengers and other motorists.

If this person was not driving, then I have no complaint about that.

Of parastic wasps, text messages, sweat, pictures and sadness

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
This is not about religion, but discusses religion.

I was awake, but just laying there, when I got a text message Sunday morning. Joseph Neese, pastor at Christ Foundation Assembly of God, sent me a message saying he hoped to see me at church Sunday morning.

First time that's ever happened.

I recently stay out from one service cause I was exhausted. Had I gone to church, I'd have fallen asleep. As I sit on the front row, that's bad form - sleeping during church.  That afternoon, I got a message from Joseph saying he missed seeing me.

That is the second time anyone has ever contacted me about missing church on the same day I wasn't there.

This Sunday after church, I hauled out to a church out in the county. I had a 1:30 p.m. appointment to take a group picture of the congregation for a 100th year anniversary celebration. As happens from time to time in a charismatic church, services went long.

I stood in the lobby for quite a while, not willing to open the door and interrupt services.

One man came out, shook my hand, and asked whom I needed to see. I explained I was there for the picture. He nodded, attended his business and went back inside.

A short while later a lady came in from the outside. She asked if services were "about over." I replied I did not know and I was there to take pictures. She walked in.

Tired of sweating inside, no AC in the lobby, I stepped outside to sweat. I checked the time, intending to give the folks inside until a certain time and I was gone. I had a 2 p.m. meeting to get to.

Then, movement on the ground caught my eye. A 1-inch parasitic wasp was carrying a caterpillar. Bear with me, I have a point.

Not my picture. You get the idea though.

I was immediately entranced. I've seen these critters before and seen them carry caterpillars. Never seen what happened. I decided I'd stay until I saw what the wasp would do. I watched the insect leave her booty, fly around, test dig a couple of spots, come back, leave again and etc. I recalled from a documentary I once saw, the wasp memorized the terrain so it could find it's place. Really.

The wasp zoomed away, landing next to the church. It walked around and came back to the caterpillar. It carried the caterpillar, which probably weighed several times more than the wasp, to the edge of the church entrance ramp. There, it carefully uncovered a hole and hauled the hapless 'pillar down the hole. It backed out and dropped pebbles down the hole. It covered the remainder of the hole with dirt. Brilliant. Amazing. Awesome. Etc. What happens to the caterpillar?

Me, standing there with a macro focus zoom lens on a camera, did I get pictures of all this?

Nooooooooooooooooooooo!

Wotta idiot. I was just too fascinated with the byplay of nature taking place in front of me.

I walked away. As I was getting in my ride to leave, someone came out of the church and called my name. Services were over. Could I take the picture?

"I'm already late, but I can be a bit more late," I replied.

As the congregation filed out, I shook hands with the pastor and a gent known to my community as Coach or Chief. No one else offered. As none of these people were lawyers or politicians, I did not force myself on them.

A few minutes later the picture was taken. I left for my other meeting.

Had I not seen the wasp, I would have left, church picture untaken. You can call this serendipity if you wish.

Here's the sadness. Three people shook my hand. No one invited me in to the church. As I stood in the lobby, I immediate thought about the apocryphal story of the pastor who dressed as a bum and sat outside his own church. As I write this, I am reminded of an actual instance of the same thing.

The hell of it is, I'm guilty of the same exact thing.

The important stuff

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Renee posted this to FB yesterday. Also yesterday I was handed Charles' last column for the newspaper. These two are linked in via my amazing ability to find a common thread in just about everything.

The final deadline.

Charles died this week. I did not know, but he'd penned this column over a year ago. He asked I run it after he was gone. Going to. Next week's paper.

The photo story Renee linked to shows children from around the world with their most prized possessions. The narrative in the story is gripping and echoes the observations I've made while living and traveling in the United States.

This immediately made me think, what are my most prized possessions?

That, for me anyway, is easy. I found that out Jan. 30 of this year. As the local police, sheriff and GBI crawled all over my yard and poked around in two rooms of the house to gather evidence in the shooting, I sent my family to stay with my mother in another community. I told them to take anything they could not live without.

Just to add a different perspective

Then, I applied the same to myself. What were my most prized possessions. As children do not count as a possession and they were already safe, I looked over the rest.

I grabbed my father's recurve bow which he called Bear and the American Flag which flew over the US Army Headquarters in Afghanistan in my honor. It is a gift from my distant cousin David Bass. It still affects me greatly when I think of war, our military,  David, the flag and everything the combination means to me.

Dad's bow is one of the very few things he left me in this life. His other possessions - no, not going there. I do add some of his tools, some of my grandfather's tools and a fishing lure and wood from the house my great-grandfather built were put together to make a chess set for my brother's wedding gift. That's the one thing Shag will take.

So back to Jan. 30, 2013. Everything else, as I left the house that night, I expected to never see again. Thousands of books, some first editions, important papers, an enormous hat collection, some trophies on the wall, pictures and plenty of other items were left without a backward glance. Some of this stuff couldn't be replaced. Some could.

So why the bow and flag? If you don't understand now, then nothing I can add is going to explain it.

Demanding a double standard

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Government can take your money, by force, and give it to whomever the government wishes. If you object, tough. Gonna happen anyway.

If you attempt to give money to these same people, you will be arrested.

Explain the logic behind that.

My request for enlightenment applies to Damnocrats, Reboobicans, Cantservatives and Liarberals because they all support this double standard system. Explain please.

Lemme take this in a more specific direction.

Under federal law, a candidate for president can draw taxpayer dollars to help fund a campaign for office. There is a voluntary checkoff on your tax return to contribute to this fund. But this voluntary fund has pretty much never generated the amount of money that goes out to candidates.

In other words, you subsidize campaigns for people running for president whether you like them or not.

In other words, a candidate for president can take your tax dollars and use it to run for office. There is a limit on how much he can take. But he can do it, whether you like it or not.

In the past, your tax dollars have gone to support racists, socialists, idiots, rightists, leftists, other idiots, peaceniks, war hawks, different idiots and maybe the candidate you supported.

These politicians tapping the taxpayer well do have a limit on what they can draw. That limit is well above what you can directly give a candidate.

In other words, a politician can legally take your tax dollars, at lot of 'em, to run for office. But, if you give that same politician your money and if you give too much you can be arrested.

Why?

It's your money. Should you should be able to give it to whomever you wish and in whatever amounts you wish when it comes to a political campaign? Should government have the right to tell you where to send and spend your money?

In Citizens United, the Supreme Court justly kicked a set of campaign contribution laws to the curb. Now another legal challenge is headed to the Supremes. This one aims to eliminate the contribution limits for a person and a politician. As Jeffery Toobin says, SCOTUS is likely to kick the law limiting contributions to the curb as well.

I certainly hope so.

You should be able to spend your money as you see fit when it comes to supporting a politician's bid to be elected.

Anyone who objects to that should be viewed with much suspicion. Ask them what they are hiding and what they are afraid of. Ask them why your tax dollars can be taken by force, but it's illegal for you to do the same thing.

Don't expect a cogent reply.

The problem with young people

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The young lady who offered up the opinion below has not given me permission to tell the world her name or any other details which could be of interest. So, I merely share the comment:

I think that taxation is kind of like a loaded gun. If it is used wisely and carefully it can help a lot of people and the world. But if it is used all of the time and aggressively, it can do much more harm than good. I don't really pay taxes yet, so maybe my idea is not a good one.

Simply to make this record correct, this young lady does pay taxes, a lot of 'em but as she still lives with her moms and is in school, she doesn't pay a lot of attention to the taxes that inhabit her world and the taxes she really does pay. Such taxes are quite common and the vast majority of us also ignore them.

Sales tax. VAT - value added tax. Surcharges. Fuel tax. Etc. See chart above.

Most of us, when we set about the world's most monumental engineering project (raising hell) about taxes, we focus on income and property taxes. Looking at the pie chart above (just for Rebel!) that does make a lot of sense. Those two areas appear to account for the majority of the money we shell out to keep government (dys)functional.

Yep. I want one.

So set aside her comment about not paying taxes. Look at the rest of the comment.

Taxes = loaded gun

Left alone, it is totally harmless.

Lemme also interject here - There is no such thing as an unloaded gun. It does not exist. if you think an unloaded gun does exist, then you do not understand firearms.

The same rule applies to taxes. A tax must always be treated as if it dangerous.

Back to my young friend's observations:

Wise use = benefits
Irresponsible use = immense damage.

Danger and harm come in the use. As she points out, used wisely and with discretion, taxes are a good thing. It supports the military and provides veteran benefits. It pays the politicians (which I do believe is necessary). At the local level, taxes provide support for law enforcement, the court system, fire and EMS and so forth.

A gun can protect and feed a family. It does mine. My gun has put food on the table of many many many people I know.

Used improperly or without discretion and used by idiots we have things like foreign aid to countries that hate the United States. We have a Mexican drug war on our border, which combines the misuse of taxes and and guns. We have school shootings and an educational system that continues to slide backward.

Put taxes or a gun into the hands of an idiot and pandemonium ensues.

This is not the first wise observation my young friend has made. I do hope it won't be the last. In our political discussions, she brings a fresh and honest approach to a group of old curmudgeons (old enough to be her parents) who are generally so set in our ways we've become nearly immoveable objects. She is the irresistible force who trumps us more often than not.

I hope she never gets as cynical as the rest of us. Jen, dear, please keep your fresh attitude and never let the rest of us corrupt your thinking.

Now, if you'd like to join the debates and politics with us on Facebook, and get some insights from a young lady who's busy teaching her elders a few things or a google, look me up and add me. We have 2 rules: You may not insult anyone in the thread and you may not use excessive profanity.

Hail! Hail!

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
There are, as I noted previously, people who come into your life and make an impact. They become closer to you than your blood kin. Then, sometimes you part.

Promises to keep in touch are heartfelt at the time, but over time, well , it doesn't happen.

At least that is the way it used to be. Thanks to the Internet finding those people is now easier.

I've found James, Rebel, Hugh, Mary, Tom, Phil. And one more. Scooter is out there somewhere on the periphery. A few others are MIA. Still can't find Taka or 'Cilla, Beverly & Jeff, f'dangit.

Today (when I should have been working, but I could NOT think of an editorial), I gave it one more go to find one of the people I knew in college who was closer to me than some of my family.

I was not the first to look for him, nor was this is the first time I tried to find it.

Today, I found him. And not on Facebook. Turned out he created a LinkedIn profile some time back and left it up. I used that to track down the rest of the information I needed.

Egad.

It was like we'd never been apart for more than 20 years. We picked up right where we left off, excepting that we had plenty of memories to recall and had to update each other on our present lives.

Wow.

We now know how to find each other and have laid plans to get together as soon as joint schedules permit.

I am SO looking forward to that.

There are some people who are there for you, no matter. If you can't stand, they stand in your place. If you need support, you lean on them. If you need someone to stand by you, they've got your back. If you must stand and just don't want to, they make you stand.

Years do not break this bond. Departing this realm of existence may, but if there is an afterlife, I believe the bond will be as strong or stronger there.

Reconnecting with these folks is, well, I can't put it into words. If you've been there and done that, then you understand. If you've never gone through it, you can't understand.

So, welcome back to the fold Dennis. It's been to long. Lemme hear from you now & then and hurry up and get some spare time. The hogs need shootin', the guns need cleaning and the beer needs drinkin'.

Man, I missed you.

Well. I agree.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Page 1 of this week's newspaper has a callout quote which part of the staff here would prefer I had not included, or at least not plastered on Page 1.

The quote is: “... if she don’t get to be chief, we’re going to do like the black folks and have a riot. The blacks told me they will help.”        Trudy Craft

I have yet to hear from Ms. Craft.

I have, however, received 1 phone call from a lady. She said she objected to this because she and her daughter read the paper (WOOHOO!) and her daughter did not understand the comment. She said she had her daughter look up the word (WOOHOO!) "riot" to get a definition. She said she does not believe her daughter should have to read comments like that.

After the lady got finished speaking, and she was very polite, very direct and very calm, I said "Thank you for your comment." My reply was as sincere as I could make it 'cause I truly do like hearing from readers. It rocks.

reader feedback = AC/DC's '74 Jailbreak

Yanno what? I totally agree.

Her daughter should not have to live in a world where such comments are made. Her daughter should not have to live in a world where such comments make the news. Her daughter should not have to live in a world where people are judged by their tan line.

For that matter, my children should not have to live in such a world. Your children should not have to live in such a world. The children (if he has any) of the guy  hiding behind the corner and staring at you should not have to live in such a world.

No one should have to live in such a world.

However, we all do live in such a world.

As a journalist, it's my job to report the news, whether people want to read it or not and especially whether those making the news or not want to have it reported.

A politician reacts to one of my news stories.

As a journalist, I shed light on things which people would rather keep hidden. This sunshine, as we call it in Georgia, is a lot like regular sunlight to a traditional vampire.

Sunlight is a curative. It sterilizes. It heals. It drives away the bad. It welcomes the good.

So as for the comment plastered on Page 1, yeah I did it. Part of me took joy in posting the comment. That part is what delights in exposing hypocrisy, double-standards and bringing the truth to everyone. One of my college professors Jim Joseph remarked that "Ben delights in deflating stuffed shirts."

Guilty.

Part of me did not want the comment to be on Page 1, much less in the story. That same part was a bit aghast that the person would make such a comment in a public meeting.

But I have a duty to present the truth, reality and the facts. I'm gonna do it too.

And I know the cost.

That you and I and anyone else does not like reality, truth or facts will not change them. I regret the caller's daughter had to experience this reality.

But if we plan to change something, we must first admit it exists. Putting on rose-colored glasses and stayed chained to the wall means we are the bigger fool.

Ah, but I have chanted this refrain in the past. Likely I will continue to do so. As long as the world has the deliberately stupid, intentional morons and active idiots who prefer darkness, I will shed light on them and listen to them scream until I am no longer able.

This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.
Farewell, my blessing season this in thee!

Say on Say on.

Of paint, brushes and perceptions

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
This starts with, but is not about, politics.

Some political hay is being made over this story and the related stories within it. There are two major flaws with the argument as presented here.

1) True followers of Ayn Rand are not Reboobican nor Damnocrat. They are Libertarians. The Cantservative crowd may have co-opted part of Rand's message, but they also corrupted it along the way.

2) True followers of AR believe each state should keep its money and not be subsidizing other states. Voluntary contributions made by private folks are an entirely separate matter and one which true AR followers have no opinion on.

This has not stopped people from passing this story around like a blunt at a Grateful Dead concert.

But then, misinformation is always easier to handle than the truth.

The author of this story I link to has this to say about the late Ms. Rand: "Ayn Rand's novels divided the world into two groups" which she decries. She then proceeds to lump everyone else into one of two groups. Her's, of course, is the superior side.

You may paint anyone with a brush and color of your choosing. That does not change who they are. It merely colors your perspective of them.

If you like to paint people, as Ms. Robinson, Ms. Rand and so many others do, then I wonder what you are telling the world about yourself.

Why do you feel the need to put people into neatly defined categories regardless of whether they fit there or not?

I ask that admitting I do the same thing. So I have an obligation to answer. It makes things easier to handle. Try to handle 15 puppies at once and you can't do it. But the 15 pooches in a box and suddenly you can handle them. For that matter, any 15 animals can be shoved in a box and suddenly become far more manageable.

What those boxed animals do to each other is an entirely different matter. In case you wonder what will happen, look around because it happens every day. There's a reason violence is more common in urban environments.

I get off subject. Apologies.

Take a look at yourself. You have a belief structure that has a lot in common with a lot of other people. At the same time, it's different what a lot of people believe. It's probably diametrically opposite to what some others believe.

One of the great SF writers (I forget who) said if an alien race were to land here and look at the various religions across the world, that alien very likely would say 99 percent of us believe the same thing. If you can be objective enough to stand back and take a galactic view, I think you'd agree.

That's another reason we group people together. It's why our brush is broad enough to encompass an entire world and it lays on a uniform color.

But stepping down from that view and getting a little closer, differences become apparent. The tighter your view, the more differences become apparent and visible and important. If you're willing to focus on an individual and then compare that person to another individual, the differences are broad enough to be galactic in scale.

We're willing to admit to these differences in the small group of people we personally know. And this is why our brush is narrow enough to paint an individual in a color of that person's choosing. But that paint still has highlights of our choosing.

That person still has to fit a mold and we're going to make sure we jam them into it. The person may be close to being a perfect fit. Close only counts in horseshoes, grenades and nuclear war.

Then too, some people demand to be considered as part of group. They want to be painted with the same color that matches others. They find security in a crowd. So do anchovies and it's a strategy that works until the whales come around.

The point is, every person is an individual. I'm not you and you are not me (for which you should give continuous thanks). Even when we come together, even when we ask to be the same color if we look close enough each of us has a slightly different hue or shade.

So why can't we just accept people as individuals? Let's abandon the mob mentality that makes us lump people into groups which we either accept or reject.

No, it's not gonna be easy. But lemme ask you this: Is anything really worth doing ever easy?

To get political on you in closing, paint me camouflage if you must paint me any color. 

Because this ain't a Red and Blue only issue.

Flash by LE Modesitt - a book review

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

LE Modesitt Jr.has cranked out a number of books. I've read several, but Flash is better than the others I've read.

Modesitt puts his book well into the future. Except for clones running around, a self-aware computer  and a far better use of TiVo than people manage today, this might as well be today.  There's a lot in this novel which reminds of RAH's work and I could be persuaded that it provided a tiny bit of inspiration for Jim Butcher's work with The Dresden Files.

The hero of the story is Jonat deVrai, the world's leading expert on the effectiveness of product placement in entertainment. What we know as commercials are so close to dead as makes no difference. Product Placement is what drives sales and just like today, companies want to know how well their campaign is doing.

The United States is no longer, having possibly gone through a world war and the world definitely gone through global warming. The US emerges beaten, battered, etc etc. What's left of the North American continent is now consolidated as is most of the rest of the world.

Giant corporations are taking over government. The hero deVrai is used as a pawn by several corps aiming to get their own biz-friendly candidates into office. When he catches the idea, he's suddenly a too-hot commodity and must be eliminated.

 I quite enjoyed this book on a number of levels, but was also left disappointed. In the words of one reviewer on Amazon,  "The problem - unusual for Modesitt - is that the world he builds up doesn't quite support the characters."

I am again reminded of Harry Dresden and Peter Parker, the Amazing SpiderMan. These two fictional characters have something in common which deVrai is lacking. Dresden and Parker are thrust, against their will, in situations they would massively prefer to avoid. But being there, they are going to do their best. Along the way, they get stomped, mashed, clobbered, rejected, dejected, insulted, vilified, and are treated worse than a doormat. They also suffer tremendous a repeated crisis of conscience.

They are Underdog! and we love them for it.

deVrai ain't. He gets whopped with a neural whip once, but it doesn't flatten him. It barely slows him down. deVrai charges into battle and stomps prit near everything in his path. He doesn't show remorse over the people he whacks. When his sister and brother in law are killed and he's given custody of a niece and nephew, it comes across as more of an annoyance than anything else.

What I do like about this book is - SPOILER ALERT - is how it ended. deVrai has killed all the major enemies but one. She's left alive, very much in charge and still has the capability to take deVrai out. At the same time, he's got enough dirt on her that if she does, she's also the next candidate for a total brain wipe.

The book ends with a VERY uneasy and an incredibly unstable truce. There is no resolution. The monster in the closet (very real) is still in the closet and for all the beatings it took, it's almost completely healed and ready to come charging back out. deVrai, having met the monster and fought to a truce, is ready to go again if needed, but in Round II, there's no way of telling who'll come out on top.

No resolution and it's clear there's no resolution. I like that enough to recommend this book because that at least is different.

Your mileage may vary.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Crost my news feed today came this blog:

http://itspronouncedmetrosexual.com/2012/05/list-of-examples-of-christian-privileg/

Intrigued, I electronically hopped over and eyeballed. As expected, this writer got some things wrong, decidedly wrong, from my perspective. In case you wonder, I am a Christian and a minister. I am also a newspaper publisher.

So here ya go:

1. Nope. I’m always on call. Never know when I’m gonna be called to work. The only time I’m truly off duty is when I’m out of state.

2. Can’t speak to TV any more. Don’t watch it. Music, yes. But so is music representing every other religion which has music. It’s called The Internet.

3. Yep.

4. Yep.

5. Yep.

6. Nope. Violence is more that physical. I’ve been the recipient of violence because of my beliefs and the way I practice them.

7. Dunno. Don’t have such a bumper sticker. But I doubt it.

8. Nope. See 6 above.

9. <snort>. As if. So, no.

10. Nope.

11. In some places.

12. Faith is a tricky thing. I prefer to watch what people do than listen to what they say. That being the case, most emphatically No.

13. Not any more.

14. Beyond question, no. The average Christian is clueless about what the Bible actually says.

15. See 14 above.

16. Not sure how to answer this one.

17. Yup.

18. Nope.

19. Not totally.

20. Mmmm, in my case, sometimes.

21. Anyone who is polite, gentle and peaceful is an exception to their religion’s history.

22. Nope.

23. Nope. Can be stopped.

24. So far, yes.

25. See Nos. 12 and 14 above.

26. As 25.

27. As 26, 25, 14 and 12.

28. Not in the community in which I live.

29. Dunno. No experience in adoption.

30. See 29.

31. Not to my knowledge.

32. A bit unclear here, but I tend toward no. But I also see agnosticism and atheism as a faith.

33. Nope.

Call it like I sees it.

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

The Church of God International (which still holds my church membership for the time being) has issued the following statement regarding the two SCOTUS decisions:

Further, the Church addresses the critical issue of Moral Purity by asserting,

Our body is the temple of the Holy Ghost, and we are to glorify God in our body (Romans 12:1, 2 ; 1 Corinthians 6:19, 20; 10:31). We are to walk in the Spirit and not fulfill the lust of the flesh (Galatians 5:16). Examples of fleshly behavior which do not glorify God are noted in several passages of scripture (Romans 1:24; 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10; Galatians 5:19-21; Revelations 21:8). Sinful practices which are made prominent in these scriptures include homosexuality, adultery, worldly attitudes (such as hatred, envy, jealousy), corrupt communication (such as gossip, angry outbursts, filthy words), stealing, murder, drunkenness, and witchcraft.

“…fleshly behavior which do not glorify God…” & etc.

Having attended services in several COG churches, including services at the state headquarters and seen licensed and certified church pastors within the COG, I ask:

When is the Church of God going to require its pastors to live up to this code in its entirety?

If the church is going to selectively enforce this code (which is being done now), who gets to choose which parts are enforced and why?

Why are certified COG pastors allowed to continued to violate some tenets of the Bible and retain their license violations of other parts result in their license being revoked?

The Bible says there are two kinds of sin: forgivable and one unforgivable. Is the COG delineating further categories of sin?

A pastor weighing 100 pounds or more more than he should is not building a temple which glorifies God. A pastor who smokes is not supporting a temple which glorifies God.

I have personally witnessed COG pastors fly off the handle. I have seen them have worldly attitudes, chasing after the physical possessions of this world. I have seen them walk in ways Jesus told us to avoid. I have seen jealousy. I was pushed aside by a COG pastor because of what he thought I was doing.

You reading this may wonder why the COG still holds my membership. Most days when I think about that, I wonder too. Then I remember, I'm just as imperfect as these people I mention, possibly and probably worse. I'm certainly no better than they are. Like them, I'm trying to do better.

I could judge the COG here, but then I'd need the entire COG membership from the entire world to help me get back on my feet.

So why does the COG have my membership (provided I'm not kicked out after this is read)? 2,000 years ago, one man made a difference. In 1966, one man made a difference. In 1996 and 1997, one man made a difference. Every day, one man makes a difference. I'm one man. I hope to make a difference yet again.

Love each other. Let God take care of judging people for their sins.

The war continues

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
There's a LOT of misconceptions about yesterdays two Supreme Court rulings. I've read some excellent news stories on them and some opinions that ranged from accurate and factual to ones that are full of misunderstanding.

Mike L at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution nailed this one perfectly.

Here's what was decided.

1) Homosexual couples who are legally married have rights to federal benefits.

2) Those defending California's proposition didn't have the right to do so.

DISCOURSE ON RULING 1

Here's a piece that does pretty good job of explaining what the first decision means. It does have profanities. There are errors in it.

This is cool.

"If You Are Currently in a Heterosexual Marriage: This decision does not affect you in any way."

Not true. This may be a fine point, but hey! that's how lawyers make a living. See Ruling 2. The first SCOTUS decision gives homosexual partners equal rights and access to federal benefits.


Who pays for federal benefits? Taxpayers. If you are a heterosexual taxpayer, then part of you taxes will go to providing benefits for partners in homosexual marriages.  This affects you.

If a homosexual couple seeks marriage or divorce under a state's laws, the marriage license may pay for all the paperwork and employee salaries needed to officially record it, but I doubt it. Taxpayer dollars cover the difference. A divorce, through the courts, also relies on taxpayer dollars to support the infrastructure needed.

DISCOURSE ON RULING 2

SCOTUS dodged the issue (wusses) by saying those who defended it do not have standing to do so. If the State of California decides to defend the referendum, then the proposition can go live again until SCOTUS hears the case, again.

Personally I think the Supremes using a legal dodge to avoid a ruling is so much a sack of fresh fertilizer.

DISCOURSE IN GENERAL

So, do homosexuals have the right to marry?

SHORT ANSWER

It depends on what state they are in. Some states allow it. Some don't.

LONG ANSWER

States which have a man-wife marriage only law or constitutional amendment are now Ground Zero in this battle. Both sides are gearing up for what should be the final battle. SCOTUS should take one of these cases and rule. I wonder if they will.

This non ruling is gonna make a lot more lawyers rich.

Here's the problem. Say Fred and George or Sue and Jan get married in Washington State. They then move to Mississippi and while there, decide they hate each other. They file for divorce. Mississippi, being a state that specifically does not allow homosexual marriage, doesn't admit the two are married to begin with. No marriage, no divorce.

Oy.

Let's compound this problem. Ruling 1 says homosexual couples are entitled to all the federal rights and benefits as heterosexual couples. This includes economics, which was the base reason behind U.S. v Windsor. This case was about TAXES (economics). This case was about actual and provable harm one person suffered because of unequal treatment under the law.

SCOTUS has repeated ruled federal law trumps state law.

So. Let's throw the biggest monkey wrench of all into this morass.


Article I, Section 8, Clause 3: [The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;


This is the "interstate commerce clause" which gives Congress the right to regulate economic transactions which cross state lines. US. v Windsor is about economics. Congress has the right to regulate it.

Like it or not, marriage has a LOT to do with economics. Think inheritance, insurance, tax refunds and other benefits. These also cross state lines.

Furthermore, some licenses can cross state lines and be effective. Think driving in Alaska on a Maryland driver's license. Some licenses do not. Think medical, lawyer and some others.

Wednesday's rulings are a partial victory. A battle was won. The war rages on. Certainly only an idiot can't see which way the tide is running, but only an idiot forgets while the tide goes out, after a while it also comes in.

This ain't over.

American Gods by Neil Gaiman - a book review

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

My edition of this book has a short interview in the back with Gaiman and a series of book discussion questions. I suspect this is because the book was such a major hit and wound up in book circles being discussed.

I skipped the questions. Read the interview.

While this book managed to nab a stack of major awards, I'm not so impressed. Explain in a moment.

The premise is a sort of Ragnarok with the old world gods, Thor, Ganesh, Horus, etc getting ready to pitch down with new world gods, Media, Technology, etc. The protagonist, Shadow, is pulled into the fray and only at the end do we learn exactly why.

Gaiman does a good job of overlaying a critique of modern society on a somewhat historical perspective. His character development is pretty good, ranging to amazing in a couple of points. But I just could not believe Shadow was the main man. I kept expecting Gaiman to pull a George R.R. Martin and Shadow would really be a shadow and dead.

The author even discusses, in the interview section, Shadow did not lend himself to a tremendous amount of character development. An ex con who got paroled and was a model prisoner, Shadow walks through the story line following directions and showing little to no initiative. In that sense, Shadow is the perfect example of the American populace he's meant to emulate in the novel. Do this, don't do that and when you don't have orders, be as invisible as possible.

Shadow's redemption at the end is too little too late and, just like the society he represents, can't put forth the sustained effort to make a real difference and effect real change.

Call me jaded and cynical, but when I read a book of fiction, especially one that grabs the Nebula and Hugo, I expect more than what I already see and know about my fellow Americans. Failing that, I want to see something that makes me want to get involved.

Frankly, I could have put this book down at any point and walked away without looking back. I didn't because Gaiman also wrote Neverwhere, a book I've read several times and one which continues to stir me intensely.

What I do very very very much appreciate about American Gods is Gaiman is fresh. Rather than rewrite the same book, as far too many authors do, the author takes a new slant, a new approach, new characters and heads off into new directions. That, and Neverwhere, is why I did read through the book.