.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
It may be a deeply bred sense of responsibility. It may be age. I'm chalking this one up to middle age.
To 'splain:
www.BakerBrosPR.com
This is the writing company I own with my brother. We write. Pick a topic and we've probably written about it. Not kidding either.
What we've written over the years goes up to master's level dissertations. Not done that or any kind of more advanced writing yet, but we did get a request to do a Master's paper. When the guy was quoted the price he declined. I suspect he had to push his eyeballs back into place too.
We have a pretty big client based in Europe. Assignments coming across the pond have a specific word length for the articles. In an effort to hit that mark, I went searching one day for a word counter online.
I found Word Counter. 'Mazing how that just happened to have the very words I was looking for.
So I have been using this for a while. It counts words, characters and even gives you a keyword saturation count. For the work we sometimes do, this saturation is critical. So, I'm using this site and over the weekend I noticed there's a tip jar on the site.
Hrm. Now years ago, I'd have seen this tip jar, chuckled and went on about my business.
This stuck with me all weekend. So when I fired up PayPal on Sunday evening, I first put a fiver in the line. I looked at it for a while. I changed it to a $10.
The service is worth the $10 I sent to 'em.
I also use my freelance money to kick a bit toward Georgia Public Radio and Irock109. In years past, I would not have. I'da reasoned it's a free service and I'll ride that horse til it's dead. Now? I feel an obligation to support, as limited as it is, this kind of service.
I appreciate what they do, I know it costs money and I believe if I use it, I should pay. As much as it bothers me to admit it, this kind of economy I participate in is exactly what Ayn Rand promoted.
I am so middle-aged. I just hope I'm a better student of the human condition than Rand ever was.
The views in this blog are not those of people who can't think for themselves and rely on others to think for them. For that matter, the views expressed here may not be those of people who CAN think for themselves, but it comes extremely close.
Monday, October 14, 2013
Thursday, October 10, 2013
A most excellent question!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Meantime, some of my thoughts.
If I am walking down the street and someone comes up and demands money to spend on things I don't approve of and threatens me with physical violence if I do not give him this money, is this legal?
If I am walking down the street and the same man comes up to me, makes the same demand and the same threats and has an IRS badge, is this legal?
As above, but the man now has an IRS badge and a warrant for my arrest for not giving him the money. Is this legal?
What, really, is the difference? The end result is the same; my money has been taken from me against my will upon threat of violence and used for ends I do not support.
The difference, apparently, is robbery becomes legal when institutionalized by government. For that matter, a whole lot of what government does is legal ONLY because it's a fiat from government. How's that for tautology. If you or I try to do the same thing, it is illegal.
What gives you the right to take what I have? Careful how you answer because it can be used against you and will when I come to take your stuff.
"Less fortunate" you say? A man goes out and works all day long while someone else sits on a front porch all day long and the porch sitter is "less fortunate?" OK, that was an easy one.
A man works all day and through no fault of his own suddenly can't work any more. Why should people who do not know him be forced to support him? Why is he more important than a starving child in Africa? Why should I be threatened with violence if I choose to not support him?
The only way to answer these questions is through a moral code. Which begs another question: What makes your moral code superior to mine? Why should your morals be codified into the law and mine rejected? Caveat - my moral code says intentional violence against others cannot be permitted. Taking my money against my will on threat of violence is intentional violence.
"It's the right thing to do" as you may say is a moral statement. I can reply, "It is not the right thing to do" and my words are just as valid as yours.
Some people (Hi Renee) like to point to Jesus and His commands. Mention was made that Jesus tossed the money changers out of the temple. Not entirely sure how that fits into this discussion, but that was said and I pass it along.
Jesus never said government should feed the masses. Jesus said His followers should engage in charity. As for the money changers, He knocked their money to the dirt. He didn't take any of it. Jesus never took from anyone who was not first willing to give. (See how I tied that right back in?)
Choice is what I, you, we and the guy who just ducked around the corner so you won't see him when you turn around. Unfortunately, having the option of inflicting violence on someone who won't go along with you is also a choice. Is that fair? Just? If so, who gets to make that rule and what happens if someone comes along and has enough power to change that rule?
So where is the fairness and social justice due me when I am threatened with violence if I refuse to give?
Tuesday, October 8, 2013
The stupidity of term limits
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Major rant incoming.
Every time I hear someone say "We need term limits" I reply "We have term limits. They're called elections."
This immediately results in the person saying we don't have term limits, politicians buy elections and so on and so on.
Really?
A few questions.
• Do you really want government telling you whom you can and cannot vote for? We're at war with countries right now which have this kind of system.
• If you say politicians buy the elections, then why are you selling your vote?
• If you object to long term politicians, why do you vote for them?
• Do you know who ran for office, all of 'em, in the last election?
• What do you know about the "third party" candidates?
• Are you smart enough to make up your own mind or do you need more government oversight?
Now that I have offended people, lemme ask the real question: Are you stupid enough to really believe term limits are effective?
Yes, term limits keeps the president limited to two terms. How many of you would vote for Ronald Reagan (were he still alive and capable) for president again? How many of you would vote for Bill Clinton again?
Yeah. Thought so. Poll after poll after poll, and more importantly actual elections, shows incumbents are supported and get back into office. "Politicians are the problem, but MY politician ain't part of the problem." So says you in election after election.
You don't really want term limits. What you want is the ability to limit all the other voters choices. You want NIMBY limits. In other words, control what other people do and leave you the hell alone.
You probably complain there's too much money in politics, too much in the campaigns and only the rich and well-connected to the rich people can get into office.
Ummmm, 'scuse me but for whom did you vote in the last election?
Pork barrel spending is how politicians stay in the news when no controversy is brewing. They tout their accomplishments in "bringing home the bacon" from the seat of government. "They don't understand why we need this, must have this. It's getting our just returns BACK from the taxes we pay."
Yeah, it takes seniority to get the big bucks flowing back to a district. Neophytes and freshmen don't have that kinda pull. Gotta send him back to keep that river of cash flowing and it's damned well time to cut government grants and handouts to those idiots who can't manage their own money.
How much do you know, that you can back up with facts, about the candidates for the most recent election. The farther removed you are from the election, the less you know. You may know a great deal about the people running for City Council or School Board. How about state legislature? Congress? President?
Tell me how much you know, which is fact-based, based on his voting record, based on statements he has made which can be verified about any candidate for federal office. How about Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, who ran for president. For that matter, gimme the same on ANY candidate for president other than Mitt Romney or the current liar in chief. Now tell me the same about ANY candidate for president who was not on the Reboobican primary ticket.
I knew you couldn't.
"Those guys can't get elected."
THAT is not the biggest cop-out I have ever heard, but it's in the top 5. No, "those guys" can't get elected in an electorate which insists on being spoon fed information and believes attack ads on TV while refusing to do even a tiny amount of research. I've long been told "you get what you pay for."
The facts are out there. The information is out there. You don't want to assimilate it. You do not want to learn about the people who make the decisions that will affect your life. This is not ignorance. This is sheer unadulterated STUPIDITY.
HELP WANTED: Must be able to think for those who refuse to do so themselves. Must be willing to accept large amounts of cash from donors. Must be willing to endure ridicule, abuse and scorn while doing exactly what you were hired to do. Must be willing to demonize certain people in public while having supper and drinks with them when the media isn't watching. Must be willing to complain, moan, whine and point the finger at colleagues while refusing to take any blame. Must be willing to reapply for the job periodically, with a 90 percent chance of being rehired.
We offer a modest salary, sometimes not enough to keep everything running which you must have to hold the office, generous retirement, plenty of perks on the side which you'll need, but we reserve the right to raise hell about this. We're not going to think this through, you see.
To apply, run for office.
You don't want term limits. You want rights limits. You want to be excused from thinking for yourself. You want to be able to complain about things you refuse to understand. You want to complain about not having rights while handing those rights away. You complain about big government while demanding more government. You don't trust government while handing more and more of yourself to government every day. And you want term limits? You want this selfsame government which you so despise to tell you that you can't vote for someone?
What you really want is an abdication of responsibility.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Major rant incoming.
Every time I hear someone say "We need term limits" I reply "We have term limits. They're called elections."
This immediately results in the person saying we don't have term limits, politicians buy elections and so on and so on.
Really?
A few questions.
• Do you really want government telling you whom you can and cannot vote for? We're at war with countries right now which have this kind of system.
• If you say politicians buy the elections, then why are you selling your vote?
• If you object to long term politicians, why do you vote for them?
• Do you know who ran for office, all of 'em, in the last election?
• What do you know about the "third party" candidates?
• Are you smart enough to make up your own mind or do you need more government oversight?
Now that I have offended people, lemme ask the real question: Are you stupid enough to really believe term limits are effective?
NIMBY LIMITS
Yes, term limits keeps the president limited to two terms. How many of you would vote for Ronald Reagan (were he still alive and capable) for president again? How many of you would vote for Bill Clinton again?
Yeah. Thought so. Poll after poll after poll, and more importantly actual elections, shows incumbents are supported and get back into office. "Politicians are the problem, but MY politician ain't part of the problem." So says you in election after election.
You don't really want term limits. What you want is the ability to limit all the other voters choices. You want NIMBY limits. In other words, control what other people do and leave you the hell alone.
VOTES FOR SALE
You probably complain there's too much money in politics, too much in the campaigns and only the rich and well-connected to the rich people can get into office.
Ummmm, 'scuse me but for whom did you vote in the last election?
WELL CONNECTED
Or, the Science of Cognitive Dissonance
Yeah, it takes seniority to get the big bucks flowing back to a district. Neophytes and freshmen don't have that kinda pull. Gotta send him back to keep that river of cash flowing and it's damned well time to cut government grants and handouts to those idiots who can't manage their own money.
IGNORANCE IS BLISS
Tell me how much you know, which is fact-based, based on his voting record, based on statements he has made which can be verified about any candidate for federal office. How about Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, who ran for president. For that matter, gimme the same on ANY candidate for president other than Mitt Romney or the current liar in chief. Now tell me the same about ANY candidate for president who was not on the Reboobican primary ticket.
I knew you couldn't.
"Those guys can't get elected."
THAT is not the biggest cop-out I have ever heard, but it's in the top 5. No, "those guys" can't get elected in an electorate which insists on being spoon fed information and believes attack ads on TV while refusing to do even a tiny amount of research. I've long been told "you get what you pay for."
The facts are out there. The information is out there. You don't want to assimilate it. You do not want to learn about the people who make the decisions that will affect your life. This is not ignorance. This is sheer unadulterated STUPIDITY.
NANNY NEEDED
We offer a modest salary, sometimes not enough to keep everything running which you must have to hold the office, generous retirement, plenty of perks on the side which you'll need, but we reserve the right to raise hell about this. We're not going to think this through, you see.
To apply, run for office.
TERM LIMITS
What you really want is an abdication of responsibility.
Friday, October 4, 2013
Publish, Perish Or Just Make Stuff Up And Publish Anyway
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I had a lit teacher in college who told us one day he'd not gotten a raise in a while because he hadn't managed to get anything published. In the world of advanced academia, you get ahead by getting your work published. "Publish or perish" is the byword.
I have to be boring for just a moment. Bear with me.
The Internet has made this ever more easier, especially where really complicated stuff is concerned. It used to be that for specialty magazines in sciences, an annual subscription could cost as much as $10,000. Yeah. 10 grand for a mag that came out a few times a year.
These publications are also "peer reviewed" meaning other people in the same field review the articles before they are printed. The reviewers do everything short of using physical flame throwers to make the paper and the work in it shrivel and die like a real vampire exposed to the sun. Solid science, except when it's not and the "peer-reviewed" work is later shown to be more full of holes than the federal budget.
Yeah.
Anyway, the Internet has now made science and scholarly journals even more of a joke than Sarah Palin. I heard the author of one such junk paper interviewed in NPR this morning. His "research" was a "drug" derived from lichens. The way he described the paper, even I could have seen it was a joke.
 |
| She blinded me with SCIENCE! Oy. I'm old. |
One thing that should raise a red flag about these publications is they charge the author to publish the report.
Less you think this is just an issue of these "open source" science journals, I have two things for you to consider.
Bohannon (the author of the faked report) and others also stressed that open-access journals are not the only unscrupulous ones. David Roos, a biologist at the University of Pennsylvania, told Bohannon that if the sting had “targeted the bottom tier of traditional, subscription-based journals… I strongly suspect you would get the same result.” WorldScience.net per link above
The top tier folks are not spotless either.
Industry giants like the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) charge outrageous subscription fees. At that, JAMA and all the big publications do not have clean hands. They have all been forced to repudiate a previously published article. This is rare, but it happens.
The most recent and most famous is the British Medical Journal Lancet article on vaccinations and autism. Despite being roundly shot down all over the place, the article was accepted, published and considered authoritative. It's still cited by people as authoritative.
Applying the "one bad apple" maxim to this, it casts doubt on the entire scholarly publishing industry.
Who ya gonna trust?
It appears, based on "science" we are entitled to our own facts.
Which brings me to an ancillary point. In other words, I'm heading off in yet another direction.
You may infer from this and other articles I've written about science that I don't trust science. You are partly correct. I have a deep distrust of science, scientists and so forth who speak in absolutes as if they are handing down the ultimate law of the universe. These people, I lump into the same category as the people who wear tinfoil hats and claim to have alien radio receivers embedded in their teeth.
There are scientists who I do trust and respect. They make their case and usually end with a statement like this: "Based on what we know right now." These people are willing to admit things can change. New evidence must be evaluated and that could change the "facts." Science, throughout the history of science, has repeatedly changed the "facts" to match new information and evidence. I can accept that.
What I will not accept (which in itself is hypocritical) is absolutism.
Tuesday, October 1, 2013
He asked
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
This one has been knocking about in the grey matter for a while, years in fact. Today whilst listening to the Traveling Wilburys (the greatest Super Group of all time), I decided it's time to put it down.
We all know the story of the prodigal son. If ya don't know the story, click the link. Now that we're all up to speed more or less, I draw your attention to the end of the story. At the end, the son who never left asked the father why he didn't get such things as the returning son. Dad explained all the son had to do was ask.
The implication is the son never asked.
What if the son did ask?
Yevver been there?
Pick one of the three people. Dad. Prodigal Son. Other Son.
Me, I'm taking the side of the Other Son today. I do not refer to my biological family in this piece.
Been there, done that. Dutiful son. Showed up. Worked. Did what I was asked to do.
P.S. departed. Packed up and hauled out for parts unknown. Said wasn't coming back and threw his house key at me & Dad.
Dad looked at me. I looked at Dad. I said, "Well, I'll be glad to step in and pick up the slack. What he was doing, I can do."
Dad looked at me.
I then offered to do other things. He continued to look at me. Bear in mind I was not asking him to kill the fat calf for a party for me. Rather, I was offering to step up and take care of things that needed to be handled. I was doing this because those things needed doing. Yes, this did include taking on more responsibilities and would have elevated me in the family's overall hierarchy. I wasn't after that, but there to help.
Dad walked away. I shrugged my shoulders and went back to what I had been doing. We all trucked along, things not getting done, despite my offering to step in again. Things did head into negative territory in a bloody hurry too.
P.S. returned to much fanfare. He was immediately restored to his positions, duties and responsibilities, even though he left and specifically said he wanted nothing to do with it any more.
Before you accuse me of being resentful, lemme say right here. I was.
I stayed. He left. I asked. I was denied. P.S. comes back and without asking is put right back to where he was before he left as if nothing ever happened.
I admit to some mild resentment over this. However, my major issue was that I did ask and I was denied and rejected. He comes back and goes right back to what he was doing before.
Lemme ask you, what would your reaction be under these circumstances?
Saturday, September 28, 2013
And what's your priority?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I have a question for you.
Why do some people rail against pornography?
Lemme answer that for you. The biggest objection in my neck of the woods, The Bible Belt, is that is a sin. Those who do not have religious objections say it reduces people, women mostly, to nothing more than a sex object and removes the humanness. A third common objection is that it desensitizes people and gives them a distorted sense of values.
As for point No. 1, your religion is not everyone's religion. You have no more right to force your religion and religious values on other people than they have the right to force their religion and religious values on you.
Same goes for morality.
On point 2, well, not being a woman, I can't speak from that perspective. Not being in the porn industry, I can't speak to that either. Being human (despite many protests to the contrary), I have a LOT to say about this and I will in just a minute. Need to dispense with point 3 before I do that.
Point three and the human part of point two are inextricably linked. For that matter, so is the objection found in religious matters.
So, here's where I make my point.
These people who rant, rave, scream and holler about porn and demand boycotts, file lawsuits and so on — well lemme share these three links which I absolutely assure you are not porn. Can't be. These video clips aired on network television, some of it broadcast which means it CANNOT be porn. I remind you these clips were seen in hundreds of thousands of homes.
Clip 1 http://abcnews.go.com/US/video/colorado-gunmans-shooting-caught-on-tape-19241141
Clip 2 http://video.foxnews.com/v/4676014/chilling-shootout-caught-on-tape/
Clip 3 http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/dash-cam-video-ak-47-shootout-19110754
Real video of real people being killed. On television news shows.
Boycotts? Screams of outrage? Anyone file a lawsuit?
Speak up now! Come on, lemme hear you, especially those of you who view porn as disgusting, obscene, vile, sin and a few dozen semi loads of negative adjectives.
[the sound of crickets chirping]
"People much wiser than I am have said, 'I'd rather have my son watch a film with two people making love than two people trying to kill one another.' I, of course, can agree. It is a great sentence. I wish I knew who said it first," said the late George Carlin.
I personally know people who can, will and do watch the above kind of news clip and don't even think about it. They can watch a movie full of Hollywood deaths and say what a great flick it was. You know 'em too.
I have heard preacher after preacher take to the pulpit and decry porn. I have yet to hear one rail against network news shows showing people being killed.
[Can somebody please catch those crickets and turn 'em into fish bait?]
Show these same people and the preachers a Playboy magazine and they have an apoplectic fit. You know 'em too.
Self restraint prevents me from typing out the string of invectives (which many would call obscene) I want to use to describe these hypocrites.
Riddle me this — which is more destructive to humanness:
1) Seeing people have sex.
2) Seeing people kill each other.
Talk about FUBAR'd priorities.
In closing lemme ask you this. If you agree that seeing a real person be killed is horrific and by comparison seeing people have sex is nothing all, what's on your TV tonight? (I don't watch TV, in case you wonder and my Internet viewing is documentaries, hunting, fishing and Taufledermaus on YouTube.)
Ah...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I have a question for you.
Why do some people rail against pornography?
Lemme answer that for you. The biggest objection in my neck of the woods, The Bible Belt, is that is a sin. Those who do not have religious objections say it reduces people, women mostly, to nothing more than a sex object and removes the humanness. A third common objection is that it desensitizes people and gives them a distorted sense of values.
As for point No. 1, your religion is not everyone's religion. You have no more right to force your religion and religious values on other people than they have the right to force their religion and religious values on you.
 |
| Perspective matters. |
Same goes for morality.
On point 2, well, not being a woman, I can't speak from that perspective. Not being in the porn industry, I can't speak to that either. Being human (despite many protests to the contrary), I have a LOT to say about this and I will in just a minute. Need to dispense with point 3 before I do that.
Point three and the human part of point two are inextricably linked. For that matter, so is the objection found in religious matters.
So, here's where I make my point.
These people who rant, rave, scream and holler about porn and demand boycotts, file lawsuits and so on — well lemme share these three links which I absolutely assure you are not porn. Can't be. These video clips aired on network television, some of it broadcast which means it CANNOT be porn. I remind you these clips were seen in hundreds of thousands of homes.
 |
| As reliable as all the others. |
Clip 1 http://abcnews.go.com/US/video/colorado-gunmans-shooting-caught-on-tape-19241141
Clip 2 http://video.foxnews.com/v/4676014/chilling-shootout-caught-on-tape/
Clip 3 http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/dash-cam-video-ak-47-shootout-19110754
Real video of real people being killed. On television news shows.
Boycotts? Screams of outrage? Anyone file a lawsuit?
Speak up now! Come on, lemme hear you, especially those of you who view porn as disgusting, obscene, vile, sin and a few dozen semi loads of negative adjectives.
[the sound of crickets chirping]
"People much wiser than I am have said, 'I'd rather have my son watch a film with two people making love than two people trying to kill one another.' I, of course, can agree. It is a great sentence. I wish I knew who said it first," said the late George Carlin.
 |
| I wanna catch the bream that can eat this one. |
I personally know people who can, will and do watch the above kind of news clip and don't even think about it. They can watch a movie full of Hollywood deaths and say what a great flick it was. You know 'em too.
I have heard preacher after preacher take to the pulpit and decry porn. I have yet to hear one rail against network news shows showing people being killed.
[Can somebody please catch those crickets and turn 'em into fish bait?]
Show these same people and the preachers a Playboy magazine and they have an apoplectic fit. You know 'em too.
Self restraint prevents me from typing out the string of invectives (which many would call obscene) I want to use to describe these hypocrites.
 |
| "And if I find out who canceled my Penthouse subscription..." |
Riddle me this — which is more destructive to humanness:
1) Seeing people have sex.
2) Seeing people kill each other.
Talk about FUBAR'd priorities.
In closing lemme ask you this. If you agree that seeing a real person be killed is horrific and by comparison seeing people have sex is nothing all, what's on your TV tonight? (I don't watch TV, in case you wonder and my Internet viewing is documentaries, hunting, fishing and Taufledermaus on YouTube.)
Ah...
Friday, September 27, 2013
Starting an argument over inconsequential things
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Warning. Going full auto redneck genius geek on you in this installment.
Wanna start an argument? Make a list of things like the world's best rock albums, guitar players, worst politician, best place to live, etc.
With that in mind, I direct you to this list. Why the Fiscal Times would do a story on the 12 weapons that changed the world is something I don't understand. But I read this list and agree with everything the writer listed.
Except he left one weapon out. The missing weapon is, in modern lingo, the world's first assault weapon, weapon of mass destruction and the first weapon to be banned. Pope Urban II banned the use of crossbows in 1096; a prohibition that was upheld by Pope Innocent II in 1139.
The crossbow.
"Back in the 12th Century it was considered by many to be a weapon of mass destruction. It was feared and hated not just because it was capable of eliminating anyone on the battlefield from great distances, but because it allowed any lowly peasant to kill a high-born professional knight with the simple squeeze of a trigger – something that many elites feared could shatter the natural order of society. As a result: the highest authority of the day, the church, called for an outright ban on this particular weapon. Violating the decree could lead to excommunication, or worse: damnation of the soul." states an article at Medieval History Now.
The crossbow brought war to a new level. To use a bow and arrow, all you have to is be able to pull the string back. Ah! To use it accurately and efficiently, you have to spend hours and hours and hours at practice. To use a bow stout enough to pierce armor (a long bow), you REALLY have to practice and have to have serious upper body strength.
The crossbow was the equalizer. Put your foot in the loop at the end, pull the string back until it cocks and you're in business. A few minutes and you can learn to shoot one accurately enough to make an opponent need to change his underwear.
Despite being banned in the Middle Ages, the crossbow is actually a lot older than that. Medieval History says, "Evidence suggests that the weapons were used by armies in Ancient China as far back as the 5th Century BCE. Classical Greek historians referred to arrow-firing catapults in the 399 BCE and Ancient Roman legions had a series of large crew-operated crossbows known as ballistas." Dunno why it took Europe so long to adopt the technology.
Of more recent times and thanks to changes in hunting laws, crossbows have made a comeback. I think every land animal of the planet has now been hunted with a crossbow including Cape Buffalo and Elephants. In case you're wondering, I don't clank loudly enough when I walk to hunt Cape Buffalo, aka Black Death, with a crossbow.
I do own a crossbow, one suitable for hunting. I also own a pistol crossbow which is suitable for injuring yourself and anything within 50 feet of where you're standing, including things behind you if you shoot it.
As for the remainder of the list at FinTim, I agree with what the writer has to say.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Warning. Going full auto redneck genius geek on you in this installment.
Wanna start an argument? Make a list of things like the world's best rock albums, guitar players, worst politician, best place to live, etc.
With that in mind, I direct you to this list. Why the Fiscal Times would do a story on the 12 weapons that changed the world is something I don't understand. But I read this list and agree with everything the writer listed.
 |
| Crossbow on an AR-15 lower. Really. Retail cost $1,200. |
Except he left one weapon out. The missing weapon is, in modern lingo, the world's first assault weapon, weapon of mass destruction and the first weapon to be banned. Pope Urban II banned the use of crossbows in 1096; a prohibition that was upheld by Pope Innocent II in 1139.
The crossbow.
"Back in the 12th Century it was considered by many to be a weapon of mass destruction. It was feared and hated not just because it was capable of eliminating anyone on the battlefield from great distances, but because it allowed any lowly peasant to kill a high-born professional knight with the simple squeeze of a trigger – something that many elites feared could shatter the natural order of society. As a result: the highest authority of the day, the church, called for an outright ban on this particular weapon. Violating the decree could lead to excommunication, or worse: damnation of the soul." states an article at Medieval History Now.
 |
| This ain't a better mousetrap. |
The crossbow brought war to a new level. To use a bow and arrow, all you have to is be able to pull the string back. Ah! To use it accurately and efficiently, you have to spend hours and hours and hours at practice. To use a bow stout enough to pierce armor (a long bow), you REALLY have to practice and have to have serious upper body strength.
The crossbow was the equalizer. Put your foot in the loop at the end, pull the string back until it cocks and you're in business. A few minutes and you can learn to shoot one accurately enough to make an opponent need to change his underwear.
Despite being banned in the Middle Ages, the crossbow is actually a lot older than that. Medieval History says, "Evidence suggests that the weapons were used by armies in Ancient China as far back as the 5th Century BCE. Classical Greek historians referred to arrow-firing catapults in the 399 BCE and Ancient Roman legions had a series of large crew-operated crossbows known as ballistas." Dunno why it took Europe so long to adopt the technology.
 |
| Giant crossbow aka a ballista |
I do own a crossbow, one suitable for hunting. I also own a pistol crossbow which is suitable for injuring yourself and anything within 50 feet of where you're standing, including things behind you if you shoot it.
As for the remainder of the list at FinTim, I agree with what the writer has to say.
Thursday, September 26, 2013
We need more coaches like this
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
In my journalism career across several states and the nation, I've interviewed more coaches than I can remember. Good ones, bad ones, mediocre ones.
One thing stands out above everything else. A winning high school football coach is the most powerful person in the school system. I know educators and administrators who'll disagree with me, but empirical evidence says otherwise.
Coaches, by themselves, are pretty powerful people in the school system anyway.
I wish I could tell you the best coaches were also the best people. Sometimes that happens. Sadly, that is not what I've seen most of the time. I point you to former UGA Coach Ray Goff. He is a great and wonderful man, but he ain't cut to be a SEC Head Coach. When my own grandmother said, "He's not mean enough," well yeah, Goff's time at Bulldawg Nation was absolutely limited.
Now I point you to Joe Paterno and the scandal that rocked Penn State. As winning coach, he could, and apparently did, get away with a whole lot. Paterno was mean enough to be a head coach until age robbed him of his edge and he was winning fewer games. Argue what you will, I can point you to PLENTY of coaches who had winning teams and did things that got non-winning coaches fired. Steve Spurrier anyone?
I could also point you to a coach during my high school years. As this person is still alive, I'm not going into details, except to say he racked up plenty of wins, a state title and playoffs every year.
While I dunno what this coach's record is, I have to say based strictly on this news story, he sounds like the kind of coach every school needs. I also support him, I'd support any coach like this.
Suspending the entire team, even though at least one kid was an honor student, is admirable. It teaches teamwork. It teaches: United we stand. Divided we fall. This will massively annoy nonconformists, but this is also a football TEAM. Joint efforts. Pull together. A football team is not a place for individuals.
This coach is apparently more interested in building character and teaching students respect than winning games.
Yeah.
I've come across coaches like that. None had the guts to suspend the entire team. Most didn't have the guts to do much of anything except make the kids run a few extra laps.
In my time covering high schools across the nation, I've seen one football player quit in the middle of the game. Quit. Hit the sidelines, threw off his pads, jumped the fence and went into the stands. Didn't come back either.
I've seen one student athlete kicked off a team for his behaviors. Now there were probably a couple more over the years, but not very many. I've seen FAR more student athletes get away with behavior that, if done in a classroom, would have gotten them suspended from school and in a few cases, expelled.
I've only heard one coach ever say, in public, that conduct off the field had on-the-field consequences when the conduct was done outside of school and away from school activities.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
In my journalism career across several states and the nation, I've interviewed more coaches than I can remember. Good ones, bad ones, mediocre ones.
One thing stands out above everything else. A winning high school football coach is the most powerful person in the school system. I know educators and administrators who'll disagree with me, but empirical evidence says otherwise.
Coaches, by themselves, are pretty powerful people in the school system anyway.
I wish I could tell you the best coaches were also the best people. Sometimes that happens. Sadly, that is not what I've seen most of the time. I point you to former UGA Coach Ray Goff. He is a great and wonderful man, but he ain't cut to be a SEC Head Coach. When my own grandmother said, "He's not mean enough," well yeah, Goff's time at Bulldawg Nation was absolutely limited.
Now I point you to Joe Paterno and the scandal that rocked Penn State. As winning coach, he could, and apparently did, get away with a whole lot. Paterno was mean enough to be a head coach until age robbed him of his edge and he was winning fewer games. Argue what you will, I can point you to PLENTY of coaches who had winning teams and did things that got non-winning coaches fired. Steve Spurrier anyone?
I could also point you to a coach during my high school years. As this person is still alive, I'm not going into details, except to say he racked up plenty of wins, a state title and playoffs every year.
While I dunno what this coach's record is, I have to say based strictly on this news story, he sounds like the kind of coach every school needs. I also support him, I'd support any coach like this.
Suspending the entire team, even though at least one kid was an honor student, is admirable. It teaches teamwork. It teaches: United we stand. Divided we fall. This will massively annoy nonconformists, but this is also a football TEAM. Joint efforts. Pull together. A football team is not a place for individuals.
This coach is apparently more interested in building character and teaching students respect than winning games.
Yeah.
I've come across coaches like that. None had the guts to suspend the entire team. Most didn't have the guts to do much of anything except make the kids run a few extra laps.
In my time covering high schools across the nation, I've seen one football player quit in the middle of the game. Quit. Hit the sidelines, threw off his pads, jumped the fence and went into the stands. Didn't come back either.
I've seen one student athlete kicked off a team for his behaviors. Now there were probably a couple more over the years, but not very many. I've seen FAR more student athletes get away with behavior that, if done in a classroom, would have gotten them suspended from school and in a few cases, expelled.
I've only heard one coach ever say, in public, that conduct off the field had on-the-field consequences when the conduct was done outside of school and away from school activities.
Reality will not change to agree with you
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I sort of teach a class every year to 10th graders. It's not really a class, but it is. It's called the Game of Real Life. Don't bother looking for it online. You won't find it.
It was developed in S. Georgia. It discusses career options for high school students, puts one in a minimum wage job and they go shopping with their month's wages, explains job requirements, interview tips and so forth. The key to this is it is reality based and it's taught by someone who is not a regular teacher (i.e. me).
It works.
One of the things I tell them is reality is not going to reorder itself to fit their expectations.
Except I don't say it that way.
I tell them this:
The world is run by old, fat white guys.
Get used to the idea. Pick someone successful. Anyone. Don't care who. How did that person achieve success. Look long enough and you'll find an old fat white guy who runs a bank who made an investment. The banker sat in his chair and made a lot of money while the successful person (maybe a generation or two away) went out and did all the hard work.
S'called reality.
Which brings me to today's point. All you folks with visible tattoos? Old fat white guys do not like them. Witness. I heard this story and laughed the entire time it was being broadcast. I am still extremely amused and will be for a while.
Body piercings you can shove a vienna sausage through? See above. Pierced nose? Nostril? Skin studs and rings? See above.
I realize things are changing. I realize someone has to enter the woods to start the path, but the first person to enter the dark and deep woods gets killed. Every time. The woods are not scaled to the experience level of the player, like in AD&D. Nope. Toddlers are thrown to cave bears. The next person to enter is killed. And the next and the next and the next. Yes, each person makes it a stop farther into the woods. Given enough people and enough time, eventually a clear path is made through the woods, the cave bears are burgers and the hides are on the wall. But many died to make this happen. Those who get extensive body mods, and I include tats in this, are still walking through these metaphorical woods and still dying.
A restaurant in my town, which pays well for being a fast food joint and well for my community, interviewed a lady for an assistant manager post when it was opening. She had the job. Until she stood up an a tat was made visible. She was not hired and will not be hired. Corporate policy is no visible tats. In my above metaphorical world, she was devoured by the cave bear.
Don't like it? Explain it to the cave bear. Don't expect him to listen.
I state here and for the record. I do not like body mods, aside from a lady with a single piercing in each ear.
Get mad at me if you wanna. I'm good with that. I also happen to be a nearly old fat white guy.
Before you rail at me, let me point out I do not like the herb dill, caraway seeds, armadillos, lawyers, Congress, the president (pick one), romance novels, commercial television, big cities, being sick, the bands U2, The Pretenders and most of the work of Billy Joel. I am quite certain there are things you do not like which I do like.
I do not like them, but I know other people do. That's their business, not mine. I'm tempted to say I do not judge people who have body mods, but as an employer, I do. I will not hire someone with the kind of mods like the gent above for some kinds of work done in my business.
Outside of my business world, more power to him.
Tattoos and body mods are not for me. Never mind the fact I have plenty of unintentional and unintended body mods. Accidents have left me with scars in a lot of places and at least one place (now almost faded into invisibility) with what amounts to a tattoo.
If you want to look like a survivor from an exploded ink factory, enjoy. You do not need my permission, acceptance or condoning. Be you. It's not for me. I remind you some of the things I enjoy are not something you like.
Beyond that and returning to my metaphor, I do understand what it is like to be a rebel, to walk into those woods and be devoured by the cave bear.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I sort of teach a class every year to 10th graders. It's not really a class, but it is. It's called the Game of Real Life. Don't bother looking for it online. You won't find it.
 |
| Not real life. A lot more fun. |
It was developed in S. Georgia. It discusses career options for high school students, puts one in a minimum wage job and they go shopping with their month's wages, explains job requirements, interview tips and so forth. The key to this is it is reality based and it's taught by someone who is not a regular teacher (i.e. me).
It works.
One of the things I tell them is reality is not going to reorder itself to fit their expectations.
Except I don't say it that way.
I tell them this:
The world is run by old, fat white guys.
Get used to the idea. Pick someone successful. Anyone. Don't care who. How did that person achieve success. Look long enough and you'll find an old fat white guy who runs a bank who made an investment. The banker sat in his chair and made a lot of money while the successful person (maybe a generation or two away) went out and did all the hard work.
S'called reality.
Body piercings you can shove a vienna sausage through? See above. Pierced nose? Nostril? Skin studs and rings? See above.
I realize things are changing. I realize someone has to enter the woods to start the path, but the first person to enter the dark and deep woods gets killed. Every time. The woods are not scaled to the experience level of the player, like in AD&D. Nope. Toddlers are thrown to cave bears. The next person to enter is killed. And the next and the next and the next. Yes, each person makes it a stop farther into the woods. Given enough people and enough time, eventually a clear path is made through the woods, the cave bears are burgers and the hides are on the wall. But many died to make this happen. Those who get extensive body mods, and I include tats in this, are still walking through these metaphorical woods and still dying.
A restaurant in my town, which pays well for being a fast food joint and well for my community, interviewed a lady for an assistant manager post when it was opening. She had the job. Until she stood up an a tat was made visible. She was not hired and will not be hired. Corporate policy is no visible tats. In my above metaphorical world, she was devoured by the cave bear.
Don't like it? Explain it to the cave bear. Don't expect him to listen.
I state here and for the record. I do not like body mods, aside from a lady with a single piercing in each ear.
Get mad at me if you wanna. I'm good with that. I also happen to be a nearly old fat white guy.
Before you rail at me, let me point out I do not like the herb dill, caraway seeds, armadillos, lawyers, Congress, the president (pick one), romance novels, commercial television, big cities, being sick, the bands U2, The Pretenders and most of the work of Billy Joel. I am quite certain there are things you do not like which I do like.
I do not like them, but I know other people do. That's their business, not mine. I'm tempted to say I do not judge people who have body mods, but as an employer, I do. I will not hire someone with the kind of mods like the gent above for some kinds of work done in my business.
Outside of my business world, more power to him.
Tattoos and body mods are not for me. Never mind the fact I have plenty of unintentional and unintended body mods. Accidents have left me with scars in a lot of places and at least one place (now almost faded into invisibility) with what amounts to a tattoo.
If you want to look like a survivor from an exploded ink factory, enjoy. You do not need my permission, acceptance or condoning. Be you. It's not for me. I remind you some of the things I enjoy are not something you like.
Beyond that and returning to my metaphor, I do understand what it is like to be a rebel, to walk into those woods and be devoured by the cave bear.
Friday, September 20, 2013
Ya pays ya money, ya takes ya chances
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Many years ago I asked John Lee whyinthehell a major industry would want to set up a huge business less than 1,000 yards from the Gulf of Mexico. This was during the March No Name Storm that was a hurricane, except it was not in hurricane season and the Gulf Coast was being pounded.
"Ya pays ya money, ya takes ya chances," he said. "That's what insurance is for."
Can't argue with that. He's right.
Which brings me to my point today. If you are an adult an you engage in risky behavior, do not complain when things go apefeces. I point you to the adult entertainment industry, AKA porn. Several "actors" have recently been diagnosed with HIV.
One of them, a woman, got rather emotional in an interview.
At no point in the interview did the woman say she was physically forced to engage in sex in front of cameras. At no point did she say she could not walk away. She did, in fact, say if the "actors" requested condoms, they'd be quickly replaced.
Lemme say here I am not judging the porn industry, provided no one is forced to participate. What adults do to and with each other by consent is none of my business. Whether I like it or not is irrelevant. I have NO right to impose my morals standards on anyone, cept m'self, and no one has the right to impose their moral code on me. Even my hero Jesus said "if they will not accept your blessings, shake the dust from your feet." Don't judge.
Anyway, at various points during the interview, I wanted to reach through the screen and slap her. Still will if I can get close enough. Then, of course, I will hug her. I'm pentecostal; I'll hug anything I can catch and if I can't catch it, I'll get someone to chase it down and we'll both hug it.
But really. She got HIV in an industry where unprotected sex between complete strangers and people who've had sex with hundreds of other people is, well, pretty much a requirement. And she is surprised, and quite upset judging from the video interview.
Here's a partial and incomplete list of adult entertainment industry "actors" who've developed AIDS and subsequently expired. Considering the sheer number of people involved in this industry and the short career life of many of them, this is is going to be incomplete. I'll betcha the whole list is into the thousands.
Regardless, the fact remains - what they do is dangerous. Riding a mountain bike down the side of a mountain is dangerous. Running the Bulls in Pamploma is dangerous. Catching snow crab is listed as the world's most dangerous occupation. Smoking is dangerous. Being fat is dangerous.
For that matter, simply living is dangerous. Eventually something does us all in. 'Cept for Doc who plans to live forever and so far so good.
My brother, Shag, and I have structured our wills so that if we go out at the same time, things are covered. When you look at the activities we engage in together, there is a definite chance that the same thing will get us both at the same time, be that a gator, shark, wild hog, mountain side or whatever. We have accepted, and planned for, such risks.
So this gal with HIV, yes I wish she did not have it. But she paid her money and took her chances and the dice rolled the way it rolled.
If you plan to live as an adult and participate in adult activities, the continue to act like an adult when the odds catch up to you.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Many years ago I asked John Lee whyinthehell a major industry would want to set up a huge business less than 1,000 yards from the Gulf of Mexico. This was during the March No Name Storm that was a hurricane, except it was not in hurricane season and the Gulf Coast was being pounded.
"Ya pays ya money, ya takes ya chances," he said. "That's what insurance is for."
Can't argue with that. He's right.
Which brings me to my point today. If you are an adult an you engage in risky behavior, do not complain when things go apefeces. I point you to the adult entertainment industry, AKA porn. Several "actors" have recently been diagnosed with HIV.
One of them, a woman, got rather emotional in an interview.
At no point in the interview did the woman say she was physically forced to engage in sex in front of cameras. At no point did she say she could not walk away. She did, in fact, say if the "actors" requested condoms, they'd be quickly replaced.
Lemme say here I am not judging the porn industry, provided no one is forced to participate. What adults do to and with each other by consent is none of my business. Whether I like it or not is irrelevant. I have NO right to impose my morals standards on anyone, cept m'self, and no one has the right to impose their moral code on me. Even my hero Jesus said "if they will not accept your blessings, shake the dust from your feet." Don't judge.
Anyway, at various points during the interview, I wanted to reach through the screen and slap her. Still will if I can get close enough. Then, of course, I will hug her. I'm pentecostal; I'll hug anything I can catch and if I can't catch it, I'll get someone to chase it down and we'll both hug it.
But really. She got HIV in an industry where unprotected sex between complete strangers and people who've had sex with hundreds of other people is, well, pretty much a requirement. And she is surprised, and quite upset judging from the video interview.
Here's a partial and incomplete list of adult entertainment industry "actors" who've developed AIDS and subsequently expired. Considering the sheer number of people involved in this industry and the short career life of many of them, this is is going to be incomplete. I'll betcha the whole list is into the thousands.
Regardless, the fact remains - what they do is dangerous. Riding a mountain bike down the side of a mountain is dangerous. Running the Bulls in Pamploma is dangerous. Catching snow crab is listed as the world's most dangerous occupation. Smoking is dangerous. Being fat is dangerous.
For that matter, simply living is dangerous. Eventually something does us all in. 'Cept for Doc who plans to live forever and so far so good.
My brother, Shag, and I have structured our wills so that if we go out at the same time, things are covered. When you look at the activities we engage in together, there is a definite chance that the same thing will get us both at the same time, be that a gator, shark, wild hog, mountain side or whatever. We have accepted, and planned for, such risks.
So this gal with HIV, yes I wish she did not have it. But she paid her money and took her chances and the dice rolled the way it rolled.
If you plan to live as an adult and participate in adult activities, the continue to act like an adult when the odds catch up to you.
Monday, September 16, 2013
Journanjulism or I Be A Writer
Contains a profanity.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
So a shield bill is in the offing. For those who don't know, a shield bill (or if passed, law), gives journalists protection the same protection often afforded to clergy, parasites of the human condition (lawyers) and those in the medical fields.
Just as clergy et call cannot be forced to testify what they were told in confidence, a shield law means journalists won't have to give up sources for the stories they write. Such sources are typically anonymous.
Lemme be clear. The public use of anonymous sources in news stories is one step above being a government-run propaganda machine. I have not, will not and do not believe that anonymous sources are the only source of information for journalists.
I do believe the use of anonymous sources in published stories is journalism shorthand for "I'm making this shit up and you have no idea if what I'm telling you is true or not."
I do have anonymous sources. They tip me to stories and then I look into the stories. I get on-the-record comments and public record reports. That's what you see in my stories. You do not seen "anonymous sources" or "someone close to the situation" as an attribution.
For the sake of this column, say I use and quote "anonymous" sources. I'm hauled into court, as has happened in the past. Do I have a right to keep these anonymous sources private or should I hand 'em over to the government?
Lotsa people will say yes. Others will say no. At the federal level, this is quite vague. Some states do have shield laws, believing the right of the people to be informed trumps the right of government to know where that info comes from.
Complicate this. I interview drug dealers. I write about what they do. I witness deals go down, I document this. Should I have to turn over my unpublished notes and photographs so law enforcement can make a case? OK, what if it's a rape? Murder? Embezzlement? Child abuse? Vandalism? (Except that if I witness child abuse, I'm gonna abandon journalistic objectivity and whip someone).
Is the public right to know about this "underworld" kind of thing more valuable than possibly making an arrest? Add to this that if journalists are forced to hand over their notes & pix, journalistic access to these worlds will almost immediately end.
Let's complicate this more. What defines a journalist? Even people who hate me will say I'm definitely a journalist. All of my income comes from running a newspaper and the writing I do. All.
Is some who just blogs a journalist? I think not. They are an entertainer. Is someone who collates information, like the Drudge Report, a journalist? Harder to answer. How much of your has to meet a journalist standard? How much of your income?
Complicate this even more. Journalists are the only group of people in a private industry singled out by the US Constitution for protection. How far should that protection go?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
For more on this, have a look at what Rebel has to say.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
So a shield bill is in the offing. For those who don't know, a shield bill (or if passed, law), gives journalists protection the same protection often afforded to clergy, parasites of the human condition (lawyers) and those in the medical fields.
Just as clergy et call cannot be forced to testify what they were told in confidence, a shield law means journalists won't have to give up sources for the stories they write. Such sources are typically anonymous.
Lemme be clear. The public use of anonymous sources in news stories is one step above being a government-run propaganda machine. I have not, will not and do not believe that anonymous sources are the only source of information for journalists.
I do believe the use of anonymous sources in published stories is journalism shorthand for "I'm making this shit up and you have no idea if what I'm telling you is true or not."
I do have anonymous sources. They tip me to stories and then I look into the stories. I get on-the-record comments and public record reports. That's what you see in my stories. You do not seen "anonymous sources" or "someone close to the situation" as an attribution.
For the sake of this column, say I use and quote "anonymous" sources. I'm hauled into court, as has happened in the past. Do I have a right to keep these anonymous sources private or should I hand 'em over to the government?
Lotsa people will say yes. Others will say no. At the federal level, this is quite vague. Some states do have shield laws, believing the right of the people to be informed trumps the right of government to know where that info comes from.
Complicate this. I interview drug dealers. I write about what they do. I witness deals go down, I document this. Should I have to turn over my unpublished notes and photographs so law enforcement can make a case? OK, what if it's a rape? Murder? Embezzlement? Child abuse? Vandalism? (Except that if I witness child abuse, I'm gonna abandon journalistic objectivity and whip someone).
Is the public right to know about this "underworld" kind of thing more valuable than possibly making an arrest? Add to this that if journalists are forced to hand over their notes & pix, journalistic access to these worlds will almost immediately end.
Let's complicate this more. What defines a journalist? Even people who hate me will say I'm definitely a journalist. All of my income comes from running a newspaper and the writing I do. All.
Is some who just blogs a journalist? I think not. They are an entertainer. Is someone who collates information, like the Drudge Report, a journalist? Harder to answer. How much of your has to meet a journalist standard? How much of your income?
Complicate this even more. Journalists are the only group of people in a private industry singled out by the US Constitution for protection. How far should that protection go?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
For more on this, have a look at what Rebel has to say.
Thursday, September 12, 2013
a few things as my brain refuses to follow what the rest of me is doing
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
My recent whateverthehellistryingtokillme has also kicked my brain into a higher gear. This will surprise many of you who thought I have no brain.
A few will be surprised that I could think more than I do. But sitting, too exhausted to raise a hand, in the dark in a recliner, all I could was think.
So.
While walking into the hospital to check on Mom, two people whom I could only presume to be patients were trying to get back into the hospital. I presume they were patients because they both were in PJs.
Person 1 was also using a walker and in real danger of not making it back inside before nightfall. It was 11 a.m. A two-legged arthritic turtle with leg cramps could have made better time.
The second was escorted by someone and making better time but was pulling an IV pole with four bags hanging from it and tubes attached to an arm.
You may ask WTH were these people doing outside in such bad condition with no medical support team at hand.
Best I figure and I could be wrong, they are beyond stupid.
I’ve seen their like before, standing at the very edge of the hospital property, a cigarette in hand.
I support an adult’s right to engage in risky behavior. I also support my right to not have to pay for what happens to that person when odds catch up. In other words, if you intend to do it, make sure you can pay all the associated bills. I won’t.
These people were in terrible shape - the hospital won’t let you stay overnight unless you are in terrible shape - and yet they still had to have a smoke. I have no problem with that.
These people had to sign a waiver saying they excused themselves from medical oversight when they succumbed to a nicotine fit. I have no problem with that either.
I just wonder how many of their ailments are directly related to their tobacco habit.
•••
Can someone please explain why the Decline Effect exists .
I’d prefer the explanation come from some of the brains at the Richard Dawkins foundation.
•••
Can someone explain dark energy? Trick question. Can’t be done.
What bothers me about this is an interview I heard on NPR in which one of the chief thinkers said the astrophysics guys “invented dark energy” so the mathematical constructions of the universe will make sense.
Paging Richard Dawkins, paging Mr. Dawkins. How is this different from a cave man looking out into a thunderstorm and ascribing lightning to a pissed off thunder god?
Another question. What if the mathematical constructs are wrong?
•••
I dunno. Whatever is trying to kill me may have my mental processes a bit more sidelined than usual.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
My recent whateverthehellistryingtokillme has also kicked my brain into a higher gear. This will surprise many of you who thought I have no brain.A few will be surprised that I could think more than I do. But sitting, too exhausted to raise a hand, in the dark in a recliner, all I could was think.
So.
While walking into the hospital to check on Mom, two people whom I could only presume to be patients were trying to get back into the hospital. I presume they were patients because they both were in PJs.
Person 1 was also using a walker and in real danger of not making it back inside before nightfall. It was 11 a.m. A two-legged arthritic turtle with leg cramps could have made better time.
The second was escorted by someone and making better time but was pulling an IV pole with four bags hanging from it and tubes attached to an arm.
You may ask WTH were these people doing outside in such bad condition with no medical support team at hand.
 |
| I just like this picture. |
Best I figure and I could be wrong, they are beyond stupid.
I’ve seen their like before, standing at the very edge of the hospital property, a cigarette in hand.
I support an adult’s right to engage in risky behavior. I also support my right to not have to pay for what happens to that person when odds catch up. In other words, if you intend to do it, make sure you can pay all the associated bills. I won’t.
These people were in terrible shape - the hospital won’t let you stay overnight unless you are in terrible shape - and yet they still had to have a smoke. I have no problem with that.
These people had to sign a waiver saying they excused themselves from medical oversight when they succumbed to a nicotine fit. I have no problem with that either.
I just wonder how many of their ailments are directly related to their tobacco habit.
•••
Can someone please explain why the Decline Effect exists .
I’d prefer the explanation come from some of the brains at the Richard Dawkins foundation.
•••
Can someone explain dark energy? Trick question. Can’t be done.
 |
| Scientists continue to underestimate the power of stupidity. |
Paging Richard Dawkins, paging Mr. Dawkins. How is this different from a cave man looking out into a thunderstorm and ascribing lightning to a pissed off thunder god?
Another question. What if the mathematical constructs are wrong?
•••
I dunno. Whatever is trying to kill me may have my mental processes a bit more sidelined than usual.
Tuesday, September 3, 2013
Pain
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
That's all. No hidden stories, no less-than-subliminal messages. Just pain.
What got me cranked today was last night's Radio Lab episode in which pain was discussed. During the discussion, various ways to rank pain were discussed.
In the hospitals, doctors offices and etc I've had to visit in the past some years, a pain chart is generally on the wall. It looks a lot like this one:
Now this one is purty good. Not perfect, which I will discuss in a moment. However, I prefer this pain scale, drawn by Alle Broche who is freekin' awesome and suffers from her own personal demons.
I think Alle's comes closer to reality.
One of the people, who lives with chronic and not-understood pain (like my buddy Doc), went to the ER the first time with pain. The MD talking with her gave her a similar chart. She was asked to rate her pain based on the chart. Zero being no pain and the last being the ultimate.
As she thought about her own pain levels, she recalled the then-recent news story of a man being dragged behind a struck until he died. Her own pain, she reasoned, was a whole lot less than what that man went through. She called it a 3. The doc 'scribed some Tylenol and sent her home.
Now you see why I think Alle's chart is a better description of pain levels.
However, this is still subjective. Pain levels that send some people screaming are, to me, highly annoying. I've seen this. What has sent some people to the ER bellowing and begging for pain killers has merely made me mad and I've had dislocated joints.
One of the pain categories discussed was labor. A series of tests had some women hooked to a machine that heated their skin during a contraction. The women were all asked to peg the heat pain level to the contraction level. Most were in the 2-3 range. One woman was over 10 and actually suffered second degree burns on her skin. In other words, her pain level from a contraction was much much much higher than most of the women experienced.
In case you're wondering, men can know what labor is like. The nurse who took care of me with my first kidney stone said the pain was exactly same, but the stone was worse. She'd had a kidney stone and natural child birth. Labor pain, she said, comes and goes. The kidney stone pain stays. I've had several.
Can you enjoy pain?
Absolutely.
I also draw your attention to people who like pain. I am one. I am, to use the slang we folks like, a pepperhead. I like hot peppers. I enjoy the burn. Sort of. What's probably far more accurate is to say I enjoy the endorphin release I get when I lace my burger with Scorpion Pepper sauce.
The S&M (sadism and masochism) crowd should also be mentioned in a discussion of pain. So, I mentioned it.
I also believe a discussion of pain has to involve suicide. I am told that most people who chose this exit strategy do so because the pain in their life will not lessen (so they believe), likely get worse and it has greatly affected their quality of life. Rather than live with this pain and how it has affected them, they exit stage whatever comes next. I have no problem with someone making this decision.
To my thinking, a better chart is: What would you do to end the pain? What would you be willing to give to end the pain?
Think about it.
Think about the pain you've experienced in the past. At the time, what would you have given up to end it?
Now think about enduring that same pain now. What would you give up now to end that pain?
Which brings me back to my idea of ranking pain. What would you do to end it? Some people say they would rather not live than have the pain. To me, that is the end of a realistic pain chart.
But is it?
How much pain are you willing to endure for someone else? How long?
Ah.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
That's all. No hidden stories, no less-than-subliminal messages. Just pain.
What got me cranked today was last night's Radio Lab episode in which pain was discussed. During the discussion, various ways to rank pain were discussed.
In the hospitals, doctors offices and etc I've had to visit in the past some years, a pain chart is generally on the wall. It looks a lot like this one:
I think Alle's comes closer to reality.
As she thought about her own pain levels, she recalled the then-recent news story of a man being dragged behind a struck until he died. Her own pain, she reasoned, was a whole lot less than what that man went through. She called it a 3. The doc 'scribed some Tylenol and sent her home.
Now you see why I think Alle's chart is a better description of pain levels.
However, this is still subjective. Pain levels that send some people screaming are, to me, highly annoying. I've seen this. What has sent some people to the ER bellowing and begging for pain killers has merely made me mad and I've had dislocated joints.
One of the pain categories discussed was labor. A series of tests had some women hooked to a machine that heated their skin during a contraction. The women were all asked to peg the heat pain level to the contraction level. Most were in the 2-3 range. One woman was over 10 and actually suffered second degree burns on her skin. In other words, her pain level from a contraction was much much much higher than most of the women experienced.
In case you're wondering, men can know what labor is like. The nurse who took care of me with my first kidney stone said the pain was exactly same, but the stone was worse. She'd had a kidney stone and natural child birth. Labor pain, she said, comes and goes. The kidney stone pain stays. I've had several.
 |
| A line of low-end gourmet ketchups |
Absolutely.
I also draw your attention to people who like pain. I am one. I am, to use the slang we folks like, a pepperhead. I like hot peppers. I enjoy the burn. Sort of. What's probably far more accurate is to say I enjoy the endorphin release I get when I lace my burger with Scorpion Pepper sauce.
The S&M (sadism and masochism) crowd should also be mentioned in a discussion of pain. So, I mentioned it.
I also believe a discussion of pain has to involve suicide. I am told that most people who chose this exit strategy do so because the pain in their life will not lessen (so they believe), likely get worse and it has greatly affected their quality of life. Rather than live with this pain and how it has affected them, they exit stage whatever comes next. I have no problem with someone making this decision.
To my thinking, a better chart is: What would you do to end the pain? What would you be willing to give to end the pain?
Think about it.
Think about the pain you've experienced in the past. At the time, what would you have given up to end it?
Now think about enduring that same pain now. What would you give up now to end that pain?
Which brings me back to my idea of ranking pain. What would you do to end it? Some people say they would rather not live than have the pain. To me, that is the end of a realistic pain chart.
But is it?
How much pain are you willing to endure for someone else? How long?
Ah.
Monday, September 2, 2013
Relativity is all relative
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
A chief reason I am such a devoted fan of Science Fiction is because it makes me look at the world in a new way. Presently am reading The Legend That Was Earth by James Hogan.
In this book, humanity is met on earth by an alien civilization which explains our notions of reality, the cosmos and etc are fundamentally flawed. He says human scientists have two chief failings, one of which is an irrational belief that theory is correct and observed facts are error.
Too true. When scientists stand up and hurl invectives at each other and resort to insults instead of logic when debating pet theories, well yeah. The only difference between them and religious extremists who shoot at each other is the guns.
The second theory Hogan puts forth through the aliens is that our earthly observations of the universe is like flying through the sky and all our instruments for measuring what's going on outside the plane are locked tightly to the interior of the plane.
In other words, we're trying to explain the universe without being able to see, react to, interact with or even study the universe.
I've read a couple of SF novels recently which track the same idea. Our understanding of the universe is absolutely (and I mean that term as I state it) flawed because our observations are limited by the solar system. All the fundamental forces in the universe coming into the solar system are distorted by the solar system's effects.
This could be totally true. One of our long range probes is just now at the edge of what we think is the solar system. The astro-physics folks say they have no idea how long it will take for the probe to actually leave our solar system.
So. What we know may not be reality elsewhere.
Which leads me to an observation of my own, which is a bit more grounded.
The famous equation E=MC2 has yet to explain everything, despite being hailed at one time as the ultimate answer.
Among other things, extrapolations of this theory state the speed of light is a barrier across which nothing can pass. Tachyons can move faster than the speed of light. Light itself, that is the photons which make up light, can be slowed.
Hrm.
Now I bring you to black holes, something science has yet to understand and will not understand in my lifetime. Among the things believed is the gravitation force of a black hole is so great not even light can escape.
If that is so, then I suggest to you the speed of light is not an absolute barrier. Science has already slowed a photon. I submit to you that gravity from a black hole can take a photon past the light speed barrier, else the photon would be able to escape the gravitation pull.
Imagine a photon almost headed directly at a black hole. As it approaches the black hole, gravity increases. The photon bends toward the black hole. Gravity increases.
The photon has to speed up. At least it has to speed up according to my limited understanding of astrophysics.
The speed of light is not a barrier, it's just a number.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
A chief reason I am such a devoted fan of Science Fiction is because it makes me look at the world in a new way. Presently am reading The Legend That Was Earth by James Hogan.
In this book, humanity is met on earth by an alien civilization which explains our notions of reality, the cosmos and etc are fundamentally flawed. He says human scientists have two chief failings, one of which is an irrational belief that theory is correct and observed facts are error.
Too true. When scientists stand up and hurl invectives at each other and resort to insults instead of logic when debating pet theories, well yeah. The only difference between them and religious extremists who shoot at each other is the guns.
The second theory Hogan puts forth through the aliens is that our earthly observations of the universe is like flying through the sky and all our instruments for measuring what's going on outside the plane are locked tightly to the interior of the plane.
In other words, we're trying to explain the universe without being able to see, react to, interact with or even study the universe.
I've read a couple of SF novels recently which track the same idea. Our understanding of the universe is absolutely (and I mean that term as I state it) flawed because our observations are limited by the solar system. All the fundamental forces in the universe coming into the solar system are distorted by the solar system's effects.
This could be totally true. One of our long range probes is just now at the edge of what we think is the solar system. The astro-physics folks say they have no idea how long it will take for the probe to actually leave our solar system.
So. What we know may not be reality elsewhere.
Which leads me to an observation of my own, which is a bit more grounded.
The famous equation E=MC2 has yet to explain everything, despite being hailed at one time as the ultimate answer.
Among other things, extrapolations of this theory state the speed of light is a barrier across which nothing can pass. Tachyons can move faster than the speed of light. Light itself, that is the photons which make up light, can be slowed.
Hrm.
Now I bring you to black holes, something science has yet to understand and will not understand in my lifetime. Among the things believed is the gravitation force of a black hole is so great not even light can escape.
If that is so, then I suggest to you the speed of light is not an absolute barrier. Science has already slowed a photon. I submit to you that gravity from a black hole can take a photon past the light speed barrier, else the photon would be able to escape the gravitation pull.
Imagine a photon almost headed directly at a black hole. As it approaches the black hole, gravity increases. The photon bends toward the black hole. Gravity increases.
The photon has to speed up. At least it has to speed up according to my limited understanding of astrophysics.
The speed of light is not a barrier, it's just a number.
Thursday, August 22, 2013
Firing squad death penalty
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I do believe the death penalty is over used in this nation. I also do believe it is necessary.
While should someone who is without any question a murder have a future when he denied a future to his victims?
 |
| Pie. With colors! |
No, no, no. Stick to the question. Change ye not the subject lest your scribe become annoyed and beat you to metaphorical death with your own refusal to stick to the subject.
And the replies pour in.
So comes this attorney who argues for the death penalty and wants to make it mean something. No naps here!
While I like the idea, there is a fallacy in the argument of the "blank" round unless some extraordinary measures are taken. A blank round is included in firing squads so the shooters
will always have some doubt in their mind as to who shot the blank and who delivered a copper-coated verdict.
 |
| Squirrel? I'm gonna kill the tree. |
'Cept reality doesn't work that way.
It's called recoil. For you math geeks, here's your gibberish - I mean the recoil equation. Mr*Vr= Mb*Vb
Newton's laws of physics holds true with firearms. As the bullet exits the barrel, there is recoil, the gun moving back in counter balance of the gun moving forward. The gun doesn't move very far.
I'm not gonna 'splain the hows, the whys, wherefores and the rest.
I do say the above equation is not accurate. It does not take into consideration the weight of the gun and any recoil dampeners like a muzzle brake. This has a direct effect on recoil. I speak from personal experience shooting everything from a .22 short to 850 grain full metal jacket .50 BMG rounds.
Recoil matters. (This guy is an idiot) Recoil will be felt. An experienced shooter is going to know, absolutely, whether or not he fired a a projectile or was dropping a hammer on blanks, provided he's shooting an unmodified shoulder-fired rifle.
The idea that shoving a blank in one rifle is not going to be the psychological crutch people think it is. A real shooter will know if what he did.
This can be adjusted. Set up a bank of guns to be fired electronically. Mount the guns in something like the Lead Sled and use a .223 with 40 grain solids. Strap the barrel down and when the shooters flip the switch, they not only have no idea which rifle they fire, but have no idea if they shot a blank. For that matter, don't strap 'em down. Just make sure no gun fires until all the switches are flipped and then they all go off at once.
Regardless of your opinion on firing squads, if this comes about again, we should protect the executioners.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)