Backing a hooker for elected office

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

Amberbock. Mmmmmm

If you read all the way through, this column may short circuit some wiring in your brain. I will bet you a frosty mug of cold one that my conclusions will surprise you at first.

This is not about politics. I promise, but it talks a lot about politics.

Enough rambling-

Periodically we all encourage someone to run for office. Most of the time the person we so encourage vehemently denies any interest in seeking office. "Couldn't get elected" is the main excuse given, but there are many more.

Recently the topic came up and a person was encouraged to run for office.

This person objected. Said he would not run.

Embedded in the State of Confusion

To summarize, the person so asked said he would not take office because when a person takes office, they become corrupted. Longer version - the newly elected person becomes more interested in serving himself and special interests than in staying true to the values and promises he espoused when running for office.

Do you agree with that statement?

If you agree, do you agree that is also a reason you won't run for office?

You can agree with the first and disagree with the second.

But if you agree with the second question, I have to say if being elected to office will corrupt you, it's not the office that did the corrupting.

Be proud of it!

You are already corrupt. You may just have a handle on it and keep it mild. Or, you realize you don't have the willpower to resist and so avoid it. Possibly both.

It's like the apocryphal tale of one of the leaders of Great Britain asking a woman "Would you sleep with me for $1 million?"

The woman says yes.

"Would you sleep with me for $1?" comes the next question.

"No. What do you think I am, a prostitute?" she replied.

"That, madam, we have already established. Now we are negotiating price."

So, all we're talking about here is a matter of degrees of corruption, a matter of amount or percentages.

"Lead me not into temptation for I already know how to get there."

Power, as the old axiom states, corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The whole truth and nothing but the truth

You can find rare instances throughout history of people who break that rule. Some were great leaders. Some were among the worst leaders in the history of the world, and anywhere between the extremes.

Regardless of their quality as a leader, they share a common trait with the people who say they will not seek office for it will corrupt them.

It is a trait I consider to be among the most honorable a person can have.

I am not kidding.

These people are honest about their nature.

Say what you will, THAT is the kind of leader I can respect. I might not be willing to follow them (they are not always good leaders), but I will always have tremendous respect for them.

Having writers for breakfast

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
This is not a column about writing. I promise. It just superficially looks like it.

Ever done something and been surprised that you actually enjoyed doing it?

Before I further engage that idea, lemme pass along some information that will set a stage.

A collection of monumental puns. But fun.

Piers Anthony is famous, or infamous depending on which side of the literary divide you fall, for arguing with editors and publishers. In that he's not unusual.

What does put him in a slightly different category is the extremes to which he takes his arguments. As I recall, he's several times refused to back down much to the chagrin of the publishing house resulting in several different kinds of fallout and some contract splits. It's either him or another famous writer in the same genre.

But then Piers is one of those rare authors who can put his name on a grocery list and have it become a bestseller. I am not saying he's done this. But other authors (Stephen King) have pretty much done this and achieved wild success.

In his Xanth novels, which have increasingly become less entertaining and more formula, he still relies heavily on readers and reader input. This too sets him a bit apart from most of the ink slinging crowd.

Piers leaves me with the impression that editors exist to annoy him, reduce the quality of his work and generally get in his way.

I don't smoke any more.

Speaking as a full time editor, I have to admit this is the case with bad editors. But good editors, aye, they are a treasure.

I have worked with and had my copied tinkered with by both kinds. The good editors - the editor at the now defunct New Wineskins magazine comes to mind he was AWESOME! - are worth everything they get. Bad editors need to pushed into a shark tank.

I will not comment on my abilities as an editor, except to say that it is often a mistake to think you can adequately edit your own stuff.

With all that in mind, I was recently asked to edit a manuscript from a longtime friend Paul and his wife Sabrina. They write a blog about writing http://writeryourbabyisugly.blogspot.com  and I shan't comment about that further.

Yep. And I like it!

Normally I look at editing another writer as way to engage my sadistic side. I sometimes comment in writer forums that I eat writers for breakfast. It's not literal, but close. People who've asked me to really edit their stuff have walked away in tears. Some got mad. Some tore their stuff up. The ones worthy of being writers gritted their teeth, implemented my suggestions and turned a truckload of coal into a giant diamond. As an editor, I have driven two people completely out of the field of journalism. They packed up and found a new career. I am not sorry for this either. These two people didn't have what it takes to be a journalist and I did them a favor.

In dealing with writers I take no prisoners, in case I didn't make that clear.

In editing folks who are not writers and are just trying to get a point across, I'm very different. Not mean at all. Kind and gentle. Extra novocaine if you need an analogy.

That's me.

Where Paul and Sabrina are concerned, I am not holding anything back. I have, however, discovered something which surprised me. Warning - abrupt subject change incoming (that's how you do that kinda segue Paul, Sabrina and Rebel).

I have found there is a universe of difference in editing a book manuscript and a press release submitted to the newspaper.

In editing their MS, I have discovered I like it, the editing that is. A lot. Nearly as much as writing (except that writing is, well, never mind). This surprised me. A lot. (I also like the book, a lot, but don't tell them yet as I'm not through beating them up.)

As to the quality of my editing, that's again something I can't comment on.

Everyone pretty much thinks they can write a book (and you can if you can write). I shall poke your party balloon with a giant pin now. Just because you can write a book doesn't mean it's worth reading.

While I have known this for a LONG time, going over P&S's manuscript has simply reinforced it.

An independent eye.

We all need an editor. We need someone with an independent eye to look at our stuff. We need someone who really doesn't give a damn about hurting our feelings and who will tell us the truth. If we are willing to listen and go along with the good suggestions, it will improve our work.

Think about yourself now. Could you use an editor in your life? Could you use some advice in how you are running yourself?

Who would you rather surround yourself with - people who will lie to you and make you feel good, for a moment anyway, or have people in your life who'll tell you the truth no matter how much it hurts?

As for me, bring on the pain. I'm a writer and whatever does not kill me makes me stronger.

Demanding inequality

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I do not believe in equality. I cannot believe in a concept which does not exist. Nor will I willingly accept attempts to force such an unnatural condition.

But love ain't equal

Before that is explained, I ask you: Do you believe in equality?

If you say yes, I tell you that you are wrong.

Because it can’t happen.

So if you still say you believe in equality, then why? and in what categories, amounts and degrees?

Lemme tell you full equality also means you must accept another's Point of View as being equal to your own. Must accept. In other words, you can't disagree with it. Disagreeing means their opinion is wrong and by being wrong, cannot be equal.

Still want equality?

So set aside opinions. Now do you want equality?

Get specific. You have to. You must move beyond the great unwashed masses of humanity down to a specific individual. When you talk about equality, it affects one person at the time.

With the Fallen Angel in the fine print, the great majority of people also don’t believe in the overall concept of equality.

Another way of saying it.

Some of you are still not agreeing with me. Is OK. I’m not done.

Nope. They are doing it right.

Define equality. Now make it apply to everyone, every person, you know. It applies to the short, the tall, the fat, the thin, the smart, the retarded. Still believe in equality? Now make it apply to convicted criminals, people who were charged with a crime but thanks to a shyster, got off. It has to apply those who commit crimes but were never caught to begin with. It has to apply to people you love, people you hate (if you do) and those for whom you have no feelings.

Got equality?

If you say you believe in equality but then start making exceptions, you no longer have a rule. You have a policy. Flex that policy often enough and it bends out of shape. Now you don’t even have a policy. You have an arbitrary set of decisions.

Equality does not mean fair. Get right down to it and equality is among the grossest examples of disparity you can come across.

There is nothing more unequal than the equal treatment of unequal people. An apocryphal statement attributed to Thomas Jefferson.

Ain't the same. Nope nope nope.

Why should everyone be treated the same? In addition to not deserving it, you can’t make it work unless you reduce the lowest common denominator to zero. In other words, you do nothing for anyone at any time for any reason. That’s equality.

You like the idea?

Let’s get narrower here.

Believe in equal rights? I don’t. Remember once you start making exceptions you no longer have a rule, but a policy.

Would you let a child molester open a day care facility?

Ok. Even I admit this will never be average

Accuse me if you will of using extreme examples. Given enough time and enough radicals, today’s extreme is tomorrow’s average.

Believe in equal access?

Would you let a blind person drive a semi down the interstate?

I admit to being highly suspicious of equal opportunity too. Would you let a person with an IQ of 50 enter Harvard medical school and attempt to become a surgeon?

The most ludicrous of the “equality” crowd’s demands is equality of results. Ask a teacher about the federal No Child Left Behind if you want a diatribe on equality of results.

That absolutely can never happen unless you lower the bar so much a flatworm would lose skin trying to get under it.

Explaining my statement with an image

Only the delusional believe in equality. That’s a statement which is gonna generate some heat from people who don’t understand it. I hope this cartoon at left explains it. If not, well, some folks will just have to misunderstand.

Find the error in this famous statement - “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

I rephrase slightly to tell you, all humans are not created equal. All humans are equal in the sight of the Creator, but that is not what the above statement says. Faith makes all people equal. Inequalities created by religion are because man gets involved.

If all humans are created equal, then why isn’t everyone a genius on the level of Einstein? Why don’t we all have perfect pitch? Why are some people tone deaf? Why are some people born with chromosome anomalies, a condition that began prior to conception and has nothing to do with the quality of pregnancy, the parents or anything except a random roll of the genetic dice?

Change must begin with me.

An idea. Not a new one either.

Rather than force an unnatural and impossible condition, how about we accord everyone by their abilities and how well they use those abilities.

Grasp that. Implement it.

It will change your world.

It’s absolutely unequal. But it is as close to absolutely fair as a human can get.

I’d rather have fair than equal any day.

Fear this!

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
As I write this, I listen to a piece on National Public Radio about a polygamous marriage which also appears on some cable TV channel.

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/features/npr.php?id=137772853

Lemme slap this one on you. The Supreme Court ruled in 2003 consenting sex between consenting adults cannot be prosecuted as an illegal activity. So there's a good chance if authorities attempt to prosecute these folks in multi-partner marriages the prosecution will lose. While the ruling was over gay sex, it has been applied to such things as adultery in other courts.

Those who point to the SCOTUS decision and say it's not that clear all invoke the legal argument "morals."

As I have said before, putting your morals into the law of the land means other people have the opportunity to do the same thing. Do you really want to go there? Think hard.

Think too beyond your community. There's probably enough Muslims in parts of Michigan to codify Sharia, muslim law, into the laws of the land there.

A bit more than a technical difficulty here.

Still want your morals to have the force of law?

As for polygamous marriage and polyandry relationships, it's none of my business. None of yours either, unless you live that way and like it. If you live that way and don't like it, quit living that way.

End of story on that part.

I do have a problem, a major problem, with polygamous marriage.

To give you my problem, let me direct you first to rural China.


http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,501020603-250060,00.html

Another hint.

Here's the relevant bit from the story: Chinese demographers estimate that in some rural areas, 80% of children between ages five and 10 are boys. "You think the problem seems terrible now," says a U.N. official based in Beijing. "But wait until all the kids from the one-child policy years have grown up. That's when the epidemic will really hit."

Follow me yet?

Then lemme point out in the extreme Mormon sects, like the one in Texas that was in the news a while back, boys are far far more likely to be expelled from the community than girls.

Ya get me now?

Ok, then, one more example, this a bit of fiction and from the other direction. Paint Your Wagon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paint_Your_Wagon_%28film%29.

Hitting on all cylinders yet?

I explain. In most societies where polygamy is current practice, men are allowed multiple wives and the wives are stuck with one husband to share.

I got into a debate about this a few years ago with a devout Mormon. He insisted the arrangement was ordained by God to raise up a godly people unto Himself. I asked why a woman could not have more than one husband. He wouldn't answer that.

I have yet to run across a religious polygamous who will answer that question. Most of 'em get offended in fact.

Why?

All I can figure is they - and my "they" includes women - see women as second class citizens, inferior to men and not as worthy as man.

At the same time, polygamous marriages and communities which allow this also determine that most men are third class, inferior to everybody and not worthy of the most intimate form of communication.

and be proud of it!

Polygamous communities which don't allow a woman multiple husbands have many, many bachelor men. Often against the private wishes of the bachelor men you can bet.

Lemme point you to a telling quote in the above NPR story - "This isn't a lifestyle choice,"says Marci Hamilton in the NPR story. "This is a culture in which men must rule and women are not equal. Three women are equal to one man, nine women are equal to one man — and the children are second-class citizens."

That statement is a solid fact. Women become property, not humans, in such societies.

Some folks, who will yell about equality, will agree with me here, but will get irate at the next sentence.

Myself, I do not believe in equality because I believe in reality. All people are not equal.You are not equal to me nor am I equal to you. Example: My daughter, going into the 7th grade, is far better at math than I am.

What I do believe in is treating people on the basis of how they use what abilities they have. This is not equality in the purest form, but it is equality in a realistic form.

Knowledge - A threat only to deliberate ignorance.

I am not advocating for polygamous marriages. Neither am I arguing against them.

I only say if it is acceptable for a man to have multiple wives, then it is equally acceptable for a woman to have multiple husbands. Those who disagree are nothing more than deliberately ignorant inferior idiotic bigots interested only in proving themselves to be superior by using force of law and custom to hold down people they are afraid of.

News of the what?

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Rupert Murdoch closed what is (was) the most successful newspaper on the planet - News of the World.

Typical tabloid under US standards.

The News is a tabloid in US terms. Brits don't see things quite the same way. Tabloid over there (as in journalism circles here) refers to the dimensions of the paper not the content.

The newspaper was linked to a lot of hacking efforts, illegal there, which is the reason Murdoch is giving for shutting it down. He is, at the same time, trying to buy a controlling interest in one of the British TV channels.

Great Britian has government oversight of the media. By that I mean the British government can literally tell the media over there what it can and cannot do and this is done in public.

Such intentional, direct and above-board interference especially with print media is nigh unbelievable in the United States.

Anyway, the publication was the highest net profit of Murdoch's British holdings. Most of the employees there were not at the paper when the hacking scandals took place.

And he closed it down.

In a time when newspapers are losing circulation (News was losing 'scribers) and profits are down, Murdoch folded the shop.

This is Rupert Murdoch we're talking about.

I'm missing something here.

I interrupt my gripping game of solitaire to bring you this announcement

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Been a rough couple of weeks for your not-so-humble scribe down here where we live next door to God's home on earth. Nothing me, God and a loaded 12 gauge can't handle you understand, but wearing all the same.

Gotta beef with your editorial...

Unfounded, unwarranted, misdirected and poorly informed criticism of me and my job are par for the course around here. We in the newspaper bidnez have a jocular saying that when no one is complaining, it was a good story. When people start complaining, we're really doing a good job.

It's still wearing on us. It's a reason newspaper editors rank near the top in stress and stress related health disorders.

But again it comes with the territory.

Gotta say as much as it cranks my tractor when people attempt to flay me alive for doing my job and doing it right, it still bothers me.

Unlike some things that bother me and I do not understand, in this case I not only understand, but I have the hide skinned, tanned, and hanging on wall next to the skull.

It's intentional and deliberate ignorance compounded by pride and prejudice.

People don't know, won't know and will refuse any and all attempts to help them know.

And it ain't cause I want to be either.

I also call that stewpid.

Stewpid goes beyond ordinary stupidity.

I just can't abide that kind of mentality. It bothers me far more than it should.

So yeah, I've been swamped the past two weeks or so by the stewpid.

Rationality goes out the window. The people defenestrating try to bundle me into it as well.

--15 second musical break. Music of your choice--

While I don't have the wisdom of Solomon and I am often wrong, I can see what's right. Provide me with compelling evidence and I'll change my mind. Except about armadillos. Everyone has the right to be totally irrational about one thing and armadillos is mine.

I admit not everything is black and white. Nor is it always gray. Limiting it to just colors isn't even broad enough.

Which category do you fall into?

But still, some things can be reduced to the lowest common denominator that anyone can understand. Whether they are willing to understand, well that's where my stress factors being to orbit another solar system.

Doing the right thing does not mean exacting revenge on someone else. Nor does it mean thwarting their efforts. It especially does not mean blocking their attempt to do the right thing.

Do a cynical old irascible newspaper editor a favor if you would be so kind.

Just for a day, leave your prejudices, personal issues and complaints about other people at home. To paraphrase Rodney King "Just get along." Do the right thing, even if you don't want to.

Do you have it? Really?

Ask and ye shall not comprehend.

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

and I use tools.

I am a Christian. G’head and judge me. Prove to both of us that you are no different than the Christians you claim to so dislike.

Yep. I said it.

And when you get done judging, shut up. I am not interested in listening to you. I am also not interested in listening to the judgmental Christian crowd.

A few years ago I decided to walk out if I was listening to a preacher who started in about the sin of homosexuality or pretty much any other sin which he sees in other people.

I support both sides.

I re-affirmed that decision this week after shutting off the radio in the midst of a discussion about homosexuals.

Is homosexuality a sin?

Before I answer that, lemme posit this:

Is being so fat and out of shape you can’t walk down the block a sin?

Which do YOU think Jesus objects to more: Homosexuals or “Christians” who demand to get out of church by noon so they can get a good place at the buffet line at the local restaurant?

Which is more wrong - malicious gossip and packs of lies or two people trying to make a life together and not hurting anyone?

Is sitting in front of the idiot box night after night watching vacuousness better than reading your Bible for a hour a night?

Let 'er rip

So, is homosexuality a sin?

Hang on. I’ve got more to say first.

“Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”

Some “Christians” will say that we are being forced to accept the homosexual lifestyle as acceptable.

Oh really?

These same “Christians” are often the very first ones in the buffet line, the first to complain if church service runs a bit long and always ready to criticize someone else for not following the Bible while loading proclaiming they are saved by Grace while chomping a triple bacon cheeseburger and an extra large order of fries. They are the ones who get highly upset if a visitor takes “their seat” on a church pew.

And the Jews say it is year 5771.

These “Christians” are the ones who scream that abortion should be illegal but refuse to adopt children in need of homes (thanks for that one Cheryl B.)

These “Christians” are the ones who demand that their way is the only way, the way things must be and this must be codified into man’s law.

Yep. We’re being forced to accept, all right.

Furthermore, I suspect if we had an unlimited look into the lives of these “Christians” … well, I wouldn’t be surprised.

And the hell of it is, here I am ranting about “Christians” with the very behavior I so despise in them.

FREE TICKETS to the show!

Yowza! Yowza! Yowza! Step right up folks! Come see, hear and read the Amazing Hypocrite. Watch in amazement as he contradicts himself in one sentence. Witness his incredibly power of talking out of both sides of his mouth at the same time and if you know sign language, get a third contradictory statement from his hands.

yeah. In cyberspace, can people hear you scream?

“So why are you posting this, Baker?” you ask.

If you have to ask, you won’t understand the answer.

I have so far to go and the road is so long. I’m the one who really needs to shut up. But before I do, one parting comment-

So is homosexuality a sin? No moreso than this column.

God's law was given so that all people could see how sinful they were. But as people sinned more and more, God's wonderful grace became more abundant. Romans 5:20 NLT

One size fits all.

Add M

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


This is a repeat of a column from a few years ago. I bring it up again because one animal has moved from the To Be Eaten list to the Eaten list and a few people have asked about the kinds of critters I've chomped over the years.

I've also added a bit from the original, cause I found something else I needed to say.

Meat makes bigger brains.

If you have any animal rights activists in your friends list, please point 'em here. I'm running short of hate mail here recently.

Anyway today's observationins is about the word eat. Add an M to the front and what do you get? Meat. I'm not knocking vegetarians of whatever stripe they are so long as they are knocking my decision to attempt to inhale a double cheeseburger, sometimes one through each nostril at the same time.

You have a right to eat what you want just as I do.

I don't recall ever making a formal list of the kinds of meat I've eaten. Occasionally I have made a list as part of a conversation, but that was as ephemeral as the wind which carried it. Not that this medium is a lot more permanent.

Once I started making this list, I was surprised at the variety of critters I've applied molars, incisors and canines to. Anyway, the various animals which have crossed my plate are:

Killdeer, sometimes known as a Geoghagan Dove

FOWL
Dove

Quail
Wood duck
Killdeer
Snipe
Some other ducks, species of which I can't remember
Rock hen
Chicken
Turkey - wild and domestic
Canada goose
Emu

In looking at this list I'm surprised at the length. Rather short, considering the available birds out there. Then I must admit the majority of people reading this have eaten only chicken and turkey, if that. Why? What's wrong with duck? dove? quail? For that matter, if you can eat a dove, why can't you eat a robin, blackbird, or a crow?

Original cartoon from A Dog Named Nekkid

SMALL MAMMAL
Squirrel, gray and fox
Rabbit, cottontail and swamp
Raccoon
Beaver

Again, the shortness surprises me. Then I ran down the list of small mammals which are native to the South. Exotics and imports are not figured in here. I exclude tiny mamamals - bats, rats, mice, moles, etc - and domesticated pets cats and dogs. That said, the uneaten list is not much longer than the eaten list. Armadillo, oppossum, mink, otter, fox, bobcat. What am I missing? Ferrets? Not part of the South.

MEDIUM MAMMAL
Whitetail deer
Hog - wild and domestic
Goat
Sheep
Fallow deer

Leaving anything out which is native to the South? Aside from humans, I can't think of any except the cougar. Given the chance, I will eat cougar, but if I never get to, that's OK.

Lurch, a Watusi, not a longhorn. But still a cow

LARGE MAMMAL
Domestic cattle - cow, steer and bull
Brown bear
Beluga whale
Elk
Moose - possibly, if so I was very small at the time, but it is highly likely
Bison

Leaving any out native to the South? Can't think of any. The cow is not native to the South, but I include it.

Now look back over the mammalian list. How many have you eaten v. what is available to eat? Limit yourself to what is native to the United States (excepting the small ones). I can only come up with a few more - lynx, weasel, another member of the weasel family from up north, wolves (several species), coyotes, javelina, jaguar and jaguarundi.

More to the point, how many mammals are even available whether or not you are willing to eat them? The number is awfully short, at least from the way I look at it.

Slimehead AKA orange roughy

SALTWATER FISH
Mullet, including both kinds of roe
Cobia
Spotted weakfish (Speckled trout)
Summer flounder
Blacktip shark
Several other sharks, lumped into non-existence category "Sand Shark"
Yellow tuna
Blackfin tuna
Grouper, gag mostly, but some others. Species undertain.
Vermillion snapper
Red snapper
Croaker

Pink mouth grunt

Whiting
Pollock
Red
Hardhead catfish (not sailcat)
Sardine
Herring (which includes sardine and anchovy)
Black grunt
Pinkmouth grunt
Rock bass
Striper (also a freshwater fish, but this one was caught in brackish water)
Salmon - unsure of exact species. Canned, fresh and smoked
Cod

Dolphin or Mahi Mahi

Orange roughy - actual name Slimehead
Dolphin (no, not Flipper) aka Mahi Mahi
Wahoo
King mackerel
Spanish mackerel
Amberjack
Stingray
Triggerfish
Oddly enough, I have never eat a sailcat

NOT FISH BUT AQUATIC
Oysters
Mussels (fresh and salt)
Conch
King crab
Snow crab

Nuf said, eh?

Dungeoness crab
Blue crab, including softshell
Stone crab
Shrimp, various species
Crayfish
Barnacle (yes I did too!)
Lions paw clam
Bay clam
Whatever kinda clam is served on seafood buffets in the South
Octopus, not sure of species, probably several
Squid, several different species
Cuttlefish

FRESHWATER FISH
Channel cat
Brown bullhead (speckled cat)
Yellow cat

A big bull bluegill

Flathead cat
Carp
Largemouth bass
Flier
Bluegill
Redbreast
Longear sunfish
Pumpkinseed
Redear sunfish
Green sunfish
Warmouth
Crappie (various regional names)
Tilapia
Eel (also a saltwater fish)
Chain pickerel (jack)
Redfin pike
Redhorse sucker
Gar
Caviar - Ok technically NOT a fish, but I had it, sturgeon caviar and it was horrible.

Seriously fine eating.

REPTILES
Softshell turtle
Alligator
Rattlesnake - diamond back and canebrake, which some people say are the same species.

OTHERS
Ants - dipped in chocolate
And of course being a South Georgian, I have accidentally consumed untold number of gnats. It's something you cannot help. It just happens. If you ever visit South Georgia and step outside in the summer for than 2 minutes, you too will ingest a gnat accidentally.
Various other bugs. Can't be helped. It was not intentional, but if you eat canned food, eventually you're going to eat some bugs and bug parts.

Before I launch this next list lemme point out this is strictly a wish list and I have NO DESIRE to contribute to the loss of some endangered critters just to satisfy my appetite, so some of the critters I will never get to eat. On my TO EAT list are:

A musk ox would also look good on the wall.

Musk ox
Kangaroo
Caribou
Thompsons Gazelle (See here! My name's Thompson and that's my gazelle!)
Wildebeest (the buffet animal of the African Plains)
Cougar
Eland
Kudu
Giraffe
Elephant
Stag
Red Stag
Roebuck
Jackrabbit
Pheasant
Chukar
Mule deer
Warthog

Barbirusa. NOT photoshopped and the hog I absolutely MOST want to kill

Sulawiesi Island hog -barbirusa
Kodiak bear
Seal - various species
Crocodile - all species
Sea Turtle - all species
Alligator snapper turtle
Groundhog
Gopher - reptilian and mammalian
Prairie dog
Crow - I'm told the bird is quite tasty when grilled

Animals I hope I NEVER have to eat
Armadillo
Possum
Pigeon

Gotta support that habit...

Not a rassling smackdown

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

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/07/05/granderson.bratty.kids/index.html

Here's my take on this piece.

The kid acting out on the airplane? I'da put him in his place and his parents too.

I've done it. Just not on an airplane.

My kids are well behaved in public. Very well. I've had people come up and tell me so.

They were very happy to do so. I've told other parents of well behaved kids the same thing.

I did not abuse my children to make this happen. In fact, I only had to take action One Time to make 'em behave in public, circumstance specific.

I told them they could behave or we'd leave. Right then.

They didn't believe me. I picked up the offending child and walked right out of the restaurant. Left my meal on the table. Left the child's on the table. I said "Your momma (and your sibling) can finish their meal. When they are done, we will go home."

It happened once. Never happened again.

One day I took Susan to work with me. I was at the Police Department. I said it was time to leave. Susan sat down and refused to budge. I told Ollie (dispatcher) where I was headed (next door to City Hall) and I walked out.

3 minutes later here comes Ollie with a bawling her eyes out Susan in tow.

It happened once. Never happened again.

My daughter is about to 13. I have paddled her once. Jesse is about to be 15. He's been paddled less than 10 times.

My kids are behaved. Why? Because I demand their respect? NO!

Because I respect them.

Because I keep my word.

Because I hug them daily.

By doing so, I earn their respect.

In turn they want my respect. That matters more than anything else to them.

Which does not mean my kids are under iron control. They can and do go wild. They know when and where this is permissible and it ain't in public.

They also know they don't have to put up with idiot adults. Susan in particular will leave idiots gasping like a fish on the sidewalk. But they also respect positions of authority, if not the person in authority. There is a vast difference.

Furthermore, my kids challenge me. They contradict me. They are known to talk back to me. They sometimes sass me.

Yanno what? I not only tolerate this (sometimes and not in public), but I sometimes encourage it because when my kids can get better of me, they are using cognitive abilities and critical thinking skills that put them ABOVE the average college freshman.

In order to get away with it, they know they HAVE to be thinking just as hard as they can.

Can your kids do that? Strike that. DO your kids do that?

If they slack off in retorts to me, I make sure they know their Old Man is still the Alpha Male in the Redneck Genius Household.

If you can't finish it, best not start it.

When they realize they can do it and I don't take corrective action because they outsmarted me, they try much harder to do it again AND they try exponentially much harder to make me proud of 'em. (Which I always am and I tell 'em I am proud of their work. Frequently.)

My kids would rather achieve something by outsmarting me and that good and me be proud of that than to manage to outsmart me in being difficult to deal with.

Do your kids do that?

Mine do.

They are my children.

I am proud of them because they are being all they can be.

Defaults, advanced degrees, and saying neener, neener, neener to China.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
If you decide to not pay your bills, it depends on the bills you don't pay as to what will happen. Don't pay your utility bills and the utility gets cut off. Don't pay other bills and creditors will come after you. Possibly they will take you to Small Claims court. Depending on whom you owe money to, they may even take you into an alley for a conference involving repeated blows to your knees.

Don't be hating red ink.

Repossession is also a very real possibility.

But all that is at the private level. What about in the public sector? By that I mean the government.

What will happen, really, if the United States quits paying on the money it has borrowed, mostly from China?

In truth, no one really knows. Economists make predictions and forecasts. But they are basing this on semi-educated guesses and what has happened in other countries which defaulted on national debts.

Anyone can make a WAG and say it is authoritative, based on the amount of education they have. It's still a WAG.

As for a nation saying "Hey. We ain't gonna pay you no more, neener, neener, neener," all those are pretty much third world countries with a Gross Domestic Product composed largely of violence

Got one for you too

perpetrated by angry young men with full automatic weapons who are fighting slightly older men who were once angry young men with full automatic weapons. The economies in those countries can't tank because, aside from the unchanging price of ammo at Mohammed's Discount Military Supplies, there is no economy.

So what will happen if the US defaults on the debt?

I say let's find out. Quit paying on the debt.

This may mean the US will not be able to borrow any more money, unless it goes to the international version of a loan shark. Loans from Li Ching Achmed's Personal Government Finance Emporium will probably carry a 25 percent interest rate, compounded every time time a member of Congress says something stupid or opens his mouth, which is really the same thing.

Your neighborhood loan company.

Of course even Achmed may be too much of an astute businessman to float a loan to the US. In that case, no more borrowing.

I like it.

Some people are asking why the US can't just print more money to solve the money crunch. The short answer is because the American public likes to buy a loaf of bread for less than $5 a slice. The long answer amounts to the same thing, but you need an advanced degree in Economics And Other Ways To Not Know Anything But Still Be Respected And Paid For Offering Opinions to fully misunderstand.

However, they are making sense in one area.

The economists are predicting serious pain for the US if the nation defaults on the debt.

At the corner of Idiot Road and Stewpid Street.

The economists are predicting serious pain for the US if the nation doesn't get the budget under control.

The economists are predicting serious pain for the US before things return to what is typically called normal.

While I have about as much respect for the average economist as I do an armadillo, I have to agree here - Serious pain for the US is coming. The question is when.

Our current Borrower in Chief. Stop. Stop stop stop stop.

Lemme point out here. The nation's Chief Co-Signer when he served in the Sinate voted AGAINST raising the debt ceiling, saying it was a failure of leadership which led to that necessity.

Um. Someone wanna reconcile THAT and his present position and do it intelligently and rationally?

If the truth hurts, yer living wrong.

I'm listening. I seriously want to know. I'm tempted to list names of people who voted for him (and I did in the first draft), but I'm not going to do that. I'm right and they are wrong. Nuf said.

Anyway, our current Borrower in Chief is only delaying the pain when he wants to borrow more money.

Myself? I say get the pain over with now.

I also say, let's default and REALLY see what happens.

Will China come and repossess Congress? We can only hope.

Come and get 'em.