The power is already in your hands

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
In our culture of "not my job, man" the refusal to take responsibility for ones actions has reached record proportions.

Rather than own up, suck it and deal with it, we as a culture head right to the nearest human condition parasite (lawyer) and demand a judge tell us it is not our fault.

Visit any courthouse in the nation from the County level up to the federal and you can find suit after suit filed by suit after suit (hows DAT for language use) for all manner of idiocy.

Some time back, a suit was filed by a customers of a cable TV company. The customers complained the cable company was bundling crap channels in with the good ones. The customers alleged they were "forced" to accept the junk channels to get the good ones.

Best selling edition ever.

Say what?

Forced?

Someone held a gun to their heads and told them to get cable TV or they would be shot? Or arrested and jailed. Pick your metaphor as long as it means the cable subscribers were coerced into getting the cable TV packages.

Wow. 1984 much?

The suit was tossed out by the judge. As well it should have been.

Now, cable TV provider Cablevision is suing content provider ViaCom over the same stuff. The Cablevision brief states in part is contract with Viacom "effectively forces Cablevision's customers to pay for and receive little-watched channels in order to get the channels they actually want."

It goes on to add "Viacom's abuse of its market power is not only illegal, but also prevents it from delivering the programming that its customers want and that compete with Viacom's less popular channels."

Wow. Fascist much?

We need to communicate.

The LA Times story reports: In its suit, Cablevision said Viacom forced it to carry 14 low-rated channels in return for the right to carry Nickelodeon, Comedy Central and MTV. Most of the channels Cablevision said it was "illegally" forced to carry are spinoff networks such as Nicktoons, VH1 Soul and MTV Jams. Cablevision also said it was forced to carry Logo, Viacom's channel aimed at gays, lesbians and transgender people.

As the Captain told Cool Hand Luke, "What we've got here is failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach. So you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it. Well, he gets it. I don't like it any more than you men."

Like nearly everyone who has experienced cable or satellite TV, I strenuously objected to the junk channels. My definition of junk is different than other folks, but it's the overall sentiment we're after.

Lemme put this point a different way: If you go to a restaurant and order food and the server brings food you don't want and presents a bill for it, what will you do?

Rather than throw my hands up in the air and whine, I did something about it. I have not watched TV in nearly a decade and have not have satellite or cable TV in my house for nearly that long as well. You see, I decided to take personal responsibility for my choices. The giant TV corporations make no money off me and never will until they provide what I want. I'm willing to pay for what I want, but only what I want.

You have that power too. It is in your hands right now. Turned the damned idiot box off. Read a book. Watch a movie. Do something constructive.

Some people are now going to look at me like I am an idiot or incredibly stupid.

Warrant!, if you are one of those people who thinks I am stupid and bitches about paying for stuff on cable or satellite which you do not want, then yeah, one of us is stupid.

Meanwhile, please, enjoy that sardine, spinach and anchovy sandwich the waiter delivered with the rest of your meal. It'll be on your tab every time you come back to the restaurant.

Be glad to question those answers for you...

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
When I go to prison (which I do regularly) and I talk with the guys there, I always wrap my discussion with the following:

Does anyone have any comments, observations or questions?

I tell 'em if they have questions, I will do my best to get an answer. But, there are some things I simply cannot answer.

Now, I tell you that statement is a bedrock foundation of both the hardest science and the most devout religious belief and everything between the two.

At this point, I shall now be assailed by the far ends of the Science v. Religion debate. To defend myself, I ask only: How do you know?

Look long enough and hard enough at the answer to that last question and you will come up with more questions. As I understand it, this is a fundamental tenet of science. More than one researcher with an alphabet behind his or her name as told me "the more answers we get, the more questions we have."

This is also a fundamental aspect of any religion, at least those I know about. Religion, faith, is a journey, say the religious leaders. A continuing effort to both get better and obtain a clearer understanding of the religion. Indeed, "the more answers we get, the more questions we have."

Someone is still gonna argue against me.

OK. For those of you on the side of science, explain gravity. WAIT! Gravity may not exist!

"That's just a theory," you say.

E=MC2 much? Tachyon much?

For those of you on the side of religion, tell me why a newborn baby is born riddled with cancer and lives less than a month after birth.

Reincarnationists will point to something bad the newborn did in a previous life. Others will say God works in mysterious ways, which amounts to the same thing.

Y'all in religion just proved my point, which is below.

Science and religion, at the core, both attempt to explain reality. Both do a pretty lousy job of it, if what they are after is solid and concrete answers. Standing back to take a truly objective look at both (at least as objective as I can), both of 'em are ludicrous. And now I have infuriated both sides again.

In previous columns, I have thoroughly illustrated the flaws, failings and massive shortcomings of both throughout history. That weight of history indicates both belief systems, because that is what they are, are the work of human beings trying and failing to make sense of the world around them.

And there is my point. We are humans and we try to understand things beyond our comprehension. We divide into camps and staged pitched battles and wars to prove who is right and who is wrong when we all we have are a changing set of beliefs.

Here's an idea - rather than argue and get mad at each other, how about we agree that we're all in this together and pool resources to try and arrive at some real answers?

yeah, well, I can still hope, which is another quintessential human activity.

If it would make a difference

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Yesterday evening while tending supper (wild hog steaks! oooooo...) and reading, I listened to an NPR report on a soldier who lived to come home from Afghanistan.

cept I have no hair

The more I listened, the more angry I got.

By the time the story was over I was near boiling and near tears at the same time.

If I could take out those responsible for war and it would change things, I would. By take out I do not mean escort them to a restaurant or the movies. You can use your imagination from here.

You say the cost to me for such an action is immeasurable.

I say if my actions could end war for all time, then yes, the cost would be immeasurable. There's no way to measure something infinitely small. But, I know that no matter what I do, it won't be enough.

Lemme interject here - I support our troops. 100 percent. I do not support the wars they are engaged in.

In the realms of Science Fiction, I occasionally come across stories where a group of peaceful scientists take control of earth's orbits and end war. They end war by creating unstoppable forces to rain down on those who would create war. Other stories bring in alien races which try to enforce peace on earth.

War! And what did this girl do to merit Napalm?

Neither works long term. The utopia quickly degenerates to dystopia because of man. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Power also abhors a vacuum. Truth. (A truth which the anarchist crowd refuses to accept, despite thousands of years of human history.)

The only thing, in Science Fiction and sadly in real life which manages to unite humanity and cause us to put aside internal differences is a threat from outsiders. In Afghanistan, the tribes have been at war for millennia. The only thing which makes them stop killing each other is a foreign invader. Even then, those who side with the invader are killed.

War.

As long as people are willing to resort to violence to achieve their goal and settle arguments we will have it. As long as a power vacuum will be filled, we will have it. As long as people are willing to accept the destruction of innocent lives, we will have it.

Sic vis pacem para bellum.

End run around Congress an old, old idea

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
This may get complicated, but I explain it at the end. This is also, to my thinking anyway, pretty important.

If we are to accept the historical record as fact and legal precedent-creating, then the President of the United States does have the right and authority to order drone strikes on American citizens, even on American soil, without formal charges, a trial and a conviction of that citizen.

Dunno about you, but the idea makes me want to start scanning the skies with a long range rifle.

Point of order Mr. Chairman! Those who objected in the past were blown away.

Point conceded. Let the record also reflect those who objected and were blown away died free men.

The point is: Are executive orders legal? Depending on whom you ask, the answer is yes and the answer is no.

However, such orders are nearly as old as the nation.

Before I explain, I have another point to raise. Many people, your scribe included, have raised various kinds hell over the current president's "executive orders" which end run around Congress. Few expressed the same outrage when the exact same maneuver was used by a president of the opposing party. For the record, I object when either party's president does it. And yet, f'dangit, I find instances where I support at least parts of some orders.

I hate it when I have to disagree with myself.

I went back to 1832 and found executive orders which flew in the face of another branch of government.  In Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515 (1832), the Supreme Court held that Native Americans were a distinct community with the right to some self rule. President Andrew Jackson pretty much ignored the ruling. Some people believe he said "(Chief Justice) John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!" Regardless of the veracity of that quote, President Jackson certainly never intended to enforce the SCOTUS decision as he stated in letters he wrote.

Jump forward a few more years to what is the most famous executive order of all time, an order which clearly states the military has the right to fire upon and kill American citizens on American soil without charges being filed, without a trial being held and without a conviction and sentence in place.

An executive order

Despite how scary the above fact is, you're going to have to look long, hard, far and wide to find someone who disagrees with the impetus of that executive order. You can find people who disagree, but they are seriously marginal people and hold a variety of other views which make them best suited to be the first involuntary colonists on Mars.

The Emancipation Proclamation did all that. It did an end run around Congress - which I abhor. It authorized the military to kill American citizens - an item which I cannot accept. It freed slaves - which I unreservedly support - but only in the Southern States. It declared war without Congressional approval - also a matter which has taken place since then many times over. It also overrode several Constitutional rights.

End run: "That the Executive will, on the first day of January aforesaid, by proclamation..."

OK to kill Americans: "... the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof..."

Freed slaves: "And by virtue of the power, and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States, and parts of States, are, and henceforward shall be free..."

War: "...and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion..."

Constitutional rights: Here I'm gonna offend people. So be it. At the time (AT. THE. TIME.) slaves were considered property under the Constitution. The Emancipation Proclamation therefore resulted in an illegal search and seizure of personal property. "Amendment IV - The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Union soldiers routinely camped out in Southern homes. "Amendment III - No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

Lincoln appointed himself Congress, policeman, prosecutor, judge, jury and hangman by taking upon himself the ability to create, enforce, try, adjudicate and carry out a law, to wit making slavery illegal. "Amendment V - No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Lincoln also overrode the Constitutional provision of how the Constitution may be amended. The Proclamation flew in the face of the Constitution's provisions on slavery.

AT. THE. TIME. the Constitutional read "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.)"

The 14th Amendment outlawing slavery was not passed until 1868, after the Emancipation Proclamation.

There are other instances within the Emancipation Proclamation which make it a violation of the Constitution, but you get the idea.

The procedure for amending the Constitution is laid out in the Constitution. This was followed for the 14th Amendment.

Executive Orders don't have to be illegal. But ones which usurp the rights of Americans certainly are. In the face of those, we have but one recourse.

From 12 years ago...

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Doin’ Diznee

I sit behind my computer, glad to be back among the land of the living, the real and most importantly, the sane.

As some of you know, I spent the majority a week in Florida. Much of this was also spent in Central Florida in the Tourism Despot Capital of the World on a media trip/vacation. Thanks to many newspaper connections and some furious letter writing two weeks before I left, most of the trip was paid for by other people.

If you ever plan to visit Disney World, Universal Studios, the Kennedy Space Center, Sea World and the rest of the stuff down there, I highly recommend you too get someone else to pay for it. This will save you a lot of money, which you will probably need to buy souvenirs which are not given away to media types. Dangit.

I also recommend that you take my family, if at all possible. This will allow my daughter to ride “Dumbo” again and I won’t have to experience the bouncing that goes along with having a three-year-old handle the rapid-response elevation controls on the ride. Susan thought it was quite funny when I turned green. By taking my family, you will allow J.R. to again flee the massive wave of 54-degree saltwater hurling into the stands at Mach 12 at Sea World as Shamu waves goodbye to the crowd.

Disney World is everything it is reported to be. The magic really is there. I don’t care who you are, when you pull into that front gate and see the giant Mickey Mouse waving a greeting, you are instantly hurled back to childhood when meeting the world’s most famous cartoon character was your goal in life. If you are an adult, this euphoria wears off quickly as you realize your options for entering the park are to pay the full-cost ticket prices (really it is worth it) or listen to a nearly homeless person expound on the virtues of a time-share condo in exchange for getting free or reduced-cost tickets.

Here too you must hedge your bets. Capitalizing on capitalism, the people responsible for the theme parks realized some time back they could split things up and charge admission to each park. So, instead of visiting Disney, you have the option of visiting The Magic Kingdom, Epcot, Disney Studios, two others I can’t remember the names of and several parks at Universal Studios. Chances are excellent that you will pick exactly the wrong park to visit to see a specific attraction, unless you visit one of the single-park parks like The Central Florida Sports Hall of Fame.

I also recommend if you head that way you pack along a 300+ pound redneck with a festering leg wound and 20 feet of 1,500 pound test rope wrapped around his waist. (Just don’t ask me to go, I’m booked that week). I found that by wearing shorts to emphasize the cut across my leg, a T-shirt and straw hat with “Grumpy” the dwarf on it, while leaving a significant length of rope trailing at my side, crowds parted as I approached as if I were Moses at the Red Sea. Small children did approach me a few times, thinking I was one of the theme parks “characters” perhaps for a new movie due out any time now. As the parents caught my eye, I twirled the rope purposely and made a quick hangman’s noose. The parents gathered in their children and rushed away to pose for pictures with “Shrek.”

This did not stop people from other countries stopping me and asking me all manner of questions about the park we were in. I felt horrible when a young Japanese couple asked me to direct them to a place on their map. As I patiently explained I had no idea what to do, Miriam, who is originally from Brooklyn and is employed at Universal Studios in the wheelchair distribution center, came to our aid. Miriam is deaf.

I am not making this up.

Through dint of much sign language and me speaking in slow, low tones, we managed to convince the couple their best bet was to head into the park and look for one of the multi-lingual signs or a park employee who spoke their language.

I don’t care who you are or what language you speak. Sooner or later, you will find someone else down there on vacation, or employed there, who speaks your language. You could be only one of two people on the planet who speaks Tomoloka and sooner or later, that other person will show up. The two of you could then debate the merits of a $5 bottle of water to your heart’s content.

This part of Florida is a shining monument to capitalism. Everything is for sale. Communist and socialists who venture into the region shrivel, die and crumble to dust like a vampire exposed to sunlight. The number of shops inside each of the Infinity-Minus-One theme parks is mind boggling. Bill Gates would spend his entire fortune and not make it halfway across one park if he stopped and bought everything for sale in the stores.

Kennedy Space Center made me feel at home. As I headed across the lobby, a guard carrying a full-auto HK 9 mm assault rifle was strolling across the floor casually. It was like attending a family reunion.

Kennedy is a working NASA station and they are SERIOUS about security. Every place was serious about it. All our bags were checked each time we entered a park. Rather than explain why I carried 20 feet of 1,500 pound test rope, each time I was asked I simply grabbed a few passing toddlers and hogtied them to a table leg.

“Cheap child care,” I said as the toddlers’ parents looked at me awestruck by my genius.

I’m told the hardware stores down there had a run on rope as I was leaving.

Sealing Plato's Cave

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Socrates, one of my philosopher heroes, was sentenced to death. Why?

He asked too many questions.

"Socrates' paradoxical wisdom made the prominent Athenians he publicly questioned look foolish, turning them against him and leading to accusations of wrongdoing. Socrates defended his role as a gadfly until the end: at his trial, when Socrates was asked to propose his own punishment, he suggested a wage paid by the government and free dinners for the rest of his life instead, to finance the time he spent as Athens' benefactor. He was, nevertheless, found guilty of both corrupting the minds of the youth of Athens and of impiety, and subsequently sentenced to death by drinking a mixture containing poison hemlock." Wikipedia

Ah. Corrupting the minds of the youth of Athens and impiety.

I like it. A lot.

Socrates corrupted those around him by urging them to question anything and everything. I try to do the same. Don't always succeed, but it's a pretty good bet Socrates didn't manage it every time either. I was raised to question, to wonder, to imagine, to push and to reach. I have often, often, often been accused of taking it too far. Fortunately, no one has offered me a jug of hemlock yet, although some people have been moved to violence against me.

Why?

I fall back on a maxim I have coined - If the truth hurts, you're living wrong.

Questions are posed and, in turn the querent is ridiculed. People will not answer the question. Rather, they hurl invective and insults. They denigrate the intelligence of the questioner. They call the questions asinine and stupid.

And yet, when faced with questions they are happy to answer, they will gleefully say "There is no such thing as a stupid question."

Hah?

I give you this comment from a FB gadfly of mine: "Yeah, I've gotten use to the whining of white guys. It's a never ending thing and when they get really mad they chase you down and shoot you. I got chased on the highway last night by some jerks who didn't like my Obama bumper sticker. They had NRA stickers on their big ole truck, fyi."

And "Stupid people get to talk too."

Why the insults for a simple a question? And which person is doing the whining?

Yes, it's easy to say "Baker, just go look up and you'll find the answers." Yep. Can do. But I am more interested in hearing YOUR reasonings, more interested in hearing YOUR thoughts. You matter to me. Else, I'd not be asking you.

A person cannot change the world until he changes himself. Change only comes from a willingness to accept and integrate new information. New information only comes from observation.

Anyway, Plato's Cave is and has been an incredibly popular hangout for thousands of years. What say we all get out of the cave and start talking to each other instead of slinging insults?

Profanity laden tirade

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Is what I want to rip right now, but I shan't.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/11/progressives-defend-obama-kill-list

Read the whole article. Sadly, the people who share my perspectives don't need to read this as much as other people who do not read my rambling.

I have read and reread this piece. It makes me want to spew profanities, as I suggest above. I am not going to do so.

I am, as the current president once said of people like me, going to cling to my guns and my God.

Cause someone has to do it

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Believe it or not, there are only a very few things in which I am a definite authority. I just happen to know a little about a lot, but only a whole lot about a little.

Journalism is one of those things on which I am an expert.

That's why a recent request to interview me may be pause, but only briefly. The request came from a reporter from the German news magazine Stern. This is the German equivalent of Time, Newsweek, etc. As to their political slant, I have no idea.

The reporter, Frauke by name, said the magazine was doing a piece on the gun culture in America. The idea is to give German citizens a better understanding of guns and the people in the US who own them. She'd found a piece on Yahoo I'd penned on guns, gun rights and gun control.

The interview took place Sunday. It included heading out with a few guns including the Bushmaster AR15 and an AK47 among others.

Prior to the interview and even now I wonder what the slant will be if there is one. Being in the reporting business, I know how stories can be slanted to fit a point of view, whether or not the subject agrees with the POV. Mistakes also happen. I admit right here to making mistakes in articles.

What will this story be like? What is Frauke going to say about me and the other people she interviewed? Is she going to talk about our discussion of a civilian Weatherby .270 deer rifle being no different from a military sniper rifle or an infantry rifle? Is she going to discuss how fast the AR15 fired and compare that to how fast I fired a 20 gauge pump shotgun? Considering how much information I gave her, including 10 pages of information I wrote ahead of time, how much will she use in the article?

I sent her home with spent casings, the copper jacket from a rifle bullet I dug out of the berm and a one ounce 12 gauge slug I'd cast. All harmless. The slug is a chunk of lead and the other was brass, copper, plastic and steel. Nothing in it dangerous.

What made me feel really good about this story is that Frauke had never, until she came to S. Georgia, fired a gun. Charles, the photographer, said he agreed to shoot the assignment for her because she told him she'd never fired a gun before and wanted to do so to make up her own mind. Her first shot was a from a pink Crickett .22. She ended the experience firing a 20 gauge pump.

Judging from her reactions, she really liked it.

Still...

Regardless of how gun ownership is treated in the article, I will agree to be interviewed in the future if need be. Someone has to stand up and represent, no matter what the media does. The truth must be presented. Those who distort the truth, and I am not saying Frauke and Stern Magazine will do so, must be told the truth anyway.

A closer look at racism

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Rodney King once lamented "Can't we all just get along?"

No, we can't.

Destruction from within

Some time back I heard a gent in a bow tie speak at a local church about division.

He quoted the words of a slave owner who said the best way to keep the slaves in line was to set them against each other. The slave owner said this was easy to do. Merely point out the differences in the slaves and let them build resentment against each other.

Call me racist if you wanna, but that slave owner was right. Look at the image to the right. Then read this story.

This young man has guts enough to put on attire that screams racism to prove a point - racism is bad, but what the same group of people does to each other is even worse.

Bravo Mr. Sixx King. What you do brings me joy and renews my hope in the human race. To see those who complain about what you are doing infuriates me and withers that hope.

If the truth hurts, you're living wrong.

The further truth is: Those who agitate for freedom from idiotological chains of slavery are attacked by those bound in chains.

It's not as much a case of Plato's Cave come to life as it is a case of an animal caged all it's life and taken to the wilderness and the cage door opened. The animal, faced with freedom, the unknown and something it has never experienced opts to stay in the cage, a place of security and familiarity.

A better way of expressing it: “We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.” and “Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.” Albert Einstein in both cases. And more personal to me, MOLLY HATCHET! Indeed, as DJB sings, how many times must the peacemakers die? How many times will the children cry.

Peacemakers throughout history, those who seek to bring people together, are reviled, assailed, attacked, rejected just as those who cry for freedom and independence are jailed and killed. Those who seek to open the minds (not the brains) of others are demonized.

Why?

Because, as I am fond of saying, if the truth hurts you're living wrong.

Yet, those who refuse to be bound continue the struggle. I salute them. I cherish them. I wish I could be more like Byron Thomas (see image at right) who rejected indoctrination and set about learning for himself.

And here's your history lesson - http://www.examiner.com/article/black-student-wins-right-to-display-confederate-flag

That old slave owner I refer to at the beginning was right all the way down the line no matter the people under discussion.

We don't need racism to tear us apart. We just need someone to stand and point out the differences between us. Then, we're happy to set about the path of destruction in the name of ourselves.

The slience is defeaning

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Whither supporters of the current president in the face of the memo that says the prez can order drone strikes on US citizens?

Answer: They have been served a SuperMondo Cup of "We done told you so!" and are too busy choking this down to answer.

I quote from the paper when I tell you this is how a drone strike on a US citizen is ordered:

"1) an informed, high-level official of the U.S. government has determined that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States

"2) capture is infeasible, and the United States continues to monitor whether capture becomes feasible

"3) the operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with the applicable law of war principles."

The rest of the 16 page document goes into defense of the indefensible and justifications of why a US citizen can be denied due process, the right to a trial by jury and so on.

Where is the Damnocrat and liarberal outrage? The same people who scream loud enough to be heard on Pluto when they think someone's rights (but only the rights they agree with) are being violated are nowhere.

Even the worst accused murderer deserves the right to a trial, they say.

Except the government now states some people doesn't deserve a trial. Mere suspicion is enough to order their death.

Whither outrage? Could it be they are learning the truth? Nah. That implies the ability to admit to being wrong. And in case you're wondering, I admit when I'm wrong. I've blogged it. Repeatedly.

If the truth hurts, yer living wrong. I take the pain and use it to make me stronger.

Anyway, equally disturbing are the three words "high-level official." In other words, if the pay grade is high enough, it's not murder, it's an order and an act of war. Never mind it's against a US citizen, we have to protect citizens.

Knife or drone, it's murder.

In other words, the Constitution is irrelevant depending on who you are, according to those in power.

The problem with this kind of reasoning is that is can be applied to those who support it. POOF! They're gone. Those who studied the history of the Soviet Union under Ioseb Besarionis dze Dzhugashvili can give you about 20 million or more examples of that reasoning being turned 180 degrees.

Not that you can get the most ardent supporters of the current president to comprehend that fact.

What we now have is proof, in the government's own words, that the Constitution may be set aside. Due process is now irrelevant, A trial by jury will happen (as we've seen too many times) only if it's not too inconvenient for the government.

Lemme slap this on you. This is an official statement of what government may do. If you bother to follow the news, you know it is what our government is already doing.

NBC broke the story. Unlike most people, I bothered to actually download and read the white paper. Ya need a copy? Hit me!

Highest grade there is too.

What do I think? I think it's business as usual, except that government got caught.

Of course, the White House is busy scrambling to butt cover (see picture at right).

And while I'm here, for those of you who continue to insist the prez doesn't do the drone strike thing, "Obama 'takes his responsibility in conducting the war against al-Qaeda as authorized by Congress in a way that is fully consistent with our Constitution and all the applicable laws,' Carney said."

Me? I can't find anything in the Constitution which allows the president to order the death of an American citizen. Of course I may have missed it. It's probably in that same area which says government can take my guns.

Looking for logic and finding rhetoric

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
In general when looking up something on the internet, I can find it in less than three minutes. Not that I'm a search engine genius or such, but I know how to research. It's how I make my living.

Hit & run...

For a couple of days I've been mulling a blog topic which required what I thought was going to be hit & run research. I fired up Google and typed in my search parameters.

All my hits are for the wrong side of the debate. Well, not the wrong side. My side. This time, I wanted the other side of the debate. I got nada.

I reset my search engine terms. Hit enter. Same results. Rinse & repeat. Insert choice of profanities here.

I have heard, and seen, how search engines are tailoring results now to what a person has searched in the past. In other words, Google directs you to sites it thinks you'll want. Good idea in part, but this also means Google steers you away from sites it doesn't think you will like or sites which you've shown no interest in.

This is disturbing. It means people are searching for stuff and by a wide margin, only finding information which supports what they already know, believe and so on. Sites with opposing information are not listed or appear so far down in the results that it doesn't matter.

One of the fastest routes to cognitive dissonance is to only listen to people you agree with.

From a general political point of view, Cantservatives epitomize this. Again in general terms, Liarberals at least will listen to other points of view, witness the huge audience Rush Limbaugh has (had?) of liberals who raise their blood pressure listening to him.

So I continue my search, looking for the side of the debate which I disagree with. Ten minutes in and I have some some websites, but none which offer rational states. Each one fires up rhetoric. The few sites I find without rhetoric have no substance, no facts and have generic information about the group holding that point of view.

Except two. The two sites I do find attempt to present facts, but the falsehoods, distortions, outright manipulations and emotionally laden rhetoric render their information next to useless for what I want.

You make me ashamed to agree with you...

So, to be fair, I switched and begin a search for the same kind of information for the side of the debate I support.

Yep.

A couple of places say they present real facts, undistorted, unmanipulated and stripped of emotional reaction.

F'dang. Refer to picture at right again.

As I write, I am reminded a human being is not a Vulcan. Humans are ruled by emotion. Logic takes a distant back seat, if there are even seats left on this bus, to temper.

And so, I leave you today with a rather ambiguous post and a detailed post at the same time. As for the topic which inspired this search and resulting rant, you'll just have to keep wondering until I can get some solid and undistorted facts in hand - from both sides.

But in hopes of leaving you happy, enjoy this last picture.

Bacon & egg cupcakes.

In fear of absolutism

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
A few things scare me. Some more than others. One which does scare me is an absolutist.

This is one area where I really appreciate the true scientist. The true scientist says "I can state this, because of observations and available information. If more observation and information becomes available, I may have to change."

That means the scientist is open to reason. A person who is open to reason is safe, well fairly safe.

Wild boars cannot be reasoned with.

A dogmatic absolutist is not safe and I do not care what side of the divide the person falls on. A dogmatic absolutist blows himself up and takes other with him in hopes of getting to his version of paradise. You can take that literally or figuratively.

An absolutists believes he knows what is right for someone else. That scares me beyond measure.

Such people are liarberals, cantservatives, Reboobicans, Damnocrats and whatever other political persuasion and party you care to insert. They all believe they know what is best and everyone should toe that line.

I don't quite understand that.

I do not recall ceding control of my life to anyone. I do recall making some compromises. For instance, I have agreed to get a license so I may drive Purple Haze, my motorcycle. I have further made other compromises so that I may drive my truck, car and a school bus (which no doubt scares a lot more people).
I do not like all the compromises I have made in order to drive, but at the same time I'm quite certain those on the other side are less than happy about me being behind the wheel or handlebars.

These are my choices. I can opt to not drive a motorized vehicle in which case I need not have a license.

There are lots of other compromises I make. The point is I have a choice. I can make the compromise or not.

If the balance is too far out of sync or beyond my willingness to meet the other side, I refuse.

That, at least to my thinking, is fair. I'm in a minority there.

Not just in physics...

When someone else forces me to make a compromise, then it is not a compromise. It is an unjust, unethical and should be illegal use of force. Force also comes in more flavors than physical. It can be economic, mental, emotional, social, etc. This is absolutism. These people tell me, "It is my way, or no way." No way, in this case, also results in the use of force, which is more absolutism.

I have long said we attack that which we fear. I view this as a defensive attack, yes sometimes pre-emptive.

I fear absolutists and absolutism because of how I perceive them to be a threat to me. I attack them. I will continue to do so. With each attack, I will weigh the strength and effect of the attack against potential and possible reprisal. In this too, I must compromise.

Good hysteria!

You may call me an absolutists because of that position, but I wish to add the following:

I also fear absolutism because there is no consistency.  The rules are applied with massive inequity. What works here, according to an absolutist, may not work here and that's all which will be said. There can be no discussion.

Why? Absolutism is based on hysteria and there can be no reasoning with the hysterical. Hysteria sees exactly what is not there and cannot be convinced otherwise. I said and I meant "exactly what is not there."

Someone else will point out one of my favorite Bible verses - A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways. Troo Dat. But a person who is willing to accept new information is not double-minded.

I accept new information. That I do not like the new information is irrelevant. Reality will not reorder itself because I object.

Absolutists don't get that. This is another reason I fear them.

Breaking on the wall of equality

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The idea that the US is now going to put women into combat roles has many people on both sides of the issue up in arms, enjoy the pun.

Me? Aside from being opposed to war, I have no problem in seeing a lady take up weaponry. It happens every day in this nation. It happens daily in the small Southern town in which I live. We have ladies in the police department and the Sheriff's department and the state prison. If we are willing to let a woman pack and be part of a law enforcement agency and run the risk of being killed in the line duty, then why object to them serving in the military in combat roles?

A myriad of reasons. Women in LE get to go home at end of shift. Combat troops don't. Hygiene; if you don't think that's a problem, ask some 'Nam combat vet. Average physical ability; on average, men are stronger than women. Beyond average, even the world's strongest woman won't compare to the world's strongest man. There's a reason the world's strength and endurance records are held mostly by men.

And yadda yadda yadda.

Beyond that, women have been part of military forces for as long as the world has seen military forces. So neener, neener, neener.

What this comes down to, at least to me, is equal opportunity. I am firm believer in equality of opportunity. I believe everyone should have the right to try. I believe the rules should also be the same, no modifications whatsoever, if the goal is going to be the same.

If modifications are necessary to let someone try, then the goal should likewise be modified.

Someone here is going to scream that defeats the purpose. The purpose of what, I ask?

Equality! they will scream. That's what you just said you favored! they will yell.

No, I didn't. And while I'm here lemme state, again, for the record I do not believe in equality. It's a nice fantasy to have, but living in the real world as I do, I cannot accept the notion of equality. For instance, my son Jesse has a functional IQ of between 50 and 75. He is not the intellectual equal of a Rhodes Scholar and trying to make the two equal is beyond ludicrous.

I really don't even believe in equality of opportunity. I believe in a qualified equality of opportunity, i.e. when there is an intelligent chance of successfully reaching the goal. I believe it is beyond stupid to let a wheelchair-bound person attempt to compete in the Olympic High Jump trials. Letting that person compete, as I understand the Olympics, means a person who realistically can compete is prevented from doing so.

That's a forced equality resulting in inequality. I object.

But when it comes to women in the military, let 'em I say. Equality of opportunity with an intelligent chance of success. If they can hack it, great. I have interviewed ladies in our military who were in combat situations in everything but what our US military calls a combat engagement. Works for me.  Unfortunately in this case, equality of opportunity also means unequal opportunity to share the pain. Dang that reality! Still, if women are willing to face an expanded set of risks brought on by being part of a war combat force, good'un onya I say.

Fantasy world

The screaming problem with this is women who think they will be equal to men in war are delusional.

Say what, Baker? you ask.

Did you miss it? I said "expanded set of risks." It's that damned PIA thing called reality interjecting itself again. F'dang. Can't escape it.

There ain't no equality. Women prisoners of war are often subjected to different treatment than men. Far be it from me to say women couldn't handle the same treatment as men. But it will be different. Still, if they are willing to run that risk, let 'em. Just don't come howling at me when women are treated differently in combat by the opposition.

There ain't no equality and attempting to force equality is going to break the one forcing it. In this case, gonna be some women broken to pieces they will never conquer.

The monster under the bed

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

To some degree I can support this.

To a greater degree, I have to say this is also laughable.

Direct your attention to the 9-11 attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Among the people who say the Pentagon was not hit by a plane was a teenager, 13-15 years old as I remember. He had no formal training in engineering, no formal training in the construction of a building, the construction of a plane and so on. When he uploaded a video of himself saying how the Pentagon was not hit by a plane, his story was immediately hailed by conspiracy theorist as proof.

Mmph. If that's the kind of "expert" evidence you happen to rely on, then I suggest you sell your house because Bigfoot is living in the crawl spaces telepathically instructing you that waffles are nothing more than a government plot to make you quit eating bacon.

Other people who believe in conspiracies point to "government" documents which appear to be written on official government stationery but are more full of typos than a 7th grader's social study report. Someone with the actual ability to reason might point out such "reports" look like the work of a deranged mutant orangutan. The conspiracy theorists merely say this proves their point - the government is covering things up.

Which is not to say conspiracies do not exist. Ever heard of the West Point Mafia? I heard about it on NPR this morning. Indeed this may be a quite innocuous cabal, but it existed and it changed the way the military prosecutes war. War is defined by me as when the United States uses force against people in other countries.

Certainly conspiracies have existed in the past. MK Ultra. The Tuskegee experiments (oops. Government link there so can't trust it. So you look it up). The IRS. The CIA. To be sure there is plenty of reason to not trust the government. Can't trust the media either, so the conspiracy theorists say, never mind the mainstream media are the folks who discover most of the conspiracies. Sacrificial lambs and all that.

In the interests of conspiracy, I must report here than I am an active member of the US media corps and have been for 25 years, therefore according to the conspiracists I can't be trusted either.

 

Some days, I love being me.

I am, so a lot of people tell me, a critical thinker - when I want to be anyway. I am also an empiricist in a great many things. The combination journalist-thinker-realist makes me even more suspect to a lot of people in the conspiracy crowd because when they present their theories I ask for proof. When no solid proof is forthcoming, they say that's just further proof of their position because the government is hiding it.

Yet, when their own system of "logic" and "proof" is applied to views which contradict their own cherished beliefs, it has to be flawed. They have no problem in pointing out the flawed reasoning. Makes me wonder if that redwood tree stump they wear in the place of contact lenses is actually a telescope, obscuring that which is close up and magnifying that which is distant. I wonder if that makes it easier or harder to see the monster under the bed.

True critical thinking must also be applied to one's own belief structure. To reject this is to be be a conspiracy theorist.

Gratuitous bacon shot.

I have a nightmare

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Alphaeus Days, someone you have probably never heard of, now lives in the same town I live in. He was one of the honor escorts in the funeral procession of The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. His picture, in the honor escort, can be seen in the archives in Atlanta.

An opinion which separates me from Liarberals and Cantservatives

When I interviewed him, the Rev. Days said he believes MLK would be proud to see a "black" man as president of the United States.

I disagree.

I could be wrong where the Rev. Days' sentiment is concerned. I am most emphatically NOT wrong where that sentiment is expressed by a whole bunch of other people.

As I understand (misunderstand) the statement, the Rev. Days believes MLK would be pleased so see our current president in place simply because of his recent ethnic heritage. This may be a misconstruction of the Rev. Days opinion and if so, I most heartily apologize!

However, a lot of people believe that.

They are wrong.

MLK would not be happy to see our current president in the Oval Office simply because he is of very recent African descent.

MLK preached and lived acceptance based on the qualities a person presents and that person's abilities. He said people should be judged on how well they do what they can do.

If those who elected our current president did so because they believe in his character, MLK would be happy. But those who voted for him because of the color of his skin would greatly disappoint MLK.

I am raising a son with Down Syndrome. MLK would look at Jesse in the light of what he can do and how well he does that. He would not seek to compare Jesse to a researcher at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. He would also not consider Jesse in the light of his ancestry, an ancestry which includes abuse and slavery by MLK's ancestors.

Cannot speak to the website listed, but the toon is accurate.

Who your parents are was much less of an issue for MLK than what you are doing with your life.

MLK had a dream.

"But there is something that I must say to my people who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice. In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred."

MLK's dream has turned into a nightmare in too many places.

MLK had a dream.

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

 Too many people have tried to hijack this dream and turn it into a nightmare. MLK as I understand what he lived for, would reject these people too.

In at least one regard, MLK would certainly be ashamed of the current president. Our current president has expanded the US war effort into more countries while keeping us at war in the same places George Bush II put us in. I define war as when US government agents be they military or another armed branch use physical force against residents of another country in that country.

MLK was not totally opposed to war, as I understand him, but did feel the US had no business in promulgating war. "And when I hear them, though I often understand the source of their concern, I am nevertheless greatly saddened, for such questions mean that the inquirers have not really known me, my commitment or my calling. Indeed, their questions suggest that they do not know the world in which they live."

He may have been speaking about Vietnam, which was a "police action" and not a "declared war,' but his words ring ever true if you substitute Afghanistan, Korea, Iraq, Pakistan, Honduras, Mexico, Somalia, Yemen. "Now, it should be incandescently clear that no one who has any concern for the integrity and life of America today can ignore the present war. If America's soul becomes totally poisoned, part of the autopsy must read Vietnam. It can never be saved so long as it destroys the deepest hopes of men the world over. So it is that those of us who are yet determined that America will be are led down the path of protest and dissent, working for the health of our land."

MLK had a dream. It took less than 40 years to turn it into a nightmare.