Cause you've been there too

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
How many times have you had your head ripped off (metaphorically of course) for something you didn't do?

How many times has someone lit into you for something you had no control over?

How many times has someone exploded on you and they were not in possession of all the facts?

How many times has someone just gone off on you and you have no idea why?

How many times has someone presented a highly distorted and twisted version of events as the gospel truth?

When that happened, didn't you just about beg for the chance to explain?

Didn't you REALLY want the chance to present your side?
 
What would you have given if the other person had just closed their mouth and let you get a word in edgewise or simply explained?

Do you think the other person could have seen reason?

Would they have seen reason?

If you just had your chance to present your side of things and then let everyone else decide, that would be better. Just asking them to be fair. Am I right?

Been there? Done that? You are not alone. I'm right there with you.

In fact, I'm stating categorically, firmly and without question that you are one of those people who had ripped into someone else without justification.

You shredded someone for something they had no control over. You refused to admit to the existence of another side. You categorically denied they had facts to add. You insisted your position was right and not even divine intervention could make you wrong. You would not listen and blocked their attempts to explain.

Chances are pretty good that you even left out information which would have undermined your presented view.

Not gonna say you lied, but it would take an electron microscope to find the line between your story and a lie.

If the other person happened to be right or had facts you did not possess, it's still their fault and you made sure they knew it. I'm still right there with you.

Why do you get upset when someone treats you like an idiot when you've done it to so many others? Do you really want to be fair?

In search of equality

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
"To unequal privileges among members of the same society the spirit of our nation is, with one accord, adverse." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Address, 1801.

This has often been rephrased to: "There is nothing more unequal than the equal treatment of unequal people."

Those who object totally are not being rational. Those who offer total support are also not being rational. Me? I find a lot to support and reject in that idea.

Equal treatment means you expect a paraplegic to be the same athlete as Roger Bannister. It cannot happen, at least with today's technological innovations.

I also believe in equal treatment of unequal people in certain circumstances.

The case being argued before the Supreme Court today is a good example. I refer you to Windsor v. The United States. In what surprised many SCOTUS junkies, the Supremes also agreed to hear the case on California’s Proposition 8, a voter initiative which bans same gender marriage.

If I had to put money on this, I'd say SCOTUS will come down on the side of saying Yes to same gender marriage.

Both cases are about government, not about religion. As I've said before, the true case before SCOTUS right now is: Is marriage a function of government or a function of religion? I expect SCOTUS to say it is a government function.

Here's why. It cannot be a religious matter.

"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."

If I, as an ordained minister, choose to officiate a joining ceremony of two (or more) people of the same or different gender, the government cannot stop me.  The government can only say the union is not recognized by the government.

Since religion is therefore not an issue because of the First Amendment, it has to be about a government document - a marriage license.

At the same time attempting to force religion into statecraft should be a violation of the Constitution. Unfortunately, it doesn't happen that way.

A PIECE OF PAPER

In the Windsor case, this is a matter of government treating people unequally. It's about whether or not they have the right to same piece of paper as other adults. Marriage is a side issue.

Hammer time!

In this case the lady bringing the suit had to pay a chunk of inheritance taxes which she'd not have to pay if her marriage was recognized by the government.

She and her late spouse were married in Canada. Not legit in the US according to federal law. A marriage of one man and one woman in Canada is recognized as legit by the US government.

Had her marriage been legit, she would not have paid the inheritance taxes.

In short, do you have the right to say who gets your stuff when you die? The huge majority of Americans will say an emphatic "YES" to that one.

So Windsor v. The United States is a decision on how much the federal government will be restricted or freed to interfere with individuals.



MOB RULE

In other case, on Prop. 8, it's a matter of whether or not voters can dictate to individuals. This answer is far less clear because voters can dictate to individuals in some cases and cannot in others. Ballot initiatives are nothing more than voters ordering individuals to do certain things. At the same time, SCOTUS has ruled voters have limits on how much they can order individuals around.

Mob Rule?

I don't know how SCOTUS will handle this one. I suspect they will come down on the side of saying Prop 8 is illegal, but I can't be sure. The Supremes have sided with voters in the past.

The municipal attorney in the City where I live has argued cases before SCOTUS. He said a while back the Constitution exists to protect the rights of the few from the dictates of the many. SCOTUS bounces back and forth on this concept of protection.

Myself, I like the idea of voters being allowed to decide what is law and not law. At the same time, I admit there are serious flaws with this idea too. The problem is voters, taken en masse, make a flatworm look like a genius. The biggest flaw is that people get exactly what they asked for and it's nowhere near what they wanted.

Tasty pain!

By and large I say when voters speak, that's the way it should be. They should then be forced to live with the consequences of their actions, no matter how much it hurts. In fact, where mass stupidity is concerned, the more pain the better.

Voters of the Granola State have spoken. Their word should stand and in the Land of Fruits and Nuts, same gender marriage is illegal. I see this as yet another reason why we should all mass at the Nevada and Oregon border and pry California off the rest of the United States and dump it in the ocean.

Stupid is as stupid does.

Myself, I support the idea of allowing same gender people to marry. As someone wiser than me once observed, why should misery be restricted to heterosexuals?

COGNITIVE DISSONANCE

In what I see as a sterling example of why the Right and Left in this country are nothing more than mirrors of each other, Cantservatives argue against same gender marriage which is increased government interference in a private life. Liarberals argue for the same, which is decreased government interference in a private life. Stupid is as stupid does.

Go Pope Francis! WOOHOO!

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Newly elected Pope Francis is putting his hands where he said they'd go - to work.

While I am not a fan of the Catholic church, I do admire the Jesuits. Of course, I admire lots of people and groups who've been unjustly persecuted throughout history and a few who have been justly persecuted. BTW, my jaw is still bouncing off the floor over the news that the Pope is a Jesuit.

Now if we are to act as Penn Gillette does, and take someone at his word until he gives us reason to do otherwise, this is the kinda Pope who will change things.

"This is what I want, a poor church for the poor," he said just after being elected pope.

This Pope has his hand directly on what the Bible teaches us to do. As my buddy Doc says, God is love. That this Pope is reaching out to the hurting, to the unwanted, to those society rejects and wants the church to do more to help the poor, dunno about you but I cannot think of a better definition of love.

Double high 5 back atcha my brother!

For too many years, lifetimes in fact, the Pope has presided over a church that was far too concerned with things that should be minor matters. It doesn't matter what kind of hat the pope wears. It doesn't matter what his vestments look like. It matters what he does.

Pope Francis is off to an excellent start as far as I'm concerned. He is leading by serving. How cool is that?

As I prepare to go to prison tonight and share with a group of men, I will be thinking about and probably talk about Pope Francis. Church is not just about God, salvation and fried chicken dinners. Church, the real church, the church God wants us to have is about getting off our butts, getting out and getting our hands dirty.

 You don't even have to believe in God or god to be a part of a real church. You just have to reach out. Every major religion in the world has that concept as a central tenet. Even the most hard core atheists accept the idea.

Real church is not about dressing up on Sunday. Lemme put that another way. Do you really think a coat of whitewash is going to do anything about the rot in the wood?

Real church is about telling that drug addict if he wants money, you'll personally take him to church and feed him lunch afterward. Real church is looking everyone else straight in the eye and saying "And why aren't you doing the same thing?"

Yeah. It's about visiting a juvenile detention center and washing the feet of the boys there. It's about visiting prison PERIOD and meeting those behind bars. It's about reaching into your own wallet and providing a cheeseburger to that homeless person.

Real church is about YOU doing something instead of demanding someone else do it. Real church is YOU making the investment, not forcing someone else to.

Real church is about you and how you interact with everyone else.

It's been said real leaders lead by example. It's been said a real leader will not ask his followers to do something he won't do. It looks like the Catholics about about to have a real church leader. Now, it's up to the rest of us to follow his example, no matter what you may believe or not believe about God.

Real church, and I don't care what your denomination, belief structure or god happens to be, is about making a difference in this world. If that ain't what your church believes, then you need to find one that does.

Real church is not condemnation. Real church is forgiving.

I restate here - You don't even have to believe in God or god to be a part of a real church. You just have to reach out. God will make sure you find Him.

You don't get to vote on this

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Far be it from to tell a fellow Christian if he is right or wrong, especially a Catholic, since I left that denomination as a teenager and ain't looked back.

I'll let Penn Gillette do it. Gillette is a confirmed atheist. He speaks on atheism and routinely questions and occasionally ridicules religion and its adherents. He is also absolute correct about the Catholic church, which makes a lot of Catholics uneasy.

He says Catholics who want the church to "modernize" need to re-examine their belief.

"Well, I think I may be somebody who believes in the Pope's position more than most Catholics. I really take people at their word. And it seems like all of the cynicism and all of the – who are we going to get in, modernizing – there's not supposed to be modernizing. It's supposed to be [the] word of God," he told Piers Morgan.

Morgan complained the church and the Pope are not keeping up with the times. Gillette correctly points out a central tenet of the Catholic religion is that the Pope interprets God's commands. Parishioners don't.

If you can't accept that, you're not a Catholic.

"This is great, what side you're picking here. I would say on my side that if you have someone who is a conduit to God and is speaking God's word, even if you can't understand exactly what God's plan is, even if you do see suffering, that you consider unacceptable, or any suffering is unacceptable, that still doesn't mean you get to vote on what God actually believes," Gillette said.

"Once you have somebody that is telling you, we are interpreting God for you, it seems like you either agree or you don't. You either say, like Martin Luther, I'm going to have a direct relationship with the word of God, or I'm going to go through a conduit of God on Earth, which would be the Pope."

Gillette, a confirmed atheist, has a better understanding of Christianity than most Christians I know.

You. Don't. Get. To. Vote.

You can, if you follow the Protestant Reformation and the Treaty of Westphalia 1648 sort of on this last one. I explain in a moment.

The Protestant reformation said people can interpret the Bible for themselves. No pope needed. Most Christians the world today are of this stripe. A sizeable percentage are Catholic, but not a majority.

That being said, if you interpret the Bible for yourself, then you must also grant that right to everyone else. Of course you could intend to set yourself up as a Pope and speak for God because they cannot speak to God directly. Unless you are being irrational. This being religion, I'm going with irrational.

If you believe everyone has the right to interpret the Bible for themselves, then finding proof you are correct and they are incorrect is going to be impossible. Unless you are being irrational or can provide bona fide miracles.

As for this ability to disagree over the Bible (and representative-style governments like we have in the United States and many other countries), you can thank the Treaty of Westphalia 1648 for that. This treaty removed the Pope and the Catholic church as the government from several countries. It spread from there.

Gillette, like so many atheists I know, has a far better understanding of the Bible and Christianity than most Christians I know. They admit if God is running the show, we don't get a vote to decide what God believes and does.

Elwood joins them

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Yeah, it was one of "those" phone calls. I've had too many of them in my life.

This latest call brought me the news that Reginald Gerrard died Monday of a massive heart attack. I called him Elwood. He and I played the Blues Brothers twice a year at the annual CWOT in Warm Springs. I was Jake.

Reg, Elwood, whatever you wish to call him is only the latest in a group of brothers in ink who have left this reality and go on to whatever is next.

The roll call is long. It starts with Jim "Mr. Joe" Joseph, one of my college journalism professors and one of three teachers to whom my first book is dedicated. Mr. Joe left with a heart attack as well. I spoke to Miz Joe not long after he died.

While I can't swear to it, I strongly suspect the second to go that way from my cadre was Robert Grove "Bob" Fischer. I lost touch with him when I moved back to God's Country from Nevada. When I left the west, he was suffering from a pretty severe cough and a few other ailments. He also smoked unfiltered cancer sticks for most of his life. He was in his 60s.

In no particular order from here:

A heart attack took a fishing buddy and newspaper columnist in Florida. Miss ya Bill.

He beat pancreatic cancer, but Bill Schulz gave up when doctors told him he had liver cancer.

Cancer also took Allen "Wally" Walworth, a real native American, genius and someone who saw humor in absolutely everything.

Cancer took Tom Rollins, who along with Bill S. sponsored me for membership into the Southeastern Outdoor Press Association. Miz Mona was not long behind him with cancer of her own.

Miz Lois died quietly in her sleep, leaving Bill Patridge some while without her. He too met that last deadline.

BZ "Beez" Leonard was the voice of reason and moderation in the Net Wits. She died quietly in nursing home with family and friends.

Max "Maxie" Ridley died from complications from the dialysis port in his arm. I still remember his last email, in which he laughed about the port "exploding."

The cancer that was killing him didn't succeed. Pneumonia contracted while undergoing radiation destroyed the lungs of LeRoy Powell.

Marta loved West By God Virginia and those mountains. She died peacefully in a rocking chair on her porch, leaving a pair of teenagers behind. She never spoke of the pain her ailing heart was putting her through.

While I did not know him as long as some others, Austin Saxon worked for and edited the paper I now edit for nearly as long as I have now been alive. He taught me much about community newspapers.

Bocephus says if Heaven ain't a lot like Dixie, he don't wanna go. I agree with that, but must also say if they don't have a place for us hacks to enjoy cold ones while talking about the business we love so much, yeah, I'm not sure if I'm interested in going.

Anyway, Elwood, I hope you're making the rounds with  these and other writers who met their final deadline.

For all the rest of us, life's short. Hug often.

The dangers of friends

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The vast majority of the people who read these irregular ramblings will agree with much of what I say. The few things on which we disagree are not fundamental disagreements. More a matter of tone.

Unfortunate. Most unfortunate.

When I read for edification and pleasure, v. strictly for pleasure, I seek out writers who discuss things I don't know much about. I look for columnists with different points of view. I look for people who pen words that, indeed, are in marked contrast to the views held by myself.



In case yer not wondering, when I read strictly for pleasure, I pull down the stuff of fairy tales, unicorns, mages, alien invaders and humor.

In other words, I actively look for writers who disagree with me. Liarberal firebrand Susan Estrich is a particular favorite. A committed feminist and mysandrist (at least in my view), Susan has a distinct way with words. When she climbs Mt. Everest to preach from the mountainside is when I enjoy her work most. When she blathers about finding something to cook for supper, I tune her out.

I want her to challenge me. Make me think. Make me prove my point, my belief, back up my opinion and support my argument with logic and not heated rhetoric. Such writers are a treasure.

At the same time there are writers whom I will not read even if threatened with revocation of my library card. Ann Coulter is one, since I opened with XX chromosome writers. I think she authored a book with the title "How to Talk To a Liberal (If you have to)" which pretty much defines the word pedantic to me.

While I can learn from those who agree with me, I can learn much more from those who disagree with me. If nothing else, I learn whether or not they are capable of independent thought or are simply a mindless minion like the Dittoheads. If they can think for themselves, then AYE! There's someone to pay attention to. If they can't, file them under the mental filing cabinet instead of in it.

By seeking out those with different and even opposing views, I engage in something called growth.

The only way anything living grows is to encounter, test and in some way accommodate opposition. That accommodation can be going over, under, through, around or even leaving and going somewhere else without that opposition.

If nothing else, that which grows must encounter gravity.

The harder the opposition the stronger the living must be to handle it.

Me? I'm not cut out to be a weakling.

Furthermore, that which is not living does not grow.

Therein is the danger of friends. Surround yourself with people who believe the same as you, think the same as you and act the same as you and, well, you're doing nothing more than living in Plato's Cave. Some of my closest friends on the planet have fundamental differences with my views. I cherish them for that.

I leave you with a final comment from another writer who says the same thing I just did, just as eloquently and a lot more tersely.


"If you have never changed your mind about some fundamental tenet of your belief, if you have never questioned the basics, and if you have no wish to do so, then you are likely ignorant.

Before it is too late, go out there and find someone who, in your opinion, believes, assumes, or considers certain things very strongly and very differently from you, and just have a basic honest conversation.

It will do both of you good.” -Vera Nazarian

You won't do it.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I come to you today with an offer. One the vast majority of people will reject. No worries. I'm not the one gonna suffer from it. Actually, it's more of a challenge.

A challenge few will accept:
 
Think back to the best times in your life. When were they, who were they with, how much time and money was spent to make those memories?

For one week, keep a journal of your time in 15 minute increments. List EVERYTHING. At the end of the week, look over your schedule.

You have more than enough time.

Track your expenses for a month. Down to the penny. At the end of the month, look at where you spend money.

You have plenty of money.

Now think again to the best times of your life. The memories that stick with you. The kind of things you'll talk about if you are 105 years old (or any age really) and a drooling heap in a wheelchair in a nursing home.

If you are being truthful, those best times involved spending time with someone who meant a lot to you.

Now go back to your two lists. See how much time and money you spent on the people in your life who are important. Of the two, time is by far the most valuable. "People don't care how much you know until they know how much you care."

You didn't spend enough time or money with them. Mostly, you didn't spend enough time with them.

Bottom line? What we claim to want and seek does not match that which we really pursue.

Our priorities are out of proper alignment.

The question now is, will you realign or continue your ways? Will you change? Will you invest what really matters where it really matters?

The answer is no. We're all too caught up in keeping up and that's expensive in terms of time and money, as your list, which you didn't bother to do, would prove to you.

The right to offend

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Working in a reference to Dennis Rodman visiting N. Korea is easy - I just did it. But making that relevant to a column on offending, offense and being offensive ain't. Now if this were a column on being underqualified for a no brainer task, then Rodman references would be everywhere.

This is a column on being offensive without trying. Sort of.

A number of my longtime friends have cast the gauntlet daring me to offend them. I'm trying, believe me I am trying!

That is easy. I could offend each one of them with just a few words.

However.

I ain't going to do that.

"Baker, you just contradicted yourself," you say.

No. I did not give you all the information.

A kick in the knee is much more effective.

To now elaborate - I can offend anyone. But to offend some people easily, I'll have have be to malicious about it. Bring on the hate, bring on the wounds that won't heal and crank up the heat. Kick 'em where it really hurts.

For instance, go after their kids.

Some people could easily be offended by slinging profanity. Etc.

Too easy.

It's a cheap shot.


Taking the low road to offend someone is not what I want to do.

To my mind, offending someone is an art. Example: slinging the word fuck around mindlessly is the same as giving a two year old a crayon and a wall. Yeah, yer gonna get a result and yeah it is art by a broad definition. From a two year old's perspective it may even be a masterpiece.

But with the weight of decades of living and the experience which comes with that, is that wall scrawl really something to be admired?

I point you to George Carlin who could take the F-word and turn it into high art. That people were offended by his incredibly creative use of the word fuck is a salute to the genius of the man. No cheap shots there. He worked hard to find inventive ways to bring offense. He created high art. It was only in his later years of life that he turned maliciously cynical, and yet his genius remained.

GAAAAAAAAAAH! The right words won't come out in sentence form! Try this:

Art. Offense. Intellect. Cogitate. Gadfly. Amuse. Annoy. The King's Foole. Torque. Comprehend. Twisted. Perspectives. Ruination. Reconstruction. Sapper. Idiot. Humor. Think. Offend. Brilliance. Open. Closed. Direct. Imagine. Estopple. Mock. Foundation. Anger. Commonality. Bridge. Grasp. Concept. Individual. Ridicule. Light. Darkness. Insult. Monument. Invest. Primal. Help.

Ah. Mo better, at least from my perspective.

Finest kind

Yes, I include "insult" in the list because an exquisitely timed, brilliant and piercing insult is a joy to see, especially when it deflates the pompously arrogant and exposes the lies, corruption and denigration of others within the target. It is high art.

And really, that's what I'm after when I bring offense. Art. I want to create something that affects my target in way they never expected. I want to bring something out of them they didn't know was there.

I'm also a surgeon, reaching into the person and hauling out something that, in my opinion, needs to be removed. Once hauled out, I mock it.

And again, I run out of adequate words. Maybe after I've had time to reflect I'll come up with a better description.

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.