Because Plato's Cave is not fiction

As SG has this posted public, I'm linking here so you can read the thread.

https://www.facebook.com/walkerfire/posts/10209781067268411?comment_id=10209782369700971&reply_comment_id=10209784370790997&notif_t=feed_comment_reply&notif_id=1464024057007694

Jeeeeeeez. Fair warning, I entered this writing already quite irked, annoyed and in a general (and rare these days) ill mood.

"...news being turned into a for profit venture..."

What is the purpose of a media outlet?

Why do cantservative ventures sponsor shows? Because that's where the money is. Pay attention. Why does Rush Limbo have huge ratings? Because people listen. Liaberal shows simply do not have the audience draw.

How is this possible? People decide what to listen to. You may shoot the messenger (having survived an assassination attempt, I know what I am talking about), but that does not change matters. People consume the media they want. If funding an Al Franken radio show brought in the same viewership at Rush Limbo, then it would be supported.

If there's money to be made, someone will do it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_America_(radio_network)

"Air America (formerly Air America Radio and Air America Media) was an American radio network specializing in liberal talk radio. It was on the air from March 2004 to January 2010."

Was. Why? http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/business/media/22radio.html?_r=0

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-harden/the-death-of-air-america_b_433208.html

"That was right around the time their star host Al Franken’s $360,749 paycheck bounced. (Wouldn’t you hate to have been Franken’s bank teller that day?)"

Bounced. Bounced. Bounced. Boing. Boing. Boing.

Money makes the world go 'round. If liarberals wanted liberal media outlets, they would support those outlets with their dollars and those advertisers. 

Empirical evidence says liarberals would rather spend money on something else.

As for media bias, 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/how-biased-is-the-media-really/2012/04/27/gIQA9jYLmT_story.html

http://ajrarchive.org/Article.asp?id=4516

http://www.ajr.org.uk/index.cfm/section.journal/issue.Jul02/article=487

http://www.cjr.org/feature/rethinking_objectivity.php

http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/journalism_should_own_its_libe.php

http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/bias_study_falls_437_percent_s.php

Don't my my sources? Show me your own. Do not hand me anecdotal information unless you can back it with logs, study and empirical evidence, say 6 months worth of reviewing every word in a single media outlet.

About that political affiliation - http://www.journalism.org/2006/10/06/the-american-journalist/

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2014/05/survey-7-percent-of-reporters-identify-as-republican-188053

"Name all the different publication, networks, newspapers or radio stations you want. The sad truth is that only 6 people own them all." Nope. Nope. Nope.

Asbsolutes annoy me m'kay?

http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6

Don't see any newspaper ownership. May be some. Did not see any.

A more complete list. 

http://www.cjr.org/resources/?c=comcast

newspapers - http://www.stateofthemedia.org/media-ownership/newspapers/

http://web.stanford.edu/group/ruralwest/cgi-bin/drupal/content/rural-newspapers

"In the United States, some 7,500 community newspapers--papers with under 30,000 in circulation--still hit the streets, front porches, and mailboxes at least once a week."

You may say no one reads newspapers. You are wrong. Major daily newspapers are in trouble. Small community papers are by and large doing fine.

Further, if people do not read newspapers, to get long form journalism about their community, then the fault rests with those people. If people wish to be stupid, that is their right. If they wish to educate themselves, that too is their right. The information is available.

You can lead a person to reason, but you can't make 'em think.

As for the Gallup polls of the media, a mirage looks like water.

As a full time journalist, I strive for parity and fairness. When I get yelled at by both sides, I know I split it perfectly down the middle.

When I get yelled at by one side, I go look at my reporting. I find 98 percent of the time, the side doing the yelling won't speak on the record OR insists their opinion should be presented as fact. The other two percent? Yes, proudly guilty! I'm going to make my sports stories make the local athletes look as good as I can. Yes, my editorials are slanted BECAUSE THEY ARE EDITORIALS! It's supposed to have an opinion. 

Because Plato’s Cave is not fiction.

Now, I'm done. Sheesh.

Having cake and wearing it too

So, what do you think about the Supreme Court decision Citizens United? That decision often gives people spitting fits.

"CORPORATIONS ARE NOT PEOPLE!" is the screamed refrain.

SCOTUS decided.

"THE SUPREME COURT GOT IT WRONG!" is screamed while slobber flies. Pardon me while I find some paper towel to wipe down the inside of my computer screen. The outside is fine. It's the screamers sending gobs of spit through the Internet that are splattering the inside of my screen.

What do you think about the SCOTUS decision on same-gender marriage?

More spittle from some. Wild cheers from others. More paper towels for me.

The fact is the same Supreme Court decided both. The High Court has ruled.

If you complain about one decision, then why aren't you complaining about all the decisions?

Because you want things to go YOUR way and be damned what the other person happens to think.

Ya takes the good, ya takes the bad. You don't get to pick and choose.

Me, I complain about all the decisions. Yep. All of them. Pick one. I'll complain. Well, maybe not all, but a lot of 'em. Certainly far more than most of you.

However, SCOTUS has decided. Yes, the high court can revisit its decision. Done so regularly. The death penalty was kicked, then reinstated. Separate but equal. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Stare decisis? Might as well say nihilism. In the "reality" I describe above, the two concepts are exactly the same.

But some of those early decisions needed to be kicked to the curb. Or did they? Do they? Depends on whom you talk to.

So, do we revisit Citizens United? OK, then can we also revisit same gender marriage? Yes huhn. Revisit Heller? Cool. How about Roe v. Wade? Where do we stop? When do we stop?

How do we stop? That's easy. Constitutional amendment.

When you complain about some SCOTUS decisions and celebrate others, just because that's the way your mind works, then you are trying to have your cake and wear it too. Yes, that statement sounds ludicrous because it is. But, it fits.

Parse, parse, parse

parse

pärs/

verb

1. 1.

   analyze (a sentence) into its parts and describe their syntactic roles.

noun

COMPUTING

1. 1.

   an act of or the result obtained by parsing a string or a text.

Parse. In Southern, it means to understand what is being said. In S.F. it falls short of grok, but gets you pointed in the right direction. 

As my High School economics teacher Donna Robison taught me, you gotta look for the complete comparison. She told us "Better than" is a semantically null statement. "Better than what?" she told us to ask.

Good journalists, those who are responsible and are not intentionally spinning an agenda, make parsing simple. Those with an agenda to push making parsing hard to impossible depending on how hard they put their nose to the grindstone. The good ones tell you it is better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick, or something else. The bad ones just say it's better.

So, crost my email this morning comes this great example.

"TAMPA, Fla. (May 10, 2016) – Fatal crashes involving drivers who recently used marijuana doubled in Washington after the state legalized the drug, according to the latest research by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. New research also shows that legal limits for marijuana and driving are arbitrary and unsupported by science, which could result in unsafe motorists going free and others being wrongfully convicted for impaired driving."

Wow. Doubled. Impressive!

Read down a few more 'graphs.

" • The percentage of drivers involved in fatal crashes who recently used marijuana more than doubled from eight to 17 percent between 2013 and 2014."

You have more information now. Instead of one fatality and then two fatalities (doubled). Still pretty a freekin' hefty increase, but more manageable. Still don't know the exact number of fatalities. Parse, baby parse.

Back this train up. We're not done!

"...legal limits for marijuana and driving are arbitrary and unsupported by science..." 

Hrm. Arbitrary. Yanno what else is arbitrary? Blood alcohol content, BAC. The legal limit for DUI is .08. In other worlds (that is not a typo), if your blood is .08 percent alcohol and you get behind the wheel to drive, you are DUI. Arbitrary. I know people who at .10 BAC are better drivers than some people who've never had a drink in their entire life. I know some people who can't walk at .07 BAC.

Further this article states:

"Current science shows that drivers do not reliably become impaired at a specific level of marijuana in the blood. Depending on the individual, drivers with low levels of THC in their blood may be unsafe behind the wheel, while others with relatively high levels might not be impaired. This finding is very different from alcohol, where it is clear that crash risk increases significantly at higher BAC levels."

Arbitrary is explained, but ya have to read down into the article to figure that out. Parse baby parse.

Here's another buttocks prodder, "Twelve states have strict per se laws that forbid the presence of any levels of marijuana."

None. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Anyone else see the problem with this?

I give you a f'r'instance. I have never partaken of weed, but I have been around people who did. I've also gone on raids with L.E. and handled the harvest. In one raid, an officer told us that we would not pass a drug test for a few days post-raid. He'd give us a letter clearing us if we had such a test. And yet in those 12 states, we'd all be charged with DUI marijuana.

Parse baby parse.

For those still wimme, the whole press release is below. I deleted the contact info cause that's not sposed to be released to the public.

AAA: Marijuana Users in Fatal Crashes Doubles After Legalization

Garrett T......

To

wiregrassfarmer@

Today at 12:05 AM

 NEWS RELEASE

   CONTACT:

 Garrett Townsend, GA Public Affairs Director, AAA - The Auto Club Group,
  cell: (404) XXX-XXX, GTownsend@....... 

AAA: FATAL ROAD CRASHES INVOLVING MARIJUANA DOUBLE AFTER STATE LEGALIZES DRUG

New AAA Foundation Research Also Shows that Legal Limits for ‘Marijuana and Driving’ are Meaningless
 

Videos:
Dash Cam Video/B-Roll - Drivers allegedly impaired by marijuana
Sound Bites - AAA Spokesman, Matt Nasworthy

TAMPA, Fla. (May 10, 2016) – Fatal crashes involving drivers who recently used marijuana doubled in Washington after the state legalized the drug, according to the latest research by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. New research also shows that legal limits for marijuana and driving are arbitrary and unsupported by science, which could result in unsafe motorists going free and others being wrongfully convicted for impaired driving.

Washington was one of the first two states to legalize the recreational use of marijuana, and these findings raise serious concerns about drug-impaired driving with at least 20 states considering marijuana legalization this year.

“AAA does not take a position on the legalization of marijuana, but is passionate about laws ensuring the safety of the motoring public,” said Kevin Bakewell, Senior Vice President and Chief Public Affairs Officer for AAA – The Auto Club Group. “Given the findings of this new research, our advice is that nobody should drive after recent marijuana use, and law enforcement should have a fair and educated approach for dealing with those who do.”

The Foundation examined drug tests and fatal crashes among drivers in Washington, a state that legalized marijuana in December 2012. The researchers found:

• The percentage of drivers involved in fatal crashes who recently used marijuana more than doubled from eight to 17 percent between 2013 and 2014.

• One in six drivers involved in fatal crashes in 2014 had recently used marijuana, which is the most recent data available.

“The significant increase in fatal crashes with marijuana present is definitely a cause for concern,” said Matt Nasworthy, Traffic Safety Consultant for AAA – The Auto Club Group. “These findings make it all the more critical that we continue to research ways to enforce impaired driving scientifically, not simply by using an arbitrary number.”

In an attempt to enforce drug-impaired driving, some states have created legal limits, also known as per se limits, which specify the maximum amount of active THC that drivers can have in their system based on a blood test. THC is the main chemical component in marijuana that can impair driver performance and affect the mind, and the presence of active THC is generally suggestive of recent marijuana use. These limits are similar in concept to the .08 BAC limit for driving under the influence of alcohol.

Researchers examined the lab results of drivers arrested for impaired driving, and the results suggest that legal limits for marijuana and driving are problematic because:

• Current science shows that drivers do not reliably become impaired at a specific level of marijuana in the blood. Depending on the individual, drivers with low levels of THC in their blood may be unsafe behind the wheel, while others with relatively high levels might not be impaired. This finding is very different from alcohol, where it is clear that crash risk increases significantly at higher BAC levels.

• High THC levels may drop below legal thresholds before a test is administered to a suspected impaired driver. The average time to collect blood from a suspected driver is often more than two hours because taking a blood sample typically requires a warrant and transport to a facility. Active THC blood levels may decline significantly and could drop below legal limits during that time.

• Marijuana can affect people differently, making it challenging to develop consistent and fair guidelines. For example, frequent users of marijuana can exhibit persistent levels of the drug long after use, while drug levels can decline more rapidly among occasional users. 

“There is understandably a strong desire by both lawmakers and the public to create legal limits for marijuana impairment, in the same manner as we do with alcohol,” said Bakewell. “In the case of marijuana, this approach is flawed and not supported by scientific research. It’s simply not possible today to determine whether a driver is impaired based solely on the amount of the drug in their body.”

AAA urges states to use more comprehensive enforcement measures to improve road safety. Rather than relying on arbitrary legal limits, states should use a two-component system that requires (1) a positive test for recent marijuana use, and most importantly, (2) behavioral and physiological evidence of driver impairment. This system would rely heavily on two current law-enforcement training programs: Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement (ARIDE) and the 50-state Drug Evaluation and Classification (DEC) program. These programs train law enforcement officers around the country to more effectively recognize drug-impaired driving.  

“Marijuana can affect driver safety by impairing vehicle control and judgement,” continued Nasworthy. “Just because a drug is legal does not mean it is safe to use while operating a motor vehicle. Drivers who get behind the wheel while impaired put themselves and others on the road at risk.”

Four states, including Alaska, Colorado, Oregon, Washington and Washington, D.C., have legalized the recreational use of marijuana, and 20 states have legalized it for therapeutic and medicinal use. Montana and Washington have implemented a per se limit for marijuana at 5 ng/mL; Nevada and Ohio have set a limit at 2 ng/mL; and Pennsylvania’s is set at 1 ng/mL (view a map). Twelve states have strict per se laws that forbid the presence of any levels of marijuana. In Colorado, a blood concentration of 5 ng/mL or more gives rise to permissible inference that a person was driving under the influence of the drug.

The AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety will release additional studies later this year that will focus more on marijuana impaired driving and the data collected.

About The Auto Club Group

The Auto Club Group (ACG) is the second largest AAA club in North America.  ACG and its affiliates provide membership, travel, insurance and financial services offerings to over 9 million members across eleven states and two U.S. territories including Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Michigan, Nebraska, North Dakota, Tennessee, Wisconsin, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands; most of Illinois and Minnesota; and a portion of Indiana.  ACG belongs to the national AAA federation with more than 55 million members in the United States and Canada and whose mission includes protecting and advancing freedom of mobility and improving traffic safety.

About the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety

Established by AAA in 1947, the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit, publicly supported charitable research and educational organization. Dedicated to saving lives and reducing injuries on our roads, the Foundation’s mission is to prevent crashes and save lives through research and education about traffic safety. The Foundation has funded over 300 research projects designed to discover the causes of traffic crashes, prevent them and minimize injuries when they do occur.  Visit www.AAAFoundation.org for more information on this and other research. 

Calm down Benjamin...

Must do a better job of remembering everyone is NOT a journalist and everyone is NOT interested in making sure articles they write are 100 percent correct.

Hard to do.

Must also try to remember that other people are not grammar nazis and don't really care how they word stuff as long as they can hit send, even if it does present factually correct information.

All that said, I will admit that when I hit the send button on a recent thread, I suspected I was getting into an argument I could never, ever win, not even with incontrovertible facts on my side. I am very leery anytime I come across someone who immediately identifies as a feminist. Been clobbered one too many times just because I happen to have a X and a Y chromosome and I can think for myself.

When these feminists are also on the fringe in other beliefs, yeah. That piled up enough strikes against me to lose that metaphorical ball game without going to the plate even once.

Must do a better job of not arguing with people over idiotic stuff. If it doesn't matter, let it ride.

Yeah, Obama has it right this time

That is not a typo. I am in agreement with the current POTUS.

I wish to point out the current crop of presidential candidates, Reboobican and Damnocrat alike, are opposed to the POTUS.

At issue a bill pending in Congress allowing US survivors and survivor relatives of the 9-11 attacks to sue Saudi Arabia in US courts.

Bad, bad, bad, bad, bad idea.

This bill does several things.

It pisses of the Saudis. Do you really want to go there? We're already fighting losing propositions in the Middle East. The Saudis, right now, are our allies.

Saudis could easily jack the price of oil to where we're paying more than twice the top price for gas not long ago. If the ME shuts off the pumps to the US, then South America will follow suit.

The Saudis are threatening to dump T bills. Well, ok, that one is not bad. I wish they'd dump 'em.

We've gone to war more than once over business interests (oil). We don't need to do it again.

Most dangerously, it sets a precedent. Sovereign governments are that. If they are going to be held accountable to US laws, then the US will be held accountable to their laws. Sharia law haters may begin gnashing of teeth and wailing.

You say we SHOULD be able to sue Saudi Arabia for what happened.

OK, what happens when the Saudis and a whole bunch of other countries decide their citizens can sue the US in their courts?

Didja think that through? US citizens enter one of those countries and are immediately seized because the US is guilty of something. Residents are already at risk in some countries. This bill will make things much, much worse. Foreign governments, which already don't need encouragement, will use this bill as a pretext to start capturing and holding US and US citizens' assets.

Do you really want to be held personally accountable for the POTUS-order drone strikes?

This begs another question - how can the US force the Saudis to show up in court?

And another - what assets can be seized? The Saudis are already threatening to dump T-bills. US officials are pooh-poohing this, saying that would be even more destabilization of international markets than the Saudis will tolerate. (Ok, I still say lettem do it.)

You can bet they will dump if the option is to have those financial documents seized. Then what? What about that market crash the US officials are predicting? Besides which is the Saudi dump T Bills or those are seized you can bet other countries will dump & run too. (Yeah, lettem do it.)

Think it through. It's just a bad idea.

Very real differences

In the raging debate about who gets to use which bathroom, I come down squarely on the side of abandoning all gender distinctions in the loo.

This idea of separate facilities is a very recent convention.

But in this raging debate over gender identity, there is one very real, very quantified and very under-appreciated issue.

Sports.

Sports prove, and the evidence is absolutely there, that biologically born women and biologically born men ARE different. Men are about 10 percent better.

Fact. Reality. Empirical. Proven. Recorded. Etc.

Does this hold true once you get past the elite athlete level? After 30+ years of covering high school sports, I say yes.

At the high school level, boys hit harder, run faster, throw faster, move faster etc etc etc. Watch high school basketball. Look at scores in boys games v. girls games. Heck, WATCH the games. Look at any sport that has M and F teams.

So, and it please the court of public opinion, comes the question: Is it fair to let people who birth-gender swap compete directly against unswapped birth-gender athletes?

The evidence (the evidence, the evidence, the evidence, the evidence, the evidence, the evidence, the evidence) appears to point to this: Letting a gender-swapped biologically born boy compete in girls sports is going to give the swapper a definite edge. Letting a bio born girl gender swapped to a boy compete against boys is going to put the swapper at a distinct disadvantage.

At the elite amateur level (think international and Olympic-level sports) and many pro sport levels, this is pretty settled. No "performance enhancing drugs." In other words, no testosterone shots. If your body can't naturaly produce it, you can't have it. You can't augment either.

So what about it? Let gender-swapped compete against their chosen gender or against their birth gender peers?

I don't have an opinion. I'm just amused by this and the splodey heads this will create.

Out damned optimism!

Optimism. A positive outlook and a continuing belief system that it will work out and things are good.

Frustration. The desire to take the optimism out back of the woodshed and beat some sense into the thing.

(sigh).

So, posted a link to This Story and asked would people please answer the questions that author poses. The only condition posed: No quackery or as you probably know it qua- excuse me. Psychiatry. Why the embargo on quackery?

The Decline Effect. As soon as the shrinks can explain this and psychiatric drugs, they get to explain:

DSM V. In case you don't know, this is the shrink manual. It's voted on every few years. Voted. Shrinks get together and Majority Rule! vote to decide what is a psychiatric disorder and what ain't. It's exactly like ER docs gathering to vote on what constitutes a broken leg. Get the SCIENCE! in order and they get to explain:

Expert witnesses. Charged with a crime? Find an "expert" to testify you are more warped than a Mobius strip in a blender. The other side is going to find an "expert" in the same place to testify you are as sane as everyone in the courthouse. This is NOT a case of a few fringe elements with advanced degrees disputing SCIENCE! This is a case of half the room of shrinks say you are more nuts than a pecan processing plant and the other half of the room saying you are as competent as a pipe wrench in the hands of a plumber.

So the link got posted with a plea for definitive answers to the posed questions.

Got one, 1, near answer. The near answer comes from JW - "The abnormal behavior lived out by this person (someone with mental illness whom he has known for years) continues to be totally normal and defensible from that person's perspective."


Got 200 and counting extraneous comments, a few profanities and some hurled insults, which got 86'd. Got a few metric tons of defensive statements, justifications and positioning. Got some good-natured insults which I let slide because those of us making 'em don't truly mean it. And, they are funny.

Solid answers are harder to come by than ytterbium. No answers. The author even poses some excellent questions. F'r'zample, "Second, what’s the difference between someone with “gender dysphoria” (or, as it used to be called, “gender identity disorder”) and someone, say, with schizophrenia or “multiple personality disorder” or some other psychological condition?"

What about sex change regret? Don't go there. These waters are already so muddy they are starting to harden into concrete! (Ok, here's the other side of that one.)

<sound of crickets chirping is drowned out by rabid screams of entrenched sides which believes the others are the biggest gang of idiots since Congress>

Empirical evidence says getting straight answers to serious questions in social media is like voting for president. It gets ugly in a hurry and what you actually get is toxic waste that should really be shot into the sun for permanent destruction.

And yet, I posted. And yet, I hoped. And yet, reality once again came up and bitch-slapped my rose colored glasses right off my face.

And the hell of it is, I'll probably do it again. Damned optimist!

In case you don't wonder, I don't care what people do to themselves. I'd just like some reasonable answers to the questions in the article just 'cause I'm curious. 

No. He ain't a journalist either.

Fair warning. This contains some profanity.

You may have read the "Open Letter" posted by the Humans of New York (as opposed to the C.H.U.D. of New York, I suppose) . In case you have not read it, here ya go. Read. I'll wait.

An Open Letter to Donald Trump:

Mr. Trump,

I try my hardest not to be political. I’ve refused to interview several of your fellow candidates. I didn’t want to risk any personal goodwill by appearing to take sides in a contentious election. I thought: ‘Maybe the timing is not right.’ But I realize now that there is no correct time to oppose violence and prejudice. The time is always now. Because along with millions of Americans, I’ve come to realize that opposing you is no longer a political decision. It is a moral one.

I’ve watched you retweet racist images. I’ve watched you retweet racist lies. I’ve watched you take 48 hours to disavow white supremacy. I’ve watched you joyfully encourage violence, and promise to ‘pay the legal fees’ of those who commit violence on your behalf. I’ve watched you advocate the use of torture and the murder of terrorists’ families. I’ve watched you gleefully tell stories of executing Muslims with bullets dipped in pig blood. I’ve watched you compare refugees to ‘snakes,’ and claim that ‘Islam hates us.’

I am a journalist, Mr. Trump. And over the last two years I have conducted extensive interviews with hundreds of Muslims, chosen at random, on the streets of Iran, Iraq, and Pakistan. I’ve also interviewed hundreds of Syrian and Iraqi refugees across seven different countries. And I can confirm— the hateful one is you.

Those of us who have been paying attention will not allow you to rebrand yourself. You are not a ‘unifier.’ You are not ‘presidential.’ You are not a ‘victim’ of the very anger that you’ve joyfully enflamed for months. You are a man who has encouraged prejudice and violence in the pursuit of personal power. And though your words will no doubt change over the next few months, you will always remain who you are.

Sincerely,
Brandon Stanton

I have some severe heartburn over this letter and probably not for the reasons you suspect.

As I vent, lemme do some backgrounding. 

1) According to everything I found out, Mr. Stanton is 32. This gives me heartburn for completely irrational reasons. I've been a journalist as long as he's been alive. This just annoys me. It is stupid, but there it is.

2) His opening sentence is VERY cool.

3) His second sentence completely, totally and without any question whatsoever CONTRADICTS his first statement.

About halfway down, he says, "I am a journalist, Mr. Trump." No, he ain't. If you are a real journalist you cannot make statements like "I’ve refused to interview several of your fellow candidates." No. Journalists interview people. Journalists publish what they say. It's none, not one damned subatomic particle, of a journalist's business WHAT they say. 

His third sentence also proves he is not a journalist. "I didn’t want to risk any personal goodwill by appearing to take sides in a contentious election."

Oh. Hell. No. in miles long flaming letters on the surface of the moon so the entire planet can see it. In this ONE sentence, Mr. Stanton has accomplished two things simultaneously. 1) He's taken sides. 2) He's proven he is absolutely political. This is, frankly, the biggest f'ng pile of bullshit I've seen in a while. 

So here's my Open Letter to Brandon Stanton

Mr. Stantion,

I admit to not knowing much about you. However, I've been a journalist as long as you have been alive. I'm not here to exchange war stories or such, but I am here to say, Mr. Stanton, if your letter is accurate, you are not a journalist. In case you wonder, I am a journalist, dad, preacher, hunter, author, publisher, editor, redneck, genius, too fat and a bunch of other things. I keep 'em separate. Your letter says you don't. Real journalists do.

Journalists have opinions. We keep 'em to ourselves. We interview people who we may personally despise. They have the right to be heard and we have the duty to help get their message out. When the person with the message is a front runner for the President of the United States, this becomes a sacred duty and the highest achievement a real journalist could possibly hope for.

Mr. Stanton. you say you are taking a moral stand. If you intend to be a journalist, your only moral stand is: Get the story accurate, complete and in context. Anything else and you become a news commentator along the lines of Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh and others with an agenda. You, Mr. Stanton, have an agenda. This is entirely appropriate and commendable, provided you don't try to pass yourself off as a journalist when working that agenda.

Mr. Stantion, journalists REPORT the news. Entertainers make news. That's 100 percent acceptable from any point of view.

If you intend to be a journalist, then leave your moral high ground. Quit trying to curry favor, "risk any personal goodwill." Quit worrying about what people may think and Report. The. News. If you do your job right, people will respect you for being honest, accurate and fair, none of which you manage in your letter. Your job as a journalist is to present all relevant sides of an issue, not decide which sides get an airing. To do otherwise means you are not a journalist.

You write representing the "Humans of New York." Mr. Stanton, I write as an EDITOR representing responsible journalists when I say, you are what you are, you have your opinions and nothing will change this. But when you let your opinions influence your reporting, you are not a journalist. 

Please stop representing yourself as such.

Ben Baker

Thank you

Can't speak for community newspapers editors everywhere, but I know a lot of us want to cover a state championship team.

I've been blessed to provide coverage for BUNCH of state champions. Circumstances prevented me from attending the state championship games at lot of the times. The times I did make to it a state playoff, the team I covered did not win the game.

Thursday, the Lady Rebels won the Georgia Basketball Championship and I was there. When the buzzer sounded, there were more than a few damp eyes on the court. Mine were two. I finally got to cover a state championship team in person from start to finish.

Wow. What a feeling. Next week's page one has a giant photo of beaming faces, a silver cup trophy and a white Wilson signature basketball. The Lady Rebs have to sign the ball yanno. For the first time in decades, I'm giving myself a photo credit. I just don't put my name under the pictures I take. This one is different. I want a reminder.

The Lady Rebs spent much of the 4th quarter just burning up the clock. Mylashia Yancey handled the ball a lot late in the 4th.  I was sitting under the goal as Mylashia Yancey dribbled back and forth across just about at mid-court as the clock wound down. Terrell County intentionally fouled her in an effort to get the ball back. The unassuming senior stepped up to the penalty shot line and sank two. When the Rebs got possession again, the Green Wave again fouled her. Two more points and the Terrell squad learned their lesson. Do not send Mylashia to the free throw line.

The game opened with Terrell's Green Wave turning it up and pouring it on. They jumped to a lead and the Lady Rebs just could not put together the offense they showed over and over again this year. I was only mildly concerned. The Lady Rebs had several "slow starts" several times this year, but they came out after halftime on fire.

This time was no different. The heat started in the second quarter when they finally went ahead. Terrell closed the gap to tie. The Rebs just got their hands up and played harder.

And, they won.

This caps a perfect 31-0 season for the Lady Rebels who are the only undefeated high school basketball team in Georgia this year.

It's also a newspaper editor bucket list item I can now check off.

It means what it says

I have learned more about Justice Scalia since his demise.

I also have learned I like some of what he said about the Constitution. He said the Constitution should be considered and interpreted in the light of the times in which is was written. In other words, look at what was meant in the late 1700s to understand the Constitution.

I like that. The more I think on it, the more I like it. Across the board.

Now some people are going to immediately rip into me about what the original Constitution has to say on many things, including slavery, women's rights and etc.

In other words, look at what was meant in the late 1700s to understand the Constitution. Read the Constitution.

I'll come back to that in a moment.

Scalia, among other things, said the federal government has no business telling a woman she can have an abortion. He also said the fed boyos have no business telling a woman she cannot have an abortion. His reasoning was abortion is NOT mentioned in the Constitution, ergo is a matter left to the states.

For those saying I'm now an idiot (and you may be right), I point out abortion is mentioned in the Bible. It was also available at the time the Constitution was written.

Further, under the Constitution, I'd argue that states have no right to have a say on abortion. See the 14th Amendment for particulars. This Amendment makes the Constitution apply to state governments.

Since I'm on the topic of Amendments, there's yer segue. Look at Article 5. Here's pretty good explanation of Article 5.

Real clear. Real simple. If the Constitution does not address the matter, it's left to the people. If the Constitution does address the matter, look at what was meant WHEN THAT PART OF THE CONSTITUTION WAS WRITTEN.

If there's an issue, Amend the Constitution. It's been done in my lifetime. Sometimes, Amending the Great Document is a mistake. The 18th Amendment was a mistake. The 21st Amendment undid the mistake.

Slavery was repealed VIA AMENDMENT!

The right to vote was AN AMENDMENT!

The only clause I can think of right now which should be interpreted in light of modern mores is the Cruel and Unusual punishment clause.

I was taught in school the Constitution is a "living document." It's not. If the Founding Fathers mean the Constitution to cover everything, Article 5 would not be a part of the document. The ability to Amend the Constitution is the Founding Father's guarantee that it CAN be adapted to things they could not foresee.

Interpret the words based on the time they were written. If you have issues, attempt an Amendment.

And let the flaming commence.

About that incident yesterday

A LOT of people wondered why I did not chase after the police and deputies as they sped to the scene yesterday just south of Cordele. A lot of people wondered why I have not reported more than the few lines on the newspaper's Facebook page.

I splain.

1) It was Thursday. The paper comes out Tuesday night.

In other words, I could:

a) rush to the scene and gather information from hectic officers who did not have time to talk to me. That is, if I could get that close, which I couldn't. While all the information I gathered would come from reliable sources, those sources would not have ALL the information nor all the CORRECT information right then. Not accusing anyone of lying, nope. Am saying in a rush no one has all the facts.

b) wait until things calmed down. Then I could talk to the sheriff, the PD and get what actually happened, who it happened to and what is being done about. I'd get it correct and have the full and CORRECT story in next week's newspaper.

2) I stayed out of the way. Really. They did not need me up there possibly getting in the way. I've covered a load of crime stories in my life. Every. Single. Time. the correct story came after everything calmed down and people had time to gather their thoughts.

3) I'm not interested in spreading rumors. I understand a certain broadcast medium in a nearby town is all about jacking the story and reporting whatever they think is the truth and factual. In 25 years, I've seen that outfit get 1 and precisely one story 100 percent factually correct. Every other story where I had all the details and they did too, they got facts wrong. Yeah, it is my opinion they lie.

You'll note that other infotainment outlet in a nearby town has put out a different story every time their immaculately crafted fiction is updated. I do make mistakes. Mine are honest and I correct them. Those folks cannot be bothered to get it right or correct what they do.

4) You wanna see pictures of dead people at an accident scene and people bleeding from gunshot wounds, go look somewhere else. I'm not going to feed the vulture in you. I do not like covering bad news anyway. I much prefer stories about the wrestling team headed to state today and tomorrow (GO REBELS!), students of the month at TCES, the west side water tank and pump and letting people who stand up in front of the City Council have their say in the paper.

The only time that other place will come to town is if we pay 'em thousands of dollars (ask why they have NEVER made a net contribution to the Fire Ant Festival) or someone is bleeding. I'm here for the good and the bad. Ask 'em why they won't cover the good stuff here unless they can get someone to pay for it.

5) I was already working on stuff.

6) People look to me to get the story right, to tell what happened and tell you the truth. That means waiting until the dust settles so everyone can see clearly.

7) I am not going to sling rumors on FB. In fact, when I see people slinging rumors there, I delete them from my friends list.

You may not like or understand this, but I am committed to getting the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. If you want lies, I do believe that outfit to the west and plenty of people on FB can accommodate you.

Grammar? What about her?

/Rant on

Lotsa people like to say you have to "know the rules of grammar in order to break them."

Really? Since when? According to what universal law of the cosmos? Who made you an arbiter of all things grammatically correct?

I know people who not only break the laws of grammar, but grind them underfoot, pour jet fuel on the ashes and light a bonfire. These people cannot read nor write.

Yet, they communicate perfectly well. Who are you to say they are not?

"Well, they are not writing."

And? What in the nine hells of Dante and the seven f'dangin' rings of power does writing have to do with it? These people communicate perfectly well. They can bloody well dictate to someone else who CAN write it down.

What is the difference? Barbara Cartland was one of the world's most prolific romance novel authors. She dictated her work and someone else typed it. She was one of the most commercially successful writers of the past century.

So. How do your earnings stack up against hers? How about the volume of her work compared to yours?

"Well, she knew the rules of grammar."

Circular logic will leave you eating your tail. So I reiterate, I know people who communicate perfectly well and leave proper grammar in shambles. 

"Proper grammar makes it easier to read."

A hit, a very palpable hit! Maybe the writer doesn't give a levitating coitus about you reading it. Maybe, just maybe, they wrote it for someone else to read. Didja think of that? You may continue to perch on your elevated milking stool, but forsooth, it hath no legs and thou be now recumbent.

I freely admit to being a grammar nazi, but I only SEIG HEIL! at people who are obnoxious about it or I do it to gently rib friends. I expect the same of them.

I have friends who say that I break the rules of grammar gleefully and with intentions aforethought. Yes we does my precious, yes we does. I do it, as they point out, to make a point, to make the expressed thoughts more personal, more vibrant and more thought-provoking. (Actual typos in my work make me wanna turn green, shred my shirt, blow out my shoes and miraculously keep my pants on, despite them being tighter than hooker's spandex on Saturday night.)

So lemme add this in defense of my unknowingly grammar-defying buds out yonder. Nextest time you decide to get all High 'N Strunk & White on 'em, please tell me how many books you have written (I'm at 12 now and 9 in print, not counting the 60+ history volumes I have contributed to), how many words you have written AND been PAID to write (for me, just guessing in excess of 2 million at this point) and how much money you make annually from writing (100 percent of my income) and how long you have been paid to be an editor (30 years and counting heah). Yeah. Let's get into a male farm fowl fight.

Yassee, when you go after people who look at grammar as a mild suggestion instead of a rule, yer trying to have a battle of wits with someone who is woefully unarmed compared to your arsenal. I'm just reminding you, "Let's have a fair fight, no hitting below the belt and keep it clean." Otherwise, I'mma have to step in an' beat you down by using your own rules.

/rant off

Missing an aggravated battery criminal charge

As evidenced by the half grown cat currently trying to distract me, I do like animals.

Except armadillos. We hates them we does my precious.

But I like critters.

Got home today and saw a dog inside the fence. Said to myself, "Best be out of my yard before I find you or there'll be some regrets on your part."

Parked. Got out. Eased a gun out. - In case you wonder, when I was 8, I got 40 stitches in my head from a family pet German shepherd that turned on me. It lived less than 2 minutes because the owner Uncle Billy, 'bout blew his engine getting from the far end of the property to the house to kill it. I've had many other dogs offer to do the Violence Waltz in the past. Some survived their first and only lesson to behave. Some did not.-

I was mad. Very mad.

Rounded the corner. The dog saw me and sat down. He wagged his tail. Still holding the gun, I called out "You're a friendly boy. C'mere then."

The dog eased toward me. He lay on the ground and crawled toward me. A pit bull.

Where I was mad before, I was furious to the point of crying and almost am now.

This dog looked like he'd just been liberated from Auschwitz. If the owner had been in front of me, I'd probably be in jail right now on an aggravated battery charge.

I picked up a few things in the yard and "Pal" followed my every step. We took the garbage can to the road and back. I went in the house, still about as mad as I could be, and got some cat food for him to eat. Best I could on such short notice.

Outside, he took a few bites and then was right back at my side again.

Animal control was called. My yard is too small for a dog and he had no collar or identfying marks. He'd be better off at the animal shelter than running around the streets starved and a likely target for the infected hemorrhoids that steal dogs to use as bait to train fighting dogs.

By the time Chad showed up, Pal was gone.

I'm still mad, furious. But if Pal shows up again, I'll feed him and sit with him until Chad shows up to collect him. In the shelter, he may die in a few days, but it will be a painless death and he'll be well fed and warm until then.

Unless someone else wants to claim him. In which case, privately send me your number and if Pal shows up again, I'll call you.

Wrapping this up.

Seriously. With this being the whateverth post, I've yet to hear from many readers (this presumes more than 4 people are reading this). Am I right? Wrong? A mixture? Have I started out with a fundamentally flawed precept?

Show me where I am wrong. Make your case. Prove it. Any takers?

Ok then, on with the show and the conclusion!

Hokay. I think I finally have this thought out. Try this.

What makes your rights more important than mine?

Say owning TV sets is a right.

You don't have a TV.

I have 2.

Do you have the right to take one of mine? Take implies you will use any and all force necessary, up to and including lethal force.

Do you still have right to take one of my TVs. If I refuse to give one up, do you have the right to kill me to take one?

The item is irrelevant. I use TV here because they are ubiquitous. But you can change it. Make it a house, money, gun, food hat, shoes, air, note pad, camera, free speech, water, self-defense, voting, vehicle, Internet access. Pick one.

The point is: I have it. You don't. I have more than one. You have none.

Do you have the right to take one away from me? Do you have the right to kill me to take it?

Do I have the right to respond with as much force as necessary to stop you?

Sane people will say theft is wrong.

Some insane people will also say theft is wrong but will still try to take my TV.

They try to take my TV through an act of government.

Apparently when government takes action, this makes it legitimate. Another tautology. Government creates the laws and so gets to decide what is illegal and legal.

According to the majority in this case, the rights of an individual are not equal to the rights of a group. The strongest group can then decide the rights of one person are superior to the rights of another person. Slavery, disenfranchisement, separate but equal, government dictating what marriage is.

This is government - deciding your rights are more important than mine. Why?

This is the fundamental flaw and one we cannot escape except by going to complete and utter anarchy. But anarchy brings another set of flaws. Anarchy, by very definition, means no consistency and no law whatsoever. Under anarchy, everything, including murder, is permitted because nothing can be banned.

Just like with government, the strongest get to decide. Hope the strong will be fair, but history shows this has never, ever happened except in brief instances. Long term, we're all subject to the whims of the strong.

There's the flaw. In order to function at an absolutely fair level government must be orchestrated when each person is to be a realistic altruist. And that has never happened that I know of. Even Jesus was not a realistic altruist because He had an overriding agenda.

The problem is you. The problem is me. The problem is all 7.5 billion people on the planet today. As Pogo once said, We have met the enemy and he is us.

Problems from the start - Part 11

So now we finally have the fundamental problem.

Your right to be without harming me. My right to be without you harming me.

Your right and my right cannot be absolute. Or can they? Your right and my right should be absolute. Or should they?

This is the problem from the start.

How do we balance these?

Lemme make this basic.

Your right to breathe means you are taking in oxygen I need. You exhale. When you exhale, you discharge all manner of things (follow these links!):

• Moisture

• Body cells

• Dangerous microbes

This doesn't even count the substances you inhale and then exhale.

Do you have the right to breathe?

Do I have the right to not breathe in your waste products?

See the problem?

This is further compounded by government. Government can't have rights. Government doesn't exist in a purely physical sense like you and me. Yet, government takes our rights.

JMSIII and Greg have posted two excellent comments about this series in the FB links.