The oldest profession

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Is farming. At least as far as we know for sure from the historical record.

In Nevada!

The idea that the sex trade is the oldest profession doesn't have the weight of historical record, that we've found so far. May come a day when someone unearths a chiseled stone from some ancient civilization with the words "B**** best have my money when she get back."

Bearing that in mind, I ask you why should prostitution be illegal? For that matter, why should it be legal? Run this one all the way out and ask, why does prostitution need any sort of government regulation, approval or rejection? Should government be involved in it at all?

I am sure my Christian readers will get quite excited about this and point to various scriptures as proof of why this is wrong. Briefly - There are "saints" in the Bible who "knew" ancient times prostitutes. From the records in the Bible (Genesis), these "saints" were not penalized for this, but did get slapped for other infractions. Prohibitions for such activities come about in later books of the Bible.

Valid currency at one time.

This is also the Christian Bible, a book that tells Christians we are to encourage, promote and love. Nowhere does it say we are to force, demand and hate.

Since I'm here and on this bit, I tell my fellow Christians if you intend to outlaw Prostitution based on Biblical precepts, then you must also outlaw all-you-can eat buffets, being fat, gossip, hatred and many other activities "Christians" engage in with much relish. Sputter, spit, fuss and fume all you want to. But if you pick and choose what to enforce, then I get to pick and choose what to enforce too.

Anyway, back to the central question.

Why is it any of your business what another person does with their body? Insert standard warning disclaimer here as I stand by with your answer rolled into a thick stick.

Gonna outlaw tattoos? Jewelry? Other body modifications?

Injecting some science into this debate.

"But it's sex. Diseases are transmitted that way. Diseases that kill people and etc," you say.

Pfffft. Sneezes, coughs, failure to wash your hands after attending a call of nature and just terrible person hygiene transmit more diseases than sex. Some of the diseases are just as fatal as anything you can get from sex.

Don't EVEN try to talk about the intimate nature of the sex act. It ain't No. 1 on that list either.

Chances are near 100 percent you know someone who's life was saved or at least lengthened by a blood transfusion.

I am an organ donor. Are you?

Chances are near 100 percent you know someone who's life was extended by an organ transplant.

You compare getting a heart transplant to sex on an intimacy scale.

"Well, prostitutes should go out and get a good job that contributes to the good of society," you say.

Ah. A few things here. What gives you the right to make a moral judgment of someone else by saying their work is "not good" and does "not contribute to the good of society?"

Looked for a job recently in this economy? You gonna hire a hooker to keep her from turning tricks?

I come back to the original question - what gives you the right to tell someone what they can and can't do with their body.

The truth hurts sometimes.

"It destroys marriages," you say.

No. It doesn't. Marriages are destroyed. by a VERY large margin, because of a lack of communication. When a person can't get what is needed in a marriage, the person will look elsewhere.  "Ladies, if you feed your man prime rib, he's not going to go looking for scraps in the alley," said a preacher friend of mine to his Sunday morning congregation. Can I get an Amen? More marriages are destroyed by a partner who won't than by anything else.

Some places have legalized prostitution. I am not aware of higher incidents of STDs, violence or any of the other stuff that people attempt to link to prostitution. For that matter, http://liberator.net/articles/prostitution.html which discusses how such things DROPPED. Another one for ya, with additional embedded links. http://www.reasonforliberty.com/current-affairs/legalizing-prostitution.html


In the United States, there is no federal prohibition on prostitution. Sex acts are legal business in parts of Nevada. Parts. Prostitution is not legal in Clark County, home of Las Vegas. Prostitution is also legal in other parts of the world. It's even taxed. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/30/german-prostitutes-tax_n_941764.html

Illegal in Oz. I am not kidding.

I have a friend in Australia, where prostitution is legal. He runs a hooker delivery service. He's offered me a job as driver. I'd take the girls to and from customers. I am not kidding. I told him no. I am not interested in living in a country with the world's 20 most venomous critters and a place where owning an Arkansas toothpick is illegal.

Explain that one to me. Can't own a large knife but you can hire a hooker for a few hours.

In the United States, we have Constitutional guarantees of freedom. I can't find anywhere in this noble document that indicates prostitution should be illegal. Rather, I can find the Founding Fathers and signatories to the august paperwork did use prostitutes (much to the chagrin of many.)

The majority of the world's sex trade is aimed at men. A lot of women around the world object to this. Married women especially object to this. See comment above from my preacher friend. But not all the sex trade is aimed at men. Some is for women.

There are a few who will point to children being used in the sex trade. This is a different matter and such people to put children in that position need to be staked out in the Bay of Fundy at low tide.


Why is it illegal? Gimme some good rational and sound reasons for it.

In defense of unions

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Just so there's no misunderstanding, lemme state at the beginning:

The DOT at work. Again.

1) I despise unions.

2) I support the right of workers to form unions.

There is no contradiction.

"I disagree with what you have to say but will fight to the death to protect your right to say it."

There's WHOLE 'nother blog in that one (which I may write today and keep on file for a day when I'm coming up blank).

Unions, as I have opined in the pas, bear some responsibility for the continued slide down of American productivity, sending jobs overseas and etc etc etc. But not all. The bulk of the responsibility rests squarely on the head of the average American who refuses to support the American economy, instead buying stuff imported from other countries.

Government work.

Anyway. It'll be no surprise to many that I object strenuously to  the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

"Now the NLRB plans to rewrite the rules for union elections in a way that further strengthens the hand of the unions and undermines the freedom of employers to keep from having collective-bargaining contracts imposed on them against their will." http://sroblog.com/2011/06/22/nlrb-runaway-agency-national-review-online/

In other words, government is again dictating how you, me and the guy across the street watching you with binoculars can run a business. Most of the people reading my musing have never owned or run a business and been responsible for employees. I have. I know. Once you try to start, run and maintain a small business with employees, your attitude will change if you don't already agree with me.

Why should government dictate how I run my life? If I have a small business, which I depend on for my income, pay my bills, taxes, feed my kids, etc, then my small business is me. It is a major part of my life. I again ask: Why should government dictate how I run my life?

Canya see it yet? Ok good. I'ma let go now...

A brief story - Growing up in Colquitt County GA, we had a metal fabrication plant in Moultrie. I spent a day working there as part of a school work-familiarization program. Some of the workers told me if they went on strike, they'd just lose their jobs. Low and no-skilled labor is easy to come by.

Is this right? Wrong? Before you answer that, answer this - How many time have to signed paychecks and handed them out to a waiting line of employees? You answer to THAT question will determine your answer to the prior two.

 Lemme ask you this. Does a business have the right to dictate to its employees? Trick question. The answer is "it depends." When a person is on the job, yes the business has the right to dictate to employees. It's called giving orders. "You do this." If you don't do "this" you get fired. A business cannot dictate an employee's choice of religion or restrict freedom of speech when off the job.

Freedom ain't free.

Sophomoric.

Can a business refuse to let employees form a union?

The First Amendment: 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.

People clearly have the right to form unions. They also have the right to know they can do so. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/62121.html

Lemme interject here - not all unions are bad. Those which agitate for the safety of ALL workers are good. Safety in the workplace is a good thing. Unfortunately, most unions today are about getting more money, protecting a select few union members, ignoring the rank and file and abusing non union members.

But most unions, from everything I see, are little more than legally sanctioned organized groups of business and industry terrorists, except they are too blind to see the people they are most damaging in the long run is everyone, including themselves.

There is the real problem. When a union's actions affect me, against my will, I have little to no recourse. But if my actions affect a union against the union's will, the union can come after me with a legal version of nuclear weapons.

Is this fair? Is this just? Is this parity?

Evolution, Christianity and facts

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
This is a blog written at the request of a reader.

To start, I direct you here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-faith/post/evolution-threatens-christianity/2011/08/24/gIQAuLVpbJ_blog.html

Combining both of 'em.

Paula in her column writes this simple statement "Evolution is a simple fact."

Yup. Only the most idiotic of people will dispute this. You only need to look at the present crop of pesticide-proof bedbugs to see it. They have evolved to be immune to the sprays we are trying to kill them with.

Evolution. A fact.

What many Christians dispute is the idea that the present form of man evolved from a lower order life form. This concept is evolution according to scientists.

Yep. It's complicated.

The problem then comes, as Paula points out, in the terminology. "In everyday English, 'theory' can mean something vague, a hunch, a guess. In scientific English, it is almost as far from that meaning as it's possible to get: in science, a theory is the best explanation for a set of facts."

As I am  not an evolutionary scientist, I can't swear to her statement. I can only say that scientists I have spoken to and interviewed over the years say theory is a statement in which all the known facts and observable information and repeatable experiments prove. Arg. Complicated.

Lemme try again. A theory is the idea which explains how all the known facts come together.

Mo betta.

E=MC squared. Also a theory. Altho not pictured here.

Now the very BEST scientific minds will stress that word "known." Why? Cause they admit they don't know everything. If they did, we'd have a Unified Field Theory at hand.

Theories, BTW, get shot down when new evidence comes up which disproves theories. Science is PACKED with examples of "facts" which were later tossed out when new evidence comes to light. This is why the word "theory" exists.

Theory is the best available explanation for the information we have.

Paula also says " Evolution is a theory in the scientific sense of the word - tested, researched, explored and supported by masses and masses of evidence."

True. And she'll continue to get no argument from me about the validity of evolution.

PROOF OF EVOLUTION OF HUMANS! Har!

 
So let's look what she's REALLY writing about. Evolution of humans.

At one time science insisted humanity could not descend from a single female. This was a fact. It should have been a theory.

Now, mitochrondial DNA says we all descend from one female. Yet another article in National Geographic points to more DNA evidence that we all descended from one male.

This is considered to be a theory.

Best evidence we have points that way. Maybe evidence we don't have.

With that in mind, the idea that modern humans evolved from a slope-headed, big-browed semi-arboreal whatever is a theory.

Yep. That's evolution for you.

We have no absolute evidence of it. We have a bunch of bone-shaped rocks, also called fossils.

You cannot put a human in a petri dish and de-evolve the human into an ancestral form.

Nor can you take an ancestral form hominid and evolve it into a human.

You cannot prove the evolution of humanity in a controlled scientific setting, ergo it is a theory.

A lotta scientists insist the evolution of humanity is a fact. I have yet to see the proofs I mention above. I have read and heard of many many reports on the evolution of humanity, all of which rely on interpretations of things which cannot be re-created in a controlled experiment. This is called the scientific method. Nor have we observed the transition from a "Lucy" type creature to a modern human. This is called seeing is believing.

The book I suggest you read.

The rigid proofs and requirements found in almost every other field of science to go from theory to fact are either absent, ignored or given slight attention when human evolution is discussed. Apply the same "proofs" of evolution to other scientific matters and the person offering the "proof" would be laughed out of the room.

M'kay.

What about Creationism?

It's a theory when the scientific method is applied to it.

Oops. Just torqued all the Creationists who read this and highly amused all the atheists. Agnostics are still not sure.

Scientists, not that any read this column, will also be highly irked in that I'm using their lingo to describe something they don't accept.

Creationism is a theory. It's backed up by the Bible. That proof is just as solid to me as any of the proofs for the evolution of humanity.

The crux of the issue is an accepted fact by both sides - You can't prove a negative. In this debate, being rational, both sides are negatives.

But, I know what side I'm on because I have all the proofs I need.

Bigfoot, Nessie, Respectible Lawyers and other such creatures

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Some time ago I wrote a humor column about being kicked by an elephant. As part of the column, I checked with the Department of Natural Resources (Game warden folks) to see if it is legal to hunt elephant in Georgia. I was planning revenge.

This is not me.

The answer?

Elephants do not exist in Georgia. Therefore they are not covered by hunting laws. So, I can hunt elephants in Georgia.

I was quite surprised to learn that the State of Georgia officially says elephants do not exist in Georgia. This will be a huge surprise to the folks at the Atlanta Zoo which has elephants. A baby was born there in 2008. Chehaw Park recently had elephants (they died of natural causes).

As much as this will surprise many of you, I have no intention of hunting elephants either in Georgia or anywhere else in the world. If I had the money to do it, I still wouldn't hunt an elephant, except with a camera.

How to avoid 'em? Don't re-elect ANYBODY.

But I could hunt 'em, legally, in Georgia, because elephants do not exist here. Extending this logic, a few other critters which do not exist here are lions, bigfoot, tigers, rhinos, giraffes, the Loch Ness monster, reindeer, elk, elves, bison, BEMs and LGMs, hippos, and cougars. Yes. Cougars. I have spoken to a number of Georgia DNR biologists and law enforcement officials. Georgia does not have cougars. This is an on-the-record statement from DNR officials.

I have not formally asked federal officials, but they have told me the same thing informally.

Since cougars do not exist in Georgia, they cannot be killed in Georgia. Since cougars do not exist here and they can't be killed here, then killing a cougar in Georgia has to be a matter of fiction much like seeing the General Assembly unanimously do something that makes sense.

But that is a branch of government saying cougars don't exist here. Reality is to government fiat as truth is to an ambulance-chasing lawyer.

I question how a person can be charged with a crime IF committing that crime involves an impossibility. But I forget. This is government I'm talking about. Government specializes in doing the impossible.

A fictional creature. Really.

"The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced today that David Adams, 60, formerly of Newnan, Georgia, was sentenced today in United States District Court, Northern District of Georgia, after pleading guilty to the unlawful take of a Florida panther, a species listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act.

"Adams shot and killed a cougar known as a Florida panther while deer hunting in Troup County, Ga.  At the time of the shooting, Adams knew he was shooting at a species of cougar, for which there was no open hunting season in the State of Georgia." http://www.fws.gov/southeast

In case you are wondering, cougars are legal game in parts of the United States. And yes, I'd shoot one.

Troup County, for those who do not know, is west Georgia, against the Alabama line and begins what we call north Georgia. Call is 600+ miles from where the nearest cougar is supposed to exist. Cougars, I repeat, do not exist in Georgia according to the people charged with overseeing such things as cougars, deer and other wild animals.


Reality and Government. The ultimate oxymoron.

Psychotic Readings FREE!

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

.
.
.
Before satellite feed radio took over, I was a regular on a nearby radio station's morning show. I'd call in, show up and when one of the regulars was on vacation, I'd go to the studio to fill in and guest DJ.


And end with emptying your wallet.

On Thursdays, we had a call-in show featuring a "psychic" from out west. Callers would get one question answered for free. More questions, you had to call the lady and pay.

Like many of you, I asked her why she didn't use her "ability" to win the lottery or something like that.

"I can't use my ability for personal gain," she said.

Ah. But she could use her ability to provide information to other people and then receive money from them for providing this information.

Can you say "cognitive dissonance?" I knew you could.

One Thursday I was guest DJ'ing and the lady was out (like far out man!). She was at another radio station somewhere else in the nation doing a live appearance.

We had a caller who wanted a "psychic" reading. The main DJ and I immediately offered a free "psychotic reading" but the caller demurred.

I had the chance to meet this lady in person. Yes. I asked a question. I asked if I'd kill a deer that year.

She said "yes." and said I had two places to  hunt. I'd kill the deer in the second place.

As it happens I did kill a deer, three in fact, in Alabama. It was the first deer I'd ever killed.

Highly recommended TV show. I am serious.

As also happens, I was there when a person I know called in and asked if she'd ever get back together with her ex husband. The psychic said "yes." As of today, nearly 15 years later, the caller is now living in another state married to someone else. The ex husband has since gone on to become an ex husband to several other women.

All this in mind, I ask if you have heard of James Randi. Randi has made quite a career of exposing liars and frauds. Unlike those he calls out, Randi is not proven wrong.

Penn & Teller did a show on "psychics" and those who claim to speak to dead people & so forth. I HIGHLY recommend watching that episode and any other episodes you can lay your hands on. They reference Randi frequently. P&T did not say such abilities do or do not exist, but they do say the celebrity types are all more full of shit than a constipated elephant. And they prove it.

That in mind, the $1 Million Challenge has been renewed. All a "psychic" has to do is prove they have the ability. They get $1 Million. In case they suffer from extreme cognitive dissonance, the money can also be directly donated to a charity so the "psychic" won't even have to touch the money.


http://news.discovery.com/human/1-million-psychic-challenge-110822.html


Myself, I don't see the problem here. Randi's foundation can either pay the "psychic" (after all, they do make money doing this) or donate it to charity.

Bring it.

Put up or shut up.

[sound of crickets chirping]

Yeah.

All this does not mean I do not believe in "psychic" abilities. Like Randi and most intelligent people, you can file me under "I don't know."

But I must also admit I have seen things which I cannot explain. I've witnessed people say things that they should have no way of knowing, do things science says is impossible. I can't explain it.

I am reminded of the old saw "any sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable from magic." Just because I can't explain it doesn't mean someone else can't.

These people, I've met 2, never take money for what they do. If offered money, they would not take it. These folks also are not interested in publicity, fame or any of the other trappings. They are only interested in helping people.

I suspect they are also dead now, as they were very old when I met them years ago.

Regardless, such folks won't take Randi's challenge.

If psychic abilities really do exist, such ability will be found in these folks and it will never be quantified because they won't participate in the necessary trials. They are only interested in helping people and to them, that is reward enough. People who charge for such "help" are nothing more than frauds and deserve to be legally prosecuted as such.

ATTENTION GUN CONTROL PROPONENTS

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

http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=1509760839117869165

And in case you don't wanna click the link -

The Illusion of Safety
by Rep. Ron Paul

GO RON PAUL IN 2012!

Recent incidents of violence in Norway and London have made us understandably uncomfortable here at home, as many fear that a worsening economy will lead to violence and unrest in American cities.  This is why Congress must view the economy as its first priority and a matter of national security: unless and until we get our fiscal house in order to foster economic growth, civil society will continue to deteriorate.

The fundamental lesson every American should learn from these incidents is that government cannot protect us.  No matter how many laws we pass, no matter how many police or federal agents we put on the streets, a determined individual or group can still cause great harm.  Both Norway and England have strict gun control laws, and London in particular has security cameras monitoring nearly all public areas.  But laws and spy cameras are useless in the face of lawless mobs or sick mass killers. Only private individuals on the scene could have prevented or lessened these tragedies.  And we should remember that theft, arson, and property damage were not the only criminal acts in London--innocent bystanders were assaulted and killed as well.  In those instances deadly force used in self-defense would have been fully justified.
 
Ben's comment - M'kay all you liberal gun control proponents. Gimme some feedback here if you can. You can't. He's right and we all know it. 

Next question

When cops show up, the riot is already in progress. Cops are also limited in their use of force. When they DO use force, they are also ripped apart for that. Cops cannot win in such situations.


One armed person who is present BEFORE the riot starts can defuse the situation. Two armed people will absolutely prevent a riot. I'll bet you.


And in case yer wondering "flash mobs" are not new. They've been around for decades. I'm not old enough to remember the Watts Riots in Kalifornia, but I do remember the riots in the wake of the Rodney King incidents. I also remember when "flash mobs" were called "Wilding" and the criminals attacked and killed many people.


No offense to the men and women in LE, some are my great friends, but they cannot protect me 24/7 from someone with a baseball bat or a 2x4. I can protect myself 24/7. And I do.


Back to Dr. Paul

TELL THE TRUTH!

Perhaps the only good that can come from these terrible events is a reinforced understanding that we as individuals are responsible for our safety and the safety of our families.  This means, frankly, that we must safely own and use firearms to deter or prevent criminal assaults on our homes and persons.  It is absurd to think police or government agents can protect 310 million Americans around the clock.

Thanks to our media and many government officials, however, Americans have become conditioned to view the state as our protector and the solution to every problem.  Whenever something terrible happens, especially when it becomes a prominent news story, people reflexively demand that government do something.  This impulse almost always leads to bad laws, more debt, and the loss of liberty.  It is completely at odds with the best American traditions of self-reliance and individual responsibility.

Got strength? I do.

Do we really want to live in a world of police checkpoints, surveillance cameras, and metal detectors?  Do we want to imprison every disturbed or alienated individual who fantasizes about violence?  Do we really believe government can provide total security?  Or can we accept that liberty is more important than the illusion of state-provided security?

Freedom is not defined by safety.  Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference unless they use force or fraud against others.  Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place.  Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal, because it would require total state control over its citizens’ lives.  Liberty has meaning only if we still believe in it when terrible things happen and a false government security blanket beckons.

This. Is. Truth. You ain't gotta like it, but don't come to my house if a riot starts.

Ben's comments - If ya like these gun posters, get the whole set http://www.a-human-right.com

Looking for some real reality

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Reality just is. You can append all kinds of adjectives to it, but that is editorializing something that doesn't need it.

But it's the only reality we have.

Some people also try to distort reality to make it fit preconceived notions, but it has a habit of appearing to bend thanks to those modifying adjectives, but when the gilt is stripped away, reality never changed.

Here's a hard dose of reality for you:

Certain segments of the population are incarcerated more often than other segments of the population.

This causes great and tremendous consternation among that segment of the population. Certain squeaky wheels point to this reality as evidence of racism, racial profiling, discrimination and a whole bunch of other adjectives appending to reality in hopes of twisting into a new a form-fitting shape.

On the surface, covered here with a gilt coating of guilt, it's hard to disagree with them.

And ingrown toenails!

Get yourself some more reality and you can see the true shape of things.

Draw a map of any community, provided you use political boundaries. These boundaries are important, artificial though they may be.

The boundaries are VERY important because they determine another reality. Political boundaries decide where one group of law enforcement officers' authority ends. That is important. A City Police Officer runs out of jurisdiction at the City Limits (except in very special circumstances which don't matter here.)

Pick a city. Any city. Almost cities are largely divided into neighborhoods of like-minded people. Economic, social and ancestry are the most common neighborhood dividers. Call this segregation if you will. I won't argue that. Just for illustration purposes, I have drawn a city. The two big white lines are neighborhood dividing lines. They can a river, railroad track, major highways, or anything else that serves to say "This is where neighborhoods change."

A city anywhere in the US

The blue square in the middle is the downtown business area.

I arbitrarily decide the following. You may assign as you see fit:

Sector 1 is the wealthy part of town. It has on average the biggest homes, biggest yards, biggest incomes. Wealthy retirees, business owners and such live here.

Sector 2 is the poorest part of town. Smallest homes, smallest incomes, highest unemployment, highest number of high school dropouts, etc.

Sector 3 is the next wealthiest. On average is has slightly smaller homes, smaller incomes and so forth as compared to Sector 1. High graduation rates, good education, most people are employed.

Sector 4 is a bit less well to do than second 3. Unemployment, incomes, houses are very close to Sector 2. It has a fair number of High School dropouts. It also has a high number of low income retirees.

What state is that?

I remind you this is a fictional city. You might need more neighborhoods. You might need to move where the neighborhoods are. However, you could probably lay this map over most United States cities of more than 1,000 people and with some shifting of which sector goes where, it would fit. Geography changes. Demographics won't.

Now grab yourself a map from law enforcement and the dispatcher's office. Dispatch could be 911 or a police department dispatch station. Doesn't matter.

This new map shows you where law enforcement gets calls for service. In other words, the map shows where people call for a police officer.

Where do you think police officers are going to get the most calls? In other words, where are people going to call for a police officer most often?

Mark that area.

Teach 'em while they are young.

Put this law enforcement map over the City map.

The question I ask you now is: On your maps, where do you see law enforcement getting the most calls for service?

If police are going to one neighborhood more often than others, where do you think they will make the most arrests?

Check with any law enforcement officer. Show him my map. Ask him where he thinks the most calls will come from.

Does your map match his?

If they don't match, whose map do you think is more accurate?

Call it whatever you want, but law enforcement is going to have the greatest number of arrests in the place where they are most often called. That's reality.

A good representation of reality.

Your right to, well, we're not sure.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Unless you are living under a rock you know about flash mobs. Not all of 'em are violent. Some are just people out having fun.

An underwear flash mob. The nation needs more of these.

They communicate via instant messenger, texting and tweets. So far, this has allowed 'em to stay pretty much ahead of law enforcement, specially the violent ones.

Now comes the question, when and where and how is permissible to shut down their communication network? Devices are manufactured in the United States which can shut down wireless communications within a certain area.

It is illegal to possess and use one of these devices in the US. The things are made here but sold overseas

So forget about that. But is it permissible to turn off the cell signal carriers?

No signal disruption here. It's just the retransmission devices are turned off.

I don't dial 911. I dial the coroner.

This was recently done in Kalifornia when a subway system switched off its signal boosters. The subway operators were not interfering, blocking, distorting or otherwise tampering with the radio signals, which is illegal in the United States. They just stopped offering a re-transmission service.


http://www.fastcompany.com/1774524/is-it-legal-to-block-mobile-phones-to-prevent-a-riot

This article notes this is beyond a gray area. This is uncharted, un-legislated and un-court-tested areas. We literally have nothing, except the US Constitution and decisions from SCOTUS on free speech to guide us.

BART was acting, it says, to prevent a violent mob from showing up. Gotta appreciate them being pro-active. Had they not done something and the mob showed up and gone postal, BART would be body slammed for NOT doing something to prevent it.

"cell" phone. Get it? Ahhhh, never mind.

Some folks are complaining that their inability to communicate via electronic device was done illegally.

Was BART right in what it did? Myself, I am thinking right now, yes. Yes, you do have the right to free speech, which the government cannot interfere with unless there are exceptional circumstances.

I'm not sure, but I am leaning in that direction, that this was an exceptional circumstance.

Beyond that, I remind you - cellular communications are done over frequencies licensed by the United States government. In other words, your cell phone communication is controlled by the government.

That in mind, I think the government does have the right to shut down the ability to communicate over those air waves with a much lower standard than is needed to stop you from speaking your mind on the street corner.

Ya doesn't like it, ya doesn't have a cell phone. The Constitution, to my thinking, does not guarantee you the right to instantly communicate via text message with a person 5 feet away from you.

Gotta get me one of them signs

Your mouth is not controlled by the government. Some folks mouths are not controlled at all, even by them.

Call me a luddite, but I'm siding with BART.

Aside - the bloody in-system spell checker here INSISTS luddite is misspelled. Sigh.

Cornweedflakes for breakfast

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Genetic splicing has brought the world advanced crops that can grow more with less. It's also brought us crops that have resistance to certain things. Round-up resistant cotton is one. Farmers for years got to spray cotton crops with Roundup and kill weeds to death.

Ma Nature is laughing at you.

The cotton was spliced. It had genes from another plant that was immune to Roundup incorporated into the cotton. Ma Nature was not to be fooled. She has come up with Roundup proof pigweed. Pigweed will take over a cotton field in short order. Reminds me of Congress.

The only thing you can do with is treat it like someone from Congress. Pull it up and leave it to die.

These gene-enhanced or whatever nomenclature you wish to use crops have generated considerable ire across the world. Some countries actively block the crops.

When it comes to food and such splicing, some people call the crops Frankenfood. A significant number of the people who object to gene-spliced foods also belong to another a crowd. I hope this image will identify the second group of people for you.

No. I don't wonder. I happen to know because my thought processes are not chemically altered.

If you are among the "smoker, toker, midnight joker and pompitous of love" crowd and don't have a clue what I'm trying to explain of what groups I'm talking about, get someone else to explain it to you. I'm busy. I have to wash my hair.

You can see my hair needs washing.

But now comes news that will make the Weedies join the Wheaties.



http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-08/genome-marijuana-sequenced-and-published

Telling quote: Particular drug-producing genes could be isolated and concentrated in particular strains of the plant, or even inserted in other species.

Weeders now say "STOP MAKING ME, uh what? A tail! Way cool!"

 In other words, the THC producing genes in Marry Ju Wanna are now known. This means those genes can be spliced into other plants.  Like coca. Like poppies.

Double and triple shots are on the horizon. You can fry your brain with a variety of chemicals all from one plant.

Why stop there? The THC producing gene can also be hacked into wheat, soybeans, peas, peanuts, strawberries.

Get stoned with a bowl of corn flakes.

It's gonna happen.

When it does, the Frankenfood haters will find their ranks sharply dwindled. Or maybe not. I am certainly not about to accuse anyone of being rational, certainly not those who feel the need to chemically alter their perceptions of reality.

Yassee, prohibiting a cat won't keep someone from trying, to very badly mix a few metaphors. Cross bred plants from a lab are coming. We can't stop 'em either.

Death, destruction and copy production

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Today's title is a little chant I developed in college, probably with the help of cold pizza and colder beer. Regardless of the genesis, it's accurate.

Maybe in more ways than one.

In all my years working for newspapers the only times we have sold out is when Page 1 contains some spectacularly bad news. The most recent sell-out (and I mean Sell Out as we had NO papers left) was when the identity theft ring was busted here. One person was charged with more than 80 counts.

The issues when we sell the fewest papers? Hard to say. But definitely those weeks when we're very very low on bad news and controversy.

Despite this, an extremely common complaint I get is we don't have enough good news in the paper.

Ppphhhhhttttttt!

Money talks. Bullshit walks.

When in doubt, follow the money.

It's like my title says, death and destruction put journalists into overdrive. Why? Because it is what people want to read.

Call me cynical. Call me aggravating. Call me a variety of obscenities.

You also have to call me correct.

Agree, disagree or no opinion, intelligent people will admit the Bible has wisdom, regardless of the original source.

"For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." Matthew 6:21

Put your money on the table and I'll tell you where your heart is. When it comes to the news you digest, it's on death and destruction.

recommended reads

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Education/2011/0817/Americans-love-teachers-but-split-over-teachers-unions-poll-shows

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61555.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/Vox-News/2011/0817/Are-the-media-scared-of-Ron-Paul
"...an academic survey rated him as having the most conservative voting record of any person to have served in Congress between 1937 and 2002. But he’s also anti-interventionist to the point where he sounds like the left wing of the Democratic Party."

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/2011/0513/Election-101-Ron-Paul-sets-sights-on-2012.-Ten-things-to-know-about-him/Why-is-he-running-again

http://news.discovery.com/space/comet-elenin-wont-kill-us-says-nasa-110817.html

Really? Yer sure?

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Chances are extremely good - nah. Scratch that.


Chances are perfect that you are outraged by the recent event in Thibodaux (pronounced CHOOT 'IM LIZ! CHOOT IM!), Louisiana in which a man beheaded and partly dismembered a severely handicapped child.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2026980/Mother-disabled-boy-beheaded-father-warned-authorities-child-months-old-wanted-dead.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Hang on to that for a few minutes.

Anyone who is not outraged by this deserves, well, not the same fate the murderer in this case deserves, but certainly something. 


As for what the man who did this deserves, I'm not entirely sure. S'true.


Even as I contemplate grisly deaths, horrific and slow executions, I remember the attack a few years ago in Amish Country. Some guy waded in and killed a number of school-age children and shot others. 

The accused killer was forgiven by the community.


Uhn.


This next comment is specifically directed at a select group - How about it Christians? Are you willing to forgive? 

I have heard a number of "Christians" who say they cannot and will not forgive. I put the word in quotes, cause they ain't. Matthew 6:14-15 ESV For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, (15) but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. So you're going to hell on someone's else account? Cool.

WW Kali Do?

 Anyway, back to the general commentary.

That you are outraged is a given.

The question becomes, what are you willing to do about it?

Would you have adopted the child in question?

Really? So put yer money where yer mouth is.

Put up and shut up.

http://www.comeunity.com/adoption/special_needs/index.html

That's what I thought.

Reminds me of the only cogent argument I have ever heard for abortion on demand, spoke by one of the extremely few lawyers I both like AND respect as a lawyer. Hrm. Actually the only one.

Anyway, my attorney friend said: If you are so opposed to abortion, are you willing to adopt the child if it comes to term?

Saying "it ain't my job" is a cop out and we both know it. If you are willing to impose requirements on other people, then you must also be willing to accept the responsibility of taking over for those people if they will not do the job.

Fair is fair.

The question remains, how fair are you really willing to be?

Not responsible for your feelings

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

THINK FAST! WHAT DOES THIS SYMBOL MEAN?

Really? You sure?

Can you prove it?


What if I told you it means good luck, prosperity and various sorts of well wishes and good will?

Most Westerners would say I have lost my mind and I'm an idiot. K. Lemme beat some people over the head for a moment.

A symbol of good luck.

Consider these items: 

The swastika is a historical sacred symbol in Indian religions.

The swastika is one of the 108 symbols of Hindu deity Vishnu and represents the Sun's rays, upon which life depends.

Jainism gives even more prominence to the swastika than does Hinduism. It is a symbol of the seventh Jina (Saint), the Tirthankara Suparsva.

The swastika shape was used by some Native Americans.

In Finland the swastika was often used in traditional folk art products, as a decoration or magical symbol on textiles and wood.

In the Indosphere (South Asia, Greater India), the swastika remains ubiquitous as a symbol of wealth and good fortune. In India and Nepal, electoral ballot papers are stamped with a round swastika-like pattern (to ensure that the accidental ink imprint on the other side of a folded ballot paper can be correctly identified as such).

Buddha. An icon of peace and acceptance to many.

Swastikas are widely used in Buddhist temples in China, and the symbol is most commonly associated with Buddhism.

Japanese maps use the swastika symbol to denote a Buddhist temple. Hirosaki City in Aomori Prefecture uses this symbol as official emblem.


In Korea and Taiwan, maps use the swastika symbol to denote a temple. The swastika is also a very common sight at both rural and urban Buddhist Temples.

The above examples gleefully ripped from Wikipedia after checking the information against other sources.

I'ma fixin to make some more people mad. Not that this is news to anyone.


I have just listened to a piece on NPR about the statue of Nathan Bedford Forrest. It has bullet holes. It is secured behind a gate with six padlocks. It's been the target of all sorts of attacks. All because some people object to it and see it as a representation of slavery.

Find out what it means to me.

So much for understanding, tolerance and all the other warm fuzzy feelings that liberals especially like to talk about.

Some people would ban the Stars & Bars, calling it offensive and objectionable. They are fully entitled to their opinion.

I need one of these.

Am I entitled to mine?

Am I entitled to an opinion which may offend others?

Careful how you answer that. Your answer may be used to duct tape your mouth shut lest you offend someone. 

Lemme digress a second here.

At the Jail Museum in Turner County we have on display an actual KKK uniform. It was donated anonymously. Some people have seen it and gotten quite upset. When I am the tour guide, I explain why it is there, what it means and why it's important to have it on display. So far, everyone has agreed with me after I explain.


The KKK is different than the Stars & Bars and the swastika. The KKK uniformly stands for oppression, rejection, suppression and a misguided sense of superiority.


Back to my thread. If you believe that my offensive opinions and beliefs should be suppressed because someone is offended, then I must ask you-

What makes you different from a member of the KKK?