Not that you care...

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Some time back I wrote a satire piece about how the American news room and the government had joined forces to outsource reporting to China. I can't find the article now.

So, I point you to this.

In short, the Chicago Tribune is hiring people in the Philippines to write news for the newspaper. Local news. Yes. People in the Philippines are being hired, while they live in the islands nation, to write local news.

This American Life checked into this and got nothing but evasions from the Tribune Company. Exactly as I would expect.

Meanwhile, real journalists in the US are being laid off. Meanwhile, the quality of the news in the "hyperlocal" publications has tanked. Hyperlocal, BTW, is the new journalism buzzword for what the majority of journalists have traditionally done are doing and will continue to do. It just means covering the news that happens where you live.

But, that's what folks want. You may disagree. You are in a minority.

So be it.

'Bout dat other decision

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I confess here to some ambivalence.

SCOTUS also ruled on Thursday lying is OK, within some limits. I do not refer to the health care decision. Rather, SCOTUS ruled that a law making it a crime to lie about your past is illegal, sort of.

Picture of a confirmed liar

The overturned law was created in the wake of a man who claimed to have received the Medal of Honor, the highest award this nation can give a person in the military. He was later found to be a liar and fired.

Congress then passed a law making it illegal to make such a claim.

The decision was 6-3. "KENNEDY, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and GINSBURG and SOTOMAYOR, JJ., joined. BREYER, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which KAGAN, J., joined. ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA and THOMAS, JJ., joined." re: the official SCOTUS decision. United States v. Alvarez

A bit I find HILARIOUS is the opening sentence of the majority decision, "Lying was his habit."

This man, Xavier Alvarez (at right), has been formally, officially and without question branded forever as purveyor of falsehood. This is now as much of a fact as anything can be in this world.

The court carved out a narrow exception for this kind of lying.

"These quotations all derive from cases discussing defamation, fraud, or some other legally cognizable harm associated with a false statement, such as an invasion of privacy or the costs of vexatious litigation. See Brief for United States 18–19. In those decisions the falsity ofthe speech at issue was not irrelevant to our analysis, but neither was it determinative. The Court has never endorsed the categorical rule the Government advances: thatfalse statements receive no First Amendment protection.Our prior decisions have not confronted a measure, likethe Stolen Valor Act, that targets falsity and nothing more."

The Court's decision repeatedly references Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, a precedent setting case in which Jerry Falwell sued Larry Flynt and Hustler Magazine over cartoons that portrayed Falwell as an idiot.

And while I am not a SCOTUS groupie, I'll admit to never recalling the Court including classic literature as it does here: "Permitting the government to decree this speech to be a criminal offense, whether shouted from the rooftops or made in a barely audible whisper, would endorse government authority to compile a list of subjects about whichfalse statements are punishable. That governmental power has no clear limiting principle. Our constitutional tradition stands against the idea that we need Oceania’s Ministry of Truth. See G. Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949) (Centennial ed. 2003)."

Alito, in writing for the dissent, said, "These lies, Congress reasonably concluded, were undermining our country’s system of military honors and inflicting real harm on actual medal recipients and their families.... By holding that the First Amendment nevertheless shields these lies, the Court breaks sharply from a long line of cases recognizing that the right to free speech does not protect false factual statements that inflict real harm and serve no legitimate interest. I would adhere to that principle and would thus uphold the constitutionality of this valuable law."

He's got a point. "In many instances, the harm is tangible in nature: Individuals often falsely represent themselves as award recipients in order to obtain financial or other material rewards, such as lucrative contracts and government benefits."

As for me? I dunno. I can see merit on both sides.

There are cases when lying is appropriate (and before the Christians decide to jump my case, be sure you have read the Bible). If not appropriate, there certainly are cases where telling the truth is inadvisable. And on that matter, the Constitution's 5th Amendment supports me.

http://porkbrainsandmilkgravy.blogspot.com/2012/03/lie-to-me.html

Your Friday Funny

.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.Write it down


(Or, gratuitious use of the word "Pneumonoultramicro-scopicsilicovolcanoconiosis" in a humor column



I propose here and now to to build a monument to the first man to ever say the following to a woman.

“Write down what you want me to say and I’ll say it.”

This is a 100 percent, idiot-proof and fool-proof idea. It works no matter what angle I look at this from. It’s just a no-lose situation for men and women.

Vicki told me last week Randy Skinner, her boyfriend, told her that. If Randy is the first man to ever say that, then the money drive to build this monument to Randy starts here and now. Randy, pick the place where you’d like to have a 100-foot tall statue of yourself located.

“I humbly accept this award and am flattered to be in this article. Run it,” Randy wrote when I emailed the idea to him. “At least that’s what it says here on this piece of paper that Vicki just gave me.” As for location “Ty Ty is good; Scooterville, or Chula,” he wrote.”

It’s perfect. It takes part of the responsibility off us men and eliminates the possibility we will say something wrong. We still have to say whatever is written down, so don’t think us men are completely off the hook. Speaking as man, I can say with authority that some women can write things that are next to impossible for a man to say. Women can write, with impunity, such words as “Committment,” “Vasectomy,” “Romance,” “Antidisestablish-mentarianism,” “My mother is coming to spend a month with us,” and “Pneumonoultramicro-scopicsilicovolcanoconiosis.”

Men will stutter, stumble, fall down, sprain the speech center of their brain, paralyze their vocal chords and fracture several speech-related bones when attempting to speak such words. In very rare cases, a man’s brain will freeze, much like a computer, which means the man must be rebooted carefully.

The reboot process for men generally takes at least a month, involves large boats, large guns, large fish, large animals and mass quantities of cold beverages. Sadly, there are recorded instances of men never fully recovering from their tragic system shock and they had to spend the rest of their lives in therapy, unable to say more than a few words, those words being “dip net,” “Boone & Crockett,” “PBR,” and “more.” Scientists were able to use these men in trials to find better and more reliable methods of treating a male brain freeze. These guys would not have had it any other way.

Please pause with me while I observe a moment of silence for these men who sacrificed so much for the rest of us.

<dramatic pause with head bowed>

Now, I can hear the women saying now how they want men to be spontaneous. Writing something down for a man to say takes all the surprise out of it, women are now saying.

Ladies. You honestly do not want us men to be spontaneous. You don’t. Really.

When men are spontaneous, women hate it.

A man can be sitting around watching TV and rip one that blows the upholstry off the furniture, removes the varnish from the end table and makes the dog pass out. That is spontaneous. At least a really really good one is. We can't plan to do something like that.

A man gets up Saturday morning intending to mow the yard. As he cranks the mower, he suddenly realizes the weekend would be better spent fishing for grouper off Alligator Point. So, he jumps in his truck and without a single word to anyone, he’s gone.

A man is watching football on TV. He suddenly switches loyalties from one team to the other. In addition to being spontaneous, this is highly unlikely and is an indicator of a pending brain freeze.

A man sits down at the supper table and has a sardine sandwich instead of the woman’s carefully prepared Tofu Surprise.

Instead of visiting the regular watering hole, a man decides to head one town over for the night’s festivities without telling anyone.

On the way home, a man suddenly decides to trade his “old reliable” ride for any one or any combination of the following: a 1954 Harley Panhead, a new boat, a giant jacked-up 4x4 with a cowcatcher bumper the size of Rhode Island, an exotic animal hunting ranch in Texas.

Now ladies, tell me. How many of you would genuinely appreciate such spontaneous acts by your man?

I thought so.

Women want their men to staid, solid and predictable. Fit that square peg neatly into the square hole and let the rhomboids, circles, triangles, politicians and octagons take a flying leap off the metaphorical geometric shapes table of relationships.

HOLD THE PRESSES! A female type person just pointed out a flaw. She planned last week to write a valentine to her beau with words for him to say. “Will you marry me?”

Men around the world are now reeling in shock and hurridly attempting to retract what they just told their girlfriends about writing anything down. Uh, Randy, the men of the world may still build you a monument, but don’t expect to have a very large one. And, we’re gonna put it in downtown Two Egg, Fla. I’m sure you understand.


Dis kolimb is copyrighted to Spontaneous Men And the Women Who Hate Them Inc. (llc), bizarre lung diseases and my accountant.

Taking the moral high ground

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

It’s amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the government give poor people money is compassion. Helping poor and suffering people yourself is compassion. Voting for our government to us guns to give money to poor and suffering people is immoral, self-righteous bulling laziness. People need to be fed, medicated, educated, clothed and sheltered. If we’re compassionate, we’ll help them, but you get no moral credit for forcing other peep to do what you think is right. There is great joy in helping people, but no joy in doing it at gunpoint.

Penn Gillette

Some people are gonna argue that no one is forcing me, at gunpoint, to help poor people.

I'm from the government...

Some people need to get out of Plato's Cave and into reality.

My taxes go to fund government subsidies of poor people.

I'm forced to subsidize people who deliberately get so fat they can collect disability checks.

Why?

Such people exist in the town where I live.

You may say I'm not being held at gunpoint to do this. I ask you, what will happen if I refuse to pay taxes? The revenue collectors will certainly come after me. Some of them carry firearms. Depending on how egregious the non payment of taxes is, guns figure into it more and more.

Al Capone was incarcerated for income tax evasion. As a result, he was surrounded by guns pointed at him. Capone's refusal to pay taxes which was giving his money to poor people against his will, resulted in him being forced at gunpoint to do other things he also did not want to do.

Do not think this is confined to Liarberals. The Cantservative crowd is JUST as guilty. Even the Teabaggers are complicit in taking my money and giving it to people against my will. I have YET to met a Teabagger who didn't have his hand out for something from the government. Doubt I ever will.

The only difference in the groups is who gets the money.

A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.


Alexander Fraser Tytler

The problem with taking my money and giving it to people (causes, programs or events) against my will is this sets a precedent. To be completely fair, you must allow me to take your money and give it to people, causes or events against your will.

You sure you wanna go there?

The only moral high ground when it comes to money is let people spend it how they wish as long as they aren't hurting someone else.

In that regard, I'm far more moral than most of the people who will vote in the coming elections.

Your money

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I ain't here to sell you something. I'm just here to remind you it is your money you are spending.

There's a product you pretty much have to buy. Have to. There are some few and isolated exceptions of course.

Since you have to have this product, how much are you spending on it? If you could save money, substantial amounts, would you?

Most folks won't.

Sad, but true.

Again, I ain't here to sell you something. But I do tell you I had a bill for this product that was nearly $1,400 a year. I shopped around and found not only the exact same thing, but a better one for just a bit less than $600 a year.

That's less'n half the original bill and I got a better product to boot.

Took me about 35 minutes over the course of a couple of weeks to get this. Now I don't have to spend any time on it at all. Dunno about you, but $1,600 an hour is pretty good pay. That's what this worked out to.

What'd I do?

I shopped my insurance policies around.

No, I'm not telling you who I had my coverage with or who it's with now. I will tell you I have a local agent and had a local agent previously.

And that's all you need to know.

It's your money.

We has met the enemy

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Earlier this week I got to talk to a group of 7th graders in a Youth Leadership Class. We ran through the Real Game of Life. Among the topics, we discussed career options.

And you're about to be turned into bass bait.

As this was a severe dose of reality, I told the ladies a career option is stripper. Yes, I did. I also told all of them a career option is dealing drugs.

Simply because YOU object to these things does not mean they do not exist.

I also told these kids the very real drawbacks to those kinds of jobs.

We also discussed the military and how their job is often as simple as killing people.

One of kids raised the point that he has no problem killing the "bad people."

Being me, I immediately asked "Who are the bad people?"

"People who kill children."

Wot Walt said.

"The US military routinely kills women, babies and children with drone strikes and bombs," I said.

One of the students then gave a brief recount of some of her family members who served in 'Nam and who US soldiers there killed women, children and babies.

"Does that make the United States bad?" I asked.

The young student sat back in his chair a bit perplexed. He grudgingly admitted it appears the US is a bad guy.

You can find a lot more of these reports if you bother to look.

So who is the bad guy?

I do not in any way depreciate the people who died in the terrorism attacks and the noble men and women who sacrificed to save others. Billions in damage and thousands dead.

There must be a reckoning.

"The cost of wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan are estimated at 225,000 lives and up to $4 trillion in U.S. spending, in a new report by scholars with the Eisenhower Research Project at Brown University’s Watson Institute for International Studies." http://news.brown.edu/pressreleases/2011/06/warcosts

When a toddler in Pakistan gets his legs blown off in a bombing attack, have we really served justice or have we turned into the bad guys?

I remind you the current president is the man who specifically orders drone strikes now.

Wonder what he'd think if the Pakistani government came over here with drone and blew the legs off his daughters.

Lead, follow or get out of the way

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
A longtime friend asked what keeps you (a group you not me specifically) going or not going.


I ask the same of you this morning.

No I said turn RIGHT, RIGHT!

Something motivates you to get up in the morning and start moving. For some people the motivation is going to the bathroom. Seriously. They appear to have no greater goal in life than to no soil the place where they sit.

Of course there are rare occasions of people who don't bother to move at all. I recall the recent case of a person who sat down in a chair and didn't moved from it for years.

Yeah. What you are thinking. Uhn.

Set aside the people who are too lazy to be bothered with actually having a life. If you are one, quit reading now and go back to find out what Lando Calrissian, or whatever their names are, is up to.

What motivates you? If it's only paying the bills ... I don't know what to say.

What motivates me? Waiting to see what happens next is a large part of it. With two teenagers at home, a lot happens frequently. It's never boring. Sometimes more exciting than I want, but that comes with it.

There are some things I have yet to do. Some of my goals I'll probably never reach, but I'm gonna try.

One thing that motivates me is I enjoy, really and truly enjoy, my job. I get up in the morning and look forward to coming to work. I realize some people don't understand that because they hate their job. Ain't my problem. I was smart enough to get a job I like.

So what motivates you? What drives you? Are you enjoying what you do?

Regardless, it all comes down to you. You are the one in charge of your situation. If you don't like where you are, do something about it or it's just going to get worse.

Imagine a long string of profanity here

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I shall not use profanity in this column, despite being massively pressured to do so.

Pressured why and by whom? You'll see in a moment.

But I'm mad today. I'm not shaking mad, but close to it.

If you REALLY needed proof there is no difference between DAMNOCRATS AND REBOOBICANS - excuse me, I need to calm down. Back in a moment.

Back.

The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), Pub.L. 99-603, 100 Stat. 3359, enacted November 6, 1986, also Simpson-Mazzoli Act, is an Act of Congress which reformed United States immigration law. Among the provisions of this law:

"• [G]ranted amnesty to illegal immigrants who entered the United States before January 1, 1982 and had resided there continuously."


DIDJA SEE THAT? THE #$%(*)&%^$&^* REBOOBICANS GRANTED AMNESTY TO ILLEGAL ALIENS IN 1986 AND NOW THEY ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT THE CURRENT PRESIDENT GIVING A TEMPORARY PASS TO KIDS BROUGHT HERE ILLEGALLY BY THEIR PARENTS.
 
In ALL the media reports I have digested about this decision, NOT ONE has brought up the 1986 act and subsequent amnesties by the Washington oligarchy.

I offer no opinion one way or another on the current president's immigration waiver plan. I merely point out the duplicity of the political party arguments.

Ain't the first time they have done this. By "they" I mean pick the myopic $%^&*((* of your choice in Washington. And, the other group.

Each group of sawed off #$%^&*&^%$ does something and the other side complains. Look back a few years and you'll see the roles are reversed.

Change? A difference?

Where? I can't find it and I've been looking for 20 something years now.

The only CHANGE we'll see in Washington by continuing to elect Face Dancers is the continuing erosion of our rights and our wallets. If you don't catch my reference to Face Dancer, then good. Now you have to something to research.

There. Is. No. Difference.

Anyone who tells you otherwise is not only historically stupid (not ignorant, but stupid), but is in danger of being attacked by Egyptian crocodiles cause they are over their head in De Nile. (I'm allowed a bad pun once in a while.)

Your Friday Funny - a personality profile test

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Personality and relationship "profile" articles are one of the main features in women's magazines. Not since the 1970's has a men's magazine featured a "real" Q&A profile article.

After spending a week of research reviewing lingerie ads in women's magazines and every now and then looking at the "profiles" article and studiously poring over hundreds of back issues of Cosmo, I have put together a "profile" questionnaire suitable for every member of the family even your weird brother..

Just choose an answer from the multiple choice answers.


1) Your idea of a perfect evening is:
 
a. A quiet romantic dinner for two, dancing and so forth.
b. Peace and quiet. 

c. An all-night Barney marathon. 

d. Cool movie and no curfew. 

e. A 12-pack, viennies, some poles and a pond or river bank.

f. In bed by 8 p.m. 



2) Your idea of a perfect meal is: 

a. Anything by candlelight. 

b. Anything that doesn't wind up on the floor, walls, ceiling or in the dog. 

c. Mac & cheese, burgers and fries.
d. A buffet.
e. A 12-pack, viennies, some poles and a pond or river bank.
f. Anything easy to digest. 



3) Your dream vacation is:
a. Tahiti, Cozumel, Acapulco, or Bermuda. 

b. A weekend with NOTHING to do. 

c. Any place with giant cartoon characters come to life.
d. Panama City Beach.
e. A 12-pack, viennies, some poles and a pond or river bank. 

f. Somewhere warm with low humidity. 



4) Your ideal "significant other" is someone who: 

a. Enjoys moonlight walks on the beach and poetry.
b. Can handle high-pitched screams, constant yelling and bodily fluids without going ballistic. 

c. Doesn't eat your crayons. 

d. Has a driver's license 

e. Has a 12-pack, viennies, some poles and a pond or river bank. 

f. Can drive at night. 



5) When looking for a long-term relationship, the most important thing is: 

a. Commitment.
b. Everything in a large, economy size. 

c. Shares the juice cup. 

d. Has own vehicle.
e. A 12-pack, viennies, some poles and a pond or river bank.
f. Number of joint replacements. 



6. If give $1 million you would: 

a. Promote world peace, help the homeless, etc. 

b. Buy a bigger version of everything. 

c. Party all night 

e. Buy 12-pack -- heck, a case, viennies, some poles and a pond or river bank.
f. Buy a turbo-charged pace-maker. 



7. Your favorite clothes are: 

a. An evening dress or slacks and a smoking jacket with a silk cravat. 

b. Easy to get stains out of.
c. "Favorite" as in clothes? You gotta be kidding. 

d. Jeans, loose fitting shirt, the latest sneakers.
e. A 12-pack, viennies, some poles and a pond or river bank. 

f. Polyester. 



8. You would prefer to see:
a. An opera.
b. The back of your eyelids for 12 uninterrupted hours.
c
. Sesame Street on Ice. 

d. Lollapalooza. 

e. A 12-pack, viennies, some poles and a pond or river bank.
f. Next week. 



9. Your most recent significant achievement is: 

a. Reading the entire works of Sidney Sheldon. 

b. Getting out of bed.
c. A B C D E F G... 

d. Successfully using a fake ID. 

e. A 12-pack, viennies, some poles and a pond or river bank.
f. This morning's trip to the bathroom. 



10. When going somewhere you take: 

a. A portable Nieman Marcus department store. 

b. The entire contents of the house.
c. A suitcase full of Barbie dolls, the entire G.I. Joe set and things that shoot plastic projectiles or water. 

d. Money and/or credit cards. 

e. A 12-pack, viennies, some poles and a pond or river bank.
f. A pharmacy. 



11) If you could vote for anyone for president, it would be: 

a. Hillary Clinton. 

b. Bill Cosby. 

c. Elmo. 

d. Aerosmith. 

e. A 12-pack, viennies, some poles and a pond or river bank. 

f. Ronald Reagan. 

If you answered Justin Bieber, then please, kill yourself now and save the rest of us the trouble.


12) The most important thing to you is: 

a. A good complexion. 

b. Restraining the urge to strangle. 

c. Blue's Clues. 

d. Nothing is important.
e. A 12-pack, viennies, some poles and a pond or river bank. 

f. Living long enough to be a burden. 



13) Your next major goal in life is:
a. A complete facial.

b. Graduation.

c. Extracting revenge from sibling. 

d. Graduation.

e. A 12-pack, viennies, some poles and a pond or river bank. 

f. An afternoon nap. 



14) Your most recent major investment was: 

a. A week-long stay at a health spa. 

b. Groceries. 

c. What's an investment? 

d. A tank of gas. 

e. A 12-pack, viennies, some poles and a pond or river bank.
f. A 6-week newspaper subscription. 



15) You are most concerned about: 

a. Wrinkles. 

b. Permanent damage.
c. Finding Waldo.
d. A reason for anything. 

e. A 12-pack, viennies, some poles and a pond or river bank. 

f. Falling. 


Give yourself 1 point for each a., 2 for each b., 3 for each c., and 4 for each d., 5 for each e., 6 for each f.

If you didn't bother to take this test, you certainly shouldn't be reading the carefully developed and incredibly accurate results.

If you scored 15, you are mentally unstable. You should get out of your house and see what life actually is. You have no friends.

If you scored 30, uh, Mom, why did you take this test?  If you're not Mom, you need help. You need lots of help. May we humbly suggest several full-time assistants.

If you scored 45, you are a very cool, likeable and all-around well-adjusted person. You are not perfect, but you freely admit that someone else did it.

If you scored 60, you are depressed, sullen and very annoying to be around. Fortunately, this will only last a few years, after which you will return to the old depressed, sullen and very annoying person those around you have come to hate.

If you scored 75, you are as close to perfect as a human being can be on this planet. Everyone around you wishes they could be just like you.

If you scored 90, you are a poster-child for Euthansia. Die and make room for younger people.
If you scored anything other than the above scores, you must have taken the test incorrectly. In other words, you failed. You will have to repeat the class to earn credit.

I lied. If you chose any answer other than E for any question, there’s no hope for you as a human being.

The arrogance of journalism

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

I heard a news report on Public Radio not long ago in which the station refused to broadcast one side of the story.

Refused. Said no. The other side of the story was willing to be interviewed and willing to present this other side. The station said no.

This is not unusual. It's actually common.

Hearing the other side of the story, in this case, was important I felt.

So why did the radio refuse to let the other side have a say?

Arrogance. Pure, simple, unbridled arrogance. This is not confined to broadcast media either.

The additional information you don't have but need:  The other side agreed to speak but only if his comments were presented exactly as he gave them, in full and unedited.

To me, that sounds fair. As a journalist and newspaper editor, I frequently let people have their say, everything they want to say, unedited and uncut - excepting I remove profanity and libelous items. You can point to letters to the editor (the electronic version being something most broadcast outlets refuse to allow) as an example of this and you are correct.

But I also do it in news stories. On very important issues and controversial issues, I will reprint entire transcriptions. I feel it is important enough for my audience to get the entire story right from the person who said it, without interference by me.

In this blog, I allow unfettered commentary the vast majority of the time. I moderated comments a while back when some idiot began posting to every blog about commercial hog farms. Same post. Every time. I was willing to let Mssr. Idiot have his say, but not the same exact words over and over and over and over.

Attack journalism at its finest.

At the same time, editing is important. Make no mistake, editing is sometimes vital. It keeps journalists out of court. See libel above.

Sometimes editing is needed. A good editing condenses the material without losing anything important. A good editing explains something more clearly than the source did.

Sometimes editing is interfering. If it is that important to the person doing the speaking or writing, I say let the person have their say and let it go.

Broadcast journalists refuse to do this by and large. If this is not arrogance, I do not know what is.

Because of this attitude there are very few broadcast outlets to which I will agree to an interview.

I have been interviewed by TV reporters many times. With a sole exception being Channel 51 in Cordele, more than 90 percent of the times I've been interviewed, the reporter took my comments and distorted them and wound up giving out factually wrong information. Channel 51 has never done this to me.

My ire with one station in particular reached such a boiling point that the station management banned me from being on TV. Yep. I am BANNED from appearing on one S. Georgia TV station's broadcasts.

I consider that to be a signal distinction and one of the highest honors I have ever been afforded.

Jesse's Hunt

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

Tickets $5 each or 5 for $20.

Help my son go to Washington State to shoot a moose.

Your Friday Funny

This column won me a first place award for personal columns. It's one of my favorites.



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

Beef. OK? Beef.

Pretty tough beef, like a poor cut of steak or a grass fed steer. But beef.

Has everyone got that?

For those who have no idea what I'm talking about, a couple of weeks ago I took possession of a very recently deceased emu. An emu is an Australian bird which can weigh up to 100 pounds, stands taller than me and looks a lot like an ostrich. It also has about as much sense as an ostrich or any above-average member of Congress.

Emu, in case you are wondering, tastes like beef. Just had to make sure I was clear on that.

How, you are now asking, did I come across a very recently deceased emu in South Georgia? Easy. Albert Shepherd, our Animal Control officer, brought it to me. Delivered it to the house in fact. Watched me carve up  the bird like a giant mutant Thanksgiving turkey or a scene from Sesame Street as written by Quentin Tarantino. City Manager Ben Taylor took the feet home. He plans to use them as legs for a coffee table.

Emus are flightless, owing the fact that they cannot get clearance from the Federal Aviation Administration and their wings are about 8 inches long, which is far too small to lift a bird like that off the ground without lots and lots of federal economic stimulus package money. Even then, the bird won't fly. It'll just climb to the top of the pile of money and announce it is running for president.

Now some of you are wondering what it will take to get an emu on the ballot for presidential. I personally do not know as I strongly suspect emus have more sense than to run for president. Considering the two main contenders today, I'd certainly vote for an emu for president.

Another question you no doubt have is where did Albert find an emu? He responded to a call about the bid loose in a pasture in Turner County.

Now, how the bird got there is something that is really open to speculation.

My thoughts are the bird was either released or escaped from a pen back when there was a huge emu and ostrich ranching fad, a fad that passed about as quick as collecting Beanie Babies and stores that sold multi-flavored popcorn exclusively. Rather than continue to feed these 6-foot Public Television rejects, the owner decided to turn 'em loose.

My alternate theory is the bird migrated to the United States to get away from saltwater crocodiles which are even more vicious than Sarah Palin without makeup, dingos, the 10 most poisonous snakes on the planet, the most poisonous jellyfish, octopus and snail on the planet, all of which live in Australia which is probably why that nation has such a severe shortage of Damnocrats and Reboobicans - they keep getting killed to death by the poisonous creatures and the crocs.

Albert said more birds have been sighted, which leads me to believe we may have yet another group of illegal aliens living here, taking our jobs, eating our food, benefiting from government services without paying taxes, raising children which will be Americans by virtue of being born in the United States and refusing to learn our language. Admittedly, our native bird language is mostly crow, mocking bird and pileated woodpecker, but emus should make the attempt to assimilate.

So, yes, I carved up the bird. I have delivered some packages to friends interested in trying the meat. Yes, I cooked some up. Refer to the opening line of this column, or this statement - Emu. It tastes just like emu. I have more in the freezer, but I'm gonna grind it to make emu burgers.

If there are more emu running around, I told Albert to call me. I'll come take care of 'em.

If nothing else I'll get 'em registered to vote and see about having one run for the next available public office. If the bird won't run for office, I'll work at getting it a job so it can start paying taxes.

Of course if the bird agrees to run for office, well, someone tell Ben Taylor I'm keeping that set of legs for my own coffee table. We have enough rampant stupidity running around in the guise of elected officials.

Evolving creationism or Creating evolutionism

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I have said before and I state again:

Ayup.

That the present form of a human being is the result of millions of years of evolution is a theory.

That the present form of a human being was spontaneously created by God is a theory.

This will annoy both sides of the creation-evolution debate. This does not change the fact that both are true statements because we have no way to test either statement to reach an absolutely conclusive decision.

As much as it will annoy both sides as well, belief in either statement is a matter of faith. Faith is defined here as acceptance as truth of that which cannot be positively verified.

When it comes down to the fight over what our children are taught, the Maginot Line looked like a couple of kids drawing a line in sand with a stick by comparison.

Is there a draft in here?

Me? I say teach 'em both.

When one side prevails over the other, then all have lost. Intractability on either side shuts off the free flow of information. You would THINK the scientific-evolution side of the debate would object strenuously to the free exchange of ideas, especially in an academic setting.

If you so think, you forget the one single most important aspect of this discussion and debate. Both sides are fully occupied by human beings, not Vulcans. Humans are ruled by emotion, not logic.

Humans are the central problem of anything humans get involved with, be that religion, science, government, education, the environment or whatever.

I am reminded here that Japanese textbooks do not discuss Japan's role in WWII. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are glossed over. It was in the late 1980s or early 90s that the Japanese government finally owned up to what happened in WWII. The statement, taking less than 2 minutes to say, can be summed as "WWII happened. We did not do what we should have."

Only in recent times has the true nature of slavery in the United States come about. Unfortunately as the truth of this comes to be known, the truth of what Martin Luther King Jr stood for is becoming increasingly distorted. The truth is being told in one place while in another it is obfuscated.

Lemme make this VERY clear:

Suppression and distortion of information is the hallmark of a repression and an attempt to control the thought process of those who are denied information.

Arg. Confusing.

Try this: When you deny me information, you attempt to control my thoughts.

I do not care which side of the debate you fall on. If you intend to deny me and my children access to the information the other side has, You Are The Enemy.

Period.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=south-korea-surrenders-creationist-demands

Getting what you asked for

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
"Anybody can cut from education, health care, and they employees. Any clown can do that, oh wait, one did. WI, #47 in job creation, and contrary to the governor's numbers, my taxes went UP, while he spent $1.2 billion more than the was in the previous budget. We will pay for that credit card bill soon enough."

So said Trykon about my comment this morning about Wisconsin returning Scott Walker to the governor's office.

I do not know, nor care, why some counties are blue and some red.

Walker was the target of a recall because he poked labor unions in the eye. His state budget pretty much stripped government employees from having a union represent them in labor negotiations.

Please note: government employees may still form a union. This is a right. How much influence those unions may have over labor negotiations was the issue, which has been twice settled.

My opinion on unions. In support of them. More support. And a good reason why I detest unions. You can, should the notion strike, look up more of my opinion on unions. Simply google Pork Brains with Milk Gravy and unions and you'll find plenty.

Wisconsin voters returned the governor to office over the objections of unions. 

This I like.

Wisconsin voters got the government they asked for.

This I equally like.


Whether or not it is the government they want remains to be seen. 

This amuses me.


Trykon suspects when the dust settles, a majority of Wisconsin voters will not be happy. I do not dispute that. Rather, he may very well be correct. The voters in Wisconsin may very well have poked themselves in the eye.

Trivedi's platform.

I like this and it amuses me. Immensely.


But didja know there was a 3rd guy running? If you saw my opening graphic, of course you know now, but did you know prior? Probably not.


Hariprasad Trivedi is now an also ran. He was not allowed to participate in televised debates, a decision made by the Cheese State media.

If you bother to look at his website, you'll see that he was the candidate most Wisconsin voters, and certainly the voters capable of thinking for themselves, would have supported. The voters who refuse to think and insist on letting someone else think for them supported the Party of Power, be that Damnocrat or Reboobican.

Political pundits are making much of the election and what it means for the coming Presidential Fiasco, I mean election.

Very few of the talking heads will point out Wisconsin really and truly has determined how the nation will vote in November. A majority of US voters, come November, will vote to continue the present policies of letting corporations run government while rights are slowly eroded. Voting Damnocrat or Reboobican merely puts a D or an R with the elected president.

Nothing else will change. In that, Wisconsin is an absolute predictor of the direction of the nation.

Voters will get what they asked for. That is not what they really want, well the only person to blame is the person in the ballot box.

You are not allowed to have an opinion

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The story:

The Catholic church in Washington State is lobbying for a repeal of the state's same-gender marriage law.

My buddy Doc has said a charitable organization should not be allowed lobby. His specific comment is "Lobbying groups like the Mormons and Catholics shouldn't be allowed charitable organization status. Just sayin'..."

I have a problem with that statement because of what I see it implies.

Has nothing to do with same gender marriage either.  My view on same-gender marriage is clear.


My objections, and I very well could be reading this wrong or reading too much into it, is along the free speech route.


To explain:


The Catholic Church and the Mormons are first religious organizations.Their first job is to promote their religious perspective, view, outlook, etc. To do this, the religions communicate their respective messages.


Like it or not, that communication can include lobbying. Lobbying is nothing more than presenting information (fact or opinion) with the intention of swaying someone else.

A pastor lobbies every time he takes to the pulpit.

Do churches have a right to do this outside of church? 

If they do not, then spreading their religious message then becomes impossible.

Some of you will find much to cheer about in that statement.

But if you truly wish to be fair, then the rights of others to dispute the church's message must also be restricted. 

In other words if I can't tell someone about God, you can't say God doesn't exist. As long as I can tell people about God, then you can tell people there is no God.

At the same time, a church must have the right to present it's guiding principles to the world. Whether you like it or not is irrelevant. If any group has the right to say "this is right and this is wrong," then all groups must have that right. If one group cannot say, then no group should be able to say.

The ability to enforce what is right and wrong is a separate issue from free speech.

A church must have the right to express its views and encourage people to adhere to the standards of conduct as espoused by that church's leadership. If you remove that right, you have eliminated a fundamental aspect of free speech.


That, I cannot support.

That the Mormons and Catholic church leadership have this issue wrong is something Doc and I agree completely on.


As for a charity, like a church, contributing money to a politician, that is illegal.