Another modest proposal

According to a story in The York Times, suicide rates among "middle-aged white Americans" is rising and rising higher than in any other demographic group.

National Public Radio also just reported it, but I can't find the link.

Frankly, this is intolerable. It is unacceptable. This cannot be allowed to continue. People must step up and do something. I write as a middle-aged American, but not a white one. I'm rather spotted with brown freckles on a lighter brown skin. Comes from being outside and riding a motorcycle.

Anyway, this state of affairs has to be remedied. To bring about rectification, I have this modest proposal.

All the groups who continually demand equality with these so-called "middle-aged white Americans" need to put their money where their mouths are. Or more accurately, a pistol where their mouth is.

Yes indeed. If this nation truly insists on complete equality among however many genders there are now, among however many ethnic groups there are now, among however many racial groups there are now, we must have more effort on behalf of the under-represented groups. Step out on a limb and do your best.

Get busy folks.

I bring you more information from the NYT story which says that some demographics are making progress to level out overall death rates. "Middle-aged blacks still have a higher mortality rate than whites — 581 per 100,000, compared with 415 for whites — but the gap is closing, and the rate for middle-aged Hispanics is far lower than for middle-aged whites at 262 per 100,000."

Part of this is excellent. It shows true progress toward equality. This should serve as a shining example, that if we all try, we can truly live the motto of Samuel Colt, who "made all men [and women] equal."

This report also shows room for improvement. Hispanics seriously need to step up to the bucket, especially if they want true equality with the European-recent-ancestry Americans.

Taking this to the global stage, an Alternet story states very clearly the inequality that exists across the globe. "Hungary for example, where attempted suicide carries a prison sentence of five years, or Japan where it is illegal to commit suicide." Talk about an injustice. A person whacks himself in the Land of the Rising Sun and he gets arrested. There's more in the story about how various countries treat this permanent solution to a temporary condition.

Alternet also says men are far more likely to exit stage dirt nap by their own hand than women. I demand feminists around the world rise up and literally take matters into their own hands. Now is the time to seize equality in a death grip. 

No doubt this modest proposal will receive tremendous resistance, most especially from those who continually and constantly demand equality, yet will not sacrifice themselves to level this evergreen field. I urge you who read this, do not hold this apparent hypocrisy against them. They just need to see the light of reason, logic and the very application of equality applied in a truly leveling manner. 

To demand in equality every other field of human endeavor and yet leave one so glaringly out of balance is a travesty.

Educate them, my friends. Take them gently by the hand and explain, true equality means being equal in everything.

Some people will accuse me of being "white." In this case I shall not argue, but shall instead apologize on behalf of middle-aged "white Americans" for throwing this much-demanded equality out of balance. I shall do my bit to bring things back into balance by remaining alive, much to the chagrin of many people who read this modest proposal.

What, you egg! Young fry of treachery!

Me bud Paul had an interesting post today on FB. I share it here without his permission, but expecting he will not mind, especially since I link to some of his clan's products for sale.

Ennyhoo, the subject du jour is insults. Here's Paul's take:

Humans are really stupid about insults. Have you noticed how often those that are not scatological are based on sex? Specifically, on feminizing the recipient in an attempt to belittle them.

Screw you! You Suck!

While crude and crass and not very creative, the entire point is that one is implying the other is weaker, to be subjugated, somehow broken and inferior because this is possible, even if willing. This is not cool anymore.

Notice that we have culturally adopted these offensive platitudes so habitually that we now use them against women, implying either threat or that the woman is morally inferior because she might be willing to do these things.

Again, archaic and foolish. Even today in a world where almost no one really expects their spouses to be macho-manly or obedient and virginal, I see both men and women use these terms in the same paragraph with comments that imply attraction and flirting.

It's colloquial, informal, even humorous...but seriously?

On the other hand, I mentioned my wife's soap in a post, and friends were conversing about it. One told the other "her soap is the tits".

Now THAT I understand. That's a compliment I can support - no pun intended.

He's right in part. That correct part is the origins of such insults. He's not right in that it is not cool any more. It may not be cool in his world, but Paul's world is not all of reality. 

For the record, I'm with Paul's implied opinion. Using female-based insults to attack someone is wrong because it degrades the distaff. Come on. Get creative.

However, the bigger reality says it is cool, it is normal and it is the way it should. Our entertainment industry objectifies women in a way hard core porn rarely manages. Need proof? Here's a totally safe for work video. In much of hardcore porn, women are in control, at least according to women in the industry who are interviewed. 

The same could be argued about this beard video, music videos et al. I won't dispute that.

Just saying our entertainment industry and even our elected leaders relegate women to being a bit less than men.

Furthermore, women are actively participating in their own reduction to being considered less than a man.

Maybe it's not a majority of our society. But the most vocal segments of our society do say it is entirely fine to consider women a bit less than men. This makes it cool, whether we like it or not. Paul even comes close to saying as much. "...see both men and women use these terms in the same paragraph with comments that imply attraction and flirting."

I appreciate a well-chosen insult. I particularly like G-rated insults that deliver with serious gravitas. Recently had a gent insult me on FB. I was amused so I fired back and called him a "suppurating feces-crusted boil on an elephant's anus." Yeah, it has the scat reference as Paul will point out. Nonetheless I think it's rather clever. It also doesn't denigrate women.

(I also appreciate properly timed profanity, which SCIENCE! says is good for us.)

If you are interested in getting some classic, witty, intelligent and, well, simply amazing insults for personal use, Have at thee!

Right this way to see the great egress!

Dunno how true it is, but a famous sideshow barker once encouraged crowds to leave his tent by telling them to go see the great egress.

If you don't know what the egress is, I shan't tell you.

Side shows are famous for giving the customer a lot less than what he paid for. I remember going to one many years ago and a carny was sitting in a box with a few red-knee tarantulas. Yeah.

Today's side show is online, especially with "reviews."

Amazon is suing people who write fake reviews through a freelancer site called Fiverr. Fiverr, reportedly, is cooperating.

Full disclaimer: I have a Fiverr account where I sell work and buy press release distribution. I do write reviews; posted one this morning to Ebay for a Lem Meat cuber I bought. Have a few up on Yelp as well for places I have visited.

Here's the problem.

The First Amendment. This protects free speech. So, you can write any kind of review you want to about any place, product or service. You can post it.

It doesn't matter if you actually used the service, visited the place or bought the product. The First Amendment gives you the right to sound off.

But. In this case, people are buying "faked" reviews on Fiverr. Commercial speech, advertising, does not have the same First Amendment protections as non-commercial speech.

The question is: Are these Fiverr reviews advertising or non-commercial speech?

You say, "Well, they got paid to write it. It has to be commercial speech."

I get paid to write stories for the newspaper I run. This is clearly not commercial speech. I also write press releases announcing all kinds of things. I get paid for this. This is also clearly not commercial speech.

Is writing a review commercial speech? No. Is writing a faked review and getting paid for it commercial speech? I say no.

In the past when people have gone after commercial speech and won, they went after the company making false or misleading claims.

These Fiverr writers are hired to write. Free speech. They hand over ALL rights of the work to the company purchasing the work. They have no control over how the work is used.

Add to this, Amazon will have to prove, review by review, that each of these writers actually wrote a fake review. How will Amazon prove these people never used the things reviewed?

And, if they are going after faked reviews, then what about the Unicorn Meat reviews?

You could say that is libel, but libel standards do not apply to groups of more than 25 people.

The courts have already ruled that review websites are free speech. Places like Yelp don't have to follow the same rules of commercial speech, an appellate court ruled.

Amazon has a serious fight ahead, one I think it will lose.

Discrimination YES! but only on your terms

Simple enough question-

Should businesses be allowed to discriminate? In other words, should a business owner be allowed to pick and choose customers? Should a business be allowed to say "Nope, not doing business with you."?

Liarberals scream "NO!" at the top of their lungs. At least until it's discrimination they support.

Cantservatives scream "YES!" at least until they are the ones being discriminated against.

The truth is, both of these idiotological camps fully and completely support letting business pick and choose their customers. In fact, they absolutely demand it. They take their belief so far it's law.

Don't believe me? Of course you don't. So, let's take a look at the reality.

1) Journalism. I start here because this is what I know best. The press absolutely can discriminate. That's in the First Amendment. The media under no obligation to publish anything. A lot of media outlets strive to be fair, but many throw parity in a fire and celebrate as it burns.

Newspapers are free to publish, or not publish, same-gender wedding announcements. Don't like it? Start your own newspaper.

2) Firearms. Another area I know something about because I have a federal firearms license (FFL). According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (which should be a convenience store), an FFL holder can refuse to sell a gun or ammo to anyone. No explanation needed.  Don't like it? Get yer own FFL.

3) Want to buy a house by taking out a loan? Better have credit good enough to qualify. That is absolutely discrimination. The Federal government even sets a minimum score. For that matter, your credit has to be good enough to qualify for any kind of legal loan. Don't like it? Open a loan company.

4) Wanna buy a beer at the juke joint down the road? Better be 21. Never mind the fact you can sign up to defend this country and die in a foreign land, vote, smoke, buy a house (with good credit), etc etc etc. Don't like it? Wait until you're 21.

5) Wanna run for president? Be at least 35 and be a natural US citizen. One of your parents can be a US citizen and you can be born anywhere on the planet and that's OK. (Yanno, the Obama birthers suddenly shut up when Ted Cruz announced his run for POTUS). Don't like it? Run for POTUS.

6) Wanna buy gasoline? Some states require a licensed driver be at the pump when gas is dispensed. Some states also allow people under 16 years old to drive golf carts on public roads. No license needed, but topping the tank, better have someone with a license. Some gasoline companies also have this as policy. Don't like it? Open your own gas station.

7) Wanna buy a pouch of Levi Garrett (my preferred chew when I partook)? Be at least 18. Don't like it? Grow yer own.

8) Need vehicle insurance? The older you get and the better the driver you are, the lower your rate will be. Don't like it? Open your own insurance company.

9) Wanna rent a place to live? Weeeeelllllll, depending on what and where you wanna rent, you MUST have an income no more than pre-set amount. Make more? Tough. You can't live there. Some places you must be at least 55 or older to rent an apartment. Don't like it? Become a landlord.

10) Wanna rent a car? Better have a credit card. Better be 25. No card, no wheels. Don't like it? Open yer own car rental agency.

11) Wanna drive a self-propelled mode of transportation down a public road. Go ahead. But in some cases you must have a state-approved license. In other cases, anyone can do it, even someone 7 years old. Discrimination. If a 7 YOA can drive something worth $25K down a public road and it's OK, why can't he drive something worth $6K down the same road? Don't like it? Stay off the road.

12) Visit your local probate court, or whoever handles wills when someone in your community dies. Once a person dies, a will is probated. This means the will becomes de facto law. Wills are the most common law in this nation. Wills also discriminate. Don't like it? Well, make sure your will doesn't discriminate. Don't know what you will do about the millions and millions of other wills out there.

13) Some cities have policies that require a certain percentage of all public contracts go to minorities. So does the federal gubmint. Don't like it? Become a minority or stop being a minority.

14) Wanna go to college? Better meet the admissions requirements. If your grades aren't good enough, maybe you can get in because of who your parents are. Maybe if you are poor enough. Don't like it? Open your own college.

I could go on, but if you ain't got the idea by now, I can't help you.

Some people will say "but these laws are to protect people." Really? Protect who and protect them from what? You tell me you are willing to let an 18 YOA with the ink not dry on his diploma pick up a true assault rifle and kill people, but you won't let him have a beer?

You tell me an 23 YOA making $30K a year can't rent an apartment but a person 60 YOA make $55K a year can?

I could go on, but see 2 paragraphs above.

My point is you not only support discrimination, you demand it. You demand it so stridently that you insist it be turned into law.

You want discrimination, but on your terms. That is, according to you, the way it should be. It's right and necessary. Someone else wants discrimination, well now. Does it fit what you believe? Then it is OK. If it doesn't fit your preconceived notions of justice et al, then it is wrong. Don't like it? Then quit trying to force your prejudices and beliefs on other people.

One final thought, what makes you right and that other person wrong?

Buggin' out

Part of the joy of deer hunting is just sitting and watching nature.

Over the years I've watched red tail hawks sit in the tree above me. Wild turkeys have flown in just a bit before dusk, sounding like the whole forest was crashing down. Lizards have leapt across the blind to nab a spider descending on a thread. And OH! the spiders. Catch 'em by the thread and let 'em go outside. Frogs climb around looking for lunch and trying to avoid being lunch.

Coons, bobcats and foxes have all walked past and under me.  Cardinals have toted off my corn, assisted by rats, mice, dove and various other birds. Mostly cardinals. Plenty of deer too.

Armadillos have come out and met doom. (Yes, we hates them we does my precious, we hates them. Kill all the dammits!)

I'm certain a lot of these critters have looked into the stand wondering what was making such an awful racket. Falling asleep in a deer stand is not a problem. It's a privilege.

Today, a first.

Today, a tiny wasp (well, wasp-shaped) zoomed in one window of the blind and out another. Repeatedly. Dozens of times.

It regularly flew up to me, then zoomed up and down, checking me out. I am not kidding. In one window. Up to me and a zoom from shoulder to foot.

"Hey! Ya big lummox, yer in my chair. Get outta here. I'm giving you to the count of buzz  to leave," he said.

(Me anthropomorphisizing? Were you there listening to this wasp? Didn't think so.)

Then he zoomed out. A few minutes later, he was back. In & out. Finally, he perched on the one of the blind windows.

Using his best Georgia State Trooper voice, he cocked a couple of hundred eyes back and me and said "Aaight. I'm lettin' you go this time, boy. But you better not let me catch you back in my chair." And he disappeared.

I outweighed this tiny insect about a squintillion to one. And this thing was threatening me because I was in his chair.

This is one reason why I so enjoy deer hunting.

Here's another reason. About 5:45 a yearling walked out and accepted my 50 cal. 295 grain invitation to come home with me. Took longer to clean my smokepole than it did to clean the deer.

Derailing runaway trains

Sunday night at prison, the men got an apology from me. I got in the way of the message and that's wrong. They come to hear messages that will help them do better when they get out of jail.

Instead, I tore into them for being failures. I was wrong for some of what I said. Some of it was spot on. Regardless, I apologized immediately.

My anger was aimed at the fathers who let their own illegal habits tear them away from their children. The children deserve better.

I apologized again at the end of my sermon.

Monday morning, I found myself in a similar position. I was ready to take out my burning anger on people who did not deserve it.

Children.

I was (and am as I write this) quite pissed off at an adult. The particulars don't matter.

What does matter is this adult is also very involved with children in my community.

Lemme make this clear - this is not about my two biological children. This is about the children at large in my community.

For a short while, I thought about taking my anger and frustration out on the kids this person is trying to help. That's not what I thought at the time, but that's exactly what I had planned. My thought at the time was "Hah! I'll just show YOU what I think of you."

Annnnnnd, the kids would be hurt.

Talk about wrong. egad.

I realized what I was doing and did an about face. I derailed that runaway train.

I'm ashamed that I even considered such actions.

It is beyond wrong to let the actions of an adult dictate how you will react to children.

Arg. Complicated. Lemme see if I can simplify.

Never, ever use children as a political football. Never, ever use children as a pry bar against an adult. Never, ever use children as a way to get revenge on someone.

I almost did it. I've seen lots of people do it. It makes me as mad as anything you can imagine.

We've all got to do better.

Coming to the stage, Living Colour!

If you are about my age or older you may remember the song recording by Living Colour, "Cult of Personality."

This song rolls through my head on a regular basis when religion and religious leaders come up.

The Pope's recent visit to the US underscores this to a tremendous degree. Mel tells me parts of New Jersey are shut down for his visit. Millions are expected to try and see him.

This morning on NPR one lady said she saw him roll past in the small car he was in. She was giddy.

Certainly people like the message this Pope brings. But too many people see the message and make that equal to the man.

It's not.

It's a problem people have. The person and the opinions & positions become the same.

Years ago Lamar Lee opened a sermon with a shot of Michael Jackson in concert in Hungary. It was the closing bit. MJ was scooting out with a jet pack on his back (in the vid anyway).

The crowd was ballistic.

"You are made to worship," Lamar told us.

And we are. Humans are not logical, rational beings. Emotion rules us, sways us and leads us.

For all their insistence on evidence and the scientific method, Bill Nye and Neil Tyson are also ruled by their emotions. You can see it in their interviews. They warm topics they believe in. They register negative emotions when confronted with topics they do not like.

Too many churches are led by charismatic leaders who inspire because of the force of their personality.

This creates problems. When that leader dies or moves on, the church can split, collapse, fail or so forth. I've seen it happen. When Lamar left, some people left. Some who left when he arrived came back.

The cult of personality.

That's not the way it should be. We should believe in ideas and follow people who can help us to implement them. Believing in the person and then implementing his ideas is a recipe for disaster.

And I don't know how to change it.

It is to laugh

Not gonna say whom but one of my FB buds used to refer to the current POTUS as "Kid from Kenya" on every single reference.

Then, a miracle happened. Reboobican Ted Cruz announced he was running for president.

Lo Anna hold a bee, all of a sudden it's CONSTITUTIONAL for a man to be born outside the 50 US states to run for president, so long as one of his parents is in fact a native born American.

No one has ever questioned the birthplace of the POTUS's mom. For the record, cassette, 8-track, CD, MP3, whatever comes next, Stanley Ann Dunham entered this mortal world as an independently living entity in Witcha, Kansas in 1942. That's the POTUS's mom.

Cruz was born (hatched, expelled, spontaneously created, whatever) in Canada to one Canadian parent and one American parent. Good enough to qualify him as an American citizen and qualify him to run for POTUS.

My FB bud has dropped all references to "Kid from Kenya." So have nearly all the other birthers.

Now, they have resurrected fossils of a prehistoric equine and are vigorously applying all manner of blunt instruments and whips to the remains. They insist the POTUS is a muslim.

Never mind we have definitive records of his attending a Christian church. Anyone remember Jeremiah Wright and the lynch mob that formed around THAT debacle? When the POTUS finally disowned the Not Very Rev. Wright, the conspiracy crowd had to shift gears.

What about the beer summit? Dining habits overseas?

Oy vey.

Time, space and your attention span do not allow me to go into the immense number of conspiracy theories that say the POTUS was going to create death panels, martial law, take our guns, establish a caliphate, never leave office and etc. Suffice it to say that each of these predictions has spectacularly failed to come true.

The Conspiracy Nuts will say this is because they exposed the plot, short circuiting the plans. Yeah.

Didja know that I single-handedly defeated an alien invasion last week? I did. You have to believe me because I'm telling you and no, I can't give you any proof because I destroyed everything to protect ... well to protect things that needed protecting.

Believe what you want to believe. The world will continue to turn, facts will be facts and reptilian overlords will continue to rule in secret no matter what you believe. Two of those statements in the previous sentence are true. You get to pick.

Blue lines, numbers, percentages, war and funerals

Full disclaimer: I am terrible at math. As a junior in high school, I tested out with a 6th grader's math ability. Dad, a Georgia Tech grad, was mortified. Mom, who made it through calculus and developed an ulcer from it, was nonplussed.

So. I am presenting you with some numbers. I'm going to do my best to make sure they are correct. Well, correct based on the source of the information. I am including the sources so you can check my figures.

Ready? Let's rock.

SOME NUMBERS

According to the information I dug out of several websites, the men and women of law enforcement show incredible restraint where lethal force is concerned.

You have heard the chant "Black Lives Matter." (Disclaimer: I detest using the words "black," "white," "Hispanic" and etc when referring to people. We're people. Humans. Stop attempting to define each other by recent ancestry. If you call this "white privilege" then so be it.  "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.")

I tell you, Lives Matter.

Here's the numbers.

According to Killed By Police, here's the number of police-caused deaths so far this year.

Sept. 54

Aug. 106

July 126

June 82

May 85

April 103

March 115

Feb. 86

Jan. 92

QUESTION EVERYTHING

However, other sources say this information is suspect. "It's ridiculous that I can't tell you how many people were shot by the police last week, last month, last year," FBI DIrector James Comey said in February.

The numbers may be off, but that's what we've go to work with.

BREAKING DOWN BY ANCESTRY

So let's take a different look at the numbers. Mother Jones offers this insight. Mother Jones is a somewhat suspect journalism outlet. It has an agenda and believes in pushing that agenda, but this is also data. Interpret how you will. There's a chart a short way down the page. Here's a snapshot.

"African American" deaths a 3.66 per million. "Hispanic" 1.2 per million. "Non-Hispanic white" .9 per million. Does show "African Americans" are killed a lot more often by law enforcement.

I can't find any report to show the information I want next. How much of law enforcement's time is spent responding to calls in "African American" neighborhoods v. "white" neighborhoods? I did study this a few years ago in my community. I split my town into quadrants, which worked very well as an ethnic breakdown as well, according to the US census and my own observations in the community.

More than 75 percent of the calls for law enforcement were in the southwest quadrant. The rest of the calls were in the northwest and southeast (my neighborhood) quadrants. During the 6 months I examined, the northeast section of town had precisely 2 calls, both were for fights at the alternate school.

Ahem.

GUNNING FOR DA MAN

Now how about law enforcement deaths? These numbers should be more accurate than the ones above.

The Skeptical Libertarian took at look at this. The author uses some strong language in his article, so you are now warned. His info is current as of 2012.

He found 2009 had the fewest LE deaths in the years he examined. 12.9 per 100,000 cops were killed. The worst was 19.8 per 100,000 in 2007.

Let's compare that to the per millions as figured by Ma Jones.

129 per million in 2009.

198 per million in 2007.

Call it an average of 150 per million.

Contrast that to Ma Jone's report that shows less than 10 people per million were killed by police on average.

LIVES MATTER

Lives matter. You can crunch numbers however you wish, but the bottom line is each "1" in any column represents a human life.

These numbers show me that cops are killed in far higher numbers than the people they are here to protect and serve. Some bad cops do exist. Most are dedicated and good people who are sometimes forced to make instant decisions. 

My opinion, based on these numbers, is cops make the wrong decision more often than the right decision when it comes to lethal force. They have the physical wounds to prove it. Too often, there's a funeral to prove it.

Your mileage may vary.

Flat tires, egg sammiches and doing the right thing

Before you continue, read this.

I give you one phrase from me bud Paul's discourse: "right in all the ways that matter."

What is right? What is wrong? 100 years from now, will it matter? Bugger that. Does it matter right now?

This is going to sound like self-aggrandizement and it may be. However, this is how I settle things in my mind, by writing them down. Sometimes it's a canoe trip down a placid river. Other times it's a ride into a black hole. If yer still with me, grab a chicken handle with one hand and a paddle with the other. Let's ride.

Lemme give you some background.

THE FIRST THING

What's got my philosophy in high gear today is Sunday night's prison visit. As some of you know, I go to prison regularly. I talk with the inmates. Some people who preach to the inmates. I talk with them. As in interactive when them talking to me as I talk to them.

Some people will say this is an unconventional way to deliver a sermon. These people don't know much about me. Some people will say this is the wrong way to deliver a sermon. To each his own.

Come to prison with me.

THE SECOND THING

Being pentecostal, I'm accustomed to shouts, yells, people getting up and acting like they got a dose of St. Vitus and or like they're at a heavy metal concert (in case you don't know about St. Vitus). Prisoners don't act that way. They can't. In the more than 12 years I've been going to prison, inmates have stood up during the sermon in a gut reaction less than five times. Guys have broken down crying more than a dozen times. Sunday night, two guys stood up and said "This pain is nothing!" They promptly sat back down. If yer pentecostal you understand. If yer not, I can't explain it.

Over the years, five guys have made an attempt to keep in touch with me. Two reached out more than once. Ah so.

Hey, call me.

THE THIRD THING

This is really what I can't get over.

After Sunday's service, a guy comes up to me. He asks where I live and if there is an empty building behind my house. I give a noncommital reply.

"You gave me an egg sandwich."

Say what?

"I ran out of gas behind your house. You gave me an egg sandwich. I was drunk. You let me use your phone. I called my momma to bring me some gas. I had a white bulldog. You gave me an egg sandwich."

He turns to another inmate.

"I told you it was him. He gave me an egg sandwich."

The gent said this was about a year ago. It was more than 10 years ago as I remember. Certainly not a year ago. The building behind my house is now a store and has been for more than two years.

The story of the egg sandwich is now all over the prison. In a year, it will be mystical prison lore. In two years, it'll be completely forgotten, except by a few who are no longer there.

Come have a meal with me.

THE FOURTH THING

What would you do? A guy pulls up in the vacant lot next to your house. It's morning and he's already the side of toast for breakfast. Got a dog with him. Out of gas. What would you do?

As I live on the second most famous road in the United States, having people in various states of vehicular distress at my door happens. Flat tires. Out of gas. Other problems. What would you do?

Have had college students selling books, kids books which I bought, come to the door. Brought 'em in and fed 'em a meal if it was close to meal time. Had other people ask for help. What would you do?

Never give money. Never. A drive to get some gas, yes. A meal, yes. Some tools to change a tire, yes. Pulling their vehicle to a shop, done that too. What would you do?

Years ago I fed a guy an egg sandwich. Now he's in prison. Now he's talked with me while sober. Now, I'm feeding him something entirely different.

What would you do?

Come lend a hand with me.

THE POINT

To all my haters out there, to those who want me fired, to those who want me crucified, to those who threaten me, what would you do? To all the people who condemn me, attack me, insult me, what would you do? To the people who can't believe some of the things I've done, what would you do?


Walk with me. I'll bring the egg sammiches.

Report on what?

We regularly get calls, emails, messages, letters wrapped around bricks, people stopping us anywhere and everywhere that say:

"You need to do a story on this."

This is the issue du jour for the folks whose frame is bent out of shape. It can be anything. Somebody got fired. Somebody harassed someone. Someone lied, cheated, stole, abused their position.

These people hardly ever will speak on the record about this.

Yet, we're supposed to report on this.

No on the record information. No paper trail. No sources who can be quoted. No one who will publicly stand up and say this happened to me. Only off the record information.

Not. Going. To. Happen.

The national media is fond of using "sources close to the matter," "anonymous sources" and "sources speaking on condition of anonymity."

These three phrases are media-speak for "Hey. There's no way you can verify this independently."

As a card-carrying member of the media, I say it is also "Hey. We just made this shift up and there's no way you can tell if we're lying or not."

ANONYMOUS SOURCES

The newspaper I run does not use anonymous sources. We will and do take anonymous information. We try to verify it. If we can verify information, we may have a story. May not.

Sometimes we find out the anonymous info is true. Sometimes it is not.

We don't report rumors.

We encourage people to call us with information, anonymous or  not. But understand, unless we get someone to stand up and speak on the record, it's not going to be reported.

We're not in the business of making stuff up and presenting lies and rumor as fact.

SOURCES MATTER

Sources have, do and will lie on the record. Not much we can do about that. We report what people say and what the records reflect. If they lie, then the fault is theirs. If we catch the lie after their words are printed, we'll come back and tell you they lied.

MISTAKES

If we make a mistake, and we do, we'll correct it. We're not perfect. Everyone will make mistakes. The only people who don't make mistakes never do anything.

ONE MO THANG

We're going to listen to you, whether you speak on the record or off the record. But if you truly, sincerely and genuinely want the story in the paper, then speak on the record.

If all you want is rumor, innuendo, snide accusations and multi-level entendres, stick to Facebook,

Walking all over your privilege

One of my FB peeps, RBA, enjoys telling me I suffer greatly from something she calls "white privilege" and "male privilege."

Mebbe I do. How can you quantify something like that?

Certainly there are things I can do because of what I do. Who I am is far less important in that respect. I run a newspaper, in case you do not know. If I didn't run a newspaper, there are things I could not do.

So look at RBA's statements again. Male? Yup. XY chromosomes to be sure and the requisite other body features.

White? Certainly a lot of people look at me that way. Can't help what other people think and perceive. I don't consider myself white, black, red, yellow or brown. When asked to fill out forms asking for "race" I always check "other" if available. If given a blank space, I write in "human." If my choices are limited, I usually toss a figurative dart.

So perusing FB I found this. Being a sucker for this kinda thing, I took the test. Such pop culture tests are not reliable guides for anything, except a willingness to take these tests. Back in the late 70s and early 80s, Penthouse Magazine had a "personality quiz" in each month's issue. After looking at the pictures, I took the tests. Again, not really reliable, but entertaining nonetheless.

So was the BuzzFeed piece.

I scored a 33, which the test says is "Not Privileged." Ran it again. Same result.

Extremely amused, I looked over the questions one more time. I grew up in the Deep South, poor and farming and blessed/cursed with an insatiable desire to read and learn (at least learn about things I found interesting). I've lived and visited places all over the US. I've been to places most folks never see, done things they'll never do and met people ranging from top politicians and international celebrities to people who live in boxes.

This combination allowed me to not check a lot of the BuzzFeed items. Had I stayed in the South and never left, a lot more of those boxes would have to be checked.

So, am I privileged? In RBA's thinking I am. In mine, I am  and I am not. My privilege comes by way of my work. By my thinking, RBA is far more privileged than I am.

The real question is, does it matter? Yep. It sure does. Which then leads to another statement from Stan Lee: With great power comes great responsibility.

So, if you have privilege, how are you using it?

How am I using it? That's a question I am working really hard to not answer any more. Rather than explain, I try to say "walk with me." Actions speak louder than words, even when walking all over your privilege or my privilege.

So think about it. Are you privileged? If so, how are you using it? Are you satisfied with what you are doing? Is there room for change? Is there a need to change?

As you think, take the test. If you'd like to post your result, do so in the comments. 

Before you complain about farmers, make sure your state doesn't make it illegal

In ag communities, we like to tell people, "Before you talk bad about farmers, make sure your mouth ain't full."

To this I add, make sure you ain't wearing clothes, ain't using any product that contains wood, cellulose, ethanol or comes from a source that relies on any of this to get what you need. In short, unless you can make your own clothes, shelter and know how to survive off whatever grows wild, then don't speak ill of farmers around me.

I might cease being polite.

Anyway, a judge in the tater state, Idaho, has tossed out a state law that prohibited private undercover investigations of agriculture operations.

The judge cited First Amendment concerns. Here's the court's decision.

Here's two relevant excerpts from the ruling part of the decision:

The State’s logic is perverse—in essence the State says that (1) powerful industries deserve more government protection than smaller industries, and (2) the more attention and criticism an industry draws, the more the government should protect that industry from negative publicity or other harms.

“[U]nder the Equal Protection Clause, not to mention the First Amendment itself, government may not grant the use of a forum to people whose views it finds acceptable, but deny use to those wishing to express less favored or more controversial views.” Mosley, 408 U.S. at 96. Although the State may not agree with the message certain groups seek to convey about Idaho’s agricultural production facilities, such as releasing secretly recorded videos of animal abuse to the Internet and calling for boycotts, it cannot deny such groups equal protection of the laws in their exercise of their right to free speech. Far from being tailored to a substantial governmental interest, § 18-7042 classifies activities protected by the First Amendment based on content. Therefore, under the Equal Protection Clause, it cannot stand. 

Tru dat. Free speech means the right to call 'em like you see 'em. If people object and get offended, they have the right to speak in opposition.

OTHER PARTS OF THE LAW IGNORED

However, this ruling does not speak to some other important points from my perspective.

Pages 3 & 4 of the decision sort of point to existing laws about trespass, lying and etc., the kinds of laws that do not apply to elected officials but to the rest of us. Trespass continues to be illegal, at least for us non-government types. This law attempted to reinforce that part of the law

Straight from the decision -

The drafter of the legislation, Dan Steenson, likewise expressed a desire to shield Idaho dairymen and other farmers from undercover investigators and whisteblowers who expose the agricultural industry to “the court of public opinion”: “The most extreme conduct that we see threatening Idaho dairymen and other farmers occurs under the cover of false identities and purposes, extremist groups implement vigilante tactics to deploy self-appointed so-called investigators who masquerade as employees to infiltrate farms in the hope of discovering and recording what they believe to be animal abuse.” Mr. Steenson

The federal judge in this case pretty much said there's no problem with lying, trespass and etc. The judge puts the common citizen on equal footing with government folks in this case.

NO AG GAG LAW

In general, I am opposed to ag gag laws. The link contains further links to each state's law. These statutes are aimed at protecting the food production industry from warranted and unwarranted criticism.

Point of order, I can't think of any ag gag law I'd support.

My state, Georgia, law reads in part, "[I]t is imperative to protect the vitality of the agricultural and aquacultural economy for the citizens of this state by providing a cause of action for producers, marketers, or sellers to recover damages for the disparagement of any perishable product or commodity."

Yer honor, I object.

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.

That is the First Amendment, you may remember it, It's the one guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

Two relevant points:

1. Freedom of speech shall not be abridged.

2. The right to ask government to step in and solve problems is also guaranteed. (Never mind government creates plenty of problems.)

A free society must make room for dissent. You don't have to like it. You may be offended by it. Your business may suffer for it.

You have the opportunity to respond in kind. That's the best way to handle this kind of thing. Apply daffodils.

Daffodils - A new meaning for an old word

A while back I was stuck for a word to define a concept. There was no single English word to fit the concept. In fact, explaining the concept in English is difficult all the way around.

Rebel suggested Daffodils. I like it. I use it. You may also.

What does daffodils mean under this new definition? I will try to give you a sense.

It means whatever you do to someone else, they have the right to do it to you and they should and will do it to you. It falls just short of "must do it to you." The right to pursue action remains a choice.

It is a conscious decision by others to apply what you mean for them onto you.

It means when this is done to you, you may not complain. You may not seek recourse. The only thing you can do is accept what happens.

It's more than justice. More than the Old Testament law "an eye for an eye."

It's more than The Golden Rule.

It's more than just desserts.

It means the person making the first move doesn't think it through. The first person suffers from cognitive dissonance, disconnection from reality.

It's making you shut up and live with the consequences of your actions.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander comes about a close as anything in English to explaining this. Yet, this too falls short.

If grok is the face of a coin, then daffodils may be considered the other side.

Excuse me, you are stepping on my tenets

How far should religion be accommodated?

Some people say not at all. Some people say their faith should be accommodated to some degree. Some say their faith is the only way to live - the ultimate in accommodation.

I have problems with both extremes. In the first place, the Constitution allows free expression of religion, provided it brings to harm to others. In the second place, some forms of religious expression bring ultimate harm, death to those who refuse to believe as demanded.

Harm is the line in the sand for me.

In the case of the ultraorthodox Jews as mentioned in The Post piece, they say they will be harmed by flipping a light switch or pushing a button. Activating an electronic circuit can send them to hell. That's absolute harm as far as I'm concerned.

If it will happen that way.

The gent interviewed in The Post story has no proof of this harm that he says will befall him.

PARADOXICAL CONTRADICTIONS AND OTHER CONFUSING POINTS

As far as I'm concerned, he needs proof and he doesn't need proof.

I 'splain.

As he's attempting to legally force other people to change something, then he needs to provide definitive proof that he is or will be harmed by opening an electrical circuit on his Sabbath. If he can prove this, then changes have to be made.

He doesn't need proof because he can modify the things he does to avoid this. He can discuss having a manual lock on his apartment door.  He can pay extra to have his wants accommodated. He can move to another apartment complex. Or, he can deal with it as is.

The real contradiction here is: If he forces others to accommodate his request, this could bring harm to them. Having the lights on in the stairs all the time burns more electricity. More expense. Someone has to pay. That could be economic harm.

A SOLUTION

My thought is if it brings actual harm to one person, it will likely bring harm to everyone eventually. Therefore, it has to be adjusted so the least amount of harm is inflicted long term. In the case of the Jewish gent, if he can prove absolutely that he'll go to hell, then that has dire implications for the entire human race.

He can't prove it. All he can do is get opinions from religious leaders about the matter. Opinion ain't fact.

DO NO HARM

S'far as I'm concerned, religious convictions should be accommodated as long as they bring no harm. The most recent example of this, which I know about, is a 9-0 decision by the Supreme Court saying prisoners can have beards. Prior to this, prisoners had to be clean shaven.

Why?

I can see not allowing prisoners long hair. It's something to grab in a fight. It can get in the way when working. Long hair can clog drains. There's actual provable harm.

A 1/2 inch beard won't lead to that kind of harm. So, it should be allowed. The guys in the state prison, where I volunteer, are taking advantage of this ruling.

YAS DON'T LIKE IT, YAS DON'T PARTICIPATE

It all comes down to provable harm.

If you can prove that alcohol harms you, don't drink it. If you can prove that my consumption of alcohol harms you, then we need to have a discussion about my drinking it. We have proven, time and time again, that drunk driving can cause harm. Ergo, it is illegal. But me sitting at home and having a Redd's Apple Cider after cleaning out my Cherokee brings no harm to you.

Does it harm me? That's my business, not yours.

Certainly some of the things in this list can bring harm.

However, if the harm is self-inflicted and brings no harm to anyone else, then have at it.

The minute what you do harms someone else, that's when we get an injunction to examine the matter.

The Jewish gent in The Post story does not have a right to force his convictions on the apartment complex owner. He can't prove harm and he has other options.

You don't have the right to force other people to abide by your opinions and religious convictions. Nor do they have the right to force the same of you.

We've had a pretty awesome discussion in MA's thread on FB if you want to see what others think.