Remembering a legend

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Every so often in life you meet a legend.

I met one many years ago.


If you did not get to meet him in this life, it's too late.

http://www.iveyfuneral.com/sitemaker/sites/iveyfu0/obit.cgi?user=531360Wingate

My friend Jack Wingate was one of the most real people I have ever met. Anyone who knew him would say the same thing.

I have yet to meet anyone who did not like and admire Jack Wingate, former owner of Wingate's Lunker Lodge on the shore of Lake Seminole.

Best known for his love of fishing, Jack told me one day while he toured me across his loved lake, he had a greater passion than fishing - archeology. He was as proud of the mammoth tooth and stone-age ax hanging on the walls of the Lodge as he was of any of the animal trophies.

On that day, I also got to fish with him. There are anglers around the world and anglers yet to be who now envy me. As well they should. An angler like Jack Wingate is more rare than a 20 pound largemouth bass.

His funeral will be the largest Bainbridge has ever had. People from across the nation and likely the world will attend.

As for me, I will miss him and regret that my children never got to fish with him as I did.

Two of these things are just alike...

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
What links these two articles?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/07/astrazeneca-jobs-idUSL5E7N74JQ20111207

http://www.moneytalksnews.com/2011/12/08/online-sales-tax-may-be-coming-soon-3-ways-to-avoid-paying-more-taxes-now

Add caption

There are several correct answers.

The answer I'm looking for is disparate at first. I shall give you the answer and then tie 'em together.

On the first, jobs are leaving the US and going to China.

On the second, Congress is considering passing a law to make stores collect sales tax online.

 What ties these together? Cognitive dissonance.

There's your connection.

Still not making sense?

On the first, people are mad that jobs are leaving the United States. Jobs for Americans. Money in American pockets. Keeping the US economy turning.

Anyone can do it!

On the second, people are mad that government is implementing a national effort to collect sales tax. "It's my money. I shop online to save sales tax. WTH?"

Drawing a connection yet?

I now ask you - what do you want from government? You like roads in good shape? Ambulance services? Schools? Law enforcement? Etc Etc Etc

How are these things paid for?

Money, money generated from people who earn and spend money. People who have jobs make money and spend money. No job, no money, no spending, no taxes generated, government can't provide services.

Am I making a connection yet?

Fact is most state governments in the US and most local governments across the nation rely heavily on sales tax dollars to provide the very services you want and also complain about paying for. Those roads you use to get to and from work, sales tax foots a lot of the bill for them. The internet you use to connect and shop online (and read this), the very root is a government network.

You should support a national sales tax effort because it means more sales tax dollars for your state and community. That means lower taxes in other places.

If you are mad about jobs leaving the US, that's good. So am I. This means less money for local communities and local governments to do what they need to do.

If you are mad about the sales tax idea at the same time, you're logic train derailed.

Both are very important to economic development. Both matter a lot to the local, state and national economy.

I don't have the numbers (no one really does) but I suspect if sales tax was collected on internet sales for my community, it could easily amount to a mil of taxes ($60,000) a year in my town. That's tax dollars equal to a new and very large industry setting up shop here. That tax dollars that can be used to entice new industry and development and retail and keep existing ones on hand. It will go a long way in my school system too.

How it happens.

If you support the national effort for Fair tax (a federal sales tax which I don't support) and don't support the national collection of local and state sales taxes, then your logic train derailed a long way from the station.

It is economic development. Yeah, it's complicated. But unless you are intrinsically involved in economic development you probably don't understand why a sales tax is so important, just like jobs.

You are probably going to disagree with me. Is OK. But I ask you, have you ever opened, from the ground up, a retail business employing 20 people? Ever started an industry with a gross bottom line of more than $1 million a year? Ever been involved in the superfine details which cause one of these businesses to happen? Do you know how your government spends money and I mean right down to how much is spend on cold patch every year to fill in potholes? Do you know how much the school system spends annually on mowing grass?

I'm gonna sound like an ass here. But, it's still going to be right.  If you don't have that kind of experience, then I suggest you don't really know what economic development, which includes sales taxes as well as jobs, is all about.

And finally

Cause I'm still peeved at the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame.

Ummmm, what?

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I'm not normally one to comment on pop culture, but this time I gotta say

http://www.npr.org/blogs/therecord/2011/12/07/143275658/what-no-heart-questioning-this-years-rock-and-roll-hall-of-fame-inductees
Once again, KISS was not given the nod. Guns N Roses was.

Rock & ferkin' ROLL!

I will not deny the impact on metal which GNR has made. But I will argue the impact of KISS is far greater. In terms of impact on the music industry, rock and roll and heavy metal, few bands can equal KISS. GNR certainly cannot equal KISS.

Heart is also not making the grade this year.

"Funk pioneers Rufus and Chaka Khan, rap standard-bearers Eric B & Rakim, disco goddess Donna Summer, Latin-influenced rockers War and soul hitmakers The Spinners were all nominated and denied," writes Ann Powers.

Hah? The Sex Pistols (2006) made the cut and War didn't? Not arguing that Sid Vicious et al don't belong cause they do. But War didn't? C'mon people!

I am told a small group of people get to cast votes to decide who gets into this list. I'm wondering what they listen to.

'course MOLLY HATCHET ain't made it in either, which tells me all I really need to know about the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame.

Nuf said.

Kill 'em all!! Let God sort 'em out

.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Today's title is an unofficial Special Forces motto. Should be self-explanatory.

My opinion on wild hogs and armadillos.

Bear that in mind as you look at this http://www.eternalforces.com/

Now read this review.

Gotta admit, I'm somewhat ambivalent about this. Why? It's a video game. It's not reality.

Reality is Muslims are killing each other and pretty much everyone else. Jews in Israel are not exactly killing each other, but do come close and are killing Muslims. Christians are killing everyone. Atheists are killing everyone.

Kill 'em all. "Get 'em sorted in whatever existence, if any, comes after this one" is the motto of mankind.

Humans don't need a religion in order to kill each other. We just need an opportunity.

Anyway, I strongly suspect a lot of people will like the idea of a video game that lets Christians take out people who don't convert to the faith.

If you are one, I now ask what's your opinion of this: http://www2.wsls.com/news/2008/jun/02/object_of_new_video_game_is_to_stop_the_spread_of_-ar-401417/

 "The object of the game is to stop the spread of Christianity and Islam by murdering Abraham and the authors of the Bible, before beheading Muhammad."

 I'm still ambivalent. Why?

Because people who complain about either one of these video games are complaining because they are the object of attack.

So?

"Baker, you're an idiot. These video games teach people it's OK to attack me because of who I am," you say.

So?

I readily admit these "offensive" video games enact violence against a certain segment of humanity.
 
Call of Duty, Medal of Honor, pick a war-based shoot 'em game. Someone is the enemy and someone is getting killed. Chinese, Russian, Mexican. These video games have as the object, kill someone because they are different.

You are going to tell me it's OK to have a video game where a kind of person you don't like is killed, but it's not OK to have a video game where the kind of person killed is someone you like?

Humans don't need a reason to kill each other. We just need an opportunity. That this violence is enacting in video games doesn't much matter.

If you plan to decry the killing of atheists, Muslims or Christians in a video game, will you decry such violence against other human avatars in the game?

If you don't denounce the violence, all the violence, then what does that really say about you?

This may sprain your brain

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
If the universe is infinite, as the current crop of heavy duty thinks believe, then this raises an major existential question.

Oh don't I wish...

No matter how improbable, it must exist if the universe is infinite.

This raises a major set of contradictions.

On one hand with infinity to be in, intelligent life somewhere else in the universe must exist. This is a probability.

On the other hand (and you may need Kali to have enough hands if I run this one far enough) there is no intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. This is a probability.

If the universe is infinite and everything, no matter how improbable, must exist then both ideas about intelligent life are equally correct and true.

Reminds me of physics, math and politics.

Such is the stuff of philosophers better than me and late nights with a keg of cold beer, good friends and a roaring bonfire.

Well, what can you say?

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

Whack 'em and stack 'em.

 When it comes to being a merchant of death, my brother Shag is more like a street peddler of flesh wounds. Not saying that I'm any better at killing things mind you, but I had to have something to say about my brother.

He has recently taken up bowhunting, a sport I've been involved in for years off and on. We both have bow kills to our credit. Shag has a nice fallow deer on his wall he bow killed. I don't have anything on the wall with a bow, but I have put meat in the freezer.

I remember my first bow kill. It was a rattlesnake. I emptied the .45 I carried, missing the snake every time. Disgusted, I took a broadhead off an arrow, and pinned the snake to the ground with the blunted arrow. This year in deer bow season, I got a small doe.

Blue tailed skink.

Some years back Shag and I were slinging arrows in our Grandmother's back yard. As happens, we sometimes missed the target. Shag collected arrows.

In one collection, he held up a blue tailed skink. Dead. The lizard was in the weeds behind the target. Shag's broadhead (I wasn't shooting broadheads) cut the skink's neck perfectly. Killed it right there. That was his first bow and arrow kill. No, we didn't eat it.

This weekend, a crew from Team No Prisoners show came over to film some stuff, hunt, reload and in general behave like hunters.

So. Saturday afternoon, I put folks in stands. Went to my stand. 30 minutes after settling in, I hear a shot. I text Shag."You shoot?" He replies yes, a bobcat. He heads out to retrieve said critter.

We shoot bobcats, yotes and foxes. They eat are rabbits and wild turkeys. We don't tolerate 4-legged competition.

A few minutes later another text message.

Shag shot the tail off the bobcat.

I am not kidding. He has the tail and should, by now, have it attached somewhere to his already mounted bobcat.

That evening while looking for coons, all we find are armadillos. PeeWee, with his .270 (which is now an inside joke) shoots one and misses another. He is a bit depressed now. This is the first miss with that rifle.  We retire for the evening, me extremely glad to have one dead dammit, but annoyed that 3 more got away. Yes, I have an irrational hatred of armadillos, which as Shag points out I have now rationalized.

A good dammit.

Sunday morning in a stand with PeeWee and the camera, a doe walks about. Shag shoots. I get a text "DOE DOWN!" Then, they can't find it. I go help. We review the footage. A clean miss.


I will not tell you how many deer Shag has missed this year, but it is one less than all the deer I have missed in my entire deer hunting career. That said, I have missed way more critters than Shag but I have also hunted a lot more than my brother.

Misses come with the territory. Unfortunately, so does the occasional wounded animal such as the 6 point I shot and lost in black powder season this year. Real hunters accept the misses and massively regret the woundings and lost animals. An animal wounded by a hunter is no different from an animal wounded by someone in a vehicle. The difference is, hunters accept it as part of the process. Hunters, in case you wonder, come in two and four-legged and two-legged and two wings varieties,

What can you say, except, Team No Prisoners, y'all come back. Somewhere there's a really bob-tailed bobcat that I want on someone's wall so it won't eat any more of my wild turkeys.

We has met the enemy and he is us

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
That "mainstream" media you so despise picked up the story before one of the conspiracy sites you so treasure, Masa. Yeah. NPR told me about it several days ago and has continued to keep me updated.

Might makes right in the world. Has for millennia

At issue is a pending bill in Congress to define American citizens who engage in terrorist acts against the United States as enemy combatants. As of this morning the bill would allow the US military to intervene on US soil to deal with suspected terrorists.

In other words, with this proposed law you could be arrested by local, state and federal law enforcement agencies as well as the military.

If the military arrests you for being a terrorist, then you can be held in detention for years without being formally charged and without access to a lawyer.

Under this bill if you are determined to be a terrorist, you no longer have rights under US law.

Now on the surface that may seem cool. You want to blow up Americans, fine, we'll treat you like a militant towelhead. (This epithet brought to you by Ethnic Slurs R Us)

Might still makes right.

Think deeper. Who will decide if you are a terrorist? The military? Law enforcement? Even worse, a politician?


What is the determining criteria for being a terrorist? I rather think blowing up a building is enough evidence. How about threats? Possibly.

What about people who don't threaten, but just demand change and insist on different priorities approached from a different direction?

The Supreme Court has ruled sedition, calling for the violent overthrow of the United States Government, to be illegal.

The violent overthrow of another government by the United States Government is also illegal under international law. (Disclaimer: International law is equally used and ignored by every country in the world to suit their needs of the moment. Literally, they may ignore one of the international conventions today and tomorrow demand it be applied.)

When you are a politician you get to pick and choose which rules apply to you. When you don't like a set of rules you can either ignore them or change the rules. Now the politicians have decided to enable a new set of rules which do not apply to them, but apply to you and me.

Reality will not conform itself to your expectations.

In this nation, we are supposed to have a representative government, of the people, by the people and for the people. If that was true, then Pogo's famous statement - we have met the enemy and he is us - is the truth. As long as our elected representatives can do one thing and the ordinary people cannot do the same thing, we do not have a this kind of government. We have an oligarchy which will take whatever measures are necessary to keep it that way.

The simple reality-based fact is: Might makes right.

You don't have to like it. You don't have to accept it. But the people with the big club will be glad to beat the idea into your head.

Lawyers in the midst

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. 
What if a private company determines the limits of free speech?

Increasingly, corporate lawyers working for private companies will have more to say about freedom of speech than governments and courts.

Don't believe me? http://www.npr.org/2011/11/30/142714568/interpreting-the-constitution-in-the-digital-era?sc=fb&cc=fp

If you can, listen to the Fresh Air podcast.

Consider this quote: "Nicole Wong (former lead attorney for Google) was the one woken up by the Turkish government, for example, who were upset because Greek football fans were posting videos on YouTube saying ... the founder of modern Turkey was gay [and it is illegal in Turkey to insult the modern founder of Turkey]," says Rosen. "So Wong, in the middle of the night, has to decide, 'Is this a clear violation of Turkish law?' on which case it comes down, [or] is it an edge case and should be protected as free speech? In the end, she decided to block access to certain videos through Turkish IP addresses. ... So Nicole Wong concretely dramatizes that lawyers at Facebook and Google have more power than a Supreme Court justice."

The reasoning behind this: More and more people are turning to the internet as their primary source of information. They use the big search engines to find that information.

When these search engines make a decision to delete or block something, that pretty effectively shuts down access to that information.

Rosen co-edited this book, Constitution 3.0: Freedom and Technological Change, which I plan to get very soon. It discusses freedom and what it may and may not mean in the digital age. Some of the ideas expressed in the book are beyond disturbing. Lemme hit three for you.

FREEDOM OF THE PRESS

In the case of Turkey (above), free speech is stifled. It is shut down not by government fiat but by private lawyers working for a private company. And, it's legal.

Today's issue out shortly...

The right to free speech is a restriction on government. Private companies have a LOT more legal authority to shut down free speech within their demesne.

This is NOT a contradiction with the right to free speech. The right to free speech INCLUDES the right to keep your damfool mouth shut AS WELL AS the right to not be forced to say something.

In simpler terms, freedom of the press belongs to the man who owns the press.

You don't like what the press owners says, you go buy your own press and say what you want to say.

Google, Yahoo, Bing, Facebook, et al are absolutely no different from the man who owns a newspaper printing press. They all have the right to decide what content they allow to be produced through their equipment. Lawyers will make these decisions and governments won't be able to do much about it.

Many object to this. Good. If you don't like the TOS (terms of service) or such internet giants, go start your own internet company and you can make the rules as you see fit.

STUPID IS AS STUPID DOES

In this story, Jeffery Rosen speaks of what he calls a Right to Oblivion. I 'splain.

Like gone man...

You are young, foolish, stupid and probably should be shot (I actually was shot, but that's another story). You do something stupid. You make a record of it. Think pictures.

Some years down the road you wish the stupidity had never happened. You want to destroy the evidence.

Before the internet, this was pretty easy. Burn the prints and negatives and if necessary, shoot the photographer. This can create additional problems though.

Now with the internet, once something is online, it's pretty much gonna be there forever. With one possible exception. Over a decade ago I found a mind-boggling picture of a Natural Light-induced technicolor yawn. I have not been able to find it since. Which is probably good as posting it here would lose me a goodly number of readers.

This man will one day run for president.

A pop/rock singer in South America had some "racy" pictures taken at the beginning of her career. They periodically showed up on the internet. She objected. She also sued to have the pictures taken down and to prevent search engines from locating them. A court in S. America agreed.

Google said blocking access to those pictures along could not be done. So, apply Occam's Razor.

They have blocked all mention of the singer. According to Google at least, she does not exist. This partly embodies the Right to Oblivion as Rosen outlined it.

BIG BROTHER

As Rosen goes on, he dips into an Orwellian nightmare. With ever increasing knowledge of the brain and how it functions, some criminal court cases are actually presenting a defense that the criminal's brain would not stop him from committing the crime.

We're watching you.

Well. It's more complicated than that.

The defense stipulates the part of the brain which should have worked to stop the criminal impulse does not properly work. Ergo, the criminal deserves some leniency because his brain does not work right.

My thoughts exactly.

But extend this out. Scan a brain. Determine that the brain doesn't work well enough to control criminal impulses - this is a hardwired matter.

The brain-scanned person is now identified as a person who has a tendency to commit crimes. Not just a tendency. Based on brain scans, this person will commit crimes.

What do you do? Can you arrest the person or otherwise restrain them in an attempt to keep them from criminal behavior?

I am not a luddite, but some of the new technology does give me cause for pause.

The Will of the People and People of Will

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

.
.
.

Do you believe in democracy, or in the case of the governments of and in the United States, a republic?

What happens when the "wrong" people win?

A better question - Do you believe in the will of the people? By that I mean, do you support the concept it embodies?

The will of the people is the law of the land, in other words.

Before you work up an answer, lemme point this out - the Constitution actually states that societal mores must determine whether or not certain laws are permissible. “Cruel and unusual punishment” is a direct reflection of what the people say.

In one of the more famous Supreme Court decisions, SCOTUS handed down a ruling which states in part that pornography has to be defined by the standards of that community. In another decision, SCOTUS ruled that election districts must also take into account the social and economic makeup of that district, not just race and politics.

A community where I do not wish to live.

Relying on that, SCOTUS has said that a community standards are a deciding factor in making a law. The reach of that community apparently varies by the kind of law being implemented.

I re-phrase the question

If a sufficient number of people say “It should be this way” then that’s the way it ought to be?

What is a sufficient number of people? Who gets to have a say? Should there be limits on who gets to have a deciding voice? Where will you set the limits?

What amount of people is sufficient to set a policy or law? Do you need a certain number of people or just a percentage of them?

Whether you admit it or not...

What percentage? A majority? A plurality? Both exist in the United States

Does age matter? Would you allow a 3 year old to vote for president? A 17 year old?

You know people who are 30 years old and not as mature or cogent as some 16 year olds.

In the US, anyone over the age of 18 who is a US Citizen and is in possession of their civil rights (convicted felons have abrogated rights at times) gets to vote. Anyone, including a person on death row, has the right to speak. They may not have a right to make decisions or participate in decision making, but they can be heard. NB: This is not a universal policy. Some countries not do allow citizens any rights. Even life is held by a tenuous thread of those in charge and can be clipped at any time.

Artificial limits based on artificial boundaries

BTW, we're still at war here. Yes huh.

Should a decision be bound by geography? In other words, can something be a law here, but not a law there?

Within the corporate limits of a city, the residents can call for a referendum. If approved, that referendum is binding within the City but not outside the City. City residents are the ones who get to decide.

Is this fair? Unfair?

Say the City passes a referendum. The unincorporated County passes a referendum exactly the opposite (this has happened in Georgia many times). The City residents, being residents of the County too, get to vote on the County ballot. But County-only residents don’t get to vote in the City referendum.

Splain THIS ONE!

Both referenda become of the law within the political jurisdictions.

Fair? Unfair?

The County-wide decision applies to the unincorporated County, but not within the City.

So you can literally do something legal and take one step and that action become illegal.

State laws also vary, meaning you can take one step there and what you do is legal, a step back and your action becomes illegal.

Where do you draw the line?

One more monkey wrench and I’ll turn you loose. If the will of the people is the law of the land, what protects minorities from being oppressed by a majority? Will your opinion be different if you are in the majority or the minority?

She's married, has kids and asthma. I am not kidding.

15 years

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
15 years ago from  today, I literally held a life in one hand.

15 years from that day, that life is capable of picking me up.

15 years ago from today, I was changed, permanently. If you've been there, you understand. If you've never been there you can't understand. It can't be explained either.

15 years from that day I am yet again a different person than I was.

For 15 years, I have daily learned something I did not know before.

Happy 15th anniversary of your birth, my son.

My favorite Jesse picture. He was "scaring" me from under a table.

Jesse on his favorite instrument

Yep. He killed it. Helped process it too. That's his rifle.

Your right to be offended - Part I

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

OK, bad ancient pun. I still like it.

To be, or not to be, that is the question:
Whether 'tis Nobler in the mind to suffer
The Slings and Arrows of outrageous Fortune,
Or to take Arms against a Sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them: to die, to sleep
and etc…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_be,_or_not_to_be

I pose to you today an ancillary to the Bard’s quandry -

Which is more important? The right to offend or the right to not be offended?

My position on this is clear, at least to me.

Today’s musing has come about by way of conversations I’ve had recently with a number of atheists regarding religious displays. The more intelligent atheists have avoided the word “offend” and its various permutations to discuss why they object to religious displays on public property. One has used “offend” to describe how people of one religion may perceive a display of another religion. The less intelligent describe how such displays offend them.

Please, do tell me.

Arg. Confusing.

I retreat back to the Topic du Jour statement. Which is more important? The right to offend or the right to not be offended?

What about it? Ever been offended. Ever offended someone?

Well, duh, of course you have.

So what was your reaction to being offended? To offending someone?

Lemme take one more step down this road. When you were offended and the other person knew, what did you think about their reaction to your being offended? How did you react to someone being offended at what you did?

Just need some help to know what to do.

Back on track - Should there be limits to how much offense can be incurred or delivered?

Who is going to set those limits? Do we even need limits?

What gives anyone the right to give offense? What gives anyone the right to not be offended?

If you have ANY interaction with fellow human beings, you are going to offended eventually. As remarkable as it may seem, I can be offended. You are going to have get up early in the morning to do it. It’s probably best to not even go to bed if you want to offend me.

Anyway, in Part II below, I provide you with some reader feedback.

Your right to be offended Part II

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

I posted the question on FB and it generated a fairly good thread. I repost here, edited slightly to remove full names, links to FB pages and some grammar.

Rebecca - Wow! Good question. Deep one. I don't know if either one is more important. Let me think on this. It's got to bounce around in the mind some.

April - Depends on the subject matter. Example:When it comes to taking God out of schools BEC it may offend or go against some ppls beliefs, then I would prefer to offend them! I am outraged that the government don't allow Christians have prayer in school and in some other counties school functions! I am offended when you call businesses and have to press 1 for English and 2 for Spanish when this is a English speaking country. I know English is not the only language here but it is the predominate language here not the 2nd or. 3rd!!

Me -  And who decides what can and can't be discussed.

Rebecca - Ben, you love playing devil's advocate? :)

Me - I just want people to think.

April - Ben what do you think is more important then? To offend or be offended?

Me - I want to hear other opinions. I know mine. (which has been expressed in my blog.)

Mike - The right to offend...without question. If I am offended by something, I still have a choice in how I accept the info and how I respond to it. If that info is blocked because of a right NOT to be offended, then I stem the flow of info and I am not given any choice at all. The choice should be mine. I should be a big enough person to make my own decisions and to handle it.

Kathryn -I try not to offend others. But I know everyone won't always agree on the same thing. How about asking God what he thinks? I think it may be better not to offend him. Psalm 32 : 8 I will instruct thee and teach thee in the way to go: I will guide thee with mine eye. Proverbs 3 : 5 , 6 Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not on thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths. ........ Maybe that will help in deciding important things like that.

Pakrat - The right to offend.

Kathryn - I don't mind being offended btw. I know how to turn a channel or press a button or walk away.

Greg - I would go so far as to suggest that there is no right to not be offended. I think each person has a right to attempt to avoid offense by carefully selecting the viewpoints, images, etc. to which they will give attention. I also think each person has a responsibility to not unnecessarily offend his fellow man (though defining 'unnecessarily' already puts us on debatable ground). At the end of the day, though, any action we take (including total inaction) will be offensive to someone, and I don't think that God would have given us any rights which were impossible to attain.

Tom - Got to hand it to you, Ben, you like the quandaries. I think MM nailed it, not that the other opinions don't have merit. The bottom line is the free flow of ideas. If that is restricted, then a freedom is lost. Doesn't matter if its objectionable or not, because if you never have the opportunity to hear/read/see it, you never have the chance to evaluate its merits. Moreover, how could you even debate an idea if you don't know what it is? As I have stated many times before, freedom is messy. If you have a problem with that, maybe you should go somewhere with less of it, and see how that works out for you.

Steve - I agree with Tom and Mike, the free flow of information and the opportunity for me to make a choice is paramount. However, we live in a society where too many people "require" us to be subjected to their viewpoint. Even if we have thoroughly evaluated an idea, the ability to opt out is frequently taken from us, most notably when it comes to educating our children.

Mark - Ben, I think the right not to be offended is more important than the right to offend; however, much like a "judgement" placed upon someone, that reasoning must be enforced. One cannot expect not to be offended if he or she walks through life thinking that not to be offended is a given right. If one chooses to walk "outside" of the normal circles that are created by society, then one "opens the door," so to speak to be offended; it is at that time that one needs to speak his mind and "defend his right not to be offended." It is not something one gets for free, for everything in life comes with a price.

Tom - to Mark‎; What if in the course of vigorously defending one's right not to be offended, one offends others who feel that their right not to be offended is being trampled upon? Moreover, who determines what the societal norms are that one must adhere to in order not to give offense? And what if you are offended by those norms when they abridge your rights in some other aspect? I can see this dog running his paws off to get that stub of a tail. Unless you posed this particular conundrum to elicit this exact query, which I don't put past you!
16 hours ago · Like

Mark - Gee -- I'm really offended! :)

Bryan - (me brother) I much prefer to be offended as it purports free speech and the opportunity to be heard and to hear.

Mark - Interesting twist on the rights of others.

Greg - I think Steve Mecham makes an interesting point. There is a difference between a right to not be offended and a right to avoid participating in that which offends you. This points to a tangentially-related debate around the issue of tolerance/intolerance. Classic objective definitions will tell you that to 'tolerate' means to peacefully coexist with that which bothers (or offends) you while to 'not tolerate' means to find a way to end the existence of that which you find intolerable. Various social and political movements have, however, twisted the word 'tolerance' to be synonymous with 'acceptance' and even 'support', with intolerance being anything less than that bar. Do we have a right to not ever be offended? No. But do we have a right to be offended when confronted with something we find offensive? Absolutely.

Kathryn - I simply think of it this way. You have the right to be a jerk as long as you let of walk away. Not meaning any of you are being a jerk... figure of speech.

My kinda Christmas

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2066860/Scottsdale-Gun-Club-Arizona-invites-children-pose-Santa--arm.html

Gunning for the Easter Bunny

I cannot fully imagine the chagrin, ire, angst and a whole bunch of other negative emotions running through the anti gun crowd over this story.

In what will absolutely not surprise you, note that I support this idea of Santa and guns. The idea that is driving the antis irrational delights me even more.

Firearms make GREAT Christmas gifts.

In this era where a woman pepper sprays people and a riot erupts over $2 waffle irons, I think it is more than appropriate for people to pose with firearms and Santa.

I understand some people will object to this on other grounds. As one person on FB said "Christmas should be one thing only. Peace and Good Will."

.50 BMG. Turning enemies into jelly since Granpa's day.

If that is what Christmas should really be, the Santa has no place in it. 

The original St. Nick, we are told, gave to children and expected nothing in return. Archaic. This is not the modern definition of Santa Claus.

The modern Santa is commercialism, greed and capitalism (nonwithstanding he runs a totalitarian regime). Santa is getting gifts. Giving gifts is of lesser import where the jolly old elf's main followers are concerned.


Is Santa is your main icon for Christmas, then why do you object to people posing with him with items they would REALLY like to get for Christmas?


In terms of gifts what is the real difference between a car, a doll or a Ma Deuce?


If Santa is something that is important to you, then why shouldn't you pose with Santa with something else which is important to you? I know a lot of people who consider their firearms to be significant investments, treasured heirlooms and something they are incredibly proud to own.

Men In Black. Daughters In White.

I suspect a major reason for the discomfiture is the juxtaposition of something seen as benign and comforting with something that is seen as dangerous and violent.

Perceptions cannot define reality, but they can make the perceiver mistaken.

I have seen MANY children totally freak when presented with Santa. I have yet to see any child totally freak (unless indoctrinated ahead of time) when presented with a firearm.

Ask the un-indoctrinated screaming child which he is more afraid of - Santa or a gun.


If Santa truly represents peace and good will and firearms do not, then I can only reply - Sic vis pacem, parabellum.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2066860/Scottsdale-Gun-Club-Arizona-invites-children-pose-Santa--arm.html

and

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/26/nation/la-na-air-force-pagans-20111127

And what would you have done?

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Got up this morning. Truck parked in the driveway. Not mine. Bulldog in back seat.

Moseyed out to check. Dog barked. An arm on the front seat moved. I saw the person was alive, wrapped in a blanket so I walked back to the house.

Went back to the house to resume cooking lunch, washing clothes and making jerky. Later while pattying out BACON burgers in the barn, truck cranked and left. Back in 30 seconds.

Man walks up. Asked where he was. Did not remember how he got here. Called his mother (dude is my age) to come from the far side of Albany to bring him money for gas.

He admits to being too drunk to drive home last night.

"I figured it was something like that. Not just anybody is going to park in my driveway," I said.

Gave him a large glass of ice water. A short while later, cooked him an egg sandwich and took it to his truck. Figured by then he could hold it down.

"Remember, Jesus will always take you back," I said, handing him the sandwich. While hanging out clothes, he waved at me. I waved back. A short while later someone arrived and he left behind them.

What would you have done?

I know what most of the people who don't want me in their church would have done.

I also know what Jesus would have done because He was with me this morning.