The Winds of Dune - book review

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

In some cultures on this third rock from the sun, when a person has reached the useful end of their life and becomes a drain on the others, the person is turned out, left to confront the elements and die in them.

Muad'Dib took that long walk at the end of Dune Messiah. Whether or not he actually died in the desert is never answered with 100 percent certainty (99 percent certain). However, the days and first couple of years after his disappearance into the desert are not discussed, until now.œ

The Winds of Dune explores both that time right after Usul walked off and jumps back in time to explain and set the stage for events discussed in Dune the originals and Dune the books by Herbert junior and Anderson. One of the best fill-ins we get is the back story of Bronso of Ix and why he set about trying to ruin Muad'Dib, with Paul's help, blessings and at Paul's requests. Ooh. Ahh.

It also slings in more than a few surprises, a bomb (both as an explosion which kills people and as a literary device that leaves the reader with his jaw hanging) or three and puts more than a few twists. It also fills in a few gaps including some gaps that readers of the original Dune series might not have noticed. One of the bombs - Lady Jessica actually set out to kill her son, Paul, because she was afraid of what he'd become and was doing. There are more surprises, but you'll have to read the book to find them.

It really does MORE than fill in those gaps and drop bombs. This book comes closer than any other work by Herbert and Anderson to the original Herbert's work. I don't mean in style, grammar and such. The character development is truer to the original series and the political, social and economic machinations so present in the original are well developed in this book. At the same time, this is not a Frank Herbert clone book. The master's influences are there, but now the paired authors take flight on their own. With a number of other Dune books behind them, the duo have now provided readers with more than just fill-in. They have expanded the Dune universe.

While the other books in the fill-in series are worthy because they fill in spots, this book is worthy of the Dune series because it's just that good on its own. The SciFi network lists this one as a "SciFi Essentials book." In that I agree.

The Lemmings are Pimpin da Soap

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
How much do you know about SOPA and PIPA?

Is what I thought. SOPA - Stop Online Piracy Act and Protect Intellectual Property Act are two versions of the same idea. One is the House, t'other the Senate.

H'RAY! Wheres the cliff we can jump off?

Now how much do you know?

Is what I thought.

I have also not read either bill. But unlike what appears to be a very large number of people, I am NOT willing to accept the hyperbole being slung by Wikipedia, Reddit, Google and other websites. Yes. Hyperbole.

If you don't know what's in the bills, then how can you have a reasonable and well-considered opinion?

You believe all the websites? Suppose all the websites you believe conspired to tell you it's a good thing to jump off a cliff?

Just 'cause it's something your momma told you doesn't mean it's not common sense.

At the same time, I note Rep. Ron Paul has come out against the bills. OK. I'm a leeeetle more inclined to believe the bills are bad legislation. But just cause my man for president says it's a bad idea, I ain't abandoning my life jacket as the masses carry me with them into the water.

I also note the bill was sponsored by the movie industry and other other heavyweights in the intellectual property business.

Yes. Intellectual property. For a great many people I might as well be speaking Urdu-Croatian. But then, a great many people also have the intellectual reasoning ability of the aforementioned lemmings.

"Information should be free!" is the mantra some many people are shouting.

Way cool! As a man who has made his living for the past 27 years on this planet providing information, aka intellectual property, I am all for making it free. Just as soon as everyone who wants it to be free supplies me with a house (free), vehicles (free), food (free) and everything else my wages and salary currently supply for free.

"ummmm. Get a different job."

Ok. I could do that. So could all my other brothers and sisters in intellectual property business.

No newspapers. No magazines.

No worries.

No radio stations. No TV stations. No movies, at least none you really want to see.

No music, at least none you really want to listen to. Tom Petty? Gone, he's pushing papers at an insurance company. Rhianna? She's a model. Oops. Can't do that either. Pictures are intellectual property. Maybe she's an investment banker.

"Ummmm. You're an idiot, Baker." Ooops, 'scuse me. I'm quoting you and I'd best get it right. "Your a idiot Baker."

I may be an idiot. But these people I mention and many more make a living off intellectual property. They come up with the stuff you want. Do they deserve to get paid?

Everything you use to entertain yourself, unless you created it, started somewhere as intellectual property. Everything.

All the "news" you get? It all starts with some reporter, some person being paid to wade through mounds and reams of paperwork, sit through meetings, take time to interview sources and then collate that information. The music/tv/etc you listen you? Someone has to write it. Someone has to perform it. Someone has to record it.

This requires money. Someone gotta pay that power bill! Somebody gotta have money to put gas in that tank to go to the rally. Somebody gotta have cash to buy that video camera to shoot the next viral vid of some idiot.

While SOPA and PIPA may be bad legislation (I don't know), I do know I support protecting intellectual property rights. If I create it, I have the right to decide what to do with it.

You may disagree. That's your right. But if you steal my intellectual property and I catch you doing it, then you will be supplying a number of my needs out of your pocket while I sit back and do nothing.

The difference is you stole from me and I got a court order to take compensation from you.

Again, you ain't gotta like that either. Good if you don't. You go out and do everything I do and do it for free and see how well you manage to live.

Missing the point

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
This ain't about politics, but I use it to make a point.

'shopped image, but accurate.

Among the other failings of Yellow Dog Damnocrats and Blue Dog Reboobicans is they claim to understand the follow the Golden Rule, but they lie. Better description - they are hypocrites. They say one thing and do another.

For those unfamiliar with the above expressions, it means a YDD would vote for a yellow dog on the ballot if it had Damnocrat next to the name. Same thing, different color, for a BDR.

This failing is not confined to those of a political stripe. Those of the Liarberal and Cantservative idiotology persuasions by and large must also be grouped with the YDDs and BDRs.

What is the Golden Rule?

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

As the write Rev. (pun intended for Rebel) Robert Fulghum wrote, all I really need to know, I learned in kindergarten. Paramount among these lessons is the Golden Rule.

When I turn the other cheek, I'm reaching for my backup.

Is it more complicated than that?
Not really.

And before someone decides to go Philadephia Lawyer on me, yes I admit applying that maxim opens you up to a world of hurt.

Doesn't mean you have initiate the hurt. For sure, I'm all in favor of an Eye for an Eye and etc, but I'm gonna let the other person start hostilities. But when it comes time for an opening salvo, how about a hand of peace?

If it's rejected, you tried. If the other side comes back swinging and not on a tire hanging off a giant pecan tree limb, then swing back for sure.

Too many people, especially those I reference above, prefer the concept - Do unto others before they do unto you. They come in swinging a bat and they are not looking to connect with a leather covered ball of twine.

Would that it worked this way.

You may be a Damnocrat, Reboobican, Liarberal or Cantservative. You may even take offense at my nomenclature. If you are one of those, do you practice the Golden Rule. If the rules you apply in dealing with other people were applied to you, would you be happy?


You can lie to yourself and lie to me. Doesn't mean I'm gonna believe you.


Seriously. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

It's a lesson that seriously needs to be applied, especially among our leaders whether they are elected or not.

For our elected leaders, a brief primer for the things they forgot.

And for the rest of us, a gentle reminder as well.

That was easy.

Someone please tell me, what's so complicated about this? Why can't people get this through their heads?

I promise I won't attack you if you don't attack me.

I promise I'll keep my hands out of your wallet if you keep your hands out of my wallet.

If you genuinely need help, I'll do whatever I can.  I don't give hand outs, except at Halloween and you better be under 4 feet tall and in a costume. I give hand ups. Sometimes I need a hand up as well.

And, how about leave me alone unless I really need help and ask for help.

Yeah, maybe all this is sophomoric, juvenile and childish. That don't mean it can't work and it sure don't mean it's not the right way to live.

This one is simple

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The couple of times I have addressed a similar topic in the past, I get my brain handed to me with a plate of scrambled eggs.

Why this topic engenders such heated replies and comments that I am a world class idiot, I just do not know.

It's not brain surgery. It is about the most simple thing around.

More in a moment. First eyeball this link. Now until I read this, I though the idea of "brown" fat was a joke. I am still not entirely certain it's a joke.

I remember watching many years ago a guy who was very large play tennis. He said it was hard for him to lose weight, despite playing tennis as he regularly did, because he had brown fat. (I may be misremembering parts of this. I do know he was fat, said he played tennis and said it was hard to lose weight.)

Hungry yet?

In one of my previous columns about weight loss a secretary at a college in Virginia, who is also a diabetic, shredded me. Said I did not know what I was talking about. After chewing on my like she no doubt chewed a 5-pork chop dinner, she kicked me to the curb and I ain't heard from her since.

Regardless. The simple facts of the situation have NOT changed.

If you happen to be among the nutritionally blessed - fat - there is a simple way to lose weight. Note - I said simple. I did not say easy. Furthermore as those who have seen my pictures and those know me will admit, I know whereof I speaketh.

Eat less. Move more.

That's it. Period. End of story. Nuf said. No questions needed or accepted nor will any complaints be considered.

This is not me. And it's gonna get me yelled it.

Eat less. Move more.

It is that simple. Now this secretary chick argued with me extensively, no doubt she was chomping chocolate bonbons at the same time. She pretty much said I had no idea what I was talking about.

Her attitude was one far too common in the world today. She refused to accept responsibility for her condition. She blamed her diabetes for her being fat.

Huh?

If her diabetes went away, she'd not be fat any more? How much you wanna bet she got diabetes 'cause she was too fat and exercised too little?

But that is too simple. It required her to accept the consequences of her actions. In other words, that idea required her to live in this place I call Reality.

Where we are all Supermodels.

Reality is not a pleasant place to be. The sole advantage to living in Reality is - there are no lies.

Anyway, it's still simple. If you take in FEWER calories than you burn, you will lose weight. You have no choice.

If you burn 1,500 calories in a day and take in 1,499 you will lose weight. Not very fast, but you will. You have to. That one calorie you used and did not ingest has to come from your reserves.

If you continue this process, you will eventually burn off every bit of fat in your body. Then your body will start cannibalizing less necessary parts of your body to keep the most vital parts running.

Keep that up long enough and you'll die. You will die incredibly thin, though.

All that being said, I do need to lose weight. I'm also the only person who can do it. I am the only person responsible for it.

This one is easy.

I will do it when I decide to and not before. If you too wish to lose weight, quit smoking, or many other things that you wish to do, then you will when you want to. Until you want to do it, you won't.

Until you decide you want to do it, you won't.

It's that simple. I do not say it is easy, just simple.

Where the wallet goes...

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
She railed about the lack of jobs, the poor economy and so forth and so on. Then, she pulled into the store I refuse to enter and bought more than $100 worth of stuff.

Maple-glazed bacon-apple donut. Mmmmmmm

When I pointed out that "stuff" used to be made in America, providing American jobs and American livelihood until the companies were forced to move to China, her eyes took on the appearance of a glazed donut.

The companies moved to China because of an incessant demand by American consumers to get it cheaper. Period. Spend less money right now. T'hell with the cost down the road, gotta save them greenbacks right now.

That attitude has cost 5 million American jobs over the past decade and the job loss is growing.

The very people who are making the most noise about this are also the ones driving the job loss.

"The decision (laying workers off) is not made by us," he says. "The decision is made when the consumer walks into Wal-Mart and there's two products on the shelf and one is made in this country and one is made in China. And the one in China is 50% cheaper than the one that's made here, and they choose the one that's made in China."

He, in this case, is Larry Sills, CEO of Standard Motor Products, a company which has started outsourcing some work to China. Standard Motor is a company on the edge. Read the whole story here.

Now you can say a company (not necessarily Standard Motor) should do something. The company did. It tried to stay in business. But when the cost of making the product in the US is more than twice that of making it in the US, and the price at the store reflects that, well...

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over

You can argue that US companies could also make less profit. I agree. But the profit companies make is far less than what they shell out each year in employee pay, benefits & etc. You can cut profits in half and still not make the impact cutting employee-related expenses by one-quarter will make.

I can't make this any more clear. US consumers want it cheaper. The only way to do that is to make stuff overseas. Or, get US workers to take home less pay.

Pay cuts to the point of getting costs down low enough to compete with China ain't likely.

I told another person this, a mother of 5 kids. Each child has a different father by the way. I told her she was killing her children's chances of getting a decent job down the road.

She looked at me. "As long as it's cheap, I don't care," she said.

Ah.

The great majority of American consumers think exactly the same way. They lead with their wallet. They don't bother to think.

So, g'head, continue to spend your money where you wish. Don't buy American, don't support the small Mom & Pop stores.

When people in your family can't find a job, do not come to me complaining. I will laugh and laugh viciously at you.

For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. Luke 12:34

Hired & fired in a church

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Some years back I had an ordained Baptist minister working for me.

We got into a discussion of whether or not he could be fired from the church he preached at.

He insisted he could not be fired.

I was equally emphatic in saying he could be fired.

Now if you read the Bible, it is clear: A preacher (pastor) cannot be fired.

However, just because the Bible says Christians are supposed to act in a certain way does not mean they will.

To most Christians a Biblical mandate is just a suggestion.

AUGH AAAAUUUUUGGHHHHH!

The Bible's proscription on firing a preacher doesn't stop the people who make up churches from across the nation from firing preachers. If they can't fire the preacher, they take steps to make his stay at the church so unpleasant that he leaves - cut his pay off, refuse to attend services, etc etc etc.

In case you're wondering - a preacher can be fired, Bible be damned. I live in a place call Reality and in Reality, the Bible is used to justify pretty much whatever action people want to take, regardless of what the Bible actually says about that action.

The person I mention above could be fired. If his church rose up as one and said "you're outta here" he would have to leave.

Now this church, or any other church for that matter, cannot prevent him from being a minister. But they can keep him from entering their sanctuaries.

The First Amendment, as I wrote earlier today, gives broad latitude (which is often converted into attitude) to religious groups. That does mean preachers and churches are not subject to most employment laws.

In other words, a preacher has little legal recourse if he's fired from his preaching duties. Government pretty much can't get involved in how churches run their services. (There are some exceptions, no human sacrifice, howevermuch I'd like to see some people so served up on various altars, marijuana use is still illegal, etc).

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court has ruled a teacher in a religious school who also taught some religion classes is a "minister" and can be fired regardless of what laws would protect this teacher in a secular school.

Most folks' reaction to religious education, even in church.

As I understand this, the school in question is a religious institution. If it gets no money from the government then it is not subject to government rules.

Being religious, it is also pretty much exempt from government oversight.

So, the teacher who suffered from narcolepsy got fired because of her problems in staying awake. She wasn't canned because of her clashes over the parochial aspects of the school.

What I find equally interesting is the amici curiae briefs in the case, which included the NAACP, Americans United for Separation of Church and State and several religious organizations siding with the teacher.

From a Constitutional view, I'm siding with SCOTUS on this one. From a Biblical point of view, I have some uncertainties, but I'm still leaning toward siding with SCOTUS.

Dune: The Machine Crusade - book review

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

Book 2 of the Butlerian Jihad by Brian Herbert and Kevin Anderson is the least appealing of the triology of the Butlerian Jihad to overthrow the Thinking Machines.

A review of Books 1 and 2 is here.

About 1/4 of the way into this book, I realized the book was fully twice as long as it needed to be. By the time I turned the last page, I was even more convinced of this. The book does provide some excellent and muchly wanted information for us Dune aficionados. Specifically, what happened to Xavier Harkonnen, Serena Butler and, most important, the origins of the Fremen and the beginnings of the spice trade.

But the book is still too long. The writers spend far too much time on trivial details that appear to be included just to make the book be about 2 inches thick across the spine. As a person who reads several novels a week, I like thick books. But this one I really think would not miss much if given a Reader's Digest Condensed Book treatment.

The explorations of the triangle relationship between Butler, Harkonnen and Vor Atreides does not need NEARLY the amount of exposition the authors devote to it. While solid character development is essential to any novel, it can also be taken too far.

At the same time, to my thinking, not enough attention is given to Selim Wormwrider, the first person on Arrakis to ride the sandworms and the founder of the Fremen society. I hope Herbert and Anderson are planning a book on that.

Attention given to the Cymeks is just a tad long for my tastes, but I can accept it. What little I'd chop out is Agamemnon's constantly harping about needing to break away from Ominus' control. Him saying it once is enough to settle that he's planning a revolution. Hecate, the "missing" cymek appears exactly enough.

As with the other Dune books by H&A, if you go into this one expecting some much needed answers to the questions in the original Dune series, you'll be satisfied. If you go in expecting the master Frank Herbert's work, you will be disappointed.

As this book does fill in those holes, I still rank it as S.F. essentials book.

In defense of Sharia

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Sharia is the word used to describe the bodies of law based around the Koran. In other words, Sharia is Muslim-Islamic law based on that religion. I say "law" to bow to convention even though Sharia is not always law. Sometimes it is and sometimes it is a matter of custom and social norm.

Can I get an Amen?

That said, the tenets of Sharia are not universal. Sharia law varies widely across the globe. What one Sharia allows, another forbids and vice versa.

But it's still based on Islam.

Do you think Sharia should be banned in the United States?

Do you also want to be fair?

If you say yes, then you set a precedent. By banning Sharia law, you also set the stage to ban law based on other religions, like Christianity. Or any other religion. Or, lack of religion. Yes, I consider atheists to be have a religion. Which is an entirely different column.

OK, say you want to ban Sharia but don't want to be fair. Majority rules? OK, what if Muslims are a majority and seek to ban the stuff you support? There are places in the US where Muslims make up enough of the population to possibly make this happen in the polls.

The problem with banning Sharia is it is unConstitutional. Don't believe me?

Nose removal, a legal punishment under Sharia in some places, but not all.

The First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.



Please pay close attention to the "free exercise" bit. This does not give you license to go out rape, kill, pillage, steal & etc in the name of your god, or otherwise be the kind of person who needs to be hurled off a cliff. Unless of course you are the president of the United States in command of the world's most powerful military and get mad at some third world country. But that too is another column.

Anyway, banning Sharia is unConstitutional, despite what you may think. Wanna bet?

Do you have the right to set your will up as you see fit? In other words can you say who gets what when you pass this realm of existence?

A will is a binding legal document.

What is a person wants to draft his will according to Sharia?

Ummm.

That is, so I am told, what happened in the above court case. The man who sued wanted to set his will according to his beliefs, interpretations and instructions based on his religion.

Should he be allowed to do this?

The court in the above link states Furthermore, plaintiff has presented testimony that "Sharia Law" is not actually "law", but is religious traditions that provide guidance to plaintiff and other Muslims regarding the exercise of their faith. Plaintiff has presented testimony that the obligations that "Sharia Law" imposes are not legal obligations but are obligations of a personal and private nature dictated by faith. Plaintiff also testified that "Sharia Law" differs depending on the country in which the individual Muslim resides... Based upon this testimony, the Court finds that plaintiff has shown "Sharia Law" lacks a legal character, and, thus, plaintiff's religious traditions and faith are the only non-legal content subject to the judicial exclusion set forth in the amendment.

In simple words - the man said his actions are guided by his beliefs, faith and his religion.

Do you have a problem with that? If you would ban this man from acting on his beliefs, faith and religion, then you clearly violate the First Amendment and set out a precedent. You too can be banned from doing what your conscience dictates.

Even the most hardened atheist is guided by his beliefs and faith, and as I said earlier his religion. Every thinking human is guided by his own beliefs and faith and religion (or lack thereof).

Do you really want to ban Sharia?

That way lies a dictatorship in which everything not forbidden is compulsory.

Deep fried annoyance.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Twinkies will not last forever. Well, they may by the future of the company that makes 'em is in doubt.

SAY IT AIN'T SO!

The parent company Hostess Brands Inc. has filed for a second bankruptcy.

Exactly where the idea that a Twinkie will last forever came about is probably lost in the annuals of Junk Food history. The idea is based on the number of preservatives packed into the food.

Which begs the question, will it last forever? Consider this story from 2005 with a then-30-year old Twinkie. I could not find a more-recent story about the professor and his experiment so I don't know if the Twinkie still exists.

Myself, I don't care for Twinkies. They just don't appeal to me. Some people swear by them, some swear at them. I just admit they exist and get something else which I do like.

But. I have never had one deep fried. I hope to one day.

That is if Hostess continues to produce them. If they fold up completely and take the recipe with them to the corporate graveyard, I will be quite annoyed. A deep fried Twinkie is on my food bucket list.

Yep. Deep fried Twinkie

For those who do not know, fried is a food group. If you have never had a fresh, hot deep fried Oreo cookie, GOOD. More for me.

The Fire Ant Festival is coming up in short order. I plan to spend a considerable amount of money buying Polish dawgs and deep fried Oreos. If I can find a fried Twinkie vendor, I will try one.

You gotta get the Oreos hot tho. Once they cool off they are nowhere near as good. I have found this to be the case with deep fried candy bars as well. If you've ever had a deep fried Snickers, you will never want just a plain one.

Deep frying most foods make them better. I have found an exception, which will surprise many people. The hardhead catfish (an actual fish) found in brackish and saltwater is OK when grilled. Fried it is not worth using as buzzard bait.

Why is the Twinkie maker filing for bankruptcy? Short answer - unions.

"Hostess, founded in 1930, operates around 36 bakeries and employs about 19,000 people, a majority of whom are members of 12 unions." Disputes over salaries, benefits and pensions have kicked the company to take the matter before a judge.

Remember Sesame Street?

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

Which one is different?

Asking for some zoo-based reality

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The reporter's bias was obvious. She referred to the practice in extremely negative terms. The overall tone of the story also waffled quite a bit, but came down on the side of the idea being barbaric.

Gotta get me one. The buffalo, not the lion.

I refer you here to zoos and the captive carnivores. Not just carnivores, but predators. Not just predators, but BIG ones, ones capable of turning even Shaquille O'Neal into a light afternoon snack.

The repeat story appeared on RadioLab's show on zoos last night (and I am a RadioLab junkie).

In the story the big cats are treated, to my thinking, far worse than Hairball the resident feline at the Clan Genius domicile. Hairball has the run of the place, goes in & out pretty much when he wishes, has food and also hunts. Hairball hunts a lot. I regularly find feathers in the barn, evidence that Susan's cat has not abandoned his predatory ways.

Hairball is much larger and fatter now.

Even more disturbing to me was the few audio clips from children. Upon seeing a lion munch a calf, one child said he (she?) does not eat cows. The parent said yes, we do eat cows. The parent gently pointed out hamburgers come from cows.

I've asked before - do you know where the meat you eat comes from? It's not magically produced in the back of the grocery store.  Somewhere an animal died to provide you with the protein.

My kids have always known where their meat comes from. They help with the entire process of killing, cleaning, butchering and packaging the meat. My kids have also put meat on the table with their guns.

Animals in zoos, especially those born and raised in captivity, don't have much chance to experience catching their lunch. In some places, they do. Outdoor enclosures occasionally see a wild animal fall into the pen, in which case instincts kick right in.

Must be zoo kibble.

That's rare. Most of the time, the predators eat pretty much the same stuff Hairball gets when he comes inside. Robert K., one of the show's hosts munched a bit of kibble which is fed to predators in US zoos. He said it tasted like "chalk."

Ah. Chalk. These noble beasts are fed process, sorted, shaped and dried pellets of food that provide 100 percent of the animal's daily requirements of nutrition and 0 percent of the animal's wishes.

How can I say that? At a few zoos, captive animals do get real food. But they generally don't get to kill it. It's already been killed and frozen. "Rat-sicles" the story called the frozen rodents. The animals still show much delight over this real meat.

The story shifted to China, which at the time allowed live feeding of the big animals. This is where the woman reporter engaged in her negative editorial commentary. Anyway, the big cats at the Chinese zoo crowded up around the vehicle with zoo visitors, eagerly expecting a live chicken to be hurled out a window. A chicken was tossed. A lion grabbed it.

Reality works well for me. How about you?

The REAL original recipe.

The reporter was upset.

I wonder if she is a vegetarian.

The only zoos in the world, according to Radio, which allow live feeding are in China. This is not true. I have been to animal enclosures in the US in which captive animals consumed live prey. But it is rare and generally confined to aquatics and reptiles.

The story also contains a clip about a squirrel that fell into an enclosure. One young girl refused to watch the ensuing stalk and kill. But when interviewed, the little girl said she was rooting for the cat to be successful in the hunt.

The story also points out that surveys of zoo goers would really like to see live feeding. In other words, folks going to the zoo want to see a lion chase down a calf and eat it. They can see it everywhere else vicariously. Why not in person? If zoo operators are really interested in the animals and the public, they'll allow live feeding.

It's not disgusting. It is the chain and circle of life. Children need to see this. Children need to know this. Children need to be exposed to reality.

For that matter, we all need to be exposed to reality regardless of how old we are. Live feeding at zoos, well it ain't the same as going to the African savannah and seeing a lion chase down a wildebeest, but it's close.

Discrimination NOW!

As always, copy at the end of the dots.
.
.
.
.
.
‘.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
‘.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
‘.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
‘.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Is discrimination wrong?

Uhhh, you are then discriminating against me.

Ooo. Talk about a loaded question. Let’s narrow this a bit and not get caught in a tautology as I suggest at right.

You own a business. Do you have the right to run your business as you see fit?

Well, no. You do have to pay taxes. You can't sell low grade nuclear waste to the public, etc., etc.

Narrow the question. You own a business. Do you have the right to decide who you will take a customer? In other words, can you say “I do not want to do business with this person” and that be ok?

Shorter version: Can you discriminate?

Before I tackle that question, lemme come at it from two different directions.

I run a newspaper. Do I have to accept advertising from anyone? Do I have to publish letters to the editor or other opinion pieces from people I disagree with? Do I have to print something just because someone tells me they want it printed?

The truth.

With less than 5 VERY well defined exceptions, the answer to all that is no. If you need to know more, contact me.

The First Amendment guarantees me the right to publish and print what I want without interference from government mandates.

Lemme swap hats. As an ordained minister, can I be forced to officiate a service which I do not agree with?

Again, the answer is no. The First Amendment guarantees that.

Let me link all three of these things together.

As a newspaper editor I regularly publish engagement announcements and stories covering the marriage of the two people. As a minister I occasionally officiate marriage ceremonies.

Suppose two people of the same gender bring me an engagement announcement and ask me to officiate the wedding. Am I required to print their notice and conduct the wedding?

No. Would I? On the first, probably. Setting a precedent, we run obituary notices and other such items for people in same-gender relationships. On the second, no. The First Amendment protects me.

The First Amendment doesn’t protect you, unless you fall into one of those categories if you run a business. In other words, if your religion and its requirements state you cannot be involved in providing service to a same-gender union, tough. You’re gonna have to do it.

Several courts have already ruled on this one.

New Mexico, which has a Human Rights Commission (which may or may not be similar to the same board in Canada) also decided you can either provide the service or pay a fine. This link drops a PDF of the HRC decision to your computer.

Here’s part of it:
Elane Photography refused to offer its photographic services to her because of her sexual orientation, in violation of Section 28-1-7(F) of the NMHRA. (New Mexico Human Rights Atc)

4. Section 28-1-7(F) of the NMHRA provides, in applicable part, that it is an unlawful discriminatory practice for: "any person in any public accommodation to make a distinction, directly or indirectly, in offering or refusing to offer its services, facilities, accommodations or goods to any person because of ... sexual orientation...." NMSA 1978, § 28-1-7(F).

5. Section 28-1-2(P) of the NMHRA defines "sexual orientation" to mean: "heterosexuality, homosexuality or bisexuality, whether actual or perceived...." NMSA 1978, § 28-1-2(P).

6. Section 28-1-2(H) of the NMHRA defines "public accommodation" to mean: "any establishment that provides or offers its services, facilities, accommodations or goods to the public, but does not include a bona fide private club or other place or establishment that is by its nature and use distinctly private...." NMSA 1978, § 28-1-2(H).


Elane Photography was fined around $6,000 for not photographing the wedding. Not to get tautological on you, but who's rights are more important here? Is the right of the couple to hire any photographer more important than the right of the photographer to decide which assignments he will take?

I ask you again, is discrimination wrong?

If you say yes, then you are saying government can force you to run your business against your wishes. If you say yes, you are saying government can overrule the First Amendment.

If you say no, then you are saying there are very real differences in people. If you say no, you are saying treating people differently is acceptable.

Myself, I prefer to use market forces to make changes in business rather than government fiat. In other words, if you don't like the way a business is run, don't go to that business and encourage everyone you know to also avoid that business.

That is discrimination. It is discrimination that preserves your rights and my rights and keeps government out of it.

And in case you wonder, I am in favor of discrimination.

There is nothing so unequal as the equal treatment of unequal people. - Thomas Jefferson

Expand your brain

A must read.

This ain't your ordinary hamburger

As always, text is at the end of the dots..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
On a borrowed comp, so no images. But then yer not gonna want images anyway.

Few things up front:

Yeah, according to some people, I have eaten some strange stuff. I have not, and hope I never have to eat a dog.

I am personally responsible for the demise of a number of dogs. I grew up in the country. For some reason people thought it was OK to toss unwanted animals out near our house. I saved some taxpayer dollars and killed the animals myself. I have also been attacked by a dog, still have the scars and I have killed aggressive dogs.

That I have eaten such critters as beluga whale, squirrel and coon is enough to turn some folks stomach. I remind you that in some places in the world, eating a pork chop can get you killed. In some places, if you kill a cow you might be killed in turn.

That which you find offensive is routine to others and what you find routine is offensive to others.

I also warn you, what follows is mildly graphic and probably quite disturbing.

Dog consumption a rite of passage in Benin.

If you are among those disgusted and revolted and possibly angered, what gives you the right to judge those people? If you eat any kind of meat, are you any different from them?

Have you ever been around a commercial cattle ranch? Hog farm? Poultry house? I have. Growing up, I helped raise cattle. We raised a few hogs. I've been in and around chicken houses.

If you eat meat purchased at a grocery store, what is the real difference between you and the people in Benin?

The people in Benin are honest about what they do. They know exactly where the meat comes from. They know exactly what has to happen to put that meat in the pot. They take responsibility for their actions in procuring the meat.

The people in Benin, who eat dogs, may be disgusting and so forth to you, but I respect them. I can't condemn them, especially while living in this nation which slaughters millions of chickens a day. They are willing to get their hands bloody.

Are you willing to do the same?

Could you kill an animal, butcher it and consume the meat? That meal you had tonight, today, yesterday or are planning for the future. Where did the meat come from? If you don't know the exact origins and conditions under which the animal was raised and slaughtered, then who is the more honest person here, you or the Benin people?

I neither condone nor condemn the slaughter of the dogs for a meal. I just accept the fact it happens.

And tomorrow, I will eat meat. I will eat meat from an animal which died by my hand, which I butchered. I have an excellent idea of how the animal was conceived, born and lived up until the point I killed it.

How about you?

Book review - Finishing the Dune series

Copy is below the dots.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Frank Herbert had the bad manners to die after Chapterhouse: Dune was published. To say he left legions of S.F. fans annoyed, wondering, mad, begging for a conclusion and etc probably accurately sums up the situation.

I remember when Herbert’s son Brian and Kevin Anderson announced they planned to complete the series. I was a bit aghast. Someone else complete Frank’s opus? NEVER! I resolved to remain in a state of suspense.

More than 20 years later, I changed my mind. I got ahold of Hunters of Dune and Sandworms of Dune, the books which complete the series and wrap up the loose ends.

This is not Frank Herbert writing. Again, the two authors are running off Herbert’s copious notes. The styling, phrasings and character developments remind me of Franks’s work, but it is equally obvious this is not Frank Herbert writing. In the forward to Hunters, the two authors admit they are not the grand master and have used his notes as a guide.

The social, economic, political, psychological and etc overtones and undertones of the senior Herbert’s work are certainly in the two books, but are not at the same level and quality Frank imbued in his works.

As the authors have followed Herbert’s notes, I have to trust that the series wrapped up the way Frank intended. That said, I’m a bit less than happy with the way things rolled out at the end. It seemed to neat, trite, a bit too contrived and a good smack of Deus ex Machina at the end. Of course, since Herbert dealt with a Kwisatz Haderach, the Voice by the Bene Gesserit, Miles Teg and Ghola cellular memory, Deus ex Machina is to be be expected. Still, I have to believe the ending is the way Herbert had planned.

Having said all that, the character development is solid, believable and well within the scope of the Dune series.

If you, like me, have been wondering all these years how the series was supposed to wrap up, this will do that. At the same time, the two books also introduce some other questions which, happily, Herbert and Anderson are busy answering in the other Dune series of books they have written.