Living la vida nivel

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Well, if the translator program got it right, today's headline is spot on. If SpanishDict.com didn't get it right I can only plead that my limited Spanish is not suitable discourse in this forum.

Setting confusion aside, I ask are you living to the standards you claim? Take this cartoon and substitute "my standards" for Jesus, God and Lisa especially in the last two panels.

So. Fall from grace much? Lemme rub some salt in that wound. If the truth hurts, you're not living right.

Think about what would happen if you did live up the standards you claim. Every. Single. Instant. In. Your. Life.

Now when I typed that first line of the immediate above paragraph, I wrote "Thank about what would happen if you did live up to the standards you claim."

Me? I think the first iteration, with typo, is better and certainly correct. Considering the distance between the "A" and all the other letters in "think" on the keyboard, I'm not certain it was a typo. It could have been my brain out thinking my fingers as I typed.

Lest you think I am beating you up, today's piece is about me as well. Every line I write reminds me of the times I've fallen short in regard to the standards I have set.

One day this week, I was speaking to Susan about something I had done and she had done. I said it was only fair that I hold myself to the same standards of accountability as I hold her to. In other words, what I expected of her, I should expect of myself.

So, when I fall short, the consequences should mirror what happens to her when she falls short.

In a perfect world, the rewards would mirror actions too. This ain't a perfect world.

Imperfection in my world does not excuse me from doing my best to live to the standards I have set. As our mommas said over and over, "If our friends jump off a cliff, would we jump too?"

Most of the world's greatest leaders inspired. A few led through terror or force and some of the greatest inspired first and then turned to terror and force.

Most of the great leaders stuck with inspiration and resorted to force only to meet force being applied against them. Even Ghandi, for all of the claims of pacifism did not eschew meeting force with force. While Jesus did say "turn the other cheek" he also told the disciples to be sure they were armed with a sword. Threats, BTW, are force in my world.

I am not judging them or their use of force. I merely state that it happened. Their use of force could also be part of their standards. In Adolf Hitler's case, it certainly was part of the standards he set forth. Hitler was one of the great leaders of the world. (Someone is going to misunderstand that statement. So lemme add to the misconstruction with an Amen.)

Do you grok your own personal code? If someone followed you for a solid week, 24/7, would they say you lived up to it? Or would they say you fall short?

Who you really are is who you are when you think no one is watching. So, who are you you? If you woke up in a Soho doorway, could you give your name?

What would happen if you lived up to your own personal code of conduct at a 100 percent level?

Here's a final thought. If you (and I) can't order our own life to fit what we believe, then how can we attempt to impose order on the world around us?

Missing it a lot

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Yeah, I miss it. A lot. But I have to also admit finding time to fit in into an adult-world schedule with work, mortgages, power bills, kids and kid schedules means it ain't gonna happen anytime soon.

Wish it could.

In college it was a favorite past time which could be combined with another favorite college activity. The second activity is sharply curtailed these days, owing less to the pressures of adult life and owing much more to what Bocephus moaned about in one of his classic songs.

Back in college there was one person enrolled at school who insisted D&D was nothing more than devil worship. Being me, I egged this on and spoke at length of how I'd seen people be possessed and so forth.  Her eyes bugged out. I eventually changed the subject.

For you RPG geeks out there, my favorite character was a chaotic neutral jester. Sometimes I had a salt water iguana as long as my character was tall. When I was not running that character I was DM'ing.

For you folks who have no idea what RPG is and instead turn to video games, I can only nod my head and smile sadly as I remember the long nights spent battling orcs, ogres and critters we (as characters) had no names for. Friendships formed over those tables amid empty beer bottles, graphing paper and various dice have lasted decades and many have been renewed thanks to the internet.

Ahhh, would that I could find some like minded gamers willing to invest a night or so once a month. But it's not going happen.

Looking for the line

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."

Yes. Let's go there.

That, unlike some other Amendments which won't be discussed today, is pretty clear. Or is it?

Let's borrow H.G. Wells for a moment and jump in his time machine to hurl back several hundred years. We stop in Central-South America and pick up a load of Aztec priests and bring them back to today. Now, we set 'em loose in the city of your choice. I have some suggestions, but am keeping them to myself today.

As we understand the ancient Aztec religion, human sacrifice was part of the religious ceremonies.

Does the First Amendment still apply?

There's a book about everthing...

Ooh. Ah.

OK, let's take another one. If your religion allows you to use marijuana, is this legal? (Outside of the states which have legalized it of course.) Weeeeeeellllll, no. "The Supreme Court has long ago held that laws of general application (i.e., laws that apply to everyone) that happen to place a burden on some religious practices are generally valid, though they do still warrant some scrutiny under the Constitution."

What about peyote, which is a hallucinogen and a drug? Ummmmm, yes. "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the use, possession, or transportation of peyote by an Indian for bona fide traditional ceremonial purposes in connection with the practice of a traditional Indian religion is lawful, and shall not be prohibited by the United States or any State. No Indian shall be penalized or discriminated against on the basis of such use, possession or transportation, including, but not limited to, denial of otherwise applicable benefits under public assistance programs.

—42 U.S.C. 1996A(b)(1)."

 

To illustrate what is a definite case of doubleplus bizarrespeak, I bring you this comment from the law blog: "These generally-applicable laws are typically subject to 'rational basis' review, meaning the government only needs to show that the law is related to a valid government interest. And whether you agree with them or not, most courts have held that preventing illegal drug use is definitely a valid governmental interest." 

Makes as much sense as the drug & religion laws.

 

Marijuana is illegal (exceptions noted) and peyote is not illegal, except when it is. We are approaching an Orwellian state in which "everything not forbidden is compulsory."

 

Further if you look up the word "oxymoron" in the dictionary, the words "rational basis" and "government" jump off the page and beat you down.
 

I apologize if I have given you a headache or confused you. We are discussing the federal government which specializes in obfuscation and contradiction after all.

 

Anyway, how far does the First Amendment reach? What about contraceptives? Under the ominous health care law (I spelled it correctly), employers are now required to supply contraceptives to employees under health care insurance.

 

Should this apply to Catholic-based employers? Before you answer that, I tell you the Supreme Court has already carved out religion-based employment exceptions. SCOTUS ruled that some federal and state right to work laws do not apply when the employer is clearly religious. Yep Yep Yep. 

 

Other exceptions for religion have also been bloodily hacked out of the law.

That in mind, a Michigan judge has temporarily halted the contraceptive provision of the abominable health care law (again spelled correctly) for a company there.

So I ask you how far the First Amendment's provision on religion reaches? Before you answer that I feel obligated to warn you that your answer will be used against you. (Some people will refuse to understand that).

Another question: What is a religion? Who says it is? How many adherents must it have to move beyond a personal philosophy? How many believers until it passes the cult stage?

What about the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, aka Pastafarianism? Say what you will about this group, it has a global reach. While I could not find how many people claim to be members of this group, I suspect it has far more people signed up than some other "religions" as recognized by the United States government.

The problem with drawing a line on something like this is eventually that line turns into a stick that beats you down. Growing up and being a resident of South Georgia most of my life, I am possessed of many Southern Baptist relatives. They LOVE lines. When I take their cherished lines and turn them into that beat down stick, well, you can imagine what some of them think of me.

Religion, unlike a lot of other things, is clearly set forth in the Constitution. Whether you and I like it or not is irrelevant.

Bonus opinion

TMI, but you don't know it all

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

In my recent experiment to gauge my intelligence and knowledge (I watched TV for a few hours and discovered I'm still not smart enough to watch TV), one of the TV interviewers asked a person "What is something no one knows about you?"

Adjusting for the syntax, "no one else knows," I asked the same question of myself.

Couldn't come up with anything.

In other words, what I'm saying is if you look long enough and hard enough and talk to enough people, you'll get a complete picture of the person I am, without having to speak to me.

Talk to EVERYONE I know, get all the information they have about me and you will know everything about me.

The trick would then be talking to EVERYONE I know and get EVERYTHING they know. Not. Gonna. Happen. In the first place, there are people I've lost touch with over the years. Secondly, people forget. Thirdly, some of the folks who had information about me can't be spoken with, at least on this side of reality. They have gone on to whatever comes when we shed this mortal coil.

Not me.

What makes me wonder about this are books we call biographies. I am presently reading a biography of Roman emperor Caligula. The author notes at the beginning of the book his source material is sketchy. He also points out some of his source material has an obvious bias against this accused infamous Roman. So, he reports, his biography is the best he can do under the circumstance.

Refreshing. The author admits to ignorance of his subject matter and says he's pressing forward to do the best he can with what he's got.

I think about the other biographies and autobios I have read. What was left out? How full a picture of the person am I really getting? How distorted is this information. How accurate?

Biographies of historical persons in particular are suspect. The worst of all are biographies based on writings of the person being chronicled.

On this last I speak as a fully qualified expert. If you think you can get a full picture of the person I am from the things I write, then you are mistaken. The same applies to all the other writers I know. While we do bleed - you call it writing - onto the page (dead tree edition or electronic paper), and we share joys, successes, defeats, tragedies and whatever else may happen to us, we do not tell absolutely everything.

Another manuscript finished.

Never.

There is always some small, mayhap even tiny, detail which is left out. Could even be more than one. That detail is critical to the person the writer is.

The further removed the person is from the subject of a biography, the greater the chance of character error. I am here reminded of the recent Abraham Lincoln bios, including one 'grapher who suggested the late president may have a homosexual or at least bisexual. He based this on a couple of letters Abe wrote to a male colleague.

I am also reminded of JRR Tolkien's masterpieces. He said the stories were meant to be enjoyed as a flight of fancy and anyone who read anything else into them was mistaken. That author's disclaimer hasn't stopped academics from "reading into" the stories to come up with massive flights of fancy about what Tolkien was really saying.

Indulging in my own flight of fancy, I want to tell you now - should anyone ever decide I'm important enough to have a biography, it's not going to be a 100 percent accurate depiction of who I am. Even if I write an autobiography, I'm gonna leave some stuff out. If that book ever gets written, incredibly unlikely, it is possible someone I know will read it and ask "Why'd he leave                            out?"

Your write to no

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The recent furor over the publication of names and addresses in a part of New York of people with concealed carry permits is not bothering me.

I say this as a person who owns firearms and is a journalist.

Having been threatened in the past, I have reacted with a public display of a firearm. One time I was threatened. I went home, slung a shotgun across my back and rode my motorcycle around town for a while.

The records of who has a concealed carry permit are public records, at least up there in NY. That means anyone has the right to go in an view those records.

That means anyone has the right to reproduce those records.

That means the First Amendment is still in place, still at work and still in force.

The. First. Amendment.

Just so's y'all know, there is no license, no permit, no special training, no government requirement of any sort to enjoy the First Amendment. Some courts have attempted to define what a journalist is and isn't, but when it comes to your freedom to copy government records and hand them out in whatever manner you see fit, it's called 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.

If government money was being spent on other records keeping and they were were not release-able to the public, most likely you would scream.

Parity. Sometimes it is uncomfortable. Oh wait. I got that wrong. If the truth hurts, you're living wrong. Yes. Mo betta.

So, to those Second Amendment advocates who are steamed about the names being released-

If you don't like the provisions of the First Amendment, feel free to move to another country as you continually invite those who object to the Second Amendment to do.

Now as a professional journalist for more than 25 years, would I go get a list of concealed carry permit holders and publish it?

Early exposure to professional journalism influenced me.

Yep. Betcha. No question. Inna heart beat.

Point of order Mr. Chairman - I have been trying for years now to get News Of Record (explanation in a moment) out of the courthouse each week to publication in the paper. There's just no way to get this stuff without spending hours and hours a week in the Courthouse poring over files and being a nuisance to the Courthouse folks.

Item: I have no problem in being a nuisance at the Courthouse. It's public records, public information and you and I have a right to see it. If the folks working int he Courthouse don't like it, they can get another job somewhere else.

Item: I don't have up to 10 hours a week to spare collating this information. So, I don't.

Ok to define News Of Record - Births, marriages, deaths, divorces, wills probated, wills closed, wills filed (The content of a will filed but not executed is private. Once the person dies, it is public, but I would not have room to print will details.), carry permits issued, denied, parole and probation status, who bought property, who sold property, bankruptcies, municipal utility connections and shut offs and so on. It's all public record. You have a right to see it.

Buy a newspaper subscription.

"Just cause it's public record doesn't mean you have to publish it,"  you say.

Tru Dat.

Some of you are now wondering whyinthehell I'd want to publish that info.

Because you'd read it. Once exposed to it for a little while, you'd want it each and every week.

"No I wouldn't," you say.

Wanna bet? Don't bother. I don't want to take your money.

The other reason I'd publish it is because I am a journalist and I run a newspaper.

What is the purpose of a newspaper? When you can understand that, then you will understand why I'd publish the News Of Record.

So while I'm here, gratuitous plug - www.thewiregrassfarmer.com - $20 a year gets you a digital subscription. 

Still looking for an answer

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Among the many many questions I have which no one will directly answer is: Why should I be forced to support someone who won't support himself?

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258

Instead of answers, I get evasions and changed subjects. A few people even like to bring up my particular brand of faith as a reason I should do the above.

Cantservatives generally say I should not have to support people who won't do for themselves. However, when actions meet words, there is a serious disconnect. I bring this up and I get hit with evasions and subject changes and statements like "Well, everyone else does it."

Lemming much?

Liarberals won't answer me directly. Rather they point to people whom they say could not make it without this involuntary contribution on my part.

When I ask for the rules to be fair, they get mad. The fair rules are: If I'm forced to pay for government programs I object to, then I should be able to force them to pay for government programs they object to.

Those who point to my Christian faith say Jesus told us we should support the poor. Indeed, He did, but He also never forced anyone to do anything. He merely said choose.

Why should I be forced to spend my money on people who will not take care of themselves?

I have no problem in helping people who need a hand up, not a hand out. Bad times can happen to anyone. Lean on me because it won't be long until I need someone to lean on.

But if you prefer to wallow in the bad times and not try to get out of the swamp, I say you should stay there.

Why should I be forced to give to people who only want a handout?

I'm listening, but I do not expect to get an answer.

But COULD, not would, you do it?

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Ask most any American today what he thinks about the pay elected officials get and he's going to say it's too much. The higher up the food chain the elected person gets, the more people are going to complain said elected official makes too much money.

Can I get a witless?

That was not a typo. Nor did I mean to insult anyone. I just wanted to make a point.

If you are among those who think members of Congress make too much money, I ask you: Do you know how much they make?

Since the answer to that is probably "No," I ask how do you know it's too much?

Lemme help you out. Members of Congress earn $174,000 a year.

"TOO MUCH!" you scream.

How much should a member of Congress earn? Remember, the congressman has to cover the expense of two places to live, one in Washington (which is very expensive) and one in his home district, cost caries widely across the nation. He's still got to live; food, clothes, gas, taxes, return to his district every so often, etc.

One idea is that members of Congress should not be paid at all. An all volunteer congress. Awesome.

Who's going to foot the bill for their living expenses?

"They should!" you scream. Well, certainly a bunch of them can. I could not find an actual "cost of serving in Congress" but I have read stories of some members of Congress who lived in their office to save the cost of renting an apartment or buying a house in Washington.

If you say Congress should be a volunteer job, you like the idea of having a Congress composed of only the ultra rich. You do not want to have a Congress which can relate to the average American. You are not interested in having a Congress which knows what it is like to actually have to work for a living.

"NO!" you exclaim, "But we've already go that."

And, I ask, whose fault is it that the same people and only rich people get elected to Congress? Who did you vote for in the last election? If you didn't vote at all, your opinion doesn't matter to me. So the fact that members of Congress are rich is your fault. You had a chance to vote for a working-class stiff but didn't.

Come back to the original question. Do members of Congress make too much money? Pile onto this the idea that we should restrict campaign fundraising, contributions and etc.

Lemme put you to this question - Could (not would but could) you walk away from your job for 2 to 6 years and serve in Washington as a member of Congress for free? Could you? Do you have enough money to live on for two to six years?

Not would. Could. I don't care if you are willing or not. I only want to know if you have the financial wherewithal to do it.

Didn't think so.

Could, not would, you serve in Congress while earning the federally mandated minimum wage? Didn't think so. (I'm intentionally ignoring the idea of raising the minimum wage because that gets way complicated in this discussion.)

If you cannot quit your job to serve in Congress for free and still manage to survive, why do you say anyone else should?

All I'm after is parity. Be fair. I'm not saying be equal, just be fair.

Piling offense on offense

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
This year the words "Merry Christmas!" come from me with a sense of urgency, impact and a force of delivery which has never happened before. I mean it this year more than I ever have before.

It's not just a seasonal greeting. It has, for me anyway, very little to do with a religious message either.

The words "Merry Christmas" offend some people.

I'm all about that, in case you haven't noticed and not for the reason most people believe.

At the same time, there appears to be far more to it than even that.

I dropped a letter at the Post Office and as I exited I belted a cheery "Merry Christmas!" to T. She fired right back with the same words and the same amount of enthusiam. I walked out of the Post Office stepping a little higher, walking a little faster and a little happier than when I walked in.

Neither of us was offended and we were the only two people in the front area. Someone in back may have heard, but I do not know.

As I write this I think.

T is a quasi-federal government employee as the Post Office is a quasi-federal government agency, And yet, she was happy to tell me "Merry Christmas," a sentiment expressed on the clock which would make federal government lawyers wince.

While no one was offended in our merry exchange (that I know of), the possibility that someone could be offended was certainly there.

I like it. A lot.

I could get into an etymological discussion here, but I won't. That's tangential to my point today, but I'm not going to slide that way.

Rather, if you are one of those people who prefers the term "Happy Holidays," I remind you "Holiday" is a fused term of the words "holy" and "day." So if you say "Happy Holidays" you may not think you are speaking of religious matters, but you are. My "Merry Christmas" is just more narrowed in focus according to many people.

So.

And if that offends you, please note you have made me happy. If you share my expression of joy, note also that you have made me happy. If you don't care one way or another, you still make me happy because you read this.

Because, by the time you get to this sentence, I've made you engage in the activity that spurs me to write pieces like this.

Hating on the roaches

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The United States is not the only country in the world in which hate speech is protected. Here's the Wikipedia roundup of hate speech laws. Even in the US, hate speech is not an absolute.

In a recent FB thread some folks from other countries lambasted the US for allowing hate speech.

I replied with a comment from Rowan (Mr. Bean, Black Adder) Atkinson. "The right to offend is greater than the right to not be offended."

This did not sit well with them.

The problem with anti hate speech laws is twofold.

1) Who defines the offense and what is offensive?

That's an entirely subjective matter. When law is based on subjective concepts, then determination  of facts goes out the window and the judiciary must rely on the nebulous concept of feelings.

I point out here that Pre Menstrual Syndrome has been used as an adequate defense in court cases. OK, this has not been done in the US, but those saying we need anti hate speech law base their argument on what other countries, like the UK, have done.

Again, you set the rules. I apply them equally. If you get to pick from other countries, I do too.

The use of certain mood-altering drugs have been used as a defense and people have been sentenced, against their will, to take such drugs.

With the evidence now quite solidly on my side, I ask, do you really want a PMS'ing person jacked to the gills on psychotropic drugs to decide what is offensive and what is not?

Beyond that, why is one person's feelings more important than another's?

If you demand someone cannot speak their mind because it is hate speech, then I am offended. I am offended anytime someone cannot have their say.

When you start deciding whose feelings are more important, then you start placing differing values on human life. Go there if you want to, just know I'm going to be there applying the same rules to you.

2) Roaches run from the light.

By outlawing hate speech, those who believe in their hate are forced to go underground, to hide, to avoid the light of day and the scrutiny which comes with it.

Westboro Baptist Church these days is Target One for the anti-hate speech crowd.

Really? You want these people to spew their vitriol in private? Where they can't be seen? Where they plot behind closed doors? Where you have no idea what they are doing?

Not me. I say let 'em out in the open. Put them where I can see them. Watch them. Learn what they are doing. Be ready to react with appropriate measures when they cross a line.

Do not make them hide. Let them expose themselves and their agenda. Give them publicity.

By exposing them and their rhetoric, we can justifiably judge them by their own standards and apply their own measures of justice to them. If we force them to hide, we deny ourselves the satisfaction of doing unto them as they do unto us.

Or, if you prefer, do unto them as we would have them do unto us. I can go either way on this one.

Unfortunately, both reactions can rightly be considered hate speech, which is yet another reason hate speech needs to be free an unfettered.

Lemme also point this out. Every country I am aware of with hate speech rules also has overt government control of the media.

In closing, I ask you this: Do you want government telling you what you can and cannot say?

Mounting frustration

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Today dose o' diatribe probably won't appeal to many people, but I'm writing it anyway.

Among the things I do to make financial Socket A properly meet financial Plug B is freelance. I write. Pick a topic. I've probably written about it and of more recent times I actually make money at it. Not GREAT money, but money. I freelance and ghost write articles for companies across the planet.

Chief among the freelance work these days is SEO - Search Engine Optimization. The object is to write an article that will vault a particular website to the top on search engine rankings. I'm very very very good at this as is my brother. Check us out at Facebook.

In writing these articles I often research the business the company is in. I look for news articles to get information.

There's the problem. Search engines are being clogged with the PR puff pieces I and many others write and the real news is getting buried deep, deep deep.

The stuff I write pays decent, yes, but the news content is close to zero. Sometimes it's even negative news content. In other words it sucks facts out of my brain, leaving a void behind. (Some of you will say it is impossible to create a void where one already existed, but hey.)

So to all those people who use search engine news feeds to do research, and I am one, part of me wants to apologize for packing the internet with idiocy. But the part that grins when I see a deposit to my account says "Go free market economics!"

F'dang.

Looking for the line

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Before we get started today, a few items. 1) I will be issuing a challenge. 2) You get to pick everything except one rule. 3) The one rule is your other rules HAVE to be equally applied to everything which is equal. Ready?

Amoeba proteus

Is an amoeba alive? You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who would argue it is not alive. That person would also be roundly declaimed as a fool.

Should our interplanetary rovers ever find an amoeba or other single-cell organism on another planet, the cheers will be global. LIFE ON OTHER PLANETS! HUZZAH!

Life. A single celled organism is life.

What is your definition of life? I suggest - it grows, consumes and produces waste products. Respiration is included in that short definition. If you disagree, then please, define life.

The immediately above image is a blastocyst. A blastocyst grows. It consumes. Does it produce waste? Yes.

Is it alive?

If this was found on Mars, it would be heralded as life on other planets. Depending on where it is found on Earth, it is either life or it is not. What's the difference?

Draw your line in the sand. I don't care where, but draw it. Once drawn, you are not allowed to cross it. Remember, you must set the same set of rules across the board, equally and apply it equally everywhere.

Either life is life or it is not. You pick. Apply the rule equally and across the board.

While not an absolute, a majority of those who seek to ban guns believe in abortion on demand.

Define life.

You may say the amoeba is an independent organism, capable of living on it's own. I disagree. Remove that amoeba from its environment and food source and it will cease to exist as a living entity.

Gimme a line. A straight line. Then, stay on one side or another. If you can't do that, then you have no place demanding abortion be legal or illegal and you have no place deciding whether or not a gun can be legal or illegal.

A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

Are these even the right questions?

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







Read and come back.   

http://anarchistsoccermom.blogspot.com/2012/12/thinking-unthinkable.html

Not too long ago the community where I live had a similar child enrolled in school. The family moved away, taking the child out of school.

I heard some time after the move, the child set a fire in the house the family lived in and all died.

Gut shot.

I hear of (and have seen) children like this. I have to ask, do we have the capability of helping and treating children like this? Can we … for lack of a better word, untwist them?

I’m sure people like the two children mentioned about could be drugged into a semi-catatonic state in which they would be no threat to themselves or anyone around them (except maybe being hurt by falling).

Is that really the way these people need deserve to be treated?

In other places and other times, there was a solution.

Such people were either killed out hand, died in a fight or locked up and locked away where they could only hurt themselves. Certainly exorcisms were tried.

I didn’t say it was a happy solution.

If we presently lack the capability to help these people, then what do we do?

I do not have the answers. Frankly, I’m not entirely sure I’m even asking the right questions.

The most dangerous weapon of all and A Modest Proposal

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I recently asked someone who labeled the Bushmaster AR15 as "bad" and "stupid" to enumerate the reason behind that opinion without resorting to emotion. I asked for facts - straight facts.

I'm not gonna get it. Some more commentary from Roger Ebert and Rebel.

To give the debate a boost, I threw in some factual information about the firearm in question.

Ooooo. Actual and real math!

The .223 (or 5.56 round which it fires) is not particularly powerful. The light end of power. It's not a particularly fast bullet either. Mid-range in fact. Why the military ever adopted the round is never going to be known unless someone in those closed meetings says who got bribed.

High power firearms.

This particular firearm requires a lot of maintenance. Depending on the ammunition used, it requires a HELL of a lot of maintenance. In terms of dependability, it's in the middle of the pack. Compared to a single-shot rifle, the AR15 is a jam-o-matic. Compared to something like a Ma Deuce (wanna talk about High Power!), it functions flawlessly.

The action (how it functions) requires an extended stock even in a handgun version which makes it less-than-ideal for real paramilitary use.

Not that haters will understand this.

Depending on the magazine used, it can hold anywhere from 1 to 100 rounds. A 100 round drum mag is a pain in butt, it jams and it's heavy. In terms of ammo carrying capacity, it is probably above the average, but not at the top by a LONG way.

740 rounds of ammo. At once.

Without ammunition, this firearm is a particularly fragile stick.

Without ammo, a seriously efficient war club

Without someone to load and pull the trigger, this firearm is a bunch of metal and plastic. No gun anywhere any time has ever killed anyone without someone doing something to the gun.

Yes, this firearm is based on a military weapon. If this is your reason for objections then you must also object to: The longbow, the crossbow, the musket, the ball & cap muzzleloader, the single shot firearm, the bolt-action firearm, any semi-auto firearm, certain knives and so on.

Military weapons.

If we are speaking STRICTLY of weapons, then there is one which surpasses anything else by a long long distance. Banning firearms is not the solution. The real problem will remain behind and will seek ways around a gun ban and look for ever more creative ways to kill other humans. The real problem is, of course, not guns, cigarettes, cars, global warming, eat too much, damnocrats and reboobicans. Indeed, the real problem is far more basic. On this, all sides are on common ground and agree.

So, if there is common ground and agreement, then I suggest we ALL come together and ban the real problem. Get rid of this and the problems will immediately vanish.

The human brain is by far the most dangerous weapon of all time. Period. Nothing else comes within light years of being so dangerous.

My Modest Proposal? Ban the human brain. I submit to you that in doing this, human death by any unnatural means will immediately drop to zero.

Of communism, parity, consternation and unions in 3 parts

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

Chapter 1

Lemme get a bit simplistic on you - Communism (from Latin communis - common, universal) is a revolutionary socialist movement to create a classless and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production, as well as a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of this social order.

While that's the opening line to the Wikipedia explanation of Communism, it's also pretty accurate. Here's another.


When I was but a lad and not as versed in Political Science and generally being human as I am today, I really didn't see a huge problem with Communism.

Back then Communism was the BIG EVIL and I was as much a Rebel then as I am today. Today, communism is just one of them thangs.

Being older, more learned and far more crotchety, I still don't have a problem with Communism. But it won't work outside of a utopia which does not exist. It's fundament is flawed. Communism relies on the belief that everyone will pull their own weight.

Ain't never happened. Ain't happening now. Ain't gonna happen.  Human nature ain't built that way.

Lemme rephrase please. Communism is an economic system in which the workers control the means of production.

A Comm - Uni - monkey reacts to this blog.

In defense of the Big Red, I note Communism, like Capitalism, has never been fully implemented on a nation-wide scale anywhere.

Still won't work.

Ah. Can anyone else tell me a system in which the workers control the means of production? Anyone?

I give you a hint - Unions.

Ooooooooooo.

Some people are going to point out that many union-owned companies are successful. Tru Dat. In return, I point you to Animal Farm by George Orwell and this report. In war, the victor writes the history book. In the world of industry, success is a matter of who does the reporting at that moment. United Airlines anyone?

CHAPTER 2

In a discussions on FB recently, I have been assailed by unionists over my support of the Michigan Legislature making the state a Right To Work place.

Among the attackers is one person who has repeatedly insisted unions and their work have benefited everyone. I took umbrage to the term "everyone" and listed examples of people who have not benefited from unions. In return, I was insulted. At least I think I was insulted when I was called a fool.

According to one union enthusiast in the thread: "But some people choose to stay in jobs and be slaves for companies that treat them like shit. Do not understand that. Why do you work for companies like that?" (profanity as written)

Pro union argument when faced with logic.

That statement is an example of cognitive disconnect. This person is essentially saying, it is entirely appropriate for one person to quit a terrible job, but should be mandatory for another person to join a union to force changes to the same job. Why can't both quit? Seems to me given a lack of employees, the company would fold or change its ways.

Bringing this dichotomy to the attention of the speaker would result in another round of insults or subject changes.

To explain a bit more, years ago as a cub reporter,  I broached the idea of quitting or striking to a union in Nevada, I was told I had no idea what I was talking about. The union meeting was held to announce the results of a study in which the union said the plant was unsafe. Exactly a year prior, the plant exploded, killing two people. My innocuous question - "Well, since you knew it was unsafe before the explosion, why didn't you strike?" resulted in a not-too-veiled threat aimed at me by the Union chapter chairman.

The plant was a chemical factory. The union chapter chairman also complained "We're steelworkers, We don't know anything about chemicals." I kid you not. This is cognitive disconnect in the raw.

And the truth shall get your butt threatened by goons.

Chapter 3

A complete list of advances made by Communism

List for me, please, major technological and quality-of-life advances which have come from Communist organizations. Never mind, I've done it for you.

Communism, like unions, purports to support being fair. Communism, if given a chance, might actually do that. Never been tried.

Unions never have, never will be fair. Unions seek to be unfair.

From the NY Times (a notoriously liberal paper and union supporter) article I link to above, I give you this comment: Union officials acknowledge their discomfort with the union being a major shareholder. “The reason we’ve received this equity stake is we’re trying to help the corporation survive and fund the VEBA,” Mr. Fredline said.

Ah.

If a union's rules were applied across the board, then the union would be torn apart. Unions exist to imbalance the workplace.

Unions take away the right of a business owner to run his business in the way he sees fit. Period. Is this fair to the business owner?

If unions seek to be fair, they would be fair to the business owner(s).

"But some people choose to stay in jobs and be slaves for companies that treat them like shit. Do not understand that. Why do you work for companies like that?"

If a non union worker says this, you are declared anathema. Continue in that vein and you are declared a fool and threatened. Why?

If the truth hurts, yer living wrong.

And we thank Unions for

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I was recently assailed by pro-union people who tell me we have much to thank unions for.

I concur. Let us thank the unions for:

The federal minimum wage law. Can anyone out there buy a house, raise children and save for retirement on the federal minimum wage which is a direct result of union activity?

Child labor laws. No longer must our children slave away in factories working 12-15 hour days turning out stuff. Indeed! Now we demand children in third world countries turn out the same stuff for similar wages and similar working conditions.

The 40-hour week. Thank you unions for putting into the law a 40-hour week (which is not the case BTW, employers can define a work week to be more or less than 40 hours. Yes huhn.) With this 40-hour work week comes the requirement that such full time (a better description) employees be offered a suite of benefits and access to even more. YES! So in order to get around this requirement, businesses switch to employing people part time so they do not have to offer benefits. The nation's largest private employers do this and save money (more profits for shareholders and higher wages for management) as a result.

http://visualeconomics.creditloan.com/the-state-of-the-40-hour-workweek/ - bigger version

Better wages. Oh yes. As unions demand more pay, the end result is that cost is passed on to the consumers of the products the union is responsible for. Unions lead to higher prices for consumers since companies must pay more for wages & benefits, which are then passed on to customers. Unions lead to less productivity and job motivation since pay levels are usually determined by seniority rather than performance.

And how many union people shop there?

Job security. Amen, amen, amen. In a unionized company even the idiot is guaranteed a job. Unions often prevent more qualified workers from getting the jobs. Less proficient workers are often protected from layoffs or firing; thus, new positions open less frequently. Unions fight bills in legislatures, like drug testing, which make workplaces safer.

Unions represent the interest of workers. Betcha. Unions create an "us" vs. "them" hostility between ownership and workers. The union mmebers are favored over non union members. There is no "union." Further, in a union environment, workers cannot approach management directly; they have work through the union chain.

Except for people not in the union

Unions benefit everyone. Really? A business owner benefits from having control of his company wrestled away from him? How have unions benefited small farmers? How have unions benefited freelance writers Unions have driven movie making out of the United States into countries where a movie can be produced at a fraction of the cost in the US. 

THANKS UNIONS!