Caution: Contains intense vitroil and profanity.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Let me make this perfectly clear.

I will react to any attempt from government to dictate how and what I write with extreme prejudice and malice. More in a moment.

This is from a Federal Communications Commission director.

This is one of the guys who sets the federal policy. He, apparently, was blindsided by this decision.

For those people who think the media is controlled by the government, this is nothing more than an official stamp on an unofficial government action. For those who know better, this is a frightening idea. Some will say it's about damned time someone did something.

FULL DISCLOSURE - I have held stories on request of certain people because publishing the story at that time would have caused undue harm and unwarranted interference in some delicate matters. The story was eventually published in every case. I do not publish crime victim names without their permission or they are dead. I also do not print everything I know and am told because some information is off the record and given to me so that I can fully understand everything.
ABOUT THAT PRESS 
 
President Lyndon Johnson penned a report on the media in 1967. He asked the media to be more fair and concentrate more on issues of substance and importance. He bemoaned the fact that no official training is needed for someone to become a journalist and so, universal standards for the job do not exist.

Some 46 years later, the same refrain is being chanted.

In case you wonder, the press in Canada and and Great Britain are beholden to the government. In my lifetime as a professional (and trained) journalist, the media in  both countries has been restrained by government action. The most recent involved the seizure of computers from a media outlet in England. Items were being reported which were an embarrassment to the government and to the US government.

Understand, the United States press is unique in the world. Our freedom is guaranteed in the Constitution and has been repeatedly upheld in court case after court case. Except not.

Case 1
Case 2
Case 3
Case 4

And so on and so on and so on and so on.

 

A HEAVIER HAND

This FCC "CIN" thing might appear to be innocuous. When has government ever ordered an innocuous study? This is even more troubling when you consider the federal government has looked at the free media as an adversary. Some may disagree, but when President Ronald Reagan referred to the White House Press Corps as "sons of bitches" the empirical evidence supports my statement.

Here's a quote direct from Ajit Pai's story in the WSJ: "The FCC says the study is merely an objective fact-finding mission. The results will inform a report that the FCC must submit to Congress every three years on eliminating barriers to entry for entrepreneurs and small businesses in the communications industry. 

"This claim is peculiar. How can the news judgments made by editors and station managers impede small businesses from entering the broadcast industry? And why does the CIN study include newspapers when the FCC has no authority to regulate print media?"

Why indeed?
 

LOOKING DEEPER

Pai gives us a deeper insight to the situation: "The FCC also wants to wade into office politics. One question for reporters is: 'Have you ever suggested coverage of what you consider a story with critical information for your customers that was rejected by management?' Follow-up questions ask for specifics about how editorial discretion is exercised, as well as the reasoning behind the decisions."

Why does the FCC need to know this? Short answer - it doesn't. Longer answer - To establish policy over how the media may report on matters of the government. Ostensibly, this could be an effort to make the media even more free by removing some editorial control over reporters. If you believe that, you'll by this watch. Considering the reputation of our government, a far more chilling aspect is to give government some control over what is reported and how.


If government truly wants a more free media, then all it has to do is start talking. Openly. On the record.

The fact is, the current president's record on being open is worse than Bush. What is the president hiding?

With that in mind, the real reason behind this FCC initiative becomes very sinister indeed.

A FINAL REPLY

Should the FCC or any government agency come into my office and attempt to dictate what and how I write news, the first reply will be me telling them to leave and never come back. If they persist, then I will escalate my response right along with theirs.

Yes. If it comes to it, blood will be shed. Whose I do not know. But blood will flow.

Count on it.

Maybe it ain't so random

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
What if the various financial lotteries are not as random as people think?

Science as long said a person has a better chance of being struck by lightning than winning the lottery.

What if they are wrong?

Breaking science already has amassed a body of evidence that could, and I stress could, indicate winning the lotto is not as random as once believe.

To 'splain. Science has something called Random Number Generators (RNG - no relation). When an RNG fires up, there should be no way to predict what numbers will pop up when,

T'aint so.

"The Global Consciousness Project has been showing that a few dozen such systems, called random number generators spread around the world can produce anomalies when global events happen that polarize human attention. Most famously during the attacks of 9/11," writes Gregory Weinkauf in the HuffPo.

In other words, what people think can and apparently does affect reality.

Whoa nelly.

Lest you think this is not serious, I tell you Princeton has researchers studying it. They are not the only ones. They are also not the only ones to find evidence of this.

If this proves true, then by a not-so-big-leap of extension, enough people concentrating on the Lotto could affect what numbers pop up.

As George Takei says, Ohh Myyyyyyyyy.

Freedom of religion

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Unless you've been living under a rock, you've heard the news that Jamie Coots is dead.

Coots, like another snake-handling preacher Andrew Hamblin, had both run afoul of the legal system because of their decision to take up and collect venomous snakes.

Here's the problem: 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.

The 14th Amendment extends this prohibition to the rest of the law-making bodies in the United States.

Coots (him not so much any more), Hamblin and like-minded people believe they have a God-ordered right to handle snakes. On that, the Constitution is pretty clear. Government can't do anything about it.

Or can it?

Government comes at the matter sideways, a pretty common move. By that I mean government does not explicitly say snake handling is illegal. If a rattler appeared in church (which can happen) and the congregation took it up and passed it around, government could not do a bloody thing about it.

However, going out and collecting snakes can be regulated and is regulated. The collection process of itself is not a religious activity - yet. It could be, but no one in the church has claimed that. Possessing dangerous snakes is not illegal, but does require permits. Unless that too is claimed as a religious activity.

Hrm.

Snake handling is not the only religious practice that has run afoul of the legal system in this nation. Peyote use in religious ceremonies is legal, but only for certain people. Marijuana (which is rapidly becoming legal regardless of intent to use) is also seen as a religious matter in some places, but the government doesn't agree. Roger Christie is still in the pokey and also facing tax evasion charges.

Consider the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster which is an anti-religion religion. Niko Alm won his case of religious freedom with the CFSM.

Wearing cookwear on your head for a driver's license photo is one thing. Handling snakes that have, do and will continue to deliver venom which kills people is another. Smoking MJ is yet another.

Or is it?


Here's the problem with the first part of the First Amendment - What is a religion?  Who defines it? Does it need definition?

No one with a rational mind will dispute Christianity is a religion as it counts more than a billion believers globally. Same goes for Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, ancestor worship, animism and a bunch of others which claim enough adherents to be a decent-sized city. So is there a minimum number of adherents before a religion becomes official? How many? How few?

The more important question is - What religious practices are permissible?

Aye. There's the rub!

1) Is tearing apart a tortilla (unleaven bread) and sharing it during services an acceptable religious practice? Don't think anyone with a rational mind will argue that.

2) Is flogging someone during a religious service acceptable? Gonna find some argument on that one.

3) Is sacrificing a live animal on altar during religious ceremonies acceptable? Gonna find a LOT more argument on that.

4) Is a human sacrifice during a religious ceremony acceptable? Ooooooo. Done opened the annelid breeding facility gates!

All four items are part of the Judeo-Christian religious faith practices. Betcha. Can point it out to you in the Bible.

So let's narrow this down. How about say a religious ritual that does not harm anyone other than the person enacting the ritual is OK? In other words, wanna shred your back with a cat o nine tails? That's your business. Want to hug a rattler? Your business.

In short. Don't hurt anybody and you're good to go.

And yet this too runs afoul of some of the world's major religions. Really. Interpretations of some major religions call for the death of apostates. Others will argue that making kids go to church is child abuse. Force is, in some religions, a basic tenet.

The strictest interpretation of the First Amendment directly collides with the right to be free.

And therein is a tautology of both epic and the narrowest of proportions. What is freedom? If my religious freedom requires having power over others is that acceptable? That's part of the Judeo-Christian and Islamic belief structure.

Whacha gonna do?

For the record, I was forced to go to church and hated it. I have never and will never force my kids to go. They go to church because they want to be there.

One last thing - If the government intends to get you, it will. Tax evasion a la Roger Christie is a catch-all penalty like the "too fast for conditions" ticket which local enforcement can hand out when you've done nothing else you can be charged with.

Bout dat debate, cats, trees and bad news

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Disclaimers:

• I did not watch the Bill Nye v. Ken Ham debate on creationism v. evolution nor will I watch it.


• Why is scissors spelled with an "sc" at the beginning?

• I am an ordained minister in two groups and support the idea of intelligent design.

• Fried is a food group.

• This post is more or less about that Ham-Nye debate.

• I am giving you nomenclature about the debate with the words in alphabetical order.

Here's a wrapup of the debate from a mostly non-religious view. Here's the same from a religious publication.

Here's a few salient points I wanna address. I quote from the Yahoo news piece.

Ham believes that "kinds" cannot diverge into other "kinds." So far, there's no repeatable scientific experiments which have taken one specie of critter and turned it into another. The "turn" I refer to here is when the two critters cannot reproduce with each other, assuming a pairing of male and female and etc. Experiments with fruit flies have been going on for the equivalent of 12,000 human years. These experiments have also NOT attempted to breed separate species, so you can't draw any firm conclusions there. We have scientific evidence which suggests such evolution.

Scientific AND religious evidence must be interpreted by humans. More on this in a moment.

Point next

"One of the key features of a scientific theory is that it is falsifiable, Livio told Live Science. That means the theory makes predictions that are testable in new experiments."

SCIENCE!

"As long as the results of those new experiments or observations agree with the predictions, the theories hold," Livio said. "Once the results are found to deviate from the predictions, the theory has to either be rejected or to be modified."

I am not, despite surficial appearances of this next statement, anti-science; I am a huge fan and believe in science.

"[S]cientific theory is ... falsifiable." Putting this another way, ideas put forth by science which stood for centuries have been overturned. I suggest a true scientist must view evolution of humanity as something which could be declared false at some time in the future. Best a real scientist can say is "Based on what we know right now..." That's the kind of science I can get behind and support. Religion should be treated the same way.

I must add, a lack of evidence is not proof in either direction. We cannot prove the evolution of humanity in lab. We cannot prove creation in a lab.

Science has repeatedly declared something cannot exist and then it was discovered. Egg on face. Religious "facts" have been shot down repeatedly. Egg on face.

Mr. Nye even admits what we know is infinitesimally small compared to what we may know. Those who read the Bible and believe it must admit to not understanding.

Point next

RELIGION!

"Creationism has no such predictable power, as findings must conform to the creationist's interpretation of God's word."

No. Creationism, by its very definition, must conform to what the higher being has ordered and directed. Human interpretations and observations are irrelevant. Until and unless a human can fully understanding the workings of a higher order being, we'll never know for sure. Reminds me of science.

(In case you aren't wondering, absolutes bother me.)

As for predictions in the scientific realm, light continues to defy predictions, at least of expected behavior. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment. You can know the position of a certain elementary particles or the direction it is headed in, not both. Schroedinger's cat, et al.

Furthermore no one has yet managed to predict with 100 percent accuracy what a human being will do. If science relies on predictive power, then it is starting from a flawed base, a human. This is also a major failing of religion.

Bonus confusing item: For the record, physics states if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, it did not make a sound. So said my dad, an engineer from Georgia Tech, and the math he showed me to explain it. See (pun intended) abovementioned cat.

Point next

And science has brought us ever greater ways to kill each other.

Religion and science are inert. They become a force of good, evil or neutrality ONLY when acted upon by a human being.

Interpreting "evidence" of any kind, be that scientific or religious, relies on a human with all the shortcomings, prejudices and beliefs that human has. There can be no truly objective interpretation of evidence by a human.

Religion can be applied pretty much however an individual wants. While the world's great religions all call for peace, love, understanding and acceptance, religion has also lead to some horrific atrocities.

Science has brought tremendous advances to humanity, but science is also responsible for every human death at the hands another human. Even pummeling someone to death with bare fists relies on an understanding of physics and geometry, whether or not the person can do the math. Swinging a fist implies an expectation of it landing where intended. That's physics and geometry in action.

Point next

"As a result, the debaters were 'playing a game without consistent rules,' Seth Shostak, an astronomer at the SETI Institute who watched the debate, wrote in an email to Live Science."

Ayup. See above statement regarding humans and our amazing ability to be subjective about everything.

Job 42:3 You asked, ‘Who is this that obscures my plans without knowledge?’ Surely I spoke of things I did not understand, things too wonderful for me to know.

Science AND religion would do well to remember this passage. Neither has all the answers which may be couched into human understanding.

Point the last

Me bud TC offered this post-debate statement after some observed neither side won: "What a relief. I got a feeling that victory in either case is probably bad news for the rest of us."

Now for something completely different

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
In the office email, I received the following from two different "accounts" and two different "people." The domain does not exist, according to my search.


suppor073@riduscourt.com


Eviction Notification,
Please be advised that you are obliged to vacate the living space you occupy until March 1, 2014, 11 a.m.
If you do not vacate it in the specified terms, the court will have to assign the forcible eviction for April 7, 2014, 11 a.m.  If nobody is home we will not be responsible for safe keeping of your belongings. Besides, if you fail to comply with the requirements of the court bailiff  you will be fined for up to 200 minimum wage amounts with a subsequent doubling of the penalty amount  and can be made criminally or administratively liable.
The details of the circumstances that caused the judicial decision of eviction are attached herewith.
Court bailiff,
VINCENT Gomez

Each email also had an attachment, which I did not open and did not download. I suspect it has a virus. So, I forwarded to an account where I can open it online. It bounced back. Surprise surprise, virus positive.

Also, being me, I replied, "You don't have enough guns and ammo to evict me." Email reply bounced back, further proof of an attached virus.

I am amused. Unfortunately there are many people who will open the attachment and get their computer virus-infected.

Supreme Court crosshairs leveled again, sorta

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Another, sorta, gun rights case is now in the hands of the Supreme Court.

I say sorta, because it sort of is and sort of is not about gun rights.

According to everything I read (waiting on Nina Totenburg's piece for NPR),  Bruce James Abramski, Jr. bought the gun and signed a federal document saying he was the intended owner. The next day, working through an FFL (Federal Firearms License) holder, he transferred to gun to an uncle. Uncle cleared by BATF to own the gun. Uncle paid for the gun.

The issue here is Abramski bought the pistol because he could get it cheaper than his uncle could. He always intended to pass it over to his uncle. Aye. There's the rub.


He signed the paper saying he intended to be the gun owner. Yes, for one day, but he also bought the gun fully intending to turn it over to his uncle.

Here's what the BATF form states: "Are you the actual transferee buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual buyer, the dealer cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you."

I ain't a rocket scientist, but looks to me to be pretty clear here that Abramski is guilty of what BATF has charged him with, to wit: making false statements about the purchase of the gun.

That ain't about gun rights. That's about telling the truth. Or is it?

Here's where gun rights come in. I have two children, both of whom "own" guns. I bought the guns fully intending to make a gift of them to my children. As they are minors, they cannot legally own a firearm. Once they reach the age of majority, they can legally own firearms and the guns will be fully theirs as far as I'm concerned. My first real gun was gift from an uncle.

Here's where telling the truth, signing a piece of paper and gun rights merge.


Guns are gifts regularly. Should this be illegal? A spouse buys a gun for the other spouse. If both can legally own a gun, should this kind of gifting be illegal? Why? Why not?

Guns are heirlooms. While some people may plan to live forever, they won't. Guns are left to survivors in wills. Under the very strictest reading of the BATF regulation (I do not see it as a law because Congress did not specifically authorize that wording in the BATF forms), that can't happen. More in a moment.

Guns are used in raffles as well. Is this illegal? The raffle, possibly, depending on the individual state law and how the raffle winner takes possession of the gun.

Many, many people buy a gun and own it for years. Then, they sell it, gift it or trade it. Under the strictest possible interpretation of the BATF regulation, this is not allowed. Government can't even take it. See the Fourth Amendment.

Abramski bought the gun fully intending to pass it over to his uncle. He did so the next day. Lemme remind you BATF cleared BOTH MEN through the background check form to do this transfer. Ambramski also cleared this with three FFL holders. Sounds to me like he did due diligence. BATF did their job too. I reiterate for the dense out there - Background checks were done with each sale!

Someone buys a gun and intends to keep it. But what if they change their mind and sell it a week later? A year later? A decade later? Under strict BATF rules, this is not permissible. It couldn't even be sold back to an FFL holder!

Is there a time limit on how long that signature on the BATF form must be enforceable? If so, how long?

My point here is people buy a gun and sign paperwork saying they intend to own it. Unless they are buried, cremated, tossed over the side, etc with said firearm, someone else is gonna wind up with gun. If you make this illegal, then not even the government can take possession of the gun. See the Fourth Amendment for specifics.

For those who demand background checks, one more time - background checks were done on both men, both of whom passed. Both sales were conducted through an FFL holder. If you demand universal background checks, this sale passed with flying colors.

The central question must then be, can a person buy a gun and later sell, gift or trade it? BATF says no. BRB and the Constitution says yes.

Erratum, errors and mistakes

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Typos happen. Egad. 
Witness the errors that wind up in my blogs!

Johannes Gutenberg laid out the first page of type ever, printed it and set fire to the plate when he saw the typo in the page. And so started a tradition of typos. Being in journalism for a quarter century or so, I have certainly made plenty of typos.

We newspaper folks like to say we include typos in the paper so people who like to complain can enjoy the paper too.

Typos even happen in books considered so important that typos, well, they should not exist.

John Lee, former editor of the Apalachicola Times, once put it in perspective. A typo in a newspaper is a permanent error in the historical record of that community. He pointed to an old error in one of the Times. That error was not a typo, it was a flat mistake. The country of origin of a group of settlers were misidentified.

"Now, it's that way forever," he said.

Indeed it is. A correction appeared in the next edition of the Times, but the damage was done. The error has since been repeated, magnifying that mistake.

Reference books should be held to a higher standard than other printed material. A typo in a reference manual is a far more serious matter than a typo in a paperback romance novel.

I recently got the 104th Shooter's Bible as a Christmas gift. The book pretty much is a Bible to the gun enthusiast. Excited, I sat down to read it. Just a cursory glance, not a detailed reading at all, turned up more than a dozen errors. Some typos, some flat out stupid mistakes.

Upset, I fired off an angry letter to SkyHorse publishing, expecting my letter to be File 13'd. Imagine my surprise when 2 days later I got a personal reply from the editorial director at SkyHorse apologizing for the errors and offering to send me the 105th Shooter's Bible for free.

Jumped on that one!

Arrived yesterday. Took it home after the BOE meeting, I sat down to peruse. Once again, only a very cursory once-over. Not a detailed read at all. 15+ errors in the rifle section alone. Typos were in the minority. The majority were flat mistakes, errors of fact. In a reference and research publication like Shooter's Bible, this is not acceptable.

So, I fired off another missive to SkyHorse. Dunno if I will get a reply. Gonna read some more sections and send in more reports of typos.

UPDATE: I have heard back from the editorial director. He didn't get the second list of errata and asked I resend it.

More proof

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Proof of what you are certainly asking.

Proof that women and men are actually different, I reply.

Get a life, Baker, you say.

Have one, thankyouverymuchforasking. But today I come to you from the pages of Popular Science which is reporting on the Olympics. In a number of Winter Sports, women are injured a lot more than men.

Really.

In sports with women and men competitors, the figures show women come off worse for the wear, literally. In Snowboard Cross, a mind boggling 73 percent of the women recorded injuries v. 12 percent of the men.

Yeah. I'm still slack-jawed.

In the 19 sports studied, being the most popular sports, women injuries outpaced men injuries in 11 sports. The graph doesn't say if women compete in Curling and I'm not interested enough to see if women compete in curling. Ski Jumping allows women beginning this year so there's no data for other years. Nordic Combined also has an N/A so I guess women don't compete there either.

Men injuries significantly outpaced women only in Short Track Speed Skating.

Injuries were about even in Snowboard Half Pipe and Snowboard Slalom.

So of 17 sports both genders participate in, women pretty much rule the medical help after the event department.

I make no judgement calls, offer no opinions and make no claims. I merely find this interesting enough to share.

Where for art thou?

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
If yer looking for a hero, there are plenty out there. Look around. Someone is talking the time to make a difference. That's a hero. Some get paid to this. Some don't.

Heroes make the world a better place.

A post on FB this morning got me to thinking about heroes and the heroes I have met in my life.

All of them made a difference. Some did it in classic heroic style, risking their own life to save another. Some did it quietly, reaching out and turning a life around.

None of 'em did it for the credit, glory or fame that might come along with it. I say might, because plenty of them did their heroic deed and walked away before the spotlights showed up.

That FB post I saw made me think of someone who could be called a hero.

Mr. Rogers told us to get along. He told us to wonder. He told us to learn. He told us to be happy and look for good in everyone and everything.

He did say bad things would happen. He told us if leaned on our friends, they would help us get through it.

Lotta people will say Mr. Rogers was a hero. I don't.

Mr. Rogers does not fit the definition of a hero. He didn't have to.

Mr. Rogers inspired people to go out and save lives, make a difference and not worry about who got the credit.

Mr. Rogers created heros. That puts him a tier above heroes in my book.

Something for all means you won't like part of it

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
"If the purpose of a newspaper is to inform, then it MUST provide opinions that differ from yours on subjects that do not necessarily interest you. If you wish to read only what you want about subjects you pick, that is what the internet is for." Melanie.

The newspaper I run has columnists, like most every print publication in the world. One of these is an elderly gent who grew up here and has a lifetime of highly entertaining and extremely interesting stories about growing up here.

In hopes of getting him to share these stories, I offered him a columnist spot. Instead, he's gone political. This is too easy to do as a columnist. Politics affects us all and hits us where it hurts. It is therefore natural to write about what affects us deeply. So be it.

Several readers have asked why this gent is writing a column. One put her thoughts in words as a letter to editor. In fact, she has two letters in this week's paper. She got a personal reply as well. The reply, which does not appear in the paper, included these statements:

His credentials are: He lives in Turner County and is willing to write a weekly column... We also had space for a columnist with the demise of Charles Perry.

To answer your unasked questions:
 
He has also attracted a number of regular readers who previously did not read the paper at all. Each week we strive to bring something read-worthy to everyone in Turner County. Mr. Brown is helping us achieve that. 

She replied, which is not in the paper, in part:

I am dismayed that to bolster sales the paper would include someone who quite obviously does not live up to any journalistic quality.  I would think that the paper would want to attract people to Turner County and would want to offer something of value to its readers. Apparently, you are trying to attract a certain group of readers at the expense of others. 

With so many options for the acquisition of news, it is an easy choice to find many enlightening and informative or amusing articles.  Time is a precious commodity and I for one will not waste mine reading such nonsense.

The more astute reader will note a glaring contradiction in the reply. "...would want to offer something of value to its readers. Apparently, you are trying to attract a certain group of readers at the expense of others."

We're supposed to attract readers and yet not attract readers? How?

As with the vast majority of people, she also misses the point of media outlets like newspapers (magazines, radio, TV, internet news sites and the like). What is the purpose of a newspaper (or other media outlet)? Most people will say "to inform people."

They are incorrect. However, suppose they are correct. If information is the purpose, then Mr. Brown is doing this. He brings a point of view which was lacking in the paper, a POV which is found in a significant part - a plurality POV in the main city - of this county.

In case yer wondering, the objective of a newspaper (and other media) is to inform. The purpose is a bit different. I leave you to wonder what that purpose is.

Where's the line?

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

As expected, and hoped for, this post on FB generated some discussion. All those who posted were opposed to the wholesale slaughter of the wolves.

As best I know on my thread, I'm also the only person in the thread whose livelihood at one time depended on keep a herd of cattle living and well. I'm not the only person in the thread who grew up farming though.

I've never shot a wolf. Have shot at yotes and plan to continue to do so. I've also killed plenty of other pests like pigeons, crows, raccoons, squirrels, mice, rats, wild dogs, feral cats, rabbits, otters, beavers and the like.

As Rebel pointed out, removing predators from the environment does have consequences: "I am reminded of a time not long ago when one state in the midwest (Forget which one) felt like Coyotes were slaughtering cattle at an alarming rate (They weren't the numbers just like the actual numbers of cattle killed every year, were severely inflated to justify the killings) so they put a bounty for every coyote killed. It worked! Really well! Within a short time, the majority of Coyotes in the state had been wiped out. Everyone was happy till they realized that the coyotes had been keeping the rabbits and other destructive small animals in check. Suddenly the bunnies were multiplying like...well bunnies and farmers were screaming bloody murder."

At the same time, introducing predators into a prey-heavy environment means their populations will also explode. And when their prey has been reduced, they too turn to other food sources.
 
 But on Rebel's point about rabbits, we had problems with rabbits too. We took care of them at night with a spotlight, .22 and a shotgun.

Also, the State of Georgia this year reduced the number of doe days because of yote predation on deer. Yotes, BTW, are not actually native to Georgia. They were brought here by hunters, yes by hunters. The hunters wanted to run the yotes with yote-chasing dogs. As with too many introduced species (wild hogs), they bred and are now a problem.

Out west, the jury is still out on the effect of reintro'd wolves on wildlife.

As to my rabbit control, Rebel said, "Sorry Bro, your small scale actions don't work on a macro scale which was proven with the instance I mentioned above. When we upset the balance of nature as in the indiscriminate hunting and killing, things go wrong. Bro I am not talking about you killing a Coyote or Wolf when it wanders onto your farm and defending your property. I am talking about the slaughter of hundreds of wolves from the air or truck bed because they MIGHT one day wander onto someone's farm/ranch to kill a cow."

No argument.
But part of the decision to kill animals is a me v. them equation. Whose life is more important? Mine is a lot more important.

Mary Anderson, who's appeared in past blogs, offered this: "I totally agree that your life is worth more than a wolf or coyote's life. But you're not going to die if they kill some cattle. They will die if you shoot them. We are not in a kill or be killed situation these days."

That's the point. I shoot them. They die. I protect what's mine. I use the amount of force I see as necessary to do this. I also see her point. This made me think and I came up with this question.

At what point do you stop using lethal methods of pest management to protect your livelihood?

Another way of looking at this.

What level of depredation on your livelihood is acceptable before you resort to lethal controls?

Some less than lethal methods may work, depending on the pest. However, they are not as effective as lethal methods. After all, a dead pest cannot continue to attack.

Less than lethal is often far more expensive than lethal methods. Fences can be effective in some cases but require constant maintenance and repair. Relocation works, for a while. Florida has tried relocation with bears, but has now run out of places to put nuisance bears according to a game warden I know down there. Florida does not have a bear hunting season.

Less than lethal methods on four-legged pests and birds all too often involve spending taxpayer dollars. That's money which could be spent on education, road repair, social services and the like. Those who support relocation, contraceptive efforts and the like rarely put their own money where their mouth is.

On the other hand, hunters do pony up cash. Lethal control methods generate money for tax collecting authorities. Hunters buy licenses. Guns and ammo are subject to pretty hefty taxes. Hunters spend money on food and lodging in a community. When the hunters leave, they take the pests with them. Sometimes meat is donated to groups that feed people in need. Hunters also lease land to hunt on.

MA, again, "I don't know what the right answer is, Ben. I do know that wiping a species out is not it. And humans are just as natural as wolves and have a right to be here, too, but there has to be a balance."

I'm all about for, with, on the side of, in favor of, etc balance. But I'm also in favor protecting what's mine. If things have to be out of balance, I'm gonna work to make sure it is imbalanced in my favor.

As for hunting wolves, I'm in favor of it. Wolf populations in some places are now self-sustaining and can support hunting. I'd hunt wolf if given the chance under these circumstances. If a rancher has wolves killing his livestock, I'd support killing those wolves.

Droppin' the big hammer

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
This morning, Doc sends me this link. I immediately knew this was not news.

The idea that a citizen may respond with force to law enforcement is found Constitutional by SCOTUS in John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. John Bad Elk's case, decided in 1900, clearly says citizens can use lethal force to resist an unlawful arrest. The second link is from an even older case on the same thing.

The problem: what is an unlawful arrest?

On the surface, that's pretty simple you'd think. Here's a few ideas for false arrest:

• Using illegally obtained information and evidence for the basis for the arrest.

• Making an arrest where no offense has taken place.

• Arresting the wrong person.

There's probably more. I'm neither a lawyer, judge nor cop. I can only report what I've seen the courts, lawyers and law enforcement do over and say over the years I've been a reporter.


So what about resisting a false arrest? CopBlock.org looks set four categories for resisting an arrest.

1) The arrest is lawful and no excessive force is used by the officer; (worst-case scenario for a defense)

2) The arrest is lawful and excessive force is used by the officer.
 
3) The arrest is unlawful and no excessive force is used by the officer;
 
4) The arrest is unlawful and excessive force is used by officer. (best-case scenario for a defense)
 
If you know anything about the legal system you know it is nowhere near this simple.

What is an unlawful arrest? Here's yer monkey wrench: "Remarkably, the Supreme Court has never defined the word "arrest" with any precision and decisions of the lower courts are in conflict as to its meaning," writes

Thomas K. Clancy

at the University of Mississippi School of Law.


SCOTUS, in a 2004 unanimous decision, had more to say about making an arrest. This case presents the question whether an arrest is lawful under the Fourth Amendment when the criminal offense for which there is probable cause to arrest is not "closely related" to the offense stated by the arresting officer at the time of arrest.

SCOTUS said the officer in this case made a legit arrest. So if an officer finds you doing something illegal in the process of trying to arrest you falsely, you can be arrested legitimately.


But what happens if a person resists arrest? There are such charges as fleeing or attempting to elude, disorderly conduct, assault on a law enforcement officer and probably some others. These charges come about after an officer attempts to make an arrest.

Going back to the CopBlock definitions, we find yet another monkey wrench. Who defines "excessive force?" In the law enforcement use of force class I attended a while back, the instructor said eventually a judge or jury will decide whether if it was necessary or unnecessary force. In other words, it's a subjective thing.

If you think you are resisting an unlawful arrest, even to the point of using lethal force, bear in mind you're walking on some seriously un-level and shaky ground. You're also going to be dealing with people who are trained to be cool under pressure and return fire.

Law enforcement has a tough job. They see people at their absolute worst. They have to deal with people who'd sometimes rather die than be arrested. They have to deal with people who demand help this minute and tell officers to leave the next minute.

It's not an easy job and it's not an easy way to making a living. And just like with any other profession out there, there are good ones and bad ones. Fortunately most are good. Most are in the job because they want to make a difference.

In ALL my personal dealings with LE I have found every officer to be polite and helpful and respectful, even when I was the one in the wrong (such as the no seat belt ticket I got in a neighboring county a while back.) I have never argued with them. I stated my case, once, and kept my mouth shut. In that I erred. I should have not said anything.

Of course I was also polite and respectful. Officers are trained to match your level of attitude.

I am proud to count a number of current and former law enforcement officials among my friends. I support LE and what they try to do.  I also support the right of people to resist a false arrest.

Of Shakespeare, Nina Hartely and confusion

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Othello Act 1 Scene 1: I am one, sir, that comes to tell you your daughter and the Moor are now making the beast with two backs.

HUZZAH! Having successfully taken the moral high ground because this Shakespearean play is taught in public schools around the nation, I can now dive to whatever depths I feel like. Which I was gonna do anyway, but when I launch a discussion on sex, I like to be highbrow too. I could quote graphic stuff from the Bible as well, but I shan't.

The very medium through which you are reading this column has been advanced over and over and over again because of the sex industry. Live chat. Streaming movies. Web cams. Sex websites pioneered much of this work because of demand by customers.

Of course sex has been around before Turing even came about. It predates the abacus.

With all this in mind, I direct you to the sex industry.

Someone is now going to go off on me. I retreat behind George Carlin and ask this: Which is more life affirming? Watching people have sex or watching people kill each other?

Anyone can log into Youtube and watch video of people being killed. You can see it in the news. I mean real people, real death. Not actors. People being blown up, shot, run over, etc etc etc. And what about actors being killed?

Now what ya gonna do with that big ole rock?

Lemme slap this on you as well. Malcolm McDowell and Peter O'Toole also appeared in a porn film that is available in many public libraries around the nation. Yes huh.

So. The first sex film is credited as being a strip tease filmed in France in 1896. What we call "hard core" porn was first filmed between 1907 and 1912. Call it more than 100 years old. So as long as we've had movies, we've had porn.

I recently watched several documentaries on the porn industry and came away with a startling revelation. May catch damnation for this as well. So be it. I seek understanding.

All but one of the women interviewed in these films was looking up, down and away from the camera-interviewer the vast majority of the time.

The sole exception is Nina Hartley.

All the men looked straight forward, with only a few letting their gaze and face shift a bit. They always almost immediately turned back to the camera-interviewer.

When being interviewed outside the documentary or outside porn settings, all the women (Hartley was not so interviewed) were highly animated. To me this is indicative of much stress and nervousness. With more than 25 years of interviewing people under my belt, I rather think I'm correct in this assessment. The men were calm in comparison.

One female performer appeared on the Jerry Springer show. Clips of the show were interspersed in the documentary. On Springer she acted like she was jacked to the gills on speed. Elsewhere, far calmer. When interviewed for the documentary, she spent a lot of time looking away from the camera. When interviewed in porn settings, she kept her eyes locked on the camera.

Not making any kind of judgment here. Merely pointing out a reality. Also wondering, why? Really.  Why? There appears to be a serious difference in how male and female porn actors view their work. Why?

I shared these thoughts with Mary Anderson. In case yer wondering, no we never danced the naked tango. Toward the end of our conversation, she summed things up nicely.

MA: Don't think it's for everyone. You would have to have shed a lot of cultural baggage.

Anyway, she had some thoughts which made me think. With her permission, I share some of these with you.

MA: It's hard without seeing it myself (the documentaries). It may indicate that they feel uncomfortable with their profession. That doesn't necessarily mean that they think porn is wrong, but possibly they feel judged by others. After all, a woman who has sex for a living, whether in porn or prostitution is a whore or skank in our culture. After all, we "fragile flowers" are only supposed to want to have sex with Prince Charming. And even then real "good girls" aren't supposed to like it. Taking money for it is supposed to cheapen it in our eyes.

As MA will freely admit, that ain't the case in reality where sex for gain is concerned. It's perception. If you disagree and say that kind of naked twister is wrong, answer this question: Is it wrong for a woman to have sex with a man for material gain? If your answer is yes, then you have real problems with a whole lotta marriages today.

Oops.

You may argue a religious ritual makes it entirely proper. So if a rabbi blesses the set, the actors and the action in a porn flick, that'd be OK?

You may also argue a state-approved contract makes the sex for economic gain in a marriage OK. I point out to you the top porn producers have state licenses and permits for their business. Does this make it OK?

Oops.

It's fang'd hard these days to find a movie which does not have simulated boot knocking scenes. And yet these movies are not subject to protest, recall, court inquiries and threats of jail time for the performers. Full nudity is not an issue either, at least when compared to a porn flick.

In porn there's yet MORE double standards. Most of it is produced for men. Most of it involves women. And yet there's that whole "skank" thang MA mentioned above.

MA: Men don't get the same judgement. Being a porn star is a job other men (supposedly) envy. It's kind of like being fat. Even if you're healthy & fine with it yourself, as a woman, the judgement of others can be very stressful and unhealthy. You shouldn't have to explain yourself all the time, but people, even total strangers, feel like they have a right to an explanation. Men in the past haven't been treated the same way.

True dat. Definite double standard. Speaking as a fat man, I can also say there's plenty of multiple standards where fat and thin guys are concerned and then where fat and thin women are concerned.

Despite this multi-level standard in porn, there is another oxymoron. Women are the real force behind porn. Women decide what they will do, how they will do it, when and with whom. They are also paid considerably more than male actors. As one veteran male actor once said, a man in porn is nothing more than a life support system for a penis.

MA: Yeah, other men think it's a great job. But they're definitely second class citizens.

Some of the women interviewed said there is a disconnect when they appear on camera. In other words, they see themselves as physically in one place and yet emotionally and mentally in another. I strongly suspect a LOT of women who have mattress adventures (an RNG original phrase) with their husband also feel the exact same way. (See above discussion on marriage.)

MA: Women tend to see themselves as parts rather than as whole bodies.

Der yaggo. I have seen a number of women with this same attitude. Fully expecting to torque a number of women now, I point to the ladies who spend plenty of time with hair, makeup and clothes, all done to impress someone else.

MA: I think there's a freedom angle there. And maybe taking women off a pedestal.

MA: People think it's nice, but it's very stressful. You have so much maintenance.

It is probably the hardest form of live performance there is. Live in that the people are real, engaging in being totally exposed and filmed doing something which would see them be arrested if they did it on a street corner. As one of the male actors interviewed in California said, "If I pay you $50 for a (sex), we can be arrested. If we have a camera recording it, it's art. Explain that." Long pause. "See? You can't."

MA:  And let's face it. Sex isn't abstractly pretty.

None of this really explains why the women acted so differently when being interviewed in different settings. MA again has some insight.

MA: I was thinking about something similar yesterday. Everything I do, I consider how it will affect those around me. I feel like I'm always reacting to others instead of just acting how I want to act.

MA: I get the impression that men don't live like that.

Now I am reminded of of my all time favorite movie, M*A*S*H. Sally Kellerman played Hotlips and had a nude scene, less than a second. She was concerned. Not because people would see her breasts but because her thighs would be naked. Really. Robert Altman, Gary "Radar" Berghoff and the camera man were the only three people, other than her, who were on the set for that scene. They were also naked.

While I never saw it, the stage production of Oh Calcutta has an act in which the entire cast appears on stage naked. It's also a movie.

Researchers interviewed say the women in porn are in for the money, the fame or the sex. Rarely the sex. Many of the women say it's the money too. They can work two days a week and make more than $2,000. The average life expectancy of a woman in the performing side of the industry is about two years.

MA: Women are the property, though. It's like having a really valuable horse.

Sorta. As I note above, the woman run the sets. This true outside porn to some degree. Years ago I worked for a professional modeling agency. When I held the camera, I was a god. When I put it down, I was lower than dirt. But yeah, women are used and when done, turned out.

The smart ones, in porn, build up savings and learn the rest of the industry. Hartley, for example, directs and produces now.

Mary raises another question:

MA: It would be interesting to compare to call girls (not streetwalkers) and see how sex for money without being filmed changes your satisfaction level.

MA: There's a book called "Working: My Life as a Prostitute" by Dolores French. Very positive view. She says that the happy ones fly under the radar and never get interviewed.

Xavier Hollander wrote "The Happy Hooker" in the 70s describing her life as a prostitute and brothel owner. It was a best seller in its day.

In the end it comes down to cultural conditioning and a very real difference between men and women, I think. I still don't understand, but then I can't understand it completely.

Your right to _______________________

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I forget which pundit said it, but tis true. When government dictates what a parent must do to a child, there are no limits to what government can and will do.

Lemme rephrase that

"We have reached the point where government believes it gets to play God." 

One sentence about the Robertson flap and I'm done; this particular comment is in an article on the Duck Commander nonsense, but is is true. Government believes it equal to God.

Disagree?

The death penalty. Abortion. Same gender marriage. Multiple partner marriage. Edward Snowden. The NSA. The federal health care requirement, a tax you pay simply for living. Business regulations out the wazoo! Forcing a photographer to take pictures. Forcing a baker to make a cake. Speed limits. Drug laws.

The simple fact is government believes it is better equipped to run your life than you are. This is a fault of both the major parties in power today. Both 'em propose and support legislation that restricts what you can do.

A lot of this revolves around offense. Someone gets offended. (read to the end, please) "There needs to be a law." A lot of this revolves around someone's notion of morals. "There needs to be a law." A lot of this revolves around what one person did. "There needs to be a law to prevent someone else from doing it."

Really? Why? Why must everyone be punished for something one person did?

The only reason is to build conformity. The only reason is to stamp out independence. The only reason is to stamp out reason and thought.

The only reason is to mold you into a non-thinking servile entity capable only of doing what you are told. If that sounds familiar, it is. George Orwell said it.

Period. You may argue against me. But reality says otherwise.

In case you wonder,  I am by no means an anarchist. I support laws. For instance, I support local zoning ordinances BECAUSE it is done at the local level. I believe murder is a crime and the person committing it should be jailed and in some circumstances killed. I believe child molesting is a crime and the offender should be hurled off a cliff.

An oversimplified version was stated by a (probably now dead) editor of mine - Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.

Pondering more education

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
At lunch, I pitched this idea to my daughter.

Turner County has a seminary. Should I go back to college and get a PhD?

"Would you be able to do anything different than you do now?" she asked.

No. Well, no, that's not true. I could teach in college. (Later I found the seminary is not accredited by an agency which would give me the ability to become a public college professor.)

"Do you want to teach in college?" she asked.

Dunno. I could teach at ABAC if I wanted to. I'd definitely teach journalism down there.

"Yeah, I think you should do it," she said.

So. I continue to think about it.

From an economic point of view, getting the advanced theological degree makes no sense. It'll never pay for itself, barring a college teaching job and even then, the return on investment is minimal. I'd be better off stuffing the money for tuition into an IRA (which presumes I will live long enough to retire). The tuition is dirt cheap, BTW and the college is accredited, I'm told, through the American Association for Higher Education and Accreditation. (See parenthetical note above.) I have since decided to not pursue that route.

From a strictly theological point of view, I could probably learn a few things. Probably would as well.

From a research and historical point of view, wow, what I could learn! That does crank my tractor. Learning about ancient times, what people did, how they did it and so forth. However, I've been slowly educating myself about this over time anyway and all it costs is the time and the cost of the reading material.

From the ego side - eh. I don't need to prove myself or my dissertation to a group of professors.

Besides which, I've written and researched and published enough to qualify for a couple of doctorates, even in countries which require a doctoral candidate to publish more than one book.

To say I hold the modern educational system at the collegiate level in disdain is to say water is wet. Today's colleges and universities do pretty much nothing to prepare their students for the reality of working today. These selfsame institutions of questionable learning also put such a premium on their form of education that they require advanced degrees in order to instruct the students.

The ability to actually go forth and do what is being taught is irrelevant. I graduated with a guy who went on to get a PhD in journalism and then went right into college to teach. Aside from a 9-week internship and what he'd done in college, he had no journalism experience.

In my experience, the more advanced the degree a person holds, the less able they are to exist outside academia. I just don't think I want to be that way.