.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Lemme start this with a bit of news:
A petition is going around asking that Michael Vick be banned from the Jets spring training. Full disclaimer - I do not care about professional sports at all. All I know of MV is that he plays pro football (not sure what position) and served time for dog fighting.
So my questions:
1) At what point do we forgive?
2) At what point do we say a person has been punished enough?
3) At what point do we allow a person charged with, convicted of and punished for wrongdoing to move on with his life?
SOME ANSWERS
On Question 1, some people will say never. Why?
Wikipedia gives the following definition for forgiveness: Forgiveness is different from condoning (failing to see the action as
wrong and in need of forgiveness), excusing (not holding the offender as
responsible for the action), pardoning (granted by a representative of
society, such as a judge), forgetting (removing awareness of the offence
from consciousness), and reconciliation (restoration of a relationship).
Forgiving, to me, means moving on. It means you are not going to carry a burden someone else placed on you. Dunno about you, but I have enough to worry about just in what I do. I do not need the unnecessary burden of dwelling on what someone did to me.
If you can't forgive, it means you will go to your grave resenting what someone else did. Don't know about you, but I don't need hate in my life. It sours everything else I try to be and want to do.
Just briefly and only briefly, every major in the world today lists forgiving others as a central tenet of belief. For my Christian/Muslim/Jewish friends, I point out you cannot be a Christian/Muslim/Jewish if you cannot forgive, no matter what the offense.
On Question 2, I suppose an answer could be "there is no punishment sufficient."
Not even death? Not even a painful drawn-out and lingering death? Not even making the person spend the rest of his life in prison?
I point out to you a dead person is incapable of affecting the living, as best we know. If you continue to not forgive a dead person, then you are just affecting yourself. See above.
If a person has paid his fine, served his time, given the restitution as required and met your other requirements for punishment, then I suggest you are required to forgive. If not, then you are breaking your promise.
The other person now has a justifiable case against you.
That's a neat segue into Question 3.
If a person has done everything humanly possible, then who are you to say more is needed? What gives you the right to demand more when nothing more can be offered?
Lemme close with this:
If someone could gather irrefutable evidence of everything you've done wrong and present that to a judge, where would you be today? Would you ask forgiveness? Have you ever been forgiven? Have you ever granted forgiveness? Have you ever asked to be forgiven and had that request rejected?
If you did everything you could to make things right and someone said "I cannot forgive you," how would you feel?
Just some thoughts on a Thursday morning.
The views in this blog are not those of people who can't think for themselves and rely on others to think for them. For that matter, the views expressed here may not be those of people who CAN think for themselves, but it comes extremely close.
Thursday, April 10, 2014
Tuesday, April 8, 2014
Swing anna miss!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The case of the New Mexico photographer and the same-gender couple and who has what right was not heard by the Supreme Court.
So. Under the New Mexico law, this photographer can be forced to take pictures of weddings.
This. Is. Wrong. Fortunately, more cases are working their way up the system.
Photography is a defined, court-approved and common-law declared First Amendment right. SCOTUS settled this one in the Zapruder film case. Zapruder is the gent who filmed JFK's assassination. Scotus ruled in part, Mr. Z and his work were protected by the First Amendment. Photography is protected under US and international copyright law. It is free speech.
The flip side of free speech is the right to keep your damfool mouth shut. In other words, you can't be shut up AND you cannot be forced to say something.
THE RIGHT TO REFUSE
In the HuffPo article, an attorney is quoted.
"Tobias Barrington Wolff, a University of Pennsylvania law professor representing the couple, said 'no court in the United States has ever found that a business selling commercial services to the general public has a First Amendment right to turn away customers on a discriminatory basis.'"
Not true.
In fact, turning away customers on a discriminatory basis is codified in a number of laws. Here's a recent court case. Tobacco products may not be advertised in publications aimed at kids. Further, newspapers do have the right to refuse to sell advertising to businesses, people and etc. "While magazines, newspapers and other media outlets routinely decline to sell advertising space to competitors, magazines and newspapers do not generally operate under government-granted franchises."
This is speech. It comes under the First Amendment.
Does the couple in question have the right to get married? Yes. Their relationship is none of my business, none of your business and absolutely none of government's business.
Does the couple have a right to have their wedding announcement published in their local newspaper? Nope. Freedom of the press belongs to the man who owns the press. You don't like it, buy your own press and start your own newspaper. More power to you. Me? I'd run it.
Does the photographer, as an artist, have the right to choose what to photograph? As photography is a protected First Amendment right, the answer is yes.
Does the photographer have the right to refuse to provide a commercial service to anyone she (in this case) chooses? I say yes. Some people say no.
Lemme ask you this: Whose rights are more important? The couple getting married OR the photographer? Careful how you answer as I reserve the right to take your answer and beat you bloody with it.
The correct answer is: Their rights are equal to start with. The couple has the right to get married. The photog has the right to not take pictures of the wedding.
However, the wedding photog has the right to say no to the request to take pictures. Wedding photos are not an essential matter like food, water, air and swearing at politicians. The couple has the right to boycott the photographer and state their case in public. They have the right to ask other people to boycott the photographer.
The public has the right to decide if the photographer should stay in business or close up show by spending money with that photog or with competitors. It's none of government's business.
SOME QUESTIONS
ACW stated, in partial response to MM, I agree. And why in the hell would you want to hire some on that CLEARLY doesn't want to do the work for whatever the reason?
Another excellent question. I don't have a solid answer (and the question may have been rhetorical). I can tell you if I, as a wedding photog (which I used to do) was forced to take wedding pictures, they'd be horrible and the price would be astronomical. For the record, I generally don't do wedding photography any more, except in very special cases, because it drives me insane. I officiate weddings and will do so for couples, trios, quads, etc. regardless of gender.
DISCRIMINATION
Some people are gonna draw parallels here between segregation and gay rights. They are partly right. Where discrimination is embedded in the law, it's generally wrong. Generally. Are some exceptions, to wit an egregious example: A 5 year old should not be allowed to have a commercial driver's license.
Where discrimination exist in business, a different matter. When a company chooses to discriminate for whatever reason, I support the right to do so. It's not government's business who gets to sit at the lunch counter. It. Is. Not.
At the same time, I give the same amount of support to the people protesting this. Bring economic and social pressures to bear, not legal forces, to make changes.
If the restaurant won't let some people sit at the counter, spread the word. Start protesting. When enough social and economic force is brought to bear, the business will change or close its doors.
That, ladies and gents, preserves everyone's rights equally.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The case of the New Mexico photographer and the same-gender couple and who has what right was not heard by the Supreme Court.
So. Under the New Mexico law, this photographer can be forced to take pictures of weddings.
This. Is. Wrong. Fortunately, more cases are working their way up the system.
Photography is a defined, court-approved and common-law declared First Amendment right. SCOTUS settled this one in the Zapruder film case. Zapruder is the gent who filmed JFK's assassination. Scotus ruled in part, Mr. Z and his work were protected by the First Amendment. Photography is protected under US and international copyright law. It is free speech.
The flip side of free speech is the right to keep your damfool mouth shut. In other words, you can't be shut up AND you cannot be forced to say something.
THE RIGHT TO REFUSE
In the HuffPo article, an attorney is quoted.
"Tobias Barrington Wolff, a University of Pennsylvania law professor representing the couple, said 'no court in the United States has ever found that a business selling commercial services to the general public has a First Amendment right to turn away customers on a discriminatory basis.'"
Not true.
In fact, turning away customers on a discriminatory basis is codified in a number of laws. Here's a recent court case. Tobacco products may not be advertised in publications aimed at kids. Further, newspapers do have the right to refuse to sell advertising to businesses, people and etc. "While magazines, newspapers and other media outlets routinely decline to sell advertising space to competitors, magazines and newspapers do not generally operate under government-granted franchises."
This is speech. It comes under the First Amendment.
RIGHTS AND LEFTS
Does the couple in question have the right to get married? Yes. Their relationship is none of my business, none of your business and absolutely none of government's business.
Does the couple have a right to have their wedding announcement published in their local newspaper? Nope. Freedom of the press belongs to the man who owns the press. You don't like it, buy your own press and start your own newspaper. More power to you. Me? I'd run it.
Does the photographer, as an artist, have the right to choose what to photograph? As photography is a protected First Amendment right, the answer is yes.
Does the photographer have the right to refuse to provide a commercial service to anyone she (in this case) chooses? I say yes. Some people say no.
Lemme ask you this: Whose rights are more important? The couple getting married OR the photographer? Careful how you answer as I reserve the right to take your answer and beat you bloody with it.
The correct answer is: Their rights are equal to start with. The couple has the right to get married. The photog has the right to not take pictures of the wedding.
However, the wedding photog has the right to say no to the request to take pictures. Wedding photos are not an essential matter like food, water, air and swearing at politicians. The couple has the right to boycott the photographer and state their case in public. They have the right to ask other people to boycott the photographer.
The public has the right to decide if the photographer should stay in business or close up show by spending money with that photog or with competitors. It's none of government's business.
SOME QUESTIONS
MM asked: Why
is it that the fight over rights almost always turns into a removal of
rights for one and an affirmation of rights for another. Why don't we
realize that both have rights?
Indeed so. One person's rights were trampled while another's were given a superior position. This is wrong.
Another excellent question. I don't have a solid answer (and the question may have been rhetorical). I can tell you if I, as a wedding photog (which I used to do) was forced to take wedding pictures, they'd be horrible and the price would be astronomical. For the record, I generally don't do wedding photography any more, except in very special cases, because it drives me insane. I officiate weddings and will do so for couples, trios, quads, etc. regardless of gender.
Some people are gonna draw parallels here between segregation and gay rights. They are partly right. Where discrimination is embedded in the law, it's generally wrong. Generally. Are some exceptions, to wit an egregious example: A 5 year old should not be allowed to have a commercial driver's license.
Where discrimination exist in business, a different matter. When a company chooses to discriminate for whatever reason, I support the right to do so. It's not government's business who gets to sit at the lunch counter. It. Is. Not.
At the same time, I give the same amount of support to the people protesting this. Bring economic and social pressures to bear, not legal forces, to make changes.
If the restaurant won't let some people sit at the counter, spread the word. Start protesting. When enough social and economic force is brought to bear, the business will change or close its doors.
That, ladies and gents, preserves everyone's rights equally.
Friday, April 4, 2014
As expected
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Back in 2012 a reporter for STERN Magazine contacted me and asked if I'd agree to to an interview about firearms. I did.
How'd she find me? Yahoo hired me to write a piece on gun ownership and she found that article.
It resulted in a day long session with the reporter and a photographer. He shot several hundred pictures of me, the kids, the reporter. Shot a few of the whole family.
The one which was published, in front of the old service station at the north edge of Sycamore, has been picked up by Slate magazine and at least one blogger. As of this blog, I'd skimmed all the SLATE comments, sent in a correction for the cutline, replied to a few comments and grinned madly.
As expected, a sizeable number of the comments were hate-filled, some attacked us for our appearance and more than a few said it appears we're in the bad end of the gene pool.
As expected. Really. I knew the interview would bring out the hate (and it sure did in Germany!) and folks would pile it on. I expect more hate. I expect a lot more personal attacks. But these people are far superior to me and vastly more intelligent than I am. (Canya feel the sarcasm?)
They can see one posed image with an incorrect cutline and determine who I am, what kind of person I am, that I am a clear and present danger to everyone (and they do mean everyone) and that I should be locked up because of all these character determinations based on one picture. And I note, I'm doing the exact same thing to them, making judgments about them based on a single comment.
[shrugs]
Given the attacks (none so far has reached me directly but I expect this to happen) some might wonder why I did this.
Because I had to. I had to show the First Amendment. I had to show the Second Amendment. I had to illustrate that I live both. People needed to see this.
Because most people will snap judge and move on without any further thought. But a few will stop, think and come up with well-reasoned discussions. Their discussions hopefully will reach a few more people and cause more thought.
Because someone needs to stand up.
Because I'm trying to lead a person to think.
Call me the new Sisyphus. Call me Don Quixote if you wish. I'm good with that. If you'll excuse me, I need to find Pancho so we can saddle up and ride.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Back in 2012 a reporter for STERN Magazine contacted me and asked if I'd agree to to an interview about firearms. I did.
How'd she find me? Yahoo hired me to write a piece on gun ownership and she found that article.
It resulted in a day long session with the reporter and a photographer. He shot several hundred pictures of me, the kids, the reporter. Shot a few of the whole family.
The one which was published, in front of the old service station at the north edge of Sycamore, has been picked up by Slate magazine and at least one blogger. As of this blog, I'd skimmed all the SLATE comments, sent in a correction for the cutline, replied to a few comments and grinned madly.
As expected, a sizeable number of the comments were hate-filled, some attacked us for our appearance and more than a few said it appears we're in the bad end of the gene pool.
As expected. Really. I knew the interview would bring out the hate (and it sure did in Germany!) and folks would pile it on. I expect more hate. I expect a lot more personal attacks. But these people are far superior to me and vastly more intelligent than I am. (Canya feel the sarcasm?)
They can see one posed image with an incorrect cutline and determine who I am, what kind of person I am, that I am a clear and present danger to everyone (and they do mean everyone) and that I should be locked up because of all these character determinations based on one picture. And I note, I'm doing the exact same thing to them, making judgments about them based on a single comment.
[shrugs]
Given the attacks (none so far has reached me directly but I expect this to happen) some might wonder why I did this.
Because I had to. I had to show the First Amendment. I had to show the Second Amendment. I had to illustrate that I live both. People needed to see this.
Because most people will snap judge and move on without any further thought. But a few will stop, think and come up with well-reasoned discussions. Their discussions hopefully will reach a few more people and cause more thought.
Because someone needs to stand up.
Because I'm trying to lead a person to think.
Call me the new Sisyphus. Call me Don Quixote if you wish. I'm good with that. If you'll excuse me, I need to find Pancho so we can saddle up and ride.
Wednesday, March 26, 2014
Several things I feel like saying
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Item 1: Losing My Religion
Section A:
Video of law enforcement officers shooting a homeless camper in New Mexico has made the rounds of the talks shows (I guess), the Internet and certainly some "Christian news" outlets. There's my issue.
These "Christian" media sources have no problem in showing a video in which a real man is shot with real guns and dies a real death. Regardless of the expressed opinion, if there is one, these media outlets are showing a very real death.
Kids see this.
And yet, seeing a video of two people having sex is harmful, degrading, evil, destructive, ruinous, dangerous and will lead to all kinds of immoral and illegal behavior.
Section B:
Pat Robertson has suggested that atheist women were possibly raped or otherwise attacked and now have demonic forces driving them away from God.
I guess he forgot about that whole "Free Will" thing.
Conclusion: If I relied on man for my faith in my Creator, I'd be a rabid anti-theist.
Item 2: Freedom Reigns, just sometimes reigned in.
Section A:
Hobby Lobby is suing to prevent the Abominable Care Act from forcing the company to provide abortion services as part of the health care plan. Company owners say it violates their religious principles. In SCOTUS hearings this week, the Supremes seemed to come down hard against the ACA and in support of Hobby Lobby et al.
Given a lot of thought to this.
As an employer, I expect certain behavior from my employees. As long as what they do in their off time does not affect their job and how they do their job, I don't care what they do. In that regard, their health insurance is their business.
As an employer, whatever I provide to my employees should be something I control. I control the wages. I control the climate in the office. I control the building. I control the tools they use to do their job. While on the job, I control my employees, i.e. they do what I tell 'em. If they don't like my instructions, they can find another job.
In short, if I pay for it, I control it. If I am being forced to provide, out of my pocket, health care coverage (and I hugely object to this), then I should have the right to decide what that coverage is.
If the employees wish to pay for their own health care coverage from their pocket, I don't have a say in what they get for such insurance. They can get whatever they want.
Section B:
It appears Russia and the US are headed to talks over Crimea. The current US liar in chief and President Putin (every time I hear his name I say POOOOOTIN'!) are at odds over this.
Every time I hear this argument over Crimea I think of Adolf Hitler and these words penned more than 200 years ago: "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
Conclusion: Individual rights are the most important.
Item: Twisting A Chain Of Logic
Section A:
MA posted a challenge on her FB page. To wit: If anyone can prove pink unicorns do not exist, she can use that same chain of logic and reasoning to prove God does not exist. I replied that as soon as I figure out how to visit other dimensions (which SCIENCE! says exists) and manage to send back an intelligible report, I'll let her know.
In the shower last night I figured out a way to prove invisible pink unicorns do exist. Empirically prove it.
Here's how:
Invisible. Find a person blind since birth. Since they cannot see, everything is invisible to them.
Pink. As the person can't see, colors are a moot point. But for this experiment, get a bucket of pink paint.
Unicorn. Get a Rhinoceros unicornis.
Dump paint on rhino. Introduce rhino to the blind person. HUZZAH! Proof an invisible pink unicorn can exist.
Section B:
This year's $1000 Find the Ant contest has reinforced, in me, the fact that most people cannot communicate unless that put massive thought into it. Because of this and if the ant is not found by Friday, I'm thinking about letting the ant hunters ask me a question. Normally hunters get to have a clue explained OR get a new clue by Friday.
As quite a number of the ant hunters apparently don't pay attention to what I say, I like the idea of them asking a question because I pay VERY close attention to what they say. I can just imagine the consternation Friday when someone asks:
"Will you tell me where the ant is?"
To which, I reply, "Yes," and walk away because the question was answered and they have an hour before they get to choose another hint, explanation or clue.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Item 1: Losing My Religion
Section A:
Video of law enforcement officers shooting a homeless camper in New Mexico has made the rounds of the talks shows (I guess), the Internet and certainly some "Christian news" outlets. There's my issue.
These "Christian" media sources have no problem in showing a video in which a real man is shot with real guns and dies a real death. Regardless of the expressed opinion, if there is one, these media outlets are showing a very real death.
Kids see this.
And yet, seeing a video of two people having sex is harmful, degrading, evil, destructive, ruinous, dangerous and will lead to all kinds of immoral and illegal behavior.
Section B:
Pat Robertson has suggested that atheist women were possibly raped or otherwise attacked and now have demonic forces driving them away from God.
I guess he forgot about that whole "Free Will" thing.
Conclusion: If I relied on man for my faith in my Creator, I'd be a rabid anti-theist.
Item 2: Freedom Reigns, just sometimes reigned in.
Section A:
Hobby Lobby is suing to prevent the Abominable Care Act from forcing the company to provide abortion services as part of the health care plan. Company owners say it violates their religious principles. In SCOTUS hearings this week, the Supremes seemed to come down hard against the ACA and in support of Hobby Lobby et al.
Given a lot of thought to this.
As an employer, I expect certain behavior from my employees. As long as what they do in their off time does not affect their job and how they do their job, I don't care what they do. In that regard, their health insurance is their business.
As an employer, whatever I provide to my employees should be something I control. I control the wages. I control the climate in the office. I control the building. I control the tools they use to do their job. While on the job, I control my employees, i.e. they do what I tell 'em. If they don't like my instructions, they can find another job.
In short, if I pay for it, I control it. If I am being forced to provide, out of my pocket, health care coverage (and I hugely object to this), then I should have the right to decide what that coverage is.
If the employees wish to pay for their own health care coverage from their pocket, I don't have a say in what they get for such insurance. They can get whatever they want.
Section B:
It appears Russia and the US are headed to talks over Crimea. The current US liar in chief and President Putin (every time I hear his name I say POOOOOTIN'!) are at odds over this.
Every time I hear this argument over Crimea I think of Adolf Hitler and these words penned more than 200 years ago: "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
Conclusion: Individual rights are the most important.
Item: Twisting A Chain Of Logic
Section A:
MA posted a challenge on her FB page. To wit: If anyone can prove pink unicorns do not exist, she can use that same chain of logic and reasoning to prove God does not exist. I replied that as soon as I figure out how to visit other dimensions (which SCIENCE! says exists) and manage to send back an intelligible report, I'll let her know.
In the shower last night I figured out a way to prove invisible pink unicorns do exist. Empirically prove it.
Here's how:
Invisible. Find a person blind since birth. Since they cannot see, everything is invisible to them.
Pink. As the person can't see, colors are a moot point. But for this experiment, get a bucket of pink paint.
Unicorn. Get a Rhinoceros unicornis.
Dump paint on rhino. Introduce rhino to the blind person. HUZZAH! Proof an invisible pink unicorn can exist.
Section B:
This year's $1000 Find the Ant contest has reinforced, in me, the fact that most people cannot communicate unless that put massive thought into it. Because of this and if the ant is not found by Friday, I'm thinking about letting the ant hunters ask me a question. Normally hunters get to have a clue explained OR get a new clue by Friday.
As quite a number of the ant hunters apparently don't pay attention to what I say, I like the idea of them asking a question because I pay VERY close attention to what they say. I can just imagine the consternation Friday when someone asks:
"Will you tell me where the ant is?"
To which, I reply, "Yes," and walk away because the question was answered and they have an hour before they get to choose another hint, explanation or clue.
Friday, March 21, 2014
Georgia's new Gun Law - Part I
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
In what gun rights activists are hailing as awesome news and gun grabbers are moaning, the Georgia Legislature passed a sorta bill codifying more rights into Georgia’s law. The idea that gun grabbers are appalled gives me cause to rejoice. That this bill is minor in most areas annoys me.
I call it a “sorta” bill because that is what it is.
To start with, this is a bill from the State Legislature. No action by a legislative body is permanent, except one to disband. So, what has been done can be undone.
Here’s the specifics on HB 60 followed by my take on ‘em
• Prohibit the state from creating and maintaining a database of WCL holders.
The state. Says nothing about local Probate Courts, which issue said permits, from keeping and maintaining database. This is a useless - neutral item. Henceforth referred to as UNI.
• State that under a declared state of emergency, all law-abiding gun owners will not have their Second Amendment rights restricted or infringed by executive authority through Emergency Powers protection.
Ehhh, OK. Considering what happened in New Orleans this is probably a good idea.
• Strengthen current firearms preemption statutes through further clarification of the regulatory authority of local governments, excluding firearm discharge ordinances.
Possibly good. But the existing laws are pretty straightforward on what local governments can do where guns are concerned.
• Create an absolute defense for the legal use of deadly force in the face of a violent attack.
A strengthening of the current Castle Defense law. Good news.
• Allow for the use of firearm sound suppressors while hunting.
About bloody time!
• Remove fingerprinting for renewal of Weapons Carry Licenses (WCL).
UNI. Once done, the fingerprints are in a database. Once there, they can never be removed.
• Lower the age to obtain a concealed WCL for self-defense from 21 to 18 for active duty military, with specific training.
Pushing close to UNI. When a person turns 18, they are an adult. Period. No ifs. No ands. Not buts. Quit plugging in exceptions.
• Repeal the unnecessary and duplicative state-required license for a firearms dealer, instead requiring only a Federal Firearms License (FFL).
Good.
• Prohibit a ban on firearms in public housing, ensuring that the right to self-defense should not be infringed based on where one calls home.
Probably the best single provision of this law. Needed. Welcome. Thank you General Assembly.
• Codify the ability to legally carry, with a WCL, in sterile/non-secure areas of airports.
Should have already been in the law. Good.
• Include a provision that would have the state report those persons who have been involuntarily hospitalized or have been adjudicated mentally deficient to the NICS system while also providing ability for relief through an application process to the court system for the purpose of restoration of rights.
UNI. Already exists
• Create an opt-in provision legally authorizing churches to make the decision to permit or prohibit carrying a firearm with a WCL within their confines, and lowering the penalty for violation to a civil infraction carrying no more than a $100.00 fine.
Excellent. A church, being private property, should be treated as such. None of government’s business who does what inside provided no one is being harmed.
• Eliminate the extensive limitations on legally carrying a firearm with a WCL in a bar.
I like this too. Bars are private places. Let the owner decide.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
In what gun rights activists are hailing as awesome news and gun grabbers are moaning, the Georgia Legislature passed a sorta bill codifying more rights into Georgia’s law. The idea that gun grabbers are appalled gives me cause to rejoice. That this bill is minor in most areas annoys me.
I call it a “sorta” bill because that is what it is.
To start with, this is a bill from the State Legislature. No action by a legislative body is permanent, except one to disband. So, what has been done can be undone.
Here’s the specifics on HB 60 followed by my take on ‘em
• Prohibit the state from creating and maintaining a database of WCL holders.
The state. Says nothing about local Probate Courts, which issue said permits, from keeping and maintaining database. This is a useless - neutral item. Henceforth referred to as UNI.
• State that under a declared state of emergency, all law-abiding gun owners will not have their Second Amendment rights restricted or infringed by executive authority through Emergency Powers protection.
Ehhh, OK. Considering what happened in New Orleans this is probably a good idea.
• Strengthen current firearms preemption statutes through further clarification of the regulatory authority of local governments, excluding firearm discharge ordinances.
Possibly good. But the existing laws are pretty straightforward on what local governments can do where guns are concerned.
• Create an absolute defense for the legal use of deadly force in the face of a violent attack.
A strengthening of the current Castle Defense law. Good news.
• Allow for the use of firearm sound suppressors while hunting.
About bloody time!
• Remove fingerprinting for renewal of Weapons Carry Licenses (WCL).
UNI. Once done, the fingerprints are in a database. Once there, they can never be removed.
• Lower the age to obtain a concealed WCL for self-defense from 21 to 18 for active duty military, with specific training.
Pushing close to UNI. When a person turns 18, they are an adult. Period. No ifs. No ands. Not buts. Quit plugging in exceptions.
• Repeal the unnecessary and duplicative state-required license for a firearms dealer, instead requiring only a Federal Firearms License (FFL).
Good.
• Prohibit a ban on firearms in public housing, ensuring that the right to self-defense should not be infringed based on where one calls home.
Probably the best single provision of this law. Needed. Welcome. Thank you General Assembly.
• Codify the ability to legally carry, with a WCL, in sterile/non-secure areas of airports.
Should have already been in the law. Good.
• Include a provision that would have the state report those persons who have been involuntarily hospitalized or have been adjudicated mentally deficient to the NICS system while also providing ability for relief through an application process to the court system for the purpose of restoration of rights.
UNI. Already exists
• Create an opt-in provision legally authorizing churches to make the decision to permit or prohibit carrying a firearm with a WCL within their confines, and lowering the penalty for violation to a civil infraction carrying no more than a $100.00 fine.
Excellent. A church, being private property, should be treated as such. None of government’s business who does what inside provided no one is being harmed.
• Eliminate the extensive limitations on legally carrying a firearm with a WCL in a bar.
I like this too. Bars are private places. Let the owner decide.
Tuesday, March 18, 2014
It's gonna cost you
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
This is not the image I wanted to post. The one I want, which I am not posting, contains a far stronger F word than forget. You get the idea now.
Today's topic is brought to you by the My Little Pony crew and Grayson Bruce.
Opinion on Mr. Bruce and his choice of luggage is pretty much divided into three camps.
1) You da Man (aka Bronie). They have a movie now. This is the biggest group.
2) Yer a total wuss. (Smallest group)
3) Do your thang, but understand the world is not a forgiving place, it ain't fair and some people are just looking for people like you to abuse.
I am firmly ensconced in this third camp.
I firmly support Mr. Bruce and his decision (group 1). He's not the same kind of rebel I am, but he's a rebel (group 3).
He's standing out from the crowd, being his own person and trying to send a message that yes, we all can get along. As I understand it, the My Little Ponies show is strong on friendship et al. I've never watched it and don't plan to, but I do not criticize it.
Some of the Camp 3 crowd are faulting Mr. Bruce's parents for not preparing him for the backlash that he's apparently encountered at school. Maybe his parents did brief him, maybe they did not. If they did, more power to 'em as parents. Support your child! If they did not tell him what to expect, then they made a parenting mistake. All parents make mistakes. All. Parents. Let ye who is without sin cast the first stone.
Mr. Bruce now knows the world is not as accepting as he wishes. I hope this does not dampen his ardor to continue to go his own way and invite others to tag along.
In case you were wondering, the world is under no obligation to be fair. The world is under no obligation to provide justice. See group 2. The world operates under modified Darwinian rules. Modified, because things like charity, apathy, compassion, compersion, hate and love exist.
Some people in groups 1 and 3 say the school should do more to stop the bullying Mr. Bruce is experiencing. This assumes the school has not taken steps to stop it. It further assumes the school hasn't done all it can.
If you are in those categories, i.e. the school should do more, I'm going to step into group 2 for a moment. I must repeat something:
In case you were wondering, the world is under no obligation to be fair. The world is under no obligation to provide justice. The world operates under modified Darwinian rules. Modified, because things like charity, apathy, compassion, compersion, hate and love exist. However, you are still going to get clobbered and sooner or later, no one will be there to help you get back up.
Bullying is going to happen. Teachers cannot be the NSA, or Big Brother if you prefer, and put school kids under constant immediate and continual surveillance while the kids are in school. Nor should they.
Yes, we should teach kids bullying is wrong. Modification: Parents should be doing this, school teachers to a lesser extent. However for some parents bullying is way of life and they see nothing wrong with it. For that matter, some teachers are bullies.
It ain't fair. It's called life. Kids need to learn to cope with life. Completely removing all bullying from school, removing all the negative stuff, means kids leave school ready to be annihilated by the real world.
In other words, do not stop all the bullying. It hurts kids down the road when they have to encounter it in the workplace and the real world.
Getting picked on happens.
So, we, that is parents, should be teaching our kids the world is gonna be mean. We should give them coping skills, self defense skills. Teachers need to back up these lessons.
Learn how to deal with the bad stuff. Get used to the idea that the cavalry is not just over the hill. The bomb expert is not going to clip the wire to stop the countdown with three seconds left. Roll up your sleeves, grab a shovel and start shifting manure.
For that matter, we need to teach kids things like charity, apathy, compassion, compersion, hate and love. Yes. We do.
"But teach 'em hate? Baker, you've lost your mind."
Pay attention. I said teach them hate. I did not say teach them to hate. Teach them hate. What is it? Why does it exist? What is it a symptom of? Can it be overcome? Is it necessary? How should it be dealt with? You get the idea.
This is teaching is nothing more that a proper education on how to be a
human. Education is a constant and continual process. Every child can
learn and every child should be taught.
So yeah, I'm also in group 2. Don't whine if the world doesn't live up to your rose-colored glasses view expectations. People are mean. I'm mean. You're mean. We're all mean. Even Jesus had a mean streak. Cope.
Reality is not going to reorder itself because you don't like it.
Put another way, if the truth hurts, yer living wrong.
In case you're wondering, I'm also a part of group 1, except I know next to nothing about My Little Pony. But I do know about other nerd things that make me and folks like me the subject of ridicule.
Chances are extremely good that you too have something in your life that caused you to be ridiculed, like Mr. Bruce. Betcha didn't think of that. Chances continue to be good that you too have ridiculed others. Why?
If the truth hurts, yer living wrong.
Like Mr. Bruce, you got stung, hammered, beat, etc. What did you do then? Some people got mean. Some people got their game face on and muled ahead.
Some people caved and became drones. Wuss. Every. Single. One. Of. Them. And I mean that sincerely.
Some peoplelike Mr. Bruce stepped up and tried to change things.
You may being saying "Alas old Sisyphus, we know ye well."
I ask again, what have done? What are doing? What are you gonna do? How about it? What are you going to do now?
As for me? You can push that great damned rock all you want to. Me and Pancho, we gotta ride. There's dragons over that hill.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Today's topic is brought to you by the My Little Pony crew and Grayson Bruce.
Opinion on Mr. Bruce and his choice of luggage is pretty much divided into three camps.
1) You da Man (aka Bronie). They have a movie now. This is the biggest group.
 |
| Bronie. Note lack of girlfriend and sentiments in this column. |
2) Yer a total wuss. (Smallest group)
3) Do your thang, but understand the world is not a forgiving place, it ain't fair and some people are just looking for people like you to abuse.
I am firmly ensconced in this third camp.
I firmly support Mr. Bruce and his decision (group 1). He's not the same kind of rebel I am, but he's a rebel (group 3).
He's standing out from the crowd, being his own person and trying to send a message that yes, we all can get along. As I understand it, the My Little Ponies show is strong on friendship et al. I've never watched it and don't plan to, but I do not criticize it.
Some of the Camp 3 crowd are faulting Mr. Bruce's parents for not preparing him for the backlash that he's apparently encountered at school. Maybe his parents did brief him, maybe they did not. If they did, more power to 'em as parents. Support your child! If they did not tell him what to expect, then they made a parenting mistake. All parents make mistakes. All. Parents. Let ye who is without sin cast the first stone.
Mr. Bruce now knows the world is not as accepting as he wishes. I hope this does not dampen his ardor to continue to go his own way and invite others to tag along.
In case you were wondering, the world is under no obligation to be fair. The world is under no obligation to provide justice. See group 2. The world operates under modified Darwinian rules. Modified, because things like charity, apathy, compassion, compersion, hate and love exist.
Some people in groups 1 and 3 say the school should do more to stop the bullying Mr. Bruce is experiencing. This assumes the school has not taken steps to stop it. It further assumes the school hasn't done all it can.
If you are in those categories, i.e. the school should do more, I'm going to step into group 2 for a moment. I must repeat something:
In case you were wondering, the world is under no obligation to be fair. The world is under no obligation to provide justice. The world operates under modified Darwinian rules. Modified, because things like charity, apathy, compassion, compersion, hate and love exist. However, you are still going to get clobbered and sooner or later, no one will be there to help you get back up.
Bullying is going to happen. Teachers cannot be the NSA, or Big Brother if you prefer, and put school kids under constant immediate and continual surveillance while the kids are in school. Nor should they.
It ain't fair. It's called life. Kids need to learn to cope with life. Completely removing all bullying from school, removing all the negative stuff, means kids leave school ready to be annihilated by the real world.
In other words, do not stop all the bullying. It hurts kids down the road when they have to encounter it in the workplace and the real world.
Getting picked on happens.
So, we, that is parents, should be teaching our kids the world is gonna be mean. We should give them coping skills, self defense skills. Teachers need to back up these lessons.
Learn how to deal with the bad stuff. Get used to the idea that the cavalry is not just over the hill. The bomb expert is not going to clip the wire to stop the countdown with three seconds left. Roll up your sleeves, grab a shovel and start shifting manure.
For that matter, we need to teach kids things like charity, apathy, compassion, compersion, hate and love. Yes. We do.
"But teach 'em hate? Baker, you've lost your mind."
Pay attention. I said teach them hate. I did not say teach them to hate. Teach them hate. What is it? Why does it exist? What is it a symptom of? Can it be overcome? Is it necessary? How should it be dealt with? You get the idea.
 |
| That's me. Standing out and being happy. Really. |
So yeah, I'm also in group 2. Don't whine if the world doesn't live up to your rose-colored glasses view expectations. People are mean. I'm mean. You're mean. We're all mean. Even Jesus had a mean streak. Cope.
Reality is not going to reorder itself because you don't like it.
Put another way, if the truth hurts, yer living wrong.
In case you're wondering, I'm also a part of group 1, except I know next to nothing about My Little Pony. But I do know about other nerd things that make me and folks like me the subject of ridicule.
Chances are extremely good that you too have something in your life that caused you to be ridiculed, like Mr. Bruce. Betcha didn't think of that. Chances continue to be good that you too have ridiculed others. Why?
If the truth hurts, yer living wrong.
Like Mr. Bruce, you got stung, hammered, beat, etc. What did you do then? Some people got mean. Some people got their game face on and muled ahead.
Some people caved and became drones. Wuss. Every. Single. One. Of. Them. And I mean that sincerely.
Some peoplelike Mr. Bruce stepped up and tried to change things.
You may being saying "Alas old Sisyphus, we know ye well."
I ask again, what have done? What are doing? What are you gonna do? How about it? What are you going to do now?
As for me? You can push that great damned rock all you want to. Me and Pancho, we gotta ride. There's dragons over that hill.
Friday, March 7, 2014
And exactly what's your experience with it?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
For the next week or so there will be plenty of complaining about how the Rebels (the high school here) basketball team performed in the state championship game.
Quite a number of these comments will be negative.
Lemme ask ALL of you who are complaining this one question:
How much experience do you have coaching a high school basketball teams to a state championship basketball game?
I take the sound of crickets chirping in the background as evidence you have no experience in this.
"But" some will say.
Shut. Up. I say.
Unless you have played on a high school basketball team that made it to the state championship game, Shut. Up.
Unless you have coached a bunch of high school kids all the way to a state championship game, Shut. Up.
"But."
But. Nothing. If you ain't been there, you don't know what it takes to get there. In basketball, George Kennedy and the ladies who went to state a few years ago have room to talk and be critical of the boys' basketball team. George & Co. went there. Did that. Got the trophy, the memory and the tears that erupted after taking second in the state to back up whatever they say. A few other former students and their coaches also have room to talk. Turner County has a number of state champions and a 2nd in the nation 4-H Shotgun team.
Unless you were on one of those teams, you don't. Shut. Up.
Unless.
Unless you want to talk about what an awesome ride it was. Unless you want to say how proud you are of this team and the girls team for that matter. Unless you want to say how proud you are of ALL the students in the school system who show up and put forth the effort to succeed.
If you are here to yell GO REBELS! We're proud of you! then say on, say on.
I'm here to be proud of them. All of them. All the students. I routinely say every child in the Turner County school system is my kid. I am proud of all of them and support them all as much as I can.
If you are here to complain, Shut. Up.
Alternately, put up. Get yourself some room to complain. Go to college. Get a teaching degree and learn to be a coach. Then YOU coach a team to a high school state championship. When you get done, regardless of winning or losing that game, then I'll listen to what you have to say.
In the meantime, yeah.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
For the next week or so there will be plenty of complaining about how the Rebels (the high school here) basketball team performed in the state championship game.
Quite a number of these comments will be negative.
Lemme ask ALL of you who are complaining this one question:
How much experience do you have coaching a high school basketball teams to a state championship basketball game?
I take the sound of crickets chirping in the background as evidence you have no experience in this.
"But" some will say.
Shut. Up. I say.
Unless you have played on a high school basketball team that made it to the state championship game, Shut. Up.
Unless you have coached a bunch of high school kids all the way to a state championship game, Shut. Up.
"But."
But. Nothing. If you ain't been there, you don't know what it takes to get there. In basketball, George Kennedy and the ladies who went to state a few years ago have room to talk and be critical of the boys' basketball team. George & Co. went there. Did that. Got the trophy, the memory and the tears that erupted after taking second in the state to back up whatever they say. A few other former students and their coaches also have room to talk. Turner County has a number of state champions and a 2nd in the nation 4-H Shotgun team.
Unless you were on one of those teams, you don't. Shut. Up.
Unless.
Unless you want to talk about what an awesome ride it was. Unless you want to say how proud you are of this team and the girls team for that matter. Unless you want to say how proud you are of ALL the students in the school system who show up and put forth the effort to succeed.
If you are here to yell GO REBELS! We're proud of you! then say on, say on.
I'm here to be proud of them. All of them. All the students. I routinely say every child in the Turner County school system is my kid. I am proud of all of them and support them all as much as I can.
If you are here to complain, Shut. Up.
Alternately, put up. Get yourself some room to complain. Go to college. Get a teaching degree and learn to be a coach. Then YOU coach a team to a high school state championship. When you get done, regardless of winning or losing that game, then I'll listen to what you have to say.
In the meantime, yeah.
Friday, February 21, 2014
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.
"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?
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.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
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 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.
Why indeed?
LOOKING DEEPER
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.
Thursday, February 20, 2014
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.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
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.
Tuesday, February 18, 2014
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.
Thursday, February 6, 2014
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."
"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
"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
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."
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
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! |
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
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."
Tuesday, January 28, 2014
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.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
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.
Thursday, January 23, 2014
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.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
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.
Tuesday, January 14, 2014
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.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
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.
Friday, January 10, 2014
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.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)