Monday, April 29, 2013


I'm thankful I was born healthy and have lived most of my life in good health. It's only been the last four years that my body has deteriorated. It was a good fifty-three year run. I know from personal experience what it is to be born with a sickness. My daughter Lou Ann was born with Spina Bifida and was ill every day in her life.

I'm thankful to be living well. I have worked all my life to be where I am today. I don't live in a castle and I don't have millions of dollars in the bank. On some people's scale I guess I might be referred to as a failure. Still, I am living better today than at any time in my life...except for when I was in Great Britain. England to be exact. I haven't exuded saintly qualities during all my days, but I also never succumbed to skulduggery or other heinous acts, so it doesn't have anything to do with 'deserving' or 'undeserving'. Sometimes we DO get what we work for.

I'm thankful for having been born in Texas. From the looks of our planet today....God put us smack dab in the middle of the right place to be.

I'm thankful that in July of this year I will be a bonafide published author.

I'm thankful for the intelligence to be a writer.

I'm thankful for family...friends...job...home...and still relatively good health.

Just thought I would take a moment and reflect on my good fortune.

Thursday, April 25, 2013

Ladies? Do you really care? I mean...really?

Washington state Governor Jay Inslee signed a bill that bans gender-specific words in state laws, calling for legislation to be re-written that have terms like freshman and penmanship in them. Instead of freshman, it will be first year student. Instead of penmanship it will be handwriting. Fisherman will be changed to fisher and journeyman plumber to journey-level plumber. And the list is quite extensive. Mankind doesn't change because they all agreed it means man and woman. That was the only thing I read that made sense.

But, this is not a new phenomenon. This dates back to 1983 when the Federal Government required non gender specific words. Several states have gotten in line and more are getting ready to do this.

Then, another Democrat opens their pie-hole to reveal how clueless they are. Democratic state Senator Jeanne Kohl-Welles, the sponsor of the bill, was quoted as saying, "This was a much larger effort than I had envisioned."

YA THINK!!!???

What you people are doing is changing the language that has existed for centuries...and for what? To make women feel more included? I got news for ya, you already are included. Hell, you people run this planet and you don't even know it. Why do you think we men don't rate your IQ all that highly? Granted, we still barely think outside the cave, much less the box; but women don't know how good they have it these days and it's frikkin' stupid of you.

You can name any large corporation down to the smallest business. If they have a secretary...YEAH, I SAID IT...that's who's running things. If they have an (whiny voice) administrative assistant...that's who's running things. If it weren't for women, our national corporate empire would crumble within 24 hours...and I may be being conservative on the time frame.

If it weren't for women, do you think us men would be anywhere near as civilized as we are? (And I use the term 'civilized' merely in context of the blog) Do you think we would bathe? Do you think we would care about our clothes? Do you think we would WORK???!!! Give me a break.

You guys rule the world, but you can't get past being a Drama Queen long enough to seize the day! (And, I'm talking collectively, here. None of this, however, pertains to the women in MY life. They are all perfect)  See what I mean? We're even afraid of you.

Oh yeah, we're bigger and stronger and more prone to violence so in that regard you are the weaker sex.  But, when you decide to lock your knees and refuse us the one thing we crave more than life itself, we wilt before your power. Wars have been fought...thousands have died....tens of thousands wounded...over what's between one woman's legs. And you think you have no POWER??!! Puh-leeeeeeze.

But, that's not enough. NO! Now, you must change the language and squeeze our manhood even more, when it's always been imprisoned by you in the first place. It isn't necessary to change the language. You have nothing else to prove. You've gotten your vote, you've burned your bras, you've gotten into Congress, you are in the highest levels of the government and you RULE EVERY HOUSEHOLD IN THE WORLD. I beg least leave us our language. It's all we've got left.

Saturday, April 20, 2013

What Breeds REAL Homegrown Terrorism?

These two Chechen monsters who bombed the Boston Marathon and killed the MIT Police officer, and wounding another, were not homegrown terrorists. They were 'Islamist' terrorists from another country who were radicalized by as yet unknown persons. But, since one of them left our country for a six month period, it can be speculated that he received his 'bomb' and 'terrorist' training while there.

The liberal media was quick to point fingers at possible right wing extremists, tea party members, or anyone domestic that didn't agree with their socialistic and big government agendas. When everything started to come out in the wash, they ended up with large amounts of egg on their faces.

I am not so naive as to believe there are no domestic terrorist types in this country. There are. Not only that, there always will be John Wilkes Boothe types in our nation who allow their common sense to be overridden by their emotions, religion, and personal political stances.

But, what drives these people? I take Timothy McVeigh as a case in point. McVeigh and Terry Nichols were homegrown, American men who committed one of the most heinous crimes in recent memory. Using a truck filled with fertilizer, they blew up a federal building in Oklahoma City, killing many men, women and children. Their method was evil, vile and both got what they deserved. Having said that, the reasoning they used to strike back at the government was well placed. How they struck back was not.

Yesterday, April 19, marked the anniversary of the end to the Branch Davidian stand-off in Waco, Texas. For 51 days the United States Government trampled and destroyed the civil rights of more than 70 American citizens and, in the end, ultimately had the biggest hand in killing the vast majority of them.

The raid began with horse trailers coming up to their compound and several agents dressed in black and armed to the teeth attempting to storm it. What they got in return was a full blown counter-attack that saw the demise and severe wounding of several ATF agents, as well as some of the Branch Davidians. What followed was a disgusting display of governmental power over its citizens...who were supposed to be innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. It is a well-known fact that the leader of the Davidians, David Koresh, would often go into Waco unattended and that it would have been easy to capture him there. But the government decided to go 'jack-booted storm trooper' on them and got their heads handed to them in return. The 51 day spectacle was gut wrenching to watch and it made me extremely angry at our government and distrustful of their intentions, regardless of what capacity. Since that time, I have been more aware of my rights as a citizen and have studied what the government can and cannot do to us per the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

It was the second amendment that allowed the Davidians to have the weaponry to defend themselves against an unlawful and unconstitutional action on their property...even if it WAS against the United States Government. Granted, the Davidians did have fully automatic weapons that were against the law and they should have been dealt with. But, they should have been dealt with according to the law and in a way that did not jeapordize the lives of everyone living in that compound. Because they weren't dealt with in that manner, but in a manner more befitting the Nazis of old, they had every right to defend themselves with whatever means was at their disposal. David Koresh was an evil person and needed to be taken into custody, but not at the expense of his civil rights and due process. Since the government decided that wasn't necessary, no matter how bad Koresh was...they were worse.

When our government deems it plausible and acceptable to trash the very documents this country was founded upon and put their foot on the necks of citizens and ultimately kill them without due process or any inclination to protect their rights as citizens, the government has no one else to blame but itself when home grown terrorists rise up to fight back. It would be best for them to look in the mirror and assess themselves and their actions, before black listing every group they think are 'subversive'. If they were more interested in protecting us, rather than ruling us, I truly believe the number of 'subversive' groups that exist in this country would dwindle down.

It is not un-patriotic to criticize the goverment when it is wrong. It was wrong in 1993. And it hasn't done much right since that time. Home grown terrorism is mainly a product of the government's own actions against its people. Eventually, a few get very tired of it.

Sunday, April 7, 2013

Monkeys Prove There is No God...So Says an Atheist Scientist

From an ABC News notes in BOLD print:
One of the world's leading primatologists (notice he's a primatologist, not a human behaviourist)  believes his decades of research with apes answers a question that has plagued humans since the beginning of time. I don't remember being 'plagued' over a question.

Are we moral because we believe in God, or do we believe in God because we are moral? I thought this was about monkey behavior and not about 'we' humans. Silly me.

Frans de Waal argues in his latest book that the answer is clearly the latter. Clearly. The seeds for moral behavior preceded the emergence of our species by millions of years, and the need to codify that behavior so that all would have a clear blueprint for morality led to the creation of religion, he argues. Since he is millions of years old...and was there...he should know.

Most religious leaders would argue it's the other way around (Imagine that!): Our sense of what's moral came from God, and without God there would be no morality. Case in point: Has any parent EVER had to teach their child to act badly? No, they must be taught to act otherwise. We are born with selfishness at our core. Selflessness must be taught. So, if there were no's selfish nature would not be restrained.

But this is a column about science, not religion (Really? I believe Frans de idiot Waall made it so), so it's worth asking if de Waal's own research supports his provocative conclusions, documented in the newly released book, "The Bonobo and the Atheist." (Wouldn't waste my money)

Just the title answers one question: he is an atheist (So, what other unbiased conclusion could he have possibly reached?), although he disparages the efforts of other atheists to convince the public to abandon all beliefs in the supernatural. Religion serves its purpose, he argues, especially through the rituals and body of beliefs that help strengthen community bonds. (How fair of him)

De Waal is a biology professor at Emory University and director of the Living Links Center at the Yerkes Primate Center in Atlanta. He is widely regarded as one of the world's top experts on primatology (not human behavior), especially the sometimes violent chimpanzees and their fun-loving sexually obsessed cousins, the bonobos, sometimes called the forgotten apes because they have become so rare.

Through years of research all over the world, de Waal has reached these basic conclusions: Chimps and bonobos and other primates clearly show empathy with others who are suffering. They have a sense of fairness, they take care of those in need, and they will share what they have with others who are less fortunate. (Elephants do the same. Dogs do the same. Cats do the same. Etc etc etc.  Animals were created by God, and possess a knowledge of him we could never understand. The Bible reveals that all of the animal kingdom obeys him, at least to their mental capacity.)

Those and other human-like characteristics, that have been clearly documented by other researchers as well, at least show they have some grasp of morality. (No, they don't. The good doctor has confused instinctual behavior and equated it with a human trait...morality. Animals are not moral, that's why they are animals) It doesn't mean they are moral -- especially chimps, which can be very violent -- but they have the "basic building blocks" for morality, de Waal argues. (Okay, doctor, are they moral or are they not moral. You can't have it both ways. What they have is the basic building blocks for behaving according to their they were created.)

Chimps, he says, "are ready to kill their rivals. They sometimes kill humans, or bite off their face." So he says he is "reluctant to call a chimpanzee a 'moral being.'" (Well, I'm glad he's 'reluctant')

"There is little evidence that other animals judge the appropriateness of actions that do not directly affect themselves," he writes. Yet, "In their behavior, we recognize the same values we pursue ourselves. (He's a treasure trove of contradictions! First, there's little evidence to prove his theory...then in the same sentence they have the same values we pursue. I know what, doc...blindfold yourself and throw darts at any ole hypothesis that grabs ya and stick to it.)

"I take these hints of community concern as a sign that the building blocks of morality are older than humanity, and we don't need God to explain how we got to where we are today," he writes. (So, we write a WHOLE book on 'hints' and plant your flag on the statement that the building blocks...whatever the hell that means...of morality are older than humanity itself. You can't make this stuff up...well...I guess you can.)

Our sense of morality, he continues, comes from within, not from above. Many activities he has witnessed show that apes feel guilt and shame, which also suggest a sense of morality. Why should anyone feel guilty if they don't know the difference between right and wrong? (Aha! And who established what was right and what was wrong? The apes? I guess we need to start a church that's called The First Right Holy Apostolic Pentecostal Catholic Methodical Lutheranistic Church of the Chimpanzee!!!!, since it was the apes that genetically implanted this into us when we finally fell out of the tree and broke our tails off and stood up straight.)

For example, Lody, a bonobo in the Milwaukee County Zoo, bit the hand -- apparently accidentally -- of a veterinarian who was feeding him vitamin pills. (BAD Lody!!!)

"Hearing a crunching sound, Lody looked up, seemingly surprised, and released the hand minus a digit," de Waals writes. (I would have shot Lody!!)

Days later the vet revisited the zoo and held up her bandaged left hand. Lody looked at the hand and retreated to a distant corner of the enclosure where he held his head down and wrapped his arms around himself, signs of both grief and guilt. (There you have it. Lody is the sign we have ALL been looking for. Next time I bite somebody's finger off I'll just pray to Lody for forgiveness.)

And here's the amazing part. About 15 years later the vet returned to the zoo and was standing among a crowd of visitors when Lody recognized her and rushed over. He tried to see her left hand, which was hidden behind the railing. The vet lifted up her incomplete hand and Lody looked at it, then at the vet's face, then back at the hand again. (Okay, the monkey looked at the hand...then at the vet...then back at the hand...MAN, I'm on pins and needles waiting to read what happened next!!)

Was he showing shame and grief? (No, it was showing memory. Animals have memory.) Or was it fear of a possible reprisal? (Now, that's possible. I bet in the wild if he bit another ape's finger off he would have gotten his ass kicked right away. That's what is going through his mind. Where's my ass whuppin'???)The ape at least realized he had done something wrong, de Waal argues, showing the seeds of moral behavior. (No he didn't you idiot. Animals don't know the difference between right and wrong. They DO know by conditioned responses and instinct when things happen that imbalance the natural order of things.)

There are scores of other examples showing deep grief over a dying colleague and compassion for a mother ape that has lost her young and care for young apes that have lost their parents. All those things are signs of what we would call unmistakable morality, if the subjects were humans, not apes. (I'm sorry, but grief and morality are two entirely different things. When a young member or a leader of the pack, herd, pride or whatever, dies...animals react instinctually. When young die, it is a danger to the continuation of the group. When a leader or elder dies, it is a danger to the group's cohesiveness. They aren't grieving. They are recognizing danger and responding instinctively.)

"Some say animals are what they are, whereas our own species follows ideals, but this is easily proven wrong," de Waals writes. "Not because we don't have ideals, but because other species have them too." (The definition of 'ideal' is a conception of something in its perfection. Animals are devoid of reasoning power beyond the most simplistic. DEVOID. They have no concept of perfection. They eat, pro-create, crap and pee. Some can be domesticated, others can't. That's it. Animals do not have ideals.)

When an ape expresses grief or guilt or compassion he is living out the blueprint for survival in a culture that is becoming more complex, and possibly more dangerous. He is acting from within, not because he believes in God who defined right and wrong. De Waal puts it this way:

"The moral law is not imposed from above or derived from well-reasoned principles; rather it arises from ingrained values that have been there since the beginning of time." (I love how scientists know, without a friggin' doubt, what existed since the beginning of time. Hell, let's just worship ole De Waal since he was there.)

He cites at least one instance when those "ingrained values" led to action among bonobos that seems like a divine solution to a nasty problem that confronts human society around the world. (Animals don't have values!!!!  Has this guy ever watched Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom??? I think not.)

Bonobos, according to his research, know how to avoid war. (Here we go....)

Over and over he has seen neighboring bonobo colonies gather near a common border as the males prepare to do battle. Ape warfare can indeed be violent. But when the bonobos are ready to fight, the females often charge across the boundary and start making out with both genders on the other side.

Pretty soon, the war has degenerated to what we humans would call an orgy, after which both sides are seen grooming each other and watching their children play.

So an orgy is moral? Maybe these guys understand it really is better to make love, not war. (Okay. Forget everything I've said. I like the way these guys operate.)

Saturday, April 6, 2013

A Note to Teachers: We'll Try This Again

A few changes have been made to my earlier post about this subject to fine tune the message:

Teachers are paid by the 'public' or by parents through tuition, books, and boarding costs, OR by  government loans (taxpayer money) and grants (taxpayer money). Plus, name me a college or university that gets NO government assistance (which is through taxes) for research, professorship studies, campus improvements, etc etc.  Colleges and universities don't print their own money. They get their money by 'charging' for services. And, whoever pays for those services, are the people teachers work for. Just like me, paychecks are paid by somebody else with the money to put into them. WHOEVER puts money in the bank so your paycheck won't bounce, is who you FRIGGIN' WORK FOR. Even though I answer to my supervisor and to his supervisor and that person's supervisor, all the way up to the CEO, none of them put the money in the bank to cover my paycheck. So, when it comes to 'teachers', on ANY level, in some form or fashion, their paycheck comes from 'we the people'.  Everybody has a boss but God. Now, these 'funds' come from a broad spectrum of people. White people, black people, latino people, asian people...they all pay into the kitty. We come from different backgrounds, have different beliefs, different cultural habits, different political stances, etc. We are Christian, Buddhist, Taoist, Hindu, Muslim, atheist, agnostic et al. We are straight and gay. We are married or single. Many of us have children, and some don't. We are blue collar, white collar and then there are those who just suck off the system. Nevertheless, the point I'm making is that you can't cookie-cut and say this is what the American 'fund provider' looks like, acts like, and believes like. The varieties of 'fund' providers that are out there are limitless.

So, for some odd, inexplainable reason...there are teachers out there who feel like it is their duty to bring their own personal political, religious and cultural views into the classroom to exploit their position and power over students to indoctrinate them to their views. Or, they intentionally warp the syllabus to meet their own agenda and stop becoming a teacher; transforming themselves into some kind of saviour of truth. These are teachers we don't need as a society. They should be shown the door. Permanently.

For example, I can't walk into a meeting concerning a highly technological subsea device and say, "Today, we will not pay any attention to API Standards, ISO Standards or any recommended practices by the industry at large. Today, we make our equipment out of tongue depressors." No, I have to abide by the rules and regulations of my industry and can't bring my OWN personal belief system into the equation. Lives are stake. And no less so are lives at stake in a classroom. It isn't life and death, but it is the shaping of a life's mind that is, and it is no less important. But, teachers don't have the right to shape that mind according to their own personal beliefs or political persuasion. Like me, they should have to stick with the program, whether they think it's good or bad. Otherwise, they should go to work for a fast food joint and keep their mouths shut. There are many teachers out there who think they aren't answerable to anyone.

The Florida Atlantic University instructor who asked students to step on the word “Jesus” has been placed on administrative leave on the same day that the high school teacher in South Carolina who stomped on an American flag in front of his students way back in December finally resigned. Why is that? Because these two conveniently forgot about all the differences that exist within the 'fund' provider base that pays their salary. As a lot of teachers these days, they mounted their white horses of 'I'm Better Than You' and 'I Know More Than You' and charged where even angels may fear to tread. There isn't enough room on this blog to mention how many other errant teachers are out there that have made the news lately. One was teaching that 9/11 was our fault. Another was teaching that terrorists are freedom fighters. It goes on and on.

There are many 'fund' providers out there who are Christian. They don't pay for their children to be told they have to stomp on the name of their deity. They pay for their children to be educated apart from that teacher's slanted view on things religious. There are many 'fund' providers out there who are patriotic and who love this country and everything it stands for...right or wrong. They pay for their children to be educated apart from that teacher's slanted view on things national.

I can't help but chuckle to myself when I read about 'educators' going off on some kind of anti-Christian or anti-Jesus rant like this person at FAU. They aren't so tough. If they were, then at times they might demand their students write the name of Muhammed on a piece of paper and stomp on that. How do you think that would go over? No, I don't think matter how insane...would want nearly a billion muslims reading the latest fatwa about it being their duty to kill you the first chance they got. My advice to this 'teacher' at FAU is next time tell your students to write the name of every prophet, every god and every religion on a piece of paper and stomp on THAT. If you're going to insult somebody...go all the way, you gutless worm.

My message to teachers would be this. Teach your reading, writing and arithmetic. In civics, teach how our government is run. In history, don't re-write it to your personal pleasure....just teach it. But, leave your personal, liberal, god-hatin', religious hatin', country hatin', capitalist hatin' crap at the house. We, the 'fund' providers, don't want you teaching your values (or lack thereof) to our children. That's a parent's job. And if you don't think the parents are doing a good job? Keep quiet about it in the classroom...because that's not any of your business.