"What do you know?"

I checked a book out of our library recently entitled, “1421, The Year China Discovered America”, by Gavin Menzies.  It is very well written and researched.  He bases his title on many years of research into ancient maps, artifacts and genetic offspring of China, around the world.  I would tend to believe his research, but in K-6, in Ohio, I was taught that Christopher Columbus discovered America on October 12^th, 1492.  I “knew that to be true” for most of my life, since I believed what my teachers taught me.  Such faith.  I have since realized that what we are taught in school is the best guess of the present day society and that what we learn in our place of worship, from its bible,  is the mythology of the age in which it was written and the knowledge of the present day gullible.  One likes to believe what they believe, despite evidence to the contrary.  Scientists wander around our universities believing that the Universe was created when a bit of matter and energy, the size of a pin head, had a “Big Bang” and grew to over fifty billion light years across and is growing larger as the power of our telescopes increases.  I chuckle at this theory today as scientists will in the future.  I think what we “know” may relate to time and what sources we have faith in.

I had a vested interest in the Columbus theory, since I was born on October 12^th, in Columbus, Ohio.  For those of you readers born recently, Columbus Day was celebrated on October 12^th, until 1970, when it was bastardized, to be celebrated on the second Monday of October.  I liked it on the 12^th, when the whole nation celebrated my birthday with me.  Now, ask yourself, what does “discovered” mean?  Well, for Christopher Columbus, it meant bringing news back to his community, Spain, that a place exists that they previously had no knowledge of.  Columbus brought back erroneous information.  He didn’t land in India as he imagined.  He didn’t even land on the main North American Continent.  He landed on islands, off of the continent, in the area of The Bahamas and folks were already living there, so how could he have discovered it?  This sort of discovery is similar to one a young man named Rocco made in 1996.  Taking a Greyhound for a journey from the Bronx to The Midwest, exploring the area, later returning to the Bronx to tell his friends about the strange land and about the strange civilization that he had encountered was indeed a “discovery”.   We shouldn’t further diminish Columbus’s discovery by mentioning that there is fairly well supported theory that Leif Ericson landed on the American Continent as part of a Norse expedition sometime in the 11th century.  And once again, the Native Americans were already there.  I am a native American.  I was born here and so were my folks.  There is a group of Native Americans that our troops drove off of their land centuries ago, but now our government gives their descendants healthcare, a college education, the right to operate casinos in states where gambling is illegal and reserves ground for them.  There is another group of Native Americans, called Mexicans, which our soldiers also drove off of their land centuries ago, but our government has built a fence to keep them from returning and our government’s only gift to them is grief.  Go figure.

So, “What do you know?”  You know what you have been taught or have learned through your own research and if it happens to agree with reality, then it approaches truth.  I think there is damn little of that, but it is certainly worth searching for.  If there is a reason for the search for truth, it is why we came.  Enjoy the journey.

Comments are welcome, Old Buz

Arizona SB 1062

Arizona SB 1062 does not once mention homosexuals or gays.  From the editorials (news) you see and hear, you would guess it does.  To be fair to the bill and its author, Sen. Yarbrough, Republican, it doesn’t specify in any way who is discriminated against.  SB 1062 was voted for successfully along party lines and we are a Republican state.  It is yet to be signed into law by our Governor.  Would you guess that a religious issue would break along party lines?  I would guess that there are about as many Christian Democrats as there are Christian Republicans.

The bill protects the ignorant and gullible religious business owners against discrimination law- suits brought against them for discrimination credited to their religious beliefs.  A simple example of this would be a gun shop owner unwilling to sell a gun to a woman because the clerk’s religion says that women should not be armed.  Or, a drug store may not be willing to sell birth control devices due to the owner’s religious belief that birth control is a sin.  I suppose CVS Drug Stores can refuse to sell cigarettes because they are discriminating against the product, not the customer.   The proposed law would allow a bigoted café owner not to serve someone he suspected of being gay.   Most businesses are in business to make a profit on sales to their customers.  Ancient taboos hopefully would have little effect on these sales.  I don’t recall reading in a bible that there is any person who you may not sell goods to.  The state liquor board will tell a restaurateur not to sell liquor to someone who is drunk, but that seems only reasonable.

Not selling a wedding cake to a homosexual couple seems unreasonable if the state the marriage is taking place in says the marriage is legal and the church the couple belongs to, or a JP, is willing to marry them.  A wedding cake does not a wedding make.  It is like refusing to sell them a light bulb to light the reception room.  It is only the gay sexual act that the baker can possibly object to.  Even if the objection were valid, it’s up to God to do the enforcing, not the merchant.  So, when you get a business license to serve the public …. do just that.  You are not a minister and your business is not a church.  The desired morality in business is honesty.  Stick with that and you will sleep easy.

Jim Crow is dead.  Discrimination by business owners against their customers has long been a cause of action for those who are discriminated against.  If a customer is causing a disturbance or doing harm in a business place, they may be asked to leave without the owner fearing litigation.  This is the law now and altering it would not be an improvement.

Cheers, Old Buz

H.R. 20, "The Government by the People Act"

This title, given by the House Democrats, is a misnomer.  It should be titled, “Government Says Goodbye to the People Act.”  This is not to imply that the “one percenters” who have purchased our democracy are not people, they are.  I am even willing to concede that they are smart people.  Now, back to this bill.  Under its terms a “small donor’s donation” of $100, to a Representative’s campaign fund would be matched on a 6 to 1 basis from a government fund (your tax dollars).  You would get a $100 tax credit for the donation.  So, $700 goes to a campaign fund and $100 in taxes is never collected.  You don’t have to spend a dime after your tax credit in order to see $700 come out of education, healthcare or the warfare fund.

The purpose of this bill is to enable your individual voting dollars to compete with the corporate dollars of the PACs.  As you know, your Supreme Court recently sold our democracy to the highest bidders by deeming that corporations can anonymously donate unlimited dollars to PACs.  If the little people’s donations can rival the corporate donations the hypothesis is that the bill would even the playing field.  Not so.  The small donor’s dollars will be distributed fairly evenly between the right and the left.  PAC dollars will still determine the game.  They are not impacted by H.R. 20.

So who gains if this bill passes?  Well, the radio and TV networks will, of course, with much larger campaign dollars and they are far too large now.  Those running for Congress will gain, because a well-financed campaign is much more fun for the candidate.   Of the 135 co-sponsors of this Congressional bill, only one is a Republican.  U.S. Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C. is the only Republican Congressman who has read the bill.  The other Republicans simply know that they don’t like anything that the Democrats like.  We are dealing with, “Dumb and Dumber” here.  Read the bill.  It is only 36 pages long.  It will put you to sleep, but it is worth your time.  You will see that my first two paragraphs are true.

You could probably write a hundred bills that were intended to give the voters more power in our democracy and perhaps two would work.  H.R.20 isn’t one of the two.  My personal bill would limit each voter’s donation, to each candidate of their choice, to $10.  There would be no corporate or union donations.  They aren’t voters and their shareholders and union members have no say in who gets the government bribes.  The ten dollars would not be tax deductible.  If you would like to see a given person represent you, give them an anonymous ten bucks.  Let your representative be beholden to no one.  Let them use their mind and their conscience to guide their votes and proposals.  The network air time needs to be free and divided based on the number of signatures of voters backing the candidate.  Why should the networks “give” the air time?  Because, it is our air that is being used to deliver their product.  What a good deal for them.  Wouldn’t it be nice if our representatives were in Washington for our benefit?  Wouldn’t it be nice if their purpose was not to fight another political party or benefit a large corporation?  The funny thing is, those corporations would do very well without our government in their back pockets.  They don’t need unfair advantages.  You see, most Americans would like to see our corporations do well in the world.  We work for them.

Cheers, Old Buz

One Shot

In looking at the mass murders and gun insanity that is taking place in present day America, one wonders if there isn’t a way available to limit the loss of innocent lives, without taking away the legitimate use of guns from those who collect them and use them for sport.    The idea here is to stop the lunacy driven massacres, without punishing those not responsible.   That would be good law and the answer to it is making the only legal civilian weapon, single shot.  Let’s see how that would affect the various acceptable gun uses.

Hunting.  When I was a motorcycle dealer, during the sixties, I took a beautiful hunting rifle in trade on a motorcycle.  I am a gun collector and target shooter.  The rifle, a Remington auto-loader, 308 Winchester caliber, with a telescopic scope and beautiful wooden stock, had only been fired six times.  Five times to sight in the scope and one time, hunting, to mistakenly shoot a nine year old boy off of an ATV.  The hunter killed the boy.  Had the hunter been hunting with a single shot rifle and only had one shot to fire, the game would have been carefully stalked, better identified and the single shot would have been placed with far more care, but with this rifle, he still had four more rounds quickly available.  The nine year old he killed would today be considering his retirement and his wife and family’s future.  The hunter might still be hunting, but would be much better at it.  Most hunters would probably agree that without an easy second shot, they would be a far better hunter.  So the single shot could benefit the hunter while limiting his selection of guns.

Home defense.  All of the above applies to home defense as well.  There are far too many loved ones mistakenly injured or killed, in the act of “home defense”.  The defender, with a single shot gun, will place a well-aimed shot at an identified menacing target.  Also, from a gun safety standpoint, a single shot gun would be much harder to mistake for “empty” and cause an unintended discharge.  Many single shot guns have an exposed hammer as an additional warning of their readiness to fire.

Collectors.  It makes little or no difference to a collector, whether a gun in the collection can fire one or twenty rounds.  He or she isn't firing it, other than occasionally on a range, to test it, unless they are a hunter or target shooter, as well as a collector.

 

Target shooting.  I am a target shooter as well as a collector (gun nut).  I formed an NRA club at my high school ROTC range, in the late 50’s.  At that point in history, the NRA was primarily about gun safety, especially on the shooting range and they were very effective..  They were not a political organization or a lobbyist for gun manufacturers.  And, “We liked it that way.”  It would not be a problem for target shooters to reload their firearm after each round fired.  It may cause each round to be more carefully placed on the target.  I would prefer it and I suspect that most who use their gun in timed competition would happily agree to the competition requiring reloading after each shot, in order to ultimately end the mass murders.

Walter Mitty.  Some folks go out and spend two to five thousand dollars on something called an “assault rifle” and dress their small children in “camos”.  They would be the most damaged by a single shot civilian law.  Winning the lottery for them, I suspect, would be actual combat, that they survived, unscathed.  It is the imaginary hero in them who has played a few too many video war games.  A few even see their government as a potential threat that they are armed and ready to defend against.  These assault rifles are not great target rifles.  They have plastic stocks and short barrels and a short sight radius deeming them less accurate.  The assault weapon is not a piece of art or an example of fine craftsmanship.  The finest hunting rifles today are generally bolt action and not particularly good for rapid fire.  The auto loading hand guns pretty well fit the description of the assault rifles.  Large capacity clips, being offered by accessory manufacturers, have no logical use other than sweeping a Safeway parking lot.  There is no rational excuse for producing the large capacity clips.  In 2006 a poll of uniformed British police indicated that 82% did not wish to be armed and they aren't. Most people don’t need to be armed to live their lives.  I suppose the most common reason for “packing” is an irrational fear.  The imaginary warriors and the fearful, need to limit their favorite imagined gun pastime to video games and leave the actual guns at the sporting goods stores.

If tomorrow it were illegal to produce, sell or own a gun, other than a single shot, would the mass murders end?  No, not immediately.  You could require a simple modification to turn any gun now owned into a single shot unit, but not all people presently owning them would comply.  But, these illegal weapons would soon be too expensive and rare to be easily gotten and the homicidal lunatic who commits the mass murders would not so easily obtain them.  They would not be sold at WalMart.  Gun manufacturers and their outlets would have a whole new product market open up with the single shot legal weapon.  Gun legislation can be very effective, but it will take time to eradicate the problem of rapid fire weapons.  Have you recently heard of a silencer being used in a killing, mass or otherwise?  How about a fully automatic, machine gun?  My point is, fifty years after the gun law is implemented, it’s pretty darn effective.  Better background checks would have had little effect on the recent mass killings.  That is not to say that better background checks and psychological help to the mentally ill are not good legislation, but we would do better to limit the tools available for mass murder.   Act today to stop the problems of tomorrow.  Stand for making the rapid loading guns illegal.  It makes sense and it can be done.

Cheers, Old Buz (the gun nut)    

The Ethical Nuclear Missile

I don’t believe that it is reasonable to talk about ethics when it comes to our nuclear missile corps.  To concern yourself with drug abuse or cheating on exams, which is taking place in the Air Force missile silos, is like worrying about a terrorist bomber spitting on the sidewalk of a church before blowing it up.  The folks who spend decades in a nuclear silo are willing, if given the order, to push a button that will murder millions of innocent civilians.  If you don’t believe that this act fits the definition of “International Terrorism”, then read the definition in Chapter 113B of the US Code on the FBI Website.

The main fear of our military should be that some of the folks assigned to this task might not be psychopaths (amoral behavior without empathy or remorse).  You don’t want to have them hesitate before turning the key.  We could switch to a computer operated system, with only our President holding the key.  The problem here, of course, would be a technical failure or the wrong man in office.  A historical example of this would be the Cuban Missile Crisis.  According to Robert McNamara, Sec. of Defense, in the documentary, “The Fog of War”, President Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev calmed things down there, while Curtis LeMay and Fidel Castro were rooting to let the good times roll and destroy the planet.  Now, for one moment consider what would have happened at that time if ego-maniacs like George Bush, Jr. were our president and Putin had control of Russia.  As long as the Nuclear Missiles exist on this planet, the world’s population is subjected to International Terrorism.  The threat itself constitutes terrorism.  Ask yourself, “Why is it OK for the US to present a nuclear threat to the world, when it is not OK for Iran to present one?”  Please don’t answer, “Because Iran would use them”, as you know, we already have.

I sat by the pool at a party with a retired man who spent his Air Force career in a missile site.  I asked him if he was given any psychological testing before being given the assignment.  His answer was, “No”.  Could our military have been dumb enough to have not submitted this man to significant testing before giving him this assignment?  The job requires a psychopath in order to expect him or her to carry out the assignment.  I mean, to sit there and contemplate the act, for decades, of pushing the button and killing millions, requires a very special person.  I did not throw him in the pool, and then drown him.  I decided … that was God’s job.

So, you live in a democracy.  What are we going to do about this lunacy?  Are we willing to support it, while skimping on Head Start?  Hell yes we are.  “Take your place on the great mandala ...” – Peter Yarrow.   Do you have any comments?

Cheers, Old Buz