Farrakhan and Islam – a cancer


Islam is a peaceful religion. Just ask a Muslim or any liberal mind-numbed sheep. Louis Farrakhan is the head of the Nation of Islam. At a meeting last week, in a baptist church, the head of the Nation of Islam said he’s looking for 10,000 fearless men who will “rise up and kill those who kill us; stalk them and kill them and let them feel the pain of death that we are feeling!” Does that sound peaceful to you? farrakhan You have to read the entire rant, linked below, to appreciate the irony. And you know who he’s wanting these fearless men to kill? I quote, “white folks.”

According to CDC numbers from 2011, 42.5 percent of blacks who died, age 15-24 of both sexes, died from being murdered. Murder was the #1 cause of death. For all blacks age 25-34, homicide was still the #1 cause of death, but it dropped down to 25.7 percent. Still over a quarter of all deaths. To see the numbers for yourself, scroll down to the middle of page 35 in the CDC report cited below.

Those numbers are incredibly sad, but the truth is that it’s black people who are killing black people. Even a far left pundit like Juan Williams makes that clear. Williams said. “No. 1 cause of death, young black men 15 to 34 — murder. Who’s committing the murder? Not police. Other black men.” From 1980 through 2008, 93 percent of black homicide victims were killed by other blacks. The FBI report for 2013 still shows that 90% of blacks murdered, were murdered by other blacks.

So Mr Farrakhan, who is it you want your 10,000 fearless men to kill? You are a cancer on your religion and your race.

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/08/04/farrakhan-we-must-rise-up-and-kill-those-who-kill-us-stalk-them-and-kill-them/
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/LCWK5_2011.pdf
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/aug/24/juan-williams/juan-williams-no-1-cause-death-african-americans-1/
http://www.politifact.com/florida/article/2015/may/21/updated-look-statistics-black-black-murders/

Gay Marriage – When the Dust Settles


I’m a libertarian. By my definition of libertarian, it’s none of my business who you love or who you want to marry. This ridiculous fight over the meaning of the word marriage is as much the fault of the right as the left. Gay marriage isn’t going to hurt “traditional” marriage. It’s traditional divorce that’s causing the problem. Gay marriage is just as likely to end in traditional divorce, so have at it. If you love someone, and want to make a life commitment, call it whatever you like.

I’m not particularly religious, but the constitution is clear that religion is a special case. constitution It’s protected by the first amendment, not restricted, as some people seem to believe. The very first sentence in the amendment is:

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

That is the only place in the constitution where you’ll find the word religion. Notice it doesn’t say Christianity or Islam. It just says religion. It clearly states that the government can not create or endorse its own religion, or prohibit Americans from practicing their religion.

Sexual preference is not a religion. It’s not protected by the first amendment, or any other part of the constitution. Sex appears once in the constitution, in the nineteenth amendment. This amendment is about your sex not being used to deny you the right to vote. It’s got nothing to do with sexual preference.

What bothers me about the whole LGBT issue is the lack of tolerance for other people’s beliefs on both sides. Regardless, one thing is clear; one person’s sexual preference should not trump another person’s religious beliefs. My definition of libertarian lets people do whatever they want as long as they’re not hurting others. Forcing someone to violate their religious beliefs is hurting them.

If you want to have a gay marriage have one, but you should not be allowed to force some member of a religion’s clergy to marry you. Especially if that person’s religious beliefs mean he or she is committing a sin. gaymarriage Especially when there are priests, preachers, ministers, parsons, and judges who will be glad to marry you.

It’s not the fight for equal rights that’s causing the problem. It’s contentious spiteful activism that’s driving this LGBT conflict, of which gay marriage is a small part. You have the court ordered right to gay marriage now, as you should. And there are people who are willing and able to help you. There are clergy willing to marry you, bakers willing to make you wedding cakes, photographers willing to take your wedding pictures, and venues who will be happy to host your celebration.

If the LGBT community persists in trying to force their right to gay marriage, to violate other people’s religious beliefs, they are the problem. They are the ones who are being intolerant. They are the ones creating the conflict. They are the ones who should be condemned for their actions. Wait for the dust to settle and we’ll see who’s really interested in tolerance.

Changing Minds


etch-a-sketch While I was coming back from the shed this morning, trying to remember why I went to the shed in the first place, I realized my mind is changing as I get older. When I was younger my mind was like a pencil and a tablet. I could write memories on that tablet and they were almost indelible. Now my mind is more like an etch-a-sketch. Not only is it harder to write, but I keep shaking my damn head!

Indiana RFRA Hysteria


The Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration act is a relatively small piece of legislation. It’s five pages long, but the text of the law fits in three pages. Even so, the people getting their shorts in a wad over how the law promotes hate and discrimination, aren’t willing to read it for themselves. RFRA They take the lies of liberal special interest groups and the liberal media’s interpretation of the law as gospel, and lose their freaking minds.

All legislation is encoded in legalese. This law as a whole is referred to in the senate as Chapter 9, Religious Freedom Restoration. I’m not a lawyer, but I can read, and I’ll do my best to break this down for you one section at a time. There are eleven sections in the law.

Sec. 1 is about what the law applies too. That’s all other government laws and regulations.

Sec. 2 is about what it takes for a law or regulation to be exempt from this law. It requires another state law to explicitly exempt that law or regulation.

Sec. 3 defines “establishment clause” and “granting” for the purposes of this law, and then explains their relationship to the law. The “establishment clause” is the part of the 1st amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the sections of the Indiana state constitution dealing with religion. Granting means granting.

Sec. 4 explains what “demonstrates” means in one sentence of legalese. It means demonstrates.

Sec. 5 explains what “exercise of religion” means in one sentence of legalese. It means exercise of religion.

Still no mention of sexual orientation, discrimination, hate, or any other terms that would enrage liberals. Well, unless you count religion.

Sec. 6 explains what “governmental entity” means. It means any part of the state government, but it’s got the weasel words “or any other similar entity established by law” in there.

Sec. 7 explains what “person” means. It means any person or group of people who are not a “government entity”.

Now that we’re two-thirds of the way through the legalese, we get to the actual law part of the law.

Sec. 8 says the government shouldn’t be allowed to keep a person from exercising their religion, even if it means going against some other laws or regulations. There’s one exception to this. That’s if the government has a compelling interest, and keeping people from exercising their religion is the least restrictive way to satisfy that compelling interest. More weasel words.

Sec. 9 says a person whose exercise of religion is restricted may use this law as a defense.

Sec. 10 says if a government entity is restricting a person’s exercise of religion they can be sued.

Sec. 11 says the law isn’t intended to be used against persons.

Read it yourself. The state of Indiana provided a link to the text of the law. Then quit whining about all the things this law is going to do to discriminate against people in the state of Indiana. The words discriminate and deny don’t occur in the law. RFRAMoreThanCupcakes-855x1024 This law was written so that the government can’t force people to do things that violate their personal religious beliefs, period.

One other word not mentioned in this law is “Christian”. Neither is any other specific religion, or practice that can be construed as a religion, mentioned in this law. This law is written for all the people of Indiana, not just Christians.

I’d be ashamed if my only knowledge of an issue this big, came from what I read in the mainstream media, or from viewing info-graphics, like the one to the right, from special interest groups who have a clear anti-religious agenda, and a real flair for hyperbole. Stop being sheep. Get the facts and think for yourself.

Proposed M855 Ban


This is an open letter to the ATF that’s copied to Congressman Messer and Senators Coats and Donnelly of Indiana.


ATF,

It’s difficult to be respectful when your organization clearly has no respect for the constitution. The continual back and forth between your organization’s gun control motivated prohibitions, and the resourcefulness and innovation of the firearms industry, is frustrating and expensive. And pointless.

m855Now you’ve decided to take M855, one of the most common rounds available for the modern sporting rifle, and ban it for law enforcement safety reasons because it can also be used in a handgun. You keep trying to find ways to get rid of the “black rifle” and you keep failing. This is because the informed American public are not interested in gun control.

Law enforcement the world over would be safer if law-abiding citizens were armed and able to defend themselves and others. Try using logic instead of knee jerk emotion, and show the American people you actually believe in safety, instead of gun control. I’ve copied this email to all of my federal representatives. Respectively, I hope your organization is prepared to choke on what you’ve bitten off.

Sincerely,

Jerry Nowlin
nowlin@nowlin.com

CC: Congressman Luke Messer, Senator Dan Coats, Senator Joe Donnelly

SPAM – Not The Good Kind


I love SPAM. It’s good fried for sandwiches, cubed with scrambled eggs, or chunked up in the crock pot with beans. There are many ways to enjoy SPAM.

Then there’s the other SPAM. The kind that fills email inboxes and causes important messages to be lost. That SPAM I hate.

I decided to save every email message I got on February 12th to see just how bad the SPAM problem is. I received a total of 353 email messages in that 24 hour period. Of those 353 emails, I read and/or responded to 34. Those 34 were personal, business related, or emails I solicited as updates on news or other events. Thirty four messages is less than 10% of the total email I received. No wonder people lose messages in the crowd.

I saved some of the more colorful or crude messages. I don’t read these kinds of emails. Just the subject line and the sender are enough to cause smiles or shudders of disgust. Some of my favorites from the 12th are:

somespam

  • I’m not sure what hands and oral have to do with each other. I probably don’t want to know.
  • I live in a trailer. I don’t have a garage and nobody would replace my windows, even if I had inquired.
  • I’m not really interested in pleasing the ladies, and clearly neither is Jay-Z.
  • What if I don’t speak Spanish, and I don’t, although I recognize a few words?
  • I’m not interested in tumors, in rats or anything else.
  • Circle back to that trailer thing and imagine me renting a private jet.
  • No hanky panky needed here.
  • I haven’t shaved in over 40 years and “Suck Less” is hardly a ringing endorsement.
  • Don’t need a Hi from someone I never heard of and whose name I can’t pronounce.
  • Why would you open an email with foulness as the subject?
  • Non-sentences are not intriguing to me.
  • Unsolicited tips on dropping flab aren’t going to lure me in, and what’s with all the hyphens?
  • I can’t imagine why sharpening clerks often, or ever, would be a selling point.
  • And of course the email in a language that requires a whole new character set!

I hate the bad kind of SPAM!

The Internet and Net Neutrality


This is an open letter to Congressman Messer and Senators Coats and Donnelly of Indiana, my representatives at the federal level.

Dear Sirs,

I’ve been using the internet since I was at Purdue back in the early 70s. These days the internet is how I go to work every morning, without having to get in my truck and drive somewhere. It’s how I keep track of my kids and grandkids. The internet is how I get my news and weather. The internet is how I communicate with my family, my friends, my business associates, and my state and federal representatives.

internetThe internet has always been free to the average user, once they get access, and it still is. It’s access you pay for, not the internet itself. The federal government stopped its last major subsidy of the internet back in 1995, so don’t even try to tell me my taxes are paying for it. Free enterprise is paying for it. In this country and most of the world, communications companies, computer companies, and internet service providers, own and operate all the phone lines and computer networks that make up the internet, not the federal government.

If you think feedback from citizens over issues with gun control and the 2nd amendment are huge, you’re in for a big surprise with the internet. There are only a few million of us hard-core 2nd amendment advocates out here fighting against gun control, but there are 100 million Americans who own guns. To put it in terms politicians can understand, that’s a lot of voters.

While internet access is not mentioned in the constitution, and it’s not an explicit right, almost every citizen of the United States, at least those able to type on a keyboard or a tap on a touch screen, has access to the internet. That’s a lot more than 100 million voters. If you mess with the internet, you’ll be hearing from every single one of them, and a lot of them won’t be nearly as polite as me.

DO NOT let the federal government start to tax people for using the internet, or restrict what can go over it. Oppose the attempt by the FCC to impose “net neutrality” on the internet. You can be sure there’s nothing neutral about their proposal. The internet already works just fine, mainly because the government isn’t in control. The government has never made anything better by sticking their nose in it. Don’t make the mistake of thinking American’s will forgive you, if you let this FCC proposal go unopposed.

Sincerely,
Jerry Nowlin
nowlin@nowlin.com

Cold Is Better – At the Creek


I know it sounds apocryphal, but when it’s winter, cold is better. Today it was 22° in the morning, but then the temperature got up into the 50’s this afternoon, and all the while the sun was shining bright. It’s nice to be able to open the windows, but it’s still annoying when we get these warm spells in January and February.

First there’s the muck. What was frozen solid turf is now a ½ inch of slippery mud on top of hard icy earth. There are only two modes of perambulation available. You either squish or you slip. On fairly level ground the squishing soon covers your feet and ankles in cold splatters of mud. On any kind of slope you need a walking stick or trees to grab, so you can avoid falling on the seat of your pants. And don’t get me started on wiping off the dogs before you let them in the house.

Second there’s the false euphoria that makes you let in the fresh air and take off sweatshirts in anticipation of spring. You’re just setting yourself up for disappointment, if not a cold. The depression is palpable when it gets back down into the teens at night, and the furnace kicks back on.

I’d prefer it stays cold until the real spring gets here. It’s Indiana for crying out loud. If you want warm in February move to Florida!

Still, I got some pruning work done along the power lines, and I got some nice pictures from sunrise to sunset. It was a beautiful day at the creek.

Down the Rabbit Hole – Big Lie


An article in the news today is headlined: The Big Lie: 5.6% Unemployment People will read this Gallup article and wonder why they never heard of the big lie before. People will read it and think the writer exaggerates. It’s not an exaggeration. The job numbers reported in this country are a big lie.

jobline

I finally have a job. I’m back in the work force. But five years ago I’d never have considered that I’d be thrilled to have a job working half-time, for less than a fourth of what I was making then. I mean thrilled, because this is the first job I’ve been able to find since 2011, that uses the skills I honed over almost 40 years. I’m still part of that big lie, but I’m one of the lucky ones. I’m lucky to have a part-time job.

Don’t look down your nose at people on public assistance. Don’t disparage struggling citizens who need help, in what the media and the administration claim are good times. Instead look to the liars in Washington. The liars who expect us to be thrilled with the crumbs the political class leave on the table. If the news is bad, fix the problem. Don’t whitewash the bad news. Meanwhile the truth of unemployment continues to eat away at American society.

Should we blame the sycophantic media? Yes, but don’t forget the administration that tells them what to report. I don’t care what party they belong to. Don’t elect the liars to office ever again. And remember, don’t believe what you read in the papers, hear on the radio, or watch on your TV. Be willing to work to get at the truth. Unemployment isn’t the only big lie. There are lots of lies down that rabbit hole.

The Pure Science Boondoggle


I love science. I worked for a research group at Purdue for seven years. I did everything from digging holes for experiments in the field, to programming statistical analysis and complex computer models. We were doing erosion research. Stuff that had real-world practical applications. There are scads of scientists doing research with real-world applications today, and then there is “pure science.”

I value the results of pure science. There are many serendipitous discoveries from pure science that have changed our world. However, I still cringe when I read papers like “Land Snails as a Diet Diversification Proxy during the Early Upper Palaeolithic in Europe.” It’s a fascinating study. They’ve done some amazing analysis. My question is, what’s the point other than to maintain jobs for scientists? There are myriad pure science research projects that bring the same question to mind.

snails

How much grant money and researcher time was spent on a study to only suggest “different chronological patterns of resource intensification and diet broadening along the Upper Palaeolithic in the Mediterranean basin.” I think too much time and money. How much more useful would those resources have been if they were focused on research for ways to produce potable water, when there are so many parts of the world where they don’t have enough. Or maybe on advanced battery technology, one of the limitations on energy sources that depend on the ever capricious wind and sun.

And as most researchers are want to do these days, this paper manages to throw in some political buzz. The current push for “sustainability” is admirable, but still political. The snail paper throws in this little paragraph in the discussion section:

“On the other hand, the biometric analysis of I. alonensis shell widths and heights indicates a narrow selection pattern of land snail sizes. The comparative analysis between the archaeological specimens and modern land snails raised in the laboratory suggest that most of the gathered individuals were older than one year, and those younger than 45 weeks were not gathered at all. Such a strong age selection pattern suggest sustainable exploitation of I. alonensis based on knowledge of its reproductive cycle.”

So this research found evidence to “suggest” that humans in Europe, in the early upper palaeolithic, were worried about the sustainability of the snail population? Maybe they just wanted snails large enough to make a mouthful. That’s my suggestion. I find the snail researcher’s suggestion ironic, since other researchers are anxious to blame humans for the extinction of prehistoric animals like the mammoth.

I’d like to see research grants continue to fund pure science. My question is, why can’t it at least be directed to some field of study that applies to current real-world problems, which our planet desperately needs solutions to, instead of speculation on the eating habits of humans who’ve been dead for tens of thousands of years? It can and it should.

Later.