Gun control, Executive Orders and the second amendment

Hello everybody!  How is everyone doing this week?  Normally I try and keep the mood light, and try and have some fun and hopefully make you laugh as you think.  Unfortunately, this topic is everywhere, and with the recent tragedies, there is no way to make light of it without coming across as a real dickhead.  Gun rights issues are fast becoming a sore topic across the country and all forms of media.  And the rest of the world is watching us to see what we do, and how we handle the issue.  I know that many other people who have a larger following, and more influence, have already spoken their piece on the topic, and that pro gun control is normally a Liberal issue, while anti gun control is a Conservative talking point.  I feel that I may offer a slightly different view point from either side, so I am going to attempt to write what I hope is a rational and thought-provoking article based on some of the statements that I have been hearing from people in the community.

A little side note here.  Even before I actually decided to write on this topic, I knew it was a divisive one.  I did not truly understand how difficult a subject it is to research.  There are statistics everywhere, but as they say, they nice thing about statistics is that you can make them mean anything you want. Also, there has been very little research actually done on guns and gun violence.  Yes the actual hard numbers are there, but what lead to the shootings, how many were at multiple shootings at the same location, how many were done by people with mental health issues, how many were truly accidental, how many were with legally or illegally obtained weapons?  This is information we need to find out in order to make an informed decision.  Hopefully, with this subject no longer seeming to be taboo, we will be able to starting putting everything together to form the bigger picture that is so badly needed right now. -Skeptical Okie


The 2nd Amendment Argument
O.k., I know that gun control is a big issue in this country, and probably always will be.  There is no easy, or complete answer.  Full out ban is impossible, and registration is also nearly impossible, due to the number of guns that are already out there, locked away and forgotten in cellars, attics and storage buildings.  What we need to do is forget political affiliation, and actually sit down at the table and have a discussion concerning firearms.  Right now, all sides are using the tragedy at Sandy Hook for their own purposes, and making the deaths of more than 2 dozen human beings into a stepping stone for personal agendas.  I do not want to use anyones death as a soap box for my personal views on guns and gun violence.  And before anyone says "Oh another Liberal minded Skeptic/atheist skinny jeans wearing, soy latte sipping bastard that wants to take everyones guns away"  just so you know, I am probably in the minority of the skeptical and atheist community in that I do own guns, and I do hunt.  I do admit that guns are a large part of our culture and history in this country.  I feel that as long as owners are responsible, careful, and knowledgeable about their weapons that will help to minimize recent events. (and yes, all guns, unless made to be non-functional, are weapons, even antiques.) Unfortunately, many Americans have such a cavalier attitude towards guns, even going so far as to refer to them as "toys",  that they have no problem showing them off to acquaintances and even strangers, much like you do with a new watch. At my current job, which firearms are NOT allowed inside of the building unless you are a law enforcement officer, I have seen people show off Glocks, Smith & Wessons, Berretas, and other handguns, claiming that the Oklahoma open carry law allows them to take the weapon anywhere they want, even into government buildings that normally have young children inside and are posted "No Firearms Allowed".  Actually, the open carry law does give businesses the right to allow entry to anyone carrying a gun, and I can not think of any government building that allows anyone other than law officers to have firearms on the property.  These same people will also claim 2nd Amendment rights to carry their guns with them at all times.  These are often the same people that demand a literal interpretation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  The problem is that, for the most part, they have never actually read either one.  Neither version of the 2nd Amendment actually states that individuals have the right to carry a gun just because they want to.  There are at least 2 ratified versions that I was able to find.  They read as follows:

As passed by the Congress:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

This is from Wikipedia. Notice that in the version that was passed by Congress, certain words are capitalized, whereas in the States version, no capitalization.  This can be interpreted in several ways.  One way is that the capitalization puts emphasis on those particular words, implying a more government backed militia and state (i.e. the country)  The second versions therefore would not have that same emphasis.  A second interpretation , and honestly more likely, is that because this was written before the era of cut and paste, there were copying errors.  But in either case, note the word "militia".  Basically, the 2nd Amendment was written to ensure that the people would have the means to defend the country, if they were needed.  This was also before we actually had a full time, professional standing army.  Remember that the army that won the Revolutionary War was made up of mostly farmers, businessmen, and outdoorsmen.  Very few had served in an army, or had any military training.  This was a provision to make sure that there were trained fighters for defense.  In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5 to 4 decision, made the interpretation  that the 2nd Amendment gave the right to own firearms to all citizens.  This is fine, and yes, I do support a persons right to own a firearm.  My problem is that a lot of the conservative, fundamentalist talking heads seem to think that people need to stock up on guns to protect the country....from itself.  They are nearly implying that before long, it is going to come down to firefights in the streets to defend your right to "Keep and Bear arms", which would be ironic to say the least.  This is a sticking point that is going to require people to grow the hell up, sit down, and actually work on the problem, instead of playground name calling and tantrums.

Gun Control
Also, just because it is called gun control, that doesn't mean that guns will be banned.  Gun control is just a generic phrase generally used concerning any and all legislation that deals with gun laws.  Gun control may be limiting the number of large caliber weapons, limiting the amount of ammunition able to be purchased at one time, or limiting the size of the magazines.  Unless you are planning on mounting an assault, or are a deer hunter that happens to be a terrible shot, these types of restrictions really shouldn't have much of an effect on most normal, honest gun owners.


The Executive Orders
In other politically charged and conspiracy fostering news, President Obama has recently signed 23 Executive Orders concerning guns.  People have been posting and saying that they will only allowing certain groups to own guns, the complete destruction of all guns, only certain styles or calibers will be legal, and basically a lot of other paranoid statements.  With about 30 seconds of searching, I have actually uncovered all 23 and I will now reveal them for the world to see!


Pulling from Newsmax and Slate.com, they are as follows:

1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background-check system.

2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background-check system.

3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background- check system.

4. Direct the attorney general to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

6. Publish a letter from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.

7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).

9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

10. Release a Department of Justice report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.

11. Nominate an ATF director.

12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.

13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.

14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

15. Direct the attorney general to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun-safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

17. Release a letter to healthcare providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.

18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

19. Develop model emergency-response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.

20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.

21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within Affordable Care Act exchanges.

22. Commit to finalizing mental-health parity regulations.

23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.

I personally didn't see "destruction", "ban", or any other buzz words that have been thrown around lately, did you?  The Executive Orders  of President Obama do not automatically "ban" guns or actually appear to do any thing at all. The orders are actually more of a "to do" list.  These are suggestions on courses of action that he hopes to take to try and resolve what is actually a serious problem in the United States.


Causes of Death
O.k. kiddos, and now for math.  I know, math sucks, math's boring etc, etc.  Here is the thing.  There have been a lot of numbers thrown out recently concerning the number of people killed by guns, and the number of people killed by hammers, cars, etc.  Then people go on a rant about "X number of people are killed by automobiles, so why not ban cars, or require people to register them?"   Actually, you do resister your car, and you have to have a license to prove that you can operate it safely, which a wouldn't be a bad idea for guns either.  I know in Oklahoma, you have to have to have passed an approved hunters safety course to get a hunting license, but just need a drivers license and the money to buy a gun.  Sorry to go off on a tangent like that, and now I'm back.  According to the F.B.I., more people were killed with hammers and other blunt object than rifles.  But a hell of a lot more people were killed with handguns than any other weapon.  The F.B.I.'s numbers for 2011look like this:

Murder Victims

by Weapon, 2007–2011

Weapons	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011
Total	14,916	14,224	13,752	13,164	12,664
Total firearms:	10,129	9,528	9,199	8,874	8,583
Handguns	7,398	6,800	6,501	6,115	6,220
Rifles	453	380	351	367	323
Shotguns	457	442	423	366	356
Other guns	116	81	96	93	97
Firearms, type not stated	1,705	1,825	1,828	1,933	1,587
Knives or cutting instruments	1,817	1,888	1,836	1,732	1,694
Blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.)	647	603	623	549	496
Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.)1	869	875	817	769	728
Poison	10	9	7	11	5
Explosives	1	11	2	4	12
Fire	131	85	98	78	75
Narcotics	52	34	52	45	29
Drowning	12	16	8	10	15
Strangulation	134	89	122	122	85
Asphyxiation	109	87	84	98	89
Other weapons or weapons not stated	1,005	999	904	872	853

This information comes from the F.B.I.'s website.  The total deaths by various firearms were over 8,000 people in 2011 alone. I'm not even going to touch on the number of injuries, mostly because someone will point out that nearly everyone has smashed a finger with a hammer, but not everyone has been shot with a gun.   Like I've said, this is not an easy problem to work with.  For some people, it may be easier to ask one of the popes for advice on sex than to discuss any gun issues.  I am not advocating total gun control, nor am I saying we should look the other way and hope it all goes away.  What I am suggesting is everyone sit down, shut up, and listen to all sides, and see if we can't work out a solution that is beneficial to everyone.  But then again, that's the problem with compromise, no one gets everything that they want.


Assault rifles
I believe the main reason that the focus is on assault rifles is partly due to what they are, "assault" weapons.  Not home defense weapons, not target shooting weapons, not hunting weapons, and not hang on the wall weapons.  I have heard people say "They want to get rid of them because they look scary".  O.k., I can sort of see that.  But do you really need a 30 round magazine (also called a clip, but magazine is the correct term) of hollow point or full metal jacketed bullets?  Do you really need a weapon that looks like it was used in the raid on Osama bin Ladens compound?  And why does everyone focus on the rifles?  Nearly 5 times as many people were killed with handguns, they are easier to conceal, and because you can get much closer to a person before it becomes obvious, you don't need to aim quite as much as you do with a target that is 150 to 200 yards away.  I understand having a gun for personal and home defense, but unless you have military or police training, and even they make mistakes, it is all too easy to shoot the wrong person.  Just skim through the internet, and you'll find dozens, if not hundreds of stories of people shooting what they think is an intruder, and it turns out it is a family member or friend.  Not only that, but think about actually squeezing that trigger.  Not a lot of people can actually do that.  How many people have been shot with their own gun?  There are several studies, one of which is mentioned in NewScientist, that seem to point to a correlation that people that have guns are more likely to be shot.  This is not definitive, but it is food for thought. 


Hitler/Obama Meme
Lately, an internet meme that has probably popped up in everyone's Facebook feed is comparing Obama to Hitler.  It runs along the lines of Hitler declared a gun ban while surrounded by children, and then shows a picture of Hitler and another one of Obama, both surrounded by children, and allows the viewer to draw their "own" conclusion.  There is an old adage in debates.  When you compare your opponent to Hitler, you lose.  People are worried that Obama is going to magically slip around the legislative and Judicial branches of the government and affect totalitarian rule?  There is a reason that out government is divided into the Judicial, Legislative, and Executive branches.  This is a means of checks and balances that prevents each branch from becoming too powerful.  In case anyone has already forgotten, think back to early in 2012 when the health care bill was really being pushed.  That action had all 3 branches of government involved and they debated and argued, the Supreme court made rulings, the representatives and senators all had a say, and now it is basically sitting there until it goes into effect in 2014, for the most part.  If there was that much angry discussion over health care, imagine any Executive decisions concerning guns.  It'll make the Health Care debates look like a night out with friends.


The A.T.F.
Now I think we need to talk a little about the ATF.  This governmental agency is the one in charge of dealing with alcohol, tobacco, and firearms.  However, their ability to do their job is severely hampered.  They have not had an actual director in 6 years, they have the same number of agents they did in 2004, and they can't create a national gun registry.  There is a good article done by the NY Times that can be found  here .   And there was another one on NPR that you can find here .  The main bureau that is supposed to have this sort of access, and yet, they have so much bureaucratic red tape to deal with and so many restrictions, that they are rendered completely impotent.


Mental Health and Gun Issues
A subject that has come up several times is the state of mental health care in the United States.  There seems to be a growing trend of people with some form of mental instability being able to go out and legally buy a gun, and then commit a heinous act with said gun or guns.  These problems may be depression, schizophrenia, paranoia, anger management issues, or even a psychotic break.  Many people are going about, functioning normally, but actually may be suffering from one or several of these problems.  we have gotten better at diagnosing them, but only if someone notices.  A major problem with that, is that these problems often seem to lead to the person being, if not out right anti-social, then viewed as a loner, or quiet, or withdrawn.  This makes it hard for people to realize that there may be something deeper going on.  Issues like this really need to be addressed during the debates over gun rights.  One problem is, does a person with schizophrenia have any less of a right to own a gun than some one that doesn't suffer from the same mental illness?  What if they are on medication, and they take it as they are supposed to?  Does this change anything?  What if the mental illness was brought about by a case of extreme circumstances, and the person has made a full recovery?  As I stated before, these questions and others do need to be addressed before much longer.

Guns and Crime
In attempting to determine whether most guns used in crimes were legally obtained, stolen, or bought illegally, and if crime rates increase or decrease in an inverse proportion to the number of conceal/carry permits or an open carry state, I came on a disturbing trend.  There seems to be no data out there that people can agree on.  mostly it seems to depend on your political leanings or how you feel about guns.  I have seen numbers that say most guns used in crimes are legal, illegal, and stolen, depending on where you go to look.  The same for the carry laws, proponents give one set of data, while the opponents give another.  Once again, we need to have cold hard facts, not skewed by personal beliefs if we are to make an informed choice.



Arming our Teachers?
And finally to talk about schools.  Yes, right now almost everything is going to come back around to the shooting in Newtown.  There has been talk about allowing teachers to be armed while in class.  I do not think that the answer to gun violence is more guns.  In Texas, there are people offering free classes to teachers for conceal/carry.  My main issue is that a couple of 8 hour courses is not going to prepare someone to actually face someone else with a gun, especially when the second person has already shown a complete disregard for human life.  Most teachers are not former military or police, they haven't had the psychological and physical training to handle instantaneous life or death decisions.  Another issue is, what if the kids happen to steal or "borrow" the gun?  At the school I taught at for a brief period of time, that would be a major concern.  Yes, police on duty at the schools would be a good idea, but most municipalities resources are already stretched thin as it is, and they don't have enough officers for regular duties, let alone to have one stationed full time at a school.  Most schools wouldn't have the funds to pay for armed security either.  Once again, there is no clear answer.

I know that this is a murky topic, and for some people it is an emotional one as well.  I hope that I have been able to provide some unbiased information, or at least made you think a little about the rhetoric that is being spouted by both sides right now.  Unfortunately, when it comes to firearms in the United States, there is no right answer.  Hopefully, there is a best answer.

The Skeptical Okie

Girl Scouts for abortion? No! And.. a 10 foot squid.

Hello friends, and how has everyone been?  Hopefully you all successfully survived the Mayan Apocalypse, Christmas, and New Years.  It was a little tight here in the Skeptical Okie hidden bunker, but after evicting the conservatives and Rekai masters, there was plenty of turkey and Twinkies to last the end of the world.  We survived, but our pants didn't make it.  Just a couple of things to talk about this time.  Actually, I've got several, but as each one will be fairly long, I decided to cover each one as an individual topic.

But first, some really cool science news!
Captured deep beneath the waves: 10ft squid filmed in natural habitat
That's right, they actually caught a giant squid on film.  Granted, it was only 10 feet long, while they can possibly grow up to over 50 foot, but still, pretty cool!  They basically had to film it in near blackness, mostly because they appear to avoid light sources.  I really can't put into words how interesting this is, but I hope that more research on these animals is on the way.

The second topic I was wanting to write about is a good demonstration of why critical and rational thought is important.  I recently saw on FaceBook a post that basically states that the Girl Scouts of America are funding abortions through Planned Parenthood.  In an October 1, 2004 press release, Nina Boggia stated "Healthy living is a big part of Girl Scouting.  We want to raise awareness about girls' health, so we're also partnering with local hospitals and the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation to promote cancer education."   From what I can find on the official Girl Scouts website, found at www.girlscouts.org , they are no longer in a partnership with them.  The Girl Scouts have quite a few partners across the corporate and governmental sectors. 
Their corporate partners are:

Alcoa Foundation AT&T The Coca-Cola Company Dell Dove The Goizueta Foundation Herford N. Elliott Trust Jessie Ball duPont Fund

Kappa Delta Sorority Lockheed Martin MetLife Foundation Motorola Solutions Foundation New York Life Foundation Trane USA Woman's Day

Their governmental partners are:

Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

National Science Foundation (NSF)

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)

U.S. Department of Education (DOE)

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS)

U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI)

U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

The Girl Scouts also have programs for minorities, girls with incarcerated mothers,  rural communities, and an anti-violence campaign.  So far, nothing to ruffle anyones feathers right?   Not quite.   According to an article on snopes.com, Indiana state rep Bob Morris issued a statement concerning the state recognizing the 100th anniversary of the Girl Scouts.  What his statement boils down to is that the Girl Scouts are a radical group trying to push abortions on everyone, and promote female sexuality.  He even stated that he did a little internet research and even though neither the Girl Scouts nor the Planned Parenthood websites said they were partners, and they even denied it, they had entered into a "strategic affiliation".  What the hell this unholy union is supposed to accomplish, Representative Morris never quite makes clear.  He goes on to make a lot of other claims and complaints.  Most of them are patently false.  For the entire article, which will not let me copy and paste, look here: http://www.snopes.com/politics/sexuality/girlscouts.asp    There are also the rebuttals from both the Girl Scouts and Planned Parenthood.  just for reference, the recognition passed unanimously.  Part of this rumor stems from the fact that Girl Scouts did partner with the Susan G. Komen Foundation, who has donated money to Planned Parenthood.  I guess it's a homeopathic donation. The conservatives tend to focus on Planned Parenthood and abortion.  Yes, they do provide help with abortions, but they also give help on:  Birth Control, general health, men's sexual health, the morning after pill, Pregnancy, Relationships, Sex and Sexuality, Sexual Orientation, STD's, and Womens Health.  So yeah, they are a truly evil and morally reprehensible organization fully capable of bringing about the downfall of western civilization. (Yes, that was sarcasm.)

I have heard a lot of the conspiracies concerning the Girl Scouts use the words "radical" "feminist", and "liberal".  I think these are the conservative code words for "intelligent", empowered", and "modern".  Yes, the Scouts do promote women's health issues, including sexual health.  Unfortunately for some of these girls, this may be the only way they get the information that can help them make informed decisions concerning their own sexual practices, from abstinence to contraceptives.  I know that, as the father of a 16 year old girl, these are topics most parents really don't want to broach or think about.  Yes, the Colorado Girl Scouts did allow a transgender boy (he lived his life as a girl, and identified himself as a girl as long as he could remember) to join which Fox News did make it sound much worse than it was.  The Girl Scouts are inclusive, pretty much regardless of sexual orientation, and in some cases, physical gender.  I myself am a male Girl Scout.  I know how that sounds, and no, I only wear the sash and skirt at official events.  I kid, at least about the sash and skirt.  I actually am an adult member, and I am not the only male, even here in the buckle of the ultra conservative bible belt.  But without the education some of the girls get from their troop leaders, they could easily make bad decisions that possibly affect them for the rest of their lives, especially as some of them have no other female role model that they can ask questions.

And finally, the coupe de resistance, the cookies and where the money goes.  Some of them are especially addictive, (I'm partial to the peanut butter and chocolate Tag-a-longs) and some people do eat way to many at this time of year.  I've been known to eat an entire box at 1 sitting.  The cookie sales are the troops best known means of fund raising.  They have to pay for their camps, outings, and any activities or philanthropy projects.  A percentage goes to the troops, the councils, service units, and the bakeries get the rest.  The sales aren't just about fund raising either.  They help teach the girls to speak to people, how to be an entrepreneur, and how to manage money.

I know that I've put a lot of info out there, and I haven't covered nearly everything, but I still recommend whenever you hear someone spout off and they use the words "Conspiracy", "radical" "liberal" or "real truth"  do some research on your own.  Not only will you be better prepared the next time, but you might learn something you weren't expecting.

So until next time, I'll put the usual rigmarole here.  feel free to leave any comments or questions here on the blog.  And always remember, be good.  Next time, Bigfoot Hunters, Part 2!

The Skeptical Okie

War on Christmas....Bull $h!t

Greetings friends.  First off, I'd like to apologize for the last post.  It goes to show that just like drunk dialing, you shouldn't insomnia blog.  I wrote that while suffering from insomnia due to pain in my knee, and I will re-post a better version of it.  Secondly, Christmas is fast approaching (it's been here for several months going by the displays in the stores) and for those looking to get their favorite bloggers a gift, but don't know what to get them, I would like a nemesis.  They don't have to be anyone fancy like Lex Luthor or Magneto.  It could be the Skrull or The Hand foot soldiers.  I'm easy to please.

Speaking of Christmas, before the season got under way, I began to think that the first person to utter the phrase "War on Christmas" needs to be hit with a can of cranberry sauce.  Up until last night, I had escaped hearing this horrible term.  Then, a local T.V. news personality, Kelly Ogle (I think, there is about a dozen Ogles on different channels here in Oklahoma.  I think all the stations have a clause in their F.C.C. contracts stating that an Ogle must be on their news crews at all times.) said the damn phrase, quoting Fox News (remember them, fair and balanced, kinda like loaded dice).  While Fox News obviously leans towards the Christian ultra conservatives, Mr. Ogle is at least a moderate conservative.  He has a segment on channel 9 called "My 2 cents" where he can basically rant about a topic in the hopes of garnering a response.  Normally, he does lean towards historical "Oklahoman Ideals" meaning the republican side of the issue.  What set me off last night was the whole War on Christmas shtick.  It was played out last year, but just like Christmas music at the malls, it's being played again this year.  Mr. Ogle talked about an exhibit in Germany of Christmas trees that was taken down for fear of offending the Muslim community.  They have put up an electronic holiday tree in its place.  Then he stated "It's called a Christmas tree, get it right" or something to that extent.  People are already complaining about the holidays being influenced, corrupted, or destroyed by other cultures and beliefs.  First off, to Mr Ogle, I would like to say, if you're going to be a stickler about it, a christmas tree should actually be called either a Yule Tree or Weihnachtsbaum, the German word for christmas tree.  The Christmas tree was originally used in Germany in roughly about the 1800's with evidence in the form of woodcuts dating back to the 1400's.  They gained popularity with the nobility in other countries in the early 19th century.  If you want to skip a bit of history, don't worry about the next 2 paragraphs, and you can jump back into the main issue.

Thing is, while christmas trees were gaining favor in the European countries, christmas itself was an illegal celebration in the United States.  The people that banned christmas?  Can anyone guess?  You with the ball cap, and you'd better have enough gum for everyone.  No, not the Jews.  No, not the Muslims, and no not the Buddhists.  No, not the Pastafarians either.  It was the Christians.  The Protestants to be exact.  They felt that christmas celebrations were an excuse for drunken, immoral revelry and they also had a poor view of saints in general. so rather than let people cut loose and have fun, they banned it.  It was banned until 1820 in the U.S. and wasn't a federal holiday until 1870.  This means that unlike today, you were expected to be at work on christmas day. 

The history of Christmas, and especially the (and I love being able to say this about a religious figure) evolution oof Santa Claus (Kris Kringle St. Nick, St Nicholas, Father Christmas, the man has more alias' than a two bit drug dealer) is actually fascinating.  From this point on, I'll just refer to the fat red man as S.C., unless mentioning a specific historical character that is responsible to his make up.  St. Nichols (the "actual" man) was born in Patara, which was a Greek country, on the southern border of modern day Turkey.  (Hint hint, he's probably not white)  He protected poor children from basically being sold into slavery and helped sailors.  To this day, he is still the patron saint of archers, sailors, children and pawnbrokers.  There is also a little bit of a Norse god in our idea of S.C.  Not just any god, but the big bad daddy of all the Norse gods, Odin.  According to tradition, children would leave their boots outside full of food for Sleipnir, Odin's 6 legged horse (can you imagine trying to put horseshoes on that thing?) and as a reward for their generosity, Odin would leave candy or toys for the children.  Dutch folklore has St. Nicholas dressed in a red cape over his bishops alb ( the nearly dress that they wear).  He has an assistant named Black Peter that carries the book of St. Nicholas.  Good kids get candy and toys, bad kids run the risk of being caught by Black Peter, who happen to carry jute bags (think burlap sack) and cane rods for that purpose.  There are also British, Scandinavian, and German traditions in out modern day S.C.  Thomas Nast, the political  cartoonist from the mid 1800's, is the man responsible for the image that we have now of Santa Claus.  His first picture appeared in 1863 in Harper's weekly.  Even though S.C. began as a christian bishop, in out modern times, he has become a secular figure and representation of christmas.

I know it was a bit of a tangent, but I think it was worth it.  Back to the "War on Christmas" bullshit that I started out on.  The Christians have actually been waging their own war on christmas by trying to have Santa Claus removed from christmas.  They feel he is taking the Christ out of Christmas and convoluting the "reason for the season".  And I have heard several people use the old Santa/Satan comparison.  You know, they both have the same letters in their names (but I don't recall C L A U S being in conjunction with any form  of satan), both wear red outfits, and one person actually said both have little children sit on their laps. (WTF??????)  The thing is the christmas holiday was originally incorporated by the christians to entice the pagans to follow their beliefs.  From what I've gleaned from several sites and researchers, if Jesus did exist, and was born when the bible says he was, he was born in the spring or early summer.  (The shepards with their flocks in the fields?  You don't pasture sheep in the winter, and you really don't stand out their all day watching them in freezing weather.)  The three wise men, (I really want to make a three stooges joke, but I'll be nice) which are a staple in every nativity scene, didn't find Jesus until he was 5.  Almost every aspect of the holiday, outside of the name, comes from pagan rituals.  (Sorry, another tangent, back on task.)  I don't know why the christians are claiming that there is a war on christmas when I saw christmas goods for sale back in September.  They had this stuff out before Halloween for fucks sake.  (By the way, I'm not against christmas, I enjoy the holiday, and my family, meaning my wife and son, does celebrate it in a secular fashion)  I have already been hearing the music on the radio (these, for the most part, I don't care for, I was made to sing them every year at every family gathering as a child) and seen ad flyers for christmas sales.  I can't blame Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, athiests, agnostics, Shinto, or other cultures for being pissed that the American christian version of christmas seems to last for 3 FLAMIN MONTHS!!!!!!!!!!!  I have personally seen ( and I know this is an anecdote) someone of the Jewish faith say Happy Chanukah and get yelled at by another customer to "Get it right, it's Christmas, not some made up holiday!"  Personally, if I walk into someones house or business this time of year, and I see a menorah on a table, even though I am an atheist, I simply think "Cool", because it gives me a chance to learn about a culture I didn't grow up in.  I don't get upset if someone says Happy Kwanzaa.  Hell, half the time, I'll say it back.  I really don't even get too perturbed about the crosses, and mentions of the bible and Jesus everywhere.  Most people that I know of different faiths don't have a problem with the displays.  Normally the people that raise the most hell about christmas displays are politically correct folks that are trying to keep from offending anyone. 

So as I try to tie all these various topics together in a coherent manner, I have come to realize that, in a way, there is a war going on.  It is a war by christians trying to dominate and sublimate other cultures and beliefs out of an almost inferiority complex, which stems from the "persecution complex" that christian leaders seem to instill in their followers.  If they want to follow their own edicts and "love thy neighbor" (which seems to happen way too much in some circles), they should give equal exposure to other traditions that other cultures have at this time of the year.  Or at least proportional to their respective faiths.  Remember, contrary to the tirades of certain leaders, we are NOT a christian nation.  We are the melding pot of the world, made of of many cultures, beliefs, faiths, and non faiths.  E pluribus unum, From many, one.  So the next time you hear someone say that there is a war on christmas, simply agree, nod your head, and say "Yup, and the Christians started it."

Okay kiddos, I'm going to wrap this one up before I stress myself out too much.  If anyone has a comment, you know what to do, leave one in the comment section.  Thanks for hanging with me on this rant, and as a special holiday gift, everyone gets 5 cool points, and if you leave a comment, you get 20.  These can be used at most bars and pubs, just let them know how many you have, and they'll let you know what you can get.  Until next time, be good, be skeptical, and have fun!  Happy Holidays, Merry Christmas (or Xmas if you're from Futurama) Happy Kwanzaa, Happy Chanukah, or whatever holiday greetings you feel appropriate.  And feel free to tell me about your holiday traditions, either personal or cultural.  I'm always interested in learning about other traditions.  And if you're a secular humanist, how do you either celebrate or deal with this time of year?

The Skeptical Okie

Crocoduck, Bigfoot, and church as a punishment?

Hey everyone, how's it going?  Now that the elections are over, I've decided to emerge from my bunker in an undisclosed state in a hidden location.  I'm assuming that because we aren't at war with Iran and the industries haven't been de-regulated, Obama must have won.  Things have been hectic and interesting here at the Skeptical Okie secret base.  To those that are from Oklahoma, this will make sense.  To everyone else, I'll try and explain.  Recently, I was at my local Wal Mart (yes I know, evil big corporation shutting out mom and pop stores, bad practices, etc, but it's the cheapest place for miles around, and the closest.) and I ran into someone that remembered my grandpa.  My grandpa used to make a bit of extra pocket money by witching for water wells.  Witching wells is called dousing by the rest of the world.  I used to go with him on a few of these jobs, and he "taught" me how to do it.  Basically, he put 2 willow rods (because willow is attracted to water) in my hands and told me to feel for the water.  I watched what he did and noticed he was tensing his arms, so I did the same thing.  He thought I had the gift.  Remember, his daughter, my mother, thinks she can heal sunburns by touching them.  Anyway, this gentleman at Wal Mart remembered me (I haven't changed much in appearance) and told me he had just bought a quarter section and needed to put in a well.  He wanted to know if I would come out and witch it for him.  As we are living on a single paycheck right now, there was a lot of temptation.  I looked at him and told him no, I couldn't.  I didn't go into an explanation of why, mostly because he would just tell me I'm wasting my "gift", and yes, I've heard it before.  The major issue I really wanted to point out is that most of the state sits on top of the Ogallala aquifer, and if you drill down enough, you'll hit water.  I've had a few run ins with our local ghost hunters too, but that story is for another day.

Okay, this story is one that can make you facepalm and hurt a rib at the same time.  Basically, a 14 year old girl in New Zealand (to my NZ readers, is this attitude normal?)  states that homosexuality will bring human development to a standstill, but she doesn't believe in evolution.  Because ducks nest in pairs, they will be more evolved than humans.  Quick, someone get her a biology book, STAT!!!!!!!!!!  I guess someone forgot to tell her that often ducks do take a same sex partner.  Sometimes, they'll try and breed an animal that's a different species. (Crocoduck anyone?  Kirk Cameron may be trying this, though I don't imagine the coupling will be pleasant for either animal, unless a lot of alcohol is involved.  Could you imagine the walk of shame the next morning after that?)  The whole article is found at
http://now.msn.com/homosexuality-will-put-ducks-in-charge-of-world-teen-says


I loved this one!!!  In the state of Georgia, Charles Darwin, who has been dead for about 130 years at this point, received over 4000 write in votes against Sen.Paul "evolution is from hell" Broun.  Just goes to show that anyone can run for office in this country.  Granted, Broun still got 209,000, but it was a valid protest that got his attention.  I've been hearing a lot of people saying that they wasted their votes, and a few people ask who Darwin is.  This is one the the rare times that a write in vote like this wasn't a waste.  Broun was running unopposed, so basically either you voted for him, or you didn't vote.  A version of the story can be read at
Charles Darwin was the natural selection for 4,000 Georgia voters


I've heard of cruel and unusual punishment, but this one is a little odd.   Judge sentences teen to 10 years of church   Here in Oklahoma, we've got a long history of strange laws (such as you can go to jail for taking a bite out of someone elses hamburger or that sex is only legal in the missionary position.  Who the hell enforces these?)  There is a district court judge who has a habit of sentencing people to church.  Basically it's deferred sentence where they have to attend a religious service instead of A.A.  A 17 year old kid had a few drinks (legal age in the U.S. is 21) got into a wreck that killed his passenger and was charged with manslaughter.  Judge Mike Norman in Muskogee sentenced him to church.  When I was a kid, I know church felt like a punishment, by I always felt like I'd done something wrong BY going.  As I am writing this, I found out that this isn't exactly legal, though the judge is defending his decision.


Okay, this one ties into the main thought of this post.  I know I've brought up a lot of topics already, and I hope I've given everyone some fodder for conversations.  I'll admit I do watch "Finding Bigfoot" on Animal Planet.  It does spike the old blood pressure, but I like to make it into a poor mans version of MST 3000 ( I like to think I'm Tom Crow).  Keep in mind I found this article first, then saw the fella on Finding Bigfoot.  In Idaho, gold miner William Barnes and scientist Jeff Meldrum are launching a remote control blimp to try and track Bigfoot from the air.  The article is at
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49424363
 I saw Meldrum on a recently aired episode of Finding Bigfoot (from here on referred to as FB to save my poor tired fingers and brain) and I realized that I had read an article about him a day or two before.  The reason I'm bringing up FB is because watching the show, I have come to realize a few things, outside of that odds are bigfoot is highly unlikely to exist.  The first is that the 3 guys, who are believers are always shooting down the solitary female whenever she puts her opinion out there.  Keep in mind, 1 of the men has always been a bigfoot hunter (Bobo, gotta love that nickname), 1 was a computer programmer (goatee guy), I think, and the third guy is Matt Moneymaker.  You would figure if you were running a "non-profit" organization, you would change your last name.  The female is actually a biologist that specializes in wildlife.  I once heard Moneymaker make the comment to her that "She doesn't know what it's like to be in the field".  To earn her degree, she had to spend time in the field tracking and observing animals in their native environment.  Another thought that occurred to me was the locations that they go for their research, and I'm not going to use quotes around the questionable designations for the rest of the article because I'm kinda afraid of wearing the key out.  If you would be so kind as to look at the 2 maps below,

bigfoot




black bear



Not the best comparative maps, but they were the best I could find.  When I can find better, I'll put them in.  The majority of bigfoot sightings are clustered in areas that are also black bear habitat.  I can see how a person could mistake a bear walking upright for a hairy humanoid creature.  Another problem I have with their research techniques is how they actually look for these creatures.  They have a variety of ways that they do this.  One of the most common is sound blasting.  I do have a friend that is a believer, and have discussed some of these with him to find out what the concept behind this was.  Sound blasting, which is basically a boom box (o.k., I'm old, it's a large sound system) playing various animal calls including gorillas, chimps, and large N. American predators like wolves and coyotes.  The idea is that bigfoot, being a primate, will respond to the ape calls, and bigfoot follows wolves and coyotes. (More on that in a minute)  Bigfoot, anecdotally, according to my friend, is also very territorial and can be violent, so it's a good idea to let them know you're there.  Another technique I've seen is the Rave, which is what it sounds like.  Laser lights, loud music.  It's supposed to make the animal curious, and draw them in to investigate. (Yep, you want to have a large, territorial, possibly violent humanoid come to you)  There is also the, what I'm calling, "Damsel in distress".  The female sits alone while the men go off and watch the terrain.  She talks, calls out, and generally tries to entice one in.  Poor gal if it ever happens.  They also play recorded children's voices, claiming that bigfoot are curious about human children. (Is the plural bigfoot, bigfeet, bigfoots?)  They have also basically had a large camp out, complete with a bonfire, people playing music, and singing.  Another method that they've used is where they ran through the woods with torches (for my British readers, I don't mean an electric torch, I mean a flaming pitch type of torch) yelling and screaming.  Who the fuck runs through the woods, at night, with a flaming torch?  Have they never seen the Smokey the Bear commercials?  They normal method is to wear large camera rigs, divide up into 2 teams, go a distance apart and "call" back and forth.  These rigs have lights, and a lot of electronics on them, but they say that bigfoot is sensitive to electronics and avoid them.  They also banter a lot back and forth and over the radios. 
Another issue with these bigfoot hunters is the tracks.  A lot of the time when they point out tracks, I don't see them, and the biologist doesn't seem to see them as tracks either.  I think this may be more of a case of Pareidolia,  which is when the brain finds patterns that don't actually exist.  Some good examples are seeing a Philly cheese steak in the clouds.  Some other examples are 
            
Another problem I have with the tracks is that generally a biped will put most weight on the balls of its feet, making that part of the track slightly deeper.  Every time the biologist says she doesn't see what the others do, they jump down her throat. 
And my major peeve with the show.  Every episode, they will cut in to one of the 3 men describing perfect bigfoot territory, foods, and body types.  I like it when Bobo says "If I like it than a squatch will like it."  I've begun to think he's actually a shaved bigfoot that is sent out into the human population to keep us away, or if he can't, warn the local bigfoot.  I know, it's goofy, but it makes the show a little more entertaining.  What I want to know, HOW THE HELL DO THEY KNOW THIS???  Without a living population, or at least several samples for observation and testing ,there is no way, except for anecdotes, to have this information.  They say that bigfoot are apex predators and follow wolf packs.  They have shown stick structures, kinds like a lean-to, and stated bigfoot must have made it.  Thing is, I've built a lot of those when I've been camping and caught out in a storm.  For the life of me, I can't understand how they can make these claims without proof and documentation. 

The main reason that this bugs the shite out of me is watching these folks bumble through the woods.  Don't get me wrong, I would love it if someone would actually bring in a live one, or at least a corpse that isn't a frozen costume.  I have spent a lot of my life tracking animals, everything from lost pets and livestock to predators that have killed pets and livestock.  You can't run through the woods making noise, talking on the radio, waving a torch, playing loud music, using laser lights, etc.   When stalking an animal, firstly you need to understand their behavior, even if it is acting abnormally.  Then you either find tracks or spoor, and follow the trail, or you find likely spots, and sit there quietly and see what comes along.  There are a lot of other things about the show I want to talk about, but this post has gotten longer than I intended, and if your still reading it, your eyes are probably getting tired. Until next time, be good, be skeptical, and have fun.

The Skeptical Okie

Politics as Usual, depressing. Religious Healing? Bullshit!

Hey guys, how has everyone been?  About normal in my neck of the woods.  (For those that are new to the blog, that roughly translates to hectic, chaotic, and unpredictable)  It looks like I might be going back to working animal control, or even possibly a state job in the environmental management area.  We'll see how it goes, though I still want to teach.  Got a few topics I was wanting to talk about a bit.  I know I said I would write about "The Family" or "The Fellowship", but I'm still researching them, and I keep hitting dead ends, and I don't want to rely solely on Wikipedia for documentation.  I'm also going to start doing at least a couple of semi-regular segments.  One idea I had was to borrow from George Hrab and discuss the most annoying religious or political stupidity during an as of yet unannounced time period.  Another one is "What's Skeptical Okie listening to now?"  I know it's not the best name, but it will suffice for now.  And now, on to the show!

One thing that really bothers me is when people put so damn much weight on the crap that falls out of celebrities cake-holes.  Remember Jennie McCarthy and all the good she did.  How many children were saved because of her well informed and publicly held views on the link between autism and childhood vaccinations?  I don't remember that happening either.  For those that live outside of the U.S., it's presidential season.  For us, it means hours of lip service debates, horrible t.v. ads, pundits accusing the other side of foul play, pundits blaming the other side for their candidates failures, people fighting over which candidate is the better liar, and hearing the candidates go on and on about how their opponents plans won't work, but theirs will because it has a donkey or an elephant behind it.  And on another tangent, why a donkey and elephant for political party mascots?  Because both are stubborn and will trample you if you get in their way?  Recently I heard on N.P.R. that Meatloaf, the singer, not the foodstuff, is supporting Romney for president.  Now I put together a short list of people of celebrated personage for everyone to compare and contrast.  I also put in what they are known for.

Romney                                                                 Obama
Mike Rowe-T.V. Dirty jobs (a personal favorite show)                                          Daniel Craig- 007, not an American
Gene Simmons-Music, frontman for KISS                                                              Russel Crowe- Actor, not American
Jenna Jameson-porn starlet                                                                                      Daniel Radcliffe-  Harry Potter, n.a.
Jeff Foxworthy-comedian (who I think got his ideas from my family)                Mark Hamill- Luke Skywalker
Trace Adkins- musician                                                                                          Richard Dean Anderson- McGuyver
Kid Rock- musician                                                                                                  Morgan Freeman- actor, voice of god
Jon Voight- actor, Angelina Jolies Dad                                                                  Angelina Jolie- actor
Ted Nugent- musician                                                                                               Brad Pitt- actor, hubby of Angelina
Chuck Norris-  actor, will kill you                                                                       Samuel L. Jackson- actor, total badass
Donald Trump- rich, bad hair, insane                                                                  Chevy Chase- actor
Clint Eastwood- actor, going senile, thinks a chair is president?                            Leonardo DiCaprio- actor

I love how the first three I listed for Obama aren't even American citizens, but no one else seems to have pointed it out.  Romney seems to attract the loud kinda crazy people while Obama seems to get the people with the calming voices that you would want to be the ones to announce the end of the world.  Also, I noticed that Romney has 1 porn star supporting him (insert your own mormon underwear/pornstar joke and submit it in the comments, best one gets 15 cool points) while Obama has 8, count them 8 pornstars including Ron Jeremy giving him a hand.  And speaking of porn stars, Jenna Jameson is quoted as saying "When you're rich, you want a republican in office" (Businessinsider.com)   Once again people, why the hell does anyone give these peoples choices more weight than say mine?  They memorize scripts or tunes.  Yes, some of them are very intelligent, and very thoughtful, but still.   Who out there is waiting for the Metallica contingent to speak up before they make their choice?  (And to those that are concerned with who the stars pick, Bill Nye and I believe Neil DeGrasse Tyson support Obama)  I say look at the candidates, find out where they stand on the issues that are important to you, and,  oh hell who am I kidding.  Vote Obama, Romney as president is already giving me nightmares.  To any Canadian readers:  If Mitt Romney wins, can we camp out at your place for a while?  I'll work for room and board, and I hear that you guys have decent medical care up there.  Thanks, A Rational American.

A second topic I want to bring up is Ann Coulter....I think I just threw up a little.  This goofy woman recently tweeted  "I highly approve of Romney's decision to be kind and gentle to the retard."  This obviously refers to President Obama as having a mental deficiency.  She refuses to back down from the comment stating that for the past 30 years it has come to mean loser.  (What debate were you watching Coulter?  Or did you only watch the commercials and fill in the blanks yourself?)  And then along came this man

This paragon of virtue (and that comment was in no way derogatory, I honestly mean it.  This guy has brass balls the size of a Mac truck) is John Franklin Stephens, a 30 year old Special Olympian that has Downs Syndrome.  He wrote Coulter (and hell no, I'm not going to dignify her with the proper polite title of Ms.) an open letter, which you can find at http://specialolympicsblog.wordpress.com/2012/10/23/an-open-letter-to-ann-coulter/  , and I heartily recommend everyone of you read what this man has to say, and if possible, copy it and forward it on to Coulter until she recants her hateful term, even though the damage has already been done.  And if possible, tell Mr Stephens that it took a lot of courage for him to write to her the way he did, and that he does have peoples support.

Now on to some slightly .... I don't know how to describe this story.  Mostly because I do take a perverse pleasure when religious groups get in trouble, especially the really crazy ones, but I really don't like it when someone dies when they probably shouldn't have.  Not that I like it when some one dies when they should, but you know what I mean.  By crazy, can anyone guess this weeks religious flavor?  No. not Mormon, but close.  Not episcopalian, and you see me after class.  Yep the (damn I hope I don't get sued for this) scientologists.  Recently at the Narconon Arrowood facility, there have been at least three deaths, and at least one of them have no known cause.  Looking at the Narconon website, they claim a better than 70% success rate for treating addiction, using scientifically proven methods.  Of course, scientologist science is an entirely different flavor of science than what most people deal with everyday.  One of there methods includes high levels of niacin combined with up to 5 hours in a sauna.  This helps to flush the toxins out of your system, and prevents the withdrawl symptoms, which can be painful and sometimes lead to death.  As of right now, there are 3 suits against the Arrowhead facility for wrongful death, and failure to provide care.  This place is right here in Oklahoma, near Lake Eufala, up by Tulsa.  This folks is why religion and science don't mix.  If you do use religion and medicine, side effects may include: shortness of breath, inability to get medical help, failure to use logic, and death.  Please use responsibly.  I don't have a problem with someone praying for help, as long as they are actually getting help.  In the bible, god himself says that "He helps those that help themselves."  So if you're going to use a religious tome to help with your health issues, use it to hold the door open in the doctors office.

And now for the new segment "Whats Skeptical Okie Listening to?"  Or as my wife says, "What the hell is that?"  I am talking mainly about podcasts I try and listen to on a regular basis.  A new one I found is Cognitive Dissonance.  Tom and Cecil are the hosts, and this is mostly a back and forth banter type of show.  They do tend to deal more with atheist topics, but there is a lot of good skeptic quality there.   It honestly sounds like a couple of guys just talking about whatever pops into their heads.  Granted, they curse a lot, and there is a disclaimer at the beginning that basically says if you don't like bad language and sensitive topics talked about in a frank and open manner, don't listen.  2 thumbs up, just remember, not for the kiddos.  I still listen to the grandaddies of them all, The Skeptics Guide and the Geologic Podcast.  I have also begun listen to a couple of casts by Parrot or The Dumbass, depending on if you know him on the SGU message boards or not.  The first one is The Dumbasses guide to knowledge, and the second one is The invisible Sky Monster.  Both are pretty good, the guide being a general talk type and Invisible being an interview.  I also listen to Monstertalk and The Conspiracy Skeptic, both being interview shows, both definitely worth your time, depending on what your skeptical bent is.  And finally, there is Exposing Pseudoastronomy (man I hope I spelled that right)  which deals with astronomical conspiracies, or astronomically large misconceptions.  The newly minted Dr. Stuart Robbins does a very good job of breaking down the details and taking the conspiracy nutjobs arguments apart with scalpel like precision.  That and he tears Hoagland a new one.  I don't like Hoagland. 

Well, that's it for now guys.  I'll see everyone soon I hope. Until next time, be good, and have fun, especially on Halloween.  All good skeptics, humanists, secularists, and atheists should really enjoy this holiday.  Let me know what your costumes are going to be.  I'm going as Roland Deshain, from Steven Kings "The Dark Tower" series.  Youngish Roland, I've got too many fingers.  See you soon.

The Skeptical Okie